SCFZ

So I guess this post arises from the fact that a feeling I had immediately upon watching Straub's la guerre d'Algérie for the first time, having now watched it for the umpteenth time, still won't go away. If it's fair to say that cinema lives according to its temporal nature and is thus made by strategically wringing and stretching a certain theme, subject, story, so as to fit over a certain runtime, then this film somehow manages to pose an interesting challenge to this basic principle of temporality. Unlike any other film I can think of, it seems to desperately want to take the absolute shortest route between two points. It's two minutes long but contains entire worlds. I know of no film which goes against the grain on an established cinematic parameter so well, and therefore no film to me feels as dangerous as this one. Imo, the jump cuts of Godard or the sound-image disjunction of Eisenstein or you-name-it have never really felt to me like challenges to some aspect of canonical film language, but more like valuable additions to cinema's toolbox. I cannot get rid of the thought that this film is different in that regard. Do you agree/disagree? The film can be seen here btw if you haven't seen it:

http://grasshopperfilm.com/transmissions-straub-war/

What other works if any have given you this feeling of posing a serious challenge in this way?

I can certainly agree with your idea of the film seeking to bridge two points in the most expedient way possible, but I'm sorry to say it doesn't cause any great reaction for/to me for that. There's something of a feel of a punchline in the end, with the book sort of seeming to answer the "can we talk first" moment just preceding it. It may well be that my distance from the conflict and lack of clarity over the connection between events, dialogue and Straub would best be read. The various ways that lend themselves to suggestive possibility don't seem to have much advantage over each other to either lending that missing clarity or in adding a stronger sense of weight to the whole, even as they potentially suggest different emotional connections to the events described, connecting book to bloodshed. I'd be curious to hear your read on that aspect of it though.

Looks like standard Straub to me, only with less money, time and impact.

I really find most of his post-Huillet work ordinary and rather unremarkable. This is no exception. He isn't reinventing the wheel. He is an 86 year old who is stuck in time

Are you a Straub cultist by any chance?

Greg: I am deliberately completely disregarding the content here - I'm no expert in the Algerian conflict either. My point is that the film seems to advocate such a stance by means of its almost absurdly compact way of presentation. For me, the film becomes form alone, pure gesture; when compression of information becomes dense enough it stops being semantic and becomes pure form - at least for me. You know those first 30 minutes of Oliveira's Amor de Perdicao? It think it has a similar amount of speed and density of delivery, and I had a similar feeling watcing the beginning of that film.

Joks: No point in discussing it then?

I hear ya and can respect that, but for me the difficulty does inform the response since, as I alluded, the feeling of it being akin to a punchline, though without there necessarily being a joke, keeps my response more muted because that kind of elision between points isn't unheard of in a set up/punchline format. It felt a bit to me as if that was what was being echoed here, though to unclear intent. But if my response had more shape I might have reacted differently for having a better model in mind. It's still pretty interesting though for choosing such strict abbreviation. Communicating only that which is felt absolutely necessary while eliding all else.

I like that idea, sure. Not sure how much Straub you've seen, but they almost all end on a punchline of sorts, i.e. cutting to black at the moment the last word is uttered. Normally Straub(/Huillet) choose those words very carefully and for melodramatic effect. My own experience was that this was a departure from that formula exactly in the form that you ascribe - in the form of it being a punchline-yet-not-a-punchline, or one that falls flat. I never felt that the last shot (of a book close to no one has heard of) was supposed to be particularly meaningful. I can definately see how the experience might fade though if one sees that shot as intended to provide a euroka moment or whatever or even any glimmer of meaning. As I said, for me it's pure form - the last image could have been literally anything. Perhaps I'm being naive, not sure.

The Apichatpong poll just reminded me that Letter to Uncle Boonmee has something of the same thing going on, at least as much as one can say that while also noting how different it is than the Straub. Letter isn't as concise as this, I mean how could it be, but it has something of the same effect of cutting out time and distance by reading a letter addressed to someone of the past while showing things of the sorta present and maybe future that spark some connection to the things being addressed in the letter. The connections are tenuous, but no less vital for the uncertainty of the link and the film doesn't really clarify, no, make that purposefully mystifies, the relationships, also connected to war and memory. It's brilliant, so assuming something of a similar reaction you seem to have to this film, I totally get it. It also does help to better place my reaction to this for having a previous base of comparison.