Film School, Jellyfish, GRE, etc.

[oscar jubis]

I have decided to return to the University of Miami 27 years after I graduated with a major in sociology and anthropology. One of the courses I took during my final year was History of Motion Pictures with Stephen Bowles, Ph. D., who is still teaching there. I have enrolled in a graduate-level course, Film Directors, which is being taught by Dr. William Rothman. He hasn't revealed who are the directors that will be the focus of our study beginning wednesday. Given that Rothman has written one of the best books on Hitchcock, it makes sense that the "master of suspense" will be one of the directors under scrutiny. I'll be taking this course partly as a way to prove to myself that I belong in academia. I have yet to actually apply to Graduate School. If I do well and I enjoy it, I would immediately submit writing samples and other admission requirements. Among them, a good score on the test called the GRE. Now this is a bit scary to me. I didn't have to take the GRE or any other test to gain admission to Graduate School at Ohio State in 1981. The test involves not only writing two essays on subjects about which I have little knowledge or interest, but also completing a math test. Basically I'm going to have to spend significant time studying algebra and other fun subjects if I want to do well enough to make it into film school.

As implied above, I have yet to commit to getting a Masters in Film Studies but the possibility seems enticing. I love cinema and I feel a need to get a bit deeper into it. My taste for movies is rather eclectic, trying to catch as many as I can, from foreign silents and docs to the latest Hollywood blockbuster (can't wait for The Dark Knight). Well, it seems like it's time to narrow my interests and perhaps specialize a bit. I'm going to have to do that in school. Do a lot of viewing, reading, thinking and writing about a specific genre, director, or film. I'm still not clear where a degree in film studies would lead and that's something to discuss with Bowles and Rothman over the next couple of months. I don't want to end up writing about the latest releases at a mainstream paper but perhaps I do want to have essays published in film journals, teach at the college level, get involved in festival programming, or film restoration. I hope to get a sense rather soon as to where a degree might lead.

Basically I'm sharing all this here because you feel like friends to me and maybe you might want to offer opinions about my plans. Another reason is to preemptively explain why I won't be posting many reviews in the coming months. I do hope to continue watching the best new releases and post brief opinions about them in the form of commentary. One film I wish I had time to review right now is Jellyfish, the Israeli film that won the Camera D'Or at Cannes last year. It's set in Tel Aviv and it's entirely apolitical. It was written by Shira Geffen and directed by Geffen and Edgar Keret, a famous short story author who is married to Geffen. The film is formally interesting with intricate tracking shots and some unusual camera angles. Jellyfish focuses on three women: a girl who works as a waitress for a wedding catering company, a Filipina who cares for elderly women who need assistance, and a bride who breaks her ankle at her wedding. Somehow these three are brought together by a magical character that serves as a sort of deux ex machina: a wide-eyed, mute girl of about five who swims out of the Mediterranean Sea. The plot is low in plausability but Jellyfish establishes a strong sense of place and the characterizations ring true. Two movies I'll be watching soon: the new David Mamet film, Red Belt, and the Canadian documentary Up the Yangtze (already reviewed by Chris Knipp in the SFIFF thread).

Anyway, those are the tentative plans. Any comments, suggestions, ideas, etc. are welcome.

[Chris Knipp]

A logical step for you. If you can do it now, great! Obviously not newspaper reviewing. Don't forget your knowledge of Spanish. Don't narrow yourself down too fast. Keep that for marketing yourself and doing research, but for teaching if you do it catholic tastes and sympathies are more appreciated. If your brain is still working, the GRE should not be too much trouble to pass, though you may need to do some boning up on math. You wouldn't have needed that applying from college usually, but it's used for people applyying from Life.

I never reviewed or saw the US distributed Up the Yangtze but did see long ago and review Jia Zhang-ke's Still Life (Paris, last October). Please see my index of SFIFF reviews, which is in three places on this site. I am disappointed you have only commented on the titles or movies I reviewed and didn't read my reviews or if you did, made no comment. I tried to comment on your Miami reviews as much as I could, and to read most if not all of your reviews on the thread.

I will be seeing some in theaters too now and the Mamet and Jellyfish are obvious choices though in theory I want to unwind from all the festival fare with more pop stuff like HARRY AND KUMAR ESCAPE FROM GUANTANAMO BAY.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
A logical step for you. If you can do it now, great!
Thanks. I do want to point out the tentative nature of the plans I've shared. I am a rather cautious person. As of now, I am enrolled in one course taught by a guy with a reputation as a brilliant and very demanding academic. I met him a few years ago when he gave a lecture on Jean Rouch at the University. I am preparing for the course by reading his book "Hitchcock: the Murderous Gaze". If I enjoy it and do well on the course, then I will immediately begin the process of application into Graduate School (one can take one or two courses without committing to a degree program).

Don't narrow yourself down too fast. Keep that for marketing yourself and doing research, but for teaching if you do it catholic tastes and sympathies are more appreciated.
I think my eclectic film watching over the past 30 years is a solid foundation. But once you enter film school, as one student tells me, one is practically forced to focus and narrow one's interests.

If your brain is still working, the GRE should not be too much trouble to pass, though you may need to do some boning up on math.
To be honest, I've been reading about the test and I am a bit intimidated. I think I'm going to have to study a lot of math on my own, practice writing essays (and take firm positions) on topics not related to film, improve my vocabulary, etc.


I never reviewed or saw the US distributed Up the Yangtze but did see long ago and review Jia Zhang-ke's Still Life (Paris, last October).
My mistake. You've mentioned the film thrice in your posts but now I realize you never reviewed it. We've talked about the excellent Still Life, one of my favorite films of 2008.

I am disappointed you have only commented on the titles or movies I reviewed and didn't read my reviews or if you did, made no comment.
I posted nine times on your SFIFF thread, including one post you might have missed in which I mention the possibility of my attending next year. I read all your reviews, a couple of them more than once. I admit I find it inappropriate to be critical about reviews of films I haven't seen. I'll probably keep reviving the thread like I did with the Paris-October one after watching Caramel and my first film by Nolot. Anyway, like I said in one of the posts, you've done an excellent job. Just read your review of the Kechiche film. It's amazing to find such high degree of congruence in our opinions.

I will be seeing some in theaters too now and the Mamet and Jellyfish are obvious choices though in theory I want to unwind from all the festival fare with more pop stuff like HARRY AND KUMAR ESCAPE FROM GUANTANAMO BAY.
I'd say leave Kumar alone and check out Downey Jr. as Iron Man but you know what turns you on.

[Chris Knipp]

Enjoying a couple of courses taken randomly was what led me to go to graduate school. Realize you haven't committed yourself. I do not know about the GRE but I'm sure it does require boning up as I said.

I realize you posted on the SFIFF thread but your posts did not show you had read the reviews or start discussion and I wish they had. As you say you can "revive" the thread later at least though by then I will have moved on... I realize Iron Man has gotten good reviews. I was not ruling out seeing it just because I didn't mention it. Maybe I do prefer stoner movies to superhero comicbook flicks though.

[oscar jubis]

*In my case, the GRE would require A LOT of "boning up". The plan is to decide by the end of June whether to apply, go on vacation to the SW (including a visit to Monument Valley where many of my fave westerns were filmed) to clear my head, then study intensely in July, and take the test in early August.
*Most of the films you reviewed were films I hadn't seen by new directors. I always read everything you write. But I don't always have something intelligent to add or to ask.
*You prefer "stoner comedies". The thing about me that can become a liability is that I don't prefer anything to anything.

[Chris Knipp]

Have a nice trip and good luck on the test.

For good or ill I'm the type who can think of a comment on anything, including most movies whether I've seen them or not. At the SFIFF I tried naturally to avoid the films you'd just covered at Miami, though I saw a couple just because they came my way and seemed too interesting to pass up--Stranded, anyway, and I would like to have seen La Zona. In the City of Sylvia I had seen already at the NYFF. As for The Secret of the Grain I was looking forward to that egardless of who had seen it. I was helped by recommendations from you, also arsaib; and Travis, whose choices I went to though he wasn't free to (Shadows in the Palace, Sleep Dealer, Valse Sentimentale).

I can't believe you don't prefer anything to anything else. You've shown a preference for movies in Spanish in doing Miami, quite logically since you know the language. But if you don't prefer anything otherwise maybe it's a good idea to work on that. Certainly there are kinds of movie you don't like--crappy blockbusters.

[cinemabon]

Film school is that strange mixture of the academic and the practical. On the one hand, you have your theorists, and I would throw critics into that bunch. They scrutinize, analyze, and report their findings along with applying their knowledge of film in deciphering meaning and intent.

Then you have the practical group, the ones that 'have a good idea,' pick up a camera and try to realize that vision. I would probably identify more with the later than the former, as I did just that in film school, avoiding classes in theory unless they were required. I can't even spell or pronounce the Czech film director that taught my theory classes. You would have loved him, Oscar. I think I got more out of my editing class than I did from any other in film school. I understood how film "works" through editing, more than writing, an argument for the ages.

Since I was invited to join this group, I've discovered a world of international cinema through your posts, that also reveal a bit of your character. In many ways, I feel I know you, Chris, Johann, and others via this site, as we have expressed our feelings on a variety of subjects, but mainly film. However, even in written criticism, the man, the writer, often bears his own soul, so to speak.

Any school is good, whatever the subject and at any time of life. I love school and envy anyone that has the money and time to attend. Good luck. Keep us informed on your progress.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon Film school is that strange mixture of the academic and the practical. On the one hand, you have your theorists, and I would throw critics into that bunch. They scrutinize, analyze, and report their findings along with applying their knowledge of film in deciphering meaning and intent. Then you have the practical group, the ones that 'have a good idea,' pick up a camera and try to realize that vision. I would probably identify more with the later than the former, as I did just that in film school
The division is very clear. At UM, most get degrees in "film production" and very few get degrees in "film studies". I met a student who organized the recent Japanese Classics retrospective and he was upset at the very poor attendance from students. The emphasis is on the technical aspects of filmmaking; on the new technologies. There's a complete disregard for the history of cinema and it begins with the (film production) faculty. I believe that the two camps can benefit from each other. In my opinion, some knowledge of the nuts and bolts of filmmaking is required to be a good film critic. Many critics lack that knowledge and it's apparent in their writing.

However, even in written criticism, the man, the writer, often bears his own soul, so to speak.
Absolutely.

I love school and envy anyone that has the money and time to attend. Good luck. Keep us informed on your progress.
Thank you, cinemabon. I don't have the money (I get tuition remission because my wife has worked for 20+ years for a hospital that is owned by UM's Medical School). I do have time to take one or two courses per semester. I'll keep y'all posted.

Have a nice trip and good luck on the test. (CK)
Thanks Chris.

I can't believe you don't prefer anything to anything else. You've shown a preference for movies in Spanish in doing Miami, quite logically since you know the language. But if you don't prefer anything otherwise maybe it's a good idea to work on that. Certainly there are kinds of movie you don't like--crappy blockbusters. (CK)
I don't like crappy anything. I do Miami because it's one of the best fests in the land in terms of organization and number of good films shown that have no distributor. And because it's right here. It benefits from the fact that Argentina, Brazil, Spain and lately Mexico (the last Chicago fest, for instance, had 7 Mexican films) are producing very good films lately. But I've championed films from Iran and South Korea with equal enthusiasm because they are often outstanding.

[Johann]

Great way to spend your time, Oscar.

I "sat in" on two courses at the Vancouver Film School with my then-enrolled friend Ian- one was on Double Indemnity (yes a whole course on that one film) and the other was on Stanley Kubrick and the influence of Chaplin on his films. Both were awesome. The instructor used DVD's and a huge screen to pause, stop, highlight, play again, take questions.
Very hands-on at VFS.
But really expensive.
I talked to a lot of students about the school and most said in hindsight they would not have gone, for a number of reasons. The number one complaint I heard about VFS was the equipment. Students always had a hard time securing all of the hardware from the school- cameras, booms, dollies, and other important stuff was always signed out and hard to track down.
And when you got a project that needs completion, you NEED that shit now.

Pushing your knowledge even further is always awesome man.

Remember Truffaut remained a student of cinema long after he started directing. There's always something you can glean.

GO KUBRICK

[oscar jubis]

Yes, GO KUBRICK.
Thanks for sharing your experiences at VFS.
One whole course on Double Indemnity!

My course this semester is called "Film Directors" but it should be titled "Alfred Hitchcock". The greatest mistake people make about Hitch is regarding him, not quite as a serious artist, but as a director whose sole aim was to entertain, mostly by creating suspense and mystery. This is partly Hitchcock's doing as he embodied contrasting impulses to be acknowledged as an artist and to hide from plain view the qualities that make him so much more than a brilliant technician and the "master of suspense". Those who look closely will find a reflective quality about his films; an engagement with the nature of the medium and the role of the viewer that can be traced all the way back to The Lodger. Chronologically it was his third film but the first one that attains "a modern self-consciousness", hence the first "Hitchcockian" movie. Today we watched and discussed The Lodger and the romantic comedy Rich and Strange.

[cinemabon]

My exposure to Hitch is via Donald Spoto. I had his book, "The Art of Hitchcock" in the middle 1970's but did not buy his "Dark side of genius" book where he psychoanalyzed Hitch's relationship with his leading ladies. I saw him give a lecture on Hitch years ago.

"Rear Window" is the perfect example of pure Hitch: view and point of view (I don't recall the French term for this). The actor... what he sees... his reaction, shot in two completely different locations, pieced together in the mind of the audience. Brilliantly edited by George Tomasini (collaborated on 9 films).

A true invovator, Hitch cameraman Robert Burks (DP on 12 films) invented the dolly in/zoom out technique copied by many directors, first used in "Vertigo" Next to "Godfather II" I would rate "Vertigo" as the greatest film in America cinema, pure auteur!

[oscar jubis]

*It cannot be entirely coincidental that the last Hitchcock film that included Mr. Burks and Mr. Tomasini as collaborators was the last great film Hitchcock would make.

*I haven't read Donald Spoto's books on Hitchcock but I know they are highly reputable. Of the more recent books on Hitch's art, the one by Aussie critic Robin Wood gets high marks. I haven't read that one either which tells you how much of an expert I am. I'm catching up fast though. Right now it's all about watching and learning about Hitchcock for me. I'm on my third viewing of The Lodger (1927).

*I also think Vertigo is the greatest American film, along with Citizen Kane and The Searchers.

[oscar jubis]

I completed the course Film Directors: Alfred Hitchcock. Scrutinizing his films proved to be quite the experience. My appreciation for Hitchcock's artistry has grown by leaps and bounds over the past couple of months. Three films in particular revealed riches unknown to me based on previous viewings: Murder! (an early talkie he made in Britain), Shadow of a Doubt, and Psycho. My term paper concerned Psycho viewed from a psychoanalytic perspective with a strong focus on protagonist Norman Bates as a figure of identification. Strangers on a Train and the other films released after Notorious (1946) and before Rear Window (1954) emerged as lesser works from a great artist. Also, the still underrated Marnie, a film I've championed for years, reveals flaws that keep it out of the top tier despite highly laudable aspects. Viewing Hitchcock's work while persistently accounting for the camera and what it's doing in relation to the characters, the action, and the themes was very rewarding.

I'm preparing to take the GRE in late July and complying with all the other requirements to be admitted as a canditate for the Masters in Film Studies. I will probably take two courses in the Fall. For the time being I am enrolled in one: a survey of French cinema.

[cinemabon]

Last month I purchased "The Ultimate Hitchcock Collection" which is a misnomer, as it only contains the English titles before "Rebecca" (his only film nominated for Best Picture). The collection has "Sabotage"; "Jamaica Inn"; "The Lady Vanishes"; "The Man who knew too much" (first version); "The 39 Steps"; "Secret Agent"; "Young and Innocent"; plus even smaller films such as "Easy Virtue"; "Rich and Strange"; "Blackmail"; "The skin game" along with 1963's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" and 1955's TV "The Cheney Vase"

This is Hitchcock on a small budget with cheesy special effects yet with quality English actors. For $22.00 at Amazon.com, this is a bargain.

[Chris Knipp]

Nonetheless Strangers on a Train is a childhood favorite of mine, and that makes sense because I subsequently became a big Patricia Highsmith fan. I don't think I agree with the critics and academics' relative rankings of Hitchcock's films. I'm sure they have good reasons though.

P.s. I just missed Jellyfish in theaters.

[oscar jubis]

cinemabon:
You're right. That set is a bargain and it should have been called British Hitchcock or something to that effect. Some of my favorites are missing though: The Ring, The Lodger and, especially, Murder!. Because these early Hitch sets are cheap, no one with qualifications has bothered (as far as I know) to review the quality of the different prints available on dvd.
Unlike fantasy or sci-fi movies of the period, these Hitchcock films don't depend on special effects at all. It doesn't really matter that some effects are "cheesy".

Chris Knipp:
Strangers on a Train has a clever premise and a monumental performance by Robert Walker. It looks great too as one would expect of any film lensed by Robert Burks_his first for Hitchcock. The opening of the film is quite effective, culminating with one of Hitch's trademark shot/reverse-shot sequences when Bruno and Guy meet inside the train. Excellent repeated use of the tune "And the Band Played On".
There are certain problems with the development of the plot, particularly the scene in which Guy breaks into Bruno's home in the middle of the night. The film lacks the requisite emotional investment on the part of an audience watching a film like Notorious or the socio-political critique of Shadow of a Doubt or the existential investigation one finds in Vertigo.

[Chris Knipp]

Strangers on a Train has a lot of "emotional investment" if you relate to the very Highsmithian device of being drawn into the mentality of a criminal psychopath, which she does in an especially effective way in this early novel by having Bruno lure Guy into changing places. There is also a lot of very Hitchcockian suspense in the use of cross-cutting in the later sequences between the cigarette lighter and the tennis match. I should think you would consider that worthy of study, actually. Of course Walker's turn is notable, but Granger is also perfect as a foil; they don't make classy good guys like that any more. The comparison with Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt, and Vertigo seems somewhat irrelevant; they're all so different. In terms of a suspense structure maybe Vertigo would most analogous. But Vertigo's plot is so hokey, so ludicrous--TV stuff. I've never quite understood why it is set up on a pedestal the way it is, though it is now so elaborately canonized that there is no turning back. Obviously it's one of those films that is good material for analysis--and accessible that way to high school and college students alike. So, have you really seen over sixty Hitchcock films?

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
Strangers on a Train has a lot of "emotional investment" if you relate to the very Highsmithian device of being drawn into the mentality of a criminal psychopath
If when you say "being drawn into the mentality..." you imply that the film fosters or facilitates the viewer's identification with and empathy towards Bruno then your reaction to the character is rather unique and original. The view that Bruno is presented as a rather grotesque character and most importantly, regarded by the camera as such, was uniformly held by the students in my class and the authors we read. This stands in contrast with the presentation of Norman Bates in Psycho. In SOAT, it's Guy that's served by Hitch as a figure of identification. But he's rather bland and Granger's performance doesn't help to make him interesting.

There is also a lot of very Hitchcockian suspense in the use of cross-cutting in the later sequences between the cigarette lighter and the tennis match. I should think you would consider that worthy of study
Yes, the film is quite suspenseful and worthy of study for many reasons. Few of his films are not worthy of study (I wouldn't watch Jamaica Inn again for any reason).

The comparison with Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt, and Vertigo seems somewhat irrelevant; they're all so different.
They are all different but as one becomes acquainted with Hitchcock's symbols, trademarks, characteristic shots, preferred themes, techniques and strategies, one finds many similarities among his films. And some are greater than others.

have you really seen over sixty Hitchcock films?
I've seen several of the shorter ones made-for-tv. But I've always payed special attention to the 54 theatrical features. I had seen them all except for The Pleasure Garden, Downhill, Juno and the Paycock and Waltzes from Vienna prior to taking the course. For the purpose of this course, I watched roughly 45 of them again, including multiple viewings of Murder!, The Lodger, and Psycho.

[Chris Knipp]

If when you say "being drawn into the mentality..." you imply that the film fosters or facilitates the viewer's identification with and empathy towards Bruno then your reaction to the character is rather unique and original. The view that Bruno is presented as a rather grotesque character and most importantly, regarded by the camera as such, was uniformly held by the students in my class No offense, but your class is not the last word on everything. This getting us into the mind of the psychopath is Patricia Highsmith's unique speciality. I strongly suggest that you reand some of her stories. The fact that Bruno gets Guy ensnared the way he does is an indication of how the writing draws us into this weird mentality. Even as straight and nice a guy as Guy gets drawn into it. Bruno has a kind of snake-like charm. Sure, he's sick and weird...

Actually, we don't consider doing what Norman Bates does, but Bruno makes us consider trading crimes.

'
Wow, you've watched a lot of movies.

[oscar jubis]

No offense taken despite your "provocative" phrasing. Of course no one's saying my class is the last word on anything. But it's rare to get a bunch of educated people discussing a film they've just watched. It's an experience to relish because it's become rare. If you manage to do that with a bunch of friends there's a natural tendency to digress to other topics. I cannot totaly divorce what I gained from it from my contributions here.

I think it's worth noting that the aspects of the narrative found awkward or problematic are the parts in which the film differs from the novel. Hitchcock's film is not faithful to the novel in crucial ways and Highsmith was outspoken about them. She was also ticked off because the rights were sold to an anonymous buyer at a mere $7500 and the buyer turned out to be the notorious Mr. Hitchcock. William Holden would have made a more interesting Guy but he had ulterior contractual obligations.

[Chris Knipp]

You seem to start with the assumption that Strangers isn't Hitchcock at his best. From that it follows that it would be "improved" by various alterations. So you say to begin with it ought to follow Highsmith's novel more closely. The parts of the film that are "found" (passive voice: by whom?) "awkward or problematic" are the ones where they differ from the Hitchcock story. You'd have to give specifics to even begin to prove that. It would remain hypothetical.

In fact the film is still very much a Highsmith kind of story; it's clouding the issue to imply otherwise. I see that Raymond Chandler and Ben Hecht worked on the screenplay. They're pretty good. Maybe too many cooks though. I love this movie and do not think it's inferior work by Hitchcock. After I got to know Highsmith's writing I began to understand why the story is so intriguing. It's completely misleading to people who don't know Patricia Highsmith's writing to imply that the film departs from her ideas, her characteristic mood and mindset, in significant and damning ways.

Patricia Highsmith's writing works wonderfully on the screen. At the same time no movie can quite get you inside one of her psychopathic's heads as she does in her writing. Graham Greene hinted at this troubling effect of hers when he wrote: "[Highsmith] has created a world of her own--a world claustrophobic and irrational which we enter each time with a sense of personal danger." But we enter it compulsively and stay there turning the pages sweatily till she lets us go.

You can compare very different treatments of Highsmith, especially the Ripley novels: Rene Clement, Wim Wenders, Anthony Minghella, Liliana Cavani, many more. They're even working on a Highsmith film adaptation now-Cry of the Owl. Ripley isn't really Matt Damon, nor is he John Malkovitch or Dennis Hopper. Ripley is impossible ever to pin down. He's something in between. Robert Walker is one of the more convincing posh Highsmithian psychopaths on film, for sure. I wouldn't tinker with the film. It's perfection. I like Farley Granger as Guy because he is a dreamboat and has an innocent quality, but Holden might have made the part more complex. I can think of ways the movie could have been more Highsmithian, but it's tremendously effective and the premise, which only she could have conceived (t was the nugget from which the rest of her work grew) is powerfully realized in the film.

[oscar jubis]

Maybe too many cooks though (CK)
Many sources confirm that the conflict between Hitchcock and Chandler revolved around the latter finding the scenario based on the novel and modified according to Hitchcock's wishes to be "implausible". Four writers were involved in the creation of the script: Whitfield Cook, Ben Hecht, Chandler and Czenzi Ormonde. The latter seems to have had more to do with the final product than the others. One of the key ways the film differs from the novel is that it makes the Mortons not just an upper-class family but a political family. Anne's father is a reputable U.S. Senator and Guy is just about to become his son-in-law. Raises the stakes, seems to me. A crucial change and one ultimately not handled adroitly is that "the movie Guy" doesn't kill Bruno's father, doesn't intend to do so even. In the film, the viewer must somehow believe that Guy would break into Bruno's house in the middle of the night to warn his father about his son's murderous wishes. It's interesting to note that even a big fan of the film like Roger Ebert refers to the film as "halfway plausible".

[Chris Knipp]

The movie Guy character has idealism and glamor and struggles against being made complicit in terrible crimes. In the book he becomes completely complicit and then is bogged down in guilt and subsequently arrested. What's so great about that? The movie version makes for a more dramatic, climactic, heroic finale--the catching of Bruno, not of Guy. Farley Granger is right as the idealistic (but bigamous) future politician and tennis star. Walker is perfect as the perverted upper class psychopath.

I think this is an underappreciated work by Hitchcock. I would be for rearranging the canon somewhat. But the only way we could have a good debate about this is if I rewatched all the major Hitchcock films as you have recently done and attended your class.

[oscar jubis]

It would have been great to take this course with you. Perhaps the greatest benefit to me was to make formal aspects of image-making conscious. Every viewer is affected by visual composition, camera placement and movement, the displacement of actors inside the frame, the editing, shot variety, dpeth of focus, etc. but it affects most viewers only subconsciously. The course helped me to be constantly conscious of all of these aspects while I watch any film.

Since I'm currently not taking any classes, I've had time to post a couple of new reviews (Mongol and Married Life). I should be able to continue writing a few new reviews and other posts for about a month, when the Fall semester begins.

[Johann]

When I started realizing the efforts that go into filmmaking, the criteria for what made a film great changed for me.

I understood that the "total package" matters just as much as the finished product. That kind of thing led me to ask if Werner Herzog is the greatest living filmmaker. I mean, look at how he approaches the medium! He approaches it like he's going into the jaws of the hellhound, intentionally.
He's completely fearless, and there's something to be said for a man who's willing to do it today, especially when Herzog doesn't have anything more to prove. Even if all he made was Aguirre, his place in cinema history was assured.
But no, he still goes out there looking for a unique time and a place to hang his celluloid on.

I'm aware of the much larger aspect of movies:

Who made it
Why did they make it
How did they make it
What is the result
What do we got when the last reel has been through the projector?

These things matter.
Way more than "did you like it or not?"

[Chris Knipp]

It would be great to have more people to discuss movies with face to face in a context of intelligent discussion focusing on classics, though it might cut into my time and energy for the review-writing which is a priority now. I get a little of that--discussions with smart and knowledgeable people--when I'm at Lincoln Center at one of the festivals. At the SFIFF talking to audience members at ranndom I realize there are lot of aficionados out there.

I am leery of academic approaches to anything that is inherently non-academic or whose essence cannot be taught. But if it expands your vision without diminishing the fun I'd have to be for it.

[oscar jubis]

The "inherently non-academic" comment goes on my "strongly disagree" bin. Obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have enrolled and wouldn't be considering getting a graduate degree in Film Studies. Taking Dr. Rothman's course was like going birding with someone who has better binoculars than me and was willing to share. What's great is that my vision seems more acute and I envision the day when I don't need to borrow someone else's binoculars to clearly observe the most recondite specimens.

[oscar jubis]

Excellent comments about Werner Herzog, Johann. I can't wait to watch his new Antarctica doc. A new German-American faculty member will teach a course on German Cinema this Fall focusing on 6 directors. When I noticed Herzog wasn't among them (but Twyker was), I decided not to take it. Simply not a good sign.

[Johann]

I can't wait either. It plays here in August.
And it was dedicated to Roger Ebert, one of Herzog's biggest fans.

Ebert can't speak anymore due his cancer, and his show with Roeper is going off the air soon.

Thank you from the bottom of our hearts guys.
Best movie-reviewing show on televison...

[oscar jubis]

Yeah, Ebert's had a series of cancer surgeries since 2002. If you want to take a master class in film language, just listen to his commentary on the Citizen Kane dvd. Brilliant!