Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
1501
From:
Date: Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:29pm
Subject: Re: Auteur Theory, Charlie's Angels
In a message dated 8/23/03 6:03:47 AM, upworld1@h... writes:
>No offense to anyone here, but my feeling is auteurists only stand to
>alienate everyone else further if they keep insisting that their
>special, esoteric pleasures have nothing to do with those experienced
>by so-called ordinary people. Part of the basis for any sort of
>discussion is the assumption that our experiences do have things in
>common even when our vocabularies differ. As Fred just wrote, it
>ought to be possible for anybody to `get' what's special about
>Welles, Hawks, Rossellini, et al -– even if we can't see as much, or
>describe our experiences as lucidly, as the best critics do.
I'm with you, Jake. There's nothing about the auteurist approach to cinema
(and, to get even more specific, the formalist approach favored in greater and
lesser degrees by Fred, Yoel, myself, and others) that can't be adopted by
just about anyone who wants to. When I write on a film, I'm writing for
everyone; the last thing I want to do is preach to the choir. The goal is to find an
approach that you think is valid and explicate it as lucidly and accessibly as
you can without compromising the complexity of your subject. Mike Grost's
essays on his site are wonderful examples of this, but so are all of the writing
I'm familiar with by contributors to this board.
While I may emphasize that the things I look for and respond to in film may
be different from what many do, I'm kind of stubbornly insistent that it's not
such a big leap for an average moviegoer to begin paying attention to the
forms of great cinema: they're literally right there on the screen and (since I
think that sound can be just as important as image) on the soundtrack. Great
criticism can awaken you to these things, things you may not have even been
aware of in your favorite films.
Of course, I'm also convinced that if I showed anyone "Bonjour tristesse" and
spent an hour with them talking about it afterwards, I would have them
certain of the fact that it's one of the greatest things ever, so there's probably
some self-delusion involved here in terms of my ability to persuade people to
see things "my" way...
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
1502
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 1:43am
Subject: Re: Re: The Auteur Theory
Jean-Pierre Melville and Roman Polanski would agree
with me.
--- Damien Bona wrote:
> David Ehrenstein wrote:
> >No, but it DOES belong to the man who made "The
> >Haunting," "The Set-Up" amd "Odds Against
> Tomorrow."
>
>
> I'm afraid that if this is the best you can do in
> Wise's defense, then you'vr proven Peter's point.
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
> design software
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
1503
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:39am
Subject: Re: The Auteur Theory
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Jean-Pierre Melville and Roman Polanski would agree
> with me.
>
> --- Damien Bona wrote:
> > David Ehrenstein wrote:
> > >No, but it DOES belong to the man who made "The
> > >Haunting," "The Set-Up" amd "Odds Against
> > Tomorrow."
Well, then, it's Damien vs, David, Jean-Pierre and Roman -- and you
can add Leonard Maltin to your cadre, too, as well as Bosley
Crowther -- because I think these are three exceedingly mediocre
films. And none of them comes close to anything Welles directed.
The Set-Up is particularly negigible. A very self-
consciously "artsy" film in which none of the characters come across
as real flesh-and-blood people, they're all just types. And the
ironic brutal behavior of the folks in the stands is very heavy-
handed and facile.
1504
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:15am
Subject: Re: The Auteur Theory, The Simpsons
Robson and Wise are both auteurs (but so is Stuart Heisler), each of
whom made a couple of good films that no doubt bear their "marks,"
and they are admired by some of our filmmakers: Oliver Stone amd
Martin Scorsese both sat for DVD intrerviews with my friend Mike
Thomas, and it's possible Spielberg will, too. But Val Lewton is the
ultimate controlling force on Seventh Victim and Curse of the Cat
People, the two best films Welles' former editors put their names to
by a million miles.
Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. Sometimes it
IS the producer, who is the only person on the set besides the
director who has that kind of power (cf. Dan). Lewton was a mini-
Selznick, trained by Selznick, and some kind of genius in his own
right.
In fact, sometimes the producer ends up directing the film,
literally: Joel Silver on Executive Decision (my favorite 90s action
film), from what I hear, and beyond the shadow of a doubt, Frank
Marshall on The Bourne Amendment. But when they are working with the
Coens or Tony Scott or the Warchowskies (sp?) or Spielberg, those
producers function as producers, and are very happy to so so. Joel,
for example, understands the style of Tony Scott beter than any of us
would ever care to: "In the editing room, if you have three shots to
choose from, Tony will choose the one that's out-of-focus in the rear-
view mirror." Marshall, by the way, has made at least one film I like
on his own, Alive. Kind of daring, actually.
I don't watch tv, but I think many if not most of the voices on The
Simpsons are Harry Shearer, whose Sunday morning radio show on NPR,
Le Show, for those who don't know it, is one of our last remaining
national treasures. Tomorrow he will be dealing with the US suddenly
needing the UN again - "Could be cute" is his comment in his e-mail
to subscribers, Leblast. He does the show for free with a pretty free
hand, and the Fox Newtork pays his bills. Nice irony, huh?
1505
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:20am
Subject: Re: Re: The Auteur Theory
(Lina Lamont voice) Well I liked it. (end Lina Lamont
voice)
--- Damien Bona wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
1506
From: Tristan
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:55am
Subject: Re: The Auteur Theory, The Simpsons
Bill, a few voices Harry Shearer has done on the Simpsons: Mr. Burns,
Smithers, Ned Flanders, Principal Skinner, Otto, Reverend Lovejoy,
Dr. Hibbert, Kent Brockman, Jasper, Lenny, Eddie, Rainier Wolfcastle,
Scratchy, Mr. Bouvier, Kang, Dr. Marvin Monroe, and Herman.
1507
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:59am
Subject: Re: sex vs art
> I'm pretty
> sure Bazin makes this point somewhere -- he claims that nudity in
> movies is problematic because it draws undue attention to the 'real'
> attractions of the performer rather than integrating these
> attractions within a work of art. Interestingly this runs directly
> counter to his more famous ideas about cinema's ability to
> capture 'reality' independent of artifice.
I think Bazin's concept of realism is more complicated than that.
Remember, in his article on Italian neorealism, he said, "Realism in art
can only be achieved in one way - by artifice." - Dan (aka the Last
Bazinian)
1508
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 6:05am
Subject: Re: Auteur Theory, Charlie's Angels
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jaketwilson" wrote:
>
> No offense to anyone here, but my feeling is auteurists only stand
to
> alienate everyone else further if they keep insisting that their
> special, esoteric pleasures have nothing to do with those
experienced
> by so-called ordinary people. Part of the basis for any sort of
> discussion is the assumption that our experiences do have things in
> common even when our vocabularies differ. As Fred just wrote, it
> ought to be possible for anybody to `get' what's special about
> Welles, Hawks, Rossellini, et al -– even if we can't see as much,
or
> describe our experiences as lucidly, as the best critics do.
At the risk of sounding like a snob, I think that the experience of
auteurists at the movies IS quite different from those of Just Folks,
and no apologies needed. (A a parallel example, to use a couple of
non-auteurists, John Simon's experience is much different from Joe;
Siegel's.)
This is not to say there's no overlap between auteurists and the
average moviegoer – such auteurist favorites as The Searchers, Dirty
Harry, Rear Window. Imitation of Life and Rio Bravo were huge popular
successes.
I don't think "alienat[ing] everyone else further" is an issue, no
more than art scholars discussing anyone from Jenny Holzer to
Fairfield Porter to Michelangelo need to be bothered by what the
populace who buy atrocities by Thomas Kinkade have on their
minds. And the thing is, when there is that aforementioned
cinematic overlap, it's purely coincidental. We're talking about
parallel universes. As pretty as it would be to think otherwise, only
a select group of people today is going to `get' Welles, Hawks,
Rossellini, not to mention Kiarostami, Assayas, Dumont.or [fill in
the blank].
When a not-unintelligent but sadly clueless person like Armond White
snidely dismisses Kiarostami's Ten as nothing more than an Iranian
version of Taxicab Confessions, you know that it's okay to stick to
your own kind and not worry about the others. Let's be honest:
Proponents of auteurism are no different than other singular groups
like Jane Austen societies or people who advocate ferrets as house
pets or organizations dedicated to restoring the French monarchy, and
we should not give a second thought to the fact that we have our own,
specialized and detached place in the world. The rest of the
universe will never be on our wave length and so what? (A recent
CNN poll said that only 28% of Americans believed in evolution, so
clearly being part of the majority these days is nothing to aspire
to.) Let the general public turn Bruce Almighty and Pirates of the
Caribbean into megahits – such happenings are completely irrelevant
to our lives, and we'll always have Paris Does Strange Things.
1509
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 6:36am
Subject: Re: The Auteur Theory, The Simpsons
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Robson and Wise are both auteurs (but so is Stuart Heisler), each
of
> whom made a couple of good films that no doubt bear their "marks,"
> and they are admired by some of our filmmakers: Oliver Stone amd
> Martin Scorsese both sat for DVD intrerviews with my friend Mike
> Thomas, and it's possible Spielberg will, too. But Val Lewton is
the
> ultimate controlling force on Seventh Victim and Curse of the Cat
> People, the two best films Welles' former editors put their names
to
> by a million miles.
The Seventh Victim is on my All-Time list of 10 Best Films but I've
never been able to reconcile the fact that Mark Robson is the
director. I mean, how could the same man have directed both this
brilliantly brooding examination of urban alienation and the dullest
movie of all time, Inn Of The Sixth Happiness? I always ascribe the
greatness of Seventh Victim to Val Lewton.
Bill, is the reason you mention Stuart Heisler in connection with
Wise and Robson that he, too, was originally an editor? I find him
so much more interesting than the other two. In such movies as Tulsa
and Smash-Up: The STory Of A Woman, he presented characters of great
depth and ambiguity.
1510
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 2:35pm
Subject: Heisler, Wise, Robson, Lewton
Damien,
Heisler came to mind because I just read a brief summary of a
hundreds-and-hundreds-of-page oral history with him at the DGA that
makes him sound like an interesting guy - albeit apparently a
somewhat homophobic one. Sounds like his version of Hitler would have
been an American version of The Damned, but he wasn't allowed to get
away with it.
Thank God places like the DGA and the Academy have been doing these
oral histories, by the way. There's probably a lot of gold in there.
Apparently Heisler has a lot to say about working with Ford, for one
thing.
Just as an amendment to my previous post: Of the three Lewtonians,
Wise was better than Robson, and Tourneur, obviously, was better than
the other two. Robson could never have made something like The Sand
Pebbles after the money started rolling in. His wife would never have
let him.
But Robson got the Lewton unit's best script, after apprenticing two
years Welles AND one with Tourneur (he also edited Cat People, Zombie
and Leopard Man), so he rose to the challenge, as Sarris would say.
By the way, the Lewton scripts are now being posted on the Net at
http://home.earthlink.net/~sangun/sitemap.html, and they make
interesting reading. Did you know that there was an upbeat "button"
scene at the end of Seventh Victim which was cut to leave us with the
rather downbeat - and rather abrupt! - ending that's there now?
Lewton...
1511
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 2:49pm
Subject: The Cavern by E.G. Ulmer (1965)
I shall admit only a few films made me such an impression.
Universality, economy and precision. I would say this is precisely
where to start when trying to think about "who the devil made it?".
Is there more than one man behind this masterpiece?
But it seems to me this movie is not among the first titles to come
out after the name of Ulmer. Anybody has an idea why?
1512
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:19pm
Subject: making truth with fake
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I think Bazin's concept of realism is more complicated than that.
> Remember, in his article on Italian neorealism, he said, "Realism
in art can only be achieved in one way - by artifice."
Always keep in mind this reverse statement by Paul Valery: "Cinema
is an art of making truth with fake". I feel that all the filmakers
who systematically chose the way or realism/naturalism missed the
boat. When movie is all about re-creation, this is the shortest way
to failure. Lie in every single shot.
1513
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:27pm
Subject: Re: Heisler, Wise, Robson, Lewton
Jacques Rivette screened "The Seventh Victim" to the
entire cast of "Duelle" just before shooting began. He
did the same with "Moonfleet" for the cast of
"Noroit."
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Damien,
>
> Heisler came to mind because I just read a brief
> summary of a
> hundreds-and-hundreds-of-page oral history with him
> at the DGA that
> makes him sound like an interesting guy - albeit
> apparently a
> somewhat homophobic one. Sounds like his version of
> Hitler would have
> been an American version of The Damned, but he
> wasn't allowed to get
> away with it.
>
> Thank God places like the DGA and the Academy have
> been doing these
> oral histories, by the way. There's probably a lot
> of gold in there.
> Apparently Heisler has a lot to say about working
> with Ford, for one
> thing.
>
> Just as an amendment to my previous post: Of the
> three Lewtonians,
> Wise was better than Robson, and Tourneur,
> obviously, was better than
> the other two. Robson could never have made
> something like The Sand
> Pebbles after the money started rolling in. His wife
> would never have
> let him.
>
> But Robson got the Lewton unit's best script, after
> apprenticing two
> years Welles AND one with Tourneur (he also edited
> Cat People, Zombie
> and Leopard Man), so he rose to the challenge, as
> Sarris would say.
> By the way, the Lewton scripts are now being posted
> on the Net at
> http://home.earthlink.net/~sangun/sitemap.html, and
> they make
> interesting reading. Did you know that there was an
> upbeat "button"
> scene at the end of Seventh Victim which was cut to
> leave us with the
> rather downbeat - and rather abrupt! - ending that's
> there now?
> Lewton...
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
1514
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 6:39pm
Subject: The Cavern
Hello, Maxime, and welcome to a fellow Ulmer fan. Ulmer initially
prepped The Cavern, which was very much a personal project, in 1957,
so there are traces of it in films made while he was waiting -
particularly a poorly acted but beautiful pilot for a Swiss Family
Robinson tv series which is now available as a bonus on the DVD of
Pirates of Capri. Curiously, the backgrounds of Cavern are
anticipated in an animated cartoon he made for the American Lung
Association during the 30s, Goodbye Mr. Germ.
When The Cavern came out in France, it got a "capsule" in the back of
CdC beginning, "Edgar G. Ulmer, whose existence we had almost
forgotten..." Perhaps the otherwise unforgiveable nonchalance of that
opening reflected everyone's disappointment in L'Atlantide, a film
made in Europe, during which EGU did his first and only interview
with the Cahiers as well as other outlets. There is no "non-personal"
film by Ulmer, but he really did take L'Atlantide over from Borzage
after the start of shooting, and it is much inferior to The Cavern,
one of the great testament films in the history of cinema.
Another reason Cavern was neglected in France (and, it goes without
saying, in the US by everyone but the Illuminati) is that by 1965
Truffaut, who was Ulmer's defender on the Cahiers, had left to make
films, as had Luc Moullet and Bertrand Tavernier, who did that
interview. I actually had the privilege of reintroducing Ulmer to
France when Olivier Assayas et al. were here in 1982, by screening
Detour at USC. They also hadn't ever heard of Gun Crazy, which I had
Lee Sanders screen for them. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel!
Both were subsequently distributed commercially in Paris - Detour in
35mm in 4 theatres, and Gun Crazy by Olivier...very successfully, I
heard.
According to Tavernier, who did a lot of the early research on Ulmer,
the script for The Cavern was written by Dalton Trumbo.
1515
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Aug 24, 2003 7:58pm
Subject: Re: The Cavern
Thanks to Bill for lots of great info on "The Cavern." It looks like I
may have to actually purchase a DVD soon!
We showed a beautiful 35mm print at the MIT Film Society in about 1969.
I thought it was amazing; indeed, it's my favorite Ulmer. Among other
things, it's devastatingly bleak; what else can one say of a film about
people trapped in a cave that has superimposed titles such as "346 Days
Later." There's an amazing bible-reading sequence with a zoom in on
rocks that arguably inject a note of, well, not exactly hope, but
something other than bleakness. And talk about space. Also, without
revealing anything, the ending is even more amazing.
My other Ulmer favorites include "Detour," "Strange Illusion,"
"Ruthless," "Murder is My Beat," and "The Naked Dawn."
- Fred
1516
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 0:54am
Subject: By Brakhage: An Anthology
I just wanted to mention that the article in today's New York Times
on Criterion's 2-DVD "By Brakhage: An Anthology" specifically refers
to Fred's "excellent liner notes" and that he "served as the ailing
filmmaker's 'eyes' throughout the production."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/movies/24LEE.html
1517
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:23am
Subject: Re: Auteur Theory, Charlie's Angels
> Interesting defenses of Charlie's Angels from Ruy and Peter, though I
> find Tashlin a more persuasive reference point than Hawks. Both these
> posts raise a larger question -– how far can auteurists locate value
> in the `post-cinema' landscape of contemporary blockbuster Hollywood,
> as typified by McG, David Fincher, Baz Luhrmann, The Matrix, Michael
> Bay, Jackass: The Movie? Seems to me traditional critical approaches
> just don't work with a lot of this stuff – which is also hard to
> separate from the various things happening on TV, or at least MTV.
I was thinking about this a lot when MTV came along. Most of us were
accustomed to a cinema where the shot was a unit of meaning, so to
speak: in other words, where a shot change meant a shift in our way of
looking, and where the contrast between two shots yielded information.
And then along came MTV, where shot changes no longer signified like
that, and where you'd go crazy in short order if you tried to make them
signify like that. Clearly the frequent, random shot changes were doing
something other than what I was used to - and whatever they were doing
quickly became codified for the audience, so it was pointless to call
these practices an aberration. It seemed like hell on earth, but in a
way I was fascinated, and I just kept watching music videos, the way you
might keep touching a sore tooth with your tongue. I don't think the
new styles mean that you can't apply any of the old analytical tools,
but they do change the weighting that we might give to different
filmmaking elements. If I tried to get all shot-by-shot on an average
music video's ass, music video fans would think that I needed a
different weighting system, just as I thought that Bellour needed a
different weighting system when he spent pages and pages showing how the
titles of MARNIE undermined the class struggle. - Dan (who thought the
second CHARLIE'S ANGELS didn't live up to the promise of the first one)
1518
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:33am
Subject: Altered States
> But then Paddy ran into a force of nature, Ken Russell,
> who finally turned a Chayefsky script into something good and
> memorable in Altered States – and not recognizable as Chayefsky's.
> Chayefsky was so incensed that he took his name off the picture.
I like this film too, and I consider it a freak accident. Normally I
have as much trouble with Russell's crazed, exhibitionistic style as I
do with Chayevsky's hectoring dialogue. But Russell ran Chayevsky's
dialogue so fast that it couldn't hector anymore, and Chayevsky somehow
anchored Russell with that endless stream of words that hinted at
intellectual underpinnings, even if they weren't actually intellectual.
The result isn't much like any film by either of them. - Dan
1519
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:38am
Subject: Lewton
> But Val Lewton is the
> ultimate controlling force on Seventh Victim and Curse of the Cat
> People, the two best films Welles' former editors put their names to
> by a million miles.
Probably. I seem to have a different valuation of the Lewton-Wise and
Lewton-Robson films than most people. The Wise film that really works
for me is THE BODY SNATCHER, which is one of the few non-Hitchcock films
in the cinema that feels very Hitchcockian to me, with its shifting
identification that turns the audience against itself. And I sat
through all the Lewton-Robson films without being very interested until
I hit the last one, which was THE GHOST SHIP. When THE SEVENTH VICTIM
didn't dent me, I was ready to give up, and I was quite surprised to be
impressed when I thought I was just checking off the last item on the
checklist. - Dan
1520
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:09am
Subject: Re: Auteur Theory, Charlie's Angels
"Damien Bona" wrote:
> When a not-unintelligent but sadly clueless person like Armond
White
> snidely dismisses Kiarostami's Ten as nothing more than an Iranian
> version of Taxicab Confessions, you know that it's okay to stick to
> your own kind and not worry about the others. Let's be honest:
> Proponents of auteurism are no different than other singular groups
> like Jane Austen societies or people who advocate ferrets as house
> pets or organizations dedicated to restoring the French monarchy,
> and we should not give a second thought to the fact that we have
> our own, specialized and detached place in the world.
Fair enough, but I disagree. For me, auteurism is a way of responding
to films as fully as possible, drawing on a few debatable but
basically common-sense assumptions -- it shouldn't be allowed to
degenerate into an eccentric, self-enclosed cult. ('Stick to your own
kind and don't worry about the others' is a terrible slogan in any
context whatsoever.) If cinema continues to thrive as an artform,
it's because it remains essentially a POPULAR art, and thank God for
that.
Also, White is totally an auteurist! Comparing Ten to MTV is his
version of rebelling against the Tradition of Quality. (I know
Kiarostami is a great filmmaker, but it's understandable that some
are put off by the hype.)
JTW
1521
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:23am
Subject: Music videos, The Ghost Ship
Here are a few sentences by Patrice Blouin on music videos in a
Cahiers essay on The Virgin Suicides and As Time Goes By: "For the
moment, the creator of a video is not so much a metteur en scene as
an artistic director who is able to associate on one screen the art
of the designer and the interior decorator, the photographer and the
couturier, the song-writer and the choreographer. (This list of
different artistic practices involved in creating a clip - modern
dance, pop music, modern art, decoration, industrial design etc. - is
in a way the reformulation in contemporary, pop terms of the
traditional classification of the arts [dance, music, poetry.
architecture, sculpture, painting].) The obvious success of certain
videos (there are music video 'masterpieces') doesn't change their
primary status as a commercial, promotional product. How can cinema,
which is also a commercial art, maintain its difference without
ignoring this new visual culture?" He then talks about how Sofia
Coppola and Wong Kar Wai do that in their films: "The difficulty of
being a character in the era of pop affects the very conception of
themselves these filmmakers have." (CdC 554, February 2001). Wish I
had time to translate more - it's an interesting article.
Re: Lewton - Mighty strange choices, Dan. I was struck when I finally
saw The Ghost Ship at Cinecom by the fact that Richard Dix sounded
like Orson Welles.
1522
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 6:03am
Subject: Charlies Angels, Auteurism
Jake,
Refer to my previous post on music videos. Here's the last line of
the same article: "By immersing their artistic practice and their
characters in pop culture, [Sofia Coppola and Wong Kar Wai] run the
risk of confusion. Their films are available to be consumed [in the
sense of 'consumer culture,' translator's note] as well as looked at.
It may only be at this price that cinema can reamin a popular art."
I will keep stating my position: I was very moved by the comparison
of auteurism with people who advocate keeping ferrets for pets. I've
said the same thing more than once - several months ago I said it to
Jean-Marie Straub. He quoted something Renoir said back to me,
referring to a 6000-seat movie theatre in Paris: "I make films to
play the Gaumont-Palace, but I make them for the people in 3 of those
seats."
My position is that auteurism as a theory is now accepted by everyone
(Wasn't Kael being an auteurist when she compared The Killer Elite to
Cocteau?), and everywhere put down, repressed, marginalized - in
filmmaking as well as criticism. Hollywood has always needed film
artists, and everyone has more or less accepted that they are the
hook for writing about Hollywood films now. But the status of the
film artist in Hollywood is permanently imperilled, because artistic
aims are often at odds with commercial aims, which drive the studios.
That's a war that has been going on at least since Thalberg invented
the producer to keep an eye on the artists. And the position of
auteurists in criticism has been imperilled ever since auteurism
burst on the American scene: very simply, look who has the majority
of the jobs (Ivory tower AND frontline), and who doesn't.
The two repressions go hand in hand, because for the last two decades
frontline critics have openly sided with the studios against the
artists. (Cf. Georgia Brown telling Harvey Weinstein in the pages of
the Village Voice that it's ok to cut films - he's just making them
better than the self-indulgent artists knew how to do; cf. the
reaction to Heaven's Gate; cf. the Gigli affair, where not only did
everyone pounce on Brest to make up for being junket whores 364 days
a year, but no one, as far as I know, wrote about how much the film
everyone hated was the result of massive studio recuting and
reshooting, whether Brest was allowed to wield the hatchet himself or
not.) At the risk of sounding like an extremist, I would argue that
even Akademia has been remiss about defending the rights of the
artist against the studios because it has been too busy subordinating
art to the imperatives of politics and other forms of implicit
censorship, even more insidious in their way than the commercial
censorship practiced by the studios.
When you say that such and such a masterpiece would have outgrossed
Gone with the Wind if the public were capable of liking what we like,
you forget the gigantic amount of promotional muscle Selznick put
into GWTW even before it was made. Happily, the film was a) pretty
good and b) a perfect commodity for its time, unlike Duel in the Sun,
which got as big a push as its prededecessor and didn't do as well.
So maybe we will always prefer Duel to GWTW, and the public will
always go the other way. But it is the job of frontline critics to
help the more eccentric, personal, difficult, advanced or otherwise
challenging films to find an appreciative audience as well, because
Hollywood filmmaking is a POPULAR art, and right now the people
filling those slots - with honorable exceptions that are few and far
between - are lining up behind the money, just like they did in 1939.
Auteurism has been the grain of sand in that increasingly well-oiled
mechanism (summer films are AUTOMATIC HITS now). That's why it is
everywhere triumphant, and everywhere in chains.
1523
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 6:50am
Subject: Re: Charlies Angels, Auteurism
>When you say that such and such a masterpiece would have outgrossed
> Gone with the Wind if the public were capable of liking what we
like,
> you forget the gigantic amount of promotional muscle Selznick put
> into GWTW even before it was made.
I didn't say this! I was arguing the opposite -- that genuine popular
pleasure and esoteric pleasure are not so far removed from each
other. Sure, some films are more accessible than others, and some are
diverting without being deeply memorable, but I agree with Peter that
the best films are also the most "entertaining," whatever that
dubious word might mean.
I buy the ferret-fanciers comparison if, and only if, it's conceded
they may be RIGHT about the fundamental importance and value of
keeping a ferret in the home.
The fact that summer blockbusters automatically do well at the box
office doesn't mean that most people LIKE blockbusters very much --
they go because their friends are going, or because it's the default
option, or advertising tells them they should. To the extent that
people get real pleasure out of cinema at all, my guess is they're
having an aesthetic experience which could be described in auteurist
terms. So if they listened to us auteurists, they'd have more fun.
Bill, I completely agree with the main thrust of your argument. One
of the main reasons criticism is worth doing is that a huge
propaganda machine exists to convince people that they OUGHT to like
boring films which make everyone miserable. Conversely, I hate the
kind of criticism that bullies people into feeling that their
pleasures are illegitimate or trivial, without bothering to look
closely at what these pleasures might be.
JTW
1524
From: cjsuttree
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:36am
Subject: _In Praise of Love_
Now that this is out on video I got to see it again. The images
are so beautiful even on the small screen (the moon over the
Seine sequence bring tears to your eyes,) and the use of words
and music is unbelievablely evocative and powerful. I don't
claim to understand very much about Godard's films, especially
his late works. But I think I can rank them by how much effort
I believe he put in each, and by that standard _Eloge de l'amour_
is clearly one of his greatest master works.
Too bad it will forever be associated with its "anti-Americanism."
Then again, with everything else in the film being expressed so
obliquely, it is hard not to be struck by the explicit criticism
of the U.S. and its supposed lack of historical consciousness.
What set that off?
The other Godard features of the 90's didn't express such feelings
remotely as explicitly. I reread a few reviews, and they rightly
call attention to _Schindler's List_. That hardly seems like
the whole story, though. SL was made way back in 1993. Why the
strong reaction now? Part of the answer must lie in Godard's
_Histoire(s) du cinéma_, which I've never seen. Any
clues there?
1525
From: Yoel Meranda
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 9:23am
Subject: defense of Gitai's Kedma
Ruy said he didn't like Kedma that much so I felt the need to defend
my favorite film this year. Here is what I wrote on my web site on
Kedma:
-----
Amos Gitai certainly is one of the greatest living narrative
filmmakers and his latest film, Kedma, is a proof of that. Many
people hate it because "it doesn't develop its characters" and others
like it because "it is very truthful to history". I disagree with
both sides. Gitai's films aren't about individual characters and in
his films he uses the stories from Jewish history to explore and
express universal feelings. Kadosh was less about women in the
orthodox community than it was about any individual constrained by
the society and his/her limitations (and every single person fits in
this some way or another). Likewise, Kedma is less about Jews in 1948
than it is about individuals in search of answers and happiness. The
story of immigrants who are escaping from the most "incomprehensible"
episode of history only to find out that there is another struggle
ahead provides a wonderful backdrop for what Gitai is trying to
achieve. In Kedma, there is always a movement towards something and
it only makes more sense that the film ends with a long take of
trucks going forward slowly; The search for the happiness that
characters are yearning for will never be final. And the only two
shots in the middle of the film where there is no movement (in one of
them, a man tells his girlfriend how he is happy for the first time
and he doesn't want to move although everybody is waiting for them)
represent the rare moments of "perfect satisfaction".
There is no better way of describing Kedma than using Gitai's own
words "Most of my movies deal with exile. It can be inner exile, or
the exile of displaced persons, displaced in space and in time."
(www.amosgitai.com)
-----
I wouldn't say it's a masterpiece or anything like that but I saw in
it much more than traditional auteurist cliches. And my body reacted
to it like it did not to any other film this year.
Yoel
1526
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 10:33am
Subject: Re: defense of Gitai's Kedma -- long posting, I'm afraid
Yoel --
I'm delighted to read someone on Gitai on this list. A bit unexpected, I think, but maybe that's my preconceptions about American auteur criticism acting up. (Hey, guys, they're positive preconceptions or I wouldn't be on the list.)
As the film critic for Jewish Week here in NYC, I used to dread seeing new Israeli films except for Gitai. Things have improved considerably in the past decade or so but he's still by far the best that Israel has to offer, their cinema's equivalent of Yehoshua, Oz, Amichai.
That said, I have to admit that I was a bit disappointed by Kedma. The opening shot, an incredibly elaborate tracking shot that must go on for six or seven minutes and takes us through the interior and around the deck of a tramp steamer filled with Holocaust survivors on their way to Palestine is one of the great bravura moments in film all this year. The battle sequence, with its maddened rush forward and backward and seemingly pointless violence, is breathtaking. And the final shot, another very long take with a lot of camera movement as the character we met in the opening shot goes through a long, increasingly deranged rant about the place of Jews in the bloody flow of history, is also impressive. But I had the feeling that the entire film existed for those three sequences and damned little happened in between.
(Here's what I wrote in Jewish Week back in January:
The memories of the survivors in "Gebirtig" and "Epstein's Night" have had 40 years to fester and scab over. For the refugees in Amos Gitai's newest film, "Kedma," the wounds are still fresh and agonizing painful. "Kedma," which closes the festival, is a structural inversion of Gitai's brilliant "Kippur." Where the previous film reflected the director's own experience in the 1973 war, the new work recounts a few days in the War of Independence, with a group of refugees recruited into battle fresh off their blockade-running boat. Where "Kippur" was about its characters' inability to escape the Cinemascope frame, "Kedma" traps them in perpetual camera movement. What remains the same is the sense of dark irony bordering on the blackly absurd, combined with a powerful understanding of the blood-soaked pages of Jewish history. Where the films differ, regrettably, is that "Kedma," despite three extraordinary bravura passages, doesn't hang together, while "Kippur" is a masterpiece.
"Kedma" opens and closes with two brilliant coups de cinema, extraordinary long takes with complex camera movements that draw us into the divided, troubled consciousness of Janusz (Andrei Kashkar), a battered, timorous little man who has seen more than most humans could bear. At the center of the film is a battle sequence with Janusz as a reluctant participant, a devastatingly accurate portrait of the chaos of a firefight, filled with shockingly sudden death and a haze of smoke and confusion. Unfortunately, between those three sequences, Gitai seems at a loss what to do with his characters; neither the survivors nor the Haganah fighters are much more than speaking archetypes, and the survivors are never able to articulate what they have suffered or what they feel at being thrust into a war almost immediately after landing in Israel. The result is one of Gitai's lesser films, despite the impressive set pieces.)
Gitai reminds me a lot of Fuller, but Fuller as filtered through a European intellectual's sensibilities; he has all of Fuller's astonishing kinetic energy and a lot of Fuller's bleak irony, but the kind of analysis he's attempting is quite a bit more complicated than Sam's. And he uses long takes rather differently, to entrap his characters in a flow of history and institutions that they can only occasionally escape from.
If you're interested, I did a longer piece on Gitai in JWeek in 2001, which can be found at:
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=4064&offset=150&B1=1&author=George%20Robinson&issuedates=&month=&day=&year=&issuedate=20030225&keyword=
Incidentally, I believe that Kippur is Gitai's masterpiece, easily the best Israeli film ever made, and one of the great modern war films, on a par with -- and very similar to -- Fuller's best work.
George Robinson
Alas, where is human nature so
weak as in a bookstore?
-Henry Ward Beecher
----- Original Message -----
From: Yoel Meranda
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 5:23 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] defense of Gitai's Kedma
Ruy said he didn't like Kedma that much so I felt the need to defend
my favorite film this year. Here is what I wrote on my web site on
Kedma:
-----
Amos Gitai certainly is one of the greatest living narrative
filmmakers and his latest film, Kedma, is a proof of that. Many
people hate it because "it doesn't develop its characters" and others
like it because "it is very truthful to history". I disagree with
both sides. Gitai's films aren't about individual characters and in
his films he uses the stories from Jewish history to explore and
express universal feelings. Kadosh was less about women in the
orthodox community than it was about any individual constrained by
the society and his/her limitations (and every single person fits in
this some way or another). Likewise, Kedma is less about Jews in 1948
than it is about individuals in search of answers and happiness. The
story of immigrants who are escaping from the most "incomprehensible"
episode of history only to find out that there is another struggle
ahead provides a wonderful backdrop for what Gitai is trying to
achieve. In Kedma, there is always a movement towards something and
it only makes more sense that the film ends with a long take of
trucks going forward slowly; The search for the happiness that
characters are yearning for will never be final. And the only two
shots in the middle of the film where there is no movement (in one of
them, a man tells his girlfriend how he is happy for the first time
and he doesn't want to move although everybody is waiting for them)
represent the rare moments of "perfect satisfaction".
There is no better way of describing Kedma than using Gitai's own
words "Most of my movies deal with exile. It can be inner exile, or
the exile of displaced persons, displaced in space and in time."
(www.amosgitai.com)
-----
I wouldn't say it's a masterpiece or anything like that but I saw in
it much more than traditional auteurist cliches. And my body reacted
to it like it did not to any other film this year.
Yoel
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1527
From: Yoel Meranda
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 0:43pm
Subject: art vs. populism, Simpsons
There is only one reason why I think we should be "splitting art
from entertainment": I started experiencing much greater pleasures
the moment I started doing that. I would recommend everybody to do
the same. I wish I knew how to convince everybody to do the same or
to at least try to.
Jack wrote: "No offense to anyone here, but my feeling is auteurists
only stand to alienate everyone else further if they keep insisting
that their special, esoteric pleasures have nothing to do with those
experienced by so-called ordinary people. Part of the basis for any
sort of discussion is the assumption that our experiences do have
things in common even when our vocabularies differ. As Fred just
wrote, it ought to be possible for anybody to `get' what's special
about Welles, Hawks, Rossellini, et al -– even if we can't see as
much,or describe our experiences as lucidly, as the best critics do."
I agree that everybody has a potential to enjoy Vertigo but for that
they need to let go most of their prejudices and "educate themselves"
to "notice" what they take for granted. "Ordinary viewer" looks at
the screen and notices consciously or unconsciously that a camera
angle is a little high in Vertigo but pays attention to Jimmy
Steward's smile (not even Scottie's smile) or Kim Novak's body
because the pleasure he/she can take from them requires less energy.
Like Brakhage writes all the time: We need to "unlearn" our ability
to categorize everything, and try to really see (and not only "name")
what's in front of us.
Obviously, you are right that our experiences are not "totally"
different in some films, and "ordinary viewers" are unconsciously
affected by the camera angles, etc. For example, I have no doubt that
Hitchcock's formal rhythm is one of the reasons why audiences are
so much moved by his films. I only wish it were THE main reason.
Going back to Ionesco's great book Notes et Contre-Notes, he makes a
distinction between "popular art" and "populist art". (His
definitions might not be yours or mine but as long as he defines them
we know what he means.)
He defines every single great artwork as "popular art" because he
claims that great artworks are universal and the only
problem is the fact that the audiences do not know how to look at
them. He believes that an artist can create such works only by
expressing himself or herself. On the other hand, "populist
art" is something that artists do to please audiences. When that is
the goal behind the project, it becomes a cultural and sociological
artifact because it reveals what artists (and producers) think people
like and (along with box office statistics) how people like to enjoy
themselves at a
particular moment in history.
"Populist art" reveals something indeed. But it doesn't tell me much
about myself.
Peter wrote: "Once you've seen the final camera move in "Some
Came Running" - and the sea of emotional responses it evokes - it's
hard to get too worked up about some maudlin, formless piece of
cinema, however emotionally involving it is on a character and story
level."
This paragraph summarizes what I tried to explain above. And it
implies (or I like to think it does) that many people don't "see" the
camera move in "Some Came Running" even if they watch the film.
David wrote (in response to Peter): "True, save for the fact that
maudlin, formless cinema NEVER has an emotionally involving character
or story level."
I can't disagree more. I think it is proven that it is not so hard to
identify us with characters. And if dramatic things start to happen
to the character we have identified with, we will be emotionally
involved. If you really need me to elaborate on that, I can, I just
don't think it is the subject of this post.
The Simpsons is great as a social satire (it's so great it even
works for the Turkish society). However, there is one simple reason
why I call it "not art": It doesn't give me any aesthetic
pleasure. I guess the reason why is the fact that there is no real
form in there. Most of the time the reason The Simpsons is funny is
because its compositions refer to something else we are used to. So
our reaction is very intellectual (as opposed to sensual). There is
no beauty in its images, but lots of things that refer to others in
the American society.
I don't know if people are going to "get it" when they won't know
everything it refers to so I'm not sure about what is going to happen
to Simpsons in hundred years.
About McG: Maybe I should give him another chance. I read he is going
to be shooting the new Superman. I will try to see that when it comes
out in 2005.
Yoel
1528
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:15pm
Subject: Re: defense of Gitai's Kedma
just to make my point clearer: though I partially dismissed Amos Gitai in
the defense of McG, I like Kedma (though I don't like the two monologues),
Kadosh and Kippour. I just don't seem to think Gitai stands as one of the
first team of directors of our time.
r.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yoel Meranda"
To:
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 6:23 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] defense of Gitai's Kedma
> Ruy said he didn't like Kedma that much so I felt the need to defend
> my favorite film this year. Here is what I wrote on my web site on
> Kedma:
>
> -----
> Amos Gitai certainly is one of the greatest living narrative
> filmmakers and his latest film, Kedma, is a proof of that. Many
> people hate it because "it doesn't develop its characters" and others
> like it because "it is very truthful to history". I disagree with
> both sides. Gitai's films aren't about individual characters and in
> his films he uses the stories from Jewish history to explore and
> express universal feelings. Kadosh was less about women in the
> orthodox community than it was about any individual constrained by
> the society and his/her limitations (and every single person fits in
> this some way or another). Likewise, Kedma is less about Jews in 1948
> than it is about individuals in search of answers and happiness. The
> story of immigrants who are escaping from the most "incomprehensible"
> episode of history only to find out that there is another struggle
> ahead provides a wonderful backdrop for what Gitai is trying to
> achieve. In Kedma, there is always a movement towards something and
> it only makes more sense that the film ends with a long take of
> trucks going forward slowly; The search for the happiness that
> characters are yearning for will never be final. And the only two
> shots in the middle of the film where there is no movement (in one of
> them, a man tells his girlfriend how he is happy for the first time
> and he doesn't want to move although everybody is waiting for them)
> represent the rare moments of "perfect satisfaction".
>
> There is no better way of describing Kedma than using Gitai's own
> words "Most of my movies deal with exile. It can be inner exile, or
> the exile of displaced persons, displaced in space and in time."
> (www.amosgitai.com)
> -----
>
> I wouldn't say it's a masterpiece or anything like that but I saw in
> it much more than traditional auteurist cliches. And my body reacted
> to it like it did not to any other film this year.
>
> Yoel
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
1529
From: Maxime
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:27pm
Subject: Auteurism? Don't shoot the critic!
Does Manoel de Oliveira care about the public when making his movies?
I don't think so.
The divorce between the (true)filmakers and the audience seems now
beyond remedy, in such a way that critics have for only choice to
acknowledge this fact if they don't want to do the splits.
What is a popular art anyway? Youssef Chahine knows. Maybe
Remember "Going My Way"?
As for the Cahiers, I won't forget this pathetic moment when Thierry
Jousse wear himself out trying to persuade some other critics during
a TV show that Cameron was a true "auteur": "you see... he is the
producer, the writer, the cameraman, the metteur en scene... if it's
not an auteur..." (about Titanic!). Stuck in the contradictions of
a "politique" depraved for 40 years...
Well.. you may shoot the critic.
1530
From: Yoel Meranda
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 2:42pm
Subject: Re: defense of Gitai's Kedma
George,
It was great to read your article on Gitai. I have only seen three
films by him: Kadosh, Kippur and Kedma. I didn't really "get" Kippur
when I saw it so you might be right that it is a better film than
Kedma.
It is possible that there are higher pleasures that Amos Gitai has to
offer but I really wouldn't say "he doesn't know what to do with his
characters" in Kedma. I enjoyed every single scene in that film
including the ones you mention.
My favorite of his is still Kadosh that I saw twice on film and once
on video.
Seems like we'll have a chance to see his new film very soon, which
is very exciting.
And I think you'll be happy to know that he seems to be popular in
Istanbul (the city where I'm from). Kedma was shown in some huge
theatres that never show "art films".
Yoel
1531
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:36pm
Subject: Re: Auteur Theory, Charlie's Angels
Jake:
> Fair enough, but I disagree. For me, auteurism is a way of
responding
> to films as fully as possible, drawing on a few debatable but
> basically common-sense assumptions -- it shouldn't be allowed to
> degenerate into an eccentric, self-enclosed cult. ('Stick to your
own
> kind and don't worry about the others' is a terrible slogan in any
> context whatsoever.) If cinema continues to thrive as an artform,
> it's because it remains essentially a POPULAR art, and thank God
for
> that.
How about this -- art is never "essentially" popular or unpopular,
and the forces that dictate art's relationship to society are social,
political, and economic rather than aesthetic. And furthermore, on
what grounds to you place cinema as a popular art so firmly? What is
it in *cinema* that ensures that it is so essentially of the
people?
If auteurism shouldn't be allowed to "degenerate into an eccentric,
self-enclosed cult," it shouldn't be allowed to degenerate into a big
marketing tool for people to "see the light" -- film culture's
equivalent of television evangelism.
> Also, White is totally an auteurist! Comparing Ten to MTV is his
> version of rebelling against the Tradition of Quality. (I know
> Kiarostami is a great filmmaker, but it's understandable that some
> are put off by the hype.)
White is kind of an auteurist, and a complicated case at that. He
applies a Sarris-like approach to the Kael aesthetic and its
pantheon, and that's without his own sociopolitical and moral slant
(which comes from neither). What's interesting, and a bit
disheartening, about his far from generous attack on TEN is that he
has championed Kiarostami in the past.
--Zach
1532
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:42pm
Subject: Re: art vs. populism, Simpsons
Yoel:
> There is only one reason why I think we should be "splitting art
> from entertainment": I started experiencing much greater pleasures
> the moment I started doing that. I would recommend everybody to do
> the same. I wish I knew how to convince everybody to do the same or
> to at least try to.
It's intriguing that you're still grounding everything in pleasure.
Any temptation I've had to do what you do -- separating art from
entertainment -- follows the condition that I leave "pleasure" behind
and go to something "more," when it comes to justification of art.
Maybe this is just a semantic issue, though, and what I would think
of as that 'something more,' you register as a higher form of
pleasure.
Would you say there's a quasi-religious element to your aesthetic
sense? It seems to me like there is, perhaps because I could relate
to it all more just a few years ago, when I was looking for the pure,
the universal, and the transcendent in great art.
--Zach
1533
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:46pm
Subject: Re: art vs. populism, Simpsons (addendum)
I wrote:
> It's intriguing that you're still grounding everything in
pleasure.
> Any temptation I've had to do what you do -- separating art from
> entertainment -- follows the condition that I leave "pleasure"
behind
> and go to something "more," when it comes to justification of art.
I just wanted to clarify that I don't exactly see art and
entertainment as the same thing, that is, I don't do the opposite of
Yoel. I suppose I try to think about these classifications as little
as possible when I think and write about films.
--Zach
1534
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:46pm
Subject: Israeli film
> As the film critic for Jewish Week here in NYC, I used to dread
> seeing new Israeli films except for Gitai. Things have improved
> considerably in the past decade or so but he's still by far the best
> that Israel has to offer, their cinema's equivalent of Yehoshua, Oz,
> Amichai.
I must admit to having a bad reaction to the only Gitai film I've seen,
KADOSH. But I get the feeling that something is starting to happen with
Israeli filmmaking, after a long period where not much interesting work
seemed to emerge. Last year's TV film SLAVES OF THE LORD, which got a
slot at Cannes, was a favorable sign, I thought: a good movie that
seemed to some extent to be staying within a national filmmaking
tradition instead of flying in its face. I've had some of the same
feeling from other Israeli films I've seen at festivals in recent years,
like TIME OF FAVOR.
If you count LATE MARRIAGE as an Israeli film (it's an Israel/France
co-production, but feels like a Georgian film in some ways), then I
consider that the best Israeli film I've ever seen. If Kosashvili can
continue to perform at that level, I think we have a world-class dude on
our hands.
Before the recent good developments in Israeli film, one movie stood out
from all the rest for me: Mira Recanati's 1982 A THOUSAND LITTLE KISSES.
What ever happened to her?
> Incidentally, I believe that Kippur is Gitai's masterpiece, easily
> the best Israeli film ever made, and one of the great modern war
> films, on a par with -- and very similar to -- Fuller's best work.
J. Hoberman, whom I wouldn't describe as a Gitai fan, also seemed to
think KIPPUR was his best work - I'm sorry I missed it. - Dan
1535
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 3:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: art vs. populism, Simpsons
"Pleasure" is a tricky thing to be basing aesthetic judgments on.
My wife, an extremely intelligent woman despite her taste in husbands, can't stand Jean-Luc Godard's films; she says she feels like he's deliberately torturing her. She certainly understands why I like Godard, acknowledges his importance but won't sit through another one of his films. (And before anyone asks, she hated "Contempt" which I would consider one of his most accessible works. Of course the fact that the first Godard she was was "Detective," which even I detest, probably didn't help.)
Last night at around 3 a.m. -- I keep odd hours -- I suddenly was possessed with the urge to see a Straub/Huillet film. Needless to say, since their work is virtually unavaible in the US on tape, I had to settle for reading from Barton Byg's book on them. (Of course, that just made it worse. ) Now many, if not most people would tell you that Straub and Huillet make godawful films that are actively painful to sit through. (Andrew Sarris used to do a veritable stand-up routine about them sitting in cafes, planning how to drive audiences out of theaters.)
But I love their stuff. I mean, I get pleasure from their films.
Now MY idea of pain and boredom is Gone with the Wind (except for Steiner's score).
Is this the basis for a coherent aesthetic? I don't know. Intellectually I rather doubt it.
Of course, there is a wonderful line from Bertolucci's "Partner," something to the effect, "this film is for you if you love Jean-Marie Straub and 360-degree tracking shots make you cry."
George (loves Straub, but Ford makes him cry) Robinson
Alas, where is human nature so
weak as in a bookstore?
-Henry Ward Beecher
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1536
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 4:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: art vs. populism, Simpsons
George Robinson wrote:
> "
> George (loves Straub, but Ford makes him cry) Robinson
>
Ford makes Straub cry, too, George, so you're in the best of company.
It is really tough to get Straub-Huillet movies even on (decent!) video.
>
1537
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:02pm
Subject: photos
With a nudge from Patrick McGilligan, I've found a huge online archive
of photos going back quite far of (among lesser mortals) movie
directors. 28 shots of John Ford, for example, half of which I'd
never seen.
http://www.hultonarchive.com
Registration is free and automatic.
1538
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 4:37pm
Subject: photos
With a nudge from Patrick McGilligan I've found a huge archive site full
of great photos of (among lesser mortals) movie directors:
http://www.hultonarchive.com
Registration is free and automatic.
Tag Gallagher
1539
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 4:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: art vs. populism, Simpsons
Tag Gallagher wrote:
>Ford makes Straub cry, too, George, so you're in the best of company.
>
>
"He is the most Brechtian of filmakers, and his films are the first time
since Griffith that you can feel the air."
- Jean Marie Straub on John Ford, Chicago, c. 1981. (approximate, from
my memory)
- Fred
1540
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: art vs. populism, Simpsons
The Vienna Viennale has a "peace wall" (outside) with a large display by
Straub consisting of two large photos: one a wall in Frankfurt with the
grafitti "Where has our smile been buried?" (in German), the other a
frame from The Long Gray Line of Marty Maher sitting on a cannon (penis)
and dropping a ball between his legs. The Viennale had this on the home
page of their site for about six months but now seems to have taken it down.
Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> Tag Gallagher wrote:
>
> >Ford makes Straub cry, too, George, so you're in the best of company.
> >
> >
> "He is the most Brechtian of filmakers, and his films are the first time
> since Griffith that you can feel the air."
>
> - Jean Marie Straub on John Ford, Chicago, c. 1981. (approximate, from
> my memory)
>
> - Fred
1541
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 6:55pm
Subject: Re: Auteur Theory, Charlie's Angels
"Zach Campbell" wrote:
And furthermore, on
> what grounds to you place cinema as a popular art so firmly? What
is
> it in *cinema* that ensures that it is so essentially of the
> people?
What I mean by this is that cinema -- the artform as a whole --
retains a hold on the public (unlike poetry, for example). And so
it's possible for a director like Scorsese, say, to pitch his work at
the Illuminati (Bill's useful term) and everyone else at the same
time. I think much of the energy and potential of any art is sapped
away when this stops being true -- that is, when it stops being
important to the life of a culture as a whole.
> White is kind of an auteurist, and a complicated case at that.
I like White, and I especially like that he goes out of his way to
piss so many people off. But that's another story.
JTW
1542
From: J. Amortell
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 7:27pm
Subject: Re: Auteur Theory, Charlie's Angels
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell" wrote:
> Jake:
>
> > Also, White is totally an auteurist! Comparing Ten to MTV is his
> > version of rebelling against the Tradition of Quality.
>
> White is kind of an auteurist, and a complicated case at that. > [...]
> What's interesting, and a bit
> disheartening, about his far from generous attack on TEN is that he
> has championed Kiarostami in the past.
White wrote, among other things, "Kiarostami can be a great filmmaker, as Where is the Friend's Home and Life and Nothing But demonstrate," but seemed to particularly dislike "Ten's stultifying digital-video look" which "denies audiences the esthetic pleasures and emotional insight that filmmakers might normally reach toward."
(http://www.nypress.com/16/11/film ) That, I can relate to!
Need a new email address that people can remember
Check out the new EudoraMail at
http://www.eudoramail.com
1543
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 9:19pm
Subject: query for hotlove666
Bill,
Rereading your last couple of posts, I get the sense that what
underlies them isn't so much the opposition between art and
entertainment, but a rather more interesting (to me) opposition
between art and commerce, or "consumer culture".
There are some pretty well-known formulations of this, but what's
yours? In other words, how would you define the difference between
aesthetic pleasure and the pleasures of consumption?
JTW
1544
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 9:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: art vs. populism, Simpsons
Straub once said that "Fort Apache" was the most Brechtian film he knew because it exposed the illusion-making machinery of history. I don't know how Brecht would feel about that analysis, but I can live with it.
George Robinson
Alas, where is human nature so
weak as in a bookstore?
-Henry Ward Beecher
----- Original Message -----
From: Tag Gallagher
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Re: art vs. populism, Simpsons
George Robinson wrote:
> "
> George (loves Straub, but Ford makes him cry) Robinson
>
Ford makes Straub cry, too, George, so you're in the best of company.
It is really tough to get Straub-Huillet movies even on (decent!) video.
>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1545
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 10:35pm
Subject: Re: _In Praise of Love_
I would need to see the film more recently in memory to have a
fresher perspective--here are a few excerpts from what I wrote last
fall :
>In Jean-Luc Godard's 1979 film Every Man for Himself a scrawl on a
blackboard in the background reads "Cain + Abel = Cinema + Video."
Even at the time of the film's release, the logic of this statement
probably appeared strange: in 1956 Variety announced the invention of
videotape with the headline "Film is Dead," and ever since video has
been the medium which is supposed to supersede film.
The question is all important in Godard's new film In Praise of Love,
which Manhattan Pictures International is releasing today, shot in
both luminous 35mm black and white and saturated digital video
transferred to celluloid. If Godard is one of the greatest working
film directors, he is without doubt the world's greatest video artist-
-most notably in his magnum opus Histoire(s) du Cinéma. He is also
one of the few artists, along with Alexander Sokurov and Chris
Marker, to understand the fundamental difference between video and
film. Even though a digital tide promises to submerge all cinema in
ones and zeroes, the distinction between the material ghost of
celluloid and the immaterial, hypnotic light of video still seems
crucial, and Godard assaults it head-on here, weaving the themes of
memory and resistance into the formal refraction of the two media.
[...]
...most important, I think, is the fact that Godard shoots the past
in the medium of the future, reversing not only the standard past as
black and white trope of photography, but the entire progress myth
itself. Cain does not slay Abel, nor vice versa, but they instead
exist side by side.
Godard recently stated that only the early and last films of a
director are interesting; In Praise of Love feels like both at once.
Repeatedly insisting that it is impossible to represent an adult,
Godard's presentation of four stages of love feels less like an idea
for human relations than a relation with cinema itself, whether film
or video, where all the stages of love exist at once. In his 1987
King Lear Godard has Woody Allen say that editing is holding the
past, the present, and the future in your hands at once; here it
feels as though all three are on screen at once.
In Praise of Love is one of Godard's most complicated, intellectually
demanding pictures, but it is also diaphanous, on the verge of
disappearing into itself, which gives it a tragic yet hopeful beauty.
Godard's recent melancholy and pessimism, if not absent, seem to have
ebbed. All that is solid melts into the air: Godard once announced
that he was awaiting the end of cinema with optimism, and In Praise
of Love feels both like the end of cinema as well as its beginning.
Hope this is useful--
Patrick
1546
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 11:29pm
Subject: Re: Auteur Theory, Charlie's Angels
Jake:
> What I mean by this is that cinema -- the artform as a whole --
> retains a hold on the public (unlike poetry, for example). And so
> it's possible for a director like Scorsese, say, to pitch his work
at
> the Illuminati (Bill's useful term) and everyone else at the same
> time. I think much of the energy and potential of any art is sapped
> away when this stops being true -- that is, when it stops being
> important to the life of a culture as a whole.
A few points.
1. You said that cinema is essentially a popular art, but when I
asked what in cinema (in its essence) made it "popular," you gave a
theory of this definition applicable to any art: that it must "retain
a hold on the public." If something in a specific art's essence
makes it popular, the hold on the public can't be lost or gained--it
is intrinsic.
2. The mass populace haven't the means or resources to create any art
that it "show itself" again. There's not exactly a folk cinema, and
the films that are always lauded as being "popular classics" are
commercial juggernauts that were created by a minority for a majority
in order to make money, and this was the driving force behind making
their making: if the studios didn't think these films would turn some
profit, no amount of artistic desire would have brought these films
to the screen in the way they are. Artistry exists in mass
entertainment, but I don't think we should ascribe noble, "popular"
intentions to films whose roots are the same as the soulless
blockbusters we like to decry.
3. Other forms of popular art include folk music and dance, crafts,
murals or architecture created by a great many people. These arts
are produced by a community or culture, usually developed slowly over
time, and have no real "creator".
In short, I think that the cinema is (like any art) more or less
neutral in its relation to the populace, though capitalism has
ensured that it looks populist while remaining elite. A filmmaker's
instincts can be analyzed in terms of popular sympathies, but
not "the cinema's."
--Zach
1547
From:
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:31pm
Subject: Chat
Fred, Tristan, and I are continuing our ever-popular series of occasional
chats. This one will be held this Wednesday at 9:00 PM Eastern. We hope some of
you will be able to make it; I've already proposed a topic in Blake Edwards'
"Experiment in Terror," but since I don't know if either Fred or Tristan have
seen it, a fourth person who has may come in handy.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
1548
From:
Date: Mon Aug 25, 2003 8:44pm
Subject: Photos
The Hulton Archive is great.
In fact, it could become really addicting :)
There are photos here of silent directors whose photos I've never seen, such
as Chester Franklin (The Toll of the Sea) and Edward Sedgwick (West Point, The
Cameraman).
Of all the movies of the 1930's, the one that made the biggest impression on
my parents when growing up, after Gone With the Wind, and It Happened One
Night, was Death on the Diamond (Sedgwick, 1934). This is a whodunit about someone
who keeps murdering members of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team. (Serial
killer movie alert!) For some reason, this movie created a sensation among
the little kids of Chicago and Lansing, Michigan, the two towns where my folks
grew up (they did not meet till aduilthood). When I finally saw this, it seemed
like an utterly ordinary film (Maltin review - "absurd crime tale"). Although
no one is ever likely to forget the scene in which a player's locker is
opened, and another murder victim falls out... Sedgwick was better in silents. When
Lucille Ball married Desi Arnaz, Sedgwick gave the bride away.
Mike Grost
1549
From: jaketwilson
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 1:15am
Subject: Re: Auteur Theory, Charlie's Angels
"Zach Campbell" wrote:
> You said that cinema is essentially a popular art, but when I
> asked what in cinema (in its essence) made it "popular," you gave a
> theory of this definition applicable to any art: that it
must "retain
> a hold on the public." If something in a specific art's essence
> makes it popular, the hold on the public can't be lost or gained--
it
> is intrinsic.
Zach,
I have to apologise: I see I made rather careless and misleading use
of the word "essential". I did NOT intend to imply that the "essence"
of cinema resides in its popularity, nor that this popularity is
bound to continue. And I certainly wasn't talking about "folk art".
I meant something very simple: in contemporary society (and perhaps
I'd better restrict this to the English-speaking world) TV programs,
pop music, the novel (to an extent) and cinema are among the forms of
art that "ordinary," non-specialist people routinely consume and
engage with. Additions could be made to the list, but it's clear that
by comparison, "classical" music, ballet, poetry, and gallery art are
minority interests.
One consequence of this is there's a reasonable chance that a film
like, say, CASINO or UNFORGIVEN or SLEEPY HOLLOW or A.I. ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE can be enjoyed both by a fair slice of the public and by
a fair number of serious critics, and some common ground can be
located for discussion.
Even if you don't like any of the above films, or believe that you
like them for wholly esoteric reasons, it's undeniable that the
general public is closer overall to cinema, has a better chance of
appreciating it on its own terms, than is the case with an artform
like ballet which has no popular, non-cultivated audience whatsoever.
Now, I think this state of affairs, where it's possible for "serious"
artists to function simultaneously as popular entertainers, is a
healthy one for cinema, or any art: because it brings the art and the
time closer to each other, and because good artists, being as ego-
driven as the rest of us, are liable to flock to the place where they
can inspire the most people with their vision. While I'm sure that
some members will disagree strongly, I do think that art which aims
itself solely and forever at the happy few (i.e. those who share some
type of background with the artist) is limited in its scope and
outlook. Implicit, after all, in the term 'avant-garde' is the hope
that the esoterica of today can become the popular pleasure of
tomorrow.
To sum up: all around us there are many, many people who feel
strongly about movies, or about just a couple of movies in
particular, without having any other feelings or assumptions in
common. Cinema belongs to the world, not to any single group or set
of principles, and this is a good thing. Anyway, that's what I meant.
JTW
1550
From:
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 0:56am
Subject: Form, Touch of Evil, Superman III
In a message dated 8/25/03 5:47:28 AM, y-meranda@n... writes:
>This paragraph summarizes what I tried to explain above. And it
>implies (or I like to think it does) that many people don't "see" the
>camera move in "Some Came Running" even if they watch the film.
Well, that Brakhage quote really applies here; even as devoted as I am to
"Touch of Evil," it was really only on my second theatrical viewing three years
ago that I began to "see" it for its multitude of formal complexities. I'd
always loved it, but in the past perhaps more on a character and story level;
obviously, I'd recognized Welles' amazing style, but it was that second viewing
where the character and story components clicked with the film's use of space.
I find the film more moving than ever.
(Which is another point: it's not as though this formalist approach is at all
a "cold" one; I know I'm almost always looking for an emotional response to a
film - it's just that I usually find one in cinematic qualities the average
viewer probably doesn't.)
>About McG: Maybe I should give him another chance. I read he is going
>to be shooting the new Superman. I will try to see that when it comes
>out in 2005.
It'll probably be more like 2015 the way that production is going. But, yes,
I am looking forward to this; I think McG's definitely got something. I
probably should warn everyone here that I, apparently, have a very high tolerance
for "Superman" movies widely considered awful. I believe Lester's "Superman
III" is one of the best films of its year of release. I've never found anyone
to agree with me about this, though I always wondered if Dave Kehr - whose
highly appreciative Chicago Reader capsule for "Superman II" is one of my
favorite capsule reviews - ever made a case for it. Anybody know?
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
1551
From:
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 1:08am
Subject: Re: _In Praise of Love_
I thought "In Praise of Love" was great. I'm not sure it's meant to be
"understood" necessarily; or, to put it another way, I wouldn't expend much energy
chasing down a larger meaning which connects all of its references and
allusions. I look at the film as a series of visual and sonic sensations, if you
will, meditating on things like memory and loss; because Godard is Godard, these
meditations are beautifully realized - you simply won't find a more gorgeously
photographed movie this year. Jonathan's review (and specifically his
comments about how one should ponder the issues which interact with Godard's images
and sounds) is a very useful approach, I think.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
1552
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 5:14am
Subject: Consumerism, Edwards, Godard
1. Jake,
I was excerpting a piece by Patrice Blouin that I found intriguing,
because I thought it offered an alternative approach to the music
video - one that didn't just focus on the cutting. The quotes do a
couple of things: they oppose film to music videos by drawing a
distinction between what a filmmaker does (mise-en-scene) and what a
video-maker does (art direction). That struck me as interesting also
because it responds to the ongoing discussion here about the relation
between the director's contribution in cinema and those of other
artists or artisans - the video maker's job is to coordinate the work
of a group of pop artists centered on the musicians whose song is
being sold. The metteur en scene presumably does something else.
Which brings up the other distinction: a music video and a film are
both merchandise, but cinema has ways of getting around its status as
merchandise. Blouin's examples - In The Mood For Love (did I finally
get the title right?) and The Virgin Suicides - do that while
fetishizing pop consumer goods: the world of 70s fashions of which
the suicidal sisters are perfect embodiments, and the world of 60s
fashions which Maggie Cheung and the late Tony Leung wear like
models.
Blouin then delineates the strategies by which Wong Kar-Wai and Sofia
Coppola subvert what they fetichize: SC by alternating the roles of
artistic director and metteur-en-scene (the scenes that simply
replicate the imagery of 70s ads and posters and the scenes from the
point of view of the boys), while Wong Kar-Wai the metteur-en-scene
sabotages the work of Wong Kar-Wai the art director through formal
devices like repetition, claustrophobia and temporal fragmentation.
Each story subverts the pop imagery in its own way, too: Coppola's by
portraying the inevitable decline of a milieu whose very reality is
in question ("Can there be real flesh under those Laura Ashley
dresses?"), Wong Kar-Wai by excluding his authentic lovers from the
mercantile society (the kingdom of merchandise, Japan, where their
adulterous spouses go) during one of the last periods when "to
consume or not consume" was still a viable alternative.
Blouin's article is interesting if only because it calls attention to
the "pop" aspect of two films I consider very beautiful, and wholly
exempt from the "pure merchandise" status of any music video, or a
film like 2 Fast 2 Furious. Whether this reading of the strategies
involved makes any sense in my boil-down of it is another mater. You
know how it is with French criticism. And I do like this way of
opposing cinema and music videos by how they relate to their
mercantile status.
One could also bring up the fact that videos are really ads for
records, but you could say something like that about any television
program, which according to a famous formula is the bait used by the
network to sell viewers to advertisers, and we all seem to consider
some tv capable of being an art like cinema (cf. infra). Anywat, all
Hollywood films or indie narratives or art films are merchandise. The
question is - what are the differences? Your question situates the
difference in a viewer response: consumption or esthetic pleasure?
Blouin situates it in the object, through a formal analysis.
2. Chatters: When you re-see Experiment in Terror, watch for the huge
sign that tells us, at the end of the credits, where Lee Remick lives.
3. Godard just wrapped a film he was shooting in Sarajevo, My Music,
as reported in the last Charles Tesson issue of CdC. The issue also
contains a 1996 interview Godard did with Francis Galle (sp?), a
singer for whom he directed a music video that year. The cover
features Kiefer Sutherland in 24 and proclaims the present to be "The
Golden Age of TV Series" - critiques of 12 or so US series, with
profiles of their creators and a set visit to 24, are the main
feature in this last issue from the great lamented Charles.
1553
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 5:44am
Subject: Re: Consumerism, Godard
> One could also bring up the fact that videos are really ads for
> records, but you could say something like that about any television
> program, which according to a famous formula is the bait used by the
> network to sell viewers to advertisers, and we all seem to consider
> some tv capable of being an art like cinema (cf. infra). Anywat, all
> Hollywood films or indie narratives or art films are merchandise. The
> question is - what are the differences? Your question situates the
> difference in a viewer response: consumption or esthetic pleasure?
> Blouin situates it in the object, through a formal analysis.
I don't really see that music videos are ads, or at least that they are
any more ad-like than the music itself. It may be one of the jobs of
the video to sell the music, but the audience for the video and the
music are the same, and the people making decisions about how to craft
the music and the video are generally the same. There's no special
reason that the video can't be as daring or uninhibited as the music
was: the saleability of the music isn't compromised.
I contrast this to TV commercials, which are seriously constrained by
their function. You can't say certain things, hire certain kinds of
actors, express certain feelings, etc.
> The issue also
> contains a 1996 interview Godard did with Francis Galle (sp?), a
> singer for whom he directed a music video that year.
This must be France Gall, the famous pop singer who's been around almost
as long as Godard. It's funny to think of them working together. - Dan
1554
From:
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 3:52am
Subject: Robert Wise
The only Robert Wise movie I thought was outstanding was The Day the Earth
Stood Still.
The ground plan of The Outer Limits TV show (1963-1965) recalls The Day the
Earth Stood Still (1951). Both deal with alien beings coming to modern day
Earth. Both have an eerie atmosphere, with the alien treated as a "monster" in the
film's imagery. Both have spectacular black and white photography, designed
to create gothic moods. Both combine this mild, but rich, horror film
atmosphere with literate scripts and intelligent social commentary about modern day
society and its problems. Both feature intelligent characters. Both try to get
the viewer emotionally involved in their lives and experiences, in the manner of
traditional drama. Both films are science fictional variants and descendents
of the Val Lewton horror film tradition of the early 1940's. Robert Wise
directed some of the Lewton films in that era. Both films have eerie, classical
music based scores, that set a richly atmospheric mood. The opening credits of
Day and the closing credits of The Outer Limits show black and white pictures of
other galaxies and astronomical phenomena, all synchronized to the theme
music. Above all, both works show genuine artistic ambition. The film makers of
both aimed high, believing that there was nothing they could not accomplish
within the framework of science fiction.
The Captive City (1952) is a little anti-gambling film noir. It makes some
sociological points, showing how an acceptance of gambling leads to corruption
among near everybody in a small town. A young John Forsythe is the lead; a
smooth comic actor such as Forsythe is the last person one would expect in a film
noir. This film starts out well, but it is so grim that it eventually loses
any entertainment value.
I did not like The Haunting (1963) at all, and am puzzled by this film's high
reputation. The best Shirley Jackson story I ever read was her unfinished
novel. "We Have Always Lived in the Castle", a bizarre little comic fragment.
Mike Grost
1555
From: Maxime
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:41am
Subject: Re: Robert Wise
The Andromeda Strain has a fairly high reputation among a few French
critics.
Does that make any sens?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> The only Robert Wise movie I thought was outstanding was The Day
the Earth
> Stood Still.
> The ground plan of The Outer Limits TV show (1963-1965) recalls The
Day the
> Earth Stood Still (1951). Both deal with alien beings coming to
modern day
> Earth. Both have an eerie atmosphere, with the alien treated as
a "monster" in the
> film's imagery. Both have spectacular black and white photography,
designed
> to create gothic moods. Both combine this mild, but rich, horror
film
> atmosphere with literate scripts and intelligent social commentary
about modern day
> society and its problems. Both feature intelligent characters. Both
try to get
> the viewer emotionally involved in their lives and experiences, in
the manner of
> traditional drama. Both films are science fictional variants and
descendents
> of the Val Lewton horror film tradition of the early 1940's. Robert
Wise
> directed some of the Lewton films in that era. Both films have
eerie, classical
> music based scores, that set a richly atmospheric mood. The opening
credits of
> Day and the closing credits of The Outer Limits show black and
white pictures of
> other galaxies and astronomical phenomena, all synchronized to the
theme
> music. Above all, both works show genuine artistic ambition. The
film makers of
> both aimed high, believing that there was nothing they could not
accomplish
> within the framework of science fiction.
> The Captive City (1952) is a little anti-gambling film noir. It
makes some
> sociological points, showing how an acceptance of gambling leads to
corruption
> among near everybody in a small town. A young John Forsythe is the
lead; a
> smooth comic actor such as Forsythe is the last person one would
expect in a film
> noir. This film starts out well, but it is so grim that it
eventually loses
> any entertainment value.
> I did not like The Haunting (1963) at all, and am puzzled by this
film's high
> reputation. The best Shirley Jackson story I ever read was her
unfinished
> novel. "We Have Always Lived in the Castle", a bizarre little comic
fragment.
> Mike Grost
1556
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 2:06pm
Subject: French cinema, NYC screenings -- opinions?
There's a decent amount of contemporary French cinema to play the rep
scene in New York soon, and I thought I'd query the group on a
handful of titles.
Which of the more obscure (by American standards, at least) Assayas
films are worth catching -- WINTER'S CHILD, A NEW LIFE, PARIS
AWAKENS? (Is the last title an allusion to the Rene Clair film PARIS
QUI DORT?) I hope to see all the Assayas films, but in case I've got
to miss any, some awareness of others' opinions here won't hurt.
And in late September, the BamCinematek is showing some recent French
films, two of which sound potentially fascinating: A BIG GIRL LIKE
YOU (Christophe Blanc) and MINOR CUTS (Pascal Bonitzer; have we
talked about this film here before?). The cast and description of
NEAREST TO HEAVEN also catches my eye. Are any of these must-sees?
Thanks.
--Zach
1557
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 2:28pm
Subject: Re: Consumerism, Edwards, Godard
> the world of 60s
> fashions which Maggie Cheung and the late Tony Leung wear like
> models.
"The late Tony Leung"?! Say it isn't so ... I assume you were thinking of Leslie Cheung (which was bad enough)
1558
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 2:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Consumerism, Edwards, Godard
I'll Say!
href="http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g005/maggiecheungandtonyleungchiu-wai.html"
target="_blank">Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung
Chiu-wai
--- jess_l_amortell wrote:
> > the world of 60s
> > fashions which Maggie Cheung and the late Tony
> Leung wear like
> > models.
>
> "The late Tony Leung"?! Say it isn't so ... I
> assume you were thinking of Leslie Cheung (which was
> bad enough)
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
1559
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 3:05pm
Subject: Re: French cinema, NYC screenings -- opinions?
> Which of the more obscure (by American standards, at least) Assayas
> films are worth catching -- WINTER'S CHILD, A NEW LIFE, PARIS
> AWAKENS? (Is the last title an allusion to the Rene Clair film PARIS
> QUI DORT?) I hope to see all the Assayas films, but in case I've got
> to miss any, some awareness of others' opinions here won't hurt.
Somehow I've never been able to enjoy Assayas's films, so my opinion
should be balanced against others. But PARIS AWAKENS is my favorite,
the only one I'd really endorse. (I haven't seen WINTER'S CHILD.)
> And in late September, the BamCinematek is showing some recent French
> films, two of which sound potentially fascinating: A BIG GIRL LIKE
> YOU (Christophe Blanc) and MINOR CUTS (Pascal Bonitzer; have we
> talked about this film here before?). The cast and description of
> NEAREST TO HEAVEN also catches my eye. Are any of these must-sees?
Haven't seen any of these films. I didn't care for Bonitzer's previous
film, RIEN SUR ROBERT, but some of my friends were much kinder to it.
Tonie Marshall did VENUS BEAUTY INSTITUTE, which was distributed here -
it had some appeal for me, though I wouldn't describe it as artistically
ambitious. - Dan
1560
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 5:28pm
Subject: Re: French cinema, NYC screenings -- opinions?
>"Tonie Marshall did VENUS BEAUTY INSTITUTE, which was
distributed here -
it had some appeal for me, though I wouldn't describe
it as artistically
ambitious. - Dan"
Actually I WOULD describe it as artistically ambitious
in that it gives voice to women's issues in a tone
I've never seen or heard before. It contains Nathalie
Baye's best performance and features stand-out
appearances by Edith Scob and the director's mother --
Micheline Presle.
I'm greatly looking forawrd to the new film as it
deals with some Frnch people in new York in and around
9/11 and stars Catherine Deneuve, William Hurt and the
greatest living director of opera, theater and film --
Patrice Chereau.
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
1561
From: cjsuttree
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:53pm
Subject: Re: _In Praise of Love_
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I thought "In Praise of Love" was great. I'm not sure it's meant to
be
> "understood" necessarily; or, to put it another way, I wouldn't
expend much energy
> chasing down a larger meaning which connects all of its references
and
> allusions.
Thanks for your (and Patrick's) input. What I wanted to ask
was why Godard chose to express his criticism of the U.S. at that
juncture, just prior to 9/11/01. However, I must say I disagree
with you with regard to the larger meaning of the work.
I think it would be fun and valuable to chase down
a larger meaning which connects all the references and allusions.
If/when I have the time and energy I'll definitely do that ! :)
1562
From: Maxime
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:56pm
Subject: Re: French cinema, NYC screenings -- opinions?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Tonie Marshall did VENUS BEAUTY INSTITUTE, which was distributed
here - it had some appeal for me, though I wouldn't describe it as
artistically ambitious.
Dan,
What do you mean by "artistically ambitious"?
To the eternal question "what is Cinema?", Godard's answer was: the
expression of fine sentiments ("l'expression des beaux sentiments").
I believe that it's not totally irrelevant to judge a movie keeping
in mind this very simple remark.
Through this movie, Tonie Marshall, with honesty, generosity and
firmness, manages to bring to life a few characters in a close
intimacy. It seems to me it satisfies quite an ambition.
Meanwhile, I may say that "Au plus pres du paradis" is a bit
disappointing.
As for the NYC screenings, I'm sorry to see that, again, NY is
deprived of the true gems of current French cinema, first of
all "Choses secrètes" by Jean-Claude Brisseau.
1563
From: Tristan
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:17pm
Subject: Irma Vep
I enjoyed most of this, but the ending left me confused. Can somebody
explain what it is supposed to represent? Any other recommended
Assayas films? Thanks in advanced.
1564
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:35pm
Subject: Assayas, Bonitzer
The only one of the 3 early Assayas films I have seen is the one
Dan endorsed, Paris s'eveille, which I endorse, too. The Bonitzer
is half a loaf, but worth seeing. Pascal usually makes you fall in
love with all the women in his films (cf. Encore, which has a lot of
them), but in this one he seems to have fallen himself for Kirsten
Scott Thomas, with the result that the sections built around the
other actresses lack the usual punch. On the other hand, she
has never looked better. She has a demanding part that is
outside her usual range, and that also limits the success of the
film - she isn't really up to it. But there are things going on in the
first half that I like a lot - there are a couple of moments that
recall Hitchcock in the magical way that certain moments in
totally non-Hitchcockian films by the New Wave did, and that's
also new for PB. Usually he strikes me as a superior version of
middle-to-late Woody Allen - no small recommendation in itself.
Not the film I'd recommend starting with by the best director to
come out of Daney's generation of the Cahiers, but we take what
we can get.
1565
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:37pm
Subject: Tony Leung
It isn't so. Sorry.
1566
From: Bryant Frazer
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 5:38pm
Subject: Re: French cinema, NYC screenings -- opinions?
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Zach Campbell wrote:
> Which of the more obscure (by American standards, at least) Assayas
> films are worth catching -- WINTER'S CHILD, A NEW LIFE, PARIS
> AWAKENS?
I was quite fond of PARIS AWAKENS, which evokes a nice sense of youthful
what-on-earth-am-I-to-make-of-my-life ennui, but remember A NEW LIFE
feeling fairly soap-operaish and interminable.
I missed WINTER'S CHILD when the Walter Reade had its retrospective, and
am interested in catching it. Where/when are the Assayas films showing?
-bf-
1567
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Aug 26, 2003 8:58pm
Subject: Re: French cinema, NYC screenings -- opinions?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell" wrote:
>
> Which of the more obscure (by American standards, at least) Assayas
> films are worth catching --
I must say I was just a wee bit shocked to see the astounding litany of names invoked by MoMA to describe Assayas: "In his own films he combines the ethical humanism of Jean Renoir with the romantic sentiment of Frank Borzage; the formal rigors of Robert Bresson and Andrei Tarkovsky with the kinetic electricity of Kenneth Anger; and the interiority of Ingmar Bergman and Hou Hsiao-hsien with the improvisatory daring of Andy Warhol and John Cassavetes." Wow! Then I saw that the retro actually includes (in addition to Assayas' indispensable portrait of Hou) FLOWERS OF SHANGHAI itself -- was he being credited with directing that as well? But here's the explanation: "Hou delineates sumptuous surfaces, claustral spaces, and veiled social exchanges through tracking shots choreographed to resemble an opium dream -- a stylistic trait for which Olivier Assayas shares an affinity." (I suppose they could also be said to share an affinity for Maggie Cheung -- who I read Hou wanted for FLOWERS at one point, and who was also supposed to star in MAMBO...)
1568
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 3:46am
Subject: Godard allusions, Godardscope
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cjsuttree" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
>> I'm not sure it's meant to
> be
> > "understood" necessarily; or, to put it another way, I wouldn't
> expend much energy
> > chasing down a larger meaning which connects all of its references
> and
> > allusions.
> a larger meaning which connects all the references and allusions.
> If/when I have the time and energy I'll definitely do that ! :)
I second that--especially since large chunks of Godard dialogue are
quotes or modified quotes of literary material. Since these quotes
(sometimes translations themselves) are filtered through the imprecise
medium of subtitles, I think it's useful to be able to go back and
find the original or a more accurate translation.
Also, on Godard and Scope: has he made a widescreen film since the
1960s? NUMERO DEUX is 1.85, despite reports to the contrary.
PWC
1569
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 5:17am
Subject: Re: Godard allusions, Godardscope
He gave up on widescreen after the 60's.
A considerable loss, IMO.
--- Patrick Ciccone wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
1570
From: jaketwilson
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 5:37am
Subject: Simpsons & comic form
"Yoel Meranda" wrote:
> The Simpsons is great as a social satire (it's so great it even
> works for the Turkish society). However, there is one simple
reason
> why I call it "not art": It doesn't give me any aesthetic
> pleasure. I guess the reason why is the fact that there is no
real
> form in there. Most of the time the reason The Simpsons is
funny is
> because its compositions refer to something else we are used
to. So
> our reaction is very intellectual (as opposed to sensual). There
is
> no beauty in its images, but lots of things that refer to others in
> the American society.
But isn't social satire a form of art? And doesn't art belong to the
intellect as well as the senses -- even if, in a certain sense, the
destructive, satirical impulse and the affirmative, lyrical one are
genuinely opposed to each other? The sigh at beauty too deep
for tears is one kind of response to art, but any viable aesthetic
needs to include the gasp of delight in pure ridicule as well.
As for The Simpsons, obviously its images are not
autonomously beautiful, but they don't need to be -- they're used
mainly to supply information quickly and clearly, and to ground
the show's inventiveness in a consistent world. Supposing you
wanted to do a formal analysis, it might be more helpful to
discuss rhythm and pacing, and the way that comic routines are
built on variations in the pitch and timbre of the voices (think of
the dialogues between Mr Burns and Smithers, both voiced by
Harry Shearer). But to get the show's full measure, you'd have to
look at how sound and image interrelate as components of a
narrative, or rather an encyclopaedic series of parodies of
narrative device. (One speciality that might appeal to formalists
is the misleading ellipsis, as when – quoted from memory – we
see pages flying off a calendar as in an old-fashioned
time-lapse sequence, then Homer picking them up and
complaining about shoddy binding. How `structuralist' can you
get?)
My own view of form is that when it `works,' it creates a gestalt,
i.e. an entity that has to be perceived as a whole, however dimly
and inaccurately, before it can be separated into its parts (the
literal meaning of `analysis'). Thinking about comedy brings this
home in particular, because if someone tells us a joke we don't
stop to ponder its formal qualities before deciding whether to
laugh. Similarly, if we say that Buster Keaton's films are funny
and spatially intelligent, we're really talking about one quality, not
two: the way Keaton positions himself within the frame is always
in the service of presenting a particular comic point as effectively
as possible. So laughing at Keaton IS appreciating his artistry –
his movies are about space, sure, but the experience of walking
down the street is 'about space' too.
I'd even argue something similar for the Marx Brothers, who at
their best are as `formally' creative as Keaton -- though not as
systematic, both because their humour is verbal as well as
visual and because system is alien to their genius. You can't get
far by analysing the Marx Bros in `purely' spatial terms, since
abstract `space' in their work is invariably mapped onto specific
`spaces' which are historically constructed and socially coded
(Harpo handing his leg to Margaret Dumont, Chico selling
peanuts in the aisle at the opera, etc). Nonetheless, presenting
these transgressions effectively (i.e. making them funny) has
everything to do with how framing, editing, set design, etc work in
relation to performance. Hence it's no accident that the best Marx
Bros film, Duck Soup, is the one with the best director -- though
going by both external and internal evidence I'd definitely rank
Groucho and Harpo as co-auteurs of their best scenes.
On `identification' generally, my belief is that the feelings that
arise when we get involved with a character or a story –
sympathy, shock, laughter – are basic to appreciation of any sort
of narrative, and in no sense separate from `form' (like David, I
find it hard to see how shoddy filmmaking can be emotionally
satisfying). And let's not forget that filmmakers are committed to
a degree of `storytelling' or fiction as soon as they offer the
illusion of a 3D space.
JTW
1571
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:06am
Subject: Marx Bros., Summer Movie Tips
I saw my first Marx Bros. movie in a theatre - A Night at the Opera -
in Paris over 25 years ago, and I realized then that I had never
really seen these films before. Any film is better in a theatre, but
you need to see that one in particular on a large screen to
appreciate the sheer...enormity of what they're doing. R. Barthes ("I
consider A Night at the Opera to be an allegory of any aspect of
textuality whatsoever") must have agreed - he was six rows back
laughing heartily. The Sam Wood Touch? You could always argue that
Wood had the opportunity to study Duck Soup before making his two, I
guess. In any case, to compound the confusion, my personal favorite
is Animal Crackers, although it's been ages since I've seen it.
Once I finish this writing binge I've been on, I'm going to play
catch-up, selectively. We've heard quite a bit from Peter and others
about Charlie's Angels 2. Is any of the following worth seeing, in
anyone's opinion - Tomb Raider 2, Matrix 2, X-Men 2, League of
Extraordinary Gentlemen 1, Legally Blonde 2, Uptown Girls 1, American
Pie 3, Hollywood Homicide 1, Seabiscuit 1, Spy Kids 3, Mariachi 3?
(Already seen: The Hulk, Gigli, Freddy vs. Jason.)
Anyone?
1572
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 1:09pm
Subject: Re: Marx Bros., Summer Movie Tips
None of them are worth seeing for any reason
whatsoever.
NONE of them.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
1573
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 3:09pm
Subject: Re: Auteur Theory, Charlie's Angels
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier" wrote:
> didn't see Jackass or Human Nature, but I haven't got much interest in
> Fincher, Jonze, Michael Bay, Paul Thomas Anderson or Darren
Aronofsky (even
> if the last two are considered more "auteurs", I say they belong to
this new
> regime of forces... it's just they want more than the others to be new
> Scorseses, Altmans, Coens or Lynchs).
> the best of this TV/MTV influence happens best in videoclip and
experimental
> pieces than in feature films. I really enjoy the work of Chris
Cunningham
> for the Aphex Twin and Björk clips
I didn't like the Windowlicker video for Aphex Twin, but maybe I
should watch it again. I'm fond of Michel Gondry's video for Bjork's
"Human Behaviour," but I didn't see Gondry's feature, "Human Nature."
> I have some care for Baz Luhrmann and the Wachowskis, though I don't
really
> like their films.
> I think the only one to keep up and know how to deal with this
continuous
> flux of post-post-modern images & organizing (?) it into a somewhat
coherent
> (even in its incoherence) artform is McG.
> I don't know if that's a clear thing to see, but if you watch a Rob
Cohen
> film and right after you see just two or three minutes of Full
Throttle I
> think you'll get it.
> I have written a review on Charlie's Angels, but it's in portuguese...
> Ruy
I agree with your evaluations. I'm not sure what to make of Baz
Luhrmann or the Wachowskis, who veer between unwatchably bad to madly
compelling within a single scene...
Do you think McG's Full Throttle marks an advance over the first
Charlie's Angels? I wonder whether his style is self-limiting.
The phrase some critics have used -- "cinema-karaoke" -- seems
appropriate. The movies are a playground, and the players can switch
genres at whim. I wonder if comparisons with some films of the 1960's
might be useful, films like "Bande a part" or "Red Line 7000"... Maybe
not...
Paul
1574
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 3:15pm
Subject: Charlie's Angels
> Do you think McG's Full Throttle marks an advance over the first
> Charlie's Angels?
It was the opposite for me: I thought the first one had a little
something, and that the second one lost it. - Dan
1575
From: Tristan
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 3:59pm
Subject: Re: Marx Bros., Summer Movie Tips
Seabiscuit is a huge waste of time. Don't even consider going. If you
liked the first Matrix, see the second. It's not very good, but it's
worth it because it is mostly a set up for the third one, coming
November. X-Men 2 is much better than the first and quite enjoyable.
Not as good as the Hulk, but still one of the best comic book movies
(not saying that much). I haven't seen the rest.
1577
From:
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 2:41pm
Subject: Marx Bros., Current Movies
In the past, I've always followed the party line regarding the Marx Bros.
movies - that the only one which is any good from a cinematic standpoint is the
McCarey. So Bill's comments intrigue me. I love many of these movies (current
non-McCarey favorites: "Horse Feathers" and "Monkey Business"), so it won't
be painful at all to go back and look at them looking for more formal qualities
beyond the Marx Bros.' genius as performers. Maybe that sheer genius is
enough in these cases, I don't know.
I've seen relatively few summer movies, but by far the best I've seen are
"Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle," "The Hulk," and "Down With Love" (not sure if
the latter counts as a "summer movie," but the season starts earlier and
earlier each year). "Pirates of the Caribbean" is definitely several rungs below
the three I've just named, but it makes me think that Verbinski kinda has some
talent at solid matinee entertainment. The only other films this summer that
I've liked are strictly art-house or art-house/mainstream hybrids, like "The
Secret Lives of Dentists" (F.X. Feeney's Film Comment review is right on the
money; this film even trumps the great "Eyes Wide Shut" in several aspects), "Le
Divorce" (charming and slight, with nicely observed cultural detailing and a
skill at portraying families echoed in "Mr. and Mrs. Bridge" and "Soldier's
Daughter," among others), and "The Shape of Things" (LaBute's first great film
since "In the Company of Men," though most auteurists I know hate it, so be
forewarned.)
I really am starting to regret not seeing "Gigli" on the big screen,
particularly after reading a pretty wholehearted endorsement from Henry Sheehan, a
terrific auteurist critic whose work I became familiar with via Zach. It's not
that "Gigli" won't be showing up on DVD soon, just that I feel I've let my
auteurist comrades down by not seeing this despised work during is theatrical run.
Oh well.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
1578
From:
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 7:36pm
Subject: Marx Brothers
I have never been able to identify any personal style of the credited directors in any of the Marx Brothers movies. They all seem Marxian, as if Groucho really directed them all. On the other hand, this point of view might just mean that I have not yet seen the light. Have always had a fondness for The Cocoanuts and Horsefeathers. The "gamblers subverting the big game" plot satirized in Horsefeathers was already ancient; there are examples in English fiction as far back as 1848.
The late Marx Brothers film, "A Night in Casablanca" (1946), is unexpectedly a lot of fun.
The mirror scene in Duck Soup was anticipated by French silent film comedian Max Linder. There is an anthology, mainly of his very early comedy shorts (1910-1914), called "The Man in the Silk Hat". It is inventive. He clearly anticipated Chaplin, Keaton, Arbuckle, Harold Lloyd, Langdon and other silent comedy greats.
Mike Grost
(who once came in to a business meeting introducing the new Big Boss, slamming the door in his face in front of his team of 50 people. He thought this was as funny as everybody else did - it was an accident!
Slapstick lives!)
1579
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 8:07pm
Subject: Re: Marx Brothers
The appeal of the Marx Brothers generally escapes me, as I find their
characterizations irritating rather than humorous. The two exceptions
are Duck Soup, in which McCarey's gracefulness negated the usual
interminible schtick, and A Night In Casablanca, which as Mike says
is very funny, and in which the contributions of the uncredited gag
writer Frank Tashlin are all over the place.
1580
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 8:23pm
Subject: self-limiting McG
It's really funny, because that was a question I asked myself when I was
about to write the piece for Contracampo. How could his style evolve and
transform? By now, I think it only goes faster and crazier (I can't find an
equivalent in gratiuty of quotation for Drewy dressed and made-up as Aladdin
Sane, a book by ee cummings or that Bringing It All Back Home vinyl on the
first Charie). The way I put the question to myself (I don't know if it's
exactly the sema question, but I guess they match at a certain point) was:
can a masterpiece grow out of a style dealing with and based mainly in
bad-taste? I don't have an answer.
But the things that dazzle me most are the relations to bad-taste and
artificiallity via hyper-realism. The face of Cameron Diaz has the colors of
a doll, of a tinted photograph. In any case, she's everything but a
flesh-and-bone woman. It's all about artificiality. I also love that
sequence when they wake up from Demi's shots, the slow-motion walk in the
garden. If you look to the sky in this shot, it's completely unnatural. But
what's really great about it is that such unnaturality is not an exclamation
point at the audience, but something rather quiet, just down there, that McG
prefers because he simply feels like it. He doesn't need to struggle against
naturalism, he's over it already.
> Do you think McG's Full Throttle marks an advance over the first
> Charlie's Angels? I wonder whether his style is self-limiting.
> The phrase some critics have used -- "cinema-karaoke" -- seems
> appropriate. The movies are a playground, and the players can switch
> genres at whim. I wonder if comparisons with some films of the 1960's
> might be useful, films like "Bande a part" or "Red Line 7000"... Maybe
> not...
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
1581
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 10:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Marx Brothers
I'm not so sanguine about crediting McCarey for much
on "Duck Soup." He's a "name" and he worked with other
comics before (eg. Laurel & Hardy) But can you imagine
"Satan Never Sleeps" with Groucho in the William
Holden role?
--- Damien Bona wrote:
> The appeal of the Marx Brothers generally escapes
> me, as I find their
> characterizations irritating rather than humorous.
> The two exceptions
> are Duck Soup, in which McCarey's gracefulness
> negated the usual
> interminible schtick, and A Night In Casablanca,
> which as Mike says
> is very funny, and in which the contributions of the
> uncredited gag
> writer Frank Tashlin are all over the place.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
1582
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Aug 27, 2003 11:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: defense of Gitai's Kedma; Kadosh, & John Ford
Sorry, I got way behind reading posts here, and still am, partly as the
result of a short trip (I'm in New York at the moment). Goerge, I have
bookmarked your article for later reading.
I second Yoel on "Kadosh." Unfortuately I haven't seen "Kedma," but I've
seen a lot of other Gitai films, and "Kadosh" is my favorite, along with
"Berlin-Jerusalem." I've got links to two long reviews and a bunch of
capsules on Gitai at http://www.fredcamper.com/Film/GitaiL.html
"Kippur" is terrific too but I prefer the more contemplative "Kadosh."
There's a Jonathan Rosenbaum review of Jafar Panahi's "The Circle"
(http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2001/0106/010608.html) that
offers a stirring argument for it, and it's an moving film, even though
I don't like it as much as he does. But I think that comparing it with
"Kadosh" will quickly show which is the profounder film. The Islamic men
in "The Circle" are all cardboard figures of evil -- I exaggerate a bit,
but the point is that their extreme faith is never given any legitimacy.
The film works as a cri de coeur but lacks complexity, because we never
feel why they feel for their positions and actions. In "Kadosh" it's
clear that (a) These ultra-Orthodox Jews are prettry exteme (b) They
will seem pretty nuts to most of us (c) Gitai doesn't exactly endorse
their views. But, he's a comlex enough filmmaker give us some feelings
for their lives, and to show some respect for their authenticity as
humans, and his film often beutifujllhy (if creepily) captures the
rhythms of their rituals, and that makes the negative reaction many will
have to their, um, "lifetstyle" much more complex. In a way "Kadosh" is
analogous to the "Scar" scene that some hypothesized should have been
placed into "The Searchers" -- the one in which Debbie's life with Scar
was been shown to have some meaning, even for her. Ford in fact did
re-address the question rather brilliantly though from a different angle
in "Two Rode Together," which I recently resaw courtesy of Marty Rubin's
western series at the Film Center, and which has an anazing opening, one
that reminded me a bit of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance."
- Fred
1583
From: filipefurtado
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:07am
Subject: Re: Calling Austrailia and Brazil
Dan,
>
> BUS 174
> José Padilha
Flawed but pretty good documentary. It's better as
investigative journalism, Padilha don't always know how to
use his material. I agree with Ruy that the lack of local
context may hurt it to foreign audiences, but two americans
friends of mine whom saw it seem to have like it.
>
> CARANDIRU
> Hector Babenco
> (Not a guy I usually keep up with.)
>
I like this a good deal, but I'm pretty much alone.
> GOD IS BRAZILIAN
> Carlos Diegues
> (After liking BYE BYE BRASIL, I ran across a streak of Diegu
es films
> that I didn't care for.)
>
I had a mized reaction, but it's the best diegues since Bye
Bye brazil, and it was made as a sirt of companion film to
it, so you may like it.
> THE MAN OF THE YEAR
> José Henrique Fonseca
>
Worthless Tarantino ripoff.
> MARGARETTE'S FEAST
> Renato Falcão
>
A silent comedy. It has nothing much going for it besides
being silent, but it's watchable, with it hadn't anything
else intersting playing at the time, I'd give it a chance.
> THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD
> Vicente Amorim
>
> THE STORYTELLERS
> Eliane Caffé
>
Haven't seen either, but the buzz on The Storytellers is
pretty good.
Filipe
> Thanks! - Dan
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
--------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for Your HP, Epson, Canon
or Lexmark
> Printer at Myinks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the
US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/l.m7sD/LIdGAA/qnsNAA/b5IolB/TM
> ------------------------------------------------------------
---------~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.co
m/info/terms/
>
>
>
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
1584
From: filipefurtado
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:10am
Subject: Re: French cinema, NYC screenings -- opinions?
> Which of the more obscure (by American standards, at least)
Assayas
> films are worth catching --
WINTER'S CHILD, A NEW LIFE, PARIS
> AWAKENS? (Is the last title an allusion to the Rene Clair f
ilm PARIS
> QUI DORT?) I hope to see all the Assayas films, but in case
I've got
> to miss any, some awareness of others' opinions here won't h
urt.
I've seen only Winter's Child, which is a personal favorite
of mine.
>
> And in late September, the BamCinematek is showing some rece
nt French
> films, two of which sound potentially fascinating: A BIG GIR
L LIKE
> YOU (Christophe Blanc) and MINOR CUTS (Pascal Bonitzer; have
we
> talked about this film here before?). The cast and descript
ion of
> NEAREST TO HEAVEN also catches my eye. Are any of these mus
t-sees?
I haven't seen the Bonitzer but from what I read in french
press it seems good but not exactkly a Can't miss film.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
1585
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:24am
Subject: Re: Calling Austrailia and Brazil
Thanks for the Toronto recommendations from Australia and Brazil. Right
now, I've scheduled ALEXANDRA'S PROJECT (with great trepidation - the
subject matter sounds bad to me), UNDEAD, and THE STORYTELLERS, but I
should have some room to maneuver, so I may manage to see some of the
recent recommendations. - Dan
1586
From: filipefurtado
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:52am
Subject: Re: Marx Bros., Current Movies
I love the Marx Bros. films. My two non-McCarey favorites are
the same as Peter's. I have no problem with the direction in
these films, they seem to function simply to contemplate the
Marx performances, but I don't think that is a bad thing.
Actually the ones I like the less are Sam Wood's because they
don't do that as well as Animal Crackers or Horse Feathers or
even Love Happy.
The only current hollywood film that I liked besides The Hulk
and Charlie's Angels, is Terminator 3, which is not as
successful, but is a pretty good genre film. I haven't seen
Spy Kids 3, but I like the two others a lot, so I would give
it a chance.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
1587
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2003 5:30pm
Subject: Chereau
David,
Charles Tesson gave L'Intimite one star, like most Parisian
critics in the Conseil des dix in the 50th Anniversary issue of
CdC (where the film did nonetheless get a good review);
Jean-Michel Frodon, who is taking over from Charles, gave it
four. So we may be doing a Chereau hors-serie yet.
Don't forget, Toubiana put La Reine Margot on the cover of the
Cannes issue the year it premiered there. The portrayal of the St.
Barthelmy Massacre in that film is the best cinematic imagining
I've seen of that kind of "happening" - right up there with (in
literature) Babel's "The Story of My Dovecote," where the thing
starts happening around the narrator, a child, in all its aleatory
and apparently spontaneous horror, and is finally named only in
the last word of the story: "pogrom."
Bill
1588
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2003 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Chereau
If you're doing a Cheareau hor-serie, I've got an
interview with him that you may want. He was here in
L.A.just before Cannes (staying at the Mondrian rather
than the Chateau Marmont, as visiting directors
invariably do. I suspect because the Mondrian is MUCH
gayer.) And he's planning to return as he's been
offered several projects.
Also "Chaiers" may want to translate my analysis of
"Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train" puboished in
the Winter 2002-2003 issue of "Film Quarterly."
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> David,
>
> Charles Tesson gave L'Intimite one star, like most
> Parisian
> critics in the Conseil des dix in the 50th
> Anniversary issue of
> CdC (where the film did nonetheless get a good
> review);
> Jean-Michel Frodon, who is taking over from Charles,
> gave it
> four. So we may be doing a Chereau hors-serie yet.
>
> Don't forget, Toubiana put La Reine Margot on the
> cover of the
> Cannes issue the year it premiered there. The
> portrayal of the St.
> Barthelmy Massacre in that film is the best
> cinematic imagining
> I've seen of that kind of "happening" - right up
> there with (in
> literature) Babel's "The Story of My Dovecote,"
> where the thing
> starts happening around the narrator, a child, in
> all its aleatory
> and apparently spontaneous horror, and is finally
> named only in
> the last word of the story: "pogrom."
>
> Bill
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
1589
From: Tristan
Date: Thu Aug 28, 2003 11:09pm
Subject: Ivory-Merchant and Le Divorce
So, I've heard good things about this. Is this the yawnfest most
Ivory-Merchant movies seem to be? I'm thinking about trying to see it
before it leaves theaters.
1591
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:22am
Subject: Re: Marx Bros., Summer Movie Tips
Is any of the following worth seeing, in
> anyone's opinion - Tomb Raider 2, Matrix 2, X-Men 2, League of
> Extraordinary Gentlemen 1, Legally Blonde 2, Uptown Girls 1,
American
> Pie 3, Hollywood Homicide 1, Seabiscuit 1, Spy Kids 3, Mariachi 3?
Many of these have yet to open in Australia, but I like both Matrix
films. Anything by Robert Rodriguez is worth seeing IMO, though I'm a
bit concerned that he's jumped on the George Lucas DV bandwagon. My
favorites by RR are Desperado, the first Spy Kids, and his segment of
Four Rooms, which incidentally is in a bit of a Marx Bros vein.
And that reminds me, while I'm not expecting marvels from Pirates Of
The Caribbean, there are few films of the last decade I've laughed at
more than Gore Verbinski's first, Mouse Hunt. Though that one might
owe more to the personality of its screenwriter, Adam Rifkin...
JTW
1592
From:
Date: Fri Aug 29, 2003 0:37pm
Subject: Essay Films, Film Biographies
Enjoyed "Lost Book Found" (Jem Cohen, 1996). This 35 minute essay film is a look at visually interesting aspects of New York City street life: merchandise displays, hand painted signs, lights, buildings. Cohen groups these into sequences of visually related items. It is a pleasant look at the interesting ephemera produced by modern day life. If Cohen hadn’t captured these with his camera, they would all be long gone today.
SportsFigures. This is a TV series on the cable TV channel ESPN2 (Mondays, 5:30 AM EST). In each episode, athletes illustrate math and physics concepts by sports examples. These sure are vivid demonstrations! The series is designed for middle and high school students. There is no fiction here – these are straightforward little essays on their topics. It makes a companion piece to the PBS series Mathnet, which worked math concepts into fictional detective stories.
Among recent films using math, Enigma (Michael Apted, 2001) has the most math in its discussions of codes. Pi has the least; instead it has some grisly gore that surely merits the adjective repulsive. Pi - loved the number, hated the movie!
Isamu Noguchi: Stones and Paper (Hiro Narita, 1997). Prolific cinematographer Hiro Narita turns director, to look at the life and work of Japanese-American sculptor Isamu Noguchi. This work is richly illustrated with Noguchi's abstract sculptures. It forms a magnificent introduction to his work.
We live in a great age of biographical films. They are made in huge numbers for PBS, Biography on A&E, and many other cable channels. But film historians seem to be ignoring them. Maybe TV has such a stigma that it prevents people from seeing anything good about it. Plus, some film critics seem to prefer film documentaries made about people who are weird or dysfunctional. Neither of these adjectives applies to Noguchi, who was magnificently creative throughout his career. He also led an interesting life in both Japan and the United States.
Fred Camper's huge Brakhage web site points out that Stan Brakhage was an admirer of Ken Burns, and taught about Burns films in his classes. Very interesting!
The Impressionists (Bruce Alfred, 2001). This is a Ken Burns style documentary on the French Impressionist painters. It is feature length, and was shown as a serial on Biography. It mixes dramatizations and traditional documentary interviews and filming, in the Burns style. It is a creditable film that deserves to be better known. It is both mind expanding and fun to watch - and how many current films can be described in this way?
Mike Grost
1593
From:
Date: Fri Aug 29, 2003 0:41pm
Subject: Re: Ivory-Merchant and Le Divorce
[I wasn't sure if this went through the first time; apologies if it's double
posted.]
In a message dated 8/28/03 4:11:37 PM, limphead52@n... writes:
>So, I've heard good things about this. Is this the yawnfest most
>Ivory-Merchant movies seem to be? I'm thinking about trying to see it
>before it leaves theaters.
I liked it, but I tend to be a fan of Ivory's films in general. What
appealed to me about "Le Divorce" was its offhandedness and ease; except for a few
missteps towards the very end, Ivory shuttled from one episode to the next with
great facility. It's full of nice character performances - Stephen Fry, Glenn
Close, Sam Waterson - which are played with a lot of gusto and precision.
The French/American cultural details are well presented and take precedence over
narrative propulsion; Ivory thinks nothing of halting a scene to include
insert shots of French cuisine being served. I also feel that he has a gift for
portraying family dynamics with the same believability as, say, a Leo McCarey;
the family in this film felt 'real' to me in the same way that the one in "A
Soldier's Daughter Never Cries" did.
So I wouldn't necessarily rush out to see it, but I found a lot to enjoy.
I'd recommend Jonathan Rosenbaum's long review of the film for a nice summary of
the movie's attributes.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
1594
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: French cinema, NYC screenings -- opinions?
>>Tonie Marshall did VENUS BEAUTY INSTITUTE, which was distributed
> here - it had some appeal for me, though I wouldn't describe it as
> artistically ambitious.
>
> Dan,
>
> What do you mean by "artistically ambitious"?
> To the eternal question "what is Cinema?", Godard's answer was: the
> expression of fine sentiments ("l'expression des beaux sentiments").
I didn't mean to condescend to Marshall's film - I have nothing against
small character-based subjects. In this particular case, the film
seemed to me to rely too much on its charm - I didn't feel it trying to
go deeper. - Dan
1595
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Aug 30, 2003 1:26am
Subject: Re: Re: French cinema, NYC screenings -- opinions?
Nathalie Baye's anger went pretty damned deep to me.
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >>Tonie Marshall did VENUS BEAUTY INSTITUTE, which
> was distributed
> > here - it had some appeal for me, though I
> wouldn't describe it as
> > artistically ambitious.
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > What do you mean by "artistically ambitious"?
> > To the eternal question "what is Cinema?",
> Godard's answer was: the
> > expression of fine sentiments ("l'expression des
> beaux sentiments").
>
> I didn't mean to condescend to Marshall's film - I
> have nothing against
> small character-based subjects. In this particular
> case, the film
> seemed to me to rely too much on its charm - I
> didn't feel it trying to
> go deeper. - Dan
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
1596
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Aug 30, 2003 4:21am
Subject: Re: self-limiting McG
> The way I put the question to myself (I don't know if it's
> exactly the sema question, but I guess they match at a certain
point) was:
> can a masterpiece grow out of a style dealing with and based
mainly in
> bad-taste?
I wouldn't use the words, "bad taste". That seems more
appropriate to, say, Baz Luhrmann. Whereas at least the first Angels
film seemed, despite its excesses, rather elegant in form.
(A few thoughts re Luhrmann. I think I prefer Paul Hunter's video
for "Lady Marmelade" to "Moulin Rouge." But I did like "Romeo +
Juliet." It understands kids' first love -- DiCaprio and Claire
Danes fumbling with words, struggling to give voice to the
sentiments that are given eloquent expression in Shakespeare's
words: this is a good approximation of young love, of the
inarticulate speech of the heart. Anyway, DiCaprio and Danes are at
least younger than Leslie Howard and Norma Shearer...)
One scene I liked in Full Throttle is when the Angels, for no
apparent reason other than they and the film can't bear not to be in
motion, start dancing with MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This" video.
It reminded me of Anna Karina et al. doing the Madison or Dean
Martin and Ricky Nelson singing "My Rifle, My Pony, and Me" --
let's stop the film and do something the director enjoys -- except
with McG that's the (sole?) principle guiding his career.
Paul
1597
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:00am
Subject: Re: Auteurism? Don't shoot the critic!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime" wrote:
> As for the Cahiers, I won't forget this pathetic moment when
Thierry
> Jousse wear himself out trying to persuade some other critics
during
> a TV show that Cameron was a true "auteur": "you see... he is the
> producer, the writer, the cameraman, the metteur en scene... if
it's
> not an auteur..." (about Titanic!). Stuck in the contradictions of
> a "politique" depraved for 40 years...
That reminds me of a question that I think interesting: is an auteur
necessarily a great or even good filmmaker? I recall reading a
roundtable discussion published in Cahiers du Cinema ca. 1963 in
which the participants asserted that only great artists should be
designated auteurs. Whereas others, such as Peter Wollen, have
emphasized that the concept of auteur should imply no aesthetic
evaluation.
Paul
1598
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:19am
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurism? Don't shoot the critic!
Well there's a;ays and aesthetic evaluation involved.
Jousse was trying to claim something special for
Cameron.Obviously he's written, produced and directed
a number of films, and arguments can be made
pertaining to recurring themes and cinematic
techniques involed. But that still doesn'tmake Cameron
"great."
Charles Marquis Warren and John Ford both directed
esterns. But whose would you care to see more than
once?
I rest my case.
--- Paul Gallagher wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
1599
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:43am
Subject: Re: Auteurism? Don't shoot the critic!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher" wrote:
>is an auteur
> necessarily a great or even good filmmaker? I recall reading a
> roundtable discussion published in Cahiers du Cinema ca. 1963 in
> which the participants asserted that only great artists should be
> designated auteurs. Whereas others, such as Peter Wollen, have
> emphasized that the concept of auteur should imply no aesthetic
> evaluation.
>
I think that "auteur" in and of itself contains no value judgment but
simply means that a directorial personality can be found throughout a
filmmaker's work. (I'm also sympathetic to the idea for which Bill
has argued that every director -- even a Joseph Pevney -- is an
auteur because when there's no there there in a film, it's the
director's responsibility. But I would argue that this is a concept
that's parallel to designating certain directors as the unmistakable
authors of their movies but is not the same thing.)
I consider Cecil B. DeMille the classic example of a director whose
movies are manifestly his or hers but which are nevertheless almost
all terrible. Baz Luhrmann is another unwatchable auteur for me, and
other directors whose presence insufferably dominates their movies
include Paul Thomas Anderson, James Cameron, Louis Malle, Lawrence
Kasdan, George Stevens and Frank Darabont.
1600
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sun Aug 31, 2003 4:55am
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurism? Don't shoot the critic!
Depends entirely on how you choose to define "auteur."
Paul Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> That reminds me of a question that I think interesting: is an auteur
> necessarily a great or even good filmmaker? I recall reading a
> roundtable discussion published in Cahiers du Cinema ca. 1963 in
> which the participants asserted that only great artists should be
> designated auteurs. Whereas others, such as Peter Wollen, have
> emphasized that the concept of auteur should imply no aesthetic
> evaluation.
>
> Paul
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact