Waning One-Time Art House Titans

[beamish14]

Godfrey Reggio probably fits this bill. The first two Qatsi films remain well-regarded, but his later work like Visitors and Once Within a Time have really alienated a lot of viewers

[GaryC]

One I thought of, and I'm pretty certain I've never had a chance to see any of his films - Alexander Kluge, still with us at 93. His films aren't available in the UK, and the only TV showing I can find is one of The Patriot (1979) on Channel 4 in 1984. But in the 60s, his films Yesterday Girl (1965) and Artistes at the Top of the Big Top: Disorientated (1968) seemed to be titles to conjure with, in arthouse terms at least. I've just looked up a contemporary review by Alexander Walker and he notes that German films were rarities in London cinemas at the time (1967). Kluge was at the start of the New German Cinema, along with Edgar Reitz (also still around, also 93) who at least has a secure place now due to Heimat and its sequels and prequels.

Whether Kluge's films still stand up I couldn't say, but it sounds like it's another example of a filmmaker's (lack of) reputation being down to simple unavailability. I don't know about availability of his films abroad, such as in Germany.

[swo17]

In Germany, basically everything Kluge has done is available in this massive English-friendly set

[GaryC]

In Germany, basically everything Kluge has done is available in this massive English-friendly set

Thanks. That would certainly scratch an itch, but no budget right now. I'd forgotten DVD Times had reviewed it, but then it wasn't me who did review it, though I was a regular contributor to that site.

I suspect with anyone mentioned in this thread, what it would need was a label to get behind him or her but that would be a matter of materials and availability to license, as well as how many copies they would expect to sell. I presume a dozen years ago Walerian Borowczyk would have been a candidate - best known for his erotica, with his earlier films unavailable - and then Arrow put together that box set, which was one I did review. But then, while Immoral Tales and The Beast aren't his best works (in my opinion) the sex aspect no doubt didn't hurt sales.

[MichaelB]

I suspect with anyone mentioned in this thread, what it would need was a label to get behind him or her but that would be a matter of materials and availability to license, as well as how many copies they would expect to sell. I presume a dozen years ago Walerian Borowczyk would have been a candidate - best known for his erotica, with his earlier films unavailable - and then Arrow put together that box set, which was one I did review. But then, while Immoral Tales and The Beast aren't his best works (in my opinion) the sex aspect no doubt didn't hurt sales.

The Borowczyk project had a very long gestation across two labels. I first started discussing it with Daniel Bird in 2007 as a potential follow-up to the BFI's Quay Brothers and Jan Švankmajer sets (my first two DVD projects as producer), with the aim of releasing it circa 2008 - this would most likely have borne a very strong resemblance to what ultimately became disc one of Arrow's Borowczyk set (and which is now released separately as Walerian Borowczyk: Short Films and Animation), although this would have been DVD only as the BFI didn't get into Blu-ray until 2009. But plans quickly foundered, partly because BFI Video Publishing was changing direction with a far greater focus on British films, but mainly because there simply weren't enough decent-quality masters even as analogue telecines, and I realised very quickly that the project would demand a substantially bigger budget than originally envisaged—and that was a non-starter.

However, in retrospect I'm very glad that the BFI plans collapsed, because of course the Arrow box that emerged in 2014 was infinitely more ambitious, going back to 35mm/16mm basics and creating brand new high-definition restorations - and the BFI booklet definitely wouldn't have run to 350 pages! Happily, Arrow under Fran Simeoni was actively looking for a prestige flagship project with which to establish Arrow as a serious player in the curation and restoration field (put bluntly, it was conceived from the outset as something that would win prizes, which happily turned out to be the case), although it turned out to be so expensive that they famously went for a crowdfunding top-up that was successful enough to ensure that everything in the box was natively HD aside from a mid-1980s video interview with Borowczyk. As you rightly say, including the far better known likes of Immoral Tales and The Beast was critical here, as the idea was that they'd act as gateways into the more obscure earlier work. In fact, the original plan was to include everything pre-1975, but the Polish side of things was tricky, and in the end those films were released separately as Arrow's Story of Sin plus key supporting shorts.

Sadly, plans for a follow-up box covering the late-70s period foundered when two of them turned out to be unreleasable thanks to the lead actresses being under 18 at the time of production - legal back then, decidedly not now. In fact, I don't think Lulu (1980) has ever had a commercial release in an English-speaking country, definitely for that reason in the UK, and most likely that applies elsewhere as well. Even though Anne Bennent (daughter of Heinz, sister of David) was fiercely proud of her performance, that cuts no ice when it comes to the law. The other film that ran into legal difficulties was the festival cut of A Private Collection, which included footage of unambiguously genuine bestiality – in this case, the film was included in the original Borowczyk box, but with the legally problematic bits blacked out rather than cut in order not to disrupt the editing rhythms. Otherwise, though, the films were intact – in fact, the BBFC was gratifyingly supportive, as they recognised that it was clearly a serious project about a neglected major artist.

Incidentally, one of the other projects on my mid-2000s shortlist as a Quay/Švankmajer follow-up was Yuri Norstein, another one that foundered on the back of a lack of decent off-the-shelf materials - but I'm delighted to see that that's finally bearing fruit (albeit nearly two decades later!) with Deaf Crocodile's amazing-looking December release, to which I was honoured to be asked to contribute.

[Aunt Peg]

Sadly, plans for a follow-up box covering the late-70s period foundered when two of them turned out to be unreleasable thanks to the lead actresses being under 18 at the time of production - legal back then, decidedly not now. In fact, I don't think Lulu (1980) has ever had a commercial release in an English-speaking country, definitely for that reason in the UK, and most likely that applies elsewhere as well. Even though Anne Bennent (daughter of Heinz, sister of David) was fiercely proud of her performance, that cuts no ice when it comes to the law. The other film that ran into legal difficulties was the festival cut of A Private Collection, which included footage of unambiguously genuine bestiality – in this case, the film was included in the original Borowczyk box, but with the legally problematic bits blacked out rather than cut in order not to disrupt the editing rhythms. Otherwise, though, the films were intact – in fact, the BBFC was gratifyingly supportive, as they recognised that it was clearly a serious project about a neglected major artist.

Lulu (1980) was released theatrically in Australia back in 1981/82. The only time I've ever seen a film played at the cinema that had subtitles that required the projectionist to manually scroll them in synch with the film. My understanding was the film was released uncut.

https://www.classification.gov.au/titles/lulu-0

I can't recall it getting a VHS release though. But there were a high number of foreign language films of that era that never turned up on home video.

[hearthesilence]

For the first time in a very long time, Shane Carruth's name came to mind. Maybe not quite a "titan" but he was considered a very promising filmmaker, albeit one who made very few films, until his reputation went to shit.

[Peacock]

MichaelB - Thanks for the info re the one-time plans for a follow up Boro set.

You mention two titles as being problematic - Lulu and, I assume Immoral Women?

So Emmanuelle 5 and Art of Love are likely fine from a BBFC perspective right? Hopefully someone gets them out.

It’s a shame that quite a few acclaimed European art-erotic films by “major” directors in the field now appear unreleasable due to the age of a key cast member.

Sorry if this is getting too off-topic, but if a random third party was to submit some of these titles to the BBFC to test if they would cut them or not, and it turned out they didn’t cut them, would that then encourage UK labels to consider putting them out as their fear of wasting money submitting only to get cut would be alleviated?

[MichaelB]

It’s a shame that quite a few acclaimed European art-erotic films by “major” directors in the field now appear unreleasable due to the age of a key cast member.

Good luck lobbying for that particular law to be overturned! The last time it was revised (in 2003), it was made even more draconian, to the point where some very famous Sun Page Threes of the 1980s now technically qualify as child pornography.

Sorry if this is getting too off-topic, but if a random third party was to submit some of these titles to the BBFC to test if they would cut them or not, and it turned out they didn’t cut them, would that then encourage UK labels to consider putting them out as their fear of wasting money submitting only to get cut would be alleviated?

I'm not sure what you're asking for. If the performers were underage and the material is deemed to cross the line where it becomes a recording of actual underage sexual contact, the BBFC will cut the material—legally, they have to. And if they appear underage, the distributor will be asked for proof that they weren't. Of course, there's the famous case of Melvin Van Peebles simply lying to the BBFC in a written statement about his son's age, but presumably you're not calling for that?

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "a random third party"—do you mean someone who doesn't actually have the UK distribution rights at the time?

[zedz]

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "a random third party"—do you mean someone who doesn't actually have the UK distribution rights at the time?

I don't expect the BBFC will suffer tyre kickers gladly.

[spectre]

If the performers were underage and the material is deemed to cross the line where it becomes a recording of actual underage sexual contact, the BBFC will cut the material—legally, they have to.

As they should. But is that actually the case with Lulu? I saw it years ago – albeit in a pretty crappy English-dubbed version, possibly censored? – and don’t recall any unsimulated sexual activity. If anything, I thought it was one of Borowczyk’s tamer works; I don’t think there was anything stronger in it than in Salo, many of whose actors were also between the ages of 16 and 18, at any rate.

[MichaelB]

I don't expect the BBFC will suffer tyre kickers gladly.

I'm sure they'd be happy to deal with anyone prepared to pay the fee!

Which is why I never understood the point of that prank involving an umpteen-hour video of paint drying - the BBFC was paid handsomely, and I daresay it came as a welcome relief from the usual diet of Teletubbies and hardcore porn.

As they should. But is that actually the case with Lulu? I saw it years ago – albeit in a pretty crappy English-dubbed version, possibly censored? – and don’t recall any unsimulated sexual activity. If anything, I thought it was one of Borowczyk’s tamer works;

It's ages since I've seen it, but I remember her being full-frontally naked for a fair chunk of the running time, and in a clearly sexualised context. The current legal test is whether the imagery counts as being "indecent", and I wouldn't want to be in court arguing that for the defence!

I don’t think there was anything stronger in it than in Salo, many of whose actors were also between the ages of 16 and 18, at any rate.

Do you have a source for this, other than unsubstantiated rumour? All the credited actors playing the victims were in their twenties.

[Peacock]

Michael - Suppose I wanted to organise some kind of screening for a film which didn’t have a classification, I haven’t really thought it through. I’ve just often wondered if submitting films as test cases would help distributors who might be wary of gambling the money themselves. Hypothetically!

And no I’m not suggesting that films with underage sexual contact urgently need releasing. I can understand why it might have read disturbingly! I meant more those grey area films like the Boros, some of Franco’s 80s work, Terayama etc. I mean Slap the Monster on Page One was not ok but American Beauty is, Viva La Muerte is fine but Sister Street Fighter 2 was digitally reframed, Bilitis and El Topo passed no problem but Sex Rider: Wet Highway was cut in one scene. The rules are a bit vague so I can see why small labels wouldn’t want to take the risk.

[MichaelB]

BBFC classifications are only compulsory with regard to video releases, per the 1984 Video Recordings Act. Which I'd gladly abolish as no longer fit for purpose: I'd much rather have a system where, say, unclassified films are automatically regarded as mandatory 18s, and if the label wants to widen the audience they can pay the BBFC for the "privilege".

For cinema screenings, they've always been optional, although local authorities tend to prefer that films screened within their jurisdiction have them (indeed, the BBFC was created in the first place to alleviate pressure on them applied by the 1909 Cinematograph Act, which made them responsible for regulating what cinemas were showing). But if the local authority is amenable and you give them 28 days' notice, they can bypass the BBFC and authorise a screening directly—I still fondly remember my regular letters to Camden Council, who in fact applied the "mandatory 18" principle, most entertainingly in an Ozu retrospective where three of the films were given 18s although it was wildly unlikely that they'd get anything stronger than PG if formally BBFC-approved.

And film festivals are often granted blanket local authority passes, as it's clearly impractical and expensive to get BBFC certificates for just one or two showings, although in the case of controversial films whose reputation precedes them they might be more restrictive—for instance, Westminster Council required that A Serbian Film be BBFC-approved even in advance of festival screenings.

As for your second paragraph, this has been a recurring headache for the BBFC ever since the 1978 Protection of Children Act was passed in the first place, the problem being that, unlike the 1959 Obscene Publications Act (which, ironically, had only just been extended to cover film), artistic merit isn't an acceptable defence in law. So everything has to be assessed on its own intrinsic merits, with precedent informing a great many decisions (as is the case in the law in general, of course). I've had surprisingly little first-hand experience of this—my BBFC crossed-fingers situations tended to revolve around animal cruelty or sexual violence not involving underage people.

[spectre]

As they should. But is that actually the case with Lulu? I saw it years ago – albeit in a pretty crappy English-dubbed version, possibly censored? – and don’t recall any unsimulated sexual activity. If anything, I thought it was one of Borowczyk’s tamer works;

It's ages since I've seen it, but I remember her being full-frontally naked for a fair chunk of the running time, and in a clearly sexualised context. The current legal test is whether the imagery counts as being "indecent", and I wouldn't want to be in court arguing that for the defence!

I don’t think there was anything stronger in it than in Salo, many of whose actors were also between the ages of 16 and 18, at any rate.

Do you have a source for this, other than unsubstantiated rumour? All the credited actors playing the victims were in their twenties.

Sergio Fascetti was 16 at the time of shooting, per IMDb: https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0268668/

And Antiniska Nemour was 17: https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0625997/

Comparing the above birthdates with this article, which states that the film was shot between March and April 1975: https://my-blackout.com/2019/11/13/paso ... -of-sodom/

A lot of the other actors’ birthdates aren’t listed, but we can reasonably infer from the above that Pasolini had no compunctions about casting actors under the age of 18, as he apparently also did in Arabian Nights (a film that seems more problematic still given its more overtly sexualised atmosphere, but sails under the radar for some reason).

The question of what does or doesn’t count as “sexualised” is no doubt difficult to pin down, but I believe that it has been fairly comprehensively established by precedent that the BBFC doesn’t consider nudity on its own inherently problematic. A simulated sex scene might well cross the line – I don’t recall whether there are any in Lulu – but even there I’m not sure that they’ve always been as strict as one might imagine given how hard they clamp down on other material like cruelty to animals.

I guess a question I’m trying to wrap my head around here is: if it’s not CSAM (and I think we all have a pretty clear idea of what that is or isn’t by now), is the BBFC actually obliged to step in? Or is there some grey area of material that doesn’t fit that legal category (i.e. is not prosecutable under law) but nonetheless will still be cut by the BBFC based on their understanding of the Protection of Children Act? It doesn’t seem like it based on what you’ve written on this here in the past – if anything, it seems to me like the guidelines are very rigid and specific.

[Matt]

Enjoy our splinter thread, Would-Be One-Time Art House Titans

[domino harvey]

Thank you Matt, I was about to come in here and tap the sign

[MichaelB]

Speaking of Lee, I don't think he's done anything of note since the turn of the millennium, though I know he has his defenders.

Just to site a single example, are you seriously arguing that When the Levees Broke isn't "of note"?

There are others, of course, but that seems to be a particularly glaring omission from the record.

[The Narrator Returns]

Even if someone doesn’t like his most recent movies, it would be hard, certainly ill-advised, to argue against their noteworthiness, whether by being his usual fascinating “messes” or by winning him an Oscar or by the undeniable strength of their lead performances.

[Maltic]

He always saves the best for the Italians/Bensonhurst, arguably.

https://youtu.be/TgL_5QcZCMo?si=bVJHFzxPn4j_pZg-

[hearthesilence]

Speaking of Lee, I don't think he's done anything of note since the turn of the millennium, though I know he has his defenders.

Just to site a single example, are you seriously arguing that When the Levees Broke isn't "of note"?

There are others, of course, but that seems to be a particularly glaring omission from the record.

I would definitely add 25th Hour, and I would argue they're two of his three greatest films (Do the Right Thing being the remaining film).

[Zot!]

Sorry, you can strike Lee from the record. I never cared for him, so I'm not well positioned to judge his career, but the last big statement I remembered was 4 Little Girls. Again, I am not qualified to make the assessment, but 25th Hour and the Katrina movie are both 20(!) years old.

[MichaelB]

And BlackKklansman is considerably more recent.

[Zot!]

I'm going to say that I totally respect that for any filmmaker to stay relevant over the decades must be exceedingly difficult. I can acknowledge that Lee has continued to stay part of the conversation, thought I think his early work has risen in esteem even more.

[thirtyframesasecond]

Chi-raq was pretty decent too.