"A picture of reality reinforced by gimmick."
Dearest Dziga,
Your creative endeavor has satisfied me to the brink.
My cup runneth over.
Sincerely,
Lee Paris.
Dearest Lee,
Though I do not believe that was my absolute intention when making The Man With a Movie Camera, I am none the less pleased that you are experiencing such a reaction. I will pass your praise on to my brother Mikhail Kaufman who was the cameraman and my wife Elizaveta who did most of the editing. I am fascinated by the variety of interpretations of my musical instructions. I am not sure which soundtrack you were privy too.
Sincerely,
Dziga Vertov, Author-Supervisor of the Experiment
Given my love of photography, movies, film history and percussive music I feel I have just immersed myself in optical, intellectual and auditory heaven.
The manifesto of the film's creators states:
“A true documentary works as a wakeup therapy, helping people to shake off the nightmare of fiction film, opening your eyes to life as it is (a reference to their aversion to what they called Hollywood’s ‘factory of dreams’). The film presents an experiment in the cinematic communication of visible events-without the aid of intertitles-without the aid of a scenario- without the aid of theatre.”
While the music certainly worked for me I am very curious as to why its creators felt that music was a useful and acceptable aid.
Also, if there is anyone out there with a deeper knowledge of the historical context in which this film was made , could you share with me the nature of the social/political conventions they envisioned would come crashing down and be replaced by their own utopia.
P.S. I want to offer a warm welcome to everyone as we begin year number TWO of Films Off The Beaten Path!
P.P.S. I finally added a new photo slide show, scroll down to see it.
36 comments:
Happy Anniversary to FOTBP. Lee, I LEM. And you sure started out 2009 with a bang on this one! I never would have seen this, or known it existed. FANTASTIC!!! I can't say that I have the slightest idea what the Vertov gang of three is saying about anything politically or otherwise but their finished work is really astonishing. BMM.I don't think I moved the entire time. I haven't yet watched it with commentary and can't wait to do so, maybe I'll learn more about the details but for now I give this film a DNA rating regardless.
Lee, Happy New Year. I am so happy to see that you added more of your photography. It is very OTBP!
This movie was fascinating in just about every way. I too wish I was a little more versed in my Russian history as I am sure it would be even more interesting if I had a complete context. I'm doing a bit of research and will fill you in if I find anything helpful. I also suggest that anyone who has the DVD watch the film again with commentary as it shed a lot of light. I imagine every student of film history would be obligated to watch this one!
Will we be seeing any more clips of the fish?
I checked on the soundtrack for Dzigva, it was recorded in 95 by the Alloy Orchestra for Junk Metal Music. I'm trying to find out if there is a recording available and will let you know. Interesting to imagine how different the movie would feel depending on who and how the music was played!
Hi Lee, a quick note, It's Dziga, not Dzigva. His original name was Denis Abramovich, and he changed it to Dziga Vertov which translates roughly as 'humming top' or 'spinning top.' Great movie. WWW! And happy anniversary. Congratulations on keeping it going full throttle for a year. I'm sure it takes a lot of work. I like the switch to one film per month. Much easier to keep up with it.
Ooooops, thanks for catching my typo on the name Alden. It's great to hear from you again. Spinning humming top. Sounds like an appropriate choice!
As to the year of the blog, it has been work but I like being accountable. Otherwise I'd never even write down the names of the films I watch. Keeping track of them all has been the equivalent of keeping a detailed film journal which I would never have had the discipline to do without being obligated. Strange but true!
Happy New Year!!
I really enjoyed the "Man With A Movie Camera" - I'm a history nerd anyway and daily life way back when fascinates me. I particularly enjoyed the various work-related shots, really interesting to see how things were done back then.
There's a similar movie called Berlin: Symphony of a Great City, not as good as MWAMC, but still worth a shot for those of you who loved MWAMC.
Stuttfotur, I had just added Berlin to the Netflix list! Speaking of great German silent films of that era, did you happen to see Mucnau's 1924 "The Last Laugh"?
It has a plot, totally different genre, but WWW.
I agree that just having a window into the daily life in MWAMC was worth the price of admission!
Thanks Finetune for the comments about the photos. I did get lazy for awhile but will try to stay on top of updating the slide shows. As of this point there are no fish videos (both Pinkies died sadly..) but i'll see what i can come up with for the future. I'm sure the other fish in the tank would appreciate getting equal attention!
WELL,SOMETHING OLDER THAN ME AND IN BETTER SHAPE.
STUNNING IMAGES OF THE EVERYDAY HUMAN CONDITION
AND STUNNING BACKGROUND MUSIC TO FEEL BY.
NO MATTER HOW THE WORLD HAS CHANGED AND
MORPHED INTO HEAVEN KNOWS WHAT "WE" REMAIN THE
SAME .
OUR DREAMS, DESIRES,JOYS AND SORROWS ARE FOREVER.
THATS A GOOD THING.
I CANNOT BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN A YEAR THAT HAS
PASSED. GOOD CHOICES LEE.
SILVER
I could not believe how similar the scenes of everyone working out in the gym in 1929 Russia were to the gyms in America today. I thought this 'body buffing'on a large public scale was a recent phenomenon,(except of course in the case of Olympic athletes and such.) And the music did BMM.
The new slide show SMORGASBORD is a killer Lee. (WOTBP)
I find it hard to pick a favorite in the bunch, they are so varied.
I really love the black and whites. The kid with the sailboat behind him (how exactly did you get that shot?), the three girls dressed up (where in heavens name did you find them?),,,,,
Is there a way to purchace these?
We got to see this with the Alloy Orchestra providing the soundtrack. Our expectation was that it would be a bit meandering but it's really exhilarating. Not only a wonderful time capsule of the era and country but also incredibly inventive and fun to watch. Great "visual music" in the same vein as the early films of Jim Henson and Charles and Ray Eames.
Dear Dziga and Lee,I can't decide which was more fun, watching the movie or looking at the new pics. Both FAH. You are both very talented.
It appears that all the Abramovich
children went in the direction of cinema. The biography of the entire clan is pretty interesting.
It is fun to imagine what it would have been like to watch the movie when it first came out with the original live music. I haven't been able to locate any more information about the original music such as which instruments and how many musicians. If anyone else came across this please do share it. If you turn off the sound and watch it is quite a different experience so the music is very important.
Stuttfotur, thankyou for the tip on 'Berlin', we have it planned for a view ASAP. And also to Mike for pointing us to Henson and Eames. Lee, we caught 'The Last Laugh' this weekend and how great was that! What a great plot. Agreed, WWW.
Watching MWAMC has given us a real hankering for these older silent (except for the "visual music" as Mike calls it)classics. We just added the entire Hulot series to our list as well.
Finally had a chance to rewatch MWMC last night, first time with this soundtrack which does add a certain rhythmic insistency to this vibrant snapshot of life in the city. I was struck again by the seeming modernity, and of course, the inventiveness of the Kaufman brothers’ camera work in this film documenting a day in the life of ordinary people in the Soviet Union of 1929. Though conceived as propaganda – and apparently a bust at the time of its release – MWMC is clearly a movie more about making movies than much else. Although the Kino group was predictably unsuccessful in its stated efforts to abolish non-documentary film-making MWMC still stands as something of a milestone in film history even if some of the montage effects were cribbed from Vertov’s arch-enemy Sergei Eisenstein. I will say I enjoyed watching this film, but more for its vivid images of a time and place gone by than any meaning inherent in the movie itself. In fact I have nothing much really to say about MWMC as a “movie” because when it comes right down to it I don’t believe the film itself has much to say other than “Look at me! Look at me!” While Vertov’s technical pyrotechnics, not to mention the remarkable virtuosity of his brother’s camera work and his wife’s editing remain stunning achievements, viewing MWMC to me was something akin to watching a guitar hero shredding at the speed of light, but ultimately saying less than B.B. King routinely manages to squeeze out of a single note – or Bergman a single frame. In fact, with its literally dizzying blur of images obscuring the lack of any actual content, MWMC reminded me of nothing so much as a contemporary music video. Well clearly – even if at 3rd and 4th hand – many of today’s MV directors do, in fact, owe a great deal to Vertov & Co. I couldn’t help but wonder what Vertov and his crew could have done with all their “toys” had it not been for his crackpot theories regarding narrative film making. Probably not much. He seems to have been a man so in love with the mechanics of film, with machinery, it’s hard to imagine him showing any commensurate affection for people. In this movie, at least, men and women appear mostly as machines, or controlled by their machines rather than the other way around. Still, who knows what he might have been had he lived somewhere else. The man did, at least, love boobies, and with all the long lingering ass shots on the beach you know somebody on that crew was into the booty as well. In any case, by the time this was released Vertov had already been banished from his position in Moscow by Stalin who was no fan of his “arty” techniques, and if his hope was that this film would ingratiate himself once again with the party it certainly didn’t work. Not long after, Vertov was reduced even further to editing newsreels, the job he’d started at years before. I can only imagine what Vertov must have thought seeing his magnum opus open to such a disappointing lack of interest even in Russia when his hated competitor Eisenstein was at the very same time off on a grand tour of the USA, even being offered large film making contracts in Hollywood. Clearly Vertov was a man far ahead of his time in his ability to imagine the technical possibilities of film making. Unfortunately, in the end no matter who invents them, no matter how brilliantly conceived, techniques, cameras, machines, are only as smart as the people who use them.
This was a hot little film: from the opening image of “cameraman as god” to the images of “mas as machine, even when he’s relaxing at the beach” to the editing techniques. This was made when filmmaking was a new art, still finding its bearings. I felt the filmmaker’s desire to experiment and show off, just as a toddler shows off when he masers a new skill like stacking blocks.
The excitement the film and its score generated has lasted me through three viewings and has whetted my curiosity about Soviet life and the history of filmmaking. But it does not rise to the level of great art. Instead I put it in the same category as the Lasarium concerts I used to go to back in high school: entertaining, exciting, a blast on my visual and audio cortexes. At least there was no hangover this time around.
The Kauffman's idealist theories had no lasting impact on the world, and seem so "artsy" that they were destined to fail. And in another example of "Why I'm Glad I Live in the USA," we see that the brother who stayed in Russia was crushed beneath Stalin's heel, while the one who came to America was free to work on some highly respected and creative films.
Thank you OldMan for pointing out the link between this film and today’s music videos. Its interesting that the two could be so similar despite their huge differences: large screen vs. small, making an artistic statement vs. selling a song, seventy five minutes vs. five, the availability of high tech tools vs. having to do everything by hand.
We have to go along with Mike on this one."Exhilarating.", is a perfect description.
Can't really agree with David and Oldman that this was not much deeper than an MTV video, as we have rarely found them to be exhilarating and or memorable.
We do want to ask Oldman, you mentioned that the first time you saw this it was with a different soundtrack. Do you remember any details of that as far as how different was it from this one, who did it, when it was done, instruments used etc?
I can't say this movie did much for me on any level but I can see why some would find it interesting. Just NMCOT.
MCOT.FAH.WBTIE.LEM.WWW.
Sorry for not getting back here sooner. It's been a very busy week.
2ndView, I'm putting together a storefront on Cafe Press but its not ready yet. I'll post it as soon as it's up and running. In the meantime I do have most of my work now in a gallery in the Boston area. If you live around here let me know and I will post the info. The sailboat pic is my kid brother when we were younger and we were out on a boat. The 3 girls were actually hanging out in front of a church one Easter sunday!
JJKidd, I was thinking the exact same thing about all the gym/fitness stuff.
Mike, thanks for stopping by! So glad you enjoyed the film.
WildNCrazy, welcome aboard. Wasn't the "The Last Laugh" great?
Oldman and David, I loved reading both of your comments. Thanks for taking the time to write such detailed responses. I wish I had half of your analytical and observational skills.
Silver, I don't think there is anyone/thing in as great shape as you.
Welcome Kerri. I see you noticed the 'Key'!
Thanks for sharing CarolynRT.I have a feeling you'll like the next movie better.
Kate and Jim, I agree with you regarding the exhilaration factor. I too am curious to know what the music was like on Oldman's first viewing. Oldman?
Oldman says that Vertov's film screams "Look at me, Look at me", and let me tell you Oldman, I looked! I for one did not find it to be a case of empty technique, but rather a breathtaking use of equipment(film making 'machinery') to express the dynamic interplay between humans and their machines.
Call me crazy but I feel this movie is worthy of much more respect than our current day music videos. Not to say that there are no videos of repute. Perhaps a few groundbreaking ones such as Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' could consider themselves more than glossy hype(CFE). It is unfortunate that Vertov recieved little praise for his efforts at the time. I'm sure he would be pleased that we are all still discussing it (LLI).
David, loved your critique, and ART1952, Kate and Jim, and Kerri, enjoyed your comments as well. I'd have been sorely disappointed if no one had taken up the gauntlet and seen fit to disagree with me. As I already stated, I too enjoyed watching MWMC, and this was my second viewing. Like David, however, I simply don't see it as approaching the level of great art. Given Vertov's antipathy toward narrative film making it goes without saying there's no story here, and apart from the obvious propagandist intent, I don't see MWMC making any kind of statement either. Roger Ebert once said, "I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist...Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices." In other words, he's saying that in his opinion art is a linear experience in which the artist has made all the decisions, defined the statement the work will make before you experience it. If you believe MWMC is more than merely clever entertainment, a great film, art with a capital A, then I have to ask, "why?" Apart from beatifying the new Soviet state, apart from showing off his bag of camera tricks, what is Vertov saying? You don't, of course, have to accept Ebert's definition, but art that has nothing to say just isn't art. Pauline Kael famously said (and I'm definitely paraphrasing here) that film is so rarely great art that if you're not prepared to enjoy great trash you shouldn't bother going (to the movies). I guess my view would be that a film doesn't necessarily have to rise to the level of great art to still be a great film, but even a great film must have something to say. I'm grateful that some of you took the trouble to disagree with me. I am certainly every bit as likely to be wrong as the next person, and of course a lot of this is simply opinion, what floats your particular boat, but still, if you believe MWMC to be more than "great trash," more in fact than a music video or video game-like diversion, give me a reason, tell me what this film is saying, how it changed your world or your perception of the world, something, anything......
Oldman has asked:
"..if you believe MWMC to be more than "great trash," more in fact than a music video or video game-like diversion, give me a reason, tell me what this film is saying, how it changed your world or your perception of the world, something, anything......"
Excellent questions!
For starters, I didn't sense that most of the positive comments were stating that MWAMC was "GREAT ART", or even art with a capital A.
I'm not sure it's possible to ever really know for sure what a particular film is "saying" unless we have it directly from the director/writer's mouth. What was Kontroll "saying?" And does "saying" something specific automatically make a film great? I've seen more than my share of films with an obvious message that were a complete waste of my time.
When listening to a piece of music that one finds enthralling, is the music "saying" something? If not , does that make it mere fluff and escapism?
Had I no other information or backround about this movie, the director, the philosphy or context in which it was made (which I obviously do, but I believe a film should be judged first on its own merits and imact) my interpretation of the message here would be that mechanization need not be seen as evil, negative, or threatening. It can be an extension of/adjunct to, human progress in the world rather than a threat to it. That there is beauty in form and function, that man made objects in motion have their own sounds and rhythms that are worth listening to.
That's for starters......
OldMan -
Roger Ebert can say the dumbest things. What "inevitable conclusion" did
Shakespear want me to reach when I read Othello or Hamlet? It is because
he left the motives and inner thoughts of his main characters vague that
his plays worth are reading and re-reading even after five hundred years.
Similarly, what conclusion does Motzart lead us to?
I enjoyed MWMC at the level of "craft" rather than ART. The film absorbed
my brain for its entire 90 minutes and I wanted to see it again right
away. I've thought about how it moved me and looked at what tricks the
film makers used to do this. Effects on my life?
-- I'll never watch a worker tending a huge piece of machinery without remembering the pride I saw in the face the worker oiling his machine - a nice counterpoint to the Chaplin image of a man trying to tend some piece of equipment only to get pulled up onto a giant gear; A man _in control_ vs. a clown losing it.
-- I have a vivid visual example showing a city as a living thing.
-- I am reminded that cameras can lie to us and to be wary of them.
-- I am reminded that city people have flocked to the beach long before I
first went to Jones Beach or Far Rockaway or the Jersey shore.
None of this makes the film ART, but I wont use the term GReat Trash -
that should be reserved for films or shows with more "Eye Candy" than
"Brain Candy," (and no - the "booty" in this film is _not_ Eye Candy).
Continuing with David's point, what was the "inevitable conclusion" that Jackson Pollock wanted me to come to..
Perhaps "My Kid Could Paint That"!?"
In answer to Oldman, one of the things I got out of watching MWAMC was a peek into the daily life of a time , people, and place that I would not otherwise have seen. Granted it is not showing the whole truth, it is more akin to a time capsule in which a particular person or group of people choose what bits and pieces future generations will see that might give them a sense of the past. A highly edited process of encapsulating a larger picture but valid none the less.
As the people we saw on screen here would be viewing the film from an entirely different context I assume the impact it would have on them would be very different. Maybe they found it to be nothing but "great trash" or perhaps even less.
To answer with a specific, watching MWAMC changed my perception of what some people in that PARTICULAR time and place in Russia might be doing for work and recreation. It was much more similar to the daily lives of Americans during that time period and even to our own time than I would ever have expected. Which in turn reminds me of how little I know of history and that it would be a good idea for me to spend time learning more.( Though this certainly was not Vertov's intention.) So yes,I feel that watching MWAMC has "changed my perception of the world" and that includes my perception of myself within it.
Like David, the images of a "living city" are imbedded in my mind now. I will never look at machinery in quite the same way. Reference Lee's quote":.. that there is beauty in form and function, that man made objects in motion have their own sounds and rhythms that are worth listening to."
Anyone out there have grandparents or relatives who lived in Odessa or other similar Soviet cities at the time this film was shown? Wouldn't it be great if we could have them watch this and talk to us about it?
As many of you have asked for more information about the soundtrack I though you might find this reference list in Wikipedia usefull.:
"The film, originally released in 1929, was silent, and accompanied in theaters with live music. It has since been released a number of times with different soundtracks:
1996 – Norwegian composer Geir Jenssen (aka Biosphere) was commissioned by the Tromsø International Film Festival to write a new soundtrack for the movie, using the director's written instructions for the original accompanying piano player. Jenssen wrote half of the soundtrack, turning the other half to Per Martinsen (aka Mental Overdrive). It was used for the Norwegian version Mannen med filmkameraet at the 1996 TIFF [1][2]. Scored movie not available after the festival. Soundtrack released in 2001 on CD.
1996 – New composition performed by the Alloy Orchestra, based on notes left by Vertov. It incorporates sound effects such as sirens, babies crying, crowd noise, etc. Readily available on several different DVD versions.
1999 – In the Nursery version [4], made for the Bradford International Film Festival. Currently available on a few DVD versions, often paired with the Alloy Orchestra score as an alternate soundtrack.
2002 – A version was released with a soundtrack composed by Jason Swinscoe and performed by the British jazz and electronic outfit The Cinematic Orchestra (see Man with a Movie Camera (album)). Originally made for the Porto 2000 Film Festival. It was also released on DVD in limited numbers by Ninja Tune. This DVD edition is currently very much in demand and goes for prices higher than the other DVD versions.
2002 – A DVD of the film by the British Film Institute was released with a score by Michael Nyman. This score is readily available on several different DVD editions. It has not been issued on CD, but some of the score is reworked from material Nyman wrote for the Sega Saturn video game Enemy Zero, which had a limited CD release, and Nyman performs a brief excerpt, "Odessa Beach" on his album, The Piano Sings.
2008 – Norwegian electronic jazz trio Halt the Flux performed their interpretation of the soundtrack for Man with a Movie Camera in Bergen International Film Festival. The trio consists of Anders Wasserfall, Jørgen Vaage & Bjørnar Thyholdt.
2008 October – London based Cinematic Orchestra undertook a show featuring a screening of Vertov's film, which preceded the re-issue of the Man With A Movie Camera DVD, in November.
2008 November – Bay Area based Tricks of the Light Orchestra accompanied a screening of the film on Sunday, November 30 at Brainwash Cafe in San Francisco."
This has really been an exciting discussion so far. I've really enjoyed everyone's comments!
So I read a Pearl Jam interview recently where Eddie Vedder said that some of their newer music was stuff that wasn't easy to listen to, that made some demands on the listener, and that they didn't feel obligated to make every song on their album stuff that was easy to take in. Also, Anonymous, speaking of _My Kid Could Paint That_, I recall the art critic in that film mentioned something about modern art demanding something from the viewer, to make him or her work.
I found myself sitting in CarolynRT's camp on this film. I can see why other people would like it, but it wasn't entirely my cup of tea. It made me work to appreciate the imagery. I think that speaks to my particular lack of sophistication when it comes to looking at photography more than anything else.
The only image in MWAMC that didn't make me work to get endorphinated off it for some reason was the shot of the tree in the park. I couldn't tell you why. I went through the movie more or less twice, and the tree got me both times.
I looked up Leni Riefenstahl after watching this movie and learned that she's considered a contemporary of Dziga Vertov. She made among other things a documentary of the Olympics held in Berlin in 1936 called _Olympia_. The track & field footage in MWAMC recalled to mind her track & field footage in _Olympia_. I found it on YouTube:
Olympia (Prologue)
(starts at about 5:34)
Riefenstahl doesn't make me work hard to have an aesthetic response to her footage. Not quite sure what all the factors could be that could go into the differences between the two films, but whatever it is, it's pronounced. Perhaps it's the same as whatever it is that makes any two artists different from each other.
oldman, I think I also experienced a bit of your reaction that some part of the film was so much geewhizzery. Quite innovative at that. At the cerebral/technical level. Perhaps Riefenstahl goes more for the polish and obviously beautiful level. I think there's a word for her kind of beautiful in Japanese aesthetics: hade. I'm trying to find a place online that has definitions for different kinds of beauty in Japanese aesthetics. Came up with this from here:
The Zen idea of sabi - solitary serenity attained by immersion in nature - differs significantly from iki, an urbane flair and sensuousness. Shibui, the beauty of reduction and astringency, contrasts with hade, the beauty of brilliancy and exuberance.
Hade is nonsubtle. It's in-your-face kind of beauty that doesn't make you work to know it's beautiful. I'm not sure where MWAMC would fall. Most likely iki. It means like chic. I get the feeling Vertov was chic.
Perhaps this also goes somehow along with what David mentioned about liking the film on the level of craft rather than art. I think I can say the same.
I kept looking at Vertov's images and drawing mental lines to divide the picture plane into thirds vertically and horizontally, like how I was taught to do in art class. After that, I could see, yes, there's balance in that composition. With Riefenstahl I'm too dazzled by what's on the screen to bother with mental lines and centers of interest.
What did get me about the film was its by and large non-narrative quality. Something I've been trying to get my mind around for a bit, narrativity and its absence. That might go some way toward addressing the discussion of a work of art having something to say.
The contrast between narrative and non-narrative pieces probably goes the somewhat the same way as hade and things that aren't hade. Narrative gives your ego+subconscious something to follow and sublimate inner tensions by. Non-narrative leaves you to your own devices. I sort of like both, but in this instance, I happen to be intrigued more by non-narrative works because they do give me stuff to do on my own. They make me work, a sort of work I like to do.
Interesting that music videos came up. There's a music video director, Tarsem Singh, whose movie, The Cell, I randomly caught once on TV. With Jennifer Lopez in it. It was really freaking cool. It did have a storyline, but I could have cared less for it. There were parts in the storyline where Jennifer Lopez melded telepathically inside the mind of a troubled child, and this is where Singh's genius came in. He treated these pockets in the movie script as a blank slate to do whatever he wanted in, and he did whatever he wanted. Completely non sequitur, bizarre and amazingly beautiful surreal landscapes. Free reign for Eiko Ishioka to showcase some out-of-this-world costuming. He found a way to say his particular brand of nothing in an exquisite way inside the framework of an otherwise conventional Hollywood film.
The other music-video-ish work that lends perspective to this film for me is _Koyaanisqatsi_ (which I guess is one film that I would call art with a capital A pretty readily). Mostly with regard to the movie music, in MWAMC's case with Michael Nyman and with _Koyaaniqatsi_ with Philip Glass. I looked up Nyman and found that he's classifed as a minimalist, and the only minimalist I'd heard of before was Glass. I particularly like chromaticism and weird tonalities wherever I can find it in any type of music (like, for instance, Britney Spears' "Toxic" and Justin Timberlake's "SexyBack" -- I think it's cool that they can sneak weird stuff into mainstream songs); it has the same effect of non-narrative literature/films on me. Makes me think. The tritones and major sevenths scattered throughout the Nyman score made me stop looking at the Vertov images and gave me pause to think for a bit about the music. I don't know if it made for a successful movie score in that way, but it was enjoyable all the same. It also made me appreciate Glass even more because he doesn't really use dissonance in his compositions to get people's attention when they listen to his stuff -- he does it with more or less vanilla arpeggios. In that way, I guess that's quite the hat trick there for him.
JJKidd, I think it would be so cool to ask Russian folks who were around in the '20s about the film. I happened to show the film to a bunch of Lee's and my friends, one of whom apparently dated a Russian man for a while and knew a lot about Russian culture. She really enjoyed the film for that reason, and among other things pointed out that the animated pile of lobsters were called langustinos. In fact, the entire film was a bit like a Rorschach blot test in that way, as I suppose all films can be: everyone in the room had some random piece of stuff or factoid in his or her head that got brought out by the film. It was a ton of fun that way.
P.S. Silver, I'm with Lee: I also don't think there is anyone/thing in as great shape as you.
P.P.S. And Lee,
> What was Kontroll "saying?"
Oh can I ever tell you what Kontroll was saying. It was saying I am a hot, sexy movie, and everything about me is hot and sexy. The women in bear costumes are sexy. The greasy villains are sexy. Even buttsurfing and epileptic face dives into plates of fries are sexy. Because I am hot and I am sexy and I am a movie. I mean that's just a paraphrase, but I think that was it. And yes, the fact that it said that it made it great with a capital "F" for Fry Face Plant. Thanks always for that (LLI, DNA) recommendation. And thanks for this one as well, Lee.
P.P.P.S. The other shots that got me immediately in MWAMC were the ones of the workers/cameraman silhouetted against the showers of sparks in the furnace scenes or the layered billows of smoke in the mining(?) scenes. The balance of light and dark brought to mind some stuff I'd read about notan and also the interleaved greeting card design of Keiko Nakazawa:
Pop-Up Best Greeting Cards
by Keiko Nakazawa
the "Nature Scene" pieces on pgs. 8-9 in the Excerpt
Now that's more like it! Lee and David, filmluver, anonymous, Cherry, love your comments. For a film as groundbreaking, original and controversial as MWMC it's good to feel some heat.
I don't actually agree with Ebert's "definition" myself. I don't even know if he does. The passage I quoted was really taken out of context. It's from an article in which he's responding to questions from "gamers" about why he doesn't believe video games are capable of being great art. In video games, of course, the outcome is neither inevitable nor even predictable. In that sense they're more akin to sports than art in Ebert's view. Thus the "inevitable conclusion." Truth is, I've never seen a definition of art that seemed entirely satisfactory, certainly not one that encompassed the many forms art takes. That doesn't mean, however, that I think Ebert is always and entirely wrong either. David, you mention Shakespeare. Consider Romeo and Juliet. This play has been produced often through the centuries with a happy "Hollywood" ending. Ebert would say with Shakespeare's inevitable conclusion altered this is no longer Shakespeare, and no longer art for that matter. And I would have to agree. So no, David, I do not believe that we still read Shakespeare because he left meaning and motive vague. There is ambiguity, yes, but that's the way life is, the way people are. Shakespeare knew exactly what he was doing and that is why we still read him, why his works are so revered. And yes, anonymous, I am certain even Jackson Pollock had a message. "Buy this painting! I'm running low on booze!" You're right though, that does take us back to the arguments in "My Kid Could Paint That."
Of course this is where the deficiencies of Ebert's definition come into focus. When I take a photograph I know exactly what I'm going for. Whether I hit the bullseye, or even the target, is another question. Either way, I may "pre-visualize" my image -- as the old zone system adherents would say -- but I can't say that ever really translates into a "meaning" I could put into words. Usually it's all about texture, light, pattern, framing, composition... all aspects of "good" photography, but art? Then there's photojournalism. I think of the famous Vietnam war pic of the little girl -- in the aftermath of a US napalm attack on her village -- running naked toward the camera. I know exactly what that photograph is "saying" and I know it is just what the photographer hoped it would say. I know people who would maintain this type of photography is mostly about luck and being in the right place at the right time. Doesn't quite explain how some photographers (Cartier-Bresson anyone?) happened to be in that right time and place so often! Still, even with "posed" photographs like Weston's peppers and nudes, it would be difficult to impossible to say either what the artist "meant" or what the work is communicating to us. Perhaps the same is true with any visual art.
And music? Who knows! When I am writing songs I never know where the melody or rythm come from, much less what they may "mean." Even when it comes to the lyrics things aren't always much clearer. Yes, they mean something, and I even know -- or think I know -- what that is, but where they came from I often haven't a clue. With instrumental music, whether classical, jazz or what have you, can anyone honestly reduce their meaning to the language of words? Ok, La Mer is easy, and we know Beethoven was thinking of Napoleon when he wrote the Eroica. Of course we only know this due to the well known stories of him changing the dedication in disgust when Bonaparte proclaimed himself emperor, and most music critics have tended to interpret the work more as a "Rage, rage against the dying of the light" type response of Beethoven to his own worsening deafness. Personally, when it comes to questions of what is art I am largely reduced to "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see/hear/feel it."
Perhaps it's simply easier to talk about meaning in reference to novels, plays, poems, art forms in other words, created out of language in the first place. Music, and I suspect dance and the visual arts, seem to come from and act upon a different part of us than the one that processes language, and perhaps there's just no way for that linguistic section of our brain to translate it. We know music, for instance, can affect us very powerfully -- and undoubtedly the contemporary soundtrack paired with MWMC in the version we all just watched is responsible to a large degree for our response to the film -- but can any of us say why? Can we explain why a major third makes us feel a certain way while a tritone, or devil's interval, affects us entirely differently? Metal bands have been making a living off the tritone for years though many of us may be more likely to recognize it's sound from the augmented 4ths used in The Simpsons theme song or Maria from West Side Story. In the Catholic church its use was actually outlawed for centuries. Plato would have understood. In the Republic he banned most musical instruments and most types of music because he understood how powerful was its effect. St. Augustine likewise, ever the Platonist at heart, debated long and hard with himself about whether music ought to be allowed in the church at all. On the one hand he acknowledged it was a factor in his own conversion, but on the other despaired at the knowledge that it affected him so strongly, he enjoyed it so much that it was the one thing that could easily turn his mind from God to earthly matters. How can we ever explain why an augmented 4th is "sexy" while a major 3rd is "churchy?"
In terms of our discussion here, this consideration of non-literary art forms raises the question, just where does MWMC fit in all this, a film with no words, not even title cards or "intertitles?" Probably it's a movie that can't be evaluated or critiqued as you would a narrative film, but approached more as you would a painting, photograph or perhaps dance.
A hundred years ago when I was in college I had a literature professor who was still enamored of what is called “New Criticism,” which basically maintained a work of art should not be judged by reference to anything beyond itself. In other words, this approach considered all extraneous information, especially biographical, to be irrelevant. The work of art, whether a novel, play, poem, film or even a song, must stand on its own and be judged accordingly. Any “meaning” not discernible from a close reading of the work itself without reference to the context, author's life, experiences, even stated intentions, etc. was beside the point. Of course this meant the writer might – according to these critics – have no idea whatsoever of the meaning of his or her own words. This approach, I believe, has fallen somewhat out of favor over the last few decades, and I always had mixed feelings about it anyway, but they did make some good points. While they were strongly opposed to any discussion of the author’s intended meaning, something I think they called the “intentional fallacy,” they were wide open to ambiguity, to the possibility of multiple meanings within a single work. More importantly, I think, they recognized that whatever art is, it is certainly about communication. Thus it's really not about what was in the artist's mind, but what the viewer sees, what the listener hears and feels. Unless this also happens to be what the artist intended his or her view of the work is truly irrelevant. I'm not sure how far you really want to take this. Sometimes it does seem to me that knowing something of the artist, the context of the work, does help me appreciate it a bit more. But then I wonder, am I really understanding the work better or just the author's intentions, perhaps even substituting his vision for my own.
All this said, I still basically see MWMC, like David, more as craft than art. But thinking about Vertov, I'm not so sure he wouldn't have wanted it that way.
PS: As an aside, my son Weston met that "little girl" from the Vietnam war pic (still little if not so young) last year in Chicago and had a delightful and rather lengthy conversation with her (in Vietnamese, of course). Incredibly, she is alive and well and living in the USA, and something of a celebrity in the expatriate community. Come to think of it, I wonder whether that had anything to do with Weston's work visa being denied last week by the current regime who are apparently convinced he has "ties" to political agitators?
WAY to SAY Cherry Berry!
*********LEM*********
-Thanks for the soundtrack info JackR.
- That would be cool, JJKidd. My grandparents were of Russian descent. I wish they were around to ask but they died recently, both in their late nineties!
-Filmluver, you and I seem to be on the same wave length with this one.
- You are right on David, cameras/photos can and often do lie. Big time.
-Anonymous, I've watched a few bio pics on Pollock recently. No message I can find , just new technique, but I happen to love how splattered paint looks anywhere and under any (well, MOST) circumstances!
Cherry, did you and your friends watch this with the Nyman soundtrack instead of the Alloy Orchestra one? Where did you get a hold of that DVD, I'd love to hear it.
YOU SURE MANAAGED TO LIGHT A MATCH UNDER THIS CONVERSATION OLDMAN. LEE THIS IS THE LONGEST ONE YET.
Once again I am blown away by the content and quality of all your comments gang. This has certainly been one helluva discussion and I'd love to continue with it for a few more weeks. But alas, 'tis time to move on to our next film which I hope you will enjoy as much as I did. And if not, I've no doubt you'll tell us why.
Thumbs up on the BMM vote for this discussion!
oldman wrote:
>>>>>
Truth is, I've never seen a definition of art that seemed entirely satisfactory, certainly not one that encompassed the many forms art takes.
<<<<<
Um, all I've ever really needed to know about art I learned from the Natya Shastra and Plotinus. OK, just kidding. (These links go to .mp3 files of lectures on aesthetics given at The Vedanta Center in Boston.)
oldman, I've very much enjoyed listening to your songs, so it was really cool to read your thoughts on your songwriting process. I've never thought of augmented fourths as sexy and major thirds as churchy, but I guess I do now!
jimmy wrote:
>>>>>
Cherry, did you and your friends watch this with the Nyman soundtrack instead of the Alloy Orchestra one?
<<<<<
Yes. Let's see, I borrowed my copy from my local library through interlibrary loan. If you happen to live in the Boston area, the Merrimack Valley Library Consortium and the Minuteman Library Network both own copies of the version of MWAMC with Nyman's soundtrack. I'll try to check out the Alloy Orchestra soundtrack as well! I see it's available here on YouTube. Thanks very much for mentioning it!
Dearest Lee,
I am pleased to see that my film is still being watched today and that the controversy over it persists. I thank all of you for brightening up my 'after life' with this provocative and entertaining conversation.
Sincerely,
Dziga Vertov, Author-Supervisor of the Experiment.
Post a Comment