OK, Hunter, I see your point, I will call off the 'hard charge'!
Still, there is an intriguing general question here: I think there are
many cases where film directors deliberately do NOT let on what they
read, study, reflect upon, etc - certainly not in the context of
'mainstream' interviews (of the sort Hitchcock mostly did). For
example, someone who interviewed Abel Ferrara told me that he came upon
him reading some intellectual theory/philosophy book: but once the tape
was rolling, Abel didn't want it mentioned, as he had to keep up his
image of dissolute streetwise maverick, and didn't want to seem like
some pretentious highbrow thinker!! I have a feeling this is often the
case, strange as it may seem. Look at the extreme case of Malick: he'll
never tell is what he reads (and it is, by all clues, a great deal),
because he will never give another interview! It's also a case of
filmmakers needing to keep their cards (their sources, etc) close to
their chest - even more frankly intellectual filmmakers, like Godard,
Rivette, Resnais and Ruiz, do this. They have to keep some secrets to
themselves, for the sake of their originality and inspiration!!
Adrian
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|