At 12:24 -0000 08.02.99, john bleasdale wrote:
> Dear David
>
> I certainly understand an unwillingness to stray into what
> could properly be regarded as an area more the remit of
> sociology or perhaps more accurately cultural studies, ie
> that of audience response.
I've lived in Japan for 15 years and the whole culture of periphery
identity "cultural studies" completely bores me to apathy. It's a
humourless pathology. Please, let's avoid all of that.
> It brings with it masses
> of problems. Having said this, it is a legitimate concern
> and interesting mainly because of its inherent
> difficulties. The example of The Full Monty is a good one.
> Having dislodged for the most part the authority of the
> individual author when considering works of literature, it
> seems a backward step to then bestow too much authority on
> the producers of film when considering our own
> interpretations.
Hmmm. I think that we should be a *bit* clearer about terms here. "Having
dislodged for the most part the authority of the individual author when
considering works of literature" means exactly what? I personally know of
more than three people who claim to have authored "The Full Monty" or its
stage production predecessor. (All uncredited, of course) Is this what you
mean?
> Nil By Mouth's methodology is interesting
> and although its method is deducible, when first watching
> the film, I did not know for certain how it was produced.
> Does this lack of knowledge effect my own interpretation of
> the film?
Knowledge always effects interpretation, how could it not? My own personal
interest in analyzing any given film has to do with issues that I am
personally attempting to explore in my own film at any given moment.
> The film makers intentions and their means of
> production can form part of an understanding of a film but
> have no more priveleged position than that. The producers
> of the Full Monty offer only one view which is no more
> relevant than anyone elses.
ok.
> I accept that you might not want to discuss this particular
> line and so let's move on to Nil By Mouth and discuss it in
> the terms you suggested. The optimistic feel I got from
> your description of the film's methodology was heartening
> and goes somewhere towards problematising the forms of
> authority I discussed above. The group feel of creative
> activity seems very much to be alluded to in the final
> scene of the film where Kathy Burke becomes the center of
> the group and in telling her own story gains some sort of
> hope.
I would assert that Kathy Burke's character was able to survive something
about as ugly as life gets while unflinchingly demonstrating a resilient
strength, love and humanity throughout that was still FAR larger than any
of the worst that life had thrown at her. She went in, and came out "with
her eyes open." Her character showed a determination and beauty found a lot
more often in real life than in the cinema, and I applaud her performance.
A lot of other actors would have backed down, and tried solving issues
through heroic pretentions or trying to depict how life "ought to be," but
she held her ground.
> Now this of course could be under cut by the nature
> of the story and the ellipses in the film narrative which
> robs you of any direct context for the scene.
I don't know that I saw it as a story. (Unless you just want to call it a
"Streetcar Named Desire" for the 90s) I thought that we spent a short time
with a fucked-up (normal) family as they fumbled through their fucked-up
(normal) 90s lives of unemployment, drugs and unfocused frustrations. There
was a process of dramatic structure, or transformation, in that something
happened, and was overcome, but "story" seems a bit grandious for what we
saw. Kathy survived something. It was through her love for her family,
including her brute of a husband, and their love for her, that she was
redeemed. Her brute of a husband survived something. It was through his
love for her that he was damned, through her love for him that he was
redeemed. Everybody in the family suffered, made their peace with it, wiped
the blood and spit off of their faces and turned it into a harder forged
dignity.
Then again, maybe it's just that they had used up all of their film stock
and had to stop before they'd shot the fabulous car chase scene.
In my opinion, though, the story is incidendal to what that film holds for
film philosphers. It isn't a novel. I see no reason to limit our
discussions of all film to their stories. Some films are merely cinematic
treatments of stories. I would assert that Nil By Mouth isn't.
I don't see where we were robbed of direct context. What do you mean?
> However, the
> scene certainly contrasts favorably with other versions of
> story telling we have seen throughout the film and the one
> which most specifically alludes to movies (the word-for-
> word repetition of Dennis Hopper's lines from Apocalypse
> Now explaining Kurtz to Willard). Apocalypse Now is a
> different sort of film making altogether. The doubling of
> the film creates immediate comparisons, not least of which
> is the heroin addict of Nil By Mouth versus the famously
> drugged up performance of Dennis Hopper in that scene. The
> most obvious though is probably to do with methodology: the
> bombastic hollywood epic, directed by a self appointed
> auteur versus a domestic drama which is apparently directed
> by character as much as by any one individual.
>
> Now I am in danger of simply going off on my own reading
> and losing sight of the issues so I'll finish there and
> throw in a couple of parting questions. First off, you
> mentioned Casssavetes but how does Robert Altman fit in?
> and secondly who do you trust to give you accurate
> descriptions of methodology?
I would call Altman an LA phenomenon. What does he have to do with Oldman,
Cassavettes, Coppola, etc?
I trust myself, working through films scene by scene to give me accurate
readings of methodology. But then I only bother when I'm working on
something similar. I don't confuse films that should be sat back and
gaffawed at and those that deserve reflection any more than I'd consider
the butt twitches of the backstreet boys with the choreography of W.
Forsythe. I think we've kind of left our thread.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
