Why is “allusionism” significant for both modernism and post-modernism? If modernist filmmakers alluded to film history, what do post-modernist filmmakers allude to?
This self-reflexivity makes films into a higher art form. Post-modernist a reaction to modernism alludes to a return to traditional/classical filmmaking.
Compare and contrast Kramer’s timelines using “a narrow Bazinian definition of Hollywood classicism” with the Monogram [journal] definition of classicism.
Bazin’s timeline starts in 1920 to 1939 and ends with Citizen Kane. It constitutes a unified period characterized where by the entire film world is using a common filmic vocabulary. Monograms are 1910 to the mid 1960’s where the film language was invented and perfected mostly in Hollywood.
What is “blind bidding”? Why did exhibitors object to the proposed blind bidding for Jaws? Why was the blind bidding for Jaws called off?
The Exhibitors have to bid on the movie when they have never seen it. The money being asked was extremely high. They let some Exhibitors see the film and that was an unfair advantage for them.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Week Six
Which of Altman’s stylistic techniques does Sawhill associate with "inclusiveness"?
“One head, no matter how good -- well, it just can't be the same as everyone bringing something to it." (Altman)
He involved the entire crew in creating the movie. One of the techniques was in developing the sound system with the sound engineers and using it in new ways. He did the same thing with the cinematographers where he used multiple cameras and entire locations were lighted instead of just each individual shot. Altman let his actors have a great deal of artistic freedom of movement so they could not play to the camera. He also let some actors write their own dialog and play their own music. Keith Carradine won an Oscar for his song in Nashville. To me it seems that Altman included everyone’s specific talent in his movies and was capable of funneling everything into a well-made and meaningful movie. By being inclusive Altman can always be looking for the “surprise” in his movies.
What does Sawhill mean when he suggests that Altman “was making nonlinear multimedia before the form existed,” and that Nashville “doesn't suffer from the fragmenting effects of stop-and-start, at-home viewing”?
He’s referring to the fact and states that, “Altman is instinctively drawn to multiple points of view and unresolved resolutions.” Sawhill explains that when watching in a home environment it doesn’t cohere completely but is conducive to our channel surfing mentality of the loose relationship experience. Nashville’s fragmenting effects are more like a video installation that is being played all at the very same moment. The movie’s non linear aspect; it is like wallpaper in that you can turn it on and watch it at any point and it will be comprehensible, because there is no real destination for the protagonist they just are. There is a documentary feeling to the movie, it’s like a fictional space/place in time that had very accurate depictions of real life characters exhibiting human nature in a very real Nashville.
What does Sawhill suggest are the functions of the recurring “wires, phones, intercoms, cameras, mikes, speakers” throughout the film?
“Signals get crossed, unwanted frequencies come wafting in, reflections we'd rather avoid bounce back at us, ghosts from the past sweep us up and then drop us, and when one thing comes into focus another falls out.”
I believe that he’s referring to that fact that this movie is about communication. The movie is about a city that creates music that is grass roots and these singers sing songs that are about people for people. These are devices that connect to everyone in some way.
“One head, no matter how good -- well, it just can't be the same as everyone bringing something to it." (Altman)
He involved the entire crew in creating the movie. One of the techniques was in developing the sound system with the sound engineers and using it in new ways. He did the same thing with the cinematographers where he used multiple cameras and entire locations were lighted instead of just each individual shot. Altman let his actors have a great deal of artistic freedom of movement so they could not play to the camera. He also let some actors write their own dialog and play their own music. Keith Carradine won an Oscar for his song in Nashville. To me it seems that Altman included everyone’s specific talent in his movies and was capable of funneling everything into a well-made and meaningful movie. By being inclusive Altman can always be looking for the “surprise” in his movies.
What does Sawhill mean when he suggests that Altman “was making nonlinear multimedia before the form existed,” and that Nashville “doesn't suffer from the fragmenting effects of stop-and-start, at-home viewing”?
He’s referring to the fact and states that, “Altman is instinctively drawn to multiple points of view and unresolved resolutions.” Sawhill explains that when watching in a home environment it doesn’t cohere completely but is conducive to our channel surfing mentality of the loose relationship experience. Nashville’s fragmenting effects are more like a video installation that is being played all at the very same moment. The movie’s non linear aspect; it is like wallpaper in that you can turn it on and watch it at any point and it will be comprehensible, because there is no real destination for the protagonist they just are. There is a documentary feeling to the movie, it’s like a fictional space/place in time that had very accurate depictions of real life characters exhibiting human nature in a very real Nashville.
What does Sawhill suggest are the functions of the recurring “wires, phones, intercoms, cameras, mikes, speakers” throughout the film?
“Signals get crossed, unwanted frequencies come wafting in, reflections we'd rather avoid bounce back at us, ghosts from the past sweep us up and then drop us, and when one thing comes into focus another falls out.”
I believe that he’s referring to that fact that this movie is about communication. The movie is about a city that creates music that is grass roots and these singers sing songs that are about people for people. These are devices that connect to everyone in some way.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
week 5
Peter Kramer Post-Classical Hollywood pp 69-75
The bulk of Hollywood centered criticism:
They concentrated their efforts on the systematic critical re-evaluation and careful assessment of the films of an elite collection of directors from Hollywood. These men directed some of their most important films during the 1930s-1940s. This Studio era is where they got their start and training. These directors worked almost exclusively in well-established genres. Critics like Manny Farber wrote about ‘the male action film’ and Howard Hawks. The politique des auteurs of Cahiers du cinema also had an accent on directors from Hollywood like Hitchcock. These genre directors and their films attained a status of art by Anglo-American ‘auteurist’ criticism. These critics rejected the new directors who were trained in theater and television.
They dealt with contemporary films by judging them against the new films of old masters.
Timelines for Hollywood Classicism:
Bazin’s timeline states that in America/Hollywood from 1920 to 1939 there existed a unified period characterized by the world wide diffusion of a common form of cinematic language based on the continuity of editing. The period is the Classical Hollywood period where film reached a perfected stage. In 1939 it was also on the verge of a change in film language. This is the start of ‘regeneration of realism in story telling.’ He states that ‘Citizen Kane was the pivotal film that started the new era in a trend towards modernism.
Peter Lloyd and Thomas Elsaeser states this timeline of Classicism started from 1910 to mid-1960s. The filmic language evolved by Griffith, Stroheim and Murnua remained valid as the syntactical basis of movie making. Directors with long careers like John Ford and Raoul Walsh also helped create this essential classicism in films.
The bulk of Hollywood centered criticism:
They concentrated their efforts on the systematic critical re-evaluation and careful assessment of the films of an elite collection of directors from Hollywood. These men directed some of their most important films during the 1930s-1940s. This Studio era is where they got their start and training. These directors worked almost exclusively in well-established genres. Critics like Manny Farber wrote about ‘the male action film’ and Howard Hawks. The politique des auteurs of Cahiers du cinema also had an accent on directors from Hollywood like Hitchcock. These genre directors and their films attained a status of art by Anglo-American ‘auteurist’ criticism. These critics rejected the new directors who were trained in theater and television.
They dealt with contemporary films by judging them against the new films of old masters.
Timelines for Hollywood Classicism:
Bazin’s timeline states that in America/Hollywood from 1920 to 1939 there existed a unified period characterized by the world wide diffusion of a common form of cinematic language based on the continuity of editing. The period is the Classical Hollywood period where film reached a perfected stage. In 1939 it was also on the verge of a change in film language. This is the start of ‘regeneration of realism in story telling.’ He states that ‘Citizen Kane was the pivotal film that started the new era in a trend towards modernism.
Peter Lloyd and Thomas Elsaeser states this timeline of Classicism started from 1910 to mid-1960s. The filmic language evolved by Griffith, Stroheim and Murnua remained valid as the syntactical basis of movie making. Directors with long careers like John Ford and Raoul Walsh also helped create this essential classicism in films.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Week 4
Modernism.
The art historical term, "modern" is tied to around 1860 to the 1970s. It can be said that most art is modern at the time it is created. The modernist art movement began in the Renaissance. The modernist in film started with people like Man Ray, Bunuel, Dali and Marcel Duchamp where emotional impact is not tied to a narrative storyline. Kramer suggests that Bonnie and Clyde is the pivotal American modernist film. It is the beginning of the American new wave in films.
Which critics were on opposing sides of the debate over Bonnie and Clyde, and why?
There was some longing for (and contempt) old Hollywood filmmaking. Ben Hecht hated the new Hollywood of special effects. The over the top blood bath death scene drew controversy.
Andrew Sarris raises the profile of the director in postwar Hollywood, ‘auteur’ theory. The debate was over the fact that the killers Bonnie and Clyde were glamorized.
“Thus does the heroic individual collapse without moral and social objectives and with the irrational violence, films moved toward and ambiguous open-ended situation. (From Kramer)
What were some of the causes and consequences of the shift from the Production Code to the Ratings System?
The rating system was a form of censorship. Your film subject matter could be dictated and compromised. There was a great deal of topics including social subjects, which could not be made. Without the rating you could not show your film. This caused writers to write very generic films.
The art historical term, "modern" is tied to around 1860 to the 1970s. It can be said that most art is modern at the time it is created. The modernist art movement began in the Renaissance. The modernist in film started with people like Man Ray, Bunuel, Dali and Marcel Duchamp where emotional impact is not tied to a narrative storyline. Kramer suggests that Bonnie and Clyde is the pivotal American modernist film. It is the beginning of the American new wave in films.
Which critics were on opposing sides of the debate over Bonnie and Clyde, and why?
There was some longing for (and contempt) old Hollywood filmmaking. Ben Hecht hated the new Hollywood of special effects. The over the top blood bath death scene drew controversy.
Andrew Sarris raises the profile of the director in postwar Hollywood, ‘auteur’ theory. The debate was over the fact that the killers Bonnie and Clyde were glamorized.
“Thus does the heroic individual collapse without moral and social objectives and with the irrational violence, films moved toward and ambiguous open-ended situation. (From Kramer)
What were some of the causes and consequences of the shift from the Production Code to the Ratings System?
The rating system was a form of censorship. Your film subject matter could be dictated and compromised. There was a great deal of topics including social subjects, which could not be made. Without the rating you could not show your film. This caused writers to write very generic films.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Why was the Charles Theater important for the development of “underground film” in New York City?
Why was the Charles Theater important for the development of “underground film” in New York City?
This theater was the rare venue that didn’t allow censure of its art/films or of its film makers. The Charles (Baudelaire) Theater presented the film underground with the first, semi permanent exhibition space for truly Avant-garde film especially ones from America and Europe. The accent was on creativity and not on ticket sales. This was also one of the only places in the U.S. that a first time director such as Cassavetes, Brian De Palma, Warhol and Stanley Kubrick could get their films shown in a big city. The theater was fundamental in introducing film movements like Italian neo-realism and Baudelariean Cinema to America as well as being the location for the Filmmakers Festival.
Jonas Mekas one of the prime movers of the Charles Theater once commented on the Baudelariean Cinema style, “These artists are without inhibitions, sexual or any other kind." His statement was a reaction to the bland whitewashed American cinema of the day. In this time period American films and America was consistently conservative. The critics as well as the organized theater operators of the day systematically shunned any film that was considered, “Out of the Box,” and not up to the United States Motion Picture Production Code of 1930. The nascent counter culture of the early 1960’s was greatly influenced by these films. The theater was a hub of/for uncensored creativity for filmmakers and others (Jazz music, experimental live theater) which greatly influenced mainstream American film. The most important aspect/contribution of the Charles Theater /Mekas in my view is that the way was shown to independent filmmakers on how to make the truly independent film. That it was possible to by pass the big studio and achieve an audience. It made it possible for later movies like “Easy Rider” to be made without studio backing and control. These independent films were deeper in emotional content and were much more attuned to the social/political consciousness of the times. They dealt with real issues that confronted people on a gut level. We recognized ourselves with warts and blemishes in these lower budget films as being flawed but genuine. The Charles Theater showed audiences and future filmmakers that there is validity in films that have nothing to do with the formula/happy ending so prevelent in American film.
Mekas held open screenings at the theater looking for new talented directors/filmmakers. This was turned into a monthly social event with much success. By doing this he turned some audience members into critics and others into filmmakers. The theater transforms into a "Great Good Place" where the utopian ideology of the audience being a part of the energy of filmmaking itself is born. They are not the passive audience pawns of the films but are the parts and pieces that compose the film experience itself. The audience creates the film and owns it for it own sake. The Charles Theater manifested film making into an inclusive community of like-minded artist through freedom and equality. Films and filmmaking were drawn together as a single endeavor.
This equality also spelled the end for the Charles Theater. No one could tell who was the audience or the filmmaker so no one could sell the ticket to pay for the cost of business.
What were some of the characteristics of “Baudelariean Cinema”? Like the poets of the Symbolist Movement Charles Baudelaire inspired there was a desire to set free techniques of versification in film. Filmmakers wanted more artistic control with film style. That is they wanted a more free verse style of filmmaking. One that wasn’t tied down with restrictive production techniques. The director is the auteur. As in Charles Baudelaire’s poetry subject matter was open to each film maker’s interpretation. Like Charles Baudelaire’s life these taboo subjects were about drugs, sex, violence and decadence in the modern world. This cinema wants to evoke the audience rather than to simply entertain. It can be said that these films were the antithesis of the mainstream movies of the day. These films had very little inhibition and dealt with people on an almost primal level. These films attempted to be a truly free art form in which the point is to move the audience emotionally instead of simply profiting from them monetarily.
This theater was the rare venue that didn’t allow censure of its art/films or of its film makers. The Charles (Baudelaire) Theater presented the film underground with the first, semi permanent exhibition space for truly Avant-garde film especially ones from America and Europe. The accent was on creativity and not on ticket sales. This was also one of the only places in the U.S. that a first time director such as Cassavetes, Brian De Palma, Warhol and Stanley Kubrick could get their films shown in a big city. The theater was fundamental in introducing film movements like Italian neo-realism and Baudelariean Cinema to America as well as being the location for the Filmmakers Festival.
Jonas Mekas one of the prime movers of the Charles Theater once commented on the Baudelariean Cinema style, “These artists are without inhibitions, sexual or any other kind." His statement was a reaction to the bland whitewashed American cinema of the day. In this time period American films and America was consistently conservative. The critics as well as the organized theater operators of the day systematically shunned any film that was considered, “Out of the Box,” and not up to the United States Motion Picture Production Code of 1930. The nascent counter culture of the early 1960’s was greatly influenced by these films. The theater was a hub of/for uncensored creativity for filmmakers and others (Jazz music, experimental live theater) which greatly influenced mainstream American film. The most important aspect/contribution of the Charles Theater /Mekas in my view is that the way was shown to independent filmmakers on how to make the truly independent film. That it was possible to by pass the big studio and achieve an audience. It made it possible for later movies like “Easy Rider” to be made without studio backing and control. These independent films were deeper in emotional content and were much more attuned to the social/political consciousness of the times. They dealt with real issues that confronted people on a gut level. We recognized ourselves with warts and blemishes in these lower budget films as being flawed but genuine. The Charles Theater showed audiences and future filmmakers that there is validity in films that have nothing to do with the formula/happy ending so prevelent in American film.
Mekas held open screenings at the theater looking for new talented directors/filmmakers. This was turned into a monthly social event with much success. By doing this he turned some audience members into critics and others into filmmakers. The theater transforms into a "Great Good Place" where the utopian ideology of the audience being a part of the energy of filmmaking itself is born. They are not the passive audience pawns of the films but are the parts and pieces that compose the film experience itself. The audience creates the film and owns it for it own sake. The Charles Theater manifested film making into an inclusive community of like-minded artist through freedom and equality. Films and filmmaking were drawn together as a single endeavor.
This equality also spelled the end for the Charles Theater. No one could tell who was the audience or the filmmaker so no one could sell the ticket to pay for the cost of business.
What were some of the characteristics of “Baudelariean Cinema”? Like the poets of the Symbolist Movement Charles Baudelaire inspired there was a desire to set free techniques of versification in film. Filmmakers wanted more artistic control with film style. That is they wanted a more free verse style of filmmaking. One that wasn’t tied down with restrictive production techniques. The director is the auteur. As in Charles Baudelaire’s poetry subject matter was open to each film maker’s interpretation. Like Charles Baudelaire’s life these taboo subjects were about drugs, sex, violence and decadence in the modern world. This cinema wants to evoke the audience rather than to simply entertain. It can be said that these films were the antithesis of the mainstream movies of the day. These films had very little inhibition and dealt with people on an almost primal level. These films attempted to be a truly free art form in which the point is to move the audience emotionally instead of simply profiting from them monetarily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
