criterionforum.org

David Ehrenstein wrote:The British have been highly ambivalent about Anderson, Gropius -- and he them.

The British seem always to have been ambivalent about the idea of fiction film as a serious or exploratory art form.

Gropius wrote:

David Ehrenstein wrote:The British have been highly ambivalent about Anderson, Gropius -- and he them.

The British seem always to have been ambivalent about the idea of fiction film as a serious or exploratory art form.

Now what have the British done to deserve such sweeping generalities? And I say this as (a) a Briton (b) a fan of Lindsay Anderson and (c) a firm believer in the idea of fiction film as serious, very serious, art...

I know we brought the world the 'Carry On' film, Benny Hill and Hugh Grant, but please, it wasn't really our fault...

I think perhaps Gropius is referring to the fact that, for many years, British film critics privileged the documentary and docu-drama cinematic approaches as the peak of British filmmaking -- much to the detriment of more stylized directors (like P&P) during their own peak years. I don't think Gropius means to be making a sweeping generalization about all British filmgoers (though I guess I should just let him speak for himself). If that's what he means, however, he's got a point. At the same time critics were lionizing Grierson and Jennings, they simply weren't "getting" Powell, Anderson, etc.

I hoped Gropius meant that too, hence my tongue being ever so slightly in my cheek...

Yes, Tryavna clarifies my point. Thinking of the post-war period, Britain didn't really have anything corresponding to the 'New Waves' of France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, etc., unless one counts Lindsay Anderson as a one-man New Wave. The avant-garde tradition in Britain had been the documentary one, from Grierson and Jennings to the Free Cinema movement (although it declined after that), but no corresponding tradition developed in the fiction film (P&P excepted, perhaps), presumably because of the conservatism of the studio system, the lack of a state film school of the kind that flourished in Eastern Europe, etc.

Peter Wollen makes the point somewhere that most of the 'angry young man' films, c. 1958-1963, sometimes referred to as a British New Wave, were straight literary adaptations of already successful plays/novels, and so were not breaking new cinematic ground in the same way as Godard and co. And just as Powell and then Anderson were marginalised, so were Greenaway and Jarman later on. Today the last dregs of public funding for experimentation, still present into the mid-90s, have dried up. Not that this story of decline isn't paralleled in most European countries, with the sweep of neoliberalism and the concomitant saturation of every market with Hollywood product.

Gropius wrote:Thinking of the post-war period, Britain didn't really have anything corresponding to the 'New Waves' of France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, etc., unless one counts Lindsay Anderson as a one-man New Wave.

what about such filmmakers as Roeg, Cammel, Jarman, Greenaway, etc... these may have been a few years after the French or German new waves (but only by a hare)

miless wrote:

Gropius wrote:Thinking of the post-war period, Britain didn't really have anything corresponding to the 'New Waves' of France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, etc., unless one counts Lindsay Anderson as a one-man New Wave.

what about such filmmakers as Roeg, Cammel, Jarman, Greenaway, etc... these may have been a few years after the French or German new waves (but only by a hare)

It's quite a stretch to link that bunch of filmmakers together as any sort of 'movement'. Anderson emerges from documentary and film criticism; Roeg from commercial filmmaking; Jarman and Greenaway from experimental filmmaking; and their 'emergence' (i.e. the time between Anderson's first impact on the greater public consciousness and Greenaway's) is spread over a period of about 30 years. The latter two probably have the most in common, both in terms of background and timing, but if memory serves they mutually detested one another's work and would no doubt have railed against any notion of fraternity.

Other major 'cinematic' filmmakers to emerge between the 50s and 80s, like Bill Douglas and Terence Davies, seem to me similarly one-of-a-kind and unclubbable.

A more persuasive 'movement' argument can probably be made for the less-flashy generation of British filmmakers to come out of television in the 60s and 70s (including Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, Alan Clarke and Stephen Frears - and, at a pinch, Peter Watkins - or maybe he belongs with the sui generis first lot).

Frears was a.d. on If...

Also Charles Sturridge, director of LASSIE, LONGITUDE (TV), A HANDFUL OF DUST & BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (TV) etc. was one of the teenage actors in the film, playing the schoolboy character Martland...

I think it's fair to say that traditionally the (critically) favoured film form in Britain has been the documentary and, by extension, 'realist' fiction film. Many, slightly older, histories of British Cinema privilege these areas and argue for the Kitchen Sink / 'Angry Young Men' films as a postwar highpoint. Whilst having some sympathy with Wollen's argument, this does somewhat downplay their importance in opening up representation beyond the upper / middle classes who were often the focus of earlier British films. (I know this is a gross generalisation, but it forms the basis of much material on the period.) And just because the films are adaptations, does that automatically prevent this being classed as a 'movement'? There are enough similarities, in outlook and style, between the films that I think the term 'movement' is justified.

If nothing else, the films did help make stars of Albert Finney, Tom Courtenay, Alan Bates and Rita Tushingham - the invigoration of British acting with a move away from a middle class, home counties accent should not be underestimated.

Decent DVDs exist for many of the films, but Anderson is definitely overlooked at the moment. An OKish This Sporting Life has been seen, but deserves better, and the BFI Free Cinema collection a must. But his move away from traditional realism is woefully underrepresented here - it seems typical that British Cinema is better represented (and more appreciated) overseas than at home.

And don't get me started on Loach, Leigh, Fisher...

David Ehrenstein wrote:Frears was a.d. on If...

The other a.d. was Stuart Baird, who went on to be a very good editor, and very bad director.

To be released in June, apparently.

I wonder if Criterion is going to put out a double-disc edition of "If..." when they release it this year.
Ideas, anyone?

If IF... does come out as a double one would hope for a similar set to MAMA ROMA (where LA RICOTTA was included). Anderson's short 45 minute 1966 colour film THE WHITE BUS (also shot by Ondricek) would be a welcome addition to the package.

Would it be terribly off the wall to speculate that If... might be packaged with Zéro de conduite ?

Tribe

I don't think they'd do the double bill, but releasing them in the same month might make a lot of sense.

Gordon wrote:To be released in June, apparently.

So does the UK edition, apparently.

Speaking of extras, Lindsay has many shorts that could be included. Has anyone seen any?

Cinephrenic wrote:Speaking of extras, Lindsay has many shorts that could be included. Has anyone seen any?

Most of them. Anderson was a (very) great documentary filmmaker before he became a great fiction filmmaker. The Free Cinema work from the 50s doesn't really belong with If. . . however. Some of them might make more sense on an eventual This Sporting Life release, but they're really a major entity in and of themselves.

The two shorts which relate most directly to If. . . are the mid-sixties The Singing Lesson (made in Poland) and The White Bus (a remnant from an abandoned portmanteau film). As I pointed out somewhere hereabouts, the latter should really be presented alongside John Fletcher's excellent companion piece About the White Bus, and this would put Criterion in charge of Anderson's entire 60s output, which sounds like a hell of a box set to me.

This Sporting Life is to be given the Network DVD treatment later this year.

Hopefully it will be good.

I don't know about what could be put in the package of "If..." if they intend it to be a double-disc release, but it would be great if it were and if it had some short-movies from Lindsay, even though they're not in the same league of "If..."
Do you guys think that right after March releases come out, the Coming Soon session will be updated and If... will be added to it?

Dante Vescio wrote:I don't know about what could be put in the package of "If..." if they intend it to be a double-disc release, but it would be great if it were and if it had some short-movies from Lindsay, even though they're not in the same league of "If..."
Do you guys think that right after March releases come out, the Coming Soon session will be updated and If... will be added to it?

I believe that If... will be added since we've had confirmation for June, but the announcement won't be made until the 16th. Announcements are always shortly after 5PM on the Friday on or after the 15th.

Well, The Burmese Harp, from the Coming Soon space is down, If... must be coming up pretty soon (hopefully tomorrow)!
Yeah, I'm looking forward to it, just a little bit
I want to see the cover, the extras...
Help me.

Dante Vescio wrote:If... must be coming up pretty soon (hopefully tomorrow)!
Yeah, I'm looking forward to it, just a little bit
I want to see the cover, the extras...

My bet for the annoucements: 5:20PM EDT, Friday March 16th.

Distributor announcements happen mid-month, pretty much like clockwork. It'd be kind of cool if new titles were announced every time something else was released, but sadly, no.

It's been February since a boxed set, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Gorin set finally show up