Quick thought. I had the chance to look around the Chris Ofili exhibition at Tate Britain last week. Three things struck me.
1) The patience and sheer beauty of the craft involved. Ofili's way of beading paint gives his paintings a gorgeous tactile quality. They were, my companion suggested, reminiscent of Tracey Emin's quilts and there is something in that.
2) After a couple of minutes you don't really notice the big dods of elephant dung.
3) Increasingly he is looking to the Carribbean for his influences but what is interesting is how often his earlier paintings reference black American imagery and iconogaphy - be it American singers or sportsmen or just his obsession with afros. The most beautiful, troubling painting in the exhibition is his painting No Woman No Cry, an image of Stephen Lawrence's mother crying tears for her murdered son (his image contained in every tear), but the specificity of that image seems set apart - a clear - and very painful, sorrowful - example of Black British culture. Ofili's images draw on lots of sources - from religion and pop culture - but they don't feel particularly British sources. Or am I just not looking closely enough? (TJ)
Monday 3 May 2010
Thursday 11 March 2010
"I'm in love with the modern world"
"To my surprise,I find myself driving through the bleak flatlands of late middle age."
Chris Petit once said that Britain was too small a place for road movies. Nowhere was far enough away from anywhere else to allow for a journey of any worth. In Britain motion was measured by a social scale - up and/or down the class ladder - rather than the speedometer.
And yet he has made a film career - albeit one heavy on long pitstops over the years - making road movies. From Radio On to this week's More 4 documentary Content, Petit has constantly filmed the world from the driver's seat.
He's described Content as "an ambient 21st-century road movie" and it's the ambience I liked about it. It's not short of content - thoughts on technology, the war, his own past, Pokemon, the death of modernism, time passing, the out-of-town shopping centre and its ancillary architecture - all bound together in a kind of free-form loop; some of it intriguing, some of it fatuous ("the new religion of flat-packing" he says of our IKEA obsession, which rather overstates the case surely).
But none of this is what I respond to in Content. It's the drift of images that compels. The world seen through the windscreen; tail lights, wipes sloshing rain, the white line up the middle of the road, the graphics of roadsigns. A vision most of us see every day.
You can see a similar fascination with the view from the car window in Woodrow Phoenix's graphic novel Rumble Strip which is a brilliant look at the way the car has transformed our vision of the world, the dangers inherent in that and the consoling seductions the road offers.
But film offers the extra consolation of motion itself. Petit: "The movie camera and the car came of age in the twentieth century, and if you put the two together you had a perfect fusion for a while. A projection, a hymn to the virtues of the extended shot, suspended space, stillness and motion, false security that now seems less about the road ahead than the spproach of the speeding car in the rearview mirror. A flight from the past, though the question 'what are you driving from?' - whose answer is perfectly obvious - remains unasked in the panic of all the disembodied voices in the radio. We all find ways of losing ourselves."
This is the way the world looks. Or did look like. Petit pays nearly as much attention to the view of the computer screen, a virtual vision that may be replacing the one we see from the car as primary way we view the world. A different type of screen. The click of the mouse replacing the tick-tick-tick of the indicator.
And yet it's the pulse of the road that holds me in Content; the clotted movement of traffic now and again giving way, thankfully, to snatches of effortless forward motion,the road opening before us.
Road movies never need a destination. They're always about the road. About the white lines stretching out like a dotted line to the future, or better yet, an eternal present. No destination. The only purpose of motion being motion itself. Content is nostalgic for that.
Chris Petit once said that Britain was too small a place for road movies. Nowhere was far enough away from anywhere else to allow for a journey of any worth. In Britain motion was measured by a social scale - up and/or down the class ladder - rather than the speedometer.
And yet he has made a film career - albeit one heavy on long pitstops over the years - making road movies. From Radio On to this week's More 4 documentary Content, Petit has constantly filmed the world from the driver's seat.
He's described Content as "an ambient 21st-century road movie" and it's the ambience I liked about it. It's not short of content - thoughts on technology, the war, his own past, Pokemon, the death of modernism, time passing, the out-of-town shopping centre and its ancillary architecture - all bound together in a kind of free-form loop; some of it intriguing, some of it fatuous ("the new religion of flat-packing" he says of our IKEA obsession, which rather overstates the case surely).
But none of this is what I respond to in Content. It's the drift of images that compels. The world seen through the windscreen; tail lights, wipes sloshing rain, the white line up the middle of the road, the graphics of roadsigns. A vision most of us see every day.
You can see a similar fascination with the view from the car window in Woodrow Phoenix's graphic novel Rumble Strip which is a brilliant look at the way the car has transformed our vision of the world, the dangers inherent in that and the consoling seductions the road offers.
But film offers the extra consolation of motion itself. Petit: "The movie camera and the car came of age in the twentieth century, and if you put the two together you had a perfect fusion for a while. A projection, a hymn to the virtues of the extended shot, suspended space, stillness and motion, false security that now seems less about the road ahead than the spproach of the speeding car in the rearview mirror. A flight from the past, though the question 'what are you driving from?' - whose answer is perfectly obvious - remains unasked in the panic of all the disembodied voices in the radio. We all find ways of losing ourselves."
This is the way the world looks. Or did look like. Petit pays nearly as much attention to the view of the computer screen, a virtual vision that may be replacing the one we see from the car as primary way we view the world. A different type of screen. The click of the mouse replacing the tick-tick-tick of the indicator.
And yet it's the pulse of the road that holds me in Content; the clotted movement of traffic now and again giving way, thankfully, to snatches of effortless forward motion,the road opening before us.
Road movies never need a destination. They're always about the road. About the white lines stretching out like a dotted line to the future, or better yet, an eternal present. No destination. The only purpose of motion being motion itself. Content is nostalgic for that.
Friday 5 March 2010
Road runner
Just a quick heads-up. There's a new film from film-maker, essayist and sometime novelist Chris Petit on More4 next Tuesday (March 9, 10pm). Part of the True Stories series, Chris Petit's Content is something of a road movie - yes, another one - using old footage, new footage and fictional elements. It's followed by his ealier film London Orbital. It's all about motion in Petit's lens. Sight & Sound talks about the new film here.
Can I ask the BBC to look out London Labyrinth, his wonderful essay on the capital city made entirely of found footage. One to return to next week hopefully.
Can I ask the BBC to look out London Labyrinth, his wonderful essay on the capital city made entirely of found footage. One to return to next week hopefully.
Tuesday 16 February 2010
"You used to be my hero, George."
Watching Mona Lisa on TV last night - a film I once utterly loved - what struck me was how much of it was a catalogue of things lost. Lost or gone out of fashion. Greasy cafes, Soho sex shops,Cathy Tyson's career (sadly) and director Neil Jordan's overripe romanticism.
When it came out in 1986 I was totally enraptured by the film, although even then I could see that George, the character played by Bob Hoskins, was far too naive to be in any way believable. And yes I'd cringe at the dwarf dumbshow echoing the main action on Brighton Pier as the film moved towards its climax.
Yet at the time I was obsessed by film noir and this seemed a rare British example, rich with the same bruised pulpy flavours I'd tasted in late night TV outings for old 1940s movies and in the Black Box anthologies of noir writers published in the early eighties by Zomba Books (I still have my copy of the Marc Behm book from the series on my shelf).
It tastes a little gamey now, if truth be told, but I still think Jordan's eye for London is sharp. And I'm still impossibly thrilled by the movie's (almost) final sweeping tracking shot, where the camera rushes up behind, then circles in front of Hoskins's embittered, angry, sorrowful face. It remains one of my favourite sequences in British cinema, a shot that conflates motion with emotion.
Jordan must have liked it too. A few years later in one of his lesser works, The Miracle, another slightly noirish confection of his favourite tropes made in the career lull between the failures of We're No Angels and High Spirits and the success of The Crying Game, he used it quite a few times, to inevitably diminishing effect. (TJ)
When it came out in 1986 I was totally enraptured by the film, although even then I could see that George, the character played by Bob Hoskins, was far too naive to be in any way believable. And yes I'd cringe at the dwarf dumbshow echoing the main action on Brighton Pier as the film moved towards its climax.
Yet at the time I was obsessed by film noir and this seemed a rare British example, rich with the same bruised pulpy flavours I'd tasted in late night TV outings for old 1940s movies and in the Black Box anthologies of noir writers published in the early eighties by Zomba Books (I still have my copy of the Marc Behm book from the series on my shelf).
It tastes a little gamey now, if truth be told, but I still think Jordan's eye for London is sharp. And I'm still impossibly thrilled by the movie's (almost) final sweeping tracking shot, where the camera rushes up behind, then circles in front of Hoskins's embittered, angry, sorrowful face. It remains one of my favourite sequences in British cinema, a shot that conflates motion with emotion.
Jordan must have liked it too. A few years later in one of his lesser works, The Miracle, another slightly noirish confection of his favourite tropes made in the career lull between the failures of We're No Angels and High Spirits and the success of The Crying Game, he used it quite a few times, to inevitably diminishing effect. (TJ)
Saturday 6 February 2010
Concrete visions
I was reading an article in The Independent this morning about the crumbling future of Britain's post-war concrete buildings. It reported on the Culture Minister Margaret Hodge's decision not to list the Birmingham Central Library, which dates from 1974. The same article also mentioned that Preston Bus Station has also been refused a listing by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.
In all the arguments that swirl around the brutalist architecture of the postwar era I'm much more interested in form rather than function. Maybe because I don't have to live in Robin Hood Gardens, some might say. But even so I do think there is something beautiful about many of these buildings. Actually, I'm not sure beautiful is the right word on reflection. Perhaps extraordinary works better. Last year I visited Preston and the bus station is the thing that has stayed in my memory if only for the ambition and excessiveness of architect Keith Ingham's design. "The station is a thing of swoops and curves," according to architectural critic Jonathan Glancey, who has described the building as "cinematic, sculptural, heroic" and a "20th-century baroque cathedral".
It is architecture as a Kubrick film set, Glancey suggests and there is certainly something clean-lined,overpowering and monumental about it, a structure that you could imagine Stanley might have responded to.
Coincidentally, yesterday I got a chance to have a very quick look around the retrospective exhibition of Toby Paterson's work in the Fruitmarket Gallery in Edinburgh.
Paterson has spent the best part of a decade using his art to explore and rediscover the romantic intentions of postwar architects. His paintings recreate brutalist architecture from around Europe, juxtaposing and dissecting details and, through colour and design,I don't think it's not too much to say, beautifying the buildings.
What's interesting about the exhibition can be found in the downstairs section (the upstairs "ethereal" section is too empty for my tastes). Down here, painting and plan and model are piled on top of each other in a dense concatenation that simulates the urban cityscape. Better still, Paterson's paintings on perspex allow one to see other work through the one that is immediately in front of you, to catch it from oblique angles and corners.
Wandering around I found myself recalling walking down the well-heeled spruceness of Grey Street in Newcastle last year with the bulk of the Trinity Square Car Park (familiar to film fans for its appearance in Get Carter) floating ahead of my vision on the horizon. And of sitting in the cafe of the LRB bookshop in London earlier this week, supping soup while looking out at the Post Office Tower perfectly framed by two Bloomsbury streets in my eyeline.
I've always found Paterson's art beautiful in its clinical precision, but I would concede that seen individually they could appear academic. The Fruitmarket show removes that possibility. Here they aspire to urban complexity.
Of course in their romantic perfectionism, Paterson's paintings and models are also unreal. The Fruitmarket's accumulation of Paterson patterns is a wonky simulation of the urban landscape because they're too perfect, too pretty.
The fact is that even if I do want to argue that the Preston Bus Station has a kind of beauty to it, it would be misleading not to acknowledge that it's a shop-soiled beauty at best, a rundown, weather-beaten, rain-dirty beauty.
Now and again that grimy, gritty, bulky beauty is captured on the big and small screen. One of my guilty pleasures on TV last year was Channel 4's riff on "what if Skins was crossed with superheroes" drama Misfits. One of its many cheap pleasures was the choice of location - on and around the modern architecture to be found near Southmere Lake in Thamsemead, south-east London. The programme makers don't make any statements abut the architecture. It would appear to be just something that caught their eye and they liked the effect of it in front of the lens. It simply looked interesting.
You can see the same kind of approach in the late Anthony Minghella's film Breaking and Entering when the director turned his camera on the 1968 estate Rowley Way, a kind of recognition of the novelty of this urban space when it's removed from the social and poltical context in which it exists in reality. (Minghella might have argued that he wasn't blind to the politics. After all, he places the film's Bosnian immigrants in Rowley Way,an acknowledgment that modern architecture has become - in tabloid terms at least - home to the low paid and unpaid. Yet the film's gaze rather glides above that subtext and just enjoys the patters it sees.)
I'm always surprised by how much location filming actually happens in British cinema. Even a cursory glance disproves the notion that postwar Brit movies play out in the drawing room In recent movies I've caught glimpses of such postwar British thrillers as The Blue Lamp and League of Gentlemen and been pleasantly surprised by how much of these films happen on the British street.
At the same time, though, I'm struggling to think of a British film that uses architecture as an organising principle. I can think of a couple of film-makers - Nic Roeg in Don't Look Now,a film as twisted and twisting as the Venice streets it's filmed on. And John Boorman's vision of Los Angeles in Point Blank. But both men are looking at foreign cities not British ones, so they don't count.
And it's interesting to compare the way Minghella uses Rowley Way, for example, with the way Matteo Garone uses Napolitan locations in his Italian mafia film Gomorrah, in which the city's modern architecture is revealed as one giant trap (not a very kind vision of brutalist buildings, but as a visual metaphor it works).
I'm half-bluffing here, but I wonder if there isn't some kind of symmetry between modernist architecture and modernist cinema. They seem conjoined. Think of the way Antonioni used architecture to frame his characters. Perhaps it says something about our cinema and our cities that the connection isn't as obvious on this side of the channel.
Or maybe I'm just missing the obvious example. There was one film that used the same locations as Misfits and possibly - I have never actually seen it - in a more forensic manner. Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. (TJ)
In all the arguments that swirl around the brutalist architecture of the postwar era I'm much more interested in form rather than function. Maybe because I don't have to live in Robin Hood Gardens, some might say. But even so I do think there is something beautiful about many of these buildings. Actually, I'm not sure beautiful is the right word on reflection. Perhaps extraordinary works better. Last year I visited Preston and the bus station is the thing that has stayed in my memory if only for the ambition and excessiveness of architect Keith Ingham's design. "The station is a thing of swoops and curves," according to architectural critic Jonathan Glancey, who has described the building as "cinematic, sculptural, heroic" and a "20th-century baroque cathedral".
It is architecture as a Kubrick film set, Glancey suggests and there is certainly something clean-lined,overpowering and monumental about it, a structure that you could imagine Stanley might have responded to.
Coincidentally, yesterday I got a chance to have a very quick look around the retrospective exhibition of Toby Paterson's work in the Fruitmarket Gallery in Edinburgh.
Paterson has spent the best part of a decade using his art to explore and rediscover the romantic intentions of postwar architects. His paintings recreate brutalist architecture from around Europe, juxtaposing and dissecting details and, through colour and design,I don't think it's not too much to say, beautifying the buildings.
What's interesting about the exhibition can be found in the downstairs section (the upstairs "ethereal" section is too empty for my tastes). Down here, painting and plan and model are piled on top of each other in a dense concatenation that simulates the urban cityscape. Better still, Paterson's paintings on perspex allow one to see other work through the one that is immediately in front of you, to catch it from oblique angles and corners.
Wandering around I found myself recalling walking down the well-heeled spruceness of Grey Street in Newcastle last year with the bulk of the Trinity Square Car Park (familiar to film fans for its appearance in Get Carter) floating ahead of my vision on the horizon. And of sitting in the cafe of the LRB bookshop in London earlier this week, supping soup while looking out at the Post Office Tower perfectly framed by two Bloomsbury streets in my eyeline.
I've always found Paterson's art beautiful in its clinical precision, but I would concede that seen individually they could appear academic. The Fruitmarket show removes that possibility. Here they aspire to urban complexity.
Of course in their romantic perfectionism, Paterson's paintings and models are also unreal. The Fruitmarket's accumulation of Paterson patterns is a wonky simulation of the urban landscape because they're too perfect, too pretty.
The fact is that even if I do want to argue that the Preston Bus Station has a kind of beauty to it, it would be misleading not to acknowledge that it's a shop-soiled beauty at best, a rundown, weather-beaten, rain-dirty beauty.
Now and again that grimy, gritty, bulky beauty is captured on the big and small screen. One of my guilty pleasures on TV last year was Channel 4's riff on "what if Skins was crossed with superheroes" drama Misfits. One of its many cheap pleasures was the choice of location - on and around the modern architecture to be found near Southmere Lake in Thamsemead, south-east London. The programme makers don't make any statements abut the architecture. It would appear to be just something that caught their eye and they liked the effect of it in front of the lens. It simply looked interesting.
You can see the same kind of approach in the late Anthony Minghella's film Breaking and Entering when the director turned his camera on the 1968 estate Rowley Way, a kind of recognition of the novelty of this urban space when it's removed from the social and poltical context in which it exists in reality. (Minghella might have argued that he wasn't blind to the politics. After all, he places the film's Bosnian immigrants in Rowley Way,an acknowledgment that modern architecture has become - in tabloid terms at least - home to the low paid and unpaid. Yet the film's gaze rather glides above that subtext and just enjoys the patters it sees.)
I'm always surprised by how much location filming actually happens in British cinema. Even a cursory glance disproves the notion that postwar Brit movies play out in the drawing room In recent movies I've caught glimpses of such postwar British thrillers as The Blue Lamp and League of Gentlemen and been pleasantly surprised by how much of these films happen on the British street.
At the same time, though, I'm struggling to think of a British film that uses architecture as an organising principle. I can think of a couple of film-makers - Nic Roeg in Don't Look Now,a film as twisted and twisting as the Venice streets it's filmed on. And John Boorman's vision of Los Angeles in Point Blank. But both men are looking at foreign cities not British ones, so they don't count.
And it's interesting to compare the way Minghella uses Rowley Way, for example, with the way Matteo Garone uses Napolitan locations in his Italian mafia film Gomorrah, in which the city's modern architecture is revealed as one giant trap (not a very kind vision of brutalist buildings, but as a visual metaphor it works).
I'm half-bluffing here, but I wonder if there isn't some kind of symmetry between modernist architecture and modernist cinema. They seem conjoined. Think of the way Antonioni used architecture to frame his characters. Perhaps it says something about our cinema and our cities that the connection isn't as obvious on this side of the channel.
Or maybe I'm just missing the obvious example. There was one film that used the same locations as Misfits and possibly - I have never actually seen it - in a more forensic manner. Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. (TJ)
Thursday 21 January 2010
London, the sequel
Just a heads up. James Bridle has started an intriguing - and rather daunting - project, to catalogue all the shots in Patrick Keiller's 1994film London and, then going even further, to actively reshoot every shot of the original to give us a 2010 version.
Keiller's film is certainly worth such detailed attention.
Keiller's film is certainly worth such detailed attention.
Saturday 16 January 2010
The Art of Crime
Intriguing snippet in the Guardian yesterday by Adam Dawtrey about British screenwriters Louis Mellis and David Scinto. Mellis and Scinto wrote Gangster No 1, Sexy Beast and Ray Winstone's new film 44 Inch Chest.
The British - or in this case -London crime thriller is so overdone these days (well, for about a decade now) that I've rather ignored 44 Inch Chest. And I'd hated Gangster No 1 - a film that for all its slick sheen was as feral and ugly as Paul Bettany's lead character beneath his bespoke suit, although it did bring to mind something Brian De Palma once said about the British crime film, that they seemed to come straight from the schoolyard. I always assumed he meant in the way the arguments that escalate to horrific violence in so many of these movies are at heart ridiculous and infantile.
Sexy Beast, though, is one of the few British thrillers of the last couple of decades that does merit any attention. Not because of Ben Kingsley's over-the-top, over-praised, very actorly vision of psychosis (Ian McShane says much less but is much more convincing in his menace), but because of Winstone's astonishingly quiet performance at its heart as a gangster who's gone to Spain and softened, and for what I had always assumed was director Jonathan Glazer's visual nods to magic realism.
Maybe that's unfair on Mellis and Scinto. It seems they found inspiration for all three films in fine art. According to Mellis, "Gangster No 1 was originally influenced by Bacon, Sexy Beast was Hockney, 44 Inch Chest ws Magritte."
That's almost enough to make me want to see 44 Inch Chest just to see if it lives up to such a bid for high-art association.
The British - or in this case -London crime thriller is so overdone these days (well, for about a decade now) that I've rather ignored 44 Inch Chest. And I'd hated Gangster No 1 - a film that for all its slick sheen was as feral and ugly as Paul Bettany's lead character beneath his bespoke suit, although it did bring to mind something Brian De Palma once said about the British crime film, that they seemed to come straight from the schoolyard. I always assumed he meant in the way the arguments that escalate to horrific violence in so many of these movies are at heart ridiculous and infantile.
Sexy Beast, though, is one of the few British thrillers of the last couple of decades that does merit any attention. Not because of Ben Kingsley's over-the-top, over-praised, very actorly vision of psychosis (Ian McShane says much less but is much more convincing in his menace), but because of Winstone's astonishingly quiet performance at its heart as a gangster who's gone to Spain and softened, and for what I had always assumed was director Jonathan Glazer's visual nods to magic realism.
Maybe that's unfair on Mellis and Scinto. It seems they found inspiration for all three films in fine art. According to Mellis, "Gangster No 1 was originally influenced by Bacon, Sexy Beast was Hockney, 44 Inch Chest ws Magritte."
That's almost enough to make me want to see 44 Inch Chest just to see if it lives up to such a bid for high-art association.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)