6 The Face of Another

Discuss DVDs and Blu-rays released by Eureka/Masters of Cinema and the films on them. If it's got a spine number, it's in here.
Forum rules
Please do not clutter up the threads for MoC titles with information on pre-orders. You can announce the availability of pre-orders in the MoC: Cheapest Prices / Best Places to Buy / Pre-Orders thread. Any posts on pre-orders in any other thread will be deleted.
Message
Author
User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#51 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:23 pm

Dude, be a good guy and calm down furchrissakes. I was simply giving Teshigihara the highest praise imaginable: comparing his utter strangeness and avant originality to perhaps the most original of originals-- Franju. The similarities between The Face of Another and Les Yeux sans visage-- though stylistically very different films, owing to the huge stylistic differences of their directors-- are obvious thematically and in terms of standalone originality.

User avatar
Yojimbo
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Ireland

#52 Post by Yojimbo » Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:14 pm

HerrSchreck wrote:Dude, be a good guy and calm down furchrissakes. I was simply giving Teshigihara the highest praise imaginable: comparing his utter strangeness and avant originality to perhaps the most original of originals-- Franju. The similarities between The Face of Another and Les Yeux sans visage-- though stylistically very different films, owing to the huge stylistic differences of their directors-- are obvious thematically and in terms of standalone originality.
thats fine then, Schreck, although as I wasn't aware with how highly you rated Franju I naturally couldn't be expected to know the extent of the compliment you were paying. course 'The Face of Another' is similar, thematically, to 'Les Yeux', but, I would venture to suggest, Worlds apart in more than country of origin.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#53 Post by GringoTex » Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:40 pm

Yojimbo wrote:
jt wrote:In the interest of preventing this from spiralling off-topic, Schreck, please allow me:

Yojimbo posts that he thinks Teshigahara is great.
Schreck posts his agreement.
Yojimbo misunderstand Schreck's post, possibly thinking he was dissing Teshigahara.
Schreck says "I was agreeing with you dude, Teshigahara is great. But whatever..."
perhaps you are Herr Schreck's surrogate in this regard in which case you might elaborate on his statement "Teshigihara was one of a kind. The Georges Franju of Japan" so that I may better apreciate the extent of his compliment. Otherwise, Herr Schreck, .....if you are reading this, perhaps you might consider replying in jt's stead!
If it's a fight you're looking for...I think Teshigara is overrated crap.

User avatar
Yojimbo
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Ireland

#54 Post by Yojimbo » Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:52 pm

GringoTex wrote:If it's a fight you're looking for...I think Teshigara is overrated crap.
not a fight: a civilized discussion will do rightly Tex. If you're up for it, that is!

Greathinker

#55 Post by Greathinker » Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:38 pm

Teshigahara is an unparalleled genius. There's more ambition in Pitfall alone than most directors' entire oeuvres. Woman of the Dunes is a consummate work of art, Face of Another again has endless ambition. These films speak entirely out of themselves, there isn't a trace of bunuelian pretension behind the images, no attempts to kindle moments of humanism that everyone recognizes. If every copy of these films were to vanish you might think that the author wouldn't care-- He's one of those artists who simply knew how to make Art.

Kobo Abe and Takamitsu were key collaborators, but it shouldn't be overlooked that what a director does is choose who to use and how to use them. Considering Rikyu and Antoine Gaudi, his talent certainly wasn't any less after he finished working with Abe. What most consider his golden period was, as I perceive it, the only time he was committed to filmmaking.

User avatar
david hare
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller

#56 Post by david hare » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:29 pm

Greathinker wrote:there isn't a trace of bunuelian pretension behind the images,
To this I must give all time first prize for most outa left field critical call! Of all the film directors in all the world Bunuel is the one I would least think prone to any shape or form of pretension.

As for Teshigahara my own verdict on him is out, but I quite like Face. Woman of the Dunes, however, reeks to me of "arthouse".

User avatar
Yojimbo
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Ireland

#57 Post by Yojimbo » Mon Jul 07, 2008 10:35 pm

davidhare wrote:
Greathinker wrote:there isn't a trace of bunuelian pretension behind the images,
To this I must give all time first prize for most outa left field critical call! Of all the film directors in all the world Bunuel is the one I would least think prone to any shape or form of pretension.

As for Teshigahara my own verdict on him is out, but I quite like Face. Woman of the Dunes, however, reeks to me of "arthouse".
seems to me you use the term "arthouse'' almost as you would a four-letter word, david. Certainly, on the surface 'Woman' might display all the trappings of 'arthouse', and it certainly owes more than a nod and a wink to writers such as Kafka and Beckett, not exactly perennials of the Oprah Winfrey book club, but scratch beneath the surface and you'll discover a great humanist work; one with a social conscience; an appeal for conservation, and of tolerance towards non-conformists.

Greathinker

#58 Post by Greathinker » Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:00 pm

davidhare wrote:
Greathinker wrote:there isn't a trace of bunuelian pretension behind the images,
To this I must give all time first prize for most outa left field critical call! Of all the film directors in all the world Bunuel is the one I would least think prone to any shape or form of pretension.
Are you being serious? A film about rich party guests who don't know how to leave when it's over, another that centers on elite members of society, neither mocking or celebrating, but displaying what any self-respecting person would have to surmise as shallow, base and hypocritical lives. All while maintaining an "arthouse" distance, to give the term back to you.

User avatar
HerrSchreck
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am

#59 Post by HerrSchreck » Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:02 pm

I--

share dave's shock at the use of Bunuel's style viz 'pretension

am disappointed that dave doesn't like Woman of the Dunes

but

am rolling at the assignation of Oprah's Book Club to David Hare's tastes because he doesn't like a newb's beloved film.

Most Boorish Forum Hello goes unreservedly to you, Yojimbo!

User avatar
david hare
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller

#60 Post by david hare » Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:17 pm

Yo! (I had to do that!)

"Arthouse" to me is pretty well a pejorative and definitely not a form of praise. (You never read me on Kieslowski.) Bunuel is the total antithesis of arty farty cinema in the sense that his material and his humor and his mise en scene unfailingly cuts to the quick of every shot and scene's meaning and impact without reversion to a frame of superfluity or wasted expression. There is possibly no more concise a director in world cinema than Bunuel - the two closest are perhaps Bresson whose elisions in the openings of Pickpocket, Balthazar and Le Diable Probablement are an object lesson in the total concentration of narrative and expressiveness by a master. And Renoir.

As for humanist. degraded as this term itself can be if anyone ever deserved the handle it is surely Bunuel. And Renoir

Schrecko I guess one's like or dislike of "artiness" depends on the context. In Woman (which I first saw in 1966) the whole style and tone seem to me designed to submerge rather than bathe the actors and material in a sort of allegorical "style". Yet in Mishima's Yokuko for instance (which must owe an incredible debt to Genet's Chant d'Amour for visual tone) the artiness seems to be an intrinsic part of Mishima's own obsession with the multiple masks of personality his character embraces and discards through the course of this little marvel.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

#61 Post by GringoTex » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:09 am

My problem with Teshigara (and "overrated crap" was a joke- he's obviously extremely talented) is that he telegraphs his intentions in the first 10 minutes of a film and there's nothing left for me to discover. I've only seen the movies in the Criterion trilogy, but in each one, he lays out his thematic and stylistic framework very early one, and the rest of the films feel like a connect-the-dots exercise. I'm not sure where this "ambition" is that Greathinker writes about- Teshigara plays it very safe, very conservative, and very close to the vest. If an actor were to fart on camera in a Teshigara film, the whole enterprise would collapse.

I'm as mystified by the reference to "Bunuelian pretensions" as Dave and Shreck are. Bunuel could make a masterpiece in any country, any language, any aspect ratio, color or b&w, fiction or documentary, continental movie stars or peasants. He was the most universal director cinema's ever seen. It's ridiculous to apply the term pretentious to him.

Greathinker

#62 Post by Greathinker » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:11 am

davidhare wrote:Bunuel is the total antithesis of arty farty cinema in the sense that his material and his humor and his mise en scene unfailingly cuts to the quick of every shot and scene's meaning and impact without reversion to a frame of superfluity or wasted expression.
Discreet Charm has all sorts of what I might label as "wasted expression". I really can't imagine how one can read that film, and without knowing Bunuel beforehand, not be perplexed by its tone of semi-reprobation. Are these people and ideas worth an hour and forty minutes? Bunuel wants you to come in and watch him rattle these peoples' gilded cage. He may be upfront to his friends, certain viewers, but he's making an entire film from that perspective, and distancing himself from the guilty party. Renoir in comparison has none of that pretension, he sees all those faults reflected back to some degree.

Satire walks a fine line when it comes to art, and I think bunuel breaks his neck. This is simply what I have gathered so far from him-- I don't think my statement is any more ridiculous than Tex saying Teshigahara is connect-the-dots.

User avatar
david hare
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller

#63 Post by david hare » Tue Jul 08, 2008 12:24 am

Discreet Charm has all sorts of what I might label as "wasted expression". I really can't imagine how one can read that film, and without knowing Bunuel beforehand, not be perplexed by its tone of semi-reprobation.
:shock:

I have no idea what you mean! But never mind.

User avatar
Yojimbo
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Ireland

#64 Post by Yojimbo » Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:18 am

GringoTex wrote:My problem with Teshigara (and "overrated crap" was a joke- he's obviously extremely talented) is that he telegraphs his intentions in the first 10 minutes of a film and there's nothing left for me to discover. I've only seen the movies in the Criterion trilogy, but in each one, he lays out his thematic and stylistic framework very early one, and the rest of the films feel like a connect-the-dots exercise. I'm not sure where this "ambition" is that Greathinker writes about- Teshigara plays it very safe, very conservative, and very close to the vest. If an actor were to fart on camera in a Teshigara film, the whole enterprise would collapse.

I'm as mystified by the reference to "Bunuelian pretensions" as Dave and Shreck are. Bunuel could make a masterpiece in any country, any language, any aspect ratio, color or b&w, fiction or documentary, continental movie stars or peasants. He was the most universal director cinema's ever seen. It's ridiculous to apply the term pretentious to him.
I'll give you about laying out his thematic framework in the first 10 minutes, whatever about the stylistic one, but what film constantly surprised you right through to the last frame? Surely not 'Vera Cruz'? With most 'directors films', particularly given the judicious use of skilled editing, everything that's on screen can give the impression, at least, of being tightly controlled.

And I think 10 minutes to suss the stylistic framework of 'Pitfall' is stretching it just a tad.

Post Reply