retrospectives & series & things like that

[nrh]

when you want to talk about that sort of thing

[nrh]

i only made this thread so i could complain about this series. it's so dumb! none of these films are surprising, they're all easily available. most are just dcp. this is what you do with your programming? glad ny won't go without a kubrick film showing once a week

https://www.bam.org/film/2019/bam-and-t ... resentment

[arkheia]

Not a total loss though, Manila in the Claws of Light and Handsworth Songs are good and Welcome II the Terrordome (on 35mm), and the Sky Hopinka series look interesting. I'd also be slightly curious how a 35mm print of Bamboozled would look considering it was shot on miniDV and Super 16.

I wish I could attend this screening of newly scanned early Scott Stark films, put together by the San Francisco Art Institute and Canyon Cinema.

And while looking at this recently past Robert Beavers screening in Switzerland, I found this interesting tidbit - "In 2020, a retrospective will be held at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York"

[kanafani]

I will certainly not make it, but the HFA is running a New Thai Cinema series . Unsurprisingly the only one I've seen is the Weerasethakul (Tropical Malady).

[pabs]

.
Hal Ashby's

SHAMPOO
BEING THERE and
HAROLD AND MAUDE

and the documentary HAL, about Ashby's career.

playing early April, in the next 10 days at the Luna Leederville Cinema in Perth.

.

[nrh]

.
SHAMPOO
BEING THERE and
HAROLD AND MAUDE
.

always hate when they do this little series and show only the 3 most famous/over played films of the director's career; maybe at least drop harold and maude and show even one of his lesser known films (landlord? bound for glory? coming home? edit - even last detail is less overplayed than harold and maude), or even one of his more famous films as editor...

[...]

I'd be happy if they stopped showing Harold and Maude entirely, but it's popular, so I guess that's where the ticket sales figure in. Bound for Glory or The Landlord would be better, even as The Landlord is definitely of its time, but that's the Ashby zone so what can you do?

[niminy-piminy]

i am mildly excited in anticipation of spending 3 upcoming evenings (starting today) in Ponrepo (the cinema of the local National Film Archive).
there is a series called "what film form might become".
the phrase is taken from the speech by Gregory Markopoulos ↓↓↓

→ https://thevisiblepress.com/2014/06/16/ ... n-our-age/

The Responsibility of the Cinema in Our Age

Today, the Cinema is still in its infancy. That is to say, that even with the monumental technical achievements in the mechanics of Cinema, we still lack a true form of Cinema. We lack a film form.

The Cinema began as a representative of the photograph, and as a representative of the Theatre. From the beginning until today it has been chaos. In the beginning there was fruitlessness in the attempts of the very early film creators as to how to utilize the monster known as the camera; for the camera is truly a monster. In reality the camera is the black spirit of Cinema, and the film creator must learn to anticipate its every attempt to dominate the original IDEA during the production of a film.

With this Cyclops of the one eye, the early film creators, such as the great Griffith, Ince, and later Stroheim, Eisenstein, and much later von Sternberg, Murnau and Dreyer gave us a sense of what film form might become. They each gave us, according to their own individual tastes, a sense of the well proportioned, and the well composed film image. But within this film image there were obviously people who had to move, to play-act, and there it seems to me the Cinema has remained to this day.

Of course, sound was born, and the various types of screens came into existence, but these have not helped the Cinema. The pictures are becoming continuously larger, and the sound continuously louder. The appeal is to the appendage eye and ear; not to the heart which as Schiller said, “Gives Grace To Every Art.”

For me, the Cinema lacks a soul, a psyche. It is no longer necessary to make films from ordinary adaptations and cheap novels. We have the urgent themes of a universal world and of our own era to present upon the screen; and, for each of these, the Cinema needs a particular form of presentation.

On the stage the actor’s movements are exaggerated to give the distant meaning which is assumed takes place between the actor and the Theatre spectator. It is said that the Theatre is intimate. It is not. There is nothing more distant than the Theatre spectator, and especially the Theatre spectator of today, and the actor. The actor as IDEA. And yet, in the Cinema which is so often accused of not being intimate, yet it is intimate, there is the focus of attention between the film image and the eye of the spectator. In fact the focus of attention is so great, that if used properly, and according to a set of rules proper to each individual film creator’s purpose, the Cinema can reach the very seat of the film spectator’s psyche.

If in the Theatre the parts of the body are used by the actor for exaggerated purposes, in the Cinema the parts of the body should be utilized by the film creator to reveal the action. The film creator if he wishes to use an eye, must not only use the eye, but the parts of the eye. If the lips are to be used, the features of the lips themselves should be utilized. If it is a matter of smiling, it must not only be the smile which is utilized, but the very parts which make up the smile. Further, if it is a matter of running, jumping, walking, slipping, dancing, each part must be related to the film creator’s original IDEA. The original IDEA in a given film work must be consistent in the words, if words are used, in the coeval use of sound, in the use of the proper lens, in the need for music, and even in the lesser uses of costumes and sets; both interior and exterior.

Each film creator must be morally responsible for his work, whether it be narrative, lyrical, or epic. Film creators must create for the world they live in, and from which they perceive each work. The danger in any work lies in the fact that the creator believes only in himself.

For me, personally, the Cinema is music; is music with its contrapuntal elaborations. Cinema is the noble metaphysical Art of our age, and of our one world without boundaries. Cinema can show us in what aspects we differ from one another, and in what aspects we remain the same. Cinema can draw nations together, and dissolve boundaries between groups of men. Lastly, Cinema is the representative of Life which no other Art can give us, so truly.

This text was delivered as a lecture at a meeting of the Nea Estia Society, Athens, 21st of December, 1955.

the series consists of three screenings (expected participation of Robert Beavers & Ute Aurand):

1/
Gregory Markopoulos — films from 1966-1969 presented by Robert Beavers:
Ming Green
Bliss
Gammelion
Sorrows

2/
Robert Beavers presents his films:
Early Monthly Segments
Suppliant
The Sparrow Dream

3/
Ute Aurand presents her film:
Rushing Green With Horses

[niminy-piminy]

1/
Gregory Markopoulos — films from 1966-1969 presented by Robert Beavers:
Ming Green
Bliss
Gammelion
Sorrows

back home from the first screening.
Robert Beavers and Ute Aurand are truly in the town!
first noticed them standing at the entrance to the cinema.
i would not recognized them on my own but they were speaking (and shaking hands) with the local (thus well-known to me) experimental "old firms" (like f.e. Georgij Bagdasarov & Alexandra Morales) so it was not hard to guess it was THEM.
passed next to them, entered the cinema, entered the foyer, validated the ticket, and moved to the toilet (before entering the screening room).
then i saw something never seen before.
in the corridor leading to the toilets, a door was open and i could see a big yard.
on the other side of the yard there was another door open and behind it there was a street (the opposite side of the block).
so, thus i learned (by accident) how to get inside the cinema via backdoors (if going around the block).
i had no idea there is this backdoor passage (via the yard and the toilets) and was quite thrilled by the idea of frequenting the cinema this way (ofc on the (unlikely) condition of someone leaving both doors open).
no clue, if this accidental revelation has any significance to experimental cinema in general (or today's screening specifically) but it might bug my mind for a few days.
anyway, after this mystery toilet detour, i finally reached the screening room.
my favorite row 6 was occupied, so i sat in row 7.
but then thought i was a bit too far away, so moved to row 5.
once i got seated, Robert & Ute entered and sat in row 5 too (on the opposite side).
it has to be stated that, in Ponrepo, one accesses the rows through the middle.
in the middle, where most of the cinemas have the most cherished (central) seats, Ponrepo has the lane (no seats) and once one climbs the desired row turns either to the right or to the left.

in the pic below, Ute Aurand sitting on the other side of row 5, next to her Robert Beavers' coat (Robert already in front of us, prepared to give an intro speech).
btw. the whole screening was opened by the claim (by the employee of the cinema) it's the "biggest Ponrepo event of the year" which (i noticed) made Ute Aurand somewhat bemused.


Robert Beavers giving an intro speech (i had to take the picture twice cuz the first time i was still too excited/shaken — it's really not a cheap attempt to capture Robert Beavers "experimentally").


Q&A after the screening — in white Robert Beavers, in black Martin Blažíček (local experimental filmmaker, head of the CAS (Center for Audiovisual Studies), the experimental department of FAMU).


all four films shown were charming (beyond description)!
looking forward to tomorrow...

[rischka]

this seems very exciting ! ! thx for your report & surreptitious photos !

[niminy-piminy]

2/
Robert Beavers presents his films:
Early Monthly Segments
Suppliant
The Sparrow Dream

truly exciting!

despite no mystery doors & passages today, again an accident with possible broader significance to the theory of movie watching!

i arrived last minute, so there was no time for detours.
but as i was rushing to the cinema some tiny little fly flew into my eye.
consequently, during the first 10-15 min of the screening, my left eye was simultaneously trying to be receptive to the projected images but also desperately attempting to eject the insect's corpse stuck inside (an object (seemingly) inhibiting the reception/perception).
but was it genuinely an inhibition?
can't ejection of all that is dead & rotten (from the eye) become conducive to the fresh/new perception/reception (that is pivotal in true appreciation of experimental filmmaking)?
anyway, whatever?!

today, i dared a dozen of the close-ups!
a little surreptitious study into Robert Beavers's gestures...








he might just have been explaining the simultaneous scripted/unscripted nature of his visual storytelling.
starting with no (or just vaguely) pronounced idea (i.e. with no script).
but, alongside shooting the images, keeping a (written) "diary" & annotating the captured frames with (written) notes.
thus developing a kind of a "script" on the way.
and using such a "script" during the process of editing.

[niminy-piminy]

3/
Ute Aurand presents her film:
Rushing Green With Horses

today, i again arrived at the last minute but still felt obliged to check if the backdoor passage (i.e. both doors) is (are) open.
i felt that I owe this information to the readers of this forum & this thread.
so, the first door (leading from the antechamber of the toilets to the yard) was open, and the second door (leading from the yard to the street) was closed.
this situation/constellation captured in the picture below ↓


i even attempted to identify the backdoor passage on the map!
the main entrance into the NFA (National Film Archive) cinema called Ponrepo from Bartolomějská Street = BLUE ARROW.
the spot from where (i believe) i took the picture & the direction i am looking = RED CROSS & RED ARROW.
inferred (verification still needs to be done) backdoor "entrance" from Průchodní Street = GREEN ARROW


after doing this ↑ short investigation, i entered the screening room and walked up the central lane, seeking a place (on the left) to sit.
however, the left side was rather packed so i turned to the right (something i hardly ever do) to find a seat eventually there.
AND i couldn't believe my eyes!
in row 5 (on the right) i see my favorite local experimental filmmaker Martin Ježek → https://letterboxd.com/director/martin-jezek/
i honestly think if there is a single Czech filmmaker whose attitudes & oeuvre deserve attention it is HIM.
and (my goodness!) the row behind him was empty!
“What a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to watch an intriguing experimental film and simultaneously observe an accomplished experimental filmmaker watching this very film,” i thought and took my strategic place (viz the highly surreptitious snapshot ↓)
yup, the leg is mine! (once taking an indiscreet picture (of an idol), one is not completely in control of the framing.)


unfortunately, i couldn't read much from his face during the screening.
he watched attentively the whole time and didn't reveal by his facial expressions approval or disapproval (upon which i could re-evaluate my own perception of the film).
i only noticed that while there was a garden party scene on the screen (with protagonists being merry & drinking wine), he grabbed a glass of beer and drank too.
in Ponrepo (behind the main entrance and before entering the foyer of the screening room), there is a little café that sells various beverages and those beverages are allowed to be carried into the screening room.
i can't still tell if that was a conscious (expanded cinema ???) gesture or just an unconscious response of a viewer who gets so immersed in the narrative that he/she unknowingly imitates the characters?!
anyway, whatever...

last but not least, a snapshot ↓ from the discourse after the film — to which i contributed with my own two questions (that in my (almost impartial) opinion didn't even sound odd — at least i didn't notice anyone looking my direction and rolling their eyes).

[rischka]

i was going to ask if you got to ask any questions !

nice shoe xD