| Re: Season of the Severed Head, resumed |
http://groups.google.com .. |
| Parry (parry@perfectmail.com) |
2003/08/22 10:34 |
elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F444F10.4937B5DB@cloud9.net>...
> Parry wrote:
> >
> > elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F37328E.354CC11@cloud9.net>...
> > [snip for length]
> > > > > > > I prefer flawed to slick any old time. Flaws can be endearing when they
> > > > > > > are artifacts of reaching for heights which can not yet be seen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, which makes me think of director Jose Marins again. While his
> > > > > > first Coffin Joe movie is decent the subsequent ones are often
> > > > > > incomprehensible messes, but at least they're *interesting*
> > > > > > incomprehensible messes. Another fave director is the prolific Jess
> > > > > > Franco, whose films are wildly variable in their quality, budget and
> > > > > > internal logic. Not knowing what to expect from his movies is half the
> > > > > > fun of watching them, along with the weird bits of inspiration that
> > > > > > pop up. For me, it's generally a question of an open vs. closed
> > > > > > approach to movies. If one insists a work be "closed" -- that is, a
> > > > > > self-contained system of narrative and style -- then a film's "flaws"
> > > > > > must be viewed as distractions and failures. I would define an "open"
> > > > > > approach as: appreciating the film's exciting bits whether they were
> > > > > > intentional or not, considering film viewing as a subjective
> > > > > > experience influenced by personal experience and preference, looking
> > > > > > for subtexts that cause the mind to wander outside the film's frame,
> > > > > > and so on. Franco's films usually provide a prime opportunity for such
> > > > > > viewing.
> > > > >
> > > > > A good approach can be simply using non-pros as actors and allowing
> > > > > improvisation. Even with a script and shot list the unexpected is bound
> > > > > to happen.
> > > >
> > > > Herzog, for one, used non-professionals very well. As much as I loved
> > > > his 70's movies then, the distant of time makes their pinnacles appear
> > > > even loftier.
> > >
> > > And if you're talking about "Fitzcarraldo" the making of the film
> > > becomes even greater than the film itself.
> >
> > "Fitzcarraldo" would seem better if one didn't have the other Herzogs
> > to compare it against.
>
> I suppose... I can always stand to see another Herzog. The one I really
> want to see is "Heart of Glass", mainly because of the whole hypnosis thing.
>
> >
> > > > Rivette used professional actors but also much
> > > > improvisation, with the script being developed as it was shot.
> > >
> > > I was thinking about Godard and Cassavettes. I really admire what these
> > > directors have accomplished, but naturally it's very hard to get
> > > producers to back ideas of this sort. Imagine an American film crew
> > > sitting idly while the director tries to come up with the next scene. I
> > > think working "documentary style", w/ a small crew is a great way to
> > > stay loose, though that look is perhaps seen as overused and old
> > > fashioned these days. I remember people taunting me about some of my my
> > > more experimental ideas by derisively shouting "GODARD!"
> >
> > Are those the sort of experimental ideas where the viewer says "my
> > my"? I recall watching a Raul Ruiz video and afterwards all someone
> > had to say about it was "it reminded me of Godard." I wondered if he
> > saw any of the movie past this facile comparison.
>
> ...or if he knew much about Godard, even. I always tried to push the
> limits of the medium in all ways possible. I can't help but see the
> film as both an entertainment and as a flimsly strip of colored plastic
> through which light is shined. Most Godard films can never have wide
> appeal as they function in a way like film textbooks or essay, and how
> many people enjoy reading textbooks?
I wouldn't say Godard's movies are *that* dry. Some of the 80's ones
are actually a lot of fun. But they do require the audience to
interact with the film differently than it would with a standard
Hollywood entertainment.
> My biggest troubles came because I despise the hollywood slick style and
> shooting for coverage and propping up flabby material w/ snappy pop
> tunes.
The nadir for me is when a film kills 4 minutes with a montage of
divers scenes under a pop tune. When that's happens, I write off any
hope I had in reserve that the movie might improve at some point.
There's much to object to about the Hollywood style, and the worst
aspects have been exacerbated since the 70's, I think. One could view
it as the George Lucas Syndrome -- everything has to be dumber,
louder, flashier and costlier. Hundreds of millions of dollars get
blown on material which would once have been considered drive-in movie
fodder.
> My stuff always had a raw edge... I never took a tripod or heavy
> lights or used a crew larger that 3 people. I'll admit that the
> majority of my experiments were failures or of only passing interest,
> but I feel I learned a lot more working my own way than I might have by
> say, shamelessly plagiarizing "Speed". (A film I cut was in the Student
> Academy Awards Finals and lost to a "murky mimeograph of "Speed")
As long as you can make films the way you want, that's the way to do
it.
> > > > > I also like a hand held camera and "open form" or loose
> > > > > framing. Even if the image is stable (as w/ a steadi-cam) and the
> > > > > motion choreographed the whole film is enlivened by the dynamic framing.
> > > >
> > > > I'm unfamiliar with the terminology. What would "loose framing" look
> > > > like? Do you mean a moving viewpoint or a method of composition?
> > >
> > > Open Form emphasizes simple techniques (like hand held camera) used to
> > > record (seemingly) only partially controlled situations. The frame
> > > might seem too narrow too contain all the subject matter. The tendency
> > > would be for the camera to follow the action and for things to be cut
> > > off by or fall outside of the frame.
> > >
> > > as opposed to
> > >
> > > Closed Form in which the elements are carefully arranged w/in the frame.
> > > The camera is likely to anticipate or wait for the action. The shots
> > > tend to be stable and static.
> >
> > My personal viewing preference is for films done "closed form." A film
> > like Tati's "Playtime" is especially endearing because everything is
> > in long shot. That movie also demonstrates how a chaotic atmosphere
> > can be created using the closed form. Will you try to emulate the look
> > of open form in your animation?
>
> Well, I believe in tailoring the technique to the situation. I'm
> attracted to open form because it emphasizes free will as opposed to
> closed form which emphasizes determinism. These are, of course,
> generalities. It's perfectly acceptable to use both closed and open
> form w/in the same film.
>
> In one of my texts it mentions that it might be a bad idea to use open
> form to shoot a film about prison life, as it's contrary to the
> material... one can't get much more "closed" than a prison.
To me, that would suggest a challenge to make a prison film shot in
open form. The prison analogy is apt for closed form, as if the film's
characters are locked in their situation. So in a given movie a
tension can develop between the chaos of the characters' lives and the
stability of the film's frame. Kubrick may be the best example of this
I can recall.
> In animation, it would likewise be difficult to justify open form, as
> every aspect of every frame is planned out in intricate detail and there
> is no opportunity for documentary techniques. Elements of open form
> could be used for effect, though and I fully intend to leave that option
> open. I have seen cartoons using such effects as swish pans and cameras
> chasing around after characters. If it's funny, I'll use it.
The way to interject open form into animation would be to base the
drawings on film of live action. Probably a very cumbersome method but
I'd be interested in seeing someone attempt it.
On the subject of funny, I was trying to find a link to a Kricfalusi
essay on cartoons but his Spumco site seems to have gone down the
tubes. His main point, as I recall, was to draw a distinction between
cartoons and something like The Simpsons, which he considers a
situation comedy. The latter involves situations which are funny,
while cartoons are pictures that are drawn funny.
Not surprisingly, you appear to enjoy the same old cartoons which I
do. Are there any current cartoon animators you like? The Fleischers'
stuff wasn't particularly laugh-inducing (I'm using this awkward term
to distinguish the quality from "funny"), but strange and spirited;
I'd describe Bill Plympton's stuff the same way. Termite Terrace and
Avery were both strange and laugh-inducing; Kricfalusi, similarly. The
NFB's Richard Condie is often funny, though low on strangeness.
> > > > > Sometimes I think that imposing rigorous limitations (in ever changing
> > > > > experiments) is the best way to find those exceptional moments. I'm
> > > > > talking about tricks like shooting chronologically even when it's
> > > > > logistically innefficient or giving the actors the scene only on the day
> > > > > of the shoot and not letting them know where their character is going.
> > > > >
> > > > > The rigid framework forces one to think and act in new and different
> > > > > ways. It forces one to "stretch" a bit. Of course, this type of thing
> > > > > can be rather hard to corral.
> > > >
> > > > I agree an element of rigidity is useful in imaginative work. One
> > > > needs a lever to do the work, and a level that's not rigid won't
> > > > accomplish anything. The rigidity could take any number of forms.
> > > > Sometimes it may be imposed from without -- like the prohibition on
> > > > explicitness that caused past songwriters and scriptwriters to create
> > > > clever wordplay.
> > >
> > > Yes, it's important to remember that even unwanted restrictions can be a
> > > boon to creativity. I always use the example of the TV series Babylon
> > > 5. The show was unusual in that the 5 year run was plotted out in
> > > advance. When the network interfered w/ the show by demanding the
> > > replacement of the lead, the creator J. Michael Straczynski managed to
> > > introduce a new lead and change the story for (I think) the better.
> >
> > In the same vein, a couple instances of censorship backfiring spring
> > to mind. There was a scene with a passionate kiss in a film but
> > Lubitsch, if I recall correctly. At the time, one was not allowed to
> > show a kiss that lasted longer that a certain number of seconds. To
> > circumvent the rule, Lubitsch had the actors break the kiss into a
> > long series of shorter kisses, creating a much sexier scene. And
> > the fellow's bedroom. The censor didn't like that, so the end was
> > changed to the guy inviting Viridiana to join a card game with the
> > maid, a scene suggesting something much kinkier.
>
> Those are classics of "getting around the code". It's amazing that even
> a navel couldn't be shown (on tv until the '70s). Now there are navels
> everywhere, even on oranges!
Yes, we're up to our belly buttons in navels. I find it comical that
American network television now censors the word "god," as in
"*-damn."
> > > > Sometimes it's a rigidity of character, as with the
> > > > obdurate Herzog who would rather have people drag a real ship up a
> > > > mountain than use a model.
> > >
> > > I'm with him philosophically, but I could never put people through that
> > > level of pain. Perhaps he just underestimated the trouble he was
> > > heading into.
> >
> > The shoots may not have been as bad as the mythology suggests. In
> > "Herzog on Herzog" -- a fine read, by the way -- the director rebukes
> > his reputation as a reckless adventurer and emphasizes the planning
> > that went into such stunts as the ship-pulling.
>
> Those stories of the guy cutting off his own foot to avoid dying of a
> snake bite, and the cinematographer's operation sans anaesthesia were
> true, n'est pas?
Sure, the shoots were hardships but Herzog's argument is that he did
everything he could to anticipate and avoid such accidents. Of course,
much more terrible accidents have happened on the soundstages of
Hollywood films.
> > [snip]
> > > > > > > I wish I could start now... maybe in 6 months or so. At least it gives
> > > > > > > me plenty of time to consider bad puns to use for a title.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hopefully you'll be discussing this project here further. Any place we
> > > > > > can see your drawings?
> > > > >
> > > > > I could post queries regarding "which way is it funnier?..." every once
> > > > > in awhile... If it's ever shown anywhere I could invite y'all.
> > > >
> > > > I'd actually enjoy kicking around the "theory of funny" so hope you
> > > > post a few posers.
> > > >
> > > > > I guess I could post a couple of the rough gif loops I made when I
> > > > > started thinking about the idea. If you can think of a good place to
> > > > > post them, let me know.
> > > >
> > > > There are some newsgroups which would appropriate it the file sizes
> > > > aren't too large. Or you could sign up for free web space.
> > >
> > > I'd rather not do the web thing, but if you name a binaries group on
> > > your server w/ some retention time I'll post it post haste.
> >
> > I rely on free-servers, which are all a little dicey but the best bets
> > seem to be:
> >
> > alt.binaries.movies
> > alt.binaries.magic
> >
> > There's also:
> >
> > alt.binaries.al-queda
> > alt.binaries.custard
> > alt.binaries.images
> > alt.binaries.buzzard
> >
> > Can you access any of these groups? Retention time may not be longer
> > than a day so I'll have to keep an eye peeled.
>
> okay I posted two to:
>
> alt.binaries.buzzard
>
> titles are:
>
> parry
> again parry
>
> good luck.
Sorry to say I've been monitoring five servers and zero posts have
appeared in that newsgroup in the last couple of days. If you're up to
trying it again (and I hope you are), I think the best bet might be
"alt.binaries.magic". I posted a test to it through the free-server
"new.so-net.com.hk" and it seemed to work fine.
-- Parry
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 |
|
|