μεταμορφώσεις

[Jeff Bernstein]

One of the most monumental questions ever asked in world cinema—obviously

 

“What good is the law if it prevents me from seeing justice?”

 

Crimes and Misdemeanors, 43:17

 

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

The ancient Greeks : originators of the “leitmotif” in cinema scores

 

In “Sophocles and Phantom Thread” (a separate, exploratory thread here on Cinematography.com), the use of a linguistic doubling effect in the Oedipus of Sophocles is demonstrated with respect to the first 138 lines or so.

 

Examples :

 

φθίνουσα μὲν κάλυξιν ἐγκάρποις χθονός,
φθίνουσα δ᾽ ἀγέλαις βουνόμοις . . . (25–6)

γνωτὰ κοὐκ ἄγνωτά (58)

τίν᾽ ἡμὶν ἥκεις τοῦ θεοῦ φήμην φέρων (86)

ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς αὑτοῦ τοῦτ᾽ ἀποσκεδῶ μύσος (138)

 

These lines of dialogue were more sung than spoken. The word for “country”, for example—χθονός : depending on the context of the moment, this three-syllable word might have been drawn out for, say, twenty seconds, with each syllable having a different pitch, and, say, the last syllable having a pitch much higher or much lower than the rest of the sound of the word.

 

Ancient Greek dialogue has zero relationship to how we speak conversationally, or even on stage or in the movies, today.

 

The musicality of the language in Oedipus contributed to the play’s incantatory and hypnotic effects.

 

We hear echoes of the linguistic doubling effect from the first third of the play in the last third of the play. This is akin to, say, Wagner’s use of the leitmotif in the Ring cycle, which inspired the structure of James Joyce’s Ulysses in a tremendous way.

 

Now comes three words :

 

Ἐξάγγελος

 . . . τὰ δ᾽ αὐτίκ᾽ εἰς τὸ φῶς φανεῖ κακὰ

ἑκόντα κοὐκ ἄκοντα

(1229–1230)

 

Note the line numbers :

 

γνωτὰ κοὐκ ἄγνωτά (58)

ἑκόντα κοὐκ ἄκοντα (1230)

 

This “doubling motif” or “echoing motif” does not fill up the middle third of the play. No. Line 1230 brings back the echoing motif of the first third of the play.

 

γνωτὰ κοὐκ ἄγνωτά (58) = “known, not unknown”

ἑκόντα κοὐκ ἄκοντα (1230) = “willingly, not unwillingly”

 

Line 1230 is a distant echo of line 58—that is to say, a distant echo of Oedipus’ strength and confidence, all gone now.

 

Line 1230 is a thematic echo and a musical echo.

 

This technique is one of the most common techniques in cinema scores from the beginning of cinema to the present day. Hollywood composers will say : “This technique derives from the great European musical tradition.”

 

“Yeah . . . no.” (Punch-Drunk Love, 32:00.)

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

Dear Chromatic Cinematographers

 

Ἐξάγγελος

ὅπως γὰρ ὀργῇ χρωμένη παρῆλθ᾽ ἔσω

θυρῶνος . . .

(1241–1242)

 

The messenger, speaking of the horrible ending of Oedipus’ wife/mother Jocasta, says here :

 

Messenger

When in the heat of her passion (χρωμένη) she went

through the door and into . . .

 

χρωμένη (kro-me-ne, from χρᾰ́ομαι) = passion, desire, eagerness  

 

χρωμένη = chroma ? !

 

χρῶμα = color

(pronounced “chroma”)

 

Is there an etymological link? Let’s look at the Present Indicative of the first (χράομαι) :

 

χρῶμαι (passion)

χρῶμα (color)

              

Color = passion ? !

 

Dear “scholars” : you figure the etymology out. You've only had over 2,000 years to do so.

 

Best wishes.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Ἐξάγγελος

ὅπως γὰρ ὀργῇ χρωμένη παρῆλθ᾽ ἔσω

θυρῶνος . . .

(1241–1242)

 

When in the colors of her passion she went through the door . . .

or

When in her changing colors she went through the door . . .

[Jeff Bernstein]

Sophocles : The Music Never Stops

 

Ἐξάγγελος

. . . ὅπως γὰρ ὀργῇ χρωμένη παρῆλθ᾽ ἔσω . . .

τοῖς οἷσιν αὐτοῦ δύστεκνον παιδουργίαν.

1241 / 1248

 

ὀργῇ (intense passion)

-ουργίαν (maker)

 

Look similar? They sound similar.

 

Kind Reader, remember the meaning-doubling encoded into the language of Sophocles? Here it is again, twofold :

 

ὀργῇ χρωμένη

δύστεκνον παιδουργίαν

 

Each of these phrases is a sort of tautology—poet-playwright Sophocles is ramping up the intensity of the Situation by doubling the meaning of each phrase. The wordplay (relating to sound) of an earlier example (chroma) is still happening. . . .

 

A “direct” translation might be rendered, for example :

 

ὀργῇ χρωμένη = impulse of her passion

δύστεκνον παιδουργίαν = child-maker (i.e., mother) of perverse children

 

But in terms of wordplay (bluntly, and put most simply—ignoring parts of speech) :

 

ὀργῇ χρωμένη = passion of passion

δύστεκνον παιδουργίαν = suffering-children children-suffering

 

The microlevels of Sophocles have become way too complex to write about simply. But Scrooby is trying. The state-of-the-art weirdness of the language of Sophocles is working on the audience’s Unconscious (absolutely no question), just like the narrative of Oppenheimer. . . .

 

By this point the audience is now feeling the tab of acid called Oedipus.

 

P.S. Aeschylus

 

Sophocles’ wordplay has a predecessor in Aeschylus, Agamemnon, where a (false?) etymological connection between the name of Helen and the word “destroy” is used to powerful effect :

 

Ἑλένη = Helen

ἑλέ- = a prefix for “to destroy”

 

Ἑλέναν . . .

ἑλένας, ἕλανδρος, ἑλέ-

πτολις . . .

(687–689)

 

“Helen, ship-destroyer, man-destroyer, city-destroyer.”

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

I can’t take it anymore—who’s with me? (ha)

 

γοᾶτο δ᾽ εὐνάς, ἔνθα δύστηνος διπλοῦς

ἐξ ἀνδρὸς ἄνδρα καὶ τέκν᾽ ἐκ τέκνων τέκοι.

(1249–1250)

 

What does διπλοῦς mean? DOUBLE.

 

1. We just heard δύστεκνον (miserable children) in the preceding line.

2. δύστηνος = wretched, unhappy, unfortunate, disastrous

3. ἀνδρὸς ἄνδρα = man man / husband husband

4. τέκνων τέκοι = children child

 

But wait. I’m going to have a stroke :

 

ἐξ ἀνδρὸς ἄνδρα καὶ τέκν᾽ ἐκ τέκνων τέκοι.

 

Just look. The concept of the TRIPLE . . .

 

Marvel at the virtuosity : Just as the past of Oedipus has now become present to him, so Sophocles employs the “past” style of the first third to intensify everything in the third (the final) part. . . .

 

Just like Oppenheimer!

 

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

Iliad 2022 and 切腹 and . . . look closely . . .

 

Now, far above the gathering storm-clouds, Zeus Orderer gazed

down on δῖος Hector standing on the sidelines of battle,

outfitting himself in the celestial armour given

by the gods to Peleus, noble father of Achilles.

The god of everything laughed at the presumption of human

beings who follow their confidence, even the best of them,

even as they have no idea of what is what. Thus, Zeus must

teach them. Off on his own, he spoke only to himself, saying :

 

“Miserable man, you know not what you’re doing. You’re standing

in armour that is not your own, nor was ever meant for you.

Shudders fill those who see the man in that armour facing them.

He is the hero. Hector, you should shudder for your own fate,

in that armour. Your virtue is telling—you brought a mighty

man to nothing, Patroclus lies dead in the dust—but I must

avenge this insolence with the armour you stole. That was not

for you. And you should not have stripped a hero’s head and shoulders.

Supremacy in war may be yours to enjoy now, but your

skill will not prevail over the sky. You shall not return

in glory from the battlefield. I will punish you, because

Olympians can. You will not lay that armour before your

wife Andromache. You will learn that this will never happen.”

[Jeff Bernstein]

切腹 1:31:17. The daughter weeps violently over the body of her husband. At this point in the narrative Scrooby wondered (inspired by Aristotle’s theories) why audiences put themselves willingly through painful downbeat movies. Then Scrooby remembered what happened to him three or four days earlier. All was lost, completely lost, finally and utterly for the last time. Scrooby felt rock-bottom desolation. He wandered into a cemetery to think what may have been his last thoughts. Inside, movement in the distance caught his eye. An old man was cleaning up around a headstone, removing stray twigs and suchlike. Scrooby then saw the man caress, thoughtfully and lovingly, the top of the headstone, and Scrooby had to look away. The painful depths of life were too much just then. Scrooby walked on through the cemetery. He came to a waste bin. Prominent inside the bin, and sticking out high into the air, was an elaborate floral arrangement. Written in white flowers was the word DAUGHTER. Somehow these two terrible, terrible sights turned Scrooby around. He decided to keep fighting. Painful sights are like slaps in the face, telling us : Life Will Not Beat Us. Life conquers death for as long as it lasts.

 

Hold that thought.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Hagakiri (1962)

 

37:49. “What befalls others today may be your own fate tomorrow.”

 

*

 

The set-up of the story of Hagakiri (1962) is founded in a principle that may hit a thoughtful contemporary audience hard : Contradiction.

 

We'll return to this in a moment.

 

Contrast. The main character Hanshiro Tsugumo’s first line is : “That is correct.” (4:37) This character is initially presented as an emblem of Reason; he is the character who (apparently) knows what is right.

 

Hence, later on in the narrative, the following is a clue that Tsugumo knows more about things than he is letting on : “Surely it can’t be anything serious [Master Omodaka’s so-called “illness”].” (36:14)

 

Once the concept of Reason is established in Hagakiri, the first third of the narrative then presents :

 

Contradiction in human behaviour.

 

Examples of contradiction (from a contemporary audience’s POV) in the first third of the film :

 

7.30. “You wish to end your life  . . . it is a truly admirable resolve. I can only express the highest esteem.”

 

9:38. (The main character is bemoaning the state of peace of the present day) : “I sought connections for employment with a new master. . . . But try as I might, we live in times of peace.”

 

10:20. “The fellow who went to the Sengoku house was serious about disembowelling himself. There was nothing dishonourable about his intent. . . . they were touched by his sincerity . . .”

 

13:59. “He finds your resolve [to commit suicide] most admirable.”

 

17:23. “Extend to him every courtesy of this house, and have all our retainers witness his final act, that they may remember it as a proud example.”

 

18:27. “You may set your mind at ease. I came here with every intention of dying.”

18:37. (Reply to this) “A most admirable resolve.”

 

23:59. “You’ve declared your wish to die honourably by harakiri. It is a commendable decision. You are an example for all . . .”

 

24:27. “So that they may witness the noble death of a true warrior . . . I’ve ordered all retainers of this household to attend [your suicide].”

 

34:18. “I am deeply grateful for the courteous and considerate treatment you have accorded me today [for letting me commit suicide here]. I can find no adequate words to thank you.”

 

35:50. “You will need to make another choice [for a second man to decapitate you].” “That is most disappointing. . . . ” [“I had my heart set on Master Omodaka performing the service.” 40:23]

 

36:56. A question to the suicidal : “Would you like to come inside and relax [while you wait to kill yourself]?”

 

37:13. “You display remarkable discipline [in wanting to kill yourself]. I can but express my admiration.”

 

Theme 1 : Honour

 

What is going on here with respect to the film’s ongoing contrast between Reason and Celebrating Suicide?

 

Hint : The words “honour” and variations occur 15 times in the dialogue of the film.  

 

“Honour” as a concept is gone from the US and UK, scrubbed clean out of men by the women-controlled mass media (owned by private companies in Germany) for the last 20 years. Our culture here is analogous to the wall-mural in the film’s primary location : a tiger biting his own paw. These days, men are forced to be “vulnerable” or they are “cancelled”. If men attempt to be men, the next stage may then take place : police action.

 

Indeed, the film itself bemoans the lost honour of men : “The House of Iyi has gone soft like the others.” (11:48)

 

Russia, the Middle East, Japan, South Korea, and so on and so forth (let’s just say most every country on earth except for the US and those of western Europe) : In the present day the men of these countries maintain a strong sense of honour. The concept of the “vulnerable male” would be rejected by the women of these countries.

 

Theme 2 : Personal Responsibility

 

As alien to our Western world as “honour” is the concept of “responsibility”. These days, it’s everybody else’s fault but one’s own. Every time.

 

Honour and Responsibility : Hanshiro Tsugumo feels responsible for the Situation because it was his idea for his daughter to marry the man whose negligence contributed to the death of his daughter’s baby.

 

These days, the more popular alternative response to all that would be : “Not my fault.”

 

Dear US and UK of 2023 : Persons of honour do not attempt to duck out on retribution.

 

(Helpful hint : When you attempt to kill someone, make sure they're dead. Any man knows that.)

 

Seven Assorted Details of Hagakiri

 

1. The story’s set-up recalls Marlow in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness : “I would like you to hear what I have to say.” (57:59)

 

2. The character Oppenheimer’s soft voice—Hanshiro Tsugumo’s sad face.

 

3. Significant position of candles at 1:09:15 : Two candles, positioned in a linear manner, help to express the union of marriage. Compare with Phantom Thread, 1:10:35 : Three candles are positioned in a manner that suggests a claustrophobic triangulation with DDL “caught” inside.

 

4. Exquisite eyelight mastery throughout (e.g., 19:07).

 

5. Extreme telephoto. Only once in the entire film? Remember, this film uses ultrawide lenses. (1:09:37)

 

6. Contrast : A baby struggling to live; men desiring to die.

 

7. “This thing we call samurai honour is ultimately nothing but a facade.” (1.39.46) To general audiences, this is shocking nihilism.

 

Final thoughts.

 

1:05:06. “He who knows not the heart of words cannot know the heart of man.”

 

1:29:34. “. . . a true blade, which is a warrior’s soul.”

 

2:12:08. “At peace, yet ever vigilant.”

                Seid nuchtern und wachet.

                (Be sober and vigilant.) Historia von D. Johann Fausten, 1587.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

An Ultimate Moment in Modern Cinematography : Mishima (1985)

 

8:06–8:34. The opening of Paul Schrader’s Mishima climaxes in a brilliantly composed photographic link (i.e., thematic link) between the ancient Greek statue and the character Mishima.

 

Master Cinematographer : John Bailey.

 

Here we see a wondrous 32 shots creating an unforgettable opening sequence (absolutely no question).

 

Can Hollywood do this today? PTA can. Nolan can. Tarantino can. Anyone else?

 

I ask anyone over the age of 50 : What do you think?

[Jeff Bernstein]

EXT. BEACH - BRITAIN - DAY

 

The many thousands of ROMAN TROOPS are coming out of the water and lining up in formation on the sand.

 

TITUS

(v.o.)

Considering how tired our troops were with all the rowing,

it would have gone best for the enemy if they had attacked us

then and there. But they didn’t.

 

Standing on the sand, CAESAR addresses TWO TROOPS, who rush off into the forest.

 

TITUS

(v.o.)

A reconnaissance went on ahead to find a place to raise camp.

 Soon we began to organize.

 

EXT. ARMY CAMP - A CLEARING - DAY

 

A forest surrounds the clearing. The many thousands of TROOPS are erecting tents, etc.

 

TITUS

(v.o.)

Caesar had no wish to wait to engage.

On the same day, at the third watch—

 

EXT. ARMY CAMP - MIDNIGHT

 

CAESAR, on horseback, leads a small proportion of the army into the trees. FOOTMEN march behind him, along with some CAVALRYMEN.

 

TITUS (cont’d)

(v.o.)

—our general went forth to find the enemy.

 

FOREST - NIGHT

 

By moonlight CAESAR and TROOPS moving carefully. . . .

 

CU CAESAR

 

Hyperaware of his surroundings, listening for any sound.

 

HIGH UP IN A TREE

 

A warrior BRITON watches the ROMAN TROOPS passing beneath him. Then he slides down the trunk and rushes away.

 

CUT TO ROMAN ARMY

 

CU CAESAR

 

His eyes looking every which way—with killing on his mind.

 

TITUS

(v.o.)

Caesar moved twelve miles through darkness into the unknown. . . .

 

LATER :

 

FOREST - HIGHER GROUND

 

Warrior BRITONS on horseback begin appearing here and there amid the trees—unseen by the Romans.

 

CU VARIOUS ROMAN TROOPS

 

They hear vague forest SOUNDS—snapping of twigs and suchlike. . . . Looking this way and that. . . .

 

WIDER

 

With war-screams the BRITONS begin their charge!

 

Shouts rush through the ROMAN lines.

 

CU CAESAR

 

Wheels his horse round with mad vengeance in his face.

 

CAESAR

(screaming)

HORSEMEN! ATTACK!

 

The CAVALRY gallop off to meet the enemy.

 

ON BRITONS

 

They immediately turn tail and vanish in the dark.

 

ON ROMAN CAVALRY

 

The CAVALRYMEN charge up the hill to find the enemy gone.

 

TITUS

(v.o.)

The enemy’s knowledge of their native terrain gave them a

significant advantage over our forces at this early time.

 

The CAVALRYMEN let the enemy go—unhappily.

 

CU CAESAR

 

He looks apoplectic.

 

CAESAR

(shouting)

CHASE THEM!

 

ANOTHER PART OF THE FOREST - NIGHT

 

Pursuing the enemy once more, the ROMAN CAVALRY bring their horses to a sudden, jarring halt.

 

Ahead of them all round are fortifications of tree trunks piled high, like a wall. There is no way forward.

 

BACK WITH CAESAR - CU

 

Red-faced and seething.

 

TITUS

(v.o.)

Caesar wisely decided to return to camp to finish our preparations.

 

An insane-sounding CAESAR shouts to whoever is nearby :

 

CAESAR

TOMORROW!!!

 

EXT. CAMP - MORNING

 

A massive THUNDERSTORM pummelling the Roman camp!

 

AT HARBOUR

 

Amid the driving winds, anchor cables snap, and ships are flung onto the beach and break up in the sand.

 

TITUS

(v.o.)

The next morning we experienced more of the harsh British weather.

 

In the water, ships are ramming into each other and smashing to pieces.

 

AT CAMP

 

CAESAR watches as the camp falls into disarray. In the terrible thunderstorm tents are being torn away and materiel is being flung every which way. . . .

 

TROOPS, meanwhile, are trying to batten things down.

 

CU CAESAR

 

He lowers his head and sighs.

 

CUT TO :

 

EXT. CAMP - DAY

 

Peace. Birdsong. Sunlight. The TROOPS are rebuilding the camp.

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon

 

Wacky set-up to a more serious point. Much earlier in this thread Scrooby defined Oppenheimer as “our” 1970s movie.

 

So. During the Trinity test, the character Oppenheimer is wearing what sounds very much like . . .

 

“[Director] Bob Rafelson . . . had come across some welding glasses with small dark lenses and flaps on the sides that became a permanent feature of his face.” Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, ch.2.

 

More seriously. At that moment in Oppenheimer, the character Oppenheimer is standing beside a movie camera that sends out vibes of the silent era. And in this same scene comes that silent-era lens-flare-type effect. . . .

 

During the Trinity test, storyteller Nolan presents the character Oppenheimer as resembling a movie director!

 

Speaking of Murnau!

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

As Good as It Gets (1997) : a Screen Kiss of the Ages

 

Scrooby considers himself a connoisseur of the classic Hollywood screen kiss. Scrooby could easily write an entire book on the history of the screen kiss in cinema. Having seen too many 1930s films to tabulate, Scrooby’s seen most every major screen kiss and an uncountable number of minor screen kisses from that decade. Scrooby can go further back and promote the notion that the silents Metropolis (1927) and Faust (1926) feature some of the Top 10 screen kisses even committed to film.

 

The one general point I’ll make just here, before specificity, is the following : A screen kiss is not only about actor chemistry—crucially, the geometry of the frame and especially the editing are in play here. Even if the actors are all in, and the kiss is the most passionate kiss ever committed to film—well, if the camera is in the wrong place, or the editing breaks it up in an awkward way, then the power of the moment is vitiated, and the screen kiss is lamed.

 

Now to As Good as It Gets (1997). Scrooby believes the screen kiss scene featuring Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt that concludes the film is a Highest Point in Intelligent Hollywood Cinema of our time. The film’s ending includes, actually, not one but two screen kisses—And there is a colossally intelligent reason why.

 

2:11:56–2:12:08. CU on Jack as he moves in on Helen. Kiss begins. Cut to CU of Helen. Cut back to Jack. Finally he moves back, and cut to Helen Hunt’s reaction. Vital point here : All of these angles feature the faces in a vertical geometry Situation.

 

This sort of screen kiss—(a) cut up with editing, and (b) not framed in a rectilinear fashion—is, for these two reasons, a modern Hollywood screen kiss.

 

This isn’t a problem. Scrooby is “just saying”.

 

Now comes a demonstration of the colossal intelligence of the director, the cinematographer (John Bailey!), and whoever else who put their two cents in during the shooting of this scene.

 

2:12:21. Jack : “I know I can do better than that.”

 

And Jack moves in a second time . . .

 

2:12.26–2:12:34. Boom! Rectilinear framing of the two stars locked in a kissing embrace.

 

2:12:35–2:12:40. Cut. Camera farther back, but still rectilinear framing.

 

So what's the big deal here?

 

These two screen kisses encapsulate Hollywood history. When Jack says “I can do better than that”, the film reverts to the 1930s method of capturing a screen kiss.  

 

So what is Scrooby saying?

 

The two screen kisses that conclude As Good as It Gets marry modern Hollywood cinema and classic Hollywood cinema.

 

And guess what?

 

When Jack says, “I can do better than that”, the film votes for the 1930s.

 

Scrooby agrees.

 

Yes it’s true that in the 1930s there wouldn’t be a cut to another angle during the screen kiss. The classic screen kisses of the 1930s are rectilinear and occupy one moment in time. So perhaps we can say that the second kiss is a fusion of the classic and the modern, with a heavy emphasis on the classic.

 

Let’s get kissing.

 

 

 

Edited August 27, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

Sophocles : Three Symphonic Words

 

We’re in the realm of “too complex to write about or understand without the requirement of hours of thought.” Let’s try anyway.

 

Ἐξάγγελος

. . . βοῶν γὰρ εἰσέπαισεν Οἰδίπους, ὑφ᾽ οὗ

οὐκ ἦν τὸ κείνης ἐκθεάσασθαι κακόν,

ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἐκεῖνον περιπολοῦντ᾽ ἐλεύσσομεν.

(1242–1244)

 

Would it be amazing if, in each of the words in bold, Sophocles engineers—using sound—a triple meaning?

 

He does it.

 

It’s obvious the following is going on, because, otherwise, why would Sophocles use such an elaborate word as ἐκθεάσασθαι for one of the simplest verbs of all—“to see”? Case closed.

 

The Messenger is recounting the last horrible moments of Jocasta, both wife and mother to Oedipus.

 

(“We have to pick up those air sick bags.” Crimes and Misdemeanors, 1:01:29.)

 

Face-value translation :

 

MESSENGER

Oedipus burst in and cried out, and we

weren’t able to see his horror, but we

watched as he walked around . . .  

 

1. εἰσέπαισεν = “burst or rush in”

Hear the echoes :

(εἰσ) - έ - (παισ) - εν

εἰσ = εἴσω (to see)

παισ = child

 

So the one word εἰσέπαισεν has three resonances here—

 

εἰσέπαισεν = her child burst in and saw . . .

 

Heidegger loved to explicate ancient Greek in this manner. It is as if the audience is hearing a piece of music in which three different leitmotifs are sounding out together as one interwoven compositional moment.

 

We’re far from done.

 

2. ἐκθεάσασθαι = “see all; see to the end”

Hear the echoes :

θεά = goddess / “special woman”

θεάσασθαι = sounds close to : wonderment (e.g., θαυμᾰ́ζεται)—wonderment as in “horrible shock or wonderment”

 

So the one word ἐκθεάσασθαι has three resonances here—

 

ἐκθεάσασθαι = he saw his mother with horror . . .

or

ἐκθεάσασθαι = he saw the horrible sight of his mother . . .

or

(but let’s move on) . . .

 

We’re not done yet.

 

3. ἐλεύσσομεν = “to look, to gaze on”

Hear the echoes :

ἑλέ = to destroy

ἐλευθερία = freedom, liberty

ἔλῡσᾰ or ἐλυόμην = to loosen / to slacken / to destroy

 

Here, let us hear the echo of ἐλευθερία as “freedom or liberty from . . . [reason]”.

 

So the one word ἐλεύσσομεν has three resonances here—

 

ἐλεύσσομεν = he saw, and slackened, and lost his mind . . .

 

So what is going on here?

 

Sophocles is stacking up the resonances as if an orchestra is playing tutti. The audience is being pummelled with meaning.

 

One of the fundamental themes of Oedipus the play is echoes—the past reaching into the present. So, no surprise here.

 

Where are we? The three lines might be translated :

 

MESSENGER

Oedipus the child burst in, saw, and cried out. We couldn’t see him see the horrible sight of his mother, couldn’t see him gaze on her, but then we saw him as he walked around, as he slackened, as he lost his mind . . .

 

Talk about “Stir of Echoes”. The audience is being attacked with meaning! We’re seemingly six degrees from . . . just about everything! Perhaps Sophocles wants the audience to identify with Oedipus by sending them, the audience, truly crazy?!

 

And Sophocles is far from finished.  

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon

 

Today in London :

 

BFI IMAX (Waterloo)

 

Monday 28 August 2023 12:00

SOLD OUT

 

Monday 28 August 2023 16:00

SOLD OUT

 

Monday 28 August 2023 20:00

SOLD OUT

 

 

Leicester Square

 

11:50am SOLD OUT

and not even IMAX!

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

What’s going on at the start of Oppenheimer (2023)?

 

Thinking about the energy-gathering “ancient Greek” shot of Mishima (1985) got Scrooby thinking.

 

At the start of Oppenheimer the audience experiences shots of wondrous quantum/celestial imagery (recalling the spectacle of Pt. IV of 2001 : A Space Odyssey) bolstered by ever-strengthening sound.

 

Energy-gathering. Strengthening.

 

This is what Art is about.

 

Do you want Scrooby to write you a book-sized post on the subject, or just move on?

 

Ok.

 

At the beginning of Oppenheimer, the audience is not simply watching what is happening onscreen. By virtue of Nolan’s storytelling genius—that is to say, he knows in what order to favourably present his information—Nolan would have the audience and Oppenheimer sync up.

 

Scrooby does not mean that the audiences are (simply) wooed into “getting into” the movie, and eager to pay attention.

 

Oppenheimer and the audience sync up psychologically via the genius of the opening minute or so, from shot one.

 

How does Scrooby know this?

 

The audience sits through Hour 3 then leaves the theater and distributes a word-of-mouth that has allowed for The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Scrooby believes he must strengthen that last post.

 

Remember? Shot one was interpreted way back in the commentary on the Oppenheimer trailer (way back in this thread); and shot two is the character Oppenheimer considering it.

 

Right off the bat, storyteller Nolan is syncing up the audience with the film. The character Oppenheimer is looking on "film-screen-type imagery" (let's just say that for now)—just as the audience is. Nolan sets up the following psychological equation : the character Oppenheimer = audience.

 

Apparently, going on the grosses, all this storytelling is working.

[Jeff Bernstein]

The Oppenheimer (2023) phenomenon

 

What about the young Oppenheimer’s use of cyanide in Oppenheimer? It is an act which seemingly threads through the narrative and syncs up with the dialogue at the end of the film. Is the movie character Oppenheimer, amid all else, a disillusioned psycho?

[Jeff Bernstein]

Oppenheimer (2023) : Heideggerian “Destruktion” as a Positive

 

“Now I have become Death, destroyer of worlds.”

 

This species of Destruction is a positive dismantlement of enduring folly we call the Past.

 

See, for an introduction, Heidegger, Being and Time (1927), Introduction, Part II, ¶6 : “The Task of Destroying the History of Ontology”

 

i.e., The Task of Destroying One’s False Understanding of Everything.

 

btw, Understanding what Heidegger means in his phrase “Being-in-the-world” is equivalent to understanding 2001 : A Space Odyssey.

 

“destroyer of worlds” = a positive. Whatever you think the world is, it’s not that. One destroys falsity.

 

As for the false, Truth sends flowers.

 

As for character, character is all things, infinite.

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

The Triple Tone of Sophocles, localised in Oppenheimer (2023)

 

Sophocles sustains the Triple Tone—Serious / Funny / Perverse simultaneously—throughout Oedipus the play. PTA takes on Sophocles to awesome effect which is still offering revelation (thought required). But the Triple Tone isn’t exclusive to the entirety of a narrative. Example : Stephen King nails the Triple Tone of Sophocles in the seventeen pages from Misery (1987) mentioned above.

 

Example : Oppenheimer sees Einstein about Teller’s mathematical equations.

[Jeff Bernstein]

Sophocles : Triple Tone in Action

 

The Faithful Reader may wonder what is remotely funny about the horrible Situation about to be recounted to the audience in Oedipus the play. One of the most stomach-churning realizations a human being can have (Is it the worst?) is now sinking deep into that person—a man, Oedipus, has fathered four children with his mother, who, just now, btw, well, let’s forget that.

 

Is this a funny aspect? Sophocles has engineered a Clockwork Orange Situation with the audience as Alex in the straitjacket.

 

The audience does not want the Messenger to continue. Some number of the audience want to get the hell out of the auditorium. Some are sick to their stomachs (like the run-outs at The Exorcist or Jaws). This Situation reminds us of people covering their eyes in the cinema—or shrieking, as Sophocles’ audience is about to do. Oedipus the play has now become equivalent to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or the most horrible moments in David Lynch—No, in its unrelentingness Oedipus the play is now Gaspar Noe’s most horrible nightmare.

 

So what does Sophocles do? He generates (somehow) the most complex writing ever committed to print by one Artist—and to the ear of the audience. The audience doesn’t want to hear it, so Sophocles provides the most refined language they’ve ever heard.

 

Sophocles is punishing the audience with Art. Funny?

 

P.S. Sophocles was ancient Greece’s most famous Hacky sack champion.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

Dear Hollywood,

 

If you encourage storyteller Nolan along the direction of Oppenheimer, and encourage PTA with some cash, then these two ever-growing geniuses may produce not simply great screenplays but the greatest works of literature in the English language these days—because, except for one person, no one else is.

 

English Literature is as dead as the European tradition of symphonic music.

 

Don’t get me started.

 

Scrooby is apparently the last Human Being alive on Earth still producing Literature in the Great Tradition. Scrooby is the Schnittke of English Literature. Scrooby’s translation of the Iliad is obviously the greatest long poem produced in English since Paradise Lost.

 

Why?

 

Scrooby is the first human being to produce a long poem (768 pages) in the English language using the fifteen-syllable line—in the entire history of Europe.

 

Why? Because no one else in the history of English Literature could do it. No one even attempted a short poem in the fifteen-syllable line, which was common to the ancient Greeks and the Romans.

 

Don’t believe me—just read Scrooby's translation of the Iliad. If you think it sucks, okay then. I'm an idiot.

 

If someday one comes to understand Scrooby, one will understand it is no surprise that it was Scrooby who was able to do this.

 

And Scrooby’s blacklisted.

 

Because of four women. If women want to play tough, why don't men say, "Okay, let's play tough."

 

But, hey, thank you, Internet. Vengeance is mine, and I shall repay.

 

Meanwhile, Nolan is keeping responsible storytelling alive—in the public eye—for the moment.

 

Best wishes.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein

[Jeff Bernstein]

MASSIVE ATTACK

 

Okay, some here think I'm insane. But consider this :

 

Who would rally the troops at the start of a Writer's Strike by beaming in their speech via Zoom from their daughter's wedding in Paris?

 

A woman?

[Jeff Bernstein]

Sophocles : Where Were We?

 

MESSENGER / [SOPHOCLES NARRATING]

χὤπως μὲν ἐκ τῶνδ᾽ οὐκέτ᾽ οἶδ᾽ ἀπόλλυται:

 

And in the way she died I did not [care] to know.

 

Notice how the word for “died” (or, more generally “destruction”)—ἀπόλλυται—arrives at the end of the line. Putting the pop here makes the line less a data transfer than a transfer of energy.

 

βοῶν γὰρ εἰσέπαισεν Οἰδίπους, ὑφ᾽ οὗ

οὐκ ἦν τὸ κείνης ἐκθεάσασθαι κακόν,

ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἐκεῖνον περιπολοῦντ᾽ ἐλεύσσομεν.

 

βοῶν = “cry aloud, shout” [to himself]. This can’t be good. Oh, yeah, I remember now—this line has at least seven different “musical themes” sounding simultaneously.

 

φοιτᾷ γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἔγχος ἐξαιτῶν πορεῖν,

γυναῖκά τ᾽ οὐ γυναῖκα, μητρῴαν δ᾽ ὅπου

κίχοι διπλῆν ἄρουραν οὗ τε καὶ τέκνων.

 

Before a person even begins :

 

διπλῆν = double. This is the second appearance of this word (1249 /1257).

τέκνων = children. How many times is the audience going to be battered with the concept of “child” in this monologue? Too many to count right now, moving on. . . .

 

φοιτᾷ = “go to and fro, backwards and forwards”. You’re kidding. Oedipus the play explores the phenomenon of the present catching up to the past, and at crunch time just here, as the audience is getting attacked with genius language, Sophocles drops this tactical word on us. At face value it conveys that Oedipus the man-child-motherf****r is moving around to some degree from “pacing” to “roaming wildly about”.

 

The Kind Reader may respond  : “Scrooby is a moron. Sophocles had to use that word to describe Oedipus. The word doesn’t have to have any other meaning.” Scrooby replies : φοιτᾷ is set off from the rest of the line by the “word” γὰρ, which is a linguistic “thing” not translated a large number of times (otherwise, pretty much “for”).

 

btw, please notice this doubling :

 

βοῶν γὰρ (“Shouting out . . . . ,”) (1052)

φοιτᾷ γὰρ (“Moving backwards and forwards [in space and time] . . . ,”) (1055)

 

The use of the γὰρ here is Sophocles giving us a CU, say, of Oedipus. And γὰρ is the editing transition to the next information transfer.

[Jeff Bernstein]

φοιτᾷ γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἔγχος ἐξαιτῶν πορεῖν,

φοιτᾷ γὰρ, he demanded we give him a sword . . .

 

γυναῖκά τ᾽ οὐ γυναῖκα,

WTF. (I need 10 mgs Valium to kick in before continuing.)

 

γυναῖκά = woman / wife

 

Gee.

 

First of all, please recall :

 

φθίνουσα μὲν κάλυξιν ἐγκάρποις χθονός,

φθίνουσα δ᾽ ἀγέλαις βουνόμοις . . . (25–6)

γνωτὰ κοὐκ ἄγνωτά (58)

τίν᾽ ἡμὶν ἥκεις τοῦ θεοῦ φήμην φέρων (86)

ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς αὑτοῦ τοῦτ᾽ ἀποσκεδῶ μύσος (138)

and so on, in the first third,

then

 

ἑκόντα κοὐκ ἄκοντα (1230)

 

in the last third, as all hell breaks loose (so to speak) . . .

 

and now :

 

γυναῖκά τ᾽ οὐ γυναῖκα (1256)

 

γυναῖκά = woman / wife

οὐ = no / not

τε = “both . . . and”

 

Scrooby needs to calm down, but Sophocles won't let him.

 

More : “as a term of respect or affection, mistress, lady, in Euripides, Medea.” (290; Liddell & Scott)

 

You do the math.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Jeff Bernstein