This film was a sweet, sometimes hilarious, reflection on Italian life in a small coastal town. It is shot in a simple way that reflects the light hearted humor which permeates the film. The series of vignettes reveals much about the Italian character. From school to church, from seasonal rituals to trips to the store, this film depicts the little moments in life that seem so banal, but a talent like Fellini turns into comedic and nostalgic moments of youth, parenting, life and death.
The lead character, if there was one, was the woman who shakes her hips. She is idolized by the local boys. The camera, in it's scarce use of close-ups reveals her hips shaking. I found the sexual humor to be the funniest part of the film. Perhaps the most comical sequence is when the boy goes to the store for a cigarette and encounters the female clerk with big boobs. She smothers him with her breasts until he can't breath. It reveals the coming of age theme that Fellini portrays in several of his films. We see it in La Dolce Vita. It can apply to 8 1/2 as well in the evolution of the director and the course his next film will take. A movie I haven't seen is I Vitteloni which is all about coming of age. Fellini is a master at showing the anxieties of life and depicting them as comical, nostalgic, or even romantic.
The other sequence which I like the most in Amarcord was the political satire or nostalgia for Mussolini and the Fascist regime. It's almost as if Fellini has a romantic soft spot for the regime. None of the brutality of the regime is shown as in other films, Bertolucci's The Conformist and 1900 come to mind. Fascism seems to be an absurd, comical quality in Amarcord. The parade with the big Mussolini float is so nostalgic for the fascists. The culmination of the sequence must be when the record player is playing the internalional throughout the town. Even the conflict between the Fascists and Communist is comical. All is a farce in Amarcord. Yet, there is a funeral scene.
I agree with ebert.com that Fellini's most productive period spanned his films of the fifties and sixties and Amarcord which was released in 1973. Those films are indicative of a distinct artistic style. The romantic way life in Italy is depicted, the way the problems in life seem to flow by like waves, there is truly something to watching a Fellini film
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Review of Jarman's War Requiem
Where do dead German soldiers go after they die? To heaven? This was one of the questions that Jarman's film about war inspired in me after watching the film. There are so many amazing visual scenes in this film. Perhaps the most powerful scene in the film is when Sean Bean enters into the camera's view with a red rose wreath to lay at the human monument to English war dead. Prior to that scene I was thinking about where dead soldiers go after they die?
The film is decidedly artistic. In fact I'm not exactly sure what to classify it as; is it a narrative? Is it a documentary? Is it experimental. I would say yes to all those because there are elements of each in the film. The most narrative part of the film is where Sean Bean fights with the British soldiers and is killed. The other narrative scenes are of Tilda Swinton being a nurse. But these are beside the point, the film has no linear progression, no classical narrative structure, perhaps Jarman had a progression mapped out in the screenplay, however there is no dialogue so the notion that the screenplay can provide some guidance is probably ill formed.
I was astounded by the visuals. Totally unlike the contemporary films with quick cuts Jarman uses long takes, slowly moving close-up shots, and archival footage to tell the story. The pensive shots of Swinton were perhaps the shots I liked best. As well as the shots of Bean looking off into, I presume, the light. These scenes are cinematic flourishes where a facial expression says more about the character than a line of dialogue ever could.
The meaning of the film is told through visual exposition. Mostly archival footage and the aforementioned shots of characters. The archival footage is mostly gruesome footage from wars past. The sequence in which rows of skulls are displayed are telling that the film is a condemnation of war. Add to the row of skulls footage of the atomic bombings of Japan and it becomes a subtly, but powerful message about the horror of war.
The nytimes.com reviewer, Vincent Canby, didn't like the film. Although, I don't think the film is a popular or commercial success I do think it pushes the cinematic art form in new directions. I think Canby makes short shrift of the film. He doesn't give Jarman enough credit. He calls the images "redundant" but doesn't offer any analysis of what the images meant. He certainly doesn't entertain the idea that the film has a deeper meaning and aspires to a higher form of cinematic art than the standard narrative film.
I have seen two Jarman films; The Last of England and War Requiem and I liked both. They are both highly expressionistic or formalist. Both films are based in reality, but the way in which the story is told was, at the time, innovative.
The film is decidedly artistic. In fact I'm not exactly sure what to classify it as; is it a narrative? Is it a documentary? Is it experimental. I would say yes to all those because there are elements of each in the film. The most narrative part of the film is where Sean Bean fights with the British soldiers and is killed. The other narrative scenes are of Tilda Swinton being a nurse. But these are beside the point, the film has no linear progression, no classical narrative structure, perhaps Jarman had a progression mapped out in the screenplay, however there is no dialogue so the notion that the screenplay can provide some guidance is probably ill formed.
I was astounded by the visuals. Totally unlike the contemporary films with quick cuts Jarman uses long takes, slowly moving close-up shots, and archival footage to tell the story. The pensive shots of Swinton were perhaps the shots I liked best. As well as the shots of Bean looking off into, I presume, the light. These scenes are cinematic flourishes where a facial expression says more about the character than a line of dialogue ever could.
The meaning of the film is told through visual exposition. Mostly archival footage and the aforementioned shots of characters. The archival footage is mostly gruesome footage from wars past. The sequence in which rows of skulls are displayed are telling that the film is a condemnation of war. Add to the row of skulls footage of the atomic bombings of Japan and it becomes a subtly, but powerful message about the horror of war.
The nytimes.com reviewer, Vincent Canby, didn't like the film. Although, I don't think the film is a popular or commercial success I do think it pushes the cinematic art form in new directions. I think Canby makes short shrift of the film. He doesn't give Jarman enough credit. He calls the images "redundant" but doesn't offer any analysis of what the images meant. He certainly doesn't entertain the idea that the film has a deeper meaning and aspires to a higher form of cinematic art than the standard narrative film.
I have seen two Jarman films; The Last of England and War Requiem and I liked both. They are both highly expressionistic or formalist. Both films are based in reality, but the way in which the story is told was, at the time, innovative.
Review of Fassbinder's Ali: Fear Eats the Soul
The back story to Ali reveals interesting facts about the film. The man who played Ali was Fassbinder's lover. According to Ebert.com he stabbed three people and hung himself in jail. Ebert alludes to the possibility that the old woman is actually Fassbinder. Fassbinder had similar insecurities as the old woman so it is plausible that her character is based on Fassbinder.
This movie is simple, yet it has a powerfulness to it. The settings, the characters are simply put forward. The theme of xenophoia and racism make the film powerful. Perhaps the most dramatic scene is when the woman introduces Ali as her new husband. Her children are shocked. One kicks in the TV. They all walk out unable to accept that their mother has married a foreign worker. Despite this, Ali and the woman go away, when they return everyone seems to accept Ali and reconcile with the woman.
This film has significance for not only Germany, but all of the developed World who experience an influx of immigrants who work low wage jobs. It presents the predicament of Ali. It presents the racism of Germany against foreign workers. This film was made in the 1970s so, perhaps, racial tensions were more acute in those years. Yet, the film still has contemporary relevance. Germany and the European Union have strict immigration laws. This film clearly shows those issues.
This was one of Fassbinder early films. It was well received by critics. It definitely is a European Art house film. Compared to other Fassbinder films this one is similar. However, I like the Marriage of Maria Braun and Veronica Voss better. I think they have more emotional impact. The end of Ali isn't so jarring as the endings in Bruan or Voss. It simply leaves the hospital where Ali is convalescing. Still, it does present Ali's predicament and the choices that foreign workers have to make; stay in Germany and make low wages, but live in the industrialized World, or go back home to possible unemployment, low standard of living, and a host of other problems. Ali is one of the few films that take on the issue of foreign workers and all of the problems they endure.
This movie is simple, yet it has a powerfulness to it. The settings, the characters are simply put forward. The theme of xenophoia and racism make the film powerful. Perhaps the most dramatic scene is when the woman introduces Ali as her new husband. Her children are shocked. One kicks in the TV. They all walk out unable to accept that their mother has married a foreign worker. Despite this, Ali and the woman go away, when they return everyone seems to accept Ali and reconcile with the woman.
This film has significance for not only Germany, but all of the developed World who experience an influx of immigrants who work low wage jobs. It presents the predicament of Ali. It presents the racism of Germany against foreign workers. This film was made in the 1970s so, perhaps, racial tensions were more acute in those years. Yet, the film still has contemporary relevance. Germany and the European Union have strict immigration laws. This film clearly shows those issues.
This was one of Fassbinder early films. It was well received by critics. It definitely is a European Art house film. Compared to other Fassbinder films this one is similar. However, I like the Marriage of Maria Braun and Veronica Voss better. I think they have more emotional impact. The end of Ali isn't so jarring as the endings in Bruan or Voss. It simply leaves the hospital where Ali is convalescing. Still, it does present Ali's predicament and the choices that foreign workers have to make; stay in Germany and make low wages, but live in the industrialized World, or go back home to possible unemployment, low standard of living, and a host of other problems. Ali is one of the few films that take on the issue of foreign workers and all of the problems they endure.
Review of von Trier's Dogville
The nytimes.com critic said this film will make viewers either enthusiasitc supporters or vile condemners. I tend to stand with the supporters. I have long been a fan of von Trier's work and, eventually, I came around to Dogville. It took awhile for the film to develop, but what should I have expected from an art film which was written, directed, and shot by von Trier himself? There several things about the film that stand out. First is that it is like a stage play with a camera. It has a very austere setting; shot on a sound stage without any props save for a desk, some chairs, and some other miscellaneous things.
The cinematography is also vintage von Trier. The camera hovers around the action with extreme close-ups, jumping from one character to the next, the camera is infused with an anxious energy typical of other post-dogme von Trier films like Dance in the Dark, and most recently Melancholia. The story is also typical of von Trier. When the film started I thought to myself, what is going to happen in the end? I had no idea, which is great for a film. All too often I know whats going to happen in the end.
Furthermore, von Trier doesn't "mashup" different films into a new film, like Tarrantino so often does. Von Trier is better than that. Dogville, which is austere the likes of Ingmar Bergman and Carl Theodor Dreyer, is something unique. Unlike the Moulin Rouge, which I reviewed last night, Dogville revels in the cinematic art form. By the end of the film it stakes out difficult questions about human nature and the myth of small town America. It certainly is a departure from manistream cinema found at the multiplex
Von Trier takes risks. The set is an austere, minimalist expression of the Depression years in America. To not have any sets, perhaps, represents the poverty of America which is depicted at the end of the film. In comparison to other von Trier films this one has similar themes. Like Dancer in the Dark, which I reviewed on this blog site, we see a woman in duress; unjustly condemned for crimes she didn't commit. Unlike Dancer, Nicole Kidman's character gets revenge. She has the gangsters execute the townspeople, with the exception of the dog. Thus the characters in Dancer and Dogville meet different endings. Von Trier's Melancholia also has a damsel in distress, except, unlike in Dancer in the Dark or Dogville, freedom is brought about by the apocalypse.
So what does the film mean? What is von Trier's purpose in making Dogville? Why does he continue to make films about mistreated women? It is rumored that von Trier has an anti-American opinion and, if this is true, than Dogville could be, as I mentioned earlier, an iconoclastic film exposing the myth of smalltown America as a very pious, ethical place. Perhaps, the character of the Doctor's son reveals this theme the most accurately. He is very high minded, has ideas about morality and ethics, and aspires to be a writer. By the end of the film his philosophical views of humanity are shattered. Instead of viewing the townspeople as "good" people, he has become just like them; morally corrupt, ethically bankrupt. In the end Kidman's character shoots him gangster style in the head.
The final scene is perhaps von Trier's most obvious indictment of America. The scene is infused with violence and revenge which seems to present the version of American justice. Like one reviewer said, it may be von Trier's depiction of American fascism. The gangster are unopposed. The police are on the take. Small town America is not polite, pious, and filled with cookies. It is dominated by underworld thugs who committ mass murder. The violence, the revenge, the myth, the high minded talk of "good" people; only in America.
Whatever it's meaning, Dogville is a film that stands out from the garbage that is produced for mass consumption.
The cinematography is also vintage von Trier. The camera hovers around the action with extreme close-ups, jumping from one character to the next, the camera is infused with an anxious energy typical of other post-dogme von Trier films like Dance in the Dark, and most recently Melancholia. The story is also typical of von Trier. When the film started I thought to myself, what is going to happen in the end? I had no idea, which is great for a film. All too often I know whats going to happen in the end.
Furthermore, von Trier doesn't "mashup" different films into a new film, like Tarrantino so often does. Von Trier is better than that. Dogville, which is austere the likes of Ingmar Bergman and Carl Theodor Dreyer, is something unique. Unlike the Moulin Rouge, which I reviewed last night, Dogville revels in the cinematic art form. By the end of the film it stakes out difficult questions about human nature and the myth of small town America. It certainly is a departure from manistream cinema found at the multiplex
Von Trier takes risks. The set is an austere, minimalist expression of the Depression years in America. To not have any sets, perhaps, represents the poverty of America which is depicted at the end of the film. In comparison to other von Trier films this one has similar themes. Like Dancer in the Dark, which I reviewed on this blog site, we see a woman in duress; unjustly condemned for crimes she didn't commit. Unlike Dancer, Nicole Kidman's character gets revenge. She has the gangsters execute the townspeople, with the exception of the dog. Thus the characters in Dancer and Dogville meet different endings. Von Trier's Melancholia also has a damsel in distress, except, unlike in Dancer in the Dark or Dogville, freedom is brought about by the apocalypse.
So what does the film mean? What is von Trier's purpose in making Dogville? Why does he continue to make films about mistreated women? It is rumored that von Trier has an anti-American opinion and, if this is true, than Dogville could be, as I mentioned earlier, an iconoclastic film exposing the myth of smalltown America as a very pious, ethical place. Perhaps, the character of the Doctor's son reveals this theme the most accurately. He is very high minded, has ideas about morality and ethics, and aspires to be a writer. By the end of the film his philosophical views of humanity are shattered. Instead of viewing the townspeople as "good" people, he has become just like them; morally corrupt, ethically bankrupt. In the end Kidman's character shoots him gangster style in the head.
The final scene is perhaps von Trier's most obvious indictment of America. The scene is infused with violence and revenge which seems to present the version of American justice. Like one reviewer said, it may be von Trier's depiction of American fascism. The gangster are unopposed. The police are on the take. Small town America is not polite, pious, and filled with cookies. It is dominated by underworld thugs who committ mass murder. The violence, the revenge, the myth, the high minded talk of "good" people; only in America.
Whatever it's meaning, Dogville is a film that stands out from the garbage that is produced for mass consumption.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Review of Baz Luhrman's Moulin Rouge
This Summer, well it's almost last Summer, I watched the Great Gatsby with much attention. I believe I even wrote a blog post about it. I'm always interested in the latest theatrical, literary, or historical adaptation. I don't know why exactly I like these kinds of productions, but I do. Perhaps I can consult a psychiatrist to unearth the memories. Sorry, I've been reading film theory and how psychoanalysis affected it. Anyway, I also watched Mark Cousins The Story of Film which features a segment with the director of the latest adaptation of Gatsby and the subject of this blog Moulin Rouge. Luhrmann struck me as a director who has a deep knowledge of film. So I borrowed Moulin Rouge from the library and watched it. I must say I'm not a big fan of musicals. And Moulin Rouge is certainly a musical of, as the nytimes.com reviewer put it, an achievement that surpasses MTV.
At first I was somewhat bored and thought where is this film going. A lot of glitz and glamour, but little plot. Eventually the story comes together. A doomed romance that happens by chance. Poor writer and dancer get together. Dancer wants to be a star. Enter Duke who can make her dreams come true. Alas, she can't do it. She loves the writer too much. The story is fraught with class conflict, it is set in 1900, Paris, a traditional love story. Sadly the narrative is tragedy, the dancer dies in the end. The story is simple, straight forward.
Yet, the music and dance numbers are not. They mix together different songs from different eras. Very much reflecting the post-modern idea of a patchwork of other films and songs. I really like what Luhrmann did with pacing and camera shots. The pacing goes right along with the emotional build up of the film. When the plot veers into anxiety and the action is rising, the cuts are shorter, scenes are interlaced, the music seems to become louder. In contrast, when the film's action slows, the cutting is slower. The shots are long and slow. I think he even uses film for the slow shots. The coloration is different, the slow images have the grainy quality about them. The fast paced shots have a digital quality. There are also many, many jump cuts, elipses, time and space are all relative. One shot in the writer's apartment, thirty seconds later at the Moulin Rouge. It all works, it's all a patchwork, a "pastiche" of different styles and techniques. It's really enjoyable to watch such a well shot, edited, and directed film. I have to agree with Cousins when he said that no one else was doing anything like Moulin Rouge.
The acting was good for a musical. Towards the end there was some depth, but, I have to agree with the nytimes critic, that there wasn't a whole lot of range in emotion for any of the characters. The audience never sees any of the hang overs after partying. I may be redundant here, but was there talk about Nicole Kidman being too old for the lead role? And how about McGregor, could Hugh Jackman have played the role better? Luiguzamo plays a comic relief role which isn't bad. And the Duke a representation of elite society, an evil, effeminate man. Lastly, I thought Jim Broadbent played a very good MC. I think this was one of his first roles before The Iron Lady or Cloud Atlas.
All in all, the film is worth a watch just for it's mix of films, songs, cinematographic styles, film stocks, and digitally enhanced settings. I might even show it in my World Cinema class.
At first I was somewhat bored and thought where is this film going. A lot of glitz and glamour, but little plot. Eventually the story comes together. A doomed romance that happens by chance. Poor writer and dancer get together. Dancer wants to be a star. Enter Duke who can make her dreams come true. Alas, she can't do it. She loves the writer too much. The story is fraught with class conflict, it is set in 1900, Paris, a traditional love story. Sadly the narrative is tragedy, the dancer dies in the end. The story is simple, straight forward.
Yet, the music and dance numbers are not. They mix together different songs from different eras. Very much reflecting the post-modern idea of a patchwork of other films and songs. I really like what Luhrmann did with pacing and camera shots. The pacing goes right along with the emotional build up of the film. When the plot veers into anxiety and the action is rising, the cuts are shorter, scenes are interlaced, the music seems to become louder. In contrast, when the film's action slows, the cutting is slower. The shots are long and slow. I think he even uses film for the slow shots. The coloration is different, the slow images have the grainy quality about them. The fast paced shots have a digital quality. There are also many, many jump cuts, elipses, time and space are all relative. One shot in the writer's apartment, thirty seconds later at the Moulin Rouge. It all works, it's all a patchwork, a "pastiche" of different styles and techniques. It's really enjoyable to watch such a well shot, edited, and directed film. I have to agree with Cousins when he said that no one else was doing anything like Moulin Rouge.
The acting was good for a musical. Towards the end there was some depth, but, I have to agree with the nytimes critic, that there wasn't a whole lot of range in emotion for any of the characters. The audience never sees any of the hang overs after partying. I may be redundant here, but was there talk about Nicole Kidman being too old for the lead role? And how about McGregor, could Hugh Jackman have played the role better? Luiguzamo plays a comic relief role which isn't bad. And the Duke a representation of elite society, an evil, effeminate man. Lastly, I thought Jim Broadbent played a very good MC. I think this was one of his first roles before The Iron Lady or Cloud Atlas.
All in all, the film is worth a watch just for it's mix of films, songs, cinematographic styles, film stocks, and digitally enhanced settings. I might even show it in my World Cinema class.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Review of Campion's The Piano
This was a great film. An exhibition of restraint, of Victorian, 19th century values that had taken hold o the British Empire, including where The Piano is set, New Zealand. All of the sets, the costumes, the relationships of the whites with the natives, the moral repression of female sexuality, they all serve as narrative action that finally blows up in the seduction of the mute woman by Harvey Keitel. From there the film moves quickly with much plot development.
The big conflict is between the farmer who had an arranged marriage with Hunter and Harvey Keitel who has seduced his wife away. It reminded of Lady Chatterly. There are similarities between these two stories. Both are stories of affairs between people of different classes. I was thinking this as the film picked up speed and went racing to it's conclusion. I think a plot point of the second act of the film, perhaps even a turning point is when Sam Niell picks up his hatchet and marches back to his house. From there I thought he was going to destroy the piano, but he does something more gruesome then destroy an object. Instead he cuts off a finger.
From there the action dissipates into a scene where we see Hunter and Keitel leaving New Zealand for some other place, England perhaps? In the final dramatic scene Hunter pushes the piano into the ocean. She then sticks her leg into rope attached to the piano. In, perhaps, the best shot of the film we see her slowly drowning with the piano, but in a gasp at living manages to free herself from the piano. She does not drown with the piano. Instead her and Baines go onto live a life where she teaches piano.
I thought this scene was very well done. I don't know the exact details of how the shot was pulled off, but it looks like it was shot underwater. After she comes up for air, the pace of the camera slows down. When she is breathing, being saved by the natives, and pulled back onto the boat, her voice comes on again. From there the film concludes.
I have several questions about the film. First, and perhaps, foremost is what does the piano symbolize? Her loveless life? Her Victorian morals? Only Campion can tell us what it truly means. I think the performances were top notch. Hunter really pulls off her character well and Harvey Keitel is perfectly cast as the other man. I liked the use of voice over, I felt the pacing was good. It moved a little slowly in the beginning, but I think that works well to build up the tension in the movie leading up to the romance between Keitel and Hunter. Very good film.
The big conflict is between the farmer who had an arranged marriage with Hunter and Harvey Keitel who has seduced his wife away. It reminded of Lady Chatterly. There are similarities between these two stories. Both are stories of affairs between people of different classes. I was thinking this as the film picked up speed and went racing to it's conclusion. I think a plot point of the second act of the film, perhaps even a turning point is when Sam Niell picks up his hatchet and marches back to his house. From there I thought he was going to destroy the piano, but he does something more gruesome then destroy an object. Instead he cuts off a finger.
From there the action dissipates into a scene where we see Hunter and Keitel leaving New Zealand for some other place, England perhaps? In the final dramatic scene Hunter pushes the piano into the ocean. She then sticks her leg into rope attached to the piano. In, perhaps, the best shot of the film we see her slowly drowning with the piano, but in a gasp at living manages to free herself from the piano. She does not drown with the piano. Instead her and Baines go onto live a life where she teaches piano.
I thought this scene was very well done. I don't know the exact details of how the shot was pulled off, but it looks like it was shot underwater. After she comes up for air, the pace of the camera slows down. When she is breathing, being saved by the natives, and pulled back onto the boat, her voice comes on again. From there the film concludes.
I have several questions about the film. First, and perhaps, foremost is what does the piano symbolize? Her loveless life? Her Victorian morals? Only Campion can tell us what it truly means. I think the performances were top notch. Hunter really pulls off her character well and Harvey Keitel is perfectly cast as the other man. I liked the use of voice over, I felt the pacing was good. It moved a little slowly in the beginning, but I think that works well to build up the tension in the movie leading up to the romance between Keitel and Hunter. Very good film.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Thoughts on Bondanella's book about Italian Cinema
I don't know why, maybe it's growing up in New York, or living in the City, or having Italian friends and girlfriends, or studying Italian History, or, perhaps it's just the fact that they are so damn good, that I like Italian films. I remember in High School watching Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, Apocalypse Now and Streetcar Named Desire with Brando. In college it was Fellini. I bought 81/2 at Barnes and Noble in Vestal. I watched and kind of understood it. Living in Shanghai introduced me to Bertolucci whom I, excuse my French, adore. I don't know how many times I've watched Last Emperor. At least five. I've got the special edition with all the extras. It is one of my favorite movies ever. It combines two things of which I'm very fond of; Italian filmmakers and Chinese History. Furthermore, last Summer, this summer I've been busy with the GRE and beginning photography, I watched La Dolce Vita an instant hit, Bertolucci's 1900 which was great, I love history, The Conformist, and Rosselini's War Trilogy. I wanted to study Italina Neo-realist films. In fact I was planning on studying abroad in Italy next Spring, but I got a job teaching film. Sadly, not Italian film, but I'm attempting to persuade my boss to allow a trailer course about Italian cinema.
Anyway, sorry for the long digression. The book starts out with a brief history of silent Italian film and progresses into a discussion of Italian Cinema during the Fascist period. Two films, which I would like to watch, have so far come to my attention, Cabiria which is a silent film and inspired D.W. Griffith's Indifference, and Ossessione which was the spark that lit the fire to Italian Neo-realism and really animated the whole of film history in the post-WWII era. So much came from Italian Neo-realism, the French New Wave, it influenced Third World Cinema, as well as American, and West Germany's cinema productions.
Since I'm not going to Italy I thought I'd read as much as I could about Italian Cinema and write a blog about it. I will, as time permits, read the book and other materials, and write my thoughts in this blog.
Anyway, sorry for the long digression. The book starts out with a brief history of silent Italian film and progresses into a discussion of Italian Cinema during the Fascist period. Two films, which I would like to watch, have so far come to my attention, Cabiria which is a silent film and inspired D.W. Griffith's Indifference, and Ossessione which was the spark that lit the fire to Italian Neo-realism and really animated the whole of film history in the post-WWII era. So much came from Italian Neo-realism, the French New Wave, it influenced Third World Cinema, as well as American, and West Germany's cinema productions.
Since I'm not going to Italy I thought I'd read as much as I could about Italian Cinema and write a blog about it. I will, as time permits, read the book and other materials, and write my thoughts in this blog.
Thoughts about Robert Stam's book Film Theory
I recently re-took up, after a considerable absence due to the GRE, an introductory text about Film Theory which is the title of the book. It is by Robert Stam and I must say it is a very informative and pleasurable read. I came across such critics like Kracauer, Metz, and others. I was really moved by the Third Cinema writings of Latin American writers. I never thought that films were divided along the same lines as international relations; the first world, the second world, and the third world. This movement put forth many apt criticism about European, American, and Japanese Cinema, but at the same time didn't accept without critical debate the Cinema of the Soviet Union and it's satellites. I was very impressed with the anti-colonialist writings of Frantz Fanon, particularly his comments about film and the films it engendered in Africa.
Metz also put forth interesting ideas about how film language is contructed. How the words used in films become codes and symbols for meanings that we readily adopt in our understanding of achetypes, genres, and films. Furthermre, I was particularly taken with Metz's and others writing about psychoanalysis and Cinema. It really made me think about the viewing experience. It also talked about how Cinema is like a dream. It is an escape from reality or is it? Clearly I would have to side with the idea that Cinema is a dream. When you go to see a film or you pop in a DVD, or watch something on Hulu, it is the beginning of a dream like experience. For two to three hours you are lost in a make believe world, even if it is something based in reality like a Rosselini film, cinema is a dream. It creates characters that you feel for, that you talk to, that you identify with.
This is an ongoing blog about film theory as presented in the book and from other sources I may come across.
Metz also put forth interesting ideas about how film language is contructed. How the words used in films become codes and symbols for meanings that we readily adopt in our understanding of achetypes, genres, and films. Furthermre, I was particularly taken with Metz's and others writing about psychoanalysis and Cinema. It really made me think about the viewing experience. It also talked about how Cinema is like a dream. It is an escape from reality or is it? Clearly I would have to side with the idea that Cinema is a dream. When you go to see a film or you pop in a DVD, or watch something on Hulu, it is the beginning of a dream like experience. For two to three hours you are lost in a make believe world, even if it is something based in reality like a Rosselini film, cinema is a dream. It creates characters that you feel for, that you talk to, that you identify with.
This is an ongoing blog about film theory as presented in the book and from other sources I may come across.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)