26.12.2013 Views

14:14, 13 October 2012 - Monoskop

14:14, 13 October 2012 - Monoskop

14:14, 13 October 2012 - Monoskop

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The Green of the Grass: Harun Farocki in Filmkritik 79<br />

If you do not read thrillers you might not understand why such a film deserves to be<br />

admired. This lightness of touch, perfect timing, and a feeling of happiness is only<br />

achieved when I succeed in throwing the wash into the machine, register a letter at<br />

the post office and return to the laundromat at the very moment the tub stops rotating.<br />

Red Line 7000 (Howard Hawks, USA 1965) is about the stupidity of life, excessively<br />

so, without letting itself be affected by it.<br />

In Une femme douce (Robert Bresson, France 1968/69) a man and a woman are sitting<br />

mutely opposite each other, both having a bowl of soup. Bresson cuts from the<br />

soupspoon of one person, which is being lowered, to the other soupspoon, which is<br />

being raised to the mouth of the other person. The movements of the spoons link<br />

man and woman in the same way pistons connect the wheels of a locomotive. Shotcountershot,<br />

it is a technique of film language that has received much criticism –<br />

Bresson criticizes it by applying it with precision. (1984, p. 65)<br />

I’m trying to comment on this shot-countershot technique while taking shots from<br />

both sides; placed side by side they are meant to yield another image, and that<br />

which exists between the images should become visible. (1981, p. 516)<br />

Pialat tries to make films without any rhetoric, films that never leave you observing<br />

afterwards: ‘well edited’ or the like. (...) That is also why his scenes do not begin<br />

with a few panoramic shots to introduce a scene and set its mood, nor with what is<br />

held to be the opposite and is in fact the same thing: namely an affected leaping into<br />

the scene. (1981, p. 117)<br />

In Topaz (USA 1969), I thought it was amazingly brave for Hitchcock to make a film<br />

in which two thirds of it include a stupid wall and a stupid door that can be seen<br />

with a splash of light on them. [...] With Hawks and Hitchcock there is this glaring<br />

ugliness that blows me away. (1983, p. 32)<br />

I have a theory that only in the American studio system were there people who<br />

could break the rules by cutting on action without action, that is, cutting from a further<br />

shot to a closer one taken from the same angle. And they could do this without<br />

staging a grand movement to distract the eye so that you don’t notice the images not<br />

fitting together. (1979, p. 490)<br />

One advantage film photography has over still photography are the actors, who direct<br />

the viewer’s gaze through the images. How nice it is to look at a stretch of water<br />

being traversed by a ship. Without the ship the gaze would head off into the distance<br />

where it would be buried by an obscure immensity, now it skims like a flat<br />

stone across the wake of the ship, a trace whose imprint the water bears for a surprisingly<br />

long time. (1983, p. 327)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!