(Russia/Germany 1997 71m) DVD1/2
Aka. Mat I syn
I am seized by a suffocating nightmare
p Thomas Kufus d Alexandr Sokurov w Yuri Arabov ph Alexei Yodorov ed Leda Semyonova m Mikhail Ivanovich Glinka, Otmar Nussio, Giuseppe Verdi art Vera Zelinskaya
Alexei Ananishov (son), Gudrun Geyer (mother),
I remember discussing Sokurov’s film soon after I first saw it with a fellow film buff who asked me how bleak it was on a scale of 1 to 10. I told him, without resorting to simple numbers, that, to quote the hyperbole comparisons favoured by many critics these days, it made Robert Bresson look like Oliver Stone. He nearly choked on his Kia-Ora, and simply said “shit!” in a sort of slow drawl worthy of comparison to Clay Davis the corrupt grafter in The Wire.
I wasn’t exaggerating any. It’s also one of the simplest films of its era. It focuses on the last hours of a dying middle-aged mother in a harsh, remote land not too far from the sea. We’re not entirely sure of her malady – possibly a heart defect – we only know that it’s fatal and that her days are very much numbered. She is tended to by her adult son who lovingly and painstakingly tries to ensure that her final moments are as restful as can be, carrying her outside to see the countryside – to rest against a birch tree, to lie in the tall grass, to breathe in the sea air and hear the waves cascading against the shore. Finally, he brings her back to the barn-like dwelling where she eventually expires.
It’s a very symbolic film, amongst the most symbolic ever made, but it is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most painterly film ever made. The camera may be digital, but Sokurov uses it like an artist’s canvas. The images are often distorted horizontally or vertically as if the ratio has been set wrong on your television, but it’s quite deliberate. And the imagery throughout is simply transcendental. There’s a shot early on of fields of long grass billowing in the wind that evokes images of mother Russia through its history, both symbolic and cinematic, and through these fields we see the smoke of a train and the sound of its whistle. That is the only clue we have as the period of setting, a few decades ago, for time has basically stopped still here. The paintings evoked in the imagery are those of a century or two ago, but the most striking motif is far older than that. As the son carries his ailing mother around, or huddles up to her in bed, one becomes aware of an inversion of the traditional Christian pieta, as if life has come full circle and the suckler has become the suckled. Small wonder then that Paul Schrader said of the film that Sokurov had defined “a new form of spiritual cinema.”
From Schrader it takes us nicely to his former collaborator, Martin Scorsese, who, upon seeing the film, bemoaned why there were no American filmmakers making films like this. The obvious answer is that few Americans would want to see them, and that in America, far more than in any other nation, money talks. There’s a conversation early in proceedings where the son is about to tell of what he saw in his dream, and his mother is able to tell. A moment where the mother and son are as one, sharing the same dreams and fears. Yet their emotional and spiritual fusion is merely part of the fusion of life itself, with the pair merely figures in a breathing, living landscape. The backdrops are painterly, but though seemingly two-dimensional, the duo move though them like ghosts, spectres lost in a wilderness of the soul. We know not what the son does for living or how they make ends meet, or for how long they have been living together in such close suffocating proximity. We only know that they are waiting for death to come calling, and when he does, there’s a wonderfully symbolic moment where a butterfly perches on the back of the dying woman’s hand. By the end of this quite short film, one is left shattered by the events, and one must credit not only Sokurov but his cast of two and his DP Yodorov for their complete immersion in a vision of the fragility of life, and the infinite sense of nature. And talking of infinite, Russian Ark was not too far round the corner.
An excellent piece, with this phrase in particular standing out: “one becomes aware of an inversion of the traditional Christian pieta, as if life has come full circle and the suckler has become the suckled.”
As for Americans and their cinematic taste, I would submit the same is true for film-viewers the world over, with some variety of course. Movies are largely regarded as entertainment, and most people are simply not interested in viewing a little more challenging, however rewarding. In a way, this is understandable: we only have room in our lives for a number of pursuits. Hence, I am interested in more challenging films, I have the patience to invest in a movie which can transport me into another realm of thinking and, more importantly, feeling. But I don’t have the time/inclination to invest in, say, a greater culinary understanding, or an in-depth comprehension of economics, or a sophisticated fashion sense, or a knowledge and appreciation of various series on television. We all have to prioritize one way or another.
Nonetheless, this film was made (in Russia). Could something similar be made in America? The more commercial aspect of the industry is not based so much on viewership, which as I’ve stated, is roughly similar from country to country though elsewhere there may be a somewhat higher, culturally-sustained tolerance for the slower-moving, the more challenging. It’s more to do with industry, I think, and I submit the point cautiously because I have not been able to research it in depth.
For one thing, I would guess that in Russia, films receive more state funding, as is true in many nations where Hollywood movies already monopolize the quota for entertainment, and hence local product is regarded as an opportunity for cultural esteem rather than profit (though obviously profit remains a motive as well). So there’s that; the American government has no incentive to fund the film industry, and much less incentive to fund art cinema (because there’s less of a perception that it’s “necessary”; because there’s an American antipathy to relying on government money, which is regarded as freeloading; because private wealth ensures that an art and independent cinema already exists – however, it usually falls closer to entertainment aesthetic paradigms than a Mother and Son would).
I will say that with the advent of cheaper technology, digital distribution, and other silver linings in the cloud, the possibility of an American Mother and Son, speaking very, very roughly (because any “equivalent” film would by its very nature be quite different) is increased now. The brass ring is out there; all that’s waiting is for someone to grab it…
I agree with all this.
Also it’s incredibly ironic to me that Martin Scorsese (an American filmmaker) would bemoan the fact that there are no American filmmakers making films like this. While I sort of get his point, I’d also question why someone of his considerable skills and bank ability in terms of production allowance would make films like ‘The Avaitor’, ‘The Departed’, and ‘Shutter Island’. Now people around here make think those are worthwhile films, but they’re hardly the artistic spiritual films Martin seeks. Seems like he should sneak off and make a few films like he wants to see for 10-15 million. He’d find it somewhat easy to get funding me thinks.
In these terms it makes me respect someone like Francis Ford Coppolla even more, he’s making the films he wants to at an advanced age– and on the cheap.
Well, Scorsese’s got nothing on Lucas in that regard – Lucas who has been giving interviews for 30 years now in which he says he’s almost ready to make that quiet little art film he’s had in him all along, now that he’s about to put Star Wars behind him…
Oh, don’t think Lucas didn’t cross my mind as I typed that. I never want to actually bring Lucas up in a serious film discussion though–that’s Bob’s job around here.
That and two other thoughts: 1) could Lucas actually make a worthwhile, interesting ‘art’ film? Maybe in 1972 he could have, but now I say no. And, 2) He’ll NEVER put Star Wars to bed as I read this less then three days ago (Sure it might me internet gossip, but do you believe he ever isn’t ready to pull the trigger on a new Star Wars?) http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2009/10/exclusive-lucasfilm-gearing-up-another.html
I also gave Lucas a pass because he isn’t bemoaning any one for more American art films.
Joel I think you need to explore the socio-cultural and historical context before indulging in such lamentations. Different national funding models also have different impacts. And your presumptions on audience expectations border on the elitist.
We all share an underlying humanity but the wonderful ethnic and cultural diversity of mankind means that artistic expression has a national character which needs not to be copied but to be a source of influence and inspiration filtered by critical filters such as relevance and historical and cultural meaning.
In Europe and Asia govt funding favours art-house cinema, while in the US the commercial funding by necessity is focused on a mass audience. The are pros and cons on both sides, but a national cinema must be inclusive not exclusive.
A film such as One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a quintessentially American film with broad appeal and is as an important artistic achievement as the art-house films that are revered in this forum, and I would argue decidedly more relevant. Judging movies must go beyond the aesthetic. The reality of aging and dying, for instance, in countries such as the US is also essentially about the the “suckler becoming the suckled”, but the reality is a lonely death in an anonymous bed in a hospital or a nursing home. There are national stories to be told and they don’t have to be art-house.
Tony, good post. Though I don’t necessarily see eye to eye with a sweeping statement like “We all share an underlying humanity” it’s hardly worth a quibble. That and I might be thinking more in terms of philosophy or even biology, where I think you may be thinking more in terms of cinematic themes. Please correct me if I have erred in my thinking here.
What also needs to be said in any conversation like this here is the overall perception of American audience(s). Sure audiences here like there share of comic book fare, and sexual innuendo films, but this is a broad enough market (and large enough) that films of all types are made every year. Filmmakers like Jim Jarmusch, Terrence Malick, Matthew Barney, David Lynch, PT Anderson, Gus Van Zant ect. are still working in America after all. One cannot assume that every filmgoer in Europe is only into extreme arthouse, because that’s just flat out false.
Saying that I would grant anyone that certain countries do respect film a little more then others.
It also assumes that virtually every film being made in Russian is like this one; that’s simply not true. Russia has it’s share of commercial shlock too; a recent import to America, Timur Bekmambetov attests to that. Fact is, films like ‘Mother and Son’ are rare art films in any country.
Jamie:
1. Perhaps I am hopeless romantic but I conceive an underlying humanity that unites us all – nothing more nothing less.
2. Re European films and audiences, you are ascribing to me conclusions I did not make. Pareto optimality exists in the arts too. I was talking about output.
RE 2) I was commenting more on the state of the overall conversation, not to your conclusions directly. If anything mine where more to MovieMan.
I responded to your argument about elitism below but, at the risk of diluting the argument over the thread, let me respond to the rest of your points below.
1. “I think you need to explore the socio-cultural and historical context before indulging in such lamentations”
The lamentation was offered by Allan. I offered a clarification, one largely without a negative tone, more of an explanatory one – if anything moving the point closer to what you are arguing. As for exploring socio-cultural and historical context, didn’t I explicitly say that I offered my points cautiously because I haven’t researched such matters in-depth? (And, by the way, have you?)
“Different national funding models also have different impacts.” Which was my point exactly, wasn’t it? Seriously, this whole response seems to be agreeing with me while scolding me at the same time!
“We all share an underlying humanity but the wonderful ethnic and cultural diversity of mankind means that artistic expression has a national character which needs not to be copied but to be a source of influence and inspiration filtered by critical filters such as relevance and historical and cultural meaning.”
Yup. Agreed.
“A film such as One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest is a quintessentially American film”
Well, I would quibble with this. The film is in large part a result of Milos Forman’s unique vision, a vision which was bred in the authoritarian society of Czechoslovakia, baked to perfection in the crucible of the Czech New Wave. Watching his early Czech comedies, Loves of a Blonde and The Firemen’s Ball, I noticed a certain stylistic continuity with his later American films. The observational strain in Cuckoo’s Nest – the objective perspective vs. the subjective (and Kesey’s novel is dramatically much more subjective than Forman’s film) comes from a few sources. One is rather American – the Direct Cinema documentary movement of the 60s which DP Haskell Wexler was a mover and shaker in. Another is more European; Forman’s focus on character nuance and more deliberate pacing owes more to European filmmaking than American – particularly the types of films he made in Czechoslovakia.
I only bring this up because, having discovered Czech cinema relatively recently – and with it Forman’s early work, it’s a point that fascinates me. But also, I suppose, to point out that it’s harder and harder to suss up what’s quintessentially “national” in this global day and age – to speak nothing of the influences filmmakers soak up merely from seeking other national films (a point you seem to agree with somewhat, as the latter part of your above comments suggests).
“Judging movies must go beyond the aesthetic.”
What does this mean? One could argue that everything onscreen is part of the “aesthetic” – even the political or cultural are. But I think you’re suggesting I should not judge a film because its aesthetic seems too “commercial”. I find it strange you would think that I’d do this, given my own frequent celebration of Hollywood films. The point is not that one type of film or another should exist – but that there should be enough room for all of them. It’s a diverse medium, with plenty of room for all types of movies – and no room for excuses if something doesn’t work.
As for aesthetic judgements vs. cultural judgements, I see them as largely separate matters. They don’t really overlap and I don’t think they should be conflated. Uncle Tom’s Cabin had a very positive impact on American society, but this has little to do with whether or not it’s a great book in the same way as, say, Moby Dick.
Jamie, as I stated to Tony, my comments were if anything a moderation of Allan’s sentiments. They offered an explanation of why such a film would be unlikely in America. Personally, I have no problem with the American cinema being a commercial one (in theory at least, though the way it functions is often frustrating). Most of my favorite films were created in this commercial environment. So just to offer a clarification: I don’t think Mother and Son is inherently “better” than the best American films, just “different” and I’d like to see diversity rule. Hope that clears up the matter of my alleged “elitism”.
And actually, I don’t really think government funding has much of a place in American film culture. I was not “lamenting” matters as Tony seems to think, merely describing them – and if anything trying to temper Allan’s more extreme frustration with the situation.
“…RUSSIAN ARK WAS NOT TOO FAR AROUND THE CORNER…” And, having seen RUSSIAN ARK, that could be a great indicator to this film that I have not seen. Films like this are not to everyone’s taste, but I eat this kind of methodical and metaphorical stuff up. One thing though, Allan… You called this the most painterly film EVER MADE. That a biold-ass statement when films like Kubrick’s BARRY LYNDON, Malick’s DAYS OF HEAVEN, Powell and Pressburger’s THE RED SHOES and Polanski’s TESS (to name a few) exist. You sure you wanna make a statement like that? In any case, here’s a film I wanna see and grateful to Allan for bringing it, at least, to my attention..
Dennis, look at the cap above, and virtually the entire film is filled with shots like that. Now I love Lyndon as much as the next man, but those are filmed that are just framed like paintings and lit like them, Mother and Son literally looks like one at times. In that respect it’s in a league of its own.
This is quite a review of a film I’ve never seen, and really want to now. I’ll have to seek it out… netflix has it (saved of course) but it’s listed as 101 minutes, where as this review says 71. Any info on this difference, is it a later expanded/uncut edition as it also says it’s from 2000. Which version should I seek out?
Thanks for the help, anyone.
It’s 71 or 73 minutes depending on PAL conversion rates. Certainly not 101, Netflix have the wrong info – or perhaps it’s the wrong film you have there, Jamie.
Hi! Allan Fish,
Once again what a very detailed and descriptive review of a film that seems to have been beautifully shot by cinematographer
Tilman Büttner (director of Cinematography and photography).
One of many definitions of the word painterly:
” Loosely now, painterly is a descriptive word meaning, “this has the attributes of painting.” What is that? This meaning isn’t not clear enough… Try this, then: “Shapes in a painterly composition aren’t sharply defined and the whole piece may be showing obvious brushwork.”
The easiest way to get a bead on painterly is to visualize it as the opposite of linear. Think of any van Gogh you have seen. It is full of areas of color that blend into one another, and Vincent clearly did not care if his brushwork was showing. It is up to your eye to fill in the blanks and define shapes.
That’s “painterly.” A linear composition, on the other hand, does all of that work for you. Think here of a coloring book, which is about as linear as things can get. Additionally (I warn you) every single person who has painted, paints or will paint in the future has his or her own parameters for that which constitutes “painterly.” Smile if you will, but more than one heated debate has arisen over personal opinions on the subject.”
Allan said, “The backdrops are painterly, but though seemingly two-dimensional…It’s a very symbolic film, amongst the most symbolic ever made, but it is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most painterly film ever made. The camera may be digital, but Sokurov uses it like an artist’s canvas. The images are often distorted horizontally or vertically as if the ratio has been set wrong on your television, but it’s quite deliberate. And the imagery throughout is simply transcendental”…
Allan, I quite agree with you, from just looking at the screenshot that you have posted…it looks amazingly like a painting. Upon first viewing this screenshot this morning…I thought…with Sam Juliano, away Allan, is now posting screenshot(s) of…paintings! (Just Kidding! 🙂 )
I have never watched this film and yes, this is my first introduction to this film by Russia Director Alexandr Sokurov, but, I’am so very happy to see that it’s available on DVD in regions one and two…
…Therefore, I most definitely, will seek this film out to watch.
Allan said,”And talking of infinite, Russian Ark was not too far round the corner.”
Allan, I also understand why you mentioned the 2002 film Russian Ark as the next film that was just around the corner for Russia Director Alexandr Sokurov,…because this is the film that writer/film critic Dean Treadway, introduce to me as we counted his top 30 choices (films) on my blog last year.
He may have thought that I wasn’t listening (being inexperience when it come to…Film Discussion 101, but in reality…I was “absorbing” every word he (Treadway) said, about the film Russian Ark.
According to Wikipedia…”What is amazing about the film Russian Ark.is how well the long takes cut together, thanks to cameras running simultaneously.While the movie was not a huge commercial success, it was almost universally praised by film critics.
Roger Ebert wrote about the film: “Apart from anything else, this is one of the best-sustained ideas I have ever seen on the screen….{T}he effect of the unbroken flow of images…”Oops!…I digress, but…
…I wonder how many other director(s) experimented with that technique too?
By the way, Allan and Wonders in the Dark readers, if you would like to visit Russian Director Alexandr Sokurov’s website in order to learn more about him just go here…
Russian Director Alexandr Sokurov
Thanks,
DeeDee 😉 🙂
Oh! I see that after visiting his website I learned that Mother and Son along with the films Father and Son, and Two Brothers and a Sister…are part of his trilogy.
DeeDee 😉
ALLAN- I get where you’re coming from. I’ll concede that most of the films I exampled are painterly to a point, but they’re not 100% of the effect that they are paintings brought to life. HOWEVER: BARRY LYNDON may be the one film that could challenge you’re statement. I ‘ll have to see MOTHER AND SON first before I make MY personal judgement. Not that I’m doubting what your eyes see, but LYNDON was pain-stakingly created within camera by Kubrick using a combination of rear projection cameras fitted with Zeis lenses built for NASA. The effect this combo gives to projected film is a perfect two dementional field that renders the images without depth. In combination with precise “natural” light, the images look like 18 century paintings animated. I’m willing to bet that LYNDON and MOTHER AND SON are the only two films in existance that pull this visual trick off. Typical for Kubrick though. Had he not become one of the great directors in history he’d probably been the worlds greatest cinematographer!
(This is to Allan too)
Isn’t Lynch’s ‘Inland Empire’ ‘painterly’ to a certain degree? There are some neat color gradients happening in that film. This film (judging by the screencap) seems painterly in an Old Masters sort of way (which is what Kubrick was always shooting for as well), whereas ‘Inland Empire’ seems painterly more in a figurative gestural sort of way that evokes the American masters from the Abstract Expressionist era. I find that painterly– just a few hundred years after what most people think ‘painterly’ means.
Or as DeeDee said, ‘Additionally (I warn you) every single person who has painted, paints or will paint in the future has his or her own parameters for that which constitutes “painterly.” ‘
Allan you will be happy to know this review, and subsequent discussion has forced me to find it and purchase it from amazon.com. It is 72 mins–not sure what the netflix entry is about. I can not wait.
Liste, I know I’m probably playing with fire here… But, don’t let Scorsese’s bemoaning that films like MOTHER AND SON or RUSSIAN ARK Don’t get made in the states. The reason Marty himself doesn’t get off his ass and make Lfilms he longs to see” is that he has no interest in doing such films. Without tryong to sound like I’m always gushing over him, Kubrick is probably Scorsese’s biggest influence in diversity of canon. Like Kubrick, Scorsese vows to make a film in every genre possible. That he doesn’t make more independently off beat films is because: A-He did his art house thing with WHO’S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR? And MEAN STREETS. B-Scorsese is, admit it, so big now that making a small film on a shoestring budget is not a way to keep his backers happy. C-Regardless of his artistic ethic, Scorsese still wants to make films that bare his name to be liked by the masses and make a lot of fuckin’ money. He’s a great director but let’s not deify him. There ARE better out there.
I agree with this to a point. But to this day my favorite Scorsese film is ‘Life Lessons’ and that seems as ‘arty’ as anything he’s ever done. Why not do another project like that?
The reason why there isn’t more art-house fare in the US is, in my opinion, in that the US has been and probably will always be run by robber barons neo-liberal free market loonies. In a culture where just being able to survive economically (as your job is shipped to a 10 year old living on the factory floor in a 3rd world country) has become a challenge and in the low-level anxiety that it produces, the chances of adventurous cinema becomes less likely. The same reason that we in Britain have an epidemic of binge-drinking, it’s because the values of community, of gainful employment and a sense of self-discovery have been redendered of null value. It takes some security to explore the darker aspects of life that “art house cinema” does.
What amazes me is that rather than choosing films that engage mind, body and intellect, junk action movies/chick flicks is all that people search out or are given…. Big Mac cinema.
Great review Allan.
Yet Russia, a land of sober, wealthy masses in a permanently secure political environment is able to produce consistently artful films and directors.
Wait, huh?
Huh? Is this Russia on Earth or Russia on some other planet?
Sorry Tony I should have ended my post with the * for *=sarcasm.
I found the conclusions he came to to be incorrect and I used the instability in Russia (both for the individual and the State) to highlight this. Hope that helps.
Bobby, it is not as simple as that.
Mainstream audiences are mostly not given the opportunity to widen their horizons. Also you can’t blame the average film-goer if film-makers with something to say do not reach out to a wider audience by making their output more accessible.
I would also pose some questions.
Why would wealthy US film-makers have any interest in making films that question conventional wisdoms or explore the reality for those Americans who live on the edge of polite society and do not choose criminality but struggle on the perimeter. How many contemporary US film-makers have taken up the challenge framed by Dassin in Rififi: “There are kids… millions of kids who have grown up poor. Like you. How did it happen… What was the difference between you and them that you became a hood, a tough guy, and not them? Know what I think Jo, they’re the tough guys, not you.”
Where are US directors like Dassin or Dmytrik, Rossen, or Welles?
Why do worthy films like In the Valley Elah get dismissed by banal aesthetes and critics alike because they trip up at some contrived hurdle?
I thought ‘In the Valley Elah’ was just ok. I extend my chest in preparation for the ‘You’re an elitist’ volley I’m about to receive from you.
Here’s a Brain twister: If some is an elitist for not liking a particular film, What is the person that likes that film and name calls the ‘elitist’ an ‘elitist’? Is there a name for name for that person?
It seems to me that if you do like the polite interiors that is where you should stay; and remain indifferent to what a hood thinks about a film. What should it matter to you what I think about a film?
As for mainstream filmgoers not being able to widen there palettes I’d just wonder who put this muzzle on them and why aren’t they interested in fighting to remove it?
Sorry to disappoint Jamie. You can breathe out now.
Shrink: Have you ever heard the old saying, “A rolling stone gathers no moss”?
McMurphy: Yeah.
Shrink: Does that mean something to you?
McMurphy: It’s the same as “Don’t wash your dirty underwear in public.”
Shrink: I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
McMurphy (to other shrinks): I’m smarter than him, ain’t I?
Two muffins sit in an oven.
Muffin One (to Muffin Two): It’s hot as in oven in here.
Muffin Two (to Muffin One): Holy Shit a talking Muffin!
Missed. Try again.
Tony, I agree with you. My observation was in addition to your percpetive comments about cultural differences. I wholly agree with you about traditions and structures of financing. And also with Allan, about the dollar-worship.
I just watched ‘Trumbo’ and it’s never ceased to amaze me that anyone critical of the elitist, banker-controlled societal structures has been flushed in the past: Welles, Dieterle, Dassin and even Norman Corwin.
America and Britain share something very similar – they are consumer-based societies, not citizen-based societies. The value of the individual is upon how much they can buy. And a huge amount of advertising goes goes towards conditioning them. When a huge amounts of spare time are devoted to spending to keep up with glamour figures in the ads, and then scrambling to pay those dues – very little time and psychological space is left for exploration.
Add to that, the fact that these movies are not as accessible as they once used to be (lost in a multi-media world of choice, rather than being braodcast on peak-time mainstream channels. I first saw ‘The Gold Rush’ at about 7pm on BBC1 in a England of three channels).
It reminds me of a great psychological Canadian experiment that I read about in ‘Opening Skinner’s Box’.
A group of mice were divided into two groups.
One had a barren cage, metal floor, a wheel, ect, ect. Just the basics. In the cage, were two bottles- one of water, the other laced with morphine.
The second group of mice had an organic enviroment, earth, grass, running water, scenic view and other stuff. The too had those two bottles.
The first group of mice become addicts, completely addicted to the morphine bottle, the 2nd set of mice hardly touched it. Whenever I see binge-drinking after those people have left their cubicles, fast-food eaters and junk in the movies- the memory of that experiment is often evoked in me.
Tony:
Why the assumption that mainstream audiences are cinephiles-in-waiting? Furthermore, why should they be? Maybe they have their own interests they want to pursue.
Why the affiliation of Dassin, Dmytryk, Rossen, and Welles? Socio-economic background? I believe Welles at least grew up rather comfortably, materially speaking (which rather demands that you answer your own question of “Why would wealthy US film-makers have any interest in making films that question conventional wisdoms…”). Subject matter? But most Welles films about the lives of the wealthy and powerful! Or is it their political affiliation – all four were leftists? It must be that last point, yet there are plenty of left-wing filmmakers today so again, why these names?
“Why do worthy films like In the Valley Elah get dismissed by banal aesthetes and critics alike because they trip up at some contrived hurdle?” I haven’t seen Elah, but I’ve heard you bring up this point many times before. Who are these “banal aesthetes” as distinguished from “critics”? What is banal about aesthetics, the very crux of a film’s existence and power? What makes Elah “worthy” if not its aesthetics – its message? I highly doubt you subscribe to the theory that good intentions automatically make great art. Besides which, who’s to assess which are the good intentions and which aren’t?
Quite a thorny field you’ve laid out here Tony. We’d appreciate your help in navigating it!
BOBBY (and Tony, if you’re interested)
Interesting argument you lay out here. I take it you feel the current British social system is not adequate (even though many in the U.S. would, rightly or wrong, decry it as “socialistic”). What do you feel would be the desirable social state? A complete redistribution of wealth? What about spatial limitations – where would all the more luxurious homes go (would we trade off environmental concerns for living space)? What about the argument that the wealth to be “re-distributed” is a product of a capitalist system, and that to do away with the system would deplete funds for such re-distribution, a catch-22? Or is all this more radical than what you seek?
I guess I’m asking what your politico-economic views are, and – most importantly to a pragmatist like me – how you think they can be achieved? (And I don’t mean in terms of changing the population’s views; I’m assuming a majority has already acquiesed and these reforms can be enacted – how then will they be executed, keeping the economic base strong, avoiding the pitfalls of other command economies, all while maintaining the type of “security” you recommend?
Please understand – this is not to play “gotcha.” I am an economic neophyte and am forced to be agnostic on such matters because I have not studied them in much depth. Where a “neo-liberal” as you call him/her present on the site, I’d want to ask the opposite questions likewise. In other words, the questions are a form of devil’s advocacy to see where you’re coming from, and figure out my own views thereof.
And I’d love to hear Tony’s views on this as well, particularly as he seems to have strong roots in both the value system of the left and the pragmatic experience of his banking experience – obviously no babe in the woods when it comes to economic matters…
If the tone of my other comments is a little frustrated, don’t let that spill over into this area – I’m actually genuinely curious about your views on this as it’s deeply tied into what must be done about the present U.S. (and worldwide) economic crisis.
Btw, it should be noted Sokurov used hand-painted filters and distorting lenses to flatten his visuals…
Hi! Allan, and Wonders in the Dark readers…
Let me clarify a quote in my previous comment and answer my own little trivia question…
Jamie said, “Or as DeeDee said, ‘additionally (I warn you) every single person who has painted, paints or will paint in the future has his or her own parameters for that which constitutes “painterly.”
First, Even though that wasn’t my direct quote and was one of many definitions of the word painterly that I found while searching out there on the internet(s)…(ha!) I should have credited art historian
Shelly Essack, from over there at… arthistory.about.com for the definition of the word painterly.
All right, with that said and done… I most definitely, still agree with her (art historian, Shelly Essack) definition of the word…“painterly.”
By the way, this is the way that I should have worded the quote in order to avoid any such confusion…
…One of many definitions of the word painterly:
”According to art historian Shelly Essack, or
Art historian Shelly Essack said, “Loosely now, painterly is a descriptive word meaning, “this has the attributes of painting.” What is that? This meaning is not clear enough… Try this, then: “Shapes in a painterly composition aren’t sharply defined and the whole piece may be showing obvious brushwork…”
Now to answer my own little trivia question…I asked:
I wonder how many other director(s) experimented with that technique too? ({T}he effect of the unbroken flow of images…the long shot. }
I know, that I was able to come up with the name of only one (I would not only be kidding you (the reader(s), but myself if I said that I named two or three other directors) and that was director Alfred Hitchcock, but of course…
…By the way, over there at this BlogSpot called… girish
…she (girish) asked her readers how many directors could they name that used the long shot technique in their films too.
Oh! Yes, Dennis, even…one of the commenter’s over there mentioned the film Barry Lyndon, on the BlogSpot girish along with Director Alexandr Sokurov’s Russian Ark.
DeeDee 😉 🙂
Oh right in ‘Rope’.
Also not sure other films that do this, but 2006’s ‘The Circle’ is a film of one long (non-cut) 97 minute shot.
Tony said,”Btw, it should be noted Sokurov used hand-painted filters and distorting lenses to flatten his visuals…”
Wow, know wonder it has such a “painterly” effect on the big screen…at least as far, as I ‘am concerned.
Cont…
DeeDee 😉
Tony said, “Why do worthy films like In the Valley Elah get dismissed by banal aesthetes and critics alike because they trip up at some contrived hurdle?”
Tony, personally, I think that you know the answer to your own question…
…believe me I ‘am not pretending to be a Rhoades scholar, but it could come down to several factors…
First, “some” film critics and “some” in the viewing public have very short attention span(s) and always wanting to be entertained. For instances, when some people leave the theatre they (The movie going public…) don’t want to think, ponder, and question what happen after the film is over…and they know that they want be challenged after viewing… such films as: horror films, repetitive romantic comedies, obnoxious males flicks, chick flicks, high techno octane films. (With no ending and a million sequels in sight!)
Second, “escapism” in other words, (Not all in the movie going public) but “some” of the movie going public want to escape reality. Therefore, they seek out films with the loudest bang for the buck or the most contrite of films.
Think of the great depression for instance, instead of confronting the difficulty that they were faced… (a suffering economy, unemployment, brother can you spare a dime…) with they instead went to the theatre in order to dream and fantasize.
Therefore, they tried to escapes reality to a certain extent through films that had nothing to do with their every day lives. They did not want to go the theatre to watch films about why they were facing the dilemma that they were facing.
The same maybe true today…when it comes to the moving viewing going public. (I do not know…as I shrug my shoulders…)
Was that a good thing to do? …I do not know…as I shrug my shoulders and protrude my lower lip, but keep in mind that we all must face reality of course in our private and public lives, even when we sit in the dark and watch those images (“banal aesthetes”) flickering on the big screen too…Therefore, I hope that the movie going public one day “wake” up and “smell” the coffee, (In other words, seek out films that are original (with a story to tell and have substance…) but I doubt if that happen any time soon!…even though I must admit that some movie goers do seek out films with substance.
…Third, Hmmm… The Franc, The Canadian Pound, The Yen, The Rupee, The dinar, The peso, …Oh! no, in the end it’s the almighty dollar.
In other words, when the authorities(studio suits) invest in films they most definitely, are looking for a…gigantic profit, not sentimentality, or truth in films, unless that sentimentality or truth is attached to box office gold (profits) and lead back to their pockets.
By the way, Bobby J., makes an excellant point when he said,“America and Britain share something very similar – they are consumer-based societies, not citizen-based societies. The value of the individual is upon how much they can buy. And a huge amount of advertising goes goes towards conditioning them…”
Because I was talking to a writer and he pointed this out to me about Americans and books, but I think that I could use his same explanation in order for it to imply to films, clothes, cars, fashion, houses, children toys, video games, music, etc, etc, etc…
According to the writer he said, “The moral would be that so much of American life involves breathless efforts to latch on to massively popular phenomena.
In this case, it is fortunate that one phenomenon is a “crime novel,”
but I think that I could use his same explanation in order for it to imply to films too…
…For instance, when a film is popular who do you think they (The power that be (the studios) get in bed with…the toy manufacturer, the food (burger king, Mac Donald) and clothing chain they really hit the jackpot around Halloween and Christmas especially, if a “brainless” film hit box office gold too!
he continues by stating…“As for the phenomenon of phenomena, I do think there is a worrisome tendency in American cultural and economic life to concentrate disproportionately on the biggest, the best, and the most famous. I ‘am quite sure that this could occur in other countries too, but in America and among some this phenomenon is quite worrisome…”
And even though I have not watched the film In The Valley of Elah I’am quite sure the film wasn’t screaming out…plastic Burger King@ toys or the little ones saying, “Mommy’ or “Daddy” I want the In The Valley of Elah Halloween costume on the top shelf or the In The Valley of Elah action figures under the Christmas tree!
If I’am heading in the wrong direction with my comment then…“clue me!”
DeeDee 😉
Hey Dee Dee. Kudos to you for being so open to all sides. You raise important issues and you are on solid ground.
Regarding In the Valley of Elah, look at my review here: https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/thoughts-on-in-the-valley-of-elah/.
Let me also quote Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers: “Paul Haggis [the director] actually thinks movies can mean something, even change things. So, of course, critics like to crush him. Ambition equals pretension every time. Crash won the 2005 Oscar, but detractors tarred Haggis’ race parable for overreaching. Right. Feed us more pap, please. Haggis haters will have a field day with In the Valley of Elah… Haggis’ script, loosely based on a true story, isn’t about the war. It’s about the humanity being sucked out of the soldiers we send there, and how that process reflects on us as a nation. Yes, Haggis stumbles and loses focus. The haunting, heart-piercing Elah isn’t perfect. It’s something better: essential. ”
Essentially, to paraphrase Travers, I think movies can mean something, even change things.
Tony, I don’t know. I recall Elah getting pretty good reviews across the board (maybe I’m wrong, though) – the issue was more box office and press attention. I’ve had problems with Haggis’ work in the past, but I have an inclination that this sober-seeming, focused-looking film might be his best work. In fact, you’re constant harping on the subject has convinced me…I can squeeze out 1 more “random” DVD before my Netflix consolidates, and I must focus on the classics (my queues are ordered and organized like nobody’s business…). That disc will be In the Valley of Elah, which arrives on Tuesday. I’ll let you know what I think…perhaps even write an Examiner piece, since it’s been a while since I’ve put in logged in a longer essay. I’m sure it will be well worthy of discussion, whether or not it works as a film overall.
As for your point, I do sympathize to a certain extent. Though I am quite capable of considering an amoral or even immoral film “great” I’m not insensitive to a film which IS moral, or at least thoughtful about moral matters. I guess at the end of the day I demand it satisfy the demands of the medium first, and then I’ll make room for the message. After all, if it doesn’t work as a movie what does all its preaching matter?
But when I go over it my mind, all things being equal, will I prefer a film with a positive message to one with a negative message, a constructive film to a nihilist one? I don’t really think so. Psycho, a work of dark irony, is not, I think, inferior to It’s a Wonderful Life, a film of affirmation. Though their tone and outlook is highly dissimilar, they’re both brilliant expressions of their very different visions. On a personal level I might prefer It’s a Wonderful Life by a bit in the end, but I think that’s more because all things are not equal (for one thing, I’m a sucker for history and Life has more of a historical context than Psycho). Less so because one film’s message is more hopeful (indeed, I may actually take more, at the present moment, from the Christmas film’s despair and sadness than its more famous optimism). Hope you get where I’m coming from, even if you disagree.
Joel, I do see where you are coming from, and I respect and even have sympathy with your perspective. I tend to talk in absolutes and this can be annoying – my wife and children often take me to task – and I admire your capacity for nuance and balance.
Hi! Jamie,
Jamie said,”Oh right in ‘Rope’.
Also not sure other films that do this, but 2006’s ‘The Circle’ is a film of one long (non-cut) 97 minute shot.”
Unfortunately, I have never watched the 2006 film “The Circle,”
but I most definitely, will seek it out!
Thanks,
DeeDee 😉
Tony,
I am making my way through this thread to see what I missed, but before I finish I just had to respond to this:
“And your presumptions on audience expectations border on the elitist.”
Frankly, I’m shocked you could interpret my views at elitist! They were intended to be thoroughly ANTI-elitist, to make the point that certain cultures and certain viewers aren’t “superior” to another, just that we all have room for only a certain amount of interests to pursue, and that we choose where to focus that attention. I choose movies, someone else might choose food, art, sports, economics, politics, etc. Not that we can only choose one but, based on time and energy, choices are limited.
My point was exactly that we SHOULDN’T judge people for what they can invest their “expectations” or “energy” in. As I already said, ANTI-elitist, so my mind is boggled as to how you read anything else into it.
Almost everyone I know does not go to the movies for much else than a good time. Often by their own admission. Sometimes I myself don’t go for anything other than a good time. How on earth is it elitist to point that out? I am a cinephile because I’m inclined to it, and because I choose to indulge it. If someone else doesn’t, that’s their business, and I don’t judge them for it – but I do expect them to respect my own interests as well, along with the fact that – by my very nature – I will probably know more about movies and have a greater appreciation of them.
Is THAT what you consider elitist? Is it then also elitist for lawyers, mechanics, teachers, diplomats, plumbers, scientists, clergymen, etc etc etc to consider themselves somewhat more knowledgeable and appreciative of their own various fields? Or, more to the point, hobbyists or amateurs who have cultivated an interest in some matter or another?
If you say no, then by those rules, I would be bowing down before all their other experts while denigrating my own expertise? Sorry, I don’t have that degree of self-abasement in me.
MovieMan, nice work here. I couldn’t agree more about the twisting of the word ‘elitist’, when in fact he means ‘snob’ (for the record I think no one on this thread is guilty of it). It’s something Susan Jacoby discusses quite a but in her fantastic book ‘Age of American Unreason’. Here’s a piece that ran in the NY Times around the time of the book’s release that better illustrates the point:
I actually remember reading that editorial a while back. Here’s the thing; I don’t like the way Tony is using the word, but I understand where anti-elitist resentment comes from. I think it’s less a matter of someone’s actual body of knowledge, and more a matter of behavior. There are definitely people, particularly identifiable in urban environments, who carry themselves with a certain smug hubris as if the fact that they are “a professional” (a term that seems to apply to intellectual professions only, for some reason) or a professional-in-training somehow means that they walk on air. I’ve seen them interact with those “beneath” them and the degree to which they are insulated from a feeling of equality with other people. And, to a certain extent, the national chattering class – in all fields – comes out of this repository. So, yes, I get the resentment, even as I think the term is over-used and mis-applied. Put it this way: I am in favor of “elite” knowledge but not people as “an elite” and I have a great deal more respect “professional” behavior than for a self-construed (or society-construed) “professional”. I guess I’m just more in favor of the adjective than the noun.
I agree with this MovieMan, but shouldn’t we just call a snob a snob, not something else (such as ‘elite’). I hate people with an air just as much as the next guy, but I also hate when I disagree with someone so rather then hatch it out I’m called an ‘elite’, or something else of that ilk. Couldn’t it just be possible that various people have different tastes? I suppose in the end anonymous name calling is always easier then long winded discussion on personal taste.
After all can’t someone still be ‘an elite’ and it NOT be negative? Such as in athletics?
Hysterical Chinese whispers in a tea-cup. Brethren, let us go back to the source. My words were (my emphasis): ” borders on elitism”. Joel for a guy in shock, you are really pounding those keys… Laters!
“Hysterical Chinese whispers in a tea-cup.”
Can I use that for a blog name?
”borders on elitism”.
I border on nothing, Tony, I am an island unto myself…
How true!
From The Isle of Bocko (my emphasis):
“Movies are largely regarded as entertainment, and most people are simply not interested in viewing a little more challenging, however rewarding. In a way, this is understandable: we only have room in our lives for a number of pursuits. Hence, I am interested in more challenging films, I have the patience to invest in a movie which can transport me into another realm of thinking and, more importantly, feeling.”
Take a powder Joel…
But Tony, I explicitly followed this with the statement that, fundamentally, all things are equal – because I’m not interested in more challenging fare in many fields myself and I don’t have the patience to invest in a thick economic study, a more challenging culinary endeavor, etc etc. In other words, to each their own. How is that elitist? You have to look at the full context of what I was saying, not just a couple paragraphs.
Actually I’m kind of disappointed you came back to play ball. That was one of the more entertaining brush-offs I’ve ever read! (And I’m only half-kidding about stealing that line for a blog title…)
Make that a couple sentences, not a couple paragraphs, though in the grand scheme of the Compleat Works of Bocko on Wonders there may not be such a difference…
Tony said,”Hey Dee Dee. Kudos to you for being so open to all sides. You raise important issues and you are on solid ground.”
Regarding In the Valley of Elah, look at my review here: In the Valley of Elah .
Oh! Yes Tony…I have read your review when you first posted this piece here at WitD.
By the way, you have mentioned this film several times in the past…for me to simple continue to “sit” on my hands and ignore this film.
Therefore, I must truly seek this film out to watch, then return to this post, and share my opinion about the film… “In the Valley of Elah”
Thanks, for sharing!
DeeDee 😉
I will be book marking this site for sure!