Just saw this for the first time via Arbogast's question in the comments of the previous post. Can be viewed here.
We've all seen so many pastiches of avant garde silent films that it's hard to keep in mind that this is vintage. I was really glued to this and struck by the fact that new filmmakers don't seem nearly as visionary as they did 80 years ago, when pioneering filmmakers drew from fine art, dance, literature, poetry and photography for their inspiration rather than movies, movies, movies.I'm sure we're all guilty of putting down contemporary stuff too much but it really does seem to me, every time I sit down to watch one of those horrible "8 Films to Die For" (or their ilk), how little genre filmmakers seem to have learned over the course of a century.
Boy, there's some kind of brilliance in your second sentence. Really, that says it all. Now filmmakers draw from past film but the first filmmakers drew from all the other arts so when a new filmmaker ends up inadvertantly quoting something from a painting they're really quoting a line of movies that quoted each other back to the original which actually quoted the painting. It's not that it's wrong to quote other filmmakers but I agree, this feels different or I wouldn't have immediately posted it after watching it, such an impact did it make on me. I didn't even pull the best shots because the best truly require motion to be appreciated. What a mesmerizing film, thanks for the introduction to it.
Post a Comment