Steve Crook wrote:
>
> In fact at one of them someone asked the killer question "Why do
> the people here like Powell (& Pressburger) films?" so I thought
> I'd ask you lot. We went around the room all giving a varied but
> interesting set of answers.
>
A simple question with a complex answer.
I was a fan of cinema a long time before I was a fan of PnP. Why?
Because I liked the fantasy of cinema - like most adolescent boys the
first films I liked were blockbuster adventure stories (Raiders of the
Lost Ark, Star Wars), then I moved onto all manner of sci-fi movies
(from trashy B-movies to modern classics like Blade Runner, Alien(s),
and Terminator).
As I matured I became interested in world cinema (primarily, it has to
be said, for the huge expanse of naked female flesh on show!) Later on
I began to like the films for their artistic value and I started
watching a lot of French movies (Blier and Malle being particular
favourites). All of this was sparked by the consistenly excellent and
varied selection that Channel 4 was showing in the '80s.
I gradually began exploring the "cult" genre (once again due to TV and
BBC2's Moviedrome seasons) which threw me in the direction of American
directors such as Coppola, The Coens, Wilder, Lynch, Kubrick, and
Scorsese.
I'm not sure when I became "aware" of Powell and Pressburger, but I
have a feeling it was the BBC tribute (possibly shortly after Powell's
death?) I'm not even sure which film it was that I consciously first
watched, its either AMOLAD or Blimp or Black Narcisuss. I know I was
sufficiently "into" PnP by the time I went to Uni in October 94, as
the first book I took out of the library was "Life and Death of a
Screenwriter" (entirely unconnected with my Economics degree!) I went
through Uni "collecting" TV appearances of the films and got "Arrows
of Desire" for my birthday in July 95.
Initially I liked the films by placing them in their historical
context (something that was natural for me as a frustrated
archeologist/historian) and noticing how downright revolutionary and
strange they were compared to most '40s movies.
By the way, I've just remembered how I came across Powell - it was
Peeping Tom being shown as part of either Moviedrome or on Channel 4
in the early 90s, so its their fault!
Going back to my point, I began to look at the films out of context
and began to notice that they really stood up well against modern
films - the special effects, camerawork, mise en scene and desgin of
Blimp, BN, TRS, and AMOLAD being consistently mind-blowing,
particularly to someone who loves flashy special effects and stunning
photography/direction. In short, they were ahead of their time,
something that I've always found attractive in art (there's that
historian streak I have again coming to the fore)
Of course, a large part of the reason why they stand up out of context
is Emeric's writing. As we've discussed before, Theo's speech in Blimp
just brought me to an absolute standstill - stunning in the true sense
of the word. If I hadn't been English I would probably have stood up
and applauded. I think seeing Blimp brought the quality of the writing
home to me, with its extreme focus on character (and therefore
characterisation, and therefore writing) and unusual structure (a 2
and half hour film that is almost a two-hander? - that's downright
revolutionary and blows Citizen Kane out of the water as far as I'm
concerned)
To summarise, I was drawn by controversy, hooked by incongruity,
dazzled by beauty, enraptured by photography, and finally stunned by
poetry - that's why I like Powell and Pressburger
(I didn't realise that until I wrote this reply, so thanks for asking
the question.)
As Vinny Jones would say; "It's been emotional..."
Alan Head
On 4th October 2002, Alan added:
Sentiments haven't
changed, although I'll add the following now that I've seen a few more
films (hadn't seen ACT, IKWIG, OR, or TOH when I wrote the original
piece)
"As a movie fan and keen photographer what normally excites me about
the movies is the visuals. I saw a documentary recently that mentioned
that the reason film stars have to be "good looking" is because its
purely a visual medium, in contrast to theatre, which is all about
dialogue. Like many documentaries of course this is a sweeping
generalisation, but what I like about PnP is that they break down the
boundaries to combine the best of both art forms. In fact of course
they don't only do this for film and theatre - they also bring in
ballet and opera. Are PnP the first multimedia artists? We have
Powell's visual fireworks and directing style, enhanced by brilliant
cinematographers like Cardiff and Hiller, and this is complemented by
Heckroth's set design, Helpmann and Shearer's dance skills, and of
course Emeric's writing. All these disciplines are brought together in
a synergistic orgy which climaxed with TOH, although the foreplay was
pretty good too :-)"
Bloody hell! PnP really brings the creative writer out in me!
Return to index
