Just wrote an article on The Voluntaryist Reader (a thank you to Andris Birkmanis for allowing me to do this.)
Sometime soon I'll probably have a short story up on there aswell.
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/austrian-school-film-theory/
I never read anything on Marx and film theory (or the arts in general), but I feel there's more to it than that, which brings my curiosity of Marxists writers and fictional writing and their themes and plots. Only one that comes to mind is Sartre, but I never read his fiction.
This was just in general terms. There is indeed more to it than that, but I wanted to compare the two from an overview-esque standpoint. I never stated that the Marxist theory of film couldn't work, I just stated my belief which was that the only way to achieve a deep connection to the audience was through the display of purposeful action by individuals that starts out seemingly nonsensical to the viewer, and then slowly evolves into something that notifies the viewer that the action was purposeful all along.
Bump. I'd like a chance for this to get seen by just a few more people if it can :)
a thank you to Andris Birkmanis for allowing me to do this.
I hope you are not being sarcastic :) That indeed took a bit more time than needed.
Re Marxist films and ants - that's exactly how I feel these movies. Ants and occassionally worms (don't know why, maybe the jerky quality of old films, or maybe the sheer number of similar characters). There is absolutely no rapport with characters, no identification. E.g., in Battleship Potemkin most of the time you do not recognise the persons, you only see black pants killing white pants, or vice versa. I cannot identify myself with white pants, and therefore I cannot commiserate with them, even if they are being mistreated.
Welcome aboard, once more :)
"I hope you are not being sarcastic"
Not at all! Really, never thought I'd get the chance to write anything for such a cool-looking blog. And thanks very much for the great feedback.
As a general overview, I think you did a good job of highlighting why Marxist Film theory makes no sense. Interesting Soviet Russia's most regarded film director is Tarkovsky who created intensely personal films (I've only seen Solaris and the Mirror). Solaris is much easier to get into. It would probably have been better if I hadn't seen the Mirror until seeing more of his films.
More modern films which eschew human action was the horrendously dull La Quattro Volte who's man characters a shepherd, a goat, a tree and dust. They each take up a quarter of the film.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Thank you. As a social science, economics, (particularly the Austrian School, which I was highlighting) may be something to look to in order to investigate the core of filmmaking.
Physiocrat: As a general overview, I think you did a good job of highlighting why Marxist Film theory makes no sense. Interesting Soviet Russia's most regarded film director is Tarkovsky who created intensely personal films (I've only seen Solaris and the Mirror). Solaris is much easier to get into. It would probably have been better if I hadn't seen the Mirror until seeing more of his films. More modern films which eschew human action was the horrendously dull La Quattro Volte who's man characters a shepherd, a goat, a tree and dust. They each take up a quarter of the film.
Tarkovsky is, pound for pound in my opinion, the greatest director who ever lived. Mirror, Andrei Rublev, and Stalker are absolute masterpieces of the human soul, even more impressive for fighting the Soviet bureaucracy to get them done, and as you said not only individualistic but also religious. The authorities were freaking out but at the same time the Soviets wanted to prove they were the best at everything, and any time a Tarkosvky movie was exhibited in festivals the reaction was massive. I highly recommend reading his diaires (Time Within Time), as he details a lot of run ins with the film bureaucrats. Sadly though, when he defected to the West, he also complained a lot about producers giving him a time limit for shooting. Back in USSR, once he had finally convinced the bad guys to fund him, they threw A LOT of resources his way. So I get messed up thinking that people in the provinces probably had to starve so Andrei could have half the Russian army as extras in his movie.
If you dig individualist filmmakers fighting against the system, check out Paradjanov, Klimov, and Iosseliani as well. In fact, I think Iosseliani just made an autobiographical movie about fleeing Georgia and coming to France when he was a younger man.
It's kind of funny how I actually love Italian neorealism. As I was saying to Neodoxy earlier, the best kind of art, the art that lasts, comes from the "losers" of the world. Uncool people. The working class. And yet, all of these films turned down the Marxist theory of film quietly, because they all focused on the praxeological actions of the individual characters, and never the masses.
Agree with everything you said, except for the best kind of art coming from the losers/working class. I don't think that bears out. Visconti was a count, and Rossellini was pretty firmly middle-upper middle class. De Sica was born poor I guess, but by the time he made his important movies he was a well established and wealthy actor.
No no, what I meant by that was the stories themselves being about the working class. I wasn't talking about the creators of the films, sorry if that's how I worded it.
By the way, I have a short story that I've been passing around. I sent it off to the New Yorker, and I'm thinking about publishing it on the Voluntaryist Reader for the time being.