Thursday, January 16, 2020

TinyLetter #1 preview

As promised, here is my complete first TinyLetter to read without the pressure of subscription. If you like and are interested you can subscribe here. You can also view the Letter Archive publicly, so this post may be a bit redundant.

Welcome gentle readers to this inaugural letter of my new project chronicling my filmmaking process.

The idea began as a self-accountability tool; a ritual of checking in with myself. I wanted to ensure that I’m doing the things that I want to do, but for whatever reasons (m-e-n-t-a-l h-e-a-l-t-h), don’t. Even if I’m blasting emails into the void, committing to a public expression of a goal helps me take actionable steps toward achieving it.

I worried that this might seem a bit indulgent as I am, for all intents and purposes, a nobody. However, I’ve been working on my own films for well over a decade. Despite all of this work, I hardly finish or release anything. A quick peek at my Vimeo page reveals this: 4 works published between 2009 and 2019. This of course does not include friend's projects that I've worked on in some capacity. I've also been busy with other stuff. I’ve been working to change my film output and this TinyLetter is part of that project.

By reflecting on my process and ideas in a public forum I also hope to serve a community of other creatives who, like me, struggle with completion.

One of my biggest struggles is to give myself permission to call myself a filmmaker. During the 2019 Milwaukee Film Festival I had the opportunity to spend time with Elegance Bratton, director of the phenomenal documentary Pier Kids: A Life (one of the best films of 2019). When they asked me if I was a filmmaker, I gave an embarrassed, sputtering response. It didn’t feel right to say yes, when I’ve barely released anything into the world during my decade of active film work. When I said, "I edit some stuff," they asked, “have you ever been up all night editing a film? Yes? Then you’re an editor.” [and since I'm name dropping I need to promote their upcoming short film Buck. You can support the work here.]

In 2019 I worked as a film festival programmer for the first time. The experience was overwhelmingly generative. It rekindled the creative embers that had been dampened by my brain. One of the things I discovered through my interactions with festival staff is how many people are working on projects, but many were filled with doubt about their work, just like me. These are brilliant and talented people, many of whom, like me, have struggled to complete a project. Likewise, I was amazed by how many filmmakers whose work I programmed and fell in love with had only recently overcome these struggles themselves. Doubt, negative self-talk, anxiety, depression, all conspire to keep our work unrealized. But when the passion burns alongside an inability to complete, one becomes doubly frustrated. In future letters I hope to speak more frankly on my mental health and its impact on the creative process.

This letter draws inspiration from Agnès Varda. Her final film, Varda by Agnès, is a priceless gift to aspiring filmmakers. One of the masters of cinema lays bare her own processes. She says that filmmaking has three components: imagination, creation, and sharing. Imagination is the work of developing an idea for a film. Creation is the actual process of making it. And sharing is exactly what it sounds like: giving your work over to an audience. Varda stresses this third component as essential to what cinema is. It’s also the part I fear most. What if people think I’m stupid or that my film sucks? What if people write Letterboxd posts as nasty as the ones I have written for films I disliked?

I position this project in the spirit of Varda’s conception of sharing, even though I’m still in the creation part!

Upcoming letters will be limited to a discussion of a specific short film that I’m working on. I’ve given it the working title of Bird Film. It’s comprised of cellphone videos of North American garden birds shot through a pair of binoculars and may incorporate some MiniDV footage from my personal archives. Depending on how the experiment goes, I may shoot new footage with an actual DP and utilize some extensive post-production effects. A more in-depth description will follow in subsequent letters. And when this project is complete, I’ll consider continuing this letter for the next project, depending on readership and my feelings on the experience.

Along the way l'll share work-in-progress clips on Vimeo.

I will also use this space to reflect upon recent viewings and readings that impact my thinking on the process. I had the initial idea of a Work / Watch / Read structure, but I don’t want to get locked in to a rigid format so soon. I’m an Aries sun and a Gemini rising, and rigid structures aren’t my thing (although my Virgo moon is horny for structure). These reflections are part of an intention that I set for myself to read and watch more deliberately and to let go of the compulsion to see everything and have a take on it.

In the upcoming weeks I'll discuss how my shooting style was influenced by a friend of Les Blank's, how Luc Moullet's philosophy of a cinema of poverty drives my work, as well as reflections on Tadao Sato’s Kenji Mizoguchi and the Art of Japanese Cinema (1982), which is the first book I've read in 2020.

Thank you for subscribing and happy creating!


image: Juncos in my backyard, Milwaukee. still from Bird Film (working title).

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Howdy Stranger

I've been thinking about using this space again. However, it's difficult to commit to many long term projects at the moment. Truth be told, I miss film blogs. A recent conversation on social media among a few mutuals brought this into sharp relief for me and reminded me that I'm not alone. Part of this conversation was with the author of Elusive Lucidity, who is maybe back to using their blog, which I'm stoked about.

I've grown increasingly unfulfilled with film discourse on Twitter and Letterboxd. While these are vibrant platforms with multivalent uses, I feel out of step with them. I think I always have been. Perhaps its the speed and severity of the discourse. Although my film blogging days were very limited in the amount of people I interacted with, there was more reflection and uncertainty than I find across other social media outlets. The trade off is numbers. I don't know if anyone will read this or is even interested in regressing back to the bygone era of film blogs. I don't mean to be nostalgic, but I'm looking for a slower pace right now.

I'm currently focusing my energies on several creative projects, which leaves very little time for dedicated blogging. However, I hope to use this space for cinematic thoughts that are uncomfortable within a 280 character limit or the title-specific space offered by Letterboxd.

Cinematic experiences cannot be ranked or rated, and we should resist the impulse. Allowing our thoughts and reflections to spill beyond these systems like an overgrown garden. And with said, I'll be posting my 2019 reflections soon. 

I've started a TinyLetter to chronicle my filmmaking process as an act of ritual self accountability and to share with a possible community of filmmakers who, like me, struggle to complete projects for a variety of reasons (mine are mostly mental health related). I will post the first letter on this blog shortly to give readers the opportunity to read it in full without the pressure to subscribe. Until then, you can subscribe here.

see you around,


Sunday, July 7, 2019

2018 favorites

It's July 7, 2019. I've had this in my drafts for half a year. Here it is! Unfinished and untouched; a capsule of how I felt on January 1, 2019 about the previous year's films.

My top 20 films of 2018

Dead Souls (Wang Bing)

The 15:17 to Paris (Clint Eastwood)

Altiplano (Malena Szlam)

Black Panther (Ryan Coogler)

Detective Dee and the Four Heavenly Kings (Tsui Hark)

Ready Player One (Steven Spielberg)

First Man (Damien Chazelle)

Angel of Death 3D (Nathan Smith)

Shadow (Zhang Yimou)

Been Busy (Jhon Hernandez)

Unsane (Steven Soderbergh)

Creed II (Steven Caple Jr.)

Transit (Christian Petzold)

The Commuter (Jaume Collet-Serra)

Vent d’ouest (anonymous, possibly Jean-Luc Godard)

Shoot the Moon Right Between the Eyes (Graham Carter)

BlacKkKlansman (Spike Lee)

Que le diable nouse emporte (Jean-Claude Brisseau)

Game Night (John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein)

The Other Side of the Wind (Orson Welles & The Almighty Algorithm)

This was a great year for American studio productions. I also enjoyed A Star Is Born, Ant-Man and the Wasp, The Post, Tomb Raider, Death Wish, Mission Impossible: Fallout, A Simple Favor, and Venom.

And an interesting year for personal essay films and what Catherine Russel calls archiveologies, specifically personal archival practices. I didn't care for all of these films, but they are close to my heart and my own stalled experiments in filmmaking: From Its Mouth Came a River of High-End Residential AppliancesOptimism, Harry Smith at the Breslin Hotel, Spring Masks, and Disintegration 93-96.

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Dead Souls (Wang Bing, 2018)

“It is impossible for us to recover history today, but we can sense the existence of it. With a historical event, little pieces remain within people's memory. History exists in these scattered memories.”
       -Wang Bing, Filming a Land of Flux (x)
“I will have spent my life trying to understand the function of remembering, which is not the opposite of forgetting, but rather its lining. We do not remember, we rewrite memory much as history is rewritten. How can one remember thirst?”
-Sans Soleil
“Those who lived in Jiabiangou don’t write.”
-Zhou Xiaoli, Dead Souls

And so it is that Wang Bing writes this history as it evaporates before his camera, like water turned to steam on a hotplate. Dead Souls is both oral history and caméra stylo, held together by a deft montage that neither reconciles this paradox or keeps them wholly apart. To render this work as merely an act of archive—of documenting stories, poetics be damned—is to erase the delicate authority of Wang Bing’s camera and Catherine Rascon’s montage. But also, to extract poetics from the entanglements of this history is folly. Remembering, like forgetting, is a political act and the philosophy of memory that Wang Bing is explicating can only be achieved through archival duration. The eight-hour running time should not be mistaken for a maximalist archaeology of spoken histories. Quite the opposite. Given the profound reverence for human experience, Dead Souls is haunted by a feeling of scarcity. Not enough time is spent with these souls. Not enough stories have been collected. Not enough lives were saved from their fate.

It is perhaps in this way that an obvious comparison has trailed this film like a smart bomb: Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah. It is no wonder that Wang Bing himself rejects such comparison, choosing instead a connection to Jean Eustache. To be fair, how many eight-hour memory projects about historical trauma exist in the world? The answer is an easy one: not nearly enough. Yet these films are far too different to maintain this comparison beyond a quick contextualizing remark. The Jews, after all, were not betrayed by a system that they supported. Perhaps the difference is obvious enough to anyone: Lanzmann recreates one of the most complex bureaucratic-industrial machines that vanished in the flames of the Reich, remaining only in living memory of those it meant to annihilate. Dead Souls is not interested in retracing the paperwork of the anti-rightist campaign at the core of its narrative. It doesn’t chase bus routes or shipping orders. It gives space for the repetitious telling of experience tied inextricably to the moments where Wang Bing locates them. In doing so Dead Souls presents a much different critique. All those condemned to die through slave labor and starvation were communists. Most of them dedicated. They were betrayed by a system that many of them fought for. Wang Bing traces the ontological horrors manifested by philosophical catastrophe.

The Aesthetics of Memory

Long stretches of the film take place in the living rooms of the dead. Here the elderly survivors of the anti-rightist campaign tell their tales. These men were sent to the re-education farm of Jiabiangou for two to three years where they starved within an inch of death and lived among the thousands of corpses of those who perished. The subjects are frail. The youngest are in their seventies, most in their eighties and nineties. Their words were recorded intermittently: 2005, 2012, 2016. Long takes give space for the process of remembering. Speech patterns, gestures, and the currents of thought are captured. Cuts occur like blinks of darkness; ellipses that maintain a consistency of space—the texture of light, the language of the body—but signal the curation of narrative. This is neither an unbroken stream of speech nor a violent restructuring of words into message. It is the gap of memory digitally manifested.

The rooms are dingy; the images pixelating. Wang Bing has discussed his equipment through exigency; clandestine cameras that can be transported without drawing attention. His shots are poorly lit, shaky, failing to capture the subject’s actions when they suddenly stand or motion with their hands. The grainy digital textures, the blown-out windows, the low-grade drop-off, all conspire to center the long interviews in the experience of the space-time of their utterance. Unfurling like the leaf of a fern. The tremors of Wang Bings’ fingers on the handheld equipment trace lines like penmanship. Inside the humble rooms of his subjects, glances of tenement buildings and passersby allude to a large and populous nation. We materialize in this one living room, in this bedroom, sitting at this kitchen table. At one point Zhou Xiaoli, who spoke about not writing, leaves his apartment and sits on a bench on a sidewalk. People walk by. He stares at the skyline. The image is pregnant with the lines of history. Wang Bing leads us to this image, waterlogged with forgotten histories, unhealed traumas, and the merciless march of time. Too often the deep running of still waters is an unearned justification in cinema; a platitude applied to any image like a lazy man’s Kuleshov. Speed is conflated with thoughtlessness and slowness with depth, but very few actively achieve this poignant slowness. Wang Bing is one.

History is anchored in the moment that it is articulated. Only through cohabiting spaces with his subjects can Wang Bing shepherd the unfurling of this history. Memory, like time, is circuitous. It winds around and around, it doubles back, it splinters off, it dissipates like the smoke from a cigarette. The same experiences are told repeatedly. Much of this is bodily memory: the workings of the intestinal tract, of bowel moments and nocturnal emission. Or confirming methods of survival: working in the kitchen was the difference between life and death. The repetition of these experiences becomes more powerful than any data visualization could render. Stalin was right, you know. A million dead is just a statistic; a million dead is just a graph in a Netflix documentary. The memories are faulty. The conviction of the memory of faces, people, experiences dance before the eyes of the storytellers like private holograms unseen by us. Some figures reach for them, like flies buzzing before their faces. Some remember names, some do not. Some recall the exact charges registered against them; others refuse to say. Some locate artifacts while others search in vain. The process of history is laid transparent. These many contradictions strengthen the complexity of the past that each speaker is painting. Not like the old allegory of the blind groping an elephant, describing extant parts to each other, but rather a mural painted asynchronously.

The Structure of Forgetting

The building of the narrative proceeds like a snowball rolling into an avalanche. Without context we begin in the living room of one man and his wife. We spend a long duration attending his tale before he mentions his brother. The first jump in space (but not of time) takes us to this brother. The next moves us back to the first man in 2005 before we jump to 2016 with him. He is the first to pass away in the structure of the film and what follows is his funeral. A long funeral sequence reveals the unresolved pain of multigenerational trauma. It’s the only funeral we witness in a film overloaded with death, and it establishes the passing of memory back into the soil; back into a hole in the ground not unlike those where men became animals to survive in Jiabiangou. Hereafter, each successive interview punctuates with a title screen telling us that the speaker has passed. Sometimes with the specificity of date, some with only the year. In this way, Dead Souls becomes both meditative and a race against time, attempting to capture these stories, these feelings, before they are gone forever. The funeral of the film’s first movement haunts the remaining hours of the work. Behind every ellipsis and title card is a painful ceremony of unresolved hurt and the dissipation of historical memory.

And now I wish to jump to the film’s final movement. The last chapter of the film changes perspective from convicted rightist survivors to a trio of difference: a cadre, a widow, and the voice of the dead, conjured Rashomon style. First, the cadre himself. After nearly six hours of stories sculpting the image of the cadres as kapos in the mind's eye, we finally get to sit with one. His tale reveals the hopelessness of the bureaucratic nightmare. What could I have done? He asks. Any criticism was a death sentence—especially given that most condemned rightists died for a single critical comment made in good faith. The cadre doesn’t give a face to the mechanisms of the anti-rightist campaign nor does he personify the paranoia of single party rule, which lines Dead Souls like the silhouette of a black hole. It reveals another lost soul caught up in the faceless traces of historical momentum. Second, to the archival voice of the dead. A series of letters. A single photograph. Survival is transmuted to an object: the document traces of human life. The letters come after hours of first hand description of letters. We already know they can’t be completely trusted. We already know that letters obscured realities and hid parcels of food (a two-directional obscuring). Third, to a surviving widow. She tells her experience of the anti-rightist campaign outside of Jiabiangou, but always tied to it. The death of her husband in the camp. The rippling effects of a single loss reverberating through an entire family. Through living memory.

The long roving camera is looking for bones in the desert. It finds them. There are many. Each one a missing narrative. Do these bones belong to the names of those fleetingly uttered in dingy kitchens? Do these bones write letters of their own? They are the thousands of untold stories that even an eight-hour film couldn’t find room for. The film ends with the camera still searching. An act of seeking more narratives concludes a film bursting with them.

Towards a Critique of Self-Criticism

Dead Souls lends itself to an insatiable Western appetite for critiques of communism uttered from within communist states. Like mistaking Ivan the Terrible for a critique of communism instead of Stalin or the amplification of Liu Xiaobo’s peaceful colonialism. And so it stands that the French-financed, English-titled Dead Souls is poised to be received as an insider’s account of the horrors of communism, ready-made for an audience fattened on Hubert Bals funded films in praise of neoliberalism. Dead Souls is certainly a pointed critique of Maoism and of single party rule and of dogmatism, but I’m unsure how to receive its political complexities.

If you’ll forgive the crude reductionism, any criticisms proffered by the film center on two oft-repeated claims: first that a great wall existed between rulers and the people and second, that dogmatic applications of critique yielded fatally absurd results. The mandated quota of rightists to ferret out and condemn reveals the violent application of quantitative data so prevalent in systems that worship production. This unleashed a petty bureaucratic nightmare that insulated a managerial class from the workers, who became powerless to refute accusations and payed with their lives. The injustices hidden behind euphemisms like re-education and labor begin to reflect other dogmatic systems built on fetishizing production. Slave labor built the Reich and the capitalist empire of the United States. But I wish to avoid the brand of Adam Curtis libertarianism that flattens political systems across history while obfuscating the violence of one's own position. Fascism, capitalism, and Maoism are far too different to be reduced to such comparisons, even if they all reveal political horrors of varying degree. However, the human tragedy of slave labor reveals a dark stain on their projects, and one that is too easily forgotten or dismissed by academic revolutionaries. How easy it has become to call for new reigns of terror in 140 characters. Who is going to make these calls? Graduate students? If present-day communist film analysis is anything to go by, then I’m not ready to be a communist yet. But I also refuse to see Dead Souls as an attack on communism entirely. Wang Bing is careful with his words, like a Chinese auteur, receding into descriptions of historical recovery and letting the whole truth be known.

I don’t know enough about Wang Bing’s politics to make any claims here. His subjects are utterly disgusted by the hypocrisy of Maoism. Many faithful became apostates, warming their boney limbs over fires kindled with Marxist literature. Maoism became a set of platitudes bounded by a little red cover. If folded into a communist historical project, does this work reveal the undermining power of dogmatism on its most loyal subjects? The bloody paranoia of maintaining power to steer the national projects? Could this work not be Maoist self-critique? A truth and reconciliation project. Or has self-critique passed into euphemism: critique yourself until you agree with those in power? It paints a damning portrayal of single party rule and the realities that Maoism unleashed a petty bureaucratic class system prone to paranoia and revenge. Labor was fetishized as noble and glorious, but paradoxically used as punishment. Re-education here is a euphemism for slave labor with death the intended outcome. I jokingly thought of a fantasy double bill: La Chinoise followed by Dead Souls. Ninety-five minutes of French-Maoist agitprop followed by four-hundred ninety-five minutes of trauma. But I never believed what is said about La Chinoise. It’s dialectic is too complex to be reduced to the naïve posturing that it’s claimed to be. Is it not both an essaying of Marxist-Leninist praxis that self-critiques the attitude of educated intellectual communists in Western states? Why should these privileged terrorists get to decide the fate of a nation? How can a Marxist-Leninist system adapted to a unique Chinese context be applied to France—or the United States for that matter? And with that question I am now out of my depth, if I wasn't already before I set pen to paper on Dead Souls.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Jodie Mack viewing notes

Two Hundred Feet (2004)

I first heard of Jodie Mack in 2014 when Dusty Stacks of Mom: The Poster Project (2013) was making the festival rounds and generating a positive buzz on social media. I've yet to see that one, but last year I had the opportunity to see Wasteland no.1: Ardent Verdant (2017) and it was one of my favorites of 2017.

I hadn't realized that many of her earlier works are available for free on her website and her Vimeo page. What follows are some viewing notes on fifteen of her films that I watched while sitting in my hotel room in New London, Connecticut.

There is an exquisite pleasure in watching Mack's form and technique evolve over the course of these early shorts and experiments. Two-Hundred Feet (2003) plays like a Brakhage film if Brakhage were fun and bright. Her work with shapes and even scenarios emerging from a primordial slop of abstraction increases in its complexity from film to film. At other times, her early works recalls for me Pat O'Neill in the way they established patterns of shapes and movement that will increase steadily in their complexity as the film goes on. The sheer joy of creation on display makes each film a treat, even the ones that feel more like arts and crafts projects.

Posthaste Perennial Pattern

Of these works, the best are those that establish clear visible parameters in the material that they are working with. Rad Plaid (2010), Posthaste Perennial Pattern (2010), and Unsubscribe #1: Special Offer Inside (2010) all indicate a finite body of raw materials that the films then abstract through perspective, repetition, and montage, which function to create movement in what is essentially still photography. My favorite of these (and of everything I watched here) is Posthaste Perennial Pattern, which juxtaposes artificial nature, handmade floral patterns on furniture, with raw audio of an outdoor spring scenario: bird song and passing cars in the distance. It's abstraction is grounded in a diagetic personal experience. While all of Mack's films are reflections of her daily life in some manner, Posthaste Perennial Pattern exhibits this without description or artists statement and contains a depth (perhaps through the audio) that moves it away from a fun catalog of shapes.

Unsubscribe no.2: All Eyes on the Silver Screen 

I was also taken by the entire Unsubscribe series, which reveals Mack at her most confident and experimental of the works I viewed. #1: Special Offer Inside makes a sub-atomic universe from junk mail envelopes (it recalled a much later/lesser film that I watched last year, Where You Go, There We Are (2017) by Jesse McLean). Unsubscribe no.2: All Eyes on the Silver Screen (2010) utilizes a stunning use of split screen images composed through practical collage effects. Something about its color and old movie fascination reminded me of Peter Tscherkassky's great Coming Attractions (2010). Unsubscribe #3: Glitch Envy (2010) continues this work of manifesting digital new media representation through analogue materiality, creating glitches through collage art and guttural human sound effects. The fourth in the series, Unsubscribe No. 4: The Saddest Song in the World (2010) is more in tuned to her musical/music video type work and recalls the queer zine girl group fascinations of Sadie Benning's bedroom films. I hope these references do not diminish Mack's stature, I offer them only as my own means of navigating her versatile style.

Yard Work is Hard Work

As of this posting I feel I need to give Lilly (2007) another spin. It was intriguing, but this and Yard Work is Hard Work (2008) were the least interesting of the films I watched. Both were created between the early proto-Brakhage experiments and the absolute mastery of her 2010 output. Something about the use of narrative doesn't quite land. Yard Work is Hard Work is perhaps the only one of these fifteen works that I didn't care for at all. It's twenty-seven minute running time didn't help (compared to three and six minute shorts), but it was shaped by my dislike of the typical Broadway musical style. The collage work is impressive, as always, but I found the overall effect to be grating and basic.

I also watched A Joy (2005), All Stars (2006), Mannequis Harlequin (2006), Harlequin (2006/9), Screensaver (2009), and Twilight Spirit (2009).

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Der brennende Acker (Murnau, 1922)

My experience with The Burning Soil was mildly unpleasant. Ripped from an unknown source, it was murky and constantly deinterlacing, mutating every flickering figure into a pixelated ghost from a Kiyoshi Kurosawa film. A 4K transfer on blu-ray would undoubtedly have made this more visually arresting, but I doubt it would have made me love the film any more. To be frank, The Burning Soil is pretty boring. Much like The Haunted Castle, it reveals early Murnau as an adept stager of scenes, an otherworldly creator of images, but lacking the depth and electricity of his cannon of greats.

What grabbed me in The Burning Soil is the near-excessive use of written letters. One could complain that this chains cinema to the devices of Victorian literature, which is constantly framed by correspondence. But Murnau renders these letters as artifacts, conjuring a future archival cinema. I thought about the books in Farocki or the baseball cards in American Dreams: Lost and Found.

The letters could be the only actualities here: real documents. The players are merely re-enacting the historical events that the letters suggest.

Friday, January 26, 2018

Die Finanzen des Großherzogs (Murnau, 1924)

A man of means, who is also a master of disguises, frequently veers The Finances of the Grand Duke into Fantomas territory. Outwitting plainclothes pursuers and seemingly having a hand in every correspondence that crosses his path. But how long have tiny little dogs trailed packs of big dogs for comedic effect? That is the question I was left with after one of the funniest fake-out set ups I've seen.

At a first glance I thought I accidentally threw on an early Lubitsch film. The lightness of touch; the economy of narrative and excess of style; the ephemeral nature with which it deals with romance, economic distress, and plutocrat-funded revolution against royalty.

No one filmed the sea quite like Murnau, especially tall ships on the water. Docks, coastlines, harbors, and cityscapes  are framed with a frankness that emphases the quality of the images as actualities, but the tinting, the montage, the mood renders them simultaneously expressionistic landscapes of dreams.

Nowhere near as jaw-dropping as Nosferatu, but The Finances of the Grand Duke is a worthy comedic counterpart to Murnau's early masterpiece. It is these qualities that recall for me the silent-cinematic fantasias of later-period Catherine Breillat (An Old MistressBluebeard, The Sleeping Beauty) which know the power of the tinted still actuality.

Everything in cinema has already been achieved by the silent masters, even if by accident. This tracking shot on the boat crashes into the doc. It inserts a fluidity akin to a GoPro or when Michael Mann cuts from a hand on the gear stick to the side-view mirror of a sports car.

We're in an Eisenstein film now!

Quit the opposite, in fact. The Finances of the Grand Duke romanticizes its royalty, even when critiquing capitalists but also the industry so essential to communism (have you seen any Vertov?). Murnau loves dichotomous notions of nature as pure and unspoiled. Edenic nature. Perhaps the revolutionaries had real cause to overthrow the Grand Duke because they were denied access to the very Eden the Grand Duke sought to preserve. They were, after all, sleeping in a fucking boat on the shore. Nature as bucolic salve is only a privilege of the rich: that strange opening of the Grand Duke flinging his money into the sea where naked boys splash about to recover it. This is strangely in opposition to other Murnau films that render poverty virtuous through its closeness to the soil (Sunrise is the obvious reference here, but see also the much, much lesser Der brennende Acker aka The Burning Soil).

Last, I wish to highlight this sequence of the Grand Duke himself imagining his nation transformed into a wasteland from a proposed sulphur mine: