@STALKER a mund ta gjesh ne arkivin e 2009 (mos gaboj) debatin intensiv mbi c’eshte kinemaja, me anetaresine e peshkut…
Une s’e gjej dot me ndyshimin e ppu se vjeter.
E kuptoj insistimin tënd për rrefimin (narracionin) por ajo eshte dicka e padiskutueshme : të gjithe artet, qe prej ekzistences se tyre, narrojne (rrefejne).
Jo jo, loja aktoriale, skripti etj etj nuk janë determinues për kinemane. Eshte imazhi. Kinemaja eshte imazh (dhe zë : pas 1930-s).
Por ‘Korriku’ ka të drejte: ketu në peshk, kemi tashme diskutuar për “ç’eshte kinemaja” (kemi cituar jo pak Tarkovskin, Godard, Deleuze etj etj qe kanë teorizuar jo pak për kete teme).
ju keni fol per sinemane ne Peshk si grup gjimanzistesh te lyer me parfum Patrioti, pa prezencen e urines se te Modhit 
:
Fotografia dhe sinemaja, si mediumet me avangarde per kohen, kane trasformuar kembe e koke te gjitha artet e meparshme, te cilat nga katrore u trasformuan ne te rrumbullakta, biles sferike nepermjet mediumit te sinemase. Fotografia dhe sinemaja kane treguar se progresi i artit mund te shprehet edhe si progres paralel i mediumit, qe do te thote ontologjikisht dhe deontologjikisht: origjinalisht materia eshte po aq e shenjte dhe po aq me vlere sa edhe shpirti. Dhe kete çuditerisht e kuptoi Lenini lidhur me sinemane, qe ishte nje koqepordhe nga pikpamja artistike moderne, pyke ne diell. Kjo eshte shum treguese per rendesine e pozites nga shihen gjerat, pra koqepordhat e vertete ishin intelektualet e shquar qe zgrryheshin neper kenetat e studiove, akademive, universiteteve - i Modhi
Stalker, nese nuk i ve nje pelqim ketij komenti, atehere harram buken e fuksave te Kinostudjos Shqiperia e Re.
E thene pak me gjate
A Brief History of Hollywood Dramaturgy and
Modern Screenplay Structure
A journey over time and borders
by Mikael Colville-Andersen
Hollywood’s love of a rigid structure in screenplay writing did not materialise out of thin air. Where did all those plot points, mid-points, three-act structures come from? The journey is an interesting one. It is a tale that wanders over time and borders.
While most dramaturgy stems from ancient Greece, there is a more specific track to follow to arrive at modern American screenwriting.
The seeds were sown in France. Alexandre Dumas (Dumas pere) - 1802-1870 was a prolific writer of literature and plays. He got the idea of employing 12 writers to help him get all his ideas down on paper and, therefore, was party to the first “writing factory”.
His son, Alexandre Dumas (Dumas fils), continued the concept and started a wave of so-called “Boulevard comedies” in Paris. They encompassed an attempt at a finding a common structural direction.
We move north to Norway where Henrik Ibsen (1828-1906), Norway s greatest writer, was profoundly influenced by both Dumas Pére and Dumas Fils - both creatively and structurally. Together with Bjoernstjerne Bjoernsen, another Norwegian writer, they worked together on structuring plays into a form we recognise today.
August Strindberg (1849-1912), Sweden s greatest writer, was influenced by the direction being taken across the border. He, in turn, influenced Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) to the east in Russia.
All these northern developments were closely followed by an Englishman, William Archer. He was so taken with the nordic writers and their work that he taught himself the Scandinavian languages, in order to read the plays and novels in their original form. Around 1900, Archer published a book called “Playmaking”. In it, he polished up the various points and presented a playwriting structure that was clear and concise.
Sailing across the Atlantic, we make a stop at Yale, where George Pierce Baker (1866-1935) was teaching theatre. He took Archer s book to heart and made further adjustments in finding the optimal playwriting structure.
Among his students was Eugene O Neill (1888-1953), one of the most respected writers in America s literature history. O Neill learned a great deal from Pierce Baker and ended up starting his own theatre group, called the Provincetown Players. They were an experimental bunch. Their influence on travelling theatre groups who toured the countryside was strong. Through their work, the movement towards a common dramaturgy, started a century before in Europe, was nearing completion.
They implemented the same structure in their travelling shows, in order to present different stories within the same framework, therefore making them more accessible to the audience.
With the advent of cinema and the rise of film as an art form, the movement towards a broad-reaching dramaturgical structure makes a quick stop back in Europe, in Copenhagen, at Nordisk Film Studios.
Nordisk, the oldest film company in the world today, controlled the lion’s share of the world s film market in the years between 1906-1914. The Golden Age of Danish Cinema. Films were cranked out at a dizzying pace using, more or less, a screenwriting framework laid out by all the aforementioned people.
After the First World War, Hollywood gained strength and, no doubt influenced by the factory system laid out in Copenhagen by Nordisk, started the move towards the domination we know today.
The dramaturgical structure inherent in most Hollywood films was fine-tuned over the years until reaching the point at which we now find ourselves: The three-act structure, the plot points, the time-frame and suchlike pandemonium.
© Mikael Colville-Andersen 2006 - 2011
ndersa unë do te keshilloja kete libër të Tarkovskit, nga më të miret të shkruar ndonjehere për kinemane
ndersa une do te keshilloja kete liber te Florenskij qe Tarkovskij ja ka keshillu Sokurovit si baze e “imazhit” filmik te rekomanduar nga biznesi amerikan nepermjet SatanTango te Bela Karr:
Paske fjetur ne anen e keqe te shtratit mbreme me duket. Relax Tori.
lexo libra Katror, lexo, mos shif filma SatanTango ku relaksohet zhardina duke kercy kriminaltango aty:
In this context Tarkovsky makes a direct reference to Pavel Florensky. In his book Iconostasis from 1922 (now translated in English, French and German) Florensky explores in highly original terms the significance of the icon: its philosophic depth, its spiritual history, its empirical technique. In doing so, he also sketched a new history of both Western religious art and the Orthodox icon. He regards Western art as limited and limiting: in order to make the perspective function the viewer is supposed to be static. The icon, on the other hand, is supposed to be viewed by a person who changes his place in the church (or the room) in a dynamic movement.Astrid Söderbergh Widding notes that Tarkovsky held a life-long interest in icons. He not only devoted one of his major works to an icon painter: he also uses some of the artistic norms of the icons in his own art. The reversed perspective is to be found in some of the scenes in his films, most notably in Stalker.
si ka ndodh shpesh here ne Peshk (prandaj nje nga vlerat e mdhoja te Peshkut), duke u deshmu per lidhjen ikone-film-Tarkovsk-Florenskij mesova rastesisht nga linku me lart nje gje qe se dija, qe Tarkovskij qeka interesu per ikonen, Florenskijn, Apokalipsin, e kesi gjerash te ngjashme, “jo rastesisht” - thote Linku -, kur i paska rene bytha ne uje me kancerin, sapo mori vesh qe do te ngreje patkojte perpjete. Me nje fjale historia e zakonshme:
Sapo dalin keq analizat e urines, mendimtari i lire i drejtohet deres se kishes - Jean de La Bruyère
Kinemaja e mire eshte me e afert me impaktin e piktures moderne, impresionizmit si më rryme se tepermi.
1 Like
ne fakt, e gjeta ate debat
mund t’ja kishe kerku manjoles debatin, sepse manjola i njef mire varrezat e Peshkut.
ja nja dy-tre rradhe per ‘realizmin’ ne kinema (ne fakt, qe nga ky moment, do perdor edhe fjalen vërtetësi).
Te marrim nja dy skena nga filma, te cilet, ne pamje te pare, nuk kane te bejne fare me realizmin (ne sensin qe i japim ne shqip)
Marrim nje skene nga “Mulholland Drive” i David Lynch, film te cilin e di qe e ke pare dhe ripare disa here.
Marrim skenen tek restoranti “Winkie’s” :
personazhi X i thote personazhit Y qe ka pare nje enderr ku jane te dy ne nje darke (etj etj). Dhe i thote se, në enderr, ai ndodhej afer kasës se restorantit.
Pak me vone, personazhi Y shkon tek kasa per te paguar. Në minuten 02:56, personazhi X kthen koken per te pare personazhin Y pikerisht tek kasa dhe i tmerruar ne fytyre, i duket se shikon te njeten gje, pra te njejten skene qe ka pare në enderr (enderr te cilen ja tregoi para pak minutash personazhit Y). Kamera zhvendoset lehtasi, dhe, në të njejtin plan, shohim persoanzhin Y i cili, paradoksalisht, te jep pershtypjen se edhe ai eshte i turbulluar! (edhe pse, ai e di fort mire qe historia qe personazhi X i tregoi, nuk eshte veçse enderr).
Pra, David Lynch, ne nje plan te vetem filmik (02:56 - 03:07) , pra pergjate 11 sekondash, ne nje plan te vetem, na jep dy realitete te ndryshme, rrjedhoje e nje ngjarjeje te vetme (enderra e parë nga personazhi X).
Kjo, per mendimin tim, quhet vertetesi, në kinema (realizem). Pra: Lynch nuk ka nevoje per trukime, per lajle-lule, por permes mizaskenes (qe realizohet permes nje plani 11 sekondesh), na ofron nje realitet te dyfishte, na turbullon, na intrigon.
Ose nje skene tjeter e nje filmi, qe ne dukje, nuk eshte realist (meqe, me demek, eshte film musical) : skena e fillimit te “West Side Story”.
Edhe pse tashme ne si spektatorë kemi degjuar kercitjen e gishtave te çunave te rinj, krejt papritur, në minuten 01:05, njeri prej tyre hap krahet dhe fillon e kercen! Plani filmik eshte i njejti, por ‘realiteti’ ndryshon! E megjithate, ne si spektatore, e pranojme natyrshem (prej verteti, me vërtetesi) nje kalim te tille, pra pa trukime, falë, sigurisht, planit-sekuence.
Shembujt e melartem jane marre nga filma ‘ekstravagantë’, pra jo-realiste (ne sensin e shqipes) : njeri eshte film-ëderr dhe tjetri, musical. E megjithate, skenat jane te verteta, realiste. Falë regjizorêve te tyre, sigurisht! Domethene, fale mizaskenes ! (se historia eshte ajo qe eshte).
Ndersa filmat alla-Jean-Pierre-Jeunet (apo alla Del Toro dhe Albert Dupontel, meqe po flisnim per to) nuk jane te vertete, jane filma-gadget (qe per mendimin tim, do duhet te quhen infantilizues). Dhe qe per mendimin tim, eshte semundja kyresore e kinemase, sot per sot
3 Likes
eshte nga skenat me rrenqethese te mulholland dr. levizjet e ngadalta te kameras te bejne te bejne te mendosh qe jemi ne nje realitet tjeter, enderr, imagjinate, ndjeshmeria gati femerore e aktorit qe rrefen endrren te ben te mendosh se i referohet vete protagonistes femer, dhe lokali eshte po ai ku protagonistja paguan vrasesin ne realitet. Ate aktor bashke me bjonden i rigjen serish te sezoni i 3 i twin peaks, si dhe jim belushin.
Te gjithe filmat e lynch jane rreth ndjenjes se fajit, maktheve te brendshme, eksplorim i tyre dhe transformimit te realitetit subjektiv prej tyre.
Mu kujtuan nja dy skena qe skorsese i ilustron te realizmi italian me rosselinin te my voyage to italy per ta ilustruar me tej shtjellimin tend rreth rolit te mizanskenes rregjizoriale.
1 Like
po ajo pjesa ke Mulholland Drive qe pallohen dy lesbiket me ndjenje faji dhe nuk e kuptoshin qe ishin ne enderr apo zhgjender gjate pallimit.
Apapapapa çer pjese qi osht ajo, realizem puro. Nuk e di a e ka pa Katrori i djathte, qe voton Trump, ket film t’modh qe vjen direkt nga tragjedia e grekeve te vjeter, nga Safo e ishullit te Lesbos.
e kuptoj cfare do te thuash, edhe kur i largohen realitetit perdorin parimet e realitetit; ajo qe nuk kam te qarte eshte ku mungon kjo gje te Jeunet, Del Toro, etj… (ma do mendja qe ketu perfshin dhe Gondry.)
1 Like
Inkuizitor, chillax please!
vallaj eshte e padurueshme te lexosh qe ky film qe eshte nje makth i tere, perveç se nje maskarallik pafund, qeka edhe realist. Eshte per te plas fare, as shok Enver nuk ben fajde me.