Saturday, July 19, 2008

Judex


Family Feuillade



Les Vampires [The Vampires] by Louis Feuillade, 1915-1916:



If we have to classify the films of Louis Feuillade — and we don't, because there are no rules in cinema or criticism (love or war) — ...we'd do well to stop deferring to the contemporary marketing that announced them as adventure serials, and start referring to these (un-/)determinedly recursive five-plus-hour sagas by what they really are, which are extended psychodramas — dangerous, occult, quasi-cathartic manipulations of the spectating psyche. If this, in turn, seems loftily neglectful of the pictures' "point of intention" as mass-audience entertainment, I don't give a damn — a popular audience is in no jeopardy in 2008 of a shortage of delightful diversion, Dalí'ing as it does off of every surface, fixed or mobile — so I strike to reclaim him definitively for high-art, and if the popular audience wants Feuillade (which they don't), they know where to find him. So come on, programmers in the cities that still have cinemas, and cease screening him with musical accompaniment (after all, who does MoMA really need to compromise for?), unless the score will be the relentless throb of the tom-drum or a single long low electronic tone.

Judex [1916-1917] comes off at first viewing as the Feuillade film that is maybe least inclined toward the explicitly ritualistic gestures of the earlier Fantômas [1913-1914] and Les Vampires [The Vampires, 1915-1916] — I'm talking about the nested resurrections, mimic of coffin-rest, and rooftop "somnamubatics" — but the vestigial elements of the psychodrama still remain, by way of the following core, initiative themes: (1) "money"; (2) "family"; (3) "power". Less rooted in the foundational material, but at overt play as dynamic counterpoint (conflictual, read as: "dramatic/dramaturgic") within and against the surface treatment of the story itself, these same three elements configure elsewhere in the cinema what some call "melodrama". At the flick of a whim I might illumine Judex as Feuillade's Godfather 2, but really, I think the relative straightforwardness of the story, built around the aforementioned three themes, represents a schematic laying-bare of the Feuilladean mechanic: it's the return to the pier of departure, before the artist or the spectator (the two become one in the dispositif of Feuilladean spectating) went rightside-down, thrashing for air anywhere in the FEMININE ARMPIT OF THE WAVES (we even see this five hours in to Judex, with Cocantin's swimming-champion beauty, herself grinningly buoyant), or went sidewalk-ward, dangling but gazing — nowhere else to look — at the stars from the FEMININE LIP OF THE EAVES.

Judex by Louis Feuillade, 1916-1917:



Mouchette by Robert Bresson, 1967:



Les Vampires [The Vampires] by Louis Feuillade, 1915-1916:



Vertigo by Alfred Hitchcock, 1958:



Behold supreme Musidora, the greatest female presence of the silent cinema beside Louise Brooks, Sybille Schmitz, and Betty Amann, — here incarnated as Irma Vep's flash-parallel, and named "Diana Monti" (name all vertiginous ascent, and counterattack to Judex's calculating mother's — all mothers in the cinema are calculating — Corsican heritage) — her bathing-suited body, too, one with the waters (but pas de secours)... the body of a real woman (she's Italian) who would just as soon be hit by a jalopy as go to a gym, or whatever housed those 19th-century contraptions with the handsaw-handles and seven-foot springs. Nowadays, if I were to film a Musidora in a bathing-suit (but who is a Musidora?), some blogger would comment upon the "provocation" of it all, and in their refusal to keep their (metaphorical) mouths shut, disrupt the order of actual things, derange the center of power ( /gravitas) located in that body and its silence.

Judex by Louis Feuillade, 1916-1917:



Feuillade's film, in a different way, decenters "the order of actual things," by presenting situations which will be taken for the ordinary, for the banal (the uncomplicated) — the aforementioned three motivational themes — by viewers unhappy to work-out ordinary, banal sensibilities; let the rest perceive chastity, propriety, and piety transformed here into wild grotesquerie.

--The mother (already mentioned) who forces her offspring to vow murder upon the man who tangentially drove her husband to suicide so many years ago over "money worries"; in effect, obviously, forcing her offspring into the proxy role of committing a classical (/ classically delayed) "crime of passion" and so assuming the position of twin incests in a very modern ménage à trois avec maman. (Every shot of Feuillade is, by the way, an affirmation of the modern, an act of solidarity with its eminence.)

Judex by Louis Feuillade, 1916-1917:



--Jacqueline Favraux's delicate little girl of a boy, Jean, who engages in a (reciprocated!) proto-sexual gay relationship with the character played by Bout de Zan and named "le môme Réglisse" ("The Licorice Kid") — a name which, given the context, retains enough of a charge, but induces a full-voltage jolt when we stare harder into it and perceive its appropriation of "église" ("church"), and its corruption of "la religieuse" ("the religious / nun / reverent"). When we watch Jean and le môme Réglisse, lovers, praying in sweet devotion at Jean's widowed mother's side, and recall the same vows taken by the two brothers Tremeuse at the deathbed of their suicided father years earlier, we comprehend that Feuillade and co-conspirator Arthur Bernède have devised a blasphemy on a level with the title of the first story in Joyce's then-contemporary (1914) Dubliners — that is, "The Sisters".

Judex by Louis Feuillade, 1916-1917:




--Judex who is a caped sadist, inculcated by, habillée like, Mother.

Judex by Louis Feuillade, 1916-1917:



With regard to superheroes, their 'true' identity — who they really are — is 'the superhero'. The normal 'true identity' is the lie. See here: Judex switches to the disguise of the 'real he' to win Jacqueline's love, if he as Judex cannot, and if he in the disguise of the old man Vallières can only win her admiration. (What other missions have occasioned the taking-on of this "Judex" alter-ego [ / ego]? Possibly — probably — none.)

This same logic applies to artists: it is why artists become artists — to ascend to 'superhero'-esque new-identity (which is of course only themselves) in order to win a love. That's all.

===


"Gradiva (C'est Gradiva qui vous appelle) [Gradiva (It's Gradiva Who's Calling You), Alain Robbe-Grillet, 2006] did little for French critics. Commenting on the film's whipped bottoms, pinched nipples, caged women, chained bed slaves and other S&M behaviour, Pascal Mérigeau wrote in Le Nouvel Observateur: 'When the pretty bed slave turns on her belly and shows her buttocks at the camera, the Englishman with toothache lifts his eyes to the sky and looks at the moon. That's what we, for 118 minutes, would have liked to have been able to do.'

'The critics have become philistines,' fumes Robbe-Grillet, 85, bearded and slippered on the sofa of his fourth-floor apartment near the Bois de Boulogne in Paris. 'They used to know about cinema, but their sensibilities have been ruined by television.' I suggest the French public went to see
Gradiva in negligible numbers because it came out in Paris as Spider-Man 3 was dominating the French box office. 'We're not going to talk about Spider-Man 3,' he says."

— from "French Force" by Stuart Jeffries, The Guardian, September 15, 2007.

===


Coming soon to this blog:

Cindy Sherman,

Seijun Suzuki,

Jerry Lewis.


===

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Shrooms


Receptor Requiescat






Above is the cover to my favorite piece of packaging of Summer-'08-so-far. Pause was indeed taken at the Best Buy, and investigation thereafter commenced. Would Paddy Breathnach's Irish-Danish-Dutch co-production be one of those films of a concept-so-high that the marketing suffices, in effect, as the movie?

Not exactly, but not exactly the converse, either. It turns out to be one of those films where, alright, the concept's so high you can gauge the beginning, middle, and end without looking at the marketing; just grok the title (Shrooms), the 'genre' ('horror'), the year of premiere (2006), and you'll super-easily divine the story in its length. From there, actual viewing reveals Shrooms additionally to be one of those films that shows American girls speaking in the serious tones of advice-sharing (pause, and reverse-search: you might not have divined the framing idea of: "American 20-odds are on vacation in the forests of deepest Ireland for the express purpose of scoring intense/Irish 'psychedelic mushrooms' under the guidance of a handsome semi-echt-Eire point-person" — forward-search); one of those films that presents catalog-models, who never had a thing to think about in fiction or in Short Hills, now assuming (not in the sense of "adopting") the poses of grave deliberation; one of those films with the craziest purée-pulse-cum-distillation of (pop-)cultural anthro-archetypes; one of those films that 'bus-shots'-in its frights as a means of bringing girls closer to boys (on-screen and off-; in the dark no-one can hear a handjob; etc.); one of those films with ingenuous confessions like "It's supposed to heighten the sexual experience ten-fold"; the non-sex, the "No sex.", the not-sex, one of those films with the sex that kills — that is, one of those films with the sex that can't be shown, but the violence that can be and, so, wherein the violence will exist in place of, stand in for, the sex — as though there's an equation, and as though it must be balanced, and as though — as though — — — The supreme interruptus.

Shrooms by Paddy Breathnach, 2006:





Yes, the cheapest American gothic now 'does' global, and vice-versa. (But, question: If, in a film, a character has to have his penis bitten off within the first 35 minutes, wouldn't it be more interesting to let him live until the story's end?) (One more Q: If you're tripping, do you ever actually refer to something as "trippy" — except in total stoned meta-acknowledgment-satire?) By and large, a movie of today is not really a canvas for ideas or a machine of ingenuities (film-investment business-models couldn't dream of the real drugs/horror movie "high"-concept, the one that produces mind-blowing exploitation that only begins at titles like, say, The Abandonist, or Gas Mask for a Pig), but rather a delivery-system, a device that produces x style-tableaux (a system predicted and understood, by the way, by Godard as of Une femme mariée, fragments d'un film tourné en 1964 en noir et blanc [A Married Woman: Fragments of a Film Shot in 1964 in Black and White, 1964]).

Une femme mariée, fragments d'un film tourné en 1964 en noir et blanc [A Married Woman: Fragments of a Film Shot in 1964 in Black and White] by Jean-Luc Godard, 1964:






Speed Racer, speedballs — it's the oldest correlation of the movies, for we must remember that the practice of exhibition of a film before a spectator (that is, the exhibition-distribution of a film; in French, l'exploitation) is only ceded its genesis, as far as most film-history accounts are concerned (and how they do go out of their ways to emphasize this distinction), at the point the Lumière brothers showed the moving-image, in large and projected, to paying customers. (In taking this tack it's easier for the account'ants to pronounce, as they indeed often do, that, well, this happens to be the origin of the movies 'of course,' because it's the inception-moment of the cinema as an art, what with the Lumières selecting their subjects, framing the world... Yet — didn't Edison do the same? 'Art' or 'not-art', it seems to me he created works that were there... which we can project at varying speeds, telecine... exploit...) — The cinema, then, has really always been considered an opiate ready for the scoring. And in the context of so many creations (grandeur) and expirations (décadence), how near can Truth ever really be to Beauty?

Sandow (The Strong Man) by The Edison Manufacturing Company, 1894:



Cockfight by The Edison Manufacturing Company, 1896:



Seminary Girls by The Edison Manufacturing Company, 1897:



And so there exists Vogue and Elle and Tokion — and Shrooms. As with Thomas Edison, we can only take Paddy Breathnach on his own terms: he's no sad hand at Scope composition, for instance — is very competent, in fact — meaning he knows well enough how to 'work' the 2.35:1 frame to the degree of spatial balance required by a scene. If he's executing a conversation sequence, he's likely to tamp down in any particular shot the background focus, along with that of a foreground character or object — but one positioned strategically to parcel out the subject (in-focus, 'popping' in the middle-ground) within a 1.37:1 or 1.66:1 area of the frame, thus creating the tight "close-up" or "medium-close-up" that Scope, by its natural aspect-ratio, cannot provide for the human face, given the 'dead' space that must result on either side of the subject's head, or body. By way of this 'framing-within-a-frame' the director can instill within the spectator the sense of a simultaneity of spacee.g., the long-shot at the level of the Scope-frame-as-a-whole that operates as a medium-close-up at the "interior" 1.37:1 level.

Shrooms by Paddy Breathnach, 2006:




Does this sensorily permissive quality make Shrooms as good as shrooms? Not quite, even if its psilocybic high-hyper-focal-def mise-en-scène makes it, all the same, not-unbeautiful. Light-bulbs may be alien to Breathnach's manufacture, but he still invented a film in league with the petty-theft, preterite thrills of the American Mutoscope & Biograph Co., a Frank Mottershaw, or a Sean S. Cunningham. (If you really want to go where this film thinks its ideas are, watch Stan Brakhage's The Wold-Shadow [1972].)

Shrooms by Paddy Breathnach, 2006:



Airy Fairy Lillian Tries On Her New Corsets by American Mutoscope & Biograph Company, 1905:



The Wold-Shadow by Stan Brakhage, 1972:






===


There's a great article by Luc Moullet in the newest issue of Cahiers du cinéma called "Monicelli, or Extreme Comedy" ("Monicelli ou la comédie extrême"). It begins: "In the Radio Cinéma Télévision of 21 April 1957, I asserted: "Among the newcomers of the Italian cinema, there are authentic hopes." I then named Cottafavi and Mario Monicelli. Soon after I received a frenzied letter from Lo Duca, co-founder of the Cahiers. For him, these were vulgar commercial filmmakers. One doesn't mix dishcloths with napkins..." — and ends: "The comedy is more extreme still in Hurricane Rosy [Temporale Rosy, 1979], which pivots around female-wrestling, the sort that also inspired Aldrich's beautiful last-born, ...All the Marbles [1981]. Rosy benefits from a French star, [Gérard] Depardieu, with a very deliberate stiffness, and takes place in Paris and Flanders, in studio sets made to be destroyed by the wrestlers. The battles are conceived like ballets, with suites de coups and movements of an unbelievable virtuosity and dexterity. A poetry based on the alternation between communal places (circus, ships, port-side dive-bars) and the incongruity of the actions. I couldn't keep myself from laughing all throughout. Rosy was a flop. Too new, not Italian enough on the surface. And yet, it's pure Commedia dell'arte. Monicelli's masterpiece." (my translations) — I urge all lovers of writing to read what comes inbetween.

(You can pick up the e-version, and in English, at www.e-cahiersducinema.com.)

Les Sièges de l'Alcazar [The Seats in the Alcazar / The Sieges of the Alcazar] by Luc Moullet, 1989:








"You'll see. With Cottafavi, the perceived magic is filtered through traditional film techniques. He lyrically exacerbates conventional forms."


===


Two music clips:

(1) From 1974, one of the finest music "videos" ever made (but directed by...?). Brought to my attention by Jessica Felrice:



(2) This is why The Clash were THE CLASH



Hands of law have sorted through

My identity

But now this sound is brave

And wants to be free.

Cyd —


Une femme est une femme [A Woman Is a Woman] by Jean-Luc Godard, 1961:



— Charisse.


Tension by John Berry, 1950:


===

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Richard Normandy for President


Richard Normandy as Precedent?


Here in the United States, we the populace-receptors have been living out, for the past 31 months, a campaign-season of epic, well-nigh-novelistic grandeur. Just flash on back to all the promises; all the betrayals; any of the contradictions. The plethora of creeds; the panoply of screeds. That heaping helping of incontrovertibly anti-American inconceivables delivered via BlackBerry — and stamped "Google News Alert." All told, I don't think I'm alone in proclaiming this veritable flume of developments hurtling down the political y-axis to be the defining post-9/11 news-cycle of My or Any Generation, opening, as it or they were, my eyes to just how cogent it is when the news-sayers mention "a narrative"!

Indeed, it is all very like a movie.

All very like an American movie.

But one American movie I'd like to see unreel, in this historic campaign of so many two-party firsts, is the ascendancy of a truly progressive, indelibly radical stumper.

And I believe I have found, wandering through paradise as though in a dream, keeping a poppy to remind him where he's been... sleeping, sleeping, sleeping — that man.

His name is Richard Normandy, and I was as surprised by much of what he had to say as you might realize yourselves to be. Should we consider, for example, Barack Obama's virtues — the man's bold intelligence, infectious optimism, and (no mere metadata) self-symbolic import — we will note the absence of the mindbending. And should we seek out the candidate who can reframe policy within that idiom — all the while silently wondering "Who's Left?" — well, we might discover that it is Richard Normandy who has reframed not just policy but the rhetorical question itself.

I've uncovered some of his campaign graphics to date — along with recordings, presented here for download in the popular MP3 format, of a few speeches that Normandy delivered recently to meetups at the University of California and elsewhere. ("Elsewhere" possibly being Second Life or WoW assemblages, but this hasn't been confirmed.) There's also a website, normandy08.com, which offers some definitely cool shit — although it does appear to be something of a work-in-progress.

Check it out, and feel free to leave your thoughts here in the Comments section. — Is Normandy a viable candidate, or just a dreamer? Or is he a viable dreamer and/or outright vatic? History in the making, or the made? The real democratic ideal? The response to "whence democracy"?

Or is he a million questions?







===



4 Speeches by Richard Normandy


To download a speech, ctrl-click (or right-click) the file name and "save."

Speech One: Normandy on Big Card

Normandy tackles Big Card head on. (5 minutes, 11 seconds / 2.16 MB)




Speech Two: Normandy on the Domesticated Dolphin
Normandy rethinks the pet. (4 minutes, 43 seconds / 1.97 MB)




Speech Three: Normandy on Spam

Normandy puts forward his plan to eradicate spam. (8 minutes, 44 seconds / 3.63 MB)




Speech Four: Normandy on the Class Divide

Normandy reconsiders the infrastructure of class stratification. (17 minutes, 34 seconds / 7.27 MB)




===





















===

Friday, May 30, 2008

Happy 80th, Agnès V.


Une bonne soeur


Today Agnès Varda turns 80. I suppose I don't know how to salute with sufficient gratitude this genius, this sage, who draws inspiration out of every single life's heartbeat — anyone who's seen Les Glaneurs et la glaneuse [The Gleaners and the Gleaness, 2000] or Les Glaneurs et la glaneuse... deux ans après [The Gleaners and the Gleaness... Two Years Later, 2002] or Uncle Yanco [1967] already knows the shape of the jigsaw piece I'm considering. All I can say, maybe, is — Agnès, today I covered my west-facing living room windows in colored Reynolds Wrap because the 2pm-6:30pm hours have been far too white; makeshift gel filters, then, and giant 3D glasses, too. Probably your salute to the sun, Uncle Yanco, was in my mind. And in my heart, as well.

-ck.

===










Bientôt sur cet écran, 2008:




===

===

===

===

===

===

===

===


And, in other news:






===