Close Up (Jul-Nov 1927)

Record Details:

Title:
Close Up
Date:
Jul-Nov 1927
Publisher:
[London, etc., Pool]
Volume:
Close up ... devoted to the art of films
Leaf #:
000509
Language:
English
Subjects:
motion pictures, Motion pictures -- Periodicals
Collection:
Switzerland, Early Cinema, and Global Cinema
Format:
Periodicals
Contributor:
Library of Congress, MBRS, Moving Image Section
Sponsor:
Library of Congress, Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
As an active film magazine, CLOSE UP lasted only a short time, from 1927 to 1933. Yet the legacy of this English-language periodical, which was published in Switzerland, continues to matter. Edited by Bryher and her husband Kenneth Macpherson, CLOSE UP became THE magazine for energetic debates about the nature of cinema and manifestos imagining new forms of filmmaking and spectatorship. The magazine published articles by filmmakers, such as Sergei Eisenstein, and female literary modernists, such as H.D. and Gertrude Stein. As film scholar Anne Friedberg explains in the anthology CLOSE-UP, 1927-1933: CINEMA & MODERNISM, 'CLOSE UP became the model for a certain type of writing about film -- writing that was theoretically astute, politically incisive, critical of films that were simply 'entertainment.' For six and a half years, CLOSE UP maintained a forum for a broad variety of ideas about the cinema; it never advocated a single direction of development, but rather posed alternatives to existing modes of production, consumption, and film style.' Like Friedberg's own writing, CLOSE UP continues to be essential reading for anyone interested in the history of film and media theory. -- Eric Hoyt, 2014
Date Added:
August 29, 2022
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

CLOSE UP nitely — in himself — a figure of beauty. They might have given the part of Christ to John Barrymore. His expressions were sensitive and intelhgent, and intellectual. Later the film improves. The render unto Caesar episode, for instance, had all the old obvious slapdash of pantomime villainy, but it was redeemed by Warner, who broke across it with sincerity. The cleansing of the Temple was (except for wrong crowd psychology) good. Some of the compositions were excellent. The Temptation was bad. What Satan offered seemed to be military pomp. Christ, of course, was a complete pacifist. The treatment and psychology of Judas was illiterate. The story of Judas is in reality, as regards dramatic and emotional strength, almost more vivid than the story of Christ. The story of the two in some concentrated form would make a dramatic masterpiece. Judas in this film was simply a pantomime attempt at a beast. The latter scenes did achieve some sort of power, and made it, as a film, worth while. The latter scenes were very sincere, and, evidently, deeply felt. The earlier scenes were unfelt. They meant httle or nothing to the producer, although they seemed to have meaning for Warner, whose performance was consistent throughout. The utter waste and stupidity, and at the same time the inevitability of the scenes of betrayal up to the crucifixion were well shown. The danger and brutality of mob-hysteria were excellently illustrated. The outstanding scene is where Christ andBarabbas stand at the top of the Senate steps while Pontius Pilate asks the mob to choose. The complete rejection of the thing that will help them be 67