The problem is that the classical films 'everyone knows' usually do not
'move' in interesting ways (re Deleuze's 'movement-image' vs.
'time-image'). Tarr's films, and others whose films are less
popular/populist (Dreyer, Sokoruv, Tarkovsky, Kiarostami, Angelopolous,
Antonioni, etc.) do 'move interestingly'. This is not exactly a popular vs.
art dichotomy (one could argue that Matrix 'moves interestingly'); but
concepts are rarely foregrounded for investigation or concretized into
'theme' in popular film (movement, time, thought, space, etc.). Just a
thought in support of Sutton's interesting thoughts on a wonderful (yet
hard to find) film, Damnation (I have not yet seen Tarr's latest he
discusses).
At 12:04 PM 4/2/01 -0400, you wrote:
>the project proposed by daniel frampton, to respond to "the 'thinking' of
>the films' formal actions (movement, framing, colours, shifts, etc.) . . ."
>seems of great interest . . . but for many of us there's no way to
>see how precisely it plays out in practice since we don't have access
>to these films . . . so i, for one, would like to see daniel -- or other
>filmosophers, for that matter -- try the same project as self-consciously
>but applied to other more widely available films . . . might even be worth
>approaching a film everone already knows to see what happens when
>it's treated this way
>
>mike
>
Donato Totaro
[log in to unmask]
|