Can't speak about Griffith, but I'll agree on Polanski on the basis of him being kind of an awful person. However, that said, he's made some of my favorite films of all time, including the underrated Fearless Vampire Killers. So... I'm not sure where I actually stand there.
to clarify when i say excise from the film canon i don't mean make his
films not exist anymore i mean have them not be held up as exemplars and
therefore being required viewing
Then I can agree on Polanski and will have to respectfully bow out on Griffith. I haven't seen many of his films, but my understanding is that without him, American film would be something very different today.
With that argument, you might as well say there shouldn't be a film canon, which is a point that is definitely arguable. You might also argue that a study of film history isn't really necessary -- for the individual, that can certainly be true. For a group learning environment like a class, film history can invaluable. I've learned as much about editing from watching older cinema as I have modern cinema and I'm a better vidder for having a lot of experience with classics.
D.W. Griffith made over 500 films, including several dozen features, only one of which was Birth of a Nation. I won't argue against Birth of a Nation being struck from the canon, but I remember learning quite a lot of film history from watching A Corner in Wheat.
In any case, you're kind of a genius. I suspect you only need half of what would be the usual amount of class-mandated film history (possibly only a third) to stitch together the in-between pieces.
Can't go there. I believe that Griffith was a child of his (shitty, racist, misogynistic) time, but without him, there'd be no western film history (IMO, a taking-off point because as social commentary, it couldn't get much worse). Polanski disturbs me no end, but what disturbs me more than Polanski himself is the willingness of sycophants to stand in line to work with him. I try very hard to separate the artist from the work, but I also believe that every artist (good or evil) imbues all of his work with himself, so there's that.
Maybe Griffith could be cut down to relevant technique example clips? I'm not sure sitting through the whole *^&%% damn thing is really necessary to get the idea. (Hi! Would-be film autodidact who went NOPE NOPE NOPE after fifteen minutes of Griffith, and took a youtube clip tour instead.)
Disagree regarding Griffith, specifically because of Birth of a Nation, which opened my eyes A WHOLE LOT about race relations in the US. Things that I think I knew subconsciously became crystal clear after watching it exactly one time (pretty sure once was enough.)
It was a very powerful experience for me, and I am unquestionably better off for having seen it.
It is SO AWFUL, my God.
And, goddammit, it was a remarkable technical and artistic achievement for the time. That miserable fucker.
On the other hand, I'd be perfectly happy excising all evidence that Polanski himself exists.
Can't agree with you there. Racism is shit, but cultural censorship is no strawberry cake either. As soon as people start assigning value to works strictly according to their ideological content or their makers' morals, real culture goes down the drain. We've seen this happen in Soviet Russia. Believe me, you don't want to go that way.
What should be done is, of course, putting Polanski in prison. Prison's been bitterly weeping for him many years now, it's time he gets there.
The concept of the "film canon" already has value assigned. Films taught in film classes have an importance attached because they're taught. I am saying that we do not need to exalt those two filmmakers in that way and I don't think we should. I'm not talking about wiping them out of existence, I'm talking about saying let's not treat them like they're more important than, I don't know, Miss Congenialty or Ocean's 11 or any other movie that's "just" a movie. No special treatment, no holding them up as "you MUST see this, it's required to pass this class and learn about film".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Yes
no subject
no subject
i've found his personal shit shows up in his work in ways that make me pretty uncomfortable so
no subject
no subject
to clarify when i say excise from the film canon i don't mean make his films not exist anymore i mean have them not be held up as exemplars and therefore being required viewing
no subject
no subject
I have not and will not ever watch Birth of a Nation and yet somehow I have managed to grasp modern film editing?
no subject
D.W. Griffith made over 500 films, including several dozen features, only one of which was Birth of a Nation. I won't argue against Birth of a Nation being struck from the canon, but I remember learning quite a lot of film history from watching A Corner in Wheat.
In any case, you're kind of a genius. I suspect you only need half of what would be the usual amount of class-mandated film history (possibly only a third) to stitch together the in-between pieces.
no subject
Aye.
no subject
originated a lot of modern chase editing technique in the propagation of as much racism as he could pump into his films
no subject
no subject
Ugghhhh yeah dude does not need to be inflicted on students
no subject
no subject
POINTS TO THE LADY
no subject
no subject
no subject
*waves* hi!
no subject
no subject
It was a very powerful experience for me, and I am unquestionably better off for having seen it.
It is SO AWFUL, my God.
And, goddammit, it was a remarkable technical and artistic achievement for the time. That miserable fucker.
On the other hand, I'd be perfectly happy excising all evidence that Polanski himself exists.
no subject
What should be done is, of course, putting Polanski in prison. Prison's been bitterly weeping for him many years now, it's time he gets there.
no subject
The concept of the "film canon" already has value assigned. Films taught in film classes have an importance attached because they're taught. I am saying that we do not need to exalt those two filmmakers in that way and I don't think we should. I'm not talking about wiping them out of existence, I'm talking about saying let's not treat them like they're more important than, I don't know, Miss Congenialty or Ocean's 11 or any other movie that's "just" a movie. No special treatment, no holding them up as "you MUST see this, it's required to pass this class and learn about film".