I was able to purchase many of Jon’s older films on DVD through the filmmaker. He’s got most of his stuff available, and the quality is decent. The quality of the more widely available Vanguard/World Artist’s DVD’s is pitiful, sadly. They were made illegally for some cheap sales while ripping off the artist. Email Jon to see if he can arrange a purchase for his other work;
clarandjon@msn.com
Jost is one of my favorite filmmakers and perhaps the most influential. He shows you just how much can be said for so little. No big budgets, but lots of patience, experience and wisdom is packed into his body of work. His work not only changed my idea about filmmaking, but about how I looked at the world, America and art in general. TBYSI is his best work on celluloid, the culmination of everything his previous films have been working up towards. Here’s an essay he wrote on the experience of making this film, and what he meant by it:
http://www.jon-jost.com/work/thebed2.html
I wrote my own essay for a documentary class examining the structure of this film and what purpose it served. The more you watch it, the more subtlety it seems to reveal, stuff that Jon himself told me he wasn’t even thinking about when he made it. On that point in his career he was working on auto pilot.
As for the ending, both the brutality and uncertainty is absolutely essential to what makes this film work. It leaves the viewer with a sense of autonomy while at the same time allowing Jost to imprint a very powerful autuer’s presence. Many of the landscape shots where “nothing happen” work like this, although if you pay close attention you can find all sorts of ways they are subtly conditioning the viewer, but not manipulating the way that something like advertising would. Later, I will try and post a link to the essay I wrote if anybody wants to read more in detail the kinds of thing I’m referring to. I’d post it here but it’s probably too long,
As for the rest of his work prior to “Bed”, you can read about most of it (and some of his digital stuff) on the website. At one point he bought a bunch of 16mm reversal stock at a discount and made at least 4 features with it. They are very simple, understated films. “Last Chants for a Slow Dance” and “Bell Diamond”, like “Bed” and “Sure Fire”, focus on economic hard ships of blue collar male protagonist’s in the rural interior west. These films take place in Montana. “Last Chants” is his take on a artful “killer on the road” film, which shows how the environment creates him. There are some very long takes in this film, a couple going over 10 minutes (would have gone longer if the magazine allowed). I wouldn’t be surprised if their are no more than 30 shots in the entire 90 minute film (never counted). “Bell Diamond” is a bit more conventional, about a troubled Nam veteran whose wife leaves him, which turns him into an emotional wreck.
Two other of these “reversal” films, “Slow Moves” and “Rembrant Laughing” were shot in San Francisco, and give a very different impression of the city from what you see today. “SM” is an “ugly ducking” romance on the road; think “Badlands”, “Bonnie + Clyde” or a Springsteen song minus the glamor, but still beautiful in it’s own way. The reversal film stock creates a unique mood. “RL” is a more light hearted, “comedic” portrait of SF and it’s slacker denizens of the 80’s. The actors mostly played people exactly like they were in real life. These two films show Jost quite adept in translating his style to an urban setting, at least SF, which seems to suit him much better than NYC did in “Vermeers” (one of his weaker works IMO, though still quite good).
As for his non-narrative film work, he did two “essay” films, “Speaking Directly” and it’s sequel “Plain Talk and Common Sense” which are essential, though “SD” is probably the one to watch if you can only pick one. His digital work tends to be more experimental, as Jost spent a lot of time exploring the new medium, “playing around” and treating it differently from film (which it is). The results are decidedly mixed. My two favorites would be “London Brief”, a modern city symphony utilizing digital in-camera effects, and DV’s covert nature to capture some compelling urban imagery; and “Passages”, a totally different type of work focused on poetic imagery, a tribute to his daughter, whom he was separated from in a legal mess. He’s done a bunch of narratives on DV, but nothing that approaches the mastery of his film narratives. His first was “Oui/Non”, a sort of young romance set in Paris; it’s a fun film to watch as Jost explores the spontaneous nature of using DV to shoot actors and create some interesting aesthetics, but it lacks depths. Two other films, “Homecoming” and “Over Here”, sort of compliment one another, both about veterans in Iraq, and their effect on their families at home in the northwest. “HC” was more conventional and less intriguing, while “OH” showed the same innovative, understated aesthetic you found in his films. Probably his best digital narrative, although I still prefer his film work here. The politics in these films tend to overwhelm the content, though given the times, he had his reasons.
I think if you wanted the ultimate but doable “Jost overview”, I’d be sure to watch:
“Speaking Directly”
“Last Chants for a Slow Dance”
“The Bed You Sleep In”
“Passages”
maybe “London Brief” as well. These are his most interesting works, IMO, and would give you an idea on the range of styles Jost is capable of. After these I’d move onto to rest of his 80’s reversal films (“Slow Moves”, “Bell Diamond”, “Rembrant Laughing”). He offered me a discount to purchase DVD’s in bulk, btw.
I’m pretty sure he has anything available for sale if you inquire, but since he’s distributing himself and currently teaching in Korea, who knows what the logistics might be. If I remember right, he was asking 25$ a piece, but since I bought a bunch in bulk he bumped it down to 20$ each. You can read about most of his works at this link (make sure to click on the “filmmakers reflections” link at the bottom right of each films’ page, that’s where the interesting info is):
http://www.jon-jost.com/work.html
as far as the ending to “Bed”, I see your point, although for the most part, Jost seems to be a director who likes to give his characters closure, usually in death (though not always). He sees one of art’s primary purpose as bringing our awareness of death to the forefront, so even if it seems the character here is taking the “easy way out”, I’d say it’s more cause he wants the viewer to confront their own mortality, rather than put themselves in the character’s shoes. On another level, he wants the viewer to confront the larger issues surrounding Ray’s plight, and what it says about our society as a whole. In this particular case however, I think there is some evidence that says Ray is not guilty and was in fact set up, and his death is a way of releasing him from it. For one thing, the film just doesn’t treat him as a child molester/monster (save for a couple of intriguingly framed shots to throw you off; his distorted face in the shot you mentioned being one of them), he’s mostly considered to be a victim of hysteria and unstable community bonds. The other thing you’ll notice is the guy he takes on the fishing trip seems to mysteriously know his daughter, unbeknowest to Ray. This same guy is the one who calls and informs Ray of her “suicide”. If you look closely at that shot of this character (when he’s imprinted against an almost transparent blue background), you will notice a female character, faintly in the background. She is almost invisible, and would be almost impossible to see if she doesn’t turn her head at one point. Is this his daughter Tracy? Is she really alive? Who knows. There are many, many ways to read this film, which is what makes it such an interesting work.
just faces? My favorite all time close up is in Bresson’s “L’Argent”, where he introduces Yvon’s character with a close up of his hand clad in a vivid red glove, disconnecting an oil hose from a building and securing it back onto his truck. Very sensual (no, not like that… well, not unless you have a building, pipe fetish).
a lot of Chris Marker films would probably qualify. “Grin Without a Cat”, his three hour epic on the new left would be my pick. I remember the VHS retailing for well over 400$ when I was in college writing a paper on it. Priced for institutions, of course. The first three minutes, juxtoposing Potemkin footage with protests in Paris, is one of the best openings in cinema history, imo.
Morricone has been mentioned 100 times already but I’ll put a vote out for his “Violent City” score, even though it’s basically just the one theme song. But it’s a great song. Also not yet mentioned (I don’t think);
Lalo Schifrin – Dirty Harry + Magnum Force
John Barry – On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
David Shire – Taking of Pelham 1-2-3
recently saw a Korean film, “In Between Days”, which had numerous excellent facial close ups, particularly on the female lead. The only other main character, her sorta, kinda, almost boyfriend, had a good face as well. Digital video is an ideal medium for shooting this way, given it’s lesser ability to capture detail than film or HD. When you overload your film with facial close ups, you can work around this.
this is one of my fav films so, obviously yes, bring it on. I own the Image disc, which isn’t that bad quality wise. Better than vhs for sure, so I don’t know if I would pony up for a Criterion just to get gunshots on the mono soundtrack (mysteriously missing on my disc). Maybe would rent it for extras.
why would anybody ever watch Antonioni for the plot? ha.
L’Eclisse is probably my #2 film (behind “L’Argent”) but thinking about it I could easily make it my favorite/most influential. It’s amazing to me that the film still feels relevant today, despite largely being a commentary on the times. Modern ennui is alive and well in 2009, but it’s become too easy to flip on the laptop/iplod/blackberry and tune it out. I love how he ties in the apocalyptic imagery (that absurd mushroom Eur tower, the empty spaces in the finale, ending with the “exploding” film, etc) with the inability of a stable, meaningful relationship to form between man and women. I popped the DVD in earlier today and watched a bit; the main shot that stood out to me was when Vittoria and Anita are headed up to Marta’s place. You see a shot of a photograph of an African woman. You think it might be Marta, standing there, but you quickly realize it’s just a picture. There seems to be a lot of this going on with “L’Eclisse”, the subtle interplay between reality, and images that pretend to be reality but are in fact false. Seems appropriate to describe modern detachment; with billboards, tv, etc, so many of the images we internalize in the modern environment are perceived not through our senses directly, but separated by some kind of medium, purporting to be a messenger of the “real”.
I’m not sure I buy (haha, a pun) into the idea that funding is the biggest problem with filmmaking today. No doubt it’s an issue, and always has been. But with the advent of DV and now HD, one can get pretty good imagery on the cheap (and technology only gets better/cheaper). Once could bemoan the fact that it’s not 35mm (or even 16), but really, what is it we’re watching here? An artistic creation or a bunch of flickering frames? Fact is, you really don’t need millions of dollars to make a great film if you have talent and drive. Sure, money makes it easier, and let’s you expand your vision, but at the same time, the lack of it can force you to see creative opportunities you might otherwise miss. I take a walk around my city and see a million great locations where one can shoot a film, guerrilla style for no money. You wouldn’t even need a permit (well, maybe legally but…). No, you can’t make “Apocalypse Now” this way, and perhaps there is some merit to the idea which says that sort of filmmaking might be over. But that doesn’t mean you lose the essence of what makes great cinema.
Certainly, some have taken up the task of making films this way (cheaply). The problem I see is with distribution. If you make a masterpiece, how is anybody going to see it, without a stroke of luck (or ingenious marketing)? The next Antonioni or Bresson could be out there, making films, and unless he happens to be our close friend, we won’t know it. Film festivals only go so far, and even then, a lot of good stuff slips through to cracks (in favor of mediocrity). Another issue, maybe most problematic, is that it’s just too damn easy to make a film. There is so much garbage to sift through, finding the good stuff can be a real chore. The cheapness of video creates that kind of drawback. When you are spending money to shoot and process film, it kind of forces you to make it worth your while, and do something good. Still, I think there are more opportunities for more young aspiring auteur’s to pick up a camera and make something interesting. It’s just that if you don’t have the creative spark, nothing interesting is going to happen no matter how much money or energy you pour into your work. I’d say if one was looking for a root cause, that’d be it, IMO.
edit I mis-read the title of this thread, so I realize this is supposed to be about Hollywood, but I still think some things I wrote here could apply (ie, lack of a creative spark). I’d say too, maybe it’s not such a bad thing if quality filmmaking comes out of the hands of Hollywood, which is always going to be restrictive creatively and shut a lot of people out of opportunity for no good reason. If people give up that dream (and for most, that’s all it is) once and for all, maybe we can get to work putting a more reasonable alternative in place. What that is however, I have no clue.
I’d consider Michael Mann a great modern director. He appeals to me in a way that other “big names” (Tarantino, Coen Brothers, Aaranofsky, etc) don’t for some reason. His films manage to be poetic without the trickery and pretentiousness, even whilst carrying mainstream themes (ie, cops and robbers).
Aside from that I’d consider “Eyes Wide Shut” and “Dead Man” both as excellent. Same with most Wong Kar Wai or Van Sant. How about Hsiao-hsien Hou? What do people think of him? Some might find him pretentious but I loved “Cafe Lumiere” and “Millennium Mambo”. “Flight of the Red Balloon” was ok.
I don’t like mumblecore very much either but I’m not convinced DIY style needs to devolve into that sort of wannabe-Cassavetes, shakey cam style. Perhaps once we get over the novelty of “anybody being able to make a film”, we will stop seeing crap peddled as innovative and people will start focusing on actual good work. It might take some time but then again, in this day and age maybe less than one thinks. I think aoaijea has a good point here; filmmakers need to stop making excuses for why they can’t make something interesting out of their basement, and just start working for the sake of working. So what if you don’t get a premiere? Are people into this for the art or for the fame/recognition? It sometimes feels like 90% care more about the latter. For sure, distribution sucks, but to me that’s not a good reason to prevent something decent from being made. Worry about that bridge when you need to cross it.
I think Richard makes some good points too but I don’t really see the things he describes as bad. In our media saturated world, I think it’s great that we can stop worrying about film being “novel” and instead focus on weather or not it’s “good” (a separate topic in itself). It’s like a huge burden lifted off one’s shoulders. Thank the 60’s and 70’s filmmakers for legitimizing film as an art, and move on.
“L’Argent” by Bresson. The economy, the sensuality of objects, the interplay between aural/visual, the frame + cut, the color, the locations, the depiction of the tragedy of our times, the commentary on the urban/rural dichotomy, the rigid formality of the characters, etc, etc, etc,. To me this film is the perfect representative of all cinema has to offer. A master at the height of his game, working on autopilot. Too bad this was his last work. Thank god for the Kent Jones monograph on this film, otherwise I’d think I was nuts for considering it the best film of all time. I don’t know why it’s so overlooked. So much better than say “A Man Escaped”, “Diary of a Country Priest” or the donkey film (though I can understand why people like that one, as I can “Mouchette” and “Pickpocket”).
“L’Eclisse”, “Stalker”, “The Bed You Sleep In”, and “Vertigo” are all very close behind, and would round out my top 5.
there is a lot to say about this film and it’s bigger themes, but I’m too tired to get into that now. Stylistically, I always loved the chromatic shifts; I’ll never forget the feeling of first watching the trolley ride into the zone (great music here) and suddenly being overwhelmed with the lush green colors. It’s a good indicator of how hopeful the characters might be feeling at the time (well, at least Stalker), but in general, the zone is supposed to be a place of hope so the others might have it too. That’s just one example, but there are many other things done here I’ve never seen duplicated anywhere near this level of effectiveness. I think there were 142 cuts in the entire 161 minute film. Lots of directors use long takes but here they flow so smoothly; it’s as if the whole thing was shot in one take alone. The trolley ride for example, was done in five shots, but the smooth fluid movement, the music, the compositions of the faces; it all flows so seamlessly that you’d swear after watching it was just one take. The “real time” effect is quite a contrast with his previous “Mirror”, where a single cut could put you in another era!
I can understand where one might think this film is overly “dense”, especially given some of the dialogue and that crazy ending; but you just need to give yourself over to the experience, and try to feel what the characters are feeling, in order to appreciate this film.
Kurosawa had a lot of trouble with the studios after “Red Beard”; he was no longer as popular in Japan and felt that he would not get the chance to continue making films; he even attempted suicide at one point. Only when I believe Lucas and Coppola bailed him out did he get “Kagemusha” + eventually “Ran” made. The outlook in those films is particularly brutal, and may have been a reflection of his personal troubles in the 70’s, in which he made only one film (Dersu Uzala, which I’ve yet to see). Aside from that, I think he also just became pre-occupied with the dark side of humanity, and modernity in particular. Even though “Ran” and “Kagemusha” are period pieces, there is a lot of modern commentary in them, most notably the use of guns as a weapon of mass destruction. He practically implies this one invention wiped out the entire Samurai way of life. Efficiency becomes a number one priority, replacing ritual and tradition. That includes efficiency in killing humans to consolidate power. I’ve not seen “Red Beard” in a long while, so I can’t remember if any of these themes were present in that film, though by “Dreams” and “Mayadado” he seemed to have mellowed out a bit. I’m pretty sure he expected “Ran” to be his last film.
Though I’ve yet to see his non-Samurai, pre-70’s films (must remedy that), so I don’t know if something like “I Live in Fear”, “Stray Dog” or “Bad Sleep Well” would carry similar tones. Either way I’d be surprised if they approached the brutality of “Ran”.
I don’t know. I’m 25. I still don’t really give a sh*t about anything. But I can (and always have) been able to appreciate great film. I’d say not so much in spite of not giving a sh*t, but rather because of it. It gives me something to care about beyond mundane pointlessness of daily existence, hormones or not. A bigger issue for me when young, was that I simply didn’t have enough exposure to what made film great art, and not mere entertainment. A lot has changed in the past 10-12 years, for better and worse. The internet is now mainstream, opening a whirlwind of info. Too much info, likely. It’d be hard not to drown in it all if you don’t get some focus, someone or thing to guide you to the good stuff. I don’t know where younger people are going to get that. I had a creative writing teacher help me out here immensely when I was 17.
they toss films and directors out there to discuss? They spur debate? I feel lists by themselves are kind of boring, but when accompanied with some kind of explanation as to why one picks what to include, they can be interesting.
just as a counter to all the “yes” answers (really, who doesn’t want all Tarkovsky on Criterion?), it’s worth noting that at least we have alternatives with the Kino disc (I have the Image/Rucisco disc btw; is this the same thing?). Personally I’d rather see Criterion do films that have no reasonable R1 options and desperately need them, such as “Red Desert”, “2 or 3 Things I Know About Her” or Tarkovsky’s “Nostaghia” (though this has always been one of my least favorites of his, for some reason). Stalker would be great, but it’s a luxury.
I wonder if there is any chance Criterion will pick up the rights to some of the Bresson I believe in on New Yorker, mainly the later color stuff (which contrary to most people, is my favorite). The Devil Probably, A Gentle Woman, Lancelot du Lac, maybe even L’Argent (although yes, the NY’er disc is good). Last I remember they’ve got some other stuff by great filmmakers (Oshima, Marker, etc) that wasn’t going to DVD. Yes this is sh*tty news but I feel NY’er had a tendancy to let films sit in the vault so maybe there is a silver lining. Somewhere…
ditto on “Cruel Story of Youth” and “Devil, Probably”. Same goes for “Gentle Woman”. I’m strange in that I think Bresson’s best work was his later, color, urban modern stuff. His style just worked so well in that setting. Aside from that “Devil” is one of the great all time films about nihilism, IMO. Very underrated. As for CSOY, it’s the Japanese “Rebel Without a Cause” and it’s truly a “Cruel Story” that it does not exist on dvd. ;p
I’d cry for Burnett but he’s become such a martyr for the problems of art film in America, I just can’t bring myself to add any more tears. Great filmmaker though.
I don’t really know anything about Burnett, I doubt he’s milking anything; his name just seems to come up a lot in academic type film circles when one talks about forgotten American art filmmakers. I’m guessing it’s a combination of “Killer Sheep” being selected for preservation in the library of congress, issues of music rights, and the fact that he’s black and makes films about the black American experience that are nothing like say, Spike Lee. He just seems to make a great talking point for intellectuals; a symbol for all that’s wrong with art film and it’s distribution in the US, which tends to overshadow his actual work as a filmmaker. Though I’ve only seen “Sheep” and “To Sleep With Anger”, both which were very good, but probably not great. It is sad that he doesn’t get more recognition though.
In the case of Bresson, color helps a lot with the austerity, and he’s very adept at keeping it muted a bit, and not too distracting or garish. But I think it’s the modern environment of the city that’s what really makes his films come alive. Traffic, footsteps on pavement and marble, cash registers, etc. Something about the modern environment really comes alive with Bresson, especially with the way he uses sound. I like the older, b+w period pieces as well but they are almost not comparable, like watching two different filmmakers; yet both are unmistakably “Bressonian”.
I’ve only seen a handful of episodes, but based on those, I’d say the show is mildly amusing. I get kind of annoyed by some of the social satire. It’s hard to put my finger on what it is; it’s too cheezy moralistic or something. That’s better than being stupid for stupid’s sake like some other popular cartoons (ie, Family Guy), but I get this “middle/upper-middle class, sorta left-of-center-but-not-too-serious-about-anything” vibe that drives me nuts. A lot like the “Daily Show”. I’m guessing the idea being that if you mock society in a funny but serious way, it validates you as being somebody who is “aware” of the problems, but not getting bent out of shape by them. Sounds good and reasonable, but what doesn’t get considered is that this form of mocking may in fact be part of the problem. A big part. Irony, I believe is what you would call it.
that said, the Scientology episode was hilarious. And Disintegration is the best album ever.
we’ve got “Brazil” but I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned “12 Monkeys/La Jatee”… That one is hard to top. I suppose “Vertigo” ties into it. In some ways so does “Brown Bunny” (more distantly).
anyway, others I don’t believe mentioned yet;
L’Argent / Mouchette / Pickpocket (Bresson was the master of downbeat endings)
Winter Light / Shame (Bergman wasn’t so bad either)
The Bed You Sleep In / Last Chants for a Slow Dance / Slow Moves (Jost)
My Own Private Idaho
La Notte
Ran
Dust in the Wind (Hou)
Thief
Ugetsu
Faces
I think if I had to chose one though, probably “Vertigo”.
so whose place is it? Parents don’t own their kids. Contrary to popular belief, children are autonomous beings capable of making decisions on their own. Even at age 15. Maybe especially at age 15.
anyway, am I the only one who sees EWS being about WAY more than sex, or male-female relations? But rather more a general commentary on “elite” groups in society, conspiracies, etc? The blurring of lines between one who maybe can enter this “elite” (kidman) and one who, despite gaining success in a conventional manner, cannot cross over (Cruise)? The orgy scene really is one of the least memorable things about it, aside from the whole elite ritual aspect. Or maybe it’s just a commentary on paranoia and how it sometimes turns out to be real. Either way, a very well constructed film. One of my favorites, and I don’t even really like Kubrick very much.
lol; mind you there is nothing abnormal about Justin + our day care services, other than the fact we’re being honest. We’re just gonna mind our own business and let ‘em surf the internet. Don’t worry though, we won’t let any child predators in the front door.
srsly, for most of human history 15 years was considered well into adult hood. If a key component of the industrial age was to extend our childhood well beyond what’s reasonable simply cause we have no practical use for young people otherwise; I have to question the age’s merits. I can’t speak for others but I was ready to tackle the “big” issues of life at age 12 at the latest. Somewhere in between 10-12 innocence was destroyed. I don’t find that to be very unique. If anything, kids these days are becoming desensitized even quicker (again, thanks internet + technology). Chances are, by the time they are 17 some of them have participated in more graphic stuff than the EWS orgy sex scene. Maybe nothing so weird, but you catch my drift.
well call me an idealist (which is funny cause I’m really nothing of the sort) but I don’t see why you can’t have both; ie, treat 12 year olds more like adults and still be civilized. Obviously you wouldn’t treat them the same as say, a 17 year old, or a 24 or 30 year old, but to drag out childhood in spite of physical maturity creates a disconnect. Kids are not stupid; they pick up on this kind of thing, and it feels wrong. But while they may not be stupid, they do tend to lack wisdom and as a result act out in ways that make them appear very dumb. Obviously this needs to be considered. The solution though, is not to “shelter” them, or put them in a holding pattern for 12 years before they are allowed to insert themselves into the economy and “make themselves useful”. You’re just making them idle for the very years they are most seeming with energy; and you know what they say about idle hands…
bottom line is, we need to make teenagers feel as if they are more than a pesky annoyance, an overgrown child. In plush economic times (which is what we’ve had since ww2, relatively speaking) it’s not so bad, but one just needs to look to poor, inner city areas where teenage gangs run amok, to see the potential problems of having no clear, immediate path to adulthood.
While I don’t have the master plan, I’m fairly certain that thinking 15 year olds shouldn’t be watching “Eyes Wide Shut” because they aren’t “ready” is going to be counter productive. Of course, not everyone is the same. Your mileage may vary.
as for Justin, I don’t know if what he experienced is the best way, but he seemed to turn out ok. ;p
haha no. I’ve gotten films I already owned as gifts, but I’m sure that’s quite common. Worst thing that happens to me is that I see a film for cheap and snatch it up without realizing it’s pan+scan (aka, drink coaster or wall decoration). I did that with “Manhunter”, thankfully not one of my favorite films.
yes, I’ve seen it. Don’t remember it too well. Honestly, I’m not a big fan of Wiseman. I believe his strategy is that you can just point the camera at something long enough, and eventually people will forget that it’s there and revert to their normal behaviors (no matter how depraved) and thus you will have achieved some kind of cinematic “truth”, Maybe he’s right here, but I really don’t glean much “truth” from his work. Aside from that, he complicates things with his editing (how can editing be truth?). He may have some decent theories but I find his work a lot more boring than you’d think it’d be, considering the strange stuff he sometimes manages to capture. All I really remember from “Titicut” was when they were shaving one of the patient’s face very fast and somewhat violently. He bled quite a bit afterword but did not seem perturbed. That scene stuck with me.
thanks for the heads up. This is an excellent idea and it’s good to see a popular artist thinking of us independents. Some well placed music can make a world of difference. Though I’d caution film artist not to get too dependent on it; I believe Bresson once said music was a lot like alcohol in the way it can modify film reality. But hey, nothing wrong with a couple of drinks here and there.
kind of odd to compare a film from the 20’s to one from the 80’s. Maybe that’s the point? This isn’t father/son, more like grandfather/grandson. A young man on the cusp of adulthood vs. an old man. Sound like a fair fight? Even taking each on it’s own terms, it’s just an off comparison. As another poster mentions above, Metropolis can seem kind of silly in contrast to Blade Runner’s noir (again, maybe the point?). “M” would be far more appropriate. Better yet would be Godard’s “Alphaville”.
I think in the case of Wiseman you sorta have to be a bit crafty with editing; otherwise his stuff would be a total mess. That’s where the limitations of verite style filmmaking becomes apparent. The idea that the subject has some sort of autonomy is a kind of egalitarian myth; the documentation is always controlling things when you get right down to it. Even if you don’t move the camera, there are just too many editing tricks up one’s sleeve to employ later on, long after the subject has left the building. I suppose the best one could hope is to just place the camera and let it roll, almost surveillance style, but that tends not to lend itself to very interesting footage. As for what Wiseman did that I found “tricky”, I remember one shot from “High School” where he showed the principal looking through a window, then a close up shot of girl’s asses in their gym clothes, making the guy look like a perv. Actually, that’s more blatant than tricky, but it’s Wiseman planting his unmistakable stamp on the so called “verite” footage. Who knows, maybe the principal was a perv, but the editing “confirms” it cinematically, irregardless of the truth. I wish I could recall more subtle examples from his work but documentary class in college was a long time ago, and the subtly is part of the deceptiveness! From what I remember, everything was specifically cut together to give a highly critical view of “institutions” (schools, nut houses, etc); painting them as corrupt from the top down. Granted, the authorities he was being critical of unknowingly helped him out a lot, but it just didn’t seem all that enlightening. I don’t know, maybe I’ve spent too much time inside messed up high schools and mental hospitals as the “sane” one that nobody listened to. ha.
The other thing is that I found his work exploitative, which never really sits well with me. I’ve never seen “Friedman’s” but got the feeling I would dislike it for similar reasons based on what I’d heard about it. Something about airing one’s problems in a manner that puts us the viewer in a “superior” position of “normalcy” or “judgment”, just seems in really bad taste. Like gawking at somebody whose been mangled in a car wreck. But that’s just me…
I will agree with you on Morris. There is no pretense about “objectivity” with him, nor do I get the feeling he coerces anything out of his subjects, but I could be wrong.
JON JOST - THE BED YOU SLEEP IN over 3 years ago
I was able to purchase many of Jon’s older films on DVD through the filmmaker. He’s got most of his stuff available, and the quality is decent. The quality of the more widely available Vanguard/World Artist’s DVD’s is pitiful, sadly. They were made illegally for some cheap sales while ripping off the artist. Email Jon to see if he can arrange a purchase for his other work;
clarandjon@msn.com
Jost is one of my favorite filmmakers and perhaps the most influential. He shows you just how much can be said for so little. No big budgets, but lots of patience, experience and wisdom is packed into his body of work. His work not only changed my idea about filmmaking, but about how I looked at the world, America and art in general. TBYSI is his best work on celluloid, the culmination of everything his previous films have been working up towards. Here’s an essay he wrote on the experience of making this film, and what he meant by it:
http://www.jon-jost.com/work/thebed2.html
I wrote my own essay for a documentary class examining the structure of this film and what purpose it served. The more you watch it, the more subtlety it seems to reveal, stuff that Jon himself told me he wasn’t even thinking about when he made it. On that point in his career he was working on auto pilot.
As for the ending, both the brutality and uncertainty is absolutely essential to what makes this film work. It leaves the viewer with a sense of autonomy while at the same time allowing Jost to imprint a very powerful autuer’s presence. Many of the landscape shots where “nothing happen” work like this, although if you pay close attention you can find all sorts of ways they are subtly conditioning the viewer, but not manipulating the way that something like advertising would. Later, I will try and post a link to the essay I wrote if anybody wants to read more in detail the kinds of thing I’m referring to. I’d post it here but it’s probably too long,
As for the rest of his work prior to “Bed”, you can read about most of it (and some of his digital stuff) on the website. At one point he bought a bunch of 16mm reversal stock at a discount and made at least 4 features with it. They are very simple, understated films. “Last Chants for a Slow Dance” and “Bell Diamond”, like “Bed” and “Sure Fire”, focus on economic hard ships of blue collar male protagonist’s in the rural interior west. These films take place in Montana. “Last Chants” is his take on a artful “killer on the road” film, which shows how the environment creates him. There are some very long takes in this film, a couple going over 10 minutes (would have gone longer if the magazine allowed). I wouldn’t be surprised if their are no more than 30 shots in the entire 90 minute film (never counted). “Bell Diamond” is a bit more conventional, about a troubled Nam veteran whose wife leaves him, which turns him into an emotional wreck.
Two other of these “reversal” films, “Slow Moves” and “Rembrant Laughing” were shot in San Francisco, and give a very different impression of the city from what you see today. “SM” is an “ugly ducking” romance on the road; think “Badlands”, “Bonnie + Clyde” or a Springsteen song minus the glamor, but still beautiful in it’s own way. The reversal film stock creates a unique mood. “RL” is a more light hearted, “comedic” portrait of SF and it’s slacker denizens of the 80’s. The actors mostly played people exactly like they were in real life. These two films show Jost quite adept in translating his style to an urban setting, at least SF, which seems to suit him much better than NYC did in “Vermeers” (one of his weaker works IMO, though still quite good).
As for his non-narrative film work, he did two “essay” films, “Speaking Directly” and it’s sequel “Plain Talk and Common Sense” which are essential, though “SD” is probably the one to watch if you can only pick one. His digital work tends to be more experimental, as Jost spent a lot of time exploring the new medium, “playing around” and treating it differently from film (which it is). The results are decidedly mixed. My two favorites would be “London Brief”, a modern city symphony utilizing digital in-camera effects, and DV’s covert nature to capture some compelling urban imagery; and “Passages”, a totally different type of work focused on poetic imagery, a tribute to his daughter, whom he was separated from in a legal mess. He’s done a bunch of narratives on DV, but nothing that approaches the mastery of his film narratives. His first was “Oui/Non”, a sort of young romance set in Paris; it’s a fun film to watch as Jost explores the spontaneous nature of using DV to shoot actors and create some interesting aesthetics, but it lacks depths. Two other films, “Homecoming” and “Over Here”, sort of compliment one another, both about veterans in Iraq, and their effect on their families at home in the northwest. “HC” was more conventional and less intriguing, while “OH” showed the same innovative, understated aesthetic you found in his films. Probably his best digital narrative, although I still prefer his film work here. The politics in these films tend to overwhelm the content, though given the times, he had his reasons.
I think if you wanted the ultimate but doable “Jost overview”, I’d be sure to watch:
“Speaking Directly”
“Last Chants for a Slow Dance”
“The Bed You Sleep In”
“Passages”
maybe “London Brief” as well. These are his most interesting works, IMO, and would give you an idea on the range of styles Jost is capable of. After these I’d move onto to rest of his 80’s reversal films (“Slow Moves”, “Bell Diamond”, “Rembrant Laughing”). He offered me a discount to purchase DVD’s in bulk, btw.
my first post here, hope it’s not too long.
Go to Comment
JON JOST - THE BED YOU SLEEP IN over 3 years ago
I’m pretty sure he has anything available for sale if you inquire, but since he’s distributing himself and currently teaching in Korea, who knows what the logistics might be. If I remember right, he was asking 25$ a piece, but since I bought a bunch in bulk he bumped it down to 20$ each. You can read about most of his works at this link (make sure to click on the “filmmakers reflections” link at the bottom right of each films’ page, that’s where the interesting info is):
http://www.jon-jost.com/work.html
as far as the ending to “Bed”, I see your point, although for the most part, Jost seems to be a director who likes to give his characters closure, usually in death (though not always). He sees one of art’s primary purpose as bringing our awareness of death to the forefront, so even if it seems the character here is taking the “easy way out”, I’d say it’s more cause he wants the viewer to confront their own mortality, rather than put themselves in the character’s shoes. On another level, he wants the viewer to confront the larger issues surrounding Ray’s plight, and what it says about our society as a whole. In this particular case however, I think there is some evidence that says Ray is not guilty and was in fact set up, and his death is a way of releasing him from it. For one thing, the film just doesn’t treat him as a child molester/monster (save for a couple of intriguingly framed shots to throw you off; his distorted face in the shot you mentioned being one of them), he’s mostly considered to be a victim of hysteria and unstable community bonds. The other thing you’ll notice is the guy he takes on the fishing trip seems to mysteriously know his daughter, unbeknowest to Ray. This same guy is the one who calls and informs Ray of her “suicide”. If you look closely at that shot of this character (when he’s imprinted against an almost transparent blue background), you will notice a female character, faintly in the background. She is almost invisible, and would be almost impossible to see if she doesn’t turn her head at one point. Is this his daughter Tracy? Is she really alive? Who knows. There are many, many ways to read this film, which is what makes it such an interesting work.
Go to Comment
BEST CLOSE-UPS IN FILMS over 3 years ago
just faces? My favorite all time close up is in Bresson’s “L’Argent”, where he introduces Yvon’s character with a close up of his hand clad in a vivid red glove, disconnecting an oil hose from a building and securing it back onto his truck. Very sensual (no, not like that… well, not unless you have a building, pipe fetish).
Go to Comment
too obscure for dvd? over 3 years ago
a lot of Chris Marker films would probably qualify. “Grin Without a Cat”, his three hour epic on the new left would be my pick. I remember the VHS retailing for well over 400$ when I was in college writing a paper on it. Priced for institutions, of course. The first three minutes, juxtoposing Potemkin footage with protests in Paris, is one of the best openings in cinema history, imo.
Go to Comment
Favorite score? over 3 years ago
Morricone has been mentioned 100 times already but I’ll put a vote out for his “Violent City” score, even though it’s basically just the one theme song. But it’s a great song. Also not yet mentioned (I don’t think);
Lalo Schifrin – Dirty Harry + Magnum Force
John Barry – On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
David Shire – Taking of Pelham 1-2-3
Go to Comment
BEST CLOSE-UPS IN FILMS over 3 years ago
recently saw a Korean film, “In Between Days”, which had numerous excellent facial close ups, particularly on the female lead. The only other main character, her sorta, kinda, almost boyfriend, had a good face as well. Digital video is an ideal medium for shooting this way, given it’s lesser ability to capture detail than film or HD. When you overload your film with facial close ups, you can work around this.
Go to Comment
Who wants "Stalker" to appear on Criterion? over 3 years ago
this is one of my fav films so, obviously yes, bring it on. I own the Image disc, which isn’t that bad quality wise. Better than vhs for sure, so I don’t know if I would pony up for a Criterion just to get gunshots on the mono soundtrack (mysteriously missing on my disc). Maybe would rent it for extras.
Go to Comment
Antonioni (and DiVenanzo) L'eclisse over 3 years ago
why would anybody ever watch Antonioni for the plot? ha.
L’Eclisse is probably my #2 film (behind “L’Argent”) but thinking about it I could easily make it my favorite/most influential. It’s amazing to me that the film still feels relevant today, despite largely being a commentary on the times. Modern ennui is alive and well in 2009, but it’s become too easy to flip on the laptop/iplod/blackberry and tune it out. I love how he ties in the apocalyptic imagery (that absurd mushroom Eur tower, the empty spaces in the finale, ending with the “exploding” film, etc) with the inability of a stable, meaningful relationship to form between man and women. I popped the DVD in earlier today and watched a bit; the main shot that stood out to me was when Vittoria and Anita are headed up to Marta’s place. You see a shot of a photograph of an African woman. You think it might be Marta, standing there, but you quickly realize it’s just a picture. There seems to be a lot of this going on with “L’Eclisse”, the subtle interplay between reality, and images that pretend to be reality but are in fact false. Seems appropriate to describe modern detachment; with billboards, tv, etc, so many of the images we internalize in the modern environment are perceived not through our senses directly, but separated by some kind of medium, purporting to be a messenger of the “real”.
Go to Comment
What is the problem with toda's mainstream cinema? over 3 years ago
I’m not sure I buy (haha, a pun) into the idea that funding is the biggest problem with filmmaking today. No doubt it’s an issue, and always has been. But with the advent of DV and now HD, one can get pretty good imagery on the cheap (and technology only gets better/cheaper). Once could bemoan the fact that it’s not 35mm (or even 16), but really, what is it we’re watching here? An artistic creation or a bunch of flickering frames? Fact is, you really don’t need millions of dollars to make a great film if you have talent and drive. Sure, money makes it easier, and let’s you expand your vision, but at the same time, the lack of it can force you to see creative opportunities you might otherwise miss. I take a walk around my city and see a million great locations where one can shoot a film, guerrilla style for no money. You wouldn’t even need a permit (well, maybe legally but…). No, you can’t make “Apocalypse Now” this way, and perhaps there is some merit to the idea which says that sort of filmmaking might be over. But that doesn’t mean you lose the essence of what makes great cinema.
Certainly, some have taken up the task of making films this way (cheaply). The problem I see is with distribution. If you make a masterpiece, how is anybody going to see it, without a stroke of luck (or ingenious marketing)? The next Antonioni or Bresson could be out there, making films, and unless he happens to be our close friend, we won’t know it. Film festivals only go so far, and even then, a lot of good stuff slips through to cracks (in favor of mediocrity). Another issue, maybe most problematic, is that it’s just too damn easy to make a film. There is so much garbage to sift through, finding the good stuff can be a real chore. The cheapness of video creates that kind of drawback. When you are spending money to shoot and process film, it kind of forces you to make it worth your while, and do something good. Still, I think there are more opportunities for more young aspiring auteur’s to pick up a camera and make something interesting. It’s just that if you don’t have the creative spark, nothing interesting is going to happen no matter how much money or energy you pour into your work. I’d say if one was looking for a root cause, that’d be it, IMO.
editI mis-read the title of this thread, so I realize this is supposed to be about Hollywood, but I still think some things I wrote here could apply (ie, lack of a creative spark). I’d say too, maybe it’s not such a bad thing if quality filmmaking comes out of the hands of Hollywood, which is always going to be restrictive creatively and shut a lot of people out of opportunity for no good reason. If people give up that dream (and for most, that’s all it is) once and for all, maybe we can get to work putting a more reasonable alternative in place. What that is however, I have no clue.Go to Comment
What modern films are great? over 3 years ago
I’d consider Michael Mann a great modern director. He appeals to me in a way that other “big names” (Tarantino, Coen Brothers, Aaranofsky, etc) don’t for some reason. His films manage to be poetic without the trickery and pretentiousness, even whilst carrying mainstream themes (ie, cops and robbers).
Aside from that I’d consider “Eyes Wide Shut” and “Dead Man” both as excellent. Same with most Wong Kar Wai or Van Sant. How about Hsiao-hsien Hou? What do people think of him? Some might find him pretentious but I loved “Cafe Lumiere” and “Millennium Mambo”. “Flight of the Red Balloon” was ok.
Go to Comment
What is the problem with toda's mainstream cinema? over 3 years ago
I don’t like mumblecore very much either but I’m not convinced DIY style needs to devolve into that sort of wannabe-Cassavetes, shakey cam style. Perhaps once we get over the novelty of “anybody being able to make a film”, we will stop seeing crap peddled as innovative and people will start focusing on actual good work. It might take some time but then again, in this day and age maybe less than one thinks. I think aoaijea has a good point here; filmmakers need to stop making excuses for why they can’t make something interesting out of their basement, and just start working for the sake of working. So what if you don’t get a premiere? Are people into this for the art or for the fame/recognition? It sometimes feels like 90% care more about the latter. For sure, distribution sucks, but to me that’s not a good reason to prevent something decent from being made. Worry about that bridge when you need to cross it.
I think Richard makes some good points too but I don’t really see the things he describes as bad. In our media saturated world, I think it’s great that we can stop worrying about film being “novel” and instead focus on weather or not it’s “good” (a separate topic in itself). It’s like a huge burden lifted off one’s shoulders. Thank the 60’s and 70’s filmmakers for legitimizing film as an art, and move on.
Go to Comment
If you had to pick ONE film as your favorite... over 3 years ago
“L’Argent” by Bresson. The economy, the sensuality of objects, the interplay between aural/visual, the frame + cut, the color, the locations, the depiction of the tragedy of our times, the commentary on the urban/rural dichotomy, the rigid formality of the characters, etc, etc, etc,. To me this film is the perfect representative of all cinema has to offer. A master at the height of his game, working on autopilot. Too bad this was his last work. Thank god for the Kent Jones monograph on this film, otherwise I’d think I was nuts for considering it the best film of all time. I don’t know why it’s so overlooked. So much better than say “A Man Escaped”, “Diary of a Country Priest” or the donkey film (though I can understand why people like that one, as I can “Mouchette” and “Pickpocket”).
“L’Eclisse”, “Stalker”, “The Bed You Sleep In”, and “Vertigo” are all very close behind, and would round out my top 5.
Go to Comment
Who wants "Stalker" to appear on Criterion? over 3 years ago
there is a lot to say about this film and it’s bigger themes, but I’m too tired to get into that now. Stylistically, I always loved the chromatic shifts; I’ll never forget the feeling of first watching the trolley ride into the zone (great music here) and suddenly being overwhelmed with the lush green colors. It’s a good indicator of how hopeful the characters might be feeling at the time (well, at least Stalker), but in general, the zone is supposed to be a place of hope so the others might have it too. That’s just one example, but there are many other things done here I’ve never seen duplicated anywhere near this level of effectiveness. I think there were 142 cuts in the entire 161 minute film. Lots of directors use long takes but here they flow so smoothly; it’s as if the whole thing was shot in one take alone. The trolley ride for example, was done in five shots, but the smooth fluid movement, the music, the compositions of the faces; it all flows so seamlessly that you’d swear after watching it was just one take. The “real time” effect is quite a contrast with his previous “Mirror”, where a single cut could put you in another era!
I can understand where one might think this film is overly “dense”, especially given some of the dialogue and that crazy ending; but you just need to give yourself over to the experience, and try to feel what the characters are feeling, in order to appreciate this film.
Go to Comment
Which Kurosawa are you? Which cinephile are you? over 3 years ago
@Biberkopf
Kurosawa had a lot of trouble with the studios after “Red Beard”; he was no longer as popular in Japan and felt that he would not get the chance to continue making films; he even attempted suicide at one point. Only when I believe Lucas and Coppola bailed him out did he get “Kagemusha” + eventually “Ran” made. The outlook in those films is particularly brutal, and may have been a reflection of his personal troubles in the 70’s, in which he made only one film (Dersu Uzala, which I’ve yet to see). Aside from that, I think he also just became pre-occupied with the dark side of humanity, and modernity in particular. Even though “Ran” and “Kagemusha” are period pieces, there is a lot of modern commentary in them, most notably the use of guns as a weapon of mass destruction. He practically implies this one invention wiped out the entire Samurai way of life. Efficiency becomes a number one priority, replacing ritual and tradition. That includes efficiency in killing humans to consolidate power. I’ve not seen “Red Beard” in a long while, so I can’t remember if any of these themes were present in that film, though by “Dreams” and “Mayadado” he seemed to have mellowed out a bit. I’m pretty sure he expected “Ran” to be his last film.
Though I’ve yet to see his non-Samurai, pre-70’s films (must remedy that), so I don’t know if something like “I Live in Fear”, “Stray Dog” or “Bad Sleep Well” would carry similar tones. Either way I’d be surprised if they approached the brutality of “Ran”.
Go to Comment
I have lost faith in the majority of the younger generation. over 3 years ago
I don’t know. I’m 25. I still don’t really give a sh*t about anything. But I can (and always have) been able to appreciate great film. I’d say not so much in spite of not giving a sh*t, but rather because of it. It gives me something to care about beyond mundane pointlessness of daily existence, hormones or not. A bigger issue for me when young, was that I simply didn’t have enough exposure to what made film great art, and not mere entertainment. A lot has changed in the past 10-12 years, for better and worse. The internet is now mainstream, opening a whirlwind of info. Too much info, likely. It’d be hard not to drown in it all if you don’t get some focus, someone or thing to guide you to the good stuff. I don’t know where younger people are going to get that. I had a creative writing teacher help me out here immensely when I was 17.
Go to Comment
If this forum prohibited lists, would there be any forum? over 3 years ago
they toss films and directors out there to discuss? They spur debate? I feel lists by themselves are kind of boring, but when accompanied with some kind of explanation as to why one picks what to include, they can be interesting.
Go to Comment
Who wants "Stalker" to appear on Criterion? over 3 years ago
just as a counter to all the “yes” answers (really, who doesn’t want all Tarkovsky on Criterion?), it’s worth noting that at least we have alternatives with the Kino disc (I have the Image/Rucisco disc btw; is this the same thing?). Personally I’d rather see Criterion do films that have no reasonable R1 options and desperately need them, such as “Red Desert”, “2 or 3 Things I Know About Her” or Tarkovsky’s “Nostaghia” (though this has always been one of my least favorites of his, for some reason). Stalker would be great, but it’s a luxury.
Go to Comment
New Yorker Films shuts down over 3 years ago
I wonder if there is any chance Criterion will pick up the rights to some of the Bresson I believe in on New Yorker, mainly the later color stuff (which contrary to most people, is my favorite). The Devil Probably, A Gentle Woman, Lancelot du Lac, maybe even L’Argent (although yes, the NY’er disc is good). Last I remember they’ve got some other stuff by great filmmakers (Oshima, Marker, etc) that wasn’t going to DVD. Yes this is sh*tty news but I feel NY’er had a tendancy to let films sit in the vault so maybe there is a silver lining. Somewhere…
Go to Comment
New Yorker Films shuts down over 3 years ago
ditto on “Cruel Story of Youth” and “Devil, Probably”. Same goes for “Gentle Woman”. I’m strange in that I think Bresson’s best work was his later, color, urban modern stuff. His style just worked so well in that setting. Aside from that “Devil” is one of the great all time films about nihilism, IMO. Very underrated. As for CSOY, it’s the Japanese “Rebel Without a Cause” and it’s truly a “Cruel Story” that it does not exist on dvd. ;p
I’d cry for Burnett but he’s become such a martyr for the problems of art film in America, I just can’t bring myself to add any more tears. Great filmmaker though.
Go to Comment
New Yorker Films shuts down over 3 years ago
I don’t really know anything about Burnett, I doubt he’s milking anything; his name just seems to come up a lot in academic type film circles when one talks about forgotten American art filmmakers. I’m guessing it’s a combination of “Killer Sheep” being selected for preservation in the library of congress, issues of music rights, and the fact that he’s black and makes films about the black American experience that are nothing like say, Spike Lee. He just seems to make a great talking point for intellectuals; a symbol for all that’s wrong with art film and it’s distribution in the US, which tends to overshadow his actual work as a filmmaker. Though I’ve only seen “Sheep” and “To Sleep With Anger”, both which were very good, but probably not great. It is sad that he doesn’t get more recognition though.
In the case of Bresson, color helps a lot with the austerity, and he’s very adept at keeping it muted a bit, and not too distracting or garish. But I think it’s the modern environment of the city that’s what really makes his films come alive. Traffic, footsteps on pavement and marble, cash registers, etc. Something about the modern environment really comes alive with Bresson, especially with the way he uses sound. I like the older, b+w period pieces as well but they are almost not comparable, like watching two different filmmakers; yet both are unmistakably “Bressonian”.
Go to Comment
on South Park over 3 years ago
I’ve only seen a handful of episodes, but based on those, I’d say the show is mildly amusing. I get kind of annoyed by some of the social satire. It’s hard to put my finger on what it is; it’s too cheezy moralistic or something. That’s better than being stupid for stupid’s sake like some other popular cartoons (ie, Family Guy), but I get this “middle/upper-middle class, sorta left-of-center-but-not-too-serious-about-anything” vibe that drives me nuts. A lot like the “Daily Show”. I’m guessing the idea being that if you mock society in a funny but serious way, it validates you as being somebody who is “aware” of the problems, but not getting bent out of shape by them. Sounds good and reasonable, but what doesn’t get considered is that this form of mocking may in fact be part of the problem. A big part. Irony, I believe is what you would call it.
that said, the Scientology episode was hilarious. And Disintegration is the best album ever.
Go to Comment
FAVOURITE DOWNBEAT ENDING over 3 years ago
we’ve got “Brazil” but I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned “12 Monkeys/La Jatee”… That one is hard to top. I suppose “Vertigo” ties into it. In some ways so does “Brown Bunny” (more distantly).
anyway, others I don’t believe mentioned yet;
L’Argent / Mouchette / Pickpocket (Bresson was the master of downbeat endings)
Winter Light / Shame (Bergman wasn’t so bad either)
The Bed You Sleep In / Last Chants for a Slow Dance / Slow Moves (Jost)
My Own Private Idaho
La Notte
Ran
Dust in the Wind (Hou)
Thief
Ugetsu
Faces
I think if I had to chose one though, probably “Vertigo”.
Go to Comment
Eyes Wide Shut over 3 years ago
so whose place is it? Parents don’t own their kids. Contrary to popular belief, children are autonomous beings capable of making decisions on their own. Even at age 15. Maybe especially at age 15.
anyway, am I the only one who sees EWS being about WAY more than sex, or male-female relations? But rather more a general commentary on “elite” groups in society, conspiracies, etc? The blurring of lines between one who maybe can enter this “elite” (kidman) and one who, despite gaining success in a conventional manner, cannot cross over (Cruise)? The orgy scene really is one of the least memorable things about it, aside from the whole elite ritual aspect. Or maybe it’s just a commentary on paranoia and how it sometimes turns out to be real. Either way, a very well constructed film. One of my favorites, and I don’t even really like Kubrick very much.
Go to Comment
Eyes Wide Shut over 3 years ago
lol; mind you there is nothing abnormal about Justin + our day care services, other than the fact we’re being honest. We’re just gonna mind our own business and let ‘em surf the internet. Don’t worry though, we won’t let any child predators in the front door.
srsly, for most of human history 15 years was considered well into adult hood. If a key component of the industrial age was to extend our childhood well beyond what’s reasonable simply cause we have no practical use for young people otherwise; I have to question the age’s merits. I can’t speak for others but I was ready to tackle the “big” issues of life at age 12 at the latest. Somewhere in between 10-12 innocence was destroyed. I don’t find that to be very unique. If anything, kids these days are becoming desensitized even quicker (again, thanks internet + technology). Chances are, by the time they are 17 some of them have participated in more graphic stuff than the EWS orgy sex scene. Maybe nothing so weird, but you catch my drift.
Go to Comment
Eyes Wide Shut over 3 years ago
well call me an idealist (which is funny cause I’m really nothing of the sort) but I don’t see why you can’t have both; ie, treat 12 year olds more like adults and still be civilized. Obviously you wouldn’t treat them the same as say, a 17 year old, or a 24 or 30 year old, but to drag out childhood in spite of physical maturity creates a disconnect. Kids are not stupid; they pick up on this kind of thing, and it feels wrong. But while they may not be stupid, they do tend to lack wisdom and as a result act out in ways that make them appear very dumb. Obviously this needs to be considered. The solution though, is not to “shelter” them, or put them in a holding pattern for 12 years before they are allowed to insert themselves into the economy and “make themselves useful”. You’re just making them idle for the very years they are most seeming with energy; and you know what they say about idle hands…
bottom line is, we need to make teenagers feel as if they are more than a pesky annoyance, an overgrown child. In plush economic times (which is what we’ve had since ww2, relatively speaking) it’s not so bad, but one just needs to look to poor, inner city areas where teenage gangs run amok, to see the potential problems of having no clear, immediate path to adulthood.
While I don’t have the master plan, I’m fairly certain that thinking 15 year olds shouldn’t be watching “Eyes Wide Shut” because they aren’t “ready” is going to be counter productive. Of course, not everyone is the same. Your mileage may vary.
as for Justin, I don’t know if what he experienced is the best way, but he seemed to turn out ok. ;p
Go to Comment
Ever bought a dvd then realized you already owned it? over 3 years ago
haha no. I’ve gotten films I already owned as gifts, but I’m sure that’s quite common. Worst thing that happens to me is that I see a film for cheap and snatch it up without realizing it’s pan+scan (aka, drink coaster or wall decoration). I did that with “Manhunter”, thankfully not one of my favorite films.
Go to Comment
Massachusetts Court over 3 years ago
yes, I’ve seen it. Don’t remember it too well. Honestly, I’m not a big fan of Wiseman. I believe his strategy is that you can just point the camera at something long enough, and eventually people will forget that it’s there and revert to their normal behaviors (no matter how depraved) and thus you will have achieved some kind of cinematic “truth”, Maybe he’s right here, but I really don’t glean much “truth” from his work. Aside from that, he complicates things with his editing (how can editing be truth?). He may have some decent theories but I find his work a lot more boring than you’d think it’d be, considering the strange stuff he sometimes manages to capture. All I really remember from “Titicut” was when they were shaving one of the patient’s face very fast and somewhat violently. He bled quite a bit afterword but did not seem perturbed. That scene stuck with me.
What does this have to do with the MA courts?
Go to Comment
Music for your film over 3 years ago
thanks for the heads up. This is an excellent idea and it’s good to see a popular artist thinking of us independents. Some well placed music can make a world of difference. Though I’d caution film artist not to get too dependent on it; I believe Bresson once said music was a lot like alcohol in the way it can modify film reality. But hey, nothing wrong with a couple of drinks here and there.
Go to Comment
Metropolis or Blade Runner. over 3 years ago
kind of odd to compare a film from the 20’s to one from the 80’s. Maybe that’s the point? This isn’t father/son, more like grandfather/grandson. A young man on the cusp of adulthood vs. an old man. Sound like a fair fight? Even taking each on it’s own terms, it’s just an off comparison. As another poster mentions above, Metropolis can seem kind of silly in contrast to Blade Runner’s noir (again, maybe the point?). “M” would be far more appropriate. Better yet would be Godard’s “Alphaville”.
Go to Comment
Massachusetts Court over 3 years ago
I think in the case of Wiseman you sorta have to be a bit crafty with editing; otherwise his stuff would be a total mess. That’s where the limitations of verite style filmmaking becomes apparent. The idea that the subject has some sort of autonomy is a kind of egalitarian myth; the documentation is always controlling things when you get right down to it. Even if you don’t move the camera, there are just too many editing tricks up one’s sleeve to employ later on, long after the subject has left the building. I suppose the best one could hope is to just place the camera and let it roll, almost surveillance style, but that tends not to lend itself to very interesting footage. As for what Wiseman did that I found “tricky”, I remember one shot from “High School” where he showed the principal looking through a window, then a close up shot of girl’s asses in their gym clothes, making the guy look like a perv. Actually, that’s more blatant than tricky, but it’s Wiseman planting his unmistakable stamp on the so called “verite” footage. Who knows, maybe the principal was a perv, but the editing “confirms” it cinematically, irregardless of the truth. I wish I could recall more subtle examples from his work but documentary class in college was a long time ago, and the subtly is part of the deceptiveness! From what I remember, everything was specifically cut together to give a highly critical view of “institutions” (schools, nut houses, etc); painting them as corrupt from the top down. Granted, the authorities he was being critical of unknowingly helped him out a lot, but it just didn’t seem all that enlightening. I don’t know, maybe I’ve spent too much time inside messed up high schools and mental hospitals as the “sane” one that nobody listened to. ha.
The other thing is that I found his work exploitative, which never really sits well with me. I’ve never seen “Friedman’s” but got the feeling I would dislike it for similar reasons based on what I’d heard about it. Something about airing one’s problems in a manner that puts us the viewer in a “superior” position of “normalcy” or “judgment”, just seems in really bad taste. Like gawking at somebody whose been mangled in a car wreck. But that’s just me…
I will agree with you on Morris. There is no pretense about “objectivity” with him, nor do I get the feeling he coerces anything out of his subjects, but I could be wrong.
Go to Comment