NOT Lawrence of Arabia.
I don’t want to make too big a deal of this, as God forbid I should get another scolding from a commenter on account of writing too much about other critics, and also God knows I prefer to contemplate the critic I’m about to cite as little as possible. However. As the topic is becoming what some people like to call “a thing,” I have one “thing” to say about it. Writing in the mysterious publication City Arts, Armond White grouses “All that ballyhoo about The Master being shot in 70mm means nothing in the digital cinema age (too many oppressive home-video close-ups waste technology specifically designed to give tactility to what might be lost in distant scope). Praising this shows ignorance about cinematography. Instead, the smart-about-movies crowd should be looking at Paul W.S. Anderson’s aesthetics.” As is usual with White and, to be frank, everybody else, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing; the idea that the 70mm “format” was “specifically designed to give tactility to what might be lost in distant scope” sounds real nice and convincing (although copy editors and many other persons of literacy might find the specific use of the word “scope” in this case questionable, but that’s Armond) but is not easily definitively provable. The cited “tactility” is obviously a feature of what the higher-resolution 65mm film frame can deliver but good luck with finding a quote from Herman Casler in which the word comes up. “Praising this shows ignorance about cinematography.” Okay, Armond, if you say so. There certainly are a lot of film critics who are ignorant about cinematography, not to mention editing, and who judge films solely on what they hear and very rarely what they see, as some of the more vexing notices on Cosmopolis testify. Of course White himself, judging strictly by his copy, has barely a thimbleful of tech knowledge himself. He hates digital, except when one of his pets uses it. In his incredibly puerile “Battle of the Andersons” (anyone who isn’t twelve will be no more than momentarily amused by the fact that two directors with similar names and polarized generic characteristics premiered films on the same day, but White’s gotta make a thesis out of it) he praises Resident Evil: Retribution director Paul W.S. Anderson because his frame “activates the screen’s fields, planes, and composition quadrants.” That happens a lot in Cronenberg and Fincher movies too, but those guys are unclean, because they’re cynical. (Incidentally, I rather like Paul W.S. Anderson’s movies, just in case you’re wondering.)
But I’m losing the plot here and I said I’d be brief. It’s true that if you measure the visual scheme of The Master against that of what is considered to be the 70mm film nonpareil—that is, The Sound of Music—oh wait, no, Lawrence of Arabia, or is it 2001: A Space Odyssey?—then The Master is, yes, a little different; not a lot in the way of “sweeping” action, and no one in it plots a raid on Akaba or kills an astronaut. And it’s true, in The Master there ARE a lot of closeups. Are they, per White “home-video close-ups?” Hard to say. White evokes the “home-video close-up” as if its an item in the lingua franca. The more you think about the term, the less sense it makes.
But anyway, to complain that 70mm is not appropriate to Anderson’s visual scheme is simple arbitrary dogma, nothing more. It makes as much sense as to say Richard Avedon ought not have taken large-format photos of those post-Okies ’cause as subjects they’re not majestic enough. Why did they shoot The Buster Keaton Story in VistaVision, anyway? The reason this “matters” (oh dear how I don’t like that word) or, to put it more palatably to myself, why it’s a topic of particular pertinence at this point in time is because Anderson has chosen to use 70mm at a moment that many are defining as a turning point in the history of motion pictures, that is, in J. Hoberman’s phrase (which serves as the title of his new and as always provocative and brilliant book) “film after film.” As digital and its discontents seems to coat the world of cinema like some intractable virus (at least in the formulation of some), Anderson’s use of 70mm strikes many as a “statement.” I don’t think it’s as extreme a statement as some are taking it. As meticulous as he is, Anderson is a practical man. The Master is being projected digitally in most venues, in a 35mm print in other venues. In interviews he has discussed what attracted him to the format, which is, paraphrased briefly, the beauty of the image it produces. He acknowledges its impractical side. But never does he discuss his use of the format in terms of throwing down, as it were, against the digital tide. He investigated the format, liked what he saw, and took the opportunity to use it. What I think The Master points to from a practical angle in the bigger pictue of things, finally, is the future of celluloid as a kind of specialty format.
I interviewed the musician Robert Fripp in 1992 about the challenges of getting the catalog of his legendary rock band King Crimson into the digital realm. Fripp is a punishingly intelligent and exacting man, but he, too, is a practical one, and after insisting that the “mechanics of reproducing music” did not interest him “at all” he displayed a staggering command of those mechanics. And at one point he mourned—provisionally—the death of vinyl. “I accept that people with real ears probably would prefer vinyl to CDs. However, if you use vinyl, you’ve got to have a superb pressing plant, you’ve got to have superb metal work. And you’re not going to get it.” Several things have happened since 1992. For one thing, digital reproduction of music has advanced to the point that (and I allow that this is in itself an arguable point but bear with me here) debates over whether analog remains a superior reproduction method tend to rely, invariably and insolubly, on intangibles that rely entirely on subjectivity. The other thing that has happened is that vinyl has improved also. It’s such a niche format, what with the 180 gram vinyl and similar concerns, that it is now HIGHLY likely that if you opt for vinyl now you’ll be getting something from a superb (albeit small-scale) pressing plant, with superb metal work. If we’re to take the glass-half-full approach with respect to movies, their making and their preservation, we should be able to anticipate a future where the digital realm continues to show improvement, and where celluloid reproduction is accomplished on a consistently high level. I allow that things probably will NOT pan out this way, but what are you going to do.
Over a decade ago, my friend Harry Allen wrote a piece for Première about the various issues of digital technology that, unfortunately and for reasons that had nothing to do with the quality of the piece (it was superb) was never published. I may ask Harry for a copy, and for permission to run it here; I think his prophecies could stir up some interesting discussion.
70mm makes for a rich, dense handsome image. But of what? The Master” is first and foremost a “two-hander” – the hands in questin belonging Hoffman and Phonix. 70mm makes i tall look “important”– which is very much in keeping with the character of “Lancaster Dodd” ‑a con-man.
It would be nice to see 70mm devoted to a visually appropriate subject.
As for digital, the jury is still out, IMO.
i can’t get over that line about about “home-video close-ups.” What on Earth is White getting at? There are two things I can imagine which distinguish “home-video close-ups” from other kinds of close-ups. 1) The handheld shaky-cam aesthetic. Although this HAS become incorporated in mainstream films in the last few years, I am comfortable in assuming, based on reviews, the trailer, and his previous work, that this is not how P.T. Anderson has chosen to shoot his film. 2) The video aesthetic, i.e., that interlaced, 60fps “soap opera” look that characterized the early Dogma 95 films. Since White is talking about 70mm, indeed mentioning it in the same sentence, this would of course be gibberish if that’s what he meant.
So, if the two hallmarks of “home-video close-ups” are not in fact, the hallmarks of Anderson’s close-ups, then what does he mean? Does White just hate close-ups? I mean, if he does, okay I guess. I certainly understand how the poor use of close-ups in covering a scene in many modern Hollywood products can be frustrating, but that’s different than saying that close-ups are just inherently un-cinematic or lazy or whatever. At any rate, it’s certainly not a home video problem.
Sorry, I know it’s a minor point, but it’s sloppy writing and it betrays a real lack of understanding of film grammar, technique, technology, and so on.
They give us those, those nice bright colors
Gives those greens of summers
They make you think that all the world’s a sunny day
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome
Well, Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away
Honestly, White’s babbling isn’t even worth discussing anymore. Anyone who sees The Master in proper 70mm will notice the difference right at that first shot of the ocean wake. If PWS had used 70mm for the new Resident Evil it would just be “Anderson uses the amazing format for renewed tactility, sense of depth and space” blah blah blah. As you said, White hates digital except when someone he likes uses it. It’s all so tiresome at this point
I might be going off on a limb here, but…maybe PTA wanted to use a format used in the time portrayed in the movie?
Well in the Some Came Running tradition I will begin by rebutting what was written by another poster (That’s you David E), the first poster in fact wrote,
“It would be nice to see 70mm devoted to a visually appropriate subject.”
Really? I saw the film in glorious 70mm at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood and anyone that could come away from an experience like that and say that the film wasn’t “cinematic enough” is smoking a crack of unknown origin?
The opening of the film on the beach with that blown out kodachrome look giving it that distinct period feel was marvelous. The shot of the steam ship going down the river with just the fading light of sunset and the warm incandescent light from the wedding party under the white canopies was a stunning image; a masterful bit of cinematography. Who could not have enjoyed a vicarious thrill as the Norton raced across the desert floor? Just for me personally the shot that really transported me back in time was when Freddie was working as a photographer in the department store. The insert shots of the brothers posing for their picture or the uncomfortable family; the image on the Arclight Theater’s huge screen was crystal clear; that is why 70mm. Would we tell Sergio Leone that he isn’t cinematically appropriate to use 70mm?
The origin of my “crack” is Yasujiro Ozu, Robert Bresson and Carl Th. Dreyer – on the on hand – and David Lean, Stanley Kubrick and Jacques Tati on the other. And yes Sergio Leone would have been great in 70mm had he used it in any of his major works.
And speaking of “crack” have you seen “Keep the Lights On”?
Schrader’s very title ‘Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer’ has a lot to answer for. Am I the only one who feels Ozu – who loved cartoons (both newspaper and animated), toilet humour and hard liquor – wouldn’t have been seen dead with those two?
I think he and Bresson would have gotten along. Les sure about Dreyer.
I agree that the images were beautiful, but no I received no “vicarious thrill as the Norton raced across the desert” (but recognize that such a spectoral response is possible). For me, all these images – primly conscientious in their deployment of beauty – seemed aimless and folded in upon themselves as opposed to those in COSMOPOLIS where each shot opened up to multiple/contradicting meanings.
I think asking how an art work’s form relates to its content is a valid question. By using 70mm as part of the film’s visual scheme, Anderson invites the question as to why he has chosen to do so. Avedon’s use of large format for the subjects he chose is understandable, but why 70mm for THE MASTER? The movie is about a fraud and a bully – two time-honored American types, but is the use of 70mm (and what its use brings to the image) meant to bestow some type of eminence or grandeur upon them? In my own life I have had to deal with both frauds (in the form of those who would cure homosexuality or otherwise pathologize it) and bullies (in the form of gay bashers), but those types seems hardly worthy of the deluxe treatment. Unless, of course, Anderson is aiming for some sort of satire, but THE MASTER seems as satire free as a movie can get; in fact, its dead earnestness is one of its charms – there is a precise, pleasing sureness to each image that even their predictability cannot tarnish.
The film seems intent on conveying something, but its stale dysfunctional-father-son dynamic seems too small an object of contemplation for the heroic mise en scene conjured up. As I said earlier, maybe as a queer viewer I am excluded from the frequency that the film operates on, but the choice of 70mm seems intentional beyond just being done for the sake of having done it.
Actually, as Schrader discovered, they all took vacations in Tahiti together. Ozu and Bresson were always trying to get Dreyer to take off his suit and skinny dip with them, but he was too shy.
I believe that the expression “home video close-ups” refers to the idea that stuff shot for TV tend to have more close-ups, both because of the smaller budgets (less production value) and because TVs are smaller than film screens, so you’d better shot whatever you want to show in close-up.
It’s a bit hard to remember, now that everybody has 40 inch flatscreens, but it’s an argument I heard quite a few times back in the 80s, in the beginning of the home video era.
Paul (Not W.S.) Anderson showed up at the doorstep of the Church of Cinema 16 years ago and announced: I am the next great American filmmaker. He has spent the last 16 years, and six films, proving it, evolving from film to film, learning his craft. He has, pace DFW, “done the reading.” I detect in a lot of the naysayers a refusal to acknowledge the obvious for reasons that go no further than sheer pettiness, because here is a man who decided that he didn’t just want to be a legend in his own mind. He made it happen. And for his efforts, PTA has entered the pantheon and will remain there for the foreseeable future. Apparently that’s just too much for some critics to take. That this bratty, well-connected, upper class kid from the Valley really is as good as he said he was. Anyone who has ever had even the slightest notion of making movies wants to be what Paul Thomas Anderson has actually become. I understand that it hurts. Just count to ten.
CB – I can dig what you’re saying, although I maintain that TWBB was a disappointment. To me, that film seemed like the most self-conscious iteration of the announcement you mention; it was the first time Anderson seemed to be following something besides his own obsessions. It felt like he was looking over his shoulder, and of the two quasi-Western myth-making/unmaking movies that year (the other being Andrew Dominik’s Assassination…Jesse James), it was the lesser film.
That being said, I remain an admirer of his work, and am eagerly anticipating seeing The Master.
PaulJBis: Yeah, maybe, but then White should have called it the “TV close-up” or something. “Home-video close-up” just makes me imagine some Dad filming his kid’s birthday party. The point is that White choose his words poorly and didn’t “define his terms,” as they say in Freshman Composition courses. It’s bad writing, and since bad writing often results from bad thinking…well, Glenn has dismantled the rest of his argument anyway.
Petey, nice of you to choose High Holiday season for this analogy: “I believe the infidels are committing a mortal sin by throwing away this wondrous bequest of God just to try to save a few shekels.”. Might want to rethink that one.
CB- Give me a fucking break. Are you 12? The church of cinema? Accusations of jealousy and pettiness? That is the most tired, empty rhetorical gesture around and has been for years. Way to say nothing while blustering like an enraged sycophant. Not just a legend in his own mind but yours too (unless your a petty schmuck who stubbornly refuses to admit what you deep down really think)! Ugh. Trust me, I don’t want to be the type of idiot who writes anything as ridiculous as all that falling frog bullshit.
From the RF interview:
“he does seem to enjoy friendly relations with Virgin, which now owns EG’s record catalog”
As you are no doubt aware, that’s sadly not true, Virgin > Universal Music Group have been exponentially worse than EG. The 40th Anniversary remasters of ITCOTCK and SABB sound amazing, hopefully you have them.
@ CB – “pace DFW”
Lil Kenny? Plz.
I think he might have meant “per,” not “pace.” DFW was a fan of PTA.
@ Glenn – There’s a footnote in BIG RED SON that kinda denigrates BOOGIE NIGHTS. I don’t have it in front of me, but I think Wallace refers to the characters as being treated with condescension. I hear tell, also, that he thought MAGNOLIA was gradschool-ish. I think that supposedly came up in the biography. So your experience doesn’t square with these anecdotes? I’m just curious.
Zach, the footnote doesn’t denigrate “Boogie Nights” so much as it expresses bemusement about the fact that it was so eagerly embraced by the porn community. A different thing. And I hardly think DFW was the only viewer in Christendom to have a problem or two with “Magnolia.”
Thanks for proving my point, Jack Gibbs. Read your comment again and focus on how upset you are about what I said. That you got that upset should tell you something about yourself. It might not come to you now, but it will, later. Trust me. And calling someone else a 12 year old for expressing enthusiasm about something is about the most juvenile thing you can do. And I used the word “pace” correctly. One of the definitions of the words is: in deference to. Sorry for thinking PTA is a great filmmaker. I didn’t know that made me a sycophant. I guess using a name from Gaddis’ JR means your a sycophant too, no? You don’t want to express your enthusiasm for Gaddis, ever? His work doesn’t get you excited? You think the reception to The Recognitions had nothing to with the issues I discussed in my first comment?
There’s no “pettiness” in not finding PTA a great American filmmaker.
Incidentally, CB, Patrice Chereau has expressed an interest in making a film version of “The Recognitions.”
Yeah, Armond White isn’t petty. Not at all.
Are you kidding me, David Ehrenstein?
I was speaking of “pettiness” as a general term re PTA. I think he’s a competent director who imagines himself to be a great one. And I don’t regard that as an “extreme” position at all.
Armond is the Queen of Petty Girls
Patrice Chereau adapting William Gaddis? Like both a lot, but I can’t see any shared sensibilities there at all.
Meanwhile, Paul Thomas Anderson’s next film will reportedly be an adaptation of Thomas Pynchon’s “Inherent Vice”, with Robert Downey Jr. And he also recently revealed that he’s working on an adaptation of “Gravity’s Rainbow”! He might as well make “Mason & Dixon” while he’s at it; that’s my favorite Pynchon book.
I personally like P.T. Anderson a lot, but CB is doing a great job of making him seem a lot less interesting right now.
@Scott,
I checked out the info about PTA doing “Gravity’s Rainbow,” and it looks like it was basically an interpretive mistake made by one blogger, writing about an interview with him in Empire, that was pounced on by other bloggers, basically without one iota of fact-checking going on in the process.
http://collider.com/paul-thomas-anderson-inherent-vice-gravitys-rainbow/192712/
The correction is at the bottom:
“Since I haven’t read either book, I didn’t know Empire was referring to Inherent Vice as Pynchon’s most accessible work and not Gravity’s Rainbow. At this time, it looks like there are no plans to adapt Gravity’s Rainbow.”
Bum. Er.
Eh, drunken posting—always foolish (on my behalf). But let us not pretend that my vitriol had anything to do with PTA so much as the empty defense you offered. Accusations of jealousy, pettiness and dismissals over the same say nothing, do nothing and are just as reactionary and misguided as that which you analyze in others. Of course the next move is to say “well, it made you angry, I was right,” but, come on, that isn’t the case. All you have done is make discussion impossible by ascribing to interlocutors false, belittling motivations that make it all the easier to conform any response to that you wish it to be, closing out any discussion by saying things like anyone who ever picked up a camera wants to be PTA whether they know it or not. And thank you for the heads up. I await the moment the murk clears and I gain this self-knowledge you assure me I will obtain.
@ Will: Well, that’s disappointing. Ordinarily, I’d laugh at the idea of anyone trying to adapt “Gravity’s Rainbow”, but I’d actually be interested to see PTA’s take on that material. It seems we’ve had something of a recent trend of major filmmakers adapting lesser novels by important writers: the Coens with McCarthy’s “No Country for Old Men”, Cronenberg with DeLillo’s “Cosmopolis” and now Anderson with Pynchon’s “Inherent Vice”. I probably liked “Vice” more than most (it’s a fun book), but it’s a pretty minor work.
Now everyone’s making me sad that we’ll never have an Altman adaptation of “Mason & Dixon”, which could be packaged with MCCABE and NASHVILLE and INDIANS for eternal awesomeness.
Home-video close-ups? So I shouldn’t feel too bad about never having seen a Sternberg film projected theatrically?
Oliver & co.,
Ozu’s seems the odd man out in that trio because his films aren’t really transcendent, and don’t seek transcendence; they are about stoicism and graceful endurance. If they really ‘hung out’ I see Ozu getting along better with Dreyer who strikes me as more humble than Bresson, although maybe I’m wrong there.
A question for Glenn & his readers – what did you think of the dueling essays of David Thomson and David Denby in the New Republic? Both touch on the how-new-technology-is-changing-film-aesthetics with Denby striking an apocalyptic note and Thomson more cautiously optimistic. I seem to recall Glenn disdaining David D’s angsty earnestness a few years back, but this piece contained so many right-on observations I felt myself literally cheering along while reading. But I think he kind of drops the ball in detecting the silver lining; meanwhile Thomson’s observations about Man with a Movue Camera and its relevance today seemed on target in that regard.
Nuthin’, folks?
I realize a Swanberg-Faraci fistfight speaks louder than words on the subject of cinematic decline but still, those articles are worth a read/comment. So self-bump and a couple links to make it easier (though hopefully they don’t get the comment blocked):
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/107212/has-hollywood-murdered-the-movies
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/107218/not-dead-just-dying
@ Joel – I haven’t finished Thomson’s piece, but Denby’s was a mixed bag, I thought. I agree that there is trouble in the American movie business, but I’m not sure that Denby diagnosis is as accurate as it could be (for instance, his deprecatory stance towards what he terms “fantasy” seems to be misguided; fantasy, if done with artfulness and imagination, is essential to art). I think Denby’s right to cast aspersions on what he calls the “conglomerate aesthetic” but he then retreats from what I think the obvious critique is, which is that conglomerate, mass-scale entertainment is a natural byproduct of a conglomerate, mass-scale economy. And he also runs a little inconsistently around the idea of cinema being nuanced, rooted in a place, and “local,” while at the same time longing for a kind of cinema that can appeal to “everybody” or, perhaps, the USA. So my first impression is that it’s a bit confused, as a piece, but motivated by some good ideas. I think his comments regarding emotional engagement, and especially the way in which the depiction of space has become degraded, are pretty much right on the money.
I think that, while it is missing a few components (particularly how the cinema might be cured of its ailments) this is one of the best diagnoses of what ails contemporary film that I’ve ever read. I suspect that the mixed message about local vs. universal is down to Denby longing for the latter but feeling he has to pay lip service to the former; that if he’s going to condemn the contemporary forest, he has to at least spare some of the trees. Denby himself kind of notes this when he mentions exceptions to the general trend but remarks, “not everything a great director wants to say can be said for $3 million” or something to the effect.
Although I share some of Denby’s implicit frustration with excessive narrowness, I’d argue that vision and focus need not be dictated by budget, but that’s where I think Thomson’s last page comes in handy. Make sure you check that out; 3 pages in his tone changes course – up til then he seemed like he was playing ‘I’m-so-over-cinephile’ shtick but then he goes into an interesting, different direction.
For the record, I have absolutely no desire to be Paul Thomas Anderson.
I want to be Mel Brooks.