NickTrop
Veteran
"Giallos" (means "yellow") are Italian murder/mystery/artsy/exploitation "grind house" films cranked out in droves from the mid-60's to early-70's before the cycle died down - but not quite "out" entirely. I love'em, and my Netflix queue is filled with these films - as many as are available. These films started out largely as Psycho clones but "Euro-ized" with an upped violence quotient (quantity and in the level of explicitness) and almost laughably gratuitous female nudity. They are usually artfully done with over-the-top direction and especially cinematography. Oh - and they're oh so dated. They might as well be wearing powdered wigs. The mise-en-scene is straight out of the 60's/early 70's: leggy babes in miniskirts, mens shirts had garish patterns and giant lapels and they all had pork chop sideburns with long unkempt hair. Sound tracks are usually trippy Euro-jazz seemingly recorded from a set of the house band of some five-star hotel in Rome circa 1970. Titles include "The Strange Vice of Mrs. Ward", "Deep Red", and "Strip Nude for Your Killer". And what started as "culturized tributes" to Psycho to become far removed from their origins as the years passed to become a ubiquitous film genre of its own. These films became "(re-)Americanized" in the 80's, starting with Halloween. Psycho->"Giallo films"-> 80's Slasher - as it went, as the "art progressed".
Viewing these films today, despite their sometimes tastelessness (not to mention atrocious dubbing), they are imbued with an incredible charm. I must admit, I'm hooked to the point where the few titles I haven't seen are being "saved" like a vintage wine stored in the basement for that special occasion. I'm not the only one... these films have a bonafide cult following (like rangefinder cameras) and attempts have been made to revive the genre (like rangefinder cameras) by other lovers of the genre. One recent attempt (2009) is a film aptly named, "Giallo" by one of the key directors of these films during their heyday, Dario Argento. Never heard of it? That's because it went straight to DVD. Only saw the trailer. I'll eventually watch it I suppose. It gets "meh" reviews. It's lukewarm reception probably isn't the film makers fault, however. Bet if it was released in 1971 it be hailed as one of the best along with his "Deep Red". Didn't see the film - don't have to, I know this in advance... It's inauthentic. A replica. It's "missing something". All attempts at this in any art - film, painting, photography is always ill-advised because to recreate something whose era is "over and done with" can't be achieved successfully.
Remember the "new" Psycho? The scene for scene shot for shot remake? No? It's forgotten, and deserves to be. Bad idear.
You can dust off the old technology - be my guest. The technology is only part of the equation. Besides, those who produced this art used the "latest and greatest" technology of the era - not old s--t. Guitarists go looking for that "vintage sound" by putting crappy old technology pick-ups in their Strats and go buying tube amps. Never works. Sorry. Futile. Film makers study set-ups, alter the look of their films in post - even putting fake gate scratches in (that horrified those filmmakers), try to mimic the soundtrack... The don't end up with a "giallo" film, they end up with "Giallo". The only way to produce the giallo - or any art of the past, is to go back in time with your time machine, with no knowledge of the future, be reborn, grow up all over again, and make a new giallo in 1970. This is true of painting, music, photography, film, literature, photography. That is, it's impossible.
I once asked an MFA friend if you could earn an MFA by painting something beautiful, like the Dutch Masters did. Why did all modern painting have to be so abstract and inaccessible. She laughed at me. No! And it shouldn't be that way! That era is over. If artists painted like this all the time art would stand still, become boring, and die out. Those works are products of their era... they can't be recreated. Even the best modern replicants of them - when descovered to be forgeries, lose their value.
Do you use rangefinders loaded with tri-x, hand developed in Rodinal because you want to make "art" (which is isn't - no photography is, but that's another topic) like HCB did? Is this because you love those old photographs which were products of the era in which they were made? Do you think using the equipment from that era (or worse, modern replications of that equipment) will "getchya there"? HCB did't use old technology during his heyday. He used the latest and greatest. And his work - and all the other work of his contemporaries, were the products of their era. The technology they used is but one part of the equation. Your work - if emulation of these photographers is your goal, will be "missing something" no matter what. It's impossible for it not to, and it is an artistic forgery deviod of value as is any forgery, regardless how technically proficient.
And, you're way off in the wrong direction. You're lost, chum.
You are chasing your tail... and your first step to not doing this is to quit recreating what has already been done. Admire the living daylights out of it! That's fine... with the melancholy realization that that era is over, never to come again.
Embrace what's new as the tools to create what's new and drive things forward as your first step. Creating "what's new" is nearly an impossible challenge in and of itself - but unlike emulation, isn't wholly impossible and can only be achieved using the tools of the creation trade of our times regardless of what it is.
And what it is today is "digital", "Photoshop". Computer chips, computers, software, and sophisticated printing machines. Not "Rodinal" from the 1800's. Not black and white films from 60 years ago. No rangefinders.
Relegate these to objects of antiquity. Or cherished toys. - And toys are okay. Nothing wrong with toys to be used for "play time". But not if you have higher goals.
Viewing these films today, despite their sometimes tastelessness (not to mention atrocious dubbing), they are imbued with an incredible charm. I must admit, I'm hooked to the point where the few titles I haven't seen are being "saved" like a vintage wine stored in the basement for that special occasion. I'm not the only one... these films have a bonafide cult following (like rangefinder cameras) and attempts have been made to revive the genre (like rangefinder cameras) by other lovers of the genre. One recent attempt (2009) is a film aptly named, "Giallo" by one of the key directors of these films during their heyday, Dario Argento. Never heard of it? That's because it went straight to DVD. Only saw the trailer. I'll eventually watch it I suppose. It gets "meh" reviews. It's lukewarm reception probably isn't the film makers fault, however. Bet if it was released in 1971 it be hailed as one of the best along with his "Deep Red". Didn't see the film - don't have to, I know this in advance... It's inauthentic. A replica. It's "missing something". All attempts at this in any art - film, painting, photography is always ill-advised because to recreate something whose era is "over and done with" can't be achieved successfully.
Remember the "new" Psycho? The scene for scene shot for shot remake? No? It's forgotten, and deserves to be. Bad idear.
You can dust off the old technology - be my guest. The technology is only part of the equation. Besides, those who produced this art used the "latest and greatest" technology of the era - not old s--t. Guitarists go looking for that "vintage sound" by putting crappy old technology pick-ups in their Strats and go buying tube amps. Never works. Sorry. Futile. Film makers study set-ups, alter the look of their films in post - even putting fake gate scratches in (that horrified those filmmakers), try to mimic the soundtrack... The don't end up with a "giallo" film, they end up with "Giallo". The only way to produce the giallo - or any art of the past, is to go back in time with your time machine, with no knowledge of the future, be reborn, grow up all over again, and make a new giallo in 1970. This is true of painting, music, photography, film, literature, photography. That is, it's impossible.
I once asked an MFA friend if you could earn an MFA by painting something beautiful, like the Dutch Masters did. Why did all modern painting have to be so abstract and inaccessible. She laughed at me. No! And it shouldn't be that way! That era is over. If artists painted like this all the time art would stand still, become boring, and die out. Those works are products of their era... they can't be recreated. Even the best modern replicants of them - when descovered to be forgeries, lose their value.
Do you use rangefinders loaded with tri-x, hand developed in Rodinal because you want to make "art" (which is isn't - no photography is, but that's another topic) like HCB did? Is this because you love those old photographs which were products of the era in which they were made? Do you think using the equipment from that era (or worse, modern replications of that equipment) will "getchya there"? HCB did't use old technology during his heyday. He used the latest and greatest. And his work - and all the other work of his contemporaries, were the products of their era. The technology they used is but one part of the equation. Your work - if emulation of these photographers is your goal, will be "missing something" no matter what. It's impossible for it not to, and it is an artistic forgery deviod of value as is any forgery, regardless how technically proficient.
And, you're way off in the wrong direction. You're lost, chum.
You are chasing your tail... and your first step to not doing this is to quit recreating what has already been done. Admire the living daylights out of it! That's fine... with the melancholy realization that that era is over, never to come again.
Embrace what's new as the tools to create what's new and drive things forward as your first step. Creating "what's new" is nearly an impossible challenge in and of itself - but unlike emulation, isn't wholly impossible and can only be achieved using the tools of the creation trade of our times regardless of what it is.
And what it is today is "digital", "Photoshop". Computer chips, computers, software, and sophisticated printing machines. Not "Rodinal" from the 1800's. Not black and white films from 60 years ago. No rangefinders.
Relegate these to objects of antiquity. Or cherished toys. - And toys are okay. Nothing wrong with toys to be used for "play time". But not if you have higher goals.
Last edited:
