How Alfred Hitchcock Blocks A Scene

John Sturges on directing

Paul T. Anderson: .... save your money and forget film school. Go buy Bad Day at Black Rock and listen to John Sturges' commentary and you'll learn more about filmmaking than 4 years of going to school.

These are only excerpts on Youtube. Full length mp3 here (You can sync it up with the film to see what he's talking about):

https://www.copy.com/s/rNh0x1gTKnjP/Bad%20Day%20at%20Black%20Rock%20(John%20Sturges%20Commentary).mp3%3Boid%3A7

Magician: The Astonishing Life & Work of Orson Welles

Synopsis

Magician: The Astonishing Life and Work of Orson Welles looks at the remarkable genius of Orson Welles on the eve of his centenary - the enigma of his career as a Hollywood star, a Hollywood director (for some a Hollywood failure), and a crucially important independent filmmaker. North American Premiere at the 2014 Telluride Film Festival.

Directed by Chuck Workman Starring Costa-Gavras, Jeanne Moreau, Martin Scorsese, Orson Welles, Peter Bogdanovich, Richard Linklater, Steven Spielberg, Walter Murch Theatrical Release date December 10, 2014 Run time 95 min

Trailer:

Full film:

http://hdmovie14.net/watch/magician-the-astonishing-life-and-work-of-orson-welles-2014/fullmovie-putlocker-megashare9.html

Yeah, vacuousness is a good way to put it.

5 Hollywood Secrets That Explain Why So Many Movies Suck http://www.cracked.com/article_19012_5-hollywood-secrets-that-explain-why-so-many-movies-suck.html

5. Writers Don't Come Up With the Ideas

"There are no original ideas! Look at the top-grossing 25 films of the 2000s -- 23 were remakes or adaptations!

In almost all cases, the initial ideas for movie plots don't come from screenwriters at all, but from producers (basically, the people in charge of the money side of the project).

Hollywood puts out 500 films a year? Maybe 20 of those films are worth watching?

The Universal Clock is an interesting documentary by Peter Watkins on the commercialization of documentaries, The Monoform, the 47 min documentaries you see on the History Channel, Discovery etc. Watkins directed the BBC docudrama The War Game, feature films Privilege & Punishment Park.

3 parts , downloadable

https://archive.org/details/The_Universal_Clock_Resistance_of_Peter_Watkins_1

https://archive.org/details/TheUniversalClock-TheResistanceOfPeterWatkinsPart2

https://archive.org/details/TheUniversalClock-TheResistanceOfPeterWatkinsPart3

The MONOFORM is the internal language-form (editing, narrative structure, etc.) used by TV and the commercial cinema to present their messages. It is the densely packed and rapidly edited barrage of images and sounds, the 'seamless' yet fragmented modular structure which we all know so well. This language-form appeared early on in the cinema, with the work of pioneers such as D.W.Griffith, and others who developed techniques of rapid editing, montage, parallel action, cutting between long shots/close shots, etc. Now it also includes dense layers of music, voice and sound effects, abrupt cutting for shock effect, emotion-arousing music saturating every scene, rhythmic dialogue patterns, and endlessly moving cameras.

The Monoform has several principal sub-categories: the traditional, classic monolinear narrative structure used in cinema films, TV soap-operas and police thrillers; the seemingly disconnected and fluid melange of themes and visual motifs in MTV shows; the chopped, fragmentary structures in global TV newsbroadcasts and many documentaries (what one filmmaker described as the 'cookie-cutter' method: a repeating pattern of brief talking-head interview, cut-away, narration...).

http://pwatkins.mnsi.net/hollywood.htm

THE MEDIA CRISIS – Foreword, 2014

Historically, Hollywood producers have defined their role in terms of “telling good stories” (which have commercial potential). The Monoform was developed (and standardised) strictly for this purpose. For Hollywood, “communication” was never meant to be a process of openly sharing a narrative with the people receiving it - it was designed for producing material along a hierarchical, one-way process (from the professionals to the public), with no return/input possible.

Tragically, this one-way process was not only aped some 50 years later by television, it has also warped the development of documentary film. And it need never have happened if a wide-ranging public debate and inquiry had taken place during the origin of these forms of media ('where are we going with this, why are we doing it, what could be the consequences?'). The entire course of the development of the MAVM might have been very different - and probably much more democratic.

Unfortunately, the more negative human characteristics and motives won the day. One result of the MAVM developing as it historically did is the stranglehold, since the 1970s, by 'alternative' TV channels over the documentary film movement. Now an aspect of the media crisis, a number of their commissioning editors have routinely behaved with immense hypocrisy in enforcing the Monoform, whilst cloaking their tyranny with pretences of being radical and progressive.

http://pwatkins.mnsi.net/Intro_MedCr.htm

SPIKE Magazine: Peter Watkins, The Universal Clock and the Monoform

Young people are trained, according to Watkins, “to accept the mass media in a non-critical light – as neutral, useful, informative elements in the social process, and ultimately, as the means to advance their own career.” Schools, colleges, universities and other institutions offering media and journalism courses all teach blind acceptance of the current form through vocational training; students become “economically rational units” in a system where the framework must be respected and advanced. Watkins writes: “In this process of teaching, students are also made to think that the public is inherently stupid – that it needs authoritarian, simplistic, rapidly-moving language forms in order to absorb (consumer) ideas from TV.”

http://www.spikemagazine.com/peter-watkins-the-universal-clock-and-the-monoform.php

@babypanda I saw "the light bulb conspiracy" on German TV years ago. So glad you posted the link. I think many people only see motion pictures as entertainment, and forget that it's an art form that can do so much more.

@jleo maybe so 'cause decors and shooting style rely too much on a dated context... sometimes characters also suffer from "wax cliché"... it has happen to the best, come to mind "genius" Orson Welles. Nevertheless, like in Miracle Mile an interesting gather of ideas (pushing them forward) and humour, one can easily drop mind in that epoch.

Belinda Bauer retired from acting and is now a life coach/ Spiritual psychologist in Los Angeles.

couldn't be other way :P

Adding MC to watchlist, BTW if U haven't seen it, give a chance to Being There ,-)

 
Lisandro Alonso trilogy: Libertad, Los Muertos, Fantasma
How could a 26 year old envision and materialise Freedom is something that I cannot comprehend.
Critics say many things - they like to chop chunks of celluloid organs and let them dry while wearing only high hills and lipstick, drinking cheap whisky and listen to unbearably unknown ('cause unpublished) sec XVII opera - I personally find the 3 films fascinating, mandatory for any film school; also the maturing processes and the way it's reflected on/within the films itself. The very first one is what I like best; fresh, relentlessly attentive (common in L.A. shooting), no BS (there must be a dozen lines of dialog), also no camera BS (you know, when you see a new trick it's only new the first time), a primitive Ceylan that gives you all space (here space is time) to make your mind, to unmake your mind, to follow or to let yourself be followed. Must be watched chronologically in order to make most out of it =)
Some loose inner shitty thoughts, association with Huillet-Straub (Sicilia! to put something) is unavoidable, less stiff (the couple really explores the thing) characters/talent... with Los Muertos comes to mind the less interesting (despite a great cinematography) Jonathan auf der Heide's Van Diemen's Land {OZ}, Weir's miscarriage in The Mosquito Coast, of course Herzog Amazonas' venturing and drift (Fitz and specially Aguirre) and the magnificent Apocalypse Now, but imploded of war and characters... it seems to me like a reversed Conrad's Heart of Darkness... Despite completely bereft of any violence and having in common the information and philosophical void (and {miss}guidance/manipulation) of the spoken word I associate the experience to that of the (more "lab/esoteric/ecstatic") superb Die große Stille not for everyone though... The ways of Sicilia!'s talent, with the BG of AN and the (not) telling of Into the Great Silence... and dogs (even ghost ones) ja ja aj ayay!

 
Lucrecia Martel, also argentinian; her "trilogy": La Ciénaga, La Niña Santa, La Mujer sin Cabeza

BTW @jleo , loved Winter Kills thanks 4 recommending it ,-)
 
• A COLOSSAL John Huston with devil-dirty tongue and practices (also red speedo), check
• Spoiled candid yet righteous USA, I mean Bridges-child, check
• Almost visionary script (Condom's book) with still sharp and very valid (real) points 4 nowadays, check
• Superb (wonderfully live and loud) sex scene, check
• Full frontal nude and flushing babies out dialog, oh yeah check
• Power, influences/manipulation and sex - politics' holly trinity , check
• Eli Taylor glowing with sibling bitches glowing, check
• Perkins exchanging psycho-knife for psycho nerdy all-mighty computer, check
• Dark lethal humour, at times superb almost surreal dialogs, bellow check
• Wallach very secondary and most outrageous "use" of Mifune's talent, check
• Director's wife acting as red mommy cyclist death with a baby, check
• Breathtaking vistas (land-scaping) while ridding horse of "freedom/power" (?), check
• Dated indoors, women-objects, lengthy shots (with today's eyes shots seem longer than "needed"), check
• Silly butler asked for milk, check

 
- What do you think these girls are doing under the blanket, son?

When Winter Kills was finally finished and released in 1979, it received rapturous reviews from the New York critics (Vincent Canby (New York Times), David Ansen (Newsweek) and Michael Sragow (Rolling Stone), among others, all praised it) and did decent business there, but after about a week or two in Los Angeles (where the reviews weren’t quite as stellar), it disappeared from theaters completely. In an article for Harper’s magazine, Condon apparently claimed Avco Embassy (which distributed the film), which did business with the Kennedy family, was pressured by the Kennedys to bury the film. Whatever the reason, the film re-emerged in 1983 with a different cut. The film is now on DVD in an out-of-print 2-disc edition from Anchor Bay (which has a making-of documentary), as well as a DVD-R version from Lionsgate. Either way, it’s worth checking out, as it’s one of the unsung films of the 70’s, and just as much as The Parallax View (in its own, twisted way), gets to the heart of the feelings of conspiracy that arose out of Kennedy’s assassination.

Source and very interesting article

Somehow it reminded me of Hal Ashby's milestone Being There (released the same year, 1979) with a phenomenal Peter Sellers and Shirley MacLaine. Being There is less glamourous, much slower and subtle, also humour wise. Some other well known are Chaplin's Dictator, Kubrick's (also with Sellers) Strangelove, Marx's Duck Soup, and (sci-fied) Brazil. I'ld recommed a follow up with Victor Ginzburg's Generation P, not as good, and quite more flesh insipid but a supplement on manipulation through imaginery. For some good laughs In the Loop, heard good things about Wag the Dog, personally haven't seen it. =)

 
  bigger grabs
 

 
Mandatory prod pic of hot hot Belinda Bauer (later to be Robocop's scientist)

@babypanda My understanding of the story is that Werner Herzog bet a friend Errol Morris that he would eat a shoe if he made a doc on a Pet Cemetery. The guy made the film and he ate the shoe. I think the point is a doc can be made about anything if you do it right, even your local pet cemetery. The movie was called Gates of Heaven and is one of the most celebrated docs ever. These days it cost peanuts to buy a laptop, a pocket black magic camera, a tripod, a lav and shotgun mic and just go make it. We even have a no cost way for the world to see it too....the internet.

I wish I was in an English speaking country as I'm screwed being an expat where I live but I still plan to have a go. If anything we can learn from it.

Documentary and short films are the way to be creative on a non budget. I'm getting a bit old to train but I would say if you are 100% into getting into high level moviemaking then start young go to recognised film schools and be willing to be a dogsbody for years, and then you still might never make it. Personally I'm into documentary as an art form so at least self financing isn't crazy, probably someones career I look to is James Longley (Academy Award for Iraq in Fragments) They guy just spent a year or two out in the field with his DVX100a and made an Oscar nominated movie.

Something people probably need to recognise is specialising, the reality is 95% of people on a set do jobs people never heard of. In the end not everyone is a director, I think the more realistic way for young people is to decide if they are a Director, Producer, Cameraman, Editor etc...then get the specialist training. I greatly regret not going for a BBC cameraman training when the opportunity came to me when I was young. Parents wanted a proper job...

This thread went off topic......

Movie wise I have my 'art house' side but I think my line is around Jim Jarmusch these days, anything more avant gard is a turn off for me. I like that JJ however non mainstream he is firmly planted in 'Cinema' and knows he must to some extent entertain the audience. Ghost Dog is for example a brilliant and underrated movie. I also like he is stubbornly Independent, the most we can expect these days is a director has full control of a movie just like Kubrick did, then at leat we are seeing one mans vision even if we love or hate it. Many movies today are made by committee I imagine.

Some directors in the mainstream are making movies that some years ago would be considered art house, examples I might include Spike Jonze, Tarrantino?, Gus Van Sant, Jonathan Glazer, Sofia Coppola, Lars von Trier etc...I'm not sure art house movie even exists anymore?

@maxr, just read your comments. ok, pretty profound stuff. getting into "cellular level". can't argue with you. we learn from every motherfcking thing. well said. when i played a lot of sports, i have to say that watching sports helped a lot. it seemed my mind was able to subconsciously pick up on subtle movements pro athletes were making and i was somehow able to incorporate it into my game, without being fully conscious.

@babypanda yeah... what's around the dough itself is also important... and how to deal with it

@all great stuff, guys, thanks 4 sharing it

I was watching another film from Miike (this motherfucka has been doing 2, 3 films per year, has completed 100 and he's 54!!!), anyway the thing is I wrote down some loose thoughts about japanese horror films, at least the ones I like: camera's movement range is quite vast and changes may go suddenly abrupt, long static shots and pans can be followed by strikinina // framing is just for 1 second, then we move again, it is not stills, it is call movie, with exceptions practical and FLOW first // the richness and variation of the shots, the perfect pace, breathing... always letting the image breathe // changing from wide to close up to dutch to general to close up... in despite all, seamless // cannot remember many zooms, why? // the wonderful sound job, perfectly sync with the ambient, many times driving the scene, it never fills the air, it completes, questions, point directions, give entrance or exit, it is never redundant; it's clear, very clear like if reduced to the bare bones // music is always second to sound design craft // the fluidity in how the story evolves, dialogs, characters, situations or/and places are not immutable archetypes, they can change, transform... // . scenes can jump from one "universe" to another completely different in time, mood and characters, not everything is exposed and explained, thanks god // simbolic elements are found all over, the story it's populated by them, making it richer // quotidian harmless elementus may turn evil totems of doom (exaggerating), some times gaining supernatural characteristics or becoming a tool/vessel for it // often characters take in fear being absolutely paralyzed (maybe it's also something cultural) and is always first induced and not imposed... then out of a tense static, almost motionless instant, the smaller amount of action triggers mayhem snow-ball // light it's just right (scenery in general), not too thought out nor dramatic, taking advantage of dimmed natural environments, cultivating the curiosity and apprehension for what it's beyond the reach of our gaze...

Well just some general BS notes, I'ld splash them with a Kiyoshi Kurosawa trio Cure / Karisuma / Kairo maybe add Ringu and Miss Zombie and pick some Miike - you might have sex, scares, LSD or who knows what bloody-mary mix... maybe Audition, Visitor Q if you are daring, some say Gozu, others Ichi's not horror, oh the horror, THE HORROR!!!

Seriously, cannot believe all the shit load of copies Hollywood has made without ever understanding the essence, the savoir fair and the beauty of japanese horror cinema's language, a bit like what happened with Jacky Chan in his hollyepoch. This year I saw the first gringo film in recollection which (remotely) reminded me of (my fav) japanese while keeping it's own personality, more concretely in the core-story: It Follows @kurth that one is good for you and the pigeon with the kat and alien friend can come round christmas :P

Classic. Awesome Book, Awesome Movie.

A good way to make a million dollars off an indie film is to raise 2 million dollars and make a movie for 1 million and keep the change.

@maxr, just read your comments. ok, pretty profound stuff. getting into "cellular level". can't argue with you. we learn from every motherfcking thing. well said. when i played a lot of sports, i have to say that watching sports helped a lot. it seemed my mind was able to subconsciously pick up on subtle movements pro athletes were making and i was somehow able to incorporate it into my game, without being fully conscious.

@suresure, 2001 I didn't even 'get' a lot of it. what was with the apes and the monolith? and the final scene? i guess a film is genius if you have to watch it several times and still don't quite get it? maybe I got it on a 'cellular level' and it will eventually permeate to my cerebral cortex? great film? or does kubrick have us all fooled with mind games?