Clint Eastwood Forums
General Information => Eastwood News => Topic started by: Lin Sunderland on October 26, 2010, 09:34:18 PM
-
I have just ordered this book from Amazon. It is in the Masters of Cinema series.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41CDwwOyBTL._SS500_.jpg)
Some details.
# Paperback: 96 pages
# Publisher: Cahiers du Cinema - Editions de l'Etoile (30 Sep 2010)
# Language English
It seems to be a new book, covering Clint's movies up to Invictus. Probably full of the same pictures in most of the other books I have about Clint but I thought I would buy it anyway. Once it arrives I will post my thoughts on it.
-
Probably full of the same pictures in most of the other books
Correct Lin,
It is filled with a multitude of images seen before.
However, it is still a nice book to have, and at the price, you can`t go wrong. O0
-
Correct Lin,
It is filled with a multitude of images seen before.
However, it is still a nice book to have, and at the price, you can`t go wrong. O0
Thanks davytriumph :) Still I have some room left on my Eastwood bookcase and there will probably be something that I have not read before. Maybe more like something I have forgotten.
-
Just received it.
Looks good enough and includes a few unseen photos{for me at least}.
-
Just received it.
Looks good enough and includes a few unseen photos{for me at least}.
I Should receive my copy by the weekend.
-
Thanks Lin, just ordered my copy.
-
It arrived about 1 hour ago and I have to say I am impressed. There are quite a few 'new' ,to me at least, pictures and I like the way it has been set out. It is a thin soft back book but I only paid £5.36 for it so I am very happy.
-
It arrived about 1 hour ago and I have to say I am impressed. There are quite a few 'new' ,to me at least, pictures and I like the way it has been set out. It is a thin soft back book but I only paid £5.36 for it so I am very happy.
Halfway through I find the text very interesting.
The author presents a fresh view upon Eastwood's career.
-
Halfway through I find the text very interesting.
The author presents a fresh view upon Eastwood's career.
Yes I agree antonis. :)
-
A pleasant surprise, indeed.
-
i am reviewing this for a book review.
be warned: this is a very french look at Clint.
The writing style is filled with existential asides about all sorts of non-film subjects.
It quotes Marcel Foucalt
remember, France and Cahiers du Cinema are the originators of the crackpot auteur theory
need i go on?
bruce
-
i am reviewing this for a book review.
be warned: this is a very french look at Clint.
The writing style is filled with existential asides about all sorts of non-film subjects.
It quotes Marcel Foucalt
remember, France and Cahiers du Cinema are the originators of the crackpot auteur theory
need i go on?
bruce
Shift key not functioning well, Bruce? ???
If by "Marcel Foucalt" you mean Michel Foucault, according to Wikipedia he "was listed as the most cited scholar in the humanities in 2007." For some reason, he is especially often referred to in contemporary academic film criticism (by no means only French).
As for the auteur theory, why do you call it "crackpot"? I'm sure most of us who admire the work of particular directors—including Clint—subscribe to it to one degree or another. Of course, film is a much more collaborative medium than most, but still, it's difficult not to see that many directors succeed in putting a personal stamp on most of the projects they undertake.
And I wouldn't be so quick to scorn Cahiers du cinéma, either. It has been one of Clint's great champions for the past three decades or more.
-
hey, i warned ya"
what you do now, is your bidness
:-X
btw Clint himself would laugh at some of the cinematic stylings the dreaded "academics"ascribe to him:o
-
this appears to be in the wrong section>
can the moderastor move this to the appropriate section e.g "news"?
thanks. I want to post my review here when it is published
bruce
-
Who know when the damn review will be posted! >:D
here is the "draft review:
Clint Eastwood is many things: actor, producer, director, musician.
One thing he most definitely is not is an intellectual. Not that he is not intelligent, but he himself has often said he relies on his "gut" when it comes to making motion pictures. The people at Cahiers du Cinema apparently did not get the memo. For them , Eastwood is an artist of the highest order whose films are filled with metaphors, symbols, hidden truths and deep meaning. Isn't it enough to say he is a great filmmaker, an icon?
I can't imagine fans of Clint - and I am one of his biggest - getting much enjoyment out of the text of this volume. It has an air of the academic and is filled with pretentious meanderings where obscure philosophers like Michelle Foucault are cited. And , the text is very poorly written (or translated?). Take this sentence describing the recent film directed by Eastwood CHANGELING
" Among the obsessions that haunt Eastwood's most recent films, one goes back far and has never ceased to progressively permeate his work, even more so as time has created distance. As a theme, it is best described as that which returns or always tries to return to the projections of our imagination or memory...."
Qu'est-ce que ce?
On the plus side, like other volumes in this series (among them "Steven Spielberg" )
there are lots of great photographs and a comperhensive up-to -date
filmography. And, to their credit , French critics embraced Eastwood as the artist that he has always been long before most of their American counterparts!
Bruce Marshall
San Francisco Book Review March 2010
-
... obscure philosophers like Michelle Foucault ...
You still haven't got that quite right. It's Michel Foucault. And he's not exactly "obscure."
If by "Marcel Foucalt" you mean Michel Foucault, according to Wikipedia he "was listed as the most cited scholar in the humanities in 2007."
Qu'est-ce que ce?
I think you mean "Qu'est-ce que c'est?" or perhaps "Qu'est-ce que c'est que ça?"
-
like i said, its the 'draft" version, not the final one >:D
-
Michelle, Marceau, marcel, same diff :D
-
you're using Wikipedia as an authoritative source?!!!! ???
-
No, just as a general indication. I know from personal experience that Foucault is cited a lot in the world of academic film studies. If you're curious, take a look at Wikipedia's source:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=405956§ioncode=26
That one seems pretty authoritative.
-
Clint Eastwood is many things: actor, producer, director, musician. One thing he most definitely is not is an intellectual. Not that he is not intelligent, but he himself has often said he relies on his "gut" when it comes to making motion pictures. The people at Cahiers du Cinema apparently did not get the memo. For them , Eastwood is an artist of the highest order whose films are filled with metaphors, symbols, hidden truths and deep meaning. Isn't it enough to say he is a great filmmaker, an icon?
And by relying on his "gut", I assume Clint is saying that he spent many years learning and developing his cinematographic skills and now he knows by heart and experience what it works and it doesn't for him. By "it" I am talking about cinematographic language such as metaphors, symbols, meanings, camera shots/angles/movement, mise en scene, etc. (Since I didn't read the book) maybe that is what the people at Cashiers du Cinema are talking about and this is their way of describing Clint as a great filmmaker. ???
As a theme, it is best described as that which returns or always tries to return to the projections of our imagination or memory...."
That is one of the focal point of art, movies included.
-
No, just as a general indication. I know from personal experience that Foucault is cited a lot in the world of academic film studies. If you're curious, take a look at Wikipedia's source:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=405956§ioncode=26
That one seems pretty authoritative.
One of the reasons I became a film writer was because i detest academic writing about the arts. In film school I suffered thru this type of "scholarship" and found it to be absolutely worthless. I suspect most of Clint's fans do to.
Using Foucault and Eastwood in the same sentence makes me wanna reach for my six-gun! ;D
bruce
-
KC,
one reason i call the auteur theory crackpot:
the MOC volume on Spielberg contains not a single mention of composer John williams - not even when discussing JAWS!
"nuff said
bruce
OFFICIAL SITE:
http://www.sanfranciscobookreview.com/music-movies/clint-eastwood-masters-of-cinema/
-
I note that Mr. Cigarillo's review has now been published (still with "Michelle Foucault") in the San Francisco Book Review. It can be found at the link he added to his last post, above.
-
I note that Mr. Cigarillo's review has now been published (still with "Michelle Foucault")
whaddya mean "still"?
i changed it on your advice from "Marcel"
Are you lookin' to eat some lead, punk!
>:D
-
whaddya mean "still"?
i changed it on your advice from "Marcel"
Are you lookin' to eat some lead, punk!
>:D
But you changed it to "Michelle," which is a woman's name. Foucault is a guy, and his first name is "Michel."
... obscure philosophers like Michelle Foucault ...
You still haven't got that quite right. It's Michel Foucault.
-
well, from what is known about Foucault, i suspect he likes being called "Michelle" ^-^
-
I got this book for Christmas from MRS MULES and today I finally got around to reading It. The book does have some Superb pictures and interesting text and I did enjoy reading it. :)