Truffaut

What is it about Francois Truffaut that makes him such a wonderful filmmaker? I took the afternoon today to watch and absorb his first film, The 400 Blows, and this question has been in my head since then. I pose the question seriously, not in any condescending sense. His films are beautiful and poignant. They have a way of elevating one's spirit. But he is a simple filmmaker. He does not do this by any manipulation or by technical spectacle, but he finds stories that are pulled from a collective consciousness of experiences to make films bothe fantastic and relatable for everyone.

So what is it about Truffaut that makes him such a fine auteur? I think  first and foremost it is the word auteur. It is found within the theory projected by all those involved with Truffaut and contemporaries' new wave filmmaking, the theory that a director is the author of his films, and that he leaves an indelible fingerprint on his films. He took it farther. As writer of most of his films he allowed himself to be an even stronger "author" of his style in filmmaking. He believed that the director had not just the ability, but the responsibility to make a unique piece of art, reflective of one's own style. He believed it and he lived and created by it.

He also understood the medium from two different perspectives. He understood it as an artist and a creator, but also - thanks to his years at Les Cahiers du Cinema - as a critic and an analyst. He understood film in both theory and application. He was a harsh critic of the current French cinema, and as such he - along with his fellow new wave filmmakers - made films in direct opposition to the current trends in filmmaking. He understood from a critical standpoint where other films were going wrong, and as an artist he understood how make it right. His personal beliefs of the ability and responsibility of a director and his understanding on different levels of the art of film are two of the strong components that make hims such a fine artist. 

Then we have his actual ability manifest in his films. His artistry was nearly unparalleled. His stories, while often lacking the traditional three-act structure as we recognize it, were always well-crafted and well-realized. They were somehow always relatable enough, even in his more fantastic of films. His stories all seemed to find a way to reach down into the heart of each viewer and pull their individual experiences out to be examined and re-experienced. While few among may have experienced the rejection and neglect of Antoine in our own lives, it is told in such a way that our own childhood isolations - no matter how small - are brought to the surface, having us experience life alongside Antoine, instead of simply watching it. He crafts wonderful reflections of our experiences.

His camerawork is what astounded me in this last viewing. His camera is a casual observer to the situation, very unassuming and devoid of any flourishes that take away from experiencing the story. When he does use the occasional technical flourish, it's for a reason and it is arresting. In the 400 Blows he uses no establishing shots, which is a subtle change but has huge impact. An establishing shot will show us the entire school building before entering the classroom, the home before the bedroom or the restaurant's name before panning in to the couple at the table. Establishing shots have become an easy way of identifying something to the audience. It spells it out for us. Worse yet, it has become a substitution for mood: show us point-blank a location and expect the mood to be evoked by a flash of identification. Truffaut uses no establishing shots. On each cut he takes us immediately to our characters, and to our stories, there is no wasted time to have it painted out to us. He has two shots in the film that I would consider for Truffaut his establishing shots: at the beginning of the film we see Paris from the streets and when we shift to the juvenile camp we have a brief shot of the school with a supertitle before the class exits. Both of his locations, Paris and the camp are full characters in the film. It is for this reason, I believe, that he has no large need for establishing shots. I believe the realism of the film is greatly aided by his lack of establishing shots. There is no halt of the story in order to show us where we are, we simply see and we simply know it. 

His few technical flourishes in the film become completely breathtaking after a film of such unassuming camerawork. The final shot of the film is well-known, but what stunned me the most this time around was the transition after Antoine's meeting with the psychiatrist. The slight freeze with the dissolve was absolutely stunning, and it allowed the mood of the scene - the heartbreak and abandon - to linger just that much longer.

To me, that dissolve illustrates what works so well about Truffaut and his work. It shows a perfect synthesis between technical proficiency and artistic excellence. The dissolve is technically well-conceived, but is a wonderful moment of art that evokes reaction and emotion. And it succeeds on every level.

"What can I offer?" In function to my religion

To continue in my thoughts on the idea of "What can I offer?" I now take my ideas and put them into the context of my religion as well as the social stigmas and ideologies that stem from, not my religion per se, but rather by the culture grown from zealous living in a controlled cultural environment.

The earlier quote, that someone could "never marry a man majoring in art" because "it is selfish" is an idea held firmly in place by many members of my religion. Many people my own age in college believe this. It grows from a place that I do not understand, but I have many theories on where it may come from. Expectations for a certain type of life are high within the church. It is a life where righteous living is priority, and a happy home and happy family are the results. This expectation, though, can often be manipulated with the Calvinistic ideology that those who are favored by God will be identified by their temporal success. In the church this ideology is not so literally believed that we will consider those in the larger homes to be truly on a faster track to the celestial kingdom than those in the smaller homes. But we do judge far too often one's righteousness by their exterior signs of commitment or by temporal successes. So when someone assumes that an art major will never be able to provide for his family, the implication is serious. They are putting their family - which is the most important - behind their desires to follow their pipe dreams. Or so this idea would have you believe. 

So within this warped framework of ideology we have beliefs that begin to form in the collective consciousness that there are careers and educations that are inherently more righteous than the others. Those with noble ambition - the doctors and lawyers, the scientists and businessmen - are regarded as nobility. Those with "normal jobs" who have the ambition and talent for manual labor or office work are also regarded as noble - they who will work and do everything it takes to provide for their families. But the artists are for some reason looked upon as selfish people, too absorbed in our own desires and abilities to come to our senses and put others first. I am not saying this is the case for all members, but a group of them feel this way, perhaps without realizing it. but to them, we are hedonists who care only about our dreams and desires and not about the health, safety and security of our families. 

Then there is the odd stigma that many oddly have, that the arts are somehow a heathen world of pornographers and sinners, and that pursuing a career in the arts is enlisting directly in their services. It is odd seeing as this archaic mindset of religion that banned arts was one of the major steps forward of the restoration. Our church championed art and artists. Not to mention, the major events leading us out of the dark ages and into modern thought and intelligence was fueled by the renaissance and its art and artists. But in this modern age, art is equated with the snarling face of Babylon. Unless it is, of course, the wonderful genre of mormon art (another subject altogether) which is how the Lord sees fit to produce art. Art is bad. Unless, you know, it is Eric Dowdle, Halestorm Pictures or generic paintings of Jesus in a field of blooming flowers accompanied by small children. 

We cannot assume that to be considered a successful or a righteous mormon that we must belong to a certain profession. We cannot assume that to be a positive influence in someone's life or to help people come unto Christ that we must be a doctor or a real estate agent or a sales manager at a local Staples. We must simply do the best with what the Lord has given us. In the parable of the talents the wise and profitable servants took that which were given and multiplied it. The unprofitable servant whose apathy frustrated the master simply hid his away. In the Lord's kingdom we have each been given talents. Some talents are in some disciplines and other talents are in other disciplines. What is unwise is hiding that which we have been given away. I will be a far more effective servant of the Lord in being myself and multiplying the talents I have than by hiding my talents away and force the growth of talents I may not even possess. I will have the capacity to influence the world positively and to help bring others to Christ far more by being involved in my art and the talent the Lord has given me than by majoring in anthropology and finding a "normal job."  

The arts have their place in the Lord's kingdom. He has given us artists for that reason. Burying the talents given to us is frustrating to the Master, and does nothing to benefit His work nor His kingdom. To not broaden one's education in the arts if given the talent is to bury it, and is to be - in turn - an unprofitable servant. To seek an education in the arts is not a selfish quest - it can be if approached poorly - but rather it is a quest to take what is given to us an multiply it. In so doing we prepare ourselves so that when the Master arrives He can tell us that we have done well, and that we may enter into His kingdom. 

So do you want to open a shop in a large city? Sell vintage clothing and your own designs? Want to create a community of artists in order to consistently create and perform original quality material? Want to make films? Than do it. If this is what you truly desire and want to do, there is no reason to bury it and force it to sit unused. Make yourself profitable. Make the world a better place by whatever means you can. Bring people to Christ by the means that He has given you, and you will be far more productive than trying to do it some other way. Our righteousness will not be based on our 401k nor our decision to choose biochem over painting. (and vise versa) The Lord's kingdom requires all types, not just those deemed to be in "respectable" professions by the local neighborhood watch.

What I can offer?

"I could never marry a man majoring in art. It's selfish on his part."

That's in quotes for a reason: someone actually said it. It is a sentence that must, by obligation, be put in quotation marks because - as improbable as it seems - it was actually uttered. Odd, I know, to think that such a misguided and sad idea could be expressed by a friend of mine, and even sadder to come to the realization that there are many who share the same viewpoint. It has started me thinking. The statement is flawed and hypocritical by its own selfish trappings so I won't spend any time on why I think it should be disregarded. I will rather express the thoughts that have been occupying my mind all day as I contemplate my place within this idea of selfishness by artful expression. The thought that is reoccurring most frequently in my mind is the following: What do I have to offer?

So what do I have to offer? I am not speaking of myself in a marital sense, as in "What can I bring to the table in a relationship?" but rather  "What can I bring to the world?" It's not as deeply existential as the question may lead one to believe. What do I have to offer the world? How can I better it? How can I change or influence it? Within this, there lies many paths. Each is unique, and each is important. But we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that a path which diverges from what many would define as "normalcy" is a lesser path. The artist's influence, while perhaps unfelt and unseen by many is just as imperative to the world as the influence of lawmakers, powerful businessmen, politicians and doctors. You know, the "normal professions." 

So what can I offer? I have only that which I can create and that which I am given. I cannot force interest or talent in areas where they do not exist in me. I cannot pretend that I understand the deep inner-workings of an equation. I cannot pretend that I would like to. I cannot feign interest in the things in which I would normally have no interest. So why force myself into an education, career and life devoted to it? Why pretend that I could be effective in accomplishing important goals by surrounding myself in that for which I have no talent or ability. I am what I am, and I am who I am. I have certain abilities and talents which are unique to me, and for that I am thankful. I am no lawyer or politician, and for that I am thankful. I am no biochem major, no physicist in training. I have to offer that which I have, that which I am. I cannot change that. What I can do is refine and hone that which I have. In doing so I will a greater impact on the environment around me than I could in any other way. I have talent for the arts. How can I fool myself into thinking that my life would be more affecting by denying them and turning myself to scholarly pursuits accepted by the masses? In all truth I can only be effective by being who I am. I cannot have the same influence or impact in hiding my abilities or denying them in order to pursue a "marketable" career. Saying that a point comes where one must grow up and pick a big-boy job is an idea as ludicrous as saying that a talented and gifted doctor would have more success in life by leaving his practice and painting. 

Why is it a selfish pursuit to hone and perfect the abilities that I have been given? Those who are gifted in thought, in science or in mathematics certainly use education to further deepen their knowledge and abilities in their crafts, why is it not the same for me? Why am I a fool for wanting to further my abilities in my own craft? It is a fallacy to think that it is selfishness that leads many to do that which they love. It is a fallacy to believe that pursuing one's dreams is left only to the artists. It is a pursuit that should drive all of those seeking education in their respective fields. We can all better our capacity to offer something to the world. The lawyer may grow in his knowledge of the law, the doctor in his ability to understand the human body, the taxi driver the fastest route and the artist his craft. Each of us can offer the world what we have. That which we have we can improve and refine. But taking that which is innate and ignoring it for that which is accepted is a disservice to ourselves, seeing as we rob ourselves the ability to fulfill the extent of our own potential. Again, this extends to all realms of ability. We cannot rob the world of a good surgeon, a good mechanic or a good executive by ignoring our natural gifts, abilities and tendencies. The world cannot afford it. Whatever it is that we are, we cannot positively or as powerfully affect the world by denying or changing it. We can never achieve our potential by deceiving ourselves. 

So in summation, I can only offer that which I am and that which I have. Anything else would be either a lie or a disservice, and would not be as affecting. To refine one's ability in that which one loves is, in fact, the antithesis of selfish. True selfishness would be to deny the world that which one could offer.

 

Trips to the Broadway Center

Last night I was able to go to the Broadway Center Cinemas, one of my favorite places on Earth. My life living in Utah has seen me wasting hours upon hours of my life at this wonderful cinema. The Broadway Center Cinemas is run by the Salt Lake Film Society (get information on screenings, and more importantly on becoming a patron here) an organization that is wonderful and deserves our support. Because of the SLFS I have had several of my most intimate and moving experiences with film, and what I have experienced because of them plays in heavily with why I want to be a filmmaker and an artist. 

It has been too long since I've been to the Broadway Center. I was able to go last night with a close friend, and together, we shared two wonderful films together.

Let the Right One In is a slow, subtle Swedish film about two 12 year-olds coming to know each other and deal with their growing affection for one another. As far as plot goes, I don't want to speak about it much more, because I feel as if I would have enjoyed this heartwarming and beautiful tale if I new less about it going in. The film is slowly but perfectly paced, allowing the character relationships to blossom and develop naturally. The story also progresses in a natural and beautiful arc, accompanied by affecting performances by the two young leads. What really impressed my in the film was the sound. Using silence when many films would use far too much music, and using deep human noises for certain scenes create an effective and often horrifying environment. 

I won't say much more about Let the Right One In, because I don't want to spoil it too much, and I also don't want to overhype it. But honestly, the film is perfect. In retrospect, I cannot find one flaw in the film. No hyperbole, I'm serious. Not one flaw. I loved this movie.

The second film was the epic and wondrous Synecdoche, New York. It is Charlie Kaufman's latest film and his directorial debut. The exciting thing about this film is that it is Kaufman directing Kaufman, so we are left with solely his vision, no filtering. While his collaborations in the past have been massive successes , this is 100% Kaufman pur jus. The last time I was this excited about seeing someone bring just their vision, and solely their vision, to the screen was Shane Black's Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. For me, both films are triumphs for their respective filmmakers. 

I don't know where to begin with Synecdoche, New York. As with all of Kaufman's films, the plot is unorthodox, to say the least. Theatre director Caden Cotard (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) is given a Macarthur grant and decides to do something big and truthful, creating an ever-growing replica of life in New York City. That's probably about as simple as I can make it, but it is increasingly complex. The film that I would relate this to would most likely be Fellini's 8 1/2, due to Synecdoche's tale of the struggle to create as well as the tale being told largely by analyzing Caden's relationships with the women in his life. The film also has no problem analyzing itself and its themes on several different meta-levels. 

Synecdoche is a grand, sweeping tale playing with time and consciousness as if it were a near-annoyance. It's protagonist's struggle to connect and create is a beautiful tale that touched me, as well as my friend, deeply. It also sports a new score by the incredible Jon Brion. 

I plan on spending more time over my Christmas break at the Broadway Center, and I hope to have as many marvelous film experiences as I did this weekend.

"Indie"

In response to my friend Josh's note "Indie" found here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=59350253824

The line between what is technically "independent" and mainstream is becoming more and more blurred as time progresses onwards. At its outset, independent art was the art created without the aid of the mainstream funding machine, also known as "the man." But nowadays each major label, each major production studio has their "indie" label, where they can fund artists that either started on the outside and have deservedly worked their way into the public consciousness, or that have the feel or energy of the true independents. Or, perhaps, that the companies feel can sell to the demographic know as "indies." 

So labeling things as indie can no longer simply come down to where the support or where the funding comes from. There are still the certain kings of independent art who produce and distribute their own art, such as Aimee Mann, but thanks to revolutionaries like Jack White we have indie in the mainstream. I would agree that indie is, indeed, defined by spirit and feeling now. Technically, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is an independent film, seeing as he financed it himself outside the aid of the studios. Would I classify that as an "indie film?" In no way. 

The Sundance Film Festival and the Sundance Institute are great examples of the opposite of this spectrum. For all intents and purposes, they still represent the American Independent Film movement and embody the "indie spirit." But does it truly foster independent art? Not really, but it fosters the spirit of it. Most of the films at Sundance, while being non-produced by studios, are not fully "independent." The Sundance Film Festival is no longer the early 1990s behemoth where unknown, unique filmmakers maxed-out three credit cards in order to make a modest film a la Robert Rodriges. These are movies starring Steve Carrell and Courtney Cox-Arquette, with people like Danny Devito throwing cash behind the films. These are professional films by professional filmmakers, but the visions they produce are unique and embody the ideas of independent art. 

So by comparing The Passion of the Christ and the Sundance Film Festival what we see are two different examples of the forms in which "indie" exists today. There is art independently produced that is in no way independent, and there is art produced by the mainstream that is truly indie. What we as artists and as supporters of the indie zeitgeist must realize is that the good exists on both sides, as well as the bad. We cannot believe that all that is indie is quality, and that all that is mainstream is pointless shill. There is much indie art that is not worth a single moment of our time, as well as much mainstream art that is beautiful, uplifting and inspiring. Just because a book was on Oprah's book list does not mean it's not worth your time, Jonathan Franzen. 

In our time, independent art will be judge far less by how or where it was produced and far more by the tone, spirit and ideals that it produces and upholds.

Personal Accomplishments

I am feeling good tonight. Not cockily so, but just good. I came from a productive and fun day, and feel very pleased with my accomplishments as of late.

One: I have successfully not drunk any carbonation for three-and-a-half weeks, except for about a quarter of a cup to try some Pomegranate 7-Up. 

Two: I set another minute of my choreography piece this evening.

Three: I am about to finish the run of Into the Woods, having played one of the most physically demanding roles of my life.

Four: I have lost 16 pounds since I moved to Wyoming. 

Five: I had a good interview today for a job position this summer. 

Six: My hair is starting to look awesome.

Seven: I found a duffel coat that looks great on me and it only cost $65.

Eight: I successfully hit on a stranger at Borders this morning.

Nine: I am staying on top of my schoolwork.

Ten: I accomplished one of my major goals for my studies here at Western - I am in Deirdre MacDonald's dance piece.

Eleven: I am happy.

So that is pretty much it right now. But I'm feeling good. Again, not cockily so, but just very content. 

Can't Sleep

It's 2:00 am and I can't sleep. I don't know why. My roommate is not here, and I'm up thinking. I watched United 93 tonight and my mind is wrapping around it. It was one of the most difficult movies I've ever watched, but I'm surprised how cathartic it is, and not simply about September 11. I was also very touched by how well the film was made. Paul Greengrass is a very talented director (and I suppose writer with this film, even though most of the dialogue was created in rehearsals with he actors) and he coaxes a painful realism from the proceedings throughout the entire film. It is really a movie that I would say everyone needs to see at least once, if not for anything but a moving story of true-life heroics. 

It is interesting to watch my evolution as a person. The last few months have been very hectic for me. I tell myself frequently that "I'm going to write, I'm going to write," but I never do. Not even something as simple as a blog. But I wish I could have documented more of my thought-process in the last few months. Returning from France I was so sure I knew exactly what I wanted and how to get it. But it never goes as planned. I was also sure that I knew exactly what I didn't want. Again, things never go as planned. And now I'm here. 8 months in America and I'm a different person than I was. I'm far more reserved than I used to be, and far calmer. I do not experience the same level of stress that I used to inflict upon myself. I am calmer and I am more relaxed about life. Maybe that is why it is so glaringly different when I descend into moments of panic or anxiety . . . But they quickly subside and I find myself again tranquil. I am more comfortable with my creative identity and am more confident in expressing it in the midst of many who do not think the same way as I do. I am far less dependent upon others' opinions of me. I have difficulty with extroversion in social gatherings and am often crippled with fear in certain social situations. I am completely blank in my mind in regards to my future, but fully confident that it is alright, that with time my path will be laid out before me, and that I will have no problem recognizing it. I have a complete and utter abhorrence to the thought of mediocrity in myself. I am far stronger and far more capable than I have ever previously given myself credit for.

Stream of consciousness . . . oi gevalt, where does it lead? Here, apparently. It's now 2:17. I still have no ability in my body to sleep. I can feel it, I know myself, and I'm not ready for sleep. My mind is still too awake.  I was able to see my family last weekend. I hope I'm able to fully express to all of them how much they mean to me. Living 3 hours away is not that bad, but I wish I could see them more often. I wonder how it will be if I go someplace even further away to finish my bachelor's. Or for Grad school. I never thought I would say something similar to what I'm about to: But I love school. I want to learn as much as I can for the rest of my life. Ok, so maybe I don't love school, but I love learning. Sometimes I have difficulty learning here, I have a hard time in classes having to focus my "learning" into one prescribed method. I can't wrap my mind around it. But as I take my own time and read as much as I can about everything that interests me, I adore it. I just finished a book called Blink which was so interesting. It spoke on our thought processes and our ability to make decisions. It was so intriguing to dive into a specific theory of how our mind cognitively analyses its information. Before that I read a wonderful study of America by Mark Hertsgaard called The Eagle's Shadow. The election was a period of mass study for me, especially trying to shove a year-and-a-half's worth of missed campaigning into the past 8 months to understand this election. 

Does it frustrate anyone else that to read decent and fair news about America you have to go to gaurdian.uk or bbc.com? I've been growing weary of it. Especially with the fact that a while ago, maybe a little more than 3 or 4 weeks, America raided Syria - the first time we've crossed the Iraqi border into that country - killing 8 people and the American media has made nearly NO mention of it. NPR is the only news source I've heard covering it at all, and from what I found, it was scant. But the major news sources in America have ignored this story. I don't understand it. I've gone to other country's websites to get our news. I read stories in the British magazine The Economist. But here? I can hardly find anything. I don't get it.

All in all, life is good. It's a supposed halt for me as I take my studies seriously. At times this does not feel like a real life to me. I feel like time has paused and I'm allowed to just learn as much as I can, which would be wonderful if it were true. The true pause seems to have happened during my time in France. It honestly feels as if it should still be 2006 for me. I was over in France as the world went forward in time and I didn't even realize it at all. 

Alright, I'm not going to bed, but I'm stopping this blog this evening. I think I've rambled enough for one entry. I will probably be surprised and maybe even slightly horrified come morning when I realize what I've written.