All of the films on the list were made within 15 years of each other, they're all in color, they're all period pieces, and they're all set in 18th through late 19th century Europe (or, in the case of PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK, turn of the 20th century transplanted European culture in Australia). They're all "visually beautiful," but the beauty of ELVIRA MADIGAN is a universe away from the beauty of BARRY LYNDON--decorative underpinning vs. ironic counterpoint.
I've seen plenty of mediocre and even bad movies that are visually beautiful, shot by great DPs working with impeccable Production and Costume Designers and Location Managers. But in the end, that's pretty much all they are. I think that with BARRY LYNDON or PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK or, for instance, DAYS OF HEAVEN or PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID or RAGING BULL or MIRROR or RAN, to stay more or less in the window of time in the list, the particular sense of beauty does something, activates something, within the action. It plays an active role. In Bergman's films too, and in THE LEOPARD, mentioned above.
Can I ask: how about black and white? How about pre-1967 and post-1981 cinema from around the world? Movies shot by James Wong Howe or Gregg Toland or Kazuo Miyagawa or Michael Ballhaus? Movies by Sternberg or Ford or Hitchcock or Minnelli?
Hi Kent, Many thanks for this. Excellent commentary! The 'aesthete' thing: The films I mentioned (admittedly, off the top of my head, and it is my favourite period of film-making) strike me as especially lush- and the late 60s through to the early 80s were especially good at that. Cinematography, the use of sound, classical music, period costume, titles, direction and editing- all rolled into one glorious, aesthetic whole. Plus the influence of art history? The Pre-Raphaelites in French Lieutenant's Woman, Renoir in Elvira, Stubbs and Hogarth in Barry Lyndon? But we might also add the films of Albert Lewin?: The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) and Pandora and the Flying Dutchman (1951) or Kurosawa's Kagemusha (1980)? By 'aesthetic' I mean more than just 'visually beautiful' (tho' perhaps should have expanded on this more in the post). Hitchcock, of course, entirely visual- but not sure I would describe his films as especially 'aesthetic'? Of course, the concept of 'aestheticism', these days, is horribly unfashionable: 'art for art's sake'. See what I'm driving at? Incidentally, the 'beauty' of Elvira, I would suggest, is more than decorative. Doesn't it accentuate the romantic idyll? Which is doomed to failure. The difference between infatuation and real life? I think that's what it's getting at. And, in contrast, the ending, when it comes, is genuinely shocking. Anyway, really interesting comment. So thanks for that.
Yes, I suppose you could say that there's some kind of tradition of films that fall under the heading of what you call "aestheticism." You could also add MOULIN ROUGE (the John Huston film), GATE OF HELL, PETER IBBETSON, LUST FOR LIFE, IVAN THE TERRIBLE and a few others. (On a personal note, it's great to see Albert Lewin's name mentioned: very special films. And don't forget THE MOON AND SIXPENCE.)
It just strikes me that the category is finite. There are so many filmmakers who really absorbed the example and the history of painting and visual art and worked in a very different way. Take Jean Renoir's films, particularly A DAY IN THE COUNTRY and FRENCH CANCAN. This is obviously a filmmaker with French painting flowing through his veins, so you can feel the presence of his father and, more importantly, the world he and Monet and Degas and Lautrec and Manet and Morisot inhabited, the relation to light and gesture and color. But neither of those films seems to me to fall under aestheticism. Same with Vincente Minnelli's movies, LUST FOR LIFE aside. AN AMERICAN IN PARIS is obviously made by someone who lives and breathes art history, but it just flows through the whole movie, a great musical. Same with VAN GOGH by Maurice Pialat, who started as a painter. And then there were people like Antonioni and Godard, who created in the manner of (with the freedom of) a painter.
A random thought re: ELVIRA MADIGAN: have you ever seen LE BONHEUR by Agnès Varda? If not, worth a look
Oh gosh! What a film! I saw it, Un Homme et une Femme and Bonnie & Clyde soo many times! They were all good girl friend bate! They were all very romantic and picturesque. The other one is the Gattopardo - a feast for the eyes!
Hello. I’m married to Henry Jeffreys who directed me to your newsletter. I loved this piece. My mother who is an American actress of Scandi heritage has always said Elvira Madigan is her favourite film. You capture its essence well.
Fond memories of this one. The name itself, Elvira Madigan, is soft music. You mention Laura Ashley (yes, I had a dress, lol!), it made me think of the vaseline pictures of David Hamilton, very "en vogue" around that time, with his, ahem, sulfurous innuendos...
This is indeed a beautiful film, although I can see why many may see it as a triumph of style over substance. Over here 1967 also produced the epic Far from the Madding Crowd. Something was clearly in the air.
Having watched it twice over again, very recently, I don't think that particular view is accurate- there's much to it. It has a point. Plenty of substance!
All of the films on the list were made within 15 years of each other, they're all in color, they're all period pieces, and they're all set in 18th through late 19th century Europe (or, in the case of PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK, turn of the 20th century transplanted European culture in Australia). They're all "visually beautiful," but the beauty of ELVIRA MADIGAN is a universe away from the beauty of BARRY LYNDON--decorative underpinning vs. ironic counterpoint.
I've seen plenty of mediocre and even bad movies that are visually beautiful, shot by great DPs working with impeccable Production and Costume Designers and Location Managers. But in the end, that's pretty much all they are. I think that with BARRY LYNDON or PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK or, for instance, DAYS OF HEAVEN or PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID or RAGING BULL or MIRROR or RAN, to stay more or less in the window of time in the list, the particular sense of beauty does something, activates something, within the action. It plays an active role. In Bergman's films too, and in THE LEOPARD, mentioned above.
Can I ask: how about black and white? How about pre-1967 and post-1981 cinema from around the world? Movies shot by James Wong Howe or Gregg Toland or Kazuo Miyagawa or Michael Ballhaus? Movies by Sternberg or Ford or Hitchcock or Minnelli?
Hi Kent, Many thanks for this. Excellent commentary! The 'aesthete' thing: The films I mentioned (admittedly, off the top of my head, and it is my favourite period of film-making) strike me as especially lush- and the late 60s through to the early 80s were especially good at that. Cinematography, the use of sound, classical music, period costume, titles, direction and editing- all rolled into one glorious, aesthetic whole. Plus the influence of art history? The Pre-Raphaelites in French Lieutenant's Woman, Renoir in Elvira, Stubbs and Hogarth in Barry Lyndon? But we might also add the films of Albert Lewin?: The Picture of Dorian Gray (1945) and Pandora and the Flying Dutchman (1951) or Kurosawa's Kagemusha (1980)? By 'aesthetic' I mean more than just 'visually beautiful' (tho' perhaps should have expanded on this more in the post). Hitchcock, of course, entirely visual- but not sure I would describe his films as especially 'aesthetic'? Of course, the concept of 'aestheticism', these days, is horribly unfashionable: 'art for art's sake'. See what I'm driving at? Incidentally, the 'beauty' of Elvira, I would suggest, is more than decorative. Doesn't it accentuate the romantic idyll? Which is doomed to failure. The difference between infatuation and real life? I think that's what it's getting at. And, in contrast, the ending, when it comes, is genuinely shocking. Anyway, really interesting comment. So thanks for that.
Now I have time for a more coherent reply.
Yes, I suppose you could say that there's some kind of tradition of films that fall under the heading of what you call "aestheticism." You could also add MOULIN ROUGE (the John Huston film), GATE OF HELL, PETER IBBETSON, LUST FOR LIFE, IVAN THE TERRIBLE and a few others. (On a personal note, it's great to see Albert Lewin's name mentioned: very special films. And don't forget THE MOON AND SIXPENCE.)
It just strikes me that the category is finite. There are so many filmmakers who really absorbed the example and the history of painting and visual art and worked in a very different way. Take Jean Renoir's films, particularly A DAY IN THE COUNTRY and FRENCH CANCAN. This is obviously a filmmaker with French painting flowing through his veins, so you can feel the presence of his father and, more importantly, the world he and Monet and Degas and Lautrec and Manet and Morisot inhabited, the relation to light and gesture and color. But neither of those films seems to me to fall under aestheticism. Same with Vincente Minnelli's movies, LUST FOR LIFE aside. AN AMERICAN IN PARIS is obviously made by someone who lives and breathes art history, but it just flows through the whole movie, a great musical. Same with VAN GOGH by Maurice Pialat, who started as a painter. And then there were people like Antonioni and Godard, who created in the manner of (with the freedom of) a painter.
A random thought re: ELVIRA MADIGAN: have you ever seen LE BONHEUR by Agnès Varda? If not, worth a look
Hello Luke. Yes, I get what mean. Interesting.
Cinema that is positioned directly in relation to the history of visual art, painting in particular.
I think it’s interesting to think of filmmakers who have absorbed the history of painting in a different way.
Oh gosh! What a film! I saw it, Un Homme et une Femme and Bonnie & Clyde soo many times! They were all good girl friend bate! They were all very romantic and picturesque. The other one is the Gattopardo - a feast for the eyes!
Hello. I’m married to Henry Jeffreys who directed me to your newsletter. I loved this piece. My mother who is an American actress of Scandi heritage has always said Elvira Madigan is her favourite film. You capture its essence well.
Hi Misti, That's really kind. Incidentally, love Henry's posts. They're great!
I have always heard this film being referenced, but knew nothing of it. Will have to see it now. Thanks!
One of my favourite films. Terrific!
Fond memories of this one. The name itself, Elvira Madigan, is soft music. You mention Laura Ashley (yes, I had a dress, lol!), it made me think of the vaseline pictures of David Hamilton, very "en vogue" around that time, with his, ahem, sulfurous innuendos...
This is indeed a beautiful film, although I can see why many may see it as a triumph of style over substance. Over here 1967 also produced the epic Far from the Madding Crowd. Something was clearly in the air.
Having watched it twice over again, very recently, I don't think that particular view is accurate- there's much to it. It has a point. Plenty of substance!