tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post7383603788934601232..comments2023-10-22T17:40:51.323-04:00Comments on Tativille: Mon cas (1986): Manoel de Oliveira's Four-Part Personal Cinematic HistoryMichael J. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12333893240336518881noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-90029289163861258132012-03-22T16:03:48.406-04:002012-03-22T16:03:48.406-04:00El cine de De Oliveira realmente es Ășnico.El cine de De Oliveira realmente es Ășnico.David Cotoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12116099140599445473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-64386476466810586962011-02-19T21:42:56.154-05:002011-02-19T21:42:56.154-05:00Thank you for your wonderful comments as always, N...Thank you for your wonderful comments as always, Nathaniel. They are far more interesting than the very cursory job I did with the film; I was beginning to feel the guilt of failing to post. <br /><br />I am fairly certain that you're correct in identifying the reference. My immediate thinking would be that the set-piece possesses a duplicate meaning: as both the source of the modern-era - with the contemporary set-craft representing its final stage; and as an obvious metonymy for the rebirth of the Job narrative. I am certain that there is far more that I am either overlooking or of which I am unaware.Michael J. Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12333893240336518881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13095695.post-49248973683532350182011-02-19T04:00:41.830-05:002011-02-19T04:00:41.830-05:00I couldn't agree more with your reflections he...I couldn't agree more with your reflections here, Michael. But for me the impact of the whole thing comes down to an emphasis on the language, most especially (and not surprisingly) in the final sequence. That was bracing because, even though I already had a deep interest in biblical literature and language, the effect of seeing it presented in this fashion and given the proper space to play out was truly stunning. The way in which the Job sequence complements and reflects the previous parts is really another subject entirely and belongs to what you are doing here, analyzing the whole. But, once again, for me it's that duration and form that marks this sequence out as the singular and powerfully rich thing it is. <br /><br />Luis Miguel Cintra is, of course, perfect for this very antique theatrical presentational style of pronouncement and proclamation. Cintra is really more of an orator than an actor and that's not meant as criticism at all (he does variations on this in virtually all Oliveira's films to one degree or another--from Don Rodrigue in The Satin Slipper to Father Antonio Vieira in Word and Utopia; the cameo he has reciting Pessoa in Eccentricities is great because it's almost a bald acknowledgment of who and what he is--his function or role in all the texts). <br /><br />I have to tell you that the first time I heard the Job section here (and I don't consider myself unfamiliar with that material at all) I was quite simply blown away by the extraordinary effectiveness of Oliveira's self-consciously antique approach to the presentation. It's self-conscious without that being degenerative in some post-modern sense of arbitrary intellectual remove or qualification. I really hope that this whole sequence is the model Oliveira uses for his proposed Quixote adaptation in the style of Gustave Moreau.<br /><br />By the way, how did you read the final scene--most specifically the re-establishment of Job's family and fortunes presented to us within that particular backdropped environment (it's a reference to Ritratto di Citta Ideale by Laurana, I think)? Why that and especially why that in relationship to the imposition of more modern theatrical artifice during the same scene and given all that has come before? Or is the reason self-evident?nathaniel drake carlsonnoreply@blogger.com