ROI DE THULEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

1. are here any cinema of cruelty effects?
2. comment on the use of sound in the film
3. how effective is the use of Black and white stock?
4. rate the film out of 5

I didn't find Cruelty effects in the film. There was a certain form of cruelty being enacted on characters, but I as a viewer did not get the same effect. Perhaps this was because of a feeling of distancing. The black and white created an almost clinical feel, a washed out life. It had quite a documentary feel to it, as perhaps was intended. Likewise, the music was jarring with the piece. A little connecting jingle between scenes. It was the silence which had more impact, eg. in the scene with Collettes silent performance and flashing images. If this form had continued in a similar way, then maybe this would be cinema of cruelty?
I give it 3 our of 5. It didn't really engage me, didn't inspire me, but thought it was an insight to Artauds life (rather than his world? his theatre?)

I still think you should watch Requim for a Dream...

Yanno

My Life and Times with Antonin Artaud

Hello Artaudies!

Although I agree that the film was more a documentary than trying to establish a complete theatre of cruelty style there were definately cruel elements. As Sarah mentioned, I found the scene with Colette particularly poignant in that as well as forcing the viewer to take on a almost voyeuristic role, I also felt highly uncomforatble throughout the whole sequence because of the clear emotional and physical strain of the performer, when she finally gave up I too felt relieved. This seemed to be in keeping with Artauds concept of cruelty as I believe it was a physical experience, in as much as I felt myself saying the words with her in my head (loser).

As noted below, I also think it was not the questionable choice of music that was powerful in this film but the use of silence. Most significantly so in the scene where Prevel is choking uncontrollably. By using silence as Artaud often chose to do in his films the gesture, facial grimaces and distorted body were the focus, and I found this silent image of the body in utter turmoil, was far more powerful than when the sound was introduced; language was un-neccessary in creating this, the image was 'universal'.

Like Grace, I also found the black and white stock effetive as a visual metaphor of Artauds state of mind; depicting it as bleak and incoherent, as the image was often distorted and grainy. I also felt it had a distancing effect for the viewer, causing them to cast a more analytical eye over the film as it was not 'realistic' in colour.

Hmm rating it is a toughy, I am going to say 3. As a film it gave a good presentation of the effect of a drug addiction, and of Artaud's way of looking at the world, however it did seem at times to undermine itself with the choice of music for example, and not give a true depiction of Artaud as a theorist, there were indeed beautiful moments but I think they could have been pushed further.

Lauren
xxxxxx

Co-presence with the spectator?

I think you're right with the black and white stock being romantic Jeremy, although I doubt that's what Artaud would have wanted. It gives the film a distanced feel from a modern audience too, perhaps helping to show that we should not expect to be able to understand Artaud's theories and practice without understanding the context they came from.

I agree with most people who've said that this film was more documentary than a film that clearly demostrated elements of the theatre of cruelty. However, I do think that at times the filming took on the challenge of putting the actor and the spectator in co-presence (obviously metaphorically rather than physically). A possible example was where Prevel is looking through the window at Colette as she gets increasingly hysterical trying to 'use her scream box' (as a side note, this is an amazing turn of phrase!), the audience joins Prevel looking into the room, making us as much spectators as much as Prevel is to the scene. Francis Vayone describes that one of Artaud's main reasons for rejecting the cinema was that it did 'not place the actor and the action in a real and direct co-presence with the spectator' (p180, 'Cinemas of Cruelty?', A Critical Reader) but here I think the film attempts to break this divide.

I would rate the film 3/5 as I think it had some interesting artistic moments and was definitely worth watching. However, I agree with others that it was quite slow moving, and sometimes lost my interest. In my opinion, the soundtrack was also very misplaced, giving the film a relaxed feel which did not suit the action.

Plus fort!!!!!!!

1. are here any cinema of cruelty effects?
2. comment on the use of sound in the film
3. how effective is the use of Black and white stock?
4. rate the film out of 5

Regrettably I will have to agree with Matt on this one the film did deserve 4 out of 5. Also I felt that the scene with the actress on stage and the flashing bulbs was a powerful moment of cruelty within the film. The use of silence and lights created an eerie atmosphere that exposes the viewer. Another moment similar to that is right at the beginning where the camera pans through the train station at eye level. The shaking and the constant switch of the camera gave a nauseating and unpleasant feel to the scene. Despite this the film itself felt more of a biopic then a delve into cruelty and that these were the only instance of theatre of cruelty within the film. It was much more a film about the relationship between Prevel and Artaud and how their friendship effected their lives.

As for the music it felt that at any moment you would hear the deep rumble and wail of a blues singer, "I got the blues, Saturday morning 9:15 etc etc... It just didn't feel appropriate. It just didn't quite suit the mood. The music at the beginning with the singer on the stage felt much more appropriate to the mood and atmosphere of the film.

As for the black and white it felt appropriate. If it had been not been in black and white it would perhaps lose some of its appeal. The black and white made the whole experience feel much more real and authentic, as well as a romantic edge to it. I understand romantic may not be the right word so feel free to comment.

Jeremy x

There once was a king of Thuleeeeeeeeee.

It's a bit keen writing this early i know, but here goes!
Firstly, I reckon it deserves a good 4 out of 5. The one point i feel is lost by the dodgy soundtrack; i did expect Bob Dylan to flounder onto our screens at any moment. However, in regards to the sound. What i found so striking was the use of silence, or almost silence. When our lovely Colette is on stage and the lights flash around her, illuminating her momentarily, there is no sound of the stage action; only the flashing of the bulbs (a sound similar to a nail being dropped on a metallic table). This obviously draws your attention to the irregular and eerie lighting bursts and almost creates a sense of frustration as the viewer is denied the opportunity to hear what she is saying.
This is the only moment that i feel is directly linked to Cinema of Cruelty (as Yann mentioned, this flashing of images is reminds me greatly of Requiem for a Dream). I find the link between this sequence and Cinema of Cruelty weak though and hard to justify.
It was interesting to see this portrayal of Artaud; a reminder that he is human. A tragic story but littered with humour (when he describes Prevel's lover as a 'gorgon'). Enough babble from me.

Love and Artaudian Kisses (in the form a gruesome and long winded scream)

Matt
xxx

P.S. Could this have been done any differently than Black and White?

(come see Edmond)

In Response to the Screening of 'My Life and Times With Antonin Artaud'

While the film acts primarily as a biopic, depicting the relationship between Antonin Artaud and Jacques Prevel up until Artaud's death on March 14th 1948, it does posses elements of The Cinema of Cruelty. The cinematic spectator witnesses, in a conventional linear progression, the growing and intensifying relationship between the artist, Artaud, and the poet, Prevel. In his lifetime Artaud expressed a disatisfaction with cinema, believing that the audience were split from representation into merely accepting realism. However, he did believe that the advancements in technology, such as ' lenses, camera positions and even different stock' ('Performance', p.55) would enable audiences to engage with the work. The viewer's vision then allowed them to become a part of the action. This is the case in 'My Life and Times with Antonin Artaud'; the film is filtered through a grainy black and white stock, which distances us from discarding the piece as Artad's unquestionable reality. Instead, it is cold, unsettling and thus acts literally and figuratively to symbolise Artaud's bleak descent into hallucinogenics and extreme illness. The external and the internal worlds of Prevel and Artaud increasingly intwine, creating a nightmarish set of images.
Sound and music acted in support of the artists' disjuncture with society. In my opinion, the blues music that was repeated at various parts of the film did not create or sustain a certain mood or atmosphere. Moreover, it completely conflicted with the emotions and images of the characters and bohemian Paris. Even so, Artaud himself would have encouraged these obscure choices, because they force the spectator to answer their own questions on what is being presented or alluded to. The characters used their own voices as tools of cruelty in keeping with Artaud's manifesto: they screech, yell, whisper and utter. Each noise layers them in unpredictability and ultimately adds to an illusion of madness.

I would rate the film as 3/5. I found it an interesting insight into the lives of many characters, but Prevel and Artaud especially: the film was well shot and effectively acted, but I think it was slow and seemingly long. Also, if Artaud's manifesto and personal beliefs are to be taken into account, 'My Life and Times With Antonin Artaud' detered too heavily from them, as it gradually became 'a slice of life'. Realism overwhlemed the surreal and abstract, giving us a biopic narrative of Artaud's life.

SCREENING TOMORROW

Dear Artaudians,

we will be looking at the Mordillat centenary project film tomorrow entitled 'My Life and Times with Antonin Artaud'. Two reasons:
its not in the library and Performance is (so you can arrange to see Performance at your own convenience)
this is a good copy (the library copy of Performance is a broadcast copy and not good quality for projection (probably ok for private screening)

so why not view both?

Questions for the Artaud film:

1. are here any cinema of cruelty effects?
2. comment on the use of sound in the film
3. how effective is the use of Black and white stock?
4. rate the film out of 5

please be brief and post yr answers on the blog

enjoy

see you next week

ed