<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Just seen yesterday a remarkable DVD, "Peephole Art", directed
by John L. Reilly. It consists of three late plays by Samuel Becket, "Not
I", "Quad I and II", and "What Where", written or adapted for screen by the
author. In each, the </FONT><FONT size=4><EM>camera is strictly
static</EM>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>In "Not I", only a woman's mouth emerges from a uniformly
black background. The mouth delivers a torrential monologue rife with
existential/philosophical overtones from which one word is banned: the word "I"
(hence the title). A vintage Beckett with a visual impact akin to that of
hypnotic induction.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>By contrast, no word is uttered in the two "Quads". Pure geometrical
choreography of four monochromatic figures. Their monkish robes (face covered)
are white, blue, red, and yellow in no. 1, while each is white in no.
2. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Text is sparse, going on sparser, in "What Where" - and is reductively
repetitive. Repeated is the motive of torture and resulting death inflicted by
investigators of whom each, at his turn, is subjected to a similar
"investigation". Actors, here, are reduced to talking heads. Within a quartet of
facial masks (same size) , one is a chief investigator giving a hearing to each
of the three torturers on duty, before sending him to his own
judicial ordeal. A larger head, a one-head chorus of sorts, oversees the
events from higher up to offer brief comment and appreciation: his omnipotent
"good" (a ghost of Leibniz?) ... This speaker presides over a realm
ran by some quintessential security service. It is Beckett's last work.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Reilly has been known, notably, for his hour-long documentary on
Beckett, a PBS commission. This is an exhaustive work, multifaceted
yet rigorously constructed. It immerses the viewer in the Beckettian
world, in both his life and writing, while steering clear of the
pitfalls of didacticism. Beckett himself has collaborated in its creation.
He can be seen interviewed on screen shortly before his death - a rare,
perhaps unique, incidence of the kind.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>More at: <A
href="http://www.themodernword.com/beckett/beckett_film_wfb1994.html">http://www.themodernword.com/beckett/beckett_film_wfb1994.html></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- tripodt</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
<p>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
<p>
--Boundary_(ID_UfjOs2t47uwpqdplA4Shew)--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:07:37 -0700
From: Brook Hinton <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: the comedic in cinema.
I find MIchael Snow's "Corpus Callosum" fall-on-the-floor hilarious,
but maybe I'm weird that way.
Matt McCormick's "Subconscious Art of Graffiti Removal" is right on
that sublime border between hilarious and melancholy.
Erik Saks is another one to look at.
brook
On Aug 18, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Jason Livingston wrote:
> hello ben and friends and frameworkers
>
> not even close to a top 10 list. just a 4 list for now, aiming for
> new rather than old in the spirit of list building.
>
> some of torsten burns/darrin martin (and half-lifers) stuff is funny
> in that it can produce laughs and also engages with conventions/genre
> in some wink-wink-funny ways. (more general question - maybe the fun
> is had mostly by video?)
>
> also. craig baldwin! trib 99, just to name the big one, is sharp and
> hilarious at many points. does that count as new? not sure that it
> does.
>
> and martha colburn, of course, can get the house rolling. also.
> super early tom comerford is wickedly (dry) humorous.
>
> but mostly there's either experimental film sadness or experimental
> film melancholy or experimental film lingering modernism -- ahem, very
> serious -- or experimental film noodling or experimental film trite
> indie rock sentiment or.... well, you're right, not a lot of laughs,
> is it?
>
> and to return to an earlier quasi-thread/old funny matter. have you
> seen any george manupelli? i feel the world will be a better place
> if/when his prints are restored/transfered and then shown.
>
> yrs, in tears and giggles,
> JL
>
>
> On Aug 18, 2005, at 1:19 AM, ben russell wrote:
>
>> frameworkers
>>
>> good evening
>> i was talking to some friends about humor and experimental film
>> and we were collectively stymied in trying to come up with a list
>> of contemporary 16mm works that were, for lack of a better word, funny
>>
>> it seems like economies of 16mm production
>> and the current cultural climate
>> might have something to do with the apparent drop-off
>> in experimental humor (as it were)
>> but that seems too easy
>> especially since there is certainly a precedent for a-g comedy
>> established by folks such as nelson, kuchar, land(ow) and the like
>> and there's a wealth of past/present videowork out there
>> that dabbles in the funny
>>
>> so i thought i'd open up the question to your collective selves
>> to see what you titles you could come up with -
>> i'm hoping for a top 10 list
>> of both the old and the new
>> but
>> here's my new list to start:
>>
>> dogs by stephanie barber
>> grass by naomi uman
>> the bats by jim trainor
>> the moschops by jim trainor
>> sissy boy slap party by guy maddin (video?)
>> what goes up by robert breer
>>
>> and so it begins...
>>
>> -ben russell
>>
>> * * * * *
>>
>> http://www.magiclanterncinema.com
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:34:55 -0400
From: "email suppressed>
Subject: Re: the comedic in cinema.
What is the funniest film that I can think of? My vote goes for
Maurizio Nichetti's 1989 parody of "The Bicycle Thief". To me, "The Icicle
Thief" is extremely funny.
fritz-a-balls
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:18:06 -0700
From: Kristine Diekman <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: video blogging!
Hi
You can try this one for v'blogging:
http://www.rocketboom.com/vlog/
> From: Ana Kronschnabl <email suppressed>
> Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
> Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:11:27 +0100
> To: <email suppressed>
> Subject: video blogging!
>
> Can anyone recommend a good video blogging website?
>
> thanks!
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 19:58:58 +0000
From: Joe Beres <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: Lucifer rising, Jimmy Page ON EBAY
The orginal pressing of the record is up on Ebay right now. Tempting....
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4757825268&fromMakeTrack=true
> The link I originally posted is no longer offering the file:
> <http://www.bigomagazine.com/archive/ARrarities/ARjplucifer.html>:
> It was pretty much one of those "get it while it's hot" deals....
>
> Jeff
>
>
> >Can't find my copy I found on the internet, was posted previously.
> >Does anyone have the link?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >--
> >Gary Berendsen
> >/*Cut-Up Editing*/ http://www.cut-up.org/
> >/*Analog Recycling VJ*/ http://www.analogrecycling.com/
> >Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> >ph: +31 20 61 84 0 84 mob:+31 6 14 38 53 98
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:27:19 -0700
From: DOMINIC ANGERAME <email suppressed>
Subject: Avant Garde Films on DVD Collections and the Future of Film
Recently I saw a list of the tentative film titles
that will be included on the dvd collection of Film as
Art, 100 years of experimental cinema in shorts. I
found it great that many avant garde films that are
hard to find such as Moholy Nagy, Germain Dulac, Len
Lye, the Whitneys and others are included in these
volumes.
However, I find it a bit disturbing that many
contemporary classics distributed by Canyon Cinema and
other experimental film distributors, which are easily
available, are also contained in these volumes. I
have to assume that filmmakers whose work is included
on these dvds realize that inclusion pretty much
gaurantees that rental of 16mm prints of these works
in the future will be extremely threatened and may be
non existent...
Although instituions are not supposed to show these
works on dvd in classrooms, or for exhibitions, it has
been my experience that this is being violated on a
large scale. Many teachers and instructors are
purchasing tapes and dvds of many experimental
filmmakers and showing the work in this format to
classes and often in gallery exhibitions, rock
concerts, theatres, and studio situations.
Such acts put in jeopardy organizations such as Canyon
Cinema and the Film-Makers' Cooperative and also
compromises the artistic integrity of the works
presented.
Perhaps this is inevitable in this highly
technological day and age and perhaps unavoidable....I
guess I just want to remind filmmakers that by making
work easily available on DVD collections, that they
are placing the long term demand to view their work on
film in jeopardy....and also the organizations that
support the distribution of their work on film.
The creation of volumes such as these become sort of
a "greatest Hits compilation" and the world, for the
most part will only know the specific works of the
makers that are presented in these volumes.
The transfering of films, music, and other material to
digital technologies presents many problems for
artists. For example Roy Orbison produced more than
100 records during his life. Today only about 25-35
are available in cd form. Most of the work exists on
"Greatest Hits" cds and the rest of his music will
soon be forgotten because no one can be exposed to it.
A marketing choice made by basically business
interests generally determine which materials are
worth transfering to dvd's or cds. These choices are
generally economic, what is the filmmaker's great hit,
and will draw more interest.
I am sure that most of the public will think that the
artists presented in these volumes represent most of
the film artists of the past 100 years, not realizing
that it is merely a selected list with many important
filmmakers missing completely.
Ultimately it is the artist's choice to allow how the
work will be released and viewed. I have witnessed a
tremendous dowturn in the demand for filmmaker's work
who have allowed their work to be easily distributed
in widely distributed DVD Collections...as opposed to
those who have selectively released material....
I am urging filmmakers is to be wary about just
giving your work away and hope this will create a
dialogue regarding the long term future of the
cinematic art form.
Dominic Angerame
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:43:38 -0400
From: Sam Wells <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: Protective lens filter
> In an earlier posting, B+W (Schneider) UV Haze filter was
> recommended. When I called a photo store, they said that B+W makes a
> MRC (mulit resistant coating) and a non-MRC. I'm willing to spend
> more money on the B+W MRC filter if it's worth getting as a high
> quality clear filter that will protect the lens and not degrade/alter
> the image.
>
> Any recommendations, between these two?
Honestly, you got me on that one !
What's the price dif ?
It would seem to me if you're not going to be shooting into the sun etc
(ie major flare issues - and then again you might like flare !!) and
just want the protection, Im not sure I'd shell out big $$ here.
I had a B&W on a Century psuedo- Aspheron previously, it worked I dunno
if it was MRC or not. Usually the problems happen with stacking
filters, then tilting slightly is often the best way to avoid spurious
bounces.
-Sam
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
------------------------------
End of FRAMEWORKS Digest - 19 Aug 2005 - Special issue (#2005-455)
******************************************************************
- Next message: FRAMEWORKS automatic digest system: "FRAMEWORKS Digest - 19 Aug 2005 to 20 Aug 2005 - Special issue (#2005-456)"
- Previous message: 40 Frames: "Re: Avant Garde Films on DVD Collections and the Future of Film"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
