Re: Words and shots (Was: A thought about BLACK NARCISSUS)
- --- In email@example.com, "jpcoursodon" <jpcoursodon@y...>
> >Not elitist, disorganized. I can't find anything at the moment. The CdC
> > and/ie who is looking at it. See Pascal Bonitzer's "Voici," which I
> > translated moons ago in some academic film publication.
> Isn't this a wee bit elitist and high-handed, Bill? Couldn't you give
> us ignoramuses a clue? What academic film publication and when? And
> what about the original text (which I haven't read)? What Cahiers
> issue or whatever?
was the one w. receding images of The Wrong Man on the cover, grey
lettering on the cover; it also contained Daniele Dubroux's great
article on recent films about women (eg The Last Woman, Jeanne
Dielman), "L'etre-ange." I believe the magazine that asked me to
translate the Bonitzer article had "Film" in the title. I know that's
not much help...
>"Here" - at least I should've.
> How did you translate "Voici"?
A shot of a crucifix does not mean what a crucifix means. It
means "someone is looking at a crucifix." Pascal was riffing on Metz's
famous example of a shot of a horse meaning, supposedly, "Voici un
cheval": "Here is a horse." I later took off from Pascal's piece in a
Trafic piece on the credit sequence of Boetticher's last film, When in
Disgrace..., called, in fact, "Voici un cheval." That I can tell you
was in Issue 19, Summer '96. I may even have an extry if you don't have
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Robert Keser" <rfkeser@i...> wrote:
> <hotlove666@y...> wrote:Certainly not of the kind Truffaut used, but Hitchcock always used
> But how does this relate to Hitchcock, apart from sharing the goal
> of inducing anxiety? Thinking literally, I can't recall any such
> object + gesture shots in Hitchcock.
> --Robert Keser
inserts as part of his suspense curves - lighters, keys - and
Truffaut does too, especially at the beginning, when the guy is
racing to the airport. As I recall, time pieces get into the act as
well. But I completely agree that the plethora of inserts calls
attention to itself and to features of the modern world, which as far
as I know is a new point about that film. Again, because for me every
Truffaut film corresponds to a Godard film, look at A Married Woman
for a stylistically different atempt at "French Antonioni."
The other Hitchcockian element in Soft Skin is all the cutting on
looks, which he had used for some of Antoine et Colette, but not the
whole movie. Here it's the whole movie, and the looks are pretty
neutral throughout, a la Hitchcock.
Reportedly, this is the one Truffaut script - writen in an unusual 20-
day spurt - that already contains the decoupage as it appears on
screen, with no room for writing scenes the night before, as was his
I think your point about the inserts raises something interesting
about Truffaut's "Hitchcockism": However immensely he admired
Hitchcock, the Hitchcock style stands for something in a Truffaut
film that it doesn't in a Hitchcock film. Hitchcock style in
Fahrenheit 451 stands for authoritarian mind-control, for example.