City Symphony's is an unappreciated genre. The most famous ones are The Man with a Movie Camera and Berlin: Symphony of a Great City. Man with a Movie Camera is my favorite City Symphony but À propos de Nice is by far the craziest one.
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
Why do you call it a city symphony?
I think we've had this debate before.
I proclaim ignorance.
Films about the life of a city (often showing one day, from the morning to the evening) are called city Symphonies. This one is about Nice.
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
Is it about Nice? For some reason I thought it was more a comment on people and on film form than about Nice. In fact, it might've taken place in any resort town and we wouldn't know the difference--we only know it is Nice because of the title.
And why is it called a "Symphony"? This term implies a connection with music, a concentration on visual rhythm or poetry. I don't get that from this film.
I proclaim ignorance.
First. I wish I could clam the ownership of the name "city symphonies". I don't know who was the first to call avant garde films about the life of a city, City Symphony but it was not me. The name is most likely borrowed from "Berlin: Symphony of a Great City". Some of the most famous city symphonies are Manhattan, 24 dollar Island, The Man with the Movie Camera and Berlin Symphony of a Great City.
At the beginning of cinema directors where not sure what they had in their hands (especially avant garde directors). Was this a new art form or a visual extension of other art forms, an image- poem, song, symphony, portrait... In fact you will often see these words in film titles (even today). Here are some examples:
"Nosferatu, a Symphony of Horror"
"Industrial Symphony No. 1: The Dream of the Broken Hearted"
"Portrait of a Young Man in Three Movements"
"An Optical Poem"
"The Tempest: Poem on the Sea"
Now whether this film is a city symphony or not is another question. I think it fits into that category but I have no idea whether it is generally considered as one or not. Categorization is always forced, whether we are talking about drama, comedies or any other genre. Is for example "Regen" a City Symphony. And what about "Autumn Fire"? Some would call them that.
And back to this film. I think there is a reason why the director included the name of the city in the title. I suggest that he was making a film in the tradition of other (avant garde) city symphonies (they usually had the name of the city in the title). Also all of the known names of the film refer to Nice:
Also Known As (AKA)
A propósito de NizaSpain
A proposito di NizzaItaly
Nizza(undefined)
I hope this answers your question.
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
To be honest, my question is a little more aggressive than that. What I really mean is: Why categorize at all?
I find stuffing A propos de Nice into the category of City Symphony absurd and I'm trying to find specifics to why I think so.
It's entirely possible that City Symphony was indirectly termed by Ruttman himself. "At the beginning of cinema directors where not sure what they had in their hands..." I do not understand why you say this. 1)This is NOT the beginning of cinema--filmmakers were pretty sure of themselves and of what they could do by the time the 20s were rolling around and they were doing all they could to explore and expand the art. Just because the avant-garde guys were doing something that had never been done before does not mean they had no idea what they were doing--they were even pretty cocky about it sometimes (check out old film journals, though they are rare). 2)Ruttman knew exactly what he was doing in calling his film a Symphony. He was brought on to edit the picture after much of the footage had been shot, and as he was going through the footage he began cutting like he would to music. He followed tempos and rhythms and cut in a way that was instinctually musical. He was, after all, an animator who was directly interested in exploring visual rhythm. To him, the the meaning of the visuals sliced together did not matter so much as the rhythm they created. <----THIS is the "City Symphony" and is an approach directly in opposition with films like The Man with a Movie Camera and A propos de Nice.
Do you see why I call categorizing this film as City Symphony absurd? I mean, I guess you can call it whatever you want, but in doing so you limit your understanding of the film and do a great disservice to anybody who watches it as a "city symphony." Definitions ultimately limit, close off. Your categorizing of A propos de Nice (and worse The Man with a Movie Camera) stubbornly limits yourself and is almost irresponsible.
Anyway, I'm going to stop typing now. I feel like a jerk.
I proclaim ignorance.
"Why categorize at all?"
Why call a western a western? I guess I'm not the only one who likes to categorize. The reason I do it is because I think "City Symphonies" is an interesting genre.
I'm not going to argue with you. I see that you know film history and you like good films. I see no profit in a pissing contest.
I don't think everything was set in stone regarding what a film was or is in the 20 - or the 30 for that matter (at least not if the film theory toughed at the university I attended was right). But I'm not going to go there. It would be a side track and a pissing contest.
However I do think that you raise a good point, when you question whether it is right to call these films, City Symphonies (reminds one of Disney's Silly Symphonies). I did not pick that name. I just know that film scholars use it. Maybe "City Films" would have been better. Who knows? I would not mind if it was called something else. I just like the genre and like finding new films which might belong to it. It is really a forgotten art form, by scholars, film makers and viewers.
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
There are definitely worthless debates in genre theory about what a genre is, and I am definitely bringing up some stupid issues.
Maybe we should just start calling them "City Films." That is not a bad idea. "City Symphony" is a very shaky and under-defined critical term and can be honestly applied to very few films.
I've always seen films like A propos de Nice more as personal essays, closer in line with what Welles was talking about late in his career--a personal interpretation through the art of film.
Will you start calling them just "City Films"? This is how critical terms get started, just by using terms and people becoming familiar with them. "City Symphony" is both too specific and too vague to be any proper "genre" but "City Films" is not bad. Or maybe there is another term we can use?
I proclaim ignorance.
"There are definitely worthless debates in genre theory about what a genre is"
Oh yes there is! And there is no end to it. Once you start to pull one thread the whole system collapses. I think that goes for most/all categorizations. They are all man made and in some way forced.
"Or maybe there is another term we can use?"
What about "City poem"? Or "Optical City Poem"? :) The term poem does emphasize that these films are not just about the city but that the city is used as material to say something more or as "words" in a poem.
I have many dream project. Most of them will never materialize. One of them is to write a paper on "City Films," but first I want to collect as many city films as possible. Maybe it will only end up as a list of possible candidates. Well see.
You are welcome to join me on my hunt, if you want. :-).
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
Collecting City Films sounds like a fine idea, although I am already unsure of where to draw the lines. You see one of the reasons I love films like A propos de Nice and The Man with a Movie Camera so much is that they are non-fiction explorations--unlike fiction films and unlike "documentary" films, these movies explore their visuals without any constraint and are free to do as they please (and they do). This is a characteristic of most (all?) City Films, this unrestricted camera, but also extends to other subjects, too.
For instance, it would be very easy to categorize Mikhail Kaufman's Moscow as a City Film, but what about his In Spring? It takes the same unrestricted approach but its images are for the most part unrelated to or grounded in any particular city. OK, I should probably use a better-known example.
You brought Ivens's Regen--is that a City Film? It is concerned with one aspect of a city, the rain, but is still very much a portrait of life there. I think I would consider it a City Film...but then what about his The Bridge? Similar technique and of great interest to fans of Regen, but it's about a train crossing a bridge. City Film? Probably not. Although it's a portrait of a very specific location in some city. But at the same time, it might be of perfect interest to anyone who likes City Films and shares technical similarities with it. What to do?
I don't know. I am rambling. I think that the common thread between city films is form rather than content, but the name makes it sound like content (the city) is more important than the form (portrait of...). But I'll be glad to explore the topic more and start out making a list of them. Isn't there already one somewhere on IMDb? (Was it in under the Silent boards?)
I proclaim ignorance.
Dear Mango...
You have some very interesting points here and you gave me a lot to think about. I think you are right that "the common thread between city films is form rather than content". I also agree with you that City films are interesting because they "explore their visuals without any constraint and are free to do as they please". You pointed our that this is done in films which are not city films (which I would like to investigate further) but I also find city films interesting because they say something about a city at a particular time. One of the charms of The Man with a Movie Camera is the time and the city it self, even though the film is not really about that.
I have not seen The Bridge or In Spring. Where did you get a hold of them? They sound very interesting.
And yes I did start a thread on the silent board but I think it fell of the board because it was too "old". It would be better to use a board like this one to discuss city films because there is so little activity here.
- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -
I like that you say this: "I also find city films interesting because they say something about a city at a particular time."
This is why I love these films also, but I would like to generalize them outside of the "city."
Just as a City Film shows a specific time in a specific place, so do all films that free themselves from the contraint of dramatic or argumentative motivation (fiction and documentary films). A film that has adopted the style of the City Film can be made anywhere, in any number of cities, at any point in time, without limiting itself to a "city" (per se), and will still interest me. I wish hundreds of movies like A propos de Nice had been made throughout history, glimpses of specific images that we have no relation to today.
Of course, there is also a style to this type of filmmaking. Although hindrances of specific meanings have been bucked, the camera is not objectively capturing the world, passively recording images. The film explores its place in its own style, choosing its images/rhythm/form/etc. as a way of showing the world during the period. There are many subtle varieties this style/form can take and which have not been fully explored, but which captivate me and are the reason I've delved into these types of films. It is perhaps also for the reason that I've gotten slightly defensive against the term "City Symphony" which is (to me) a really specific style--since style is what interests me in these films, to put them all together under an implied style is stifling and limited.
You can watch The Bridge here: http://www.ubu.com/film/ivens.html Ironically, they have taken a quip from Close Up which calls it a "symphony"; ironic because Close Up is one of the early film journals I referred to earlier when saying that the cinema artists had a pretty sure idea of what they were doing by the 20s and that they call it a "symphony" which is exactly why I was relating it to the "City Film" but was unsure if I could justify it because it was not actually about a city.
As for In Spring, there is a torrent copy places online. I'm not sure if it is entirely legal since it is taken from a TV airing (in Russia?), but am hoping that I am safe considering its copyright issues have probably never even thought of coming near the US. I can't say where to find it, but if you dig around, such copies are floating around.
Can you link people from the silent board? I like that this film has been getting some posts (eh, even if mostly from us). If any work has been done concerning the City Symphony already, it might be a good idea to post it here.
I proclaim ignorance.