Sunday, April 12, 2009
Back to school
I think I first saw 'The Battleship Potemkin' at school, at a sort of informal film club run by an enthusiastic teacher, which would be some 45 years ago. Second viewing a week or so ago. Interesting watch, although not altogether clear what it means to say that it is the greatest film of all time, which seems to be the film buff line.
I was not convinced that the second version was quite the same as the first version, the famous steps sequence seeming rather differant and rather shorter second time around. Less pram bumping on steps. Presumably, like now, the idea of a definitive print is rather elusive, with the various prints around being variously assembled from the great heap of raw material. An analogy might be the many copies of pictures that sold well being knocked out by Breughal Enterprises SA back in the sixteenth century. Or the endless fiddlings with the text in proof by the likes of Joyce and Proust. No such thing as definitive. I have dilated before on all this in connection with reruns of TV detective dramas.
All that aside, some things struck me about the film itself. First, a snippet of what would count these days as anti-semitism, perhaps a reflection of the unpopularity of the get-rich-quick merchants of the NEP era? Second, a lot of time was devoted to arty shots of things - clouds, waves, washing, any old thing - which were quite unconnected with the action. At least in any direct way. Perhaps they were intended to provide a bit of emotional colour, useful at a time when we had neither colour pictures nor talkies? Did Eisentein think that a bit of padding was needed to keep the temperature even? Or was he just being self indulgent? Third, the film did not seem as ancient as it should have. It felt as if it had been tarted up digitally. Had been restored, as it were. One could go on about that for just as long as they go on about restoring old masters of the paint variety. A wondrous source of bar room babble. I must get onto it.
The other scholastic venture is a dip into the theory of music, following a visit to Epsom Library back in the middle of March. Now the pround borrower of two books on same, one thin and one fat. Both appear to have been extracted from reserve stock, one appears not to have been borrowed for twenty five years and the other appears to have been borrowed once in twenty five years. Perhaps people don't study the theory of music any more. For myself, while making rather heavy weather of it all, I do think that I would have done rather better on the clarinet (another venture from 45 years ago), had I done a bit of theory too.
Despite both books being good, in rather differant ways, making heavy weather on the subject of how you get 15 major keys and 15 minor keys out of 12 semitones to the octave. And why do we have keys with anything from one to seven (?) sharps or one to seven flats but no keys with sharps and flats? Who chose the particular sequence of tones and semi-tones used for the two sorts of key? Who chose the pattern of black and white notes on the piano? On the other hand I am learning what seems fairly obvious once you have been told. Viz, that Western classical music evolved quite quickly from Gregorian chants, side swipe at troubadors, through harmony, counterpoint, chromaticism and so on. Peaking around the end of the 18th century and downhill ever since. Beginning to see the point of the enthnomusicology which my brother had so little time for; a point being, perhaps, that said enthnobabble is very much talking about music rather than doing music. All a question of preferences.
I suspect the weather would calm down if I had a piano and did the exercises in the books as well as read the words. Didn't try and treat it all as a bit of mathematics. A wheeze that used to work with mathematics books themselves. However, that would be a monster drain on time for a passing fancy.
The pond with green bubbles is presently clear; the recent rain seems to have cleared them. And newts were seen today in two of three ponds. Sedge grass and marigolds continue to put on weight but still no sign of the water lilly. Maybe we will be invoking the two year plant replacement guarantee after all. Starting to think that there is such a guarantee for a reason.
I was not convinced that the second version was quite the same as the first version, the famous steps sequence seeming rather differant and rather shorter second time around. Less pram bumping on steps. Presumably, like now, the idea of a definitive print is rather elusive, with the various prints around being variously assembled from the great heap of raw material. An analogy might be the many copies of pictures that sold well being knocked out by Breughal Enterprises SA back in the sixteenth century. Or the endless fiddlings with the text in proof by the likes of Joyce and Proust. No such thing as definitive. I have dilated before on all this in connection with reruns of TV detective dramas.
All that aside, some things struck me about the film itself. First, a snippet of what would count these days as anti-semitism, perhaps a reflection of the unpopularity of the get-rich-quick merchants of the NEP era? Second, a lot of time was devoted to arty shots of things - clouds, waves, washing, any old thing - which were quite unconnected with the action. At least in any direct way. Perhaps they were intended to provide a bit of emotional colour, useful at a time when we had neither colour pictures nor talkies? Did Eisentein think that a bit of padding was needed to keep the temperature even? Or was he just being self indulgent? Third, the film did not seem as ancient as it should have. It felt as if it had been tarted up digitally. Had been restored, as it were. One could go on about that for just as long as they go on about restoring old masters of the paint variety. A wondrous source of bar room babble. I must get onto it.
The other scholastic venture is a dip into the theory of music, following a visit to Epsom Library back in the middle of March. Now the pround borrower of two books on same, one thin and one fat. Both appear to have been extracted from reserve stock, one appears not to have been borrowed for twenty five years and the other appears to have been borrowed once in twenty five years. Perhaps people don't study the theory of music any more. For myself, while making rather heavy weather of it all, I do think that I would have done rather better on the clarinet (another venture from 45 years ago), had I done a bit of theory too.
Despite both books being good, in rather differant ways, making heavy weather on the subject of how you get 15 major keys and 15 minor keys out of 12 semitones to the octave. And why do we have keys with anything from one to seven (?) sharps or one to seven flats but no keys with sharps and flats? Who chose the particular sequence of tones and semi-tones used for the two sorts of key? Who chose the pattern of black and white notes on the piano? On the other hand I am learning what seems fairly obvious once you have been told. Viz, that Western classical music evolved quite quickly from Gregorian chants, side swipe at troubadors, through harmony, counterpoint, chromaticism and so on. Peaking around the end of the 18th century and downhill ever since. Beginning to see the point of the enthnomusicology which my brother had so little time for; a point being, perhaps, that said enthnobabble is very much talking about music rather than doing music. All a question of preferences.
I suspect the weather would calm down if I had a piano and did the exercises in the books as well as read the words. Didn't try and treat it all as a bit of mathematics. A wheeze that used to work with mathematics books themselves. However, that would be a monster drain on time for a passing fancy.
The pond with green bubbles is presently clear; the recent rain seems to have cleared them. And newts were seen today in two of three ponds. Sedge grass and marigolds continue to put on weight but still no sign of the water lilly. Maybe we will be invoking the two year plant replacement guarantee after all. Starting to think that there is such a guarantee for a reason.
# posted by Jim @ 11:36 AM 
