The WHF Film Club

[richardw42]

The Strange Colour Of Your Body's Tears - 1 point

Tyrannosaur - 2 PTS

The Testament Of Dr. Mabuse (Das Testament Des Dr. Mabuse) - 3 pts

The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari - 4 pts

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Sorry for the delay in voting, I was...., well anyway, I'm back now.

Just a quick question. Which version of 'Dr Caligari' is it?

Dr Mabuse 4 pts

Tyrannosaur 3 pts

Strange Colour 2 pts

Dr Caligari 1 pt

Still waiting for some input from Ben and David about last month's film, would be good to hear your thoughts.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Could also do with Ben and Mike's votes for next month's film please.

 

[richardw42]

It's this months film isn't it ?

as in March.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

It's this months film isn't it ?

as in March.

It is, you're right. So we could do with those votes asap.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Just a quick question. Which version of 'Dr Caligari' is it?

Sorry, the 1920 Robert Wiene original.

 

[richardw42]

That's the one I voted on.

 

[expat_mike]

Tyrannosaur 4 pts

Strange Colour 3 pts

Dr Caligari 2 pts

Dr Mabuse 1 pt

Lets hope this mail does not trigger the spam filter this time.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Just a quick question. Which version of 'Dr Caligari' is it?

Sorry, the 1920 Robert Wiene original.

I presumed it was, so my points remain the same.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Tyrannosaur 4 pts

Strange Colour 3 pts

Dr Caligari 2 pts

Dr Mabuse 1 pt

Lets hope this mail does not trigger the spam filter this time.

Thanks for the votes Mike, just Ben left to vote.

Why don't you contact MODS and get added to the trusted list? Saying that, there was a ton of spam got through earlier, so someone's probably turned the filter off. *smile*

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Thanks for the votes Mike, just Ben left to vote.

Ben?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

OK. Dave and Ben have had nothing at all to say about 'The Girl From Nowhere', and Ben hasn't bothered to vote for THIS months film, so if no-one is interested, I cannot be arsed anymore.

 

[richardw42]

I am, but it's on its arse at the moment.

 

[expat_mike]

OK. Dave and Ben have had nothing at all to say about 'The Girl From Nowhere', and Ben hasn't bothered to vote for THIS months film, so if no-one is interested, I cannot be arsed anymore.

I sympathise with you about this.

I thought that there were several hooks for discussion during the 'The Girl From Nowhere', and I was expecting far more discussion. Three of us have made an attempt to suggest a few plausible ideas about what the film sequences might actually represent, and I was hoping that the other two members might add something, but there has been silence.

When the club started, there was detailed discussion about most of the films. However now that some of the original members have left, we mainly seem to just get members recommending what good films are coming up on TV during the next few days. I think we need to all agree what the purpose of the club will be in future, eg is it a discussion forum, or is it a place to recommend films, or is it something else. I am not trying to start a row with anyone, but unless we agree on the way forward, the club will continue to sleepwalk to a complete stop. *scratch_one-s_head*

 

[Frank Harvey]

As I said before, I wanted to watch it again to comment, but couldn't find it.

All I will say is that I enjoyed it. It was different to what I expected, and a few scenes (probably more so the sounds) reminded me of The Exorcist.

 

[strapped for cash]

I thought that there were several hooks for discussion during the 'The Girl From Nowhere', and I was expecting far more discussion. Three of us have made an attempt to suggest a few plausible ideas about what the film sequences might actually represent, and I was hoping that the other two members might add something, but there has been silence.

When the club started, there was detailed discussion about most of the films. However now that some of the original members have left, we mainly seem to just get members recommending what good films are coming up on TV during the next few days. I think we need to all agree what the purpose of the club will be in future, eg is it a discussion forum, or is it a place to recommend films, or is it something else. I am not trying to start a row with anyone, but unless we agree on the way forward, the club will continue to sleepwalk to a complete stop. *scratch_one-s_head*

Good post, Mike.

As a former member and occasional lurker, I wonder if more structured discussion of selected films would help?

The onus would be on the nominator to frame discussion after votes have been cast. Perhaps they could pose a question to consider when watching the film, which could operate as a springboard for discussion.

In my experience, discussion of films and/or other texts needs a focal point, otherwise commentary becomes too general and typically stalls.

The other issue, of course, is time. We all lead busy lives. I ducked out of film club for this reason. It'd nonetheless be a shame if film club winds down, since it's arguably the most enjoyable forum thread among members. (For what it's worth, I recognise my hypocrisy in asking others to participate, while not contributing myself.)

 

[richardw42]

Is this the end ?

 

[strapped for cash]

Short of confirmation from the film club founder, it certainly looks that way, Richard.

 

[expat_mike]

Is this the end ?

Don't know about that. But Ben has been conspicuous by his abscence lately. Until he completes the voting for this months film, then we are at a standstill.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Is this the end ?

One of the very few reasons for me to even bother logging in to this forum is the film club, and the complete lack of enthusiasm from some of the members has left me feeling less than enthusiastic myself.

I know Ben has been busy with work, but he has logged in and posted on other threads, so I'm not quite sure why he hasn't voted or commented on last month's film. I sense someone, or something has irked him, but unless he lets us know the reason, we can't resolve it, and I think it's pretty pointless carrying on with just the 4 of us.

 

[richardw42]

Although I haven't liked all the films I can say with certainty that I've watched stuff I'd never have considered and that's why I'd like to carry on.

Its nice to come on this forum and not argue.

 

[expat_mike]

Although I haven't liked all the films I can say with certainty that I've watched stuff I'd never have considered and that's why I'd like to carry on.

Its nice to come on this forum and not argue.

I echo those sentiments, however i agree with BBB that we need more than 4 active members. It is also true that you need someone to drumbeat the activities, whether it is BBB reminding members that they need to watch or vote for films, or strapped intellectually drumbeating members to consider various elements about a films content/style/directorial Movement etc.

Now for a different topic, related to film-making instead. I am currently reading the memoir of the author/academic David lodge (Quite a good time to be born). He makes several references to the practice of literary criticism/analysis during the past 100 years. This morning I read a paragraph where he mentions a style of analysis, that became popular, which treats the only the style/messages/language etc in the finished book as important. The theory is that what the author (in his mind) was trying to say in his books is unimportant, because the text ended up on the page, may have been completely different to the ideas going through his/her mind. Only the text seen by the reader is important.

This started me wondering if a similar theory is applied to films. This would hold that only the finished film is worth analysing, and that there is no point analysing what we think was in the directors mind. To my mind this would remove some of the fun speculating what effect the director was really trying to achieve. The film The Trial by Orson Wells came to mind, because he has said that his original idea for the film was quite different to the original book, and then everything had to be changed again, when they arrived in Paris and were unable to shoot in the planned location. So the end film was different to the film that Welles set out to make. Surely this must happen on other occasions.

Maybe strapped would be interested in expanding on the thoughts that I have volunteered.

 

[strapped for cash]

This started me wondering if a similar theory is applied to films. This would hold that only the finished film is worth analysing, and that there is no point analysing what we think was in the directors mind.

Hi Mike. Very interesting topic and question!

The short answer is yes.

Roland Barthes' observations on "The Death of the Author" (which he states must signify the birth of the reader) is often cited in film scholarship, which corresponds with a post-1970s turn to audience studies, at the expense of auteuristic (or director-centric) models of film criticism (see Truffaut, Astruc, Cahiers du Cinema, and US critic Andrew Sarris).

Barthes' writing on authorship and readership can be downloaded here (it's a pretty short piece):

http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Gustafson/FILM%20162.W10/readings/barthes.death.pdf

Beyond this, authorship theory is quite the rabbit hole. If you're interested, Helen Stoddart offers an effective overview here (see Chapter Two):

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TiygoqRNULcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[expat_mike]

Thanks strapped, I will explore your suggestions.

I have just reread the section of the memoir, and the paragraph in question relates to 1961, and two academics W.K Wimsatt and Monroe C Beardsley, who were involved with the American New Criticism movement, and an book called The Intentional Fallacy.

 

[strapped for cash]

While there are certainly overlaps between literary theory and film theory, I’m unfamiliar with Lodge and I’ve never encountered Wimsatt and Beardsley. Barthes (referenced above) was writing about literature, though his ideas translate well to theories of film authorship, even if models of film authorship are now considerably more complex.

The idea of directorial authorship has been out of favour since the 1970s, with scholars taking a much wider view, including awareness of film production as a collaborative process, audience interpretations and fan practices, marketing and journalistic influences, and myriad other contextual factors that inform a given film’s meanings. I’ll stop there before engaging in theory overload.