Ted: "I'm all for using films for the latter purpose" We are in total agreement on that except that you should have helped more to reach that discussion, as the several other commenters who saw the films, did.
Ted: "I'm all for using films for the latter purpose"
We are in total agreement on that except that you should have helped more to reach that discussion, as the several other commenters who saw the films, did.
First you omit the next bit of what I said - which goes on to explain why I wouldn't want to limit discussion JUST to the topic the film deals with, rather than the film as such - too.
I think you're a bit unfair in giving the impression that I only discussed critics' views (supposedly just to prove you wrong - actually I was trying to justify why I had been so disappointed by the film - like most critics).
I did introduce the quotations from him showing that he had been an admirer of Hitler - that it was partly due to his right-wing father - and as late as the end of WWII didn't want to believe the evidence about the concentration camps (clearly relevant to the fact that he chose to make this film). This wasn't a question of style or critics' views and there was some related wider discussion.
I added the quotation from him stating his own criticism of the film - surely a relevant consideration in talking about the film.
I also recommended a doc on the period, The Double-headed Eagle, with a quotation about it, and even if people hadn't seen it, this too referred back to the context and could have led to further discussion of the general issue.
When Sven mentioned Bergman playing mind games I added information about Carradine's description of Bergman's directing technique.
I'm sorry you didn't feel this was enough. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Whilst a movie may appear to be phyically discrete - a hefty package of 9 lumps of celluloid, and also linearly discrete - in that it has a beginning, middle and end as an experience (though not necessarily in that order, as Godard provoked), a movie is not discrete. The peephole is, but not the movie. Any understanding of a movie (especially one made within a different zeitgeist) has to contemplate both the influence of the culture on the movie, and the influence of the movie on the culture. And the same applies to the individual viewer in relation to the movie.
As a moviemaker I also enjoy talking about the tools of film-making and how they are used, but these can be rather esoteric. In the end, it should be never forgotten that big screen movie-making is a business - whoever the great artist is. You can't be me, I'm taken
Ted, we disagree on many things. but I thought your contributions to the movie debate were pertinent, interesting and, as usual, challenging.
Thanks for that Sven. Actually I doubt if we disagree about "many" things :-)
Any understanding of a movie (especially one made within a different zeitgeist) has to contemplate both the influence of the culture on the movie, and the influence of the movie on the culture.
Yes, agreed; in fact a lot of my career was spent trying to broaden media students' awareness of the wider context and not to focus too much on technique and biography of directors. The main course I taught was called "History and theory of the media", and students (and some of my bosses) couldn't understand (at first) why it included general history and culture and not the usual trot through the history of photography, film, TV, etc. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
I got over my earlier excessive respect for university academics when, while still an art teacher in a school
Well don't get too carried away. I didn't say I respected you.:-)
(Am I learnin' Prof?) Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
I don't know how to joust with you yet. I am just a small businessman; you are a university professor. But I wiil learn.
