strapped for cash said:
You could well be right Strapped. Personally speaking, I need an emotional attachment to a film, it has to spark something in me, and LQV did absolutely nothing to me, other than make me want to sleep.
-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
- Status
You could well be right Strapped. Personally speaking, I need an emotional attachment to a film, it has to spark something in me, and LQV did absolutely nothing to me, other than make me want to sleep.
strapped for cash said:
I did have one of the Ozu box sets, the Noriko Trilogy if I remember correctly, and I did enjoy the films, though not enough to keep the box set.
I've just recorded a couple of Japanese films from Film4, Late Chrysanthemums, and Floating Clouds, which I'm looking forward to seeing soon.
Hi-FiOutlaw said:
I haven't, because I was waiting for a little more discussion about LQV before sitting down to watch it.
I guess we could move on to the next film choices very soon, whose turn is it? Strapped or JD?
Mike has seen LQV Ben.
So we need everyone to get a copy of Monsieur Lahzar and watch it, and JD to choose his 3 films.
So we need everyone to get a copy of Monsieur Lahzar and watch it, and JD to choose his 3 films.
I promised to give my thoughts about LQV today, so here goes.
Before I watched the film, I had got the idea from somewhere, that the theme was an old man reminiscing on the four stages of his life. However after watching for a few minutes I could tell that I had got my thoughts very wrong.
After watching the film, I wondered if the theme was the futility of life the old man tries to cure his illness but dies, the young goat tries to survive, but presumably is killed by the winter cold, and the tree spends years growing tall, then is cut down by humans. The weak spot in my theory, was that I could not understand how the charcoal burners fitted in.
After watching the interview, and reading a few reviews (all seemingly based on the same press release), things are a bit clearer. The director was passionate about depicting a slower pace of life, centred on mountain villages in Calabria, where the locals still have a strong animist philosophy. This philosophy has links to from Pythagoras, who lived in Calabria in the 6th century BC and apparently spoke of each of us having four lives within us – the mineral, the vegetable, the animal and the human – "thus we must know ourselves four times", hence the title,Le Quattro Volte. This is depicted by the old man, then the young goat, followed by the tree, and finally the charcoal.
The film did meander at times, and would have been better as say an hour long documentary, than a film. I found it difficult to understand the core message, until I had read about the link to Pythagorus, so I think the film will have confused many who viewed it. Also I think that charcoal is not classed as a mineral, so technically the film fails to depict one of the four key aspects of Pythagorean philosophy. However I may be splitting hairs, as the definition of a mineral will not have troubled many of the film’s viewers.
Nevertheless, I will suggest that one of my friends who is into spiritual things, finds the time to watch it. He may like it better.
Before I watched the film, I had got the idea from somewhere, that the theme was an old man reminiscing on the four stages of his life. However after watching for a few minutes I could tell that I had got my thoughts very wrong.
After watching the film, I wondered if the theme was the futility of life the old man tries to cure his illness but dies, the young goat tries to survive, but presumably is killed by the winter cold, and the tree spends years growing tall, then is cut down by humans. The weak spot in my theory, was that I could not understand how the charcoal burners fitted in.
After watching the interview, and reading a few reviews (all seemingly based on the same press release), things are a bit clearer. The director was passionate about depicting a slower pace of life, centred on mountain villages in Calabria, where the locals still have a strong animist philosophy. This philosophy has links to from Pythagoras, who lived in Calabria in the 6th century BC and apparently spoke of each of us having four lives within us – the mineral, the vegetable, the animal and the human – "thus we must know ourselves four times", hence the title,Le Quattro Volte. This is depicted by the old man, then the young goat, followed by the tree, and finally the charcoal.
The film did meander at times, and would have been better as say an hour long documentary, than a film. I found it difficult to understand the core message, until I had read about the link to Pythagorus, so I think the film will have confused many who viewed it. Also I think that charcoal is not classed as a mineral, so technically the film fails to depict one of the four key aspects of Pythagorean philosophy. However I may be splitting hairs, as the definition of a mineral will not have troubled many of the film’s viewers.
Nevertheless, I will suggest that one of my friends who is into spiritual things, finds the time to watch it. He may like it better.
strapped for cash said:
I assumed that was the case, as right at the end we see them in their truck dropping it off in the village, so unless there's some superstitious purpose firewood can be the only explanation. Given that it was already wood though it seems like a remarkable amount of effort to go through. Still, I assume it's something that really goes on as the director must have been filimg real people. I agree it must be about transferrence of energy and rebirth; it is transformation by fire (of wood, into slightly different but no doubt much more useful wood!). I found it also linked into your next point...
I agree. There's a tension between the extent to which the community embraces nature, attempts to harness it and distances itself from it completely. The pyre certainly seemed like a distancing in terms of its deeply intricate use of geometric shapes, although clearly it was all utlilisation of natural products. The very complexity I felt showed the lament you talk of. It demonstrated the experience of generations in carrying out the task they did, all wordlessly. I found this a film which made me very nostalgic for the simpler way of life. Even though I'd clearly never experience their simpler life I still felt nostalgic for that but it also evoked nostalgia for one's own simpler times.
Can you expand?
Edit to above post: there was an interesting contrast between the passsing down through the generations of the complex pyre technique and the fact that upon the goat herder's death his goats were sold, I assume to some sort of 'out of towners'. Both must have been traditional events, yet one was clearly central to the community culture and another was immediately abandoned. Maybe this said something about the fact that even this community will be defeated by the march to modernity? And / or some sort of comment on the loneliness of the herder?
expat_mike said:
That is interesting. I haven't had a chance to rewatch the interview and I'm not sure the Pythagorean stuff was in there. I think you're definitely splitting hairs about the charcoal / mineral thing! It would be worse to crowbar in some sort of alternative reference. I also disagree with you about it being better as a documentary (what would make it a documentary? Would you want a narration?). I felt it was very cinematic, probably best summed up by the pyre sequence. A very different type and pace of film from most, but no less worthy as a film IMO. Still, I'm interested to hear the alternative thoughts on it.
expat_mike said:
I can see that. Although I probably prefer one watch through applying one's own ideas to it before returning to it with more information. Just like you had some interesting thoughts about the futility of life.
If you just wanted an intro and for it to be slightly shorter, what's the difference for you between this film and a documentary?
BenLaw said:
I'm guessing you mean stylistically, since we've already unpacked themes of tension between tradition and modernity to some degree.
It's worth thinking about the film in the context of stylistic traditions in Italian cinema, specifically post-war "neorealist" filmmaking techniques and an (unachievable) ideal of nonmediation.
Post-war Italian filmmakers (De Sica, Rossellini, et al.) utilised specific approaches to filmmaking in their efforts to shun fascism and represent the plight of the working classes.
These techniques included the casting of non actors, the long take, location shooting, and natural lighting. (Some of these decisions were necessitated by the decimation of Italy's filmmaking infrastructure rather than simply being artistically motivated.)
Nevertheless, "Italian neorealist" techniques were celebrated by French critics as achieving an objective representation of reality. (Google "Andre Bazin and neorealism.") This is hyperbole and romanticism, since all filmmaking, especially narrative cinema, though also documentary, involves mediation and narrative construction at some level. Moreover, "neorealist" cinema was decidedly sentimental in its representations of the young and old, use of classical scores to signal emotional response, and borrowings from other conventions such as slapstick comedy, each of which contradict the so-called "realist" approach taken. In any case, neorealist techniques remain an important part of Italian cinema's ancestry and have influenced filmmaking approaches more broadly.
I say all this because Le Quattro Volte makes extensive use of techniques associated with Italian neorealism and is very much in conversation with Italian film history. In this sense it's a film that's highly conscious of filmmaking traditions and heritage, even if it includes more abstract formal compositions to ask existential questions.
The short version of all that being that the thematic oppositions we've discussed can also be traced through stylistic analysis of the film.
Apologies if that seems a bit snobby. I had to go through the film heritage stuff to discuss Le Quattro Volte in this context.
Ok, yeah I like that. My knowledge of European cinema film history is not all it could be. I'm guessing Bicycle Thieves would fit into neo-realism pretty well? Although perhaps lacking the sentimentality and therefore standing the test of time?
I suppose whereas we've identified the film showing the struggle to keep traditions alive in the modern world the stylistic update appears to be much more seamless.
I suppose whereas we've identified the film showing the struggle to keep traditions alive in the modern world the stylistic update appears to be much more seamless.
BenLaw said:
Bicycle Thieves is a seminal example of Italian neorealism. It's also fairly sentimental, in its depiction of the father son relationship and use of non diegetic music (the film score), which of course has nothing to do with reality. (We don't have soundtracks to our lives instructing an audience how and when to respond to us emotionally.)
While film critics might uphold Bicycle Thieves as an example of nonmediated filmmaking, it's in reality very far from this impossible ideal. The filmmakers guide us toward a position of sympathy with the working class, and invite contempt for ineffectual political and religious institutions. Since most film critics are of a Leftist bent, they unsurprisingly champion representations that chime with their ideals. No film (or indeed film review) is apolitical.
Realism, ultimately, is just another film style. Chapter One of this book is good reading on the subject, if you're interested:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bL-J4r4bfm4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
BenLaw said:
To be honest, I don't think either term is commonly used. (At least I've never encountered them.)
I'm guessing this has something to do with a distinction between narrative (fictional) cinema and an ideal of nonmediated reality.
Both, however, involve narrative constructions. Documentarians make decisions about which subjects to film, where and when to film them, where to point the camera, what makes it into a final cut through editing decisions, and a multiplicity of other mediating choices.
In other words, the distinction between narrative cinema and documentary are not entirely clear cut; not that there are no differences. I think it's useful to start by acknowledging the impossibility of nonmediation in every type of filmmaking.
For what it's worth, I think Bicycle Thieves is a great film; I just reject much of the critical commentary on the film.
Bicycle Thieves is very carefully constructed to propagate a specific political message.
It's also the film I was thinking of when discussing slapstick (also see Roma, citta aperta.)
Bicycle Thieves is very carefully constructed to propagate a specific political message.
It's also the film I was thinking of when discussing slapstick (also see Roma, citta aperta.)
strapped for cash said:
It's a while since I watched it so I can't bring the score to mind at all. I'm very surprised anyone would refer to it as an example of nonmediated cinema; the opening scene of the dole queue makes the political message pretty clear. I felt it's quality, however, was in being far from a simple working class = good tale as the fact that he succumbs to theft makes us more ambivalent about him but also makes us confront our own morality and recognise it as situational and also capable of influence by the filmmakers.
I missed what you'd said about slapstick but I assume you mean the closing chase scenes?
strapped for cash said:
I was thinking I might be using inappropriate terminology! The point I was getting at was that two members have said they would have preferred this was a documentary and, for the reasons you set out, I don't see a big distinction. I guess the one obvious difference would be the director has told the people what to do during this film and, even though they will mostly have been doing things they ordinarily do anyway, a narrative has been constructed to a limited degree (the death of the goat herder, the truck crashing, the goats escaping and later being sold). It's a blurred distinction though as documentaries construct a narrative of sorts and don't necessarily depict reality even on a more fundamental level. The BBC inserts zoo footage into it's polar documentary, and then you have films like I'm Still Here and Catfish.
BenLaw said:
Indeed; and if you go back much further, you have films like Nanook of the North that contain entirely staged sequences.
The idea of the documentary camera as a "fly-on-the-wall" is nice, but it's a far from accurate description of how documentaries are put together.
Of course there are many approaches to documentary filmmaking, some of which seek to foreground the film's bias.
- Status
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram