fiddybop Reviews

Pas de deux (1968)

Yes, this is one of the great Canadian shorts.

[19 August 2002]

Yes, this is one of the great Canadian shorts, etc. etc.

I'm more interested in why someone could find this film boring, insisting that one had to have an interest in the dance and/or music in order to find something to like about it.

I'm not a "dance person" myself and in fact admittedly rarely have anything to do with dance performance, dance films, etc. This film is not about the dancing, though.

It's about human movement in particular, with the form of this dance being used as a means to a much more imaginative end. By utilizing dance as a mode of discovering the beauty of human grace and movement, McLaren can explore these movements in fascinating ways, using optical printing to trail print or multiple-expose their movements, using still imagery as well.

The result is an effect of three-dimensionalizing the movements (not the dancers, who are obviously already 3-D) - giving substance and shape to otherwise intangible, time-sensitive events. This film is just as incredible and breathtaking as the chrono-photographs of Etienne Jules-Marey, and in fact Pas de Deux is very much a brother of Marey's work. McLaren even lit his dancers similarly to Marey's subjects, to get an almost line-drawing effect from his subjects.

To dwell on the dance itself and whether or not you "like it" is completely missing the point of McLaren's filmmaking and artistry here. He had an incredible sense of the potential for movement and beauty, often to be found in unique and unlikely places.

See this film at all costs and try to look beyond the dance content/music content (if that bothers you), and you will hopefully find that Norman McLaren created a masterpiece in his exploration of time and motion, mined entirely from the particularly graceful movements of ballet dancers.

Look at Life (1965)

"Look at Life" pioneered rapid photo montage??? Uh, no...

[17 May 2002]

The user who commented that Lucas's LOOK AT LIFE film pioneered rapid montage obviously hasn't seen the films of Bruce Conner or Joseph Cornell. These were the true pioneers. Check their films out instead. Lucas has in interviews given huge credit to and cited great influence from the actual pioneering American independent and experimental filmmakers like James Broughton, Sidney Peterson, Stan Brakhage, Bruce Conner, and Kenneth Anger. These films were shown/taught to him in his school days at USC and he had been exposed to them as a part of the vibrant '60s San Francisco independent film scene.

George is no slouch of a filmmaker, certainly, and pioneered things in his own right that are big parts of today's film and pop culture, but let's not give him credit that's not due him, especially when people like Broughton and the others I've mentioned have consistently been ignored by mainstream film enthusiasts.

Inside (I) (2002)

Derivative, slickly made, uncreative garbage.

[2/10 · 30 April 2002]

Sorry folks, this one's a big loser in my opinion. It's apparently making the festival circuit, which is where I saw it (SFIFF), and I wanted to speak out against this unfortunate phenomenon: the really bad but slickly made festival short.

These films tend to get attention because of their surfacey, superficial flashiness. For instance, this film is in 35mm 'Scope, with a multi-layered stereo soundtrack, and visuals that practically scream at you that they're trying to be artsy and provocative.

Well, hopefully the thin veneer of "creativity" in the guise of skin-deep filmmaking tricks doesn't work on everybody, although it disturbed me that the film seemed to get some enthusiastic applause from portions of the audience.

Back to this film, "Inside".

The film depicts a man suffering multiple personality disorder being interviewed by a nurse who's trying to reach him behind all of his intrusive personalities. I can just imagine the director saying to himself one day, "Wouldn't it be cool if we made a film about a guy with multiple personality disorder, but we actually have characters portraying the respective personalities that only he and the audience can see?!!" Is it just me, or is that the most obvious gimmick that comes to mind? Plus, didn't A BEAUTIFUL MIND do the same thing? (By the way, I'm sure this film was conceived before the Ron Howard movie even came out, but it makes my point that this device is a sadly predictable one). Or does anyone remember a show years back called "Herman's Head" ??

The film is loaded with cliches (padded room, each personality is just a broadly defined archetype, a twist ending that makes us all groan and think of Sixth Sense or any Twilight Zone episode, etc.) The filmmaking is really ostentatious, super-self-important, and inflated way beyond its wafer-thin concept. It looked like one of those commercials or music videos that take on a faux-"cinematic" look but end up being more amusing for their pretensions than cinematically artistic or even dynamic.

Sorry to come down so hard, but criticism keeps the quality up, I hope. I'm anxious to see what others have thought who may have seen this film (as well as the filmmaker(s), perhaps?)

Napoleon (1927)

Amazing achievement, but beware of US release version

[10/10 · 4 November 2001]

The (more or less) full length version of Gance's NAPOLEON assembled by Kevin Brownlow over many years is an absolutely astounding achievement, both for Gance's inspired execution of a vision nearly too big for the screen, and Brownlow's dedication and perseverance, not to mention his superb reconstruction skills in bringing such a masterpiece back for the enjoyment of the world.

Well, not the whole world... Despite all this effort, the full restoration cannot be seen in the United States, on video or theatrically. It's a long story, but I just wanted potential and past viewers of this film to be aware of a few things:

-First of all, though video may be the only way to see this film in the U.S., keep in mind that home video can not even come close to providing the proper setting for such a gorgeous and epic film. The word "epic" has in fact never been so appropriate. So while I don't discourage people from seeing the video for lack of theatrical viewing opportunities, remember that the film was made on and meant to be seen on a grand scale.

-Secondly, the version currently available in the U.S. is not shown at the correct speed (24fps instead of the necessary 18/20fps). Also, it is missing footage. It is my understanding that in order to provide wider release possibilities in the U.S. upon the completion of the first major restoration in the '70s, the U.S. prints were edited somewhat to cut down on the admittedly long running time. This is also why the film is shown faster in the U.S., at "sound speed" or 24 frames per second. The newest restoration runs at 333 minutes, while the U.S. version is only 235.

The primary reason why the latest, glorious 2000 restoration of the film cannot be seen in the U.S. lies mainly with Francis Ford Coppola. Coppola controls the U.S. distribution rights, and allows only the U.S. version - with a score written by his father - to be shown. This is unlikely to change in the near future, so until then, deal with the substandard videotapes or plan your next European trip around one of the periodic English screenings of the film version - believe me, it's worth it!!

WR: Mysteries of the Organism (1971)

Hardly boring - interesting filmmaking and commentary

[1 October 2000]

I completely disagree with the comments of the previous reviewer. Personally knowing very little about the Orgone or Wilhelm Reich, I derived great enjoyment from this film. In fact, I popped in on the TV just to get an idea of its style and structure (without planning to watch it right then) and ended up getting sucked in and watched it all the way through. Makavejev's filmmaking (that I've seen) is quite different from the norm, but not in an overly self-conscious or self-serving way, like Hal Hartley's efforts. "WR" is egoless, simply using film to draw parallels and make observations that are done quite effectively in Makavejev's unique style. It reminded me of the "I am Curious" films, but those are also a bit too self-conscious for me. I also highly recommend Sweet Movie, a later film of his. I only wanted to post these comments in light of the previous user's comments, as we should all remain aware of how subjective one's tastes are from another's. I didn't like the previous user making such blanket statements like "I suppose it might be watchable enough for people who are familiar with Reich, but if you aren't, then I strongly urge you to avoid this film at all costs." when tastes are obviously so variant - remember, I knew barely anything about WR or the Orgone, and enjoyed the film tremendously. Thanks for your time.