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

11 juin 2024

Cinema Generations (Unspoken Cinema infographics)

 


Download the PDF here




From its inception in 1895, the history of Cinema has changed drastically and I imagined a parallel between software generations to depict the evolution of narratives and aesthetics through the years. Thus this infographic map that I designed to summarize the trends and paradigm shifts that shaped Cinema history in successive stages.

The first prototype is "Alpha" also known as Verisimilitude, represented by the cinematographic views of Louis and Auguste Lumière. Cinema was in its infancy, without any visual grammar (editing) or any fancy storytelling. Its purpose was mainly to record life and show off the motion that Photography didn't have.

Soon thereafter a new prototype "Beta" was released for beta-testers, the Filmed Theatre, available in silent mode only, where stage actors and playwright used theater and literature, well known and mastered ancient arts to exploit the possibilities of this new invention. You could argue this Beta stage featured some of the greatest artistic experiments of the medium, but for the most part, slapstick comedy and famous plays dominated.

Once Griffith introduced the first editing grammar and shot conventions, Cinema could tell stories visually and not simply through mimes and cue cards. "Cinema 1.0" could be released publicly. As JLG described it, "all it takes to make movies is a girl and a gun", which will define the genres of this art for decades and decades. Imminent threat, high stakes, a young glamor damsel in distress and an (older) buff hero to save the day, is the bread and butter of 90% of the genres as we know them...

The next paradigm shift was described by Gilles Deleuze (in Cinema 1 & 2, Movement-Image and Time-Image), where he points to the tragedy of WW2 as a transition in Cinema aesthetics from Movement to Time, before and after the war, yielding to the emergence of Modernist Cinema. First with Neorealismo, then with La Nouvelle Vague, and all the New Waves of the 1960ies. This is “Cinema 2.0”. We see a change in the auteur’s POV, in the narrative structure being deconstructed and the form reinvented.

Along those lines, in the margins of Modernist Cinema, Generation Alpha was to be rebooted in the 1970s by the “Greatest Film of All Time” (according to Sight & Sound decade poll), Jeanne Dielman by Chantal Akerman. This is how Contemplative Cinema was born! In 1964, Andy Warhol revived Lumière by taking it to the extreme, with Empire, an 8h long cinematographic view that Lumière could have never dreamt of at the time. Then came Wiseman, Saless, Kiarostami, Tarr, before paving the way to the most recent proponents of this aesthetics in the 2000s.

“Cinema 3.0”, was born in the same circumstances as “Cinema 2.0”, while the later developed an inclination for the fiction and the narrative, the former was more oriented towards the documentary, the commentary, and the collage/montage of found-footage. The Essay Film is first and foremost the self-portrait of a narrator, it’s a homage to cinema through citations and images.

A new iteration of “Cinema 1.0” arose in the 2000s, which we shall name “Cinema 1.5” as it repeats all the tropes only with a difference in degree (with all the knobs at 11 so to speak). A girl and a gun on steroids! This is the emergence of the superheroes movies, and later video games movies. These films didn’t learn anything from Cinema 2.0 or 3.0… they just abuse the technology available to push all the narratives and stunts to the extreme. Green screen CGI, choreographed wire stunts, and hypercut editing. It’s always a damsel in distress, but they also need to save the world (or the universe) to stack the deck of high stakes threats.

The last generation which we see more and more of nowadays is “Cinema 4.0” or Mise-en-abyme, where the suspension of disbelief (of the Beta version) is put into question for the first time. The film we are watching is only a film, and doesn’t hide its own making. The film within the film, its backstage is revealed, and all the ropes of filmmaking are exposed. Dogville is a good example even if it remains classically narrative. Charlie Kaufman in the USA or Quentin Dupieux in France offer a complete deconstruction of filmmaking and tell stories without the safety net of the make believe of the cinema facade.


    23 mars 2013

    Tarantino philosophiquement (Thoret)

    Eloge de la parodie (4/4)
    Tarantino, imitateur ou créateur ?

    Par Adèle Van Reeth (Les nouveaux chemins de la connaissance; France Culture; 21 mars 2013) [MP3] 58'
    Avec : Jean-Baptiste Thoret
    Après Gérard Genette, Aristophane et Voltaire, dernier temps aujourd’hui de notre éloge de la parodie, et pour l’occasion, j’ai le plaisir de recevoir Jean-Baptiste Thoret qui vient tenter de répondre à ceux qui font du cinéma de Tarantino une compilation de références cinématographiques vidées de leur substance dans l’utilisation parodique qui en est faite. Du jeu à la parodie, du clin d’œil à l’appropriation, au fond la question inévitable que pose la parodie, c’est celle de savoir ou est à la limite entre l’imitation et la création.

    Voir aussi : 

    07 mars 2013

    Perpetual Mash-up (Cyriak)

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

    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 : 

    02 janvier 2013

    Aesthetic Matrix : Animation



    On the Cinema Film Style Matrix (which encompasses all cinema : animation, documentary, experimental, artfilm and mainstream) the territory of animation would only occupy a small area around Amateur, Parody, Conformism and Mannerism (simply because their aesthetic is not realistic compared to any live action film with real humans). Because they are an intentionally stylized representation of reality, a higher degree of artistic interpretation more dramatically different from what we are familiar with. But here, I'm only taking into consideration Animation itself (albeit excluding stop-motion and puppets for consistency), and remapping the aesthetic film styles within the subcategory of Animation, to distinguish the diverse sorts of tracing, technique, verisimilitude, anthropomorphism, as well as narrative structures. And there are great many ways to represent animation indeed, as we can see.
    Also, an important detail to note is that animation is mostly embraced by the mainstream consumption. They are almost always made for a mainstream audience, and conversely, the audience is open a lot of different styles, switching from one to the next, without flinching even, because they are all cartoons, or animated film, whether they are in Black&White or Colour, old or new, linear or surrealist, melodrama or quirky stories... The only box that would remain in an elitist niche would be abstract animations (Len Lye, Stan Brakhage, Oskar Fischinger, Viking Eggeling, Norman McLaren, Peter Kubelka, Man Ray, Marcel Duchamp, Fernand Léger), these are clearly not appealing to the mainstream public. But even the conceptual animations, like the last segment of Fantasia, Dali's Destino or many music videos are still accepted and appreciated by a mainstream audience without any highbrow cultural education or elitist taste. 
    This is an interesting lesson that Animation teaches us. Some Japanese Anime have quite an experimental narrative structure, with incomplete story lines, drastic cuts, chaotic action, not to mention the hardcore fans watch Anime subtitled, in their original language! And yet they are pretty popular, even within the very mainstream audience. It doesn't take intellectuals, elitists, snobs, to be OPEN MINDED about foreign cinema, artistically varied styles, complicated and serious stories! Even the old classic animation remains popular and accessible, unlike live action films where any film older than 10 years is considered prehistorical and elitist and obsolete... Today, the popular area of mainstream cinema is restricted to the off-center of the Matrix (Academism, Conformism, Parody, Mannerism), everything else is considered "INACCESSIBLE"!!! WTF? Anything that used to be mainstream in the past (like Expressionist Hollywood, like French Impressionism, like Modernity, like Neorealism, like Hollywood Psychology) are avoided and trashed by today's audience... just because they are not as fast-paced, or dumbified, or shiny as today's trends. Black & White is rejected for being outdated and snob when it is just an aesthetic choice to give a particular tone to a contemporary film. 
    Why is there this discrepancy between what the animation audience is ready to embrace (and most of their target audience are children) a greater variety of visual styles, narrative styles and directing styles, and the narrow-minded comfort zone of live action mainstream cinema? Maybe children are more tolerant and open-minded, and mainstream grownups are lazy, conservative, complacent and apathetic...


    Related :

    08 décembre 2012

    Dogville spoof (ironic)


    Korean Hip Hop solo artist 프라이머리(Primary) in the music video : "?" [sic] (물음표) Nov 2012

    pays homage to (or steals from) Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier's experimental stage piece :


    Dogville (2003/Lars von Trier/Denmark)


    Related :

    01 décembre 2012

    Cinema Aesthetic Matrix (Paintings edition)


    Cinema Aesthetics Matrix (Painting analogy guide edition)

    The history of art paintings is much older than the one of cinema, it is often more familiar and intuitive too because the affinities/contrasts/ruptures between art periods, art movements, stylistic schools are defined by rather clear visual differences, at least on an primary intuitive level. That's why it is a helpful visual aid to better grasp the more subtle, complex differences between film styles. A map of plastic styles would not look exactly as this, because the names of aesthetic styles in cinema don't quite overlap the ones in paintings, because the continuity and transition between each "step" work on particular planes : plastic representation and thematics for paintings, and for cinema we have to put into consideration not only the visuals (cinematographic style, lighting style, set style, costume style) but the visuals on the 4th dimension (editing style), the performance style, the dialogue style, the soundscape style (music score style, audio capture style) and the thematics.

    The matrix historically initiate on the bottom left corner (Primitive style), but the current standard today is located in the center (Academism).
    The matrix expands radially, in a centrifuge way, in all directions at the same time.

    Pay attention to the ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION of the human face/body in these paintings, and how it differs from the ones right next to them, and even more from the ones further away. Some go for versimilitude, or strive to attain it at least, others never try to go near it and instead propose a very personal INTERPRETAION of the anthropomorphic representation, more personal, more simplified/stereotypical, or on the contrary a more complexified/transmuted version of a human figure. Same goes with the art of Mise en scène in cinema, and we see the same affinities and contrasts between various branches of cinema history, the realists, the verbose, the minimalists or the abstracts... (to cite only a few of them possibilities discovered by filmmakers over the years).

    Related :

    02 juillet 2012

    Open world (Tapscott)

    Don Tapscott: Four principles for the open world
    June 2012 (TED talk) 17'50"
    The recent generations have been bathed in connecting technology from birth, says futurist Don Tapscott, and as a result the world is transforming into one that is far more open and transparent. In this inspiring talk, he lists the four core principles that show how this open world can be a far better place.
    Don Tapscott can see the future coming ... and works to identify the new concepts we need to understand in a world transformed by the Internet.

    Don Tapscott takes a farseeing look at our digital, connected, hypercollaborative world. He's the chair of Moxie Insight and has written 14 books about aspects of this new world, helping readers understand where the world is heading as our civilization fundamentally reshapes itself. In 1995, his book The Digital Economy was among the first to show how the internet would change the way we did business; in 2000, he defined the Net Generation and the “digital divide” in Growing Up Digital.
    In his most recent works, he thinks deeply about newly possible collaboration "on an astronomical scale." As the Industrial Age comes to an end, all our institutions are challenged (state, corporations, schools), he argues--and suggests that we need to reboot and reinvent civilization.
    "The Macrowikinomics assertion that 'there has never been a more exciting time to be human' is spot on."  Michael Dell

    Related :

    30 juin 2012

    Collaboration / Contribution (Puig)


    Conférence au MashUp Festival (Forum des Images)
    Le mashup n’est qu’un petit élément d’un ensemble de pratiques qui se développent, et qui participent d’une mutation profonde de nos sociétés, où l’économie de la contribution peut s’opposer à celle de la compétition. Derrière ces questions, la figure de l’amateur, telle que la conçoit le philosophe Bernard Stiegler, et les pratiques collaboratives, auxquelles Vincent Puig, directeur adjoint de l’IRI, consacre une part importante de ses recherche et de ses expériences de développement d’outils.
    L’Institut de recherche et d’innovation a été créé pour anticiper, accompagner, et analyser les mutations des pratiques culturelles permises par les technologies numériques, et pour contribuer parfois à les faire émerger.


    Related :

    14 février 2012

    Nature vs. Grace

     Fiction : Tree of Life (2011/Malick/USA) *no dinosaur was harmed during this movie*



    Real World (Africa wild life) *no animal was harmed during this video*

    27 janvier 2012

    Theatrical Ad (ironic)


    Movies shan't ruin your personal fun again ! Because the customer is always right. (sarcasm intended)



    Related :

    20 janvier 2012

    USA quarantine year's best films


    This is what some 120 American movie reviewers believe ARE the best films of 2011 (or more exactly the ones that American distributors agreed to buy last year, which is a different matter altogether). This is not a selection imposed to them by the European elite, they chose these willingly and ended up with this consensus. Even if American critics love to remind that there is hardly 15 or 30 great films made every year, that would deserve to be shown in festivals... they still want to show they can name 50 films when year's end come.

    Apparently the American distributors don't agree with the movie reviewers. If these are the BEST FILMS OF THE YEAR, distributors do not think they deserve a better exposition than a couple of screens to meet/build an audience.
    We're not looking at the full list of obscure, elite foreign films, indies and artfilms shown in American festivals... These are the 50 very BEST ones, amongst those deemed "commercial" enough to be released by American distributors and exhibitors. Why even the very best doesn't get a special treatment?

    There are 7 or 8 blockbusters (Contagion, The Rise of the Planet of the Apes are Best of the Year material? really???) because they wanna show they are close to the taste of the masses. American criticism is popular criticism. And, of course, all these titles with a "blockbuster release" are ALL Hollywood movies! The foreign title with widest distribution is French : The Artist (no subtitles issue, and a story ABOUT Hollywood!) on 472 screens. 

    Although, these populist flicks are not quite at the top of the poll. The highest one barely makes the top10 and is targeted at KIDS! Obviously the American consensus is a lot more elitist than what they declare all the time in the media. 40 out of the 50 best films received a distribution inferior to 500 screens in a country of 40000 screens and 311 million population! 30 out of 50 best films got less than 100 screens !! 17 got 10 screens or less !!! 

    30 films of the TOP50 are QUARANTINED on less than 100 screens nationwide each !!!

    Even in France (with 7 times less available screens), 100 screens is a weak distribution for a successful art film (see below, The Tree of Life got 350 screens, and A Separation over 250!). So the vast American market should be able to attribute MORE screens than France to comparably successful art films!

    From the top10 (You haven't seen 10 films better made than the ultra-academic A Dangerous Method???) : half of the 10 BEST FILMS OF THE YEAR had less than 20 screens !!! WTF are the American exhibitors doing??? Where are the art-film friendly art houses in the USA? There might be 20 or 50 art houses throughout the entire US of A willing to screen "niche" films with low audience potential, for the sake of the art of cinema, for the sake of world culture, for the sake of THE BEST 2011 FILMS IN THE WORLD... is that all? Is this a joke?


    The Tree of Life : the one "BEST FILM" elected this year by AMERICAN critics is an AMERICAN film, in ENGLISH, with HOLLYWOOD stars and only gets 237 screens (see Weak's Cutoff: No Cinephilia for detail). Considering the absence of cinephilia in the USA, this kind of score is reaching for the stars for an "art film", an "indie". Don't say the reason is that Americans watch movies at home now... or multiplexes would have shut down by now, and they still release The Rise of the Planet of the Apes on over 3600 screens nationwide! The problem is not a dramatic drop of movie-going population, or the lack of infrastructure  (there are 10 times more screens available per title released each year than in any European country). It's just that the American moviegoer does not watch art films at all. And the few art film lovers that do exist in the USA are quitters, they are the ones who stay at home, and download foreign films illegally (when they don't buy DVDs).

    Uncle Boonmee who can recall his past lives, "SECOND BEST FILM OF THE YEAR", is projected in 5 lucky theatres! How many Americans can watch it on the big screen with only 5 art houses opened? Seriously?

    A Separation, "FOURTH BEST FILM OF THE YEAR", which was a popular success in France (with over a million spectators so far), was shown on 3 screens... (UK's and France's populations are 5 times smaller) Come on! This film is a MAINSTREAM NARRATIVE movie with a wide audience appeal, how come is it considered more obscure in the USA than Uncle Boonmee????????????????? Wow, it was really worth it to wait 1 year since its Golden Bear at Berlinale 2011, to find the right spot on the releases calendar and get 3 measly screens at the end of the year when the year-end polls and Oscar nominations are already closed... (sarcasm intended) American distributors are fucking useless. 

    Don't ever tell me again there is a cinephile niche in the USA. You have no clue what cinema at its best looks like when you see it. Making money is one thing. If 90% of the screens were monopolized by the major studios to milk the cash cow, we'd think that the USA is a profit-driven industry, that still has 10% for an art film circuit. That's not the case (see: October 2011 releases USA).
    There isn't even 1% within the plethoric American movie market to show the BEST FILMS OF THE YEAR. They can't "spare" 200-500 screens (which would still be less than what a Hollywood flop gets) for each of the 10 best films of the year. So we can't even say that there is a "minority" of cinephiles within the American movie goers... they are statistically (and commercially) INEXISTANT. You're not supporting World Cinema, you're not pulling your weight in the global balance. Not even the least benevolent effort at home (and help artists make some money on the American domestic market) to show a modicum of "counterweight" to the global hegemony Hollywood imposes on the world... American cinephiles don't even feel sorry for the Hollywood hegemony crushing local markets abroad. They don't even make the effort to support the big screen out of pity, if not for their own pleasure of watching FILM ART as it was intended.

    Meanwhile the American media is totally oblivious to this appalling situation, fatalistically believing that France is an exception, that it is humanly, logistically, commercially, physically impossible to do any better for art films than 5 fucking screens nationwide... Yeah right. Nobody expects the USA to do as well as France (OMG they don't have ENOUGH billion dollars to fund such a miraculous enterprise...), but at least do "good" in the American market context. I'm sorry but this chart up there is not good by any standards (commercial or philanthropic), it is a FAILURE of an hypothetical art film circuit (if there ever was one), plain and simple. 
    And smart-ass movie reviewers prefer to take cheap shots at Major Film Festivals than to deal with their domestic market and get some effective work done, culturally and commercially, for a viable art film circuit. Can't they figure out by themselves that there might be some serious (possible) improvements to be done??? 

    There was an attempt of audience-self-empowerment (or Twitter-empowerment) for the neglected indie American film Margaret last year. That's a start. An American-made film. And the excuse to rebel against Hollywood decisions to limit screenings, was motivated by the access for this film to the "Oscars nomination" process... Was it a coincidence? I would hope that they are capable to protest for GREATER films too, foreign films that are ranked higher on the list these very reviewers produced. If Margaret deserves an outrage, maybe Uncle Boonmee, A Separation, Mysteries of Lisbon, Poetry, Film Socialisme, Le Havre, The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceaucescu, Le Quattro volte... would deserve a more respectful distribution, right? Why nobody speaks up? Why nobody demands a decent number of screens for these masterpieces even if they don't run for the Oscars? I wonder what they believe is the responsibility of a film critic...


    Related :

    08 octobre 2011

    Artificial barriers against free circulation of world cinema

    - Cultural Diversity Awareness - 

    Languages barriers (transnational)


    Film Criticism circulation delimitations (domestic)

    Cinema aesthetics inflences delimitations (worldwide)


    Cinema exhibition market restrictions (domestic)


    TV sets restrictions


    AVI-MPEG Torrent restrictions (worldwide)


    DVD region restrictions


    MP3 restrictions (worldwide)


    Blu-ray region restrictions



    Internet penetration (source) 2011




    Related :

    01 octobre 2011

    Cultural Diversity Awareness

    October 2011 is Cultural Diversity Awareness month in the USA!
    "Embrace diversity, embrace the World!" says the slogan... that's the theory.

    If you believe that art should be a boundless means of communication throughout the world, despite the "invisible hand of the free market", despite the national-centric protectionism of national culture, despite the artificial and timely hierarchy of entertainment norms, despite the close-minded taste of the mainstream mass... please consider contributing to this month-long proactive campaign of WORLD CINEMA awareness, because art cinema from around the world deserves a better visibility, in every country, than what it currently gets in commercial theatres. Post your own artwork, articles, analyses, photos, statistics... and share the links to identify the cultural discrimination imposed by the industry and lazy cultural arbiters and to overcome its barriers through plebiscite and consumption changes. Talk about movies celebrating cultural diversity, opening borders, welcoming foreign culture, altruism, philoxeny or denouncing censorship, isolationism, exclusion, marginalisation of foreign films.

    USA-Mexico border wall, 2008
    • De l'autre côté (2002/Chantal Akerman/France/Belgium/Australia/Finland)
    • Los Bastardos (2008/Amat Escalante/Mexico/France/USA) USA distribution = 1 screen / 1 week / 500 spectators
    • Norteado (2009/Rigoberto Pérezcano/Mexico/Spain)

    
    Banksy on the Palestine-Israel wall, 2005
    • Mur (2005/Simone Bitton/France/Israel) USA distribution = 2 screens / 3 weeks / 3000 spectators

    North Korea-South Korea Joint Security Area DMZ, 1953
    • Joint Security Area (2000/Park Chan-wook/Korea)


    Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002/Phillip Noyce/Australia)

    Cultural Diversity Awareness series (Octobre 2011) :
    1. World Cinema Online Resource / Cultural Diversity tag on Screenville
    2. Iranian dissidence in Real Life Peril 
    3. Caché (Rouyer)
    4. Presumptuous Best Film in the World 
    5. Global Lives
    6. Artificial barriers against free circulation of World cinema 
    7. France exports (uniFrance) 
    8. World Cruise 2010 (Eikawa Yuki) 
    9. Hollywood émigrés 
    10. Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO) 
    11. Reductive Foreign Stereotypes 
    12. Cambodge : culture exterminée 
    13. Films from the south 
    14. Diversity / fragmentation ? (Mondzain) 
    15. Cinema quotas 
    16. Life in a Day (Mcdonald) 
    17. India languages - World Cinema Stats (24) 
    18. Images de la diversité
    19. Festival pundits (spoiled brats) 
    20. Guerilla Cinema (Père)
    21. RUSSIA - World Cinema Stats (25)
    22. Mexican culture in America 
    23. Cultural Stereotypes in Taipei (Bouquin) 
    24. Fit in to be distributed in the USA (Krohn) 
    25. October 2011 releases USA
    26. to be continued...

    Related: