Jon-Hebert Barto

Very, very true. And even beyond just two images in "juxtaposition"... a single images meaning is determined by what preceeds it and what follows, creating a staccato psychological effect, a rhythm, for which the whole theory of montage now exists. My belief, as is Tarkovskys, is that editing does not engender or recreate a "new" quality. It releases the quality inherent in the frames it joins together. The basics of Eisensteins montage are as essential and needed in film grammar as Griffiths "close-up". Deep focus and shallow(x close-up) should not be misrepresented in a discussion of such theory, and if I did so apologies go out to all. However I was trying to address the idea of TIME breaking down within the montage...This, I feel, cannot be ignored and furthermore, is the crux of this discussion. What exist "out of frame" in this theory of montage? Nothing is my answer, TIME is too "comressed" to escape this black-hole of "effect". Reference for this is shakey to be sure!, and pehaps it was not warranted to make such a statement. However in Tarkovskys book "Sculpting In Time" this is addressed and there is a couple letters by Eisenstien himself. Here is a link to a fantastic site where Tarkovsky breifly mentions this "rejection". http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nosta...cctoAndrei.html Scroll down about half way and you'll find it in the questions regarding Eisenstein. I take Tarkovsky at his word. The basic problem is one of time-truth. You can only cut up film so much before it turns into trickery rather thanexisting as "form". Also, the idea of third images from succeeding shots created in the minds eye is one to be weighed against intent. What is put together on the editing table are streches of TIME. It all boils down to what is "presupposed" in the camera while shooting for the consumption of intellect(people).

This is one of those questions that has many "right" answers... I'd through in, a great director is one whom uses his intangible talents. J/K!!! It's all intangible!!! My point is that this is a really subjective question....If you can look at a movie made many generations removed from your own time, and see a personal, intellectual, cerebral, stamp on it, then the director behind it was probably "great". But there is also a set of qualities it takes to make a DIE HARD. Is there a intellectual stamp on it? Certainly not, but who cares, DIE HARD is still better than many, many action movies made today and it came out in 1988. I guess a "great" director is one who has complete control of their own practice/theory/style , therefore they are able to put out a "unquestionable" effort with every release of their project. As to the qualities....? Hmmmm. There must be many.

It's not about "abolishing" the close-up, so no justification is needed. Falconeti's face helped make the film. This is supposed to be a provoking discussion on the state of current theory and its practice. At least thats what I hope it is... :D Dreyer played out every nuance in carefully timed (paced?)close-up, not quick cuts. Thats where the emotion comes from... Your point is very valid! Carl Th. Dreyer used it well, a text book for filmmaking... What are your thoughts on the sequencing of these close-ups in the current hollywood model? Thats the basic question.

Jonathan, Very good point!!! Like in an orchestra!!! Of course the pace starts with a script/music sheet. The very roots, no? Then comes interpretation? The filter? Director! How and why to pace in such and such a way. Motivation? Where is that...? Not existentailly "where". Again, the psychology of where/why to place the "cut"? The motivation of the cut. Not just getting "coverage", beyond?

Adam, Thats what Tarkovsky believed....And Eisenstien rejected his theory of montage (his own f"ilm sense") on his death bed! This all goes to the idea of a "cut" being violence in-of-itself on two different levels. "Intrusive" and "natural". Would the shower scene in PSYCHO be as effective if Hitchcock made salad of the preceeding scenes? Cutting up Marion Cranes actions of say, putting her rolled up paper down on the nightstand, into three different shots? NO. The cuts are "cuts" in the narrative, actual violence in the third eye...Both effective and affective. Take RAGING BULL vs ROCKY. In ROCKY you have three cuts for the delivery of one punch, the wind-up, the follow through, and the impact. Lots of reversals for the "impact". RAGING BULL is quite a different story... Too much cutting is a cheap trick employed in the attempt of keeping an audience "trained" on the action. Keeping the "pace" up, tempo...But what do these directors use as the metronome? Nothing, certainly not the script. Action within the frame is a lost art.... MTV! It's like a cheap, turn of the century carnival kaliedescope!!! Of course this my opinion... :rolleyes:

"SPARTACUS is certainly a competent SOS job, but as an auteur piece in a celebrated body of work? Not in the slightest." Yes he also said as much in Baxters bio. And I agree with the above quote. However there is still soul to be found in SPATRACUS, and the cinematography is above other such pictures regarding its place as a story element. Mediocre is just a hard word to swollow for me....Opinions, of course. Yours and mine... Still, Douglas was the biggest star then and "exploitation" was not in his canon at the time...And this is the best film to ride the coattails of Wylers BEN-HUR. As for the script, a commie wrote it....a book made for propaganda.... Also, my ideas of how calculating he was were a bit overdone, afterall he did buy his way out of a three picture deal with Minatour(?) Films because of the compromise in this film. But, alas, this is boiling down to stylistic analysis, and I am blinded by the bright lights of devotion! SPARTACUS LIVES!!!

Hey David. I respect your opinion but Lucas also did AMERICAN GRAFFITI and THX-1138. Both better than A NEW HOPE, to me at least... :) Genius, maybe not. I'd say no....

Not to mention groundbreaking angles never seen before in a studio epic....Turn the car off and get out of the garage quick!

yes, yes, this was covered in all the books about Kubrick, however, Kubricks clashes with Douglas didn't stop him from excising dialogue and firing actors. He also deserves the oscar for photograghy...But I guess the cinematography is "insincere"...? "Quickly churned out"? I suppose a 167 day shooting schedule is a "quicky"....? Exploitation Bible epic? It had a budget of 12 million, in 1960! 10,000 people employed, yeah this was crap film to begin with....Jesus Christmas! What have you been watching? His problem was the dialogue, its simplistic, sacarin delivery of the moral. Of course it had to be filmed within certain conventions(this is where you must get artificial?) and Kubrick knew this, for it was a calculated attempt to make a financially successful film, hence enabling him to make the personal pictures he so wanted to do, as you elude to... What do you think? He took the job and then "found out" working for the studio was disheartening? I think he knew just what he was doing, and, BTW, he doesn't reject this film as part of his ouvre. FEAR AND DESIRE...? Thats another story...Too much Eisenstein.

Yeah, it doesn't matter how many "acts" there are as long as there is a complete arc. Agreed.

The golden paradigm is a bit romantic for my taste....The whole hero theme has been covered by Joseph Cambell 60 years ago, and for my personal consumption he wins out in those regards. His prose is rambling, yet insperational...I'd rate this book as "insperational" literature, not nuts and bolts stuff. I liked it well enough, but if you're already sufficiently inspired there are many other books, such as the ones you've listed below it. I'd also say Egri's book serves both purposes...... There is a book out there for everyones taste, too many probably! :rolleyes: The screenplay books just plain suck, IMHO. People are better off sticking to the kinds of books you listed. :)

They also used mercury-vapor :blink: bank lights! Health issue, anyone? I'm pretty sure thats why the early crews on these films wore lab coats and goggles. Imagine working around that.... Mark, you are very correct. I read stuios in newyork had glass cielings and used muslin as diffusion. The Black Maria was built on a lazy-susan type platform so the set could rotate with the sun, keeping the shadows in place.... Leo, wasn't the early film restricted in their sensitivity of the red spectrum?

Cooper-Hewitts were the first (reliable) articial lighting. Billy Blitzer loved 'em.

Tim, Spartacus is nothing but soul. A slave fighting for freedom, of thought of body, etc. Yeah, that scene at the end when he's crucified and finally sees his baby,...cold! Brrrrr.... :blink: What was Kubrick doing, filming an industrial? sheesh...

I think he means "pulled" as in taken off a major network...Thats what I mean when I say Pulled... Showtime...? Whats that again? Does anybody watch it? Not compared to network TV, they don't. BTW, why should we put up with a "docu-drama" concerning 9/11? Again, what is docu-drama? If you think its "the dramatization of actual events" I feel sorry for you... Its a great way for both sides of the slimy aisle to mix facts with fiction. Hence, slant to their view. All you people can't get enough of the kool-aid, it seems. This reminds me of the FUTURAMA episode where the characters keep drinking "Slurm", even when they find out it's very bad for them... What would you do without your slurm? It must feel good to be on a "team". I play for the Donkeys! I play for the Elephants! In reality you're just playing with yourselves....

Yes, unfortunately no one can agree on when they actually crosed the line, was it just now over this crappy series, or perhaps 5 years ago in their frenzied pulp coverage of the actual event? Perhaps their "uncoverage" of the Darfur events? You see, its a much bigger picture. We need to say "enough" not just to one little piece of crap (calculated as it is) but to whole damned mess that is media. They are all just as bad, so we can't end our dissatisfaction with this one show, but keep going on all wheels ! The Dems did just that over the Reagan miniseries. What happened? It got pulled, not rewritten. Of course this 9/11 series has more political ramifications....I agree with Tim, why even make a movie about this tragedy now? I for one can't bring myself to go to the theater for this junk nor will I watch this crap on TV.

Tomas, the BBC is farcical. They ARE propaganda. Just like ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, SKY, et al. http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/ne...300/4222353.stm http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...0&listSrc=Y http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=10641 http://www.richardwebster.net/whatthebbcdidnottellus.html (more of a blog, but still the truth. a nut, though) http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/29...lair/index.html Just some ideas of how they slant. Everybodys doing it! Its the most popular thing since teenagers having sex in backseats!

He is often thought of as "emotionless", which I hands down reject. How could anyone who has seen his films think this...???? It is beyond me, I could never wrap my head around it....In his films, contemplation preceeds emotion in the spectator, the exact opposite of Spielberg say. That is why so many people have intense "re-actions" to his narrative. Most people aren't used to this reversal of the intellectual/emotional process....You reinvest into a Kubrick picture days after you are exposed, not just when exposed. Tarkovsky, as you know, is very contemplative... The fact is Kubricks "camera" is cold. His exacting style leaves some audiences confused and bewildered. After all, Kubrick is a surgeon and the camera is his scapel. Did I spell that correctly? You know what I mean... As for Tarkovsky on DVD, I feel your pain. Will Criterion please put out his catalogue? They've been promising us Ivans Childhood for, what?, two years now...? Let us know when you find anything out about that, Max. It would be much appreciated. :rolleyes:

Fantastic point , Tim. But this has actors in it. Network news anchors and the "story" (or "coverage") producers are supposed to be "non-fiction" in orientation. My point. Alex, I agree, for once. Also you could take it further.... Many Dems should also hang. What was Berger/burglar stealing from the Natl. Archives? How come nobody knows? Must have been pretty important seeing as how its CLASSIFIED!!! What a dumb ass....(him, not you)Then Bush, of all people letting go without an investigation? " WTF!? ", is a good way to put it. Madeline Albright and Kosovo? Hmmmm. Here is a bit of truth...comments from the horses mouth.... Iraq Sanctions: "It’s a hard choice, but I think, we, think, it’s worth it." Her response to a May 11, 1996 60 Minutes question about the over half a million children killed by the [iraqi] sanctions Death of 500,000 Children 'Worth It' Kosovo: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?” ... as remembered in Colin Powell’s memoir. Powell wrote that he almost had an aneurysm, he was so upset. How many people/children died...? Do you think any, oh I don't know, "innocent" folks died in all that mess? Again, these people are sick. Just plain sick, and the same, BTW. You people who "see" big differences between the parties make me laugh my ass off.... :lol: Pericles, anybody? Stable...?

BLOW-UP for sure...It is also one of the only films I know of that uses its action as metaphor, not just its lighting. Briliant picture that many disregard as pretentious... How about Coppolas " RUMBLE FISH ", talk about image as metaphor! He practically hits you over the head with it. I think Burum did this, he is a baddass mofo....His work with Depalma is also stand-out!!! Check him out pronto.

Why not? Not all symphonies have three movements. Shakespeare's plays have five acts. How many acts does 'The Odyssey' have? No, no....I was being facetious, and at the same time tipping my hat to Kubrick. Point being, when you see a two acter it is usually bad because its by mistake(bad writing)...It is hard to structure the play this way without leaving the audience hungry for more information. Closure, if you will....That is why Kubricks two acter stands out...IMHO. Interesting subject, we could go on and on.... :)

Andy, allow me to point you to the comment/foment below and you will see my point about "extremes" in discourse.....Particularly the monolithic "nuts" part. As the famous TV add says, "Can you hear me now?" Off topic-I saw your website today. Nice super8 experiment with the inner-monologue and cig narrative. Good actress, she did well by her face. Now, lets get back to arguing!

hehehe..no, not now. :) Um, I do like the occasional Guiness...... :) Do you see my point in regards to the present discourse of political speech? No matter political leaning..."It is more right to win a discussion than to solve a real problem. Humans suck. ...." (minus the humans suck) qoute is as real as it gets regarding the psychology of talking heads on TV and all of our politicians. Have you not heard Nancy Pelosi or George Bush or Howard Dean or Dennis Hassert or ANYBODY speack lately? Its all radical. Its all "me or you". I reject the idea of "team"(party) when it comes to politics, "us vs. them", which is what it has ultimately become. Whats the score? is the only question asked by these blowhards... Where is Pericles? Where is the "stable"? But, alas, I have a drinking problem....logic must be the domain of a singular thought process..a singular "party"...? :rolleyes:

My basic point is that it seems everything is propaganda these days.... Are M. Moore films docs? Yes, but they're also propaganda, like network news is. You can't fully take "POV" out of the doc or news (against nature!) but its current inflection in everything has to be subsided for the good of the world. People want to fight their fight, ego! I'm/we are right and you/them are wrong! Absolute rubbish!! Radical psychology and behavior. It is more right to win a discussion than to solve a real problem. Humans suck. :lol:

My quote: It is poignant that the network calls it a "docudrama" and they are airing a "facts" screen concerning the making of this steaming pile before the broadcast. What the hell is "docudrama" anyhow? Oh, Truth mixed with fiction!!! How network of them! You are surprised? :lol: No, in fact , I do get the point. It is the selection of lies we choose to fight that pisses on my shoes... :blink: My whiney-baby prose and soap-box ramblings clouded the fact that I understand the point...My skin is no place for a sane man to live!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Sorry for the confusion...