Jul 27, 2009

LA GRANDE ILLUSION [1937]: A Note on Deep-Focus Cinematography

...is cinema at its finest...



It was last last week's Tuesday when i purchased cinematic giants from the retail store up at the shopping center on the northern part of the campus. I brought my friend with me and he said: "Oh! You like classics!", and i replied, enough to hide my dissatisfaction to the contemporary local film culture in Manila, "Yeah, I watch them once in while. A matter of taste, i guess." And he looked at me, as if i was deprived of 'entertainment' and that i am sad and lonesome guy who belongs to stratified viewers of current audience whose only way to happiness is to become a vulture of culture.

At that moment upon spotting Jean Renoir's La Grande Illusion (1939) on the dusty bookshelf, i knew i have received the greatest amount of pleasure, a great benifit for joining the sad old league of grumpy young adults who loves to party with Bela Tarr and Kiarostami off at Contemplative Island somewhere in outer space. I have experienced an insurmountable amount of intellectual happiness.

If there is such a person as an arcane academician who profanely insults the dullness of Michael Bay's Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) and how can it can transform into a military porn, and how it 'fucks the frame', i am not one of them. But if there is a bunch of cinephiles who have reached a certain level of maturity of viewing films with an understanding of the notion of montage (Eisenstein) versus deep-space (Bazin), i would frankly say that i crudely fit with them. How can I say this? It is difficult, however, to say that i hate watching Michael Bay's films. If today's auteurial focus on criticism and theory have resurrected Dreyer, Hitchcock, Ozu and, for all time's sake, Renoir, i would say that Bay, whose version of cinema is deeply frustrating (personally) and deeply distorted (as a cinephile), embodies the anti-thesis of the whole auteur concept. He caters to mass audience and wows them with spectacle through the use of special effects. Unlike Spielberg, what is central to Bay's use of spectacle is the visual destruction of the audience's cinema-eyes. It is the most brutal form of cinema.


LA GRANDE ILLUSSION: TWO-FOLD ANALYSIS

I want to revisit two stylistic aspects of La Grande Illusion which have been central to most of its criticisms and studies. My experience with Renoir has been both intellectually and personally rewarding. Renoir's cinema has contributed much to my own humanity, how his films, like La Grande Illusion and Le Crime du Monsiuer Lange (1936), became my recurrent topic for reflection in my journals. How oh how such a young cinema offered complex themes which are still of our concern today! It has also provided me a slice of the film making stylistics of the pre-World War II cinema. If it can be generalized that Renoir's 1930s works are a pack of political set-offs to infuriate the Nazi's rise to power, i definitely would disagree on that. Although much of the contexts revolving on 1930s Renoir are heavily grounded on this one, it is because of the 1930s rise in fascism which influenced this mode of thinking. A critic may find that it is inevitable to discuss fascism when one write about Renoir or his films.

This political maneuvering of 1930s is not central to my revisiting of Renoir's aesthetics in La Grande Illusion. Let me began by saying that cinema is, for me, the most technologically dependent yet the most obvious kind of art that i have ever encounter. One must always think, when one is watching a film, that the source of the visual plethora they are witnessing are from the mechanical movements of the camera, the incisiveness of a cut, and flow of the narrative. This three major elements are manipulated by a singular artistic agent, which we can safely classify as the director or auteur. This method of looking at films is derived from the notion that film is a set of artistic formalisms which can produce specific effects. However, Bordwell argued that this perspective is incomplete. He demands that this formalist notion should be subjected to historical accounting, and that every element is historically contingent.

He calls this way of studying films Neoformalist Poetics. But this certain methodology might entail some tedious research and, if you are expecting a detailed study on La Grande Illusion, this blog post might disappoint you. I am approaching La Grande Illusion with an initial attempt to lay its stylistic bravura: frame mobility and deep-focus cinematography and with this we may understand how La Grande Illusion became one of highest point in cinema.


****

Deep-Focus Cinematography in La Grande Illusion


Renoir's cinematographic engagement in La Grande Illussion is, itself, a major breakthrough in the history of cinema. Before Renoir, deep focus cinematography is not a salient technique. During the birth of cinema until 1903, there was 'deep focus cinematography' and it played a central role in crafting most of our early films. One could tell from my previous example, Petticoat Lane (1903) (here) that the deep focus shot remained very basic to early films. However, our young filmmakers seemed not aware of this cinematic achievement. They do not even have a concept of cinematography. Their concern was to document reality, with a less focus on story telling.

The Soviet Montage Movement, though contributed much to the recent stylistics of today's films especially in editing, are aloof to cinematography. Eisentein and Vertov, at both extremes of the Movement, are particularly interested in the incisiveness of a cut and less to the establishment of a shot alone. In their highly stylistic manipulation of a shot, they have created a theory that have been influential to this day. Discontinuous and conflicting sequence of images are juxtapose to create an idea. I always find the Soviet Montage a precursor to the cinema succeeding it.

F. W.Murnau, in his Last Laugh (1924), broke the ice for cinematography.
"This meant that operating the camera became a more demanding task, and a dedicated camera operator became necessary. The operator worked under the control of the principal cameraman, who now devoted all his attention to lighting the scene, and so was called the 'lighting cameraman' inside the film industry, to distinguish him from this new 'camera operator'. And the camera operator had an assistant, or 'focus puller', to make the frequent changes to the lens focus required by these extra camera movements." (Salt)
After Murnau, then came the plight of the 1930s poetic realism of France, a slice in film history, when our master director, Renoir, developed most of his remarkable films notably La Règle du jeu (1939), Le Crime de Monsieur Lange (1936), La Bête humaine (1938). Poetic Realism, Bordwell writes in his Film History: An Introduction 2nd ed., "is not a unified movement, like French Impressionism or Soviet Montage; it was, rather, a general tendency." Much of Renoir's major works became part of this tendency of French Cinema. Most actors from La Grande Illusion have been part of this series of films like Jean Gabin. And it has, in some way, influence the track of the stylistics of cinema. It can be characterize as set of narrative modes on characters who live in the 'margins of society'. "With its roots in realist literature, this movement combined working-class milieus and downbeat story lines with moody, proto-noir art direction and lighting to stylishly represent contemporary social conditions." (here)

The nature of the poetic realism tendency precipitated the kind of deep-focus cinematography central to the stylistics of La Grande Illusion. What is exactly deep-focus cinematography? Well, it has many meanings depending on the time period it used to refer. One can quickly recall that of Petticoat Lane (1903) and its acute use of the style. The Petticoat deep-focus is extremely different to Renoir's use of deep-focus. The deep-focus of Petticoat is still primitive and hasn't been cracked from its shell. It lacks a narrative functional role and thus become a latent, less subversive type of deep-focus cinematography.

Renoir's usage of deep focus have greatly improved because it acquires a functional role in the narrative. Let me elucidate this very important aspect.

One the series of frames below, one can observe a typical deep-focus shot, a frame with all planes (foreground, middle ground, and background) in sharp focus. We can determine its functional role by looking at the the middle plane where the two main characters of the narrative, Boeldieu and Marechal are positioned. This shot shows Marechal yawning behind a prisoner-officer on the foreground which we practically do not know. The plane behind them are composed of unidentified soldiers. This is part of a series of establishing shots to show the immediate surrounding of their prison camp.


--------
Exhibit 1

--------

The cinematography of this scene highly involves the elements of framing. Of course, no cinematographic technique can stand alone without the involvement of other aspects such as depth of field and mise-en-scene.

Plane Positioning


When one talks about a deep focus shot, one has to note that this is a matter of the camera LENS and it is, in a way, limited to that technological device. Since the quality of the lens encompasses other elements of a shot such as framing, shot scale, camera movement and much of the mise-en-scene it can cause a major distortion on the image or sometimes it works in subtle, unnoticeable ways. The lens is highly sensitive to all of these elements and it can be noted that all these elements highly depends on the deep of field.

The plane positioning of the subject highly depends with a deep focused camera lens. I have to reiterate this that there are three basic planes to film compositions, and i think, basic also to photography: foreground, the one nearer to the camera; middle ground, the one in behind the foreground (hehe!), and background, the plane farthest to the camera.

On a certain level of generality, the three frames above constitute a high involvement of the director in staging the event. Renoir selects the middle ground to stage the two main characters, Captain de Boeldieu and Marechal. The foreground comprise of a singular dominant element, a prisoner-soldier we do not know. This anonymity transpires an artificial effect that affects both the middle ground and background. The frame composition seems to note a distinction of the middle ground, and we can say that the middle ground cannot establish its emphasis without the presence of the foreground, where the anonymous 'dominant' soldier stands, and on the background where other anonymous soldier are focused.

Renoir wanted to show us the contrast between this planes, and he used a deep focus to elucidate the effect of conflicting images of anonymity and familiarity to the viewers.

Angle and Scale of Framing

Aside from being in deep-focus, this shot is composed in a straight-on angle. It is almost frontal and flat, suggestive that Renoir might use a telephoto lens. The flatness of the frame and its frontal staging creates a unification of the image and have contributed to the contrasting of the elements present in the frame. As suppose to anonymity and familiarity effects, the flat and frontal approach of Renoir creates an overlapping of the planes of varied familiarity. To show the shot in its most candid form, we observe Marechal's yawn in response to an off screen sound effect (in German) from a source we do not see.

Sound

The sound effect played a large part in the execution of the shot. The sound exhibited in this shot comes from an off screen source. One can infer by intuition that the sound originates from a German speaker in a highly authoritative voice. For non-German and French language speakers like me, the absence of the English subtitles is highly indicative that this sound is not English or French. The tone of the voice of the speaker is imposing. Note that this is only a part of a series of establishing shot, and the other shots have confirmed that the voice came indeed from a German Officer giving orders.

The voice of the German officer provides the context of the deep-focus style. Renoir integrates the style which one would think appropriately suits this part. The authoritative quality of the sound prompts Renoir to masterfully add a sense of immediacy to the image. When one stresses on immediacy, he or she intuitively constructs a space of sharpness, distinction and emphasis. The deep focus style, where every plane is in sharp focus, highly elicit this effect of immediacy.

To integrate this analysis, Renoir's masterful use of deep-focus cinematography is highly grounded on a complex set of construction principles: one, to establish contrast between planes, and elements to elements; to enable a sense of spatial immediacy heavily relative to the temporal and sound design.

Some other deep-focus shots persist in the film:

The images above are in deep space mise-en-scene.


I have second thoughts about this image above, but it seems the quality of the film have made the man, Rosenthal, in foreground appears out of focus.


Realism and Deep-Focus Cinematography

Film aestheticians from pre-Grande Illusion era are much concern with other cinematographic aspects such as the movement of the camera than the use of lens. Also much of the critcal discussions revolve around the shot-to-shot relationships (preempted by Soviet Montage Movement) and less on the depth and scale of a shot. Renoir has somewhat made a concret way of expressing realism in film. When Renoir establish this approach to filmmaking notably in his film previous to La Grande Illusion, a film of almost noirish in quality, Le Crime du Monsieur Lange (1936), he became consistent until La Regle du Jeu (1939). In the period from 1936 to 1939, Renoir's creative period, his fascination with experimentation grew.

Realism in deep focus cinematography can be attributed from its stabilize manipulation of focusing all planes with sharpness, adding a new dimension. One has to note that realism here does not refer to the dull, shallow meaning of attempting to depict reality, and also to judge Renoir's films as to whether it is realistic or not. One has to distinguish by intuition the difference of realistic or reality before continuing. This notion brings me back to my analogy that La Grande Illusion contributes to filmic realism that filmic reality. Realism is such a loaded word and has been misused and miscarried by writers of cinema and of history itself. Now i wouldn't want to specify all of realism and how it is used, misused throughout history and its degenerative capacity to inflict undeserved categories to certain artworks. American Cinematographers in their article for May 1941 entitled 'Photography of the Month' on noting their observations for Citizen Kane (1942) have made quite a wrap up on this aspect. They wrote

"The result on the screen is in itself little short of revolutionary: the conventional narrow plane of acceptable focus is eliminated, and in its place is a picture closely approximating what the eye sees - virtually unlimited depth of field, ranging often from a big head close up at one side of the frame, perhaps only inches from the lens, to background action twenty, thirty, fifty, or even a hundred feet away, all critically sharp. The result is realism in a new dimension: we forget we are looking at a picture, and feel the living, breathing presence of the characters."
****


Frame Mobility in La Grande Illusion


Another cinematographic aspect of La Grande Illusion is Renoir's masterful use of the mobility of the camera. There are two observable movement of the camera: the one dependent of the subjects movement and, two, the one independent of the subjects movement. Both techniques prompts lenghty dicussions which i will greatly include on my next post.

****

Other Shots worth looking for:


Notable Sites on Jean Renoir:

Documents Constables (in French)
Jean Renoir site (in French)

Works Cited:

Bordwell, D and Thompson, K. Film Art: An Introduction 4 ed. New York: Mc-Graw Hill, 1993.

Bordwell, D and Thompson, K. Film History: An Introduction 2nd ed. New York: Mc-Graw Hill, 2003

Ogle, P. Technological and Aesthetic Influences Upon the Development of Deep Focus Cinematography in the United States. Screen Advance Access March 1, 1972. Screen 13: 45-72.

Salt, B. BFI Films: A Brief History of Cinematograhy. Accessed: July 23, 2009. <'http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/49524>, April 2009.


Jul 20, 2009

PETTICOAT LANE (1903)

from the primitive era...




The use of deep-focus cinematography on long duration shots is central to the mode of film style in the Primitive Era of cinema. Here is a silent film, of its purpose to document the London streets, far away from the formal narrative phase of cinema which blossomed at the start of 1910s. Remarkably, i find this piece of art most objective, almost true to primitive cinema's purpose, to recreate life as it is.

More films this week, glad my load went light after my last week's Thursday.

***
I greatly enjoyed Dan North's Transformers II piece!

***


Jul 17, 2009

CASABLANCA [1942]...

..is love...


Forever, forever and ever, everyone can say that Casablanca is one of the most unforgettable films of all time. I never saw such a cinema as Michael Curtiz's most salient style in my viewing list. If one has to recommend a classical film to a non-classical cinephile, it is of great pleasure to put Casablanca on the top list along with Citizen Kane (1941) and Battleship Potemkin (1925).

Casablanca replicates the feeling of euphoria driven by the fundamental aspects of its filmic composition, the cut, oh so lovely and how the film rolls, and elusive dialogues so true. And when the camera pans on the horizon, characters lit up. Rick, when he lights a smoke, fills the frame with an incredible effect of mystery and submissiveness, oh, when Llsa looks at the screen with her wide open eyes. And everything comes forward, towards that frightful claustrophobia of being locked in Casablanca, and one's search for freedom in America. How i love cinema, indeed!

But i am a bit sad after watching Casablanca, not that because it was overtly passionate and sentimental in some degree (of course if my taste for films would overrule the whole point of criticism, i can give it a zero star for that) but this hidden feeling that it can never be true. It remains in its diegetic world, and never comes out of there. It is true for all films, even so for documentaries which is, in a way, the closest filmic representation of reality. With this held in my hands, i can frightfully say that every film disappoints me. But to say that the measure of every film is its level of representation of reality is preposterous. Every film can be both as stylistic and truthful as Dziga Vertov's Man with a Movie Camera (1929) but one stands out for its own world view. Vertov's reality, however true, fits in distortions and canted angles and superimposition, and that the Russian metropolis, according to his film, can be filmed this way.

Reality is separate to filmic reality. Diegesis remains central to this discourse on representativeness. However, to distinguish this aspect one does not even have to read an article on film theory. The distance of the viewer to the screen of the cinema alone creates this sense of artificiality, that the world of cinema is exists only ona two-dimensional worldview and that it can never occur outside of that flat screen. Film remains there, and it can be deduced further as streaks of light coming from a projector. The way Casablanca came to me was a through the electrification of the liquid crystals on my laptop screen somewhat also related to optical virtuosity of my DVD drive. We may arrive at a conclusion that all of cinema lies under the restriction that it can never be true.



If how is Ingrid Bergman related to Ingmar Bergman, i really don't know!

***

ZOMBIE Nowadays...
tsk tks tsk



I do love you, Mwuah!

Thank God it's Friday! Ciao for Thursday. As suppose to my exam a little while ago i had this funniest experience ever! I slept at around two thirty in the afternoon hoping to get a quick nap to wave off my sleepiness (you should know that i did not slept at all). If i were to wake up by four o'clock, i would have reviewed a lot for my exam, but since i slept a long three and a half hours, i woke up seven o'clock in the evening, one hour late for my six o'clock exam. I arrived at the Engineering College quarter to seven, sneering for my oversleeping. Gladly, my instructor extended the exam till ten o'clock in the evening so i finished the exam for almost three hours. What a fine it is!

Anyway, I suggest that you read SENSES OF CINEMA. There is a new issue, Issue 51 available. Click that booty now!

***

Jul 16, 2009

AWAKE and It's Thursday Morning!

hmmm...

[pic, from Gomorrah (2008), here]




Good Morning! Ready to shake your booty?

I smell the fresh air from the veranda, the birds singing Greek. Oh what a beautiful Thursday morning indeed, and i have been awake for almost twelve hours now. This day, of all days, is D-Day for all my acads (academics) this week. i have an exam later on Fluid Dynamics at around 6PM to 9PM and also a report soon, at 8:30 AM on Fundamentals of Sexual Science. My head floats in absolute trance, no wonder where Sexology will fall later. I hope i can manage to tackle everything, though not everything if you get what i mean.

I have to reboot a little like a 30 minute nap or so. I still have papers for printing and photocopying, and a bunch of constants and equations to memorize. I am in absolute shit right now. but hey, let's enjoy every agony in our lives. We might not know, Arbogast will truly rule the earth!

***
You certainly do not know that I am giving a flash review on a Bill Condon film, KINSEY (2004) later in class. Just a little stylistics over there and a bits and pieces of queer cinema and a careful note on thematics.

***

Ciao!

Jul 14, 2009

HOW I LOVE MY TUESDAY MORNING!

digging...

[images from village-oblivia]





Fuck yeah!

I had another obsessional-digging at Village-Oblivia fishin' for ideas for the brochure for the much awaited National Science Club Month 2009 of PSYSC. I love, love, love John Dahner's blogspot blog primarily because it houses a large array of modern graphic design inspirations featuring magazine layouts, brochures, pamphlets, posters, displays, and also calling card art-madness. John Dahner also has a photoblog accessible to everyone here so click away. Anyway, i still have to make a lot of adjustments in the counters and border icons for the brochure. Ciao for now! More on 1895 -1923 films and some critical posts on Received Wisdom: Three Reception Studies by Tomas Kemper maybe after Thursday. May God help me through this unabashed waters!


*****

Night night everyone! Krook... Kroook.... No more shitty Chemistry dreams please lang!

[image here]
*****


Jul 13, 2009

1895 - 1923: Birth of Cinema

with a particular focus on avant-garde filmmaking...



British Cinema is born

I often associate myself to a particular archetypal rebel of modernity after refusing over ten to fifteen invitations from friends and classmates on the premiere of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince due sometime this week (or is it this coming Saturday). Instead, i found myself obsessed with early 1900s films. My fascination with avant-garde filmmaking (here and here) achieved orgasm after watching another Vertov, his masterpiece, Man with a Movie Camera (1929).

Ciao!

***


Jul 12, 2009

Andrei Tarkovsky at The Walter Reade Theater: July 7 - 14, '09

i wanna go there... now na!

[videos cued from here]


Films of Andrei Tarkovsky, an Exploding Poetry:
watch it right here, right now!



I wish, and only wish, I live in Upper East Side, Manhattan preferably at 165 West 65th Street, upper level between Broadway and Amsterdam Ave. I wanted to go there so badly but i am stuck here in this pseudo-neurotic cityscape of Manila, consumed by 'the mechanics of materials' and plagued by the sound of the night sighing how life directly translates to 'here and now.' Because i never had a chance to download a 1.70 GB Andrei Rublev (1966) and Mirror (1975), i just sulked on a corner and dried my tears. Yet, I am filled with thoughts about how one cinephile should grow from all this nurturing experiences, that if one is serious about film, one must watch any Andrei Tarkovsky's because he is
'one of the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream' --- Ingmar Bergman.


I am filled with hope and enthusiasm of gaining my wings, stretching it from the skin of my back the flowing ivory white feather, so that i would fly and come to Manhattan to join The Film Society of Lincoln Center's revisiting of Tarkovsky.

On the contrary, i am very much surprised on the cost of the tickets. From their website:
"Walter Reade Theater General Admission:
$11 public ......... [P530.09] (exchange rate)
$8 senior (62+) ........ [P385.52]

$7 Film Society member & student (w/ID), child (6-­12, accompanied by adult) ........ [P337.53]

Online service charge: $1.25 per ticket. Cash only transactions at the box office and concession stand. ....... [+P60.24]


Series Pass:
$40 public ......... [P 1927.60]

$30 Film Society member ........ [P 1445.70]

Admits one person to five titles in a series. Purchase in person at the box office (cash only); may not be combined with any other ticket offer. Individual screening tickets and series passes subject to availability." (link here)

I thought i died there. I cannot think of a cinema that costs that much in my life. I watch movies on local theaters at an average rate of P110.00 [$2.28] per ticket and this is a week after the opening of a blockbuster movie. Perhaps maybe because this one is a special screening and also because it offers a high selectivity on the audience catering to those who have realized cinema's big elephant in the room or maybe to those who have realized solitude and contemplation as their form of happiness. Either way, movie viewing costs an ample amount of fortune. If one would choose, let us say a sensible young man of ripe age and maturity with a high level of tolerance and patience, filled with curiosity and wondering, between a box-office summer movie (i.e. Harry Potter 5th sequel) and Film Society's screening of Andrei Tarkovsky's masterworks, it is in a manner of personal taste that permits him to choose the better experience from the two. But to say that Andrei Tarkovsky's works are preferable than Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) is incredibly dull and pretentious. They are totally different from one another and they do not resemble one another except that, of course, they use cinematic tools to deploy narrative and produce effects, and the certainty of a cut or a duration of a shot is highly dependable on the genre, conventions, and historical manifestation of the films. To produce evaluation on both filmic experience, judging one to be subordinate from another, is a matter of economy for the mass viewers something that i cannot stomach.

Ignorance in cinema is symptomatic of one's faithlessness to the medium.

Ciao!

****

Jul 11, 2009

CHOKE [2008]: Please Choke me now!

a post-'Choke' post...


Choke. Suck. Choke. Suck. Choke.


No matter how one repeats the words on top it is still reminiscent of Clark Gregg's 'filmic depiction' of Chuck Palahniuk's Choke. After watching it, i have a strong hesitation to lent the DVD copy to Almira, my Chuck-Palahniuk-identified-fanatic friend, because i know she will be disappointed. Close to being choked entirely, one concern for me is Clark Gregg's directorial flatness. The images remain on my laptop screen and it remains there after 89 minutes with all its stupidity and static weirdness. It could be that the film is made that way, less entertaining and more stupid than any 2008 film, and that it justifies itself on that context; or it could be that the this film is symptomatic of the latent stupidity of mainstream films (you can kill me now!).


Ciaofck!

***

Jul 9, 2009

THREE SONGS ABOUR LENIN [1934]

how i love cinema...

[top photo from here]




I wonder how my coffee tastes after watching Dziga Vertov's Three Songs about Lenin (1934). A smile, fundamental to all things, and a comforting yet voluminous feeling of joy composed the whole of my emotional state. There is, in a way, a revelation in all this. That cinema is a methodical way of documenting reality and that this has been a home for many filmmakers. Vertov goes further when he compared man to machines saying:
"In the face of the machine we are ashamed of man’s inability to control himself, but what are we to do if we find the unerring ways of electricity more exciting than the disorderly haste of active people... I am an eye. I am a mechanical eye. I, a machine, I am showing you a world, the likes of which only I can see"
Vertov has a poetic eye, i suppose this might be one's comment when one look at his frames (see images below). Though the film was shot a year after Pudovkin's Deserter (1933) --- probably the last of the Soviet Montage kind (1924 - 1930), it still remains true to its origins. Thus, editing, which is so fundamental today, is much of an art, and perhaps central to Three Songs. Superimpositions, juxtopositions, and capacity to encapsulate momentary pauses and chaos dominate the editing style of Three Songs. The quality of the images is rich with symbolic overtones, and often 'faces' (some close-ups are shown below) draws sympathetic response to audiences.

I never seen Lenin filled with such humanity and character!



PS. My coffee tastes better!


Ciaofck!
***




Jul 8, 2009

Goodnight!

peeking...


Empire (Andy Warhol, 1964, 8 hr & 5 min)


I just wanna say goodnight to my blog before turning my laptop off. I am pretty busy with ChE and i wish to watch more, a lot more films for the benefit of mankind but i think i am stuck with this repetitive megalomaniac obsession of being on top of everything: on top of the Empire State building while Warhol films his uneventful real-time whatever film, or maybe on top of a blueberry cheesecake fondly eating the icing smearing on my skin, or just a mere idea of being on top of my BED to dream of 'that' night again and again. And tomorrow i must write more and more about films, and to what festival one Filipino cinephile should go this week, or to what color pallet did Alexandro Jorodowsky used in The Holy Mountain (1973), or perhaps the extinction of the Soviet Montage, or the volatile shots of Ça brûle(Claire Simon, 2006). But then i have to zero-in some points about the new Cinema-Scope issue and its infestation to the web, notably the greatly comedic yet purposeful argument-convolutions of Mark Peranson's Cannes 2009: Stupid, Adjective,and also i must acknowledge the presence of an emerging cinema webwriter, Rex Baylon, on his focused and well-shape articles on Classical Hollywood Cinema compiled at FILM EXPRESSION. Or because I love Catherine Grant, i must put in some 'favorited' links from her new link-post at FILM STUDIES FOR FREE. One mus truly appreciate her TEN MONDAY MUST VISITS. I must also note that if one exempts thermodynamics from Chemical Engineering, one must note that Chemical Engineering, is, in itself, an application of the serious and tedious thermodynamic laws and properties (ChE 122). But gladly, I must say that one must watch Blow Job (Warhol, 1964) right here, right now.



Blow Job by Andy Warhol, 35 min.

***


Jul 4, 2009

SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK [2008]

a 'other than that' post


I watched Synecdoche, New York (2008) for my birthday with the hope of stirring raw emotions and medusa-like fantasy.

And it did.

Kaufman's frames are vested with solidity and dynamism. Non-diegetic inserts were mostly of questionable origin but yielded multi-layered meanings. His sense of space is flexural, it can be distorted without affecting the narrative layer. His frames, though mostly not staged in depth, is characteristic of a blossoming auteur aesthetic mindset influenced by certain directorial giants (i beg you know them) who have worked with Kaufman. His images are associative (i.e. burning house, micro-paintings of Adelle, the whole theater set of New York).

He reminds me of Kafka!


***
Thank you so much to everyone who greeted me yesterday! Thanks Thanks Thanks!
***

MIRACULOUSLY 'STUPID'!

[or what is happening in the film blogosphere]
Coming Soon!

***

Ciao!

Jul 3, 2009

Looking Back

'I was born today' post

[some images are from village-oblivia
and some are mine]




I was thinking of making the best post for my birthday but i don't think there will ever be a greater post than a series of random, eccentric images to depict the evolution of my thoughts but then i don't have to discuss further the notion of birth or existence (leave it to my inner being, he will handle my existentialist thoughts) the only thing that puzzles me now aside from pulling this off is the quintessential fact that i have to celebrate a day that i think one of the most ordinary days of my life time is such a pain in the ass no wonder why James Joyce contracted ULYSSES in one single day I hope i can be more engaging in writing this post but it seems that I am stripped away from reality after watching Dziga Vertov's Three Songs for Lenin (1934)

Three Songs for Lenin

but anyways i always do want to have a bit of a post for my birthday one that will recount the best days of my one year of constant struggle of finding a niche a public place and a clean methodical way of living the lift of my pen and the plunge of every finger in my keyboard signifies a new journey or another term paper or a spreadsheet document willing to wait until the hour of doom the streak of light from my window or the quiescent coffee beside the foliage of my film books floods my candidness and lift my spirit to heights It is as if my year has been locked in these moments the fire is drenched and refurnished and there is nothing i could do

My birthday.

****