It ain’t pretty but here’s a pdf that you will find indispensable in the weeks to come as we discuss film in greater depth.
From roughly 28 min. to 38.
Anyone who’d like to receive an intelligent and idiosyncratic introduction to the history of world cinema should screen Mark Cousins’s epic The Story of Film: An Odyssey (2011). It’s streaming on netflix and can be found on youtube. I recommend it very enthsiastically.
Should you look at the note on terminology in Bould’s study of film noir you’ll see that he distinguishes between determinism, fate, predictability, and causality. The image he uses to visualize determinism– the collapsing wave– departs somewhat from more familiar descriptions of the film noir universe. In Nicholas Christopher’s Somewhere in the Night, for example, the labyrinth is deployed to great effect as a model of the genre:
It is night, always. The hero enters a labyrinth on a quest. He is alone and off-balance. He may be desperate, in flight, or coldly calculating, imagining he is the pursuer rather than the pursued.
A woman invariably joins him at a crucial juncture, when he is most vulnerable. In his eyes she may appear to be wreathed in light, beatific — a Beatrice — guiding and protecting him. Or duplicitous — a Circe — spinning webs of deceit and leading him directly to danger. Often she is a hybrid of the two, whose eventual betrayal of him (or herself) is as ambiguous as her feelings about him. Others seek overtly to thwart him, through brute force or subtler manipulation, or to deflect him into serving their ends. His antagonists are figures of authority, legal or criminal, that loom out of his reach, or else misfits and outcasts in thrall to the powerful. However random the obstacles in his path may seem, the forces behind them are always more powerful than he.
At the same time, the majority of people he encounters are powerless, and either indifferent to him, or terrified of being drawn into his orbit. When someone does extend him a helping hand, it is usually one of the most downtrodden — crippled, blind, destitute — who have little to lose, though for assisting him, they may pay with their lives. Crime as a constant, and vice and corruption, flourish in every stratum of society through which he passes. The farther he progresses, the more clearly his flaws come into focus. Whatever his surroundings, he remains isolated. The acts of nobility and high-mindedness we customarily associate with heroes in other forms are a luxury he can seldom afford.
He descends downward, into an underworld, on a sprial. The object of his quest is elusive, often an illusion. Usually he is destroyed in one of the labyrinth’s innermost cells, by agents of a larger design of which he is only dimly aware.
On rare occasion — and here the woman may play the role of Ariadne in the myth of Theseus, leading him out as well as in — he reemerges into the light with infernal (but often unusable) tools to apply in the life he left behind. But scarred as well, and embittered, with no desire to return to the labyrinth, even were he equipped to do so. More likely, if he survives at all, he is a burnt-out case. And the woman, also like Ariadne, is certain to be abandoned, or destroyed in his place, sometimes sacrificing herself for him, in the end as ignorant as he of that larger design in which they were pawns.
Note that in Christopher’s rendering the noir narrative does not always end in total destruction but can perhaps lead to a condition akin to apparent acquittal or protraction.
I think this is pertinent to our discussion on Tuesday.
The person who originally posted this did so to show his students that this scene breaks the 180 degree rule. Can you see where specifically he might be right?
Fritz Lang’s late Expressionist masterpiece– based on Thea von Harbou’s novel and rescored by The New Pollutants:
We’ll be screening from the 1:22 mark to about 1:34. This pdf will be incredibly useful in thinking about German Expressionist Cinema: FilmExpressionismHandout
We can think about capitalist cinema in at least two ways:
1) films that explicitly address the world of accumulation, speculation, production, or consumption– that is, films that take as major themes or leitmotifs the procedures and trappings of capitalist economy AND
2) films that simply by virtue of having been produced in a capitalist society OF NECESSITY function as symptoms of their socio-historical context.
Clearly the second category presupposes what is perhaps already blindingly obvious: that a text (any text: film, novel, song, fashion, etc.) cannot help but bear the marks of not only its maker but its maker’s moment.
(This will be the case, I want to argue, even in the event that the object produced is a replica of an artifact identified with a prior age. A reproduction of a fetish, carved carefully from bone in direct proportion to a model taken from an archeological exhibit is still contemporary art not simply because it was produced in the present but because its status as a copy deprives it of ritual significance.)
Margin Call (US 2011), The Jewel (Italy 2011), and Life Without Principle (China 2011) belong in the first category. All of them are entertaining and address corruption and financial speculation (the latter, a film by Johnnie To, juxtaposes corporate malfeasance with “blue-collar” crime). Yet notably, these films, far from indicting capitalism function as its co-conspirators. As Baudrillard argues in Simulacra and Simulations, scandal serves to conceal the fact that the system itself is scandalous. To focus on the appalling greed of financier-sociopaths is to simply reiterate the tired alibi that our problems are caused by “a few bad apples.” But it’s not the apples; it’s the barrel.
This article by Michael Mark Cohen has been getting some attention. See what you think: