Mark Cousins' The History of film: An Odyssey

tbf i've only watched the two eps i've commented on -- i was mildly saddened that he was pulling all the same pseudo-descriptive stunts with the terms "romanticism" and "classical" and "realism" in this one as he was in the 20s ep; these are words which need to be fleshed out and pulled apart and turned inside out and swapped around and actually EXAMINED, since (even more than words like modernist or post-modern) no two commentators use them quite the same way, and yet they're self-evidently badges of declared allegiance that many people reach for, to ground and justify their passions

the opening spiel that's repeated every week is poorly written given how much it has to do, as has been much noted: but (contra eg henry's complaints above) what he actually says is that passion and innovation DRIVE cinema, rather than money -- if "drive" had been offset against another verb (let's say "shape"), then he'd have a potently arguable proposition to explore i think -- viz that "while box office SHAPES the leisure industry, passion and innovation DRIVE it" <-- again, true or not, this is not a startlingly avant-garde proposition, but i think it fits better with the shape of his exploration than what he actually says, and establishes a basis of structured tension rather than the static dichotomy he claims to be elucidating (and actually doesn't believe in)

basically i massively approve of observing and indicating how specific shots work, and how unexpected items are like each other (again shots really, though he uses individual shots as a metonymy for an entire film; which is not MY line on creative works operate, but was e.g. aristotle's and is nearly everyone's since, and is a forgiveable shorthand i SUPPOSE) (in mine the camera lens and eg the microphone have different agendas and the result is the consequence of CONFLICT AND STRUGGLE*) -- it's a kind of masterclass in how eg DPs or sound recordists think of and frame scenes, and this is a filmic dimension of film that VERY RARELY gets onto TV ever

*to understand what auteur ACTUALLY means, think of the film as a firefly-class vessel, the director as mal reynolds, and the team he's gathered as serenity's crew: mal's job is to corral their skills towards the specific task and pasyload he's hired himself out to deliver; the story that unfolds is the product of the rival interests perspectives strengths and errors of the squabbling crew...

he uses individual shots as a metonymy for an entire film

yes! have also been bothered by this, and how - not unexpectedly, or unfairly - he almost always picks the most spectacular/stirring moments of a film, which drives home his point about innovation etc but actually ignores the boring and stupid and ill-judged shots/moments, which are also part of the story.

ok sure, re bonnie and clyde, writers be bein upfront about who they'd LIKE to be associated with in terms of artistic vanguadism (=respectability, for intellectuals), and this is one of the many meanings of influence: a declaration of allegiance that hopes it's a conduit for approval BUT benton and newman weren't the only people working on B&C, they got PENN not godard or truffaut (two quite unlike directors incidentall)y and what they hoped is not NECESSARILY what actually shaped the film. The New Wave were of course avid viewers of and borrowers from noir (it's a french word for a reason) and also westerns -- seems to me Cousins (or more likely someone with better dialectical chops) could easily demonstrate that what the "Hollywood New Wavers" took to be French perspectives, concepts techniques and attitudes had in fact largely passed THROUGH France from the US; from the non-arty "auteur" (again, a french term for a not-yet-named US phenom) world of production-line thrillers and cowboy flicks... and that since Penn's larger team would have been drawn from Hollywood's employment ranks, these "team-based" aspects would emerge in B&C more de-frenchified than the up-itself critical aspiration of the film's conceivers and makers were able to see themselves.

Influence! It's a problem not an explanation...

to be fair, though, MC did pick out the neo-realist dissent from commentary's habitual metonymy jonesing: and with a nice example, where the daddy (= the "auteur") doesn't at the time spot the peril and the lively humour of his son nearly being run over by two cars (= other elements on the film-making process!) (the mise-en-scenery fell on my head), or even care to be looking out for it -- as in "realism is stuff we don't expect or control or tailor or plan for or grasp"

(ps i'm being supersnide abt B&C's makers there, not because the film isn't great, inc. their contribution, but because declaration of influence by writers and artists should ALWAYS be treated as an opaque and highly agenda'd sleight-of-hand; these guys are ALL professional bullshitters or they'd never get any movies made ever, good or terrible)

how many actresses or actors talk w/any degree of insight about acting and learning on set <-- this, incidentally = i suspect a fair proportion would have plenty to say but they are very few of them ASKED this kind of question, from stars down to character actors or even extras

also: TRACY HAND TO THREAD d00d

(haha i went past a stall in the little market that's just started in st john at hackney's garden, and it was selling CHUTNEY, CHILDREN'S COLOURING BOOKS, and about forty theoretical studies of all aspects of Stanislavski!)

Well, the way the interview ws going at first it seemed she was being asked to say how great Mizoguchi and Ozu were and offered her own learning curve on set as an addition. Good on MC for keeping that.

cow-irker (super-smart and informed about fine arts but a newbie wrt to film) really liked the kazan/blacklist stuff, as she had no idea about this entire story, so fair enough it being in, i guess

Episode 05 1939-1952

Rome Open City (1945)
Stagecoach (1939)
Directed By John Ford (1971)
Osaka Elegy (1936)
Flesh And The Devil (1926)
Follow The Boys (1944)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Me And Orson Wells (2008)
Chimes At Midnight (1965)
Cabiria (1914)
Intolerance (1916)
The General (1936)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
The Best Years Of Our Lives (1946)
Code Unknown (2000)
Satantango (1994)
How To Marry A Millionaire (1953)
Un Homme Et Une Femme (1966)
Heat (1995)

Rome Open City (1945)
Raging Bull (1980)
Bicycle Thieves (1948)
Pin Up Girl (1944)
Double Indemnity (1944)
Portrait Of A '60% Perfect Man': Billy Wilder (1982)
Testament Of Dr Mabuse (1933)
Big Sleep (1946)
Rio Bravo (1959)
Star Wars: Episode V - Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Out Of The Past (1947)
The Hitch-Hiker (1953)
Little Caesar (1931)
Le Quai Des Brumes (1938)
La Chienne (1931)
Scarlet Street (1945)
American Cinema: Film Noir (1995)
Gun Crazy (1950)
Bonnie And Clyde (1967)
L. A. Confidential (1997)
Blade Runner (1982)
The Dark Knight (2008)
Shiva (2006)

Titanic (1997)
71st Annual Academy Awards (1999)
An American In Paris (1951)
The Red Shoes (1948)
Sing In The Rain (1952)
Flying Down To Rio (1933)
Gold Diggers Of 1933 (1933)
Indiscreet (1958)
Two For The Road (1967)

A Matter Of Life And Death (1946)
Post Haste (1933)
Listen To Britain (1942)
The Third Man (1949)
The True Glory (1945)
Taxi Driver (1976)

only just watched this. less of interest to me in this one. and a lot of things with <5 second clips (most of which, tbf, he'd mentioned before)

been watching on 4OD. the clips are great, the look of it is great, the juxtapositions are often lovely, if he misuses the word "classical" one more time i'm gonna hunt him down and punch him in the neck, his general argument is pretty effing weak imo, enjoying finding out that hollywood is the only capitalist film industry in the world tho

srsly kudos for doing this but in large picture terms the dude is a bit of an idiot

Tonight he is tackling the melodrama - shd be a riot.

oh god, a whole hour of "this is not realism therefore it has no connection to Leavis-esque Life"

One of the bits I liked from last week's was Stanley Donen being all punk rock saying "At the time, Busby Berkeley was the ENEMY, we DESPISED HIM, Singing In The Rain was totally relevant to the kidz maaan. Except I was watching Busby Berkeley recently, it's kind of amazing isn't it, that stuff? In fact it's AWESUMZ"

Maybe Mark Cousins will do the same thing w/Casablanca

Have a copy of Durgnat on Film. Avoided it for ages because I haven't seen many of the films and context but after watching a few eps I could certainly give it a shot.

http://www.worldbookmarket.com/images/books/00001/18875.jpg

Great start on Cairo Station. But also a bit weird: just two hours ago I was reading an intro to Mahfousz's Cairo Trilogy, checked this out of the library earlier.

very bold start! "the REAL james dean is this man, YOUSSEF CHAHINE!"

hi julio!!!

and guru dutt is "india's orson welles" <-- not the best way to dodge ethnocentrism

14 yr old sharmila tagore lowers her eyes in 1960, tagore today raises them -- nice (ok corny too)

lata mangeshkar singing in "mother india" -- i saw her sing live once, at wembley

hi mark!

Didn't get a lot from tagore's talk (partly bcz I've seen a cpl of interviews with her repeating the same sorta spiel). But really good 10 mins on Indian cinema (Ray to Mother India). Liked that mention of a film from the 30s (before neo realism), nice complication of history there I suppose. xp

wtf, did MC just diss ford's sense of visual poetry and atmosphere?

http://www.astronomynotes.com/nature/shoffner/MonumentValley3.jpg

No, I think he said he wouldn't get in the mud, show grey (?)

Slightly bizarre to relate the Chinese director's fall and then talk about Polanski!

not sure doing ALL EGYPT ALL CHINA ALL INDIA POST-WAR JAPAN in these 10 min bursts works quite the way he wants it to here: it's a bit reductive (writing as a veteran of the world music wars)

he said ford wasn't interested in visual atmospherics, something like that -- just a weird thing to say

WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SCORPION!?

I think he said Kurosawa would embellish his films w/visual atmos but then compared the types of atmos and said a director like Ford wouldn't engage with heavy rain and sticky stuff, i think.

not sure yet how this is all working, he is not encasing it in a 'beginnings of world cinema' like i thought he might. xp

god this is a mess -- i want see all these films (now!) but MC's high-speed identity-posture riffle through world politics is all over the place, a flurry of incompatible cliches

(except: did he not bother mentioning ray, sirk and anger were gay?)

totally fair enough to contrast how ford and kurasawa deploy visual atmosphere -- i just thought he put it in a weirdly dismissive way

ok, he REALLY REALLY needs to be anchored by having to elucidate the specifics of a technique: "the 50s were swollen with the desires of their time, and something had to give" falls apart a bit when it turns out that the "desires of their times" means sex (also a desire of other times than the 50s, i feel confident in suggesting)

(lean and anderson also gay: this also not mentioned)

sure -- he is complementary of Ford elsewhere, maybe not this time..

Its all over the place, he is v excited to basically show a film prog where its just not about US cinema and only that. There is an arg about sex and the cinema right at the beginning and end, but then he went on about Pather Panchali for about 10 mins, when he should've spent more time on Devi. xp

One other thing I shd mention is the films they broadcast after these broadcasts -- it shd be Pather Panchali now instead of god knows at what hour on Film4.

Mash is ok i suppose.

It should be that Mexican one with the scorpion! I want to know what happened next!

haha well, bet that won't turn up on youtube either.

tempted to liveblog MASH now

maybe on a difft thread as MC won't get to it for another three eps

We could have compared to what MC will say in three weeks.

Morning after: the worst ep so far when it should've been one of the best. My prediction upthread of this one falling apart seems to be reality now and I don't like it one bit, and the more auteur-ish it gets the worse it will be.

> it shd be Pather Panchali now instead of god knows at what hour on Film4.

the monday film (00:50 in this case) is always repeated first thing on thursday (11:00). (which is just as useless. but, hey, video recorders...)

re Xie Jin, what he said was (something like) "In film, no one's career has had such amplitude, not even Polanski's" -- amplitude being the correct mathematical term for the range from highest to lowest value, of course, but a VERY peculiar word to reach for, and yes, a strangely unimaginative comparison... i wanted to know what "incorrect neo-confucianism" actually meant during the cultural revolution, that the maoists sentenced Xie Jin to cleaning the studio toilets

in other words, if johnny guitar was a swelling desire confounding and [stupid word alert] "subverting" eisenhower-esque norms, what swelling anti-social desire did "two stage sisters" manifest that needed punishment

i was actually quite pleased when he mentioned the bandung conference and the non-aligned movement -- plus defined "first world" versus "third world correctly, and knew that the "second world" was the communist bloc; clearly bandung doesn't get discussed enough, in or out of film history! -- but then his notion of anti-colonial sensibility was "smashing the bauble" of hollywood, which in ref the bauble-loving nation that gives us BOLLYWOOD is pea-brained (he tried to cough this problem away, but it won't go away just by coughing)

i also perked up when he started talking about lindsay anderson, obv (i was wondering if he was going to use ideas from my book!)* <-- if he'd compare-contrasted anderson's mandarin leftist disenchantment with the "masses" as he saw them into satyajit ray's or chahine's deep empathy/sympathy (or sirk's ditto, for those trapped in the more suffocatingly conformist reaches of the american middle class, or indeed whatever deviation it was the red guards felt that xie jin exhibited, this might have set up an interesting dialectic, for the emergence of a post-war and post-colonial dialectic (anderson was born in bangalore, of course: and belonged, if uneasily, to a layer of empire that was a lot less socially distant from eg the nehru's born-to-rule caste than modernising liberation rhetoric was able to acknowledge) <-- were any of the non-US directors in question (whatever their politics) actually of working class or peasant class backgrounds?

*he didn't >:(

"incorrect neo-confucianism" <-- don't think this was the actual term, btw

("an interesting dialectic, for the emergence of a post-war and post-colonial STANCE", i mean)

the monday film (00:50 in this case) is always repeated first thing on thursday (11:00). (which is just as useless. but, hey, video recorders...)

lolz didn't we talk about recording off Film4 two years ago. Still to get a DVD recorder.

Seems like were two separate topics that he ws trying to insert -- one ws the rise of world cinema, another was sex and cinema -- and it led to a lot of incoherence. If MC said "in the 50s there were two trends, etc" then he could've organised it better (?) The 10 mins on Ray were spent on Pather Panchali. Great as that film might be (and it is) I didn't know how it fit with the rest of his agenda. He could've discussed it w/neo-realism, he certainly should've mentioned that 30s Indian film alongside it, same for that Brazilian film from the 50s discussed yesterday. Same for the Bunuel. These eps are spread as timelines but he is v good at jumping across, and there was much less of that yesterday.

Could see how he might have wanted Freud to operate -- but wasn't Freud an obsession with a lot of film makers in 40s noir?

And incidentally I don't think Indian cinema is allowed to show bedroom scenes NOW, its incredibly conservative. Not something that Ray ws able to do much about, i think.

This has led to a orgy of short film watching over the weekend:

http://www.ubu.com/film/farrokhzad_house.html

[reposted from julio's LJ comments thread]

i really REALLY enjoyed r cousins last night [=on saturday night] -- i was home late-ish, so i missed the first ten mins and had to while time away till the repeat re-watching species

which taught me that his weak spot is getting started, really: the intro doesn't get any better, and he was piffling on about the "classical" and the "bauble" too much (ie at all) in that first ten mins -- but as soon as he gets into zone of the paying his main attentions to the visual*, he has my attention (and he did a real good job firing me about the italians, who've honestly always been my blank spot in the 50s and 60s)

putting tati third after bergman and bresson delighted me

(haha he said "authoritative" when he meant "authoritarian", of bergman's horrible dad)

*this actually happens when harriet andersen gazes out of the frame at us, in summer with monika, and gazes and gazes and gazes: cinema looking into the abyss of the buffs and perves and rubes

argh, spoilers. does he need to keep showing the ends of films?

otm. I watched last week's episode and then the next day The Passenger turned up from Netflix. Didn't really spoil it, tbh, but still.

As he is talking about modernisms and new waves i don't think revealing endings is at the top of his mind, and its not as if the endings of Tarkovsky films are understood in any way.

Last night's => much like my film going life, scarily enough...

Just a couple of points: I think he is too to quick to define the cinema of a country and then unthinkingly went into the cinema of a continent (Africa), whereas I would have preferred him to define Senegalese cinema as a thing in itself. Hopefully he'll be more specific as other African film makers emerge.

The end of Nostalghia should have been compared to compositions in glamorous ads -- probably outside his remit but I suspect that's where a lot of it went. Wanted some confirmation.

There was a lack of image matching: Jancso to Tarr, or Farrokhzad to [insert name of Iranian film maker here].

cage said the point of his music -- well, some of it -- was that there was "no best seat"

maybe the point of modernist ("modernist") film is that it doesn't matter if you see the end first: it's not shaped or driven by plot denouement

that said, i was out and missed the entire ep

Its on more4, if you watch that kind of thing.