Hmm, I didn't want to revive the old auteurism debate, and while I was agreeing with denti that there are few 'auteurs' in Germany at the moment, my emphasis was rather on the absence of many 'filmic' films (as opposed to films that are 'just' competently made). But in general I admit that I believe that many films that have a distinctive and innovative visual style possess this style because SOMEONE (and it might very well be the cinematographer rather than the director) exercises more control than the other valuable people needed to make a film.
lubitsch wrote:And if Duvivier or Curtiz excel in different genres, isn't it all the better and arguably even more impressive than repeating itself ad nauseam like Ozu or Godard?
It depends on the product. What about Dreyer? The man made films in many different genres and excelled in every one of them, but there are few people who would argue that all these films are not immediately recognizable as Dreyer films. Pabst is a different affair and might perhaps rather be compared to Duvivier and Curtiz, but still: isn't he a much discussed director in spite of lacking that enormous sort of immediate idiosyncratic recognizability? I also remember the difficulties we once had here in trying to define the 'style' of John Ford. In other words: though Ford probably can't be described as an 'auteur' (and I also don't particularly like that term), his films more often than not are great films, and that's why he's discussed so often. But the same goes for Ozu.
lubitsch wrote:Isn't it much easier to sit in a course at the uni and to show how this director modified his style here a bit and how a film movement developed, reached its peak and then died out?
That's great if you sit right in the middle of such a movement or are an extremely idiosyncratic genius. It's bad luck if you happen to be only a directos of excellent films. The same problem arises with the concept of certain filmmaking countries, just throw the name of a film country and you get certain cliches. Eastern Europe? Either social revolution (Eisenstein) or deep mysticism (Tarkovski, Kieslowski). Germany? Shadows, madness, seriousness.
Absolutely true, of course. But there's only so much you can do in 14 sessions, so you could actually ask denti to do six or eight different courses in order to provide a 'full' picture, or drop the idea of doing a course on German cinema alltogether. I must admit that the idea of doing a course encompassing the whole film history of a certain country wouldn't have occured to me, unlike, say, doing a course on 'expressionism through the ages' or on 'non-narrative film-making from the 20s to the 90s', or indeed on Weimar cinema with all the different aspects you mention. On the other hand, a university course can always only be a starting point. Those students who become really interested in one of the films or periods covered in the course will seek out the rest on their own. And denti can of course always direct them to this forum....
lubitsch wrote:I think it's a tragedy if the work of film scholars leads to a situation like the one with Italian neorealism. You have a concept, three or four directors, seven or eight films which are repeated again and again. The whole Italian cinema between 1942 and 1952 now consists of the films by De Sica, the Viscontis, the Rossellinis and - to add a popular film - BITTER RICE. If you're not Italian, just try to get your hand on the other films by Lattuada, Germi and others!!! It's a frightening dead-end.
Yes, but having seen a few films outside the 'neorealist canon' I can't help but thinking that it is not by chance that Lattuada, Germi etc. are comparatively unknown, at least outside of Italy. They made competent films, probably films very typical and indicative for the period, worth studying if you're interested in the time and in the culture, but they simply don't reach the depth and artistic quality of those films universally known. And how many people outside Italy have ever seen another film by De Santis apart from "Riso amaro"? The canon can be deceptive, of course, but it hasn't come into being by chance. And the canon of course can change, though it took more than fourty years before "Vampyr" was recognized as the utter masterpiece it is. On the other hand, once much revered films might unjustly fall out of discussion due to these changes. Is anyone talking about Cocteau anymore, academically?