Contents:
There were also fragments of porn films that Godard identified by country: With Daney, by contrast, he spoke so much about the project that he even included him in one of the episodes. I think that he showed him the beginning of the film and that the conversations started there, although only a little fragment is conserved in the film. As far as I am concerned, at the beginning I was too intimidated to be a true interlocutor. We had hardly seen each other during my time at Cahiers — in contrast with Narboni, with whom he had talked often and who even appeared in Two or Three Things.
The Godard ideologue of the late s scared me.
He filmed one of his films in my building, in which I think Adolpho Arrietta was in charge of photography. But Godard only accepted verbally and never fulfilled what he had promised: He only took part in one of three round tables.
We saw each other in a few occasions then, because I was in charge of selecting the speakers for the round tables. Going back to that ideological shake to montage and to the impact of the rediscovery of Russian avant-gardes in the critical evolution of Cahiers , what was left of American cinema after that? After that initial rejection of the New American Cinema , after that Soviet turn and the discovery of the new cinemas, did the view of classical cinema change in later film criticism?
The crux of the question is Nicholas Ray. I worked making subtitles, and that allowed me to see new films. Wenders was beginning to reflect, but in another way. American cinema, but in another way, trying to understand the films as a Frenchman, without focusing on the industrial context or the prestige of that particular film-maker at the time that the film was premiered. I knew the technique and the violent reaction of the Americans to or way of seeing his cinema.
We were those who liked Jerry Lewis.
Those who wrote about it, such as Guy Fihman or Claudine Eyzikman, mostly looked for an institutional recognition. Why were we excited by those films and not by the New American Cinema? He had screened for instance Louis Feuillade 6 one-hor film series in one day: We saw Fantomas or Vampires Les Vampires , , without intertitles, only following the images, something that was essential for Rivette. Among other long screenings, I would only highlight the 4-and-a-half-hour screening of Jaguar by Jean Rouch, showing the unfinished film and commenting it.
When Cottrell, who also worked making subtitles and to whom I frequently spoke, said that Wenders was preparing a film with Ray, I thought that it would be the perfect occasion of travelling to the US for the first time and observing. I visited the shooting for a week. Then, little by little, I kept a correspondence with his wife, who mentioned the possibility of writing a biography about him. Swanberg, , a reference for me, since it was based on documents; it was a beautiful book that taught me a lot about America. I started to have the desire to write a biography of Ray when I realised that it was a way to think about American cinema and the way we are used to writing about it.
I asked myself if we would have treated it the same way had we known how it was made, since there they said that if that was the case we would have never taken Ray o Jerry Lewis seriously. Biography played a part in the work of the film-makers that were no longer making impersonal films, as Howard Hawks, and were instead making films with a purely biographical sensibility: Anatole Dauman, the producer of Night and Fog Nuit et brouillard , or Hiroshima mon amour by Alain Resnais, among others, prepared then a film with Elia Kazan about his relationship to Turkey, a project thus related to America America Elia Kazan, In spite of the cinema he made, Kazan was someone warm and curious, so he was my first interviewee.
Over the next five or six years, with the money I earned with the subtitles, I travelled to the US to continue conducting interviews during that transitional period in the history of cinema. When I started writing, in , the first video recordings and VHS appeared, which offered the opportunity to watch the films again. On the other hand, the Major Studios thought that it was tax-wise more interesting to donate the official and personal archives to American university libraries.
In Los Angeles, in the university library one can access the archives of the RKO, where Ray made at least half of his films. Labarthe also conducted his research on Orson Welles there.
Studying the different versions of the scripts or the production archives, I could work according to the American criteria. Over time, I collected VHS and was able to watch the films again. For me, it was an opportunity to go back, in an objective way, to American cinema and the way we had seen it. For me, it was a personal journey, but one that was also satisfied my curiosity about non-film history, something rather rare amongst film writers: And American history is fascinating — not only the one about the crisis and the black lists, but also the rest.
The book was, for me, like a shake and when I finished it I felt I have closed something. It was the utopian side identified by Ray himself in Lightening over Water: This is what he tried to do and what he did.
It was such attempt that the film-makers of the previous generation had discovered in his work, such as Rivette, Godard or Truffaut: My research reinforced the tradition of Cahiers. Ray moves forward by going beyond the rules set by Hollywood.
Romans, Cinema, Theatre, UN Parcours (French Edition) [Marguerite Duras] on www.farmersmarketmusic.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Hard to Find book. Camera, Cinema, Tralala (Roman Jeunesse, 17) (French Edition) [Raymond Plante] on www.farmersmarketmusic.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. About the Julien.
He thought that even sexual pleasure would be extirpated from humanity. This was the idea: And what was left of the French cinema then? For me, as for Eustache, who at the end of his life would only see the films he recorded from television, the experience of cinema changed at a certain point. There were moments when our outlooks coincided and other moments when they did not.
Could you comment on this quotation from Umberto Eco: The postmodern reply to the modern consists of recognizing the past, since it cannot really be destroyed, because its destruction leads to silence, must be revisited; but with irony, not innocently. I am interested in your thoughts on the debate between modernism and postmodernism, and their relation to your work.
I never spoke of destroying the past. Flaubert has been my inspiration. As for Umberto Eco, he is a dual character. He was at the vanguard of the modernist movement, but he is now writing populist novels. He was the theoretician of the avant-garde movement, but he has come back to the past. He speaks in this quotation about himself. The idea that the avant-garde has failed and that one must back track is absurd. The avant-garde must by definition fail, because each writer must go to the ultimate conclusion of his or her ideas. As for Postmodernism, it is a bad description.
It was created as a specific concept, situated in a precise context — that of German architecture. It means a reaction against the utilitarianism of the Bauhaus type of architecture. It was used in literature in the seventies, especially in American criticism. It was misunderstood and misapplied. I have not understood either, all the more that in some articles I was viewed as a postmodernist and in others I was viewed as a modernist.
I do not like this word as its use is pretty much impossible. I like popular images when they are taken up by art. Marcel Duchamp was the first to have taken ordinary objects and to have transformed them in his work. The American School of painting, like the work of Robert Rauschenberg, is in fact a perfect example of the way Pop Art has been inspired by everyday objects.
In literature a book like La maison de rendez-vous , or Project For a Revolution in New York , are also inspired by popular imagery, but this imagery is completely transformed in the writing process. When I deal with popular imagery as a source of influence in my work, I use it as a critically distancing process. Irony, in the French language, is a value judgement, whereas humour means that you stand back and it does not automatically imply a value judgement.
The humour in my work was understood only of late. For a very long time I was viewed as a novelist and film director lacking in humour. With Last Year in Marienbad very few people saw humour in it. The erotic imagery in my books and films are just that, materials drawn from the influence of pop images which I use. I transform them, purify them and create a new semiotic system out of them, to communicate and create something else.
In his articles, one on The Erasers and the other on The Voyeur , he emphasised the projection onto the object, thus creating a paradox around the concept of objectivity. There have been profound changes in the world, and consequently in the outlook of readers. Hence, in Italy, one could find the most fascinating cinema in B movies, genre films, comedies, historical films, in peplums, and in action films. Because the cinema changes? It was created as a specific concept, situated in a precise context — that of German architecture. He only took part in one of three round tables.
Read more Read less. Product details Grade Level: Roman Jeunesse, 17 Book 17 Paperback: Be the first to review this item Would you like to tell us about a lower price? I'd like to read this book on Kindle Don't have a Kindle? Our favorite toys for everyone on your list Shop now. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. There's a problem loading this menu right now.
Learn more about Amazon Prime. Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime.
Get to Know Us.