The Big Lebowski
The President’s Analyst
My Dinner with Andre
The Good, the Bad & the Ugly (although the dubbing on the reinstated scenes on the DVD extended version is rather less than perfect)
The riches, oh the riches… – Eddie Izzard’s quite good in that, isn’t he?
The Big Lebowski
The President’s Analyst
My Dinner with Andre
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Bulworth
Bringing Up Baby
The ’burbs
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (Gilliam)
Dr Strangelove
2001: A Space Odyssey
Apocalypse Now
The Wicker Man
Kind Hearts and Coronets
The Adventures of Gerard
Eureka (Nicolas Roeg)
Watership Down
The Fountain
You Must Be Joking (Michael Winner at his creative peak!)
Yellow Submarine
The Jungle Book (Disney)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
Ennio Morricone: A Fistful of Dynamite, The Untouchables, The Mission
Clint Mansell: Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain
The Dust Brothers: Fight Club
Paul Giovanni – The Wicker Man
Vangelis – Blade Runner, 1492
Michael Nyman – The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover, The Piano
Peter Gabriel – The Last Temptation of Christ
Herbie Hancock – Blow-Up
Roy Budd – Get Carter
Henry Mancini – The Pink Panther Strikes Again
John Barry – The Ipcress File
He makes entertaining mainstream movies with some substance, and recognises a good script when he sees them. He’s pretty much where Michael Douglas was in the late ‘70s/early ’80s (producing the likes of Cuckoo’s nest and The China Syndrome) before his sex addiction diminished his judgement.
Since the Coen Brothers discovered Clooney’s inner ham I’ve learnt to enjoy the guy’s work; before that I just thought Out of Sight might have been a flash in the pan. He’s clearly learnt from Soderbergh and the Coens, since Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Good Night… are solid pieces of work.
Clooney’s finding interesting subject matter but the most out there thing he’s done is Three Kings. I don’t think Syrianna plays it any more safe than Traffic.
What he needs to do is a Warren Beatty; getting the likes of Reds or Bulworth made is no mean feat. Michael Clayton was solid, but it would have need to pull a Parallax View in its third act to really gain any resonance.
Didn’t the Illuminati kill Kubrick for revealing their inner machinations in Eyes Wide Shut? That’s what I heard.
Top 3:
Dr Strangelove
2001: A Space Odyssey
Paths of Glory
It’s a shame Kubrick never got Napoleon off the ground with Nicholson; that would have been more interesting than the beautiful but constipated Barry Lyndon.
But also: Hannah & Her Sisters (somehow the music he uses for Michael Caine’s character in that just is Michael Caine), Manhattan, Husbands & Wives, Deconstructing Harry
Worst film: Match Point. I’ve seen almost nothing else he’s done this decade, but probably should check out Melinda & Melinda.
Watership Down
The Jungle Book
Yellow Submarine
The Incredibles
Ratatouille
Spirited Away
Ghost in the Shell
The Emperor’s New Groove
Shrek (but the sequels almost negate its value retroactively)
The Iron Giant
His lack of big screen work in the last two decades is a terrible waste, but he has a new film out in the UK in July (“Puffball”, based on a Fay Weldon novel, starring Miranda Richardson).
Here’s my top 5:
1. Eureka
2. Don’t Look Now
3. The Man Who Fell to Earth
4. Bad Timing
5. Walkabout
I’d have loved to have seen his take on Flash Gordon; shame he fell off the project.
I haven’t seen Track 29 (same with Insignificance) in years; I think I was a bit too young to appreciate it first time round since my memory of it is Oldman having an affair with Russell (who may or may not be his mother?) and Christopher Lloyd having a large train set in his attic.
I recommend the Criterion editions of Don’t Look Now and The Man Who Fell to Earth; particularly the latter, which I appreciate more every time I see it.
1. Heat – just a dazzling film, that soaks you into it. It’s not Pacino’s best performance, but the experience of it is breathtaking.
2. Carlito’s Way – Pacino’s best performance of his ‘90s second wind. The thinking man’s Scarface (which is overegged and empty).
3. Dog Day Afternoon – rewatched this recently. Sidney Lumet is one of America’s finest, most understated directors. Still going too.
I suspect that hindsight is everything to any era; I’m still not sure what can be pulled from the ‘90s as definable. I certainly wouldn’t like to think that Dogme is its defining moment. You can talk about the industry changes during the ’90s (the rise of the Independent) but as to the thematic aspect?
As to the ‘00s, it’s too easy to fall back on the idea that any current age has lost that which made previous eras special. What strikes me as interesting is that many of Hollywoods “definites” have become less so; star wattage, for example. It used to be that you could name about 10 stars who could “open” a movie. Now it’s pretty much only Will Smith. And that has leaked into a recognition, on some level, that different approaches are necessary. So now we have a blockbuster season where Robert Downey Jr and Edward Norton are the leads in comic book movies and an environment where foreign filmmakers are desired in order to bring something to the table. Soderbergh possibly led the charge here, managing to combine commercial sensibility with content. And while I wouldn’t argue that what we’re seeing is a return to the ‘70s, where the studios panicked because the old guard knew nothing and had to let the wunderkinds out to play, there’s definitely a sense that they are less sure of themselves and what the future holds than in the past few decades.
And that leads to the recurring debate about the future of cinema; with the 3 month gap between cinema and DVD release, and regular ability to find a movie on the net not long after it has graced the theatres, the pressure is on to make it “special” again. Hence the (not as fast as some want it to be) drive to have digital systems in cinemas and the current trend to the “new” 3D (which currently seems like a joke to me – Beowulf appeared mostly like it was trying to use technology for technology’s sake), but it seems like the studios have to try for something to make cinema-going a tangibly different experience and regarded as an event (and, of course, the ante has been upped by TV, where complex, ongoing narratives are now not unusual). After all, this is a world where people seem willing to watch a movie on an i-pod…
Personally, I think the form is not in such bad shape. Where films like A Scanner Darkly or I Heart Huckabees are getting made, where Christopher Nolan is allowed to bring his ideas to blockbusters.
Or are we all still floundering in the shadows of the past, playing with three acts and methods and pissy little emotive musics? (-) Is the story of film now not one of storytelling, but of human interaction with the idea of film itself?
Hmmm. Human Interaction with the idea of film itself? Care to expand?
Storytelling will always be the principal popular art form; just ask Homer. And it will always have many variables and ways of doing that. I don’t think that there needs to be any conflict between non-narrative and narrative cinema. Nor will there be between art galleries and comic books. And as for the three-act structure, well, we all know it’s there for the breaking. As William Goldman said, no one knows anything. It may make getting a film off the ground difficult if you’re dealing with a creatively sterile studio exec, but what’s new?
“It’s easier to write the words “creatively sterile studio exec” than to sit across a table from one and smell their breath.”
Quite possibly, but surely you need a certain detachment from that experience to really explore your argument? It’s a bit like the generational, “Kids today are so misbehaved. it was never like that when I was young”. A view that’s been popular since Roman times at least.
“The last two of these pieces involve direct interaction of the human body with technology to create a sensory experience. The last is astounding, and involves a “performer” with electrodes attached to the temples meditating until their brain reaches a wave state close to Delta, at which point a series of feedback triggers are activated, and we can hear the music of pure thought. To witness this is to question on every level where technology will lead us in the next 20-50 years. Given massive advances in micro-computer sciences (and interactivity is one of the hallmarks of this), it feels as though a new world beckons, one where we can no longer sit back in Lacan’s mirror and experience idealized psychological projections (aka hero identification), but have to involve ourselves directly with a medium in order to create an experience, a feedback loop.”
This seems to be reaching toward some kind of ecstatic experience. But an advance doesn’t throw out the old. Radio drama or spoken word readings didn’t die when the visual medium came along (and it’s a convincing argument that the book is the ultimate visual medium) and I suspect that for many the point is that you get to be the passive observer, not required to be involved or interact in an experience. The test of any new form is endurance; none of the gimmickry of late ’80s/early ’90s virtual reality futures has taken hold, at least not in the all-encompassing way imagined – what has happened has been very mundane – communication across the net by typing. Or, at “best”, those virtual computer worlds where you can become a character but which is a kind of role play that is really not that “game-changing”.
“Given massive advances in micro-computer sciences (and interactivity is one of the hallmarks of this), it feels as though a new world beckons, one where we can no longer sit back in Lacan’s mirror and experience idealized psychological projections (aka hero identification), but have to involve ourselves directly with a medium in order to create an experience, a feedback loop.”
See, I suspect that while something along these lines may happen, I doubt that it will end up relating to art as such, more likely it will involved narco-ecstatic visceral experiences; either literal or mental hedonism. And what we really seem to be talking about is technology taking the place of hallucinogens or meditative revelation. Which seems a very different ball game to film.
“Again, I don’t disagree: but storytelling as a linear form is tired.”
Nah, not at all. The possibilities of the form are only now moving even more (as you say) from literature to the mainstream of cinema/TV. You only have to look at a show like Lost to see that the “mass audience” is willing to take on board far more narrative and thematic and philosophical complexity than before and those principals of circularity and non-linearity are most effectively communicated in an essentially traditional form, IMO – at least if you want anyone to listen to you.
“I dispute absolutely that Homer is the last word on anything.”
Well, The Illiad did end rather abruptly…
“But I do wonder if George Lucas had had the sensibilites of a Maya Deren or Jaromil Jireš, “Star Wars” might have been a profoundly different kind of film, and just as successful.”
But you might argue his wholesale deployment of Joseph Campbell was a blinding stroke of genius (not that I want to big the man up especially). I tend to find the most inspiring moments in cinema are those that roll out in the traditional structure, because they catch you off-guard. Much as I like Lynch, he doesn’t provide me with mind food any more because he’s running familiar routines. But when Luke faces Vader/himself in TESB, an ostensibly kid’s film, or Apocalypse Now turns into a hypnotic discussion of madness it feeds the imagination for decades to come.
If you want to be cyclical about it, maybe what cinema is doing is reaching that point in the last few years that it was in thate 60s/early 70s, where experimentation is seen as a bonus, but I honestly don’t think we’re breaking new ground in comparison to that period. Maybe against the ’80s.
“Creating work for the tiny screen: a separate visual art form needs to be born, where traditional cinematic concerns and approaches do not apply. Close-ups and medium shots dictate. And in this change of visual language, will there not become a need for a different approach to storytelling? The I-pod isn’t going away. In fact, the tiny screen grows minute to minute in popularity.”
The converse is that the purist can now have exactly the aspect ratio intended on his 50-inch home screen/projector and that kind of cine-literariness is growing. Anyway, Kubrick chose to go with the 1:33:1 ratio because he didn’t want his films chopped for TV, silly bugger. Now it’s gone to the reverse.
“What is maybe lost in this is a common audience sharing a film, which was one of its great strengths, and one of the primary reasons film became the huge cultural phenomenon it is (all those people in a darkened room, caught in the momentum of spectacle) – not unlike theater in this respect. The emotive power of a crowd reacting to a screen is different to the home alone viewer. Different, not better.”
I freely admit to much preferring a near empty cinema experience to a crowded one, simply because it’s so rare to have the audience treat the experience with any reverence. I do’t want hear people talking throughout or eating loudly. When I wasn’t working I used to love going to matinees for that very reason – immersion in the experience.
Anyway – I’m rambling. This topic has perhaps too much breadth to it….
“almost all the women who make films that I know do something similar: they make circles and spirals around meaning, and subsequently never kill an idea with the arrow of logic. That’s a huge generalization, obviously. But it’s a starting point for another debate”
I agree, although look at the mess most of Jane Campion’s more recent work has turned out to be. And the under-employed Kathryn Bigelow is, for my money, the best action director around bar none. What did you think of Marie Antoinette (very interesting, misunderstood, was my take)?
“And that rounds me neatly back to the point I made about Greek culture, and its predominance in every narrative artform since Homer.”
Sure, but it’s difficult to appropriate other cultural forms without appearing cynical or using surface tchnique without any true depth. Undoubtedly a visionary can and will break the modus but if it’s perspective or training of mindset that’s been part of the DNA of our culture for 2000 years it’s a difficult conception of the world to break free from.
“And what worlds will come, when 35mm has shuffled off this mortal coil?”
To Spielberg’s credit, he’s resistant to the demise of celluloid, recognising the intangible alchemy involved.
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, The Elephant Man, The Assassination of Jesse James by that Coward Robert Ford, Lawrence of Arabia. Also (to some extent) The Right Stuff and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
The best biopics tend to be the ones that recognise the amount of myth-making that is spun into anyone’s life story.
The Shield’s really about shock value isn’t it, though? In that way it’s far more “Hollywood” than you care to recognise. I’d rate The Wire as a piece that really reveals the potential of television in it’s breadth of storytelling and understanding of character, place and time.
Halim said:
I also think “Lost” is definitly a very unique TV Show that built itself and various characters on the background of a one-of-a-kind mystery that uses a large selection of eclectic themes/motifs that resembles anything from the great works of Literature by writers like Kafka and Vonnegut, to B-rate Cult Sci-Fic Films, to the labyrinth paintings of Escher.
Absolutely. Even though it doesn’t necessarily maintain consistent quality from episode to episode (particularly when it was unable to establish an end date for the series) it manages to cram an enormous amount of philosophical thought into a mainstream series.
I’d agree with the comments on Curb Your Enthusiasm (series 6 was David on towering form) and Arrested Development. 30 Rock is also worth giving time to.
Deadwood and Carnivale were both excellent, truncated far too soon. And Battlestar Galactica’s reimagining has been utterly unlike anything anyone who saw the moribund original would have expected.
I mean to check out Weeds. I’ve enjoyed the first series of Californication (dumb title, great cast) and The Riches (Eddie Izzard a surprisingly good serious performer – although nothing excuses his “They will tear you apart like warm bread” line from that appalling Valkyrie trailer). Also Pushing Daisies; the sort of show the UK might once have come up with, with it’s shades of The Avengers quirkiness.
Current US TV is far more interesting than movie fare – if you want dumb action, 24 is more exciting than any of the action movies coming out – even when it’s resting on the lamest of plotting devices and progressions.
In contrast, UK TV mostly sucks. The series getting the raves; Doctor Who, Ashes to Ashes etc mostly show how embarrassingly deficient writers are here compared to their transatlantic counterparts. There’s been some good one-offs of late such as State of Play, The State Within and Jekyll but I’ve recently been rewatching some of the best ‘90s programmes like (as T says) GBH and Cracker, and they’re leagues ahead of anything coming out now. It says something that the UK is so creatively sterile that it is indulging itself in the remake arena repeatedly, be it with The Prisoner, Survivors or Minder.
Going further back, Edge of Darkness remains my favourite TV drama ever, still losing none of it’s bite. The Prisoner remains an enigmatic masterpiece, and Twin Peaks at it’s best is haunting and hysterical.
I’m not sure about life-changing, but movies with a strong resonance;
Blade Runner
Don’t Look Now (the kind of filmmaking that makes you realise that many “auteurs” are unimaginative buffons)
The Good, the Bad & the Ugly
Heathers
My Dinner with Andre
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Fearless
David Lean was planning an adaptation of Nostromo when he died. I wonder if we’ll see Gilliam’s long gestating Defective Detective, or whether he’s distilled much of it into Dr Parnassus. Sergi Leone was about to sign a deal to make Leningrad (about the seige of Leningrad) when he passed away). I’d like to have seen Joe Dante’s Batman in the 1980s. Some filmmakers like Aaronofsky seem to get close to a multitude of projects (Batman, Watchmen). I would have loved to have seen Nic Roeg’s Flash Gordon (I know Hodges’ gun-for-hire take has it’s fans but I’m not one), Cronenberg’s Total Recall or Ridley Scott’s Dune (since he was still making interesting films in the ‘80s). Oh, and the Coens’ To the White Sea.
Lebowski and Shakespeare in Love most definitely. The ’burbs never fails to make me laugh (Bruce Dern is a god), Baron Munchausen, The Jungle Book, Hannah & Her Sisters, Down By Law, Fearless, Grosse Point Blank, Monte Carlo or Bust.
He’s best working from someone else’s script, marrying a strong eye for the set piece with a solid story. I’m not a huge fan of his early ’80s sexcapades where his penchant for murdering women in inventive ways is a bit too much Argento and not enough Hitchcock for my tastes.
Blow Out has its loopy charms, not least in Lithgow’s deranged assassin.
When I say "A Perfect Film", What One Film Pops Into Your Head First? about 4 years ago
The Big Lebowski
The President’s Analyst
My Dinner with Andre
The Good, the Bad & the Ugly (although the dubbing on the reinstated scenes on the DVD extended version is rather less than perfect)
Go to Comment
favorite films? about 4 years ago
The riches, oh the riches… – Eddie Izzard’s quite good in that, isn’t he?
The Big Lebowski
The President’s Analyst
My Dinner with Andre
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Bulworth
Bringing Up Baby
The ’burbs
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (Gilliam)
Dr Strangelove
2001: A Space Odyssey
Apocalypse Now
The Wicker Man
Kind Hearts and Coronets
The Adventures of Gerard
Eureka (Nicolas Roeg)
Watership Down
The Fountain
You Must Be Joking (Michael Winner at his creative peak!)
Yellow Submarine
The Jungle Book (Disney)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
Go to Comment
VILLAINS. about 4 years ago
Brett Ratner. If you’re going to be the worst, you may as well be the worst.
Go to Comment
Favorite score? about 4 years ago
Ennio Morricone: A Fistful of Dynamite, The Untouchables, The Mission
Clint Mansell: Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain
The Dust Brothers: Fight Club
Paul Giovanni – The Wicker Man
Vangelis – Blade Runner, 1492
Michael Nyman – The Cook, The Thief, His Wife & Her Lover, The Piano
Peter Gabriel – The Last Temptation of Christ
Herbie Hancock – Blow-Up
Roy Budd – Get Carter
Henry Mancini – The Pink Panther Strikes Again
John Barry – The Ipcress File
Go to Comment
Who else dislikes Nicolas Cage? about 4 years ago
I think he’s good in “Moonlighting”.
He is, and Bruce Willis is superb in “Moonstruck”.
Good recent Cage performances; Adaptation, The Weather Man, Bringing out the Dead.
Bad recent ones; pretty much eveything else. His penchant for Z-grade action movies isn’t doing him any favours.
Go to Comment
George Clooney about 4 years ago
He makes entertaining mainstream movies with some substance, and recognises a good script when he sees them. He’s pretty much where Michael Douglas was in the late ‘70s/early ’80s (producing the likes of Cuckoo’s nest and The China Syndrome) before his sex addiction diminished his judgement.
Since the Coen Brothers discovered Clooney’s inner ham I’ve learnt to enjoy the guy’s work; before that I just thought Out of Sight might have been a flash in the pan. He’s clearly learnt from Soderbergh and the Coens, since Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Good Night… are solid pieces of work.
Clooney’s finding interesting subject matter but the most out there thing he’s done is Three Kings. I don’t think Syrianna plays it any more safe than Traffic.
What he needs to do is a Warren Beatty; getting the likes of Reds or Bulworth made is no mean feat. Michael Clayton was solid, but it would have need to pull a Parallax View in its third act to really gain any resonance.
Go to Comment
K.U.B.R.I.C.K. about 4 years ago
Didn’t the Illuminati kill Kubrick for revealing their inner machinations in Eyes Wide Shut? That’s what I heard.
Top 3:
Dr Strangelove
2001: A Space Odyssey
Paths of Glory
It’s a shame Kubrick never got Napoleon off the ground with Nicholson; that would have been more interesting than the beautiful but constipated Barry Lyndon.
Go to Comment
Your favorite Woody Allen's film? about 4 years ago
Annie Hall
Stardust Memories
Love & Death
But also: Hannah & Her Sisters (somehow the music he uses for Michael Caine’s character in that just is Michael Caine), Manhattan, Husbands & Wives, Deconstructing Harry
Worst film: Match Point. I’ve seen almost nothing else he’s done this decade, but probably should check out Melinda & Melinda.
Go to Comment
Best of Animation about 4 years ago
Watership Down
The Jungle Book
Yellow Submarine
The Incredibles
Ratatouille
Spirited Away
Ghost in the Shell
The Emperor’s New Groove
Shrek (but the sequels almost negate its value retroactively)
The Iron Giant
Go to Comment
Nicolas Roeg about 4 years ago
His lack of big screen work in the last two decades is a terrible waste, but he has a new film out in the UK in July (“Puffball”, based on a Fay Weldon novel, starring Miranda Richardson).
Here’s my top 5:
1. Eureka
2. Don’t Look Now
3. The Man Who Fell to Earth
4. Bad Timing
5. Walkabout
I’d have loved to have seen his take on Flash Gordon; shame he fell off the project.
Go to Comment
Nicolas Roeg about 4 years ago
I haven’t seen Track 29 (same with Insignificance) in years; I think I was a bit too young to appreciate it first time round since my memory of it is Oldman having an affair with Russell (who may or may not be his mother?) and Christopher Lloyd having a large train set in his attic.
I recommend the Criterion editions of Don’t Look Now and The Man Who Fell to Earth; particularly the latter, which I appreciate more every time I see it.
Go to Comment
Your favorite Al Pacino's films? about 4 years ago
Revolution…. no,no, what am I saying?
1. Heat – just a dazzling film, that soaks you into it. It’s not Pacino’s best performance, but the experience of it is breathtaking.
2. Carlito’s Way – Pacino’s best performance of his ‘90s second wind. The thinking man’s Scarface (which is overegged and empty).
3. Dog Day Afternoon – rewatched this recently. Sidney Lumet is one of America’s finest, most understated directors. Still going too.
Go to Comment
2000-2010 about 4 years ago
I suspect that hindsight is everything to any era; I’m still not sure what can be pulled from the ‘90s as definable. I certainly wouldn’t like to think that Dogme is its defining moment. You can talk about the industry changes during the ’90s (the rise of the Independent) but as to the thematic aspect?
As to the ‘00s, it’s too easy to fall back on the idea that any current age has lost that which made previous eras special. What strikes me as interesting is that many of Hollywoods “definites” have become less so; star wattage, for example. It used to be that you could name about 10 stars who could “open” a movie. Now it’s pretty much only Will Smith. And that has leaked into a recognition, on some level, that different approaches are necessary. So now we have a blockbuster season where Robert Downey Jr and Edward Norton are the leads in comic book movies and an environment where foreign filmmakers are desired in order to bring something to the table. Soderbergh possibly led the charge here, managing to combine commercial sensibility with content. And while I wouldn’t argue that what we’re seeing is a return to the ‘70s, where the studios panicked because the old guard knew nothing and had to let the wunderkinds out to play, there’s definitely a sense that they are less sure of themselves and what the future holds than in the past few decades.
And that leads to the recurring debate about the future of cinema; with the 3 month gap between cinema and DVD release, and regular ability to find a movie on the net not long after it has graced the theatres, the pressure is on to make it “special” again. Hence the (not as fast as some want it to be) drive to have digital systems in cinemas and the current trend to the “new” 3D (which currently seems like a joke to me – Beowulf appeared mostly like it was trying to use technology for technology’s sake), but it seems like the studios have to try for something to make cinema-going a tangibly different experience and regarded as an event (and, of course, the ante has been upped by TV, where complex, ongoing narratives are now not unusual). After all, this is a world where people seem willing to watch a movie on an i-pod…
Personally, I think the form is not in such bad shape. Where films like A Scanner Darkly or I Heart Huckabees are getting made, where Christopher Nolan is allowed to bring his ideas to blockbusters.
Or are we all still floundering in the shadows of the past, playing with three acts and methods and pissy little emotive musics? (-) Is the story of film now not one of storytelling, but of human interaction with the idea of film itself?
Hmmm. Human Interaction with the idea of film itself? Care to expand?
Storytelling will always be the principal popular art form; just ask Homer. And it will always have many variables and ways of doing that. I don’t think that there needs to be any conflict between non-narrative and narrative cinema. Nor will there be between art galleries and comic books. And as for the three-act structure, well, we all know it’s there for the breaking. As William Goldman said, no one knows anything. It may make getting a film off the ground difficult if you’re dealing with a creatively sterile studio exec, but what’s new?
Go to Comment
2000-2010 about 4 years ago
“It’s easier to write the words “creatively sterile studio exec” than to sit across a table from one and smell their breath.”
Quite possibly, but surely you need a certain detachment from that experience to really explore your argument? It’s a bit like the generational, “Kids today are so misbehaved. it was never like that when I was young”. A view that’s been popular since Roman times at least.
“The last two of these pieces involve direct interaction of the human body with technology to create a sensory experience. The last is astounding, and involves a “performer” with electrodes attached to the temples meditating until their brain reaches a wave state close to Delta, at which point a series of feedback triggers are activated, and we can hear the music of pure thought. To witness this is to question on every level where technology will lead us in the next 20-50 years. Given massive advances in micro-computer sciences (and interactivity is one of the hallmarks of this), it feels as though a new world beckons, one where we can no longer sit back in Lacan’s mirror and experience idealized psychological projections (aka hero identification), but have to involve ourselves directly with a medium in order to create an experience, a feedback loop.”
This seems to be reaching toward some kind of ecstatic experience. But an advance doesn’t throw out the old. Radio drama or spoken word readings didn’t die when the visual medium came along (and it’s a convincing argument that the book is the ultimate visual medium) and I suspect that for many the point is that you get to be the passive observer, not required to be involved or interact in an experience. The test of any new form is endurance; none of the gimmickry of late ’80s/early ’90s virtual reality futures has taken hold, at least not in the all-encompassing way imagined – what has happened has been very mundane – communication across the net by typing. Or, at “best”, those virtual computer worlds where you can become a character but which is a kind of role play that is really not that “game-changing”.
“Given massive advances in micro-computer sciences (and interactivity is one of the hallmarks of this), it feels as though a new world beckons, one where we can no longer sit back in Lacan’s mirror and experience idealized psychological projections (aka hero identification), but have to involve ourselves directly with a medium in order to create an experience, a feedback loop.”
See, I suspect that while something along these lines may happen, I doubt that it will end up relating to art as such, more likely it will involved narco-ecstatic visceral experiences; either literal or mental hedonism. And what we really seem to be talking about is technology taking the place of hallucinogens or meditative revelation. Which seems a very different ball game to film.
“Again, I don’t disagree: but storytelling as a linear form is tired.”
Nah, not at all. The possibilities of the form are only now moving even more (as you say) from literature to the mainstream of cinema/TV. You only have to look at a show like Lost to see that the “mass audience” is willing to take on board far more narrative and thematic and philosophical complexity than before and those principals of circularity and non-linearity are most effectively communicated in an essentially traditional form, IMO – at least if you want anyone to listen to you.
“I dispute absolutely that Homer is the last word on anything.”
Well, The Illiad did end rather abruptly…
“But I do wonder if George Lucas had had the sensibilites of a Maya Deren or Jaromil Jireš, “Star Wars” might have been a profoundly different kind of film, and just as successful.”
But you might argue his wholesale deployment of Joseph Campbell was a blinding stroke of genius (not that I want to big the man up especially). I tend to find the most inspiring moments in cinema are those that roll out in the traditional structure, because they catch you off-guard. Much as I like Lynch, he doesn’t provide me with mind food any more because he’s running familiar routines. But when Luke faces Vader/himself in TESB, an ostensibly kid’s film, or Apocalypse Now turns into a hypnotic discussion of madness it feeds the imagination for decades to come.
If you want to be cyclical about it, maybe what cinema is doing is reaching that point in the last few years that it was in thate 60s/early 70s, where experimentation is seen as a bonus, but I honestly don’t think we’re breaking new ground in comparison to that period. Maybe against the ’80s.
“Creating work for the tiny screen: a separate visual art form needs to be born, where traditional cinematic concerns and approaches do not apply. Close-ups and medium shots dictate. And in this change of visual language, will there not become a need for a different approach to storytelling? The I-pod isn’t going away. In fact, the tiny screen grows minute to minute in popularity.”
The converse is that the purist can now have exactly the aspect ratio intended on his 50-inch home screen/projector and that kind of cine-literariness is growing. Anyway, Kubrick chose to go with the 1:33:1 ratio because he didn’t want his films chopped for TV, silly bugger. Now it’s gone to the reverse.
“What is maybe lost in this is a common audience sharing a film, which was one of its great strengths, and one of the primary reasons film became the huge cultural phenomenon it is (all those people in a darkened room, caught in the momentum of spectacle) – not unlike theater in this respect. The emotive power of a crowd reacting to a screen is different to the home alone viewer. Different, not better.”
I freely admit to much preferring a near empty cinema experience to a crowded one, simply because it’s so rare to have the audience treat the experience with any reverence. I do’t want hear people talking throughout or eating loudly. When I wasn’t working I used to love going to matinees for that very reason – immersion in the experience.
Anyway – I’m rambling. This topic has perhaps too much breadth to it….
Go to Comment
2000-2010 about 4 years ago
“almost all the women who make films that I know do something similar: they make circles and spirals around meaning, and subsequently never kill an idea with the arrow of logic. That’s a huge generalization, obviously. But it’s a starting point for another debate”
I agree, although look at the mess most of Jane Campion’s more recent work has turned out to be. And the under-employed Kathryn Bigelow is, for my money, the best action director around bar none. What did you think of Marie Antoinette (very interesting, misunderstood, was my take)?
“And that rounds me neatly back to the point I made about Greek culture, and its predominance in every narrative artform since Homer.”
Sure, but it’s difficult to appropriate other cultural forms without appearing cynical or using surface tchnique without any true depth. Undoubtedly a visionary can and will break the modus but if it’s perspective or training of mindset that’s been part of the DNA of our culture for 2000 years it’s a difficult conception of the world to break free from.
“And what worlds will come, when 35mm has shuffled off this mortal coil?”
To Spielberg’s credit, he’s resistant to the demise of celluloid, recognising the intangible alchemy involved.
Go to Comment
Best Biopics almost 4 years ago
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, The Elephant Man, The Assassination of Jesse James by that Coward Robert Ford, Lawrence of Arabia. Also (to some extent) The Right Stuff and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.
The best biopics tend to be the ones that recognise the amount of myth-making that is spun into anyone’s life story.
Go to Comment
Rank these Disney Channel movies almost 4 years ago
Luck of the Irish sounds like a hoot. If only Michael Winner hadn’t retired he could have given it that magic touch.
Go to Comment
TV SHOWS almost 4 years ago
The Shield’s really about shock value isn’t it, though? In that way it’s far more “Hollywood” than you care to recognise. I’d rate The Wire as a piece that really reveals the potential of television in it’s breadth of storytelling and understanding of character, place and time.
Halim said:
I also think “Lost” is definitly a very unique TV Show that built itself and various characters on the background of a one-of-a-kind mystery that uses a large selection of eclectic themes/motifs that resembles anything from the great works of Literature by writers like Kafka and Vonnegut, to B-rate Cult Sci-Fic Films, to the labyrinth paintings of Escher.
Absolutely. Even though it doesn’t necessarily maintain consistent quality from episode to episode (particularly when it was unable to establish an end date for the series) it manages to cram an enormous amount of philosophical thought into a mainstream series.
I’d agree with the comments on Curb Your Enthusiasm (series 6 was David on towering form) and Arrested Development. 30 Rock is also worth giving time to.
Deadwood and Carnivale were both excellent, truncated far too soon. And Battlestar Galactica’s reimagining has been utterly unlike anything anyone who saw the moribund original would have expected.
I mean to check out Weeds. I’ve enjoyed the first series of Californication (dumb title, great cast) and The Riches (Eddie Izzard a surprisingly good serious performer – although nothing excuses his “They will tear you apart like warm bread” line from that appalling Valkyrie trailer). Also Pushing Daisies; the sort of show the UK might once have come up with, with it’s shades of The Avengers quirkiness.
Current US TV is far more interesting than movie fare – if you want dumb action, 24 is more exciting than any of the action movies coming out – even when it’s resting on the lamest of plotting devices and progressions.
In contrast, UK TV mostly sucks. The series getting the raves; Doctor Who, Ashes to Ashes etc mostly show how embarrassingly deficient writers are here compared to their transatlantic counterparts. There’s been some good one-offs of late such as State of Play, The State Within and Jekyll but I’ve recently been rewatching some of the best ‘90s programmes like (as T says) GBH and Cracker, and they’re leagues ahead of anything coming out now. It says something that the UK is so creatively sterile that it is indulging itself in the remake arena repeatedly, be it with The Prisoner, Survivors or Minder.
Going further back, Edge of Darkness remains my favourite TV drama ever, still losing none of it’s bite. The Prisoner remains an enigmatic masterpiece, and Twin Peaks at it’s best is haunting and hysterical.
Go to Comment
Bad Lieutenant Remake almost 4 years ago
I don’t fancy Ferrara’s chances if he ever does try to take on Herzog. If Herzog survived Kinski he can survive anything.
Go to Comment
Which film has changed your life forever? almost 4 years ago
I’m not sure about life-changing, but movies with a strong resonance;
Blade Runner
Don’t Look Now (the kind of filmmaking that makes you realise that many “auteurs” are unimaginative buffons)
The Good, the Bad & the Ugly
Heathers
My Dinner with Andre
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Fearless
Go to Comment
Dream Projects over 3 years ago
David Lean was planning an adaptation of Nostromo when he died. I wonder if we’ll see Gilliam’s long gestating Defective Detective, or whether he’s distilled much of it into Dr Parnassus. Sergi Leone was about to sign a deal to make Leningrad (about the seige of Leningrad) when he passed away). I’d like to have seen Joe Dante’s Batman in the 1980s. Some filmmakers like Aaronofsky seem to get close to a multitude of projects (Batman, Watchmen). I would have loved to have seen Nic Roeg’s Flash Gordon (I know Hodges’ gun-for-hire take has it’s fans but I’m not one), Cronenberg’s Total Recall or Ridley Scott’s Dune (since he was still making interesting films in the ‘80s). Oh, and the Coens’ To the White Sea.
Go to Comment
Some Movies that always lifts You up are... over 3 years ago
Lebowski and Shakespeare in Love most definitely. The ’burbs never fails to make me laugh (Bruce Dern is a god), Baron Munchausen, The Jungle Book, Hannah & Her Sisters, Down By Law, Fearless, Grosse Point Blank, Monte Carlo or Bust.
Go to Comment
What are the best Brian De Palma's films? over 3 years ago
The Untouchables
Carlito’s Way
Snake Eyes
He’s best working from someone else’s script, marrying a strong eye for the set piece with a solid story. I’m not a huge fan of his early ’80s sexcapades where his penchant for murdering women in inventive ways is a bit too much Argento and not enough Hitchcock for my tastes.
Blow Out has its loopy charms, not least in Lithgow’s deranged assassin.
Go to Comment
Nicolas Roeg over 3 years ago
“…And later I thought, I can’t think how anyone can become a director without learning the craft of cinematography.” Nicolas Roeg
Easy; do what Sam Mendes did, employ one at the top of their game and gain all the plaudits.
Go to Comment
Nicolas Roeg over 3 years ago
Sam ‘fucking’ Mendes as he is known round my house
I hear that’s what Kate calls him too.
Go to Comment