the virtues and flaws of Paul Schrader's "building a film canon" article in Sept-Oct Film Comment

anyone who thinks most great movies were made before 1970 is probably an asshole

It's no more valid than thinking most great novels were written before 1930.

anthony, are you saying sirk is an outsider? srsly?

like douglas sirk!

or in terms of its master-thinkers even more so. canons are usually testament not just to prejudices but moreover of amnesia and ignorance of the past.

I agree with Kurzweil that humankind is on an evolutionary cusp. We can foresee both the end of the 20,000-year reign of Homo sapiens and the beginnings of the life-forms that will replace it (something Kurzweil and Garreau predict will happen in the next hundred years). Art looks to the future; it is society’s harbinger. The demise of Art’s human narrative is not a sign of creative bankruptcy. It’s the twinkling of changes to come. Such thoughts fill me not with despair but envy: I wish I could be there to see the curtain rise.

ok he might actually just be a little crazy.

well i liked it, but i was more just pointing out that when given the choice between the two dude picked one with the antiquated sensibilities.

(neither would make my super awesome filmographic cannon.)

anyone who thinks most great movies were made before 1970 is probably an asshole.

Since nearly two-thirds of the Century of Cinema falls in this period, you need more than a drive-by one-liner to be taken seriously with this. And since the aesthetics of film developed and matured almost entirely in this time, its supremacy seems even more undeniable. This strikes me as the kind of thing somebody who hasn't even bothered to see hardly any Renoir, Bresson, Ford, Ozu, Sturges, Rossellini etc. would say. Have you?

Over 90% of great Hollywood studio films were likely made before '70, maybe '65. (The early '70s is balanced out by the preeminence of crap in the last 25 years.)

The "broken down horse" thing makes sense to me, as I don't think there's any question we're going to be watching exclusively digital media in theaters in 10-20 years (hello, NOT FILM. Most of what either gets discussed heavily or anticipated on ILX -- Borat, Inland Empire, Jackass 1 & 2, or my recent favorite The Joy of Life -- is not cinema).

re the Kurzweil and Garreau stuff (which I plan to look at) about our imminent evolutionary leap: Can't you see people already using their phones and PDAs with the frequency and utility of organs? They're already half-machine. (Which is why I'm kinda surprised Cronenberg didn't make Schrader's 60.)

semantics!

over 90% of great Hollywood studio films were likely made before '70, maybe '65. (The early '70s is balanced out by the preeminence of crap in the last 25 years.)

this would only constitute an argument if no one else was making movies. (and of course there were tons in the 70's).

re the Kurzweil and Garreau stuff (which I plan to look at) about our imminent evolutionary leap: Can't you see people already using their phones and PDAs with the frequency and utility of organs? They're already half-machine. (Which is why I'm kinda surprised Cronenberg didn't make Schrader's 60.)

half-pointy stick > half-plow > half-tv > half-smart-phone: the evolution of man!!!

(and yeah i've seen movies by all those dudes you mentioned w/ozu being the one i have true affection for. although why everyone loves toyko story so much better than good morning {which has fart jokes, hello!} is a mystery to me.)

We're not talking about whether you have a great affection for them, we're talking if they made canonical films.

semantics!

No, something's either made on film or isn't, or is a stitched-together TV sketch show or isn't.

celluloid is not a medium. that's like saying literature is paper or some shit.

well some of them can be in my cannon any day, but i must warn you it's gonna be based on affection. and of course i wasn't partiularly saying that movies after 1970 were better, just that there's a lot of good ones there too, right?

woman under the influence, terminator, mulholland dr, borat - how u be leavin these out?

xpost

tbh tv >>>>>> the cinema for a long-ass time. but then cinema used to be more like tv; films would be melted down; it was an ephemeral medium.

Literature is experienced via paper (this may change, let's see); film is experienced via projected light through celluloid.

i wasn't partiularly saying that movies after 1970 were better

More films were made en toto before '70; you said "most great movies were made before 1970" is assholism. You were, by the math, saying they're better since.

that's all you're doing! but just claiming high art values for it, universalizing it.

dude has two movies post 1990 on his list!!!!!!!

But that math says that there are many fewer canonical films since '90, which I wouldn't quarrel with -- for one thing, by Schrader's criterion of Repeatability, we don't entirely know their place in the firmament yet.

where was schrader's criteria, i was just looking for it? morality was included lol.

where was schrader's criteria, i was just looking for it? morality was included lol.

This explains you purty well.

xp

No, it doesn't, but since it speaks so directly to his cause (and conveniently uses the language of "the enemy"), I can see why he temporarily lowered his lofty standards.

How is Schrader anti-theory -- isn't setting up "refurbished criteria" for creating a film canon a theory?

now listed at 100 mins.

aaaand I forgot the public sale started at midnight, and the tix are gone.

Checked back to see what I wrote about Auto Focus at the time, and it did improve some. What seemed like a very limiting flatness then was still there, but shrunk down, it wasn't so bothersome. One of the better Schrader films, I'd say. Similar to Star 80 in a lot of ways.

I just saw Mishima yesterday, and...WOW. Kind of mad that the most intriguing of the stories adapted (Kyoko's House) is one of the handful of Mishima novels that's never been released or translated in the west.

I saw Blue Collar once before, about 10 or 15 years ago, and don't really remember how I felt. It seemed very strong this time--I'd say Schrader's best film after Affliction. Pryor, Keitel, and Kotto are so good, the essential blandness that drags down most of Schrader's films for me was never an issue.

Pryor hisses invective--at the union steward during the meeting, at the IRS guy--as well as anyone I can remember. Kael singles out Kotto, and he really is great; one of those performances that feels completely natural, without a trace of acting. And Keitel does one of his best jobs ever of laying back and letting those around him be the focus of attention.

Really liked seeing a couple of Scorsese bit players: George "What's a mook?" Memmoli, and Harry Northup (Doughboy) from Taxi Driver.

I'm sympathetic, but at the same time wincing at the thought of a Nicholas Cage thriller:

http://deadline.com/2014/10/paul-schrader-dying-of-the-light-nicolas-cage-protest-853521/

As for the state of cinema itself, Schrader has long put forth the position that the moviegoing experience was we know it is on it's way out the door. "...the 20th-century concept of a projected image in a dark room in front of a paying audience. If you’re wedded to that concept, you’re in trouble, because that concept is dead," he states. Pointing toward both longer form storytelling on TV and shorter form moviemaking on the internet, Schrader says the definition of a "movie" is up for grabs, and the three-act, two-hour movie is becoming stale. And so, when it comes to the push lately for 35mm projection and saving analog formats, you better bring that nostalgia somewhere else.

"It’s all revanchist claptrap. The goal of art is not to tell people what tools they want to use, but to use whatever tools are around. The tools are always changing and the artists need to change with the tools. We didn’t have movies 100 years ago, and we did quite fine without them, and now they’re going to become something else again," Schrader says.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/paul-schrader-talks-bad-people-behind-dying-of-the-light-says-push-for-35mm-projection-is-claptrap-20141121

Damn, there's no region 2 of Mishima. A lot of high quality picture dvds look pretty bad on my multi-region player and I'm reluctant to shell out for another multi-region player, especially with bluray possibly pushing dvds out the way.

The Criterion Mishima is gorgeous on pretty much every level (transfer, artwork, packaging...)

Somebody posted it on YouTube but I'm going to resist it.

Wish Eureka would pick it up but they don't tend to do as many newer films as Criterion.

as noted elsewhere, his tormented clergyman movie is getting him his best press in eons

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/4875-the-daily-venice-toronto-2017-schrader-s-first-reformed

^it's one of his best, indeed.

also has a revised edition of his transcendental film book out next year

Dog Eat Dog never really topped the insane opening sequence, but the cartoonish gruesomeness of the film on the whole was hmmm memorable.

The point is not to *get* the canonical movie, but use it as a tool to learn a different style or perspective or world (KANE got its position because it’s an extremely teachable movie in terms of narrative / aesthetic strategies)

— Peter Labuza (@labuzamovies) March 20, 2018

^^ a point often missed by conservatives bemoaning what lib English faculty are doing.

Girish Shambu on the male canon and auteurism

https://filmquarterly.org/2018/09/21/times-up-for-the-male-canon/

gee i wonder why pic.twitter.com/nQstniXRHM

— paul schrader's facebook posts (@paul_posts) August 4, 2021

gee i wonder why pic.twitter.com/nQstniXRHM

— paul schrader's facebook posts (@paul_posts) August 4, 2021

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvGktPaDAPM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6psa1ptpGTc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PJhhwtBt70

The possibly 9/11-anniversary-timed (hard to say with release schedules right now) The Card Counter is supposed to be cathartic, I suppose, but I found it to be more and more of an ordeal as it went along. The truly dreadful soundtrack played a part in that. I thought I was headed out to see a good poker film.

You do what you must. But I was impressed that Schrader got such a wide opening for a film exploring the impact and legacy of Abu Ghraib. Has this, or other episodes of the War on Terror, been treated in such detail before?

Also, I hope that the desk jockeys who defended "enhanced interrogation" will be questioned again. But somehow I suspect once again they'll not experience material or professional discomfort.

Just saw it, unsure if I “get” it. The first movie in a while (in a theater, anyway) where I feel like I missed something.

https://www.facebook.com/1631212662/posts/10223350640467517/?d=n

As ever, the use of “woke” as an epithet makes me less likely to take someone seriously.

Thanks, Eric. I aged ten years reading those comments.

Card Counter was good. That camera trick in Abu Ghraib was pretty good.

oh, i was going to look and see if anyone had posted about it and i forgot. i did NOT like the card counter. goofy, unbelievable story. it was like what if i made first reformed again, but this time it's bad?

it wasn’t as good as first reformed but i liked it a lot

noticed this name as an exec producer lol - https://m.imdb.com/name/nm13254828/?ref_=m_ttfcd_cr1

this movie was largely tedious and bad btw but i couldnt help thinking if you play everything about the last scene exactly as it was but have the USA poker bro instead of tiffany haddish visit oscar isaac in prison the movie would be improved

On Facebook:

I’M SEEING DEAD FILM CRITICS. Attending film festivals was always a buzz. You would go, meet filmmakers whose work you knew, run into old film critic friends, make new ones, talk, argue, drink. That moment has passed. Earlier tonight I spotted Richard Corliss in the lobby of the Excelsior. I went over to greet him then realized he’d died two years ago. So many ghosts.