| Re: Season of the Severed Head, resumed |
Plus ca change plus c'es .. |
| elag (elag@cloud9.net) |
2003/08/23 00:12 |
Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: elag <elag@cloud9.net>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism
Subject: Re: Season of the Severed Head, resumed
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 02:12:21 -0400
Organization: Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose
Message-ID: <3F4705BD.42C6263E@cloud9.net>
Reply-To: elag@cloud9.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <36a623f.0306160114.37c13164@posting.google.com> <3F0A3C4D.8AC42312@cloud9.net> <36a623f.0307170044.64d2cff1@posting.google.com> <3F18D735.BB78DA99@cloud9.net> <36a623f.0307210303.d9f8b7f@posting.google.com> <3F1F7B7C.3C04CCD4@cloud9.net> <36a623f.0307290239.680547a3@posting.google.com> <3F2747D1.222463BD@cloud9.net> <36a623f.0308081607.3fd62a66@posting.google.com> <3F37328E.354CC11@cloud9.net> <36a623f.0308131723.54de3c22@posting.google.com> <3F444F10.4937B5DB@cloud9.net> <36a623f.0308220834.142722ce@posting.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 364
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.surrealism:508
Parry wrote:
>
> elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F444F10.4937B5DB@cloud9.net>...
> > Parry wrote:
> > >
> > > elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F37328E.354CC11@cloud9.net>...
> > > [snip for length]
....
> >
> > >
> > > > > Rivette used professional actors but also much
> > > > > improvisation, with the script being developed as it was shot.
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking about Godard and Cassavettes. I really admire what these
> > > > directors have accomplished, but naturally it's very hard to get
> > > > producers to back ideas of this sort. Imagine an American film crew
> > > > sitting idly while the director tries to come up with the next scene. I
> > > > think working "documentary style", w/ a small crew is a great way to
> > > > stay loose, though that look is perhaps seen as overused and old
> > > > fashioned these days. I remember people taunting me about some of my my
> > > > more experimental ideas by derisively shouting "GODARD!"
> > >
> > > Are those the sort of experimental ideas where the viewer says "my
> > > my"? I recall watching a Raul Ruiz video and afterwards all someone
> > > had to say about it was "it reminded me of Godard." I wondered if he
> > > saw any of the movie past this facile comparison.
> >
> > ...or if he knew much about Godard, even. I always tried to push the
> > limits of the medium in all ways possible. I can't help but see the
> > film as both an entertainment and as a flimsly strip of colored plastic
> > through which light is shined. Most Godard films can never have wide
> > appeal as they function in a way like film textbooks or essay, and how
> > many people enjoy reading textbooks?
>
> I wouldn't say Godard's movies are *that* dry. Some of the 80's ones
> are actually a lot of fun. But they do require the audience to
> interact with the film differently than it would with a standard
> Hollywood entertainment.
That's the hurdle that few are prepared to leap. Certainly films like
"Hail Mary" would be considered torture by most.
Sure... some of his could even be considered conventionally
entertaining, like "Breathless" or maybe "My life to live" (Vivre Sa
Vie). I actually feel hard pressed to come up w/ a list of his films
which I might show to the uninitiated "average" movie goer.
Which ones might you suggest for this purpose?
>
> > My biggest troubles came because I despise the hollywood slick style and
> > shooting for coverage and propping up flabby material w/ snappy pop
> > tunes.
>
> The nadir for me is when a film kills 4 minutes with a montage of
> divers scenes under a pop tune. When that's happens, I write off any
> hope I had in reserve that the movie might improve at some point.
> There's much to object to about the Hollywood style, and the worst
> aspects have been exacerbated since the 70's, I think. One could view
> it as the George Lucas Syndrome -- everything has to be dumber,
> louder, flashier and costlier. Hundreds of millions of dollars get
> blown on material which would once have been considered drive-in movie
> fodder.
I have little real hope for the movie industry... even the
"Independents" have mostly been swallowed up or forced to bend to the
same conventions that make the "mainstream" so bland. After all nearly
every screem in America is owned by a half dozen megacorps... they don't
take risks. At best, they co-opt and "dumb down" what was once
independent... I even had the dissapointment of seeing "The Matrix" open
at the Angelika Film Center... a once independent art house co-opted by
the City Cinemas chain (they still do show "good" movies).
But I'm not bitter...
>
> > My stuff always had a raw edge... I never took a tripod or heavy
> > lights or used a crew larger that 3 people. I'll admit that the
> > majority of my experiments were failures or of only passing interest,
> > but I feel I learned a lot more working my own way than I might have by
> > say, shamelessly plagiarizing "Speed". (A film I cut was in the Student
> > Academy Awards Finals and lost to a "murky mimeograph of "Speed")
>
> As long as you can make films the way you want, that's the way to do
> it.
As long as I never try to make a film that costs more than I've got in
the bank, I'm safe... hence animation... total control on the cheapside.
>
> > > > > > I also like a hand held camera and "open form" or loose
> > > > > > framing. Even if the image is stable (as w/ a steadi-cam) and the
> > > > > > motion choreographed the whole film is enlivened by the dynamic framing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm unfamiliar with the terminology. What would "loose framing" look
> > > > > like? Do you mean a moving viewpoint or a method of composition?
> > > >
> > > > Open Form emphasizes simple techniques (like hand held camera) used to
> > > > record (seemingly) only partially controlled situations. The frame
> > > > might seem too narrow too contain all the subject matter. The tendency
> > > > would be for the camera to follow the action and for things to be cut
> > > > off by or fall outside of the frame.
> > > >
> > > > as opposed to
> > > >
> > > > Closed Form in which the elements are carefully arranged w/in the frame.
> > > > The camera is likely to anticipate or wait for the action. The shots
> > > > tend to be stable and static.
> > >
> > > My personal viewing preference is for films done "closed form." A film
> > > like Tati's "Playtime" is especially endearing because everything is
> > > in long shot. That movie also demonstrates how a chaotic atmosphere
> > > can be created using the closed form. Will you try to emulate the look
> > > of open form in your animation?
> >
> > Well, I believe in tailoring the technique to the situation. I'm
> > attracted to open form because it emphasizes free will as opposed to
> > closed form which emphasizes determinism. These are, of course,
> > generalities. It's perfectly acceptable to use both closed and open
> > form w/in the same film.
> >
> > In one of my texts it mentions that it might be a bad idea to use open
> > form to shoot a film about prison life, as it's contrary to the
> > material... one can't get much more "closed" than a prison.
>
> To me, that would suggest a challenge to make a prison film shot in
> open form. The prison analogy is apt for closed form, as if the film's
> characters are locked in their situation. So in a given movie a
> tension can develop between the chaos of the characters' lives and the
> stability of the film's frame. Kubrick may be the best example of this
> I can recall.
Sure it is possible, at least in part. It's just that practical matters
such as smal enclosed spaces and the very presence of bars lends itself
to a constrained imagery. It would be interesting to see what someone
might come up with if they were determined to do it.
One would be more likey to do something like contrasting the closed form
scenes inside the prison with open form treatment of an escape and chase.
>
> > In animation, it would likewise be difficult to justify open form, as
> > every aspect of every frame is planned out in intricate detail and there
> > is no opportunity for documentary techniques. Elements of open form
> > could be used for effect, though and I fully intend to leave that option
> > open. I have seen cartoons using such effects as swish pans and cameras
> > chasing around after characters. If it's funny, I'll use it.
>
> The way to interject open form into animation would be to base the
> drawings on film of live action. Probably a very cumbersome method but
> I'd be interested in seeing someone attempt it.
It could be done, but it doesn't hold much interest for me. Rotoscoping
is an interesting technique, but I prefer moving away from any ties to
"reality" in favor of more "cartoony" styles. The Fleischers did do
some good work in melding the two, though. I was actually thinking of
adding a few minor rotoscope effects to my project as the computer makes
it far easier to accomplish.
>
> On the subject of funny, I was trying to find a link to a Kricfalusi
> essay on cartoons but his Spumco site seems to have gone down the
> tubes. His main point, as I recall, was to draw a distinction between
> cartoons and something like The Simpsons, which he considers a
> situation comedy. The latter involves situations which are funny,
> while cartoons are pictures that are drawn funny.
That's about right. Mainly I'm interested in the free-form nature of
the early toons. I've always had a preference for films which ignore
plot in favor of incident and visual concerns. You know some of the
early films were animated to a pre recorded music/FX track. They
actually had to improvise the whole cartoon according to the random
cow-bells and slide-whistles inserted by the FX guy!
>
> Not surprisingly, you appear to enjoy the same old cartoons which I
> do. Are there any current cartoon animators you like? The Fleischers'
> stuff wasn't particularly laugh-inducing (I'm using this awkward term
> to distinguish the quality from "funny"), but strange and spirited;
> I'd describe Bill Plympton's stuff the same way. Termite Terrace and
> Avery were both strange and laugh-inducing; Kricfalusi, similarly. The
> NFB's Richard Condie is often funny, though low on strangeness.
Current... I liked Futurama while it lasted... Samurai Jack is amazing
visually, though the quality of the stories are uneven... Cowboy Bebop
had a great look and feel and sound even when some stories have that
empty anime quality and some of the English voice overs are laughably
wooden. I really liked the "Oh Canada" series of shorts on Cartoon
Network until it was killed. I guess it was mostly National Film Board
stuff (not sure if I've seen any Richard Condie). Spike and Mike's
festival of animation is always good for some excellent pieces.
I've enjoyed Plymptons stuff but haven't seen much lately. I met him
once when he screened a (not too funny) movie about a dog w/ an animated
mouth at the 1st NY Underground Film Festival.
I must say that the new Ren & Stimpy hasn't impressed me so far, even
though I liked most of the original ones... the new one w/ Bakshi was
just terrible and unfunny. In fact the whole Spike TV block seems
pretty horrid. I'd rather use the time rereading my old copies of ZAP
underground comics... at least when they're vulgar they have the
advantage of being totally uncensored.
>
> > > > > > Sometimes I think that imposing rigorous limitations (in ever changing
> > > > > > experiments) is the best way to find those exceptional moments. I'm
> > > > > > talking about tricks like shooting chronologically even when it's
> > > > > > logistically innefficient or giving the actors the scene only on the day
> > > > > > of the shoot and not letting them know where their character is going.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The rigid framework forces one to think and act in new and different
> > > > > > ways. It forces one to "stretch" a bit. Of course, this type of thing
> > > > > > can be rather hard to corral.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree an element of rigidity is useful in imaginative work. One
> > > > > needs a lever to do the work, and a level that's not rigid won't
> > > > > accomplish anything. The rigidity could take any number of forms.
> > > > > Sometimes it may be imposed from without -- like the prohibition on
> > > > > explicitness that caused past songwriters and scriptwriters to create
> > > > > clever wordplay.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it's important to remember that even unwanted restrictions can be a
> > > > boon to creativity. I always use the example of the TV series Babylon
> > > > 5. The show was unusual in that the 5 year run was plotted out in
> > > > advance. When the network interfered w/ the show by demanding the
> > > > replacement of the lead, the creator J. Michael Straczynski managed to
> > > > introduce a new lead and change the story for (I think) the better.
> > >
> > > In the same vein, a couple instances of censorship backfiring spring
> > > to mind. There was a scene with a passionate kiss in a film but
> > > Lubitsch, if I recall correctly. At the time, one was not allowed to
> > > show a kiss that lasted longer that a certain number of seconds. To
> > > circumvent the rule, Lubitsch had the actors break the kiss into a
> > > long series of shorter kisses, creating a much sexier scene. And
> > > the fellow's bedroom. The censor didn't like that, so the end was
> > > changed to the guy inviting Viridiana to join a card game with the
> > > maid, a scene suggesting something much kinkier.
> >
> > Those are classics of "getting around the code". It's amazing that even
> > a navel couldn't be shown (on tv until the '70s). Now there are navels
> > everywhere, even on oranges!
>
> Yes, we're up to our belly buttons in navels. I find it comical that
> American network television now censors the word "god," as in
> "*-damn."
I even wrote a complaint email to Cartoon network when they cut "Sweet
Zombie Jesus" out of Futurama... I mean this was at 11pm.
Back to navels... I think there was a syndicated comic strip artist in
the 60's who got tired of the navels in his strip being erased by the
censors, so he included a crate of navel oranges in one strip and the
censor gave up. I wish I could remember what strip that was...
>
> > > > > Sometimes it's a rigidity of character, as with the
> > > > > obdurate Herzog who would rather have people drag a real ship up a
> > > > > mountain than use a model.
> > > >
> > > > I'm with him philosophically, but I could never put people through that
> > > > level of pain. Perhaps he just underestimated the trouble he was
> > > > heading into.
> > >
> > > The shoots may not have been as bad as the mythology suggests. In
> > > "Herzog on Herzog" -- a fine read, by the way -- the director rebukes
> > > his reputation as a reckless adventurer and emphasizes the planning
> > > that went into such stunts as the ship-pulling.
> >
> > Those stories of the guy cutting off his own foot to avoid dying of a
> > snake bite, and the cinematographer's operation sans anaesthesia were
> > true, n'est pas?
>
> Sure, the shoots were hardships but Herzog's argument is that he did
> everything he could to anticipate and avoid such accidents. Of course,
> much more terrible accidents have happened on the soundstages of
> Hollywood films.
I have no reason not to believe him. I still have the newspaper with
the Twilight Zone tragedy on the cover
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/twilight_zone/2.html?sect=14
...
>
> Sorry to say I've been monitoring five servers and zero posts have
> appeared in that newsgroup in the last couple of days. If you're up to
> trying it again (and I hope you are), I think the best bet might be
> "alt.binaries.magic". I posted a test to it through the free-server
> "new.so-net.com.hk" and it seemed to work fine.
Agh! It showed up on my server... I don't get the magic one so I'll try
to post (same titles) to:
alt.binaries.custard
...this time. BTW you should download the files to disk before you open
them in a browser window... that should work.
P.S. - a good source of open news servers:
http://www.worldnet-news.com/nserve.htm
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 |
|
|