Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach

[MichaelB]

No you didn't. I'll repeat, repeated viewings of film is not equivalent to watching it in a vacuum. You notice different aspects of a film each time you view it. Whether it's deeper or more shallow is a matter of conjecture. You're so bent on knowledge! Knowledge won't deepen your vision or your ability to receive. It loads your perspective with weight that is not necessarily beneficial to a viewing.

I'm not "bent on knowledge" at all - I'm merely emphasising what seems to me to be obvious: that across 115 years of cinema history and a greater number of national cinemas, it is wildly unrealistic to write films off as "failures" merely because they aren't instantly graspable without the benefit of any external information.

You claim that approaching a viewing with too much prior knowledge can be a problem. I agree: I cited Amadeus as a film where it's probably best to be largely ignorant, lest you experience intolerable cognitive dissonance at the historical liberties being taken. On the other hand, if you approach Ashes and Diamonds with no prior knowledge of the historical background, you might appreciate it as a thriller, but you probably won't grasp many of its nuances and you'll certainly miss the tragic ironies at its heart - because Wajda assumed, reasonably, that an intelligent viewer in 1958 would be aware of the historical and political backdrop against which the action of his film was set (not least what happened between the period of the film's setting and its production), and would also be aware of the restrictions being placed on what he was allowed to say.

But this has to be assessed on a film-by-film basis: generalising about this merely leads to sweeping statements that are all too easy to undermine.

If you want to get something specific from a viewing then perhaps being forearmed with knowledge will enable you to acheive that. But why should I want to acheive anything from watching a film? Why can't I simply observe? It's enough that I'm bringing whatever baggage I've received about cinema to a viewing. But I'd be eternally disappointed if I went in looking for something from a film - unless it was either porn or an argument.

It depends on the film. Obviously, you can simply observe Russian Ark - it's easy enough to appreciate as an amazing technical and logistical achievement. But I don't think you can get very far with that particular film without a pretty substantial amount of prior historical knowledge - in much the same way that Sokurov's earlier Whispering Pages "reads" quite differently to those whose knowledge of Russian literature in the original is sufficient to recognise each authorial voice.

[ando]

it is wildly unrealistic to write films off as "failures" merely because they aren't instantly graspable without the benefit of any external information.

And that is a wild paraphrase. I didn't say a thing about a film being "instantly graspable". If you're going to paraphrase what I said please do so correctly. I said, for the last time, that everything that you need to understand the film should be contained therein. What does this have to do with a film being instantly graspable?

But I don't think you can get very far with that particular film without a pretty substantial amount of prior historical knowledge

Very far? Where am I supposed to be going?

[Peacock]

But ando, imagine how grating films would have to be if they are to explore certain subjects whilst making sure anyone who doesn't know about the subject understands exactly what happened? Rossellini's history films for example feature several important figures in history who are mere bystanders; you wouldn't realize their significance unless you'd researched a bit into the history.

Or La Dolce Vita's ending, with the giant monster dragged out of the sea. There is no way you can work out what Fellini meant by that unless you research into the events which were happening at the time - the two bodies which had been washed up after a wild party next to a beach.

Or the many films of Oshima that center around the effects of the US-Japan Security Treaty - but don't reveal what the Treaty contained, no matter how many times you view the film you will be missing the entire purpose of it unless you have some knowledge.

Films should be enjoyable in some way I guess without preknowledge, but films which treat people as intelligent, who know some history and the social situation in which it was made; are undoubtedly more rewarding for me anyway. Dumbing a film down so that everything you need to fully understand the film and its themes are possible to work out solely from viewing the film - is not the purpose of art.

[colinr0380]

This is a fascinating conversation - as someone with very little 'contextual knowledge' to catch nuances of Bach, the Warsaw uprising, the characters referenced in Russian Ark and so on, it can sometimes feel a shame to have things going past that I may not properly understand.

However I also like the idea of approaching a film at different periods in my viewing life. I really like the idea of the relationship between a film and a viewer as an evolving thing - the film may always remain a fixed object but might reveal more surprising facets over future viewings as I collect more knowledge or have different experiences that might 'open up' the content more to me than it previously did. I guess there are also examples I could make of films that 'closed down' for me - films that I used to have a connection to that I lost because either I moved on to other films that might have explored the same subject matter more deeply, or that I just forgot how to relate to a film that I previously liked.

So I'd quite like to explore subjects like those above that I may not be familiar with by watching a film in a state of general ignorance (not usually difficult for me!), and while being aware that I'm not getting all the references to be able to use that as a basis for further casual research into the topic.

This actually brings us to the importance of contextualising DVD extras that can provide more information for those members of the audience who have had their interest in the subject inspired by the film they have just watched. I know a lot of people seem to complain about the 'worthlessness' of documentaries or commentary tracks but when well produced (both sensitively and appropriately) they can be invaluable to opening up an otherwise 'obscure' film, or giving some much needed context to the period in which it was made or the wider events or figures that might be casually alluded to in the film. For example the interviews on the Criterion Wajda set were absolutely brilliant in the way that they introduced me to the historical context in which the three films were set, along with the other strand following Wajda's own career which was more expected. Those features were not exactly essential to enjoying A Generation, Kanal or Ashes and Diamonds as entertaining films (just as I'm sure that when I finally get around to Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach I will still be able to enjoy the music at least!), but it was wonderful to have that extra information available to both deepen the artistic resonances and inform me of the reality behind the fiction.

I really feel that this kind of extra material should be seen as liberating for filmmakers - they don't have to waste valuable time in a film with a historical primer or biographical portrait from scratch because that stuff can be dealt with better elsewhere. It should be able to let filmmakers cover more ground, or focus on aspects of their topic that are often overlooked but which could actually add something new to their work rather than covering and re-covering the same basic ground to be as universally accessible as possible.

As another example, since Godard was brought up in this thread, I posted somewhere else a while ago that I had watched Notre Musique a couple of times when it first came out on DVD in 2005 or so and enjoyed it. Then last year I read Dostoevsky's Devils and a couple of months later on a whim pulled Notre Musique off the shelf. I was very surprised to find that quotes from the novel appeared in the film, and it led me to think of the implications of that choice and how that usage impacted both on the film and back onto the Devils itself.

I did not have the knowledge before that time to have ever picked up on those references but having done so I'm not upset that Godard didn't telegraph the reference or stopped the flow of the film to explain the allusion for my benefit. In fact I was incredibly excited to have found an interesting connection inside the film for myself - a exciting sense that I had managed to put some of these more obscure pieces of the film together by myself. It was more 'work' but also very rewarding. Maybe more aspects will become apparent on future viewings but for now I'm glad I've had the chance to experience that small aspect of Notre Musique in ignorance and then with realisation.

[ando]

But ando, imagine how grating films would have to be if they are to explore certain subjects whilst making sure anyone who doesn't know about the subject understands exactly what happened?

On the basis of narrative alone the whole story can never be told as Kurosawa, for example, so aptly demonstrated with Rashomon. Knowing "exactly what happened" in any situation is impossible. It's always up for interpretation. In fact, history IS interpretation. And as observation is obviously not simply an emperical phenomena - a simple accumulation of facts, why would you expect this to be integral to a movie-watching experience?

Maybe more aspects will become apparent on future viewings but for now I'm glad I've had the chance to experience that small aspect of Notre Musique in ignorance and then with realisation.

Yes, your realization that knowledge was not necessary in order to grasp essential elements of the film is wonderful. But it was there before you found out!


Look, my whole point is that filmmakers who are the best at their craft don't need to rely on a shared history in order to effectively communicate. Similarly, audiences don't need to be burdened with that shared history in order to receive what the filmmakers are essentially attempting to convey.

For example (getting back to the subject, proper), the moment in Chronicles when Bach, as an instructor, singles out a student named "Kitler" for chastisement could be received in several ways. Knowing something about World War II, I would venture to say that perhaps Straub & Company are trying to "correct" a certain aspect of German cultural history. It was probably directed more toward native Germans and their cultural inheritors than to those outside of that domain. But it also serves a minor, strictly narrative function, either to juxtapose Bach's concern with timing, obedience (tradition) and precision in personal and creative matters with his previous dismissal of the school's authority and hierarchal structure (in fact, this juxtapoistion is constantly at work in the film and serves as one of many "counterpoints"). There are countless other ways that you could interpret the sequence. Now, would a deeper knowledge of Hitler, The Third Reich and its position toward Germanic composers/composition or eighteenth century court politics and art deepen my appreiation of the sequence? Of course. But it is absolutely unnecessary for the simple understanding of that rather unsubtle move on the part of Straub & Co.

[Tom Amolad]

Look, my whole point is that filmmakers who are the best at their craft don't need to rely on a shared history in order to effectively communicate. Similarly, audiences don't need to be burdened with that shared history in order to receive what the filmmakers are essentially attempting to convey.

What could filmmaking without shared history possibly mean? Virtually every film depends on some level of shared knowledge, even if that's only the meaning of words (whether spoken or subtitled) or the comprehension of various conventions of film grammar (e.g., how to understand the relationship between shot and reverse-shot). Films suppose a pretty wide range of shared knowledge going up from there, and the extent of that range is something that makes me happy.

[ando]

What could filmmaking without shared history possibly mean?

What do you mean by "possibly"? If you have no idea of what I'm referring to after reading the entire post perhaps it's just as well.

Virtually every film depends on some level of shared knowledge...

Agreed. But I was addressing a shared history - a specific shared history. And, once again, the point is that you don't have to be Russian, for example, in order to derive enjoyment from Andrei Tarkovsky's Mirror. The experience of watching the film is, undoubtedly, far more poignant for a Russian viewer who experienced World War II, but it doesn't preclude a New Yorker from appreciating the essential components of the film although he or she doesn't have a personal exprience of WWII.

Don't you think the Straub films are centrally recits - i.e. discourses, conversations - and the films spring from a historical fact or text or context, and in the process of engaging themselves with the ideas these bring up, they open the "histories" into a present context, and in turn the films and the viewers whom they engage themselves become another element in the ongoing history.

Absolutely. And the process, as you put it, is engaging not alienating. The assumption (which I'd love to abandon already) was, however, that the comprehension and reinterpretation requires a particular orientation, which I believe to be a pretense.

[ando]

That was completely inappropriate, not mention utterly false. I'm simply responding to comments directed at me. If you have a personal beef with me contact me directly and we'll take it from there.

[ando]

And you're not trolling? You need to revisit the definition. Honey.

[ptmd]

I have a feeling I am going to regret getting involved in this discussion, but I can't resist backing up what David and Michael are saying here.

To use the example provided above for a moment, it would supplement a viewer's experience of The Mirror to recognize that the Spanish Civil War footage used in the film is excerpted from Esfir Shub's 1939 compilation film Ispaniya and that a whole history is embedded in that, but it certainly isn't required for any appreciation of the film. There are plenty of other examples of "outside" references that enrich Tarkovsky's incredibly dense film, but you don't need that information to get something out of watching it. On the other hand, to suggest that you could somehow "get" The Mirror without a basic knowledge of Soviet/European history in the 1930s and 1940s strikes me as patently absurd (especially because the film includes a number of poetry readings and incorporates a considerable amount of external footage). The film is predicated, to a significant degree, on a collective historical background that most Soviet viewers in 1975 would have had and that is accessible to just about anyone willing to put a bit of effort in. What on earth would you make of the scene where the mother gets panicked about an error at the printing press without connecting it to a cultural context (the Stalinist 30s) that is never mentioned in the film?

This is true of many filmmakers, and especially Straub/Huillet, who make films that are, as David mentioned, very seriously in dialogue with particular works and ideas. Even leaving aside the question of the specific textual, pictorial, and musical sources they have adapted or responded to, how can you expect to watch, say, Not Reconciled without some sense of postwar Germany? Straub and Huillet certainly assume that and I fail to see what makes that assumption (which I have always taken as a sign of respect for the viewer's intelligence) problematic. Nobody would expect to be able to really understand Thomas Mann's Dr. Faustus without some knowledge of twentieth-century history and basic (or deep) familiarity with the German cultural tradition. What's wrong with films that work the same way? This isn't just a question of intention (although that's part of it), but simply an acknowledgment of the way some artworks - including films - operate.

[What A Disgrace]

So, would any of you honeys know of a more thorough comparison between the New Yorker and New Wave DVDs of this film? I found the New Yorker edition perfectly watchable, if most definitely flawed, and the UK edition was on my to-buy list until I heard it was an even worse transfer...but now there's some disagreement over that.

[Peacock]

I haven't found anything other than the Mubi review I linked to above.
On the New Wave: The sound did slightly distort during some of the choir singing at the higher notes, but I didn't detect anything terrible. And it wasn't as picture-boxed as I had been expecting, only slightly more than a Criterion.The picture quality was sharp and there wasn't any damage. I'm really not sure why some people are so unhappy with it. I'm presuming there just isn't a better master of this film anywhere.

But if your on the edge, get it for Sicilia! And a Visit to the Louvre. Both look great and are equally good films.
New Wave just emailed me saying they had been planning to include a Dutch documentary on the set but after spending a lot of time trying to get it, the owners asked for an absurd amount of money.
They said they'd try and include the Pedro Costa film on a future release, and there will only be a future release if they can break even... so for me this is another Naruse boxset situation, the more people who get it the better the chances of getting more!

[zedz]

I haven't watched the New Wave transfer of Chronicle yet, but their release is completely worth the price for the other two films, so don't hesitate. Anybody game enough to release English-friendly editions of Straub / Huillet films deserves all the support we can provide.

[What A Disgrace]

Well, I'm certainly sold. I've seen the film twice in the space of a year (a real feat for me), and I'm already eager to watch it again. And I wouldn't want to deprive the English friendly world of more Straub. Disc ordered.

[AlexHansen]

Played on a computer to take screengrabs the film looks blocky and riddled with macroblocking artefacts, but it plays absolutely fine with scarcely a flicker when upscaled to 1080p on an LCD TV.

This is the experience I had with their Bach transfer.

[knives]

After the little discussion in the rumours thread I searched this one out and was suitably impressed. This really promised on all fronts, but it is also immediately clear why it's considered the most usual film of theirs. The narrative was really typical, hitting all of the biopic notes. It was only in the presentation that it became experimental. On this account I'll be watching this again soon.

[ando]

I'd hoped this thread had disappeared somehow but today's Times article alerted me to this week's NYC screening (Friday, May 6 and Monday, May 9) of Chronicle as well as a crareer retrospective of Straub and Huillet at the Museum of Modern Art. Is it me or is there too much to see in New York just now? I can actually afford a ticket to this one.