segunda-feira, 31 de janeiro de 2011

domingo, 30 de janeiro de 2011

quarta-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2011

E só mesmo uma bicha acadêmica autista, que possivelmente nunca teve que ganhar a vida se ralando, pode confundir o trabalho de "chapa" com o de "estivador". Seria bom vê-lo tendo que arranjar trabalho num porto ou numa rodovia com essas noções. Ia se foder bonito rapidinho.

"Como se toda a crítica não fosse acadêmica...", diz o idiota.

Vejamos: Montaigne, Da Vinci, Diderot, Baudelaire, as cartas do Van Gogh, Braque, Thoreau, Wilde, Rilke, Borges, Delluc, Canuto, Pound, Eliot, Faure (que também, caso você não saiba, escreveu sobre cinema, meu caro idiota), Mishima, Renoir (predecessor de Bazin, caríssimo idiota), Lourcelles, Skorecki, Demonsablon, O Tempo e o Modo (revista de cinema editada pelo João Bénard da Costa), M (revista de cinema editada pelo João Botelho), Guiguet, Nelson Rodrigues, Sganzerla...

E para isso eram todos, sem exceções, bons enciclopedistas (entenda-se: eruditos), ao contrário da maioria esmagadora dos acadêmicos apressados de memória entrevada que infestam o mundo numa quantidade que só não excede a dos insetos e outras raças perigosas e pestilentas.

O que fazia do pensamento uma aventura e tornava seus frutos muito mais férteis antigamente é que não havia como hoje esse mecanismo rígido de policiamento da conservação acadêmica na produção intelectual, que vem progressivamente engessando desde a segunda metade do século passado o bom pensamento e a boa criação (tentando engessar; felizmente as exceções são incontáveis e notáveis).

A diferença entre espíritos livres e vassalos: os primeiros passam pelas academias; os segundos permanecem nelas.

As soon as our two travelers had taken leave of His Excellency, Candide said to Martin, “Well, I hope you will own that this man is the happiest of all mortals, for he is above everything he possesses.”

“But do you not see,” answered Martin, “that he likewise dislikes everything he possesses? It was an observation of Plato, long since, that those are not the best stomachs that reject, without distinction, all sorts of aliments.”

“True,” said Candide, “but still there must certainly be a pleasure in criticising everything, and in perceiving faults where others think they see beauties.”

“That is,” replied Martin, “there is a pleasure in having no pleasure.”

“Well, well,” said Candide, “I find that I shall be the only happy man at last, when I am blessed with the sight of my dear Cunegund.”

“It is good to hope,” said Martin.

terça-feira, 25 de janeiro de 2011

Yo fui educado en el cine por Skorecki, su pensamiento contó más para mí. Si bien él era también bastante duro, su pensamiento no era el de la política de los autores, y eso me ha inspirado mucho. Ya en su momento vi que la idea de política de los autores podía ser contraproducente a un momento dado, pues no puede aplicarse de la misma forma que cuando se inventó. Ya no funcionaba, había que cambiarla. Él había comprendido, y fue uno de los primeros, una cosa que los Cahiers no comprendieron realmente: veían el cine en todas partes. Y no es verdad, el cine no está en todas partes.

La crítica de la vida - Entrevista con Pierre Léon a propósito de L'Idiot, por Fernando Ganzo. Lumière. 02

segunda-feira, 24 de janeiro de 2011

Ninguém - repito: ninguém - retratou com maior discernimento que Claude Chabrol o fascismo polido que nas últimas duas décadas se assentou no mundo.

Repito: ninguém.

domingo, 23 de janeiro de 2011

"Many of you see the solution to your problems in resorting to market mechanisms in place of direct planning. Some of you look at the market as a lifesaver for your economies. But, comrades, you should not think about lifesavers but about the ship, and the ship is socialism."

1985

http://breslaubeer.blogspot.com/2009/07/perolas-da-antiga-rock-brigade.html

sábado, 22 de janeiro de 2011

Prefiro escutar Rendez-Vous do Jean Michel Jarre daqui até a eternidade a ter que enfrentar "pesquisa de linguagem" em filme brasileiro.

"Ainda há espaço para pesquisa de linguagem no cinema brasileiro?", pergunta Lázaro Ramos, nosso inesquecível "Foguinho", a um cineasta num programa do Canal Brasil.

É por esse tipo de mentalidade que o cinema brasileiro não vem sendo, e dificilmente virá a ser, bom.

sexta-feira, 21 de janeiro de 2011

quinta-feira, 20 de janeiro de 2011

quarta-feira, 19 de janeiro de 2011

segunda-feira, 17 de janeiro de 2011

Sensação terrível ao me dar conta de que o único filme pertinente e atual sobre o Brasil dos últimos anos foi feito em 1989 por um italiano.

sábado, 15 de janeiro de 2011

« Most sea movies are action films, but La ligne d'ombre is an inaction film. It's a contemplative film. The ship won't move, and cholera breaks out on board. The ship I used was a two-master, a brig from Conrad's era. I've never sailed, and I hate to travel. The roadstead of Singapore was faked in Villefranche, and the roadstead of Bangkok in Nice. Better yet, for the Bangkok harbor we shot in the Bercy region of Paris - where Feuillade shot Fantômas. And it's perfect - you'd think you were really in Malaysia in Conrad's day. Curiously, when it was shown on television. I received a note from Marguerite Duras saying she liked it, which hadn't happened with Les rideaux blancs. There is a kinship between Conrad and Duras, whose writing is very feminine, full of sensuality. Both have mystery. »

Mystery and Melodrama: A Conversation with Georges Franju, Randall Conrad and Georges Franju. Film Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Winter, 1981-1982), pp. 31-42

Interview with director Jean Claude Brisseau

How was The Exterminating Angels received by audiences?
That depends. I was pleasantly surprised when, at Cannes, the audience gave me a ten-minute standing ovation. I wasn’t expecting it. There was a bit of a change of heart when it came out in September, but there was much better feedback from abroad, especially from the U.S., where I heard the nicest things. On the other hand, I also had some negative feedback, particularly from others in the business. I’m thinking particularly of a young woman at the FEMIS film school, whom I showed everything to, and who little by little became my assistant and was really a good worker. From what I understand, when the movie was released, someone involved in the movie in New York sent an e-mail to all of the students at the FEMIS saying that this woman had behaved “like a whore” by acting in a “porno flick”. And when she was giving a class, one of the organizers also said, in public, that she was a whore for accepting to work on this film. I’ve seen a puritanical attitude re-emerge in the last couple of years, which was already around in certain areas – with the critics and especially in universities – in that emotion, and especially sex, are tacit and violent taboos. My goal was very clearly to put these elements, which are a part of life, back into cinema. I realize that it sparked some violent reactions.

That proves how accurately you make your point and that there’s a real problem in representing these themes.
Maybe. People have the right to think what they want about my film. I’m rather pleased about that, but I don’t have to be right. Time, and other people’s opinions, will decide. I hope the comparison I’m about to make won’t seem pretentious: I’m astounded that Freud caused such an uproar when he stated that children had a sexuality before puberty, while the scientific community, including doctors, were claiming the opposite. Doctors were fathers, everybody had the chance to see children in their lives, and children haven’t changed over the last century. It’s obvious that boys and girls have a sexuality. There was an adamant refusal to see this. And I have the impression that it hasn’t changed, particularly for critics. I told a newspaper a while ago: addressing the way people handle emotions, and particularly emotions linked to sex, is looked down upon by some critics, and yet it’s a part of life. Other critics have told me certain colleagues of theirs thought that you have to mistrust emotions in cinema, under the pretext that you may be conned. I think that if people in academia are so hostile to the handling of emotions, it’s fundamentally because they have to seem more intelligent than everyone else and they have to make up something, even if it has no bearing on the construction of a film or on the way emotions are handled, which are in fact the essence of a film. Not everyone’s like that, but I think this attitude has harmed cinema a lot. Of course, I’m not criticizing Brecht, who said that as soon as emotion takes precedence over thought in a show, the show has failed. But what Brecht wanted was for people to become aware of a number of things. For him, awareness was a major element; he sparked another sort of emotion, a revolutionary feeling. Everyone who followed Brecht, including filmmakers like Losey, tried to get the audience interested. You can say what you like, but I still think that The Servant, one of Losey’s best films, sparked a real interest, even if it’s not the same interest sparked by Hitchcock’s films.

You watch DVDs. Do you think this format has changed something in the life a film after its theatrical release, compared to VHS?
I’m absolutely positive. When VHS came out, I knew it would drastically change cinema. First, in terms of education, you had the equivalent of a collection of classical literature: for the first time you could see films, freeze on an image, and reverse. On the other hand, it had an immediate impact on theaters, for two reasons: movie piracy on the one side, and on the other, some collectors thinking that watching a film on DVD is pointless. But it’s important to discover films in different versions, with subtitles in several languages, and why not on big screens, on home cinema? For relatively little money, you don’t have 35mm, but almost, and that’s going to change things. I, for example, don’t see why I’d spend 10 euros in a theater when I can rent the DVD for 2 or 3 euros, watch it when I want, and under better conditions than in some theaters. Concerning piracy and downloading, you can’t fight against it. Recently, I had a conversation with a famous director and an actress who were defending piracy. I’m not casting any stones: it’s obvious that young people, for example, don’t see why they should pay when they’ve gotten used to seeing a movie for free and with excellent quality. Movies are originally made for theaters, but that’s not going to last. Theatrical distribution is becoming an ad for video distribution.

What’s a successful DVD release for you? Are there DVDs that you find exemplary?
The DVDs I’ve most liked are those where the bonuses taught me how the film was made. I’m thinking in particular of the Laserdisc Criterion release of The Splendor of the Ambersons. They explain – by showing you – what was cut in Welles’s version, what was re-shot, and include the storyboard, picture by picture, of the entire film. It’s one of the most interesting things I’ve seen. There weren’t any long philosophical commentaries. You saw the parallel between the fall of one social class and the rise of a new one represented by Joseph Cotton and his car. Originally, the movie was 2 hours and 20 minutes long. It was later cut, but it’s not certain that the short version isn’t better. It’s Welles’s film that I prefer, even if the end is silly.
I’ve always regretted that most DVD bonuses are not about how the movie was made. True, it’s easier with films that are twenty, thirty or forty years old than with new releases. With new releases, they usually only make ads, especially since there are a certain number of things you can’t necessarily say. While with films that are twenty, thirty or forty years old, if things come out, it’s because they’ve already become a part of overall movie culture and everybody knows about them. The movie has created its own advertising. It’s easier to do. There are several like that which I’ve enjoyed.
There are sometimes films that I’ve been able to see in their full version. I hadn’t seen Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven and I managed to catch it on DVD and project it onto a screen. I didn’t like the movie; I watched it again and liked it better. And when I saw the long version, I changed my mind. A string of important things had been cut from the film, only keeping in the fights and what explained them, while the rest is much more interesting. It’s true that being able to show several versions is of interest to movie-lovers. On the other hand, I’ve found that the long version has worked against certain movies. I’ll give you an example of a DVD that I found fascinating: My Darling Clementine. There are two versions, John Ford’s and the producer’s. In the sequences that were cut, the producer, Zanuck, explains his choices very well. And I have to tell you, for me, Zanuck was right. It’s fascinating to see the real work that went into putting together a movie. It’s what has always interested me as a movie-lover, rather than having commentaries that, for me, are worthless. I also confess that, since I’ve been giving classes more often, at the FEMIS among other places, I’ve realized that there’s an enormous lack of teaching material in terms of basic problems of construction and dramatization.

Could you say that for some young movie-lovers, classic American cinema – arguably the standard in terms of dramatic construction – is a bit looked down upon and that, for them, nothing counts before the French New Wave?
That’s somewhat true. I was born in ’44, we used to go see everything with my mother, and when I bought the Cahiers du Cinéma in high school, I kept going to see everything, especially movies from the New Wave. And then things evolved: the more boring and intellectual the film, the more I liked it, for one simple reason: in conversations in public, I was able to give the impression that I was more important than the masses who understood nothing. Problems of construction didn’t interest me at all. It all came down on me when I wanted to make my first little amateur 8mm film. I was all happy, thought it was brilliant and that everyone would love it, but the audience around me was bored out of their minds. That’s when I wondered how movies are constructed. I must have gone see Psycho 50 times to truly understand how movies are constructed. It interested me so much that I completely forgot about the notion of auteur. My criterion was: I sit down, I watch the movie and I see whether it interests me or not.
But I have to say, American cinema today is rather disappointing. They’ve dropped everything to do with space. The movies are all done in close-ups, and special effects have become the star. The notion of space is, in my opinion, very important. Take an American film called Distant Drums, which I saw when I was seven and which was crystal clear for me: I understood everything. At one point you see Gary Cooper climb over the walls of a fort with his men to open a door so that others can get in. With little things that seem like nothing, there’s a real dramatic effort. There’s a moment when Gary Cooper and two or three of his men are hidden behind a wall, where they risk being discovered. In order for you to understand and to feel the emotion, you have to comprehend the space. It’s handled in such a way that you can say: they’re there or they’re here, but maybe there’s a bad guy hidden in the corner over there. The information has to be laid out: the audience has to systematically understand the space in order for there to be a dramatic effect. Unfortunately, all of that has disappeared in cinema and been replaced by emotion linked to the music, to the special effects, and to screenplays that are generally just slapped together. When I was in Hollywood, I got to see the end that was cut from The Abyss. I asked why it was cut and was told that the end didn’t do well in preview. I saw the film in its full version, which for me is clearly better than the edited version. I told them there are mistakes in the screenplay and asked how they could have made these mistakes. The producers answered, “Simple: we start with a script, the star is the special effects, but we tell ourselves we’ll improve the script as we go along.” But with special effects what they are, you’re limited and have to build everything around them, figuring that the screenplay will be modified, but it isn’t. As a result, you have to shoot because you can no longer do otherwise, and you sometimes try to fix it in the editing room or with the soundtrack. Constructing a movie based on special effects has blocked a lot of things for screenplays.

sexta-feira, 14 de janeiro de 2011

Chantal Akerman adaptando Almayer's Folly. Uau.

quinta-feira, 13 de janeiro de 2011

Flechas de Fogo e A Árvore dos Enforcados no Making Off.

(spoilers nos dois vídeos)

« L'Homme qui rétrécit a une lumière qui doit tout à la conception de l'espace, du décor, des costumes, des rapports de grandeurs, élaborée et réalisée par son auteur, Jack Arnold. L'amenuisement progressif d'un homme sur lequel a passé en mer un nuage radioactif (alors qu'il vient de marchander avec sa femme la répartition des tâches quotidiennes de leurs vacances - sorte de prologue hitchcockien), et qui se perd dans l'infiniment petit, cette histoire de Richard Matheson, relue, avec une ferveur guidée par le silence, par un artisan génial qui s'appelle Jack Arnold (le génie artisanal est ce don mystique qui permet à certains de s'identifier aveuglément à l'objet qu'ils fabriquent: ce don est capricieux, imprévisible, et varie en intensité; les objets qui en résultent ne sont qu'apparemment impersonnels), cette histoire est devenue un voyage épique, marqué, dès les premiers plans, par sa lumière comme par un signe dinstinctif. Cette lumière, ce type de lumière propre à un film ne doit pas grand chose à une volonté esthétique du réalisateur ou de l'opérateur: elle est la signature même du film, sa trace chimique. Les modifications dans les repports de grandeurs entre le héros et sa femme, son chat, une araignée, une boîte d'allumettes, des clous, du fil, des ciseaux opèrent de fait une équivalence entre l'Histoire du Cinéma et l'histoire de l'humanité que nous percevons comme un récit infini qui remonte à notre enfance. Ce film inscrit sereinement l'opposition Lumière-Méliès sans donner de vainqueur, fait revivre à son héros les combats sans récompense de Buster Keaton et de Fritz Lang, et nous ramène, par une sorte d'invisible flash-back, jusqu'aux origines les plus lointaines de notre mémoire de spectateur de cinéma et d'être vivant. Le personnage du film, abruptement jeté dans l'imaginaire, se retrouve premier homme sur terre et premier héros de l'histoire du cinéma. Je ne sais rien de Jack Arnold, sauf que cet artisan inconnu est un poète: par son araignée, ses gouttes d'eau, ses appels au secours, ce grillage qui donne sur le cosmos, il me parle, à travers l'aphasie singulière des artisans de génie, de lui, de moi, de ce qui lie tout être humain à la solitude et à l'acceptation de la vie. »



Nessuna umana investigazione si può dimandare vera scienza, se essa non passa per le matematiche dimostrazioni; e se tu dirai che le scienze, che principiano e finiscono nella mente, abbiano verità, questo non si concede, ma si nega per molte ragioni; e prima, che in tali discorsi mentali non accade esperienza, senza la quale nulla dà di sé certezza.

Esempio e differenza tra pittura e poesia.

Tal proporzione è dalla immaginazione all'effetto, qual è dall'ombra al corpo ombroso, e la medesima proporzione è dalla poesia alla pittura, perché la poesia pone le sue cose nella immaginazione di lettere, e la pittura le dà realmente fuori dell'occhio, dal quale occhio riceve le similitudini, non altrimenti che s'elle fossero naturali, e la poesia le dà senza essa similitudine, e non passano all'impressiva per la via della virtú visiva come la pittura.


---

Vontade de transcrever o texto que o Biette escreveu sobre o filme, uma das melhores coisas que já li sobre cinema.

quarta-feira, 12 de janeiro de 2011

Deux caractéristiques de ces films modernes: 1. D'une part le choix d'histoires susceptibles de provoquer des sentiments forts et de présenter complètement les conflits liés à ces sentiments. Comme quoi les films de Preminger seront de plus en plus ouverts. D'autre part une compréhension des rapports humains sensible d'abord à ce qui est énergie, travail, activité et entreprise. Mais susceptible d'ignorer certaines choses. Comme quoi, et il est à cela d'autres raisons, les films de Preminger seront de plus en plus fermés. 2. Le choix de spectacle (aventure, action engageant un grand nombre de personnages, opéra populaire). Ces scénarios où sont mises en valeur l'action et la représentation sont un pas décisif vers ce cinéma populaire et didactique (...)

Marc C. Bernard, Advise and Consent, Présence du Cinéma nº 15-16, setembro-outubro 1962

Le but d'un cinéaste ne peut pas un seul instant être autre que de montrer aux hommes qui vivent en même temps que lui ce qu'il y a de plus important dans ce monde présent. Un metteur en scène moderne est nécessairement un metteur en scène décidé à être réaliste. Fritz Lang, Joseph Losey et Otto Preminger veulent faire des films avant tout populaires et réalistes, parce qu'ils veulent que le travail de concevoir et de réaliser des films soit d'abord une façon d'être honnête avec les choses, et qu'ils veulent faire partager aux autres cette honnêteté.

Marc C. Bernard, Exodus, Présence du Cinéma nº 11, fevereiro 1962

terça-feira, 11 de janeiro de 2011

Objectif Cinéma : Un cinéaste peut-il être satisfait de son travail ?

Jean-Pierre Mocky
: Être satisfait de ce qu’on fait est une énorme connerie. C’est la raison pour laquelle je n’aime pas Patrice Chéreau. Certains réalisateurs sont d’une prétention sans nom. Ils sont distants, généralement accompagnés d’une femme très intello et se baladent en disant « moi j’ai fait ci, moi j’ai fait ça... » Ces gens sont sur une autre planète. Le pompon, c’est Angelopoulos ! À les entendre parler, on a l’impression qu’ils ont fait un chef d’œuvre ! Moi je n’ai jamais pensé avoir fait un chef d’œuvre. J’ai connu des très grands qui étaient restés des gens simples. Fellini faisait les spaghettis pour l’équipe ! Quand on voit la simplicité et la gentillesse de quelqu’un comme Manoel de Oliveira...

Jacques Lourcelles aniversariando hoje.

Sobre Freda (+ aqui)
Sobre Mankiewicz
Tema do Traidor e do Herói
Sobre Dwan
Note sur Jacques Tourneur
Sobre Pagnol
Sobre Minnelli
"Adeus ao MacMahonismo"
Trop modeste !
Richard Fleischer: un grand Hollywoodien
Preminger aujourd'hui
À la découverte d'Hugo Fregonese

Só débeis mentais defendem Tony Scott.

« Entretien avec Paul Vecchiali »

Ciné-Bulles : Vous avez l'impression d'être incompris?

Paul Vecchiali : Non, d'ailleurs je m'en fous. Cela ne m'intéresse pas pour moi mais pour le cinéma en général. J'estime que les critiques devraient informer, servir de palier entre le réalisateur et le public, jouer un rôle d'informateur. Ils ne le font pas. Il y a une carence qui est très grave parce que le cinéma d'auteur français est en train de mourir et que personne ne s'en aperçoit vraiment. C'est ce que j'ai annoncé il y a quatre ans.


Entrevista datada de 1985, atualíssima.

segunda-feira, 10 de janeiro de 2011

Techniscope: Quiz

Geralmente é este o magro produto de uma primeira sessão. Parece-me então sensato deixar um ou dois dias de intervalo entre esta sessão e a seguinte para continuar o trabalho.

Durante esse intervalo dá-se uma certa fermentação cerebral inconsciente. E graças a essas fermentações, segundo as impressões que recebi do meu motivo durante a primeira sessão, reconstituo o meu desenho cerebralmente com mais certeza do que no resultado obtido do primeiro contacto.

domingo, 9 de janeiro de 2011

quinta-feira, 6 de janeiro de 2011

segunda-feira, 3 de janeiro de 2011

Arquivo do blog