
Hey gang, Erich here. Sorry I haven't written any entries of late, but things have been rough, what with our new baby recently brought home from the hospital (which means no sleep for the missus or myself), and the move to the country and the job change and blah blah, anyhoo.
Ah hah! April fools in advance. None of the above. No kids, no moves, just edgy city living, right in the meat of things, George, which is where I got to be.
It just seems that's the way so many blogs start out these days--the family announcement sheathed in pop culture itemizing-- don't it? I got nothing against rugrats, as long as you keep 'em on the west side.
Since my reason for not blogging more recently stems from doing lots of Big Thinking and Writing about THERE WILL BE BLOOD-- a film free of romance and so refreshing in its jaundiced expression of "family values," I figured it was somehow fitting to do a fradulent family man opener. In reality I'm a happily divorced parent of one black dog only and if I had any property in Coyote Hills, or in this case, Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, it's long since been sold along with my milkshake and drilling rights. And I'm fine with that! I do my own drilling now, into the forehead of the American mindset, going for the stark black venom that lies south of the soul, where archetypal shadows walk tall and tentacled Lovecraftian behemoths plot their repressed returns. And I drink it up!
The few critics who dismiss THERE WILL BE BLOOD as undeserving of its hype--due to story weaknesses or hammy acting, usually--tend to be the ones who are "trying" to be different, and so would pay less respect to the fearless soul searchers and kamikaze love hipsters like Welles and Godard, Gondry, Ray, Hawks, Baumbach and Martel. These critics perfer the "workmanlike" precision of the best mappers - the Coen Brothers, Kubrick, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Payne--those who perfect the lines and feel out new fissures in the rock that the explorers have excavated, that Manny Farber's termites have eaten through. For fans of the mappers, the gaping plot holes, inconsistencies of style and meaning and haphazard story construction of the explorers--the ungodly mess, in short--can be unforgivable. For we lovers of the explorers, any story holes can be stepped over without the smallest break in our stride if it leads us ever deeper into the cinematic danger zone, Where celluloid burns wild and out of control. There's some that try to control it, quench it, put it out, and there's some that go wild-eyed and giggling, cooing and giggling like the late beloved Richard Widmark.
A unique example to discuss of a mapper in explorer's clothing would be John Huston. His films tend to be adaptations of classic "explorer" works: Under the Volcano is a fine example of Huston being too busy getting period details of 1933 Mexico down, polishing up the quaint old cars and setting his actors to staggering just so, that he misses the thrust of Lowry's novel, which is as an apocalyptic mirage of one man's drunken dying soul bleeding into those around him and its reflection in the tide of fascism and blah blah. One mustn't put modern in with the classical, or must one? 
A "classic" example of the explorer vs. mapper would be Welles' cinematic MACBETH vs. Olivier's HAMLET. Olivier's film is a stunning masterwork with each line of text lovingly orated. There's plenty of deep focus expressionism for those who like that sort of thing, but not enough to drown the bard in Ophelia's bathwater, so to speak. Welles' MACBETH on the other hand is a roaring, sweaty delirious fever dream-catastrophe.
Welles plays Macbeth like someone just waking up in the drunk tank after a three-day crystal meth blackout. Soldiers cast in hand-me-downs from Republic studios old serials seem to drip down from their weird cavern pathways onto him, like expressionist maggots from a Polanski skyway, and he squirms in horror at the sight of them. He bellows great lungfulls of melodious brougue, staggering drunk and hallucinating. He chews so much scenery he gets woozy and seems about to fall over into the witches' bubbling pot at any second, but I'll order ham on welles over hamlet olivier anyday. There's mad genius power with Welles; his is the termite art that never stops to count the receipts or weigh the meanings but rather plunges reckless through the walls until all is black and sweet childless silence.
Friday, March 28, 2008
The Termites of Plainview
Posted by
Erich Kuersten
at
11:26 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Welles's MACBETH vs. Olivier's HAMLET - Can't we love 'em both?
And how do you feel about Julie Taymor's TITUS?
Titus is a whole other ball game.
We can love them both, indeed we MUST!
The few critics who dismiss THERE WILL BE BLOOD as undeserving of its hype--due to story weaknesses or hammy acting, usually--tend to be the ones who are "trying" to be different, and so would pay less respect to the fearless soul searchers and kamikaze love hipsters like Welles and Godard, Gondry, Ray, Hawks, Baumbach and Martel. These critics perfer the "workmanlike" precision of the best mappers - the Coen Brothers, Kubrick, Spielberg, Hitchcock, Payne--those who perfect the lines and feel out new fissures in the rock that the explorers have excavated, that Manny Farber's termites have eaten through.
Yeesh, talk about painting in broad strokes. You neglect the unadulterated critics who believe that the answer to THERE WILL BE BLOOD's grandiose chaos is not the hermetic worksmanship of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, but instead the more tender emotional paths treaded by films like ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND and ONCE. Of course you've scoffed before on Acidemic the bleeding of 1970s "masculinity" from today's films, but it remains to be said that some today would read this masculinity as opacity of the soul and heart.
Hmmm, thank you Colin for your sharp response, which stabs me with its truth. Perhaps I am showing my cantankerousness in my old age. But on the other hand I also can't help but feel that it's the naked "sensitivity" of the ONCE and SUNSHINE boys that keeps them trapped in perpetual adolesence. I guess I've just seen a lot of "open-hearted sincerity" that is really just co-dependence in disguise. I had it, and how, until Camille Paglia set me free.
I certainly never meant to imply that Plainview or Welles are good role models, but that that the "wildman" energy they represent is something that is lacking in today's archetypal male. We can watch these movies and soak up their energy like we might learn from some bad influence older brother we never had-- we need to learn some of his tricks to mature, but of course not all of them. Eventually they need to be locked out of the house, like John Wayne at the end of the Searchers.
Examples of characters who show how both sensitivity and "wildman" energy-enhanced masculine maturity: Jon Voight in COMING HOME, Joseph Gordon-Levitt in BRICK. Rocky shouting for Adrian at the end of ROCKY... kickboxing Cusak in SAY ANYTHING as opposed to whinin' boy Cusak in HIGH FIDELITY. Bogie in anything, Lancelot, Jesus, Tupac, Burt Reynolds' reunion with Dinah on the Dinah Shore Show... man, that was a moment.
`
I'm a big fan of dichotemies, false or not (my favorite being the old Lumiere/Melies canard) but I have to echo kutner's Rodney King-esque plea here.
Count me as someone who had major problems with Blood, especially with the ending (though I've only seen it once and could change my mind). Yet I'm a termite-ist par excellence, digging those fleeting, exhilirating moments in truth found in the mess, and often only in the mess. However, "often" is the crucial word there, because every now and then I see termite art where I'm not supposed to. For example, in Spielberg (whose early work pops with delightful domestic asides like the kid smashing the doll on the crib in Close Encounters or the lovingly captured TV moments in E.T.). But I also have an admiration -- admittedly outstripped by my bug love -- for stunning craftsmanship of a Ford or the Coens. I like either/or criticism, it makes for good reading, but I feel duty-bound to take issue with it afterwards.
"Welles and Godard, Gondry, Ray, Hawks, Baumbach and Martel"
Hmmmm, I instinctively loved Welles & Godard, grew to love Ray & Hawks, am in awe of Gondry's videos (though these fall less into the termite category), didn't know who Martel was until I imdb's her (contemporary world cinema, actually contemporary cinema in general, is an Achille's heel for me), but....Baumbach? Why? Perhaps I was just too turned-off by Margot at the Wedding (and the director's gratingly arrogant live appearance after the screening I attended) to grant you this one.
(Sorry I'm Anonymous, but I don't quite nkow how to use this commentary thing.)
One interesting aspect of indie filmmaking these days is the "rich kid" eye view. A would-be director who has got a trust fund big enough to allow him final cut, etc., is going to have a certain skewed view of the world... the far side of this being the Coppola kids, but you can also see it in Anderson... Wes, that is.
I'm glad you wrote, Anonymous. Creating either/or dichotomies is worth it just to galvanize writers like you into such worthy retorts!
(Anonymous again)
Yeah, the "rich kid" eye view as you call it, pretty much comprises all of hipster/indie cinema these days, or is at least the dominant tone. Anderson, Coppola, Baumbach being the Holy Trinity so to speak. Now, of course, I very much like Rushmore & Tenenbaums, am actually a defender of Coppola's work (and I know people who HATE HATE HATE her), enjoyed Kicking & Screaming and was perked up by Squid and the Whale before Margot let me down.
But it does leave one wanting more, and I suspect a backlash of sorts in the coming years, perhaps in the form of Farber's termites. I wrote a bit about this on imdb a while back, since it's a point of interest for me: http://imdb.com/name/nm0027572/board/thread/91159989?d=91840513#91840513.
It's in regard to Wes Anderson specifically but the comments have wider application.
Glad you're still reading these comment sections ("Termites in Plainview" being posted back in March").
Post a Comment