Savannah Film Festival Update
Movies Watched (Between Oct. 27 and Nov. 2, 2005)
Le Croisment (The Crossing) (Brad Jayne, 2004) [13 min. short -- SFF]
Crumb (Terry Zwigoff, 1994)
Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944)
The Graduate (Mike Nichols, 1967) *
Grand Illusion (Jean Renoir, 1937) *
The Great Ecstasy of Woodcarver Steiner (Werner Herzog, 1974)
How Much Wood Would a ( Read more... )
Le Croisment (The Crossing) (Brad Jayne, 2004) [13 min. short -- SFF]
Crumb (Terry Zwigoff, 1994)
Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944)
The Graduate (Mike Nichols, 1967) *
Grand Illusion (Jean Renoir, 1937) *
The Great Ecstasy of Woodcarver Steiner (Werner Herzog, 1974)
How Much Wood Would a ( Read more... )
...write a two page paper on how Godard "situates his cinema, in the two Godard films we've seen, to the past history of the cinema and in particular to the work of Fritz Lang, especially M."
That sentance is kind of silly - which is fitting for a paper on Godard. I've seen Breathless (1959), Band of Outsiders (1964) and My Life to Live (1962). Not having seen Le Mepris I don't have much room to think in terms of that paper topic. Godard's cinema is alwasy incredibly self-conscious; he will often be making little connections to other movies (ex: in My Life to Live Ana goes to the theater and watches Carl Dryer's The Passion of Joan of Arc; the Bogart movie poster on the wall in Breathless) and is often consciously moving against ways people are used to seeing the action of films take place. I don't remember anything specific about Band of Outsiders. Godard does spend more time watching the characters bum around town than he does trying to set up the "heist." He is obviously avoiding the conscious plotting of a common Hollywood gangster film. But I haven't seen enough of the enormity of "cinema history" to even know where to take a premise like your paper. There's just so much I still need to see.
About those three Godard films: his self-conscious cinema bothers me -- "Look at me, I'm breaking the common rules of cinema! It's art!" In addition, the stories he tells just aren't very interesting. I make no connection to the characters (because he often consciously avoids these connections) and I have no interest in what is taking place on screen. If there's no emotional connection or involvement than it is just an academic exercise. The only moment of Band of Outsiders I enjoyed was when the three friends danced in the coffee bar because it was the only moment that had any life to it. Some might say it is superficial to only like that part, but I say it is the only part of that film where the movie decided to stop being so damn intellectual. To borrow something I once heard someone say about Roberto Rossellini, I think Godard's influence is greater than his films. I still plan on seeing the others in his ouvre because I believe in being well-watched; I also believe in giving someone a fair shake before completely writing them off. But if I've seen the 3 films generally proclaimed to be his greatest work and don't like the guy, the chances of falling in love with Godard by watching Pierrot le fou (1972) or Les Carabiniers (1963) is probably slim.
At this time I very much stand beside Werner Herzog's wonderful quote:
"Someone like Jean-Luc Godard is for me intellectual counterfeit money when compared to a good kung fu film.
Reply
"But I haven't seen enough of the enormity of "cinema history" to even know where to take a premise like your paper. There's just so much I still need to see."
Exactly the problem. We don't talk about anything in class. We haven't said a word about the "past history of the cinema" so we have nothing really to compare. You've probably seen alot more films than me, the number of movies I haven't seen that film majors are supposed to see is appalling.
I'd put Le Mepris and Bande a Part in that category of "films that I wouldn't call torture to watch but that I doubt I'll ever get the urge to want to watch again". We watched "Battleship Potemkin" the other day and it was okay. "Passion of Joan of Arc" was just boring and I don't get what was such a big deal about it. The story behind the film itself (lost in a fire, copy found in mental hospital in Denmark, I think) is more interesting than the actual film.
In film school, did they talk about Cinemascope alot? They talk about it in my classes all the time and I don't get why it's such a major topic of discussion. I understand it mades the frame wider in order to give movies that "bigger" more "epic" look and they did it to distinguish films from TV but other than that I don't understand why Cinemascope is such a big recurring idea.
Reply
I'm still in (film) school. Actually, here at SCAD (Savannah College of Art & Design), the emphasis is mainly technical. There are only a handful of classes that have anything to do with cinema appreciation, theory or analysis. There's also only one film history class (which I have yet to take). So, I haven't heard Cinemascope talked about much because we don't really talk about movies that much. I'm in a class called the Language of Cinema right now, and the emphasis in discussion is more on message and how a filmmaker uses the medium to say whatever he's trying to say. It is interesting. I imagine Cinemascope is something that is discussed because either A) there's some dumb people who wonder why their widescreen DVD "makes the picture so small and cuts off the top and bottom of the frame", or B) there's people who are really interested in shooting 2.35:1 because Wes Anderson does, or C) the teachers don't realize what other teachers teach and think they skip over Cinemascope in a hurry to get to something else. So, I've got no idea. That's strange.
"You've probably seen alot more films than me, the number of movies I haven't seen that film majors are supposed to see is appalling."
I felt like that at this time last year...in many ways I still feel that way somewhat. I have done very well this year, though, in regards to watching classics (and "classics"). I've had a light workload this quarter and have taken it upon myself to catch up to where I feel I should be. That's when a lot of my important film watching has happened: this quarter, these past ten weeks. To my surprise, the more I try to "catch up" to what I think is average level, the more ahead of some people in my classes I seem to be. I want to be well-watched and to have seen as many important films as I can before I graduate (in about two years) so I'm working toward that goal. In July I had not seen a single Bergman, Truffaut, Lang, Ozu, Herzog, Renoir, or Kurosawa. Now I have seen several by each director (the important works first) and have been working my way through the rest of their careers (as well as other filmmakers).
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment