>Most if not all artists have intentions. In a sense, Bordwell,
>Thompson, and their ilk reverse-engineer. I'm glad that
>they're not the only ones, but they are the most prominent
>and, IMO, the most readable and...best. While none of their
>books are manuals, they kind of are in that they can be,
>because, like you said, they're exceptionally helpful for the
>writer and director.

Yeah, not manuals. But the sort of film studies writing that has immense practical benefits.

Also, meant to write "unlike MANY film academics" rather than just sound like I was shitting on film studies as a whole.


>That's true. But, at the same time, critics of Bordwell and
>Thompson are wrong when they say cultural/social/political
>analysis is totally abandoned. Bordwell's monographs on Ozu,
>Dreyer, and Eisenstein (especially the Ozu one), place the
>artworks in cultural/social/politicial/historical context.

Indeed. I should say the emphasis is more towards technique. They don't treat the works in a cultural vacuum by any means.


>Have you read Thompson's essay on Late Spring in "Breaking the
>Glass Armor"? She wrote about how the depiction in the film is
>radical in Japanese cultural terms. Great stuff.

No. I should check it out.

>Co-sign. I wish there were more director monographs like it.
>Overwhelmingly thorough (in a great way). I hope he writes a
>Hou or Kiarostami monograph someday.

I don't know there's any other single-director work that quite compares.

--------

hell-below.com