Monday, September 15, 2008

Nuits rouges


Franju Unrepentant



The beauty of Franju: the centrality of his frames, the nothing-else-going-on around the focal, that is, the "something-else-...", the visual application of GF's oft-cited "room to dream": the extraordinary economy, planing, of the découpage.

Observations: Ugo Pagliai ("M. Borrego") the perfect stoic (so heavily made-up to underscore that he, and not just the nominal villain, wears a mask, to deaden the pallor around an already dead gaze), able to reconvene with his lover, kiss-and-pick-up-and-all-alright, after god-know's-how long separated, a bygone kind of movie-protagonist (39% of Franju is the cipher) — the rooftop scenes that could have come out of any art-installation-film, more aggressive dislocation even than in Feuillade — think about the crime-film practiced by Franju, and by Melville, stencil the convergences — the comedy that's like a table-clearing, magician pulling out the tablecloth but given-over to breaking the plates, "now you see 'em now you don't, bitches" — the comedy that shuffles with so much ease between its own absurd bases and the terror-surrealistic, or melodramatic, and which uses as its bridge the plot-mechanistic — the motorcycle-men who are not only out of Cocteau's Orphée [1949] but also out of Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange [1971] (Kubrick is also recalled in the living room of the television-watching couple) — another reference to Cocteau, to further emphasize the pedigree: "It's a pity you forgot to load your revolver, poet." — l'Homme sans Visage as prototype for Cobra Commander (soon to be portrayed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt!), ...Destro too?... ... ... and Gayle Hunnicutt (ex-wife of the now-deceased David Hemmings; presently "Gayle, Lady Jenkins") pre-viz'ing The Baroness... — blood: red tube oil paint — above all, the remarkable pleasure of making cinema (as someone once put it: that boys' train-set), it goes on and on like a train in the American night, always circling back as on a closed track to the originary stuff (eternal return), the law, and the awe, of the evidential trick, the dream made real then transfigured, again, into dream.

Nuits rouges [Red Nights] by Georges Franju, 1974:





A Clockwork Orange by Stanley Kubrick, 1971:



Orphée by Jean Cocteau, 1949:



Nuits rouges [Red Nights] by Georges Franju, 1974:







By film's end, through three or four missed connections in the plot, Nuits rouges insinuates the timetable never to have been actual, confirming, asserting, through recourse to this absence, that is: to negative space.

The nothing-else-going-on around the focal, that is, the "something-else-..."...

===



David Foster Wallace (February 21, 1962 — September 12, 2008)
Photograph by Steve Rhodes, 2006.



What remains of the dying population of Cambodia?

One large photograph of an American actress holding an Asian child in her arms.

What remains of Tomas?

An inscription reading
HE WANTED THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH.

What remains of Beethoven?

A frown, an improbable mane, and a somber voice intoning "
Es muss sein!"

What remains of Franz?

An inscription reading
A RETURN AFTER LONG WANDERINGS.

And so on and so forth. Before we are forgotten, we will be turned into kitsch. Kitsch is the stopover between being and oblivion.


—from The Unbearable Lightness of Being [Nesnesitelná lehkost byti, 1984] by Milan Kundera. Translated from the Czech by Michael Henry Heim.

===

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Correspondences, and Other Notes


(1)



Soigne ta droite, une place sur la terre [Keep Your Right Up: A Place on the Earth] by Jean-Luc Godard, 1987:



Item: Richard Brody's scurrilous and pathological biography of JLG (that is, a biography which, to me, reads not so much like a psychograph of JLG as of the auteur of Liability Crisis, Richard Brody's, evident and innumerable pathologies), titled Everything Is Cinema: The Working Life of Jean-Luc Godard, was reviewed by genius-level critic B. Kite in the Moving Image Source a couple months back, and is accessible here.

Upon publication last month of the British edition of Brody's bio-specimen, The Guardian published a write-up signed Chris Petit, the auteur of Surveillance, Radio On + Radio On: Remix, Dead TV, and, most recently, Unrequited Love. That piece is viewable here.

Kite:

But which Godard is speaking? There are many to choose from: the Seer of Switzerland, muttering gnomic asides of eternal decline. The clown Prince and Idiot, smiling sweetly through another indignity. Smutty old Uncle Jean, who desires nothing more than to stick his finger up a pretty girl's ass and count to 33, slowly. The eternal agit-propagator, lighting fuses beneath perceived pieties. Professor Pluggy, with his patch-cord dreadlocks, clenching a cigar stub between his teeth while reinventing cinema with nothing more than a sparkler and a shoebox. Lonesome Luc the Isolate, looking at a childhood photo and observing even there a shadow of sadness: "I was already in mourning for myself." The Angel of History, assuming the burden of mourning for everything else.

Petit:

Just as Godard has played with cinema, he has constructed multiple versions of himself before and behind the camera, leasing out the character of JLG to actors and sometimes acting himself: cinephile, tyrant, tardy, silver-tongued, Professor Pluggy, politico, foxy businessman, smutty Uncle Jean, fraud (a history of youthful theft), romantic, classicist, dandy, hypochondriac and slacker. A cold reading of the man suggests hysteric, obsessive, depressive, leavened by the schoolboy who was remembered for playing the fool.

Kite, the title of whose piece is "He's Not There":

If I've emphasized the book's limitations in this article it's in part because his simulacrum is so compelling on its own terms.

Petit:

But while professing openness he remains opaque and, in a sense, the film-maker known as Jean-Luc Godard may not exist, any more than the musician known as Bob Dylan does, except as several simulacra.

Just sayin'. All "correspondences" aside, Petit's article is, of course, useless, and betrays what little grasp the Guardian soldat has on his subject's-subject's oeuvre: "Once ahead of his time, embracing new technology (video) and surfing the zeitgeist as someone might browse the internet, he now denounces digital as death and takes refuge in history, in anticipation of posterity's judgment." — Of course, by the time Petit, grinning and proud, turns off the ignition on that sentence, the independent witness will observe he's opted for mad crooked inertia in a spot marked "handicapped." But let's trace the tracks some more words back. The next time someone refers to Godard as being a kind of proto-Internet-unto-himself, don't just clue them in to "the Tashlinesque" — introduce them to Petit, and The L Magazine's Benjamin Strong, so that the clichés of these two gentlemen (nothing personal) might trigger a Tesla-esque resonance grand enough to tear the space-time fabric, devour the computers of all involved, and impede, at least until new Dell deliveries manage to arrive, the quantum-moronics at play.

Palate-cleanser: B. Kite's two-part, 20,000-words+ modern-classic about Jacques Rivette, one of the best pieces of film criticism I've ever read ("film criticism" of course doesn't do it justice — it's "goddamned littacher", although closer to the spirit of H. Melville than V. Nabokov). Initially published in Cinema Scope magazine last year, it remains the singularity / worm-hole standard of modern American film-writing, light-years ahead of practically all else that has appeared in the pages of the English-language movie outlets in these future times.

Jacques Rivette and the Other Place: Track One
by B. Kite


Jacques Rivette and the Other Place: Track 1b
by B. Kite


===



(2)



The new issue of Cinéaste contains, first and foremost, a very fine essay by Adrian Martin on the 87 years of Chris Marker AND, first-and-foremost-prime, runs a new piece by Chris Marker himself, titled "The Last Bolshevik: Reminiscences of Alexander Ivanovich". — "Sad as it is, I dare say [Aleksandr Medvedkin] died on time. I met him on my way back from Tbilisi in '88 — both of us knew it was the last encounter — and he was beaming in the euphoria of pristine perestroika. 'Telling the truth, asking people to participate, criticizing without fear, that's what we always wanted, that's what we tried to do in the days of the Train.' He belonged to that rarest breed who had kept unspoiled the faith of his youth: the tragedy of all those bloodstained years was just the sort of trick History plays .... One year more, and he would have watched the ruin of his hopes." And twenty years more... — Whereas eleven months prior to now, at this very blog, this happened.

And I'd be remiss not to mention that the heroic Jed Rapfogel has a great interview with William Klein in this latest issue, too. Good stuff also in the way of a Guy 'I Will Never Let You Down' Maddin interview conducted by Jason Horsley, and a typically incisive double-book-review by Monsieur Bill Krohn.

But what a lot of folks are talking/writing most about the most, by way of this recent Cinéaste, is the "Film Criticism in the Age of the Internet" symposium that forms the issue's centerpiece, and is readable here. A bunch of my friends-and-acquaintances contributed (and/or were mentioned/sorta-linked), and their musings are well worth reading. Karina Longworth's in particular, which more-or-less offer a rejection of the terms upon which the editors', and the overarching blog-societal, questions are advanced — via the mass-hypnotic, precipitous propulsion of the Pynchonially vexed "vs." Truth be told, I'm surprised that the participants were able to take the propositions at all seriously, and if it weren't for Karina's contribution putting me in mind of the breathtaking "legend of stereo" sequence from JLG/JLG, autoportrait de décembre (this sequence of this key film of my life which, in the preposterous interpretation put forward by Richard Brody — who has the gall to single out Godard's usage of the phrase "the mystic hexagram" with damnful quote-marks like the ashen traces of the brimstone itself, as though "the mystic hexagram" is the "all" that needs to be said; for the Brodys of the world always think there's an "all" that needs to be said, and that, what's more, it's possible to say — codes nothing less than a diabolical broadside against the Jewish executives in the upper echelons of the "modern recording industry" [p. 558 in the U.S. edition] ), the similarly noisome-to-Brody Godard-masterpiece that would have come first to mind would be the most recent feature, Notre musique, with its central section that takes place at the European Literary Encounters symposium, and during which a student-attendee poses to Godard-as-himself the question: "Monsieur Godard, do you think that these new little digital cameras can save the cinema?"

JLG/JLG, autoportrait de décembre [JLG/JLG: Self-Portrait in December] by Jean-Luc Godard, 1994:



That is, if I had been asked to participate in the survey, I would only have been able to respond to the questions with the respective images:

(1) Has Internet criticism made a significant contribution to film culture? Does it tend to supplement print criticism or can it actually carve out critical terrain that is distinctive from traditional print criticism? Which Internet critics and bloggers do you read on a regular basis?

Notre musique [Our Music] by Jean-Luc Godard, 2004:



(2) How would you characterize the strengths and weaknesses of critics' blogs? Which blogs do you consult on a regular basis — and which are you drawn to in terms of content and style? Do you prefer blogs written by professional critics or those by amateur cinephiles?

Notre musique [Our Music] by Jean-Luc Godard, 2004:



(3) Internet boosters tend to hail its "participatory" aspects — e.g., message boards, the ability to connect with other cinephiles through critics' forums and email, etc. Do you believe this "participatory" aspect of Internet criticism (film critics form the bulk of the membership lists of message boards such as a_film_by and Film and Politics) has helped to create a genuinely new kind of "cinematic community" or are such claims overblown?

Notre musique [Our Music] by Jean-Luc Godard, 2004:



(4) Jasmina Kallay, writing in Film Ireland (Sept.-Oct. 2007), has claimed that, in the age of the Internet, the "traditional film critic... is losing his stature and authority." Do you agree or disagree with this claim? If you agree, do you regard this as a regrettable or salutary phenomenon?

Notre musique [Our Music] by Jean-Luc Godard, 2004:



===



(3)



The new issue of the Cahiers du cinéma contains a one-page piece by Antoine Thirion about the French DVD release of Pedro Costa's supreme In Vanda's Room [No quarto da Vanda, 2000], which appears courtesy of the new Capricci label "Que fabriquent les cinéastes?" ["What Do Filmmakers Make?" / "What Are Filmmakers Putting Together?"], spearheaded by Cahiers contributing editor Cyril Neyrat. The release appears as a 180-page hardback book, with a DVD of the film (French subtitles only, I believe) attached inside of the cover — not dissimilar in form to the essential ECM Cinema release (Region 0, PAL) titled Jean-Luc Godard / Anne-Marie Miéville: Four Short Films. But the Capricci goes into new territory: a long interview (conducted in French by Neyrat) with Costa — maybe the best he's ever given — which is saying a lot, as any followers of Costa's work and press must recognize that this man can talk; and a long and superb image+text essay (the whole thing's in color) by the good Andy Rector, which appears intercut throughout the volume. The beautiful design-work was done by Sarah Albaret / Lilebulla. (And I worked a leetle-beet on it too, helping out on the image-processing.)

(UPDATE: Andy Rector just emailed to clarify: "the VANDA book/dvd turned out not to be an ECM-resembling object, but, comes as a paperback book plus dvd-in-cardboard-jewel-case, both in a slip case with Vanda's sleeping visage on the cover. Not to be pedantic, but while Neyrat indeed spearheaded and directed the VANDA book/dvd, the company Capricci is headed by Cyril Beghin [he wrote an excellent piece on MILESTONES a few CdC's ago], Emmanuel Burdeau, and Thierry Lounas.")

Truly one of the greatest DVD releases of all-time. You can purchase it here from FNAC.

Forthcoming Capricci "Que fabriquent les cinéastes?" series editions include the groundbreaking La Vallée close [The Enclosed Valley, Jean-Claude Rousseau, 2000], Milestones [Robert Kramer, 1975], and Honor de cavalleria [Knights' Honor, Albert Serra, 2006].

Small stills of spreads from the interior of the book that accompanies the Capricci release of Costa's In Vanda's Room in France:






===



(4)



I received a package recently of our most recent releases in The Masters of Cinema Series.

(a) A double-feature from the great Georges Franju: Judex [1963] (Franju's brilliant/somnambulant remake of Feuillade's 1916-17 serial of the same name) and Nuits rouges [Red Nights, 1974] (another Feuillade-inspired work, starring and co-scripted, as in the case of Judex, by Jacques Champreux, Feuillade's grandson — a long undersung work which, for me, is even more powerful than Judex). On-disc extras include recent video-interviews with Champreux, with the multi-course array arriving in the booklet: a 1984 poem about Judex by Franju; three interviews with Franju; excerpts of tributes to Franju from Georges Sadoul, Claude Mauriac, and Freddy Buache; and an extraordinary, never-before-translated (at least that I'm aware), short essay on Franju's Judex from 1963 by... Jacques Rivette.




(b) The long-awaited DVD edition of the film-restoration of Carl Theodor Dreyer's 1932 supreme masterpiece, Vampyr: The Strange Adventure of Allan Gray. The MoC edition shares with the recent Criterion the Tony Rayns commentary; the deleted-scenes removed by the German censor; the 1966 documentary Carl Th. Dreyer by Jørgen Roos; and the visual essay on Vampyr by Casper Tybjerg. Exclusive to the MoC edition are a new, ecstatic supplementary audio commentary by Guillermo del Toro; a documentary video-essay called The Baron, edited and produced by Nick Wrigley and written/narrated/photos-shot by me; and an 80-page book containing writing by Tom Milne, Jean and Dale Drum, and Martin Koerber — along with an insane plethora of rare stills, graphics, the 1932 film program, etc.... (Also different subtitles between editions — I did the ones on the MoC release.)




===



(5)


Note to S.


Every thought, should recall, the debris, of a smile.

And if a smile, could re-call, the debris, of a thought thought-forgotten, then the waves, have at last, delivered this, unto me:

"When I think about something, in fact I’m thinking of something else. You can only think about something if you think of something else. For instance: I see a landscape that is new to me. But it’s new to me because I mentally compare it to another landscape — an older one: one that I knew." — from Eloge de l'amour by JLG, 2001.

Eloge de l'amour [Eulogy for Love / Ode to Love] by Jean-Luc Godard, 2001:



===

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.


===