Forthcoming Lists Discussion and Random Speculation Vol.3

[Derek Estes]

Park Row no longer a Criterion candidate: MOD

I will still hold out hope. Foolish as that might be.

[justeleblanc]

I doubt both MGM and Criterion would release competing releases. My guess is the quality of PARK ROW was fair and Criterion made the call to not release it.

[chizbooga]

Cluny Brown?

[domino harvey]

It's Fox and whatever license BFI had on it and a couple other Fox titles expired, so maybe?

[justeleblanc]

Cluny Brown is a possibility, but it would probably happen in a few years.... AFTER Design for Living (which is apparently in the works) and after To Be Or Not To Be, which is also supposedly in the works. If we assume a Lubitsch title every 2 years or so, I'd say Cluny Brown will be announced 2017 at the earliest.

[Professor Wagstaff]

Not even with the restored print of Cluny Brown that's already been playing in theatres over the last few months?

[nolanoe]

Sorry for the interruption, but this

As a german, I can actually say that Fassbinder is not a "masterful" director

can not stand uncommented. Anyone (especially german!) claiming that Fassbinder is not "masterful" disqualifies in a cinephilic discussion.

OK, I feel like I need to comment.

First off: OH YES YES YES for the news of WORLD ON A WIRE returning to US cinemas and then getting the BD treatment. As I said, it is probably the best german film of all time (although many are lost it seems).

Second - and sorry for the long post - to comment on your comment accatone: Fassbinder had the fortune to be able to surround himself with people who are brilliant in their craft. The better his camera operator and actors, the better his films (as, with some films, he didn't even finish them, and had his assistant director or camera operator finish them - not to mention that he even had only very little input into some of "his" films, as his crew did the work (art direction, location scouting, shot assemblage etc.) and he only showed up the day the shoot started).

But there are two big things which I highly dislike about his films. The first is the way he directs his actors, which can be summed up as "Just stand there, stare into nothingness and recite the dialogue I have written for you with no emotion, connotation or facial expression.", which renders most of his films into unintentional zombie films, or to have sudden outbursts of emotion, which are delivered with such cryptic pathos that they seem highly artificial and funny. If you are capable of understanding german, there is many a Fassbinder film that simply is unenjoyable due to the little amount of humanity present and the acting style that rivals even the worst american soap opera (for example, the acting visible in The Bold and the Beautiful is not too far off of most Fassbinder films).

The second lies in the scripts. I have a book on the good man here that was released in 1980, and includes reviews for all of his films. For the first batch, the reviews are mostly positive, as they center on the social problems that are discussed in the film (personally, I have a problem with their sense of victimization - they all follow the same muster: somebody is used by somebody else, the world fails to understand him, he goes on a self-destructive and self-centered journey ending with his death). But with 1974, the reviewer suddenly starts to equip a bitter tone, and is ripping almost every film (apart from Angst vor der Angst) a "new one". The problems he mentions are the one I also see: his themes repeat themselves, his characters are simpletons who fail to adapt to their surroundings, but are also unable to come up with any solution than to pity themselves. There is such an overbearing sense of self-pitying that the plot and the framework become irrelevant, as does the social criticism. Plus, there are many unfortunate script decisions (asked about the famous bottle-smashing scene in Maria Braun, camera operator Michael Ballhaus answers in a recent interview: "It didn't work at all. It was a very weak scene. Nothing more.") and I also dislike his tendency to come up with some never before mentioned story elements in the last 20 minutes.
The critic, by the way, finally gets back to his opinion with "In a Year with 13 Moons", which I also think is one of his strongest and the beginning of his strongest phase.

All in all, Fassbinder has some strong films. World on a Wire, Ali, Third Generation, 13 Moons and Lola are great films - some of them masterpieces. And I still have some to watch (Fear of Fear, Despair and Berlin Alexanderplatz the most well known). But apart of those five, I consider the other 13 films I have seen of his either heavily flawed or utterly unwatchable in the worst case.

However, I also would like to add that german film is, especially in germany, heavily underrated. Fassbinder's friend and collaborator Werner Schroeter for example never saw the re-release of many of his works - he died last year, with some of his important films seeing their release months after his death. Alexander Kluge, one of the most important directors in his day, luckily got his films released to DVD last year, but not after they were lost for up to 40 years. Herbert Veselly, Johannes Schaaf, M.X. Oberg or Zbynek Brynych - all obscure, their films never being shown outside of their theatrical (or TV) runs.
And if you want to delve into german film outside of Fassbinder, then I can recommend you Roland Klick, whose films were LUCKILY released some time ago by small labels.

[windowside]

i don't feel like defending Fassbinder to someone who cites one of his TV productions as 'probably the best German film of all time'. However, your judgement on his overall directing skills seems unfair and highly motivated by an urge to sum up a list of more overlooked directors.

Although it has been years that i've seen a single second of The Bold & The Beautiful and happen to have no clear recollection of it's acting styles i do find this comparison typical for your whole approach and argumentation; it is quite bizarre.

It is very noble of you to plea for more respect for the people that backed Fassbinder on the set. A cinematographer like Xaver Schwarzenberger brought in as much has he has gained by his collaborations and was highly sought after. Who would argue that in the medium of Cinema it is utterly important to surround yourself with the craftsmanship of others. I dare to say that this is one of the most important talents a movie director should have.

The productiveness of Fassbinder has brought us a full body of work. A lot of masterful productions but also a couple of less enticing outputs. I'd argue your point that this was mainly due to their scripts, but it is more interesting to focus on your inspiration on such ideas. Which book are you referring to? This whole idea of his work getting less and less interesting during the years is pretty much a very late '70s early '80s German elite journalist critique and had much to do with the inclusion of more classic Hollywood influences and the raising popularity of his work.

On your description of his directing style with actors i'd only like to say that you might want to read the book 'Schlafen kann ich, wenn ich tot bin.' by longtime collaborator Harry Bear, plus consider yourself lucky to speak the language and read "Das bisschen realitaet das ich brauche" by film journalist Hans Guenther Pflaum which has only been published in German. The latter is a book that documents the production phases and work ethics on the set of 3 Fassbinder films.

[nolanoe]

i don't feel like defending Fassbinder to someone who cites one of his TV productions as 'probably the best German film of all time'. However, your judgement on his overall directing skills seems unfair and highly motivated by an urge to sum up a list of more overlooked directors.

Actually, that was just an afterthought. To make myself clear: the five films I named I'd rate between 10 and 7. Four others I'd rate 6 and 5 (two each). The other 9 I have seen are 4 and below.
Also, Berlin Alexanderplatz was a TV production. Martha, which many love, was a TV production. World on a Wire had a huge budget, I even recall Ballhaus saying it had the highest up until then, and it also provided them with a lot of time, and turned out over three hours long. It is his most accomplished effort up to this point, and the closest he ever got to the "german Hollywood film" he always wanted to make (again, I have yet to see Despair and Alexanderplatz). Not to mention it has a VERY high score on imdb, indicating that I am not the only one loving it.

Although it has been years that i've seen a single second of The Bold & The Beautiful and happen to have no clear recollection of it's acting styles i do find this comparison typical for your whole approach and argumentation; it is quite bizarre.

Well, look at this clip then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_f6mLocu_o" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
First is monotony, then there is an uncalled for emotional outburst that is overacted and then the scene goes on with the actors not changing their expressions and talking in monotony. Some people I have seen defend Fassbinder cite this as an intentional "artificial approach"... then again, you could also say Uwe Boll uses that approach.
And this is also a problem I have with Fassbinder: if somebody would do these things today, he would be called out a hack. And indeed, I know many persons who saw Fassbinder films when they ran in the cinema's, and hated most of his work back then for the exact same reasons I cited (though, and this is what is important to me, there are some films where I can agree with these persons that they stand out and are amazing films - like Ali or Lola).

It is very noble of you to plea for more respect for the people that backed Fassbinder on the set. A cinematographer like Xaver Schwarzenberger brought in as much has he has gained by his collaborations and was highly sought after. Who would argue that in the medium of Cinema it is utterly important to surround yourself with the craftsmanship of others. I dare to say that this is one of the most important talents a movie director should have.

Well, then consider this: When directing Maria Braun, Fassbinder showed up three days before the shoot was to start, while everybody else had done "his work" - Ballhaus had decided on locations and the shots himself. With Berlin Alexanderplatz, various extras and actors have admitted that Fassbinder didn't turn up for a few days because he didn't feel like it, and Harry Baer had to direct these days. And Ballhaus himself said that he himself even gave the actors directions when he thought they were delivering their lines with too much pathos, with Fassbinder not really caring about it.
He even left the set of "Why does Herr R Run Amok?" one week after the shoot started, yet is still credited as director.

The productiveness of Fassbinder has brought us a full body of work. A lot of masterful productions but also a couple of less enticing outputs. I'd argue your point that this was mainly due to their scripts, but it is more interesting to focus on your inspiration on such ideas. Which book are you referring to? This whole idea of his work getting less and less interesting during the years is pretty much a very German journalist critique and has much to do with the rising popularity of his work, the more mainstream approach and including more classic Hollywood influences. This critique is not backed by the general appreciation of his later work.

Then again, I personally like his work from 13 Moons onward the best. His entire early phase up until 1973 I'd call heavily flawed.
And the book I was referring to is called "Reihe Film" - there are individual books on directors such as Pasolini, Schroeter, Chabrol, Kubrick etc.

I may very well check out those books you mentioned. But different to somebody like Godard, where I could see myself enjoying his more difficult films with better knowledge on his work, I can't see myself warm up to the acting style on display, the overbearing theme of self-pity or the weak story elements in many of his films.

EDIT: OH, I forgot... Happy Birthday, Rainer Werner, wherever you are.

[Tribe]

But there are two big things which I highly dislike about his [i.e., Fassbinder's] films. The first is the way he directs his actors, which can be summed up as "Just stand there, stare into nothingness and recite the dialogue I have written for you with no emotion, connotation or facial expression.", which renders most of his films into unintentional zombie films, or to have sudden outbursts of emotion, which are delivered with such cryptic pathos that they seem highly artificial and funny. If you are capable of understanding german, there is many a Fassbinder film that simply is unenjoyable due to the little amount of humanity present and the acting style that rivals even the worst american soap opera (for example, the acting visible in The Bold and the Beautiful is not too far off of most Fassbinder films).

Admittedly, my exposure to Fassbinder has been limited mostly to the various Criterion releases, so based on those releases alone, I don't see any evidence of your summation regarding Fassbinder's direction of actors. I've also seen Querelle, and I don't see the emotionless/Bressonian take that you impute to his direction. On the contrary, based on what I've seen, Fassbinder's actors are quite expressive and emotional, and exhibit emotion that is hardly over the top, but rather consistent with what those characters are experiencing on the screen. One can say lots of things, I suppose, about Fassbinder's work, but this is the first time I've read your critique about his films. Perhaps you're right, after all he was quite prolific, but I've never heard that anywhere.

[matrixschmatrix]

The only thing of Fassbinder's I have seen is Berlin Alexanderplatz, where I can broadly see what nolanoe is talking about- as you go through the movie, the intentional numbness of it can become overwhelming- but which also works as a counterargument to me, since the tone of the acting seems so key to what Fassbinder seemed to be going for in that movie: the sense of people who are almost cattle walking somnabulistically through their lives is more or less the thesis of the piece, the underlying argument for how people get turned into fascists, and the out-of-nowhere bursts of emotion simultaneously help to keep you invested in what you are watching and give the overall thing a sense of subdued violence, ready to burst forth.

[Tribe]

The only thing of Fassbinder's I have seen is Berlin Alexanderplatz, where I can broadly see what nolanoe is talking about- as you go through the movie, the intentional numbness of it can become overwhelming- but which also works as a counterargument to me, since the tone of the acting seems so key to what Fassbinder seemed to be going for in that movie

Exactly, but that "numbness," if you want to call it that, is, as you note, entirely appropriate to the film. And even then, it's only Lamprecht who exhibits that "numbness," but not throughout the series. The sense I got from noaloe's post was that this form of acting was endemic throughout Fassbinder's work.

[accatone]

Hello Nolanoe, your points of criticism are so broad, ignorant if not invalid that i am unwilling to comment in detail. Windowside allready pointed out common ground productional aspects (form). Regarding content i don't know where to start because i see no argument or point from your side. As you mentioned Reihe Hansers blue film books, i recommend the first chapter of the Chabrol book (#5 of this series) called "…Schatten freilich und kein Mitleid" written by Fassbinder himself. Its good for starters and hints to your "issues"…

[knives]

The only thing of Fassbinder's I have seen is Berlin Alexanderplatz, where I can broadly see what nolanoe is talking about- as you go through the movie, the intentional numbness of it can become overwhelming- but which also works as a counterargument to me, since the tone of the acting seems so key to what Fassbinder seemed to be going for in that movie

Exactly, but that "numbness," if you want to call it that, is, as you note, entirely appropriate to the film. And even then, it's only Lamprecht who exhibits that "numbness," but not throughout the series. The sense I got from noaloe's post was that this form of acting was endemic throughout Fassbinder's work.

The comment on acting seems most appropriate to Cat Fucker, but even than it works in context because the entire film is wooden. Admittedly if you are annoyed at Bresson body movement delivered with Sirkian bombast I could see being annoyed at his films, but that's more an aesthetic thing on the audience members part than any actual quality judgment on the films. Also like you both said as he went on Fassbinder tended to go through his favored style in a number of different ways that aided the material rather than hurting. Finally the comments on acting creates a contradiction to Nolanoe's point of Fassbinder moving so quickly through the films that the people working with him have more authorial rights. It's false points being made with the broadest of accuracies.

[Peacock]

The comment on acting seems most appropriate to Cat Fucker, but even than it works in context because the entire film is wooden.

(Katzelmacher doesn't mean Cat Fucker, it is a actually a slang word for an Italian/foreign worker). I think most of Fassbinder's films are Brechtian, at least, prior to the melodramas (I'm working chronologically through everything available and i've only seen up to World on a Wire), so I can sort of understand where nolanoe is coming from. Zedz's write up for Pioneers at Ingolstadt, on this forum, mentions the intriguing mix between the earlier Brechtian style of acting, and the more melodramatic form which would become important later on.

But I personally really like the earlier acting style, and I don't see why nolanoe is treating it as something so unusual and terrible, laughing that Uwe Boll does the same... maybe he does, I've never seen a Boll, but Rossellini, Bresson, Alonso and Straub/Huillet all effectively use a similar style of acting - so are you going to call them out on it as well?

[knives]

I know the slang meaning but it also very literally, if I'm reading right, as cat fucker which the film comments on several times. If I'm wrong in my translation though that is a hell of a coincidence.

[feihong]

A little excerpt from David Thomson's Biographical Dictionary of Film, which I have found instructive on the quality of acting in Fassbinder films:

"Time and again, Fassbinder's characters sit around a table, apparently exchanging commonplaces. They are filmed as flatly as possible, denied facial expressiveness, and ordered to stylize flaccid dialogue with crazy rhythm. This is both an alienation effect and a dramatization of Fassbinder's view of our demoralized lives. It is not popular cinema: the manner is stark, and the implications are outrageously hostile to the bourgeois. Indeed, Eight Hours Don't Make a Day, for TV, is the offensive reworking of a typical family soap opera, dismantled until its innate fractures are horrifying."

The difference between a Fassbinder and a Uwe Boll is not so much in how polished their product is, or how many days they were present on the sets of their movies; the difference is in purpose, intent and ambition. Fassbinder brings us ideas that outrage him. Boll only wants to be outrageous himself. Fassbinder films are always, whether handsomely produced or poorly produced, whether made in a drug-induced haze or made without him even present all of the time, totally preoccupied with the alienating elements of our society that we downplay and push to the back of our minds. The compromises a society, a family, or a person makes to achieve wealth, respect and happiness weigh heavily on Fassbinder, and his films--any of them--go very far to show how those unacknowledged--maybe unknown--compromises serve to flatten our lives into dull threads in a machine, always moving forward, always denied expressive fluency. The acting is flat to emphasize the human spirit getting processed into a sleek commercial product coming off an assembly line. That is part of the intent, and Fassbinder's ambition is to show in an enormous body of work how pervasive and continuous this subtle oppression is. Uwe Boll, or Zach Snyder, or whichever ubercommercial filmmaker you might name has no such ambition, and because of that, their films, regardless of their production qualities, have less interest, depth, or import than even the crappiest Fassbinder.

Plus, the simplest proof of authorship is applicable to any Fassbinder film: does the film seem like the work of anyone else? Whether or not he was present 100% of the time (many directors with far more "respectable" records of work have had others shoot parts of their films), any Fassbinder film brings the same perspective to the table, along with the same issues and the same obsessive themes. Perhaps Harry Bauer or Michael Ballhaus feels like they shouldered too much of the weight on the production at any given time; none of those collaborators has created another films for someone else that looked or felt anything like a Fassbinder film. Robert Wise may have directed Major Amberson's scene at the end of The Magnificent Ambersons...but there is no doubt that the movie was an Orson Welles picture.

[zedz]

First-phase Fassbinder does deliver deliberately zoned out Brechtian performances, but that changes enormously after he got struck down by Douglas Sirk on the Road to Damascus. He rarely went for naturalism (with the possible exception of Germany in Autumn), but he explored a wide range of performance stylizations throughout his career. There's little common ground in terms of acting styles between The Merchant of Four Seasons, Fontane Effi Briest, Bremen Freedom, Satan's Brew and Berlin Alexanderplatz, and in each of those cases (and more), the performances are specifically calibrated for the material, for better or worse.

And in the interest of accuracy: Fassbinder shares the director's credit on Herr R. with Michael Fengler.

Personally, I think the contributions of Fassbinder's collaborators are hugely important, and essential to understanding how the films work and how the work evolves, but one of his defining characteristics as an auteur is the way he works with his stock company (cast and crew). It's a production model very few other filmmakers were using so successfully and intensively at the time, and it's not as if the same performers and technicians were able to make 'Fassbinder films' on their own at the time or after his death. Without that component of his work practice we'd probably be looking back today on ten to twelve Fassbinder films instead of 40+. Again, this is for better or worse - there's no guarantee that the hypothetical dozen would be his best stuff. It's certainly unlikely that he'd ever have got the chance to tackle Berlin Alexanderplatz if he'd been a less frenetic and, let's face it, cheap filmmaker.

EDIT: I mistakenly circulated the "cat fucker" rumour ages back, based on the write up for the film in the MoMA retrospective cat(fuck)alogue, but it was corrected in the Fassbinder thread by authentic Germans.

And maybe this discussion should be relocated to that thread?

[Peacock]

I mistakenly circulated the "cat fucker" rumour ages back, based on the write up for the film in the MoMA retrospective cat(fuck)alogue, but it was corrected in the Fassbinder thread by authentic Germans.

Here

[knives]

That clears that up well. Still a heck of a coincidence given the bestiality jokes present.

[accatone]

As far as the significance of RWFs work is concerned, there is no doubt that Die Wende also meant a cinematographic turning point in Germany (and with the fall of of the Iron Curtain more or less on cinema in general). This had a great effect on the reception of RWF in the last 20 years and i think that when Karl Heinz Böhm only recently said that Angst essen Seele auf should be shown at least once a week on TV he is one of a very few…. As with the tendency towards more Conservatism in recent years - which will get stronger around old Europe i think - the Fassbinder themes might receive a come back in a not too far future (of course this is just a very personal and subjective observation). Regarding RWFs collaborators, i think one should not only read Harry Baers book but also Kurtis Die Sehnsucht des Rainer Werner Fassbinders to get an idea about the "conflict" between the old (anti theater) and new collaborators (all very controversial). Even more interesting/entertaining is the the Peter Berling book Die dreizehn Jahre des Rainer Werner Fassbinders - with funny anecdotes of (european-) movie making in the 60s-80s in general (Italo-Western, Kinski, Herzog…). There is one passage (if memory serves me right) where he describes a dinner invitation at Claudia Cardinales villa at the Costa Smeralda/Sardegna. RWF was totally fascinated that Cardinale herself prepared the dinner…and found Helmut Berger in one of the bedrooms… (but i might mixup things here)….
As for general purpose the Elsaesser book (as stated in the RWF thread, first entry) is very comprehensive (a little bit too much for my own taste).

[nolanoe]

I can say little more than that I am impressed at what a discussion I started.

And to wrap things up neatly, I'd like to say that I very much enjoyed feihong's post - he nails why I am getting back to Fassbinder and actually bother to watch his films.
And I am glad that the "Brechtian"-approach was also discussed, as this is something often mentioned in his work. And I am baffled at how far the various impressions on here are - from people thinking his style is naturalistic, to others calling occasions of it wooden. I just read a review of Querelle by the NY Times a few days back, which sums up the acting style as this:

The actors aren't called upon to act but to keep a straight face, which may sometimes be difficult for the audience. Mr. Davis, Mr. Nero and Miss Moreau do what they can, but they behave like people abandoned in a foreign country without money or passports.

link

That this opinion for a film can stand next to somebody who found the acting expressive and top notch is quite an effort on Fassbinder's side.
There is no other director I know of, which seems to attract so many varying responses to the way he uses his actors, so the responses on here are certainly interesting (and for those only familiar with the Criterion edition, I consider the BRD trilogy the best outlet for my problem: Maria Braun, easily my least favorite of his films, is wooden and artificial - Veronika Voss is deliberately "staged" to match the acting style of old DEFA films of the 40s/50s (even though I found the leading actress to take it a bit too far) - Lola is one of his most naturalistic and well acted films throughout, with three brilliant lead performances. Fassbinder himself stated in an interview that he considered a film the more beautiful the more artificial it was - something I agree with only to an extent. Maybe this is where my problem lies (and to respond to the question regarding other director's style - I have only seen one Bresson, Au Hazard Balthazar, and I considered acting style to be very naturalistic).

(On a side note, I am sad nobody picked up the remarks about my problem with the self-pitying present in his films, as I am interested to hear what people think of his most melodramatic offerings. I recall reading a quote by the actor of Eugen in Fox and his Friends, who deliberately states Fassbinder saw Fox as his own personification, painting himself as the "victim", while he was actually the one exploiting his circle - something the actor found deeply ironic.)

However, I would also like to ask if an artistic intention could still be seen as positive if its outcome results in something which a viewer (and I am talking of cineastes here, not blockbuster viewers) can't identify with and is annoyed by. Or rather: even if Fassbinder's approach to acting was meant to characterize, as feihong called it, "their soul being processed" by social norms and the society, then shouldn't these people act and feel like human beings to identify with and care for?? Because when they do (WoaW, Ali, Third Generation, Lola, 13 Moons and the one episode of Alexanderplatz I saw up until now - I'd call those his most naturalistic efforts, actually), I find them very touching and interesting.

And for those talking about works on Fassbinder - are there any plans to release Ein Mann wie EVA, in which frequent collaborator Eva Mattes plays a version of RWF?

Now, we may better take this discussion over to the Fassbinder thread and go on with the Criterion/speculation talk.

[perkizitore]

C.H.U.D. is forthcoming after all

[chizbooga]

Not even with the restored print of Cluny Brown that's already been playing in theatres over the last few months?

Yeah, I saw it on Sunday, it looked pretty much ready for DVD aside from one big scratch near the end.

[andyli]

Judging by the price tag it wouldn't be a Criterion release, right? Seirously?