Saturday, July 31, 2010

Dog Star Man. 1961-64. Directed by Stan Brakhage.

(10/30/00)

Dog Star Man didn't make much of an impression on me at all this time around. I was unable to connect with it. Part of that might have been because the color was very faded. I will say that the beginning and end titles of each part seem excessive when watching the whole thing. Each separate part announces that it is by Brakhage, that it is part of Dog Star Man and each part has a seaparate "end" title.

Part III is supposedly about woman, man's other half. I didn't feel that there was much presence of woman in it at all. Part IV did convey to me very strongly the sheer exhilaration of taking action, of doing something, which is so essential to human life. Other than that, the film just went right by me.

Thigh Line Lyre Triangular. 1961. Directed by Stan Brakhage.

(10/30/00)

All I remember about this one is that there is a lot of scratching on the surface of the film. That is supposed to represent Brakhage's excitement/state of mind at the birth of one of the children, but I don't even remember the birth.

Window Water Baby Moving. 1959. Directed by Stan Brakhage.

(10/30/00)

In a word, it's gross. The creation of human life might be a wondrous thing, but the actual sight of a baby coming out of its mother's body is ugly and messy.

The image that I most remember from this film is Jane's swollen belly. I could really feel the tension as the fetus caem out. There was a lot of rapid cutting. Stan himself appears, looking much different from the image of Brakhage which is so familiar. My guess is that he hadn't developed his persona by this point.

Anticipation of the Night. 1958. Directed by Stan Brakhage.

(10/30/00)

This film is a Brakhage "classic," but I don't have much to say about it. It was enjoyable to experience, like music.

Some of the images that I remember are that of a human shadow in the shadow of a doorway, shots of the tops of trees as if from a moving car, very fast pans over sleeping children.

I wish that I could find my way into this film.

Seraphina's Garden. 1958. Directed by Joseph Cornell.

(10/29/00)

This film is charming in its simplicity. It's just a study of a garden or yard or vacant lot. It has old-fashioned statues in it--the kind we would associate with Joseph Cornell. It is a lovely, serene place. Well into the film we are shown a sign which reads "Lot for sale."

I forget most of the details, but I did like this simple, unpretentious little film.

Centuries of June. 1955. Directed by Joseph Cornell.

(10/29/00)

This is a film about an old house which was to be torn down. I think Cornell was interested in showing us the beauty of this fine old structure, but it seems dead and lifeless and cut off from the life all around it. We see children and workmen and insects. The neighborhood really is alive and vital, but the house has had its day.

This film has unusual color. I would describe it as "hot" color and I found it very appealing. But I don't know if this was the way the film looked originally or if the color has changed over the years.

Nymphlight. 1957. Directed by Joseph Cornell and Rudy Burckhardt.

(10/29/00)

A young girl in a frilly, old-fashioned gown walks hurriedly through New York's Bryant Park. She is out of place, like a figure from another era. She has a broken parasol. We see shots of the people in the park and at the end we see a man emptying out the trash barrels who misses the parasol.

I liked this particularly for showing a slice of New York life from the 1950s. It is interesting to see the people in the park, especially in color. I wish more had been done with the girl in the old-fashioned dress. She doesn't really do anything and nothing really happens to her. She could have just appeared for a moment in the background, but she is given prominence at the beginning of the film so we are led to pay attention to her and then nothing happens.

NY-Rome-Barcelona-Brussels. n.d. By Joseph Cornell.

(10/29/00)

I remember nothing about this film except that it has footage of various locations, presumably the cities mentioned in the supplied title. It wasn't very interesting.

Friday, July 23, 2010

A Legend for Fountains: A Fragment. 1955-57. Directed by Joseph Cornell.

(10/29/00)

After a week I don't remember much about this film. A sad young woman wanders around. Sometimes she holds a cat. It does have a mood of melancholy.

This film was inspired by a poem. (I think it is a poem by Garcia-Lorca.) Lines of the poem are used as intertitles. I am unfamiliar with the poem so much of this film is lost on me. I should see it again. I think it is probably one of the more interesting of Cornell's films.

By Night with Torch and Spear. n.d. By Joseph Cornell

(10/29/00)

This is another collage film which was found among Cornell's films. It begins with images of smelting or metal-working and contrasts these with images of primitive tribes using weapons. So the film links together the primitive and the modern. The images of molten metal in a modern foundry are tinted a blazing red. There are also microscopic images or images of larvae. I am not sure what the point was of that.

I am not sure, but I think this film has a lot of upside-down footage. I didn't find this film particularly interesting; what appeal it did have lay in its crudity, its homeliness.

Angel. 1957. Directed by Joseph Cornell.

(10/20/00)

This is a lovely little film. A statue of an angel stands over a fountain. (I think it is a fountain.) We see the surface of the water and the reflections on it. It has a Monet-like quality to it.

Cornell (or Rudy Burckhardt who did the cinematography) gives the statue virtually a living presence. I felt it as having a personality. There is one really beautiful shot of the statue as a silhouette. The angel has a calmness and a protective quality.

Cotillion; The Children's Party; The Midnight Party. 1940, completed 1968. By Joseph Cornell and Larry Jordan.

(10/20/00)

These three films were run together, so I couldn't tell where one ended and the other began, except that The Midnight Party was printed in sepia. These films are fun. They are about children and we have a lot of fun watching them. Cornell picks humorous moments--I especially remember the face of one little tyke who eats and coughs or sneezes on what he is eating. Freeze frames are used to good effect. There is a lot of footage of performers--acrobats, tightrope walkers, knife throwers, chorus girls--who, we assume, perform for the children.

What is fascinating about these pieces, in addition to the success with which Cornell culled together bits of film from disparate sources to make a new reality, is the streak of eroticism and child sexuality. Two little girls dance like chorus girls and there is something provocative aqbout them even if it seems to be innocent.

Most impressive, disturbing and provocative of all is the image of a little girl riding a horse in the manner of Lady Godiva. Where on earth did Cornell come up with this piece of film? Is this a child's fantasy of being sexually desirable? We see the girl's face and she doesn't look innocent. It is a haunting moment.

The three films suffer by being shown together.

GniR RednoW. 1955. By Joseph Cornell.

(10/20/00)

This is a re-editing of Brakhage's The Wonder Ring. It is all (possibly almost all--I'm not sure) upside down and backwards. So we focus on the patterns of movement in the ride on the El. I didn't find it very interesting.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

The Aviary. 1954. Directed by Joseph Cornell.

(10/20/00)

The Aviary is about a park in New York and the birds that inhabit it. The black-and-white photography gives it a very nice feel of a past. I especially liked the bare branches of trees. This film captures a feel of New York in the past as some of us remember it.

Birds were very prominent in te work of Joseph Cornell in many media.

Bookstalls. n.d. A collage by Joseph Cornell.

(10/20/00)

Bookstalls is interesting in that its footage looks old and is thus clothed with a feeling of nostalgia. It is also interesting as an exercise in putting pieces of film together. A boy leafs through volumes at a Paris bookstall and he imagines faraway places.

The whole film has a homely quality which is endearing. But I don't think it really comes off. The transition from when the boy is seen holding the volume to the still pictures which represent illustrations in the volume is abrupt. You don't quite know what is happening. In fact, there is an abruptness to the editing which I assume was deliberate, but I don't know why. To really work, I think that the boy would have to imagine himself in the place described, which wasn't possible in a collage film.

The speeded-up image of the boat was interesting because that is how people describe their trips--saying that the boat sped through the water at a breakneck pace, etc.

I think there was a little bit too much footage establishing the locale as Paris, but that is just my own taste.

I should note that Bookstalls (the title was supplied by someone other than Cornell) is a reel which was found among Cornell's film collection. He never made any attempt to present it and we don't know if he considered it finished.

You Only Live Twice. 1967. Directed by Lewis Gilbert.

(10/13/00)

By 1967 the producers of the James Bond movies were more interested in putting on a big show than in telling a serious story. You Only Live Twice is pretty silly in places, but it has lots of action, beautiful location photography and lots of Japanese color.

Yes, it is silly. Bond is supposed to meet Mr. Henderson, but a young Japanese woman shows up instead. He is suspicious of her and later chases her though some kind of a building through which he falls through a trapdoor and falls through a long chute right into Tanaka's office. Why all this? These are supposedly professionals who wouldn't waste their time playing games. Perhaps it's a reminder that espionage--at least in spy movie--really is a big game.

The fight scene in Osaka Chemicals is superbly edited. Continuity is thrown out the window--the shots don't match up. This is a style perfected by Peter Hunt. (It was used in the opening of Thunderball.)

America and Russia are so easy to fool. At the meeting in an isolated site in what looks like the desert the American and Soviet representatives carp at each other like kids. It takes Great Britain to bring common sense to the situation and to save the day.

Japanese "flavor" includes sumo wrestlers, a training camp for modern Ninjas and a wedding ceremony with beautiful elaborate costumes.

Personally, I get bored with all that stuff that goes on in Blofeld's lair in the volcano with the rockets and the Ninjas and the control room. It just seems to go on forever. And Donald Pleasance doesn't make that much of an impact as Blofeld. After all, we've been waiting for four years (Since From Russia with Love) to see his face--and that's the best they could come up with?

Sean Connery doesn't bring the intensity and conviction to James Bond that he had in earlier films. He's not evenplaying it in the droll style he was to use in Diamonds Are Forever. All he's doing is being Sean Connery--but he's still James Bond.

Seen today, You Only Live Twice brings back the "feel" of 1967. It was a time when sending astronauts into outer space was a big deal. It was a time when the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. were at each other's throats. And it was also a time when modern Japanese technology was getting a lot of attention. And this was what was considered stylish entertainment back then. It holds up as enjoyable entertainment if not a riveting film.

The Crazies, aka Code Name: Trixie. 1973. Directed by George Romero.

(10/13/00)

It is very difficult for me to comment on this film since I saw it in a print that had faded color and was hard to hear. It didn't make much of an impression on me. This is George Romero's "other" horror film, after Night of the Living Dead and my guess is that if it had been any good we would have heard of it.

It's about biological weapons that accidentally get into the drinking supply of a quiet Pennsylvania town. The government quarantines the town and desperately tries to cover up the blunder. The population are virtually prisoners at the mercy of military personnel in white jump suits. A small group of people try and make their way out of town. One of them, an attractive young woman, starts acting irrationally and we know that she has been infected. One by one they are killed until the last one left alive is captured.

At the end we learn that the virus has already spread to another location.

The film is frightening in its depiction of government incompetence. There is one sub-plot which really comes off. A scientist is brought to Pennsylvania over his protests. To help the situation he really needs to be back at his lab in Washington. After this has been established he is told that he can't be removed until he has undergone a medical check--and they don't have the facilities to do that.

Forced to work on the site he eventually finds what they need to know to stop the epidemic. The vital information is in a liquid sample in a test tube. He can't get through to the necessary person on the phone so he goes out to see him personally. Guards attack him in the hallway and, despite his protests and explanations, he is killed and the test tube is broken. It's all futile in this movie.

It's a low-budget action picture and is interesting only as such. The location shooting in Pennsylvania gives the film an interesting look. I wish we had seen more of the locals acting crazy.

Wag the Dog. 1997. Directed by Barry Levinson.

(10/8/00)

So this is what a Barry Levinson film is like. I have heard that his work is an acquired taste and I certainly concur. This is--I think--a comedy, but it is subdued, low-key and really dry. The subject matter is outrageous, but it comes across as understated. It is also pretty damn chilling.

The president of the United States gets involved in a sex scandal that begins to break about two weeks before the election. To deflect attention from this and get him re-elected his people hire a Hollywood producer to produce a fictitious war.

So it is a film about the American people being deceived and manipulated. And what is even more disturbing is the casual way everyone involved talks about it. This is simply "business as usual" as far as they are concerned, a difficult problem which has to be handled.

The mechanics of how theyhandle it are themselves pretty scary. TV stations show a videotape of an Albanian girl running across a bridge in a war-torn village. This footage was manufactured in a studio. The young woman is, in fact, an actress or model running across an empty stage. Everything else was added via technology. The capacity of technology to deceive us, to provide mis-information so vividly that we accept it without questioning it, is straight out of 1984.

So too is the incident when the perpetrators create a song and want to make it an old folksong from 1930 which has been rediscovered. They actually create an old-fashioned 78RPM record and plant it in the Library of Congress where it is duly found. The capacity of technology to recreate the past and manipulate memory is frightening.

I think we are more used to the idea of manipulating the masses. Thus, when the perpetrators of the plot look for a serviceman named Schumann or Schumacher or something and build him up as a war hero who is known by his comrades as "old shoe," it doesn't seem too unbelievable that a fad is started where people throw a lot of old shoes around, similar to the use of yellow ribbons in the Gulf War.

There is another reference to the power of the CIA, similar to that in JFK. CIA agents question the parties responsible for this fictitious war. Robert De Niro appears to have convinced a CIA man that this hoax is really good for his job, but then the CIA announces on the news that the war is over. Why would they do that? For the simple reason that the president's rival struck a better deal with them.

Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman play wonderfully off each other. They are two old pros--which is exactly what they play in the movie. The final irony is that after creating the greatest production of his career, Hoffman wants the credit for it. He wants to be known and credited for his achievement. When it becomes clear that he will not keep quiet about it he is duly eliminated.

(10/13/00)

A couple of other comments about Wag the Dog:

I really liked it that it turned out that none of the people involved in the plot were voters. I also liked the business with the CIA man. After talking him out of blowing the whistle on the conspiracy, Dustin Hoffman explains the man's change in attitude by saying, "He just hadn't thought it through." That really caught the spirit of the thing: the grossest deceptions and machinations answer only to a bottom-line of self-interest.

Woody Harrelson is fascinating to watch in a small role as a maniac, especially since I had just seen him in a similar part in Natural Born Killers, but by that point I think the joke was getting a little tired. Yet, I have to say that eulogizing a psychotic rapist as a war hero did add an extra dose of acid to this picture. Wag the Dog is far-fetched (at least I hope it is), but close enough to the possible to have a real sting to it.