influence of directors: categories

Started by (kelvin), December 08, 2003, 12:53:04 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

ono

#30
December 08, 2003, 09:49:15 PM
Which John Ford movie does the legend say Welles watched?
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI also don't believe any great idea of redemption is in Pulp Fiction. The story just isn't there for it. The film really isn't trying to be dramatic.
That's what makes Pulp Fiction so great.  It works on one level as this simple, entertaining gangster film, but under the surface it has all these currents running that make it impossible to deny.  When you think about it, these themes exist in all of Tarantino's films.  They're just more significant, more elevated, to those with an attuned eye, in this particular film.

Gold Trumpet

#31
December 08, 2003, 09:54:10 PM
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaWhich John Ford movie does the legend say Welles watched?
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI also don't believe any great idea of redemption is in Pulp Fiction. The story just isn't there for it. The film really isn't trying to be dramatic.
That's what makes Pulp Fiction so great.  It works on one level as this simple, entertaining gangster film, but under the surface it has all these currents running that make it impossible to deny.  When you think about it, these themes exist in all of Tarantino's films.  They're just more significant, more elevated, to those with an attuned eye, in this particular film.

There's layering a film, then there's just having different intentions and dropping little things in a film to get people to think otherwise.

godardian

#32
December 09, 2003, 12:13:11 AM
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaWhich John Ford movie does the legend say .

Stagecoach.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

(kelvin)

#33
December 09, 2003, 03:12:46 AM
Quote from: godardian
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaWhich John Ford movie does the legend say .

Stagecoach.

Yes, that's it! Never seen it.

(kelvin)

#34
December 09, 2003, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't really like this thread in foundation. Out of the four categories involved, two begin with a director not really being influenced in his filmmaking. How is that possible? Everyone is influenced by someone or something else in so many ways for so many things. Thing is, even if a style isn't being lifted from a previous filmmaker, that filmmaker is still influenced by previous filmmakers. Maybe 'influenced' should be replaced by 'borrowed' in respects to style, but I still don't believe it is that easy. I could say Kubrick's style is unique and definitely his own, but what percentage of the films made before his career have I seen? Its very little and I definitely could not speak so boldly. For 2001, though, I know much of his filmmaking was influenced by documentaries, which is a very wide net. I also could not say at all Hitchcock wasn't influenced. If I had to guess, I'd say he was influenced by the studio system of shooting and some experimental filmmaking considering his films, but fuck, I'm guessing. I think with questions and situations like these it assumes and simplifies way too much.

The better idea I think is to start with a known filmmaker and guess to what later films his body of work has influenced. You are grounded on something very specific in which you can go and investigate the "what ifs". Its just someone could write an entire book questioning the first post.

I also don't believe any great idea of redemption is in Pulp Fiction. The story just isn't there for it. The film really isn't trying to be dramatic.

I understand your objections. But note that my category system is only an attempt to understand and explain a process that has lasted for over 100 years. Necessarily, it is a simplifying one, as all categorizations and it has yet to be elaborated.
And, yes, everyone is influenced by someone else, but my system considers direct and recognizable influences. I'm not trying to put up some absolzute truth. I just want to explain how we got from the Lumière Bros. to PTA, from Méliès to Spielberg.

Consider this:

thesis: Metropolis
antithesis: Blade Runner
synthesis: The Fifth Element

or:

thesis: documentary filmmaking of the Lum. Bros.
antithesis: imaginative filmmaking of Georges Méliès
synthesis: the art of motion pictures

And my category proposals for directors may very well change. So maybe I am wrong and Kubrick fits into cat 3. You can always correct me, of course.

SoNowThen

#35
December 09, 2003, 09:24:41 AM
Godard traced filmic evolution from Lumiere Bros / Melies, through to Griffith, and then up to Welles. I guess the point being the first two birthed cinema, then Griffith owned silents, Welles owned the early sound films (funnily enough, something he's not given enough credit for, but he was light years ahead in terms of sound design). Of course the next logical step would be to say that with Breathless and beyond, Godard birthed the first true "modern" films...

(fyi, the Godard quote in reference to Welles was "we'll always owe everything to him".)
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

(kelvin)

#36
December 09, 2003, 12:18:45 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenGodard traced filmic evolution from Lumiere Bros / Melies, through to Griffith, and then up to Welles. I guess the point being the first two birthed cinema, then Griffith owned silents, Welles owned the early sound films (funnily enough, something he's not given enough credit for, but he was light years ahead in terms of sound design). Of course the next logical step would be to say that with Breathless and beyond, Godard birthed the first true "modern" films...

(fyi, the Godard quote in reference to Welles was "we'll always owe everything to him".)

I second that. With the precision that Godard was not the only one to give birth to (post)modern films. If you look at Melville's Bob le flambeur, you will find already a lot of the achievements that are commonly attributed to the nouvelle vague which, like the Renaissance, appeared in several regions within a certain period of time.
The nouvelle vague was the logical consequence to Citizen Kane. Only the world needed to realize that and only realized it 20 years later. Welles was ahead of his time in every aspect of filmmaking. But he didn't invent that much, je just collected knowledge and catalogized it in a movie. So did Griffith, so did Godard.

In Hegel's words:

thesis: Lum Bros
antithesis: Méliès
synthesis: Porter and Griffith

thesis: Griffith
antithesis: Ford
synthesis: Welles

thesis: Welles
antithesis: Melville
synthesis: Godard

I like that theory...

SoNowThen

#37
December 09, 2003, 12:24:24 PM
Quote from: chriskelvin
thesis: Lum Bros
antithesis: Méliès
synthesis: Porter and Griffith

thesis: Griffith
antithesis: Ford
synthesis: Welles

thesis: Welles
antithesis: Melville
synthesis: Godard

= perfection

I don't think we can take it any further than this.


Unless perhaps maybe

thesis: Godard
antithesis: Antonioni
synthesis: Bertolucci
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

(kelvin)

#38
December 09, 2003, 12:39:44 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
Quote from: chriskelvin
thesis: Lum Bros
antithesis: Méliès
synthesis: Porter and Griffith

thesis: Griffith
antithesis: Ford
synthesis: Welles

thesis: Welles
antithesis: Melville
synthesis: Godard

= perfection

I don't think we can take it any further than this.


Unless perhaps maybe

thesis: Godard
antithesis: Antonioni
synthesis: Bertolucci


Yes, that fits in. Although there are still a lot of directors I woul like to incorporate. Hitch, for example. And Lean, Leone, Tarkovsky, Bergman (!!!). Would Bergman fit into cat 3?

And what about this:

t: Lubitsch
at: Renoir
syn: Wilder (I know, very distant connections)

Or, a very funny one:

t: Riefenstahl
at: Wyler
syn: Scott

PS: we forgot Eisenstein!

godardian

#39
December 09, 2003, 12:50:43 PM
I'll make a coupla stabs:

t: Chaplin
a: Keaton
s: Lloyd

t: Altman
a: Demme
s: PTA!?!?

Thanks for the Hegelian kick in the brain, chriskelvin!
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#40
December 09, 2003, 12:52:44 PM
Yeah, I like your PTA one.


How about --

t: powell / rossellini (or visconti)
a: godard / cassavetes
s: Scorsese


... hehe, a stretch, I know.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#41
December 09, 2003, 12:58:36 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenYeah, I like your PTA one.


How about --

t: powell / rossellini (or visconti)
a: godard / cassavetes
s: Scorsese


... hehe, a stretch, I know.

I bet Scorsese wouldn't mind, though. Everything I know about him tells me he'd be flattered.

t: Douglas Sirk
a: Fassbinder
s: Todd Haynes
(this one also workes with Kubrick as the t)
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

(kelvin)

#42
December 09, 2003, 01:05:20 PM
Quote from: godardian

Thanks for the Hegelian kick in the brain, chriskelvin!

welcome  :P  old Hegel was quite a smart guy...

SNT, like your Scorsese syn.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions