TPO 3 Lecture 2 Film history
Narrator
Listen to part of a lecture in a film historyclass.
Professor
Okay, we’ve been discussing films in the1920s and 30s, and how back then film categories, as we know them today, hadnot yet been established. We said that by today’s standards, many of the filmsof the 20s and 30s would be considered hybrids, that is, a mixture of stylesthat wouldn’t exactly fit into any of today’s categories. And in that context,today we are going to talk about a film-maker who began making very uniquefilms in the late 1920s. He was French, and his name was Jean Painlevé.
Jean Painlevé was born in 1902. He made hisfirst film in 1928. Now in a way, Painlevé’s films conform to norms of the 20sand 30s, that is, they don’t fit very neatly into the categories we use toclassify films today. That said, even by the standards of the 20s and 30s,Painlevé’s films were a unique hybrid of styles. He had a special way offusing, or some people might say, confusing, science and fiction. His filmsbegin with facts, but then they become more and more fictional. They graduallyadd more and more fictional elements. In fact, Painlevé was known for sayingthat science is fiction.
Painlevé was a pioneer in underwaterfilm-making, and a lot of his short films focused on the aquatic animal world.He liked to show small underwater creatures, displaying what seemed likefamiliar human characteristics – what we think of as unique to humans. He mighttake a clip of a mollusk going up and down in the water and set it to music.You know, to make it look as if the mollusk were dancing to the music like ahuman being – that sort of thing. But then he suddenly changed the image ornarration to remind us how different the animals are, how unlike humans.
He confused his audience in the way heportrayed the animals he filmed, mixing up our notions of the categories humanand animal. The films make us a little uncomfortable at times because we areuncertain about what we are seeing. It gives him films an uncanny feature: thefamiliar made unfamiliar, the normal made suspicious. He liked twists, he likedthe unusual. In fact, one of his favorite sea animals was the seahorse becausewith seahorses, it’s the male that carries the eggs, and he thought that wasgreat. His first and most celebrated underwater film is about the seahorse.
Susan, you have a question?
Student 1
But underwater film-making wasn’t thatunusual, was it? I mean, weren’t there other people making movies underwater?
Professor
Well, actually, it was pretty rare at thattime. I mean, we are talking the early 1930s here.
Student 1
But what about Jacques Cousteau? Was he likean innovator, you know, with underwater photography too?
Professor
Ah, Jacques Cousteau. Well, Painlevé andCousteau did both film underwater, and they were both innovators, so you areright in that sense. But that’s pretty much where the similarities end.
First of all, Painlevé was about 20 yearsahead of Cousteau. And Cousteau’s adventures were high-tech, with lots of fancyequipment, whereas Painlevé kind of patchedequipment together as he needed it.Cousteau usually filmed large animals, usually in the open sea, whereasPainlevé generally filmed smaller animals, and he liked to film in shallowwater.
Uh, what else? Oh well, the main differencewas that Cousteau simply investigated and presented the facts – he didn’t mixin fiction. He was a strict documentarist. He set the standard really for thenature documentary. Painlevé, on the other hand, as we said before, mixed inelements of fiction. And his films are much more artistic, incorporating musicas an important element.
John, you have a question?
Student 2
Well, maybe I shouldn’t be asking this, butif Painlevé’s films are so special, so good, why haven’t we ever heard of them?I mean, everyone’s heard of Jacques Cousteau.
Professor
Well, that’s a fairquestion. Uh, the short answer is that Painlevé’s style just never caught onwith the general public. I mean, it probably goes back at least in part to whatwe mentioned earlier, that people didn’t know what to make of his films – theywere confused by them, whereas Cousteau’s documentaries were verystraightforward, met people’s expectations more than Painlevé’s films did. Butyou true film history buffs know about him. And Painlevé is still highlyrespected in many circles.
Narrator
Listen to part of a lecture in a film historyclass.
Professor
Okay, we’ve been discussing films in the1920s and 30s, and how back then film categories, as we know them today, hadnot yet been established. We said that by today’s standards, many of the filmsof the 20s and 30s would be considered hybrids, that is, a mixture of stylesthat wouldn’t exactly fit into any of today’s categories. And in that context,today we are going to talk about a film-maker who began making very uniquefilms in the late 1920s. He was French, and his name was Jean Painlevé.
Jean Painlevé was born in 1902. He made hisfirst film in 1928. Now in a way, Painlevé’s films conform to norms of the 20sand 30s, that is, they don’t fit very neatly into the categories we use toclassify films today. That said, even by the standards of the 20s and 30s,Painlevé’s films were a unique hybrid of styles. He had a special way offusing, or some people might say, confusing, science and fiction. His filmsbegin with facts, but then they become more and more fictional. They graduallyadd more and more fictional elements. In fact, Painlevé was known for sayingthat science is fiction.
Painlevé was a pioneer in underwaterfilm-making, and a lot of his short films focused on the aquatic animal world.He liked to show small underwater creatures, displaying what seemed likefamiliar human characteristics – what we think of as unique to humans. He mighttake a clip of a mollusk going up and down in the water and set it to music.You know, to make it look as if the mollusk were dancing to the music like ahuman being – that sort of thing. But then he suddenly changed the image ornarration to remind us how different the animals are, how unlike humans.
He confused his audience in the way heportrayed the animals he filmed, mixing up our notions of the categories humanand animal. The films make us a little uncomfortable at times because we areuncertain about what we are seeing. It gives him films an uncanny feature: thefamiliar made unfamiliar, the normal made suspicious. He liked twists, he likedthe unusual. In fact, one of his favorite sea animals was the seahorse becausewith seahorses, it’s the male that carries the eggs, and he thought that wasgreat. His first and most celebrated underwater film is about the seahorse.
Susan, you have a question?
Student 1
But underwater film-making wasn’t thatunusual, was it? I mean, weren’t there other people making movies underwater?
Professor
Well, actually, it was pretty rare at thattime. I mean, we are talking the early 1930s here.
Student 1
But what about Jacques Cousteau? Was he likean innovator, you know, with underwater photography too?
Professor
Ah, Jacques Cousteau. Well, Painlevé andCousteau did both film underwater, and they were both innovators, so you areright in that sense. But that’s pretty much where the similarities end.
First of all, Painlevé was about 20 yearsahead of Cousteau. And Cousteau’s adventures were high-tech, with lots of fancyequipment, whereas Painlevé kind of patchedequipment together as he needed it.Cousteau usually filmed large animals, usually in the open sea, whereasPainlevé generally filmed smaller animals, and he liked to film in shallowwater.
Uh, what else? Oh well, the main differencewas that Cousteau simply investigated and presented the facts – he didn’t mixin fiction. He was a strict documentarist. He set the standard really for thenature documentary. Painlevé, on the other hand, as we said before, mixed inelements of fiction. And his films are much more artistic, incorporating musicas an important element.
John, you have a question?
Student 2
Well, maybe I shouldn’t be asking this, butif Painlevé’s films are so special, so good, why haven’t we ever heard of them?I mean, everyone’s heard of Jacques Cousteau.
Professor
Well, that’s a fairquestion. Uh, the short answer is that Painlevé’s style just never caught onwith the general public. I mean, it probably goes back at least in part to whatwe mentioned earlier, that people didn’t know what to make of his films – theywere confused by them, whereas Cousteau’s documentaries were verystraightforward, met people’s expectations more than Painlevé’s films did. Butyou true film history buffs know about him. And Painlevé is still highlyrespected in many circles.
