Most of all, the film is an idea. One cannot say simply that Schoenberg identifies himself with Moses, and that that is the way the opera should be interpreted. One cannot say he identifies completely with Moses because he shows Moses as clearly inhuman. Rather, the identification is with the idea, and this is the way the opera should be read. But then there are two ways to interpret that idea. The opera is not a Marxist work because it still believes in prophets and divine revelation. But one can also believe in this idea in another way, not as, coming to the demigod from above, but discovering that in fact it comes from below, from the people. And that is what the film does from the beginning. It doesnt talk about the burning bush. Rather, the burning bush becomes the people. You can hear them singing. [...] It’s difficult to talk about my influences. Richard Roud always says that my culture is German culture, which is not true. I have the cultural training of a French university student, and no specific or deep training in German literary culture. I learned my German in first grade, during the war, did my extensive studies in French literature, and was in Germany really for the first tine in 1956. And then on the contrary, he says I have French cinematographic culture, citing Bresson and Gremillon as influences. Gremillon interests me very much, as a true communist filmmaker. But I havent had a chance to look at his films carefully at all. And with Bresson, I saw those two early films, and Im sure they influenced me greatly, but Im not able to say just how. So I will leave such comparisons to people who know all of both of our work. ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/jc12-13folder/moses.int.html youtube/watch?v=Q-28kKTR8QM
Posted on: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 01:18:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015