Friday, August 22, 2008

La Vie de Jésus


Lazaral Moves



Overheard at Overheard Everywhere...

BOB DUCHESNE: I've walked out of two films in my life: Niki Caro's Whale Rider, and the Dardenne brothers' L'Enfant.

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: One of my professors in college, who showed us Tout va bien, confessed to walking out of only one film ever — Le Gai savoir. But back to the Dardennes — have you read Frodon's review of Le Silence de Lorna in the latest Cahiers?

BOB DUCHESNE: I have. He says that the facility and rhythms of movement are where the power of the Dardennes' cinema lies, especially in the latest. ("Circulation, movement, exchange. ... Fabio, master of circulations inside his taxi, and organizer of traffic in every sense, 'metteur en scène' of this film regulated like an efficient machine, ... [T]his complex visual-plan that seems as regulated as a clock-shop, ... [This] organised universe, in which social functions are shown revolving in a well-lubricated manner, ... [T]his universe where everything has been regulated under the condition of 'it's circulating', and everything is remunerated, and transferred, in a total fluidity of exchanges (a factual, not even polemical, definition of financial capitalism as widespread organizational model for human relationships), that excess of demand that grinds the machine to a halt.") For me, the core of the Dardennes' fictions — situations we might characterize as the implausibly plausible — resides entirely inside the diegesis; the mise en scène here provides no link, no 'cellular' communication, between interior movement and form, medium-form. That is, internal gestures of plasticity (I'm not being redundant — there are simply two levels of plasticity that can be mastered and 'worked' in the cinema; see Rossellini's Viva l'Italia!) swim unanchored, as though the frame has become a window, or a television-frame (or, fine, an aquarium — was it Raymond Bellour who coined it?), and a show is happening on the other side.

Le Silence de Lorna [Lorna's Silence] by Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne, 2008:



MARIE KARAGHEUZ: I think I follow your argument. The alchemy of the emulsion — the theoretical alchemy, i.e., the real emotional alchemy, another connective tissue, this time running from form to spectator — does not... 'take'. (To retake:

----Connector 1: diegesis to medium-form [with mise en scène operating inside of both, in addition to formulating the unification of each on a third 'outside' level];

----Connector 2: medium-form to spectator.)

In one part, it's the fault of the Dardennes; on the other hand, it's because modern film stocks have become a tragic case. Other filmmakers find a way around this 'lack', the bad film-stocks... maybe the Dardennes have, and you and I just can't see it.

BOB DUCHESNE: It's possible. But let's not just let this issue of bad Kodak and Fuji stocks lie there. When did it begin — or, rather, when did it end? The early-/mid- '70s? The late '60s?

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Something like that. Everything looks grubby and un-special now. I'm hopeful about HD. Just look at Operetta Raccoon Palace or Tale of Cinema or Miami Vice. It's something new, and powerful, and like eating drugs.

BOB DUCHESNE: Moi j'am still hopeful about miniDV — suddenly the 35mm material in julien donkey-boy or INLAND EMPIRE meant something again.

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Don't forget Eloge de l'amour...

BOB DUCHESNE: Dude, it didn't even need to be mentioned. It's the ne plus ultra of the modern image. Godard: "No-one has worked harder than I have to bring video into the pictorial tradition." It's one of the greatest films ever made, maybe one of the five best films ever.

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Obviously. While we're talking about Godard, isn't it amazing how all the old cinephiles talk about "John Alton" as the default of photographic excellence, but no-one says "Willy Lubtchansky"?

BOB DUCHESNE: I mean, you can't take this seriously. But it's very strange. They're all in the midst of midlife crises and are regressing, clinging, to the berceaux.

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Ah oui. — I hope it rains.

BOB DUCHESNE: I hate August.

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: So do I.

BOB DUCHESNE: And I, too, hope it rains.

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Maybe you walked out of Whale Rider because the weather on the outside of the film didn't match the weather on the inside.

BOB DUCHESNE: Not the weather; the climate. It didn't agree with me. It had a very humid stupidity. The young actress in it —

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Keisha Castle-Hughes?

BOB DUCHESNE: — she wasn't bad. She wasn't without a certain charm — an insolence. I thought we'd be seeing more of her. Maybe we will, and in something other than a Niki Caro film. As followers of modern goss know, instead of taking the laurel offered her by the Oscar nomination, the whole Hollywood deal, she had a baby with her long-time boyfriend, and at 18 is a young mother. Have you read her quotes to the press?

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Yes, they're defiant, they're spectacular. On one level, we have to imagine she had the baby out of spite.

BOB DUCHESNE: It makes me wonder what it might have been like if Fritz Lang had filmed the scene where No-Man gets a spear in his eyeball. But, no, you're right, I saw that recent paparazzo photo, which was very interesting. It's as if she's opted by default to become a character in a Dardennes film, but the film I wish they'd make. The one outside of the idiom of modern European default-cinéma d'auteur mise en scène: i.e., the same ways of cutting in and out scenes, the same ellipses, the 'this-is-good-enough' quality of modern lighting and modern emulsion we've touched upon... The paparazzo photo was an image where the Dardennes might have met Assayas.




MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Good for her. I could see there was hope for her future anyway, even from watching Whale Rider. (I walked out too, but maybe not so fast...)

BOB DUCHESNE: Why do you say that?

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Because of the one sequence that almost — almost — came from Donovan's Reef.

BOB DUCHESNE: Funny you bring that up, because I was just thinking of some related images. A few weeks ago The New York Times reported that the amount of censorship on the part of embedded photojournalists has reached an all-time high — that the American populace are not being shown the great-numbered dead — the blood already coagulating beneath the skin of what were by then corpses, in the process purple-blotching their forms. Nor shown the civilians who are wiped out by errant fire, or 'only' splattered by the blood of their parents' guts on their faces. Of course Americans should see these images, the news should begin with them every night, or they should be given pride-of-place on the color Page Ones — it would serve to 'humanize' them in a way that might seem inconceivable when, as abstracts, they remain as inconceivable, as latent-Hollywood ("not yet like a movie"), as images of a foreign army invading the American countryside, blowing away kids on Sidekicks, grandmas on respirators in Keds, handsome dads with wallet condoms, in public spaces. This did arrive once, however, and with a vengeance: Katrina, when circumstance met subject in de-abstracted media terror.

Photo by Michael Kamber for The New York Times:



Photo by Chris Hondros, for Getty Images:



MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Umm, it was still abstract for some; many said, "These people already look like corpses." Which (wait, and I guess I wonder what role the word "media" just played in your syntax there?) was peculiar — (1) Because of the "like"; (2) Because the primordial image in these instances was 'likely' not I Walked with a Zombie.

I Walked with a Zombie by Jacques Tourneur, 1943:



BOB DUCHESNE: No, it was footage from the riots of the civil-rights era — in other words, a 'period', an 'epoch' that had been contained, by virtue of its relation into images. Isn't this the danger too?

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Also the danger of 'film criticism' — or, let's say, 'film scholarship'. In other words: "We'll explain away your pain." But let's be precise about this footage: "by virtue of its relation into newsreel images, that have in turn been embedded into A&E / cable-channel documentaries." Savaged by more commentary than an angle can, or needs to, provide.

BOB DUCHESNE: Isn't "A&E" what the English call an ER?

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Yeah, "accident & emergency".

BOB DUCHESNE: And the network —

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: — "Hooker & Eight-Ball."

BOB DUCHESNE: D'accord.

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: But the observation about corpses was because the media, having paratrooped into the waters, said: "It is our duty, nation, to inform you that these black people look like corpses." With the unspoken subtext: "(We, of course, are hoarding the images of the dead Americans and the dead Iraqis, and know what happens to their skin. We won't show them to you, but we'll feed our bad montage, bad conceptions of editing, back into our language...)"

BOB DUCHESNE: There wasn't a silent image in sight.

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: There wasn't an image without a stratagem. No, wait, there were two: Charles Burnett's Quiet as Kept, and another image, in words, when Dylan sang: "Some people got barely enough skin to cover their bones."

Quiet as Kept by Charles Burnett, 2007:



BOB DUCHESNE: There weren't images of dead in gassy bloat, chewed up by their own crawlspaces... savaged in branches, insulation...

MARIE KARAGHEUZ: Is the image at the end of Dumont's La Vie de Jésus, Freddy in Rimbaudian berceau, an image of the living or the dead?

La Vie de Jésus [The Life of Jesus] by Bruno Dumont, 1997:



BOB DUCHESNE: It's an image of the dead — like Ophelia unaware of her artist, so: poised for resurrection. The film begins on a death as well: the friend who passes away from AIDS. The circumstances of his infection remain mysterious — one is forced to reflect upon this, given the relatively isolated milieu of the town of Bailleul. The sarcoma announce themselves on the boy's body like stigmata. As disjunctive as the affliction itself, on the wall of the hospice room hangs Giotto's image of the resurrection of Lazarus. So, as with all "acts of God" — taken as superstition applied after the fact by the living, as a coping mechanism; taken as real, supernatural phenomenon; or taken as arbitrary occurrence in a real-chaos universe — the ends will be the same, no matter the mystery of the means — and those ends are relief from the suffering of this earth. The drama of The Event — that one has no control over one's destiny — sets us all inside of the only real determinism: the indeterminable: ourselves at the mercy of the uncontrollable — and if we thus do not retain any ultimate control over our lives, if the control lies elsewhere, then at the level of the ends, our circumstances function identically to any system of events controlled/created by an Other. Our own moral structure will exist as our own active imposition... magic or ritual like any other, an organization of the arbitrary taken as active sign, like the appearance of the footage from Africa (abstraction) beamed in onto the bar television. (Conversation at the bar later on: "What's he got?" "AIDS." "AIDS. Is he homosexual? Just like all of them on the TV...") Suffering has the power of a universal truth, so given the arbitrariness of any invent, we might do well to heed the parable; when we act we only mirror the creation. "The life of Jesus" is only a framework for the story of us all. When Freddy looks up at the sky (the same sky seen by Kader, the Arab later beat to death by Freddy and his friends), Dumont's challenge is for the spectator to peer into and understand the revelation that arbitrary occurrence can be understood as miracle and guidepost, which phenomenon is in turn a miracle, and the indicator of the inherent grace of humanity.

La Vie de Jésus [The Life of Jesus] by Bruno Dumont, 1997:









MARIE KARAGHEUZ: It's like Rossellini's phrase — "Things are there. Why invent them?" — which in paradox (all existence as ouroborosian Tao, generative and passive-consumptive) contains its own opposite: "Things aren't there. Invent them." — Anyway, Dumont's film can exist, and succeed, because all its creator wants to do is 'show' — like real parable — and so the aforementioned "Connector 1" that energizes diegesis with medium-form and vice-versa has in this instance been rendered wholly irrelevant. That is: If the film looks a little grubby, or washed-out, the patina comes from the earth; Dumont knows the true emulsion lies elsewhere.

===

===




===

===



Ophélie

by Arthur Rimbaud

(1870)


I


Sur l'onde calme et noire où dorment les étoiles
La blanche Ophélia flotte comme un grand lys,
Flotte très lentement, couchée en ses longs voiles...
— On entend dans les bois lointains des hallalis.

Voici plus de mille ans que la triste Ophélie
Passe, fantôme blanc, sur le long fleuve noir.
Voici plus de mille ans que sa douce folie
Murmure sa romance à la brise du soir.

Le vent baise ses seins et déploie en corolle
Ses grands voiles bercés mollement par les eaux;
Les saules frissonnants pleurent sur son épaule,
Sur son grand front rêveur s'inclinent les roseaux.

Les nenuphars froissés soupirent autour d'elle;
Elle éveille parfois, dans un aune qui dort,
Quelque nid, d'où s'échappe un petit frisson d'aile:
— Un chant mystérieux tombe des astres d'or.

II


O pâle Ophélia belle comme la neige!
Oui, tu mourus, enfant, par un fleuve emporté!
— C'est que les vents tombant des grands monts de Norwège
T'avaient parlé tout bas de l'âpre liberté;

C'est qu'un souffle, tordant ta grande chevelure,
A ton esprit rêveur portait d'étranges bruits;
Que ton coeur écoutait le chant de la Nature
Dans tes plaintes de l'arbre et les soupirs des nuits;

C'est que la voix des mers folles, immense râle,
Brisait ton sein d'enfant, trop humain et trop doux;
C'est qu'un matin d'avril, un beau cavalier pâle,
Un pauvre fou, s'assit muet à tes genoux!

Ciel! Amour! Liberté! Quel rêve, ô pauvre Folle!
Tu te fondais à lui comme une neige au feu;
Tes grandes visions étranglaient ta parole
— Et l'Infini terrible effara ton oeil bleu!

III


— Et le Poète dit qu'aux rayons des étoiles
Tu viens chercher, la nuit, les fleurs que tu cueillis,
Et qu'il a vu sur l'eau, couchée en ses longs voiles,
La blanche Ophélia flotter, comme un grand lys.

===

===


translation by Wallace Fowlie (the only acceptable parallel-text French-/English-language edition of the complete Rimbaud), with modifications by me:


I


On the calm black waters where the stars sleep
White Ophelia floats like a great lily,
Floats very slowly, lying in [her/their (the stars')] long veils...
— You hear hunting-horns in the distant woods.

Behold, for more than a thousand years sad Ophelia
Passes, a white phantom, over the long black river.
Behold, for more than a thousand years her gentle madness
Murmurs its romance to the evening breeze.

The wind kisses her breasts and arranges in wreaths
Her great veils softly cradled by the waters;
The trembling willows weep on her shoulder,
Over her wide dreaming brow the reeds bend down.

The ruffled waterlilies sigh around her;
At times she awakens, in a sleeping alder,
Some nest, from which escapes a slight rustle of wings;
— A mysterious song falls from the golden stars.

II


O pale Ophelia, beautiful as snow!
Yes, you died, child, carried off by a river!
— It is because the winds falling from the great mountains of Norway
Had spoken to you in low tones of bitter freedom;

It is because a breath, twisting your great hair,
Bore to your dreaming soul strange intimations;
Because your heart was listening to the song of Nature
In the tree's complaint and the sighs of the nights;

It is because the voice of mad seas, an immense rale,
Broke your infant breast, too human and too soft;
It is because, one April morning, a handsome pale knight,
A poor madman, sat mute at your knees!

Heaven! Love! Freedom! What a dream, oh poor Madwoman!
You melted to him as snow to a fire;
Your great visions strangled your words
— And fearful Infinity terrified your blue eyes!

III


— And the Poet says that with the rays of the stars
You come at night to look for the flowers you picked,
And that he saw on the water, lying in [her/their] long veils,
White Ophelia floating, like a great lily.

===

===

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)




===





















===