Post by rick220 on Feb 13, 2017 14:15:48 GMT
Like the thread on IMDb post the most recent Silent Film you've seen, preferably with some notes.
Here we go......
HISTOIRE DE DÉTECTIVE (1929, Charles de Keukelaire)
For true cinematic originality and innovation don’t look at the future, look at the past. By the end of the 1920s basically every cinematic invention, both technological and for narrative had already been achieved.
Look no further then HISTOIRE DE DÉTECTIVE for proof.
The film deals with a woman hiring a private detective to find out what her husband is up to. What it shows however is the detective’s actual work in trying to solve the mystery. The film is mostly an assembly of ‘found footage’ shot by the detective, T.
T. is briefly introduced by images of him holding his handheld (1929!) camera.
Through intertitles the director explains that because of this there may be gaps in the narrative, which he has no intention of explaining or filling in. The spectator has to make do with the ‘found footage’.
But then, not quite… Because there are also shots of films made by T. being developed for projection. These shots could not have been made by T. Right?
We also get shots of the camera being set up to show T.’s footage.
And we even get a short sequence of the roll-up footage showing nothing but blank images and scratched film.
This is now definitely avant-garde territory, in which the disctinctions between film, celluloid, filmer, and spectator get blurred more and more.
The movie is filled with images of random situations, items and objects which have no apparent relation to ‘the case’, but through their subjective positioning are open for psychological interpretation. But are these images about the wife and her husband or about T?
Why does T. make shots of the city’s buildings with the camera upside down?
A number of shots are made by frantically turning the handheld camera left, right, up and down. Some scenes have double exposure of up to 4, 5 times. And there are a couple of scenes scattered throughout of a rough sea. It doesn’t seem to make any sense. At least not in regards to solving the case.
This is a silent film, so most of the narrative exposition is done through the use of title cards. But again, these do not really clarify or explain the actions or motives of the characters. They are more often a commentary or impression of the footage itself. At the same time they carry visual information beyond the strict meaning of the words.
I loved this film, not only because it explores the functions and possibilities of film and cinema, but also because it’s a lot of fun to watch. Crazy upside down shots, rapid handheld camera work, and extraordinary angles.
It’s actually…
…than 90% of current cinema.
Highly recommended.
Here we go......
HISTOIRE DE DÉTECTIVE (1929, Charles de Keukelaire)
For true cinematic originality and innovation don’t look at the future, look at the past. By the end of the 1920s basically every cinematic invention, both technological and for narrative had already been achieved.
Look no further then HISTOIRE DE DÉTECTIVE for proof.
The film deals with a woman hiring a private detective to find out what her husband is up to. What it shows however is the detective’s actual work in trying to solve the mystery. The film is mostly an assembly of ‘found footage’ shot by the detective, T.
T. is briefly introduced by images of him holding his handheld (1929!) camera.
Through intertitles the director explains that because of this there may be gaps in the narrative, which he has no intention of explaining or filling in. The spectator has to make do with the ‘found footage’.
But then, not quite… Because there are also shots of films made by T. being developed for projection. These shots could not have been made by T. Right?
We also get shots of the camera being set up to show T.’s footage.
And we even get a short sequence of the roll-up footage showing nothing but blank images and scratched film.
This is now definitely avant-garde territory, in which the disctinctions between film, celluloid, filmer, and spectator get blurred more and more.
The movie is filled with images of random situations, items and objects which have no apparent relation to ‘the case’, but through their subjective positioning are open for psychological interpretation. But are these images about the wife and her husband or about T?
Why does T. make shots of the city’s buildings with the camera upside down?
A number of shots are made by frantically turning the handheld camera left, right, up and down. Some scenes have double exposure of up to 4, 5 times. And there are a couple of scenes scattered throughout of a rough sea. It doesn’t seem to make any sense. At least not in regards to solving the case.
This is a silent film, so most of the narrative exposition is done through the use of title cards. But again, these do not really clarify or explain the actions or motives of the characters. They are more often a commentary or impression of the footage itself. At the same time they carry visual information beyond the strict meaning of the words.
I loved this film, not only because it explores the functions and possibilities of film and cinema, but also because it’s a lot of fun to watch. Crazy upside down shots, rapid handheld camera work, and extraordinary angles.
It’s actually…
…than 90% of current cinema.
Highly recommended.
