Folk Club Bonn Website: http://folk-club-bonn.blogspot.de/
Meets:
First Friday of every month:
Haus Müllestumpe
An der Rheindorfer Burg 22
53117 Bonn
Tel : 0177 7767115
Monday, February 25, 2013
Sunday, March 20, 2011
WALKING THE LINE WITH JOHNNY CASH
Whilst never a big Country fan I couldn't help but be mesmerized by 'The Man in Black' Mr Johnny Cash. There were times when it seemed like he must have been granted parole from prison just so he could visit it to make one of his famous recordings. No wonder his fan mail was often from inmates and outsiders who seemed to think he was an inmate too.
In his autobiography 'Cash' Johnny writes of their being four of him in effect:
'Cash' - the musician and star (and as wife June put it 'the star and egomaniac)
'Johnny' - to friends and aquaintancies
John - To June and very close friends
J.R. - (his initials) to family
It's not surprising then that when Fox fILMS came to film his early years getting a character to fit all of these was going to literally be a case of 'Walk the Line'. I settled down to watch the film of that very name this weekend.
All credit to Joaquim Phoenix who has no right to look anything like Cash but makes an incredible job of it. Onstage he has all the right moves and gestures. Musically he also hits all the right notes, quite literally. Reese Witherspoon is the spitting image of the picture in Johnny's book depicting June Carter at The Grand Ole Opry in 1958 and rightly deserved her Oscar in 2005.
Problems arise with what's actually depicted and how. Almost anticipating this problem Johnny actually started his 1997 book admitting that no two people see anything alike. He uses the story of a break-in at his Jamaica House to illustrate the point. Not surprisingly then there are cries of 'This is just Hollywood', This is not how it was' especially from Johnny's daughter Rosanne, who says the film hurts because it's people she knew and loved and situations she knew but she doesn't recognize them. A sort of 'Village of the Damned' cry of 'These are not my children' in reverse you might say.
It's a reason I've never cared to read books about historical figures written long after they were dead. How can anyone really write a biography about Henry VIII five hundred years after he died? We all know the party game: Start a story and pass it on around the table - the more people that pass it on the less semblance it has of the original story.
The best we can ever hope for are small scraps of information. That's all we can truly trust.
Charles Dickens didn't always have that beard, Churchill was once a small boy who didn't smoke cigars, Robert Johnson will always be wearing a fedora hat in our minds eye. If we want to add to that basic information then we have to realise that it's all subjective and based on how others saw reality.
There's a lot made in the film of the death of Johnny's older brother in a sawmill accident, it's used very much to explain his inner anger and emotion for the rest of the film (the point is made so heavily at the opening that the the director even felt it was safe to drop scenes depicting the funeral and one where the adult Johnny sees his brother in a dream during his troubled first marriage).
Johnny Cash says in his autobiography - "events start slipping and sliding" and Rosanne Cash claimed in an interview that 'Walk the Line' is "just a Hollywood Movie" and not how it was.
Reading Johnny's book gives me the impression he would have said about the movie:
"I guess everyone sees things differently, maybethat was it, maybe it wasn't"
The film version of Johny Cash? Mesmerizing performances by the main stars and super music (not surprisingly). Whether it's truth or Hollywood maybe even the real characters couldn't tell you for sure.
Whilst never a big Country fan I couldn't help but be mesmerized by 'The Man in Black' Mr Johnny Cash. There were times when it seemed like he must have been granted parole from prison just so he could visit it to make one of his famous recordings. No wonder his fan mail was often from inmates and outsiders who seemed to think he was an inmate too.
In his autobiography 'Cash' Johnny writes of their being four of him in effect:
'Cash' - the musician and star (and as wife June put it 'the star and egomaniac)
'Johnny' - to friends and aquaintancies
John - To June and very close friends
J.R. - (his initials) to family
It's not surprising then that when Fox fILMS came to film his early years getting a character to fit all of these was going to literally be a case of 'Walk the Line'. I settled down to watch the film of that very name this weekend.
All credit to Joaquim Phoenix who has no right to look anything like Cash but makes an incredible job of it. Onstage he has all the right moves and gestures. Musically he also hits all the right notes, quite literally. Reese Witherspoon is the spitting image of the picture in Johnny's book depicting June Carter at The Grand Ole Opry in 1958 and rightly deserved her Oscar in 2005.
Problems arise with what's actually depicted and how. Almost anticipating this problem Johnny actually started his 1997 book admitting that no two people see anything alike. He uses the story of a break-in at his Jamaica House to illustrate the point. Not surprisingly then there are cries of 'This is just Hollywood', This is not how it was' especially from Johnny's daughter Rosanne, who says the film hurts because it's people she knew and loved and situations she knew but she doesn't recognize them. A sort of 'Village of the Damned' cry of 'These are not my children' in reverse you might say.
It's a reason I've never cared to read books about historical figures written long after they were dead. How can anyone really write a biography about Henry VIII five hundred years after he died? We all know the party game: Start a story and pass it on around the table - the more people that pass it on the less semblance it has of the original story.
The best we can ever hope for are small scraps of information. That's all we can truly trust.
Charles Dickens didn't always have that beard, Churchill was once a small boy who didn't smoke cigars, Robert Johnson will always be wearing a fedora hat in our minds eye. If we want to add to that basic information then we have to realise that it's all subjective and based on how others saw reality.
There's a lot made in the film of the death of Johnny's older brother in a sawmill accident, it's used very much to explain his inner anger and emotion for the rest of the film (the point is made so heavily at the opening that the the director even felt it was safe to drop scenes depicting the funeral and one where the adult Johnny sees his brother in a dream during his troubled first marriage).
Johnny Cash says in his autobiography - "events start slipping and sliding" and Rosanne Cash claimed in an interview that 'Walk the Line' is "just a Hollywood Movie" and not how it was.
Reading Johnny's book gives me the impression he would have said about the movie:
"I guess everyone sees things differently, maybethat was it, maybe it wasn't"
The film version of Johny Cash? Mesmerizing performances by the main stars and super music (not surprisingly). Whether it's truth or Hollywood maybe even the real characters couldn't tell you for sure.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
A recent thread on the ‚Digital Photography Review’ Nikon Forum set me wondering.
It concerned a seeming ‘Street Actor’ who, on seeing his picture was being taken, demanded a pound payment from the surprised ‘snapper’. The Snapper didn’t pay up but he did pose the question ‘Is it customary to pay in such a situation? Was I wrong?’
As he puts it:
"It would be different if he had been doing something such as a street performer, or had at least stood for the pic... but I just didnt feel like I owed him anything.. his outfit was screaming "take my picture", and from such a distance I didnt feel like I had invaded his privacy... He was apparently some sort of street performer as I saw him later walking around in the same area greeting people (big ben, thames river area)"
It appears that, had the man been openly ‘performing’ something then dropping money in a hat/tin cup would be in order – but instead he was seemingly ‘off duty’. Someone else suggested that people who just dress up and ‘stand still’ (human statues) shouldn’t even qualify if they have a tin cup since standing still isn’t actually doing anything so they’re strictly not ‘performing’. Further posters claimed that anyone in a public place is public property so to speak and so must accept being photographed.
Even if this is true, and I’m not sure it is, there is a can of worms further down the argument. If you are expecting to receive some financial reward for the persons image then payment seems appropriate – and indeed professionally speaking a model release form should be used. Street photographers though usually don’t know what will turn out to be a valuable shot and in truth any shot may have a value you don’t know about – that man and woman holding hands may be married, but not to each other! That man hurrying down the High Street may have reason to tell police officers he was not even in the City you just snapped him in.
Lets take a ‘best case scenario’:
You snap two old ladies laughing at a bus stop. No money in a picture like that seemingly. unlikely they need alibis and famous they are not. Well how about all those postcards you see with old sepia coloured images from bygone days and ‘funny’ texts?
These unwitting 'models' certainly never thought they would be a part of big business – and the postcard people have a huge and cheap source of ‘models’ who won’t need paying – ever. Had that old lady gurning inadvertently into a camera in 1930 and out of a postcard in 2006 in her best dress and on her brand new bicycle asked to sign model release forms in 1930 she would have been laughed at.
You never know what will sell.
Perhaps us photographers just need to take quick pictures in the streets and ‘sit on’ them for twenty years just to be on the safe side… Or pay a pound now?!
It concerned a seeming ‘Street Actor’ who, on seeing his picture was being taken, demanded a pound payment from the surprised ‘snapper’. The Snapper didn’t pay up but he did pose the question ‘Is it customary to pay in such a situation? Was I wrong?’
As he puts it:
"It would be different if he had been doing something such as a street performer, or had at least stood for the pic... but I just didnt feel like I owed him anything.. his outfit was screaming "take my picture", and from such a distance I didnt feel like I had invaded his privacy... He was apparently some sort of street performer as I saw him later walking around in the same area greeting people (big ben, thames river area)"
It appears that, had the man been openly ‘performing’ something then dropping money in a hat/tin cup would be in order – but instead he was seemingly ‘off duty’. Someone else suggested that people who just dress up and ‘stand still’ (human statues) shouldn’t even qualify if they have a tin cup since standing still isn’t actually doing anything so they’re strictly not ‘performing’. Further posters claimed that anyone in a public place is public property so to speak and so must accept being photographed.
Even if this is true, and I’m not sure it is, there is a can of worms further down the argument. If you are expecting to receive some financial reward for the persons image then payment seems appropriate – and indeed professionally speaking a model release form should be used. Street photographers though usually don’t know what will turn out to be a valuable shot and in truth any shot may have a value you don’t know about – that man and woman holding hands may be married, but not to each other! That man hurrying down the High Street may have reason to tell police officers he was not even in the City you just snapped him in.
Lets take a ‘best case scenario’:
You snap two old ladies laughing at a bus stop. No money in a picture like that seemingly. unlikely they need alibis and famous they are not. Well how about all those postcards you see with old sepia coloured images from bygone days and ‘funny’ texts?
These unwitting 'models' certainly never thought they would be a part of big business – and the postcard people have a huge and cheap source of ‘models’ who won’t need paying – ever. Had that old lady gurning inadvertently into a camera in 1930 and out of a postcard in 2006 in her best dress and on her brand new bicycle asked to sign model release forms in 1930 she would have been laughed at.
You never know what will sell.
Perhaps us photographers just need to take quick pictures in the streets and ‘sit on’ them for twenty years just to be on the safe side… Or pay a pound now?!
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Dresden - The TV Movie
The destruction of Dresden is widely considered one of WW2's darkest moments - a War Crime in many eyes. Comparisons with the bombing of Coventry are often made but however horrific,whilst Coventry lost some 1200 inhabitants, figures for Dresden vary due to refugee numbers at the time but are currently estimated at some 25 - 35000 people.
A necessary raid that by chance good weather and poor defences turned out deadlier than expected? Or pre-planned mass murder of civilians? It is, even today, a controversial topic.
Does making it relevant to todays younger generation require it be given a Hollywood 'makeover'? A recent made for television film by German director Roland Richter thought so...
General reviews of the show, which ran over two nights, were not encouraging. One reviewer suggested it was amazing what they could do with parachute silk in those days (suggesting the costumes were too fancy for the time), whilst others found the included love story at best an irritating diversion from the reality being reconstructed and at worst quite ludicrous (particularly when the hero and heroine consumate their new found love in a hospital bed surrounded by patients all of whom sleep on oblivious!) This was 'Titanic' on dry land. A girl due to make a loveless marriage discovers a mysterious stranger. The aim was to appeal to younger viewers - and what better way than this trusted 'love story' format? The producers, in defence, claimed that this love story was based on a factual encounter between a British Pilot and a German nurse - maybe they will 'go public' to at least give a bit more support? then again, having read the reviews, probably they won't!
John Light ('Band of Brothers') as bomber pilot Robert Newman never has enough dialogue to properly establish himself sympathetically and is left having to make his face do all the talking - 'smouldering meaningfully' into the camera. Felicitas Woll as Anna has plenty to say but just seems a petulant youth rebelling against her strict parents rather than creating a platform whereby she and Light can establish their characters .
The script seemed to be trying to give everybodys' viewpoint. Jews, Allies, Germans, all get a snippet of dialogue to state what is in reality a complicated case. Take the British viewpoint: We have an officer at HQ who questions the evolving bombing plans and allows thereby the 'Bomber Harris' strategic standpoint to be stated: Final proof that the war is over for Germany, cutting the lines of troop/supply reinforcements completely (which could have been done just by further bombing the railway?, destroying major factories) and to balance him we have too a pilot 'with a conscience' voicing protests. But then again we have a pilot recalling that he had family killed in Coventry so Dresden 'deserves what it gets'. There is little need to defend the humanist viewpoint - part two is largely given over to graphic scenes of flaming infernos and Dresden citizens trapped in underground bunkers suffocating - even begging to be shot by soldiers rather than prolong their agonies.
It's easy to claim failure by the director for the films shortcomings but I would however say 'hats off' in the end for even attempting to cover a very controversial moment of recent history. If the english scenes had been solely in english with german sub-titles instead of a mish-mash of sometimes english sometimes english soldiers speaking german; and if the hero and heroine had had more to say maybe things would have beeen better. This was trumpeted as a major tv film for 2006 after all - maybe it should have been a mini series instead? Characters could then have evolved until they had our more of our sympathy.
When I asked German colleagues the next day for their opinions I was unable to find anyone who had actually watched it. An elder colleague said he had heard enough about it in the years following 1945 to last a lifetime which was understandable. But this was aimed at younger tv viewers and they were seemingly not interested enough to see it. Presumably they did not watch because they expected a crusty documentary style film and so missed the 'big' love story that was supposed to attract them in the first place with the result it was watched by the very people who didn't want the Hollywood style love story they found.
Ultimately my question remains - Is it justifiable to 'dumb down' history into a romance in order to reach a younger target group? If so, in the case of 'Dresden' it seems to have failed - in the end, in attempting to attract the young it only ended up disappointing the old.
Links:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,400691,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2071502,00.html
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/3/0,1872,3881603,00.html
The destruction of Dresden is widely considered one of WW2's darkest moments - a War Crime in many eyes. Comparisons with the bombing of Coventry are often made but however horrific,whilst Coventry lost some 1200 inhabitants, figures for Dresden vary due to refugee numbers at the time but are currently estimated at some 25 - 35000 people.
A necessary raid that by chance good weather and poor defences turned out deadlier than expected? Or pre-planned mass murder of civilians? It is, even today, a controversial topic.
Does making it relevant to todays younger generation require it be given a Hollywood 'makeover'? A recent made for television film by German director Roland Richter thought so...
General reviews of the show, which ran over two nights, were not encouraging. One reviewer suggested it was amazing what they could do with parachute silk in those days (suggesting the costumes were too fancy for the time), whilst others found the included love story at best an irritating diversion from the reality being reconstructed and at worst quite ludicrous (particularly when the hero and heroine consumate their new found love in a hospital bed surrounded by patients all of whom sleep on oblivious!) This was 'Titanic' on dry land. A girl due to make a loveless marriage discovers a mysterious stranger. The aim was to appeal to younger viewers - and what better way than this trusted 'love story' format? The producers, in defence, claimed that this love story was based on a factual encounter between a British Pilot and a German nurse - maybe they will 'go public' to at least give a bit more support? then again, having read the reviews, probably they won't!
John Light ('Band of Brothers') as bomber pilot Robert Newman never has enough dialogue to properly establish himself sympathetically and is left having to make his face do all the talking - 'smouldering meaningfully' into the camera. Felicitas Woll as Anna has plenty to say but just seems a petulant youth rebelling against her strict parents rather than creating a platform whereby she and Light can establish their characters .
The script seemed to be trying to give everybodys' viewpoint. Jews, Allies, Germans, all get a snippet of dialogue to state what is in reality a complicated case. Take the British viewpoint: We have an officer at HQ who questions the evolving bombing plans and allows thereby the 'Bomber Harris' strategic standpoint to be stated: Final proof that the war is over for Germany, cutting the lines of troop/supply reinforcements completely (which could have been done just by further bombing the railway?, destroying major factories) and to balance him we have too a pilot 'with a conscience' voicing protests. But then again we have a pilot recalling that he had family killed in Coventry so Dresden 'deserves what it gets'. There is little need to defend the humanist viewpoint - part two is largely given over to graphic scenes of flaming infernos and Dresden citizens trapped in underground bunkers suffocating - even begging to be shot by soldiers rather than prolong their agonies.
It's easy to claim failure by the director for the films shortcomings but I would however say 'hats off' in the end for even attempting to cover a very controversial moment of recent history. If the english scenes had been solely in english with german sub-titles instead of a mish-mash of sometimes english sometimes english soldiers speaking german; and if the hero and heroine had had more to say maybe things would have beeen better. This was trumpeted as a major tv film for 2006 after all - maybe it should have been a mini series instead? Characters could then have evolved until they had our more of our sympathy.
When I asked German colleagues the next day for their opinions I was unable to find anyone who had actually watched it. An elder colleague said he had heard enough about it in the years following 1945 to last a lifetime which was understandable. But this was aimed at younger tv viewers and they were seemingly not interested enough to see it. Presumably they did not watch because they expected a crusty documentary style film and so missed the 'big' love story that was supposed to attract them in the first place with the result it was watched by the very people who didn't want the Hollywood style love story they found.
Ultimately my question remains - Is it justifiable to 'dumb down' history into a romance in order to reach a younger target group? If so, in the case of 'Dresden' it seems to have failed - in the end, in attempting to attract the young it only ended up disappointing the old.
Links:
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,400691,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2071502,00.html
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/3/0,1872,3881603,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)