The Old Reader

21 Oct 01:59

Inga's Veil, Evening chapter one Blue White Rainbow erotic novel, film poem was updated

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: scottlordnovel <noreply@google.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:31 AM
Subject: [scottlordnovel] Inga's Veil, Evening chapter one Blue White Rainbow erotic novel, film poem was updated
To: scottlordnovelist@gmail.com

Scott Lord updated the page Inga's Veil, Evening chapter one Blue White Rainbow erotic novel, film poem. View the changes below.

Color key: Insertion | Deletion

Wife in Mirror, 1966 by William Stilson

The painted was kept in a gallery on Bearskin Kneck when the present author lived there. She is, for the most part, "the real Inga", though only a painting.

She is the only direct subject of the first scene of the film: there is the use of voice over narrative and flashforward. In the opening shot she is seen in mediuum full shot, her having finished her correspondence. Depending upon what hour she had begun, there previously had been added to that an infrequent journal entry in epistolary form addressed to her lover more often than not rather than to herself. Despite its seeming to be too early in the evening, she appears to be putting a manuscript into the top drawer of her desk, which she closes with her right hand. If it can be said that as an actress she will be drifting and that her instructions are to dress off to the right of her chair, on film the sequence is an on camera turn-her directions to sit into the set have been precluded in that later within the scene there is the use of retrospective narrative cut in shots of her sitting at the desk from within a half hour of her having risen from her chair, the camera intriguing the spectator by suprisingly creating a voyouerism within discourse throught its third person omniscient voice, the transdiegetic aspect of its having omniprescence being temporal rather than spatial as it returns to a cutback shot in the present tense.

There is a cup of coffee on the desk, the height of which is above her knees while below her stomach. At first, the tight closeups, close ups and medium close shots are lensed from behind the desk, from a vantage point not thought possible for the camera to acquire, as though there were physically no wall behind it, much like a three wall set, whereas the medium shots are near to being filmed over the shoulder and in three quarter profile. Near to the right of the chair, she has already skimmed the contents of the drawer before closing it and has brought her glance to the horizontal plane, the subjective high angle withheld from the film as she is to lower her view to reassure herself that the objects on the desk are neatly placed, her not necessarily imediately having noticed the telephone having had been being now more to the left within the square created by what is either a computer or a television with a digital video recorder within the polished wooden rectangle . The script given to the actress includes description as to whether or not there is an object on the desk that ostensibly belongs to him, it appearing during the course of the scene that there is the disclosure that they could more than live together or that they were seeing each other frequently. The script has also withheld information from the actress untill shooting. If one or more of the items are his, they could include a gift that she had brought back as a present still waiting for him or older articles they had acquired together, the emotional content of the spatial object within the filmed frame subject to the look and actions of the character.

Were the films use of multiple cameras to include her surveying the desk, watching her eyes would have relayed a sentimental look in her having accomplished having written the particular letter or poem and in their sense of immediacy and yet there is an urgency that has concluded or transformed, something indicative of her being unfailiar with a newly felt emotion, one different than she previously had concieved it would be were she to ever experience it. As she slowly, only gradually lowers her eyelids, it is not according to a personal, solipstic fascination, but more so her lips are only slightly apart, her having ostensibly precluded opening them any wider as her unspoken response to something she had remembered his having said and would not allow herself to answer, to quote or to reiterate, she herself only having heard it said only once, only by him on that occaision, it cloistered within her memory-laden femininity as she looked to him to kiss her eyelids again. There was now a smoothness, or ease to her movements, one in part self acknowledgement, there being a look of introspective holiness, or spiritual beauty derived from that which is known intimately, and known as being particularly singular or unique to her own experience; there is a sensuality to her being in reflection and yet her herself being an an emotive image as a softness impinged her sensibility and her sensibility of self awareness. Within the transcription of her moving image into the dramaturgical significance it would acquire positioned within the linear visual plotline, projected onto, and or projected for the ideal viewer of an implied or disembodied spectator is her solitude projected as not only a mobilized gaze, but as an act of prayer that can be taken as a metaphor for what not only would be tacit between them when they later would meet, but also for her present need to speak to him at that moment- female desire as transcendental. It is discernable, before viewing the retrospective interdiegetic shots of her penning what she had only then finished writing, that it may hvae been only after her having recieved, or found, an earlier letter of his, or a volume of poetry on the shelf in which he had written something in the margins and had telephoned her about in hope she would have time to thumb through the book to find it. Was it that belief, and accordingly beauty, was the desire for union with something that found the fondness of appreciation?

"I can't say a word on this telephone untill your finished telling me everything."

"Why did you stop using words while we were making love?"

The shot at present is stationary. An as objectification of pleasure, her body, and any beauty inherent within the erotic object as a quality and its accompanying position of belief as the desire for a transcendental love and ideal beauty, in its femininity is beauty as is modified, her nudity and its foreshadowing of its possible later reoccurrence in the film beuaty that as an objectification of pleasure takes action rather than being only transitory, beauty as perpetual, truth, searched for as being absolute, held by her spontaneity; as an aethetic continuum there is a sensuality to the narrative-spatial dimensions of the scene in which its motifs are encased as she is the center of the vertical composition, the spatial planes of the room limited to the vertical frameline untill divulged by her horizontal movement.

Within the spectatorial address or any consequent objectification of spectatorial pleasure or desire, including viewer identification as desire for an erotic subjectivity as erotic object, the sequence, itself designed as thematicly autonomous, is not an autonomous single shot in that there is a cutting for continuity that includes reframings and cutting to similar angles. There is a thematic unity of context within the interframe narrative that, in being centered around her and her movement, her movement and or action theatrical space in relation to object positions that within their spatial proximity to her and within their spatial contiguity to each other are measured by linear perspective as non-moving height or width, is becoming increasingly interested in her.

Within narrative as a mode of address, the viewer is not only interpellated but reproduced, transmogrified or reconfigured, as subject and, within a unfied ideal spectatorial position is brought into a suture pattern of characterization, there being a suture pattern to identification, an appearance dissappearance within the relationship of protagonist observer, an absence presence of emotion, the emotion involved in reception, each relsolution of narrative action holding a lack of closure in the presence and absence of future event, particularly in that the view has constructed an imaginary eroticism which is either supported by the object of fantasy, or brought to a greater excitement than that which the viewer had been looking forward to while waiting. There is, casually, an erotic relationship of hers, whether erotic action or fantasy, contained in what she is doing that becomes seemingly more singular, which at first seems almost ordinary, the viewer only omniscient in that the left shot is left as imaginary and as being among the possible movements she could make within the limited space of the frame, and then in turn, within each framing, there being a diegetic logic of the erotic, there a suture relationship between the camera's decisions and selections, the individual's agency,or fate, or urgency within her particular position in the narratvie core and the viewer as fantasisizing desire to act as protagonist while vouyer. As to create a shot to shot contrast of spatial configuration, the spatial distance she is kept from the camera and each object brings a diegetic connontation that the action of the scene is her desire, or her desire to transcend sexual gratification. There is a discursive organization to the contiguous images that lends them a figurative context, a cutting for emotional effect with legnthy static shots that bring to poin her meditations and continuous shots of varying, yet measurably comparable, duration; each reframing a perspectival acknowledgement of each slight purient motion on her part and each decision as to how long they are to continue, the suprise of the nymph elapsed; each a deigetic reference to each postition her body acquires to create spatial temporality while creating vanishing points with off-screen space that had previously been onscreen and with space eroticlly hidden inhabited by the image in the shot to follow;each a reference to her moving without being as near to him as she could be.

YouTube Video erotic trailer written in between revisions

An Erotic Trailer Reel Two Scott Lord

Inga's Veil, Evening page three

Inga's Veil, Evening, erotic novel, film poem page four

Inga's Veil, Evening erotic novel, film poem page five

Inga's Veil, Evening erotic novel, film poem copyright

Go to page: Inga's Veil, Evening chapter one Blue White Rainbow erotic novel, film poem

-------------
You requested this notification from Google Sites. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Don't want to get notification of your own changes? Change your settings.

--
http://sites.google.com/site/scottlorderoticnovel/home

Scott Lord

Scott Lord, Scott Lord and 2 others like this

28 Jul 03:53

Scott Lord Silent Film: Nosferatu (F.W. Murnau, 1922)

by Scott Lord on Silent Film, Scott Lord on Mystery Film

The film adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's account of Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde directed by F.W. Murnau during 1920 is presumed to be a lost silent film with no known existing copies of the film. "The Head of Janus" (Der Janus Kopf, Love's Mockery) had starred Conrad Veidt and Bela Lugosi and is credited with having been one of the first films to include the use of the moving-camera shot, "the unchained camera". Silent Horror Film Director F.W. Murnau made 21 feature films, 8 of which are presumed lost, with no surviving copies. Included among them is the 1920 horror film "The Hunchback and the Dancer" (Der Bucklige und die Tanzerin) photographed by Karl Freund. As early as 1973 author Lotte H. Eisner, in her volume Murnau, expressed a concern about Film preservation, "The particular problem which Murnau poses for the film historian is that of the loss of nearly half his work. Of the twenty one films listed in the filmography at the end of this book, nine are missing some of the other twelve are in a very incomplete state. Of course the publication of a book like this can bring films to light and we may be lucky enough to find some of the missing nine." Two of the lost films of F.W. Murnau made chronologically before and after his film "Nosferatu" were the 1921 film "Schnsucht" and the 1923 film "Die Austreibung",
Although the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Open Learning has gone on to join the EDX platform in its production of MOOC internet classes, two of which on art and propaganda I have enjoyed completing, its early open courseware offering of The Film Experience offers a summary of Murnau's relation to Expressionism provided by Professor David Thorburn, who views Expressionism as having employed "principles of distortion and surreal exaggeration". Influenial films, to reword his lecture, emerged from the "cultural center of society" and its "cultural authorities" to create a Golden Age of German Silent Film from between the 1918 armistice through 1927 and the advent of sound film by filmmakers that had brought artistic inentions from the established theater and arts as a modernism, in fact. Thorburn begins by comparing the screen to the canvass by noting the theatrical authority of the static camera as an imagined member of the audience and how characters are situated in space, an ideal observer, almost to the point of asking if there is anything moving within a stationary insert shot. Professor David Thorburn sees F. W Murnau as the director which freed German cinema from the "constraints of high art". He notes F.W. Murnau depating from the concept of "filmed theater" towards something more cinematic through the use of natural sunlight during both interior and exterior shots, the sunlight itself a motif in the film "Nosferatu" and credits Murnau with the discovery toward a more subjective camera. Thorburn, and myself perhaps, see author Lotte Eisner as an "important historical figure' in the historiography of film criticism.
Lotte H. Eisner, in her biography titled Murnau, looks at a scene change to the shooting script of "Nosferatu" written by Henrik Galeen made by the director, F.W. Murnau, but adds that few additons and revisions to the original script were made by Murnau. "Sometimes the film is different than the scenario though Murnau had not indicated any change in the script...But there is a suprising sequence in which nearly twelve pages (thirteen sequences) have been rewritten by Murnau."
Lotte H. Eisner analyzes the film "Nosferatu" in her companion volume to his biography of Murnau, The Haunted Screen. "Nature participates in the action. Sensitive editing makes the bounding waves foretell the approach of the vampire." Eisner later adds, "Murnau was one of the few German film-directors to have the innate love of the landscape more typical of the Swedes (Arthur von Gerlach, creator of Die Chronik von Grieshums, was another) and hes was always reluctant to resort to artifice." Murnau had visited Sweden where the cameras being used were made of metal rather than wood, which aquainted him with techniques that were in fact more modern. Author Lotte H Eisner, in her volume Murnau writes of F.W. Murnau viewing the films of Victor Sjostrom and Mauritz Stiller "when he made 'Nosferatu', the idea of using negative for the phantom forest came from Sjostrom's 'Phantom Carriage', which had been made in 1920. Above all, he had a love-hatred for Mauritz Stiller, whose 'Herre Arne's Treasure' he couldn't stop admiring." Interestingly enough, "Nosferatu" was by all accounts banned from exhibition in Sweden untill 1972 due to its having what was thought to be graphic content.
Not only can we look at Murnau's film to compare and contrast its use of landscape and location to that of Swedish Silent Films, but the Wisconsin Film Society during 1960 pointed out that its narrative was situated in a different century. "Murnau probably felt that by transferring the action to the year 1838 he would have an atmosphere more condusive to the supernatural. Because of the distance in time, an audience is perhaps more willing to employ its 'suspension of disbelief'." The Film Society mentions F.W. Murnau having filmed the Vampire's carriage in fast-motion for effect, an effect which it felt had been lost on the audiences of 1960. It conceded that shooting on location brought the film "far from the studio atmosphere", but hesitated, "Although frequently careless in technical details (camerwork, exposure, lighting, composition, and actor direction) it had variety and pace."
Interestingly, as scholar Janet Bergstrom, UCLA, surveys the work of F.W. Murnau she concerns us with evaluating how "conventions relating to sexual identity, the spectator and modes of abstraction do or do not carry over from one highly conventionalized national cinema to another. She allows that the emigre directors from Germany were less of a school of literaure than perhaps Sjostrom and Stiller were. She alludes to the women in Murnau's films as appearing one-dimensional mostly during a "morbid fascination with the female body"- "sensuality in death".

Lotte H. Eisner, in her volume Murnau, writes, "As always, Murnau found visual means of suggesting unreality". Professor David Thorburn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, expresses aprreciation and gratitude for the author's writings pointing out that "her arguments in The Haunted Screen are still widely accepted." In regard to the expression of unreality, David Thorburn sees Expressionism as having been typified by "distortion and surreal exaggation" as well as having been "interested in finding equivalents for he inner life, dramatizing not the external world, but the world within us." If not the first horror film, Thorburn delegates "Nosferatu" to being an "origin film" and as "the film in which we can see Murnau freeing the camera.....no one had ever used the camera outdoors more effectively up to this time than Murnau". Lotte H Eisner, in The Haunted Screen writes, "The landscape and views of the little town and the castle in Nosferatu were filmed on location...Murnau, however, making Nosferatu with a minimum of resourses saw all that nature had to offer in the way of fine images...Nature participates in the action."
In Expressionist Film: New Perspectives, author Deitrich Scheunemann looks at the dismissal of Lotte Eisner's expressionist name tag as genre called for by authors Werner Sudendorf and Barry Salt. Salt excludes Murnau's film "Nosferatu" from German Expressionist Film, the criteria being an affinity with expressionist painting and drama. Scheunemann continues later, "Because of the uncanny nature of the protagonist, Nosferatu has often been compared to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. However, the uncanny and its various embodiments in the form of doubles,vampires and artificial creatures are not in itself motifs of the expressionist movement." Author Lotte H. Eisner can still be seen comparing Nosferatu with other German Silent Cinema from 1919-1924 and the camera technique used in depicting setting and mood, "When Nosferatu is preparing a departure in the courtyard, the use of unexpected angles gives the vampire's castle a sinister appearance. What could be more expressive than a narrow street, hemmed in between monotonous brick facades, seen from a high window, the bar of which crosses the image?"
Author George A. Huaco, in his volume The Sociology of Film Art, points out that the novel and film differ in plot resolution, "In contrast to the novel Dracula, the plot of Nosferatu deemphasizes the role of Professor VAn Helsing; the final duel is between the heroic bourgeois housewife Nina and the evil aristocratic vampire. Hoaco goes so far as to venture that this reflects the growing economic crisis of the period."
Close-up magazine during 1929 reviewed the film, unaware that the Wisconsin Film Society would later favor the 1931 Tod Browning version, "The film opens with beautifully composed shots typical of Murnau (one spotlight on the hair, now turn the face slightly, and another spotlight)....It is unquestionably a faithful transcription of the book.
During 1926, when Murnau was readying to come to American, the periodical Moving Picture World interviewed his assistant, Hermann Bing, "Murnau's intention is to try to make pictures which will please the American theatre patrons- commercial successes because of their artistry....Murnau's object will be not to describe but to depict the relentless march of realities not for the objective, but from a subjective viewpoint." This almost seems like a nod to Carl Th. Dreyer's later film "Vampyr", other than that Dreyer's film had been made during the advent of sound film while Murnau was in America, shortly before Murnau's death. Fox Film publicity happenned to announce F.W. Murnau's coming to America by withholding the title of his debut American fim, giving the name of the dramatist that wrote its photoplay as Dr. Karl Mayer. "Theater Audiences Everywhere Are Waiting For This Creation".
Silent Film
In regard to the extratextual discourse of movie magazines of the time period, during 1929 the periodical Motion Picture News subtitled their review of "Nosferatu" with "Morbid and Depressing". It deemed Murnau's adaptation of the novel by Bram Stoker to be "a vague yarn hard to follow with several sequences that have a tremendous part to do with the plot introduced most haphazardly." The opinion of the periodical was that "The picture itself is a most morbid and depressing affair without entertainment value. It will not be acceptable anywhere except in the 'arty' houses."
Silent Horror Film

Faust (F.W. Murnau, 1926)

Silent Film

Silent Film

Silent Film

Scott Lord, Scott Lord and 3 others like this

09 Jul 03:51