(Thoughts on form, content and other bothersome things)
My latest Yahoo! column is one of the most difficult pieces I’ve written in a long time – and possibly one of the most self-indulgent and pedantic. But these are notes that I've wanted to put down for a while, and I think the topic should be of interest to most serious film buffs. Here's the piece - if you have more thoughts on the subject, do write in or comment here.P.S. Think the column is long? It was twice this size before I started editing it in desperation.
hello sir , i believe making a movie is same like composing a song. it does not matter wat lyrics are but wat matter is how the song is sung. let me give u a example a song sung by imran khan woofer tu meri mein tera amplifier , as u can see the lyrics are meaning less but still this song is very popular among us.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to an online war between you and Raja Sen?
ReplyDeleteWould you be putting up the original double-length article here, please?
Very interesting article, and even though I have myself been guilty of accusing film reviewers of being psuedo-intellectual on occasions, realized later that it was just an easy way of hitting out at someone whose opinion did not match mine.
I had written 'joking' within <> and it turned into a question mark after Raja Sen.
ReplyDeleteWhile discussion form and content, doesnt 'Last Year at Marienbad' stand alone and apart from every other film made? One just watches the film and wonders what it is about. And whatever you make or dont make out of the movie, you never forget the film. dont you agree?
ReplyDeleteExcellent piece! (And far "better," I might add, than the more "succinct" one you recommend - by which I mean that your storytelling technique was more effective for me than the other writer's.)
ReplyDeleteEverything you say reminds me of how difficult it can be to discuss films with some people, who feel it "spoils the fun" to be aware of the techniques the filmmaker uses. Maybe in this, they're like the audience of a stage magician, preferring the thrill of being fooled. I can't separate the elements and not appreciate (or deplore) the filmmaking behind the experience and for me that's what "movies" are all about.
Haven't we all had after-film discussions where people only wanted to talk about the "characters" in a gossipy way, rather than marvel at (what they disparagingly call) the "details" of how they were created (wardrobe, lighting, well-timed revelations, etc.)? But I've had a few friends over the years who shared a more layered view and these are the conversations (and the people) I remember. Reading good critics like you, and doing a little writing myself from time to time, keeps me sane and going to the movies.
Your essay is not too long - it's just right. Of course I don't know what you cut out (your editing seemed seamless).
When I was young, in Kannada films, there were two categories - "movie" and "story movie".
ReplyDeleteeven though I have myself been guilty of accusing film reviewers of being psuedo-intellectual on occasions, realized later that it was just an easy way of hitting out at someone whose opinion did not match mine
ReplyDeleteCaptain Subtext: true - many of us come to that realisation at some time or the other. The other thing is that different people will always have different levels of engagement with cinema (or literature, or the stock market, or chemical engineering, or whatever). A viewer whose relationship with films is relatively "casual" (for lack of a better word) will always be tempted to use the pseudo-intellectual tag for someone else who spends a lot of time deeply analysing a film.
One just watches the film and wonders what it is about.
Arvind: yes, that's true of many other movies as well, where the creation of (an undefined) mood is more important than narrative.
Christine: thanks, very glad you liked it. As I mentioned, this is the sort of piece that's difficult to write - but also very satisfying if you manage to say even 60 percent of what you wanted to say.
ReplyDelete...Maybe in this, they're like the audience of a stage magician, preferring the thrill of being fooled. I can't separate the elements and not appreciate (or deplore) the filmmaking behind the experience and for me that's what "movies" are all about.
Very good observation. I'm always a bit surprised by the constricted definition of "good acting" as "an actor slipping completely into his character, making you forget he's even playing a role". The only times it works that way for me as a viewer is when I'm watching a performer whose other work I'm completely unfamiliar with. Otherwise, I'm always aware of the actor at work, and it usually doesn't affect my appreciation of the performance.
I was wondering about not whether form is more important than content but whether there is a universal language of 'form' that is understood by all. (As far as story goes, unless it is too abstract or abstruse, everybody gets it). Does the lighting mean one thing to a particular movie buff and something different to another? What about the way the camera pans over the landscape? I am under the impression that such things are very subjective and if that is so then how do we interpret the language of cinema? I might be wrong and I am open to being corrected.
ReplyDeleteHaven't we all had after-film discussions where people only wanted to talk about the "characters" in a gossipy way, rather than marvel at (what they disparagingly call) the "details" of how they were created
ReplyDeleteChristine: Somehow, the feeling I get is that it is perceived to be more chic to discuss the technical details than it is to "gossip" about the characters.
I don't like the use of the word "gossip" in a pejorative sense. Any film that makes you care for the characters and leaves you pondering over the implications of the narrative has to be a pretty good film, be it Citizen Kane or a blandly shot comedy like Bheja Fry.
To my mind, what matters most is the adult sensibility of the themes buried in the film. I'd rather watch a bland film like Bheja Fry which makes me care for the characters than a highly stylized film like Spielberg's Schindler's List which has nothing to say about the Holocaust or anything else.
whether there is a universal language of 'form' that is understood by all
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question. For instance, John Ford's painterly mise-en-scene is not as widely appreciated as Godard's jump-cuts!
I've often heard snobbish film lovers bemoaning the fact that How Green was My Valley won the Best Picture award in 1941 beating Citizen Kane!
Many regard this as a classic example of the Academy choosing a "mainstream", "content-heavy" film over a more experimental avant garde work that supposedly exemplifies "form" over "content".
I don't see it that way at all. Citizen Kane may have been a more influential film in hindsight. But not necessarily "better" or "more artistic" than the Ford epic.
So, film critics who pigeonhole these two films into neat categories don't do justice to either of them. Firstly, Citizen Kane is not necessarily a break from the past. It is very much a narrative film in the fine American tradition of cinematic story telling that began with DW Griffith.
Similarly, How Green was my Valley is one of the most moving pieces of cinema you'll ever get to see - beautifully photographed with practically every cut being a sight to behold.
Nevertheless, it isn't fashionable to talk about it with film students. They'd rather chat for hours on end raving about Godard and his jump cuts!
It's not that I've anything against Godard. All I'm saying is that most discussions on "form" tend to be very limited in their scope.
I hope you won't mind if I link this small piece. In a tangential way, it also makes the point that a film's structure is part of its "message".
ReplyDeleteSudipto: no problem! You might be interested in this old post.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great conversation.
ReplyDeleteShrikanth - good point about "gossip." I didn't mean to insult people whose main interest is in the nuances of fictional characters; in fact I can enjoy fan fiction a lot, if I like the original it's based on, and characters are what fan fiction is usually about. It's just that I'm not a small-talky kind of person in any circumstances so it doesn't interest me usually in movie conversation either. (This attitude doesn't render me "chic", just socially inept.)
Enjoyed every comment here - much to think about.
Wow that was quite a piece of inspiration to me! Just couldn't stop reading your column. Thanks for sharing it!
ReplyDelete