Eclipse 1968: Rozmarné léto

I’ve been pretty underwhelmed by this Criterion box set of 60s Czech(oslovakian but not really) new wave movies. I mean, it’s not necessarily the plots or anything, but just how sloppy these movies look. Which is probably totally unfair. I mean… if you’re waiting for the Soviets to roll in and crush everything, perhaps getting the perfect framing on your shots isn’t the priority?

But this one looks better, at least. Even though I have absolutely no idea what they’re going on about. I think it’s supposed to be an amusing, absurdist thing?

Possibly?

Nice long johns! Do those things still exist?

But it’s like they don’t actually look through the viewfinder? I mean, that’s an almost striking shot — if they’d gotten rid of those people sitting on the fence, which just makes it look awkward.

The casting is also really weird.

Capricious Summer. Jirí Menzel. 1968.

This blog post is part of the Eclipse series.

14×10%

What? Already? It seems like I was doing a posting like this just the other week…

How time flies — it was three weeks ago. But this was a speedy stretch, and we actually decreased the numbers of open bugs, from 2590 to 2466, which, if my mathematics knowledge is correct, is … more than a hundred. Approx. Don’t take my word for it.

Oh, yeah, if you’re just joining the show, this is the blog post where I natter on a bit about Emacs development, through the lens of traversing the Emacs bug tracker.

To zoom out:

We’re on a downward trend, but I feel like it’s taking more effort recently. I didn’t implement a single significant new feature this cycle, but just concentrated on triage and fixing (small) stuff, and it still was… a lot of work.

And it looks like the number of opened bugs is pretty flat? Or… is it? So I made a new chart:

Aha! The number of bugs opened per month was in the 150 region from 2015 to 2020, but the last couple years, we’ve trended towards 200 per month. Which says something, but I’m not sure what.

How do you interpret a higher bug count? Is Emacs getting buggier, or are we just adding more new stuff (that then has bugs (everything does)), or is the number of users increasing, so we’re getting more reports? Difficult to say, but I think it’s mostly the second point. To take just one example (but a big one) — the pure Gtk branch was merged a couple months ago, and that led to a surge in bug reports from users trying that out.

Let’s see… did Emacs get anything new and exciting since the last blog post? Uhm… Oh, yeah:

Emacs can now (courtesy of Håkon Flatval and Po Lu) use alpha backgrounds (i.e., let windows behind Emacs frames shine through).

In total, there’s been 610 commits, for an average of 28 per day. Ish.

Next stretch is just 246 bugs, but I think I’ll be concentrating on implementing things instead of looking at old bug reports, so it’ll probably take a whole lot longer until the next blog post in this series.

And I may be taking some time off, but whenever I say that, it never happens.

Eclipse 1967: Návrat ztraceného syna

I wonder whether it really looked like this originally? I mean, the high contrast and everything falling abruptly into #000? It could be the result of a bad DVD transfer and a “restoration” prioritising having no noise over actually being able to see what’s on the film.

I doubt that this is what it was supposed to look like.

On the other hand, the other Czech(oslovakian) movies on this box set have also had technical problems (over/under exposed etc), so perhaps … they just weren’t that good at the that stuff? I mean, the laboratories and cinematographers and the best boy grip and and stuff?

I have to say that I have huge problems staying interested in this movie. And it’s weird — this is just the sort of film I usually enjoy, but I’d be hard pressed to even say what’s the movie’s about at this point.

It’s probably just me, but I’m ditching the movie at fifty minutes in, because I just can’t even.

So this rating is probably total nonsense:

Return of the Prodigal Son. Evald Schorm. 1967.

This blog post is part of the Eclipse series.

Eclipse 1969: Putney Swope

So, I’ve been totally underwhelmed by the other Downey movies in this box set, but I think this is supposed to be Downey’s “real” movie from these years? So I’m now discarding all preconceptions… ommm…

Heh heh.

Heh heh. This starts pretty swell.

OK, now it’s boring. It went from farce to “satire”. (Which is code word for “not actually funny”.)

Hey, they changed aspect ratio?

Wow. This started off so well, but it’s turned all tedious.

At least the cinematography’s better than in the other Downey movies. Barely.

Has it really?

I think that says “no”. At least it’s not remaining in any lexicon today.

… Oh my god. I wondered why the eponymous character was talking in a comedy Christian Bale Batman voice — and it’s Downey himself. He dubbed himself in over the actor.

And using that voice. Geez.

Putney Swope. Robert Downey Sr.. 1969.

This blog post is part of the Eclipse series.

Eclipse 1975: Two Tons of Turquoise To Taos Tonight


As with the previous Downey movies, I just don’t see the attraction. It’s relentlessly amateurish instead of being avant garde (which I think he’s aiming for?). I mean, I get that it’s supposed to be funny and shit, but… that doesn’t help?

Perhaps being really stoned would help?

That’s really old!

Downey’s movies feel like they’re more about having fun while making them than anything else? I mean, if you watch other experimental movies from this era, like… News From Home by Chantal Akerman, which was also made on a minuscule budget, it’s a real thing, made with an idea in mind, for an audience to watch. This is basically a bunch of home movie things edited together — self indulgent and tedious.

There. I said it. Let the healing begin.

But, I mean, nobody’s forcing me to watch these movies, so it’s all on me. Why shouldn’t Downey edit his home movies down into something like this?

Two Tons of Turquoise To Taos Tonight. Robert Downey Sr.. 1975.

This blog post is part of the Eclipse series.