Xixax Film Forum

I like to consider sociological changes as progressing and changing constantly, conforming to Hegel's view of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.

In cinema history, we find the same patterns: every director is influenced by the preceeding ones, but some are more than others, and, more importantly, some have more influence themselves than others.

I would cite Griffith as being influenced strongly by preceeding directors, but he himself also did have a great impact on the following ones, Hitchcock would be a very good example for the latter situation, but certainly not for the first. Tarantino would fit into the Griffith category. Kubrick certainly had hardly any influence at all, because his style was so unique. Eastwood has no particular influence, but he certailny has been inspired by directo he worked with as an actor. And so on.

Therefore I would put up four categories:

#1 Griffith category: influenced and having an influence
#2 Hitchcock category: not that much influenced, but having a great influence on others
#3 Eastwood category being influenced a lot without having an influence on others
#4 Kubrick category: Neither particularly influenced nor having a greater influence


Any thoughts or comments? Is this train of thought worth being continued?

what?????

two thoughts:

wasn't Griffith basically the father of the feature (which would make it hard to say he was influenced)?

also, wasn't Kubrick heavily influenced by Ophuls?

Quote from: chriskelvinKubrick certainly had hardly any influence at all, because his style was so unique.

An exception would be Todd Haynes's Safe.

I like your categories... won't you try putting some of the board's favorite directors into them?

yes id like to hear more of this theory of yours

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: chriskelvinKubrick certainly had hardly any influence at all, because his style was so unique.

An exception would be Todd Haynes's Safe.

I like your categories... won't you try putting some of the board's favorite directors into them?

PTA is really hard to categorize. I would say he is in cat 3 for now. He may get into cat 2, if future directors will adapt his style and ideas about filmmaking. But I'd say he is very influenced himself by pop culture and similar social phenomena.
The Coens belong to cat 4, Lynch to cat 2 or cat 4 for his best films. The Wachovsky Bros. belong to cat 1. Scorsese to cat 3.

Brian de Palma goes in category number 1, I think.

Quote from: SoNowThentwo thoughts:

wasn't Griffith basically the father of the feature (which would make it hard to say he was influenced)?

also, wasn't Kubrick heavily influenced by Ophuls?

Griffith basically condensed the cinematographic achievements from the Lumière Bros. to Edwin S. Porter. About Kubrick being influenced by Ophüls, I can't say anything, for I have never heard that theory. Might be interesting to check that out.

okay i see the point of this thread now....(i'm not really that smart..but...phuck it)....

schumacher, #2

btw-shouldnn't this be in the director forum?

Quote from: godardianBrian de Palma goes in category number 1, I think.

Oh yes, very much so, with a very strong link to cat 3. Eisenstein would be cat 1, with a strong link to cat 2. So we could even divide those categories into cat 1.3 for de Palma and cat 1.2 for Eisenstein.

Quote from: NEON MERCURY

btw-shouldnn't this be in the director forum?

Hmmm...wouldn't that exclude PTA or the Coens, etc, for instance?

..not sure .but the way i look at it if you are starting a topic about more than one director or if the thread consists of opinions/facts about more than one it should be in the director forum......

(i.e. the PTA vs. Marty thread)........but you got a good topic going so i'll shut up...NOW..

I like the theory, but Scorsese is most definitely cat.1, not 3. He's done his fair share of influencing...

Quote from: SoNowThenI like the theory, but Scorsese is most definitely cat.1, not 3. He's done his fair share of influencing...

I know, he is also very hard to categorize. I would propose a compromise: cat 3.1. I don't think he has that much influence, concerning his style (violence, working with method actors (De Niro, so to say...), a participating, influencing camera) and his topics (catholicism transcended to criminal or semi-criminal subcultures), and the connection of both. You don't find that in other director's works, especially not this symbiotic connection of topic and style.

but his particular style of montage and camera movement (via sequence construction) has definitely influenced PTA and Wes Anderson

and his perverse attention to detail, as well as his embracing of criminal on-the-fringes characters and explosive violence has been well utilized by Tarantino.

but I will agree that he has a "thing" all his own, which is of course why he is one of the greats.


also, is it safe to say Welles fits firmly in cat.1?

Quote from: SoNowThenbut his particular style of montage and camera movement (via sequence construction) has definitely influenced PTA and Wes Anderson

and his perverse attention to detail, as well as his embracing of criminal on-the-fringes characters and explosive violence has been well utilized by Tarantino.

but I will agree that he has a "thing" all his own, which is of course why he is one of the greats.


also, is it safe to say Welles fits firmly in cat.1?

Concerning Welles: As far as I know, the legend goes that Welles learned everything he knew about cinema from watching a John Ford movie forty times in a row. I don't know if it's true, but I'd say his influence on others was far more important than the influence of others on him. I#d propose cat 1.2

Concerning Scorsese: well, you made a good point. But PTA and Wes have been partially and only stylistically influenced by him, concerning the camera work. But Marty's style speaks redemption, sin and purgatory, whereas PTA's style speaks repent, isolation and the dichotomy heaven/hell. Scorsese is catholic, PTA protestant. There is a whole universe of ideologies that divides them. Wes certainly concentrates on a more comical adaptation of Marty's style. But apart from the violence, I don't see anything from Scorsese in Tarantino who might be called a cinematographic atheist, for he has chosen the postmodern approach.

A very good point. However, one of the underlying messages in Pulp Fiction is redemption.

But you are right, Marty wears his Catholicism on his sleeve, and does it better than the rest probably ever will.

Quote from: SoNowThenA very good point. However, one of the underlying messages in Pulp Fiction is redemption.

But you are right, Marty wears his Catholicism on his sleeve, and does it better than the rest probably ever will.

I always thought that Pulp Fiction had no message at all. Where do you see redemption in it? I rather see coincidence.

And one thing I wanted to add to my previous post: the idea of catholicism/protestantism in Marty's and PTA's work is remarkable. Note that in Scorsese's movies, characters suffer because their suffering is inflicted on them by others (who have often suffered because of the first ones). There is a logical continuation of sufferings.
In PTA's films, people suffer, because they "deserve" it. They often have caused the problems themselves. Their fate lies in their own hands, whereas in Scorsese's view, their fate would have been altered by others. Just a thought.

re: Pulp Fiction

The Jules character. He's saved by an act of God, which causes him to make a change in his life, and he decided to try and be "the shepherd" saving the weak, rather than being the "tyranny of evil men".

Quote from: chriskelvin
I always thought that Pulp Fiction had no message at all. Where do you see redemption in it? I rather see coincidence.

WARNING: PULP FICTION SPOILERS, PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE WEIRD PERSONS WHO HAVEN'T SEEN PULP FICTION

The stories in Pulp Fiction are linked by an element of redemption. Coincidence? Sure. But the characters always make a choice before their final destination in the film is revealed.

Vincent Vega chooses to not have an affair with Mia before her O.D., therefore liberating himself of the moral weight that this would be in his relationship with Marsellus. You could argue that it was only fear of punishment what made him act like that, but in the film Vega is shown as a pretty irritable guy who almost never says I'm sorry and doesn't really care about other people stuff, however in the bathroom he's actually concerned about how to act on this particular situation. He has a crush but knows it wouldn't be fair to do something about it.

Butch, in the Clock story, decides to save Marsellus after all. He can leave him to be raped and surely killed, but he decides to save him, saving himself at the same time.

Julius, in the final chapter, is out of crime life for good. He has decided this before the robbery at the restaurant, but then he chooses not to kill these two robbers and gives them his money. He forgives them cause he has changed, and its a way of compensating himself too.

It's not real life, it's pulp fiction, but the redemption subject is what holds the movie together and make it so great. Everyone can make a movie about fucked up coincidences and cool dialogues (guy ritchie), but here all this shit actually MEANS something, so that's why it is terrific.

Quote from: SoNowThenre: Pulp Fiction

The Jules character. He's saved by an act of God, which causes him to make a change in his life, and he decided to try and be "the shepherd" saving the weak, rather than being the "tyranny of evil men".

But doesn't redemption include suffering? Sinners have to pay for their sins, according to catholicism. Only then, they are forgiven (which they are not according to the protestant philosophy). I'm missing the idea of purgatory.

Quote from: Alexandro

Quote from: chriskelvin
I always thought that Pulp Fiction had no message at all. Where do you see redemption in it? I rather see coincidence.

WARNING: PULP FICTION SPOILERS, PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE WEIRD PERSONS WHO HAVEN'T SEEN PULP FICTION

The stories in Pulp Fiction are linked by an element of redemption. Coincidence? Sure. But the characters always make a choice before their final destination in the film is revealed.

Vincent Vega chooses to not have an affair with Mia before her O.D., therefore liberating himself of the moral weight that this would be in his relationship with Marsellus. You could argue that it was only fear of punishment what made him act like that, but in the film Vega is shown as a pretty irritable guy who almost never says I'm sorry and doesn't really care about other people stuff, however in the bathroom he's actually concerned about how to act on this particular situation. He has a crush but knows it wouldn't be fair to do something about it.

Butch, in the Clock story, decides to save Marsellus after all. He can leave him to be raped and surely killed, but he decides to save him, saving himself at the same time.

Julius, in the final chapter, is out of crime life for good. He has decided this before the robbery at the restaurant, but then he chooses not to kill these two robbers and gives them his money. He forgives them cause he has changed, and its a way of compensating himself too.

It's not real life, it's pulp fiction, but the redemption subject is what holds the movie together and make it so great. Everyone can make a movie about fucked up coincidences and cool dialogues (guy ritchie), but here all this shit actually MEANS something, so that's why it is terrific.

Again, I say: redemption includes suffering, not just a change of mind. Watch Raging Bull: when the De Niro character, emprisoned, hits the wall with his fists. That is redemption, the "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" idea. You have to suffer and , more important, you have to want to suffer in order to get salvation.

no, no, I'm protestant -- the idea goes: admit your sins and ask for forgiveness.

It was Scorsese who wasn't satisfied with the idea of just any person getting instant forgiveness, hence the idea that "you don't make up for your sins in the church... you do it in the street..."

Jules is made aware of his evil lifestyle, and decides to make a positive change, imo anyway, it's a form of redemption.

Quote from: chriskelvin
Again, I say: redemption includes suffering, not just a change of mind. Watch Raging Bull: when the De Niro character, emprisoned, hits the wall with his fists. That is redemption, the "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" idea. You have to suffer and , more important, you have to want to suffer in order to get salvation.

PULP FICTION SPOILERS AHEAD

OK...

In their own pulpfictionesque way...all these characters go trhough some kind of suffering here...

Vincent has to deal with Mia before the O.D., which is suffering being as hot as she is and all, but then he has to deal with her WHILE she's od.ed...that's purgatory if you ask me...if he had any thought still of having something with her, I bet he thought about it twice after this...

Butch crashed his car, was about to be killed and was about to be raped and end his days on some perverts basement: purgatory...

Julius almost got killed and saw God or so he says...then, after that, his criminal ways got him into a fucked up situation where he had a dead body on the trunk on his blood filled car, with pieces of skull and shit...

so, they suffered, not in the scorsese straight from the bible way, but they had some kind of suffering and then transformation....

the suffering is sometimes the only way to lead most of these characters to awareness, and then to redemption. Don't forget Scorsese's good old "cleansed by the blood of Christ" idea, ie. Jake getting pounded into a bloody mess in Raging Bull. Then, later, he can meet his real foe in the jail cell, and have his one last great bout with himself. Then he is redeemed -- marked for life, but finally at some kind of peace.

Quote from: SoNowThenthe suffering is sometimes the only way to lead most of these characters to awareness, and then to redemption. Don't forget Scorsese's good old "cleansed by the blood of Christ" idea, ie. Jake getting pounded into a bloody mess in Raging Bull. Then, later, he can meet his real foe in the jail cell, and have his one last great bout with himself. Then he is redeemed -- marked for life, but finally at some kind of peace.

Yes, I think I have said the same thing, haven't I?

As a protestant, you have have to ask for forgiveness, as you have said.
As a catholic, you have to want to suffer, to give something in exchange for your salvation, as I have said.

Alexandro, your arguments are good, but I'm just not convinced that those incidental sufferings are identical to those that catholicism needs and wants. There really is too much coincidence. The characters don't want deliberately to suffer, they just want deliberately to change.  They do suffer, but they don't want to do so. That is not enough.

And I'm catholic, by the way. (well, officially, you know)

oh, sorry, yeah I just re-read one of the above posts and you did say that... I missed the protestant part.. :oops:

anyway, yes, I do see what you're saying with PTA being more like protestant to Scorsese's Catholic -- funny though, didn't PTA say he was raised a Catholic or something? Also, by this can we say Pulp Fiction is also protestant leaning in its "redemptive" aspects?

At any rate, Catholicism seems to lend itself better to films, as it's more symbol-heavy.

------


Where would you put Truffaut and Rohmer on your categories?

Quote from: SoNowThenoh, sorry, yeah I just re-read one of the above posts and you did say that... I missed the protestant part.. :oops:

anyway, yes, I do see what you're saying with PTA being more like protestant to Scorsese's Catholic -- funny though, didn't PTA say he was raised a Catholic or something? Also, by this can we say Pulp Fiction is also protestant leaning in its "redemptive" aspects?

At any rate, Catholicism seems to lend itself better to films, as it's more symbol-heavy.

------


Where would you put Truffaut and Rohmer on your categories?

Truffaut: cat 1
Rohmer: can't really say, because I don't know him too much (ashamed to say so...)

The one that's really hard to categorize is Godard.
I'd say: cat 1 in 1960, cat 4 for some of his most difficult films, cat 3.2 for the rest. But I don't know. He is about the only that doesn't really fit in.

Coppola in category 1
Ingmar Bergman in category 2
Kevin Smith in category 3
Agnes Varda in category 4


how's this?

I 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaWhich John Ford movie does the legend say .

Stagecoach.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: OnomatopoeiaWhich John Ford movie does the legend say .

Stagecoach.

Yes, that's it! Never seen it.

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.

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".)

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...

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

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!

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!

Yeah, I like your PTA one.


How about --

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


... hehe, a stretch, I know.

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)

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.