Robert Lachenay

"The Tyranny of the Actor."

I've said numerous times that I have difficulty articulating my ideas properly. Perhaps if you didn't read my responses in excerpts, or simply with the eye to controdict theme to support your own points (most of which im in complete agreement with), you would have noticed that quote. http://www.hanover.edu/philos/film/vol_02/sweeney.htm That's about the role of the audience.... I wrote a really long response to this, but decided to just say...idk...just forget I wrote anything. It doesn't even matter that much to me. Just forget it. What I'm thinking makes sense to me...it's very sound...I just apparently can't articulate it properly, so forget it all. I think we are agreeing with eachother a lot more than you think we are, but forget it. Why does everyone give such confrontational, acid respoonses though? I really dont want to e "try something onfor size" when I'm discussing.

You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I was saying that, because Riefenstahl adopted the moral conscience of Nazi Germany, her reasons for propogating Hitler cannot be articualted as being "criminally irresponsible" except in hidsight, as her creating the film was, at the time, morally justified to her. The film itself, as far as documentary filmmaking is concerned, is a masterpiece and the backbone for all documentaries that came after it. If you denounce this form being art, because of its affiliation and influential effect, you must certainly denounce many, many artworks (now heavily revered) that came before it and served similar purposes. You must understand that films evolve...the film is not simply finished as soon as it's cut and screened...the AUDIENCE finishes the film...through cognition, they piece together its meaning and applications and as itwas once used for Nazi propogand, it is now used to observe evil and learn from the mistakes of the past. In hindsight, one can easily say that it was "irresponsible" for Riefenstahl to have created this film....however she can't neccessarily be judged as having been morally irresponsible when she made it, as she was able to completely, morally justify it to herself during her submission to the nazi mindset. I am most certain she did have an understanding of her subject matter (I never implied she didn't), but as I've said over and over: at that time it fit into her morality and if it fits into one's morality, how can it be morally irresponsible on thier part in anyway aside from hindsight (which is why she now denies the content)?

Ooooooooooooo....."Jacques Tati."

Actually, as far as fimmaking is concerned, they are GLORIOUS works of art and the backbone for so much that followed. You're really only reiterating the points I already stated (though I suppose it was "too long"). Riefenstahl, like most of the German population, was preyed upon by Hitler's ideology, which manipulated post WWI disenchantment...those people adapted the beliefs of the regime into thier own morality and it was, during that peirod of time, completely morally sound to them. You can't criticize a filmas being "irresponsible" in hindsight...you can brand it immoral by the standards of today, but to call it "criminally irresponsible" insinuates that to stray from responsibility and to become reckless was the intent of the filmmaker. It was not in these cases at the time they were made. So much is decided in hindsight. It's all good. I have trouble articulating my thoughts properly sometimes (in the form of essays or responses at least) because I get too many ideas going at once. I'm afraid I come off as sounding way too controversial when I write and that is not at all my intent. I don't know...I have plenty of time to practice and fix things I guess. It's so much easier to express ideas through narrative work and screenplays for me. :)

Yo apparently didn't read when I said, "or the antithesis of that goodness so that people may know the difference." And NO...I HAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTEEEEE the MPAA. It has been killing the cinema ever since it began and is completely politically and financially motivated. It's absolutely sickening...I'd spit on Velenti's face if I met him in person and that's no joke. But you are deeply mistaken in the purpose of Kubrick and Lynch's films (and the films of many others). Perhaps Richard Sinclair articulates my beliefs better than I can: "He who does not really know the devil, can not defeat him. Ostrich like ignorance provides no power. Only those who understand at a deep level the evil they are dealing have any hope of victory. Remember, a devil to you, may be viewed by others as their salvation." I beg you do not misunderstand my words or intentions. And the heart of everypiece of art IS the struggle to define the nature of human goodness (which to say, "if such a thing exists," is philosophically ignorant), even through its antithesis. The films that are unexcusable (and not art) are the ones which rely on taboos (that need to be explored asis our job as filmmakers and artists) to generate cash flow and reactionary, faux-controversial response.

And BOAN is not responsible for the ressurrection of the Ku Klux Klan (and you most certainly cannot put the wieght of all actions that followed on its shoulder), nor was Riefenstahl's documentary a sole contributor to the rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany (once again, it, of all the other influences including Hitler himself--a man who was such a brilliant public speaker that didn't need propoganda to coerce people--cannot be blamed for the entire Holocaust). I would argue that you're relying a bit too much on dramatic effect in order to manipulate readers into agreeing with your points. As grotesque as they might be to watch today, "Triumph of the Will" and those scenes from "Birth of a Nation" are an irreplaceable look into the alernate point-of-view (devoid of all pretenses and nostalgia and only capable of being derived FROM one who authentically had that point-of-view) that helps us learn from the past and grow wiser about our present and future states.

I know this wasn't the greatest written response or whatever...(I'm not that good at articulating my ideas properly...I get too many) but I hope you understand my point-of-view. I don't feel that these films were criminally irresponsible, aside from being so in hindsight. You must consider the cultural/social climate and influences of when they were made. When we know, in the moment, that we are being irresponsible, then it is, as you say, "Time to draw the line." Niether of these filmmakers went into production with the intent of creating an irresponsible piece...in fact, I would argue that they took on a large amount of responsibility in making them (and for what they set out to accomplish, especially since it coincided with thier personal morality at the time, they accomplished it masterfully). As I said...I don't approve of Nazi Germany nor do I approve of the Glorification of the KKK, but these films are still evolving in the purposes they serve UP TO THIS DAY. Peter Greenaway compared current cinema to the literature in Airport bookshops: they will be forgotten as soon as one closes the book. He cannot say the same for either of these pieces. Where they "BOAN" and "TOTW" once glorified the darkest areas of our humanity (which happened to coincide with the morality of the filmmaker at the time), they have now evolved into pieces that create contempt in the minds of modern day viewers. I am, without a doubt, glad they existed then and glad they still exist today. When art evolves as these pieces did, you know it is true art...and nothing should ever be cut from either.

Anything is open in cinema as long as it does not become exploitation and is done with the agenda to somehow exemplify the good of human nature (even through the antithesis of mankind's innate goodness). I feel the "worst of humanity" is censorship, and sadly it's still being practiced today by the MPAA and the british govt. (a big example of this in the bast 20 yrs can be seen in Peter Greenaway's "The Cook, the Thief, his Wife & her Lover"). If we allow restraints to be placed, simply on the basis of whether or not it offends certain groups of people, then we will, in turn, be allowing the restraints to consume the art of cinema as a whole and dictate every exploration an artist wishes to make. If you ask me, Griffith's forced edit of Birth of a Nation is one of the biggest sins in cinematic history. While I do not in any way agree with his glorification of the KKK, it is nonetheless a deeply historical capsule and a window into the mindset of a man of that time. I think your assessment of Triumph of the Will is, in a sense, looking at it from the wrong perspective. When it was released, it exemplified the power of cinema...upon watching it today, we get a glimpse into the true evil that was Nazi Germany. In both time periods (though it carries a different effect today than it did when released), it is an irreplaceable experience. Also...why pick such examples as these? For thier time, in thier cultural and social environments, they weren't neccessarily, generally considered irresponsible. Deeming them "irresponsible" was done in hindsight...I especially imagine that in Nazi Germany, there was no anticipation of anyone looking back at that film as being "irresponsible." They also were very well made and, to a large extent, non-exploitative (in its most detrimental sense...and though one can argue that Triumph exploited the post WWI German mindset, it was hardly as much of a contriubtor to Hitler's popularity as many analysts say. The ball had already been rolling and rolling fast, prior to its release). Though I do not agree with Griffith's images in those particular scenes, I deeply admire his honesty and think that it was his right to present those in the context of that film. It was his right as an American and as an Artist, beyond that. When discussing "artistic responsibility," I would argue that films that manipulate and exploit social taboos, simply to derive a reactionary response from an audience to create a marketable "controversy," without caring enough to explore thier subjects in depth are of greater social detriment and are the only examples of films (in my mind) that should never be made (and this is moreso in thier lack of artist merit or honesty). One can say, "Oh, but there's no criteria for such a film," but we all know when we've seen one (hopefully) and if we don't, we'd ought to. I think that to casually approach untouched issues with the sole intent of making cash...to water down and degrade social taboos/tender social issues...is to only add to the problems of society. It is our jobs as artists to, as I said, exemplify the innate goodness in people and our world, even through the antithesis of that goodness (so that people can look at it and know the difference). When you blur the line by exploiting issues with casual disregard, that is when you must be held responsible. The questions we must ask ourselves is: Is this genuine...is this me? (I would argue that in that sense, Birth of a Nation was warranted) Does this exemplify my morality or the antithesis of my morality in order to express to the world that which I believe is right and wrong? (I truly believe that to be so for Riefensthal, as she was a product of that manipulated mindset herself) Does this contribute anything to society, or does it simply exist to to damage the exploration of humanity? (both films certainly explored the nature of humanity) What we must ask ourselves is: Is this, in fact, art? Or am I simply assuming it is? And....as far as your conclusion that Leni Riefenstahl "should have been executed with the rest of them..." Would you say the same of Heidegger?

I'm not entirely sure what generation you're talking about, but I can't even see similarities enough to draw such a comparison. Fight Club and Se7en hardly had the cinematic impact, resonance, or following of Apocolypse Now (or a better comparison would have ironically been A Clockwork Orange, though I'm quite certain that Greenaway's "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" made a closer draw to that than anything since) or Psycho, and I can't really see what comparison you have drawn into those two, either. Fincher's made some good pictures that gained minor-fratboy cult appeal...however none of that elevates his work to any higher status. As I said, I feel him to be a competent director, who has relinquished what discipline it may have taken for him to become great. I, in no, way see him in the negative light that the original poster and a few that followed apparently do. He's just Fincher.

Nevermind...I'm sorry. I thought I was ready, but I'm not ready. I still have infinitely more to learn before I'll be able to take on a project that covers such subject matter as I'm intending to cover. Sometimes we think we know all the secrets of the world, but something presents itself and we realize that we don't understand a thing. I'm sorry for posting this...but if you ever want to contact me and chat about stuff, just pm me...it never hurts to talk or listen to other people. Thank-you for your responses though! :)

I didn't think Zodiac was a bad film, but it was rather lackluster and underwhelming, for what I came into the theatre expecting to see. In the instances where that grizzly, "Fincheresque" suspense was required, it was absent, and that killed a lot of scenes that should have worked for me. The characters (aside from gyllenhaal's), had these strange, almost nonchalant responses to some very grim and serious situations....it detracted immensely from the believability and dramatic pull of many scenes and ultimately watered down the movie to an occasionally interesting, but predominantly boring analytical account. I also, while understanding why Fincher had to reconstruct the city landscape, didn't enjoy a lot of the shots that were interspliced with computerized backgrounds. It didn't work for the content of this film and gave it this static, synthetic quality that was rather distracting to me throughout. Okay movie, but I wish I would have seen something else in its place. I expected a lot going in, as this story haunted my childhood after seeing a court tv account of it when I was about 8 years old (which I hate to say was much more effective and brooding and creepy and had better reinactments--though they were subtle--and only took 1/2 of the time of Fincher's film)....but I was ultimately underwhelmed. Also, consider the cast he had.... What was the point of hiring such power actors if they were going to play such sterile roles? For all the time it took to watch this film, the character interactions, revelations, and development were pretty lacking and uninvolving. The film may have even been more effective and authentic with lesser known actors. It was almost like watching the serial killer version of JFK, but without the intensity and true obsession stone put into his film....this resulted in my being just as passively interested in the outcome of the case as many of the characters seemed to be (though they said differently in thier dialogue, that is how many of the actors projected themselves). The only scene that really creeped me out was in the basement of one of the suspects, but by then I was already removed from my initially deep involvement (2 hrs removed). That's just my take though. Once again, I don't feel this was a bad film by any means....just rather underwhelming and overlong (they say a great film can't be too long and a bad film cant be too short; this one was okay).

I don't see where people are coming from in accusing Fincher of being some sell-out, big studio whore. He's hardly that nor does he ever claim his films to be high-art. He's a very competant filmmaker who has succeeded in making some memorable films that have gained cultural significance in thier unexpected cult-followings. I don't think he should be commended for "wrestling some studio money into something that isn't a comic book," as that's done all the time (Paul Thomas Anderson should be DEEEEPLY commended for Magnolia, however)....but I also think it is ludacris to even insinuate that Fincher is some sell-out, money-grubbing hack, comparable to Bay. There's some auteurship to his films, I just find him overly sleek and aggressive...however in sporadic strokes on each. He is simply not yet refined enough or committed enough to his own style to evolve into the category of a great director...but he's hardly a sell-out, faux-auteur, money-grubbing hack.

And to be quite honest, as great as Kubrick is, he's hardly the pinnacle of that far end of the spectrum of cinematic genius, nor is bay at the far end of commercial hack (though I really dislike Bay's films....really, really dislike them). There have been plenty of better and more influential filmmakers than kubrick, some of who are alive and working today (Godard...perhaps Kieslowski, as Kubrick called his Dekalog "the only masterpiece I have seen in my lifetime")...just as there have been plenty bigger hacks (thoguh probably not currently working). I also don't see where this comparison is being derived from. I really can't find striking similarities in thier styles or content.

I agree with everything you said, but this I most passionately agree with.

But it's kind of a random comparison, isn't it? Kubrick to Fincher? I don't really get it.

I have a feeling he may have been joking, but that's just me.

Haha...especially if you like films made up of 1 1/2 sec shots.

Haha...so is Chuck Palahniuk.

I saw both "Zodiac" and "Wild Tigers I have Known," last night. I'll let you guys watch them first, before I add how I felt about either of them.

I didn't mean to become reckless and call names, for that I appologize...but I'm seriously finished with the discussion taking place on this thread. I am no film student, just a kid who loves film. There is no pretense behind any of my opinions, as they were part of my own exploration of the medium and what I say I enjoy watching and respect is what I truly enjoy watching and truly respect. Believe it if you will...don't if you won't. It is what it is.

Alright...I know I've said it before, but this time I'm seriously finished with this thread and so-called "debate." I may be foolish, but this guy is a fool.

It's not really a debate....I mean what do you consider the "debate??" That George Lucas is more influential than Sergei Eisenstein? Potemkin and Oktober vs Star Wars and American Graffiti...hmmm...one formed a bunch of gung-ho, outer space, lackies and admiring critics and is to be thanked for the really faky cgi (which no one will admit) that plagues most motion pictures today....the other had to be withdrawn because it was so powerful that it started riots...then influenced the entire art of filmmaking and editig so heavily that, without those two creations, that filmmaking would never have evolved as it did and we probably wouldn't have had any citizen kanes, rules of the game, bicycle thief, a bout de souffle, on and on. And so it goes, you consider this a debate (a "debate" which completely strays form the initial debate), when it really isn't. I believe it was Greenaway who said that Chaplin, Eisenstein and Lang were the grandfathers who laid the groundfloor for thier children to work upon...and the children of those children threw it all to hell. No one is questioning the filmmaking abilities of Spielberg or Lucas, however your claim that they belong among Chaplin, Eisenstein, Lang, Kurosawa, De Sica, Godard, Hitchcock, Welles, and Bresson, as far as influence, is going to get some very, very hostile rections (just as saying that Lang and Eisenstein don't even BELONG on a list of most influential directors).

Yeah...like good old Eisenstein. :huh: (whaaa??)

Which, to me, is funny, given how eisenstiein essentially mastered and reinvented the epic...even into talkies. Haha...are you serious? As good as Ivan the Terrible, 2001, and Seven Samurai? I mean jeez, dude....PREDATOR?? That's a friggen' B forest movie where Arnold rolls in mud and kills a early, early CGI alien they ripped off in lieu of the ALIEN releases. Hardly an epic or anything people should compare to 2001, Seven Samurai, or Ivan the Terrible pt2. I dun' think sooo. I mean if you want to talk about one of the greatest epices of all time, Eisenstein's IVAN the TERRIBLE pt 2 is one of the back bones for every epic you seem to love so much. I think what your problem is is that you get too caught up with worrying about whether or not they're foreign. THEY'RE FILMS. Open your mind, man. Many Amrican films are good...many just plain blow...many film films are good...many just plain blow. A film's a film.