criterionforum.org

I agree that filmmaker's offer the best insight into the nature of their craft. My favorite books about film are...

The Conversations - by Micheal Ondadtje
This book is a series of interviews conducted by Micheal Ondaatje (author of the English Patient) with legendary editor/sound designer Walter Murch. This book is great because Walter Murch is such an interesting individual. He has so many theories about film and about sound and explains how and why he made some of the choices he's done throughout his career. Plenty of great anecdotes and just a very enjoyable read.

Stanley Kubrick Interviews
This book is probably the best book I've ever read about Kubrick. It is just a collection of interviews that he has done throughout his career, but it really gives you an insight into one of cinema's most enigmatic figures.

On Directing Film - David Mamet
This is a very quick read, but very insightful in regards to shooting according to "the cut". This book was written right after Mamet finished House of Games and I'm sure that a lot of the ideas that Mamet was developing in the book would later be renounced or altered as he progessed as a filmmaker.

These are a few reccomendations. As stated previously in the thread the filmmaker on filmmaker series is also excellent. [/u]

The book by Almendros is such a treasure! I read it a few years ago and it was such a delight. The chapters on Rohmer were my favorites. The making of Days Of Heaven was fun to read from Almendros' viewpoint. It's a crime the book is out of print. The Faber series can't be recommended highly enough. Their David Lynch book is a treasure.

So I take it nobody's familiar with the Woo book I mentioned? You know, when I revived this thread.

In any case, it's published by McFarland, apparently a North Carolina-based group, though I gather the author was at the University of North Dakota when he wrote it. The bookstore I saw it at had a used copy for $20 and listed the publisher's price as $45, so I don't rightly know what to make of that. Any help at all would be appreciated.

I was exposed to a fair amount of 'continental theory' in college, and given the continued evolution of theory, I still have trouble articulating a lot of it. My significant other (J) is a film academic-in training (Ph.D studies), and is well-versed in it, though also rather ambivalent. In any case, I can vouch for the fact that a rigorous obscurantism, developed for career preservation reasons, is thoroughly in place. J's insistence upon blending psychoanalytic and structuralist theory with other approaches, and in attempting to look beyond the canon for objects of study meets with some resistance; such an approach - upon evaluation - is taken as a challenge by some academic higher-ups. This would imply that at least certain academics' work isn't as valuable as they think it is. Time will ultimately tell - I do feel that certain forms of theory have their value, but I am suspicious of the institutionalism of theory as a thing unto itself.

goofbutton wrote:As much as I read film criticism (and I try to read every bit I can find, in newspapers, academic journals, books of all sorts, etc.) I find the best - or most interesting - evaluation of films always comes from other filmmakers. They might not always be able to articulate why they like a certain film or director, but it's always a real incentive to watch or re-watch something if I find out it's highly thought of by someone whose work I already admire.

I agree - to the degree that I've had some contact with theory, I can't claim to be any sort of expert with it, and I think criticism absolutely must communicate smart (not impenetrable) interpretations with a wider film community; a community that would hopefully expand in an intelligent fashion. Whatever I've gotten from theory has definitely been equalled or surpassed by reading filmmakers own writings or, in some instances, biographies - my understanding of Kurosawa, Ozu, Satyajit Ray, Fellini, Godard, Scorsese and others was greatly broadened by reading some of their own analysis of their own work, and works they cite as influences. Any of my knowledge of techniques, and of how to examine films in social context, aesthetically or technically has usually come from this kind of investigation.

davida2 wrote:Whatever I've gotten from theory has definitely been equalled or surpassed by reading filmmakers own writings or, in some instances, biographies - my understanding of Kurosawa, Ozu, Satyajit Ray, Fellini, Godard, Scorsese and others was greatly broadened by reading some of their own analysis of their own work, and works they cite as influences. Any of my knowledge of techniques, and of how to examine films in social context, aesthetically or technically has usually come from this kind of investigation.

I agree with you, but for a very specific reason. Most film theories, as sexy or intellectually engaging as they can be, rest on very basic and rather flimsy assumptions: films are like dreams, cinema is like a language, the camera is like the eye, the camera is like a prosthesis of the eye, and so on. If one is skeptical about film theories in general, they only really make sense as metaphors by which particular filmmakers live. So, if Eisenstein believes that the essence of cinema is montage, this may be illuminating for the viewer of Eisenstein's films, but it is not something that the viewer has to actually believe. (By the way, I realize this is an absurd reduction, but hopefully you get the point.)

However, I think it's important that one regard theory not only as a means of explicating individual works, but also as an autonomous entity that needs to be challenged and appraised on its own merits. It seems to me that, while many don't like the idea of theories of film being separate from film itself, this is precisely what makes a theory a theory: it is a (usually very broad) statement about cinema's ontology, its effects on the spectator, its place in society, and its inherent ways of conveying meaning. The practice of applying theories of film to individual works in order to "prove" something about one or the other is, it seems to me, rather more dubious, or even detrimental, than simply approaching the assumptions and generalities of a theory on its own terms and by its own logic.

Reading filmmakers' writings about their own work can be illuminating in many cases but not in others. For example, some -- possibly even most -- of the great auteurs of Classic Hollywood were willing or able to say very little that really showed the true depth of what they were doing. Even with directors who make detailed explorations of their own work, their writings should only form part of an analysis of their work and its significance because, in my view, one is never in the best position to explore and assess one's own achievements.

I was reading about Sturges in Sarris' "You Ain't Heard Nothing Yet" and had forgotten how much I'd enjoyed the book. I'd recommend this one as a valuable guide to old Hollywood.

Andrei Tarkovsky
Sculpting In Time (Reflections on the Cinema)

Faber & Faber, Revised edition 1989, English translation
of "Sapetschatljonnoje Wremja", ISBN 0-571-15135-3.
Also: Univ of Texas Pr; ISBN: 0292776241
[NOTE that the first AMERICAN - not this one - edition states:
"This translation originally published in slightly
different form in Great Britain by Bodley Head, Ltd.,
London in 1986."

Also...if you want something broader, the ultimate film list book:
"1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" by Steven Jay Schneider
is great. (+ the cover is hilarious)

Should I pick up Thinking In Pictures or Sayles On Sayles? I have not seen Matewan yet, is the former book written with the understanding that readers have viewed the film?

Jem wrote:Also...if you want something broader, the ultimate film list book: "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" by Steven Jay Schneider is great. (+ the cover is hilarious)

Aye, a pretty good 'bedside table' book that. However, the omission and inclusion of a few films judged to be the 1001 best of cinema certainly had me rolling my eyes on occasion. Then again, 'tis the nature of the beast...

Steven H wrote:David Desser's Eros Plus Massacre is flat out *great*. Interesting commentary on the Japanese New Wave (and when it strays from that topic it's just as interesting.)

Thanks for the tip on this. I took it out from my local library and have been enjoying it a great deal. I'm interesting in reading more about Seijun Suzuki; Desser covers his works for about 10 pages. The first book that introduced me to Suzuki (Asian Pop Cinema (Lee Server, 1999)) devotes a scant four pages to him, though it has terrific images from the films (as well as stills from Kwaidan, Sword of Doom, and Irma Vep that intrigued me before I'd ever heard of the movies). I know there's a retrospective booklet long out of print (Branded to Thrill (Field, Rayns, BFI, 1995) ... does anyone in the forum have a copy?), and I found a few other books that list him as a subject:

The Midnight Eye Guide to New Japanese Film (Mes, Sharp, 2004)
The Yakuza Movie Book: a Guide to Japanese Gangster Films (Shilling, 2003)

Has anyone on the forum read these books, and can offer an opinion of them? (They're not available in my library system, otherwise I'd explore them myself.)

A few random recommendations:

Films and Feelings by Raymond Durgnat (1967, M.I.T. Press)

His views on This Island Earth and how Cinema relates to Mythology are fascinating. Durgnat's book analysis on Psycho is also superb.

World Film Directors: 1890-1945, edited by John Wakeman

World Film Directors: 1945-1985, edited by John Wakeman

I dot own Vol 2 yet, but Vol 1 is an awesome resource, with entries on every major director who was born before 1925 and many now-forgotten masters of Cinema. Everyone should own these. I'd better go order Vol 2.

Godot wrote:The Midnight Eye Guide to New Japanese Film (Mes, Sharp, 2004) The Yakuza Movie Book: a Guide to Japanese Gangster Films (Shilling, 2003)

Has anyone on the forum read these books, and can offer an opinion of them? (They're not available in my library system, otherwise I'd explore them myself.)

I have not read them, but I'm not sure how far back the Sharp (who I usually enjoy reading) book goes, and I've continually found myself at odds with Schilling's takes on films (can't give any specific examples though.)

Your best bet is probably the Rayns book. He's consistently interesting. Then again, I'm just going by my familiarity with the writers, I haven't read these books. Not much help.

One of my favorite underrated books is When The Shooting Stops, The Cutting Begins by film editor Ralph Rosenbloom. Among his numerous credits are Annie Hall and The Producers, and he has some great anecdotes about how he allegedly rescued them from the realms of the unwatchable. Yet, he never comes across as self-serving or egotistical, just full of smart and wryly funny insights into the editing process.

I am currently Reading Syd Field's "The Screenwriter's Problem Solver". It's quite good, but it's more for people interested in american filmmaking. it's very formulaic.

I recently read Woody Allen on Woody Allen, which was superb. not much in terms of the actual technicality of filmmaking, but loads and loads of tidbits about storytelling.

the third one i'm going to recommend is one of my favorite books, "The Art of Editing: The Conversations with Walter Murch". Written by Michael Ondaatje (The English Patient) it is the transcripts of 5 conversations between the writer and editor and is ALWAYS interesting. any fan of Apocalypse Now, The Godfather trilogy, and The Conversation (all films edited by Murch) will find this extremely informative. and the best part of all, Is the conversation in which he discusses recutting Orson Welles' Touch of Evil, according to the memo he wrote to the studio as he sat and watched the studio controlled version ONLY ONE TIME. Welles wrote about 58 pages of notes while watching the film once, and there are excerpts of that memo in this book. it's fascinating to read about. definitely worth the cover price.

I'm currently reading Herzog on Herzog and it has to be one of the best books I've ever read. But everyone's love and admiration for the world's greatest filmmaker has been said elsewhere.

I'm curious what are all of the faber Filmmaker on Filmmaker books? If someone has a link or could list them all that would be great. It is really a great series and one that I want to investigate further.

Blissful Sinner wrote:What are all of the faber Filmmaker on Filmmaker books?

Since ff provide no convenient list that I can see, I compiled this from the first page of Trier on von Trier and their website. They claim 25 titles to date, so this should be everything.

Faber and Faber's Directors on Directing series:
Woody Allen on Woody Allen, Almodóvar on Almodóvar, Altman on Altman, Burton on Burton, Cassavetes on Cassavetes, Cronenberg on Cronenberg, de Toth on de Toth, Fellini on Fellini, Gilliam on Gilliam, Hawks on Hawks, Herzog on Herzog, Hitchcock on Hitchcock, Kieslowski on Kieslowski, Levinson on Levinson, Loach on Loach, Baz Luhrmann on Baz Luhrmann, Lynch on Lynch, Malle on Malle, Minghella on Minghella, Potter on Potter, Sayles on Sayles, Schrader on Schrader, Scorsese on Scorsese, Sirk on Sirk and Trier on von Trier.

I read Trier on von Trier just recently. The book is true to its title, Trier on von Trier -- Lars Trier comes off as a forthcoming, friendly, nonconfrontational individual discussing Lars von Trier, his notoriously difficult and confrontational directorial personality. It's a very complete assessment -- there is even a chapter discussing Psychomobile #1 - The World Clock, an absurdly Rube Goldbergian art/performance exhibit von Trier devised that I had never heard of before (the making of which is now apparently documented in a doc called The Exhibited). Lesser films (at least in von Trier's opinion) like Medea are explored as fully as Breaking the Waves or Dogville. His manifestos are reprinted here to supplement the interviews, as well -- many will have read these before, but it's nice to have them in one place, and interesting to read them in short succession.

Blissful Sinner wrote:Stanley Kubrick Interviews
This book is probably the best book I've ever read about Kubrick. It is just a collection of interviews that he has done throughout his career, but it really gives you an insight into one of cinema's most enigmatic figures.

You should really read Stanley Kubrick: A Biography by Vincent Lobrutto which is the best biography I've read on the man and provides a much more comprehensive look at his life (esp. before he became a filmmaker) and his movies. Lobrutto basically interviewed everyone he could who had worked with Kubrick who was still alive. It's a fantastic read.

For all your Bava fans, Tim Lucas has posted an update for his upcoming Mario Bava tome. He's posted 4 pages from his Danger: Diabolik chapter. Man, it looks nice!

My god... Seems like it had to be about seven years ago that VW started to take preorders for this -- I know I was still in high school, anyway. Good to see it's finally coming together.

dekadetia wrote:My god... Seems like it had to be about seven years ago that VW started to take preorders for this -- I know I was still in high school, anyway. Good to see it's finally coming together.

I know! I pre-ordered it years ago and totally forgot about it. Every once in awhile something will jog my memory and I'll check the Video Watchdog site to see what's going on with the book.

Could anyone comments on these books?

A Long Hard Look at Psycho

Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho

The Cinema Book

Also, is there any good book that cover the history of American censorship?

Could anyone comments on these books?

A Long Hard Look at Psycho

Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho

The Durgnat book is wonderful, sadly finished as he neared death. It's his overview of the film and various theories, approaches, other critics, production stories, shot-by-shot analysis, and psychological meanings. Whether you enjoy it may depend on what you are looking for in a book about Psycho, and how familiar you are with Durgnat's style. If you've read his early work (of which I highly recommend Durgnat on Film and Eros in the Cinema), you'll know what this book is like: impressions, emotional arguments, insight, literary asides, and the occasional frame-by-frame observations. For fans of the film, it's a delight. But if you're looking for a more formal and literary/psychological/sociological analysis, pick up Robin Wood's book on Hitchcock's Films (and/or ...Revisited). Wood and Durgnat were an interesting pair of critics, working for different journals from the beginning, writing with directly conflicting styles while often having the same conclusion about the value of films. They both loved Hitchcock, for very different reasons, and Durgnat's collection of Hitch articles (gathered in The Strange Case of Alfred Hitchcock) could hardly be more different than Wood's seminal film-by-film analysis. Both keyed on the voyeuristic aspects of Hitchcock's late work, the audience participation, but their methods of analysis were polar opposites. Where Wood is cool, focused, intellectual and precise, Durgnat was vibrant, tangential and sloppy (his errors in simple scene details are infamous among other critics); at a time when there was no easy way to review old films, Durgnat was more off-the-cuff, which may irritate some readers. But reading Durgnat on Psycho is like reading Wood on Rio Bravo, reflecting personally on a film they can "watch" in their heads over and over, with their own peculiar take on what the film means and how it works.

The Robello book is completely different, more concerned with the production of the film. As such, it's like Dan Auiler's great Vertigo: The Making of a Hitchcock Classic, going through the preparation, contributors, actors, filming details, editing, post-production, marketing, and reception of the film. It is certainly valuable for it's collection of information (especially straightening out the erroneous claims that Saul Bass "directed" the shower scene; he was specially hired by Hitch to storyboard that one scene, and did so to match Hitch's description of what he wanted, then Hitch filmed those storyboards very closely), how Hitchcock worked with writers and source novels, etc. But don't expect much analysis.

By the way, my choice for best analysis of Psycho is James Naremore's excellent entry in the Indiana University Press "Filmguide" series from 1973 (which also featured grad student David Bordwell on Passion of Joan of Arc and Gerald Mast on Rules of the Game); it's long out-of-print, but readily available in the usual used internet sites. If you've enjoyed Naremore's great noir compendium (More Than Night: Film Noir in It's Contexts), you may find it interesting to read his early critical effort, which is a bit more formal and dry.

And for a good Hitchcock overview, my recommendation is Focus on Hitchcock (edited by Albert LaValley), which features exerpts from many of the key '60's critics and their often groundbreaking evaluations: Sarris' entry on AH from American Cinema, Wood's great defense of AH as artist ("Why We Should Take Hitchcock Seriously"), Durgnat's early essays on Psycho, Leo Braudy's critique of the Truffaut interview, and a Bordwell-like storyboard of the NxNW cropduster scene breaking down the duration of each shot that impressed me greatly as a teen learning to appreciate how film works.

BFI's Film Classics Series just announced two new books:

Los Olvidados
Mark Polizzotti

Paperback: £9.99

Los Olvidados (1950) established Luis Bunuel's reputation as a world-class director. Set in the slums of Mexico City, it follows the crime-filled and violent lives of group of juvenile delinquents. The film exhibits some of Bunuel's recognisable themes of love's yearnings, social injustice, and surrealism, but with a layer of compassion that sets it apart from many of his other films. In 2003, Los Olvidados was inducted into UNESCO's Memory of the World programme, which preserves documentary heritage of world significance.

Mark Polizzotti explores the historical context, aesthetic importance and biographical significance of the film, providing the first complete overview of Los Olvidados in English. He also presents an introduction to the Mexican film industry and places Bunuel and his films within it.

While many critics have taken Los Olvidados as a film about urban poverty, Mark Polizzotti sees it as a much more personal and mysterious statement about yearning, loss, and the need for redemption. By taking the notion of hunger as its structural principle, he explores the themes of love, betrayal, desire, and death that make the film such a powerful statement more than fifty years after its release.

96 pages, Illustrated
Published March 2006
Paperback ISBN: 1844571211

Modern Times
Joan Mellen

Paperback: £9.99

Modern Times (1936) was Charlie Chaplin's last full-length silent film, and also his last appearance as the Tramp, probably the most recognizable figure in film history. Social and political concerns had often featured in Chaplin's films, but in Modern Times they culminate in a protest against conditions during the Great Depression.

Joan Mellen situates Modern Times within the context of Chaplin's life and his work, exploring its history and influences as well as its ongoing appeal. She explores how the film's themes of oppression, industrialization and dehumanization are embodied in the little tramp's struggle to survive in the modern world. Joan Mellen dedicates the final chapter of the book to the fascinating details of the FBI's file on Chaplin, which was opened in 1922 and maintained until long after his death.

96 pages, Illustrated
Published March 2006
Paperback ISBN: 184457122X

Does anyone have any suggestions as to good books on Antonioni?

The best...

This one's very good to have around also, consisting mainly of pieces by Antonioni on each of his films. That, and a bunch of interviews. It appears that it's OOP, unfortunately. Alotta libraries will have it, tho.