No it's not true, that's not it at all. But maybe not at all.
I have no bias for the "filthy", the "black" versus the "beautiful", the "light" is the cliché, all that, I stand there. You build a class purely imaginary for what you believe are the movies I like is nawak (I've shown a list). And it's really not my rhetoric. All that is systematic bored, either in the registry or black light is not the problem.
And I recommend very few films in general. When I hold really defend a movie, I sketch an analysis. Very rare phenomenon. Because it bothers me so much to write about the films themselves. And when I talk about movies (rarely), it is always to talk about something else. You should know by now.
Moreover, it starts to make me so ch ... non-writing about film that I will soon open two new entries when I can, at my own pace - that is to say the right - not writing about music in one, making the "testing-evaluating "objects of various techniques and everyday life in the other. This is actually my real passion. Tester I that the skin is a gift almost natural. I could have done better seller in any shelf of technical objects of everyday life, if I had not preferred to do nothing. What in fact is my passion fundamental.
I'm not a fan of Bresson. I find it hard to "understand" Bresson. I can say that Bresson (except his early films) 'm bored deep at best and at worst unbearable, because I have not worked the keys for understanding. And I have no desire.
By cons, when I say "Bressonian" is a qualifier very superficial, as when we say "Kafkaesque" or "Fellini": it does not mean it's like Kafka and Fellini, but it "sees" a little what that may mean, in a conversation. Nothing more.
I do not argue for a "kind" or a "style" determined.
contemplative, action, realistic, fantastic, librarian, fairy, sf, b series, blockbuster, commercial, confidential, experimental, mainstream, sad, funny, desperate, euphoric ... I have no prejudices. I am very good audience. I can find interest, exciting things, in films of very different bills. Especially the categories mentioned exist for me to push their boundaries interpenetrate (action / contemplation, already, how many action movies where absolutely nothing happens, how many films called "contemplative" rich an ongoing activity, etc.).
But I would not say that "there always something to shoot a film." No, there is nothing to be gained from a bad movie. Are there movies that you can positively abstain. And which revocation does not learn to meditate or reap. Unfortunately we notice it always too late. What a waste of time, we could have spent doing nothing.
I do not think that we should "make an effort "according to simply insist in a single framework. If the frame, the complex percept / affect / intellect, which determined such distress has not changed is not worth it, do not insist.
But it depends on what is called "effort" (I insist on listening to a piece of music I do not understand not because I am sufficiently informed of its value. But for this I put in some work to expand my ability to listen, which is beyond the scope of the room itself. Same for a movie).
Apples are not pears, at least not offhand, or forcing himself. it happens in a set, extra-cinematic. Cinephilia and being unable to be herself and extra-cinematic, of course, if not as a passion for stamps or capsules beer. And why not, indeed. Even in these cases, these passions, even in their context, are "overwhelmed" by the extra timbre or extracapsular. The important thing is to understand, grasp, perhaps to analyze it.
By cons, one constant: I think that we should not see too films on notice too concentrated, and I also think it should, if possible, do not expect a priori an event if it happens, is precisely not expected. Or look at any price, which in a particular film would advance "the cause of cinema" (really, a kind of obsession that I have the difficult to grasp) that I do not know what criteria or specifications to meet.
I already stated, more than reason, how in the approach to the film, this kind of obsession seems too often take the place of pleasure rather fool the audience (many of which concept terribly suspicious, repudiate the pretext that it would be inconsistent with the seriousness of a critical enterprise, a quest I do not know what "absolute", it would be a terrible loss caused by original sin of a daily without grandeur, it is believed, not working towards, it is believed, to "open up new possibilities").
I think not at all to the benefit of the latest films in terms of criticism "cinema" (for cons, it always says something to the news of the day, the Zeitgeist Film Now it is not over, actually).
m'hallucine It examines the scope "event" that gives this film at the time of its release. It is true that I always see movies at least six months after their theatrical release. There's more to this expectation, this over-investment, this saturation of desire, direction, surrounding the film at the time of its relevance, with the idea that something "decisive" is happening or not happening in ... "History of cinema."
And I recommend very few films in general. When I hold really defend a movie, I sketch an analysis. Very rare phenomenon. Because it bothers me so much to write about the films themselves. And when I talk about movies (rarely), it is always to talk about something else. You should know by now.
Moreover, it starts to make me so ch ... non-writing about film that I will soon open two new entries when I can, at my own pace - that is to say the right - not writing about music in one, making the "testing-evaluating "objects of various techniques and everyday life in the other. This is actually my real passion. Tester I that the skin is a gift almost natural. I could have done better seller in any shelf of technical objects of everyday life, if I had not preferred to do nothing. What in fact is my passion fundamental.
I'm not a fan of Bresson. I find it hard to "understand" Bresson. I can say that Bresson (except his early films) 'm bored deep at best and at worst unbearable, because I have not worked the keys for understanding. And I have no desire.
By cons, when I say "Bressonian" is a qualifier very superficial, as when we say "Kafkaesque" or "Fellini": it does not mean it's like Kafka and Fellini, but it "sees" a little what that may mean, in a conversation. Nothing more.
I do not argue for a "kind" or a "style" determined.
contemplative, action, realistic, fantastic, librarian, fairy, sf, b series, blockbuster, commercial, confidential, experimental, mainstream, sad, funny, desperate, euphoric ... I have no prejudices. I am very good audience. I can find interest, exciting things, in films of very different bills. Especially the categories mentioned exist for me to push their boundaries interpenetrate (action / contemplation, already, how many action movies where absolutely nothing happens, how many films called "contemplative" rich an ongoing activity, etc.).
But I would not say that "there always something to shoot a film." No, there is nothing to be gained from a bad movie. Are there movies that you can positively abstain. And which revocation does not learn to meditate or reap. Unfortunately we notice it always too late. What a waste of time, we could have spent doing nothing.
I do not think that we should "make an effort "according to simply insist in a single framework. If the frame, the complex percept / affect / intellect, which determined such distress has not changed is not worth it, do not insist.
But it depends on what is called "effort" (I insist on listening to a piece of music I do not understand not because I am sufficiently informed of its value. But for this I put in some work to expand my ability to listen, which is beyond the scope of the room itself. Same for a movie).
Apples are not pears, at least not offhand, or forcing himself. it happens in a set, extra-cinematic. Cinephilia and being unable to be herself and extra-cinematic, of course, if not as a passion for stamps or capsules beer. And why not, indeed. Even in these cases, these passions, even in their context, are "overwhelmed" by the extra timbre or extracapsular. The important thing is to understand, grasp, perhaps to analyze it.
By cons, one constant: I think that we should not see too films on notice too concentrated, and I also think it should, if possible, do not expect a priori an event if it happens, is precisely not expected. Or look at any price, which in a particular film would advance "the cause of cinema" (really, a kind of obsession that I have the difficult to grasp) that I do not know what criteria or specifications to meet.
I already stated, more than reason, how in the approach to the film, this kind of obsession seems too often take the place of pleasure rather fool the audience (many of which concept terribly suspicious, repudiate the pretext that it would be inconsistent with the seriousness of a critical enterprise, a quest I do not know what "absolute", it would be a terrible loss caused by original sin of a daily without grandeur, it is believed, not working towards, it is believed, to "open up new possibilities").
I think not at all to the benefit of the latest films in terms of criticism "cinema" (for cons, it always says something to the news of the day, the Zeitgeist Film Now it is not over, actually).
m'hallucine It examines the scope "event" that gives this film at the time of its release. It is true that I always see movies at least six months after their theatrical release. There's more to this expectation, this over-investment, this saturation of desire, direction, surrounding the film at the time of its relevance, with the idea that something "decisive" is happening or not happening in ... "History of cinema."
"Going to Cannes". Where "it happens", the news of the Cinema, The Future of cinema. History in motion, as Hegel watching Napoleon pass under his window. What a ridiculous idea when you think about it. And "believe" again "at the Cinema." And more. beyond me.
Platitudes about my course. I really lies in inactualité movies. I try not to read the reviews afterwards, as if I refused to hear the outcome of a match until I viewed offline.
But precisely this is not a sporting event. They would have us believe so. But no one can see that after all this time will not be degraded. On the contrary, this belief that everything is "just as" the theatrical release, I understand the crucial issue for trade, but it creates the conditions to the contrary: a negation of time required to receive the work.
Platitudes about my course. I really lies in inactualité movies. I try not to read the reviews afterwards, as if I refused to hear the outcome of a match until I viewed offline.
But precisely this is not a sporting event. They would have us believe so. But no one can see that after all this time will not be degraded. On the contrary, this belief that everything is "just as" the theatrical release, I understand the crucial issue for trade, but it creates the conditions to the contrary: a negation of time required to receive the work.
And movies, I saw, huh. I say this with all the "self-indulgence" an old fart at McDonald Cornac can agree.
Between 12 and 14 years, I have assiduously followed the film club of Dmitry Balashov and Claude-Jean Philippe.
I knew my Truffaut on the tips of fingers and pretended to anyone who would listen that "a nice girl like me" was his best film failed, but nobody cared.
I got excited for the big lateral tracking shot "weekend" of Godard; discovered phenomenology before knowing the name with "Two or Three Things I Know About Her" and the monologue on the close-up cup of coffee.
I took Wanda Barbara Loden hit.
I learned to distinguish between resistance and collaboration in the next "Shame" Bergman.
I was already interested in the films "orphans" from the "eyes closed" Joel Santoni - which made me discover Terry Riley - in "Bartleby" by Maurice Ronet, from "they" Jean-Daniel Simon.
I struggled with myself to determine if Cassavetes was greater than Pialat or vice versa, while finding great "fantasy" by Don Coscarelli and dreaming of writing a study on "the anguish of the goalie" Wenders, Handke, or "small runaways" Yves Yersin, while finding the filmo Tanner already cheesy.
I advised the controller of the film club of my grammar school project of "old money "Comencini instead of" Jaws "Spielberg because he hesitated between the two orders of film and ignored the existence of the first. This earned me severe blame, because 98% of kids had left the room after 20 minutes, disorganized, whining, moaning, drooling and everything.
I forced my parents to watch "the influence of Gamma Rays on Man-Moon Marigolds" by Paul Newman while monitoring severely corner of the eye, as a Lutheran pastor, in case they fall asleep the poor.
I struggled with myself to determine if Cassavetes was greater than Pialat or vice versa, while finding great "fantasy" by Don Coscarelli and dreaming of writing a study on "the anguish of the goalie" Wenders, Handke, or "small runaways" Yves Yersin, while finding the filmo Tanner already cheesy.
I advised the controller of the film club of my grammar school project of "old money "Comencini instead of" Jaws "Spielberg because he hesitated between the two orders of film and ignored the existence of the first. This earned me severe blame, because 98% of kids had left the room after 20 minutes, disorganized, whining, moaning, drooling and everything.
I forced my parents to watch "the influence of Gamma Rays on Man-Moon Marigolds" by Paul Newman while monitoring severely corner of the eye, as a Lutheran pastor, in case they fall asleep the poor.
I was worried about not having seen a film by Hans Jürgen Syberberg or "This machine does not take a message" by Alain Cavalier.
At 14 years and half, I was Fellini-Roma in the mouth.
At 15, I discovered the films of René Allio nobody is talking about ("hard day for the Queen").
At 16, I knew by heart almost all of Polanski films, including his short films in Lodz, while many hold forth in disdain while confessing that they did without shame know that two or three films, and worse.
At 17, after seeing "the sign of Leo" by Rohmer, I received the revelation of my obsession fundamental complete bum (but without the happy ending of a providential inheritance).
At 18 j began an e-gigabyte collection of VHS tapes that you can even imagine in your worst nightmares content - including films now totally invisible Achternbusch Herbert, Peter Etaix of Duras and nobody wishes to have, like "all day in trees," "Belle" André Delvaux, which I probably the only copy in Belgium. I mean Syldavia north.
I discovered "Maine Ocean" de Rozier, "blue velvet" of Lynch, or "after hours" by Scorsese their theatrical release. It was an era where non-moviegoers would mater as everyone now reserved for movies film clubs.
At 21, I discovered, in a room of Droixhe absolutely deserted, "the passenger" of Kiarostami.
t'tention Ah, but eh, oh.
I honestly do not understand (apart from the crucial issue of livelihood) the "art critic-columnist", per se. See movies all the time, as and when it exits. And do its digital Papelard that. Taking the temperature forecast what came out this week. See all-time movies, and "specialization" in this occupation, and more ... Really. It is not possible, see anything, you should see nothing. This is the surest path to differentiation of all in all, the night when all cows are gray.
For sure, if j was going to see movies all the time with my passport UGC Illimited or what or what, I would not fail to find strength they all look the same, mundane and repetitive. Because despite my good intentions, I would not miss not to confuse eventually continuity repeated my activity viewer with real or perceived uniformity objective films parading before me like trains that pass without interruption. That's why, each time his report to me will say it myself, my passion is the archive . In order to see or revisit later that the past can possibly happen in the present, past, and preserved, as amended in the future. Then no more than a few movies a week. Otherwise, I can not settle, and it is the loss of taste, like the guy said in "the wing or thigh.
is also why, in part, that 90% of what is written in the mags film professionals is so bad. They're very aware when reading long after, what was written. We should not allow people to write the same day or the next day they saw the movie yesterday, then they are already en route to the next. It should create a film magazine dedicated exclusively to the news six months ago.
course, needless to believe that we will escape the effects of "spot" on a film. It does not mean the claim that a film would not be bound to its determination "Social" at time of manufacture and the time of its release. He is to receive "afterthought." I'm not saying it's better, but it has otherwise received. In chronological and spatial distance, with a weight of expectation minus, one can possibly see things better, appreciate their proportion.
can realize that a lot of things that have been commented on as gigantic in abundance are really tiny, impact or interest bordering on absolute zero and things despised, sent a wave of the hand, which are actually huge movies that dig their groove in the day. The size or magnitude of a non-film build over time. Including their relationship to their era, with its challenges. So many misconceptions, so many passions useless, futile palaver, raised in the stunning effect of "here" and "now". Another door opened when I push with delight.
And if not, do not believe that I recommend any method, or pretend to hold a ... I'm not saying it should look like this rather than like that, do not not like that, etc.. But no, do not force yourself.
is made with the compositions of affect we have, which are in any way entangled in a system of meaning that can be analyzed, moreover, according to very different perspectives. The world and the way the world does not play any integers, each time as if it was likely to be someone else, suddenly. Beware of "must" finally, so to speak, because it is ambiguous: the requirement is recommended, but not to the point where conditions exist that make it possible or not yet. It is a process that does not fall under the will.
There's too much voluntarism in all this.
I discovered "Maine Ocean" de Rozier, "blue velvet" of Lynch, or "after hours" by Scorsese their theatrical release. It was an era where non-moviegoers would mater as everyone now reserved for movies film clubs.
At 21, I discovered, in a room of Droixhe absolutely deserted, "the passenger" of Kiarostami.
t'tention Ah, but eh, oh.
I honestly do not understand (apart from the crucial issue of livelihood) the "art critic-columnist", per se. See movies all the time, as and when it exits. And do its digital Papelard that. Taking the temperature forecast what came out this week. See all-time movies, and "specialization" in this occupation, and more ... Really. It is not possible, see anything, you should see nothing. This is the surest path to differentiation of all in all, the night when all cows are gray.
For sure, if j was going to see movies all the time with my passport UGC Illimited or what or what, I would not fail to find strength they all look the same, mundane and repetitive. Because despite my good intentions, I would not miss not to confuse eventually continuity repeated my activity viewer with real or perceived uniformity objective films parading before me like trains that pass without interruption. That's why, each time his report to me will say it myself, my passion is the archive . In order to see or revisit later that the past can possibly happen in the present, past, and preserved, as amended in the future. Then no more than a few movies a week. Otherwise, I can not settle, and it is the loss of taste, like the guy said in "the wing or thigh.
is also why, in part, that 90% of what is written in the mags film professionals is so bad. They're very aware when reading long after, what was written. We should not allow people to write the same day or the next day they saw the movie yesterday, then they are already en route to the next. It should create a film magazine dedicated exclusively to the news six months ago.
course, needless to believe that we will escape the effects of "spot" on a film. It does not mean the claim that a film would not be bound to its determination "Social" at time of manufacture and the time of its release. He is to receive "afterthought." I'm not saying it's better, but it has otherwise received. In chronological and spatial distance, with a weight of expectation minus, one can possibly see things better, appreciate their proportion.
can realize that a lot of things that have been commented on as gigantic in abundance are really tiny, impact or interest bordering on absolute zero and things despised, sent a wave of the hand, which are actually huge movies that dig their groove in the day. The size or magnitude of a non-film build over time. Including their relationship to their era, with its challenges. So many misconceptions, so many passions useless, futile palaver, raised in the stunning effect of "here" and "now". Another door opened when I push with delight.
And if not, do not believe that I recommend any method, or pretend to hold a ... I'm not saying it should look like this rather than like that, do not not like that, etc.. But no, do not force yourself.
is made with the compositions of affect we have, which are in any way entangled in a system of meaning that can be analyzed, moreover, according to very different perspectives. The world and the way the world does not play any integers, each time as if it was likely to be someone else, suddenly. Beware of "must" finally, so to speak, because it is ambiguous: the requirement is recommended, but not to the point where conditions exist that make it possible or not yet. It is a process that does not fall under the will.
There's too much voluntarism in all this.
So, we get the critical prejudices as paradoxical injunctions (be different, look different, does not think like that, etc.), and we constantly oscillates between radicalism, banishing the areas of 'in-between, the wavering of chiaroscuro. It is desperate to know whether we love or hate it.
Something urgency of determining command the "present" the passionate moviegoer. He yearns to be "straight" with himself, set, burn the object of his passion in a marble Truth remains. It is this anxiety typical of the time, its empty fluant ever switch to munch and the presence of the desired object in the disappointment of having-been .
But it's not so simple, it's so simple that just swings back and forth like mad, lost, in the extremes of passion "contradictory", which constantly changes the immediate certainty of "A" slightly delayed in certain "non-A". All this antagonism certainties contrasting areas to escape the uncertainty of the co-existence of several ambiguous possibilities subject to weather modification. How much is classic.
Should learn to pronounce, much later, not spontaneously but in a horizon "perspectival" and less on the "value" of the film itself than on the regimes of values that surrounded her vision.
What changes, changed, through me, in what concerns me at the same time I look at? What is preserved? What goes? What is likely to change shape without destroying itself? What remains of it all? Oh do not tell me necessarily, I do not care a bit, think about it, make it a thought, if material to think, produce statements, even arbitrary, to laugh bats and singers, or disrupt the flow of thought in the brains of idiots, or wasting time very smart people, etc.. There's plenty of opportunities funny, actually.
But all that implies - and this is my "conclusion" as much as an interim final temporary permanently - to waive, to the viewing experience, the myth of a "seizure absolute", unconditional, ahistorical , intransitive, etc. etc..
Cordialement,
Jerzy P.
VERVIETOIS Cinephile.
"Et three or four times a year I came back, not knowing why, alone, to contemplate, not just Grandpa and Grandma but they all shaped along the bottom of the lush green of summer and the burning royal fall and the ruin of the winter prior to bloom again in spring, now soiled, slightly blackened by time and climate and endurance but still serene, inscrutable, distant, blank stare, not like sentinels, not as they defended their huge and monolithic body weight and the living against the dead, but the dead against the living, rather to protect the bones and empty powder, dust harmless and defenseless against the anguish and pain and inhumanity of the human race. "
(W. Faulkner Burial South Idyll in the Desert and Other Stories, Gallimard, coll." worldwide , Paris, 1985.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment