Another montage film built up from Public Domain films, including "The house of Rothschild", "Battleship Potemkin", "Berlin; Symphony of a great city", "War comes to America" and official propaganda films of US in cold war days.
May 15, 2013
Who is to be blamed for tragedy of Tarkovsky?
After the research for writing "Tarkovsky and His Time" 2 years ago, I still can't help but questioning myself.
Did Soviet Union really so abuse him so that he couldn't work in his profession?
Did he decide to emigrate to West by himself?
Why did he buy so many things for new life in Italy that his bank deposit became almost empty?
Why did his second wife Larisa so hate first crews of "Stalker"?
Finally why do so many people accuse Larisa, especially in doc.film "Rerberg and Tarkovsky"?
All of these facts and situation suggest me the following.
Tarkovsky decided to emigrate to West because of Larisa.
Firstly, for filmmakers, it's fatal for his living to lose their comrades, creative crews for no reason(it's what Larisa's behavior caused to them).
Secondly, Tarkovsky knew how to communicate with Soviet cinema bureaucrats and how to earn by doing "part-time job"(for example, script writing for others) even in late 1970 s in Soviet Union.
Thirdly, he was disappointed in West before he declared emigration, as clearly written in his diaries.
Tarkovsky was a Soviet director, but had a sense of efficiency in his work. But Larisa, his ex-assistant director in "Andrei Rublev"didn't. Or precisely, she wanted the domination over him and his crews after "Mirror", where she was denied by her husband the role of hero's wife and mother.
For Tarkovsky, the situation must have been very difficult. Though cinema was the first thing for him, he couldn't behave so severe to Larisa as he could to other people. And she knew it.
Woman's pride grew up in her and it became destructive to his official status and his work in filmmaking, because his irritation affected to his attitude to bureaucrats and the crews.
Men are more "social" than women in some societies. Creative intelligentsia in USSR apparently made such society, especially in 1960 s. Friendship was a very important element of their life, making creative atmosphere. In making "Stalker", such an atmosphere was replaced by suspicious attitude to each other. Relations with bureaucrats was already worsened, though he was allowed to behave more bravely than before.
He felt alone in shooting, especially after his mother's death.
It was a tragedy of Tarkovsky as a talented Soviet creator and Soviet citizen.
In USSR he was a "cult" figure among educated people, and a qualified director of the largest film studio. He HAD a decent social status.
In West he was a "genius" oppressed by totalitarian Soviet regime, which could have allow him more freedom of creation if he remained untill the beginning of Perestoroika. That time none of us knew how he suffered from complicated private life and from desolate solitude.
Did Soviet Union really so abuse him so that he couldn't work in his profession?
Did he decide to emigrate to West by himself?
Why did he buy so many things for new life in Italy that his bank deposit became almost empty?
Why did his second wife Larisa so hate first crews of "Stalker"?
Finally why do so many people accuse Larisa, especially in doc.film "Rerberg and Tarkovsky"?
All of these facts and situation suggest me the following.
Tarkovsky decided to emigrate to West because of Larisa.
Firstly, for filmmakers, it's fatal for his living to lose their comrades, creative crews for no reason(it's what Larisa's behavior caused to them).
Secondly, Tarkovsky knew how to communicate with Soviet cinema bureaucrats and how to earn by doing "part-time job"(for example, script writing for others) even in late 1970 s in Soviet Union.
Thirdly, he was disappointed in West before he declared emigration, as clearly written in his diaries.
Tarkovsky was a Soviet director, but had a sense of efficiency in his work. But Larisa, his ex-assistant director in "Andrei Rublev"didn't. Or precisely, she wanted the domination over him and his crews after "Mirror", where she was denied by her husband the role of hero's wife and mother.
For Tarkovsky, the situation must have been very difficult. Though cinema was the first thing for him, he couldn't behave so severe to Larisa as he could to other people. And she knew it.
Woman's pride grew up in her and it became destructive to his official status and his work in filmmaking, because his irritation affected to his attitude to bureaucrats and the crews.
Men are more "social" than women in some societies. Creative intelligentsia in USSR apparently made such society, especially in 1960 s. Friendship was a very important element of their life, making creative atmosphere. In making "Stalker", such an atmosphere was replaced by suspicious attitude to each other. Relations with bureaucrats was already worsened, though he was allowed to behave more bravely than before.
He felt alone in shooting, especially after his mother's death.
It was a tragedy of Tarkovsky as a talented Soviet creator and Soviet citizen.
In USSR he was a "cult" figure among educated people, and a qualified director of the largest film studio. He HAD a decent social status.
In West he was a "genius" oppressed by totalitarian Soviet regime, which could have allow him more freedom of creation if he remained untill the beginning of Perestoroika. That time none of us knew how he suffered from complicated private life and from desolate solitude.
May 11, 2013
"Montage film" as a film genre
In Russian film study and criticism there is a film genre called "montage film(montazhnoe kino)".
The genre was a sub-genre of author's cinema, picked up by Soviet and Russian filmmakers with aesthetic and/or ideological purposes from 1960 s to 1990 s.
Such filmmakers were A. Peleshyan(in some documentaries), A. Sokurov(in some documentaries), O.Kovalov("Scorpion's garden") and S. Seliyanov(in "Russian Idea"with Kovalov as a scripwriter).
The following video, "The chronicle of Cold War" is my attempt to make such a film using Public Domain films and footage made in USA.
It may be called a kind of comparative film study in the form experimental film. The theme of this work is; how a same "cliche" style (sometimes mentioned as "Hollywood classical cinema" ) was used in various film genres (newsreels, fiction genre film, instruction film, etc.) from late 1930 to early 1950 in USA. In addition, the editing of this montage film shows the flexibility of the style, which had been influenced by and had influenced on non-US films(for example "soviet montage school").
The main materials are from the following films;
"Capitalism"(1948) Coronet Instructional Films
"Ghost Patrol"(1936) directed by Samuel Neufeld
"Communism"(1952) Coronet Instructional Films
"From Dawn to Sunset"(1937) The Jam Handy Organization
"Survival Under Atomic Attack (1951)" U.S. Office of Civil Defense
"A is for Atom"(1953) John Sutherland Productions
"Work of the Stock Exchange" (1941) Coronet Instructional Films
Note: This film doesn't imply any concrete ideology and criticism towards any real or fictional person and any organization.
May 2, 2013
Technology as a new religion
I don't have any prejudice toward applied sciences and I.T. industry, and I don't deny the significance of technological progress and scientific discoveries that have made our daily life far more effective and comfortable than that of centuries ago.
But I don't share that enthusiastic belief in the technological progress which some people showed to the public after the beginning of global economic crisis. In my opinion, no technological progress can resolve the increasing unemployment rate in USA and EU, of disappearance of middle class consumers, of ecologic crisis caused by global factory farming and GMO etc.
I am often surprised to see some scientists, economists and entrepreneurs talking about coming technological breakthrough as a promise of human's prosperity. For example, such conversation as in the following session.
How can people believe in their words knowing recent examples of social injustice by inhabitants of Wall Street, White House, or of the greediness of such global companies as Monsant...
What Mr. Kaku is talking here seems to me some kind of fairy tale or Sci-Fi story (in other video interview, he described some future technology really reminded me of "Genocide Organ" by Project Ito ) I like some kind of Sci-Fi novels and films, if they don't ignore the weakness of human being, especially, the vices depicted in classic literature and drama. Technology can't correct them. Only socially awaken people can, by supporting and contacting each other. And the social awareness, common sense is formed not by technology, but by decent education and decent teachers whose living condition must not be on the edge of poverty level. And college or university students must not pay loans for their learning for more than a decade. The internet can't replace real schools, if they still have to exist.
US government and medias often accuse "Islamic fundamentalism". But they often forget their own "fundamentalism" attitude towards other nations. Namely, it's Free Market fundamentalism, which is often called "Globalization". And science and technology fundamentalism. Instead of God they seem to believe in "Capitalism", "Globalization"and "Technology"
No one knows for sure whether super-computer can really simulate the work of human brain using MRI image. Such an article was published in English a few years ago. But I wrote exactly such an story in the form of Sci Fi novel 9 yeas ago, that is "Re-Minder". It's only one example of how some US people love seemingly fantastic science and technology. One question occurs.
For what purpose do they simulate human brain using IBM super computer? Maybe hoping for the invention of virtual reality online game (as in my novel)?
But I don't share that enthusiastic belief in the technological progress which some people showed to the public after the beginning of global economic crisis. In my opinion, no technological progress can resolve the increasing unemployment rate in USA and EU, of disappearance of middle class consumers, of ecologic crisis caused by global factory farming and GMO etc.
I am often surprised to see some scientists, economists and entrepreneurs talking about coming technological breakthrough as a promise of human's prosperity. For example, such conversation as in the following session.
How can people believe in their words knowing recent examples of social injustice by inhabitants of Wall Street, White House, or of the greediness of such global companies as Monsant...
What Mr. Kaku is talking here seems to me some kind of fairy tale or Sci-Fi story (in other video interview, he described some future technology really reminded me of "Genocide Organ" by Project Ito ) I like some kind of Sci-Fi novels and films, if they don't ignore the weakness of human being, especially, the vices depicted in classic literature and drama. Technology can't correct them. Only socially awaken people can, by supporting and contacting each other. And the social awareness, common sense is formed not by technology, but by decent education and decent teachers whose living condition must not be on the edge of poverty level. And college or university students must not pay loans for their learning for more than a decade. The internet can't replace real schools, if they still have to exist.
US government and medias often accuse "Islamic fundamentalism". But they often forget their own "fundamentalism" attitude towards other nations. Namely, it's Free Market fundamentalism, which is often called "Globalization". And science and technology fundamentalism. Instead of God they seem to believe in "Capitalism", "Globalization"and "Technology"
No one knows for sure whether super-computer can really simulate the work of human brain using MRI image. Such an article was published in English a few years ago. But I wrote exactly such an story in the form of Sci Fi novel 9 yeas ago, that is "Re-Minder". It's only one example of how some US people love seemingly fantastic science and technology. One question occurs.
For what purpose do they simulate human brain using IBM super computer? Maybe hoping for the invention of virtual reality online game (as in my novel)?
Apr 27, 2013
"Acceptable" and "unacceptable" social/political criticism in art
If the regime is so undemocratic and oppressive that it wouldn't allow any social/political satire or even allegorical form of narrative which may imply criticism to the regime, then art may have a right to revolt against accepted "norms"of that society.
But if the regime is legally allowing its criticism in art, essays and journalism etc., then the artist or activists who behave too "radically" (namely, too aggressively breaking norms of social behaviors) in the name of democracy or the freedom of expression, will lose their moral bases. Such a behavior can't be accepted by that society which has affirmed the current regime and whose existence and development is dependent on that regime.
The performance of "Pussy Riot" in famous Cathedral in Moscow, which took place more than one year ago, seems to me too"radical" in that sense. It can't be interpreted in the context of art (because it's too primitive to be artistic not only in their skills but also in the strategy, if it had any). It can't be perceived as a form of political protest, because the cathedral is not at all the place for such an act in contemporary Russia. The Orthodox Church is still an important element for many people in Russia and they knew it well. They must have known well also that the Cathedral was once destroyed by Communist Party in 1930s and rebuilt during 1990s with the effort of artists from all over the country, as a symbol of the resurrection of spiritual values in the corrupted society.
Of course, they have a right to hold any kind of belief, criticize any concrete policy, politicians. But they can express their thought only respecting accepted social minimum norms, in other words, within the frameworks of such accepted institutions as "art", "social sciences", "journalism", "blogging"etc.
Such institutions are really accepted in contemporary Russia with democratic tolerance, and it's the fact that can be easily confirmed by simple internet surfing.. Political satire in art is legally allowed.
Any society has its particular laws to sustain minimum of social norms.
2 year sentence may seem too severe. But the combination of place and action they had chosen was such that brought an unnecessary conflict in the society. If they wanted to make such a little chaos (and such an result could be easily predicted with their educational level), then the sentence seems, personally for me, appropriate.
If related laws seem to be too stern, then it's not a problem of the current regime itself, but the problem of social norms sustained by them. But if the norms are based on the history of people and now are supported by them, then foreign journalism and protesters have no right to judge them.
But if the regime is legally allowing its criticism in art, essays and journalism etc., then the artist or activists who behave too "radically" (namely, too aggressively breaking norms of social behaviors) in the name of democracy or the freedom of expression, will lose their moral bases. Such a behavior can't be accepted by that society which has affirmed the current regime and whose existence and development is dependent on that regime.
The performance of "Pussy Riot" in famous Cathedral in Moscow, which took place more than one year ago, seems to me too"radical" in that sense. It can't be interpreted in the context of art (because it's too primitive to be artistic not only in their skills but also in the strategy, if it had any). It can't be perceived as a form of political protest, because the cathedral is not at all the place for such an act in contemporary Russia. The Orthodox Church is still an important element for many people in Russia and they knew it well. They must have known well also that the Cathedral was once destroyed by Communist Party in 1930s and rebuilt during 1990s with the effort of artists from all over the country, as a symbol of the resurrection of spiritual values in the corrupted society.
Of course, they have a right to hold any kind of belief, criticize any concrete policy, politicians. But they can express their thought only respecting accepted social minimum norms, in other words, within the frameworks of such accepted institutions as "art", "social sciences", "journalism", "blogging"etc.
Such institutions are really accepted in contemporary Russia with democratic tolerance, and it's the fact that can be easily confirmed by simple internet surfing.. Political satire in art is legally allowed.
Any society has its particular laws to sustain minimum of social norms.
2 year sentence may seem too severe. But the combination of place and action they had chosen was such that brought an unnecessary conflict in the society. If they wanted to make such a little chaos (and such an result could be easily predicted with their educational level), then the sentence seems, personally for me, appropriate.
If related laws seem to be too stern, then it's not a problem of the current regime itself, but the problem of social norms sustained by them. But if the norms are based on the history of people and now are supported by them, then foreign journalism and protesters have no right to judge them.
Apr 13, 2013
The new era may come soon
Looking back the human history, 20th century seems to have been the unprecedented era of mass consumerism. In other words, it was the era of global devaluation of noble spiritual values.
Also, it was undeniably the unprecedented era of mass destruction of Life on Earth, the era of insane producing, using and accumulating of toxic gas, nuclear weapons, chemical and radioactive wastes, causing mutation and extinction of numberless species.
These two tendencies made human being more and more close to "civilized barbarians" during the last century. Moreover, from the end of the last century, the economic-growth engine of modern society finally stopped its function. Currencies began to circulate in far more large numbers than they should be in normal demand and supply relations.The system was characterized by loans, credit cards, "derivertives"and recently it almost ended up with global economic crisis and disappearance of Middle Class as the main cluster of demography.
The resolution of this situation must not be easy. Human being can't go forward without giving up many, many things, mainly in developed countries (including some comfort in everyday life, unnecessary luxuries, goods for entertainment ). But, there are two fields which can be demolished without suffering almost all the people.
Military industry and current financial system (including rending money with "interest").
Some historians and archaeologists insist that War as a constant element of human life appeared only recently, after the beginning of agriculture. And even after that in middle ages Byzantine Empire tended to avoid war in contrast to Western feudal kingdoms of its time.
As to current bank system, it is 400 years old at most. Capitalism, as it is considered in economics , probably, is the same age. Before that time human being lived more naturally, sometimes with developed civilizations and cultures
Military industry and current financial system are not even inevitable elements of Capitalism. So they can be more easily demolished than Capitalism itself. If only enough number of people would really want so.
Also, it was undeniably the unprecedented era of mass destruction of Life on Earth, the era of insane producing, using and accumulating of toxic gas, nuclear weapons, chemical and radioactive wastes, causing mutation and extinction of numberless species.
These two tendencies made human being more and more close to "civilized barbarians" during the last century. Moreover, from the end of the last century, the economic-growth engine of modern society finally stopped its function. Currencies began to circulate in far more large numbers than they should be in normal demand and supply relations.The system was characterized by loans, credit cards, "derivertives"and recently it almost ended up with global economic crisis and disappearance of Middle Class as the main cluster of demography.
The resolution of this situation must not be easy. Human being can't go forward without giving up many, many things, mainly in developed countries (including some comfort in everyday life, unnecessary luxuries, goods for entertainment ). But, there are two fields which can be demolished without suffering almost all the people.
Military industry and current financial system (including rending money with "interest").
Some historians and archaeologists insist that War as a constant element of human life appeared only recently, after the beginning of agriculture. And even after that in middle ages Byzantine Empire tended to avoid war in contrast to Western feudal kingdoms of its time.
As to current bank system, it is 400 years old at most. Capitalism, as it is considered in economics , probably, is the same age. Before that time human being lived more naturally, sometimes with developed civilizations and cultures
Military industry and current financial system are not even inevitable elements of Capitalism. So they can be more easily demolished than Capitalism itself. If only enough number of people would really want so.
Apr 9, 2013
Changing worldview and the twilight of Sci-Fi
Russian famous historian Andrei Fursov points out (in some of his lecture and television talks ) an interesting tendency in the contemporary popular culture.
In his youth, he says, Science Fiction was a very popular genre. But after 1980s, instead of Sci-Fi fantasy has become more and more popular (he also draws examples of recent Hollywood films based on the fantasy novels that must have been waiting for their time for decades).
Though being much younger than Fursov, I also belong to the generation when Sci-Fi was a popular genre in fiction and cinema. In my childhood the genre easily draw my attention with its inherent belief in rational thinking of human being and in the unlimited achievement of natural sciences in the future.
Even then, the future on Earth and in Space was depicted not always "futuristic", as in "Soylent Green", "The planet of apes"and "Rollerball". But in those films the technologies were supposed to be far more developed than today.The reality is that today, almost none of those technologies (space travel to another solar system, totally artificial-looking food made from unknown materials, A.I. with the ability to do real conversation with individual human etc.) has not been realized yet. These future technologies will, if being realized, serve to the intellectual development and widening the cognitive overlook of human being as species.
Instead,technological developments for these 20-30 years have achieved to the contrary purpose: ENTERTAINMENT and BUSINESS. To make human being more dull, more active consumers of goods, having lesser interest in history, philosophy, and works of arts.
Recently I walk around in a rental DVD shop to see which genres of movies are now popular (the numbers of stock DVDs and percentage of empty cases among them approximately show the popularity of each genre). For my surprise, "Harry Potter"series are far more popular than any kind of Sci-Fi series( not to mention classic Sci- Fi films of 1980s and before).
What kind of intellectual labor is needed to see such fantastic tales, totally alien to the social reality of any historical period? And what kind of anxiety or philosophical thought will they stimulate in the viewer?
Nothing. Such films are not so different from amusement parks, the only difference is the existence of strong mythological, or irrational elements. In these films only the mythological, irrational elements have their roots in human history.
I don't insist that fantasy is a "bad"genre, that they are secret propaganda of irrationality. But if remember such films of 70s and 80s as "Solaris", "Andromeda" , "West World", and "Blade Runner" and the "zeitgeist"of the time of their release, the prevalence of fantasy on screen today seems something unhealthy. Do people really want only such fairy tales with "initiation"of kids?
Strangely enough, recently made Japanese anime film "Mardock Scrumble" based on the Sci Fi novel of the same title, also has strong irrational elements and "initiation"-like development of the plot. In mid 90s, we saw also "Evangelion"and "Serial experiments Lain". In all these anime films and TV series, dominant tone is made from irrational, uncontrollable things in human (basic instinct, unconsciousness, dream and fear of death, passions). They are total contrast to the Japanese classical Sci-Fi anime series made from late 70s to early 80s with clear human drama and hi-tech machines as tools.
Fictional technology has become to be depicted as some kind of "magic" on the one hand, the human physical body --as a hi-tech machine with inner "ghost" at its best ("Ghost in the shell" and "Innocence"), mutated or mutilated flesh at its worst--on the other ("Evangelion"and "Mardock Scrumble") .
Technology as "black magic" wipes out the border between the reality and nightmare, as it happens in Cronenberg's "Videodrome" and in later works of Ph.K.Dick.
As we know, Dick hadn't (and Cronengerg in "Videodrome" neither, I think) been indulged in the depiction of such "black magic" technologies. He rather feared it.
Something has changed, really.
In his youth, he says, Science Fiction was a very popular genre. But after 1980s, instead of Sci-Fi fantasy has become more and more popular (he also draws examples of recent Hollywood films based on the fantasy novels that must have been waiting for their time for decades).
Though being much younger than Fursov, I also belong to the generation when Sci-Fi was a popular genre in fiction and cinema. In my childhood the genre easily draw my attention with its inherent belief in rational thinking of human being and in the unlimited achievement of natural sciences in the future.
Even then, the future on Earth and in Space was depicted not always "futuristic", as in "Soylent Green", "The planet of apes"and "Rollerball". But in those films the technologies were supposed to be far more developed than today.The reality is that today, almost none of those technologies (space travel to another solar system, totally artificial-looking food made from unknown materials, A.I. with the ability to do real conversation with individual human etc.) has not been realized yet. These future technologies will, if being realized, serve to the intellectual development and widening the cognitive overlook of human being as species.
Instead,technological developments for these 20-30 years have achieved to the contrary purpose: ENTERTAINMENT and BUSINESS. To make human being more dull, more active consumers of goods, having lesser interest in history, philosophy, and works of arts.
Recently I walk around in a rental DVD shop to see which genres of movies are now popular (the numbers of stock DVDs and percentage of empty cases among them approximately show the popularity of each genre). For my surprise, "Harry Potter"series are far more popular than any kind of Sci-Fi series( not to mention classic Sci- Fi films of 1980s and before).
What kind of intellectual labor is needed to see such fantastic tales, totally alien to the social reality of any historical period? And what kind of anxiety or philosophical thought will they stimulate in the viewer?
Nothing. Such films are not so different from amusement parks, the only difference is the existence of strong mythological, or irrational elements. In these films only the mythological, irrational elements have their roots in human history.
I don't insist that fantasy is a "bad"genre, that they are secret propaganda of irrationality. But if remember such films of 70s and 80s as "Solaris", "Andromeda" , "West World", and "Blade Runner" and the "zeitgeist"of the time of their release, the prevalence of fantasy on screen today seems something unhealthy. Do people really want only such fairy tales with "initiation"of kids?
Strangely enough, recently made Japanese anime film "Mardock Scrumble" based on the Sci Fi novel of the same title, also has strong irrational elements and "initiation"-like development of the plot. In mid 90s, we saw also "Evangelion"and "Serial experiments Lain". In all these anime films and TV series, dominant tone is made from irrational, uncontrollable things in human (basic instinct, unconsciousness, dream and fear of death, passions). They are total contrast to the Japanese classical Sci-Fi anime series made from late 70s to early 80s with clear human drama and hi-tech machines as tools.
Fictional technology has become to be depicted as some kind of "magic" on the one hand, the human physical body --as a hi-tech machine with inner "ghost" at its best ("Ghost in the shell" and "Innocence"), mutated or mutilated flesh at its worst--on the other ("Evangelion"and "Mardock Scrumble") .
Technology as "black magic" wipes out the border between the reality and nightmare, as it happens in Cronenberg's "Videodrome" and in later works of Ph.K.Dick.
As we know, Dick hadn't (and Cronengerg in "Videodrome" neither, I think) been indulged in the depiction of such "black magic" technologies. He rather feared it.
Something has changed, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)