Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Ironic. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Ironic. Afficher tous les articles

11 mai 2026

Apocalypse Now un film colonial ? (Corentin Lê)

 

APOCALYPSE NOW UN FILM COLONIAL ? Avec Corentin Lê de la revue Emitaï (YouTube) 1h02'
(Parole d'Honneur) 6 mai 2026

"Retrouvez les articles et podcast de la revue emitaï ici : https://emitai.fr/

Lors de notre dernier cine club nous avons projeté APOCALYPSE NOW de Francis Ford Coppola suivis de WE WERE THE SCENERY de Christopher Radcliff : double projection pour un double de regard sur la guerre du Viêtnam, suivi d’un échange avec Corentin Lê d’Emitaï, revue de cinéma critique et décoloniale.

La cinéphilie occidentale nous entraîne-t-elle à célébrer le chaos psychédélique au détriment de nos luttes, de nos histoires, de nos désastres ? APOCALYPSE NOW n’est-il au fond qu’une opération de diversion, une vaste enfumade à l’odeur de napalm ? À la projection du film culte de Francis Ford Coppola succèdera celle d’un court-métrage signé Christopher Radcliff, WE WERE THE SCENERY, geste de démystification et de recentrement qui invite à se mettre enfin à l’écoute des murmures de la diaspora. On y verra dans quelle mesure une perspective décoloniale pourrait tenir tête à l’un des plus grands monuments cinématographiques de l’Empire, celui-là même qui continue, en Iran et ailleurs, à répandre ses flammes."



03 février 2026

Attention-span Limits in Film Students (The Atlantic)

"Everyone knows it’s hard to get college students to do the reading—remember books? But the attention-span crisis is not limited to the written word. Professors are now finding that they can’t even get film students—film students—to sit through movies. “I used to think, If homework is watching a movie, that is the best homework ever,” Craig Erpelding, a film professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told me. “But students will not do it.”

I heard similar observations from 20 film-studies professors around the country. They told me that over the past decade, and particularly since the pandemic, students have struggled to pay attention to feature-length films." 

The Film Students Who Can No Longer Sit Through Films. The attention-span crisis goes to the movies.
By Rose Horowitch (January 30th 2026; The Atlantic)

08 mars 2013

LA cinephilia (hoax?)

In Cahiers (Feb 2013), Aurélie Godet interviews 2 arthouse owners ( and asks Angelinos if they are present and whether they are going to support their arthouse circuit. Finally!
  • Hadrian Belove (Cinefamily)
  • Greg Laemmle (Noho 7, Le Royal...)
Source : L’art et essai existe-t-il à Los Angeles? (Aurélie Godet; Cahiers du cinéma; février 2013; n°686)


In the greater Los Angeles, she reports, there are 2200 screens (and only 5% of them show arthouse films, American or Foreign), essentially located in West Hollywood, neglecting East LA completely. San Fransisco, Portland, Boston, Austin are supposedly more cinephile-friendly than the WORLD'S CAPITAL OF MOVIES itself... 
The guys pretend that it is too expensive to release a film theatrically (cost of advertising), and that it's not worth it to invest in brick-n-mortar arthouses (again too expensive)... Well, the USA is not only the richest nation on Earth, but Hollywood also happens to be the movie industry that makes the most money in the world. So how exactly can you complain about the cost of cinema exhibition? Think about all the countries that do not enjoy the kind of wealth, money flow, captive moviegoing audience, widest exhibition infrastructure... Yeah, they still commit to indie and foreign films more than the USA does! (See: Shut-in "Cinephiles" (USA) 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13) How hard could it be?

I tell you what... *IF* the costs are really unbearable because cinephiles in LA are (way) below the sufficient critical mass, nothing stops you from being a bit ingenious and ressourceful, organise yourself online, create a network of "indie distribution" outside of the official channels of information. Today being visible and actively supported on social media is much more important and efficient than to pay for TV ads that nobody watch... (By the way, TV ads for movies is forbidden by law in France, to avoid the richest studios from cluttering the air time while leaving out the small distributors who can't afford it, and take a look at it yourself... IT WORKS FINE!!! In fact, challenging cinema is DOING BETTER than in the USA. Learn from it!)
It doesn't cost ANYHTING to spread the word of mouth/mouse within a motivated/deprived community of cinephiles desperately waiting for films to come out on USA screens. Rent screens in multiplex and rendez-vous a flash mob every week to watch an undistributed film together. And grow from there. The demand is anemic... but if you never start to build a certain sophisticated culture, to educate the general taste, to offer alternatives... it will never happen spontaneously. Because people are lazy, and it's too easy and complacent to fall back on comfort movies and effortless entertainment which is vastly abundant in Hollywood especially.


Emmanuel Bonin has more to contribute at Le même cinéma tous les soirs (15 Feb 2013)



* * *


Steven Soderbergh on his early retirement from cinema directing :
"It’s a combination of wanting a change personally and of feeling like I’ve hit a wall in my development that I don’t know how to break through. The tyranny of narrative is beginning to frustrate me, or at least narrative as we’re currently defining it. I’m convinced there’s a new grammar out there somewhere. But that could just be my form of theism. [..] If I’m going to solve this issue, it means annihilating everything that came before and starting from scratch. That means I have to go away, and I don’t know how long it’s going to take. And I also know you can’t force it. I love and respect filmmaking too much to continue to do it while feeling I’m running in place. That’s not a good feeling. [..]
I remember describing making movies as a form of seduction and that people should look at it as though they’re being approached at a bar. My whole thing is, when somebody comes up to you at a bar, what behavior is appealing to you? And there are certain things that I’m not willing to do to get a reaction. [..]
It’s not pandering so much as being obvious. Do you want to hang out with someone who has the most obvious reaction to everything that happens? That’sboring! And when I see a movie that’s doing the obvious thing all the time, it’s frustrating. [..]
The thing I also see a lot of is multiple endings—I feel like movies end like five times now! I remember being very conscious of the Lord of the Rings movies having a lot of endings. But I wonder if the audience has come to expect them. Music has become another of the most abused aspects of filmmaking. I’m mystified by the direction scores have taken in the last ten years. It’s wall-to-wall—it’s the movie equivalent of the vuvuzelas from the last World Cup! I don’t understand it at all. For me, it’s ideal when you can get the music to do something that everything else isn’t doing. [..]
The worst development in filmmaking—particularly in the last five years—is how badly directors are treated. It’s become absolutely horrible the way the people with the money decide they can fart in the kitchen, to put it bluntly. It’s not just studios—it’s anyone who is ­financing a film. I guess I don’t understand the assumption that the director is presumptively wrong about what the audience wants or needs when they are the first audience, in a way. And probably got into making movies ­because of being in that audience.
[..] I remember during previews how upset the audience was by the Jude Law character [in Contagion]. The fact that he created a sort of mixed reaction was viewed as a flaw in the filmmaking. Not, “Oh, that’s interesting, I’m not sure if this guy is an asshole or a hero.” People were really annoyed by that. And I thought, Wow, so ambiguity is not on the table anymore. They were angry."
On watching movies in theatres :
"It’s strange because you’d think there would be a lot of good theaters in Manhattan, but there aren’t. There are a couple, but in general it’s not fun to go out to movies here."
On the rebooting of the "American indie" film scene, like at the time of Sex, Lies and Videotapes :
"It would be hard because movies cost so much to market. I’m encouraged by Video on Demand, which is a very promising distribution method. But it’s much harder for filmmakers now. You’re sort of expected to emerge full-blown. That’s rare. Some people do, but I didn’t. Like I said, you can’t make five films in a row that nobody sees. You’d be in movie jail. I feel really lucky that I got to make the mistakes I made and still get to do Out of Sight."
On Candelabra being funded by TV (HBO) and not released theatrically in the USA (it will be released theatrically in Europe though!)  :
"[..] After Warner Bros. put it in turnaround, we showed it to every studio in town. No one wanted it, even though we only needed $5 million. [..] But HBO was immediately into it, and the experience was great from beginning to end. [..]
It’s true that when I was growing up, there was a sort of division: Respect was accorded to people who made great movies and to people who made movies that made a lot of money. And that division just doesn’t exist anymore: Now it’s just the people who make a lot of money. I think there are many reasons for that. Some of them are cultural. I’ve said before, I think that the audience for the kinds of movies I grew up liking has migrated to television. The format really allows for the narrow and deep approach that I like, and a lot of people … Well, the point is, three and a half million people watching a show on cable is a success. That many people seeing a movie is not a success. I just don’t think movies matter as much anymore, culturally."
Source : In Conversation : Steven Soderbergh (Mary Kaye Schilling; Vulture; 27 January 2013) 


* * *

In this week’s episode, A. O. Scott and David Carr talk about the ups and downs of experiencing films inside a theater … enjoy the popcorn, mind your manners and please share the armrest.
The Sweet Spot : Let's go to the Movies (AO Scott; David Carr; The New York Times; 8 March 2013)


* * *



Leos Carax refuses the LAFCA award for "Best Foreign-Language Film" and send this no-thank-you note :
"Bonjour, je suis Leos Carax, réalisateur de films en langue étrangère. J'ai fait des films en langue étrangère toute ma vie. Des films en langue étrangère sont fabriqués partout à travers le monde à l'exception, bien sûr, des Etats-Unis. Aux Etats-Unis, ils ne font que des films en langue non-étrangère. Les films en langue étrangère sont difficiles à faire, car vous devez inventer une langue étrangère au lieu d'utiliser votre langue habituelle. Mais la vérité, c'est que le cinéma est une langue étrangère, une langue créée pour ceux qui ont besoin de voyager de l'autre côté de la vie. Bonne nuit."
"Hello, I'm Leos Carax, director of foreign-language films. I've been making foreign-language films my whole life. Foreign-language films are made all over the world, of course, except in America. In America, they only make non-foreign-language films. Foreign-language films are very hard to make, obviously, because you have to invent a foreign language instead of using the usual language. But the truth is, cinema is a foreign language, a language created for those who need to travel to the other side of life. Good night." :D


* * *



Related :


07 mars 2013

Perpetual Mash-up (Cyriak)

Bonobo : Cirrus (video by Cyriak; 4 Feb 2013) 3'23"

17 février 2013

Prospective Cinema Forms (Greenaway)

Nov 2010 (UC Berkeley) 1h30'
Filmmaker Peter Greenaway looks at cinema language, and his contention that cinema is dead or evolving. He shows many examples from his own avantgarde cinematographic imagery. Series: Doreen B. Townsend Center for the Humanities


Peter Greenaway: "Nine Classic Paintings Revisited"
2010 (UC Berkeley) 1h29'
"Nine Classic Paintings Revisited" is the second of two lectures presented by filmmaker Peter Greenaway as the 2010-2011 Avenali Chair in the Humanities at the Townsend Center for the Humanities, UC Berkeley. Best known for such films as The Draughtsman's Contract (1982), The Cook, the Thief, his Wife & her Lover (1989), The Pillow Book (1996), The Tulse Luper Suitcases (2003-2004), and Nightwatching (2007), Greenaway has worked more recently on numerous exhibitions and installations in Europe, from Venice's Palazzo Fortuny and Barcelona's Joan Miró Gallery to Rotterdam's Boymans van Beuningen Gallery and Paris' Louvre. Regularly nominated for the film festival competitions of Cannes, Venice, and Berlin, Greenaway has also published books, written opera librettos, and collaborated with composers Michael Nyman, Philip Glass, Louis Andriessen, Borut Krzisnik, and David Lang, among others.



Related :

15 février 2013

Interesting Panel on Film-Digital Transition (Michael Moore)

4 Aug 2012 (Traverse City Film Festival) 1h38'
We are in the final year—that's right, 2012—of films being made with...film! As the digital revolution sweeps over contemporary filmmaking, every digitally produced and released success story is a threat, not only to the authentic cinematic experience, but also to the long-term preservation of film.
Whether you are a celluloid purist or could really care less, this eye-opening panel will change the way you think about the technology of filmmaking and the potentially catastrophic implications for our film heritage. Moderator : Michael Moore and panelists : Mark Cousins (The Story of Film), Chapin Cutler (Principal, Boston Light & Sound), Alex Karpovsky (Supporting Characters and Red Flag), Christopher Kenneally ("Side by Side").

Related :

14 février 2013

Shut-in Cinephiles (USA) 9



Holy Motors (2012/Carax/France)  Target Audience : ACQUIRED TASTE (Niche)
  • USA : 0.07 % (29 max screens)
  • Brazil : 0.44 % (10 max screens)
  • UK : 0.69 % (25 max screens)
  • France : 2.1 % (116 max screens)
  • Germany : 0.7 % (51 max screens)
  • Spain : 0.25 % (14 max screens)
  • Belgium : 1.17 % (6 max screens)
  • Netherlands : 1.8 % (12 max screens)
  • Portugal : 0.35 % (2 max screens)
  • Austria : 0.86 % (5 max screens)
  • Russia : 1.3 % (30 max screens)
  • Australia : 0.45 % (9 max screens)
Source : BoxOffice Mojo; IMDb


Elected "THE NUMBER 1 BEST (Distributed) FILM OF 2012" by American film critics polled by Film Comment and IndieWIRE !!! When you see what American Distributors/Exhibitors do to THE BEST FILM of the year, no need to hope for better accessibility for the "lesser" (foreign) films... Supposedly a free democracy that prides itself on protecting the "freedom of expression", breaking the monopoly of (domestic) corporations over the market and being immune to censorship. Yeah right, nice PR, but the facts kinda contradict the theory.


Related :

05 février 2013

Corporate Culture (Rosenbaum)


"The trend in the United States of putting our cultural destiny in the hands of business executives seems especially misguided when compared with the achievements of government-supported initiatives in Europe. [..]
A law passed in 1957 guaranteed “final cut” to directors. That law didn’t eliminate state censorship, but it did protect film makers from the meddlesome cutting and re-editing of their work by producers, distributors, and theater programmers. Such intrusion -– with an eye more on the marketplace than on the artistic integrity of the film – is common in the United States, and is systematically perpetrated by both Miramax, which is the largest American distributor of foreign films (and is owned, incidentally, by Disney), and Bravo, the only national cable-television channel devoted to foreign films. [..]
"The state-supported Cinémathèque Française -– co-founded (in 1936) and directed by a passionate eclectic, the Turkish-born Henri Langlois (who was anything but a state bureaucrat) — provided a school and training ground for film makers such as Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut, who would form the core of the French New Wave. Many of their early features were made possible by a system of government advances on projected ticket sales. Commissions from state television also played an important role in keeping those film makers working, just as, in the 1970s, it was largely state-run German television that helped to launch the New German Cinema of Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Werner Herzog, and Wim Wenders. [..]
Government activity in the United States played a crucial role in nurturing the French New Wave and New German Cinema here as well. A Supreme Court antitrust ruling on July 28, 1949, broke the major studios’ exclusive control over theaters and what they exhibited. That allowed independent theaters to flourish, which in turn led to the growth of art houses — more than 1,000 were operating by the late ’60s –-and to their ability to show foreign and independent films. But once President Reagan came into office, the government stopped enforcing antitrust laws favoring independents; as a result, movie theaters that want to show films not released by the major studios have had a hard time supporting themselves."
The Danger of Putting Our Cultural Destiny in the Hands of Business
(Jonathan Rosenbaum; The Chronicle of Higher Education; 17 April 1998)



Related:

22 janvier 2013

Self-Affirmation Delusion (USA Cinephilia)

The State of the "Art Film" : Why "Art Films" Are Thriving (Richard Brody; The New Yorker; 17 jan 2013)

Turd Polishing

Richard Brody of the New Yorker doesn't think the arthouse market is an endangered species in the USA, on the contrary he believes that it is THRIVING. WTF? Keep on polishing that turd! 

He wouldn't look at reality in the eyes and acknowledge that there IS some kind of a problem...
  • between the lopsided distribution of domestic versus foreign cinema in USA commercial theatre, 
  • between the distribution of American indies and Major Studios releases, 
  • between how many spectators watch the best American films (as voted by American critics) within the USA, and how many watch them in other countries in the world. 
People who call themselves "cinephiles" in the USA are diseased. This disease is called "Self-Affirmation Delusion".
Either they lie to themselves, and actually have no clue about what is going on around them (see the charts above about the ACTUAL state of artfilms at the Spectators, Distributors, Exhibitors and Critics level respectively). Nobody with a sane mind would consider these numbers "successful" or even remotely encouraging... But Richard Brody, maybe just ignores them, ignores the comparison with other markets from comparable countries in Europe (or in the West more generally), and with the rest of the world, or he knows and decides to lie to his readers, by spewing out a standard propaganda speech to keep the masses happy and comforted in their own superiority.

Positive Thinking (or Panglossianism)

Positive Thinking is a method that works well if you need a morale boost before a job interview or a blind date... to help you perform at the best of your possibility, to prevent stress from making you under-perform  But Positive Thinking isn't a miracle cure, it's only a placebo, it doesn't make reality go away, it doesn't make you perform above your own limitations. But what can you do when an entire nation is raised on Positive Thinking at a national scale, in political statements, on news channels, at school, at work, in commercials, in entertainment... Repeating that the USA is the BEST COUNTRY IN THE UNIVERSE is in effect the national motto  or more exactly a religious mantra. Keep telling yourself you're the best will make it happen. Not doing something about, not making some efforts, not reforming, not improving upon errors, not tracking your progress, not comparing your level with what best is found in the world... nah. Just repeating USA will ALWAYS be at its best is enough sweat. Keep polishing that turd together, until it's the shiniest that ever was.

Brody doesn't give a shit that artfilms (American-made or Foreign imports alike) are gradually and systematically becoming a Straight-to-Video commodity, that VOD will replace the default theatrical release (which was only exceptionally above 100 screens nationwide anyway). It's not the theatrical sales that are doing bad (at worst, it is stagnating), because people continue to "go to the movies" in mass, IF it is Hollywood-made spectacle of course. The only sector going down is the arthouse circuit. You can't blame that on a world wide bank crisis, a recession, or a massive transfer of viewing habits from the big screen to the home cinema. It is not happening for the blockbusters. Only for the arthouses. Why? Because regular movie goers, with mainstream taste, continue to ENJOY going to the movies, while so-called "cinephiles" have given up, and prefer to sit on their ass watching DVD or BluRays at home, watching their brick-and-mortar circuit of independent arthouses go bankrupt, shut down and die. They don't give a shit. And critics wouldn't even stand up to call for action, solidarity, support... Because they don't care.
Last year a bunch of bored hipsters took it upon themselves to put the heroic effort to push a petition button online to support Margaret, one out of a hundred American-made indie movie neglected or red-lit by Hollywood distributors (not even an outstanding indie, just one that is barely decent, that tries very hard to produce a Hollywood lookalike network narrative drama, a melodramatic distant adaptation of Cassavetes's Opening Night). What about all the others? What about all the world-class foreign films, much better than Margaret? Nah, that's too much effort. Besides they don't even think there is anything to be done... because EVERYTHING is GREAT.

In his article he seems pretty happy to boast about "The state of the 'Art Film' ", as if there was anything to be proud of... He's content to report that Sofia Coppola's next film will be released only in a handful of theatre, and, what a fantastic news, on VOD! Yeah, theatrical films are switching to being viewed only on the small screen, in digital form, and he celebrates! 

"In short, 2013 is already a very good year; we’re living in a golden age of cinematic quality and quantity, and distributors are—not unfailingly, but nonetheless diligently and courageously—making a remarkable range of excellent films available (even if it’s the ones that remain unavailable that stick in the craw)."
Failing distributors, yes! Diligent and courageous? Who the fuck are you kidding dude??? Since when securing a safe, limited release on a dozen arthouses, in NYC and LA, to test the water, see if it sticks, could be described as courageous??? Courageous would be to open The Artist on at least 1000 screens nationwide, long before the marketing momentum of an Oscar win. Opening it on 4 screen for 4 weeks, and waiting after the Oscars ceremony to raise its distribution to over 1500 screen, is as cowardly as can be. Opening the film that was voted number 1 by all American critics in 2012, Holy Motors, on a handful of screens (and letting it reach a whooping 29 screens after the polls announcements) is NOT courageous. Opening a Hong Sang-soo film on 2 screens across America, is NOT courageous. You're in total denial dude! 
Didn't you notice that even American indies get a wider release abroad? Have you no pride? Have you no shame? With close to 40000 screens, the USA has the largest theatrical circuit in the world! Above China or India!!! And yet, you let smaller countries release YOUR films on a wider scale than at home? Isn't it a definite proof that your distributors/exhibitors are totally useless? (See: Shut-in "Cinephiles" (USA) 1-2-3-4-5-6)

What is courageous is to select films before they have been released anywhere, like major festivals do. They put their trust in them, before any jury or critics poll or BO figures or Academy awards come in, they place a risky bet ahead of the business circuit, they grant faith to an artist. That is courage. Releasing A Separation, a worldwide popular success as a serious non-Hollywood art film can be, on only 4 screens, even though it was months after its success in Iran, in France, on the festival circuit... is NOT courageous! It's being AFRAID of risking money on something that already had a history of popular success. If you can even back this, then what? 

Sorry, I see no sign for self-congratulation there. No one in the USA is professing a voice of reason, offering a reality check to those self-affirmative pundits, telling things as they are, and not how the marketing propaganda would like their turd polished... 
Releasing high-profile foreign films on 1 single screen in NYC, just to get it registered in print in the New York Times, is not what we could call "courageous", or even "admirable" for the art film scene. This is a sham, a cover up. You can't lie to yourself and pretend that a WIDE RANGE OF EXCELLENT FILMS is AVAILABLE when it is de facto NOT AVAILABLE to practically EVERYONE in the USA except one neighborhood in Manhattan. Who are you kidding? Are you preaching to babies? Are you a baby yourself? What is it you think is going right in this scam? Hopelessly delusional.

Then he digs out an old article from 1992 (that he couldn't find anything more recent is proof of the silence of the press on this situation!) to show how the 80ies and 90ies were so much worse... I have a hard time imagining a worse level of commitment really... The USA is still dead last compared to any European country. So worse than a 5 screens release is what? Zero? Yeah right. Congratulation!!! The RICHEST country in the world, with the WEALTHIEST movie industry in the world, asks for applauds because they release world-class masterpieces on 5 screens now instead of ZERO. WOAW. I'm floored.

So Brody and his pal Roger Corman pat themselves in the back for this appalling distribution circuit, domestic-centric and entertainment-exclusive club. They even go so far as blaming THEIR FAILURE on the unaffordable price tag of European films... If Hollywood can't afford it, then which country could? Yet, the distribution of non-Hollywood films is doing pretty well everywhere, EXCEPT in the USA. Maybe it's time to realise that there is an unspoken CENSORSHIP going on here. Not by law like in Iran, but stricter than Iran's isolationism... WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL BAN... There is no cause for celebration to beat Iran at his own game. 
Even if it was true, that ALL European distributors ask for too much money (dude, do you really want me to check if ALL SINGLE major European films unreleased in the USA had a fee way above standard practice, only to find out you didn't buy them because you're too lazy?), it wouldn't excuse the USA to deprive its citizens from the best of what cinema has to offer... Sometimes you have to pay the price, especially when you're the last country on Earth would should complain about financial problems. That's what happens on the art market, the highest bid wins the world-wide coveted painting! American museums don't scrap the spoils after European museums or Japan or China have bought out all the major artworks... they make sure to get the BEST, at all costs. That is the strategy when you seek to maintain the highest level of art appreciation in the world. If you want Kiarostami, you pay whatever he asks, period. You don't settle for "nevermind, we won't distribute it then"... If a smaller country with an economy 1 tenth of your size can release the same films, you shouldn't draw attention to this aspect. Cope out! Liar! 

Maybe we should organise an Aid concert to donate money to the penniless Hollywood distributors so they can buy our movies... Wouldn't that be embarrassing; they would still take the money I'm sure.

American distributors and exhibitors just didn't learn how to do their job, how to take risks, how to put some efforts to attract and build an audience. The full extant of what they can do is to rent a guaranteed blockbuster and watch the profits cash in. If the appeal is not immediately visible or if the carpet-bombing marketing didn't fabricate ready-made die-hard fans long before the release, they have no clue how to do their job, how to HELP a film, how to bring in audience that come in by themselves... How dare you speak of COURAGE???

" In other words, viewers could see something of the essence of the European art cinema in the Hollywood movies of the seventies. "
Bullshit! Stop lying to yourself. New Hollywood in the 70ies (10 years later!) was never on the level of formal experimentation and thematic transgression that it ever was in the 60ies in Japan, France, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Germany, the UK, Québec, South America, Yugoslavia, Argentina, Portugal, Brazil... IT was a shock for the puritan mentality of the time, but it was merely a Hollywood-lookalike "neorealism". Not to mention all these directors jumped right in the doors of Hollywood when they try to buy them out, and went on to become VERY COMMERCIAL, POLITICALLY CORRECT for-hire directors in Hollywood. We can't exactly say the same for all the independent directors in the rest of the world. Who are you brainwashing with such lies? Don't you think your readers know at least a little about New Hollywood and the New Waves in the world? 
Besides it's an excuse a profit-driven studio executive would come up with. How could a film critic with self-respect, would declare that since Hollywood stole all the good ideas from Europe (and applied them with much less talent or subversion), then it was A-OK to stop importing them. WTF? On what side of history are you? Even if Hollywood and Europe made films based on the same aesthetic and thematic (which is far from the truth!), it will NEVER make two films interchangeable, or films from one part of the world dispensable... Isolationism might be a political argument (at times), it is NEVER a cultural argument! Don't you defend culture wherever it comes from, you miserable movie-pages employee??? This is really disappointing...


" “The repertory houses died because of video,” but a new generation of movie lovers who are accustomed to watching movies on their computers increasingly go out to watch movies on the big screen, and—at least in New York—the repertory scene is booming."
What a delusional hypocrite! Why a megalopole such as NYC, with 20 million urbanite inhabitants, cannot outperform the arthouse ticket sales of a smaller country (including both urban and rural populations thus with a lower density of culture-driven intellectuals!) like Belgium, The Netherlands or Austria (each under 17 million population)??? I'd like to know.
"Booming" my ass! What a strong word, for an arthouse circuit that can't dedicate more than 5 screens to festival winner films... Totally out of touch with reality, using disproportionate vocabulary for marketing purpose and refusing to call for action to improve the disastrous situation. 


"On the one hand, the Internet makes it possible to get a discussion going—in effect, to force the hand of publication’s editors by making news news from the ground up."
Yeah sure! But where did you see that happening yet? Even your column is still on propaganda mode.


"virtual revelation of the ubiquitous director as “that man [or woman] behind the curtain” and the sense that the director was, in effect, on hand at the edge of the frame throughout the film, guiding the action and commenting on it"
That's his definition of what "European art cinema" is, the very guy who wrote a biography of Godard himself... What a joke! There is nothing else to draw from European cinema once you caught on with this trope. Nothing else! It's basically The Wizard of Oz, and all the formal invention, the intellectual reflection, the sociopolitical subversion, the themes, the stories, the mise en scène styles, the visions, the unique voices... none of this is WORTH distributing, as long as Hollywood can turn them into watered-down, pre-digested stereotyped remakes for domestic consumption. Yeah I would expect that mentality from an apologetic studio executive, not from a guy who pretends to write serious criticism in the New Yorker! 

"If the so-called art cinema has become increasingly important (and if Hollywood itself has expanded, radically, its aesthetic range—and it has), it is, in part, because the range of subjects at hand has expanded"
More delusional B.S. Increasingly important in the world, not quite in the USA though. 

"We’re seeing more American films that qualify for that loose term, art film."
LMAO.

"Indeed, the increased pace of production for Terrence Malick and other directors is due to the presence of congenial financiers who don’t expect something other than what the filmmaker intends to deliver."
Yeah, cause they are funded (or co-produced) by European risk-takers money!

"And while it would be familiarly silly to think that all is for the best in this best of all cinematic worlds, the range of styles and subjects, and of world views and experiences, that the cinema now offers is bewilderingly, dazzlingly vast—and the works in question are more readily available than ever".
Silly indeed, but it doesn't stop you from gushing out an hyperbolic, undeserved praise and feeding your readers with delusional propaganda. Vast it is not. I begin to worry whether you know the meaning of the adjective you use. But who cares? The American people is bred on Positive Thinking, and collective denial. So the press plays its part in feeding this delusion, just like another branch of the self-serving marketing campaign. There is no "independent critic" working in the USA today. There is no "cinephiles" in the USA today, if there ever was. If there were, they would take offense to such article, they would organise themselves and defend a dying arthouse circuit, instead of encouraging it substitution by video distributors!


14 janvier 2013

Bordwell vs Deleuze (Narration)

Narration historiography according to David Bordwell's book : Narration in the Fiction Film, 1985
[Chart adaptated to my Cinema Aesthetic Matrix]


* * *


Mapping of narrative structure according to Deleuze 2 tomes book : 
Cinéma 1. Image-mouvement (1983) / Cinéma 2 : Image-temps (1985)


Related : 

Shut-in "Cinephiles" (USA) 6


On the Road (2012/Walter Salles/USA)
Target Audience : ADULT 18+ (Mainstream)
  • USA : 0.01% (6 max screens)
  • BRAZIL : 5.3% (120 max screens)
  • UK : 2.8% (100 max screens)
  • FRANCE : 7% (381 max screens)
  • GERMANY : 1.9% (90 max screens)
  • ITALY : 7.2% (226 max screens)
  • BELGIUM : 6.8% (35 max screens)
  • NETHERLANDS : 5.1% (33 max screens)
  • PORTUGAL : 2.1% (12 max screens)
  • AUSTRIA : 1.6% (9 max screens)
  • THAILAND : 0.3% (2 max screens)
Source : BoxOffice Mojo; IMDb



Related :

13 janvier 2013

Shut-in "Cinephiles" (USA) 5



Somewhere (2010/Sofia Coppola/USA)
Target Audience : ADULT 18+ (Mainstream)

  • USA : 0.21% (83 max screens)
  • UK : 1.7% (62 max screens)
  • FRANCE : 4.1% (224 max screens)
  • GERMANY : 1.5% (71 max screens)
  • SPAIN : 1.5% (60 max screens)
  • ITALY : 7.6% (240 max screens)
  • BELGIUM : 2.7% (14 max screens)
  • AUSTRALIA : 2.1% (42 max screens)
  • RUSSIA : 5.3% (120 max screens)
  • NETHERLANDS : 3.1% (20 max screens)
  • TURKEY : 0.38% (6 max screens)
  • PORTUGAL : 2.1% (12 max screens)
  • ARGENTINA : 2.26% (20 max screens)
  • MEXICO : 0.4% (20 max screens)
  • BRAZIL : 0.7% (16 max screens)

Source : BoxOffice Mojo; IMDb


Related :