tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349866.post2938757946441613162..comments2023-10-05T13:13:52.933-04:00Comments on The Listening Ear: Defining Contemplative Cinema (Bela Tarr)weepingsamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11885871104310819374noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349866.post-76203232639393970522007-01-18T16:56:00.000-05:002007-01-18T16:56:00.000-05:00Well, in terms of festivals influencing production...Well, in terms of festivals influencing production, we can cite Mizoguchi making Life of Oharu with an eye on Venice's Golden bear back in the early fifties. Festivals not always featuring something like contemplative cinema isn't evidence that festivals in the 90s didn't have something to do with a number of people making similar types of film. Festivals are dynamic things, film culture is too, funding, exhibition, etc., etc. I think if someone looked into it, the rise and spread of CC could be rationalized in these terms... but, since I'm not going to, I'll concede the point.<br /> <br />Awaiting Sam's additional Tarr posts. Caught Damnation last night-- it had some of the formal properties attributed to CC but they weren't present throughout (eg there's a scene in the bar at the beginning that has three shots that are, in their editing at least, more noiry than contemplative) or uniformly (the dance hall sequence at the end stood out as something different from the rest-- maybe still meeting the definitions above, though). I was also surprised at how heavy on characterization the film was next to Werk & Satan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349866.post-28432364956957741012007-01-16T16:50:00.000-05:002007-01-16T16:50:00.000-05:00Here is another recent post on Damnation ;)
weepi...<a href="http://www.gravity7.com/blog/film/2007/01/bela-tarrs-sound-images-cinema-of.html">Here</a> is another recent post on <b>Damnation</b> ;)<br /><br />weepingsam,<br />I agree that defining a core model would help to identify what is/is not CC. And analyzing the subtle differences between Tarr's and Hou's slowness is one of the fascinating aspects to look into for this blogathon. <br /><br />pm,<br />I know what you mean. I guess Festivals are more a means (catalyst) to share a common culture beyond borders, rather than a generative cause.<br /><br />The Venice festival has been around over 60 years, and contemplative precursors like Bresson and Antonioni were welknown long before the 90ies. Silent movies were highly influenced by the Hollywood golden age and the French school. I mean there is no evidence that makes festivals more influencial in this case.HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349866.post-39295926796222885612007-01-15T17:05:00.000-05:002007-01-15T17:05:00.000-05:00Harry, I didn't mean to propose a film festival ge...Harry, I didn't mean to propose a film festival genre. I was responding to Marina's question about a possible cultural source of the CC trend, and, since no one's going to find an overarching cultural link between Taiwan, Russia, Iran, LA, Hungary, and France that could be a causal agent in the creation of CC, I think the international film festival circuit is as good a guess as any. <br />And now that you mention it, I'm not sure distribution and exhibition models should be considered irrelevant to any cinematic phenomenon...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349866.post-51457046692319476262007-01-15T16:56:00.000-05:002007-01-15T16:56:00.000-05:00A couple notes: my reservations are particularly s...A couple notes: my reservations are particularly strong about creating a kind of metagenre around this idea of contemplative cinema. On the other hand, I think we probably can identify a number of more localized movements or trends. Looking at Tarr, Sukorov, Dumont - the lineage from Tarkovsky and Dovshenko seems fairly clear: the shared formal attributes, even a certain eastern and middle European location (for most of them) rise to the level of a noun, just about.... I think there's some value in finding relatively stable clusters of films like that, and working out some of the ways they relate to each other.... <br /><br />I would hope eventually this could move to looking at how Hou's slowness is different from Tarr's - something like that is important. Some of that can be analyzed in terms of influence or history: like, Hou's long shots look very different from Tarr's - Hou arranges spece in depth, Tarr can be strongly horizontal, all those walls (though it's a flatness that is punctured in places - doors and windows and alleys and holes.) Some of that seems traceable to Hou's resemblance to Japanese filmmakers (some of his shots are as complex, full of multiple planes and frames and such, as Imamura, which is approaching the limit) - similarly, the flatness in Tarr seems inspired by Tarkovsky, if not Antonioni and the like. (And almost certainly others I have not seen.) I'm thinking too of Bordwell's remark about the different ways Hou and Tarr stage scenes - Hou using complex movements of actors, Tarr tending to create his effects primarily with camera movements. <br /><br />Anyway - the last thing for now is that I suspect the festival is important in any sort of trend in the 90s and 00s - the way festivals have created a kind of international parallel to the more local film movements like neo-realism or the new waves.weepingsamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11885871104310819374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349866.post-20935374609970965162007-01-15T08:15:00.000-05:002007-01-15T08:15:00.000-05:00I only consider earlier predecessors to trace back...I only consider earlier predecessors to trace back the inspiration that led to this trend, but I don't include any films before the last 15-20 years. Because any film before that didn't really break with narration (exceptions are Antonioni, Tarkovsky). Dovshenko belongs to Soviet Montage, Antonioni and Tarkovsky to Modernism. It's something else, even if they share some important characteristics. But we don't define a trend by its exceptions.<br />I'm with you about the "noun" description. "Contemplative Cinema" is a nickname, not an adjective that covers anything remotely "contemplative". That's why I'm open to consider other names, although the film family we are talking about is itself pretty well circonscribed.<br />Do you think that films from the French New Wave are more alike than unlike? There is a great diversity of style and personality within the New Wave, yet they all belong to the same family. But the problem is a bit different because they were born from a group of friend from the same place, who followed some kind of manifesto. With CC there is no manifesto, but auteurs happen to be inspired by the same aesthetics, which is different from anything else around.<br />The new invention is in the non-verbal narration. Ozu and Mizogushi use speech and conventional drama with resolution.<br />There is an evident lineage as you say (I say inspiration), but I can see a very distinct/new nature in the style too. <br />To me Warhol and Snow deal more with Experimental Cinema than anything else. Their purpose is in experimenting forms for the sake of conceptual art. They are on the tangent of CC, exceptions that do no define our trend.<br />I don't think Sokurov, Tarr or Dumont are conceptual artists, they do try to make fiction film.<br /><br />pm, I don't know any such thing as a "Film Festival genre"... You might call it that because this aesthetics is not defined otherwise, but festivals have nothing to do with that. Gus Van Sant's own filmography is mainly narrative, he only "converted" to CC recently, so he's a guest member, not a defining founder of this aesthetics.<br />Your question about why they bury their narratives is worth developping thoough.HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349866.post-46173672110888885232007-01-15T01:33:00.000-05:002007-01-15T01:33:00.000-05:00Hm. I share Sam's reservations, and I'm confident ...Hm. I share Sam's reservations, and I'm confident enough in them (and others) to say contemplative cinema, which exists outside popular art, certainly isn't a genre nor, considerin' the fact that this might well go back to Dovshenko and continue to, say, Gus van sant, is it a tendency that can be identified historically or regionally (though if you want a common social context from which these films arise, perhaps the film festival? You see Gus van sant wandering out of Bela Tarr film in Toronto...)<br /> <br />And, given that second point, it's no surprise the list of features gets messy when it hits on mysticism, something that seems more a theme than the formal attributes listed before it. Instances of contemplative cinema, though they might employ similar devices and can share a vague set themes we can invest such devices with, are more distinct from each other than alike (unlike other genres, I daresay). Hou's slowness differs from Tarkovsky's, differs from Tarr's, differs from van Sant's, etc. Sukorov goes for mysticism, Tsai for the punch line. Or: "the films themselves have to be taken as they are," here more than elsewhere.<br /><br />But as long as we're looking for historical origins... On psychology: The "description as opposed to depiction" formulation reminds me of cinema until 1909 or so (substitute tableaux for description). There, psychological states were indicated by poses and arrangements or characters (not particularly complicated ones), and, as a result, narrative content--to eyes used to watching conventional, narrative films, where one sees psychological states depicted, as a process the film follows--is slight. The comparison is slightly useful, maybe, if only to describe how much of popular narrative filmmaking has been rejected... <br /><br />Also: I do think these should be treated as narrative films. How and why they bury their narratives might be a good way to sort them out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349866.post-9840954083663685822007-01-14T21:03:00.000-05:002007-01-14T21:03:00.000-05:00Thanks for the comments, Marina and Harry... A cou...Thanks for the comments, Marina and Harry... A couple points: first - I don't know if I ever quite named the filmmakers or films who would be in the group of films I was trying to describe: I do have a fairly clear set of names. In fact I did name most of them: Tarr; Dovshenko, Tarkovsky and Sukorov; I'd add Antonioni as another definite. Dumont, I think, is a particularly good fit. Jia Jiang-ke might be - there are undoubtedly others. I am thinking of a very narrow type of film, as a starting point: it's a group of films I think I can nail down somewhat.<br /><br />Second - I think a lot of the confusion I feel about the discussion of contemplative cinema comes down to something like the difference between considering it as a noun: as "contemplative-cinema", as a type of film; vs. considering it an adjective and a noun - cinema that is contemplative. With the latter, the focus is on noticing characteristics (formal devices, maybe themes or approaches to stories) that can turn up anywhere; with the former, it is more like identifying and describing a particular group of films. This was a definitely a contemplative-cinema as noun post... I think starting there helps clarify the characteristics I think are important in a broader approach to the question.<br /><br />Third - as the list of names should indicate - I don't think this is a new invention. I think a lot of the things that come under the "contemplative" heading can be traced to Tarkovsky and Antonioni, in particular. Filtered through things - through neo-realism, definitely - through Mizoguchi and Ozu, through the new wave, and American parallels like Cassavetes... Though with filmmakers like Tarr, Sukorov, Dumont, the lineage seems very direct. <br /><br />There are a couple other things I want to think about some more - maybe at the roundtable. Like the fact that I tend to think of this as applying to narrative cinema - however buried the story might be, it's still fiction. I'm inclined to distinguish it from non-narrative cinema, like early Warhol, or Michael Snow. That has implications I haven't thought through enough....weepingsamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11885871104310819374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349866.post-88208256165816565012007-01-14T11:42:00.000-05:002007-01-14T11:42:00.000-05:00Marina, the socio-political context would be reall...Marina, the socio-political context would be really interesting to dig up indeed! Although it probably requires a deeper research of scholar scope... <br />Another interesting thing about 1994, is Pulp Fiction, the birth of a popular trend in narrative films : multilayered stories. which is the polar opposite of CC, by exaggerating the importance of the plot as an artifical gimmick.HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349866.post-62024147211315319692007-01-14T11:36:00.000-05:002007-01-14T11:36:00.000-05:00Thank you for tackling this groundwork of making m...Thank you for tackling this groundwork of making meaning of all this. You did a beautiful study! I like your reservations and I share them maybe. There is no exact definition I agree. Part of the fun of this blogathon is the work-in-progress exploration.<br /><br />Technically it would be a stylistic movement (like Neo-Realism, La Nouvelle Vague) beacuse it's defined by its aesthetic, rather than a genre. But it's not absurd to look at it this way since they share so much narrative concerns (boredom, existentialism, slowness, fatalism, disconnection, helplessness, unresolved arc), without being born from a single country (like most stylistic movement usually do).<br /><br />Damnation is definitely quintessential, as you say. I hope that the blogathon made you look at your first Bela Tarr (and Satantango) with an eager (not bored) eye. <br />And the peripheral films such as Demonlovers illustrate the dissemination and mutation of this trend into various traditional genres and styles, so they shouldn't cloud the trend, but make it richer by nurturing it from outside. <br /><br />You raise a lot of fascinating points I hope to come back to soon.<br />They make it clear that these features are new and never used in other films, which makes it important to talk about a new way of making cinema.<br /><br />I just opened a <a href="http://unspokencinema.blogspot.com/2007/01/roundtable-3-aesthetic-economy.html">new Roundtable</a> to now define the singular aesthetic of this trend. Your post is a solid foundation to go from.HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7349866.post-62486143778510864952007-01-14T08:18:00.000-05:002007-01-14T08:18:00.000-05:00It seems to me that this is a genre that doesn't e...<em>It seems to me that this is a genre that doesn't exactly exist - but it's a genre that people notice, a family of films that do seem related. They (or we, since I can see it too) notice that there are films with certain characteristics - slowness, plotlessness, etc. They are looking for what links these films, how they can describe them, how they can describe the links. The problem so far (for me) is that the links are too vague - the category is too broad.</em><br /><br />You raise a good point (your note about the reiteration of surface images is penetrating). I feel that our inability to clearly, or at least to a certain degree, define contemplative cinema comes from our not knowing its origins. There's a roundtable at the Unspoken Cinema blog, which hasn't still touched that matter properly.<br /><br />We already see the characteristics but fail to justify them. Why are these features present, and why at that particular time? There's also a great list of example contemplative films, but I think we should look at this <em>tendency</em>, rather than genre, from a non-cinematical view. What were the social circumstances at the time it was born and which are the films that we now assume as contemplative, but are in fact predecessors (before that time)? Or what were the artistic circumstances that caused it to originate?<br /><br />As Harry commented in one of the posts, these films arise somewhere around 1994, just before Dogme95 comes with its manifesto of cleaning up/ressurecting/rescueing cinema. It laid out its reasons: "no" to individualism in film, "no" to fooling the audience with illusions, "yes" to the naked honesty. <br /><br />So, was really cinema choking with lies? What were the prime influances and representatives of cinema in the early 90s? To what extent did that find an effect in the young contemplative cinema? What events/ideas shaped the late 80s and early 90s? <br /><br />Then again, the years could be wrong...Marinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16324018240941018404noreply@blogger.com