A Possible Solution to a Mystery

For me, the most valuable single piece of film criticism by François Truffaut — the one that has taught me the most — is a fairly early one, “Un Trousseau de fausses clés,” about Alfred Hitchcock, that appeared in Cahiers du Cinéma no. 39, octobre 1954. I first encountered this article in an English translation (”Skeleton Keys”) that appeared in Film Culture (Spring 1964), then in Cahiers du Cinéma in English No. 2, 1966. I find it far more ingenious as well as useful as criticism than Truffaut’s over- fetishized “Une Certaine Tendance of Cinema Française,” and the part I remember best (I don’t have a copy handy, but trust my memory on this) is a detailed analysis of Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt in terms of “rhyming” shots and scenes, such as the two reproduced above. Many of these visual/ thematic rhymes involve the film’s two Charlies, a serial murderer of women (Joseph Cotten) and his young and beloved niece (Teresa Wright).

This is an essay that clearly helped to spawn Godard’s own best (and most detailed) work of film criticism — “Le cinéma et son double,” about Hitchcock’s The Wrong Man – as well as the structure of doubling shots and scenes in Rivette’s Céline et Julie vont en bateau. Yet to the best of my knowledge, it hasn’t been included in any of the Truffaut collections published in either French or English, and for some time now, I’ve been trying to figure out why this woeful exclusion happened. I think I’ve finally come up with a plausible explanation.

As I recall, another part of Truffaut’s article addresses discrepancies between what Hitchcock told Bazin and what he told Truffaut and Chabrol, which leads Truffaut to conclude that Hitchcock was a liar. I strongly suspect that it was this statement that dissuaded Truffaut from reprinting the piece. I’m not even sure whether Hitchcock would have cared so much about Truffaut calling him a liar, but clearly Truffaut cared about the possibility of Hitchcock caring. So he effectively suppressed, or at least marginalized. his own best piece of film criticism. [9/30/10]

Published on 30 Sep 2010 in Notes, by jrosenbaum

Comments Off

Videocracy

Having deliberately gone cold turkey with television since I shifted operations to Richmond, Virginia almost six weeks ago, I find it a strange experience to watch Erik Gandini’s 2009 documentary Videocracy on a small, multiregional DVD player — a hate letter of rage and disgust about Silvio Berlusconi, TV, and celebrity culture that premiered in Venice a little over a year ago and will be released on DVD in the U.S. by Lorber on September 27. (In the U.K., the DVD is being released by Second Sight.)

The reason why I’ve sworn off television, at least for the time being, is my own rage and disgust about the way that American television now caters to and encourages everybody’s rage and disgust about the state of the nation, whether this happens to be the Fox News version or the MSNBC version (the Fox News of the left), so that back in Chicago, even my respect for Rachel Maddow was getting tested nightly whenever she wound up with many of the same talking points as Keith Olbermann (or as Bill O’Reilly, for that matter). The aberration of Italian TV that’s being shown by Gandini is made to seem both better and worse: better because it seems more infatuated with euphoric and unabashedly childish fantasies, and worse because so many of these fantasies seem to consist of vulgar and sexist wet dreams of male empowerment.

Of course, there’s bound to be more to American television than such Al Capp characters as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, just as there’s bound to be more to Italian television than Berlusconi, Lele Mora (a greasy talent agent who seems to love Mussolini and his current dictator about equally) and Fabrizio Corona (an equally greasy paparazzi tycoon and blackmailer who surreptitiously tapes his own divorce proceedings in exchange for TV coin). What depresses me the most is the seeming impossibility of knowing whether the TV viewing public in either country is really as crass and as dumb as politics and media insist or whether we’re all stuck in some vicious circle of continuous feedback in which we’re forced to become whatever politics and media assume we are because that’s the only way we can be heard at all. Ergo, still more rage and disgust, even when we choose to laugh about it. [9/25/10]

Published on 25 Sep 2010 in Notes, by jrosenbaum

Comments Off

The Lure of Crime: Feuillade’s FANTOMAS Films

Commissioned and published by Fandor in September 2010. — J.R.

Teaching silent film in the mid-1980s at the University of California, Santa Barbara, I was astonished to discover I was the first teacher there who had ever shown a film by Louis Feuillade. Sadly, there was a good reason: at that time, only one Feuillade film was in distribution in the U.S. — Juve contre Fantômas (Juve vs. Fantômas) — and few if any of my teaching colleagues had ever seen it.

My own introduction to Feuillade, one of the most memorable filmgoing experiences in my life, was attending, on April 3, 1969, a 35-millimeter projection of all seven hours of his 1918 crime serial, Tih Minh, at the Museum of Modern Art -– along with Susan Sontag, Annette Michelson, and other enrapt friends and acquaintances. Part of the shock of that experience was discovering that even though Feuillade was a contemporary of D.W. Griffith — born two years earlier, in 1873 — he seemed to belong to a different century. While Griffith reeks of Victorian morality and nostalgia for the mid-19th century, Feuillade looks forward to the global paranoia, conspiratorial intrigues, and technological fantasies of the 20th century and beyond. Beyond that, he helped to create a kind of crime film all his own, described best by Alain Resnais: “People say there is a Méliès tradition in the cinema, and a Lumière tradition: I believe there is also a Feuillade current, one which marvelously links the fantastic side of Méliès with the realism of Lumière, a current which creates mystery and evokes dreams by the use of the most banal elements of daily life.”

Ever since that MOMA screening, I’ve been a sucker for Feuillade’s crime serials, and after moving to Paris less than half a year later, I was able to attend Cinémathèque screenings of Les vampires (1915), Judex (1916), and Barrabas (1919). The New York Film Festival had already shown the first of these back in 1965 — back when Olivier Assayas, who would later fantasize a remake in his 1996 Irma Vep, was only ten–and the same festival would later show Tih Minh in 1980. But unless you happened to be around for those special events, Feuillade was little more than a vague rumor.

The five Fantômas films of 1913 and 1914—not really serial episodes, though some of them end with cliff-hangers, but separate films — mark the virtual beginning of what Resnais calls the Feuillade current. In May 1912, he’d already cast the title star of Fantômas, Rene Navarre, as detective Jean Dervieux, and this came after Victorin Jasset turned out a series of films about American detective Nick Carter — an earlier avatar of the improbably named American detective, Tom Bob, in the Fantômas series — between 1908 and 1910. And in early 1911, hack authors Pierre Souvestre and Marcel Allain started to issue one 400-page novel per month devoted to the scheming exploits of Fantômas, a series so popular that it would eventually comprise 32 volumes by 1913.

Leon Gaumont,  unlike some of his competitors, was leery of paying out any extra money to fund literary adaptations, but he was goaded into changing his mind once 20-year-old Allain announced to him that Pathé had offered 2,000 francs for the movie rights; given the huge success of the novels, Gaumont would ultimately shell out three times that amount to allow Feuillade to mount a film series, which was ultimately curtailed only by World War I.

Far from complicating the novels, Feuillade took pains to simplify them in terms of character and incident, allowing for a certain grandiosity only when it came to staging climactic scenes, such as the gunfight amongst wine barrels in Bercy (which reflected Feuillade’s earlier profession as a wine merchant, much as Inspector Juve’s journalist pal Jérôme Fandor harked back to his earlier work in journalism), the attack of a boa constrictor, and the apparent dynamiting of Lady Bentham’s villa (actually Feuillade’s own home) in the second film, Juve contre Fantômas.

Many commentators have tried to account for the outsized success of the Fantômas novels and films by citing the popular exploits of the anarchist Bonnot gang, who operated in France and Belgium in 1911-1912, celebrated for their high-tech ingenuity (such as their use of automobiles and repeating rifles, neither of which was available to the police at the time). Since their first robbery occurred in Paris in December 1911, when the Fantômas novels were already well underway, one can’t see them starting the craze, although they undoubtedly helped to fuel it. Probably more to the point are the notions of crime as art and art as metaphysics that inspired such poets as Robert Desnos and Jacques Prévert, whereby cop and crook become periodically interchangeable and staid appearances deceive almost by definition, providing the early template for Feuillade’s master serials.

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/58773_153678631323463_138740802817246_378605_6814517_n.jpg

Published on 25 Sep 2011 in Notes, by jrosenbaum


Published on 25 Sep 2010 in Notes, by jrosenbaum

Comments Off

DEAD MAN in 2010: A Czech Preface

This was written in September 2010 to introduce the Czech translation and edition of my book about Dead Man (BFI, 2000), which I believe has just been published. — J.R.

During the fifteen years that have passed since Jim Jarmusch’s sixth and most ambitious feature premiered in Cannes, it’s been gratifying to see its critical reputation steadily rising, especially in the U. S. And during the last two-thirds of this period, after this book made its first appearance, I’ve been pleased to see its constituency growing. It has subsequently had a second edition in English, which appeared in 2008, and a French translation, by Justine Malle, published by Les Éditions de la Transparence in 2005. Now that it’s coming out in a Czech edition, it’s worth mentioning (but not dwelling too much on) the fact that Jarmusch’s paternal grandparents were Bohemian, although they never spoke any Czech in his presence. (He also told me, with some hesitation, that his mother’s parents may have been Irish; he isn’t even sure about this.) I was in Cannes in 1995, and the several walkouts during the picture that I witnessed were hardly unprecedented, especially for a demanding film of this kind at this festival. But for many years afterwards, the film qualified as a film maudit, and not only because its own American distributor, Miramax, appeared to want it to fail, after it became clear that Jarmusch had no intentions of following any of its suggestions for re-editing (specifically, those of Harvey Weinstein) — an attitude in striking contrast to that of Weinstein protégé Quentin Tarantino, misleadingly identified as an independent filmmaker, who seemed quite happy to forego final cut in exchange for getting Weinstein’s unlimited support.

But Dead Man had still other strikes against it to block its reception in the mainstream, especially undeclared ideological ones. If memory serves, it was the first Jarmusch feature (apart from Permanent Vacation, which never had any proper American release) not to be reviewed in The New Yorker — one indication among others that the country’s most influential tastemakers were basically baffled by it — or, if not always baffled, so unhinged by its implicit critique of white America that it was easier simply to pretend that the film didn’t exist than try to cope with it. The very fact that it was political at all, at least to a degree unprecedented for Jarmusch, already posed a problem, although it wasn’t a problem that was expressed or addressed in political terms. (This is a longstanding American tradition when it comes to responding to aggressive political critiques in the mainstream — a refusal to perceive or process the work’s politics, a fate that had already been encountered even more starkly by Elaine May’s devastating and prescient 1987 comedy about American stupidity and show-biz politics in the Middle East, Ishtar, a film that to this day is labeled an abject failure in the U.S. with no political content at all, even by alleged leftists.)

But maybe it would be more accurate to say that it took some time for Dead Man and what it was saying and doing to sink in. Today, while it still hasn’t made back its budget — as Jarmusch himself explains to me in the book, it is far and away his most costly film, mainly, it appears, due to the expenses incurred by a desire to be historically accurate—he reports that it’s still the film of his that gets mentioned to him the most often, and it keeps getting re-licensed. His biggest commercial successes to date have been Broken Flowers, especially in the U.S., and Down by Law, but it seems pretty safe to say that Dead Man remains the most respected of his films in most parts of the world.

When I presented it at a special screening in Zagreb in July 2007 — after being asked to get the Croatian audience to discuss it afterwards, with the warning that they never liked to talk about films after screenings — I asked them to consider whether they viewed it only or mainly as a film about America or also as a film about Croatia. As I recall, they turned out to be somewhat divided on this subject. To ask the same question to Czech readers, who belong to another recently subdivided country, may result in similar ambivalences and ambiguities: Croatia, the Czech Republic, and the United States today all might be described as countries that have suffered painful subdivisions. But in any case, I think most people nowadays grow up with many of the same movie myths about the American West, wherever they happen to live, and almost all of them will necessarily feel excluded from appreciating the untranslated Native American dialogue — which is as it should be, considering how much else Native American viewers are made to feel excluded from. But everyone, I think, in the U.S. and elsewhere, will be able to appreciate Jarmusch’s abiding sense of mystery and poetry about the specter of death.

Jonathan Rosenbaum

September 2010

Published on 05 Sep 2010 in Notes, by jrosenbaum

Comments Off