Entries from February 2008 ↓

After a quick web search of film studies programs, their curriculum seems to be similarly structured:

• A couple classes on the History of Film
• A class or two on Film Theory
• A whole mess of Genre, Auteur & Interdisciplinary-specific courses
• A class on screenplays/screenwriting
• And, sometimes classes on production…if the program leans that way

This structure will be of some help. But, mostly, I think it will be important that I read as much as I can and watch as many films as I can, especially for those aspects of film that I’m not necessarily as familiar with or are not as accessible.

Looking through syllabi and blogs, I’ve identified a handful of books that seem to pop up for introductory film courses. I’ll certainly have to keep an eye out for them:

• Oxford Guide to Film Studies by John Hill & Pamela Church Gibson
• The Cinema Book by Pam Cook
• Film Art: An Introduction by David Bordwell & Kristin Thompson
• History of Narrative Film by David A. Cook
• Film Analysis A Norton Reader by Jeffrey Geiger & R. L. Rustky
• Film Theory & Criticism by Gerald Mast, Marshall Cohen & Leo Braudy Cohen

I just ordered a used copy of the 7th edition of Film Art from Powell’s. Hopefully, it arrives in decent enough condition. It was a hell of a lot cheaper than the textbook price of the newest edition.

And now an attempt at defining this blog’s purpose:

Initially, I imagine this blog to be a record of my attempt to teach myself Film Studies. It will be a notepad, journal, and blue book where I record my personal journey into and through the study of film.

In a way, I’ve been teaching myself for quite some time as I watch, analyze, and discuss movies. But a part of me is so enamored with the art of film that it wants more. And I can only grow as a student of film with the knowledge that can only come from others. Certainly, I’d love to attend classes at a university, but I can’t justify the cost of tuition. Still, I want to approach this in a somewhat systematic way. I want to open my eyes to new films and new approaches. I want to approach it in the way that, say, Berkeley does…

teaching students to think historically, theoretically and analytically about a wide range of cinematic forms. At the same time, it encourages students to look at moving-images from the vantage point of other disciplines

or Yale:

interdisciplinary program that focuses on the history, theory, and criticism of cinema and other moving image media

…by studying the history, theory, and analysis of film via an interdisciplinary approach. I’d like to take a look at the curriculum that some of these schools offer for their film programs. Perhaps, even steal from some of their syllabi. Read some of those textbooks and articles. And I plan on reading whatever I can find on the internet, find at the library, or afford to purchase for myself. I’ve already found a handful of websites, blogs, and podcasts that will undoubtedly teach me so much. And, of course, I will watch, absorb, and digest as much film as possible.

Certainly, it will be my own brand of film school filtered through my own unique eyes.

It happened by accident, our double feature. After hemming and hawing over whether or not to hold out for a Grindhouse box set, I went ahead and finally purchased Tarantino’s Death Proof. I saw the whole Grindhouse event when it arrived at the theaters. Afterwards, a trip to Austin with stops at Guerro’s and Texas Chili Parlor only intensified the desire to watch the movie again. At the same time, we were finally able to get a hold of Cronenberg’s Crash which happened to be airing on one of the movie channels. I hadn’t yet seen that one…and hadn’t been successful in finding it elsewhere. Without planning, we had our themed double feature–sexual arousal via car crashes.

While licking Rosario Dawson’s feet isn’t quite the same as fucking Rosanna Arquette’s scar, it’s certainly in the same ballpark. Death Proof’s Stuntman Mike gets off killing girls with his indestructible stunt car, while Crash’s Vaughan and his entourage get off by crashing in a very destructible way. One takes a car straight out of Vanishing Point, while the other recreates the deaths of James Dean and Jayne Mansfield. Where one is 70’s highway safety film, the other is repetitive crash test video. While one possesses the creepiness of an older man’s leer, the other is consensually perverse. Both have a palpable eroticism which confirms that the complicit viewer is also both creepy and perverted.

Julie Christie & Gordon Pinsent - Capri Films - www.caprifilms.com

I was listening to something on NPR last week when I was surprised to hear the guest was in his early eighties. I was taken aback because as I’d been listening to this guest talk, I never once thought of him as an old man. He seemed so keen and vital. The same thing happened a couple months ago when I learned that NPR’s Daniel Schorr is 91 years old. Sure, I took him to be grandfatherly, but not a nonagenarian. Maybe it’s radio. Maybe a sturdy voice belies age to some degree.

But, I’ve often wondered why some people remain so vital into their old age, while others seem so feeble. Some seem to remain so engaged, while others seem to have mostly just given up. I wonder how I will end up in my old age. I wonder if I will–if I’m able to–stay engaged in politics and film and books into those later years. I wonder if I will still have wonderful discussions of these things with my wife when we’re both much older.

I wonder if the end result is in any way related to that kind of engagement. Perhaps some people have given up on intellectual and artistic fulfillment way before old age has caught up with them. Maybe it’s already lost for those people. Maybe if it’s something you keep working at–keep at those word games, keep up with social interactions–then it’s something you can hope to retain. But, maybe it’s all about chance. Maybe it’s the mysterious workings of the brain. Some people are lucky, and some aren’t.

Recently, there was an article in the New York Times about how older people who keep up high-intensity workouts can hold off some of the physical signs of decline that are common among the more sedentary. Perhaps, a similar high-intensity cerebral workout would stave off some of the mental signs of decline.

So, it was with that floating in my head that I viewed Sarah Polley’s Away From Her. Polley’s directorial debut examines how Alzheimer’s affects the way we perceive our own lives as well as the lives of the one’s we love. But, it’s also about how we sometimes only see what we want to see–a perception altered by our past and present. It’s the story of Fiona (Julie Christie) and Grant (Gordon Pinsent), who both must come to terms (in their own ways) with letting go of the way things used to be.

I should say, based on my earlier paragraphs, that I’m not in any way suggesting that Alzheimer’s disease results from some sort of laziness–from not remaining physically or mentally engaged. Its roots are much more complicated. It is precisely because Fiona and Grant are physically and mentally engaged, in life and with each other, that the loss feels all the more tragic. But as Marian, the wife of Fiona’s new-found friend Aubrey, says: “It’s just life. You can’t beat life.”

Wonderfully adapted by Polley from the Alice Munro short story “The Bear Came Over the Mountain” that first appeared in The New Yorker, the film tugs hard at the heart-strings without veering into movie-of-the-week, Oprah-endorsed melodrama. And a film about the effects of Alzheimer’s certainly risks broaching this sappy territory–forcing or at least nudging the viewer to elicit tears rather than allowing the viewer to connect in a genuine way with the characters. Luckily, Away From Her does not suffer from this deficit. Much of this credit surely goes to Polley. But, much also goes to Julie Christie. She is so strikingly beautiful for her age–so physically and mentally relevant and vital that the rougher turns are all the more heartbreakingly painful to watch. She’s already won a Golden Globe and a SAG for her portrayal, and I don’t see any reason why she won’t be taking home an Oscar as well.

Chris Evans & Cillian Murphy - Fox Searchlight - sunshinedna.com

While Sunshine remained in theaters for about as long as the length of a solar eclipse, the recent DVD release undoubtedly deserves a look.

Director Danny Boyle certainly knows how to ratchet up the intensity and keep the heart pounding. Touches of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Alien wrapped in the dark intensity of Boyle’s earlier 28 Days Later (writer Alex Gardner and actor Cillian Murphy worked on both films) keep you on the edge of your seat in this sci-fi thriller.

This film will definitely be getting repeated looks from me. There’s plenty more on the DVD to check out, including separate commentaries from Boyle and Dr. Brian Cox, an experimental physicist and Royal Society University Research Fellow, who acted as science advisor on the film. (As an aside, Dr. Cox seems quite intriguing on his own right. He’s like the new Carl Sagan, if Carl Sagan had also been a rockstar.)

Also, the Sunshine website is worth a look. There’s lots of stuff to explore there, including behind-the-scenes videos, essays, and conceptual drawings. As with experimental physicists, the UK version of the website is much better.