A number of things said here recently, and particularly Fred's posts,

have made me think about some of the ways that I look at film that in

the past I've taken for granted. My experience is that usually when I

see a narrative film, I'm primarily concerned with the story being

told. My awareness of the formal elements that go to make up this

story – acting, camera movement, music and so forth – fluctuates: I'm

conscious of them, but not all of them equally, and not all the time.

Normally when I want to write about or study particular films it's

because I had some kind of compelling initial experience, but I have

to go back and look at them multiple times to try and see how that

experience was created. Of course, I then run into a version of the

Heisenberg Principle: the more closely I try to look at my

experience, the more that experience changes.



Whether or not you buy the idea that Hollywood film style

is `invisible' (I don't) the concept of a style that isn't meant to

be noticed does seem to have some currency among filmmakers

themselves. I recall an interview with Preminger, for example (quoted

in V.F. Perkins' book Film As Film) where he says that his ideal film

would be one where audiences got so caught up in the story that they

never noticed a cut or a camera movement.  Which is not to say they

wouldn't be affected by these things – my point is that form affects

us all the time whether or not we're aware of it. I'm curious what

others feel about this – as I'm sure we agree that there remains a

basic, unbridgable gap between the primary experience of art and the

type of analysis carried out in criticism.



JTW

I think ultimately each person has to do what works best for him or her.



But for the sake of discussion:

Preminger's remark is ridiculous if taken literally. If no one "notices"

a camera movement, then what was the point of the camera movement?

What Preminger means is that he does not want audiences to be pulled OUT

of the movie by technical tricks.

A good analogous case is the final tracking shot in LOLA MONTÈS, which

was originally one long take and which, shortly after release, Ophuls

(himself, not his producer) shortened by the use of dissolves. Why?

Because audiences were distracted by it, were bored, were puzzled; it

created unnecessary problems. So Ophuls, like a good show man, "fixed"

it. And Ophuls would have argued that what he originally wanted to do is

much better accomplished with the dissolves than without them.



Some posts ago, someone questioned my saying Mizoguchi resembles Brecht,

the objection being that Mizo gets us emotionally involved whereas

Brecht alienates us. But this is an Anglo-American corruption of what

Brecht wanted, which was to increase emotional involvement.



One is certainly not less involved with music by being conscious of the

rhythm, the meter, the phrase structures, the harmonic motion, the

contrapuntal lines, which instrument is playing, how the instrumentalist

chooses to phrase and articulate. Quite the contrary, the more we are

consciously aware of these elements, the more we shall become engulfed

in the emotions, in the world, of the music.



So too with movies. Not being aware of cuts is just being oblivious,

cutting oneself off from actual sensual contact with cinema. It's a

denial of pleasure, of experience. It's stupid.



I don't think it's true that things affect us without our being aware of

it. Experiencing art is not like being etherized for an operation. It's

above all a physical and emotional awareness. If you're not intelligent,

you're not aware.





jaketwilson wrote:



> A number of things said here recently, and particularly Fred's posts,

> have made me think about some of the ways that I look at film that in

> the past I've taken for granted. My experience is that usually when I

> see a narrative film, I'm primarily concerned with the story being

> told. My awareness of the formal elements that go to make up this

> story  acting, camera movement, music and so forth  fluctuates: I'm

> conscious of them, but not all of them equally, and not all the time.

> Normally when I want to write about or study particular films it's

> because I had some kind of compelling initial experience, but I have

> to go back and look at them multiple times to try and see how that

> experience was created. Of course, I then run into a version of the

> Heisenberg Principle: the more closely I try to look at my

> experience, the more that experience changes.

>

> Whether or not you buy the idea that Hollywood film style

> is `invisible' (I don't) the concept of a style that isn't meant to

> be noticed does seem to have some currency among filmmakers

> themselves. I recall an interview with Preminger, for example (quoted

> in V.F. Perkins' book Film As Film) where he says that his ideal film

> would be one where audiences got so caught up in the story that they

> never noticed a cut or a camera movement. Which is not to say they

> wouldn't be affected by these things  my point is that form affects

> us all the time whether or not we're aware of it. I'm curious what

> others feel about this  as I'm sure we agree that there remains a

> basic, unbridgable gap between the primary experience of art and the

> type of analysis carried out in criticism.

>

> JTW

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

> Experiencing art is not like being etherized for an operation. It's

> above all a physical and emotional awareness. If you're not

intelligent,

> you're not aware.



By analogy: when we interact with another person, what we're affected

by and respond to includes body language, intonation, clothing, etc,

whether or not we make conscious mental notes of these things or can

recall them afterwards.



So maybe there are (at least) two types of noticing: we can notice an

actor's gestures, or we can notice that a character seems edgy and

confused, without realising or even thinking to ask what creates this

effect.



I agree that we have everything to gain as viewers and critics by

striving to be explicitly aware of as much as possible.



JTW

> jaketwilson wrote:

>

> By analogy: when we interact with another person, what we're affected

> by and respond to includes body language, intonation, clothing, etc,

> whether or not we make conscious mental notes of these things or can

> recall them afterwards.





But more often than not, we do NOT notice these clues and body langauge,

or else we do so hurriedly and get into big trouble.



>

>

> So maybe there are (at least) two types of noticing: we can notice an

> actor's gestures, or we can notice that a character seems edgy and

> confused, without realising or even thinking to ask what creates this

> effect.





Now, were we discussing an oil painting, I think you would agree that,

over time, we shall notice many gestures and emotions in the characters

(and elsewhere, of course) AND we shall eventually realise and think

about what creates these effects.



Yes?

> Now, were we discussing an oil painting, I think you would agree

that,

> over time, we shall notice many gestures and emotions in the

characters

> (and elsewhere, of course) AND we shall eventually realise and

think

> about what creates these effects.

>

> Yes?



Yes?



Yes, absolutely.



I do think intuitive perception comes first (we notice something, and

then notice that we've noticed) but equally that the more self-aware

we are, the more scope we leave for intuition. Though it seems to me

that many people – inside and outside the arts, and including

artists  themselves – have complex experiences which they are of

course `aware' of but don't try to analyse verbally, and that this is

a different type of awareness from the kind we aim for in criticism.



I wasn't defending lazy viewing habits, but was angling towards

another point, which I propose here as a hypothesis:



A cut never means `this is a cut.' In fact strictly speaking  a cut

doesn't `mean' anything, because `it' is not an object. `Noticing a

cut' means registering a perceptual shift between two images, or two

positions in imaginary space, that has occurred in a particular way.

And this shift is potentially significant precisely because of the

effect it has on us, an effect which is not predictable according to

any general rule, since it occurs as one of the unique series of

events making up any given work of art.



So no element of form either exists `in its own right,' or functions

as a code to be deciphered in the sense of `X means Y.' Techniques

matter because they give rise to experiences, and it's because we're

already having the experience that we grow interested in the

technique.  If a director is cutting between Cary Grant and Katherine

Hepburn, I may or may not be thinking about his editing strategies,

but I certainly know which performer I'm looking at in any given

moment.



JTW

I agree. But add:



(1) cuts need to be experienced physically, not just intellectually.



(2) "I may or may not be thinking about his editing strategies": In most

moviemakers whom I find interesting, such "strategies" cannot be

separated from the physical impact of the cut: e.g., how one camera

angle relates to another; how space is thus constructed. These matters

are amazingly neglected in most film analyses.



(3) No, there are no absolute "meanings" for things. But interesting

moviemakers create "rules" within the context of a single movie (or

oeuvre). Thus while "cinema" can never be defined as a whole (or an

abstraction), cinema necessarily gets defined in any great movie -- but

only for that movie. Ditto techniques.



jaketwilson wrote:



> > Now, were we discussing an oil painting, I think you would agree

> that,

> > over time, we shall notice many gestures and emotions in the

> characters

> > (and elsewhere, of course) AND we shall eventually realise and

> think

> > about what creates these effects.

> >

> > Yes?

>

> Yes?

>

> Yes, absolutely.

>

> I do think intuitive perception comes first (we notice something, and

> then notice that we've noticed) but equally that the more self-aware

> we are, the more scope we leave for intuition. Though it seems to me

> that many people  inside and outside the arts, and including

> artists themselves  have complex experiences which they are of

> course `aware' of but don't try to analyse verbally, and that this is

> a different type of awareness from the kind we aim for in criticism.

>

> I wasn't defending lazy viewing habits, but was angling towards

> another point, which I propose here as a hypothesis:

>

> A cut never means `this is a cut.' In fact strictly speaking a cut

> doesn't `mean' anything, because `it' is not an object. `Noticing a

> cut' means registering a perceptual shift between two images, or two

> positions in imaginary space, that has occurred in a particular way.

> And this shift is potentially significant precisely because of the

> effect it has on us, an effect which is not predictable according to

> any general rule, since it occurs as one of the unique series of

> events making up any given work of art.

>

> So no element of form either exists `in its own right,' or functions

> as a code to be deciphered in the sense of `X means Y.' Techniques

> matter because they give rise to experiences, and it's because we're

> already having the experience that we grow interested in the

> technique. If a director is cutting between Cary Grant and Katherine

> Hepburn, I may or may not be thinking about his editing strategies,

> but I certainly know which performer I'm looking at in any given

> moment.

>

> JTW

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

> ADVERTISEMENT

> Click Here!

>

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3656190.4921519.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705021019:H\

M/A=1595054/R=0/SIG=1246b0b92/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH=365\

6190&yhad=1595054>

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I buy all this completely. Part of my point was that the physical

experience has to precede the intellectual one. Can I add that while

we can't do without analysis, it's necessarily reductive in that

it `notices' some aspects of experience ahead of others? In a

way `editing' is as much an abstraction as `genre.'



In the `50s or early `60s Sight And Sound said something dumb along

the lines of `Film is about human relationships, not spatial

relationships.' We can all see the problem there, but the answer is

that human relationships ARE spatial relationships, because humans

exist in physical space. If I'm locked up and you're the jailer, what

we have is literally a human relationship and a spatial relationship

at the same time. And if someone makes a movie about us, the audience

can look at it either way, or go from one way of looking to the

other. This is close to the core of what I love about cinema.



JTW







Tag Gallagher wrote:

> I agree. But add:

>

> (1) cuts need to be experienced physically, not just intellectually.

>

> (2) "I may or may not be thinking about his editing strategies": In

most

> moviemakers whom I find interesting, such "strategies" cannot be

> separated from the physical impact of the cut: e.g., how one camera

> angle relates to another; how space is thus constructed. These

matters

> are amazingly neglected in most film analyses.

>

> (3) No, there are no absolute "meanings" for things. But

interesting

> moviemakers create "rules" within the context of a single movie (or

> oeuvre). Thus while "cinema" can never be defined as a whole (or an

> abstraction), cinema necessarily gets defined in any great movie --

but

> only for that movie. Ditto techniques.

>

> jaketwilson wrote:

>

> > > Now, were we discussing an oil painting, I think you would agree

> > that,

> > > over time, we shall notice many gestures and emotions in the

> > characters

> > > (and elsewhere, of course) AND we shall eventually realise and

> > think

> > > about what creates these effects.

> > >

> > > Yes?

> >

> > Yes?

> >

> > Yes, absolutely.

> >

> > I do think intuitive perception comes first (we notice something,

and

> > then notice that we've noticed) but equally that the more self-

aware

> > we are, the more scope we leave for intuition. Though it seems to

me

> > that many people  inside and outside the arts, and including

> > artists themselves  have complex experiences which they are of

> > course `aware' of but don't try to analyse verbally, and that

this is

> > a different type of awareness from the kind we aim for in

criticism.

> >

> > I wasn't defending lazy viewing habits, but was angling towards

> > another point, which I propose here as a hypothesis:

> >

> > A cut never means `this is a cut.' In fact strictly speaking a cut

> > doesn't `mean' anything, because `it' is not an object. `Noticing

a

> > cut' means registering a perceptual shift between two images, or

two

> > positions in imaginary space, that has occurred in a particular

way.

> > And this shift is potentially significant precisely because of the

> > effect it has on us, an effect which is not predictable according

to

> > any general rule, since it occurs as one of the unique series of

> > events making up any given work of art.

> >

> > So no element of form either exists `in its own right,' or

functions

> > as a code to be deciphered in the sense of `X means Y.' Techniques

> > matter because they give rise to experiences, and it's because

we're

> > already having the experience that we grow interested in the

> > technique. If a director is cutting between Cary Grant and

Katherine

> > Hepburn, I may or may not be thinking about his editing

strategies,

> > but I certainly know which performer I'm looking at in any given

> > moment.

> >

> > JTW

> >

> >

> >

> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

> > ADVERTISEMENT

> > Click Here!

> >

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3656190.4921519.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17

05021019:HM/A=1595054/R=0/SIG=1246b0b92/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryuta

itakenattogyo?YH=3656190&yhad=1595054>

> >

> >

> >

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> > a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service

> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

jaketwilson wrote:



> I buy all this completely. Part of my point was that the physical

> experience has to precede the intellectual one. Can I add that while

> we can't do without analysis, it's necessarily reductive in that

> it `notices' some aspects of experience ahead of others? In a

> way `editing' is as much an abstraction as `genre.'

>



I don't see why it's necessarily reductive.  Music is not reductive,

even though it based entirely on physcial sensation and intellectual

analysis of relationships between events (e.g., following a tune).

  There is an almost ontological relationship between a perception and

our conceptualization of that perception even extended in time (the

tune).  The point is to open ourselves to our sensations.  To often

theory aborts us ("fucks" us, said Lang).  One of the many pernicious

qualities of genre criticism is that it avoids entirely the individual.

  Genre criticism is like an orphan asylum which classifies orphans by

age, sex, weight, etc., and never relates to any of them as an

individual.  Genre criticism is an academic conspiracy to run away from

experiencing art.  Art is something individual.  Unique.  It is not a

nexus of conventions and anti-conventions.



>

Tag Gallagher wrote:



>I don't see why it's necessarily reductive. Music is not reductive,

even though it based entirely on physcial sensation and intellectual

>analysis of relationships between events (e.g., following a tune).

There is an almost ontological relationship between a perception and

>our conceptualization of that perception even extended in time (the

tune). The point is to open ourselves to our sensations.



I don't know what music is based on. Some would say it brings us in

touch with a higher, spiritual order which we can grasp emotionally

but not intellectually. Others (Fred, maybe?) would

say `explanations' must have a stop in the truth that humans

are `hard-wired' to respond to certain stimuli.



Regardless, when we hear a simple tune, we don't have to think before

we can grasp the relationship between the notes, nor do we have to

have any `formal' knowledge of music. I may know hundreds of tunes

before I learn that a particular interval is a major third. And the

only way I can grasp the concept of a `major third' is by perceiving

it as an unchanging element which appears in many tunes, rather than

experiencing each tune as a unique entity separate from any other.

This is what I mean by saying that `editing' is an abstraction

like `genre.'



Open us to our sensations…yes, yes.



I'd say that the goal of aesthetic education is to turn our awareness

of form into a `second nature,' so we can have this experience of

immediate apprehension in relation to more and more complex objects.



>Genre criticism is like an orphan asylum which classifies orphans

>by age, sex, weight, etc., and never relates to any of them as an

individual.



I understand the pointlessness of arguing about whether a particular

film is a Western or not, but I think there are useful and non-

prescriptive ways of using the term `genre.' One is simply as a

synonym for `type of film.' The other has to do with particular types

of film, or fiction more generally (e.g. the Western, SF, fantasy)

which presume on our knowledge of a previously familiar mythology

that allows the creators to avoid awkward questions and move on to

the stuff that interests them. This would be a reasonable way to

describe what happens in Hawks, except he takes it to another level

by emphasising the `throwaway' nature of his backgrounds, often to

comic effect. There's a great moment in To Have And Have Not (wish I

could remember the dialogue) where Bogart starts explaining the

political underpinnings of the story and Bacall cuts him off after a

couple of sentences. It's as if Hawks is saying `Yeah, yeah -- you've

seen Casablanca, you know the drill.'



I think this latter notion of `genre' is specifically modern, or at

least reflects an unstable society, because it presumes that any

particular set of conventions is finally arbitrary.



I agree with you about women in Hawks. I can't see that Bogart `takes

control' in To Have And Have Not. He keeps trying to take control and

Bacall keeps throwing it back in his face.



JTW