The WHF Film Club

[BenLaw]

I think that makes it Lives of Others even without the last vote?

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

I think that makes it Lives of Others even without the last vote?

I'm too busy abusing penguins to count, but you're probably right.

 

[BenLaw]

You need to do some quick editing / deleting on that thread BBB.

 

[BenLaw]

.

 

[Frank Harvey]

My vote would have been Lives anyway, as I haven't seen it and have been meaning to. The Dictator would've been my second choice as I haven't seen that either. Downfall would've been last as I have seen it - highly recommended to those that haven't.

 

[strapped for cash]

I think I'm uncomfortable with censorship beyond that which contravenes the law. Even that ends up with individual persons making judgements, usually involving morality consciously or subconsiously, but at least the systems within which those judgments are made are highly formalised and regulated.

You know considerably more about legal systems and practice than I do; perhaps even with regard to UK censorship history.

Most of what I know about censorship relates to US regulation, the Production Code, controversies, and the ratings system's introduction. I know a bit about UK/EU media law, as I sat an exam many years back, though I've likely forgotten as much as I can recall.

I think we agree that subjectivity is inevitable in any legal or regulatory context, to greater or lesser degrees, while laws are continually amended and redrafted to represent loose perceptions of moral consensus. (As I type this I'm aware that I'm hugely oversimplifying processes by which laws are amended, and the motivations behind such changes, though you get what I mean...)

 

[BenLaw]

Have you seen The Trial strapped?

 

[John Duncan]

I think that makes it Lives of Others even without the last vote?

This surprises me.

The Lives of Others was almost an afterthought to complete a sort of German triptych - I've seen it and think it's one of the great films, but kind of thought everybody would have seen it already.

As an aside, I had chosen '...Dictator' because I saw Paolo Nutini perform Iron Sky on Later... at the weekend (amazing performance btw, iPlayer it) and there is a snatch of monologue from this film that made me google and I thought it would be an interesting addition. I thought then that Downfall (which is on my Netflix watch list) might be an interesting counterpoint.

 

[strapped for cash]

Have you seen The Trial strapped?

I haven't; though I've seen all three of JD's nominated films a few times.

I re-viewed both Downfall and The Lives of Others a while back, as I finally got around to replacing my DVD copies with cheap BDs.

 

[John Duncan]

I've seen all three of JD's nominated films a few times.

EDITED.

 

[richardw42]

I think Downfall would have scored better, but most have seen it probably multiple times.

As a bonus Lives is on Prime, so I don't need to buy this one.

 

[strapped for cash]

I've seen all three of JD's nominated films a few times.

EDITED.

The fact that I've seen the films shouldn't be a problem, especially since I'm not a film club member.

I should cut back on my contributions anyway, so I'll say nothing further about any of the three.

 

[John Duncan]

especially since I'm not a film club member

Oh yeah. As you were...

 

[richardw42]

Just re watched the last half hour or so of The Trial. Um .........

how did it get 7.9 on IMDB, when Agnosia which was altogether better only got 5.5 ?

Reading some of the comments, there's a lot of heads up harrises over there.

 

[expat_mike]

As an aside, I had chosen '...Dictator' because I saw Paolo Nutini perform Iron Sky on Later... at the weekend (amazing performance btw, iPlayer it) and there is a snatch of monologue from this film that made me google and I thought it would be an interesting addition. I thought then that Downfall (which is on my Netflix watch list) might be an interesting counterpoint.

As soon as I saw your nominations, I thought of Iron Sky which I watched at Easter. One of the many pointed jokes in the film, was the opportunistic way the American campaign manager recognises the potential of using the Fuhrers crowd manipulation skills, to enthuse the voters. Many politicians of all persuasions have used the same skills during the last century.

 

[chebby]

I think that makes it Lives of Others even without the last vote?

This surprises me.

The Lives of Others was almost an afterthought to complete a sort of German triptych - I've seen it and think it's one of the great films ...

Yep. Excellent film. Bought it on DVD and now Blu-ray. I think I have watched it about five times now. (I know, I'm not a member.)

Whilst on the matter of surveillance ... I also hope someone nominates 'Red Road' one day. I would love to see what Strapped thinks of it (especially regarding it's Dogma 95 'credentials').

 

[expat_mike]

I don't think art can exist without a purpose. This would require no creative input from anybody involved.

I agree, but I think that there are many examples, with many different stakeholders, who may have conflicting "purposes". For example:

1 - enthusiastic amateur artist, who wants to produce art for the simple pleasure of it. However the artist will themself have to supply the "means of production" (time, film, paint, equipment etc) themselves.

2 - professional artist, who wants to produce art both for pleasure, and as a career. In this case the "means of production" (time, film, paint, equipment etc) may be provided by a different stakeholder (agent, sponsor, patron etc), who will probably have a different "purpose", which may be to make money.

3 - professional artist, who wants to produce large scale art (eg blockbuster films) as a career. In this case the "means of production" (time, film, equipment, film crew, actors etc) may be provided by different stakeholders (agent, politicians, film studio, distribution company etc), who will usually have a different "purpose", which will be to make money (or influence voters).

Strapped will be able to suggest many other examples. But the key thing is to recognise that as the art increases in scale, and the number of stakeholders (and their individual purposes) involved increases, the potential for conflict between the artist and the stakeholders increases.

Maybe this leads to the next questions?

Is pure art only possible, if the artist themself owns the means of production (or has a patron who supplies them with no constraints)? All other instances, would result in art that is a compromise?

 

[strapped for cash]

I also hope someone nominates 'Red Road' one day. I would love to see what Strapped thinks of it (especially regarding it's Dogma 95 'credentials').

You mean Dogme 95 (sorry Chebby). I haven't seen Red Road, I'm afraid, so I can't comment on it.

Red Road is one of the "Advance Party" films, which stemmed from the Dogme 95 "school," if we can call it that; while Dogme 95 evolved into Filmbyen. I'm honestly far from an expert on any of the above.

I've seen all of von Trier's films, except for Nymphomaniac, and I'm generally of the view that he's a talented filmmaker in need of a coherent idea. I also wish von Trier would spend less time delighting in provocation, as I think it cheapens his work.

Lukas Moodysson is a more interesting Northern European filmmaker, in my opinion, though he sometimes makes quite upsetting films. I realise that none of this post addresses your interest in an English actress/writer/filmmaker's work, so sorry about that.

 

[strapped for cash]

I don't think art can exist without a purpose. This would require no creative input from anybody involved.

I agree, but I think that there are many examples, with many different stakeholders, who may have conflicting "purposes". For example:

1 - enthusiastic amateur artist, who wants to produce art for the simple pleasure of it. However the artist will themself have to supply the "means of production" (time, film, paint, equipment etc) themselves.

2 - professional artist, who wants to produce art both for pleasure, and as a career. In this case the "means of production" (time, film, paint, equipment etc) may be provided by a different stakeholder (agent, sponsor, patron etc), who will probably have a different "purpose", which may be to make money.

3 - professional artist, who wants to produce large scale art (eg blockbuster films) as a career. In this case the "means of production" (time, film, equipment, film crew, actors etc) may be provided by different stakeholders (agent, politicians, film studio, distribution company etc), who will usually have a different "purpose", which will be to make money (or influence voters).

Strapped will be able to suggest many other examples. But the key thing is to recognise that as the art increases in scale, and the number of stakeholders (and their individual purposes) involved increases, the potential for conflict between the artist and the stakeholders increases.

Maybe this leads to the next questions?

Is pure art only possible, if the artist themself owns the means of production (or has a patron who supplies them with no constraints)? All other instances, would result in art that is a compromise?

Hi Mike.

Your entire post touches on issues of film authorship and I broadly agree with your observations. (Though I disagree that an increasing number of stakeholders leads inevitably to greater conflicts of interest.)

There's little question nowadays that filmmaking should be understood as an exercise in collaborative authorship, which may involve conflicting interests, though might also be understood in terms of artists with similar sensibilities choosing to work together. There are of course numerous possible dynamics in such creative enterprises, which inevitably differ from film to film.

There's a mass of literature on the subject, which I really can't do justice to here. (I can recommend useful overviews, if you're interested, some of which may be available through Google Books.)

With regard to "pure art," even a work by a lone artist will exist in dialogue with other artists and their output. In other words, there can be no such thing as a singular (original) creative vision.

 

[expat_mike]

With regard to "pure art," even a work by a lone artist will exist in dialogue with other artists and their output. In other words, there can be no such thing as a singular (original) creative vision.

Reminds me of a story I read many years ago of a film student being interviewed for a job. He was asked if all films are derivative, and answered that they are not, and went to great lengths to explain why.

Sadly for him the interviewer wanted the opposite answer, because all films are to a certain extent derivative (only a limited number of basic plots, film directors getting concious and unconcious inspiration from other directors, similar argument for scriptwriters, etc), but can be made unique by the context, characterisations, locations etc, that are included.

 

[strapped for cash]

And beyond questions of plot and characterisation, we get into issues of aesthetics and film style. In this sense we can also trace influences (and often references or nods) to other artists and their works.

I very purposefully chose three surrealist films when I made my film club nominations. Had I continued I would have chosen films that are commonly associated with other aesthetic approaches (so three expressionist films, then three montage films, and so on...).

By looking at particular stylistic methods individually we can get a better sense of how such approaches have been combined in other works. You may remember, for instance, that Ben and I discussed The Third Man as a film that mixes expressionist and realist styles to great effect.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

You need to do some quick editing / deleting on that thread BBB.

Too late.

 

[John Duncan]

Welcome back, BBB.

No hard feelings, I hope.

 

[BenLaw]

You need to do some quick editing / deleting on that thread BBB.

Too late.

Welcome back you EDITED EDITED EDITED.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Welcome back, BBB.

No hard feelings, I hope.

Absolutely not, the evidence did support a ban.