So I see that Ryan Wu has thus accompanied his link to my page: "Lend him some dough so he can catch the latest auteurist obscurities." I realize I have now whined enough about my financial instability to have made it my calling card.
But Ryan's nice to link to my page--it's getting less and less kosher to keep up a cheesily designed Geocities site. By year's end I think I'll have a cheesily designed domain of my own. (Seriously. I've been working on very basic layouts. The biggest problem is that I get tired of the same old font. Georgia, Trebuchet, Arial, they all look bad to me after I use them for a month.)
UbuWeb, so I discover, came back online recently after a hiatus, although I understand that they had to take down some of the stuff they had up merely a week or two ago (?) for legal reasons. Still, they have a lot of stuff up--I've only rummaged through the film section since they've been back up, having downloaded exclusively MP3's from them in the past--and among them is an .avi of Les Habitants (1970) by Artavazd Pelechian. Ask and ye shall recieve, eh?
5 comments:
Try Verdana, bud:
http://ovingtonfilms.com/screeninglog.htm
Verdana is OK. For the moment I'm sticking to Trebuchet in my design, which is what I have used for this blog and, really, haven't gotten too tired of.
I'll be seeing Regular Lovers myself in a few hours ... hope I like it more than it appears you did.
Hope you do to. I feel I went in pretty unprepared and was the worse for it.
Was just joshing you a bit, but I feel your pain, man. I've been through trying to be a cinephiliac on a tight budget phase and it ain't fun.
Re: 1971. Blanche is a bizarre film, one of those "historical reconstructions" that, like Rohmer's, seem to have not only recreated the look, but the very spirit of the time it tries to capture. It's probably brilliant, but I don't know if I know how to engage with it. What's your view of the film?
Ryan, I do have some theories about Blanche, which I will hopefully write or blog about in the future. Essentially I think it's a near-masterpiece because of the flatness of its visuals and the rigor of its editing, elements which turn the film into a fascinating object, tone-wise. A lot of the pacing is staccato (in a good way), and just as much as you feel you're seeing the presentation of a past era's spirit (I agree with you on that point) it seems to be a firmly modernist work, as well.
Post a Comment