The Criterion Collection

[traths]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

The collaborations between Joseph von Sternberg and Marlene Dietrich were on the cutting edge of the avant garde between 1930 and 1935. These are stunning films even today -- in their design, in their lighting and editing and direction, in the behavioral and emotional states they explored together. Their collaborations were unapologetically transgressive, rebellious, defiant. There is true greatness in each film. They took cinema further in five years than it had gone since the beginning, before the Hayes Code snapped it back. Until now Morocco, Dishonored, Shanghai Express, Blonde Venus, The Scarlet Empress and The Devil Is a Woman have popped in out and out of print, mostly out, on vhs and poor quality DVD. To get hi-def transfers of their entire Paramount works all in one box is a dream come true. The new 2K scans and digital restorations will be exciting to see. I consider this box-set the bluray event of the year.

Once people have had time to absorb these six films, I predict a Dietrich - von Sternberg renaissance. If you don't know these films, make this box-set a priority. You'll be glad you did.

I'm planning on picking this up when Barnes & Noble has their Criterion sale.

[mande2013]

Originally Posted by Aclea

I'm afraid I think it is. Even back in the silent era some American filmmakers did just that, and continued to straight through to the present day - but, just like Tarkovsky, Sukurov or early Resnais before he became more accessible*, they were directors outside the mainstream who often struggled to find much of an audience. As with all forms of experimental or avante garde filmmaking there were differences in approach, style and success that are in part dictated by national character and budget, but that doesn't change the fact that American filmmakers did explore abstract ideas.

* It's notable that among Resnais' influences for Same Old Song, he cited both the BBC and MGM versions of Pennies from Heaven and... Ernst Lubitsch (who he also cited as an influence on Stavisky).



Again, I disagree: Mande specifically seems to be using the argument that 'humble craftsmen like Lubitsch and Tourneur are used as clubs' like a club himself to beat them as inferior to Antonioni and Tarkovsky because they made for the most part entirely different kinds of films - which is an apples to oranges comparison (talking of strawmen, does anyone seriously ever compare those four directors?). With the bizarre assertion of a conservative agenda it's possible that something may be lost in translation when writing in what I presume from the location is a second language, but it seems like yet another of that common manifestation of deriding the past by picking inapplicable examples to boost a favored era/movement. And another example of that attempt to impose an era-specific starting point orthodoxy on film appreciation, with the golden age once again relegated to the dark ages compared to the mid-20th Century European enlightenment. Which seems a pretty emphatic form of critical conservatism in its own right.




Now that is a strawman since you're trying to have it both ways - especially since many people clearly do think that way and constantly insist on correcting anyone who doesn't share their aesthetic judgment.



Few of whom seem to care any more for golden age movies: the 70s is the new 'last great age' of cinema for many of them, with the Antonioni era that preceded and to some degree influenced it discarded to the dustbin of history just as the Cahiers du Cinema crowd discarded so much of what went before them. Though, of course, they're now finding their decade is being trashed in favor of the growing movement arguing for the 80s as the last great age of cinema by another generation...



Except that was not a critic, but a member of the BFI's board with little interest in or knowledge of cinema who, like so many board members of so many artistic bodies, took the job because it looked good on his headed notepaper - and who was widely ridiculed for his views by 'Anglophone critics.' Though in truth is what he said any more outrageous or ignorant than claiming the same for Antonioni or Tarkovsky? It seems simply a question of geography and which point in time you choose to arbitrarily declare as the moment movies became truly sophisticated.

I'm not arguing against the appreciation of old guard cinema. I love plenty of films made before the late 1950s. I'm merely against the oppositional terms in which these types of discussions are often staged. And you're sort of proving my point when you complain that 'arthouse' cinema is overly fetishised at the expense of older classical films. You're perpetuating this oppositional construct I'm addressing. It's like in literary circles when people complain that people only read Kafka and Dostoevsky because they need something 'cool and edgy' to be satisfied and can't appreciate the 'conventional morality' of Austen or Dickens and blah blah blah. I'm not favoring one camp of artists over another. I'm questioning the existence of these oppositions to begin with.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Aclea

I'm afraid I think it is. Even back in the silent era some American filmmakers did just that, and continued to straight through to the present day - but, just like Tarkovsky, Sukurov or early Resnais before he became more accessible*, they were directors outside the mainstream who often struggled to find much of an audience. As with all forms of experimental or avante garde filmmaking there were differences in approach, style and success that are in part dictated by national character and budget, but that doesn't change the fact that American filmmakers did explore abstract ideas.

Like who? And how successfully did they do it?

There have been many short film makers who did abstract stuff in the US, but not as many feature length film makers. and they were often in the experimental/avantgarde realm ala Frampton etc.

Originally Posted by Aclea

Now that is a strawman since you're trying to have it both ways - especially since many people clearly do think that way and constantly insist on correcting anyone who doesn't share their aesthetic judgment.

Not really. It's a knee jerk anti-elitist position that's very common among Anglophones, especially Americans, Australians and Canadians. Basically anyone that comes from a pseudo-egalitarian culture. It's a by-product of insecurity (on both sides).

I'm not trying to have it both ways. It's a stereotype of a particular kind of narrow cinephile from a certain generation who doesn't really appreciate cinema at all that's exaggerated to make a specific point.

The cultural conditions no longer exist to produce people like that anymore.

Originally Posted by Aclea

Though in truth is what he said any more outrageous or ignorant than claiming the same for Antonioni or Tarkovsky

I'd say it is, although I wouldn't get behind the person who said it too strongly because it's an extreme position to take. Having said that, Antonioni and Tarkovsky had a much greater influence on the formal development of the medium than Scorsese, whose influence was mostly in the realm of narrative cinema. He did not change the way cinematic space was used, for example. i.e the relationship between people and objects etc. So no it isn't just a question of geography, unless you think all cinema is equally sophisticated at any given time. Using the opinion of an ignorant person is also not the best way to open up a discussion about this point either.

Not all claims are equal.

[mande2013]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

The cultural conditions no longer exist to produce people like that anymore.

They no longer exist to produce what kind of people?

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by mande2013

They no longer exist to produce what kind of people?

Those types of 'elitists/snobs' film buffs and critics and even artists really. Market culture rules, and there has been a concerted push towards a free for all model of appreciation that prevents those types of people from growing in numbers and/or having any real influence.

Just look at how mainstream critics approch typical genre fare now compared to the 70s and 80s, for example.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by mande2013

And you're sort of proving my point when you complain that 'arthouse' cinema is overly fetishised at the expense of older classical films. You're perpetuating this oppositional construct I'm addressing.

No, I'm not - I'm turning around the oppositional construct you appear to be proposing yourself, insisting that any disagreement is merely part of a 'conservative critical agenda' (particularly ironic considering the conservatism of the Cahiers du Cinema crowd, who drafted in numerous critics to insist that anyone who did not condemn Pontecorvo's Battle of Algiers and support its ban in France as worthless was not only unfit to have an opinion on any film but was also morally illegitimate, an opinion the magazine still maintains). The point I'm making is those kind of blanket assumptions you appear to be making by such an unlikely comparison - which is as unlikely as using John Cassavettes as a stick to beat Leo McCarey with - work both ways. But it's much, much more commonplace to see them applied in the dismissal of anything that comes before than what comes after.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

There have been many short film makers who did abstract stuff in the US, but not as many feature length film makers. and they were often in the experimental/avantgarde realm ala Frampton etc.

And, like it or not, they were in the minority in Europe as well - and the filmmakers you cite all began their careers with what could be described as more conventional works that fitted into established genres, often melodramas rather than deeply personal explorations. And many reverted to that later in their career.

Not really. It's a knee jerk anti-elitist position that's very common among Anglophones, especially Americans, Australians and Canadians. Basically anyone that comes from a pseudo-egalitarian culture. It's a by-product of insecurity (on both sides).

I'm not trying to have it both ways.

The trouble is, that is rather how it appears. The impression being given is of a knee-jerk reaction to a small group of anti-elitists that feels compelled to double down in the other direction to protect favorites perceived as being under siege. For example, the reason I brought up the nouvelle vague was partially the dogmatic rigidity of their belief that only their orthodoxy, both in methodology and what previous cinema held any value, but also the romanticism that blindly accepts the movement as beyond criticism when the reality - as in all forms - was that for all the great filmsand filmmakers it did give us, the majority of films the movement produced were empty failures.

This romanticism seems particularly prevalent in the Anglophone world, where only a small selection of those films were made available to nglish-speaking audiences, and thosewere generally the cream of the crop. You find the same romanticism applied to the notion of golden age Hollywood films or more recently 70s American cinema, where the vast majority were at best disposable and at worst worthless, with those that bucked the trend leading to claims of unparallelled greatness. But again, partially because of human nature and nostalgia, it is far more commonly the newer that is romanticised and lionised over the older - and a big part of that is dismissing the validity orambition of all that preceded it. And it's not down to a specific generation either: every generation seems to apply that to the filmmakers who had the most impact on them when they were growing up.

Historically, however, the perceivedanti-elitism you're talking about was a big factor in the 50s and 60s, but the fight was not so much among those who discussed film (though old school critics on both continents were certainly dismissive) as those who made them. The nouvelle vague attacked the old guard and the old guard fought back, whether it was Billy Wilder making jokes about out of focus foreign films or feuds like Godard + Truffaut vs Autant Lara (though some, like Hitchcock, tried unsuccessfully to persuade the studios to let them ape the NV approach). Within a decade the Anglophone critical pendulum had pretty much swung away from classic Hollywood and to the new kids on the block.

Antonioni and Tarkovsky had a much greater influence on the formal development of the medium than Scorsese, whose influence was mostly in the realm of narrative cinema. He did not change the way cinematic space was used, for example. i.e the relationship between people and objects etc.

Again, I think that's the kind of extremist elitism that ignores history to lionise their chosen favorites - I'd say that even as failures, critically or commercial, films like The Crowd, Sunrise or The Wind or filmmakers like Keaton and Welles have a much greater influence on the formal development than Antonioni or Tarkovsky.

So no it isn't just a question of geography, unless you think all cinema is equally sophisticated at any given time.

That's taking only half of my point, but yes, it often is simply a question of geography and which point in time you chose to regard as the pivotal era, whether it's American cinema or European, 30s or 60s. As for sophistication, the notion that sophistication is a comparatively late development ignores the way that sophistication changes form with time: the fact that Preston Sturges' screenplay for The Power and the Glory does not take the same approach as La Notte does not make it any less innovative or sophisticated or influential, simply different.

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Aclea

This romanticism seems particularly prevalent in the Anglophone world, where only a small selection of those films were made available to nglish-speaking audiences, and thosewere generally the cream of the crop. You find the same romanticism applied to the notion of golden age Hollywood films or more recently 70s American cinema, where the vast majority were at best disposable and at worst worthless, with those that bucked the trend leading to claims of unparallelled greatness.

Eras of film or art that are viewed as 'great' are defined by the greatness produced in that time, not by what was average or forgettable. When making comparisons between eras, it only makes sense to compare the best of the best.

That isn't romanticism, unless you think no era can be rationally argued for or if you believe art forms continually progress 'just because.'

Originally Posted by Aclea

Again, I think that's the kind of extremist elitism that ignores history to lionise their chosen favorites - I'd say that even as failures, critically or commercial, films like The Crowd, Sunrise or The Wind or filmmakers like Keaton and Welles have a much greater influence on the formal development than Antonioni or Tarkovsky.

Sure, we aren't talking about the whole of cinema. i just used the examples given. I'd be more likely to take seriously the claims of those in favour of Antonioni or Tarkovsky on this very specific point than Scorsese, but in reality I wouldn't side too heavily with either camp.

Originally Posted by Aclea

That's taking only half of my point, but yes, it often is simply a question of geography and which point in time you chose to regard as the pivotal era, whether it's American cinema or European, 30s or 60s. As for sophistication, the notion that sophistication is a comparatively late development ignores the way that sophistication changes form with time: the fact that Preston Sturges' screenplay for The Power and the Glory does not take the same approach as La Notte does not make it any less innovative or sophisticated or influential, simply different.

It depends on what kind of sophisticated you are talking about. Technical, conceptual etc.

[mande2013]

For what it's worth I'd argue L'Avventura, the best of Keaton, and Sunrise are all equally significant when it comes to the formal development of cinema.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

I don't think you are using the term romanticism correctly. Eras of film or art that are viewed as 'great' are defined by the greatness produced in that time, not by what was average or forgettable. When making comparisons between eras, it only makes sense to compare the best of the best.

Which is one of many areas we disagree, but it's something where there are two distinct schools of thought - the rather elitist to my mind view (or at least narrow) that eras or movements are only defined by the best or the view that eras or movements (and indeed filmmakers careers) need to be considered as a whole since great films do not exist in a vacuum and great filmmakers or movements rarely spring up fully formed.

Sure, we aren't talking about the whole of cinema. i just used the examples given. I'd be more likely to take seriously the claims of those in favour of Antonioni or Tarkovsky on this very specific point than Scorsese, but in reality I wouldn't side too heavily with either camp.

Neither do I, but it's the existence of camps that dogmatically insist on a individual filmmaker-centric or era/movement-centric exclusivity for meaningful creativity that I find a problem. Film, like every other artform, feeds on what has gone before to inform what comes next (not always to the betterment of cinema), so dismissal of any era as primitive and unsophisticated, particularly based on incamptible comparsons, seems like denial, whether it's golden agers dismissing the 50s and 60s or free cinema/indie cinema fans dismissing the studio era.





It depends on what kind of sophisticated you are talking about. Technical, conceptual etc.[/QUOTE]

[mande2013]

In any case, I hardly think Keaton, Welles, and Murnau are ignored relative to Antonioni. They would equally qualify as usual suspects in the pantheon today.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by mande2013

For what it's worth I'd argue L'Avventura, the best of Keaton, and Sunrise are all equally significant when it comes to the formal development of cinema.

Which is where I stand as an admirer of all three. The problem - and again I suspect this is simply down to misinterpreting your intentions with your earlier post - is when it appears that my love of, say, La Notte must preclude my admiration for the sophistication, experimentation and innovation of films that went long before.

In any case, I hardly think Keaton, Welles, and Murnau are ignored relative to Antonioni. They would equally qualify as usual suspects in the pantheon today.

Critically certainly not (though if Sjostrom isremembered these days it's primarily as one of Bergman's actors) - though I do remember vividly my postman's look at utter disbelief when delivering a parcel of DVDs from Milestone that had 'silent movies' on the packing label and his amazement anyone would be interested in such archaic relics. Though 'm guessing he wasn't the kind of cineaste we're discussing...

[malakaheso]

Originally Posted by Aclea

Which is one of many areas we disagree, but it's something where there are two distinct schools of thought - the rather elitist to my mind view (or at least narrow) that eras or movements are only defined by the best or the view that eras or movements (and indeed filmmakers careers) need to be considered as a whole since great films do not exist in a vacuum and great filmmakers or movements rarely spring up fully formed.

That is a false dichotomy. One can still make greatness claims of the first nature while being fully aware of the context in which these film makers operated in.

In the end though, we can only compare the films. The rest is largely academic and very much prone to speculation.

Personally I'm all for appreciating the greatness produced in most eras, but interest in film as a whole is not simply a matter of identifying greatness, as I'm sure you would agree.

[mande2013]

Originally Posted by Aclea

Which is where I stand as an admirer of all three. The problem - and again I suspect this is simply down to misinterpreting your intentions with your earlier post - is when it appears that my love of, say, La Notte must preclude my admiration for the sophistication, experimentation and innovation of films that went long before.

Fair enough

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by malakaheso

That is a false dichotomy. One can still make greatness claims of the first nature while being fully aware of the context in which these film makers operated in.

Again, I disagree - I think insisting judging only on the greatest examples is the false dichotomy. It's like choosing to judge the current state of politics by only taking into account the very best (or worst) politicians. It's a skewed sample that tends to ascribe too much contemporary or historical importance and influence to the works in question.

As I said, it's down to two fundamentally different ways of looking at film history. Though I'm sure you'd violently disagree, rather than a question of right or wrong or 'false dichotomys' it's simply different points of view.

Personally I'm all for appreciating the greatness produced in most eras, but interest in film as a whole is not simply a matter of identifying greatness, as I'm sure you would agree.

Aside from appreciating greatness in [i]all[i] eras, on that we d9o agree.

[jshaide]

Well I have some good news for many.

Lincoln Center is showing a digital restoration of ANDREI RUBLEV in August. Janus is naturally on the listing.

[dancerslegs]

Originally Posted by Knaldskalle

It's easy to tell who has seen The Salvation Hunters (von Sternberg, 1925) and who has not. von Sternberg's first movie was unequivocally avant-garde and predates all the titles you just listed. It's on Youtube for your viewing pleasure.

He later worked that sensibility into Hollywood movies (most obvious in The Scarlet Empress, but evident everywhere you care to look) and his movies are excellent for it. I'm getting the new set in July, no question about it.

The original claims were:

Originally Posted by Richard--W

The collaborations between Joseph von Sternberg and Marlene Dietrich were on the cutting edge of the avant garde between 1930 and 1935.

And

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I maintain that Sternberg was avant garde in his thinking.

The first doesn't encompass his films made before 1930, only his works with Dietrich between 1930-35. How do they qualify as avant-garde, and in what way do they represent the cutting edge of said movement? (Granted, they are experimental and subversive in varying degrees, but experimental and subversive do not automatically translate to "avant garde".)

The second claim is difficult to prove without offering a filmic analysis, which I would be interested in seeing Richard--W provide.

[StarDestroyer52]

Originally Posted by traths

I'm planning on picking this up when Barnes & Noble has their Criterion sale.

Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but I haven't been able to find the site listing for it on B&N's site.

[Knaldskalle]

Originally Posted by dancerslegs

The original claims were:


And



The first doesn't encompass his films made before 1930, only his works with Dietrich between 1930-35. How do they qualify as avant-garde, and in what way do they represent the cutting edge of said movement? (Granted, they are experimental and subversive in varying degrees, but experimental and subversive do not automatically translate to "avant garde".)

The second claim is difficult to prove without offering a filmic analysis, which I would be interested in seeing Richard--W provide.

I took your statement that "Sternberg is not" avant-garde to mean that you thought he never was, something that I think is demonstrably incorrect. If, however, that statement was purely in the context of the 1930s it's at least debatable whether or not you're correct - and more subjective, since something that's avant-garde to me may not be to you. Sorry if I muddied the waters.

[Reddington]

Originally Posted by StarDestroyer52

Maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but I haven't been able to find the site listing for it on B&N's site.

Pre-order listing here:

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dvd...=0715515217019