The "Progressive Classical Music" of Wim Mertens

THE "PROGRESSIVE CLASSICAL MUSIC" OF WIM MERTENS

by Raymond Benson

One of my favorite composers is a Belgian named Wim Mertens. He is fairly well-known in Europe, but not many people in the U.S. have heard of him. This is a crime. With his latest CD, Charaktersketch, just released, I felt inspired to revisit and update an article I wrote that was published in 1998 in Progression Magazine. I had the pleasure of meeting Wim in Brussels that year when I was researching my third James Bond novel, High Time to Kill. In fact, I put Wim in the book—music is playing in a restaurant where 007 and his latest girlfriend are dining. She responds to the music, Bond asks what it is, and she tells him that it’s Wim Mertens. I strongly recommend that anyone interested in contemporary classical, modern, or progressive music seek out Wim Mertens.

                                                   Wim Mertens and me in 1998.

***

When the Belgian/Flemish composer Wim Mertens is asked how he would classify his own music, he raises his hands in a bewildered gesture. "These labels are changing from country to country," he says. "In Spain it's different from Mexico. It's 'New Age' in one store, in another it's 'New Music.' I've seen it as 'Minimal Music' or 'Contemporary Music.' In some retail outlets I've seen my CDs classified under 'Classical,' 'Pop Music,' and 'Jazz.' Even in Belgium it's changing from store to store. Is that a good or bad thing?-- I don't know. I cannot change it. The only label I can propose is 'Contemporary Music.' It's a complicated thing that is never resolved."

When the description "Progressive Classical Music" is suggested, he laughs. "That is a new one! A new label! Doesn't sound very commercial! I've answered that question at least fifty times. If I say my music is produced in the tradition of written music, that is not really true because only about 80% of it is written music. Much of it is scored on the piano but I can also say that my music comes from no tradition, and that is more interesting for me. I see myself not hampered by elements that I don't do myself. This comes from a long tradition passed down from generation to generation—my father and his father, etc.—that's how I prefer to see it. I work from piece to piece and project to project. Defining it is irrelevant."

Therein lies the key to the simply amazing music produced by this relatively unknown (in America) composer and musician. Long-standing admirers of progressive rock, film music, and so-called contemporary classical music, might honestly say that "progressive classical music" fits the bill. Some listeners would most certainly lump Wim Mertens in the same category as Philip Glass, Michael Nyman, Steve Reich, Terry Riley, and other practitioners of modern classical, minimalist music. It is arguable that Mertens goes beyond these extraordinary talents by imbuing his own work with more dynamics, emotion, melody, and ambition. If his music was performed by a rock band format, it would definitely be in the "progressive rock" family.  However, Wim Mertens chooses to use classically-oriented ensembles (as do Glass, Nyman, et. al.) as well as a personal, solo-piano and voice combination that is totally unique. 

Mertens' comment that his music comes from generations of tradition is quite true. His father, Henri Mertens, was not a professional musician, but he was a musician who constantly filled the home with music (and even recorded an album). He was a singer and played piano. "It's because of my father that I spontaneously get in touch with music," Mertens says. "My brother and two sisters—we all started in music."

Wim Mertens was born in Belgium in 1953, close to the Dutch border, in a town called Neerpelt. At the age of eight he went to music school, where he first studied classical guitar. From a very early age he was composing songs. He went to the Genk Music Academy at the age of twelve, and finished when he was eighteen. Going on to university, Mertens attended the Music Conservatory in Brussels, but he gave up music for a while and chose to study social and political sciences and communications. He went back to the main university in Leuven, on the Flemish side of Belgium, at the age of twenty-two, to study Musicology, and later dug into Contemporary Music at the university in Ghent. His interest in modern classical music resulted in the writing of a book, American Minimal Music, which was published in Flemish in 1980 by Kahn Publishers, and was later published in English in America and the UK in 1983.  Mertens' book was an intelligent analysis of the work of composers like Philip Glass, Steve Reich, and Terry Riley.  Naturally, these composers served as Mertens' main musical influences.

"These names were influences, yes, but more important was that when I went to study the situation on the European side of music in the 70s, for many reasons I felt at that time I didn't have a plan to start recording or composing. I felt that the European avant-garde music was not what I was looking for. It was not my starting point, I had to find my information somewhere else. It was impossible to escape from that school, though. It helped me to define my own music by moving away from the European experience. When I listen to music—I went through all the European avant-garde, but I also listen to American music and contemporary jazz—Monk, Steve Lacey, etc. I also listen to medieval music. For three years I worked as a music journalist and I had to listen to everything!"

Mertens began recording in 1980 using the name Soft Verdict. "It was an artist name that I used from 1980 to 1984," he explains. "Soft Verdict was the name I used to present my music." (Since that time, the Soft Verdict albums have been re-released under Wim Mertens' own name.) "My first studio recording was produced by the American, Peter Gordon. It was a single called “At Home/Not At Home.” He introduced me to the commercial recording studio. Soft Verdict was not a group, but I used bass, drums, saxophone, harp, vibes, piano, guitar... the harp was from my classical guitar experience, and the saxophone did what I eventually came to do with my voice. The name came from the contradiction of words—a verdict is not soft, so I liked that contradiction."

Wim Mertens is perhaps most well-known in America for two albums released on the New Age label Windham Hill—Close Cover in 1986, and Whisper Me in 1988. (Mertens is also known in the U.S. for his score for Peter Greenaway's 1987 film, The Belly of an Architect.)  Both of the Windham Hill albums were anthologies of works taken from Mertens' original Belgian albums released between 1982 and 1987. His "signature" piece, "Close Cover," a beautiful and haunting song scored for piano and ensemble, appeared on several Windham Hill samplers and anthologies. Unfortunately, these two albums went nowhere, and the label chose not to pursue the artist any further (the two titles are now out of print). It was the Windham Hill compilations that first attracted the few American listeners to Wim Mertens' music. The real treasures, though, are to be found in his works produced post-1986. For those who have been aware and interested in Wim Mertens' music, they have had to search high and low in import shops, over the internet, or even go to foreign countries to find them. 

What is most extraordinary is that this prolific composer has released nearly sixty albums between 1980 and the present, not including compilations! 

Mertens' work can easily be placed into three distinctive categories of music. The first is his ensemble work, which is arguably the most interesting and accessible. From his first ensemble album, Vergessen (1982), to his brand new CD, Charaktersketch (2015), Mertens has pushed the boundaries of the ensemble by using brass and string instruments as percussion. Using less repetition than his contemporaries, Mertens blows Glass and Nyman out of the water with high-energy, tension-filled, incredibly fast pieces such as the less-than-two-minute-long "Watch!" (from 1989's Motives for Writing)—a recommended cut for introducing someone to Wim Mertens. “’Watch!’ is a special piece," Mertens says. "In a minute and a half you have this kind of excitement in it that goes beyond the normal expectance you have from such a short piece.  We do it live these days. I have a new band which is bass trombone, trumpet, two saxophones, piano, drums, and we are actually touring a lot these days." 

At the same time, Mertens is capable of haunting, beautiful melodies, such as "Au Delá du Fleuve" from Integer Valor (1998). Sometimes there is such an inexplicable element of sadness in the music that it causes you to stop whatever you’re doing and just listen. "Yes," Mertens nods, "many people have mentioned the sad quality in my music. I cannot deny it, but I cannot confirm it either. To do that, I would be too much in it, or I would have to identify with it. I don't have enough distance to say yes or no.  Probably that emotion you feel is something you have felt in some other way in your life, and the music has somehow tapped into it," he explains. 

All of Mertens' ensemble works combine various instruments (usually with a piano at the forefront), and sometimes voice, to create a continuing progression of similarly-themed musical textures. Of all of Mertens' music, it is recommended that the beginning listener start with any of the ensemble CDs—especially Struggle for Pleasure (1983), Motives for Writing (1989), Shot and Echo (1992), Jardin Clos (1996), Integer Valor (1998, or the full-length epic, Integer Valor Integrale  from 1999), Skopos (2003), Receptacle (2007), Zee Versus Zed (2010), A Starry Wisdom (2012), When Tool Met Wood (2013), or the latest, Charaktersketch (2015). 

The second category of Wim Mertens' music falls into the "solo piano and voice" department. Whereas these works can more easily be classified as "New Age," Mertens has brought something entirely unique and personal to the concept. He sings in a characteristically high-pitched countertenor voice, using a carefully crafted and imaginary personal language that is improvised over the structured piano pieces. On first hearing, one might find this quite strange. Repeated listenings, however, result in a subconscious connection between the composer and his audience that ultimately moves into a purely emotional level. In the end, it doesn't matter that one doesn't understand the words he's singing. It's the emotional intensity of the phrasings that finally affects the listener. If Jon Anderson of Yes uses lyrics and his own voice as "an instrument," then Wim Mertens does the same thing in a much more original and dynamic way. 

"The words are not related to one single language," Mertens says. "I can use different languages, I can even sing in English sentences or words. I use names of friends, or phrases, or whatever. I also write phonetically for other singers to sing. Since the end of 1984, I started using voice and singing in this kind of language. It's been there now for decades. I'm not sure where it comes from. I created it, it was a spontaneous way of singing. It probably has to do with the fact that Belgium is a mixed language country—there is French, there is Dutch/Flemish, German—and probably also I needed a language that was conducive to musical sounds. I could emphasize the dynamics and be very free to do what I want to do. Most of my music is written out, but the singing is the only element that is changing or improvised in concerts. While the instrumentation is constant, the voice might change nightly."

Does this language tell a story? "I cannot imagine that the words would not tell a story, but at the same time, if they were spoken there is not such a story-telling thing as we know from pop songs of today. Sometimes people tell me that I'm using the voice as an instrument, but I don't really think so. I use the voice in a very subjective way. The voice is the subject of the piece, it is the only vocal means I have to express myself and I've always used that language wherever I am. All of the information is in that voice. I was very shy to sing for a long time, and it was tentative at first. I was actually singing in the background on “Close Cover,” but that was very subtle. I was self-conscious at first because I'm singing here [pointing to his throat] and not here [pointing to his diaphragm]. I consulted a specialist to see if I could hurt my throat that way, but I was okay. It's a technique used in medieval music. I began using the vocal element more prominently in the album Maximizing the Audience [1984]. When I compose these songs, the piano doesn't come before the voice or vice versa. They're together, always together. I improvise the music and use different techniques to get it out, which is very difficult. But after it's done I write out the piano parts.  Sometimes I add a second piano track, as in the song “Lir” (from Maximizing the Audience).

As in his ensemble works, Wim Mertens' albums of "piano and voice" follow a progression and are essentially parts of a series that began with A Man of No Fortune and With a Name to Come (1986) and evolved to the latest piece in this category, Un Respiro (2005). Other notable piano and voice albums are After Virtue (1988), Strategie De La Rupture (1991), Jeremiades (1995), and Un Respiro (2005).

The third category of Mertens' music could only be called avant-garde experimental music that is epic in nature. This class of the composer's work is the most ambitious and most difficult to grasp. Some critics might call these pieces "self-indulgent," "tiresome," or even "bombastic." In truth, however, they are honest expressions of a minimalist nature taken to extreme lengths. They are magnanimous and complex three and four part "cycles," composed for different settings for solo piano, solo woodwinds or brass, or chamber music ensembles. The music is often written for unusual instrumentations using multi-track recording—twelve piccolos, ten bass trombones, or thirteen clarinets. 

In fact, Wim Mertens' very first recorded album, For Amusement Only (1980), features no musical instruments at all, but rather the sounds made by pinball machines—edited and constructed to form rhythmic, melodic patterns. "It was in 1979-1980, and I had not written anything. At that moment there was no way I could imagine that I would be a commercial recording artist because I had no experience with classical musicians or a studio. Antwerp, in Belgium, imported pinball machines made by Bally. We had a project with some friends there and we listened to these sounds. We would record them and edit them and use the Nagra machine, the only professional tape recorder in radio stations all over the world at the time. I worked for national radio then, and we taped many hours and used titles like “Space Invader” and “Fireball,” which were actual names of pinball games. I think it was an interesting way for me to use sounds that were already there. Bally International gave me two or three machines for a long period, and we performed the pieces in a multimedia program in Belgium, Holland, and France. We used a combination of video and tapes and manipulation of the machines themselves. It was my first important work. The title came from the warning label on the machines—'For Amusement Only.'" 

The 1985 album Instrumental Songs continued the experimental work, using riffs performed entirely on a single wind instrument. Then came the sets of epic, ambitious projects that eventually totaled thirty-seven disks of music—Alle Dinghe (1991), Gave Van Niets (1994), Kere Weerom (1999), and Aren Lezen (2001). (All of these works are now available in the box set entitled QUA (2009). The enormity of the projects even overwhelm the composer himself. These are daring and confounding works. For example, one entire disk (approximately an hour in duration) of Gave Van Niets is played entirely with multi-tracked bass trombones by virtuoso Eddy Verdonck. To say that the music is slightly inaccessible is an understatement; yet, there is a power and energy in the compositions that is undoubtedly startling.  (I personally find these works to be great background music for writing!)

"I think I went very far in terms of defining the musical language and musical syntaxes," he muses. "It was a very ambitious project and I've always said that I was not really interested in the music as such; it is something else that I cannot define. I'm not dealing with the musical language, it is more like I'm trying to touch my personal intelligence beyond the music. The music is very irrational, it's a different approach." 

The four epic cycles in QUA are most certainly meant for the adventurous, seasoned listener.

A fourth category might be in order for Wim Mertens. In 1997, he released an album of solo classical guitar called Sin Embargo. It is such a peaceful, tranquil album that it would probably be best enjoyed with one of Belgium's famous gourmet dinners and a few bottles of fine wine. "That album came out in 1997 but was recorded in 1991. It stayed somewhere else for several years. I rely more and more on the guitar in arrangements with the ensemble music now."              

Embracing all of these "categories" is Wim Mertens' work for film and theatre. "I've done several films, but most of these were never really seen outside of Belgium. I worked with Peter Greenaway in 1986 on The Belly of an Architect. Only half of the music was composed for the film. The other half was picked from existing pieces that had appeared on my albums released up to that point. The music was different from what he did in other movies. [Greenaway usually employs Michael Nyman to score his films.] The music was less conceptual, but the film is, too."  Along with the film work, Mertens composed the music for the 1984 performance of Jan Fabre's Power of the Theatrical Madness at the Venice Biennial, and other works for the stage. A compilation of many of Mertens’ work for film was collected in the 3-disk set, Music and Film (2009).

So why hasn't such a prolific, dynamic composer been discovered in America? Mertens shakes his head. "Most of my audiences have been specifically in Italy. Spain is very good, and so is Greece and Portugal. Why me, being such a Nordic type, why am I so successful in these Mediterranean countries, I don't know! I'm fairly well known in Germany, Holland, and of course, in Belgium. I have fans in England. As for America... not enough exposure perhaps? I don't know. I always hope one day it will happen. Is my music too European? I don't think so."

The lack of success in America doesn't seem to bother Mertens too much, seeing that releasing nearly sixty albums in thirty-five years is a formidable achievement in and of itself. When asked what other activities occupy his time besides music, Mertens shrugs and answers, "Literature has always interested me more than music anyway."

***

Readers interested in sampling some of Wim Mertens' music might do well with the 2008 3-disk compilation, Platinum Collection, an anthology which indeed contains some of the more memorable moments from the composer's ensemble and piano/voice works. Do check out the official website for more information. 

And here are some more YouTube cuts:

"Struggle for Pleasure"

"Often a Bird"

"La Fin de la Visite"

"We Are the Thieves"

Film History Student Paper... "The Coen Brothers" by Blaine Cummings

After the conclusion of each semester of my Film History class at the College of DuPage in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, I publish one to three final papers written by students. The assignment is to discuss the work of an auteur filmmaker, with emphasis on highlighting the style and thematic aspects of the director's pictures that identify him/her as an auteur.

For the Spring 2015 paper, I am happy to publish the paper by Blaine Cummings on The Coen Brothers.

* * *

Writer’s Block

By Blaine Cummings

            I’ve always admired the romance of film, the way I could escape and be convinced I was a true part of the adventure. Filmmakers will go to incredible feats to make sure the viewer gets lost in the stories they are telling, but the greats are the ones that succeed and change film history forever. Joel and Ethan Coen have worked vigorously to get where they are, and for at least my sake, I hope they don’t stop anytime soon.

           These two brothers were born in the cold state of Minnesota—Joel Coen came into the world on November 19^th, 1954, three years before Ethan on September 21^st. They grew up spending most of their time inside, away from the frigid winters, watching a lot of films and tv, often having an odd outlook on the world and showing it through their films later in life. At a young age, Joel started up a lawn business, earning and saving up money to buy his very first camera, a Super-8. I’ve never used or even held a Super-8 camera, but learning that some of my favorite directors like Burton, Abrams, Spielberg, and others started off with the 8mm camera in hand, I plan on getting my own some day. With his new equipment, Joel went on to make many amateur movies with friends, and eventually went away to New York University to perfect his talents. Ethan traveled a different path, heading off to Princeton University to study philosophy. His teachings would shape the intricate and deep plots seen in their future scripts.

           Joel found work in minor, at the time, horror movies. Using his editing skills, he earned a spot as Assistant-Editor on The Evil Dead, meeting a soon to be close friend Sam Raimi.  Together they began writing the script for The Hudsucker Proxy in 1981, and eventually all three moved into a house. Their interests and influences, such as Frank Capra and Preston Sturges comedies, were very similar, allowing them to get along well.

           The Coens’ first solo film, Blood Simple, in 1984, thrust them into the spotlight. Being their first, they were able to explore all kinds of creative liberties without an existing expectation from an audience. You may notice a lot of camera techniques in the film that resemble those of  The Evil Dead. They learned to appreciate what the camera can really do besides capture film, using it as somewhat of a character itself. Seeing their success based on their innovative style, their production company gave them total control over their future films.

           Raising Arizona and Barton Fink were among the next big films to come to the big screen. The world was picking up on the versatility and hypnotizing ways the Coens did their magic, and the world loved it.  Barton Fink was a unique take on a brilliant author with writer’s block. The idea came to them in the middle of writing the script for Miller’s Crossing, one of the only times they said needed a break in the middle of writing. So they paused, taking only a few weeks to write Barton Fink in the meantime.

           Many of the actors and others working with the duo say they have a connected mind, often turning to one another to express a change or idea with the other already knowing what to do. These collaborations are incredibly hard to come by, as many filmmakers through history have found working with someone else isn’t as easy as they make it seem. Ethan, being an extraordinarily fast typist, normally writes while Joel works alongside him. Both of their separate strengths work in sync to create brilliant dialogue.

           Ethan, being the philosopher he is, often focuses on linguistics. He comes up with the rich speeches their characters often dive into throughout the films, as well as the underlying themes of morals and development. In an interview with Jeff Bridges, he talks about how every single word, pause, tone, and insinuation are highly important. For example, for his character of the Dude in The Big Lebowski, the “um’s,” “ahhh’s,” “ man’s,” and hilarious choices of swearing, come together to create a conversational dialogue. Things like this have intrigued me for years—the way they work their words is so difficult, and yet if they have done the job right, the audience will be enveloped in the character and never even think that there was a script to begin with.

           The idea of the Coen Brothers being auteurs was seen very early on in their careers. They seamlessly weave their odd style and life experiences into their stories, creating something we’ve never seen before. They often cover unsolvable moral topics like greed, murder, violence, deeper thought, and hope. Fargo brought out everything they are, combining where they grew up, dark comedy, and a dialogue that kept us hooked. It heavily deals with morals and how people perceive evil. Growing up I watched all kinds of horror flicks filled with senseless killing, gore, and monsters, but through all that this was one of the first time I thought about consequences in a real way in a story. Marge, Frances McDormand’s character, was a refreshing take on positivity. Throughout the film she has an optimistic view on a hopeless world; you can see even in the end that nothing can break her resilient outlook, even though evil is sitting in her backseat. It left me thinking, not just about right and wrong, but all that lies in-between because it’s just not that simple.

           O Brother, Where Art Thou? had us challenging the same ideals, this time bringing in a heavy religious theme without it being overbearing. The characters’ actions often outweigh the notion of how religious forgiveness is real and how it applies to consequences with the law. A lot of what is seen in the movie pertains to thousands; it’s a controversial topic that’s been around as long as time itself—religion and government, how the people go about their beliefs and how they perceive their own fate. The film does a wonderful job of using realistic characters and events to represent biblical occurrences, but it also allows an open window for the viewer to interpret the story in their own way.  To most it’s known that it is loosely based off Homer’s Odyssey.  I was surprised to find that the correlation between the two wasn’t brought on until after they started writing, later finding the connections and blending them.

           There are many little quirks that the Coens have that draw us in. One of them is their use of recurring traits and actors. There’s a story I heard of their childhood from the Coen Brothers Documentary on BBC: they once had a dog, as it grew older it started to lose function in its back legs, only being able to drag itself around. There wasn’t much they could do except make the hard decision to put the dog down. Getting to the vet they could see the sorrow in the dogs eyes, he knew what was going to happen. With that thought a small miracle happened, the dog jumped up and took off running! As if it was a puppy again, it took off into the street…and was killed by a passing car. Sad as that story may be, true or not, this really represents the heart of their dark comedy. Just when your hero finds hope, an obstacle is ever present to stand in the way. You see many dogs throughout their films, as well as Steve Buscemi and John Goodman, both having six collaborated films in total.

           Although in the credits, Joel is often seen as the director and Ethan the producer of their projects, but many that work closely with them say that it’s not entirely true. They work together like the left and right brain, contributing an equal amount and most times seeing the exact same vision in mind. They have a clear path of the direction they want to go, but still leave creative liberties to the actors. Even though their style and wit are always apparent, the broad range of different stories they come up with is always impressive. Much like The Hudsucker Proxy, which was written in the early 80s and made later in 1994, the ferocity in their ability to crank out so many scripts often leads them to be shelved for the future.

           I’ve admired their determination to stay within what they know works. Over their careers they learned from failure and excelled to replace it with something beautiful. An example is the level of production—even though stories call for elaborate sets and a big look at the world, the brothers have a talent of keeping them personable. To me, this makes me feel like I’m right there with the character, like it could really happen to me. The latest feature I clung to was Inside Llewyn Davis, about a musician who just can’t catch a break. Sometimes a happy ending just isn’t needed, because that’s the way life is. The embodiment of the story takes everyone’s thoughts on “why can’t anything in my life go right?” and creates a unique musical from it. Going back to using the camera to tell the story, they take away the bright colors we normally see, leaving us in a sort of cloudy day purgatory. They have a knack for setting mood and initial feelings that later dialogue will strengthen.

           Joel and Ethan Coen are two of today’s greatest filmmakers. They keep their anticipated style fresh with every project they complete. From their history and determination they will continue to bring us into their clever worlds, challenging us to think long after the film is over. To me that is what great story telling is, not only working together but working the audience to participate as well.

Bibliography

"Coen Brothers | Biography - American Filmmakers." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 01 May 2015.

The Coen Brothers Documentary. Dir. Sarah Aspinall. Perf. George Clooney, Ethan Coen, Joel Coen. IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 01 May 2015.

"Coenesque." Joel & Ethan Coen Biography. Brent M. Johnson, n.d. Web. 01 May 2015.

"Joel Coen Biography." Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 01 May 2015.

Mottram, James. "THE COEN BROTHERS The Life of the Mind By James Mottram." The Coen Brothers; the Life of the Mind. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2015.

Film History Paper #3... Godfrey Reggio by David Sarrett

Every semester I pick three outstanding final papers from my Film History class at the College of DuPage.  I will be posting these throughout the week.

Third one up... David Sarrett's take on GODFREY REGGIO.
--Raymond

******

Godfrey Reggio

By David Sarrett

            There are things around all of us that are hidden in plain sight. Things that are so present, normal, and ordinary that we do not see them for the intensity that they are.   Reggio takes these things and stares at them at length until they become strange.  This is the thread that sews Reggio’s work together in a cohesive approach to what has been branded as experimental documentaries.

            Born March 29, 1939 in New Orleans, Louisiana, Reggio was brought up in a traditional catholic family, in a catholic city, and attended Mater Dolorosa School (Spanish for Mother of Sorrows) through 8^th grade.  At age fourteen, on his own volition, against his parents’ wishes but with their approval, Reggio left home and joined the Christian Brothers, a Roman Catholic pontifical order and a self-sufficient community of 140 monks that make their own food and clothes, care for their sick, and bury their dead. Reggio spent fourteen years living with the Christian Brothers in what he considered a middle ages culture.  This way of living was intense, rigorous and purposeful, and it had a demanding routine.  Although Reggio openly admits that this was not a monastery of total silence, he spent much of his time in silence, fasting, and prayer.  An intended lifer, Reggio took his final vows at age 25.  Akin to a male nun, Reggio, with a humble point of view, became a teacher while also servicing the poor.  He taught grade school, secondary school, and college. (IMDB)

Reggio was introduced to “Los Olvidados”, a film by Luis Bunuel about poor children in Mexico.  This film was a spiritual experience for Reggio. Its ambience and ethos produced a story beyond entertainment that touched Reggio’s soul. He watched it with his students over one hundred times, and this film became their bible.  It inspired Reggio to think about cinema as a poetic medium to inflict people with feeling about the world we live in. (CivilNet TV)

The Pope at the time was Pope John XXIII, who once said, “Question everything, accept nothing, including the structure of the church.”  This became Reggio’s marching orders, which would subsequently get him into trouble. While there were not many poor children at his school, they did lurk just outside the community in gangs. In 1963 he co-founded Young Citizens for Action, a community organization project that aided juveniles among the street gangs in Santa Fe, New Mexico. This work was not in the interest of the Christian Brothers, and Reggio was asked to leave at the age of 28. (Singularityweblog)

Reggio now saw the world with a new perspective, as an outsider looking in, stepping in, and being surrounded by it all.  Reggio has said that being in the church is like being in an exoteric form of religion.  Being in the religious order is like being in an esoteric form of religion in that it is more concentrated and more about the pursuit of perfection as opposed to the attainment.  Reggio goes on to say that, as a young monk the focus of intellectual attention was the love of the word.  The word is currently in a vast state of humiliation.  The word no longer describes the world in which we live.  This is a conundrum for Reggio because we see the world through language.  There is beauty in that we have different languages to describe our world.  It is tragic that we are losing our languages.  At the beginning of the twentieth century we had arguably 1.7 billion people on the planet speaking 35,000 different languages and principal dialects.  Today there are seven billion people speaking in the vicinity of four thousand languages.  This is an inverse relationship.  Inverse relationships are a concept Reggio likes to examine.  The study of ethnology at a University involves people of developed cultures putting subjective categories on indigenous people.  Reggio reverses this by taking indigenous people and putting their subjective categories on a progressive culture.  He demonstrates this perspective through the lens. Take the Napoleonic statement “A picture is worth a thousand words”, and turn it on its head.  Take a thousand pictures and summarize it in one word.  That’s how Reggio conceived the title of his first film, Koyaanisqatsi. (Singularityweblog)

Koyaanisqatsi is the first of a trilogy of “qatsi” speechless narrations. The name is a compound word that comes from the Hopi Indian language.  Qatsi means “life”.  Any word that predicates it furthers it’s meaning.  Koyaanis means “out of balance”.  The trilogy consists of Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi, and Naqoyqatsi. Defined as “Life out of Balance”, “Life in Transformation”, and “Life as War” respectively.  Reggio considers it a  Meta language, a poetic language. Not of word.  It is pictorial and non-mental in that it is aimed at the solar plexus to give the viewer a feeling.  This experience is visceral.  All of Reggio’s films can be considered impossible to categorize in the measure that they do not have something that precedes it as a point of view.  This is why they aren’t traditional documentary films because Reggio is not trying to explicate his point of view. He is not a propagandist. (CivilNet TV) His films were done as a collaborative form with Ron Fricke as the cinematographer and Philip Glass doing the unique score full of arpeggios, pipe organs and synths. Ron Fricke was heavily influenced by this project as witnessed in his own release of Baraka in 1992. 

Reggio explains that the qatsi trilogy was conceived as incomplete with the audience completing the subject.  “It isn’t a story to be told, it’s a story to behold.”  He wanted to get away from the linear landscape of cinema avoiding screenplay, narration, actors, story and plot.  What is left is motor speed, lenses, movement or stillness of camera, color, lack of color, and veracity of image.  Image is ubiquitous. (CivilNet TV) What Reggio saw hidden in plain sight all around was technology.  “The purpose of Koyaanisqatsi is to enter the vascular structure of the beast.  The beast is global communication, that which fulfills all of our technological desires.  This beast is the price we pay for the pursuit of those desires.” (Singularityweblog) This idea is portrayed first in Koyaanisqatsi with the camera focused on the Northern Hemisphere bouncing between untouched nature and human beings’ increasing dependence on technology.  Simply put, Koyaanisqatsi shows a way of life that calls for another way of living.  His second film, Powaqqatsi, created five years later, focuses on third world nations in the Southern Hemisphere.  Forgoing the sped-up aesthetic of the first film, a meditative slow motion technique is used to portray the beauty in those areas of the planet and how cultures are being eroded as their environments are taken over by industry.  The third film in the trilogy, Naqoyqatsi, tells of a world that has completed the transition from the natural to the artificial, from Old World to New World.  (IRE)

Three decades after his debut, Reggio completed his latest feature, Visitors. Whereas Koyaanisqatsi has 384 cuts, Powaqqatsi has exactly one hundred more at 484 cuts, and Naqoyqatsi has 565 cuts; Visitors has only seventy-four cuts.  Despite the differences in the number of cuts, each of these films is around 90 minutes in length.  With vastly fewer cuts than the previous films, Visitors pushes the viewer into a deprogramming, a forced slowing of our senses.  Reggio equates his filmmaking to churning butter, which he did as a child in the 1940s.  It’s a lengthy rigorous repetitive process, which consistently improves the product.  He continues to use the same subject, and keeping the film as his medium, he increasingly becomes more focused.  Visitors is shot digitally in 4K resolution in Black and White and infrared only.  4K allows more organic material to be on the screen.  All subjects are against an all black background, otherwise referred to as “black-ground”.  This black-ground gives an illusion of dimensionality.  Visitors is meant to put a mirror on the entire planet earth. Without giving away any possible interpretations of the film, aesthetics are paramount.  “Color contemporizes”, Reggio says.  Black and White elicits more emotion, giving birth to sensation, emotion and perception.  When asked about the hypocrisy of using 4K technologies to portray how technology has corrupted our civilization, Reggio admits he has a strong negative view in that he is a prisoner like the rest of us in the global madness we live in called progress and development. (Singularityweblog)

I think Reggio has bookended his career wonderfully.  As a man in his seventies, he tours the world still preaching to a younger audience as he quotes Goethe. “Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, DO IT.” Boldness has genius, magic and power in it.  Trust yourself and live a non self-conscious life.  He continues that the word “beauty” is derived from the Greek work “kallos”, which translates “to provoke”.  Reggio wants to provoke his audience plain and simple. Reggio describes a fork in the road that lies before us all; the New and the Old world.  The mantra of New World is “United We Stand”. The mantra of the Old World is “Divided We Stand.”  The beauty of life is its diversity.  Boring is one weather pattern, one season.  One Language is boring. Whereas the Old World has seasons, the New World has software.  Old and New respectively contrast mystery vs. certainty, stories vs. storage, the Sun vs. energy companies, The Word vs. digital zeros and ones, interaction vs. mediation.  The Old World has breath while the New World is breathless. (Singularityweblog) Reggio, however, is grateful to be alive and breathing and considers himself a fortunate refugee who has resurfaced in the twentieth century.  All this interviewing, speaking, and text splashed on the Internet was not a part of Reggio’s plan.  His conclusion has persistently been that the highest value of art has no predetermined meaning but meaning gleaned from the experience of the encounter.  Ultimately, it is whatever you make of it.

Works Cited

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gsCTkd3A5M

“Filmmaker Godfrey Reggio’s Unique View of the World.” CivilNet TV, July 9, 2013. Web. Dec. 8, 2014

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0716585/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

 “Godfrey Reggio Biography.” IMDB, 2014. Web. Dec. 08, 2014

http://www.koyaanisqatsi.com/films/film_collection.php

 “Criterion Collection Liner Notes.” IRE, 2013. Web. Dec. 08, 2014.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6UhRp2CLwA 

“Godfrey Reggio on Singularity 1 on 1: We are in the Cyborg State!” Singularityweblog, Nov. 11, 2013. Web. Dec. 08, 2014

Film History Paper #2... Stanley Kubrick by Trevor Scholtens

Every semester I pick three outstanding final papers from my Film History class at the College of DuPage.  I will be posting these throughout the week.

Second one up... Trevor Scholtens' take on STANLEY KUBRICK.
--Raymond

******

Stanley Kubrick: Auteur

by Trevor Scholtens

            Stanley Kubrick is one of the most influential, skilled, and arguably the all-around filmmakers to ever live. He has left a huge legacy behind him, but he started in New York City on July 26^th, 1928 when he was born. Kubrick grew up in the Bronx with his father, Jacques, a doctor, his mother, Sadie, a stay at home mom, and his younger sister, Barbara. When he was in school, Stanley wasn’t a traditionally good student at all. He would often skip class, was a social recluse, and was viewed as an underachiever. He was considered by many to be intelligent, but his grades ranked at the bottom of his class. He never valued school, or even a formal education that much, once saying “I have never learned anything at school, and I never read a book for pleasure until I was 19.” He applied to many colleges by the end of high school, but none accepted him. As a kid, Kubrick wanted to become a professional novelist or a Major League baseball player. Since he never seemed to value academics, he played the drums for his high school’s jazz band, and took many pictures with a camera that his father gave him. He was a very skilled photographer and eventually sold some of his shots to Look magazine at the age of sixteen. About one year later, he was hired as a freelance photographer for the magazine (Stanley Kubrick Bio).

            In 1950, Kubrick created a photo essay about boxing and used his savings to make his first documentary short, Day of The Fight. He made two other documentaries, Flying Padre and The Seafarers, and then had family members invest in his first narrative film, Fear and Desire. The movie was shown in a few art-house theaters in New York. The movie is considered to be one of the first independent films due to him making it without a studio behind it. He then made two low-budget crime thrillers, Killer’s Kiss in 1955 and The Killing in 1956, and they were well received critically and financially. By 1957 Kubrick was able to make a film for a major studio, so he made Paths of Glory, a remarkable antiwar film that starred Kirk Douglas (About Kubrick).

Kubrick became better known when he directed the historical epic, Spartacus, in 1960 also starring Kirk Douglas. Spartacus was nominated for six Academy Awards and won four. Kubrick moved to the United Kingdom in order to make his provocative 1962 film, Lolita, based on the controversial novel by Vladimir Nabokov of the same name. He remained in the United Kingdom for the rest of his life and career as a filmmaker. Stanley then received his first Academy Award nomination for best director, best writing, and best picture in 1964 for his hilarious political satire, Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. The film that really brought him into the public’s eyes was the utterly incredible and cosmic epic 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968. The film was extremely critically acclaimed and earned four Academy Award nominations and won Kubrick the award for best special effects, the only Oscar he will have ever won (Stanley Kubrick Bio).

His success continued throughout the 1970’s with films like the shocking yet dazzling A Clockwork Orange in 1971, the historical fictional drama Barry Lyndon in 1975. Stanley then made the terrifying horror film The Shining in 1980, and the chilling Vietnam War film, Full Metal Jacket in 1987. His final film came twelve years later and was the surreal Eyes Wide Shut. He finished his final cut of the film and died of a heart attack in his sleep on March 7, 1999. He was 70 years old (Stanley Kubrick Bio).

            One reason why Stanley Kubrick is considered an auteur is because he has a very distinct and skillful visual style. His most distinct visual trait is his use of nearly perfect symmetry in almost all of his films. The way Kubrick sets up and films many of his shots makes them look close to perfectly symmetrical. Many of his films use this impressive technique to draw the audience in to whatever is going on because it is very interesting, and perhaps beautiful, to look at (The “One-Point Perspective” in Stanley Kubrick’s Works).

            Another visual trademark of Kubrick is his long tracking shots. Every single film of his has at least one uncut tracking shot that usually lasts for a while. These long tracking shots are impressive in their execution and usually show the atmosphere of the current scene very well. The shot is usually the camera pulling back while a character is walking forward facing the camera (Stanley Kubrick’s Legendary Film Techniques).  

            Kubrick also was very well known for his meticulous way of filming and directing his actors. Kubrick was famous for being a perfectionist when it came to his movies. He wanted every detail to reflect how he envisioned the film. His symmetrical shots are carefully and impressively made already, but he would often take charge of every small detail, even props in the background, so that it coincided with what he wanted. He was also very controlling of his actors. He would make his actors only say what was written in the script and very rarely let them improvise. His blocking was exact and would shoot multiple takes of every shot so that he could use the perfect one. He was famous for being very hard to work with as a director, but very effective. All of his actors gave extremely well done performances, even earning Peter Sellers an Oscar nomination for best actor in Dr Strangelove and Peter Ustinov a win for his supporting role in Spartacus.

            One theme that Kubrick often explored was the dark side of mankind. His films all have a form of crime or moral ambiguity committed by at least one main character. He would often include deaths and breaches of trust amongst the characters in his stories. His focus on humanity’s more sinister subjects made his films compelling, yet challenging for his viewers to watch.

            One film that shows his traits as an auteur extremely well is 2001: A Space Odyssey. The film has many shots that are symmetrical and beautiful to look at. The “stargate” sequence has a lot of shots of colors of light that are reflective and gorgeous. He uses long tracking shots for many scenes involving the astronauts on spaceships. One example is when an astronaut is running laps around the interior of the circular spacecraft and it lasts for a long time. The camera stays on him the entire time and the whole scene is uncut. Kubrick’s perfectionism is shown through his realistic ape suits and spaceships for the movie. He consulted NASA to help him create realistic looking designs for his spaceships which he spent a long time designing. His effects for the sequences in space were amazingly realistic today even with the limitations of 1960’s effects. The film explores humanity’s dark side by showing a scene that shows the first tool ever made by man to be used as a weapon to murder an enemy.

            Another film that expresses Stanley Kubrick’s qualities as an auteur is A Clockwork Orange. The film, again, uses a lot of symmetrical and well put together shots in it. An example of this would be in the opening shot when you see the Korova Milk Bar. Everything in the shot is symmetrical and impressively put together. He uses many tracking shots, including the scene where Alex browses a record shop. The scene is a continuous take through an elaborate record shop of Alex walking to the camera. He also took control of many things in the movie to make it more real. He actually instructed actors to harm the main actor in one scene and they broke some of the main actor’s ribs. His exploration of human darkness is shown by having the main character, Alex, being a rapist and murderer. He is a despicable human being, but he is still presented in a sympathetic light when bad things happen to him.

            One more film that illustrates his traits as an auteur is The Shining. His shots are extremely symmetrical, again, especially in the scene where Danny meets the Grady twins for the first time. He uses many long tracking shots in many scenes in the hedge maze, but more notably in the scene where Danny rides his bike through the hotel and the camera follows him for a long time without cutting. He was very controlling of his actors with this movie. He made Shelly Duvall walk up stairs 127 times and verbally abused her to get the paranoid, scared performance he wanted from her. The film explores the dark side of the human race by having the story basically about one man’s descent into murderous madness.

            Stanley Kubrick made only thirteen films in his lifetime and his influence and legacy even live on today. In my opinion, all of his films are astonishing and continue to this day to be inspiring and legendary. There are not many directors that this can be said about. He is an auteur because a Stanley Kubrick film is unmatched in its greatness and is easily recognizable as his own. He made films to the best of his abilities because he loved to make his movies and his passion showed on the screen with his masterpieces of modern cinema. He made his mark on the film world and it will never go away. Kubrick once said, “One man writes a novel. One man writes a symphony. It is essential that one man make a film” (About Kubrick), and that is exactly what this one man did.

Works Cited

Stanley Kubrick Bio: http://www.biography.com/people/stanley-kubrick-9369672#final-years

About Kubrick: http://kubrickfilms.warnerbros.com

The “One-Point Perspective” in Stanley Kubrick’s Works: http://filmmakermagazine.com/85083-the-one-point-perspective-in-stanley-kubricks-work/#.VIUyrGcytEM

Stanley Kubrick’s Legendary Film Techniques: http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/filmmaking/stanley-kubrick-film-techniques.html

Film History Paper #1... Frank Capra by Michelle Imbordino

Every semester I pick three outstanding final papers from my Film History class at the College of DuPage.  I will be posting these throughout the week.

First up... Michelle Imbordino's take on FRANK CAPRA.
--Raymond

******

FRANK CAPRA

by Michelle Imbordino

            Throughout the history of film, there have been many wonderful directors whose work have, and will continue to transcend time. One of these directors is Frank Capra. Frank Capra had an exciting life and a directing career that was so magnificent and stylistically his own that he can be called an auteur director.

             Much like characters in Frank Capra movies, Capra lived an interesting life that was full of ups and downs. Frank Capra was born as Francesco Rosario Capra on May 18th, 1897 in Bisacquino, Sicily. He was the youngest of seven, and his family was Roman Catholic. When Capra was five, his family decided to chase the American Dream and come to the US. They settled in an Italian ghetto in Los Angeles. Later on, Frank Capra graduated high school, and then went to college and graduated in chemical engineering. After graduating, and during World War I, Capra decided to enlist in the army (Wikipedia). While in the army he taught math to artillerymen at Fort Scott, San Francisco. A year later, his father died, and then Capra caught the Spanish flu and was medically discharged. In 1920, he became a US citizen and took the name Frank Russell Capra.

After finally recovering, Frank Capra decided to travel around the western US for a couple of years and worked odd jobs along the way. Then, one day Capra read a newspaper article about a new movie studio opening, called them, and then was able to land a job with them. Capra didn't really have any experience, but none the less the studio founder was still impressed and offered him money to direct a one-reel silent film (Wikipedia). Afterward, Capra began to look for more similar jobs in the film industry. He took a position with a minor studio, and then was offered, and received and job to work at Harry Cohn's new studio at the time. Later on, Capra became a gag writer for Hal Roach's Our Gang series, and then wrote for slapstick comedy director, Mack Sennett, where he wrote scripts for the comedian Harry Langdon. Harry Langdon and Frank Capra formed a bond, and so when Langdon left, and moved to First National Studios, he took Capra along too as his personal writer and director. Between 1926 and 1927, they made 3 feature films together, which were all successes with the critics and the public (Wikipedia). But then, Capra and Langdon had a falling out and Capra was fired. In 1928, Capra went back to Harry Cohn's studio, which was now named Columbia Pictures. During this time, sound was making its way into film. Because of Capra's engineering background, it wasn't difficult for him to adapt to the change.

In 1934, Frank Capra's movie It Happened One Night was released. This was the movie that put not only Capra on the map, but also Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert, and Columbia Pictures. It was also the first film to win all five top Oscars (Wikipedia).

His next film was Broadway Bill. Broadway Bill was a turning point in his career. It was with this movie that his style and themes came about. Capra continued on to make more successful movies through the 30's. In 1936, he made Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and won his second best director Oscar for it. In 1938, You Can’t Take It with You was released, which Capra received his third director Oscar for. Then, in 1939, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was released, and the following year Meet John Doe came out ("Biography").

In December 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred, which led Frank Capra to enlist as a major in the United States Army. During that time, he was asked to direct and produce documentaries that explained to the public the reasons for the US entry into World War II (Wikipedia). His series of documentaries was called Why We Fight. They were a mix of documentary footage, animation from Walt Disney, and staged sequences shot in Hollywood (Dixon). After the war ended, Frank Capra got together with William Wyle and George Steven and founded their own studio called Liberty Films. Liberty Films one and only film was It's a Wonderful Life. It's a Wonderful Life was released in 1946, and failed at the box office. Regardless, it was still nominated for five academy awards. In 1948, Capra chose to work with MGM Pictures to make the movie State of the Union. This was the only time he worked with MGM Pictures (Wikipedia).

As the 40's started coming to a close, it was evident that Capra's themes and ideas were out of synch with the rest of nation, which had been socially transformed by the war. Not only that, but the film industry was also changing (Dixon). During the Korean War, in 1950, Capra tried to re-enlist in the Army, but was turned down. He was dejected. By 1952, Capra had mostly retired from Hollywood, and went on to produce educational films on science topics for Caltech. Capra's last film was Rendezvous in Space, and it was released in 1964 (Wikipedia). By 1967, Capra was officially retired from Hollywood.

In Capra's personal life, he had two wives. He was married to his first wife, Helen Howell, between 1923 and 1928. Then, in 1928, he married his second wife Lucille Warner. They ended up having 3 children together, and then their children then went on to have children of their own (Wikipedia). Between 1939 and 1941, Frank Capra was the President of the Screen Directors Guild. He was also the president of the Directors Guild of America (or DGA) between 1960 and 1961. In 1982, Frank Capra received a Life Achievement Award from the American Film Institute ("1982...”). Three years later, and at the age of 88, Frank Capra died. The following year he was awarded the Nation Medal of Arts (Wikipedia). While Frank Capra may have died, he also lived, and boy, did he live greatly.

            As one of the most beloved directors, Frank Capra's impact on the history of film is undeniable. For starters, Frank Capra put Columbia Studios, which was once one of the studios on poverty row, on the map. He also helped the careers of Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert, James Stewart, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper, and Jean Arthur (Wikipedia). Another major impact Frank Capra had on the history of film, was being one of the first creators of the film movement screwball comedy. Screwball comedies are characterized as movies where there's farcical situations, a unpredictable plot, battle of the sexes, escapist themes, plot lines involving courtship and marriage, witty dialogue, and they typically follow a couple that doesn't like each other at first but then grows to love each other by the end. Capra's first screwball comedy was It Happened One Night. Some of his other screwball comedies include Broadway Bill, You Can’t Take It with You, and Mr. Deeds Goes to Town ("Screwball..."). Screwball comedies blew up during the Great Depression because they were escapist films; and if there was anything Frank Capra was excellent at, it was creating escapist films. His next greatest impact on film history was just that; providing movie goers throughout time, and especially during the Great Depression, with the hope and joy they needed to continue on, because with the absence of hope, there is no life.

            Stylistically and thematically Frank Capra's films were his own. Because of this, he is considered an auteur. One major characteristic of Frank Capra films is that each one is able to strike the perfect balance between light and dark. There is pain and loss, but never any deep sense of tragedy. Also, in some Capra films, the story revolves around a simple man who tries to fight corruption in a society, and then in the end he triumphs. The best example of this is probably Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington tells the story of a naive, idealistic man who goes to Washington to fill a vacancy in the US Senate. Things don't go as planned, and he is faced with political corruption, which he stubbornly opposes until he wins in the last minutes. Another characteristic in Frank Capra films is his use of vertical swipe transitions. One example is the movie It's a Wonderful Life, where there's many. Another aspect of many Frank Capra films is wise-cracking and sharp dialogue. This can probably be best seen in his screwball comedies. For example, the movie It Happened One Night. In said movie, there is a lot of witty banter between the two main characters. Banter that has mostly resulted because the characters had issues surrendering their feelings to each other. Another characteristic of Capra movies is his choice of actors and actress. In more than one film the following stars, star: Jean Arthur, James Stewart, and Gary Cooper. Furthermore, I don't think anyone can describe Frank Capra movies better than he did when he received the Life Achievement Award from the American Film Institute in 1982. He said "The art of Frank Capra is very, very simple: It's the love of people. Add two simple ideals to this love of people: the freedom of each individual and the equal importance of each individual, and you have the principle upon which I based all my films" (Frank Capra Accepts).

            Frank Capra was a remarkable, auteur director, who's work will live on in infamy, or at least so long as movies exist. He was a man who restored human spirits, with just a little bit of magic. A man who's genuine, feel-good films that in a kaleidoscope whirlwind and yin and yang fashion, mix the pain of life with the joy in perfect harmony, will always be cherished.

Works Cited

"1982 FRANK CAPRA TRIBUTE." American Film Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2014.             <http://www.afi.com/laa/laa82.aspx>.

"Biography." IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2014.   <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001008/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm>.

Dixon, Wheeler W., and Gwendolyn Audrey. Foster. A Short History of Film. Vol. 2. New          Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2013. Print.

Frank Capra Accepts the 10th AFI Life Achievement Award in 1982. Perf. Frank             Capra. YouTube. AFI, n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2014.         <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t746ZVw09P4>.

"Frank Capra". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia

            Britannica Inc., 2014. Web. 07 Dec. 2014     <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/94149/Frank-Capra>.

"Frank Capra." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 12 May 2014. Web. 09 Dec. 2014.             <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Capra>.

"Screwball Comedy Film." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 30 Nov. 2014. Web. 09 Dec.         2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screwball_comedy_film>.

Film History Student Final Paper #3 - Jean-Luc Godard

Here is the third and last student final paper from my Film History class, 2014 Spring semester, at College of DuPage. 

*******************

Jean-Luc Godard: Truth, 24 Frames a Second

By Nate Chapman

            The French New Wave was one of the more important movements in the history of film, as it encouraged creativity and revitalized a movie industry that had grown complacent, and with that complacency, conservative and predictable. It used new, radical techniques like long shots and stressed existential themes. It also borrowed heavily from Italian Neorealism in that it tried to have the actors be realistic in their dialogue and actions. The story wasn’t always linear, nor was it necessarily the most important aspect of the film. In a phrase, the New Wave shook up the cinema status-quo. The leading figure, considered by many to be the instigator of the movement, was Jean-Luc Godard. Wealthy, young and bored, he found himself living in Paris amidst a number of young film critics and directors in an atmosphere that was ripe for innovation. With his first feature film Breathless, Godard set a precedent for a new, young generation of filmmakers and showed the older ones a new way to reach indifferent crowds. An early proponent of auteur theory alongside the original advocate, Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard’s films have a distinct “Godard” feel to them that is shown through different editing techniques, and of course, a break from the typical Hollywood film formula. Still alive and well, Godard’s legacy left its mark on directors today; there is a reason he has been ranked the third greatest director of all time by a Sight & Sound poll.

            Jean-Luc Godard was born in 1930 in Paris to a wealthy family; his father was a Swiss physician and his mother came from a family of bankers who founded the Banque Paribas. When Godard was four, his family moved to Switzerland, where he would remain for a good portion of his early years; however, at the outbreak of the Second World War, Godard found himself in France and encountered some difficulty returning to Switzerland. Jean-Luc was never truly into film early on. In fact, it was not until he read Malraux’s Outline of a Psychology of Cinema that he found it to be an interest he would pursue. He moved to Paris in 1946 to study at the Lycée Buffon, a secondary school; here he mixed with members of high society. However, he failed his baccalaureate exams after two years and returned to Switzerland. After time in Geneva, he returned to the University of Paris to pursue a certificate in anthropology, but he didn’t show up for many classes; instead, he found himself involved with “the young group of film critics at the cine-clubs that started the New Wave” (Wikipedia, Godard). Here in the fifties begins Godard’s involvement with film, albeit criticism, as a career path.

            Jean-Luc Godard, living in Paris in the 1950’s, was a frequent attendee of local film clubs. The clubs would screen films and fuel discussions after the viewing, many of which reached deep philosophical levels: “At the Cinematheque I discovered a world which nobody had spoken to me about…they’d told us about Goethe, but not about Dreyer…we dreamed about films” (Wikipedia). Godard found success as a critic for the magazine Cahiers du cinema in the early fifties. In his articles he would come to praise directors like Otto Preminger and Howard Hawks and their “harsh melodramas”, and blast the “formalistic and overtly artful films of Welles, De Sica and Wyler”; the aspects of Italian Neorealism that focused on realism and veracity would find root in Godard’s films later on, much as American film noir refused to sugar coat their stories. In 1953, while working construction on a dam project in Switzerland, he had his first major attempt at filming: “with money from the job, he made a short film about the building of the dam called Opération béton (Operation Concrete)” (Godard Timeline). The film was sold to the dam administration and used for publicity. He continued with several more short films and became friends and associated with soon-to-be important young directors, mainly Truffaut. In 1955, in an important collaboration, Truffaut got Godard to help work on “an idea he had for a film based on the true-crime story of a petty criminal…who had shot a motorcycle policeman and whose girlfriend had turned him in to the police…” (Wikipedia). Nothing came of the project at the time, as no producers were interested (though he would come to revisit the project, to major success as we will soon find out). In 1958, Godard made his most prominent short, Charlotte et son Jules, shot entirely in his own hotel room. The film was notable for Godard’s first use of actor Jean-Paul Belmondo, who would become famous for Breathless.

            Come 1959, it would seem Jean-Luc Godard had had enough of reporting from the sidelines. Many of his friends and acquaintances were now well-known filmmakers themselves. Godard went to the Cannes Film Festival that year and requested from Francois Truffaut the rights to the story they had collaborated on previously. Godard secured funding for the film, though not much, and went about recruiting his cast for what would be his first feature-length film. Jean-Paul Belmondo was signed on first, but he didn’t have the star power Godard wanted for the film, so Godard sought out Jean Seberg, an American actress living in Paris. The stage was set for his first major film, the film that would usher in a new era in cinema.

            Breathless was, as previously mentioned, the tale of a cool, indifferent young criminal and his American girlfriend. It convolutedly followed him over the course of a few days, from his murder of a policeman to his betrayal by the girl and his subsequent death. The film was envisioned as a documentary of sorts; it took many techniques from the previous Italian Neorealism movement. Godard filmed on location in Paris, used a hand-held camera to shoot the entire film, and used natural lighting. One famous scene involved Belmondo and Seberg meeting for the first time, walking down a boulevard in Paris. With the handheld camera in front of them as they stroll, the viewer gets a very realistic feel and an impression that you are right there with them. Godard also wrote lines of dialogue in a private book that no one else was allowed to look at. He would give his actors a few lines at a time and only allow a few rehearsals before attempting a take; this led to a more authentic and genuine feel to the dialogue of the movie. He also never got permission to film in any of the locations used. This meant they had to be in and out after a few takes, lest authorities come in and hamper his process. The film was also notable for its jump cuts, which were used “at every single break in the sentence to give his (Belmondo) language a rhythm and a flow” (Defining French New Wave).

The film was also a strong anti-Hollywood film in the fact that it eschewed typical Hollywood narrative structure of a strong character-driven story. Breathless jumped from frame to frame suddenly, and wasn’t perfectly linear. There is a strong, personal touch in the film as well, showing Godard as one of the early “auteurs”. “Truffaut states ‘Jean-Luc chose a violent end because by nature he was sadder than I…he was in the depths of despair when he made that film” (Defining French New Wave). The original story of Truffaut’s had a much happier ending, with Michel, Belmondo’s character, living at the end. Also, Godard, living in Paris at the time, probably felt a connection between himself and his character Michel, which makes the character that much more important to the viewer.

            The next major film of Jean-Luc Godard’s was Le Petit Soldat, or The Little Soldier. The second film in what many consider to be Godard’s cinematic period of filmmaking, it follows a French intelligence agency who is coerced into agreeing to assassinate a National Liberation Front of Algeria (FLN) agent. The FLN had been waging a war for the liberation of Algeria from France. The character eventually falls in love with a woman who had, at one point previously, helped the FLN. The two conspire to escape to Brazil together, but are of course captured. The main character escapes imprisonment and agrees to kill the FLN agent in exchange for safe passage to Brazil for him and his lover. However, French agents discover her connections to the FLN and torture her, eventually leading to her death.

            In order to truly understand why this film is so important, one must look at 1960 France. Algeria had had independence movements as early as 1954, during a time in which many African nations were shrugging off their imperial European “colonizers”. Algeria was to France as India was to Britain; it was the crown jewel of what had been a French empire. When open fighting did break out, it was analogous to today’s wars in the Middle East: insurgents drawn from the native population facing off against a modern army. The fighting was dirty on both sides, with assassination attempts and civilian bombings abound. At one point Frenchmen living in Algeria flooded to France after the killing and lynching of native loyalists. Another marked aspect of the war was the use of torture and illegal executions. France found itself in a moral dilemma and Charles De Gaulle decided to give up Algeria to its people in 1962. Le Petit Soldat came out in 1960, right in the middle of the Algerian War. The film was subsequently banned in France until 1963 due to the nature of its premise.

            Godard again shows himself to be an auteur with this film. He certainly overwhelms his studio and industry by making a film that everyone knew would be immediately controversial. An avowed Marxist, Godard shows his contempt for French imperial ambitions in Africa by making his main character someone who flees France to avoid the draft, out of fear for his life and out of disdain for the cause of the war. The entire plot of the film is based on an illegal assassination, something that French intelligence used many times over in the war despite it being expressly prohibited in the Geneva Convention. These anti-establishment, anti-status-quo themes found in the film are important, but there is another theme in the movie that helped stir the pot and get banned: the explicit torture scenes.

            For the movie’s time, the scenes depicting torture were wildly violent. One scene has an interrogator lighting a book of matches on fire and burns the main character’s palms with them. In order to obtain realism, “the actor actually endured, for a brief moment, the torture” (Godard’s Truthful Torture Scene). The actor, and thus character, are forcefully held under water for extended periods of time; he is even electrically shocked as well. The French interrogators appear resigned to this method of questioning, as if it was the only choice they had left and were devoid of morality; another swing by Godard at the French authorities. In all, it was no wonder the film was banned at the time. Torture scenes would not be shown as graphically as this until movies like Marathon Man. The entire project was Godard’s own vision; there is no way any studio, French especially, would have allowed those scenes and themes in a French movie at the time: thus, Godard’s force of personality bent them to his own creative will.

            Godard continued making films throughout the sixties, including a homage to American musicals, another anti-war movie, and even a science fiction film. Many of his films had political themes based in the current events going on in France and the rest of the world. His film La Chinoise featured a group of students and a number of their left-wing ideas. Coming out in 1967, it immediately preceded the May 1968 events involving the student rebellions and the collapse of the Republic. It was another film of Godard’s that expressly showed his Marxist leanings.

            Following the late 1960’s, Jean-Luc Godard moved into what has been labeled his “Revolutionary” or “Radical” period. Films from this era showed Godard’s intense interest in Maoist ideology and featured collaboration with Jean-Pierre Gorin, a young Maoist student. Many of his films from this time were considered extreme, even compared to the Hollywood New Wave films coming out at the time. “Save for small groups of committed militants…most audiences found the combination of recondite ideological hectoring and austere formal rigor all but unwatchable” (Criterion). Godard and his partner Gorin decided to return to a more populist political perspective, moving away from their radical ideas. Come Tout Va Bien.

            Tout Va Bien, or Everything Is Fine (All’s Well in the United States), was another political film (yes, another) of Godard’s, coming to theaters in 1972. Godard’s purpose for the film was “to consider the class struggle in France four years on from 1968” (Criterion). It took place in France and centers on a sausage factory under strike. An American reporter played by Jane Fonda is caught up in the strike and becomes radicalized and joins the movement. Fonda, a radical feminist at the time, was the perfect female socialist to play the part in the not-so-subtly Marxist film. Godard took another page from the Neorealism book and hired unemployed, no-name actors to play the factory workers; one way in which he injects a sense of the class-conflict rebounding throughout France at the time into the film. The entire film is based on Fonda’s character and her husband being radicalized over the course of a few nights stuck in the factory, after witnessing the “horrors” of capitalism and its effects on the lower classes. The film even ends with a riot of the workers! If this isn’t classic radical Godard, nothing is.

            The film did contain a number of innovative filming techniques. The factory set was actually a cross-sectioned building, allowing the camera to zoom in on one room, then zoom back out and be able to see activity in all rooms, before centering on another. The actors break the fourth wall several times throughout the film as well, talking directly to the camera. There were also a number of long takes and uses montage editing to portray the excitement and chaos of the strike and later riot. The film is important in the Jean-Luc Godard timeline as it was a major “critical and commercial disaster” according to critic Colin MacCabe. Audiences weren’t as enchanted with the extreme Fonda character as Godard hoped. The American premiere didn’t fare much better. The film forced Jean-Luc to recognize that his films weren’t having the political impact he had hoped they were.

            Godard made a few more tame political movies later in the seventies, but eventually returned to a more traditional format and mass-appealing source material. In 1987 Godard filmed King Lear, about as clear cut of source material as one can get. Histoire(s) du cinema, completed in 1998, was an extremely long “examination of the history of the concept of cinema and how it relates to the 20^th century” (Wikipedia). In some ways it was a return to his roots as a critic.

            Jean-Luc Godard is still alive and well today, his most recent film being a short called The Three Disasters. He is and always has been an auteur, of the theory developed by his close friend Francois Truffaut, in the sense that his films were always his own. They were creative and framed many of his own political and personal beliefs and ideologies. Pursuing this auteur idea is what lead him to Breathless, the film that would start it all. Many consider him to be a living legend, and in many ways this is true. Without Godard, there would be no Woody Allen, no Scorsese, or Tarantino. The edgy films we know and love today all are possible because of Jean-Luc Godard and his breaking of the mold with Breathless, over fifty years ago.

Works Cited

Wikipedia: Jean Seberg, Jean-Luc Godard, Breathless, The Little Soldier, French New Wave, All’s Well

Biographical Timeline http://www.carleton.edu/curricular/MEDA/classes/media110/Friesema/intro.html

Criterion: Tout va bien revisited        

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/356-tout-va-bien-revisited

Godard’s Truthful Torture Scene

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2013/03/le-petit-soldat-zdt-1960-and-more.html

The New Wave: Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol, Rohmer, Rivette by James Monaco

Jean-Luc Godard’s Breathless: Defining the French New Wave

http://voices.yahoo.com/jean-luc-godards-breathless-defining-french-new-78824.html?cat=40