The WHF Film Club

[John Duncan]

OFGS. My position is the same as when I see an amazing guitarist and decide that I'm never playing again. Just a bit awestruck at the knowledge of some people. It was a joke. Can I go back to X factor on catchup now?

 

[CnoEvil]

.

Can I go back to X factor on catchup now?

Well, at least you won't get awestruck, and give up the will to do.....well.....anything really.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

As I thought. Thanks JD.

 

[BenLaw]

two structurally perfect films IMO

Can you define structurally perfect?

Probably not I've never studied any film criticism (whereas I'm guessing you have), so I imagine there's some sort of formal definition which I'm misusing. However, having watched a lot of films IME the vast, vast majority have some sort of 'structural problem'. Both The Third Man and The Sting I find (obviously very subjective) are (i) not too long, (ii) everything is in the right order, (iii) each scene and each thematic concept has just the right amount of time spent on it, not laboured but properly developed.

It's not misuse, as such, but there isn't anything approaching a valid definition of structurally perfect cinema. Indeed, different filmmakers use different stylistic and thematic conventions to achieve different effects.

For instance, the classical continuity system (or classical illusory realism) seeks to disguise filmmaking's artifice through conventions such as shot-reverse-shot, non-contravention of the 180 degree rule, sound bridges, and so on; while anti-realist techniques foreground cinema's artifice (Soviet montage, Godard's anti-realist output, or more recently Funny Games and Hidden).

Then you have techniques such as surrealism and expressionism which have nothing to do with representing reality, but seek to represent different psychological states (expressionism is the visualisation of character psychology, surrealists seek to represent the unconscious).

One of the interesting things about The Third Man is that it mixes realist and expressionist styles -- the former through location shooting and casting of non-actors (following trends in post-war Italian cinema), the latter through canted camera angles and chiaroscuro (legacies of German expressionism that also found a home in film noir and horror filmmaking).

I guess the point is that there's no such thing as a correct filmmaking technique, only overlapping stylistic and thematic conventions that can be used for very different purposes. Indeed, these assorted filmmaking conventions are continually re-appropriated and reinvented.

You mention things being "in the right order," but discontinuity is no less valid than continuity. Indeed, continuous narratives are very rarely truly continuous and use techniques to disguise shortcomings in this regard (temporal ellipses, for instance).

You're right that I spent seven plus years studying film theory and film history to doctorate level, though when I've suggested as much on here I've been accused of arrogance and met with hostility. Perhaps this post will provoke similar responses.

In truth, I'm useless at many things, though I hopefully learned a few things about film along the way. I'm absolutely certain, for instance, that I know considerably less about the UK legal system than your good self, or about medicine than BigBoss, or about aviation history than Chebby, and so on...

Pretty busy at the minute but will do a proper reply when I get some time. Very interesting, and definitely not a reason to leave. I took JD's comment as a joke (having been on the receiving end of his humour in the past ) and happily that appears to be right. So I don't think any of 'the six' will call you an a hole so don't worry.

 

[chebby]

"...he doth bestride the narrow world

Like a Colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs and peep about

To find ourselves dishonourable graves."

I get it, Chebby, you don't like me, though I can't help but think you're being more than a little hypocritical. You strut around the forum passing judgement on others for their ill informed views, poor syntax, etc. I wasn't belittling anyone, as you imply, and you're considerably more forthright in your dismissal (and at times derision) of others.

As I say, the sensible solution is that I don't participate in film club, though your post strikes me as particularly nasty and unnecessary.

You extrapolated all that from a snippet of 'Julius Caesar'.

It is quite common - when someone writes something especially impressive / learned / overwhelming even - to get responses from people like "we are not worthy" or it's emoticon equivalent...

... I just used four lines from The Bard to express it instead.

I actually agree with you more than I disagree, most of the time, and don't dislike you either. Some of your replies do have an 'essay like' quality and quantity (and reading them is sometimes like trying to drink from a firehose) but I am not accusing you of belittlement.

Bernard has smacked down the molehill as if it were indeed K2 erupting from his lawn, so I hope there is no further need for any further fighting of drama with dramatics.

Sorry to you Strapped, Bernard, the club and all reading this.

Now, when are any of you going to actually review a film?

 

[BenLaw]

As per the rules, when Mike has watched the film. Or a month elapses. I think. And no reviews, just discussion.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Very soon I hope Chebby.

 

[CnoEvil]

Very soon I hope Chebby.

If you don't review a film shortly, you will become the "WHF talking b*ll*x club", which means we all become members by default!

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Honoury members.

 

[strapped for cash]

You extrapolated all that from a snippet of 'Julius Caesar'.

It is quite common - when someone writes something especially impressive / learned / overwhelming even - to get responses from people like "we are not worthy" or it's emoticon equivalent...

... I just used four lines from The Bard to express it instead.

I actually agree with you more than I disagree, most of the time, and don't dislike you either. Some of your replies do have an 'essay like' quality and quantity (and reading them is sometimes like trying to drink from a firehose) but I am not accusing you of belittlement.

Bernard has smacked down the molehill as if it were indeed K2 erupting from his lawn, so I hope there is no further need for any further fighting of drama with dramatics.

Sorry to you Strapped, Bernard, the club and all reading this.

Now, when are any of you going to actually review a film?

Thanks for the apology, Chebby, though I'm not entirely persuaded by virtual genuflections and sudden expressions of reverence (which I wouldn't want either).

Maybe I'm misreading things, but I've found it difficult to interpret your last three replies to my posts as anything other than snipes. Indeed, you described me as "patronising" after I expressed interest in a research topic; and of late you've responded to my posts with derision or hostility in mind.

In any case, I'm bored with being mocked for not writing in monosyllables (you don't like this, either). Nor will I apologise for working extraordinarily hard to further my education. If you knew more of my personal background and the sacrifices I've had to make you might be a little kinder.

Anyway, let's leave it there.

 

[Hi-FiOutlaw]

I can keep up with this thread... But i've read all the posts!

All i ask is that we all calm a down a bit.

It's been too long since the first member saw the film, and we are using the thread to discuss other film, but this is a film club so...?

:cheers:

 

[BenLaw]

Just finished watching Let Him Have It. A few liberties taken with the actual roof top action and zero ambiguity as to the use of the words but a very powerful second half, which has left me upset and angry. Can't quibble with a film that affects you emotionally without being excessively manipulative.

 

[strapped for cash]

It's so long since I watched the film that I honestly can't remember how ambiguous the rooftop scene was. I also shouldn't presume to know anything about the Bentley case because I've seen the film.

Films are often judged on their ability to move an audience. In the first seminar of every film studies degree I've experienced (as student and tutor), students are asked to name their favourite film as an ice-breaker, and to state a reason why.

In almost every case, students name the film that made the cry the most, or laugh the most, or feel the most scared. In other words, people like being manipulated and seek out emotional experiences, which leaves little space for alternative approaches to filmmaking. Again, there's no right or wrong to this; that's just the relationship with the medium that's been fostered by more than a century of narrative cinema.

 

[BenLaw]

There's pretty much no ambiguity in the film, he is clearly saying 'give him the gun'. Both defendants denied that the phrase was even said, so it's a legitimate choice for the filmmaker to make and there was a clear position taken throughout the film rather than any attempt at ambiguity or allowing the viewer to make their own mind up. The irony about the whole case is that 'let him have it' is not the greatest of the problems with the conviction. The wiki entry makes short and interesting reading. There is a strong suggestion (reported second hand from the pathologist) that the fatal bullet was too small to have been fired by Craig and instead matched the police calibre. Whatever else, it seems clear from what I've read that Bentley was playing no part in any joint enterprise at the time the shot was fired, 20 minutes after his arrest.

Certainly my main criteria for judging a film is not its emotional effect on me. However, if the film has set out to do that it has to succeed and generally if a film does achieve that without me feeling excessively manipulated then it has done a good job. This film managed that despite me knowing the story and despite some well trod and potentially manipulative techniques, such as Bentley dictating his last letter before execution. The quality of the acting in that scene made it genuinely emotional rather than a turn off.

 

[strapped for cash]

I'd argue that all films (as language) are constructed to manipulate in at least one way, whether that's by moving an audience to tears, as propaganda, through other forms of intellectual persuasion, or often all at once.

Brechtian filmmakers are arguably no less manipulative in asking for audience reflection on their position than filmmakers that seek to move an audience to tears. The filmmakers merely seek to manipulate audiences in a different manner.

A great number of films are simultaneously a comment on film form, consciously in dialogue with film history, yet still seek to manipulate audiences emotionally.

There's a quote by film theorist Noel Carroll on this that I like, who states that "popular cinema wants to remain popular by developing a two-tiered system of communication which sends an action/drama/fantasy-packed message to one section of the audience and an additional hermetic, camouflaged, and recondite one to another." In other words, popular cinema tries to be all things to all people.

 

[strapped for cash]

To add to the above, the point of disconnect for me in any of these contexts is when I feel insulted by the filmmakers' efforts (i.e. I think "I'm not that easy to manipulate").

 

[BenLaw]

It's not misuse, as such, but there isn't anything approaching a valid definition of structurally perfect cinema. Indeed, different filmmakers use different stylistic and thematic conventions to achieve different effects.

That makes me feel a bit better. I hope it was clear that I wasn't attempting to posit any general definition by way of the two examples I had given. Pretty much every film is flawed in some way and in most cases I have a sense that there is a ''structural' flaw; I find that pretty much absent in the two examples I gave. I don't extrapolate any general rule from that, or suggest that the only way to have excellent structure is to use a blueprint from those films.

For instance, the classical continuity system (or classical illusory realism) seeks to disguise filmmaking's artifice through conventions such as shot-reverse-shot, non-contravention of the 180 degree rule, sound bridges, and so on; while anti-realist techniques foreground cinema's artifice (Soviet montage, Godard's anti-realist output, or more recently Funny Games and Hidden).

I've only seen the English language remake of Funny Games. I can't say I liked it., in particular the 'rewinding' bit, which I felt to be 'intrusive'. I wouldn't have known to have classified that as anti-realist. Can that sort of anti-realism ever feel non-intrusive? I think it was more than simple intrusiveness that I found difficult with that, it gave more than a whiff of smugness and superiority from the director.

I much preferred Benny's Video from Haneke, obviously with many of the same themes. Does the mere use of a video camera within the film and showing the viewer video from it count as anti-realist?

Then you have techniques such as surrealism and expressionism which have nothing to do with representing reality, but seek to represent different psychological states (expressionism is the visualisation of character psychology, surrealists seek to represent the unconscious).

I'm pleased that as watching SS5+ I had correcrly identified as Surrealist. Quite what it all means or is supposed to mean... well... I await opinions with interest. Any recent examples of expressionism you would recommend?

I think the most recent surrealist film I have seen is Holy Motors, which I was similarly baffled by. Have you seen it?

One of the interesting things about The Third Man is that it mixes realist and expressionist styles -- the former through location shooting and casting of non-actors (following trends in post-war Italian cinema), the latter through canted camera angles and chiaroscuro (legacies of German expressionism that also found a home in film noir and horror filmmaking).

Interesting, I had never thought of it like that but it makes sense. I also didn't know the word chiaroscuro but it is one of the things I love about the film. It is one of the remarkable things about it, how the themes, plot and cinematography all work together so well.

I guess the point is that there's no such thing as a correct filmmaking technique, only overlapping stylistic and thematic conventions that can be used for very different purposes. Indeed, these assorted filmmaking conventions are continually re-appropriated and reinvented.

You mention things being "in the right order," but discontinuity is no less valid than continuity. Indeed, continuous narratives are very rarely truly continuous and use techniques to disguise shortcomings in this regard (temporal ellipses, for instance).

Just to be clear, I didn't in any way (mean to) suggest by 'in the right order' that to work structurally a film ought to have a linear / chronological narrative. The 'right order' for any particular film has to be on its own terms. It's clearly entirely subjective to me, the viewer and so of little use to anyone else but there we are. Of the other examples I gave, I find Reservoir Dogs to be almost entirely 'in the right order'' but it is obviously far from linear.

The best example I can come up with at short notice of a genuinely 'continuous narrative' is The Rope. Marvellous film, and as I understand it only not a genuine continous shot because of the length of the film. Is that a fair example and are there others?

 

[BenLaw]

I'd argue that all films (as language) are constructed to manipulate in at least one way, whether that's by moving an audience to tears, as propaganda, through other forms of intellectual persuasion, or often all at once.

Absolutely. We've discussed this before to an extent. It's why I said I had to feel not 'excessively' manipulated, recognising that a director will always be trying to manipulate me and indeed that by participating as a viewer I am knowingly and willingly being manipulated. I like your definition:

the point of disconnect for me in any of these contexts is when I feel insulted by the filmmakers' efforts (i.e. I think "I'm not that easy to manipulate").

I'll have to have a think about whether I agree entirely with that.

There's a quote by film theorist Noel Carroll on this that I like, who states that "popular cinema wants to remain popular by developing a two-tiered system of communication which sends an action/drama/fantasy-packed message to one section of the audience and an additional hermetic, camouflaged, and recondite one to another." In other words, popular cinema tries to be all things to all people.

I don't agree with the simplistic division there. Why are those two groups mutually exclusive? It's arguably insulting to both groups, that at least some within the group enoying the 'action' can't appreciate the alternative, deeper message and, conversely, that those understanding the deeper message can't switch off and enjoy the more obvious message..

 

[John Duncan]

I find my main attraction to cinema is precisely *to* be manipulated. As much as you like, usually.

 

[strapped for cash]

There's a quote by film theorist Noel Carroll on this that I like, who states that "popular cinema wants to remain popular by developing a two-tiered system of communication which sends an action/drama/fantasy-packed message to one section of the audience and an additional hermetic, camouflaged, and recondite one to another." In other words, popular cinema tries to be all things to all people.

I don't agree with the simplistic division there. Why are those two groups mutually exclusive? It's arguably insulting to both groups, that at least some within the group enoying the 'action' can't appreciate the alternative, deeper message and, conversely, that those understanding the deeper message can't switch off and enjoy the more obvious message..

I like your thinking, but you need the context. Carroll doesn't make a clear binary distinction; and however you look at it, some audience sections will be more keyed in to "hermetic, camouflaged, and recondite" messages than others.

How compatible these different forms of textual reading are is an incredibly complex question. I agree that emotional and intellectual forms of engagement are far from irreconcilable. Current scholarship defines film spectatorship as an oscillation between the two, to greater or lesser degrees. (This probably isn't the place for detailed explication of audience studies and spectatorship theory, especially after last night's fun.)

 

[strapped for cash]

recognising that a director will always be trying to manipulate me and indeed that by participating as a viewer I am knowingly and willingly being manipulated.

Theories of auteurism are outmoded. The director isn't the author of a film, despite historical assertions to this effect, and industry efforts to organise audience tastes around such a notion.

That's why I use the term "filmmakers." Some scholars argue for primary directorial authorship in selected cases, but even this is highly contentious.

It's not even as simple as acknowledging that films are made collaboratively, since critics and audiences help to construct films' meanings at the level of interpretation. These meanings are also fluid and change in different historical and cultural contexts.

 

[strapped for cash]

I find my main attraction to cinema is precisely *to* be manipulated. As much as you like, usually.

Though I'm sure you've watched a film or two that's turned you off in this regard; that you've found sickeningly sentimental and crude in its manipulations.

I agree, most people enjoy being manipulated by films, especially emotionally.

 

[expat_mike]

Sad to report that the film hasn't arrived today, so it is crossed fingers for tomorrow.

Nevertheless I can see that a healthy discussion has started about filmcraft.

I shall have to think deeper about the statement that all films are manipulative - I am thinking in terms of the manipulation of the brain chemistry from it's default state, but this may be thinking about things too deeply.

I have to say that the thing that makes me feel most disatisfied/frustrated with a TV program or film, is when I realise that it was so formulaic - it always makes me feel cheated, that more effort wasn't put into producing a film/program that felt original.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I'm still hopeful that the French postal service will prove me wrong.

 

[John Duncan]

Sad to report that the film hasn't arrived today

Branleurs...