The first screening of the course is the 1995 omnibus film LUMIERE AND COMPANY. The film celebrates the cenntienal anniversary of the Lumiere Brothers' first film by asking 40 internationally renowned driectors, such as David Lynch (BLUE VELVET, MULHOLLAND DR.), Spike Lee (CLOCKERS, INSIDE MAN), Zhang Yimou (HERO, RAISE THE RED LANTERN), and Michael Haneke (FUNNY GAMES, CACHE), to make a short film using the Lumieres' first camera. Each film could not exceed 52 seconds, use synchronized sound, utilize more than three takes. The process and result yeilds some interesting comments on the nature of cinema and the parallels between the Lumiere Brothers and contemporary filmmakers.
Suggested Supplemental Screenings: TO EACH HIS OWN CINEMA (2007)
Watching the film was an interesting experience, like some sort of semi-documentary. Though a bit long and dragged out at times, there were some truly interesting questions and answers with these directors, giving a nice window into their personalities, and revealing how different each of them are. The limitation of their “antique” camera really forces them to reveal who they are, what they do, and why in a very up-front manner, something I don’t think we get to see too often in the bigger-budget, more main-stream films from the same group of directors. For whatever reason, and I’m not too sure of the name of the director, the Chinese short set on the Great Wall was the most appealing to me. Something about the play on time period and culture styles was very amusing and simple, like watching a live-action, one-note joke comic strip. It was interesting to see how some directors took a more comedic, fun approach to this challenge, and how others (whether out of respect for the time-period or what) decided for more simple vignettes: a man walking, a train rushing by, and so forth, the train actually being a direct re-creation of a short film made decades before. Some of the directors answers to “why” they do what they do were puzzling, but most of all reveal that film is flexible, adaptable, and above all personal, to the point where it seemed that some of them seemed almost too shy to answer the question at all, embarrassed even. Another director earlier in the film surprised me by his discomfort with the limiting challenge, “It’s too short!” he kept saying as he paced around nervously, as if his reputation was at stake and he wishes he could take back what he had just done. At least, that’s the way it seemed to me.
ReplyDelete-Gabriel Basham
I really liked some of the short films that were shown, whereas some seemed almost pointless to me. David Lynch's film for instance was very impressive. I enjoyed the one where the couple are kissing and behind them is all the different movie equipment throughout history. The film where the man was conducting the lights on the scene was also quite interesting, as was the one with the dead animal and the abyss behind it. I also liked all the dolly shot ones, like the one at the fountain, and the one in the park. Zhang Yimou's was good too, but that just may be because I like his stuff to begin with.
ReplyDeleteThe films, like the one that Spike Lee did, or the one where it was just a minute of a camera looking at a camera didn't seem necessary to me. They were interesting I guess, but they didn't really do anything interesting, they just existed and then ended. I understand that they were the style of the Lumiere brothers' original films, but it seems that if you are going to go back and use the camera, you should put your own style and spin on it. To me the goal should have been give a sense of nostalgia and progression at the same time, thereby celebrating the past and future of film.
The shorts were fine, but I had a monumental issue with the documentary itself. I cannot fathom how it would be possible to take a premise that has the potential to be so interesting and turn it into such an unattractive and confusing piece that eventually became tiresome. The colors were faded and the picture quality was so poor that it was headache inducing trying to figure out what it was I was seeing. I do believe that the faded color was a stylistic choice, but it still got on my nerves. Also a lot of the behind the scenes footage was detached and sometimes didn't really show the making of the scene as much as the director walking around on set. For instance in the film where it was the Indian woman dancing, the behind the scenes footage had the director saying to the camera that there was nothing to see here and that they were only unpacking. While the point of this was to show that the director was letting everyone else unpack and watching the proceedings, I didn't feel the need to see it.
The film also asked the filmmakers questions, but they were those sort of existential questions that can only produce grandiose answers such as, “I do cinema to survive” and “Cinema is already on its last feet.” I would much rather have heard all the directors talk about the film that they were doing. Plus the documentary never made it clear whether the sound that you were hearing during the films was the directors intention, or the documentary taking a liberty and adding in the ambient noise of the shoot.
So I enjoyed seeing the shorts, but the style of the documentary was not really my thing, and so that dragged down my overall enjoyment and became the thing that I ended up thinking most about.
Despite the fact that these Lumiere shorts were restricted to 52 seconds, I found that it definitely added to the value of what the directors filmed. Many directors didn’t seem to film profound concepts, but the ones that were successful were very memorable. Simply copying the Lumiere style, or even directly filming a copy of their work, (such as the incoming train footage), was a pretty interesting idea since their work was of random situations. I think this style provides such a broad spectrum that gave forty chosen directors a great opportunity to capture and summarize their vision and creativity, whether they were successful or not. I enjoyed seeing how far a director could take the limitations of the Cinematographe, such as crane and dolly shots and perfectly timed acting performances that barely fit the time limit and how they’d stick the antique camera on a modern tripod. But it was also amazing how simple and precious they could make it, such as a father filming his children singing or trying to talk. I really loved Spike Lee’s take of his baby, and how nonchalant and careless he was about the value of the Lumiere brother’s antique camera. The artistic expression the project was supposed to carry didn’t seem to enthrall Spike based on his nonchalant, blunt conversation with an anonymous friend regarding the film project. I laughed at the thought of putting Spike Lee on set with one of the passionate French auteur directors and seeing the stark difference between their take on film. I would seriously love to see that.
ReplyDeleteMy only disappointment overall was that it felt like 3 hours long and the editing was uncomfortably organized. I saw it was an attempt for a creative editing setup, but it could’ve been summarized better and the director commentaries could have been fused together in a more connected fashion.
The films that captured my heart were two of the kiss shorts, the first being the evolution of film around kiss scenes throughout the decades, and the handicap couple in love. There was something extremely touching about the handicap couple and the fact that they still could experience the passion of a relationship. I also loved the long dolly shot of the man walking through the fountain and the freedom it displayed. Those were the ones most memorable to me, (some were memorable in an annoying way) but there were others I enjoyed but can’t remember at the moment.
Allison Basham :D
Lumiere and Company is an omnibus film where directors from all over the world were asked to make a 50 second film using the original Lumiere cinematograph, the first motion picture camera. They could not use sync sound and they only had 3 takes to make their idea come alive. Some notable directors who took part were Arthur Penn, Liv Ullman, Spike Lee, Zhang Yimou, and David Lynch.
ReplyDeleteThe film opens with the famous Lumiere shot of a train pulling into a station, minutes later the shot is reenacted at a modern day train station. Throughout the entire film original Lumiere footage is intercut with the films of the directors. Each director’s film was different from one another; my favorite was the movie scene with couple kissing. The film was about shooting a scene to a movie and as the couple was kissing, in the background you saw a film crew shooting them. As the film progressed the camera dollies right and in background of the couple kissing you see a different camera crew and a different type of camera being used to shoot them. The director was showing the evolution of the motion picture camera and cinema over time. Another interesting film was with the lady dancing against a black wall and her dress changing colors. I also enjoyed Spike Lee’s film of his daughter trying to say “dada” and the one on the Great Wall of China with the two people rocking out to the music. If I had the opportunity to shoot with the Lumiere cinematograph I don’t know what I would shoot but it would be an exceptional experience and a chance for me to be actually involved with living film history. Throughout Lumiere & Company the directors were interviewed and asked the same question; is cinema mortal? Some answered yes by saying that as long as the human race exists film will be around, others believed that cinema is on its way out if not dead already. I believe that film is immortal because people will look back to film to see what was going on in the world at that certain time. Also, I think that as people have different experiences and memories there will always be a need to share their ideas and thoughts. Humans are storytellers and will always be storytellers.
I enjoyed watching Lumiere and company, it was a bit long but I feel it was well done and in my opinion it was really nice to see how all the directors wanted to use the camera that the Lumiere brothers made. I have to say that all the film where great but there is one that I just fell in love with and that one has to be the one about a guy “killing” the camera, I wanted to re-play it over and over again. I also like the fact that the film showed the directors before their films, I like it because it really gave me a point of view on how they work and how they work. I also like the fact that only but too have sound even if it was just only music and I like the “Spike Lee” film with his baby boy and his voice saying “say dad dad” I found it really funny that at only the end is when the baby said “da.” I also like the fact that all the film was done in black and white; I also enjoy that fact that the film was only about 20 seconds. I really liked that a filmmaker would be against TV and he would show it, I guess it’s that he was trying to say that film is really not film if it is in a TV. I liked the film that takes places in the great wall of China with the guy and girl dancing, having the girl dance and the guy playing, was really nice but then when they both started to take off what they had on and start dancing to rock music I found funny, I really was not thinking that that was going to happened the way it did. I also liked that one of the film had a women dancing but every time she would turn her dress would change color, there was pink’s, blue’s, yellow’s, just all the color’s really made me feel as if I where there looking at her dance, I feel it was really nicely done. I aslo loved the film of the two people kissing and the camera’s moving be hide them, I liked it a lot and I liked it so much because the camera’s that moved in the background went from old to new. Over all I really liked Lumiere and Company even though it felt long it really was not.
ReplyDeleteI found the film Lumiere and Company and the concept of it to be quite interesting. The beginning scene in which each director is shown the camera the Lumiere brothers used themselves was fantastic since you we were able to witness these great directors practically turn into excited little kids. This specific scene also gives you the sense of how huge and important that camera has played in film history. Shortly after, the rules and the purpose of the film are explained. There are only three rules: the film must be 52 seconds long, you cannot use synchronous sound and it must be done within three takes. Each short seems to reflect the style of the individual directors. Some are simple, such as Spike Lee's, in which he films a small baby while attempting to try and get her to speak. While others are more complicated. My particular favorite was the one which featured a couple kissing passionately while directors reflecting the different eras of film passed by them on a track, shouting out what they want the actors to do. While there were several very well done shorts within this omnibus film, i found many of them to be very boring. Some directors chose to try and replicate the Lumiere brothers style far too much, which leaves much to be desired. When the directors would go out of their way to emphasize their style and try to do something original within a small time frame, that is when i found the film to reach its heights. Even the experimental shorts I enjoyed, more because it was a fresh new pace. Other than that I found most of the film to be very interesting. I was fascinated how each director was barely able to answer the question of why they create movies. Even with just a silence, more was being said about each individual director through their facial expressions. You could tell while watching them try to think up the answer how they couldn't find an answer. The only answer is that they just love it.
ReplyDeleteI had a problem with the Lumiere and Company documentary. My problem was that they took a subject that sparked my interest and crafted it into something that turned out to be so boring and seemed to drag for hours. The idea of a bunch of contemporary directors, including some familiar names, coming together to make some short films using the original motion picture camera to pay homage to the inventors sounds fantastic but there was no excitement somehow. The directors stayed in their own corners of the world, were all asked the same boring questions, and gave the same boring answers.
ReplyDeleteThey were all asked two questions: is cinema mortal and why they personally film. I couldn’t help but smile at some of the answers they gave because they were complete bullshit. Some of the directors were straightforward and said they film because it is the thing that gives them the most enjoyment. That’s great because it’s the truth. Then there were other directors who took the sappy, pretentious, and grandiose path in a desperate attempt to sound profound. “I film to survive.” Wrong. You eat, drink water, and seek shelter to survive. You do not make movies to hold your mortality in the balance. I nearly laughed at that answer because I wondered how many of my classmates watching the film with me were buying into some of those ridiculous answers and declaring in their heads that they too would spontaneously combust if someone where to take Final Cut off of their laptop.
Cinema, like all other things, is mortal. Works of cinema can outlive their creators, we are still making films over a hundred years after its creation, and television will certainly not be the end of film but immortal is not the word to describe it. Cinema has longevity. It will be around as long as there are people to watch it and love it but in the strict definition of the word, films will not be around forever because people will not be around forever. We can try to preserve precious films on rolls of 35mm film or digitally, and seal them the best we can along with projectors and power sources in hopes that some creatures will find it and watch it after the human race is extinct but someday all traces of human cinema will be lost.
The actual films they made were enjoyable. There were a few that were really interesting and stood out beyond the few that were of people staring into a camera. Two of the kissing films were very interesting. The one with a couple kissing as each time period’s film equipment strolled by them was cool. It showed us a quick timeline and showed us how far we’ve come with this craft but still our subject remains the same. Romance and the human experience are always going to be the subject of films its just a matter of trying to capture it in different ways. The other kissing film was where the opera music was playing (from Carmen if I remember correctly) and they go in for the kiss dramatically and are interrupted for direction and try several other times to get it right. It showed just how artificial and constructed the moments we love in movies are and defied our expectations the first time around that it became very comedic. There were a few others that managed to give some narrative within the 50-second limit, which is impressive, like the one from Africa where the one man is wearing a crocodile costume. I liked seeing the actual films but the documentary didn’t bring anything more to them.
I must say, I had high expectations coming into the screening of Lumiere and Company. The concept of the documentary is innovative and intriguing…presenting current, respected filmmakers with the challenge of using the Lumiere Brother’s first camera. In my minds eye, I had imagined a film following the excitement of the filmmakers, their awe at the relic camera, their frustration at its limitations and a showcase of their creative ingenuity, overcoming the difficult task of utilizing the technology’s simplicity to their advantage. To compare, it would almost be like asking current car designers to take Henry Ford’s Model T for a spin.
ReplyDeleteIf the Lumiere Brothers were the pioneers, the forefathers and the very beginning of film, then my assumption was that with the amount of time that has passed, the leaps and bounds that have been made in film technique and the commonality of film as a staple in art and pop culture today, the current filmmakers featured in Lumiere and Company would create innovative, compelling narratives with the tiny box camera. Unfortunately, I was disappointed at their bleak, somewhat pretentious end result. Don’t get me wrong, there is beauty in simplicity—several of the short films encapsulated this, but in my opinion, the majority of the directors aimed too low and sold themselves short.
Most of the stories features stoic characters or simply showed a protagonist moving from point A to point B (even if the protagonist was a train). I hold respect for the actual Lumiere Brothers who captured motion (like the train…the first time around.) and used the device to set a foundation for the future, but the present filmmakers should have capitalized on this unique opportunity. True, there were rules, but working within those rules, the film I thought perhaps best captured simplicity and innovation was the film featuring the couple kissing as film cameras throughout history panned past time, capturing their intimate moment. The hand colored film of the twirling female dancer, wildly changing color in her billowy fabric was simple, yet engaging and memorizing. These two films were able to use the simple structure the rules of the documentary employed while still creating a small, vibrant cinematic world for the viewer. Another interesting film panned across a busy sidewalk, showing passerby, finally revealing the location as a McDonalds. To see such a common American site encased in the antique look of the camera was eerie and thought provoking…What will our current films and society look like to film students of the future?
Oddly enough, despite the fact that the directors were apparently not aware of the other filmmakers projects with the camera, a large portion of the films featured the same elements, if not the same “plot”. Many featured a “film within a film”, showing a camera, director and small crew filming a scene within the shot. Another commonality was the lack of a “4th wall”—the subjects interacted with Lumiere’s camera, exhibiting mostly expressions of skepticism, confusion or fear. Their eyes stared deeply at the camera, baring down on it. This posed the question, were the actors peering at the foreign technology places before them, or the audience of people observing their movements? Overall, I’m happy I saw Lumiere and Company, but rather than marveling at the films made by the directors of our present time, it made me have more respect for the Lumiere brothers themselves and the original films they created.
--Brianne McKay
Watching the film Lumiere and Company was extremely long and became tedious. I found the concept of having to make a short film using the original cinematographe camera invented by the Lumiere brothers extremely interesting and a fun challenge to take on, but the presentation of the 41 international film directors was not mastered. The editing of the film could have been done in a different way, making it easier for the audience to follow. The directors could have given a small description as to what he was filming and why, making the 52 second clip more clear and understanding. Also the answers that the directors were responding with to the interviewer barely had much context and were extremely brief. One director stated that he couldn’t answer a question and that it could only truly be answered by a long 10-second pause, which indeed many of the filmmakers did.
ReplyDeleteOne question that was being asked was “Is Film Mortal?” I cannot recall which director said it, but one of the directors said that he believes that as long as the human race is alive and mortal, then film is mortal. I liked his response the most because I do believe that film is mortal and that “us” (the human race) is in control of film and without humans, there is no one to make or view films.
One short film that I enjoyed the most was the kissing short film. It showed an extremely happy couple standing outside just appreciating each other. They stood there with love and admiration in their eyes and just laid kisses on each other’s lips for almost the entire 52-second film. It was just pleasant to watch and placed a smile on my face. Another clip that I enjoyed was the little girl that was trying to stand on top of some type of tall object (It looked like a scale almost), and everyone getting in her way. She was holding a small suitcase and struck everyone on the back of his or her legs that got in her way of standing on the tall object. Then finally, one gentleman comes along, sweeping her off her feet and placing her right on his shoulders so that she would be tall enough to stand on the tall object. I found that short film to be adorable and sweet.
All in all, I found the film to be interesting, but just a little too long and choppy for my taste. Fewer directors could have been used and a little more explanation involved, but not too much, just enough to have a solid foundation and the rest left to the imagination of the audience.
-Tiffany Lighty
While I did enjoy a few of the shorts – Spike Lee’s, the couple rehearsing an embrace for the camera, the kiss captured by various cameras, and the Indian dancer – the documentary in its entirety was highly tedious to sit through. It was extremely slow and I felt like I had to convince myself to stick with it through the end. While I did like some of the ‘poignant’ responses to some of the questions, I did feel a slight sense of pretentiousness on the part of the documentarians. On top of that, I was a little dissatisfied that none of the female directors were interviewed, but that’s more of a personal resentment. The film took a while to really get going I think, and eventually it slowed down to a very uncomfortable point. For me, the pace was just off. I did enjoy the ‘rules’ that were presented to the directors; it was interesting to see how much they adhered to those rules. And while I enjoyed some of the photographs that were taken with the directors while they were on set etc. I think that was part of the reason why I started to get very restless.
ReplyDeleteIt was really hard to feel particularly connected to the whole experience because there really wasn’t a lot of focus on what went on in attempting to film these shorts. There were a lot of ‘deep’ questions, but not a lot of relevant information behind those particular shorts. And while I could spot the general pattern of the film, I don’t know, a lot of it felt very incohesive and slightly jumbled. I mean, I followed it very clearly, but the way it flowed felt a little static. As much as I gripe about the questions that were asked, I did like the question on whether cinema was mortal. I thought some of the responses were great, especially the director who stated that as long as we, humans, live on to preserve it, cinema will survive. Because for me, I think something like cinema has to capability to die, but only if we allow it to. That was probably my favorite part of the entire film. It actually made me think carefully about the idea of cinema as everlasting. Beyond the shorts, that’s what I left the screening really considering. So, as slow and drawn out as it was, I didn’t leave totally empty-handed.
One of the aspects that stood out to me from the film Lumiére and Company was the number of short films made by the directors that were reminiscent of the very early stages of cinema. Narrative was barely present and the films captured a short glimpse of someone’s regular life. My favorite films in the documentary include the one about the couple kissing and the different cameras recording them, the Asian man and woman dancing and unexpectedly breaking out to rock n’ roll, and the one of the young kids gathering and staring straight into the camera (Costa-Gavras). I would have preferred the documentary to have gone more into the directors’ thought process and ask questions concerning the subject matter of their films.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed hearing the more simple answers to the question, “Why do you film?” I guess many people expect artists to have a great philosophical answer to questions such as this one. My favorite answer was the one from the director who said he films because he wants people to love him. It’s answers like that that seem more genuine and make me feel that not everything dealing with film and art has to have a great meaning behind it.
It interesting to see that many of the directors agreed that cinema is mortal. I believe that its mortality could be seen today. Advancements in technology, such as the home theater system, make it almost unnecessary to go to the movie theater. Many years ago, cinema provided an experience that television could not compete with. The movie business is struggling to find the “new” thing; recently it has been 3D films. However, 3D televisions are now in the market and soon could be in everyone’s home. It’s as if cinema is struggling to stay alive. I think that cinema might have the same fate as theatre, in which it is kept around because there are a small number of people who still have an appreciation for it. Today, it’s hard to appreciate the works of cinema due to the abundance of people that now have access to video cameras. Many are not aware of the degree of achievement the Lumiére brothers and other early filmmakers accomplished with the innovation of a machine that can capture and record life.
I had high expectations for this documentary because the idea seemed interesting. Acclaimed directors making a short film with the first film camera ever made. The idea was excellent, but the execution was off. It was a long and tedious documentary to watch. They went to forty different directors and I believe they interviewed each one of them as well as showing each short film. I thought it would have sufficed to pick half of them. I also think it would have been a better documentary if they would’ve shown the making of the short films in detail, and have each director say why they did what they did. Instead they were asked “is film mortal” or “why do you film,” which I think they’re good questions but after forty times it felt redundant and as a viewer I no longer cared about what they had to say, I just wanted it to end.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it was enjoyable to see the films the filmmakers had shot. I can’t remember who shot what, but there were a few I found interesting. I liked the one where they show a dead lion with its insides being eaten by larvae and flies. Not because I’m a sadist but because I thought there was aesthetic quality to it, they way the camera panned down to show it, then up again to show the wilderness. I found it very cinematic.
The other short I liked was one where a man a woman entered the screen from opposite sides, walked up to each other and the woman fell on the man’s arms, except they did it wrong, practiced it and did it again. Filming this process of how you get something that appears to be real but it really isn’t, it has been rehearsed numerous time, is fascinating. The same goes for the kiss. Again, I completely forgot who shot what, most of them were French and I had never heard of them. The ones I recognized: the David Lynch short, extremely weird, didn’t understand what he was trying to do, or if he even knew. Also, the Spike Lee short where he showed his son, and tried to make him talk. I guess he was doing a home movie like the kind the Lumiere brothers made. It was a good homage, but I did not find it interesting or appealing.
Overall I was somewhat disappointed with the documentary, but I do not regret seeing it. There were some interesting films and comments made throughout. I just wished it weren’t so tedious to watch.
I really enjoyed the film, because it was able to represent all of the different styles of each filmmaker will keeping classic, because of the equipment they used. The camera made everything look grainy but in a good way. It added time to each piece. My favorite short was probably the kiss with all of the different cameras from all the different times pointed at the couple. It showed the different ways in which film has traveled through time and although the technology is always rapidly changing the stories being told on deep down the same. It made me reference Avatar even though I have not seen Avatar, but I heard it was Pocahontas in 3d. It makes one realize that all of the stories being told have pretty much the same root they are just conceptualized in different ways.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I did not like with the film collectively is that they did not make the rules clear. They made it seem like you could only use three takes and it had to be one continuous shot under 52 seconds with no sync sound, but I felt that a lot of the films did not follow these rules. For example, the one with the baby crying kind of cheated because the person talking was off screen but one would assume that it was sync sound. Also the one with the garbage we talked about in class and we came to the conclusion that the sound was slightly off, but the audience was not able to determine that because the shot was too wide. Also in some of the shorts the clips were broken up, but according to the rules they presented in the beginning of the film it was suppose to be one continuous shot.
The other problem I had with film as a whole was I couldn’t tell if the audio was from the filmmakers of the individual shorts or if it was something they added in post of the whole film. I couldn’t decipher exactly what the filmmakers were trying to say because I could not determine where the audio came from.
The portion of the film I liked was when they asked why do you film and do you think film is mortal, because I don’t think a lot of filmmakers stop to ask themselves those questions. I really liked the answer that they got when the filmmaker basically said that he hoped film wasn’t mortal because that is what he wanted to leave behind as his legacy. That was his passion for filmmaking seem real.
-Sarah Garcia
Watching Lumiere and Co. was a learning experience. I gleaned something new from each segment and even enjoyed parts. I was initially excited to see Wim Wender's short because I had just seen Paris, Texas and had enjoyed it greatly. Upon viewing his short, I didn't find it particularly interesting but maybe I just didn't understand it.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed seeing each directors passion for filmmaking. Frankly, there were times where directors spoke only in platitudes, but it was distinctly clear how each director appreciated the opportunity to work with the first film cameras. It was obvious how significant the Lumiere brothers were to film history and how far-reaching their influence has become.
I was surprised at how many directors chose to incorporate newer technologies (35mm film cameras, 5k lights) into their shorts. I believe it was to show a contrast between modern times and the time of the Lumieres. This leads me to believe that each director made their film without any knowledge of what other filmmakers were doing.
Of all the shorts, ones that stand out are:
- The David Lynch short (the only one to edit--in the camera)
- The one filmed on the Great Wall of China
- The couple kissing
As noted in class, I don't know why so many directors chose to use a dolly or jib. In my opinion, most camera movements were arbitrary--with no motivation. By being so stylised with camera movements the shorts no longer became an exercise in filming with the tools from the past. If they weren't going to limit themselves to the tools available at the time, then I can't see what the point was of using the Cinematographe at all.
-Jeff Ward-Ramos
So at first I thought this movie was going to be about the Lumiere brothers and hopefully would show some examples of their work however, I was disappointed when I found out what the movie was actually about. True it’s an exciting concept that the original camera still works and can be utilized by modern directors however I felt that the films did not have the same awe as the original Lumiere short did. The lack of formal schooling for film as well as a world of ideas that were yet to be filmed made the Lumiere films more interesting. One of the few films that I found interesting was of the Indian woman dancing as the colors changed but even with that short the colors were spot on as she turned and did not have the giddiness of the old films.
ReplyDeleteThe directors themselves I think had more of leading role in the film than the actual shorts. The “behind the scenes” footage should have been shortened or but on a special features section. If that was the actual intention of the film then the title should have been geared towards the mortality of cinema or the making of films using the Lumiere’s camera.
The concept of cinema being mortal was interesting however no one really answers the question. Most directors were either silent or posed a one sentence answer often just leading to another question. At times I felt that the directors were just in the movie for screen time and trying to gain notoriety through this movie. Again if this part were to be on a special features section or even put set as its own chapter in the movie then maybe it wouldn’t have been so tedious and boring. It might be that I’m just not a fan of documentaries and appreciate an in depth story line. Lumiere and Company did not interest me one bit.
-Stephen Sorace
The homage paid to the Lumiere brothers, in my opinion, was organized in a rather disparate manner. There was no sub-category that tied the short films together which made it hard sit through. I think the concept is a great one--but the execution needed to be rethought.
ReplyDeleteThe content of the short films lacked a plot, which in a way, is also another homage to the Lumiere brothers. This definitely depicted that cinema was mortal. Looking back at the work the Lumiere brothers did, I am astounded by their progress and ingenuity. However, watching current directors do the same thing was boring. I had expected them to put their own twist to it. For example, I would have expected Spike Lee, a documentarian like the Lumiere brothers, to have made something more than a simple home video of his son saying "Da da". I found myself wishing that these directors would have taken what they learned from these original filmmakers and made something incredible and ingenious with the tools they had, just like the Lumiere brothers did so long ago.
The Lumiere brothers were pioneers of the film industry, however, if someone were to do what they did back then today, they'd be thrown straight out of the studio! Therefore, this film proved the mortality of films. However, this does not take away from the astounding work the Lumiere brothers did and the progress they made in the industry we study today.
-Nathalie Fernandez
My experience with Lumière and Company produced both positive and negative reactions. The film focused on forty-one international directors who all had to abide by three simple rules: each short had to be less than fifty-two seconds, incorporate no sound, and had to be done in less than three takes. These rules both hindered and promoted creative narrative shorts. In other words, while some directors made use of the short fifty-two seconds, many others were not able to tell a direct and strong narrative in the time allotted. Others also chose to pay tribute to original films with a modern twist.
ReplyDeleteAn example of one of the shorts that I personally felt used the guidelines brilliantly was the shot of two actors kissing. They kissed passionately as different types of cameras along different eras busily filmed the set- starting with the Lumière and ending with High Definition cameras. Thus proving that ever since the creation of the camera, mankind has been trying to film the importance and essence of “the kiss” and love itself. This to me, was an awe-inspiring short and I found condolence in the fact that some things never change. This was a gem amongst many of the other films that got lost amongst the film restrictions. It was both simple yet profound, and I feel that many of Hollywood’s most successful movies share those qualities.
Others were not as exciting, and forced the audience to fight to stay awake. Some examples include the short of the mother holding it’s baby by the train station, the egg being cooked during a voicemail recording, and a shot of a town square with a child and people walking by. Perhaps it is because of my lack of artistic knowledge, but these films left no emotional response within me. They did not want me to keep watching, nor did they entertain m. I felt that I could have easily walked outside and shot this random occurrence myself, in one single take. True, I am most likely being a little harsh, but I expected a little bit more from such accredited directors.
Then again, it could have very well been the actual documentary’s fault. The sequence in which the film chose to go by was incredibly confusing and made the film seem a lot longer than it actually was. I felt like I had just seen the Lord of the Rings and Titanic . . . back to back. In other words, while much of the content was interesting, the “behind the scenes” content and questions of the mortality of film dragged it out immensely. Perhaps taking some of the films out and shortening the dialogue would have made for a more entertaining and efficient film. Regardless, the gems I did find made experiencing this movie worthwhile and have enlightened me of both positives and drawbacks of early cinema.
Lumiere and company was nothing what I expected it to be and that is not good. The whole idea behind the movie is to have modern filmmakers make a short film with the first ever produced camera. 40 filmmakers accepted the challenge and decided to make their own Lumiere Brother film. Some of the filmmakers made remakes of original Lumiere Brother films, while others made new ones, and others just did whatever came to their mind.
ReplyDeleteWith 40 filmmakers and a running time less than 90 minutes it gave the viewers very little insight in to what actually was going on during the filmmakers shoot. During each director’s part of the film they were interviewed about Cinema and Filmmaking and, a making of their Lumiere film was also shown. I feel like they did not show enough of the behind the scene and they viewer really didn’t get to see how they worked with a camera. The interview questions were also not that interesting. It seemed like in order to cut the time they only showed one question and answer from each interview. The question seemed to not differ and it felt like at least 30 of the 40 directors answered whether they think, “Cinema is immortal”. Then the other 10 directors where asked, “Why did you become a Filmmaker?” After awhile, each director’s answer just sounded the same and it just made the film seem like it was 4 hours long.
Not everything in, Lumiere and Company, was horrible. I really enjoyed some of the shorts that were filmed with the Lumiere Brother’s camera. One of the shorts I found quite enjoyable was the one with the kiss. Kissing has been a very big part of the arts since they started. Some find it scandalous, while others just laugh it off as child stuff. Whatever way a person looks at the idea of kissing it will always be there and that is what this film demonstrated. It showed a male and a female kissing each other and in the background of the scene cameras where lined up from oldest to newest and they were all taping the kiss. Another film that I enjoyed was the remake of the Lumiere Brother’s train video. It showed a train coming and stopping at the station. The original was such a big hit cause people actually thought the train was going to go through the screen and hit them. I enjoyed it by trying to get in the mindset that it actually was going to pop out and that made me laugh.
Overall, I thought that film would have been better put together. I would have probably enjoyed it if they cut out some of the directors and changed up the question a little more.
-Robert Cassandro
I found today’s screening of “Lumiere and Company” to perhaps be one of the most unique non-fiction films I have seen in recent time. The film, in and of itself, is an incredibly ambitious piece of work that almost defies categorization - it may best be defined as a sort of hybrid between documentary film, omnibus films, and even hypertext film. It’s ironic how a task that would seem as simple as shooting a short film of only fifty-two seconds evolves into this near epic experience as the film plays out. It’s an “epic experience” for the audience as they can’t help but feel that they are witnessing this historic event that represents the convergence of the many aspects and dynamics of film. For instance, one short film presented this idea by using the Lumiere’s camera to record the filming of a movie scene. As such, this short pays homage to the Lumiere’s work by depicting the common place of cinema in today’s world, a feat that would have been impossible if the Lumiere’s had not started filming; in other words, the short film was shot in the same way the Lumiere’s had first filmed reality and yet the content of the short is not reality but rather a statement of the progression of cinema which the Lumiere’s are partly responsible for. More importantly, it’s an “epic experience” in regards to the filmmakers who are literally bridging history as they interact with the very foundation of cinema, the camera that gave birth to their life’s work. In addition, the film even goes as far as to ask these directors, after having used the Lumiere camera, the most challenging questions of their careers – “Why do you film?” and “Is cinema immortal?” – questions deeply linked to the artist’s own livelihood. It is in answering these questions that we begin to see the real value of this film is not merely in the dialogue these directors are having with the past (in shooting with the Lumiere camera) but in the dialogue they are having with themselves and their fellow directors. It’s this dialogue that presents the film with a sense of narrative that unites the entire project and perhaps the best argument for not limiting the effects of “Lumiere and Company” to those solely of a documentary.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to actual short films displayed, I believe I had three favorites. While I greatly enjoyed the reflexive, nearly transgressive, nature of several shorts that depicted a camera, or something else relative to cinema, they did not particularly stand-out to me. I found the shorts by Wim Wenders, David Lynch, and Abbas Kiarostami to be innovative, inspiring, and fantastically cinematic. These short films continue to linger in my mind, reminding me of the words spoken by David Lynch that impacted me deeply growing up. Lynch said, “Who said that a movie has to be a story.” And by this he was professing his belief that cinema is, more than anything else, a “feeling.” This idea, philosophy has been central in my vision of cinema and its possibilities.
- Eddy
Lumiere and Company offered a new and fresh perspective on early cinema. Most of the cinema from Lumiere was standard and felt like nothing more than a simple recording of bland events. This film was unique in giving contemporary directors the opportunity to shoot a film with same visual and physical barriers of an early camera coupled with the chance to attach their own artistry. My opinion on the film was split – I thoroughly enjoyed the shorts, the work of the directors that got to uses Lumiere’s camera, but I did not enjoy the actual documentary presentation of it. Having the chance to see contemporary directors present a film with the same camera that gave birth to the medium as we know it was a cool opportunity to see what they think and wanted to express in a condensed short period of time. The contrast between each directors short was also very entertaining, and interesting. They all went in very separate directions – some offering simple and easy entertainment, others making a statement and commentary on film or life in general, and then others offering an ode to the Lumiere brothers themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary itself was lacking and not very entertaining. The shorts offered the best representation and diversity between the directors, not the bland and vague questions that were asked. The questions only served to homogenize and drag out the film – there is no good way to answer a question like “what is film?” or “is film mortal?” in a succinct few second answer, especially when there are so many directors providing that answer. That is my biggest critique on the film, and probably what caused it to drag on and feel as boring as it was.
I did enjoy the set-up they showed preceding the shorts – cool to see how each director envisioned the piece and established the shot. That dynamic of a film within a film is an interesting one. In this film its an easy delineation of whose presenting what and where the artist work lies, but in most films the specialization of different professions comes into one conglomerate, where the actor, director, editor, etc, all have a significant amount of influence and power over the film and its direction. In Lumiere and company you could see the different personalities at play as the shorts were being shot and how different films end up with the amount of people, and in general what makes it so unique as a medium – especially when adding the audience in as a variable.
-Daniel B.