41
darkness wrote:I note maha stuck his name in nice big letters
But of course! :) That link will only be up for a few days, btw.

more klimov's film (SXSW) [split from DD/DTS]

42
Yeah, it's doing to have to go to 16bit eventually for standard dvd. That's probably why they did it. Of course, you could always release it on blu-ray with DTS-HD 7.1. :)

I take it this means a dvd release is in the works? For R2 only? Since I didn't make it down to SXSW I'll probably have to catch your new opus on dvd, unless there's a US release in the works that you haven't filled us in on.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

43
nah, US release is fucked for the moment... and I don't think many people even knew it was on at SXSW (I beggar to think what most Americans would make of it in the current climate)... But it's coming out in, like, 20 countries outside nazi-land so just keep an eye out. French/Belgian/Swiss theatrical release is April 26th and that is all I know.

44
Nazi-land? How heartwarming. :P
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

45
You probalby would have done better with a NA premiere in some place like L.A. or N.Y. (or better yet, Canada). I told you Texas was a bad move. Here's a sample review for you:
SXSW Review: The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael
Mar 13th 2006 by Karina Longworth

The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael is absolutely horrifying. Loaded with easy cynicism and even easier sadism, it's a beautifully orchestrated, ideological disaster that shoots for social commentary but settles for lowest-blow shock. From what I can tell, the film premiered at Cannes in 2005 and has been making the rounds of European film festivals ever since – making its inclusion in the Narrative Competition here somewhat curious. 25-year-old first-time writer-director Thomas Clay was scheduled to make an appearance at last night's Austin premiere, but failed to show – a bizarre move for a filmmaker seemingly so desperate to confront is audience.

Beautifully and expensively shot in a sleepy, English sea-side town, Clay spends the first half of the picture tracking his loosely connected cast of characters with admirable deliberateness. We meet Jonathan (Michael Howe) and Monica (Miranda Wilson) an English Emeril and his spoiled American wife; Joe, a juvenile delinquent who's quickly following in the illustrious footsteps of his cousin Larry, who has recently be released from prison; Ben (Charles Mnene), Joe's good-natured pal; and finally, the titular Young Mr. Carmichael (Daniel Spencer). Robert is, by all appearances, a shy, teenage cello virtuoso ... who skips school to get high with Joe and Larry and goes home to jack off to the Marquis de Sade. As Robert slips deeper into Joe and Larry's quasi gang, he goes from passively reclining in a twin stupor of MDMA and cable news while his friends off-screen gang rape a classmate, to actively ratcheting an already horrific situation to unimaginably brutal heights. Kids grow up so fast these days.

Robert's eventual turn towards barbarous sadism shouldn't be surprising, given the unsubtle hint bombs that Clay drops throughout, but it is – not because it's so out of character, but because Robert's actions go way beyond even horror movie logic and veer towards the realm of the absurd. Speaking of bombs: the proceedings take place in the shadow of ever-present TV news reports on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and a jump cut to archival war footage gives an all-too-brief respite from the film's most intense piece of violence. The end result is something like A Clockwork Orange redone in the key of kitchen sink, and what is most shocking about the hybrid is that Clay manages to get through 90 minutes on this model without saying anything meaningful about class.

Though the war analogies produced mostly giggles at the screening I saw, and the film's violent set pieces come off as contrived at best, there's no doubt that Clay has made a film that's impossible to shake. Its two setpiece scenes are undeniably well-choreographed, with a long, slow, circular pan of a drug den coming off as particularly impressive. And, try as I might, I can't get the image of Robert's final "ecstasy" out of my head, and that's some kind of victory. But as a filmmaker in search of ideological clarity, Clay clearly has a long way to go.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

46
That's a surprisingly more upbeat review than I would've expected here in the States... :twisted:
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

47
O-dot wrote:That's a surprisingly more upbeat review than I would've expected here in the States... :twisted:

I picked the most positive of the ones I found. I didn't want to pick on klimov too much here. :mrgreen:
Just cut them up like regular chickens

48
"ideological disaster", pft, brainwashed American. What other reviews are you talking about? I've only found one imdb review from SXSW and that's it.

49
Ah, a few more idiots...

e-film critic: "Will and I both hated this movie, and we raged about our hatred for it as we walked back to Congress Avenue " - yeah, they're pissed because we wouldn't send them an advance screener. it's not our job to send screeners to internet film critics. "It seems to be going in no particular direction, with no point whatsoever"... you can imagine this popcorn-munching idiot saying the same thing about Antonioni.

And then some moron from "IFC Blog" whatever the hell that is. Again, I like the complete failure to even register the formal aspects of the film. It's strange, but after a couple of days in DC I was kinda glad that Sundance didn't take the movie... the right-wing indoctrination is so pervasive in every aspect of your lives, not just the media but the way people relate to each other day to day... humhumhum The Rite of Spring humhumhum...

Anything else I missed?

Actually, there's this from salon.com:
"Notice that I haven't mentioned any narrative feature films yet. I missed some of those too -- I've heard modest buzz here about the New Hampshire-made indie comedy "Live Free or Die" and a British drugs-'n'-violence film called "The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael".

So perhaps this internet crap isn't the whole story.

At which point, I shall amuse you with a recent interview by Turkey's biggest film critic (about to be published) in which I somehow manage to mention Mr. David Lynch!:

* "The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael" can be seen as a series of
long takes and this evokes the feeling of an episodic dramatic
structure. In addition to that, there is both diagetic and non-diagetic
news footage to create an alienation effect for the audience,
especially during the rape sequence, besides they also allow a
political reading of the film. According to all that, do you think that
"The Great Ecstasty..." is an essay-film?


I don't know if I would use that label. Certainly, I want the audience
to look beyond the 'story', to be aware of the artifice and understand
the form of the film. You refer to newsreel footage during the final
scene - this is perhaps the most blunt example of an alienation effect
in the film. There is also the distant camera, the clash of performance
methods, the startling bursts of music.

*Yorgos Arvanitis is very familiar with long takes and minimal
mise-en-scene, since he has worked with directors like Catherine
Breillat or Theo Angelopoulos before and he has accomplished a great
camera work in C.S. Leigh's "Process" as well. Were you influenced by
the films of these directors and did you especially want to work with
Arvanitis?


Yorgos is one of the great cinematographers and I was pleased and
honoured when he agreed to work on the movie. There is an amazing
subtlety and depth to his lighting, that can only really be appreciated
on the big screen, and that forms a continuity throughout his work. In
other respects, he is there to facilitate the ideas of the director and
knows exactly how to deal with anything you throw his way. In regards
to shot construction, I am somewhat inspired by Angelopoulos, though
moreso by Antonioni and Tarkovsky, for whom the sequence shot is less
a method to be followed than a tool to employ on choice occasions.

*The scene which takes place at the home of the drug dealer is for me
one of the most exquisite moments (actually, it almost goes on for 8
minutes, but still) in recent cinema. Especially after the zoom out and
when the camera stands still, we feel like as if we are watching
something on a theater stage... Besides with the television screen and
the door at the back you create frames within frames. Apart from all
the meanings one can associate with that scene, it has a great feeling
of cinema and mastery. How long did you work on that scene or how many
retakes were necessary? And also, with what type of camera were you
working?


I like there to be one key scene in a movie that, in retrospect,
encapsulates everything that film was about. This scene can come at any
point during the movie, what David Lynch calls the 'eye of the duck'
scene - Ben's place in Blue Velvet, Andrei carrying the candle across
the spa in Nostalghia, etc. I knew early on that this would be the blue
room scene in 'Carmichael'. This is the scene where it all comes
together - the violent capacity of the boys, the malign influences that
are driving them, the indifference of their elders. Therefore,
stylistically, I also wanted this scene to stand out. There are two
circular tracking shots which mark the middle and end of the film, both
leading towards acts of violence, and this is the first of the two.
However this shot goes further, the wall flies out mid-take and we get
the 'theatre-stage' composition that you are referring to. It was the
longest and most complex shot in the film, requiring one day of
rehearsal, one day of camera rehearsal and a final day to get it in the
can. Nothing in the shot was unplanned and the timing was absolutely
crucial - ensuring that the camera moved at just the right speed and
that each dialogue exchange seemed natural and yet lasted for the right
length of time. There were thirty or so cues that, if you listen to the
production sound, you can hear I was calling out these cues to trigger
various movements and actions. It took us a number of takes to get
it right and we would call a take off if something went awry. We were
using an old 35mm Moviecam on a dolly, which meant that the frame rate
of the TV screen had to be physically synced by a BNC cable which came
out of the tv, under the floor and was then fed to the camera over the
wall off the set, and this led to some extra complications. We ended up
with two complete takes, the second of which you see in the film. The
final soundmix for this scene was also the most complicated, with up to
three or four layers of dialogue/lyrics existing together at the same
moment in time.

*In many reviews on "The Great Ecstasy...", "A Clockwork Orange" and
"Elephant" are mentioned. Do you see any similarities between these
films and yours?


I'm not very keen on Elephant, the camerawork is quite beautiful but it
is surprisingly vapid in other ways. Last Days was a far more cohesive
and masterful film from Van Sant in my view... A Clockwork Orange often
comes up in reference to Carmichael, usually in a derogatory sense.
There is one small, conscious reference - the way the boys creep
towards the Abbott's house just before we dissolve into the bedroom.
And, of course, there are some surface similarities of subject matter.
I'm also an unashamed Kubrick admirer, and perhaps that comes out in
some of the camera movements and framing. However, I believe the themes
of the two films are different, the intent is different... Ultimately,
it is better to try and relate to a film on its own terms.

*During the rape scene you use movie clips from war and this gives a
broader meaning to the unnecessary and brutal violent act done by the
boys. Was this your intension, to show war as an unnecessary and
inhumanly brutal act of violence?


I wish my film to reflect the violence which underpins and reinforces
our society. We like to hide inside a bubble of civility and yet, in
truth, we cannot escape this omnipresent violence. In another time and
place, a boy of Robert's age could murder on a daily basis without
hesitation - many of the Khmer Rouge were below the age of 16, for
example. Instead, in England in the 21st century, a boy like Robert
will grow up and pay his taxes and that money will be used to murder
and torture instead. Then there is the unseen violence of our day to
day relations, the brutality of the capitalist ethic which permeates
our lives. In my film, I wish to bring that violence a step closer to
home, to make it more tangiable.

*Robert Carmichael is an interesting character himself and actually he
puts all the socio-political meaning one may associate to the film, in
question. For example, is it about hooliganism? No, because Robert is a
relatively intellectual guy, at least he masturbates to Sade. Is it
about class differences? No, because, even though his closest friends
might be from the working class Robert is coming from a middleclass
family. So, what does Robert represent for you? Or, is the film beyond
all that about a bleak and nihilist view of the world, which is filled
with racism, sexism and violence?


I do not believe it is nihilistic to present a picture of the world
without the usual moral caveats and contradictions. Indeed, I believe
this is my responsibility as an artist. Essentially, circumstances
conspire to place Robert in a situation where there is really no doubt
as to how he will act. His psychological conditioning, his alienation,
sexual frustration, the influence of his peers, the indifference of the
community, the hypocrisy of his leaders, his impressionable age, the
influence of drugs... His intellect and his middle-class upbringing
mean nothing in these circumstances, the animal inside takes over and
he commits an act that we naturally find abhorent. Yet, in truth, this
is not an act against society but an inevitable by-product of that
society.

*"The Great Ecstasy..." created some fuss in Cannes last year and
everybody was talking about the explicit sex and being controversial.
But there is hardly any graphic nudity or violence in the film. Were
the people disturbed because of the style or maybe because of the
themes they were confronted with? What is your opinion on this?


I do not believe we are shocked by images anymore. We are bombarded
with images of every conceivable act of depravity and violence, for
real, not staged theatrically as in my film. So yes, I believe it is
the implications of the staged violence in 'Carmichael' that some
people find unsettling. They do not like to have their complacent
worldview challenged. Also, I'm sad to say it, but the majority of
people do not understand the medium of cinema anymore. Most modern
cinema - multiplex, arthouse or otherwise - bows down unthinkingly to
this Hollywood version of the Eisensteinian method and if you try and
do something different people tune out. So the combination of these two
problems has made for a rocky reception to my film which, frankly, I
expected. I couldn't care less, as long as I am still able to work.

*In an early scene in the film, the teacher is talking abut the truth
and how it is depicted in the films or in the media. Since you have
used a lot of news footage in the film, the criticism on the popular
media of today is obvious. But also, your stylistic choices for the
film are very close to the "cinéma vérité". Long takes, minumum cut,
unknown actors, etc. I couldn't help but think, if this was a joke on
the audience, or if you were saying to us in an "in your face" way,
that we are all manipulated by any film or any image, no matter how
hard it tries to be as "real" as possible. What is your opinion on this
whole thing? Can a film really be realistic or close to the truth?


I believe what the teacher says is true, if a touch obvious - but then
he aiming at a class at 15 year olds. I find the scene humourous, but
it is also there to flag up the intentions of the film as in, "hey, pay
attention, we're not just making another Ken Loach social drama here".
I do not believing you can achieve realism in cinema and I would never
attempt to do so. Instead, I am taking some of the conventions of
British 'realist' cinema and placing those in direct opposition to the
artificiality of the style, form and narrative. Incidentally, there is
quite a bit of humour in the film that people sometimes fail to notice.

*"The Great Ecstasy..." is featured in a programme titled "Masters of
the Future" on the 25. Istanbul International Film Festival. How do you
feel about that, about being hailed as a promising new director and
about all the positive reaction for your first film?


I'm always very pleased when a festival or distributor choses to take
on my film. This is a film that was produced entirely independently,
outside the filmmaking mechanisms of the UK, so it was a leap of faith
in many ways and I have been extremely lucky to find an audience.

---

50
klimov wrote:In other respects, he is there to facilitate the ideas of the director and
knows exactly how to deal with anything you throw his way.
Correct me if I'm thinking of someone else, but didn't you once say it was silly for a director to allow someone else to determine the look of his film? :wink:
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

51
where did I say anything about letting someone else determine the look of the film? I determined the look of the film. 'Facilitate' as in facilitate as a technician - set the correct the f-stop, turn on the camera and make sure the dolly grip doesn't fuck up.

52
Tom, some guy wrote this on the IMDB referring to you after a screening of your film at the Edinburgh film fest:

"Wanting to try and give him the benefit of any lingering doubt, I spoke to him for a few minutes after the screening, but I found him as distasteful as his movie and soon moved to the bar to wash my mouth out with something more substantial. There are many truths. One aspect of art is to educate, another to entertain, another to inspire. I had asked him if he had any social or political agenda and he mentions Ken Loach (one of the many great names he takes in vain) without going so far as to admit any agenda himself. He then falls back on his mantra about his job being to tell the truth."

Heh. Funny thing is, he can't even get your name right, you're called Clay Hugh apparently.
Image

53
set the correct the f-stop, turn on the camera and make sure the dolly grip doesn't fuck up.
All sounds like pretty rudimentary stuff for someone like Arvanitis. Are you sure you made sufficient use of his talents? :twisted:
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

54
I found him as distasteful as his movie and soon moved to the bar to wash my mouth out with something more substantial
He just didn't get to know the real Clay Hugh. :twisted:
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.

55
Yes, I had the misfortune to meet this person. A trainspotter with Empire-reader criticisms. Check out his reference to the 'carefully montaged', um, sequence shot in the middle of the film. You might also enjoy some of his (many) other reviews... He accused me of 'promoting fear' and then walked away in disgust when I suggested that Ken Loach pushes an easy left wing agenda and fails artistically.

56
okay, let's set this straight, as it is something that arises not infrequently.

The film was scrupulously planned by myself in its entirety so that every shot serves a function within a wider framework. The old tale about The General applies here: remove one shot and it all falls down. Think of it as a composition and each shot as a phrase or, sometimes, a theme within that composition. There is an overall structure to the piece which is defined by the repetition of certain camera positions and movements. You could map out the shots on a piece of paper using colour and symbols and you would see a distinct pattern and structure. Furthermore, I have tried to achieve a unison of form and narrative, with the shot selections having thematic implications as well as fitting within the aforementioned framework. Note that I say thematic, not dramatic. I never cut to underline a line of dialogue or make the audience feel a particular emotion. For example, when close-ups are used, it is because the characters are contemplating sexual activity; the only time I use POVs are to reflect Robert Carmichael's detatchment; a 360 camera move is used to denote an imminent outbreak of violence, etc.

I have tried to keep the number of shots down, to keep it is as minimal as possible, so as to retain control of the overall composition without getting lost in the detail (as an inexperienced conductor is apt to do). Taking the lead from Mizoguchi, I use a single shot for a scene wherever possible. By contrast, Antonioni is able to use a far more shots and angles and yet he still maintains an overall formal coherence - however, if you look at Antonioni's earlier work, you will find he is using longer takes and a simpler structure for what I believe are the same reasons as my own.

Given the paramount importance, then, of these formal concerns it follows that I would spend a great deal of time on the framing and choreography. I could easily spend 30 minutes making tiny adjustments to the position of the extras in the background of a shot, for example. This is my perogative. Similarly, I am not concerned with drawing conventionally dramatic performances from actors. Each actor was cast to provide a different texture. Carmichael himself, for example, is instructed to give a very flat performance throughout, almost a non-performance, his lines and movements were repeated over and over, almost Bressonian. But then you have the chef and his wife who are soap opera actors - and I wanted them to bring that over-emphatic quality to their roles. These clashes highlight the artifice of the construction as well as providing 'colour'.

Unfortunately, a casual viewer is apt to misunderstand or just plain miss many of these techniques if they come to the film with the assumption that there is no method behind the work. Fact is, you'll get nothing from the film if you don't make the effort, but this is true of the vast majority of serious cinema.

So anyway, where Yorgos made his major contribution was in the lighting. This is a highly technical area of cinema where I admittedly have a lesser degree of intuitive skill, a lot less experience, and, following visits to the locations and lengthy discussions of mood, intention, narrative requirements, etc, I was happy to let Yorgos go ahead and create his own lighting framework. Where he also made a significant contribution was in overcoming technical difficulties to realising certain shots. For example, I knew exactly where I wanted the camera to go in the blue room scene, but I didn't have a firm idea on how to get it there. Initially, we were talking about having the camera on tracks outside the set, with all four walls flying out, or the camera on a crane, lifted over the walls of the set and operated remotely, but in the end we settled on the simpler option of flattening out the floor and having the dolly on wheels within the set, the size of the set everso-slightly expanded to make room for the dolly; we move a couch in and out of position during the take, one wall flies out half way through and then a long extended platform leads out from the set so that the dolly can seemingly travel out through this invisible wall. Another example: the shot of the three boys approaching the chef's house, which looms above them on a hill in the distance. The house where we shot the exteriors was actually placed in this manner, at the top of a hill overlooking a valley, and my concept was to film the boys walking down into the valley and then pan up to show the house. Of course, Yorgos points out that it is going to take a million watts of power and more than a few cranes to light the house from that distance and suggests, instead, the idea of a small model behind the camera reflected in a mirror. In this way, the same movement and composition is acheived, but in a different manner. For all of this I am profoundly grateful and, alongside myself and my co-writer, he is undoubtably one of the three major creative contributors to the film.

60
It shows you that no matter how honky dory your life may be right now, there’s something coming down the road with every intent to tear all that happiness apart. And there’s nothing we can do about that. “Robert Carmichael” isn’t entertainment, it’s a warning.
as i've said many times, i can't wait to see this fucking thing. now share, you jew! ;)