Cinema is X, X is Cinema

...

 Like Someone In Love (Abbas Kiarostami / Japan / 2012)

Rodowick's book The Virtual Life of Film is perhaps the last film book I'll be reading for this year before turning to the books of Deleuze particularly his "Guide to Non-fascist Way of Life" Anti-Oedipus (forgive me Mark Seem, but it is a Marx-Nietzsche-Freud synthesis leaning towards Marx --- everything that I ever wanted to read) and the sequel, A Thousand Plateaus. My goal is to get through these books before I can jump into his Cinema 1 and 2 series. Along with these readings, I'm also in the process of back reading Adrian Martin's sources of his newly published book on figural analysis, Last Day Every Day: Figural Thinking from Auerbach and Kracauer to Agamben and Brenez.  My initial readings include the essays of Auerbach, Figura and Mimesis.  

Going back to Rodowick's The Virtual Life of Film, after following Rodowick's enunciation of the concept 'medium' thru his analysis of Carroll's essay "Medium Specificity Arguments and the Self-Consciously Invented Arts", it felt almost discomforting when he mentioned Carroll's five conditions or criteria for an object to be a moving picture:

"...something (x) is a moving picture: 

1. Only if x is a detached display, that is, a visual array presenting an image whose space is discontinuous with the spectator's bodily orientation.
2. Only if x belongs to a class of things from which the impression of movement is technically possible,
3. Only if performance tokens of x are generated by a template that is a token; that is, the individual projection of a given 'movie' is inseparable from its presentation template (celluloid strip, videotape, MPEG-2 file). Nonetheless, the movie will also continue to exist as long as some token of it does, regardless of the physical basis of the template.
4. Only if performance tokens of x are not artworks in their own right. The performance of a play is an autonomous and unique interpretation that may be judged as an artwork in its own right. But a movie 'performance' is only the repeatable display of a record (film projection , playing a videotape), which is why Carroll insists "that motion picture are not object of artistic evaluation, whereas theatrical performances are... [motion] pictures are not a performing art --- i.e., they are not something whose performance is itself an art" ("Defining the Moving Image" 69). Another way of saying this is that for Carroll all aspects of movie creation (scenario writing, acting, direction, editing, etc.) are integrated into a final record from which they are not detachable. And we evaluate not the recording, but rather the artistic activities embodied and fixed within it.
5. Only if x is two-dimensional."

It seems complete yet there is something limiting in the way Carroll put it. I also wonder if there are other similar definitions of 'film' or 'cinema' (I can think of Thompson's definition in Breaking the Glass Armour) wherein the theorist or critic works on very specific a priori accounts to circumspect an object.  Would it be too essentialist to do so? I wonder. 

------------ 

Faces No. 1

Breaktime (Abbas Kiarostami, 1972)

Ciao!
*****

FILM OF THE DAY: The Little Girl Who Sold the Sun (1999)

by Djibril Diop Mambéty

Mambéty's The Little Girl Who Sold the Sun exudes a familiar humanism with resemblance to the works of Iranian directors Abbas Kiarostami and Mohsen Makhmalbaf. The Little Girl has a similar humor and cadence with Kiarostami's children films like Where is my Friend's Home (1987) and The Bread and Alley (1970). It unveils a staggering view of the Senegalese way of life. The film is about the courage of young, handicapped girl named Sali. She sells Senegal government's newspaper Le Soleil, a job usually done by boys. She embodies a strong feminine presence and approaches life's problems with astuteness and maturity. She provides clarity and hope for the muddled life of the characters. You can watch the whole film below. It's only 45 minutes. 

Ciao!

*****

At Large...

no boundaries.

existence.
silence.
life.

The Wind Will Carry Us (1999)

...redux




Forgive me, I once wrote a very bad film critique on a great Kiarostami film, The Wind Will Carry Us. I reposted it below separate to its original bearing here in preparation for a series of critiques on some films by Kiarostami. Yes, yes, yes! I recently completed the 'essential' Kiarostamis oeuvre just this month. You might remember two years ago, I've seen two of his masterpieces, A Taste of Cherry (1997) and this one. These films were arguably two of the most unforgettable films I've ever seen in my life mainly because it propelled me to treasure the beauty of cinema at its minimalist level, a style that lingers in my viewing system until now. Yesterday, Sani and me were talking about the pleasure of experiencing the aesthetics of the contemplative over a series of short films at 6th Titus Brandsma Short Indie Film Festival. We both agreed that it was the virtue of long shot scale and the deep space mise-en-scene that we like similarly. However, Kiarostami's use of the long shot scale as shown in the images above works differently from the long shot scale, deep space mise-en-scene of Lav Diaz's features or Jia Zhangke. Kiarostami's use of the technique is even whimsical compared to its use of Welles in Citizen Kane (1941) and Renoir in Rules of the Game (1939). I want to revisit this aesthetic choice and some other Kiarostamian aesthetics by watching and rewatching some of his past works from the 1980s to 1990s. But anyways, you can ditch, condemn and react violently to the critique i made two years ago on one of his works below.

Ciao!


***bad critique starts here*****

Cinema permits the viewers to experience the darkness of human nature and the ugliness of ordinary life hidden beneath the subtlety of time. sex, violence, aberrant and criminal behavior are things the viewers permit themselves to witness - we derive pleasure from these experiences. (PRINCE, 2001) This perspective on cinema stems from a Hitchcockesian belief that "the viewers are like peeping tom able to witness forbidden sights without being held accountable for what is seen and enjoyed." (PRINCE, 2001)

The viewers' role on cinema is essentially voyeuristic, as what Hitchcock believes and is explored in his film, PSYCHO(1969).

What happened in (1997) cannes changed the whole perspective of cinematic viewing, when Kiarostami's A Taste of Cherry(1997) won Palme D'or(Golden Palm). In contrast to hitchcock's belief, kiarostami's approach to the viewers is profound enough that it launched Iranian cinema to the world. It was as if a new global wave swiped cultures with Kiarostami's masterpiece, A TASTE OF CHERRY(1997) as he explored topics such as existence, death and the dichotomy of good and evil with a fresher, more revitalize concrete portrayal.

Connecting with the world.

Two years later, another masterpiece revered Kiarostami and placed him in line with the master of cinema adjacent to Hitchcock and Kurosawa with his dazzling new technique of handling the dark auditorium theater. THE WIND WILL CARRY US (1999) have taken the role of audience from mere witnesses of moving pictures to a self-reflective individual in which the subconscious is highly affected.

THE WIND WILL CARRY US(1999) took, by surprise, the majestic themes of modernism. the film discusses how technology and communication can truly affect our lives. it let us reflect the value of physical alienation and its effects to finding the purpose.

The POEM...

The Wind Will Take Us

In my small night, ah
the wind has a date with the leaves of the trees
in my small night there is agony of destruction
listen
do you hear the darkness blowing?
I look upon this bliss as a stranger
I am addicted to my despair.

listen do you hear the darkness blowing?
something is passing in the night
the moon is restless and red
and over this rooftop
where crumbling is a constant fear
clouds, like a procession of mourners
seem to be waiting for the moment of rain.
a moment
and then nothing
night shudders beyond this window
and the earth winds to a halt
beyond this window
something unknown is watching you and me.

O green from head to foot
place your hands like a burning memory
in my loving hands
give your lips to the caresses
of my loving lips
like the warm perception of being
the wind will take us
the wind will take us.

Forugh Farrokhzad
Translated by Ahmad Karimi Hakkak
The Persian Book Review VOLUME III, NO 12 Page 1337
CLICK HERE!

Kiarostami sees cinema as a window to the human soul. He explores the idea of man through his prevalent use of symbolism. Though this generality can not stand alone, it is important to subject my criticism from the fundamental elements of film: the shots.

The reception of Kiarostami's film indeed requires critical perception. It hides important elements deep in the subconscious through symbolic and often straightforward representation of themes. The poem in which the film was based formed the structure of the film.

Is this a new cinematic experience?


Kiarostami's exploration of death.

The lyrical formal system explored in Kiarostami's THE WIND WILL CARRY US offers new challenges in criticism and film viewing. It jolts the critics with a question: should critics measure these films via the set of rules offered by 'conventional cinema' or should they include the possibility that cinema can substantiate a connection between the viewers subconscious perception?

***bad critique ends here*****

ANDREI TARKOVSKY: My Weekly Contemplation

snapshot post

[images from here, here and here]

Andrei Tarkovsky.

By reading an auteur study on Tarkovsky, it is, in a way, my method of opening my heart to contemplative cinema. The breadth of Tarkovsky's work is as absorbing as the book entitled Films by Andrei Tarkovsky: A Visual Fugue by Vida T. Johnson and Graham Petrie. I borrowed it from the library and i am much willing to make an effort to read it this week with enough enthusiasm to give honor to a director of contemplative cinema.

When one speak of an artist from Russia, i often think of my obsession with Russian writers (see ABOUT ME). Russians, a realization from reading Brothers Karamazov, are fond of contemplation, it seemed as though it is their fundamental way of life, their breather. Though Sergei Eisenstein may not be into long takes, still has contemplative tendencies especially in Battleship Potemkin (1925) due to the startling imagery Eisenstein employed.

Andrei Takovsky has a different approach to contemplation. His images are poetically charge, contrary to other contemplative artists who are obsessed with minimalism and the deconstruction of one's subject into mundane reality. One can look Tarkovsky similar to Kiarostami and Ozu: some few artists whose views in cinema are not only limited to the tenets of filmmaking but also to the concepts beyond this provocative regime. They often have a tendency to employ metaphysical overtones. Such is Kiarostami on The Wind will Carry Us (1999).

Kiarostami and Tarkovsky both has a unique eye for framing. Most of their frames are like visual paintings. In my previous post, Kiarostami identified Five (2003) much like painting. Some other directors have attempted to approach framing as a way of painting. No one cannot deny how the mise-en-scene of Wong Kar-Wai's Happy Together (1997) looked much like a painting, or maybe because it appealed that way.

Rembrandt's The Return of the Prodigal Son.

In the last scene at Tarkovsky's Solaris, at exactly 3:55 of the video clip below, one can say that this is Rembrandt. This is also observed by a certain youtube commentator mbmsv. Tarkovsky made a tangential appeal, almost a comparative analogy, to The Return of the Prodigal Son by Rembrandt. The video below manifests some of the most unforgetable and unique cinematographic techniques in cinema.

Last scene of Solaris.

***

I will visit the local videoteque tomorrow if i have time. I'm adjusting my blogging schedule, trying to fit it in between my hardcore chemical engineering studies, my PSYSC org work, and my UP Sorgogueños officer work (well, i'm glad to announce that i am the incumbent FINANCE OFFICER of the organization, wohoooo! Money come to me!)

***

Penelope waiting for ULYSSES.

I stopped reading ULYSSES! Too bad, i was at Episode 16. I will get back to it when i feel the urge.

***

Ciao!

THE MAN FROM LONDON [2007]; FIVE [2003]

prospective take...

[photos from here, here, and here]

The Trailer

Art is a bottomless pit of possibilities.

There is much to my mind right now. Basically, my thoughts are crowded by the structure of my criticism for Pulp Fiction (Tarantino, 1994), a bunch of film noir podcasts, a reflection on recently concluded 14th French Film Festival in Manila, some scattered thoughts on Alan Clarke and Andrei Tarkovsky, and my intense deep conversations with my conscience on my reflections on contemplative cinema. If there happens to be a primitive root to all this mixed up thoughts, and also if there is an element of derangement, it might have reached the peak after reading HarryTuttle's absorbing and informative article on the AVERAGE SHOT LENGTH (ASL) of contemporary contemplative films.

HarryTuttle's analysis has elevated me to:

(1) Euphoria: A sheer joy of having found Kiarostami's Five (2003) to have the longest average shot length of 14 minutes and 45 second (885 second of continuous shot via a steady camera). Five: Five Long Shots Dedicated to Yasujiro Ozu, the whole title of the film speaks of two subjects of unmistakable greatness: one, the Japanese cinema giant, Ozu, who gave us one of the most unforgettable and remarkable films of all time (i have to say that in high pitch!), Tokyo Story (1953); and two, the use of five long shots. Yes, Abbas Kiarostami filmed this meditative film in five long shots on an average of 14 minutes and 45 seconds and it can be simply broken down below into five images:

Shot One: A washed up piece of wood on the beach at the Caspian Sea

Shot Two: People Chatting up beside the beach, no dialogue still

Shot 3: A shot of dogs frolicking beside the beach

Shot Four: Ducks walking on the beach that moves from left to right of frame

Shot Five: A shot of the moon reflecting on the pond

There is much of a question of why did Kiarostami compose this non-narrative piece of art. The reception of the film to the critics have been favorable:

Robert Davis wrote:

"And you know what? It’s a nice piece of work. It’s the kind of movie that succeeds when you’re willing to let your mind wander the way it does when you watch clouds. Maybe you’ll close your eyes and just listen for a bit. Maybe you’ll nod off. I doubt if Kiarostami would object; he even said once that he enjoys movies that are so calm they make you sleepy but give you something to reflect on later." (here)

Kiarostami doesn't care, he said it outwardly, if the viewer would fall asleep while watching the film because it is made that way. The amount of contemplation rewards the viewer the calmness, i think, one can savor while watching the real waves of the ocean, as Jeff Anderson says. Phase9 have a more descriptive take on the film. Their review says:

"Despite the lack of a story, the films are far more than just pretty pictures: assembled in order, they comprise a kind of abstract or emotional narrative arc, which moves evocatively from separation and solitude to community, from motion to rest, near-silence to sound and song, light to darkness and back to light again, ending on a note of rebirth and regeneration. “An entire world is revealed to us”, Kiarostami says. “It’s a work that approaches poetry, painting. It let me escape from the obligation of narration and of the slavery of mise en scène." (here)

This poetic non-narrative film is my target for the month of June. If there is a possibility to watch this film in the local videoteque of my university, the University of the Philippines, i might as well stop this blog and head off to the UP Film Institute. If i could not access this one, i might consider the option of having a DVD delivered from Amazon.com to my doorstep.

Perhaps the question lingers, for the more or less 50 minutes of dazzling imagery, why did Kiarostami made it?

Video: Why did Kiarostami made this film?

Two essential videos on Five (2003):

A Scene from "Five dedicated to Ozu" [from firouzanFilms, link here]
Kiarostami on Making of Five [from haridasb, link here]




****


(2) Ecstasy: A coalesce of my growing fascination of Bela Tarr's cinema and my intense devotion to Pulp Fiction as neo-noir lead me to another film with the average shot length of 4 minutes and 24 seconds (284-second shot of a roving camera). Bela Tarr's recent feature, The Man from London (2007), achieves an ample amount of contemplation with film noir twist. This absorbing CC (contemporary contemplative) film follows a conventional film noir narrative and techniques, however, the most noticeable innovation that Tarr did was to let the camera movement and duration take it all. The cinematic technique is at its masterful zenith. The low-key lighting, high-contrast images dominated the film and has always been the most significant element of the noir. One can clearly see how much every element have been executed it in this clip:

A clip from The Man from London

This two filmic realizations remains an ache in my heart. I wonder when will i see all these films. I wonder and I am stuck.

***