{"id":10236,"date":"2010-09-28T11:04:40","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T16:04:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=10236"},"modified":"2010-09-28T11:16:16","modified_gmt":"2010-09-28T16:16:16","slug":"the-buddy-system","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2010\/09\/28\/the-buddy-system\/","title":{"rendered":"The buddy system"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Sweet Smell of Success.<\/em><\/p>\n

DB here:<\/p>\n

Many of our friends write books, and what are friends for if not occasionally to promote each other\u2019s books? Here\u2019s an armload of titles, most of them recently published. They’re so good that even if the authors weren’t our friends and colleagues, I’d still recommend them.<\/p>\n

James Naremore<\/strong> has made major contributions to film studies since his fine monograph on Psycho<\/em>, published way back in 1973. That book remains one of the most sensitive analyses of this much-discussed movie. Now he has another monograph, on the stealth classic Sweet Smell of Success<\/a><\/em>. When I was coming up, Alexander Mackendrick wasn\u2019t much appreciated, and this movie slipped under the radar. More recently it has emerged as one of the model films of the 1950s, and not just for James Wong Howe\u2019s spectacular location cinematography. It\u2019s a very brutal story, with Tony Curtis playing against type as venal press agent \u00a0Sidney Falco and Burt Lancaster as J. J. Hunsecker, a monstrously vindictive newspaper columnist.<\/p>\n

Jim\u2019s book provides a scene-by-scene commentary but also more general analysis of production circumstances and directorial technique. An enlightening instance is what Mackendrick called \u201cthe ricochet\u201d\u2014when character A talks to character B but is aiming at character C. This allows the filmmaker great flexibility in framing and cutting, often showing C\u2019s reactions while we hear the dialogue offscreen. In the shots surmounting this blog, Sidney is needling J. J. by asking the Senator if he approves of capital punishment. Jim’s book joins his work on Welles<\/a>, Kubrick<\/a>, and film noir<\/a> as part of a subtle reassessment of American postwar cinema.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>With the current revival of interest in Andr\u00e9 Bazin\u2019s film theory, it\u2019s fruitful to look again at the \u201cclassical\u201d theoretical tradition in which he participated. \u201cClassical\u201d here refers to the very long period before the emergence of semiotic and psychoanalytic theories of cinema in the 1960s. The newer theories have somewhat beclouded our recognition of how imaginative and wide-ranging the old folks were. In Doubting Vision: Film and the Revelationist Tradition<\/a><\/em>, Malcolm Turvey<\/strong> scrutinizes four thinkers who saw film as having the power to show us things beyond (or above, or below) surface reality. In the spirit of analytic philosophy, Turvey carefully lays out the positions of B\u00e9la Bal\u00e1zs, Jean Epstein, Siegfried Kracauer, and Dziga Vertov before asking whether their claims hold up.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not giving much away by revealing that Malcolm thinks the revelationist tendency has its problems. But his purpose isn\u2019t simply to reject the position. He treats it as an instance of what he calls \u201cvisual skepticism,\u201d the idea that we ought to treat our ordinary intake of the world as something suspect. This idea, Malcolm argues, is central to modernism in the visual arts. He extends his critique of visual skepticism to more recent theorists as well, notably Gilles Deleuze, and he shows how his own ideas apply to films by Hitchcock, Brakhage, and other directors. Malcolm\u2019s book is a model of theoretical clarity and probity, and a stimulating read as well.<\/p>\n

Skepticism of another sort is central to Carl Plantinga<\/strong>\u2019s Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film<\/em>. One result of semiotic theory was to question whether a film could ever adequately represent reality. If a movie is only an assembly, however complex, of conventional signs, it can\u2019t give us access to something out there. Even a documentary, some theorists argued, had no privileged access to the real world, let alone to general truths. \u201cEvery film is a fiction film\u201d was a refrain often heard at the time. Carl tackles this assumption head-on by carefully arguing that just because a documentary is selective, or biased, or rhetorical, that doesn\u2019t mean that it can\u2019t affirm true propositions about our social lives.<\/p>\n

Like Malcolm, Carl brings a philosopher’s training in conceptual analysis to debates about the ultimate objectivity of any documentary. In adopting a position of \u201ccritical realism\u201d opposed to skepticism, Carl examines the realistic status of images and sounds, the way documentaries are structured, and filmmakers\u2019 use of technique. He shows, convincingly to my mind, that a documentary may offer an opinion and still be objective and reliable to a significant degree. Carl\u2019s 1997 book went out of print before it could be published in paperback. He has enterprisingly reissued it as a print-on-demand volume, and it\u2019s available here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>To take film theory in another direction, there\u2019s Evolution, Literature, and Film<\/a><\/em>, edited by Brian Boyd, Joseph Carroll, and Jonathan Gottschall<\/strong>. As a wider audience has become aware of the power of neo-Darwinian thinking, more and more scholars have been arguing that evolutionary theory can shed light on aesthetics. The most visible effort recently is Denis Dutton\u2019s The Art Instinct<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

For some years Brian, Joe, and Jonathan have been in the forefront of this trend, with many books and articles to their credit. Their anthology pulls together broad essays on biology, evolutionary psychology, and cultural evolution before turning to art as a whole and then focusing on literature and cinema. There are also pieces displaying evolutionary interpretations of particular works, and a finale that provides examples of quantitative studies of genre, gender variation, and sexuality, including an article called \u201cSlash Fiction and Human Mating Psychology.\u201d<\/p>\n

Among the film contributors are other friends like Joe Anderson<\/strong>, a pioneer in this domain with his 1996 book The Reality of Illusion<\/a><\/em>, and Murray Smith<\/strong>, who provides an acute piece called \u201cDarwin and the Directors: Film, Emotion, and the Face in the Age of Evolution.\u201d There are also essays of mine, drawn from Poetics of Cinema<\/em>. In all, this book presents a persuasive case for an empirical, broadly naturalistic approach to the arts.<\/p>\n

By the way, the same team is involved with an annual,\u00a0The Evolutionary Review<\/a><\/em>, edited by Alice Andrews and Joe Carroll. Its first issue offers articles on Facebook, musical chills, women as erotic objects in film, and Art Spigelman\u2019s In the Shadow of No Towers<\/em> (by Brian Boyd).<\/p>\n

Some books emerge from conferences, and Tom Paulus and Rob King<\/strong>\u2019s Slapstick Comedy<\/a><\/em> is a good instance. Based on \u201c(Another) Slapstick Symposium,\u201d held at the Royal Film Archive of Belgium in 2006, the anthology brings together a host of experts who look back at madcap comedy in American silent film. There are essays on particular creators\u2014Griffith, Sennett, Fatty, and Chaplin, inevitably\u2014as well as pieces on slapstick parodies of other movies and the genre\u2019s relation to modernity, also inevitably. Tom Gunning offers a fine analysis of Lloyd\u2019s Get Out and Get Under<\/em> (1920), concentrating on a complex string of gags around an automobile. The collection gathers work by some of the outstanding scholars of silent film while also, of course, making you want to see these crazy movies again.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>You also want to see all the movies lovingly evoked by Gary Giddins<\/strong> in Warning Shadows: Home Alone with Classic Cinema<\/a><\/em>. As indicated in another blog entry<\/a>, I find Giddins one of the best appreciative critics we\u2019ve ever had. Any essay, indeed almost any sentence, cries out to be quoted. Here he is on Edward G. Robinson:<\/p>\n

His round, thick-lipped, putty face could brighten like paternal sunshine or shut down in implacable contempt or stall with crafty desperation or pontificate with ingenuous wisdom; his short, stumpy, erect frame could sport a tailor-made as smartly as Cary Grant.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some of the pieces in Giddins\u2019 latest collection were designed to accompany DVDs, but they will outlast this evaporation-prone genre. Other reviews come from the New York Sun<\/em>, which gave him freedom to mix and match his subjects: Young Mr. Lincoln<\/em> and Lust for Life<\/em> (both biopics), Lady and the Tramp<\/em> and Miyazaki movies. The collection opens with Giddins\u2019 thoughts on how changes in film exhibition, from nickelodeons to digital screens, have altered our relationship with the movies. This isn\u2019t just nostalgia, because his survey allows him to celebrate the power of DVD to exhume forgotten titles. The standards for a film classic, he notes, \u201care gentler and more flexible\u201d than those in appraising other arts. \u201cThe passing decades are a boon to the appreciation of stylistic nuance that gives certain melodramas and genre pieces the heft of individuality.\u201d<\/p>\n

Who was Segundo de Chom\u00f3n? In the 1970s, I kept finding that films I thought were by M\u00e9li\u00e8s turned out to bear this mysterious signature. You imagine a man in a cape and a floppy hat. Photographs show someone a little less operatic, but with a superb mustache. Today he\u2019s far from a mystery, although many of his movies can\u2019t be fully identified. Several scholars have followed his trail, none more thoroughly than Joan M. Minguet Batllori<\/strong> in Segundo de Chom\u00f3n: The Cinema of Fascination<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Chom\u00f3n started as a cinema man-of-all-work in Barcelona, translating film titles, distributing copies, and producing films for Path\u00e9. After moving to Paris in 1905, he continued working for the company and established his fame with trick films. He returned to Barcelona to create a production company, but that failed. On he went to Italy, where he specialized in visual effects, most famously for Cabiria<\/em> (1914).<\/p>\n

In his Parisian Path\u00e9 years, he was in charge of all the studio\u2019s trick films, which included not only stop-motion, superimpositions, and other effects but also marionettes and animation. \u00a0Joan argues that he was a prime exponent of the \u201ccinema of attractions,\u201d<\/a> Tom Gunning\u2019s term for that early mode of filmmaking which aims to startle and enchant the audience. A famous instance is Kiriki, acrobats japonais<\/em> (1907), which shows gravity-defying stunts.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Chom\u00f3n accomplished this by shooting from straight down, filming the performers on the floor. They had to simulate leaps and flips as they rolled along each other’s bodies, and then they had to slip perfectly into position.\u00a0This English edition of Joan\u2019s book on Chom\u00f3n, full of information and providing a \u201cprovisional filmography\u201d along with many pages of gorgeous color images, will be available soon here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>We recently noted the anniversary of our book on classic studio cinema<\/a>, a 1985 project in which we bypassed talking about exhibition. That part of the industry has been a scholarly growth area in the years since, and one of the newest yields is <\/a>Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History<\/a><\/em>, by Sheldon Hall and Steve Neale<\/strong>. It\u2019s a chronological account of Big Movies, from the earliest features to the digital era, and it concentrates on how such films have been marketed and shown. It explains how exhibition changed across the decades, and how we got the phenomenon of the \u201croadshow\u201d movie, the film shown selectively (only certain cities), at intervals (perhaps only one matinee and one evening screening), and at more or less fixed prices. My middle-aged readers will remember roadshow releases like The Sound of Music<\/em> (1965), although there were many before and even a few since.<\/p>\n

Sheldon and Steve trace in unprecedented detail the cycles of blockbusters that have run throughout American cinema. In the process they refreshingly redefine the very idea. We don\u2019t usually think of The Best Years of Our Lives<\/em> as a Big Movie, but it runs three hours and was considered a \u201cspecial\u201d production, comparable to the more obvious sprawl of Duel in the Sun<\/em>. The authors bring the story up to date by considering today\u2019s event movies as a \u201cCinema of Spectacular Situations.\u201d Yes, that category includes comic-book films,\u00a0Inception,<\/em> and, of course, the 3D sagas that may finally be wearing out their welcome. (My editorializing, not theirs.)<\/p>\n

Japanese cinema is endlessly fascinating in all its eras; I\u2019d argue that in toto<\/em> it\u2019s one of the three greatest national cinemas in film history. The postwar period is exceptionally interesting because of the American occupation (1945-1951) and its effects on Japanese film culture. This period has already provoked one of the best books we have on Japanese cinema, Kyoko Hirano<\/strong>\u2019s Mr. Smith Goes to Tokyo<\/a><\/em>, and it finds a worthy accompaniment in Hiroshi Kitamura<\/strong>\u2019s Screening Enlightenment: Hollywood and the Cultural Reconstruction of Defeated Japan<\/a><\/em>. Kyoko focused on how US policy shaped domestic filmmaking, while Hiroshi asks how the Occupation helped American studios penetrate the local market.<\/p>\n

Over six hundred Hollywood movies poured into Japan during the period, and Hiroshi traces how local tastemakers as well as U.S. policymakers drew audiences to them. Young Japanese learned about the Academy Awards, assembled in movie-study clubs to discuss what they were seeing, and were urged to consider even a gangster tale like Cry of the City<\/em> (1950) as demonstrating the humanistic side of democracy. A center of this activity was Eiga no tomo<\/em> (\u201cFriends of the Movies\u201d), a magazine that went beyond entertainment news and tried to reshape the tastes of young people. In sharp prose and vivid evidence, Hiroshi captures the ways in which American cinema promised to help heal a devastated country.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The Danish Directors<\/a><\/em>, by Mette Hjort and Ib Bondebjerg<\/strong>, has become a standard companion to the most successful \u201csmall cinema\u201d on the European scene. Now it has a successor in The Danish Directors 2: Dialogues on the New Danish Fictional Cinema<\/a><\/em>, edited by Mette, Eva Jorholt, and Eva Novrup Redvall<\/strong>. Once again, we get lengthy, in-depth interviews covering the value of film education, the vagaries of funding, and filmmakers\u2019 creative decision-making.\u00a0Lone Scherfig, Christoffer Boe, Per Fly, Paprika Steen, and many other major figures\u00a0are included. (Disclosure: The editors were kind enough to dedicate the book to me.)<\/p>\n

While the first volume is a rich storehouse of information on Danish film in \u201cthe Dogma era,\u201d the newest volume shows how directors (some of whom made Dogma projects) have gone beyond it. In preparing 1:1<\/a><\/em>, a film about Danes and Arab immigrants living in a housing project, Annette K. Olesen had a full script but concealed it from the non-professional cast. After getting the performers comfortable with ordinary situations, she began staging scenes while encouraging improvisation. Screenwriter Kim Fupz Aakeson incorporated the improvised material into revisions of the script.<\/p>\n

By contrast, the prolific director-screenwriter Anders Thomas Jensen (Adam’s Apples<\/em>, The Green Butchers<\/em>), relies on strong structure, with lean expositions and sharply defined climaxes. He appreciates clean filming technique too.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s easy to make something that\u2019s ugly and handheld, but you have to take telling stories with images seriously. You have to take the language of film seriously. Many Danish directors have started doing this in recent years and it\u2019s wonderful, because there was a time when everything looked Dogma-like and I found myself thinking, \u201cIt\u2019s got to stop now.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

To those who think that Danish cinema is at risk of becoming a cinema of cozy liberal reassurance<\/a>, this collection offers many salutary signs. Every director speaks of the need to keep innovating, to push ahead provocatively. Simon Staho, whose Day and Night<\/em> seems to me one of the most adventurous Danish films of recent years, aims at utter purity: \u201cMy task is to figure out how to add as little as possible to the black screen. The damned problem is that you have to add image and sound!\u201d<\/p>\n

What makes all these books exciting to me is a willingness to test ideas–sometimes very general ones–about cinema and the wider world by examining film as a distinctive art form. Even the most conceptual books on this week’s shelf are firmly rooted in the particular choices that creators make and the concrete ways that viewers respond.<\/p>\n

Next stop: Vancouver International Film Festival<\/a>. Whoopee!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Day and Night.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sweet Smell of Success. DB here: Many of our friends write books, and what are friends for if not occasionally to promote each other\u2019s books? Here\u2019s an armload of titles, most of them recently published. They’re so good that even if the authors weren’t our friends and colleagues, I’d still recommend them. James Naremore has […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[157,25,10,1,74,12,5,51,57,40,130,43,33,23,34,68],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10236","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-actors-lloyd","category-documentary-film","category-experimental-film","category-film-comments","category-film-criticism","category-film-history","category-film-technique","category-film-theory","category-hollywood-aesthetic-traditions","category-hollywood-the-business","category-movie-theatres","category-national-cinemas-denmark","category-national-cinemas-france","category-national-cinemas-japan","category-people-we-like","category-silent-film"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10236","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10236"}],"version-history":[{"count":36,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10236\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10287,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10236\/revisions\/10287"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}