Scan barcode
sharlappalachia's review against another edition
4.0
The intro and conclusion are really good. The middle chapters kind of skimmable.
hill_valley's review against another edition
4.0
Posiblemente es algo fallido y errático en su objetivo de explicar con exactitud y con detalle lo que quiere explicar, y al no ser del todo capaz se hace uso de ejemplos comparados así como complementados con innumerables menciones a otros autores y estilos artísticos. Pero a base de ejemplos, y en muchas ocasiones repetirse demasiado, llega a ser capaz de tener esbozada su idea y con interés y voluntad la comprenderás perfectamente. La principal razón para mí de que no sea capaz de realizar esa descripción concreta y satisfactoria en su ensayo es que intenta explicar con palabras algo para lo que no existen las palabras. He leído muy poco, pero de lo que he leído sólo Simone Weil ha sido capaz de explicar con palabras aquello que no puede ser explicado con palabras. Por eso sí, es un libro muy recomendable y valioso independientemente de que te interese el mundo del cine o no así como esa sensación que a mí me ha dejado. En el fondo la lectura echando la vista hacia atrás es gratificante y productiva.
wmbogart's review against another edition
Pretty funny how cohesive and convincing this is - you'd never guess it's the same Paul we know and love today. Impressive that he got there as early as he did, before Deleuze fleshed out some of what he was picking up on. Fun to imagine this all as an attempt to reconcile his secular interests with his Calvinist upbringing.
Schrader sets out concrete techniques (delayed cuts, locked frames, little non-diegetic music, a focus on the everyday, etc) and a larger structure that ends in stasis after a decisive action and results in an activation of something in the viewer in closing in that stasis. He takes that (again, surprisingly well-written and thought out) framework and applies it to see how it might or might not result in a kind of "transcendent" experience on the part of the viewer.
It's all present in both Ozu and Bresson, with different views on "transcendence" (Schrader claims Ozu sees it in life, Bresson in a kind of death) but similar approaches beyond the cultural differences. The Bresson piece is the best here I think, if only because Schrader has the theological background to color it. He's clearly thought a great deal about the prison metaphor and its predestination/free-will implications, and is able to extend those implications to the viewer and their participation in films that forgo the typical dramatic devices. It made me laugh out loud when he recognizes his own use of the Pickpocket ending as problematic in this respect. Likewise with the whole non-narrative cinema diagram that plots maybe fifty directors (and a few entire movements) in relation to a "Tarkovsky ring" and within a "surveillance cam"/"art gallery"/"mandala" triangle. A hilarious, borderline unhinged exercise. Love it.
As far as the Dreyer chapter, it's mostly an exercise in comparing his criteria to someone that doesn't check all the boxes, to understand how these techniques do and don't function in comparison with Bresson. He does the same with Tarkovsky a bit, just to outline what does and doesn't fully embody the style he's laid out. But the Ozu and Bresson sections are the heart of it. The leap to seeing this all as "transcendental" is maybe a big one for some (and he's quick to acknowledge this), but it works for me.
Thanks Paul. Hopefully UC Press puts out a collection of his social media posts one of these days so I can shelve it alongside this.
Schrader sets out concrete techniques (delayed cuts, locked frames, little non-diegetic music, a focus on the everyday, etc) and a larger structure that ends in stasis after a decisive action and results in an activation of something in the viewer in closing in that stasis. He takes that (again, surprisingly well-written and thought out) framework and applies it to see how it might or might not result in a kind of "transcendent" experience on the part of the viewer.
It's all present in both Ozu and Bresson, with different views on "transcendence" (Schrader claims Ozu sees it in life, Bresson in a kind of death) but similar approaches beyond the cultural differences. The Bresson piece is the best here I think, if only because Schrader has the theological background to color it. He's clearly thought a great deal about the prison metaphor and its predestination/free-will implications, and is able to extend those implications to the viewer and their participation in films that forgo the typical dramatic devices. It made me laugh out loud when he recognizes his own use of the Pickpocket ending as problematic in this respect. Likewise with the whole non-narrative cinema diagram that plots maybe fifty directors (and a few entire movements) in relation to a "Tarkovsky ring" and within a "surveillance cam"/"art gallery"/"mandala" triangle. A hilarious, borderline unhinged exercise. Love it.
As far as the Dreyer chapter, it's mostly an exercise in comparing his criteria to someone that doesn't check all the boxes, to understand how these techniques do and don't function in comparison with Bresson. He does the same with Tarkovsky a bit, just to outline what does and doesn't fully embody the style he's laid out. But the Ozu and Bresson sections are the heart of it. The leap to seeing this all as "transcendental" is maybe a big one for some (and he's quick to acknowledge this), but it works for me.
Thanks Paul. Hopefully UC Press puts out a collection of his social media posts one of these days so I can shelve it alongside this.
whitneyborup's review against another edition
3.0
Dense and hard to get through, but a cool new way to look at religious film. I have a problem with the way he discusses Dreyer. His idea of what makes a film "transcendental" seems too exclusive.
cryingalot49's review against another edition
3.0
This seemed, for the most part, like an excuse for Schrader to talk about some of his favorite filmmakers. No crime there—they are interesting directors worth talking about. The concept of "transcendental" style is nothing if not ambiguous and Schrader's definition is, of course, totally arbitrary and entirely subjective. Approached as simply a dialogue about the spiritual and other-worldly nature of these directors, it's a very enjoyable read.
rol's review against another edition
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
Es un libro complejo pero muy bien estructurado, y la idea que trata de trasladar (lo trascendente en el cine) va progresando hacia su sustancia, a la vez que profundiza en los distintos cineastas de los que se sirve para su tesis. Es una tesis que el propio autor relativiza o incluso pone en tela de juicio. Profundo texto fílmico alejado de dogmatismos. Ideal para estudiosos del arte y del cine.
djoshuva's review against another edition
5.0
"Transcendental style seeks to maximize the mystery of existence; it eschews all conventional interpretations of reality: realism, naturalism, psychologism, romanticism, expressionism, impressionism, and, finally, rationalism. To the transcendental artist rationalism is only one of many approaches to life, not an imperative." (41)
"The transcendental style, like the vase, is a form which expresses something deeper than itself, the inner unity of all things. This is a difficult but absolutely crucial point; transcendental style is a form, not an experience. The purpose of transcendental style is not to get the viewer to share Hirayama’s tears, but to purge those tears and integrate them into a larger form. This form, like the mass, can encompass many emotions, but it is expressive of something greater than those emotions.... This distinction between form and experience is not pedantic, but fundamental: a form can express the Transcendent, an experience cannot." (77)
"Susan Sontag has gone so far as to say that Bresson’s form “is what he wants to say," a statement which is somewhat ambiguous because when a work of art is successful the content is indiscernible from the form. It would be more helpful to say that in Bresson’s films (and in transcendental style) the form is the operative element—it “does the work.” The subject matter becomes the vehicle (the “pretext”) through which the form operates. The subject matter is not negligible; Bresson has chosen his subject very carefully, as the term “prison cycle” indicates. But in transcendental style the form must be the operative element, and for a very simple reason: form is the universal element whereas the subject matter is necessarily parochial, having been determined by the particular culture from which it springs. And if a work of art is to be truly transcendent (above any culture), it must rely on its universal elements. Appropriately, Bresson has set his priorities straight: “I am more occupied with the special language of the cinema than with the subject of my films.”" (88)
"Transcendental style can take a viewer through the trials of experience to the expression of the Transcendent; it can return him to experience from a calm region untouched by the vagaries of emotion or personality. Transcendental style can bring us nearer to that silence, that invisible image, in which the parallel lines of religion and art meet and interpenetrate." (185)
"The transcendental style, like the vase, is a form which expresses something deeper than itself, the inner unity of all things. This is a difficult but absolutely crucial point; transcendental style is a form, not an experience. The purpose of transcendental style is not to get the viewer to share Hirayama’s tears, but to purge those tears and integrate them into a larger form. This form, like the mass, can encompass many emotions, but it is expressive of something greater than those emotions.... This distinction between form and experience is not pedantic, but fundamental: a form can express the Transcendent, an experience cannot." (77)
"Susan Sontag has gone so far as to say that Bresson’s form “is what he wants to say," a statement which is somewhat ambiguous because when a work of art is successful the content is indiscernible from the form. It would be more helpful to say that in Bresson’s films (and in transcendental style) the form is the operative element—it “does the work.” The subject matter becomes the vehicle (the “pretext”) through which the form operates. The subject matter is not negligible; Bresson has chosen his subject very carefully, as the term “prison cycle” indicates. But in transcendental style the form must be the operative element, and for a very simple reason: form is the universal element whereas the subject matter is necessarily parochial, having been determined by the particular culture from which it springs. And if a work of art is to be truly transcendent (above any culture), it must rely on its universal elements. Appropriately, Bresson has set his priorities straight: “I am more occupied with the special language of the cinema than with the subject of my films.”" (88)
"Transcendental style can take a viewer through the trials of experience to the expression of the Transcendent; it can return him to experience from a calm region untouched by the vagaries of emotion or personality. Transcendental style can bring us nearer to that silence, that invisible image, in which the parallel lines of religion and art meet and interpenetrate." (185)
sdc's review
5.0
I was in over my head at times here but one reads to do precisely that. I can't say I agree with all of Schrader's assertions--but I'm certain I'm lacking the expertise to sufficiently argue my case against so formidable a mind. I'd love to read (or hear) what Schrader thinks of Tarkovsky or Lynch or Bunuel, either within the transcendental frame or without. I'd also be fascinated by a deeper dive on Schrader's graph of "slow film" directors.
I was most engaged by the chapter on Bresson, since it's his films I know best of the three directors considered here. His threadbare framing seemed more acoustic for stylistic purposes. I'll look at Ozu now through a transcendentalist's Zen lens. His style occasionally bored me, but now I'll have to reassess. I'd never thought of Dreyer of a piece with Ozu and Bresson, and perhaps he isn't. But I can now see he doesn't neatly align with Murnau or the other Expressionists as I'd once thought.
The ability to cause one to see cinematic titans like these three with fresh eyes is a special skill and for that reason alone I'd highly recommend Schrader's treatise.
I was most engaged by the chapter on Bresson, since it's his films I know best of the three directors considered here. His threadbare framing seemed more acoustic for stylistic purposes. I'll look at Ozu now through a transcendentalist's Zen lens. His style occasionally bored me, but now I'll have to reassess. I'd never thought of Dreyer of a piece with Ozu and Bresson, and perhaps he isn't. But I can now see he doesn't neatly align with Murnau or the other Expressionists as I'd once thought.
The ability to cause one to see cinematic titans like these three with fresh eyes is a special skill and for that reason alone I'd highly recommend Schrader's treatise.
More...