So this gives you a couple months more to think about it, and hopefully to give more time for other vocations to join in. Sorry for the inconvenience this postponed date may cause. Please tell your friends about the blogathon and its new date.
Blogathons schedule :
- Monday, 16 October: Robert Aldrich Blogathon (Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule)
- Friday, 20 October : Theories/Practices of Blogging (Reconstruction)
- Monday, 30 October: Vampires Blogathon (Film Experience)
- Wednesday, 15 November: Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon (The Film Vituperatem)
- Friday, 24 November: Forrest J. Ackerman Blogathon (Flickhead)
- Friday, 1 December: Film Criticism Blogathon (No More Marriages!)
- Monday, 8 January 2007 : Contemplative Cinema Blogathon (Screenville)
See you all there!
19 commentaires:
I shall do my part to spread the word.
Thanks Andy. So is it a better date now?
Of all of the upcoming blog-a-thons, yours is the one I'm least prepared for. So I'm glad to have more time to work on it. I say: yes, it is a better date!
More time to think... It's always a bit liberating to know that your dead line is not until...next year. :)
Now, I found a nice introductory piece on the Virginia Film Festival, called "Fast Cuts, Slow Views", which can only be read through Google, though:
http://www.google.bg/search?hl=bg&q=%22Fast+Cuts%2C+Slow+Views%22&meta=
Hope you find it useful. The paralel drawn between cinema and literature is interesting. When, earlier, I suggested contemplative critism, I wasn't fully aware of what I meant - should we limit it to style - poetic as Alessandro Baricco's "novels", or should it rest on radically different principles than ordinary critism?
I've been thinking about it and will soon post on the issue , hoping to facilitate the process of blogging later...next year. Or should I leave the notes for the actual blog-a-thon?
Note: all "critism" should be read "criticism"! :)
Of all the next blogathons, it's yours, Andy, I feel the most comfortable writing on, because it's my main concern. But I still don't know what subject to pick...
Marina,
You are free to do everything you like. If you want to write more than one post, you are welcome to do so. And if you want to post a preparation text I will link to it here, so we can all think about it until january.
I don't know Baricco, and I can't imagine yet what "contemplative criticism" would look like, but i'll have to think about it. I find it a great idea.
The thing is that conventional reviews are based on synopsis description, plothole arguments and star performances... all this is irrelevant in contemplative cinema, so how could we summarize and review a film that doesn't express itself through words or textual plot points? Contemplative films develop in the long run, with intangible things like pace and duration, timing and absence, atmosphere and mood. And when put into words these aspects are not giving justice to the actual experience of the subtle film construction.
Mainstream cinema is patterned after literature and theatre so a verbal criticism easily capture the verbal construction in the movie. And in fact there is nothing else than verbality to talk about in these narrative movies.
But with visual-based films, there is a technical barrier between the film and its verbal description. Not just that it's impossible to write on visual language, but it is a whole different approach, so we can't use the same old codes of classic criticism. It's conventional criticism that makes contemplative cinema sound boring, because it is unable to reach the worthy essence of the film.
I can't read the text you linked to... (the google page is in cyrilic!) is it the cache or the PDF file?
Yes, I'm sorry. Here's the link in English (yes, view it cached):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Fast+Cuts%2C+Slow+Views%22&btnG=Google+Search
Also, Jim Emerson's post on Paul Schrader (http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2006/09/loose_canon_paul_schrader_and.html#more) touches this subject.
"The thing is that conventional reviews are based on synopsis description, plothole arguments and star performances... all this is irrelevant in contemplative cinema, so how could we summarize and review a film that doesn't express itself through words or textual plot points?"
That's the beauty of the chance we get. The dominating 'language' in contemplative cinema is not the dia/monologue, the verbal, the narrative; it's the cinematic, image. So, as in the opening shot project, one way to approaching the critique is by using images - remember what Chris Fujiwara did with 'The Wayward Cloud' for Undercurrent. Thus, part of the loss in translation [image-word] is if not kept, then at least placed at the reader's/viewer's disposal. The critic extracts the corner-stone images (in his opinion) and draws connections between them, thus inevitably discussing aesthetics of the camera, significance of the acting and the film, etc. It's like filling in the gaps but critically (with the conscience of a critic/using conventional criticism form)!
Another way, is to transform "conventional criticism" into something more near and dear to literature. You could fill in the gaps again but with 'stories'/with moves and looks/gasps and hidden, unspoken even, words. You could take to long shots (that you find important) and colour them with visible meaning. Illustrate them with texture. You could form your criticism narratively, as a story: your characters - the actors (describe them, how they move, what they feel...), your fairy-land - the setting (how does it look visually, is it surreal, is it dream-like, how does it change in time - camera angles), your narrative - what you get out of the silence between the shots. I'm often quite sceptical towards reading a review of contemplative film. What can they say - explain about the wide lens, about the magnificent cinematography? It's all about the inner space, inner-time. The silence is hiding shouts. It's about finding that self-hidden world. And these films are hiding billions of them...
As seen in the previous approaches, I believe that contemplative criticism shouldn't focus on the contemplated visual beauty but the beauty we see after the process of contemplation.
"But with visual-based films, there is a technical barrier between the film and its verbal description. Not just that it's impossible to write on visual language, but it is a whole different approach, so we can't use the same old codes of classic criticism. It's conventional criticism that makes contemplative cinema sound boring, because it is unable to reach the worthy essence of the film."
Perfectly said! There's a barrier. So, should criticism break that barrier and denude cinema in front of its viewers? Or should it embrace the most visual of all literature methods - the poetic? That doesn't mean wrting a poem, no. That means to organize a text that matches the film's rhythm and pace. Thus, by reconstructing the visual flow (through the rhythm of the words), your actual text could concentrate on...well, the gaps. :)
Out of the old codes, the new ones are created. So, yes, we should bare them in mind, but we must mutate, twist and stretch them a little. Make them appliable. There should be an evaluation - but who said it should be straight-forwardly presented? Contemplative cinema is calmly fighting against [or rather nobly ignoring] the 'entertainment-speed-and-narrative-driven' cinema. It demands an active viewer! The one who is able to 'draw', to live in his head! Who strives thought! Why not adopt such an approach towards criticism? One that by evaluating, questions through its form, style. One that by translating the 'gaps' of a film into verbal speech, creates a second 'verbal film' - the gaps of the text. Conventional criticism should only be re-imagined and re-constructed. Written with different lens and through various angles.
I plan to take a film - Angelopoulos' "The Weeping Meadow" if noone will write about it? - and write variations on the listed ways of contemplative criticism. Not sure if it will work out, but it's nice to try. :)
Ok I got the page now, here are the direct links:
Fast Cuts, Slow Views
by Richard Herskowitz (from Virginia Film Festival www.vafilm.com)
Loose Canon: Paul Schrader and the end of movies
by Jim Emerson (Scanners)
Great ideas there Marina! Leave me some time to post my comments.
First contribution at Jahsonic:
of boredom and interestingness
Sorry for the late reply, I didn't get time to read all this until now.
This essay "Fast Cuts, Slow Views" is spot on! I need to find the text of Michel Ciment referenced as "The State of Cinema", I wonder if it was an article in Positif because I can't find any book to that name.
The comment on ASL (average shot length) is also discussed by Bordwell on his blog and at Scanners
The Opening Shot Project (at Scanners) exercice extended to the whole film (with synthesis) would do more justice to the work put in a contemplative film by the filmmaker than the classic reviewing does.
Fujiwara's "round & flat" does open a new dimension in the film (intellectual instead of narrative) for the viewing experience of the reader.
Regarding literature in criticism, I'm always worried about the tendency to overdo wordsmith (literature) to the detriment of content (actual critical thinking), but apart from that, poetry (and film form analysis) could definitely help to translate "visual language".
Reviews of contemplative films, like you say, seem to always revolve around the same generic terms "wordlessness", "silence", "pacing" with assorted adjectives and that will be it. Past a certain degree of "non-narrativeness", review words make them all sound alike. And we never get past this limitation, to define further, how silent, how slow, how empty they are... the richness and diversity of these gaps (both in the film and in the reviews).
The "active viewer" you mention, is the one we should have in mind when writing a review that addresses an "active reader", one who can connect the dots, invest the gaps and read the visual language implied between the textual lines of the review.
I didn't see The Weeping Meadow. I heard it's the right kind of material we are talking about here. I'm looking forward to your exercices of "contemplative criticism"!
Re: Michel Ciment
That's a speech he seemed to pronounce during the 2004 SFFF. More here, as well as the google cache of the text, which I can't open...:( - http://ari.typepad.com/tiger/travel/index.html
Also, just to point out to these interviews - http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/interview.html
One of the most "contemplative" directors in a conversation with the Positif director...:)
Just quick notes.
Tonight I'll post the introductory post towards [trying to] understanding contemplative cinema and will also try to put some order in this chaos of scrappy thoughts.
"Reviews of contemplative films, like you say, seem to always revolve around the same generic terms "wordlessness", "silence", "pacing" with assorted adjectives and that will be it. Past a certain degree of "non-narrativeness", review words make them all sound alike."
Yes, actually, how can you write a "wordless" review? In the meaning of slowness... How do you put into words the pace of time? The question, then, maybe is not how but what words do you use? Slow pace = [almost] verb-less review? Medium pace = simple sentences with a constant rhythm /simple verbs, conveying rapid single movements/?
I didn't even know Michel Ciment was over there, I only heard about Tilda Swinton's address. Thanks for the help, I found it at the internet archive:
Michel Ciment State of Cinema SFIFF 2004
Yes Kubrick is indeed very contemplative, but I'd really like this blogathon to focus on non-narrative film (no genre code, no suspense, no cue, no psychology, no melodrama), from the recent generation (filmmakers working now outside of current conventions). So this is after modernism (Bergman, Antonioni, Ozu, Dreyer, Bresson, Tarkovsky) even though their cinema is definitely contemplative (but they have been discussed extensively already), but not to the extent and scope we see happening now (Tarr, Reygadas, Weerasethakul...)
I don't think a contemplative criticism should necessarily be literaly "wordless". It's less a matter of imitation of the form than an adequation of atmosphere. The review could be very verbal and overstating, but describing an atmosphere rather than plot points, psychology arc and conflict resolution (which are theatrical).
Your suggestion of verb-less review is intersting because it's what I tried (although my writing skills in English are poor) in my review of Fantasma:
"A succession of long plan sequence, immobile or moving really slowly. Characters err along the neon-lit corridors, stairs and elevators. Nobody notices. Endless accumulation of levels and rooms. Marble walls. Carpet. Cement. Steel doors. Distant camera dwarfing onscreen people by the huge scale of the building. Silence."
I like your introductory post: What is contemplative cinema?
Actually, if you already want to start the discussion, maybe we could open the "collective event-blog" already, in preparation of the blogathon, and we'll be joined by others who want to outline the subject.
Very inspirational speech... Quite fascinating. :) Thanks for the link!!
So, you mean linear films? Films with monotonous development? Non-narrative, yes, but this lessens the choice a bit... I mean, aren't Kar-wai, Angelopoulos, Jarmusch all narrative filmmakers? Visual and poetic above all, but narrative too... There's melodrama in Kar-wai, not the typical one - but just as romantic and nostalgic.
I haven't watched the films of most of the directors on that list and will try to catch up until next year. :) A suggestion...Kim Ki-duk? Narrative, but contemplative, very much...
"I don't think a contemplative criticism should necessarily be literaly "wordless". It's less a matter of imitation of the form than an adequation of atmosphere."
Exactly! I really like this idea - of representing, writing an atmosphere. What I meant - probably - is that after reading such a "wordless" review, the reader should be left with the sense of the film [its tone, poetics, rhythm] and not a clear outline of a plot or characteristics of an actor. A contemplative film triggers the mind through images - through details or compositions of details and images. A contemplative review, as well as setting out an atmosphere, could - just as you magnificently did with Fantasma - bring out certain images/details that have provoked the reviewer's imagination/thought. These literal fragments - "marble walls", "carpet", "cement", "steel doors" - are important. Of course, the reader is aware that these aren't the only details in the frames but that's the essential/distinguished/productive.
"Actually, if you already want to start the discussion, maybe we could open the "collective event-blog" already, in preparation of the blogathon, and we'll be joined by others who want to outline the subject."
Yes, it would be thrilling to provoke a varied discussion and very helpful... I closed the post with a final paragraph so that it at least looks finished, but will certainly have more to add later on.
I don't want to impose my personal definition of "contemplative cinema", but i'm just trying to limit the scope so we all talk about the same thing. Actually it will be very interesting to read every participant's own interpretation and perception.
So you are free to include whichever film you want.
According to me (which is not autoritative, even if i'm the host), the question is whether the drama drives the film, or if the film is a passive witness of an incidental drama happening in and off the frame.
Rather than excluding such or such auteur, we should address the contemplation in their films as either a "contemplative narration", or a "non-narrative contemplation". So these are already 2 subgroups we could define.
The linearity is a good question. Non-linearity implies a formal gimmick that would supercedes the inner development of a contemplative atmosphere. So most contemplative narrations are linear (from my experience), but there will be lots of exceptions (eg. Tropical Malady, or Three Times).
re: Fantasma
Actually Alonso does static close ups of empty frames filled with these elements. That's why I used one word by sentence. Not because it's all I take from the frame but because the frame isolates this element purposely.
Ok the event-blog is opened : unspoken cinema. (is the name ok?)
I've invited everyone who notified their interest in participating to the blogathon, to become member of this group blog. And from there we'll organize ourselves.
"the question is whether the drama drives the film, or if the film is a passive witness of an incidental drama happening in and off the frame."
This would probably be the best guiding landmark. It seems that most contemplative films are "passive witnesses" (which is implied in their observant nature) and it would be interesting to speculate on the incidentallity of their dramatic plot. Or in other words, to what extent is the narrativity happening in the frame more important [essential to the film] than the one happening off the frame? Is it important to simply witness the in-drama or should we also imagine the out-drama? Or, is the in-drama incidentally "in" and could it just as well be "off"/"out"?
When I was talking about grouping contemplative cinema in terms of perception, it seemed most natural and close to its atmosphere. Thus, new conclusions can be made, concerning the role of music and its relation to narrativity. What I conceived was that usually contemplation - as an outside process - needs a stimuli in order to keep the attention of the contemplator. That stimuli is music and narrativity, which can be weaved into the film's visuality. Thus, the attention is boosted by the inducement, which undivided and completely devoted attention makes the mind penetrating and active. Of course, the images are too "generalising" and "simplified" in order to be engrossed to the state of being no more a contemplator but an experiencer. In fact, the linearity - or successive events - of the plot suggest that we observe as opposed to a non-linear plot - simultanious and overfilled with narration that would draw as in. The first is calm, the second -dynamic. So, yes, these subgroups are perfect as a starting-point.
As for, Fantasma, ok. :) Haven't seen it but sounds wonderful and the fact that the objects are purposely isolated doen't lessen the impact of the review.
Oh, the name is beautiful!
Marina, did you save the text by Richard Herskowitz "Fast Cuts, Slow Views"? It's no longer cached online, and I can't find it on the Web Archive. We should archive it on the unspoken cinema blog for keeps.
Damn, I didn't! It was a fine text!
I guess, we can only wait now... It may come back.
Thanks for your nice comments on this piece. It's archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20060317221927/http://www.vafilm.com/2004/Intro.html
Thanks a lot. Like Marina said : "it may come back" ;)
Why was it taken down in the first place? Isn't the purpose of the internet to keep previous editions as available as the new editions?
Do you mind if I publish a copy at the Unspoken Cinema blog?
Enregistrer un commentaire