b. November 3, 1959, Islip,
New York
New York independent filmmaker, Hal Hartley, is arguably one of
the most compelling and talented directors of his generation. Having variously fulfilled the roles of
writer, director, producer, composer, editor and actor on his films, Hartley
well and truly is a modern day auteur.
Through the nine distinctive features and numerous shorts that stand to
his credit, Hartley has demonstrated an acute grasp of the film medium, and a
technical perfection which is rivaled by few.
The decidedly philosophical underpinnings of Hartley's works have
enabled him to create a body of idiosyncratically entertaining films that have
attracted a cult following over the years.
During
the late 1970’s, Hartley attended art school at the Massachusetts College of
Art, before going on to study film at the State of University of New York at
Purchase in 1980. Following his
graduation from SUNY Purchase in 1984, Hartley honed his filmmaking talents
through the creation of a number of low budget shorts, before raising the money
he would need to create his debut feature film, The Unbelievable Truth (1988).
The Unbelievable Truth was the first installment of Hartley's
Lindenhurst trilogy of films, which was also comprised of Trust (1990) and Simple Men (1992). These three
dialogue driven, romantic melodramas were set in Hartley's suburban hometown of
Lindenhurst, New York, and firmly fixed their interest on a small yet beguiling
set of youths seeking to find their way in a world which is seemingly driven by
materialist concerns.
On
the back of the success of the Lindenhurst trilogy, Hartley produced the larger
budgeted, Amateur, in
1994.
With
a plot driven by the decidedly Orwellian character of Matthew, an amnesiac with
a violent past, Hartley experimented with many of the characteristics of the
action genre in this film, and in his own words “…took all these acting
conventions out of action movies... guns, torture, beating people up... and
welded it on the idea of a girl who claims to see the Virgin Mary and this
other idea of a guy with amnesia... I wanted to differentiate from genre as
genre, and the conventions, the trappings of genre” 1.
In
1995, Amateur was followed in quick succession by the experimental film, Flirt. Hartley’s ultimate commitment
to the study of slow pacing and repetition on film, and the film that he cites
as his favourite, Flirt repeats
the same love affair scenario based on the one script in three different cities
in Hartley’s strongest ode to formalism to date.
In
1997, Hartley released his sixth feature film, Henry Fool, in which he subtly aired his views on the sometimes
voracious state of critical commentary through a film that allows its audience
to bear witness to the creation of the greatest epic poem ever written, but
does not permit them to become privy to anything but the media scuffle
surrounding it.
Much
the same theme was also taken up in Hartley’s most recent feature film release, No Such Thing (2002), in which Hartley remade Jean
Cocteau’s classic film Beauty and the
Beast (1946) anew, and took a swipe at the somewhat corruptible social
values of the information age in the process.
Hartley
currently has another film in post-production, entitled, The Girl from Monday (2004), starring
Tatiana Abracos and Bill Sage, which is described on his production company’s
website as “an unapologetically
stylized account of friendship, sacrifice, and free love in the information
age.”2
To
date, the common elements that Hartley’s films have shared include: their
manipulation of traditional generic styles; their use of slowly paced
melodramatic plots; the exposition of their plots through rapid fire dialogue
exchanges; their use of gestural, highly choreographic character movements to
convey emotion; and the sense that their characters exist at the service of a
particular philosophical point.
Hartley’s films have also consistently made use of a repertory company
of actors, most notably comprised of Martin Donovan, Robert John Burke, Bill
Sage, Karen Sillas, Adrienne Shelly, Elina Lowensohn and Parker Posey, amongst
others.
In
terms of character, all of Hartley’s films thus far have centrally featured
characters who live their lives philosophically, have explored the complex yet
fragile sets of connections that bring people together and pull them apart, and
have melodramatically demonstrated the sometimes explosive effects of the
random act and the wiles of chance on a set of lives (often to deadpan comedic
effect).
When
further considering the kinds of characters that populate Hartley’s films and
the way that they relate to one another, it is difficult not to be reminded of
Albert Camus’ existential tome, The
Myth of Sisyphus3, in which Camus surmised that once a man
has seen through the rise-work-eat-sleep, 7-days-a-week routine of his daily
life there can be no turning back for him.
According to Camus, that man has now entered into a lucid world termed
‘the absurd’, in which he has but two choices: to either allow himself to be
swept back up into his daily routine, or else to end his life in the face of
its futility. It is at just such a life
changing crossroads that the characters in Hal Hartley’s films seemingly
stand.
The
sociopolitical space that Hartley’s characters inhabit is essentially a
secular, suburban one, in which a traditional sense of community has broken
down but has not been replaced by anything tangible. In this space, Hartley’s characters come together through leaps
of faith and stand together to challenge the social constraints that confine
them. This particular dynamic is most
poignantly demonstrated throughout the films in the Lindenhurst trilogy, which
all strongly feature existentialist characters in key roles.
Beyond
existential philosophy itself, Hartley’s films also convey a strong desire to
express what the filmmaker describes as “the stuff you can’t figure out, the
stuff you can’t label, the stuff you can’t categorise”4, which is,
in essence, a desire to communicate a level of human experience that exists
beyond language. In a certain sense, it
can be seen that Hartley’s intellectual line of inquiry here is aimed at
getting to the very center of language itself, and indeed, its ability to
structure the confines of human experience.
This desire is reflected in the very careful and incisive use of
dialogue and visual languages in Hartley’s films.
All
of Hartley’s films to date carry a distinctively minimalist visual sense, which
is characterised by cinematographer Michael Spiller's acute framing and use of
deep focus techniques and Hartley’s own exacting approach to shot
composition. Indeed, Hartley’s belief
that every shot in each of his films should "convey a kind of
geometry"5, with its emphasis on creating vectors to direct the
eye in every frame, can be seen to strongly reflect his art school
training. On this topic, Hartley once
mused that, “Despite the fact that I
love story, character and dialogue, when I isolate the primary elements of film
I find photography, movement and sound recording -- in that order. Only then do
I consider dramatic action. Film is
essentially graphic for me”.6
The
consistent array of visual elements employed in Hartley’s films are made all
the more striking through his use of slow pacing and uniquely choreographic
mode of direction7. By the
same token, the slowly paced visual sense that Hartley’s films convey is in
direct conflict with their rapid-fire use of dialogue; and the outcome is a
compelling dynamic. All of Hartley’s
films are perfectly replete with aphorisms, as his characters speak very
eloquently, and almost lyrically, to one another at all times. As James Schamus aptly put it, when watching
Hartley’s films one is struck by the sense that “…the dialogue is not so much
the interaction between two naturalistic characters as it is the dramatization
of a question and its possible answers.”8 Indeed, Hartley strives to
make it so that ‘the dialogue is the action’ in his films, effectively
achieving the rapid exposition of his plots through his character’s dialogue
exchanges so as to open up a space for some fairly expressionistic acting.
Much
like the experimental video artist, Bill Viola, Hartley encourages his actors
to use gestural, highly stylised movements in order to communicate their
character’s emotional states.
Emphasising the importance of this non-naturalistic form of acting to
him, Hartley once commented that, “One day I’d like to make a film that is
entirely constructed of, say, fifteen gestures… I suspect that (the)
concentration on physical gesture is ultimately where the expression of emotion
lies”. 9
Having
cited influences on his work as varied as the plays of Moliere and Bertolt
Brecht, and the films of Buster Keaton, Robert Bresson and Jean-Luc Godard;
Hartley has received a mixed-bag response from film critics over the
years. Hartley has variously been hailed
by critics as “a distinctive voice in contemporary American cinema”10
and “a fervently inventive original"11, who creates works of
“affectless precision”12, and been ranked amongst the ranks of Atom
Egoyan, Quentin Tarantino and David Lynch for his multi-generic approach to
filmmaking13. At the same
time, he has also been consistently criticised for the very constancy of his
filmmaking style. To his critics,
Hartley presents his own best defence, and a fitting summary of his approach to
his work and goals as a filmmaker, when he says:-
I would like to move towards making films that are in fact more like music; films that can be appreciated the way we appreciate music. When we hear a tune we appreciate, we hum it to ourselves and cannot wait to hear it again. The same with painting, even theater. But in movies that is popularly reversed. If you have seen a movie once it is usually thought to be exhausted. If it doesn’t reveal itself entirely to you in one viewing it is somehow a failure. I would like to make movies that encourage repeated viewings: I like that phrase, attributed to Greenaway, ‘infinitely viewable cinema’.14
1. Matt Hanson, “The
Sophisticated Yet Ultimately Awkward World of an American Auteur” in ‘Dazed and
Confused’ (June 1995 Ed).
2. See:- http://www.possiblefilms.com
3. Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, 1955, Penguin Books,
London.
4. Taken from Ethan Straffin’s online biography of Hal Hartley. See:- http://drumz.best.vwh.net/Hartley/Info/bio.html
5. James Schamus, "Once Upon a Time in New York", Filmmaker
Magazine, Fall 2002.
6. Hal Hartley, ‘Actually Responding’, introduction to the
screenplay for ‘Flirt’, 1996, Faber and Faber, London.
7. See:- James Schamus, "The Simple Laws of Filmmaking",
Filmmaker Magazine, Fall 1992 and also Hal
Hartley,
‘Actually Responding’, introduction to the screenplay for ‘Flirt’, 1996, Faber
and Faber, London
for a fuller
discussion of Hartley’s choreographic approach to direction in his own words.
8. James
Schamus, "The Simple Laws of Filmmaking", Filmmaker Magazine, Fall
1992
9. Hal Hartley in Graham Fuller, “Hal Hartley:
Finding the Essential” introduction to the screenplays for Simple
Men and Trust, 1992, Faber and Faber, London, p. xxxvi.
10. Robert Chilcott and Ian Haydn Smith in The
Wallflower Critical Guide to Contemporary North American
Directors, Wallflower Press, London, 2004, p 199.
11. See:- http://drumz.best.vwh.net/Hartley/
12. Janet
Maslin, “Of
Faustian Wonders And a Mythic Queens” 1996, New York Times
See:- http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?title1=&title2=Henry+Fool+%28Movie%29++&reviewer=
Janet+Maslin&v_id=158680&pdate=
13. Roger Ebert, ‘Amateur’ film review , 28
April 1995, Chicago
Sun-Times.
See:- http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1995/04/976783.html
14. Hal Hartley, ‘Actually Responding’,
introduction to the screenplay for ‘Flirt’, 1996, Faber and Faber, London.
As
Director and Screenwriter:
Kid
(1984: 33 minutes), also editor and producer
The
Cartographer’s Girlfriend (1987: 29 minutes), also producer and editor
Dogs
(1988: 20 minutes), also producer
The
Unbelievable Truth (1989: 90 minutes), also editor
Trust
(1990: 105 minutes)
Theory
of Achievement (1991: 17.45minutes), also editor
Ambition
(1991: 9 minutes), also editor and music (under the alias of Ned Rifle)
Surviving
Desire (1991: 60 minutes), also editor and music (under the alias of Ned Rifle)
Simple
Men (1992: 104 minutes) also music (under the alias of Ned Rifle)
Iris
(1993: minutes), also camera operator
Amateur
(1994: 100 minutes) also music (under the alias of Ned Rifle)
NYC
3/94 segment created for the 1994 New York Film Festival (1994: 9 minutes)
Flirt
(1995: 85 minutes) also music (under the alias of Ned Rifle) and actor
Opera
No 1 (1994: 8 minutes), also composer
Henry
Fool (1997: 141 minutes), also music
The
Other Also (1997: 7 minutes), also camera operator
The
Book of Life as part of the 2000 Seen By series (1998: 63 minutes) also
screenwriter
The
New Math (1999: 15 minutes)
Kimono
(2000: 27 minutes)
No
Such Thing (2002: 105 minutes), also music
The
Girl From Monday (2004: currently in post-production), also producer and music
Geoff
Andrew and Helen Hawkins, in John Pym (ed.), Time Out Film Guide, Eleventh
Edition 2003, Penguin Books, London, pp. 321, 1054, 1158.
Douglas Bauer, ‘An Independent Vision:
Film Director Hal Hartley’ in ‘The Atlantic’, April 1994.
Robert
Chilcott and Ian Haydn Smith in The Wallflower Critical Guide to Contemporary
North American Directors, Wallflower Press, London, 2004, pp 199 - 201.
Graham Fuller, “Hal
Hartley: Finding the Essential” introduction to the screenplays for Simple Men
and Trust, 1992, Faber and Faber, London.
Graham Fuller, “Hal Hartley: Doing Damage” introduction to
the screenplay for Amateur, 1994, Faber and Faber, London.
James
Schamus, "The Simple Laws of Filmmaking", Filmmaker Magazine, Fall
1992.
(See:- http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/fall1992/simple_laws.html)
James
Schamus, "Once Upon a Time in New York", Filmmaker Magazine, Fall
2002.
(See:- http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/fall2002/features/once_upon.html)
Hal
Hartley interviews Jean-Luc Godard, "In Images We Trust", Filmmaker
Magazine, Fall 1994.
Hal Hartley,
‘Actually Responding’, introduction to the screenplay for ‘Flirt’, 1996, Faber
and Faber, London.
Kent
Jones, "Hal Hartley: The Book I Read Was In Your Eyes",
Film Comment, July-August 1996, pp 62-68.
Peter de Jonge, “The Jean Luc Godard of
Long Island” in ‘The New York Times’, August 4 , 1996.
Stanley Kauffmann, “Books and the Arts: Stanley Kauffman
on Films” in ‘The New Republic’ (November 9, 1992)
Ellen Pall, “The Elusive Women in the Quirky Films of Hal
Hartley” in ‘The New York Times, Sunday, April 9, 1995.
Peter
Sellars, “Bodies of Light” in “Bill Viola: The Passions”, Getty Publications,
L.A. California, p. 165, 2003.
David Sterritt, ‘A Filmmaker’s Take on the Nature of
Identity’ from ‘The Christian Science Monitor’, April 5, 1995.
Justin
Wyatt, "The Particularity and Peculiarity of Hal Hartley", Film
Quarterly, Fall 1998, pp 52-56.
Possible
Films
www.possiblefilms.com
Hal
Hartley's official website, which features details on all of his productions to
date, as well as interviews with Hartley on them.
Trouble
and Desire
http://drumz.best.vwh.net/Hartley/
Ethan
Straffin's leading fan site on Hal Hartley. Features interviews with the
director, quotes and images from his films, and articles and reviews of his
work. Quite possibly the most
comprehensive online resource on Hartley’s work.
Hal
Hartley: Directing the Strange
http://www.vibewire.net/articles.php?id=438
An
interesting essay by Kate Stevens, which explores Hartley's deconstructive
approach to filmmaking.
Parody, Poetry and the Periphery: Hal Hartley’s
‘Amateur’
http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue5/amateur.html
An essay by Jens Nicklas on the more postmodern and
philosophical themes in Hartley’s works.
Rise of an
Indie: An Interview with Hal
Hartley
http://drumz.best.vwh.net/Hartley/Info/cineaste-interview.html
John Fried’s 1993 Cineaste interview with Hal Hartley
Henry Fool: The Push, Pull and Play of Hal
Hartley
http://www.indiewire.com/people/int_Hartley_Hal_980618.html
Anthony Kaufman interviews Hartley following the
release of Henry Fool
Sharp
Shooter: Hal Hartley on the not-so-simple art of scoring
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ts/feature/3756/002-5850566-3082447
Hal Hartley talks to Amazon.com about the scoring of
his films
Amateur:
The Official Sony Pictures Classic website
http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/amateur/amateur.html
Features
full details on the production from the film’s official site.
Henry
Fool: The Official Sony Pictures Classic website
http://www.sonypictures.com/classics/henryfool/
Features
full details on the production from the film’s official site.
No
Such Thing: The official MGM DVD website
http://www.mgm.com/nosuchthing
Features
full details on the production from the film’s official site.
+ Return to film page ..+ Return to homepage ..+ Go to guestbook