one-shot, from the set of Masked&Anonymous. rigobert has some thoughts about it.

mp4 here.

(via amazon)

         

P: I know rigo gives you a shout, but aside from the melville quote, his argument is unfocused and soft. yes/no?

         

d'you see me appraising? what i do appreciate is someone setting aside a little time/space to stuff like this. on the matter: while i do love eye-editing (tati's playtime, for instance) i found this video rather less enthralling.

         

"Eye editing"!? haha. I actually consider most of tati's work (save maybe mr hulot) part of the world of films needed to be 'eye edited'. ha.

It's why he has a woman in the distance sweeping the rug, a man in the middle opening and closing a newspaper, a water fountain that spits everytime the gate is opened, blinking lights on the fence, and neighbors frequently swinging by to visit (all accompanied by some whacko sound), all in one shot. Ahh tati.

As for this, yeah, the whole film is really poor. A fake cartoon of sorts. You know who needed to make masked and anonymous? Kusturica!

At least then we'd have something like a gypsy film. Something the script was going for but never really put its finger on.....

         

I don't give progosk anything. You don't know what you think you know lusk.

For the record, I was responding to Jim Emerson's article about the video, not really the video itself.

My argument, which I still refer to as impressions, is that no, mise-en-scene is not superior to the other aspects of filmmaking.

If my argument is unfocused and soft, you're welcome to explain why you think so.

         

RIGO: You know I know exactly what I think and here it is:

The argument over the 'aesthetic and moral grounds' of montage and mise and scene is flawed from the outset simply by the sheer diversity of cinematic language: syntax, grammar, aesthetics (color light angle sound, etc). Too say one is better than, or "not inferior", suggests the basis of a kind of conflict between the two that ultimately, does not exist.

Furthermore, the notion of mise en scene is so vaguely defined and defended (at best we can call it the 'blocking', from the thematic to the narrative), that filmmakers, eisenstein in partcular, who considered a certain kind of 'montage theory' as mise en scene still remain as prescient and ahead of their time now, as they did upon conception. For he, the definition and incorporation of the two are one in the same. I find it safe to gesture to his throne for who in modern cinema has reinvented his inventiveness and defined a new modality of language that has superceded his?

Moreover, who is to say one can do without the other? For one and the other are not only coterminous, but in effect, the same side of the same sword. Meville's quote fits quite perfectly with the above, hence your argument feels (again) unfocused and soft, save the Jean Pierre.

"And I'd like to also mention that a one-shot non-moving camera in many cases lends itself more to photography than to cinema..."

Well what kind of cinema maker are we speaking of here, a tati, an antonioni, a kurosawa? Some of warhol's best work is primarily one shot, the same can be said of Jarmusch. Progosk has referenced you in regards to the above. But the above strives for something neither photographic nor cinematic. In fact, it's purpose is quite obvious: Here's Dylan. Watch him play.

More importantly though, how does this relate to montage and mise and scene? For the latter absolutely does not suggest something static, in fact, quite the opposite. "Many cases" lets you off the hook, but the line is tangled up with the work of Marker and early Malick and experimentalists like Belson.

"similar to how a film that is just capturing the script lends itself more to theatre than to cinema."

Right. Kinda like how Taxi Driver, The Hustler, and Chinatown remind me as well of theatre. Incredible scripts that were in every way, captured by the filmmakers.

"I don't give progosk anything"

Yet you've linked his "discussion at Antville" as "a short term conclusion" to previous posts on your own blog.

Rigo I'm not trying to conjure your prescense (too late). I'm getting a little tired of rattling graves. Impressions or not, the above is yours to take or leave be.

Overall, I'm feeling a little thumbs nowhere.

         

Hey guys, dialogue is great and far be it from to step on it, but all these words on a video that might as well never been shot seems strange.

I guess Dylan just shits golds and we have to check those 24k feces for meaning when there really isn't any at all. I like the song fine, but it's not exactly a masterpiece and all the hub bub of his recent resurrgance is overboard -- he's been doing Blood on the Tracks albums for the last 10 years.

Personally I'm disenchanted by the cult of personality trip, whether it's Sinatra, Dylan, Lennon, it doesn't matter. It ends up being a bunch of academics and fans who long since tuned out fighting over the tatters of a tattered old flag. You see it every Christmas on the center table of your local bookstore - 2 new bios about Dylan, 3 about Robert Kennedy, 2 more about Sinatra.

And of course culture ain't doing Dylan any favors by obsessing about him. Imagine what it must be like to look in the mirror and see DYLAN looking back? Man, that would bum me out. And I like Dylan

         

This is not a great promo. Dylan does not seem to translate well to such an obvious sort of visual. He has a sort of mysterious quality that is definitely not present here.

Lusk81 is a true critic. My hat is off to that childish rant- bravo!

         

My hat is also off to that childish rant. Thank you for pointing out that I was almost ignorant.