RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 14, 2007 19:53:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quentincompson on Oct 31, 2008 17:19:15 GMT
1.Flirt 7.5/10
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Nov 1, 2008 5:30:57 GMT
Pretty disappointing to see virtually no posts on this guy, his exposure really has dropped massively.
Features:
No Such Thing (2001) 9/10 Flirt (1995) 8.5/10 Henry Fool (1997) 8/10 Simple Men (1992) 8/10 Surviving Desire (1991) 7.5/10 Trust (1990) 7/10 The Unbelievable Truth (1989) 7/10 Amateur (1994) 7/10 Fay Grim (2006) 6/10 The Book of Life (1998) 6/10
Shorts:
Ambition (1991) 8/10 Theory of Achievement (1991) 7/10 NYC 3/94 (1994) 6/10 Opera No. 1 (1994) 6/10
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Nov 2, 2008 0:07:15 GMT
I'm not surprised to hear you mention Hartley as a fave only up to Henry Fool though, tends to be a general consensus and it's kinda like the whole post-Weekend Godard thing. That decline is one of the reasons why I think Hartley's name and films have waned in the public consciousness. Even fans of early Hartley, weren't that taken with Fay Grimm as I was on first viewing. I'm pretty much there at a new film of his, still. Just in the sense of the inexpressive, in the case of Hartley, intended inexpressive-flat performances and delivery. Hartley like Bresson wanted what emotion to arise from the viewer to mostly be on the viewer rather than through the usual cues and prompts (expressive, emotive acting and delivery). Kind of like blank slates. Kind of like detached performances to which the audience projects their emotional and mental states.
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Nov 2, 2008 1:09:55 GMT
I didn't love Fay Grim either, but still found it very entertaining and thought Posey was magnificent. She should be given more lead roles. I'm not one that agrees with the consesus on his decline, just as i don't with the strange anti-post-Weekend rubbish.
Again, i don't think it's a similar approach myself. I think Hartley trumped up the falseness of pre-conceived dialogue in order to comment on the artificiality of the medium, just like Godard and Fassbinder. This is heightened even further when at times he sticks a microphone in front of actors (Book of Life, No Such Thing) as though they're directly pontificating about their existence, as though their mocking the obvious way in which dialogue is used by a lot of film-makers, even in naval gazing "conversation" contained in otherwise amazing films like Solaris and Stalker. I don't believe it's intended to be the same blank canvas as Bressons was, he hated words that guy! More tongue in cheek commentary on the medium from Hartley and the other guys mentioned I'd say.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Nov 2, 2008 1:43:16 GMT
I think you're misunderstanding me. Perhaps it's poor wording on my part. But I didn't mean that it's exactly like Bressonian acting. But Hartley's acting has a few Bressonian acting qualities mainly the inexpression and projection by the audience. Everything else, the humor, the dialogue, the self-consciousness is very un-Bressonian, absolutely. Just a few aspects they share. But what Hartley has taken has been morphed into something utterly Hartley. Bresson was a jumping-off point. And this style of acting refers more to early Hartley (the Shelly pictures and Surving Desire) than things like Book of Life and No Such Thing.
Oh, and in my post in the Ray thread, I meant that people might be turned off on Hartley's spin on Bressonian acting and Hartley's sense of humor not his spin on Bressonian acting and Bresson's sense of humor which could be read when I just wrote, "Hartley's spin on Bressonian acting and sense of humor," I admit.
|
|
|
Post by Anasazie on Nov 2, 2008 3:28:50 GMT
Not sure what you mean.
I do understand what you mean, i just disagree with you. I believe Hartley's style is more informed by Fassbinder and Godard than by Bresson, which is why i think the link is a loose one. Most films surely would contain a tiny element of Bressonian acting if we're going to strip it down that far?
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Nov 2, 2008 7:21:15 GMT
In the Ray thread, I said this: I can see people being turned off by Hartley's spin on Bressonian acting and sense of humor, though. Your next reply had this: I'd say Hal's is much closer to 80s Godard than anything else and i certainly don't remember much humour or tongue-in-cheek in a Bresson film. So, assume that when I said: I can see people being turned off by Hartley's spin on Bressonian acting and sense of humor, though. you took it that I was saying "Bressonian acting" and "Bresson's sense of humor" which I wasn't saying. I meant "Bressonian acting" and "Hartley's sense of humor." Because I don't know how else my post led you to say: i certainly don't remember much humour or tongue-in-cheek in a Bresson film. Fair enough. There's also Antonioni in how the actors don't make eye contact with each other more frequently than the norm in film performances and a little in the blocking, as well. Sure. It's not like I was saying Hartley was the only one, anyway. Hartley isn't the only one to have Antonioni-like character interaction, either. Anyway, we're both Hartley fans. It's all good.
|
|