Le livre de poche propose an excellent value with this very friendly book, on which each two page is a graphical illustration of the text. So, out of the 600 pages, only 300 are to be read, the other half can be looked. This give a very livy handout to a subject which could be less accessible without this very clever, shiny, funny pictures. The text is deep when it needs to be, without going on too theoriticall or low-level borring detail. It stays really accessible, and give a very good draft of worlwide cine world.
A very good value, for 25eur, don't hesitate : it will stand as an easy reference on your shelf !
Book : Atlas du cinema
Devil and Cinema
When two cinema teacher approach the issue of Devil at Cinema, it gives a brillant new point of view on something which at first look would not be that much interesting.
Alexandre Tylski and Corinne Vuillaume create an interesting analysis on the place and function of Devil in our societies, and find out an impressive list of more than 100 movies related with devil.
Far from being a basic foolish passion, they propose interesting film analysis from Melies to Tim Burton.
To read with interest !
1929 - 1935 - 1997 - 2007 - one hair cut
In 1929, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali exhibit " An andalou dog" in Parisians cinemas. This surrealistic movie is mainly known for its first scene, on which a women (Simone Mareuil) eyes is eye is slit by a razor. This scene is to be read as an introduction, an annoncement that we should not watch this movie as we watched previously. We should change our view/our eyes.
In 1929, Edith Piaff was 14 and would begin to be known after the 29's crisis, in 1935. The hair cut is quite similar :
In 2001, Jean Pierre Jeunet record "Le fabuleux Destin D'amelie Poulain", with Audrey Tautou, which story happens in 1997, and get a worldwide success, with the same hair cut :
In 2007, Marion Cotillard play in "La mome", a movie about Edith's life which also get worlwide applauses:
COURS DE CINEMA : FREDERIC BAS analyse LA HAINE de KASSOVITZ
In 1995 appeared in Canne's festival an unexpected movie from a young realisator : Mathieu Kassovitz, which is 28 by the time. The movie will win the "best staging award" in the festival. This will be the beginning of a successfull carreer for Mathieu and one of the actors : Vincent Cassel.
Frédéric Bas explain us why this movie worst to be watched again more carefully :
Book La photographie - Edouard Boubat
In these time when everything is automatical and numerical, the first chapters of 1989's Boubat's book make us smile. The precise description of different type of 6*6, 24*36 or reflex photo-camera have a taste of old good time, when, not that long ago, we were still buying Kodak photo films.
As a true pationate, Edouard give us some insight on history of photo, which give a zest of humanity to this book, compared to the technical "how to use your last ADP" current best-sellers.
Beginning by a succint description of some basics : eye, iso, focal, diaphragram... Boubat give some easy reference tables that each one knew when photo was expensive, complicated and impossible to watch on the back of the camera.
Remembering us that photo was an elite activity 20 years ago, he also goes through basic things like accesories and possibles filtres.
All this first part seems outdated at first look, when we can now use photoshop instead of filters.
Curiously, the second part of the book "La prise de vue" seems quite small, fulled of nice pictures as examples.
But as a true artist, he finish re,inding us that :"the photo is not outside of the
photograph, it is in himself, as a pending meeting. The camera best camera could not be magical, it is you who has to be. We are not a photograph only when we take a picture, photography is a way of being".
Ending the 2nd part of its book on these last words, it gives us regret that we do not buy Kodak photo film anymore, and that the 3rd part of the book, about "Laboratory to develop photo" is that much useless for us now...
Why Keaton is great ? [ The general ]
History of cinema is made of masterpieces, and is only composed of them in fact. Because of the numerous number of movies, we just know the best one who went through the time. And it may seems difficult to understand why a movie like "The general" is brillant. The debate we can read around to determine who is the best between Keaton or Chaplin show it . It is not that we can not choose between Chaplin or Keaton : on each one of us will have a prefered one ! The main thing is that we do not have to choose. Keaton and Chaplin are both of them brillant ! Study of history of cinema make us forget to compare them with the other film makers of this time, but if we do it we suddenly rembember the difference between a good and a brillant movie.
History of cinema also show us that technic is the crucial point to make a good movie. The question is what do you do with the technique you have : do you go beyond this technic, do you bring something more, which touch to the public's imaginary ?
One of the first train movie was "The great Train robbery" that we now can watch on Youtube :
This movie is key in cinema's history, as we can read on filmsite.org (http://www.filmsite.org/grea.html), but it did not last on the memories of cinema critics. Why ?
Because it stays at a technical level : first parallel editing, minor camera movement, location shooting, stage-bound camera placement, jump-cuts , cross-cuts... So it is technically brillant, but loose the point of speaking to the mind of people : it is descriptive, and do not let enuogh space to imagine something. This while Keaton and Chaplin are proposing heroes who are thinking and are open door to a reflexion time.
 |
|
Thus having an access to minor film, and spending time watching them help us to remmeber what was also cinema on these time : what was public's expectation and what were we ready to accept as normal and great cinema. The masterpieces which we know the name even without having been given the possibility to watch them are the one which did not get old with time. They are fulfilled with ideas which go beyond the technic and speak directly to the universals values of humanity : love, fear, bravery, good, bad, god, war, laugh and tears. Technic do not change anything to that. Today Hollywood's cinema tend to forgot this essential part of cinema.
Peter and Ben
Pinny Grylls, UK
Documentary, 2007, 10'
Peter is a man, who retired from social life and settled in an isolated valley to cattle sheeps. Ben is a young orphan he found and adopted, and with who he created a very deep link of friendship. Ben is a sheep.
Is it a good idea to be friend with a sheep ? He grew up with Peter, and developped some habits of a spoiled child, entering in the house, very curious, eating anything. He follows him when he takes care of his cattle, not adapted to the life with other sheeps, but very sensitive to Peter's words and moods.
This is a documentary and a double portrait... The camera follows Peter while he is wondering about this relation-sheep. The result is very sentitive, with beautiful moments, though funny, when he tries to release Ben in the hills with the other sheeps, and secretely hopes that he will come back, listening to the « Beeeeh » to regognise him. But as he doesn't come back, he says with regret in his woice « He could be more a sheep than a human, after all... »
Never the man seems insane or absurd : the two friends are just living together, and their relationship, out of nowhere, seems very natural, very attaching...
Gilles Deleuze, l’image mouvement, chapitre 1 : theses sur le mouvement
1st these of Bergson on “Matiere et memoire” 1896
The movement is not a succession of different points.
The movement is what is ongoing between two position : whatever close you take your two points, we will never been able to reproduce the movement, which is done between these two points.
A succession of immobile images can not reproduce any movement, as the cinema try to do.
So, we can critic the cinema by two ways :
1) It try to remake the movement with a serie of instantaneous images
2) It is an art of illusion.
Also Bergson note that in cinema, the image broadcasted is not equals to the sum of the instantaneous photos. Something bigger appears : by the projection, an average image is created, which give an average image, already containing the movement : a movement-image.
2nd these of Bergson on “evolution creatrice” 1907
In this second thesys, Bergson mainly treat the second critic about cinema : the art of illusion.
For Bergson, there are different ways to make illusion :
| Antique way | Moderne way |
| For Grecian people, the movement is an incarnation of eternal ideals. The universe is one, unique and eternal, with some gods who are here since the beginning and forever. The time is unique, essential, transcendental. The movement of universe and things obey to these eternal ideas and gods in a time who is unique. | In the moderne way, the science try to build up a philosophy on which the time is independent of the movement and things : you can repeat the same experiment in another day with the same result, and the rules of science should style be working. The movement of planet can be calculated, predicted and do not depend of any time : the rules are here to work in any case. The movement is done on echanical way on a succession of whatever instants. |
| Time is a strategically unique instant. | Time is an independent variable. |
| | Cinema is done with 24 images by second, without regarding the specific moments on which they are taken. In this sense, cinema’s time is an independent variable. This make cinema modern illusion. |
| But in both conception, we miss the movement, because both are based on the idea that the whole as been given : the whole of eternal poses in Antique time, and the whole of all the instants in Modern thoughts. | |
| Eternal poses = the whole | all the instants = the whole |
| This change the concept of time, which will be representing eternal ideas or which will be the consequence of the whole because composed of instants. | |
| Time = eternity | Time = consequence of the whole because composed of instant |
| None of these two definition of time allow the real movement to be. The real movement is defined on a concrete duration which is not eternity, and which is not a succession of instants. Mouvement is done between two instants, in a concrete duration. | |
| The Antique way is linked with Antique philosophy, which tried to think the eternity , with gods and eternal universe. | The moderne way do not try to think eternity anymore, but need a new philosophy, on which we should be able to think the possible production of new things at any time. Like “big bang”. |
So in this second thesis, Bergson call for a new way to think time, duration and movement.
It is the content of its 3rd thesis.
3rd these of Bergson on “evolution creatrice” 1907
In modern science the movement of the planet or of a ball is not considered as changing the qualities of it.
For Bergson, the qualities of the element are changing as soon as the element is moving : There is not only translation movement, but there are also quality transformation during the movement.
The movement is always ongoing with a quality transformation.
For example : if I take a glass of water with a sugar in it, the movement of the particules of sugar to dissolve themselves in the water give as a result not only a translation movement, but also a change on quality of the water, which will change to a sweet water rather than a pure one. It is the double idea of translation movement and quality transformation that Bergson generalize about the whole : all the elements having a translation movement have also a quality change.
As everything has to be in the whole, the movement of any element make the transformation of the whole by itself.
Bergson redefine the whole, and said that it is never given. (This way he avoids the mistake of antique and modern way. )
The whole is never given because it is always changing, he is always giving something new.
In fact, to have something existing, you need to have something new happening, because anything happening happen in a movement, and the movement give you the time and the duration. Nothing exist if there is no time, no movement, no translation changes, no quality changes.
So the whole is always changing, and by so can not be given.
”Duration is depending of the possibility of creation inside universe” (la duree de l’univers ne doit faire qu’un avec la latitude de creation qui y peut trouver place”.
So, the movement express two things :
1) The translation of an element
2) The existence of the whole / The duration / The time
We call each instant an immobile slice (of the whole) and we call the movement a mobile slice (of the whole).
This way, an instantaneous image can be considered as an immobile slice of movement while the movement given by average image of cinema can be considered as a mobile slice of movement, a movement-image.
Le retour de la bible ? [ Flashback from a fool ]
[ ecrit sur un clavier qwerty, donc sans accents ]
On se noie dans ses yeux bleux, il a des billets de 500 dollars pleins les poches de son jean Armani, se leve dans son immense maison futuriste accrochee au dessus de la mer sur la falaise, des femmes trop belles pour nous l'entourent, et pourtant... a-t-il loupe sa vie ?
Comme souvent les grands destins s'accomplissent sur les cendres de blessures irreparables. Ce film nous en donne encore une fois l'illustration. Il avait tout, et par peche de luxure, il a perdu ses reves de jeunesse, et la tranquillite de pouvoir etre soi meme, se regarder dans la glace sans souffrir.
Un film moralisateur donc, qui nous apprend a ne pas trop regarder la voisine "next door" sous peine de souffrances eternelles...
On se passera sans soucis de cette histoire sterile qui propose neanmoins de magnifiques plongeons dans le bleu de la mer ou des yeux de Deniel Craig, au choix !
"Quel est ce fou ?" se demande-t-il en repensant a son adolescence...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
