29 / BD 228 Kwaidan

Discuss releases by Eureka and Masters of Cinema and the films on them.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#126 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:05 pm

tavernier wrote:
tryavna wrote:Of course, I think that Kobayashi's re-interpretation works. (I suspect people know I'm a huge apologist for this director.)
No need to apologize for liking Kobayashi.
Indeed. He's probably my favorite Japanese director. We're talking all cyclinders turning globally acclaimed masterpieces one after the other.

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#127 Post by tryavna » Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:05 pm

tavernier wrote:
tryavna wrote:Of course, I think that Kobayashi's re-interpretation works. (I suspect people know I'm a huge apologist for this director.)
No need to apologize for liking Kobayashi.
:P

Of course, I mean "apologia" in its original Greek sense -- in honor of Hearn's birthplace....

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#128 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:17 pm

tryavna wrote:I'm not sure that I totally understand MK's objection on that ground.
My central objection is that I found Kobayashi's film excruciating dull for the most part.

The fact that Hearn's little stories _feel_ more traditionally Japanese than Kobayashi's movie is simply an incidental observation.
HerrSchreck wrote:He's probably my favorite Japanese director.
I can't imagine prizing Kobayashi over every other Japanese director. I'm afraid he wouldn't even make it onto my top 50 list. Oh well, he outranks Kinugasa....

User avatar
Harry White
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:25 pm

#129 Post by Harry White » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:20 pm

i had this in my hand yesterday while taking advantage of the B&N "buy two get one free" sale, but put it back in favor of Blast Of Silence; Clean, Shaven; and The Browning Version.

mistake?

User avatar
tryavna
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina

#130 Post by tryavna » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:29 pm

Harry White wrote:mistake?
No. It sounds like you were looking at Criterion's release. The MoC is much better.


Michael, I thought this was one of your central criticisms:
I felt that in Kwaidan, Kobayashi went overboard in over-explaining everything. It very much seemed like a film made largely for western consumption.
I.e., that, in comparison to Hearn's original stories, Kwaidan seemed to pander to a Western audience. At any rate, I didn't read it as "incidental," but rather as one of the reasons for the reaction you had.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#131 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:40 pm

No, I wouldn't say "pander" at all. Making something for Western audiences may involve all sorts of over-explanation -- and yet no pandering.

I feel the excessive level of "exposition" helped make the film uninteresting to me. But I have never felt that any of Kobayashi's films were dishonest or insincere. I sometimes feel he is _too_ earnest, in fact.

(Remember, this is some I would have no problem liking -- except for the minor fact that I am totally out of sympathy with his "style").

And to all concerned -- if you think you want Kwaidan on DVD, you absolutely must buy the MOC version.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#132 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:57 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:
HerrSchreck wrote:He's probably my favorite Japanese director.
I can't imagine prizing Kobayashi over every other Japanese director.
I'm afraid we have very different ideas about what constitutes cinema Mike. I think the radical, avant visual plane gets me going when executed in a certain way, where eastern quietude is your ongoing ideal.

I couldn't imagine spending so much time on a single national cinema at the expense of the rest of the world-- but Vivre La Différence!

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#133 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:58 pm

Not a single national cinema -- in addition to Japan, all the varieties of Chinese cinema, and Korean cinema, and a toe dipped into Philippine cinema, and Quebecois cinema, and certain sub-sets of French cinema, and Hollywood cinema through the 40s (along with a number of other things). ;~}

I don't see Kobayashi as particularly avant garde-ish -- visually or otherwise.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#134 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:04 am

What would cause you to identify an element as avant garde? This may be the issue..

PLenty of touches echoing both expressionism as well as impressionism in Kwaidan in particular. Impressionism of course being the founding core identity of the avant garde.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

#135 Post by Michael Kerpan » Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:33 am

Hani and Teshigahara (and to a lesser extent, Shinoda and Imamura) seem a whole lot closer to avant-garde than Kobayashi -- and yet these directors present no problem for me (at least in general, there are some specific films I'm less than wild about -- such as Hani's Nanami).

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#136 Post by denti alligator » Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:51 am

HerrSchreck wrote: Impressionism of course being the founding core identity of the avant garde.
Now I'm unsure what you mean by "avant garde." Can you explain this remark.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#137 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:23 am

Weirdness amok..

(deleted )

I really don't understand what you don't understand about Impressionism being the core of the avant garde. You know, the way Kirsanoff, Epstein, L'Herbier, Gance, et al were (interchangably called Impressionists, who inspired the soviet avant garde) the founders of the cinematic Avant Garde... hugely feeding the American avant movement with it's founding film grammar.

User avatar
Tommaso
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 10:09 am

#138 Post by Tommaso » Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:43 am

Well, it's difficult if not impossible to speak of THE avantgarde, both in film and in other arts. There's an incredible difference between Stockhausen, Nono and Cage, yet all are seen as perhaps the leading figures in avantgarde music in the 20th century. Same for film: a quick look at the contents of the two Kino avantgarde sets makes it clear that some of them come from an impressionist background (Kirsanoff and Epstein being of course the obvious choices), but many others (Richter, Metzner, Dulac, Isou) follow very different threads but are of course avantgarde as well. The term is misleading I think if it is used to denote a style; it might be helpful if it is used to descibe an attitude of radically pushing the borders of art. In this broad sense "Kwaidan" can be considered 'avantgarde', though it is at odds with what was going on in the 'Japanese avantgarde' (read: new wave) at the time.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#139 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:56 am

I don't agree entirely on either count, though I see what you're getting at-- the new wave (which really only = in the 60's a bunch of young turks going their own way.. no one would claim New Wave = Impressionism) doesnt per se equal the formal aspects of the avant garde film movement, which references something very definitite.

In terms of the Kino set (or the Unseen Cinema set, another box with took even more criticism for it's loose and silly use of the term), we can note a whole hodgepodge of "boundary pushing" or "imaginative" works which include surrealism, french & soviet impressionism, dada, and expressionism... but this is for marketing purposes. Both companies (Kino as well as Anthology during the semester of it's projection/exhibition-symposium on the subject, as well as it's dvd) took hits from the adademic world for, essentially, bad scholarship. Look at the Unseen Cinema stuff... the vast bulk of this (wonderful) set has nothing to do with the avant garde. Advisedly, do not mix Avant Garde as used for sales and marketing of DVDs in the 21st Century as your guide to tracing the bones of a very specific film movement in a way yonder age. Man Ray, Dulac, etc, woulda walked away from you if you pronounced them avant garde filmmakers. They were dada-ist/surrealists, who adhered to their own set of completely seperate ideas vis the avant garde. The same way we Tom know that M is not an Expressionist film, or Dreigroschenoper... that noir is not Expressionist, etc, we know that Dulac and Bunuel are most emphatically not avant garde.

But this is a common issue when a noun becomes an adjective... or in terms of ag an adjective becomes a noun... while continuing to be used as an adjective by those looking to simply to describe "new, strange".

But I'm talking in the strict adacemic sense. As in Expressionism, Surrealism, Poetic Realism, Neorealism, New Wave, etc. Each connotes a specific time and film movement. As does the French Impressionists aka Avant Garde... ie -----> L'Herbier, Gance, Feyder, Bernard, Epstein, Kirsanoff, early Gremillon. Hell even early silent Renoir flirted with it, particularly in The Little Match Girl.

If you told Bunuel in the early 30's that he was an avant garde filmmaker, he'd probably hurl on you, and tell you to get with it. Back then that referenced a very definite (Impressionist) school (from which Bunuel et al radically disagreed with on many fronts), which fed straight into the american avant garde movement. This is all pretty cut & dried stuff guys.

But yes it can be a "descriptive" (as in merely 'radical' or 'new'), but that's like throwing the word expressionism around every time a shadow in a film appears... and we know better right :wink:

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#140 Post by denti alligator » Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:45 pm

These terms are frustratingly promiscuous.

I understand the term avant garde in strictly historical-aesthetic terms a la Peter Bürger, which means those pre-1917 artistic movements that militated against the decadent aestheticism of what Bürger calls the "institution of art," which includes the Impressionists (the painters). The historical Avantgarde is thus Dada, Futurism, Surrealism, and to a certain extent Expressionism. (Now when we talk Expressionist film we are talking about a belated Expressionism that hitherto had only existed in drama, painting, poetry, and isn't strictly speaking (big E) Expressionist at all---but that's another matter altogether.)

To call L'Herbier, Epstein, et al avant garde from Bürger's perspective would be flat-out wrong. The avant garde in film would be Entr'acte or Hans Richter or Duchamp or, yes, early Bunuel.

What confused me about your statement, Schreck, is that I hadn't thought of these filmmakers as employing (big I) Impressionist techniques. It seems the association stems from Bordwell, and--looking only briefly into the debate--is far from being accepted.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#141 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:40 pm

Dent, this would really be hijacking this thread to high heaven. The definition of "avant garde" is not the means to "identify the French Impressionist Avant Garde Movement". I think hence lieth the problem.

But yes, Bordwell utilized the term in strictly cinematic terms-- Burger's thesis if I recollect is concerned primarily with movements in literature and music for the greater picture... problematic in this case imho.

I'm concerned primarily with what the filmmakers considered themselves-- Bunuel most certainly did NOT consider himself a part of the Impressionist Avant Garde. He came up apprenticing with Jean Epstein, a father of the Impressionist Avant Garde, and Bunuel broke with his mentor over differences in ideas and application. One need only look at the wonderful absurdity of the early Bunuel you cite, the lack of a meticulous (or poetical, or painterly) visual style-- the rampant humor, the desire to shock/amuse/puncture and depart from any sense 0f cinematic tradition whatsoever (which Impressionism maintained through typically extreme sincerity of emotion)-- and see immediately the yawning gap that seperated the Surrealists from the Impressionists. Dali- Bunuel wouldn't be caught dead engaging in the soft melancholia, and sincere moaning and groaning viz the pain of life so present in the work of Impressionists.

If that's what Burger believes then I believe he's hugely mistaken. Just put into any engine French Impressionist Avant Garde. I hate citing wiki on anything, but it was my first search result and all seems basically in order:
French Impressionist Cinema, also referred to as The First Avant-Garde or Narrative Avant-Garde, is a term applied to a loose and debatable group of films and filmmakers in France from 1919-1929 (though these years are also debatable).
Needless to say the stylistic variety of these very unique filmmakers within the movement is broad-- as in any "movement", but their bluesy, melancholic, heavily atmospheric, (generally, at least vs the Surrealists) emotionally sincere, laden with the mists and fog of autumn, sundowns, cloudy days, senses of sadness and depression, rampant use of superimposiitions and moody, heavily evocative cinematography, dreamlike atmosphere, extremely poetic symbol orders, etc, great innovations in montage and fractured narrative tie them together enough together for attribution.

If you don't buy the scholarship, you don't buy it. That's fine. You're entitled any opinion you'd like. But I'd encourage to to reexamine the films you have seen, acquire those you haven't (as they can be difficult to get a hold of), consider the threads that tie these filmmakers together, and consider other similarities that may exist between these and others which are less significant.

Anyhow-- and the point was-- I see traces of both Impressionist and Expressionist influence in Kwaidan.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#142 Post by denti alligator » Tue Jun 10, 2008 1:56 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:Dent, this would really be hijacking this thread to high heaven.
That's fine with me. Let's let the mods deal with that.
HerrSchreck wrote:Burger's thesis if I recollect is concerned primarily with movements in literature and music for the greater picture... problematic in this case imho.
No, primarily plastic arts and painting, with literature also prominent. I don't recall if film is ever mentioned. I agree it becomes problematic, and I certaintly don't swallow his thesis hook-line n' all--but it's a powerful argument, and one of the most prominent theorizations of the avant garde.
HerrSchreck wrote:I'm concerned primarily with what the filmmakers considered themselves-- Bunuel most certainly did NOT consider himself a part of the Impressionist Avant Garde.
I think that's a wise approach, and it's too bad that theorists too often ignore how the artists themselves perceived themselves. Bunuel considered himself a Surrealist, and by Buerger's argument, he would be an avant gardist. Epstein most certainly did not consider himself a part of the "Impressionist Avant Garde," either, since it was Bordwell who invented that term (haven't read the Bordwell recently, so maybe I'm wrong here, but that was my impression: this was Bordwell's categorization).
HerrSchreck wrote:If that's what Burger believes then I believe he's hugely mistaken.
From Bordwell's perspective maybe, but even there I'm not so sure Bordwell would disagree with Buerger--it's just that they're employing similar terminology to say different things. And that's why I find Bordwell's terminology so frustrating. He knows Buerger's book. So why adopt a term to mean the opposite of what a prominent theorist has defined it to mean?

Anyway, we're not disagreeing on what these filmmakers are doing. Obviously Bunuel's early work is in another realm from Epstein. How we propose to disignate these is another issue.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#143 Post by zedz » Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:59 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:If that's what Burger believes then I believe he's hugely mistaken. Just put into any engine French Impressionist Avant Garde. I hate citing wiki on anything, but it was my first search result and all seems basically in order:
French Impressionist Cinema, also referred to as The First Avant-Garde or Narrative Avant-Garde, is a term applied to a loose and debatable group of films and filmmakers in France from 1919-1929 (though these years are also debatable).
Needless to say the stylistic variety of these very unique filmmakers within the movement is broad-- as in any "movement", but their bluesy, melancholic, heavily atmospheric, (generally, at least vs the Surrealists) emotionally sincere, laden with the mists and fog of autumn, sundowns, cloudy days, senses of sadness and depression, rampant use of superimposiitions and moody, heavily evocative cinematography, dreamlike atmosphere, extremely poetic symbol orders, etc, great innovations in montage and fractured narrative tie them together enough together for attribution.

If you don't buy the scholarship, you don't buy it. That's fine. You're entitled any opinion you'd like. But I'd encourage to to reexamine the films you have seen, acquire those you haven't (as they can be difficult to get a hold of), consider the threads that tie these filmmakers together, and consider other similarities that may exist between these and others which are less significant.
Further to Schreck's post, I believe that Impressionism was not a post-facto critical label, but was the label chosen by this group to describe themselves (coined by Epstein, I think). (Hence Bunuel's rejection of the label was more about him not belonging to that particular club rather than noting a stylistic difference - though his work of the period was in quite a different vein, see below.)

The term wasn't particularly based on any perceived surface similarity to fine art Impressionism (we shoot things out of focus!), but was chosen to express their intention to embody subjective states of mind cinematically. Hence the common denominators of in-camera effects (dissolves, superimpositions), wild camera movement and advanced editing techniques, as opposed to Expressionism's emphasis on transforming the physical environment that was filmed (set design, makeup, performance, costume).

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#144 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:06 pm

I was waiting for you to catch this thread!
Last edited by HerrSchreck on Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#145 Post by denti alligator » Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:07 pm

zedz wrote:Further to Schreck's post, I believe that Impressionism was not a post-facto critical label, but was the label chosen by this group to describe themselves (coined by Epstein, I think). (Hence Bunuel's rejection of the label was more about him not belonging to that particular club rather than noting a stylistic difference - though his work of the period was in quite a different vein, see below.)
In that case Bordwell's terminology makes more sense. If Epstein et al used the term "avant garde" to describe themselves, I would be curious to know what they meant by it.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#146 Post by HerrSchreck » Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:08 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:I'm concerned primarily with what the filmmakers considered themselves-- Bunuel most certainly did NOT consider himself a part of the Impressionist Avant Garde. He came up apprenticing with Jean Epstein, a father of the Impressionist Avant Garde,

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#147 Post by denti alligator » Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:28 pm

Would the Surrealists really not have thought of themselves as part of an avant garde (as we understand them today)?

Did the "cinematic avant garde" in the 1920s refer specifically and only to the 'Epstein school'?

These are genuine questions: I'm trying to get my bearings on these terms, since I'm really only familiar with the German tradition and its subsequent theorization: Buerger. (I wish I had my Calinescu on hand to see what he has to say.) Hence my confusion about aligning impressionism with avant garde in the first place.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

#148 Post by zedz » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:04 pm

Take all this skeptically - it's been a while since I've read a lot of the stuff around this. I think 'avant garde' as it applies to 20s cinema is a broader (and later) terminology, but it's fairly strongly aligned with what came under the Impressionist umbrella. The 'Soviet Avant-garde', for instance, was co-opted by the French Impressionists because of its similarity in terms of montage techniques. And German Expressionism (and other forward-looking narrative filmmaking) was generally NOT included under the avant-garde label (Expressionism being its own, often sloppily defined, thing). But AG also included various experimental / fine art examples (Ruttman, Leger, Fischinger etc.) and the surrealists.

User avatar
denti alligator
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:36 pm
Location: "born in heaven, raised in hell"

#149 Post by denti alligator » Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:10 pm

To partly answer my own question and back-up Schreck's statements:
Buñuel later said, "Historically the film [Un chien andalou] represents a violent reaction against what in those days was called 'avant-garde,' which was aimed exclusively at artistic sensibility and the audience's reason."
This would of course fly in the face of Buerger's notion of the historical avant garde, which employed exactly those "violent" techniques as an attack on "reason," but with an aimto reintegrate art and life, essentially to sublate art into life, not to uphold its strict division a la the aestheticists.

I just always figured the application of avant garde to film was fuzzy, like the way the term is commonly used today to refer to experimentation. Can some of you recommend some reading where I can trace the development of this concept of the cinematic avant garde in the 1920s, as it was understood then.

skeets kelly
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:03 am
Contact:

Re: 29 Kwaidan

#150 Post by skeets kelly » Mon Dec 22, 2008 3:03 pm

does anyone know where i can get a replacement case for Kwaidan? i just got one in the mail and the case was totally destroyed but it's a weird size...

it's like a double disc case, but it's for a single disc and most of the room is for the booklet. if anyone has any idea where i can get one, i'd greatly appreciate it. the problem is, of course, that i only need one.

Post Reply