Razno razno razno

Летећи Полип wrote:Onaj što je gej, i snima gej filmove?

By the time of his 1993 film Blue, Jarman was losing his sight and dying of AIDS-related complications. Blue consists of a single shot of saturated blue colour filling the screen, as background to a soundtrack composed by Simon Fisher Turner, and featuring original music by Coil and other artists, in which Jarman describes his life and vision. When it was shown on British television, Channel 4 carried the image whilst the soundtrack was broadcast simultaneously on BBC Radio 3. Blue was unveiled at the 1993 Venice Biennale with Jarman in attendance and subsequently entered the collections of the Walker Art Institute; Centre Georges Pompidou; MoMA and Tate. His final work as a film-maker was the film Glitterbug, made for the Arena slot on BBC Two, and broadcast shortly after Jarman's death.

Erős Pista wrote:
Možda - da nema (ili već dugo nema) velikih britanskih filmskih žanrova ili pokreta.

Erős Pista wrote:Možda - da nema (ili već dugo nema) velikih britanskih filmskih žanrova ili pokreta. Svega onoga čega u pop muzici ima.

zvezda je zivot wrote:misim, lepo je sto svi znamo da se setimo ponekog engleskog filmadzije, ali el ozbiljno pokusavamo da osporimo cinjenicu da je engleska kinematografija u najboljem slucaju istorijski drugorazredna kinematografija (u mom slucaju mnogo gore), ono u kontekstu velikih nacionalnih  kinematografija, tipa americka, italijanska, japanska itd? ili da je engleska pop muzika 20. veka neuporedivo plodnija od engleskog filma? misim mogu i ja da nabrojim nekoliko velikih portugalskih autora, ali to ne znaci da portugal ima veliku kinematografiju niti kinematografiju uopste.



gde je boomer da nam kaze da film nije umetnost? ili da nacije ne postoje ili da voli ekskalibur.

zvezda je zivot wrote: istorijski drugorazredna kinematografija (u mom slucaju mnogo gore), ono u kontekstu velikih nacionalnih  kinematografija, tipa americka, italijanska, japanska itd?

Notxor wrote:

zvezda je zivot wrote: istorijski drugorazredna kinematografija (u mom slucaju mnogo gore), ono u kontekstu velikih nacionalnih  kinematografija, tipa americka, italijanska, japanska itd?

Jel' može preporuka za 5,6 italijanskih filmova snimljenih poslednjih 20 godina?

boomer crook wrote:mislim da to potcrnjivanje sopstvene kinematografije kod britanaca dolazi od onog istog osecaja da nisu vise sila zato sto su ono ameri i kinezi ispred njih. kao onaj deo lejbora koji stalno prica kako su propali dok sede u vecu bezbednosti i imaju ono top 10 ekonomiju sveta.

inace bas volim burmana a i vise volim potterovog singing detective nego berlin alexanderplatz

Notxor wrote:

zvezda je zivot wrote: istorijski drugorazredna kinematografija (u mom slucaju mnogo gore), ono u kontekstu velikih nacionalnih  kinematografija, tipa americka, italijanska, japanska itd?

Jel' može preporuka za 5,6 italijanskih filmova snimljenih poslednjih 20 godina?

isn’t there a certain incompatibility between the terms ‘cinema’ and ‘Britain’? This might sound far-fetched, but I get the feeling that there are national characteristics – among them, the English countryside, the subdued way of life, the stolid routine – that are anti-dramatic in a sense. The weather itself is anti-cinematic. Even British humour – that very understatement on which so many of the good crime comedies are hinged – is somehow a deterrent to strong emotion

Almost all visual art made in Britain in the 20th century has the instinct of hiding (and good manners) built into its every move – and this includes art that had no doubt it was piling on the agony, indeed in a ‘Picasso’ kind of way. (There is a scare-quotes ‘Picasso’-ism, all rending and tearing and leering and terribilità, at the heart of the pseudo-culture of art from 1910 on; and off to one side there is Picasso-ism for real. Wyndham Lewis is a good example of the first; Gorky and de Kooning of the second. Francis Bacon started, so the Tate show demonstrates, as a diligent – too diligent – student of the second kind, battling away at the enigma of Cubist space; he failed to solve it; and where he ended up is another matter.)
The question remains why. What stood in the way of the English doing as well as the Czechs or the Dutch? My answer begins from the special hold here of class on culture. The culture of art in England is genteel. It is tied to Home Counties, late-imperial class values and attitudes in ways – with a depth and tightness of affiliation – that mark it out from Turin or St Petersburg or Prague or Paris, or even Habsburg Vienna. This has nothing to do, need I say it, with the actual vileness of any particular bourgeoisie. It depends on the means – the insistence, the ‘givenness’ – of that bourgeoisie’s hegemony. And of course there are art forms in which gentility is not (apparently) debilitating. The novel, for one: it can make gentility its subject. The subject may strike one, the more one rereads, as a minor and exhaustible one, if put alongside the accounts of being-in-the-social-world available to the Irish, say, or the Russians or Americans. I used to laugh in California at the way American students of modern literature were more likely to have read the (ludicrous) accounts of class in Mrs Dalloway or Howards End than that of race in Light in August. But the English novel in the 20th century, I concede, is something. It has the power to offend; it has the courage of its class convictions. There is no visual art in the same period of which this can be said.

boomer crook wrote:mislim da to potcrnjivanje sopstvene kinematografije kod britanaca dolazi od onog istog osecaja da nisu vise sila zato sto su ono ameri i kinezi ispred njih. kao onaj deo lejbora koji stalno prica kako su propali dok sede u vecu bezbednosti i imaju ono top 10 ekonomiju sveta.

inace bas volim burmana a i vise volim potterovog singing detective nego berlin alexanderplatz