Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 42

Lew Crippen · 11-24-2003, 02:04 PM

And to think George you owe it all to me that you are in a position to make this comparison.

george kaplan · 11-24-2003, 03:33 PM

Lew,

Not only am I thankful you had Ordet on your list, I'm thankful you didn't have BTW on it.

MartinTeller · 11-24-2003, 07:18 PM

George: this might help you understand why BTW (and other "Dogme 95" films) was filmed that way.

Personally, I think it's a load of b.s., but you be your own judge.

I also think Dancer in the Dark is, though extremely similar to BTW in many ways, much better. Partially because Von Trier allowed himself to break some of "the rules."

george kaplan · 11-24-2003, 08:17 PM

I don't think it helps me at all, cause I mostly didn't understand it.

Is that seriously the credo behind Breaking the Waves?

Brook K · 11-25-2003, 12:18 PM

Sort of George, but Breaking was already finished when Dogme was "established". Except that other people and the press actually took the rules more seriously than the participants did. There's only a small handful of films that actually conform to all the rules, and I don't think Von Trier ever followed all of them (I haven't seen The Idiots).

This was composed over a long night of drinking and was a brainstorming session as much as anything. It wasn't some big formal meeting with everyone sitting around a table composing ways to create "better" films or something.

But....I think Dogme is a whipping boy for absolutely no reason. What they wanted to do was find a different way to make films from the way everyone else was doing it. The "rules" were really challenges to themselves. Self-imposed restrictions to make things more interesting and getting actors out of the comfort zone of doing a movie the same way they'd done the last 20.

Seth Paxton · 11-25-2003, 01:23 PM

I greatly admire the spirit of Dogme and agree with what Brook had to say about it.

I like, but not love, BTW and the filming of "reality" would have made Kracauer proud. For that reason alone the Dogme approach becomes fascinating. The idea of working only with the reality at hand, defining such restrictions, and then observing the results that can come from it follows the true spirit of cinema as art.

That does not mean that such a film style must be regarded as "good" or that the films must be loved by all. But it is clearly a style that differs from others and lends itself to a particular narrative voice.

To me not liking the Dogme approach is a bit like not liking classical jazz. It's not going to appeal to all, but in the end I think the jazz warrants more respect than some bland average tune cranked out of the pop machine (though I might still prefer inventive pop overall).

I'd rather see an honest Dogme effort than another half-assed formula film like Drumline or How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. Of course a half-assed Dogme film would be no better.

I think the sincerity of the effort and artistic emotion comes through well in BTW. Most films can't claim that.

I just watched Vampyre and was split on my reaction. Dryer's direction, mise-en-scene, editing, and cinematography are on nearly equal to Passion of JoA though the TCM print was in rough shape, but the NARRATIVE is a wreck. I honestly have to wonder if parts are missing. I also wonder if the introduction of sound gave Dryer problems when it came to telling the story.

You can extract the jist of the story and what the relationships are supposed to be, enough to appreciate individual scenes and shots (as mentioned above) but for most viewers this is more confusing than a David Lynch film.

The idea of shadows as spirits was cool, and somehow the hero has a vision of his own death at the hands of the evil group while he is walking in the spirit world himself...er, or something like that.

Within the context of the scenes themselves there are many interesting ideas. Beyond the cool casket scene I also liked the burial in flour (I think) and the return of the horse-drawn carriage with a driver that had been killed (thus isolating the mansion, or so I assumed).

In the end this is a film that I'd like to see redone in Dryer's style but with some expansion/explanation into some of the bits of narrative. It could have been a truly terrifying film instead of a confusing one.

Dryer's directorial style is one of the greatest ever IMO. His use of pans and tracking is unique to him and beautiful in its application. Plus he had the Montage influence on his editing (ideas implied by image association) as well as the Expressionsitic lighting and mise-en-scene.

That puts me at 150 viewed, 190 to go (based on how I have the list - like with R,W,B trilogy AND just Blue both listed).

george kaplan · 11-25-2003, 02:12 PM

Brook,

Thanks for the info.

Seth,

I'd put the style more akin to not liking hardcore hip-hop.

Certainly I agree with Brook that Von Trier did not stick to this in BTW. But I guess my problem is mostly with #3 that he did stick with (at least mostly)

The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).

I fail to see what purpose this serves, certainly not reality, since our perception of events in the real world is not the choppy results as in this film. As a matter of fact, it becomes a stylized look, very different from reality.

The rest of these seem to vary from very understandable to why it's included (e.g.

Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).

to the baffling (to me), e.g.,

The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)

and

Genre movies are not acceptable.

Certainly Von Trier violated many of his rules in BTW, including #2, 6, 7, 8 and 10, and, I suspect, #1, 3, 4, 5.

Seth Paxton · 11-25-2003, 02:35 PM

I agree George, he did violate the rules and with Dancer in the Dark he even made a clearly defined Musical which in no uncertain terms breaks the Dogme code.

However, he and the others clearly did stay closer to those guidelines than one might normally expect.

And I think the fact that a hand-held camera does NOT convey "reality" is one reason why Kracauer's ideas about the purpose of film being to capture reality are easily overthrown.

Instead it shifts us to a secondary discussion - what shooting style is the best for transmitting (not creating mind you) reality to the viewer.

Does a still, mounted camera without even panning or zooming capture "reality" better than the cinema verite style that was made to capture reality "on the run"? I think the debate over the reality of cinema gets very sticky when we wander into these areas.

Out in CGI-land it all seems so clear, right and wrong are "obvious", but in the end I don't think such right and wrong ideals really are well-defined.

I would compare it to the idea of using synths, computers, and other electronics in the creation of music. When does the tool become too much, when does it dilute the art?

Watching Pink Floyd in Pompeii the other day I was reminded of this debate as Roger Waters and the band tackle the question of electronics in their music. In the end they defend it by saying that as long as the artist is in control of the tools, rather than vice versa, then it is art.

From that we would step back toward the film question and ask - which sounds/music are "real" and which are artificial. But if we hear them they must be real. Is it a fake guitar or a real synth?

It almost becomes semantics at that point.

So I think Dogme shows us that capturing reality is an elusive goal that has no practical way of being judged, simply because we haven't really defined what reality is, let alone a way to place film and reality side-by-side and compare them.

What instead happens is that people watch film/video and say "yes, that's how I remember it being". But of course any angle or shot will convey some altered emotion. Just watch a football game from a sideline camera, an in-helmet camera, an overhead camera, or a traditional TV-angle camera. Each capture the same reality, yet I don't think any of us would argue that they don't each also add a different emotional/pyschological response to the viewing of that reality.

Sports like football do have directors editing together a series of shots on the fly to "tell the story" of the reality being captured, but it's still not an artificial reality with a narrative nor does it have props or effects added (unless we count the yellow first down line). I discount graphics of stats because they are not implied to be part of the reality being shown (note that auto racing does place artifical billboards near the track for ads and driver photos).

To me the lesson of sports video/film is that there can be NO unique, objective method of capturing reality, and that in agreement with George Dogme (or any other method) is no better at capturing reality than the utterly "artificial" means of classical Hollywood. The better "reality" to aim for is that the viewer identifies with the emotions and actions of the characters, and in the case of historical film that the viewer simply says "yes, that's how I remember it".

Dome Vongvises · 11-25-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

To me the lesson of sports video/film is that there can be NO unique, objective method of capturing reality, and that in agreement with George Dogme (or any other method) is no better at capturing reality than the utterly "artificial" means of classical Hollywood. The better "reality" to aim for is that the viewer identifies with the emotions and actions of the characters, and in the case of historical film that the viewer simply says "yes, that's how I remember it".

Good post.

Dome Vongvises · 11-25-2003, 05:07 PM

L'Avventura
Directed by Michelangelo Antonioni

Movie Score: C-
Film Score: ?
Overall Score: ?

Every great so often, a Citizen Kane thread pops up, and people question the greatness of the film. And like so many other "great" films, there's always the knee-jerk response of, "you're uninformed, just accept it's greatness." As uncivil as that response is, I think it's great when people point out some of the finer points of CK. Otherwise, why should we get people to accept a standard without getting them to understand the why of it?

Considering that CK is such a great synthesis of so many things we love about film, it's easy to see why its greatness or influence gets lost in the shuffle.

I can certainly sympathize with those people. It takes care, patience, and a hell of a lot of effort to understand what constitutes a generally accepted critical assessment of greatness and so forth. Knowing the participants in this thread, I present to you a challenge: what makes L'Avventura great?

I found myself bored by the film. I've read the two Criterion essays, and I can agree with them. But that's the one thing I don't understand about the more "artsier" films. They use some strange conventions to get a point across on the human condition. Using the idle rich (I wouldn't quite say idle) as the vehicle for the discourse of morality? I guess that's the way Antonioni wanted. There's no definitive answer to whatever issue he's trying to present. I just don't find the nature of his questions all that compelling. The dramatic conventions of the story were just so.....dry.

I think it was Seth who says that our way of watching films says more about us than it does about the film itself. I think it's true. In the way I see things, I treat people like I treat films: if I can't accept them at face value at all, then there's no poi