27 août 2006

Etrange Festival 2006

L'Etrange Festival
August 30 / Sept 12 2006 - Paris - Official Website

PREMIERE

  • Avida (2006/Delépine/Kervern/France)
  • Imprint (2006/Miike/Japan)
  • Matthew Barney : No Restraint (2006/Chernick/USA) DOC
  • Next Door (2005/Sletaune/Norway/Denmark/Sweden)
  • Rally 444 (2006/Sanchez/France)
  • Re-Cycle (2005/Pang/HK/Thailand)
  • Neighborhood Watch (2005/Whifler/USA)
  • Severance (2005/Smith/UK)
  • Brothers of the Head (2005/fulton/Pepe/UK)

SPECIAL SCREENING

  • The Holy Mountain (1973/Jodorowsky/Mexico)
  • Begotten (1991/Merhige/USA)
  • The Hawk is Dying (2006/Goldberger/USA)
  • The Great Yokai War (2005/Miike/Japan)

DALI CINEMA

  • L'Age d'Or (1930/Buñuel/France)
  • Aussi loin que l'amour (1970/Rossif/France)
  • Babaouo (1998/Cusso-Ferrer/Spain)
  • Cinéma Dali (2004/Rovira/Spain/France) DOC
  • Destino (1946-2003/Monfery/France) anim SHORT
  • Impressions de la Haute Mongolie (1976/Dali/Montes-Baquer/Germany) DOC
  • Spellbound (1945/Hitchcock/USA)
  • Un Chien andalou (1928/Buñuel/France) SHORT

CARTE BLANCHE to Diamanda Galas

  • Persona (1966/Bergman/Sweden)
  • Bandit Queen / Phoolan Devi (1994/Kapur/India/UK)
  • Salo o le centoventi giornate di Sodoma (1975/Pasolini/Italy)
  • Sisters (1973/De Palma/USA)
  • The Act of seeing with one's own Eyes (1971/Brakhage/USA) SHORT
  • Les Yeux sans visage (1960/Franju/France)

CARTE BLANCHE to Paul Schrader

  • Brandy in the wilderness (1969/Kaye/USA)
  • Echoes of Silence (1964/Goldman/USA)
  • Lonesome Cowboys (1969/Morissey/Warhol/USA)
  • Scorpio Rising (1964/Anger/USA) SHORT
  • Serene Velocity (1970/Gehr/USA) SHORT
  • Wavelength (1967/Snow/USA/Canada) SHORT
  • Yakuza (1974/Pollack/Japan/USA)
  • Yukoku (1965/Mishima/domoto/Japan) SHORT

THEMA REDNECKS

  • Poor White Trash (1957/Daniels/USA)
  • Prime Cut (1972/Ritchie/USA)
  • Death Trap / Eaten Alive (1977/Hooper/USA)
  • Mudhoney (1965/Meyer/USA)
  • Motel Hell (1980/Connor/USA)

HOMAGE SONO SION

  • Yume no naka e / Comme dans un rêve (2005/Sion/Japan)
  • Noriko no Shokutaku / Noriko's Dinner Table (2005/Sion/Japan)
  • Kimyo na sakasu / Strange Circus (2005/Sion/Japan)
  • Jisatsu saakuru / Jisatsu Circle (2001/Sion/Japan)

HOMAGE NORIFUMI SUZUKI

  • Seijû gakuen / School of the Holy Beast (1974/Suzuki/Japan)
  • Kyôfu joshikôkô: bôkô rinchi kyôshitsu (1973/Suzuki/Japan)
  • Furyô anego den: Inoshika Ochô / Sex and Fury (1973/Suzuki/Japan)
  • Shôrinji kenpô / The Killing Machine (1975/Suzuki/Japan)
  • Dabide no hoshi: bishoujo-gari / Star of David: Beauty Hunting (1979/Suzuki/Japan)

SHORT FILM COMPETITION

Recommendations and hints welcomed! Thanks

21 août 2006

Critical Fallacy 1 : Deception

[EDITED : 8-24-2006]

"The film writing I have in mind would be essayistic, but it would have a solid understructure of evidence. It would be conceptually bold and bristling with subtly defended opinions. Its judgments would be nuanced in optimal awareness of the history of cinema, its economics and technology as well as its auteurs. Add a graceful writing style leavened with humour and purged of vainglorious anecdotes. We might then have criticism in a broader sense than we now usually find it, and something worthy of the art we love."
Against Insight by David Bordwell at cinema scope

Bordwell again, but that's just to contextualize this post in the current debate around criticism meaningfulness. Film criticism gets discredited for the contradictory ratings, the inconsistent taste and the polarized opinions... while the plurality of point of views on the same film is what makes criticism richer and worthwhile. There are far more dangerous issues than the arguable critical stance.
Let's take a look at the logic flaws and other errors committed by critics who disregard the reality of the film reviewed or mock their readership for a good word or just to conceal the fact they didn't see/misunderstood the film. Sad is to find these errors in the print world, where the editor corrects and the standards of journalistic ethics should prevail. So that's why I wanted to dedicate this series of (objective) mistakes that are not due to divergence of opinions but caused by a conscious or unintentional corruption of content.


Critical Fallacy 1 : DECEPTION

The first one is an easy no-brainer. Plain deception by conscious or careless presentation of dubious facts. We're talking about blatant factual errors (mischaracterization, misrepresentation, unchecked facts...), half-truth (assumptions, speculation made evidence, partial memory...), exaggerations (slant, dramatization of the film flaws/merits...), anything that could be easily disproved by anyone watching the very film referred to in the review.

Andy Horbal called this flaw the "Cardinal Sin of Film Criticism" at No More Marriages! last month : "Thou shalt not make specific critiques based on erroneous information about the film in question."
And like him I'll rank it first on my list of fallacies. The critics gives their opinion on a film before any reader has seen it, so the least we can expect, aside from arguable taste compatibility, is to get a faithful description of the film and should they choose to base their judgment on factual evidences taken from the film, they'd better be accurate since we have to take everything written at face value. With first-hand access to unseen films, being paid to watch them carefully, critics have a duty to report accurately or not report at all. I think a good critic is one alert enough to realize when a blurry memory doesn't legitimize writing in one detail or even declining to comment on the entire film if viewing conditions obviously undermine the review's worth.

Andy cites Anthony Lane's liberties with the plot accounts in Inside Man and American Dreamz. I could cite Ebert on Altman's The Long Goodbye, distorting the succession of events. or Ray Bennett on Ferrara's Mary, mixing up 2 characters in one.

Andy Horbal says it better than me : "First, if there's really a problem with the film significant enough to warrant mention in a review, it's probably unnecessary to use an example that's less than 100% certain. (...) If there's any doubt about the veracity of the complaint it should be left out of the review."
"Critics traffic in opinions, and they are not beholden to anyone in this regard. But we do owe it to the filmmakers, to our readers, and to ourselves to make sure that our review is reconcilable with the film we're reviewing. (...) We put ourselves in a rhetorically indefensible position, and we undermine our credibility."

And whether the erroneous fact slipped in "by mistake" is irrelevant to this fallacy because a published critic is a journalist above all and bears a responsibility to everything is written in public and delivered to a large population as true fact. The writer, or the editor, or the publication owner are liable to deceptive content, shall double check their facts (like any good journalist should), proofread for approval and eventually are obligated to publish an erratum to correct a past mistake. So a misleading information is a deception whether the author is aware or not because the journalist is expected to specify truth as truth and guess as guess.

If a critic cannot even be trusted for basic reporting of facts, quoting reality, how could we trust judgments based on abstract evaluation like performances, aesthetics, politics...?

Did you read deceptive reviews recently? Please share with us.


Contributions, disputes, examples are encouraged as always.

12 août 2006

DR9 - part trois

Whaling Imagery - The Absent Whale

"No whales are captured or slaughtered in the story; on the contrary, after a series of rituals and transformations, two new whalelike animals are created and released into the ocean." (from press release)

The iconic water blow or tail flukes so popularly associated with the whales didn't find their place in the film. The presence of a real live whale would probably invite impassioned identification with the victim of the food chain process documented in the film. The only whale appearing in the entire film is a CGI model in the title sequence. Although blood is shed, ripped apart, the whale swims across the screen steadily, like a spaceship. A stylized torture where the whale doesn't suffer.

Barney will describe every step of the ancestral tradition of whaling from hunt, roaming for weeks out at sea, to retrieval of the blubber oil on the factory ship. Only that the entire process is not filmed with real whales and blood, but in a clean abstracted way, each sailor performing a dramatized act as if on a theatrical stage, every professional gesture applied to a symbolic model instead of the animal. And that's why we could speak of an "Avant Garde documentary" of sort. We can sense a de-personification of the whale there, turning it into an object, an idea, a concept. Whale is food. Hunt is a need. Tradition is noble. Such is the surfacing message of this "stylized propaganda commercial" for the Nisshin-Maru, but we'll see the subtlety of a multi-layered meaning later in detail. A latent critique of whaling and a critique of human relationship to natural resources springs from the subtext and this artistic (read : cryptic) posturing.


Throughout the rest of the film, the whale appears symbolized by other (lifeless) objects. Its evocative shape incarnated by foreign matter, or whale by-products standing in for a whale.

  • Initially only evoked orally in the prologue song. A fisherman sent a letter to General Macarthur in 1946 to thank the occupying powers for the removal of whaling moratorium to provide the starving post-war Japanese population with whale meat. The choice to feature this letter introduces upfront an ambivalent political situation involving both the USA and Japan around whaling policies and also setting a tricky historical context of this diplomatic relationship around WW2. 1946 is also when the International Whaling Commission was founded.
  • Whaling factory ship, Nisshin-Maru, is a steel allegory of the whale itself. The story of Jonas (Bible) or Pinocchio, trapped in the belly of the whale, like the Occidental Guests are inside the belly of the massive ship. It could be seen as well for a metaphor of the Japan island, alone in the middle of the ocean.
  • The mould of the Field Emblem is designed/carved as to show the characteristic tail flukes shape on one end of the petrolatum pool and the throat grooves (ventral pleats) at the other end, once the solidified jelly is unmolded. We get a brief glimpse of these features, a black outerskin (rubber?) with flukes and grooves, before it collapses.
    The outer envelope of the petrolatum slab is made of a different material, black and more resistant, which signifies the hard skin of the whale (epidermis/rubber) protecting the white flesh inside (blubber/petrolatum). Although Barney didn't show this special preparation in the film, nor does he show when the plastic spine is installed in the mid-section (before solidification) that will allow it to be pulled out by a crane without collapsing.
    Coincidentally the 3D Field Emblem extruded in a whale-sized pool of petrolatum roughly looks like the sea mammal in its general shape, with a long fat body and small flippers on each side.
  • This representation of the whale skin (blubber and epidermis) is again used in the ship kitchen where the cook prepares a dish made of a white jelly with a black and solid top crush, in the shape of the Field Emblem.
  • An oversized ambergris log drifts on the ocean. It is first discovered by the Japanese oyster fisherwomen to emphasize its connection with seashells and oysters (it looks made out of a conglomerate of shrimp casing and cement, which are the material later used on deck by the kids), and then captured with harpoon, to emphasize its reality of being an actual whale within this setting.
    Note : Ambergris is a fatty substance produced by the whale's stomach to facilitate evacuation of squid beaks and krill casing that are indigestible.
  • An astute connection (that I had missed) with pearl oyster is explained on the SFMoMA website :
    Like ambergris, the production of a pearl in oysters results as a defence mechanism against the presence of a foreign (indigestible) object inside the host living organism. A grain of sand in the case of the oyster. Both are digestive leftovers turning out to be a luxury asset, in perfume industry for ambergris, in jewellery for pearl. The digestive allegory of The Path (mouth-stomach-anus) suggested something creative can result from restraint in the stomach (productive state). What best evidence can you get than creating luxury from excrements? Barney finds in nature a proof of his theory initially developed around artistic restraint and human digestion.
  • In the dressing room, a Japanese screen separates Barney and Bjork, displaying an old ink painting of a traditional whale hunt. Reference to the artistic rendition of a noble tradition (village whaling opposed to industrial hunt) when the battle actually required courage to face the sea monster on a tiny boat. Maybe an adventurous era reminding us westerners of the fantastic story by Herman Melville, Moby Dick, when the relationship between man and whale wasn't depersonified.
  • Before the ambergris log is captured and dragged on-board, the crew seems to play a game on the upper deck to pass time... Sailors pull by a rope a huge black garbage bag across the deck and other men train to hit it on the move with traditional hand-propelled harpoons (again reference to ancient times when whaling was noble). Once the game is over they rip open the bag, and a small model of a ship is found in this symbolized stomach full of shrimp (krill is the food of whales), like if this "whale" had swallowed a whaling ship. Back to the Jonas/Pinocchio myth.
  • Blubber, fat matter of the whale skin, is symbolized by Barney's trademarked petroleum jelly, in the mould. Incidentally, when processed into oil, blubber can be burned in lamps and used in paints, soaps, cosmetics, and other products. So Barney's association of his familiar petroleum jelly element, with whale is not inappropriate. It issues a meaningful substitute and hints at the correlation with fossil organic fuel (exploitation of natural resources by the oil industry). His obsession with petroleum jelly thus makes sense and constitutes a valid critique/apologia (within his artistic research) of human dependence on oil by-products.
  • A dispassionate whale slaughter is symbolically performed by the ship crew on this lifeless ambergris log, once hauled on the top deck, with stylized, choreographed gestures. They first honor it by pouring sake all over it in a formal ceremony, and drinking a toast to its well respected sacrifice, because according to Shinto religion, all creatures are sacred and life can only be taken with the utter most deference. The old, sculptural, traditional flensing blades are used to bisect the solidified petrolatum, and extract the plastic spine from the crossbar (which really gives materiality/animality to this abstract chemical pool).
  • Meanwhile the proper slaughter is enacted by Bjork and Barney in the tea room, with graphic close-ups of flesh slicing by flensing knives. Like if man turned this violence onto himself. The whale is after all a mammal like us, and some believe an intelligent creature with complex social behaviour. To me this scene really holds the key to Barney's position on the whaling debate, as this S&M display of mutual mutilation bears a violent symbolic significance. We really get a disturbing feeling of (literally) hurting ourselves when whaling is translated this way.
  • Regarding whaling ban (IWC moratorium since 1986) : Industrial whaling only continues in Iceland, Japan and Norway today.
    USA (represented by Barney). The discovery of petroleum in Pennsylvania in the late 19th century was the beginning of the end of commercial whaling in the United States as kerosene, distilled from crude oil, replaced whale oil in lamps. Later, electricity gradually replaced oil lamps, and by the 1920's, the demand for whale oil had disappeared entirely. Only native population of Alaska exercise whaling rights, although only until 1996.
    Iceland (represented by Björk) left the IWC in 1991 and rejoined in 2002 to exploit the loophole allowing industrial whaling for scientific researches.
    Japan (host of the film). Whaling is an ancestral tradition as far as 12th century. Whale meat was a primary source of food in the couple decades of WW2 aftermath. Japan continues to exploit the IWC loophole for scientific researches, and kills over 500 whales per year.
  • The Nisshin-Maru factory ship bumped a Greenpeace boat in 1999, which is the event recalled by the ship host during the tea ceremony, with elliptical words. The ship collided with a Greenpeace boat again in 2005 and 2006 (after completion of the film, and after the captain's speech about how profoundly shocked his conscience was).
  • The oil leak from the boiler filling the tea room could be interpreted as an ironic overflow (of sea water) inside the ship (without actually sinking). It is also an allegory for gastric acid in the whale stomach that decomposes meat and transform it into nutriment (here into sea mammal hybrids).

Read also previous posts :

1 (Introduction)
2 (Drawing Restraint series)
4 (Field Emblem sequence choreography)

11 août 2006

DR9 - part deux

The Cremaster Cycle was more complex symbolically, dealing with gender, morphology, mythology, psychology.
By contrast, DR9 is rather simple. It develops a simple idea, under multiple approaches and various forms, the allegory of the muscle regeneration. The whaling tradition in Japan is only an excuse to illustrate this theory. Barney's commentary on the whaling controversy is minimal and the borrowing from Shinto traditions is incidental (yet pertinent to his concept), almost indifferent.

The artist is not an accurate historian and resorts to provocation using somebody else's social taboos. This performance functions like a surrealist collage, displacing objects from their usual place, or meanings from their usual subjects. Inversion of objects to cause confusion of senses, to generate a language free of ready-made prejudices. The action disguised with new clothes looks new and we can perceive it differently, where the essence devoid of sense takes precedence on the container. It's a simultaneous clash of concepts rather than an apparent linear history.

DR9 is not about what we see, but going beyond appearances, engages an abstract reflection on the creative condition of humanity. To create implies to destroy. Destruction implies starting over anew with a stronger base, a deeper experience.


Few notes on the directing concepts of the DR series from drawingrestraint.net :

  • 1 - Hypertrophy : The Athlete is the alchemist
  • 2 - The Athlete is the artist
  • 3 - Houdini and the body intelligence, The artist is the athlete
  • 4 - Formal Perversion and Autoerotica. Three phases of the Path : Situation, condition, production. The artist/Athlete is the masochist in the margin

The Path :

  • Situation (mouth) :
    Raw drive, undifferentiated sexual energy without discipline or direction. undifferentiated foetus sex organ. Hunger, indiscriminate consumption.
  • Condition (stomach) :
    visceral funnel. Condition disciplines the oral intake of Situation. Undifferentiated field of energy begins to take form. Condition functions like the stomach, systematically breaking down the bolus ingested by Situation, nourishing it and encouraging growth.
  • Production (anus) :
    Anal output of the path. Two-headed dumbbell (unit BOLUS). Potential to close the three-phase PATH, joining the mouth (Situation) with anus (Production), enabling a mediation on an endless loop between desire and discipline.


DR Project
Resistance as a prerequisite for development and vehicle for creativity. Barney understands that when you work against resistance, muscular growth takes place in the body. The creation of obstacles that would make the act of drawing a physical challenge.

  • DR1(1987) - artiste strapped to the thighs with an elastic band to restrain mobility during drawing
  • DR2 (1988) - variation on DR1
    meditation on the desire to make a mark, and the discipline imposed on that.
  • DR3 (1988) - Weightlifter : Olympic barbell cast in petroleum wax/jelly. First piece in the series that rendered a character of refusal. Beginning of a more narrative approach to the DR project.
  • DR4 (1988) - Blocking sled (trains the legs and the explosive strength of an athlete) and petroleum wax plates pushed through a corridor in attempt to draw a linear drawing on the floor.
  • DR5 (1989) - Only piece in the series performed for an audience.
    Ceramic skeet thrower making marks on the wall. Drawing on the wall around the marks strapped to an elastic band.
  • DR6 (1989) - Self portrait drawn on the ceiling by jumping on a trampoline.
  • DR7 (1993) - video
    Render the character of refusal that emerged in DR3. Satyrs (ram & ewe) wrestle while attempting to draw a ram horn in the condensation of the moon roof with the tip of the ram's horn. Presumption punished by flaying.
  • DR8 (2003)
    Field emblem: "pill-shaped body with a superimposed rectilinear bar positioned over its central axis. The field represents self-imposed resistance placed upon an organic body."
    Inversion of the proposal, the metaphorical bar was removed temporarily from the body, allowing for an eroticism that the system hadn't granted itself before. stored energy is sacrificed for eroticism and the body begins to atrophy.
  • DR9 (2005) "begins with a procession at a Japanese oil refinery, where a tanker truck loaded with hot petroleum jelly is paraded from the factory gates down to the local harbour. The tanker is led by oxen, horses, deer, and a wild boar and is flanked by hundreds of Japanese revellers as it arrives abreast an enormous factory ship. The hot petroleum jelly has been delivered to the ship in port, where it is pumped into a massive, open mold on the aft deck. The ship departs for the Antarctic, and over weeks the mass of petroleum jelly cools. The cured surface of the jelly casting becomes a provocative reflection of the changing conditions of the seas. Whale processing methods and tools are used to facilitate the creation of this sculpture. The story culminates with the de-moulding of the sculpture as the ship reaches the Southern Ocean, with backdrop of luminous icebergs.The evolution of the petroleum jelly sculpture on the processing deck is mirrored by a love story which is unfolding on the second deck of the factory ship. The strict choreography of a traditional Japanese tea ceremony is the backdrop for a courtship of two western guests who are falling in love as they are served green tea by the ship's host. As the voyage ensues, the tea room itself becomes the tea bowl, as it slowly fills up with warm fluid. The western guests become enveloped in the fluid and undergo a mysterious transformation." (press notes from the website)
  • DR10 (2005) - variation of DR6 - performed in Japan.
    Additional marks added with a bamboo pole while climbing on a column. Drawing : visualization of the DR9 narrative, superimposed over the bodies of two whales.
  • DR11 (2005) - climbing on three walls at the exhibition gallery (Japan) to draw the three phases of the PATH.
  • DR12 (2005) - site specific performance in Seoul Korea.
    climbing of the wall of the gallery while drawing the 3 phases of the PATH.
  • DR13 (?) n/a
  • DR14 (2006) - site specific performance at SFMoMA. Climbing and drawing dressed as General MacArthur.

Read also the other posts on DR9 :
- 1 (Introduction)
- 3 (Whaling Imagery)
- 4 (Field Emblem sequence choreography)

03 août 2006

Drawing Restraint 9 (2005/Barney)

DR9 : Drawing Restraint 9 (2005/Matthew Barney/USA/Japan) +++

Opening Sequence
(pre-credit prolog) : Fade from black. Shape of an eye in a melon-sized fossile rock. The rock is shaking, a transparent fluid leaks out to the floor. Frame widens showing the stone stored under layers of papers. This is an abstract symbolic reminder of the subterranean elevating tracking shot through layers of earth in the opening of Cremaster 3.
-- Giftwarpping sequence, to send a prehistoric krill fossile to General MacArthur to thank his decision to end the anti-whaling moratorium, accompanied by the sung letter wrote on 13 july 1946.

(CGI Credits) : a CGI whale is sliced in the sea in a stylized fashion. Flensing knife-shapped letters assemble the words : Drawing Restraint 9.
-- Cut to a flyover shot over Nagasaki waterfront. Then a construction site on the beach where the mold for a petroleum jelly pier (holographic entry point) is built to the image of a land flensing ramp of ancestral whaling tradition.

Avant Garde cinema
Avant Garde cinema is less accessible immediately, but takes us closer to the unspoiled essence of an artist's mind.
AG cinema is less "movies" than Conceptual Arts, channeling a certain reflexion on art, form and metaphisics. Which could be terribly alienating to the casual observer. This level of freedom of expression is never achieved within mainstream cinema, where the artistic vision of the auteur is always encumbered by plot points, continuity, plausibility and commercial interests.
Matthew Barney claims his formative inspiration from Chris Burden, Vito Acconci, Bruce Nauman, Joseph Beuys, Marina Abramovic who influenced the emergence of the Performance Art movement in the 60ies and 70ies.
Body-art developped in the 70ies, the artist and his own motion is the work of art itself, video serving as an objective recording of reality. These happenings are spontaneous events with a physiological mise-en-scene. The body might be pushed to the limit of physical tolerance or subjected to a trivial/repetitive routine.

Drawing Restraint series (1987-2005)
A comprehensive survey of Drawing Restraint projects is currently exhibited at the San Fransisco MoMA. June 23rd - September 17th, 2006. Before it has been exhibited at Kanazawa, Japan (2005) and Seoul, South Korea (2006)

The organizing principle of this Drawing Restraint series comes from Barney's original combination of sport, medicine and art. To build stronger the athlete shall constrain his muscles, they would grow bigger. Thus the athlete is a masochistic alchemist who creates matter with self-imposed discipline and exercise. The cycle of muscular regeneration is compared to the digestive process in a ternary Path :
Situation (mouth) - Condition (stomach) - Production (anus)
The complex process of ingestion-digestion-assimilation becomes allegorical of the creative existence of the artist.
After looking closer at the other (non-filmic) installments of the series, the deeper subtext of DR9 came to light for me, making sense of the visceral and cluless admiration I initially experienced. Barney's aesthetics is definitely the coherent vision of an auteur, it is also founded on an intelligent reflexion which could be analyzed more carefully by an art critic, to sort out his positioning in the history of Contemporean Arts. I'm merely interested here in the elaboration of his universe and its resulting filmic instance.

DR9 : Matthew Barney's Cinema
As odd as it sounds, there is no fundamental difference between the installments he performs alone in his studio, strapped to an elastic band (DR1 to 6), and the making of this grandiloquent movie, only the scale differs. And it's impressive to see an artist develop his one idea through many different ways, indifferently. Here adaptated or transposed to the japanese tradition of whaling, the Drawing Restraint concept develops along the same "Path".
DR9 is the most narrative and explicit piece in the series, yet is hardly a narrative movie by cinema standards. This is mainly the cinematic recording of one of his sophisticated performances. Unlike narrative directors, Barney fully enjoys the multimedia potential of cinema. His use of cinema is free of prejudice and conventions, opening a fresh field of experimentation because he's not beholden to professionalism. Cinema isn't his only medium of expression, so his films aren't formated by distribution necessity or audience expectations.
Dialogue delivery and familiar body language are excluded. Barney's films are usually wordless, because his work develops the expressive physicality of the human body. He's a self-conscious athlete (football, wrestling, climbing) exploring the significance of intense muscular efforts. Therefore his mise-en-scene is mainly focused on choreography, gesture and apprehention of space. Compared to traditional cinema, this posture vis-à-vis acting performance is particularly interesting. Although the magic of cinema special effects and editing allow him to materialize life-threatening Body-Art fantasies like mutilation and amputation, for the audience to see, without the artist's real pain (which used to be determinant in traditional Body-Art).

Structure
Like in every experimental work, it's important to understand what is going on, and to pay attention to the forms that convey the directing concept, before flat out rejecting the "megalomaniac superficiality" of it all. Here the form is almost too simple, looking like an overextanded music video with funky production design. From my uneducated opinion, I'd assume Barney doesn't care too much to personalize the cinematic form itself, appropriating a ready-made medium quite naively and humbly, with very conventional use of editing and mise-en-scène, unlike most Avant Garde directors who usually strive to pervert the function and experience of cinema by altering it's traditional perception (eg. Brakhage, Kubelka, Tscherkassky, Martin Arnold, Mekas...). But maybe I'm underestimating this aspect. His true experimental work is in the very performance, and the elaboration of a coherent neological mythology.
There is a great description of the narrative story on Bjork's website
Two parallel events unwind simultaneously on the same ship without direct interaction but symbollical, mirroring allegories in contactless dialogue. The Occidental Guests never take notice of what is happening on the top deck.
The first event, articulating the rhythm of the entire film, is the processing of a Field Emblem sculpture made of petroleum jelly on the aft deck.
The other event is a wedding between two Occidental Guests inspired by Shinto ceremonial protocols. The petrolatum mold is the pulse of this happening, regulating at the slow pace of chemical solidification the protocol of everybody on this ship (and on the shore).
The bookend elements, Holographic Entry Points, that enclose the two events after the prolog, symbolize the Ise Shrine tradition of perpetual life recycling through (identical) reproduction. These flensing decks are ramps used to haul a harpooned whale on the beach in traditional whaling (before the industrial ships age). One is old, made of concrete, the next one is new, made of petroleum jelly, under construction during the duration of the film. Echoing the ancestral ceremony that rebuilds every 20 years the Ise Shrine anew to the side of the old one, which is burnt down in celebration of continuation. The ashes are kept in a box aside the new shrine.
Likewise the brand new ramp is cast out and revealed at the end of the film, and the concrete ramp is destroyed after a metallic box is hauled from the sea. So the fact the events take place during the shrine renewal process imprint this cycle of renovation to the film, which is at the heart of the Drawing Restraint concept of creative regeneration under constraining discipline.

The Occidental Guests seem to come to this peculiar ceremony without knowing eachother, like an arranged marriage. Their first encounter is anti-climactic, as it takes place in a quiet waiting corridor. Meeting wasn't a purpose of theirs apparently, unless their inner emotion is measured by the overwhelming etiquette. Then finaly unite after an erotical anthropophagic ritual.

The linear timeline goes: separation, transfiguration, union, mutation
  • Separation. Barney and Bjork are isolated, they are two dissociated halves (like in Plato's soulmate myth)
  • The petrolatum filling the two halves of the Field Emblem mold allows their reunion (chemical reaction)
  • Transformation with ablution and new costumes
  • The tea ceremony is a social restraint preventing contact
  • A storm breaks out when the cross bar (restraint) of the Field Emblem is removed at night
  • Chaos releases sexual energy drawing Barney and Bjork together
  • This is the opportunity for creativity and production. Like the blubber from the symbolic whale is flensed out and burnt in the boiler, the flesh of humans is mutilated and consumed, to give birth to a new hybrid.

Official Website
(s) ++ (w) +++ (m) +++ (i) ++++ (c) +++

* * *

Following up in the next post(s) :

* * *

This post is a contribution to the Avant Garde blogathon organised by Girish, check out the other participants:

01 août 2006

VENICE 2006

[UPDATED w/ Awards]
63rd VENICE BIENNALE International Cinema Mostra
August 30 - September 9, 2006
Official Website

Jury : Catherine Deneuve (actress) - President; José Juan Bigas Luna (director); Paulo Branco (producer); Park Chan-wook (director); Cameron Crowe (director); Chulpan Khamatova (actress); Michele Placido (director)



COMPETITION

  • Blackbook / Zwartboek (Paul VERHOEVEN/Netherlands/Belgium/Germany) www 1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Bobby (Emilio ESTEVEZ/USA) 1 2 3 4 5
  • Quei loro incontri / Ces rencontres avec eux (Danièle HUILLET, Jean-Marie STRAUB/Italy/France) BEST INNOVATION
  • Children of men (Alfonso CUARON/UK/USA) www 1 2 3 4 5 6 BEST TECHNIQUE
  • Daratt / saison sèche (Mahamat HAROUN/France/Belgium/Austria) 1 2 3 SPECIAL JURY PRIZE
  • Ejforija / Euphorie (Ivan VYRYPAYEV/Russia)
  • Fallen / Falling (Barbara ALBERT/Austria) www 1 2 3 4 5
  • Fangzhu / Exiled (Johnnie TO/Hong Kong/China) 1
  • Hollywoodland (Allen COULTER/USA) Best Actor
  • Hei yanquan / I Don't Want to Sleep Alone (TSAI Ming-liang/Taiwan/France/Austria) www 1 2 3 4
  • The Black Dahlia (Brian DE PALMA/USA)
  • La Stella Che Non C'è / The Missing Star (Gianni AMELIO/Italy/France/Switzerland/Singapore)
  • L'Intouchable (Benoît JACQUOT/France) Best Young Actress
  • Mushi-shi (Katsuhiro ÔTOMO/Japan)
  • Nue propriété (Joachim LAFOSSE/Belgium/Luxembourg/France)
  • Paprika (Satoshi KON/Japan)
  • Coeurs (Alain RESNAIS/France/Itlay) www 1 2 3 4 5 BEST DIRECTOR
  • Sang sattawat / Syndromes and a Century (Apichatpong WEERASETHAKUL/Thailand/France/Austria) www 1 2
  • The Fountain (Darren ARONOFSKY/USA)
  • Nuovomondo / The Golden door (Emanuele CRIALESE/Italy/France) REVELATION Award
  • The Queen (Stephen FREARS/UK/France/Italy) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 BEST SCENARIO, Best Actress
  • Sanxia Haoren / Still Life (JIA Zhangke/China) 1 2 GOLDEN LION
OFF COMPETITION

  • Baaz ham sib daari ? (Bayram FAZLI/Iran)
  • Belle toujours (Manoel DE OLIVEIRA/Portugal)
  • Gedo senki (Goro MIYAZAKI/Japan) Anim
  • Inland empire (David LYNCH/USA) 1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Jakpae / The City of Violence (Seung-wan RYOO/South Korea)
  • The Magic Flute (Kenneth BRANAGH/UK) 1
  • Devil Wears Prada (David FRANKEL/USA)
  • Lettere dal Sahara / Letters From the Sahara (Vittorio DE SETA/Italy) www 1 2 3
  • Ostrov (Pavel LOUNGUINE/Russia)
  • Para entrar a vivir (Jaume BALAGUERO/Spain)
  • Quelques jours en septembre (Santiago AMIGORENA/France/Italy) www 1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Rob-B-Hood (Benny CHAN/Hong Kong/China)
  • Sakebi (Kiyoshi KUROSAWA/Japan)
  • Summer Love (Piotr UKLANSKI/Poland)
  • The Wicker man (Neil LABUTE/USA)
  • World Trade Center (Oliver STONE/USA)
  • Yeyan / The Banquet (FENG Xiaogang/China/Hong Kong) www 1 2 3 4
ORIZZONTI / HORIZONS

  • O Céu de Suely / Suely in the sky (Karim AÏNOUZ/Brazil, France, Germany) 1 2 3
  • Koorogi (AOYAMA Shinji/Japan)
  • The Hottest State (Ethan HAWKE/USA)
  • Taiyang yu / Rain Dogs (HO Yuhang/Malaysia, Hong Kong)
  • Svobodnoe plavanie (Boris KHLEBNIKOV/Russia)
  • El Cobrador (Paul LEDUC/Mexico, Argentina, Brazil)
  • Mabei shang de fating (LIU Jie/China)
  • Infamous (Douglas McGRATH/USA)
  • Opera Jawa (Garin NUGROHO/Indonesia, Austria)
  • Quijote (Mimmo PALADINO/Italy)
  • Non prendere impegni stasera (Gianluca TAVARELLI/Italy)
  • Roma wa la n’touma (Tariq TEGUIA/Algeria, France, Germany)
  • Akamas (Panicos CHRYSANTHOU/Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Turkey)
  • C’est Gradiva qui vous appelle (Alain ROBBE-GRILLET/France, Belgium)
  • Pasolini prossimo nostro (Giuseppe BERTOLUCCI/Italy, France) DOC
  • Kill Gil (vol. 2) (Gil ROSSELLINI/Italy, Switzerland) DOC
  • Il mio paese (Daniele VICARI/Italy) DOC
  • Ana alati tahmol azouhour ila qabriha (Hala ALABDALLA YAKOUB, Ammar AL BEIK/Siria, France) DOC
  • Bellissime 2 (Giovanna GAGLIARDO/Italy) DOC
  • The U.S. vs. John Lennon (David LEAF, John SCHEINFELD/USA) DOC
  • When the Leeves Broke. A Requiem in Four Acts (Spike LEE/USA) DOC
  • Tachiguishi retsuden (OSHII Mamoru/Japan) DOC
  • Heimat - Fragmente (Edgar REITZ, Christian REITZ/Germany) DOC
  • Dong (JIA Zhangke/China) DOC
THE SECRET HISTORY OF RUSSIAN CINEMA



  • Garmon’ / Accordion (1934/Igor Savchenko/Evgenij Sneider)
  • Vesiolye rebiata / Jolly Fellows (1934/Grigorij Aleksandrov)
  • Cirk / The Circus (1936/Grigorij Aleksandrov)
  • Bogataja nevesta / The Rich Bride (1938/Ivan Pyr’ev)
  • Volga-Volga (1938/Grigorij Aleksandrov)
  • Traktoristy / Tractor Drivers (1939/Ivan Pyr’ev)
  • Muzykal’naja istoria / A Musical Story (1940/Aleksandr Ivanovskij/Gerbert Rappaport)
  • Svetlyj put’ / The Radiant Path (1940/Grigorij Aleksandrov)
  • Svinarka i pastukh / Swineherd and Shepherd (1941/Ivan Pyr’ev)
  • V shest’ chasov vechera posle vojny / Six O'Clock in the Evening After the War (1944/Ivan Pyr’ev)
  • Vesna / Spring (1947/Grigorij Aleksandrov)
  • Kubanskie kazaki / Cossacks of the Kuban (1950/Ivan Pyr’ev)
  • Scedroe leto / Bountiful Summer (1950/Boris Barnet)
  • Karnaval’naja noc’ / Carnival Night (1956/El’dar Rjazanov)
  • Nas milyj doktor / Our Kind Doctor (1956/Shaken Ajmanov)
  • Cheriomushki / Song Over Moscow (1963/Gerbert Rappaport)
  • Sparite utopajuscego / Save the Drowning Man (1969/Pavel Arsenov)
  • Romans o vlyoblionnykh / A Lovers’ Romance (1974/Andrei Konchalovskij)

RETROSPECTIVE - JOAQUIM PEDRO DE ANDRADE



  • Garrincha, Alegria do Povo / Garrincha: Hero of the Jungle (1963) DOC
  • O Padre e a Moça / The Priest and the Girl (1965)
  • Macunaíma / Jungle Freaks (1969)
  • Os Inconfidentes / The Conspirators (1972)
  • Guerra Conjugal /Conjugal Warfare (1975)
  • O Homen do Pau Brasil (1981)
  • O Mestre de Apipucos (1959) DOC Short
  • O Poeta do Castelo (1959) DOC Short
CENTENNIAL of Rossellini, Soldati, and Visconti



  • Quartieri alti / In High Places (1942/Mario Soldati)
  • Ossessione (1943/Luchino Visconti)
  • Roma città aperta / Open City (1945/Roberto Rossellini)
  • Fuga in Francia / Flight into France (1948/Mario Soldati)
  • Anna Magnani – episode from Siamo donne / We, the Women (1953/Luchino Visconti)
  • Ingrid Bergman – episode from Siamo donne / We, the Women (1953/Roberto Rossellini)
  • Il generale della Rovere / General della Rovere (1959/Roberto Rossellini)

RETROSPECTIVE ITALIAN CINEMA #3 (1937-1979)



  • Il feroce Saladino (1937/Mario Bonnard)
  • Per qualche dollaro in più / For a Few Dollars More (1965/Sergio Leone)
  • Dalla nube alla resistenza / From the Clouds to the Resistance (1979/Jean-Marie Straub & Danièle Huillet)

HONORARY GOLDEN LION
David LYNCH - Lifetime Achievement


VENICE DAYS
Independant sideshow - Official Website


  • 7 Ans (2006/Jean-Pascal Hattu/France)
  • Azul oscuro casi negro (2006/Daniel Sánchez Arévalo/Spain) www
  • Chicha tu madre (2006/Gianfranco Quattrini/Peru/Argentina) www
  • Come l'ombra (2006/Marina Spada/Italy)
  • Falkenberg Farewell (2006/Jesper Ganslandt/Sweden/Denmark) www 1 2 3 4
  • Khadak (2006/Jessica Woodworth e Peter Brosens/Belgium/Germany/Netherlands) www
  • L’Etoile du soldat (2006/Christophe de Ponfilly/France/Germany/Afghanistan)
  • La noche de los girasoles / Angosto (2006/Jorge Sánchez-Cabezudo/Spain/France/Portugal)
  • L'udienza e' aperta (2006/Vincenzo Marra/Italy)
  • Mientras tanto (2006/Diego Lerman/Argentina/France)
  • Offscreen (2006/Christoffer Boe/Denmark) www 1 2 3
  • Rêves de poussière (2006/Laurent Salgues/Burkina Faso/Canada/France)
  • WWW - What a Wonderful World (2006/Faouzi Bensaïdi/France/Marocco/Germany)

27 juillet 2006

Opening Shot Project

The Opening Shot Project run by Jim Emerson at Scanners is an insightful and diadactic form of criticism, combining formal analysis and collaborative work.
It introduces formal considerations to what film commentary should be, in a simple way, because it focuses on a short bit that we easily grasp in our mind and one that is particularly significant to the whole film. As Jim says, the first image on the screen defines our symbolic connection with the meaning developped in the rest of the film.
Secondly, the collective participation opened to readers, so various viewers propose a new opening shot with their own personality, which blurs the institutional line between the unilateral critic's stance and the readers feedback.
Both aspects, formal criticism and collective criticism should be developped online more frequently in my opinion to take best advantage of online interaction and insights.

I especially like acquarello's essays at Strictly Film School because he pays particular attention to describe the opening sequence of each film. Thus we can picture the atmosphere of a film we haven't seen, and really get in the mood the auteur establishes which is important to best relate to his later film analysis.
And I like to do that as well when I review a film. This is a very good exercice. Giving a sneak-peak at the opening shot is more instructive and more pertinent than the random shuffle of a trailer montage.

At the reading of the analysis of Femme Fatale's opening shot, by Dennis Cozzalio and Jim Emerson, a film I haven't seen, I was inspired to try a little informal psychoanalytical reading of the first images :

Layered from back to front : TV subject, mirror reflection, protagonist, real-life audience (us viewers), there are so many symbols at work in the TV bit alone, if we consider the order of screen apparition, paying particular attention to their nature and their significance.

The update of the femme fatale icon, as Jim points out, is also from B&W to color, an aesthetic leap, not only in fashion style. At the same time a nostalgic look back on the past, and a confrontation of two cinema ages, through the most possible violent comparison : superimposition. Giving the edge to the glossy color image of course. The old TV texture undermines even more the B&W image. It's like a comparative test : Color v. B&W
The nudity evoked by Denis further biases this shock of eras, we get more flesh now, but the expression of erotism is different though, and one would say trivialized, corrupted by showing off too much while underplaying the power of suggestive/restrained fantasy. And the male figure rudely switching off TV, like a parental punishment, terminates this uneven rivalery. One was textured by TV screen lines pattern, the other was semi-transparent.
The present wins, the past is shut out, but it's more like an imposed wake up call to suppress our complacent nostalgia. De Palma doesn't necessarily reveal his preference. On the contrary, this is such a humble, cinephile move for De Palma to open his own movie with somebody else's movie. Maybe De Palma pounders over the commodification of great Classics in video forms, or how the whole Production Code aesthetic vanished away, or just a homage to Billy Wilder.

Then there is the multilayered apparition of the protagonist by progressive stages.
First we see the object of veneration, full screen. And the anachronistic reflection enters the frame to deny the original diegesis (Double Indemnity), literally upstaging Stanwyck. Now the image of the voyeur is revealed to the audience made self-conscious. Like if a spotlight was directed on the spectator in the dark theatre, showing up our anonymous presence on the silver screen like on a mirroring window. The TV screen stands for the peeping window of voyeurism.

The TV set is also a mirror, physically, because De Palma uses it to film the face of his actress while she's turning her back to us. It is symbolically also because the viewer-voyeur, looks into the screen and wants to see his/her own reflection on the screen, meaning IN the movie. And this clever mise-en-scene achieves just that, the viewer and the star are side by side on the screen.

So that's a dialogue with the audience, a welknown feeling shared by a cinephile. The unidentified protagonist is like us, an audience within this fiction. Calling for a deeper identification with her.
Moving on to a deeper layer, we assume the protagonist's point of view. The girl watches a mythical icon and her reflection merges into her. The mirror image materializes this unconscious process of identification ("transference" in freudian term), like a ghost double of herself projected outside her body to rub off a little against the screen, and maybe become a movie star too. Which actually happens with the introduction of the real protagonist, pushing back Barbara Stanwyck to backdrop layer.

There is probably a more complex message about screen feminity nested there by De Palma. I don't know the narrative connection between Double Indemnity and Femme Fatale, so I can't figure the thematic purpose.

The reality check of the TV set and the subtitles continue to remove the viewer from the screen world. A trick meant to accentuate the reality of this hereby fiction (Femme Fatale), by contrast to another fiction film (Double Indemnity) turned into a mere video playing on TV and switched off abruptly. The nudity uncovered as the shot widens makes us more and more interested in the color diegesis.
Perverse manipulation to install the proverbial suspension of disbelief. Now we are ready to forget we are watching a movie, because the "movie" was on that TV, now what's happening is reality and we're in it!
.
Obviously, watching the film entirely and knowing the substance of the content would help to inform this formal analysis with more pertinence, but as a technical exercice, I thought it was amusing to look into the structure itself alone.

23 juillet 2006

Cinema is dead... on radio

Le cinéma l'après-midi, The rendez-vous of Filmmakers radio show, cancelled on France Culture!

listen here (available online for a week, in French)

France Culture is a public network, heavy on highbrow culture (philosophy, art, history, psychology, religion...), a haven for quality content, and yet put an end to 3 years of the best panel discussion on cinema... A radio show, hosted by Claire Vassé, I only discovered in 2005, and is not even archived online. It was my weekly fix for serious film talk, cinema reflexion, pertinent questioning, profound insights, and insider perspectives of certain filmmakers on the films of other filmmakers. I got more substance out of these informal verbal chattering between auteurs than from any formal print critics! Filmmakers aren't always very comfortable talking about their own films, but their passion shines when they reveal their vision of cinema through their commentary, the expression of their experience of films that are not theirs.
  • The discussion begins with a clip from Renoir's Une Partie de Campagne, selected by Marie Vermillard. The scene of the girl sharing with her mother about her blooming desir and her growing passion for grass, water, insects like an overwhelming sensation that makes her want to cry. Summarized in this scene, cinema is life.
  • Marie Vermillard cites Fernando Pessoa on the regard (Caeiro) : "I am at the size of what I see", a reflexion closely relevant to the experience of cinema, before the big screen, facing the dimension of the frames
  • Pascal Bonitzer cites Eisenstein : "The close up of a cockroach is more impressive than a wide shot of hundred elephants" traducing the plastic emotionality of filmic framing.
  • Brigitte Rouan is annoyed by the poor format of French cinema this year, trivial, she wants a more radical cinema like Desplechin. She regrets the disappearing of this space of resistance (the radio show) that championned obscur filmmakers like Stephen Dwoskin.
  • Catherine Breillat : Man is an animal with naked skin and speech. The body language, the language of silence, of regard, of flesh.
  • Philippe Le Guay cites Deleuze : "The decomposition of cristal, process of decomposition of the image by Visconti"
    Philosophers teach us how to read images we make. We believe we know our images, and they are re-interpretated by someone else.
    This radio broadcast was a place to re-invent images. Our opinion on a film doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if we like Visconti or not. Shift of appropriation. To change our point of view through speech is what makes cinema important, something to talk about.
  • Khalil Joreige : Cinema is a place of thought. It's not a matter of taste, but a field of exploration that has to do with our existence and our approach.
  • Catherine Breillat : Cinema is the place for the discovery of the world. Cinema is a metamorphosis of human thought becoming concrete. Place of work and human conscience.
  • Brigitte Roüan says the feedback of the audience who amplify a film through their own words, an perspective the filmmaker couldn't even imagine, is emotionaly moving her to tears sometimes.
  • Philippe Grandrieux proposes a clip from the opening of Dreyer's Ordet. The word can ressurect life, something becomes possible when the speech is pronounced and heard. The sound of the father calling his son, and the sound of the animals (reminder/vertigo of animality). The great question of cinema is its capacity to make us feel we are alive.
    This radio broadcast was important to put together filmmakers who are not meant to face eachother and talk about other films, and their own relationship to cinema.
  • Emmanuel Mouret : "Cinema does resurrect life. Cinema IS life, not aside of life. Often we say reality inspires cinema, but cinema is also there to inspires reality"
  • Dominique Cabrera cites "Pierre-Auguste Renoir, mon père" book by Jean Renoir. The paintor fought the motif, he painted nude bodies, and found himself in this nudity.
    The sexual desire to film a body, a face, weaving a life pulsion with the director's personal history.
  • Philippe Le Guay cites Ophüls "The greatest quality of cinema is vitality" because vitality cannot be enclosed in an idea.
  • Philippe Grandrieux : What matters is the nature and the origin of the "gesture" of the artist. A director doesn't frame his shots with the eyes, but from within, something inside, in order to see something, to mean something. Beauty for itself is grotesque, the quality of a merchandise.

Sad day for thought-provoking Film Discussion, as listening to filmmakers talking about their art is too rare and precious...

14 juillet 2006

Criticism/Creation mix at Cahiers

As cited in my previous post Bazin described a phenomenon characteristic of the Cahiers tradition : a constant interconnection between critical thinking on cinema and its effective practice. Ever since its genesis, the editorial board of Les Cahiers du Cinéma developed a particular proximity with filmmaking, often critics doing the leap and directing their own films after analysing so many of their masters.

"Nonetheless, after defining the independence of creation from criticism, a new phenomenon should be mentioned, the growing dependency of criticism from creation.The birth of criticism at the silent era was tightly bound to creation : Canudo, Delluc, L'Herbier, Dulac, Gance, Epstein, Tedesco... are both filmmakers and theoreticians. Critical reflection and creation were interdependent. (...)
In France, this new generation of young intellectuals [Politique des auteurs] with a conscious vocation and envy to make cinema, believe knowledge and reflection of cinema is no longer at the studio or internship on set, but at the Cinémathèque and by the practice of film criticism."
André Bazin (Reflexions sur la critique, 1958)

I've compiled a non-exhaustive list of Cahiers critics who turned filmmaker to illustrate this interesting fact. Some continued to write in Les Cahiers during their filmmaking career, some came back to criticism for good, others proved they were capable filmmakers with so much talent they entered the pantheon of cinema history.

Film critics who make films

Cahiers precursors : Theoretician-Filmmaker

  • Robert Bresson (14 films/17 scenarii/0 performances) "Objectif 49"
  • Jean Cocteau (10/42/12) "Objectif 49"
  • Alexandre Astruc (19/17/4) "Objectif 49"

Cahiers contributors : Critic-Filmmaker

  • Jean-Luc Godard (88 films/73 scenarii/34 performances) "Jeune Turc"
  • Claude Chabrol (67/51/48) "Jeune Turc"
  • Chris Marker (42/32/0)
  • Eric Rohmer (51/34/9) "Jeune Turc"
  • Wim Wenders (46/31/20) Special Issue Editor
  • Luc Moullet (32/19/27)
  • Jacques Rivette (31/23/7) "Jeune Turc"
  • François Truffaut (26/34/14) "Jeune Turc"
  • Jacques Doniol-Valcroze (21/27/17) Founder
  • André Techiné (21/24/2)
  • Marguerite Duras (19/48/8) Special Issue Editor
  • Olivier Assayas (19/23/2)
  • Jean-Louis Comolli (19/20/4) "Moderniste"
  • André S. Labarthe (19/5/17)
  • Jean André Fieschi (17/2/2) "Moderniste"
  • Jean Eustache (12/5/8)
  • Jean-Pierre Limosin (12/5/2)
  • Jean Douchet (11/21/4)
  • Danièle Dubroux (10/10/10)
  • Jean-Claude Biette (9/7/10)
  • Léos Carax (7/6/4)
  • Serge Le Peron (6/4/2)
  • Louis Skorecki (6/2/1)
  • Alain Bergala (5/4/1)
  • Pascal Bonitzer (5/44/26)
  • Christophe Honoré (5/8/0)
  • Thierry Jousse (4/4/4)
  • François Weyergans (3/1/1)
  • Serge Toubiana (2/1/2)
  • Alain Philippon (2/0/0)
  • Nicolas Saada (1/6/1)
  • Philippe Sollers (1/5/3)
  • Marc Chevrie (1/1/0)
  • Michel Chion (1/1/0)
  • Jean Narboni (1/0/7)
  • Vincent Ostria (1/0/1)
  • Yann Lardeau (1/0/1)

-- Approximate number of (films directed/scenarii/performances) for a partial selection of Cahiers critics, taken from IMDb for information (complementary infos/corrections welcomed).

Bazin on criticism - 1958

Reflexions sur la critique / Reflections on criticism


Following to my previous post on his preliminary essay on criticism, Pour une critique cinématographique (1943) -- which didn't provoke much commentary, sadly -- here is an essay he wrote shortly before dying, aged 40, at the end of 1958 -- 48 years ago -- and published in Cinéma 58 n°32, which concludes his career of film critic. He animated Ciné-Clubs (which he considered to be a form of criticism), and worked for big circulation daily newspapers, weeklies or specialized magazines (Cahiers du Cinéma) during 15 years, a decisive period for film criticism in France and in history. He looks back on how print criticism has evolved since he started, the state of criticism and its practice, with an extraordinary lucidity.

(my rough paraphrased translation. The titles are Bazin's)



I - De l'inefficacité de la critique / About criticism inefficiency

Cinematographic criticism is almost useless to the commercial success of a film.

"More and more, advertising uses criticism, although one couldn't say this borrowing and citation pays homage to its efficiency. Firstly because these skilfully truncated quotes are always favourable to the film, even when the article was harrowing, secondly because they prove by contrast the direct impotency of criticism, which becomes efficient when promoted by advertisement."

The impact of criticism on the total commercial run of a film is quasi-null. Even an unanimous critical acclaim, at festival for instance, cannot attract enough audience to extend its run.
However Bazin confesses his satisfaction of criticism powerlessness because the disproportionate and arguable responsibility on the success/failure of a film (like it is most common with an almighty theatre criticism) frightens him.

"I don't see what moral authority, or what intellectual grace would grant to the critic the monstrous privilege to decide the fate of artworks he doesn't like. Ideally we could help efficiently the ones we like, and we would have little influence on the others; but since the two are linked, I still prefer quasi-inefficiency to an abusive power."


II - Inutile mais nécessaire / Useless but necessary


However cinema cannot do without criticism, in spite of its uselessness.

"Chaplin, Griffith, Murnau, Stroheim, Dreyer would have existed anyway, with or without criticism : they wouldn't have changed a single plan in their films. (...)

This parasite vegetation [criticism] on the majestic tree [creation] maintains a symbiotic relationship, with hindsight, not necessarily meaningful to growth but to blissful ageing"

"Criticism is two-faced : one toward the film, which is worthless commercially, the other toward the audience, which justifies its existence. (...)

Had I revealed the cinematographic truth to 10 stray readers only, one even, my duty of critic would be justified. Back in the thrilling days when I could practice oral criticism of workshops and ciné-clubs, the superior delight it gave me over the print criticism laid in this immediate sentiment, physical, directly human, that intellectual analysis resulted on a genuine conversion. How many times have I been approached on my way out by spectators (usually over 40 years old) who meant to tell me they were unable to judge the validity of my analysis of the film, but that it revealed to them that cinema existed, was truly an art, and they believed in it now. (...)

Believe me if you like, these results matter much more than a 10% increase of the influence of print criticism on weekend gross"


Bazin wishes quality would become quantity too on the long run... nearly 50 years ago! The spread of arthouses, replacing the ciné-clubs. Post-war criticism of a greater quality, the actions of La cinémathèque and ciné-clubs, the popular cultural movements are the factors of a complex phenomenon leading to form a specialized cinema audience for a decade (then).

"If criticism is the conscience of cinema, cinema owes to criticism its self-consciousness."

"The concern for style, shaping up thoughts, promote film criticism as a literary genre, which wasn't true before WW2. (...)

We know concerns for effect and style lead sometimes French criticism to disputable excess (often caused by juvenility). But these are the flaws of a new and fundamental quality, which for the first time places film criticism on par with traditional criticism."


III - La critique et la création / Criticism and creation

If criticism is unable to influence a film commercially, then does it influence filmmakers who read it?

"The presumption would be even more intolerable to teach the maker how to do his job (only the like of Baudelaire or Valéry could). The creator expects little from criticism, due to the profound psychology of creation. The critic commences from the result, from the finished work. His mission isn't so much to "explain" it but to illuminate its significance (or meanings more exactly) in the conscience and mind of the reader.

Some bring forth the silly objection that critics find thousands wonderful intentions that the auteur never contemplated. For instance one "sublime" mise-en-scène idea that was in fact originated by a technical incident. If the final work was limited to the sum of the artist's conscious intentions it wouldn't worth much. The quality and depth of an artwork can be measured by the gap between what the auteur meant to put in it and what it actually contains. (Of all arts, cinema is the one that by nature leaves the largest part to chance). Besides, the purpose of criticism isn't to track back the psychological process of creation (operation more uncertain than the most arbitrary aesthetic sketch), but to help nurture its reader intellectually, morally and in his/her sensibility in relationship with the artwork.

Whichever critical method is worthless if not controlled, limited, corrected by this specific quality judging the critic ultimately : taste. A quality, obviously hard to define, that only could distinguish a theoretical hallucination from an acceptable elaboration. Those who lack critical sense and distance, the bad impressionistic criticism, which facile irony only equals its incompetence, make up the free-for-all of criticism. (...)

Nonetheless, after defining the independence of creation from criticism, a new phenomenon should be mentioned, the growing dependency of criticism from creation.The birth of criticism at the silent era was tightly bound to creation : Canudo, Delluc, L'Herbier, Dulac, Gance, Epstein, Tedesco... are both filmmakers and theoreticians. Critical reflection and creation were interdependent.
French critics of the talky era, from 1930 to 1950, mark however a quasi-absence of mix between the industry and what is written about it. A counter-example in the UK (Gavin Lambert, Lindsay Anderson and the team of Sight & Sound) or in Italy (the Experimental Centre from the fascist era) proves critics often cross the line between criticism and filmmaking. Meanwhile, non-critic filmmakers always dialogue with critics. [See: critique/creation mix]
However I'm rather sceptical about the fertility of such exchanges.

In France, this new generation of young intellectuals with a conscious vocation and envy to make cinema, believe knowledge and reflection of cinema is no longer at the studio or internship on set, but at the Cinémathèque and by the practice of film criticism. Thus the partiality, the polemic and militant character of these young critics. Naturally, this is a passionate criticism made of virtual creators. Objectivity is not a goal. Taking side in art is legitimate when backed up by intelligence, taste and talent. Of course these critics are narrow-minded, unjust... but the narrow angle of reflection often penetrates deeper in the intelligence of its object than objective criticism.
Hitchcockism or Bergmanism will remain strategical operations of criticism that nurtured the history of cinematographic reflection. Even though I don't believe in "La Politique des Auteurs" personally. But there is no absolute error in Art. Truth of criticism isn't defined by whatever objective and measurable exactitude, but by the intellectual excitation triggered inside the reader : its quality and amplitude.

The function of the critic isn't to bring an inexistent truth on a silver plater, but to further as far as possible, through intelligence and sensibility of readers, the impact of a work of art."


What do you think about Bazin's analysis and its relevance in today's critical debate?

08 juillet 2006

INA - Public French TV archive online

National Archive Insitute (INA) opened to public use a part of their methodical archive of all things TV and radio broadcast since the 70ies, and put it on the internet a couple of weeks ago with a stunning success (jam and troubleshooting possible).
It's only small clips and nothing recent yet (full access will cost fees), but I found a bunch of great TV moments.

For example these are the hits for Robert Bresson (in French, obviously) :

  • 1958 - Maria Casarès on Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne
  • 1962 - Bresson interviewed after Le Procès de Jeanne d'Arc was awarded the Cannes Special Jury Prize
  • 1966 - Interview of Bresson in Venice for Au Hasard Balthazar
  • 1966 - Annie Dorfman producer of Le Procès de Jeanne d'Arc, talks about its commercial failure
  • 1966 - Annie Dorfman talks about producing Pickpocket : she says Bresson doesn't let producers interfer in the pursuit of his oeuvre
  • 1966 - Louis Malle on Bresson's non-actors
  • 1966 - Ghislain Cloquet, DP on Balthazar, talks about the unity/flow /coherence given by a sole 50mm lens for every plan
  • 1966 - Godard, Duras, Malle, Reichenbach talk about Au Hazard Balthazar
  • 1967 - Godard in Cannes repeat exactly what he said in clip above about Bresson (inquisitor), but in pejorative terms (racist, intolerant) because Bresson supported the censorship Rivette's La Religieuse earlier the same year
  • 1967 - Interviews of his models on location during shooting of Mouchette
  • 1970 - Dominique Sanda on Une Femme Douce
  • 1971 - Dominique Sanda, 20, on Bresson
  • 1974 - Bresson press conference for Lancelot in Cannes, defends furiously his cinematographe against the mascarade/disguised parade of commercial cinema (pornography). Disses Dreyer's period costumes for Jeanne d'Arc. The gore opening sequence was meant to show the violent menace of the epoch, but before the film, to keep the core of the film free of representative violence. Disses Resnais period film Stavisky
  • 1981 - Truffaut on Bresson
  • 1983 - L'argent in Cannes, booed by the public and praised by the critics
  • 1985 - Jean Yanne, producer on Lancelot, talks about how Bresson spent 24h on recording the sound of a poker on the ground
  • 1987 - Dominique Sanda on Une Femme Douce

Maybe some of them are already featured on DVD bonus tracks, but I wouldn't know because I don't have the DVDs.

More updates later with other findings...


01 juillet 2006

2:37 (2006/Thalluri)

Two thirty 7 (2006/Murali K. Thalluri/Australia) +++

Opening Sequence : Very photogenic shot by a nonchalant camera flying unsteady in the tree leaves as if in the weightlessness of a breeze (overexposition of the sky, translucent leaves, calm, out of time, flowing motion always looking upward). The title appears superimposed like a digital clock for a second (2 :37), marking the exact time of one teenager's death. (This poetical motif will come back in the end, from a different perspective, to loop back the long flashback with the current time of the opening sequence)
Cut (from what was the courtyard of a well to do suburban high school) to the bathrooms. A girl is crying over her own problems when her attention is drawn to a closed door with suspicious noises. Some blood leaks out. After banging and alerting everyone, the door is opened to the horror of reaction shots. We don't see who is dead, and that's the mystery we'll have to figure out until the end.
High school flick is a known territory, especially in TV serial drama, but this exercice in style mixes many genres together to elaborate the complex storytelling of an artfilm. The sensationalist climax breaks in upfront. We know one of the seven students we follow this morning will commit suicide, but who? A varied selection of typical profiles (nerd, jock, teacher's pet, barbie dolls, gay, everyone's friend, laughingstock) that represent social personalities found in today's classrooms.
The students talk about their hopes and issues with life, school and family through talking-head interviews by an off-screen silent journalist, on a glossy black & white camera. Interspreced along the non-linear exposure of several viewpoints of the same events taking place that morning, they really develop the ambiguity of teen's self-centered realities. The B&W documentary image and the interview mode suggest a TV "making-of" filmed after the suicide for the news, which is the equivalent of the classic police interrogation of usual suspects in a more conventional genre. A touch of realism meant to accentuate the dramatization of this fiction based on a true story. It's particularly interesting to notice the obvious discrepencies between the public persona they try hard to portray, proud and optimistic, in these confessional interviews and the painful burden they carry secretly everywhere they go in the school scenes.

Taken in the very footsteps of teenagers along one tough day of their lives, a series of long plan sequences across the school corridors are consciously borrowed from Gus Van Sant's Elephant. The film is openly referenced in one line when Marcus and his English teacher talk about a Columbine-like school massacre. The same types of mini-episodes following one protagonist at the time, and then revisiting the same events from the perspective of another person present. Tracking shots mapping a comprehensive perception of every events from every perspective. The formalist "remake" is deliberate, fully appropriated in a personal and creative way, adaptated to a more mainstream story. Which denotes a confident talent for this debut director only aged 21 during production! This is unbelievable. A strong acting direction and a not so easy mise-en-scène that many experienced directors hardly manage.
One minor quibble though regarding the lengthy and explicit suicide scene coming up as the final revelation, that displays too much of the suggestive horror that defined the wise self-restraint atmosphere up to that point. The overtly gore and melodramatic scene isn't interesting in itself and to keep it unseen, elliptical or symbolic would convey a much more chilling feeling.

This "who is the victim?" mind game set up by the timeline inversion and withdrawal of a key information is a clever twist that introduces each of the seven protagonists as a potential "dead man walking". The potrayal of common troubles (unwanted pregnancy, homosexuality, drug abuse, anorexia, solitude, misunderstanding) makes you believe each one hides a valid motive. Maybe what they go through will lead to a dead end.
In the light of this dreadful outcome we are invited to observe carefully how they deal with their intimate problems and to pay particular attention to the point of no return when they would commit the ultimate mistake.
The film emphasizes that suicide is incomprehensible and that every adolescent may face suicidal tendencies. Even after examination of all the actions leading up to taking one's own life, it's difficult to know if someone could have noticed and help change the course of events. Maybe just a small gesture, a kind word would have made a difference. Maybe nothing at that point would have removed the resolve. The other protagonists' resilence will most likely overcome adversity, which offers a more hopeful sight.

Selected in Cannes 2006 - Un Certain Regard

(s) ++ (w) ++ (m) +++ (i) ++ (c) +++

28 juin 2006

Conversations with other women (2005/Canosa)

Conversations with other women (2005/Hans Canosa/UK/USA) +++

I like when mainstream cinema picks up some refreshing ideas from the experimental scene. The film runs a dual screen throughout, showing simultaneously two actions in two views. This is purely formalist but since the concept is maintained end to end, it becomes integer part of the narration in a playful way.

A man and a woman meet at a wedding, chatter with a certain self-conscious distanciation, joke around cynically about marriage and flirting, and inevitably spend the night together in the hotel, all in one breath, uninterrupted. Like a grown up pram flirt, with all the mature irony of a late thirties couple with a divorce under their belt. Tacitely agreeing to play an awkward pretense game, a mysterious connivence seems to build up quickly despite constantly refering to their absent better-half. They intellectualize the inconsequential guilt to talk themselves out of an imminent mistake as they approach closer to the adultary bed... The clever conversation drops scarce clues that reveal they know more about their past than we do. Through incremental steps, the intrigue develops on who we think they are. The "surprise" effects are largely underplayed though, almost en passant, as the revelations are rather amusing than a proper "twist".
Actually this pretense is part of their accomplice courtship, based on double-entendre. So it's not a complicated storytelling helding back information, it's the characters themselves willingly roleplaying for the purpose of this one-night stand.

They are desillusioned and convey a hopeless romanticism.The boring melodrama, mostly dialogue-driven, is wittingly written, takes a new turn by the simple fact we see twice as much on a split screen.

Notes on the dual screen "gimmick" :
  • The split in the middle is a reminder that the cinemascope aspect ratio (2.35:1) is nearly the sum of two standard square format (1.33:1).
  • One side is dedicated to the man, one to the woman. Although the switch of view allocation is part of the fun.
  • 2 cameras film each scene, one framing the man (Aaron Eckhart), one framing the woman (Helena Bonham Carter).
  • The film is about a couple, man v. woman, about the clash of two point of views, about each trying to figure the other's perspective without telling too much... therefore the form meets content and the screen is split physically to give both an equal platform of expression.
  • Perception of two realities at all time. Spatially : 2 places, or 2 views of the same room. Temporally : current time and flashback (memories or selective memory re-enactment of the past, confronting their younger-self).
  • Not always creative... sometimes the split is redundant as the 2 shots are almost forming the 2 halves of the equivalent widescreen shot.
  • Really interesting diptych compositions, identical type of shot or disparity : duplicated shot, great variation of head shots, back shots, wide shots...
  • Artificial re-composition (by way of split-screen) of a scene unlike reality. The angle of the two cameras make protagonists look in opposite or the same direction which may or may not correspond to reality. Which gives a supplementary reading of the scene, with 2 parallel meanings of the same action.
    Playful switch of a character, or an extra from one shot to the other. Co-ordinated camera movement of the two POV to make an harmonious apparent motion. Extras blocking the view on one side. Side swapping...
  • Doubles the theatrical possibilities for shot entry/exit (2 rights and 2 lefts). Continuous (slide from one view to the other) or discontinuous (unrelated motion). Complex mise-en-scène, but the technique could offer much more potential for dramatic effects.
  • A third character entering the scene unbalances the duality, and it's funny to see how the director copes with 3 characters on 2 screens. Either cutting faster to display 2 talking heads, or duplicating the shot with 6 people on screen at once.
  • Reaction shots on the same screen without the need to cut away. A new interpretation of the reverse shot code. Each looking to the other side of the screen so they seem to be at arm length while they are at the other side of the room (discontinuous background in the two shots).
  • Allows to insert a cutaway on screen while keeping an eye on one or two protagonists. The main conversation keeps going during the apparition of flashbacks or cutaways.
  • Co-existence of alternate takes of the same action. We see the actors doing the same thing, perceptibly de-synchronous, because they are different takes, filmed separately but played on screen simultaneously. And this has a particular meta-significance on the act of filmmaking and performances. We are allowed to compare outtakes in the final cut, in fact 2 outtakes become both "good". Several different ways to deliver a line, or to act an action are played in a row or simultaneously, alteration of the voice inflection, pause, posture, timing or change of the line altogether.This formal construct, anti-film, making-of material, contributes to dissociate the dual screen and emphasizes a differentiation between male and female perception of the same event, which is the point of the film.
  • Storytelling variations. The inclusion of alternate takes in the film propose a narrative multiplicity.

(s) ++ (w) +++ (m) +++ (i) ++++ (c) +++