μεταμορφώσεις

[Jeff Bernstein]

Oppenheimer (2023) : $400,000,000.

 

Scrooby is Cinematography.com. You're welcome, Tim.

[Jeff Bernstein]

crimine intactum

 

Atreus loathes his brother Thyestes for many reasons :

 

ATREUS

q u i d  / e n i m / r e l i q u i t / c r i m i n e / i n t a c t u m / a u t / u b i /

s c e l e r i / p e p e r c i t ?

 

ATREUS

q u i d : What

e n i m : any  

r e l i q u i t : left remaining

c r i m i n e : a crime, fault, offence / In partic., the crime of adultery

i n t a c t u m : untried, unattempted /Untouched, undefiled, chaste, of virgins

a u t :  or/and

u b i : where/when

s c e l e r i : crimes/wickedness

p e p e r c i t : be sparing, act sparingly / close to : p e p e r i : to beget, to bring to birth .

 

So Atreus says at face value :

 

ATREUS

Are there any crimes he’s left unattempted? When has his wickedness acted sparingly?

 

Thyestes slept with Atreus’s wife, after which Atreus’ wife gave birth to two children. The uncertain paternity of the two children has haunted Atreus ever since.

 

Note the resonances :

 

1. c r i m i n e : In partic., the crime of adultery

2. i n t a c t u m : Untouched, undefiled, chaste, of virgins

3. p e p e r c i t : close to : p e p e r i : to beget, to bring to birth . . . .

[Jeff Bernstein]

obscura nutat silva

 

At the summit is the castle of Pelops.

One part of it faces the burning south wind.

Another part, to one side, evenly

built down the mountain, reaches

to the outermost while walling in

the city; the unyielding king, Atreus,

keeps the nation within his construction.

 

In that place is a glittering hall large

enough to contain an enormous crowd.

The timbers of its roof are coated with gold

and supported by upstanding columns

variously decorated with spots

of ores rich in gold. Behind this, beyond

what people know of the place they respect,

the house leads back into a multitude

of opulent rooms, where the dark secrets

of previous kings are breathed in on the air.

 

Then a palisade of trees, tall and old,

brings you into the heart of the kingdom.

No joyful spot is this lonely woodland.

Tree branches reach out with cruel kinks and cricks.

The yew-tree, the cypress, the dark oak are

an uncertainly wavering woodland.

Eminent above all and looking down

is a sacred oak-tree—it overawes

all the rest around it. One wonders at

the manner of the elders round this tree,

all the demands of vengeance they proclaimed,

the devices they planned of dubious aid.

Offerings have been fixed and cling to the trunk :

a loud war-trumpet; a deceitfully-

designed axle that captured victory

when it shattered as its chariot rolled;

spoils of war from the Myrtoan Sea,

each a symbol of criminal misdeed.

Here the Phrygian cap of old Pelops

hangs from a pole with his embroidered cape,

surrounded with plunder from barbarians.

 

In the sad shade a spring of foul water

leaks slowly into a swamp : this awful

sight is the Styx up from the underworld—

(such odiousness promises reliance

from Heaven—evidently). Here, rumour

has it, in the obscurity of night

corpses can be heard to groan, and gods of

Death, too; and chains shake with howlings of

ghosts. Here, what is most horrible to hear

can be seen : forefathers, withered in years,

are still taking steps; their tombs lie open,

and monstrosities long dead still insult us.

This woodland is worse than any nightmare.

Here and there a sparkling lights the place,

like fires, though the tall trees do not burn.

You may hear the three-voiced barking of the

dog below. You may see the entire castle

wrapped in ghosts. And sunlight brings no comfort,

for all day the woodland prolongs the night.

Here at the height of sunlight broods the dread

feeling of the Underworld. But if you

make it here, and speak out for oracles,

the answers you seek are certain : the words

telling of destiny rush out a crack

from the inmost space of the sanctuary

and spread out in a vast, deep, and terrible

noise from the gods.

 

                                     Here, wild Atreus entered

dragging his brother’s two children. He had

prepared his altar well.

 

                                          But who would wish

to speak this well? First he binds the hands

of the noble children behind their backs,

then covers over their sad eyes with wool

the colour purple. He remembers the incense;

and the libation to Bacchus, and the

knife that opens the throats of victims.

Everything is done according to rule,

ensuring the crime is done properly.

 

Seneca, Thyestes, 641–690 / translated in the throes of a crazed life-threatening Clonazepam titration yet your friendly translator made it to the end / hope it makes sense / Oppenheimer : $649,027,475 / best wishes

[Jeff Bernstein]

Medea standing on the roof of the burning palace, dagger in one hand, son in the other. Her other son, now dead, lies at her feet. Colossal flames and thick black smoke rise around them.

 

JASON

(shouting)

Our good king has fallen horribly!

This way! We must seize the parent of this

sick crime! You brave men! Follow me! Come on!

Draw weapons! Stand close and tear the house apart!

 

MEDEA

(spinning through a kaleidoscope of moods)

Yes. Now my father’s power is returned

to me. I take what’s mine back. The kingdom

has recovered. The raped is now virgin

again. Finally!—some help from the quiet

Heavens. What a day, what a joyous day.

o nuptialem! Now—Do it!—Perfect

your work. You’ve not yet taken your revenge.

Do it while your hands are still working!

Kill them both. What’s this hesitation? Raise

your hand and cut him apart! What is it?

The terror of what I’ve done—and will do

—is too huge to face, you shameful, rotten

woman! No. Whatever I’ve done, it’s done.

A fine feeling of pleasure relaxes me now.

Let it grow. This is the one element

I needed—a witness. I think I wasted

what I did because he didn’t see it.

This time let him share in the catastrophe.

 

JASON

Look at the roof! She’s hanging by the edge!

Quickly!—Bring fire! Let her fall into her own flames!

 

MEDEA

At last we’re all together again, my

husband. Jason! Build a tomb for your sons.

I’ve already buried your wife and glorious

father-in-law (as is right). But this one

is all for you. Now watch the other one.

 

JASON

Stop! I beg you—under Heaven, by our

sharèd exile, by our marriage bed

—I did not betray you! Spare the child.

If you want a criminal take me. He’s

innocent! I give myself up to death.

If there is any guilt, it’s mine. Kill me !

 

MEDEA

Just here I put the point of the dagger,

just where it hurts you. So go on, Great Man,

abandon a mother and f**k virgin whores.

 

JASON

One dead child is punishment enough.

 

MEDEA

If this hand could be satisfied by one dead,

it’d done nothing. Two dead will not touch

the rage inside me. If there’s any love

left inside this mother, let the blade cut

into her and see if I can draw it out.

 

JASON

Enough already! I’m done with words. Do it!

 

MEDEA

Slow death is nice. It’s so much more proper

for punishment. And my stay here’s not yet over.

 

JASON

You sick woman! Kill me !

 

MEDEA

You want pity? . . . . There. Good. It is over.

Misery, I’ve now given you all I have—

in atonement. Jason, look at me

with your teary eyes, disgusting man :

now do you see your wife? Ha! Look at this!

(I’ve always had an escape.) A passage

has opened in the sky : two scaly

serpents draw the chariot to take me

away. Good father, here are your two sons.

I go off strengthening into the air.

 

JASON

Go off as far as you will through the air.

Look around. Where you are you’ll see no gods.

 

 

End of

Seneca, Medea (978–1027)

 

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon

 

Which Claudette Colbert movie poster is visible in two shots?

[Jeff Bernstein]

The Oppenheimer (2023) phemonenon and Spielberg

 

In the minutes before the Trinity test, the character Oppenheimer and Groves (Matt Damon) share a quiet moment of conversation together. Damon is sitting with his legs outstretched, his feet resting on a facing chair.

 

This body posture recalls Tom Hanks speaking with a very young Matt Damon in Saving Private Ryan (1998), 2:03:07–2:07:26. Hanks, the authority figure, sits in a very similar manner (e.g., 2:04:03).

 

Passages of Time.

 

All these years later, Matt Damon now occupies the authoritative attitude of a mature Tom Hanks.

[Jeff Bernstein]

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon

 

The audience of spectators watching the Trinity test are equivalent (so to speak) to the cinema audiences spectating the detonation. This opening remark demands an extended treatment of a theme in Oppenheimer which (no surprise) rushes to what has always been here :

 

Οἰδίπους

ὦ τέκνα, Κάδμου τοῦ πάλαι νέα τροφή,

τίνας ποθ᾽ ἕδρας τάσδε μοι θοάζετε

ἱκτηρίοις κλάδοισιν ἐξεστεμμένοι;

πόλις δ᾽ ὁμοῦ μὲν θυμιαμάτων γέμει,

ὁμοῦ δὲ παιάνων τε καὶ στεναγμάτων:

ἁγὼ δικαιῶν μὴ παρ᾽ ἀγγέλων, τέκνα,

ἄλλων ἀκούειν αὐτὸς ὧδ᾽ ἐλήλυθα,

ὁ πᾶσι κλεινὸς Οἰδίπους καλούμενος.

ἀλλ᾽ ὦ γεραιέ, φράζ᾽, ἐπεὶ πρέπων ἔφυς

πρὸ τῶνδε φωνεῖν, τίνι τρόπῳ καθέστατε,

δείσαντες ἢ στέρξαντες; ὡς θέλοντος ἂν

ἐμοῦ προσαρκεῖν πᾶν: δυσάλγητος γὰρ ἂν

εἴην τοιάνδε μὴ οὐ κατοικτίρων ἕδραν.

 

The final line here : i.e., “Why this sitting before me?”

[Jeff Bernstein]

Phantom Thread (2017) : an unexpectedly (so to speak) wondrous shot

 

3:48–3:56. The two top craftswomen in the Woodcock atelier are organising themselves for their morning’s work. The shot begins on one woman gathering a garment from a stand, then the camera pans to the right and moves out to reveal both women preparing garments on the table that is finally strongly rectilinearly rendered in the shot, with its sharp front corners emphasized.

 

The vitality of the camera movement—how it pulls out “wide” from medium just after beginning its pan to the right—recalls restlessly active Scorsese.

 

But the move-out also recalls the classic Spielberg move-in (e.g., Always (1989), 44:57–45:02).

 

Theory : this shot is a marriage of Scorsese and Spielberg with Kubrick in the air—for the lens choice, as revealed at shot’s end, is seemingly very close to becoming a lens of distortion used in a tight interior space.

 

Phantom Thread, 3:48–3:56 : It’s a gloriously active shot—and just active enough to accord with the two good ladies—decorous, accomplished, and rich with history.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Triple Conjunction

 

At the end of Seneca’s Medea (available just above in this thread), the maddened woman, holding dagger and child in hand, exclaims to herself, moving inside herself from personality to personality, from vibe to vibe :

 

                           What’s this hesitation? Raise

your hand and cut him apart! What is it?

The terror of what I’ve done—and will do

—is too huge to face, you shameful, rotten

woman! No. Whatever I’ve done, it’s done.

 

Note the horrific self-reflection set in italics here. One part of her understands where she stands, yet by this point she has gone beyond having to stand it. When the terror of her Situation suddenly clarifies before her—well, better to simply push away that self-knowing part of herself, and carry on.

 

This Situation of terrible self-awareness is echoed almost two thousand years later in Stephen King’s Christine (1982), chapter 33 :

 

“Oh but Arnie, how did you hurt your back?”

 

And this Situation has already appeared in Shakespeare’s Senecan play Macbeth :

 

MACBETH

By the worst means, the worst. For mine own good,

all causes shall give way. I am in blood

stepped in so far that should I wade no more,

returning were as tedious as go over.
 

(3.4.167–170)

 

Terrible is the sudden self-reflection of the damned.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Space of Phantom Thread (2017)

 

Bresson / Bergman : the barren area of Woodcock Manor : 4:45 . . . the monastic place of thought . . . with the one red apple of Experience . . . where Woodcock sits, oppressed (drawing like All Work and No Play), at 1:43:54.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Oppenheimer (2023) is the most distinguished word-of-mouth blockbuster in Hollywood history.

 

In one early sequence storyteller Nolan conveys the activity of scholastic studying with the panache of an action scene, and quite rightly : for education is the most exciting avenue to transformation. (Luckily it’s available for free 24/7.) To tabulate all of the aspects of what makes the Oppenheimer phenomenon possibly the most incredible Situation in Hollywood history—coming just at its end—would require too much of the Good Reader’s time just now, but one point seems essential here on Cinematography.com : Oppenheimer promotes scholastic study.

 

What is a more worthy message than this?

[Jeff Bernstein]

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon

 

1.

 

How can it be that Oppenheimer is gathering an E.T. audience? Such seems fantasy. For a prophet to have predicted this outcome prior to release would have drawn accusations of imbecility.

 

It’s happening.

 

There is a simple answer why.

 

A first-rate narrative works on the Intuition and the Unconscious. Oppenheimer is a first-rate narrative.

 

Obviously the world audience is not adhering through the third hour to learn if the character Oppenheimer keeps his security clearance or not.

 

Obviously something other is going on.

 

2.

 

Oppenheimer is a first-rate narrative that has earned its audience respect. It has earned its word-of-mouth victory.

 

(And kindly remember, Kind Reader, Scrooby saw, and rightly said, “word-of-mouth success”, on day 8, right here on Cinematography.com.)

 

3.

 

Oppenheimer very robustly promotes scholastic study. Thereby it may inspire an entire generation of world youth. (Self-) education as a theme has a priority over whatever it is that is studied (such as, for example, atomic physics, gender). Can any philosopher argue otherwise?

 

Oppenheimer is founded in so many storytelling fundamentals that this three-hour movie is equivalent to a three-year course in storytelling—as are all first-rate narratives.

 

The world has voted—and is still marching onward to the most improbable $1 billion in either reality or fantasy.

 

4.

 

Please now consider the following thought. When in Hollywood history have the studios ever consciously gone against audience opinion? Remember that Lord of the Rings movie raking in all the awards? And Titanic? If those were considered “one-of-a-kind phenomena” as they were at the time, then what words are proper to describe the Oppenheimer phenomenon?

 

The studio executives of the 1930s were far from educated yet they were not dumb enough to ignore the vote of the public. Ever.

 

Hollywood must get behind everything the Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon represents, or we will have incontestable and final proof that Hollywood is dead.

 

This author hopes there is still life yet. The phenomenon shall continue into early 2024. . . . Then we will know. Periere cuncta, or . . . ?

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon, and Sophocles

 

Remember, Friends, how the character Oppenheimer deploys the word “Pragmatic” when in conversation with the Capraesque Josh Hartnett character? This usage of the word recalls to the audience its recent use by the character Oppenheimer’s new love—and therefore this usage means “so much more” than it would otherwise in this context, and the audience knows it. First-rate writing.

 

Guess what? Sophocles has a wonderful example of this. Surprised?

 

Οἰδίπους

καί μ᾽ ἦμαρ ἤδη ξυμμετρούμενον χρόνῳ (73)

 

Ἄγγελος

καὶ τῷ μακρῷ γε συμμετρούμενος χρόνῳ. (963)

 

συμμετρούμενος χρόνῳ

ξυμμετρούμενον χρόνῳ

both derive from the same word (συμμετρέω) and in context both mean, most generally, a “measure of time” (e.g., duration of a lifespan).

 

Now : In the first instance, the use of ξυμμετρούμενον χρόνῳ is majestic (so to speak) in context, for the phrase helps to conveys the priority of King Oedipus’ mentation over all others in the city.

 

Now comes the comedown : As Oedipus is spiralling down into the Hell of self-recognition without as yet truly facing it as such, suddenly some guy—a wanderer with a message, hence a messenger— Ἄγγελος—we do not yet know who he truly is—appears on stage, and in this case the message is transacted as a sort of gossip.

 

So, at face value, all the majesty (so to speak) of the first usage is dramatically and comically undercut by the second usage emerging from the mouth of a (so to speak) country bumpkin. This second usage is a Genius Touch conveying Implacable Fate : as Oedipus the man spirals down, his old poise and eloquence are now the stuff of "just anyone". The second usage reduces him in size.

 

But, according to Scrooby, Sophocles has engineered the most complex tale from the hand of one author : Οἰδίπους Τύραννος. And so (and I’m sorry, Christopher Nolan) here we have a triple use in play.

 

The messenger’s συμμετρούμενος χρόνῳ changes in resonance (e.g., as a mood light morphs) once we discover that the messenger is actually a key player in the life story of Oedipus : he is the shepherd who (happily or unhappily) saved the baby Oedipus’ life. (1030)

 

So the second use of συμμετρούμενος χρόνῳ has itself two resonances : it’s a Storytelling Clue that this character is far more than simply a wanderer with some gossip : it is an intimate link between Saviour and Baby. And I believe the first use of Prolepsis in this thread was in the context of Dunkirk and the ancient Greeks.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

Phantom Thread cinematography : Genius Move

 

Following the genius geometry of the editing : 1:43:34.

 

New Year’s Eve in the Woodcock marriage. The shot is divided into four vertical sectors which might be described (not too loosely) as symmetrical. From left to right :

 

1. The door leading down to the back alley (the workers’ entrance).

2. The staircase leading up into the inner recesses of the house.

3. Woodcock sitting on his own in the dark Monastic Room.

4. CU of the corner of a wall.

 

We have no time just now to consider the genius lighting. One detail, though : The door on the left.

 

The door on the left is associated with a creepy infernal glow (e.g., 2:37); and at one moment opens on its own (e.g., The Trouble With Harry; Shampoo), “spoiling” a grand dignified moment (the entrance of a Countess) with sudden glitchiness (genius mix of grandiosity and absurdity . . . and foreboding . . . and character definition for Cyril . . . at 6:03)—so why not term this door here The Creepy Door.

 

The Creepy Door, that leads downwards. . . .

 

The Creepy Door, associated with Woodcock (via shot symmetry).

The Staircase of Life in between.

Woodcock to one side of life, restless in the claustrophobic Monastic Room.

Hemmed in by the inexpressive wall—yet at the same time very expressive of uncomfortable significations.

 

The bronze medallions on the iron staircase railing recall the Huge Magic Eye looking down from the height of the house above the stairs. This shot is suffused with its light (as it were). But Woodcock now occupies a space out of its light.

 

Bronze? As in, say . . . ancient Greece?

 

Floods of efficient words can easily spring from this Genius Compendium Shot.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Lens Fun : Phantom Thread and EWS

 

The lensing on DDL at 1:44:03 seems very close to the lensing on NK in EWS at 23:37.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Phantom Thread : Colossal Fundamental

 

The claustrophobic Monastic Room of Woodcock Manor contains a kettle that recalls Alma’s entrance into Woodcock’s life (15:12 / 1:44:37). No surprise that the Monastic Room is a Memory Room. (An archive.) We are, as mentioned earlier in this thread, in Bergman/Bresson territory, as at 4:44, but this time we’re inside the Room. On its own the audience occupies the Monastic Room. This remark demands an extended treatment of this theme in question, but “No, thanks” (American Gigolo, 5:27).

 

Inside the inside—the audience is now in a different (conceptual) position with respect to the narrative.

 

In short : once again we’re back to :

 

Οἰδίπους

ὦ τέκνα . . .

                     ἕδραν.

 

i.e., “Why this sitting before me?”

 

Phantom Thread and Oppenheimer : two colossal feats of storytelling. PTA takes on sophisticated Sophocles and his seemingly unapproachable triple-tone—PTA attempting possibly the most difficult technical challenge available to an author.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Phantom Thread : Critical Character Confirmation

 

1:47:07. Woodcock and Alma face each other at the New Year’s Eve party. The position of the narrative of Phantom Thread in a (theoretical) structural universe would suggest that a transmission of dialogue in this scene is a requirement for general balance of form. However, the omission reveals not a flaw but rather character. Is the silence here a storytelling Genius Move? This moment is no creative lapse, as it turns out. The silence of the moment is critical to understanding (to whatever degree) the character of Woodcock. This character cannot speak—not even when it’s seemingly absolutely necessary. He is unable (as if through a genetic quirk) to reveal himself in this way. Apparently the only way this character expresses himself with most satisfactory freedom is through Art.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

Phantom Thread (2017) : an example of the Triple-Tone of Sophocles

 

1:50:50. Woodcock moans about Alma while unaware that she stands behind him, hearing his words.

 

1. This is a serious moment of personal crisis.

2. This is a humorous moment of (a) careless speech and (b) being in the wrong place at the right time. The Situation of a character overhearing what they aren’t meant to—specifically situations in which doors and chairs are involved—was no innovative story grace note in the Hollywood comedies of the 30s and 40s. Example : There is one Betty Grable film—I think Pin Up Girl (1944)—which uses this old technique as the film’s climax. Other film enthusiasts will no doubt be able to tabulate a long list of, say, romantic comedies which deploy this time-honoured technique. A more recent example is the romantic comedy Notting Hill (1999) : Hugh Grant accidently overhears Julia Roberts speaking of him via a convenient microphone headset.

3. This is a perverse moment, because Alma may be a psycho and this Situation leads immediately to the omelette. (So you might say she is lurking behind Woodcock somewhat in the manner of a Michael Myers.)

 

Serious & humorous & perverse concurrently : this is the triple-tone of Sophocles.

 

This is a tone seemingly impossible to create, let alone sustain for an entire narrative. In Oedipus, when the jolly Messenger— Ἄγγελος—arrives with heavy news (as mentioned earlier in this thread), the tone of Oedipus the play becomes unspeakably mind-bending. Yes, what Sophocles accomplishes in Οἰδίπους Τύραννος seems impossible for any artist to ever emulate—yet PTA takes on Sophocles.

 

In Scrooby’s mind this artistic urgency makes Phantom Thread the most significant piece of original narrative produced in English since 2017.

 

But let’s not forget that the world has voted on Oppenheimer : another first-rate narrative, of its own kind.

[Jeff Bernstein]

The Triple Tone of Sophocles : not even one line is required as demonstration

 

Οἰδίπους

φεῦ φεῦ, τί δῆτ᾽ ἄν, ὦ γύναι, σκοποῖτό τι

τὴν Πυθόμαντιν ἑστίαν . . .

(964–5)

 

The character Oedipus has just received what he thinks is good news—news that seemingly contradicts the terrible prophecy he’s been paranoid of for so long (killing his father and sleeping with his mother).

 

Yes, good news! So how does a relieved Oedipus, confident once more, take a victory lap?

 

OEDIPUS

Ah ha! Woman, no need to ever look

again to any Pythian prophecies . . . !

 

σκοποῖτό : Perhaps not the best word to use to celebrate . . . in retrospect?

[Jeff Bernstein]

composer Jonny Greenwood and music history in Phantom Thread (2017)

 

“Phantom Thread”

Medieval music (via, say, Alfred Schnittke)

(Fun fact : also has vibes of Pino Donaggio’s score for Body Double (1984))

 

“I’ll Follow Tomorrow”

Beethoven piano sonatas

Debussy (various pieces, such as Images)

fused together brilliantly

 

“Catch Hold”

Debussy, Suite bergamasque

 

“House of Woodcock”

Debussy

Elgar (Enigma Variations IX)

 

“Alma” and “Endless Superstition”

Debussy, “Nocturnes”

Charles Ives, “The St. Gaudens in Boston Common”, in Three Places in New England

 

“Endless Superstition”

Charles Ives

Beethoven (e.g., Piano Sonata No. 14)

 

“Never Cursed”

Shostakovich, String Quartet No. 15

 

“For the Hungry Boy”

An inner movement of a “classic” 20th-century piano concerto

 

 “Alma”

Beethoven (i.e., piano sonatas)

The slow movement of a “classic” 20th-century violin concerto

 

“That’s As May Be”

Bernard Herrmann and Vertigo (and North by Northwest) !

 

“Boletus Felleus”

Stockhausen

 

“The Hem” and “Sandalwood”

Philip Glass 

John Adams

 

“Barbara Rose”

includes late 20th century avant-garde

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

Phantom Thread & Oppenheimer & Jane Austen

 

Is the climactic omelette scene of PT the most intelligent characterological scene to emerge from Hollywood since who knows when? PTA nails the triple-tone of Sophocles. The sick mix is expert here yet almost impossible to achieve in any case.

 

Why “expert”? Responding to that question would require an extensive wordstack—No thanks.

 

But notice (as I would) the number of thematic rainbow lens flares in this scene of death : the EWS effect in full fructifying flower.

 

Note the ancient aura of the location (is that an Assyrian frieze?).

 

Note Alma in green (culmination of her film-long association with Nature).

 

Note the Bergman/Bresson vibe associated with Alma.

 

Note how Alma knocks the overhead light with her rising hand as she (aggressively? mockingly? Annie Wilkes–like?) pours oh-so-slowly—sending out creepy vibes of the Muse threatening to cancel the gift of light.

 

Chillingly, the Muse is making light of light.

 

How quickly PT comes to its crisis and ends! PT wraps up as fast and efficiently as a 1930s movie!

 

And not a word is spoken until almost the end of the scene (a few intertitles)! We’re back in the silent era!

 

And so on and so forth into infinity. . . .

 

Scrooby’s Editorial. Phantom Thread is our Hollywood’s #1 sophisticated expression at this time. The world is presently voting favorably on Oppenheimer. These two narratives are very different in construction. The latter does not unseat the former, nor does the former trivialize the latter. They co-exist equitably.

 

Oppenheimer, for all of its genius well-worthy of colossal celebration and cerebration, does not unseat Phantom Thread as Hollywood’s greatest film since Phantom Thread.

 

But Nolan is far from finished. And in its own ways Dunkirk is as colossally accomplished as Phantom Thread. Storytelling in Hollywood is especially exciting just now with these two presently active. How will PTA respond to Oppenheimer? What genius awaits us?

 

Jane Austen

 

The careers of these two storytellers are shaping up like Jane Austen’s : as she progressed, she got smarter and smarter and finally arrived at what was a century-defining perfect prose work (Persuasion, 1817). The full-spectrum sophistication of Persuasion is light-years ahead of, say, Pride and Prejudice. No surprise that Jane Austen gave great inspiration to both Joseph Conrad and Henry James. Jane Austen is nineteenth-century English literature. And now PTA and Nolan have, shall we say, grown up to, metaphorically speaking, Jane Austen levels of storytelling power.

 

Alas, Jane Austen passed away at the age of 41 before Persuasion was published.

 

We’re slower learners nowadays—as Thomas Pynchon would be quick to remind us.

 

PTA and Nolan continue.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

Jane Austen, Persuasion

 

Lady Elliot had been an excellent woman, sensible and amiable; whose judgment and conduct, if they might be pardoned the youthful infatuation which made her Lady Elliott, had never required indulgence afterwards.

 

In short : Lady Elliot fooled around before a marriage that eventually bored her to tears.

 

So why not just write that?

 

Atmosphere(s). Tone(s).

 

Jane Austen required as firm a hand on vibes in her work as any master filmmaker nowadays.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Storytelling : the Indirect and the Unstated.

 

1. Oppenheimer. The use of the word “Pragmatic” in two different scenes of close proximity. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the dual use of this word, first by the wife-to-be, second by the husband-to-be, in different contexts unite the two characters. The character Oppenheimer’s use of the word (the second use) confirms, through this indirect method, the importance for him of the new woman in his life. The audience gets it.

 

2. Phantom Thread. Woodcock : “I try never to be without her [my mother].” Alma : “You must love her very much.” (19:09) Alma’s reply is as much a self-realization as a polite response to Woodcock. What Alma is apparently thinking, though leaving unstated—going on the evidence of her unsettled aspect—is : I have a mother to compete with here! (“She’s here in the canvas” = coat, psychology, DNA.)

[Jeff Bernstein]

Sophocles : the Indirect and the Unstated in one line

 

Οἰδίπους

Μερόπης, γεραιέ, Πόλυβος ἧς ᾤκει μέτα.

(990)

 

Oedipus’ parents, so he thinks, are Polybus and Merope. The messenger has just asked Oedipus about Merope.

 

OEDIPUS

Merope, old man, is who is with Polybus.

(990)

 

Oedipus’ line is as awkward as that. Just here Oedipus would rather not say the word “wife”.

 

Why? Because Jocasta (his wife and mother!) stands near him, and is uneasy. Somewhere inside Jocasta she knows the sick truth of things, which (apparently) is why she soon flees the stage in terror.  

 

Oedipus—somehow he knows too—apparently, considering the circumlocution of line 990.

 

Recap : Oedipus tells the old man the identity of Merope Indirectly. And the Unstated is : Oedipus cannot bear speaking the word “wife” because it’s all too horrible.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Sophocles : the first grand-scale “Living in Denial” in literary history?                     

 

Οἰδίπους

ὁποῖα χρῄζει ῥηγνύτω: τοὐμὸν δ᾽ ἐγώ,

κεἰ σμικρόν ἐστι, σπέρμ᾽ ἰδεῖν βουλήσομαι.

αὕτη δ᾽ ἴσως, φρονεῖ γὰρ ὡς γυνὴ μέγα,

τὴν δυσγένειαν τὴν ἐμὴν αἰσχύνεται.

(1076–1079)

 

At the beginning of Oedipus the play, King Oedipus was dominant in speech over all others in the city. Sixty minutes or so later, this most eloquent of men is pretty much tongue-tied at line 990, unable or unwilling to enunciate the simple word “wife”. And now his wife/mother Jocasta has just fled the stage in terror. In the shocked silence that follows, the jolly Messenger loses a little of his good spirits, and he asks Oedipus if he thinks everything will be all right.

 

OEDIPUS

Whatever will be will be! If it’s discovered

I’m the son of a slave, I still want to know it!

You know how women are. Drama, drama, drama!  

She’ll feel shame at my low birth.

 

All this sounds like gabble from the panicked. “If it’s discovered I’m the son of a slave, I still want to know it.” A woman running in terror from the stage is, Scrooby thinks, concerned with something a bit more serious just now than that.

 

And Oedipus, somewhere inside him, knows this. It’s like Jack at the end of The Shining, smiling into the camera—and let Nabokov describe the moment : “a cesspoolful of rotting monsters behind his slow boyish smile”. (Lolita, 1.11)

 

In his speech quoted above, Oedipus is relying on his facility with words and imagination as he flails inside himself to ignore what is coming. Meanwhile, what comes out of him is poppycock—a far cry from the confident majesty of his language at the play’s outset.

 

By the way. Oedipus, you ask for “Drama, drama, drama”? (φρονεῖ γὰρ ὡς γυνὴ μέγα) Careful what you wish for. (Recalling some so-called famous last words of Woodcock’s : “I don't find that spooky at all.” 11.41) Serious, funny, perverse. The Triple-Tone.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein