Steve Enemark
Second Unit
- Joined
- Jun 30, 1997
- Messages
- 482
Does that mean you'll put Hitchcock's Notebooks on the official reading list? I've already read the Truffaut interview book, and a Hitchcock book absolutely must be on my list of ten.
Your epiphany that film should be "something more" is something every aesthete can relate to.
The funny thing about this is that I've known for years that the arts offered "something more" -- I've studied the humanities for the last decade, first as an undergrad, then a graduate student -- but Tarkovsky's book reminded me of why I began pursuing these damn degrees in the first place. In general, the academic approach to the arts requires stripping the work of its beauty and passion, reducing it instead to little more than rhetorical devices and ideology. While I see great intellectual (and even ethical) value in that process, it's not why I love to read.
Hence the new sig. Darren H - "Aesthete" - I like that.
------------------
S&S Challenge: 70 56
Read a book!
by David Bordwell, Kristin Thompson* (a great starting point)
Well, I don't know whether I should officially enter because I might not be able to read all 10 books. But I will start with the above and then probably read Roger Ebert's book next.
Here is the official link to B&N's Link Removed
~Edwin
------------------
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/uub/Forum9/HTML/004584.html
That combination of almost clinical detachment and pathos is what most struck me about the film. In my limited experiences with Godard, I had come to expect the former, but was quite surprised to find myself so moved by Nana. Of course, that pathos is probably inevitable any time a camera comes near Anna Karina's eyes. (Yes, I now hold a new appreciation of JungWoo's sig.) Quite a film. I have a feeling I'll be buying a copy for myself.Vivre sa Vie (My Life to Live) said:Quote:
] has nothing to do with politics. It simply tells the story of a man who wants very little and can’t get it. – Kieslowski