Shirley Clarke shorts (1953-1982) VHSRip VO

[V]

También en DivX Clásico:
The Connection | The Cool World | Portrait of Jason

Y en karagarga:
Opening in Moscow | Ornette: Made in America
—y actúa en Lions Love (Agnès Varda, 1969)—

---

Dance In the Sun
1953/ 6' , color, sound
directed and edited by Shirley Clarke
Choreographed and performed by Daniel Nagrin
Music: Ralph Gilbert
Production: Gryphon films

Drawing from her training as a dancer, Dance in the Sun, Shirley Clarke's first film, is perhaps closest in form to her previous medium of expression. It already displays themes which were to be elaborated on in her later works, and as Clarke explained in an interview with Lauren Rabinovitz, "All these kind of things I discovered about the choreography of editing and the choreography of space/time came from making that very first film". In dance in the sun, produced with dancer/choreographer Daniel Nagrin, Clarke cuts between scenes of the same dance, shot in the studio and on the beach, creating a rhythmic pattern that accelerates at film's climax. Through Clarke's careful attention to choreographic detail and continuity editing, the dancer Daniel Nagrin, moves between an exterior setting, the beach, and an interior studio. The space interchange with increasing intensity, connected by Nagrin's body alone.

---

A Moment in Love
1957/ 8', colour, sound
designed, directed and edited by Shirley Clarke
choreography: Anna Sokolow
dancers: Carmela Gutierrez, Paul Sanasardo
Music: Norman Lloyd
Production: Halcyon films

Clarke moves away from the strictly depictive perspective maintained in Dance in the Sun and towards an expressive and interpretive use of the camera in A Moment in Love. As the dancers move, the camera not only follows them but exceeds and breaks their trajectories. It manipulates their perceptible movements to such an extent that the dancers appear to be gliding among the clouds, suspended in endless and even supernatural bliss. As Clarke explains: "I started choreographing the camera as well as the dancers in the frame". With bright, lustrous tone, Clarke goes beyond subjective camera work to the point that her camera becomes subject itself.

---

Bridges-Go-Round
1958/ 7', colour
directed and edited by Shirley Clark e,
Electronic score by Louis and Bebe Barron
Jazz score by Teo Macero

In the late 1950s, Clarke was hired by Willard Van Dyke to produce several "sponsored films" for the 1958 Brussels World Fair. Bridges-Go-Round was taken from footage shot for one such film, Bruxelles Loops (1957). The film represents a study on perpetual motion achieved through camera panning, rhythmic editing, and flipping and layering the same scenes shot from different points of view. A static figure of a bridge is transformed into a somewhat abstract, active creature by the camera and the idea of "choreography in editing" or as Clarke once said, "you can make a dance film without dancers". Using the magic of film to set Manhattan's bridges free from their moorings, Clarke sends them on a dizzying carousel ride around the city.

By Clarke's request the film appears twice: first accompanied by an electronic soundtrack by Louis and Bebe Barron and second with jazz performed by Teo Macero and his ensemble. It is her feeling that sound, so essential to music and movement, greatly alters the experience of viewing the dance. These soundtracks are often credited for altering the viewers perception of the images.

---

A Scary Time
1960/ b&w, sound
Directed by Shirley Clarke & Robert Hughes
Music by Peggy Glanville-Hicks
Produced by UNICEF in consultation with Thorold Dickinson

Choreography of Cinema. An Interview with Shirley Clarke. AFTERIMAGE/december 1983.
Skyscraper took prizes everywhere. It started off at the Venice Film Festival, and it got first prize for a short film. Thorold Dickinson, who was at the United Nations, was on the jury. In fact, that's how I came to do A Scary Time (1960) for the U.N . [Dickinson, a British documentary and dramatic filmmaker, headed the United Nations Office of Public Information from 1956 to 1960. In his job, he supervised documentaries for the U.N.] When I did A Scary Time, I learned how to shoot dramatic scenes, like mommy and daddy watching TV and the kid kissing them good-night, so that it looked real and would cut in successfully with documentary footage. No big deal, but it was a start. After making A Scary Time I was getting clearer and clearer that I wanted to make dramatic films.

---

Savage/Love (1981), 25:39 min, color, sound
Tongues (1981-82), 45:39 min, color, sound
Director: Shirley Clarke
Writer: Sam Shepard Savage/Love
Editors: Shirley Clarke, Steven E. Browne. Camera: Walter Edel, Michel Auder. Music: Sam Shepard, Skip LaPlante. Music Performers: Sam Shepard, Harry Mann. Executive Producers: Women's Interart Center, Inc. Produced by the Other Theatre.

A tour-de-force synthesis of theater and video, Tongues is the collective title of a two-part collaboration by Shirley Clarke, distinguished actor/director Joseph Chaikin, and Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Sam Shepard. Both one-act monologues integrate the distinctive styles of these three artists: Shepard's innovative, stream-of-consciousness language; Chaikin's kinetic and exacting performance, which unifies the pieces; and Clarke's dynamic, expressive choreography of image, sound and text. The cadences and inflections of Shepard's jazz-related narrative voice and Chaikin's dramatic expression of a multitude of personalities are heightened by Clarke's syncopated use of digital effects, slow motion, and editing techniques to distort and manipulate the image.

In describing one man's quest for love, Savage/Love mirrors the search for romantic attachment, from infatuation to insecurity and disillusionment. With its propulsive romantic quest, Savage/Love is a prelude to Tongues, in which a dying man delivers his own last rites. As Chaikin enacts the man's fantasies and recollections, Clarke parallels the narrative and emotional intensity of his performance. Through her ingenious camera work, precise editing, and imaginative use of electronic imaging, Clarke powerfully transforms these stage pieces into resonant video drama.

---

Datos técnicos

Código: Seleccionar todo

File Name .........................................: Shirley Clarke shorts (1953-1982) VHSRip.avi
File Size (in bytes) ............................: 821,379,072 bytes
Runtime ............................................: 1:25:28

Video Codec ...................................: XviD 1.1.0 Final
Frame Size ......................................: 576x432 (AR: 1.333)
FPS .................................................: 23.976
Video Bitrate ...................................: 1016 kb/s
Bits per Pixel ...................................: 0.170 bpp
B-VOP, N-VOP, QPel, GMC.............: [B-VOP], [], [], []

Audio Codec ...................................: 0x2000 (Dolby AC3) AC3
Sample Rate ...................................: 48000 Hz
Audio Bitrate ...................................: 256 kb/s [2 channel(s)] CBR
No. of audio streams .......................: 1

Enlace a la compilación

Shirley Clarke shorts (1953-1982) VHSRip.avi

Descarga directa desde UbuWeb: http://ubumexico.centro.org.mx/video/Cl ... 3-1982.avi

---

The First Statement of the
New American Cinema Group
September 30, 1962

In the course of the past three years we have been witnessing the spontaneous growth of a new generation of film makers: the Free Cinema in England, the Nouvelle Vague in France, the young movements in Poland, Italy, and Russia, and, in this country, the work of Lionel Rogosin, John Cassavetes, Alfred Leslie, Robert Frank, Edward Bland, Bert Stern and the Sanders brothers.

The official cinema all over the world is running out of breath. It is morally corrupt, esthetically obsolete, thematically superficial, temperamentally boring. Even the seemingly worthwhile films, those that lay claim to high moral and esthetic standards and have been accepted as such by critics and the public alike, reveal the decay of the Product Film. The very slickness of their execution has become a perversion covering the falsity of their themes, their lack of sensibility, their lack of style. Sigue...

Spoiler: mostrar

If the New American Cinema has until now been an unconscious and sporadic manifestation, we feel the time has come to join together. There are many of us —the movement is reaching significant proportions— and we know what needs to be destroyed and what we stand for.

As in the other arts in America today —painting, poetry, sculpture, theatre, where fresh winds have been blowing for the last few years— our rebellion against the old, official, corrupt and pretentious is primarily an ethical one. We are concerned with Man [sic]. We are concerned with what is happening to Man [sic]. We are not an esthetic school that constricts the filmmaker within a set of dead principles. We feel we cannot trust any classical principles either in art or life.

1. We believe that cinema is indivisibly a personal expression. We therefore reject the interference of producers, distributors and investors until our work is ready to be projected on the screen.

2. We reject censorship. We never signed any censorship laws. Neither do we accept such relics as film licensing. No book, play or poem: no piece of music needs a license from anybody. We will take legal action against licensing and censorship of films, including that of the U.S. Customs Bureau. Films have the right to travel from country to country free of censors and the bureaucrats' scissors. United States should take the lead in initiating the program of free passage of films from country to country.

Who are the censors? Who chooses them and what are their qualifications? What's the legal basis for censorship? These are the questions which need answers.

3. We are seeking new forms of financing, working towards a reorganization of film investing methods, setting up the basis for a free film industry. A number of discriminating investors have already placed money in Shadows, Pull My Daisy, The Sin of Jesus, Don Peyote, The Connection, Guns of the Trees. These investments have been made on a limited partnership basis as has been customary in the financing of Broadway plays. A number of theatrical investors have entered the field of low budget film production on the East Coast.

4. The New American Cinema is abolishing the Budget Myth, proving that good, internationally marketable films can be made on a budget of $25,000 to $200,000. Shadows, Pull My Daisy, The Little Fugitive prove it. Our realistic budgets give us freedom from stars, studios, and producers. The film maker is his own producer, and paradoxically, low budget films give a higher return margin than big budget films.

The low budget is not a purely commercial consideration. It goes with our ethical and esthetic beliefs, directly connected with the things we want to say, and the way we want to say them.

5. We'll take a stand against the present distribution-exhibition policies. There is something decidedly wrong with the whole system of film exhibition; it is time to blow the whole thing up. It's not the audience that prevents films like Shadows or Come Back, Africa from being seen but the distributors and theatre owners. It is a sad fact that our films first have to open in London, Paris or Tokyo before they can reach our own theatres.

6. We plan to establish our own cooperative distribution center. This task has been entrusted to Emile de Antonio, our charter member. The New York Theatre, The Bleecker St. Cinema, Art Overbrook Theatre (Philadelphia) are the first movie houses to join us by pledging to exhibit our films. Together with the cooperative distribution center, we will start a publicity campaign preparing the climate for the New Cinema in other cities. The American Federation of Film Societies will be of great assistance in this work.

7. It's about time the East Coast had its own film festival, one that would serve as a meeting place for the New Cinema from all over the world. The purely commercial distributors will never do justice to cinema. The best of the Italian, Polish, Japanese, and a great part of the modern French cinema is completely unknown in this country. Such a festival will bring these films to the attention of exhibitors and the public.

8. While we fully understand the purposes and interests of Unions, we find it unjust that demands made on the independent work, budgeted at $25,000 (most of which is deferred), are the same as those made on a $1,000,000 movie. We shall meet with the unions to work out more reasonable methods, similar to those existing off-Broadway: a system based on the size and nature of the production.

9. We pledge to put aside a certain percentage of our film profits so as to build up a fund that would be used to help our members finish films or stand as a guarantor for the laboratories.

In joining together, we want to make it clear that there is one basic difference between our group and organizations such as United Artists. We are not joining together to make money. We are joining together to make films. We are joining together to build the New American Cinema. And we are going to do it together with the rest of America, together with the rest of our generation. Common beliefs, common knowledge, common anger and impatience binds us together; and it also binds us together with the New Cinema movements of the rest of the world. Our colleagues in France, Italy, Russia, Poland or England can depend on our determination. As they, we have had enough of the Big Lie in life and the arts. As they, we are not only for the new cinema: we are also for the New Man [sic]. As they, we are for art, but not at the expense of life. We don't want false, polished, slick films; we prefer them rough, unpolished, but alive; we don't want rosy films: we want them the color of blood.

[Padre Lizardi]

Infinítamente agradecido, V. Pa la sacristía que la traigo.