Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 10:31pm
Subject: Re: Fuller
The best line is in the trailer for Nicholas Ray's
"Hot Blood": "Jane Russell shakes her tambourine and
drives Cornel wild!"
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2502
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 10:42pm
Subject: porn one more time, pc, Fuller
Fred, we will have lots of computer-animated films where people who
look like the actors in Final Fantasy - or impossible-to-spot
simulacra with the faces of Julia Roberts or Bruce Willis - will do
everything the little people in porn animes are already doing, and
lots more. This is as inevitable as Arnold, and will be here long
befor we stop being able to get a kick out of it.
Speaking of the star of the only summer film I kind of liked, Clinton
was accused of harrassment, but the impeachment was over lying about
consensual sex. Isn't that when NOW got into the act? Of course, it
would be hard to measure how bad he was as a harrasser compared to
Arnold, but Arnold was pretty bad - and Arnold was running for
office! (I doubt if Clinton could have gotten the nomination in 1992
if the Arkansas brigade had testified credibly in the national press -
that kind of Teflon shield is accorded only to Republican candidates,
precisely because a part of that constituency thinks sexual
harrassment is OK, or even a good idea.) I saw the statistics, and I
am well aware of who voted for him - everyone. And I still am
inclined to think that some of them (including women) voted for him
because of his trashy behavior, not in spite of it. I know my state
all too well - I go to the San Fernando Valley at least once a week,
and I work every day in Culver City.
Interesting to learn that The Village Voice invented the
phrase "politically correct" - I don't recall ever reading it there
or anywhere else as anything but an ironic (pejorative) expression,
but I was pretty foggy-headed in those days. In any case, loving
laughing and fun as I do, I might refer to something Karl Marx wrote
as "PC," but not something by Gloria Steinem or Malcolm X. I think
it's a very suspect term.
Susan Pile (ex- of the Warhol factory - cf. prior posts by me and
David) had a framed photo in her office at Fox of Jon Davison
(producer of White Dog) surrounded by Klansmen, and a note from
Jon: "Thanks for sending me on the personal appearance tour in the
South. People down here sure have a different slant on this movie!"
(Like my beloved Uncle Ted, who bared his false teeth in a sinister
grin and growled when I told him the plot: "Wish I had me one of
those White Dogs...") Sam really loved The Grapes of Wrath, as I do,
although I think his favorite Ford was The Informer.
2503
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Fuller and lists
I agree with Mike that there's a value to lists and ratings and even
(although you don't mention them) screening logs. A record of
another person's moviegoing will have two benefits for me. First,
there are the content-free items like lists and ratings: these
things get me excited about seeing movies for the first time, or,
perhaps, paying them another visit.
(Ironically, the four people whose strong recommendations are most
likely to get me interested in seeing a film - Zach Campbell, Gabe
Klinger, Fred Camper, and Dan Sallitt - while each has a personal web
page or site, don't have a regularly updated online space that lists
what films they've seen recently, what films they have liked, and how
much they have liked them.)
Second is the "content," that which tends to mock the lists and the
star ratings and whatnot: readings of a film, reviews, monographs,
etc. These are the monuments we build to the cinema, I guess, but
the other stuff is cool, too.
I openly admit my insanity on the following page - my favorite films,
sorted by year. The visual style and the ranking system is a
complete rip-off of Dan Sallitt's 'favorite films' page, but his is
marked by the superiority of a longer gestation period. (It is also
linked.)
Mine: http://filmwritten.org/lists.htm
Dan's: http://www.panix.com/%7Esallitt/bestfilm.html
I apologize for nothing. Good day.
-Jaime
2504
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 11:28pm
Subject: second-tier Renoir
Yesterday I saw and almost disliked LA MARSEILLAISE. The first hour
is talky and cumbersome and the visuals are not very stimulating, but
when the film is over we have seen many impressively directed (or
simply impressively produced) action scenes and it builds predictably
to an emotional crescendo that almost works. I'm not sure if this is
a good picture, but I wonder if I have underrated it somewhat -
especially today, looking back on my viewing. What does everyone
think of LA MARSEILLAISE?
I would not have thought epic-style action to be Renoir's forte, and
his canonical works (RULES, ILLUSION, LA CHIENNE, BOUDU, etc) don't
seem to have been directed by a man given to doing this kind of
thing, marshalling a literal army of extras and using Spielbergian
crane shots and a pounding, orchestral, Hollywood-ish score. Can you
imagine Renoir behind one of those massive 70mm epics from the 1950s
or '60s? That is what this film is quite a bit like - and it was
made in 1938!
-Jaime
2505
From:
Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 7:29pm
Subject: Now mostly about lists
In a message dated 10/12/2003 19:10:10 Eastern Daylight Time,
j_christley@y... writes:
> Mine: http://filmwritten.org/lists.htm
>
> Dan's: http://www.panix.com/%7Esallitt/bestfilm.html">http://www.panix.com/%7Esallitt/bestfilm.html">http://www.panix.com/%7Esallitt/bestfilm.html
Yeeouch, Jaime! Now I feel silly for asking Dan >permission< to use his
color coding system (which I never did.)
Peter
P.S. - Since Mike was kind enough to promote the group's Top 10 project, I
should more fully clarify just what, exactly, it is. I am collecting two types
of lists from members: "best of all-time" lists and year by year "best of"
lists. These will eventually be posted in the Files section of the site, and
Fred has agreed to put them on his site as well so non-members can read them.
A few basis. Any member of a_film_by may submit lists for the project.
Although the project uses the term "Top 10" as shorthand, there is no numerical
limit to the number of films which one may include on a list. (Although I'd
like to keep "all-time" lists under, say, 50.) Lists may be in preferential or
alphabetical order. Any type of film is eligible--including, but not limited
to, features, shorts, documentaries, experimental films, industrial films, home
movies, unfinished films, and fragments--provided that they've been screened
publicly at some point. Tele-movies and episodes of television shows are also
eligible.
Due to the fact that we are an international forum, there will be no
cut-and-dry rules as to determining a film's year of release. For example, since
George Robinson uses NYC/LA premiere dates as a guideline, Akira Kurosawa's
"Madadayo" appears on his 2000 list. On the other hand, the film appears on my 1993
list, since I use the date of international commercial premiere as a
guideline. Either method (or a different one entirely) is acceptable.
After we've put online the initial document, a member may at any time revise
or change a list they've already submitted. These revisions, as well as any
newly submitted lists, should be sent to me and they will be implemented at the
next update of the file. The current plan is to update the file at one month
intervals.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2506
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 11:37pm
Subject: permission
> Yeeouch, Jaime! Now I feel silly for asking Dan >permission< to
use his
> color coding system (which I never did.)
I most certainly asked and obtained blessing from Dan for the color
system and I may have felt a little silly doing so, but what the
hell, right?
-Jaime
2507
From:
Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 7:40pm
Subject: Re: Fuller and lists
In a message dated 10/12/2003 10:57:51 Eastern Daylight Time, MG4273@a...
writes:
> In his recent book "Paris Hollywood", Peter Wollen says that lists of films
>
> are far more important than they first appear. They are the best direct
> guides
> into the history of the cinema.
>
I really do tend to agree. Echoing what some others have said, a film on a
list by someone whose taste I respect will very likely result in my seeing that
film. The counter-argument that in-depth analysis is always preferable to
rattling off a bunch of titles doesn't convince me here because we could be here
for five years without discussing in-depth all of the films from, oh, Dan
Sallitt's 1974 list or Mike Grost's 1959 list. Lists are invaluable as guides to
a person's tastes and aesthetic priorities.
Along these lines: Jonathan, aren't you writing a book which jumps off from
your Alternate AFI 100? I seem to remember seeing a mention of this somewhere,
perhaps with a title like "The New Canon"?
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2508
From:
Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 7:41pm
Subject: Re: permission
In a message dated 10/12/2003 19:39:32 Eastern Daylight Time,
j_christley@y... writes:
> I most certainly asked and obtained blessing from Dan for the color
> system and I may have felt a little silly doing so, but what the
> hell, right?
Was only kidding, Jaime - I assumed you got Dan's permission and I see no
reason not to utilize his format.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2509
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 0:13am
Subject: Re: permission
It's a great format - I think it should be more widely used. I would
love it if the phrase "one of Joe/John/Edward's 'red' films" became
common. For a while, long before I'd even met Dan or was aware of
his lists, I was trying to devise a way to assemble the lists of the
films I like so that [a] they would all be listed, from the major
ones on down to the ones I'm not 100% in love with, but don't want to
leave out anyway (like Kevin Costner's OPEN RANGE or Tolomush
Okeyev's THERE ARE HORSES, or Kevin Brownlow's 9 DALMUIR WEST), and
then [b] I could use a system to promote some films over others, and
rank the really, really, really, really great ones above all the
rest. For about a half a year I was using a red/blue system. Blue
for great films and masterpieces and all that jazz. Red for the ones
I merely "liked" or enjoyed or found interesting. This proved
inadequate because, well, the hierarchy wasn't broken down enough,
and I abandoned it for the (tiresome) star ratings. Then I happened
upon Dan's list page. The colors were an eyesore at first - I had
previously had Dan's lists on hand in a word file that Zach gave me -
but eventually they began to look to me like the ideal way of
expressing one's level of affection/fascination/attachment to a
particular movie, and to communicate a general idea one's aesthetic
priorities and preferences. So it works!
-Jaime
2510
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:28am
Subject: Experiencing Technical Difficulties
The two messages that I had posted earlier that went only to Fred actually were posted to a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, but I had posted them through the Yahoo! Groups forum and not through my mail box, and hence they didn't show up. I just sent another post, and it looks like only Jaime got it. I notice that if I send my posts through my Yahoo! e-mail account, they go where they are supposed to. I don't know if anyone else is having this problem.
Rick
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2511
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:31am
Subject: Vive Tarantino! Vive le Cinema!
2512
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:42am
Subject: Re: permission
Jaime:
> The colors were an eyesore at first - I had
> previously had Dan's lists on hand in a word file that Zach gave
> me -
> but eventually they began to look to me like the ideal way of
> expressing one's level of affection/fascination/attachment to a
> particular movie, and to communicate a general idea one's aesthetic
> priorities and preferences. So it works!
I've got official and unofficial lists on my hard drive from all
sorts of critics and cinephiles I admire, usually with boldface or
red- or blue-font denoting the films I've already seen.
I'm very lazily working on my personal webpage top ten lists, and am
doing them in tiers, which in principle is identical to the color
system (though with fewer degrees). Paul Fileri submitted a "best
of" list to 24fps for 2001 that was done in three tiers ... that's
more or less what I'm leaning towards for my eventual upload.
--Zach
2513
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:52am
Subject: Vive Tarantino! Vive le Cinema!
I just got back from Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill, Vol.1" and all I can say is "dyn-o-mite!" This film is going to be a huge hit, and deservedly so, especially among the urban audiences that stayed away in droves from Jonathan Demme's and Oprah Winfrey's well-intentioned adaptation of Toni Morrison's "Beloved."
I guess it all depends on one's frame of reference. I grew up with, played with, hung out with, and got beat up by, actual black kids; for me they were not abstract symbols of middle-class white liberal guilt.
Like the Asian movies it approximates, "Kill Bill" only works if you accept it as fantasy, much like "Lord of the Rings."
And then there's the Pekinpah references. I swear at a certain point Tarantino wasn't paying homage to Pekinpah as to Monty Python's hilarious send-up of Pekinpah; the one that starts out looking like a Merchant-Ivory movie but in a short amount of time has English aristrocrat appendage's flying off with gay abandon as geysers of blood shoot up.
I can't wait for Volume 2.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2514
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:55am
Subject: [Fwd: Listomania!]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Listomania!
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:19:33 -0000
From: "auteurwannabe2000"
To: a_film_by-owner@yahoogroups.com
I have to admit that I am list junkie; one of the first things I do
on a first date is discretely wander over to my date's bookshelf and
CD collection and glance at the titles collected as clue to this
person's taste and how compatible we are going to be.
It's funny, though, I have a heard time coming up my own favorite
movie list simply because there are too many great films out there. I
have seen just about every movie on Damien's list and I think each
film on it is a masterpiece.
I particularly have a hard time picking one movie that sums up
everything a work of art is supposed to be. I am crazy about
Ophuls' "Madame De" a masterpiece that resonates with me as having
something profound to express about the human condition. But then so
does "Prizzi's Honor" and ditto for "Open City." But then my mood
might change and suddenly I feel this or that other film is striking
a chord within me.
At the moment, the best I can come up with is:
1. Madame De
2. Open City
3. La Regle du Jeu
4. Grande Illusion
5. The Magnificent Ambersons
6. The Miracle (Rossellini)
7. Prizzi's Honor
8. L.A. Confidential
9. Belle de Jour
10.Veronika Voss
11.Lifetimes (Zhang Ymou)
12.Ju Dou (ditto)
13.Wagonmaster
14.Man Who Shot Libery Valance
15.Sherlock Jr.
16.Notorious
17.Ulzana's Raid
18.Goodfellas
19.Once Upon a Time in the West
20.Ninotchka
21.Singing in the Rain
22.The Tree of Wooden Clogs
23.Vagabond
24.Les Infants du Paradis
25.Modern Times
26.Summer (Rohmer, but just about any Rohmer will do)
27.The Story of Women (Chabrol)
...I could go on and on. I do notice that my tastes tend more towards
noir than blanc, but apart from that I don't have a consistent
criteria for movies beyond a standard of excellence in terms of
conveying something that the writer and director feels deep in his,
her, or their gut.
2515
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:15am
Subject: The Dark and Bloody Crossroads Where Art & Politics Meet
As you may know, the title is referencing Lionell Trilling, who was talking about Henry James vs Theodore Dreiser. The implication being that James was apolitical, but as Molly Haskell has pointed out, James was VERY political, especially tackling such subjects as woman's rights.
Anyhow, just to clear up a few points. Tammy Bruce may have indeed endorsed the "Steroid Nazi" (who is married to JFK's niece), but the fact remains that the Southern California chapter of the National Organization of Women did refuse to condemn OJ out of fear of being perceived racist, not because doing so was merely shooting fish in a barrel. Again, this is an empirical fact, not a rumour. So what NOW was telling black women was it is okay for your husband to beat and kill you if he's a popular athlete or celebrity. I don't approve of Andrew Sullivan's words or actions regarding HIV either, but he did pull up an honest-to-goodness quote rationalizing why Ahnuld's boorishness was bad and Bubba's was passable.
A lot of Republican's who were screaming "family values" outrage over Clinton were quick to rationalize/defend Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood, and I didn't like that as well.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter what the ideology.
And, oh, yes, John Ford's "Stagecoach" is rousing populist (except if you're a Native American), but it ain't preachy like "The Grapes of Wrath," (the last third of the film looks like a government-issued industrial documentary extolling the virtues of the New Deal), which was my point.
Rick
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2516
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:19am
Subject: Re: second-tier Renoir
Much more anamolous for Renoir's career than LA MARSEILLAISE is LE
TOURNOI(1928)which was shown at the 1994 Renoir Centenary
Retrospective at UCLA. It was very much a period costume picture (it
takes place in the 16th century)and involved much melodramatic
intrigue. The denouement shows a spectacular joust in which the
protagonist is killed in an arena. His body is ignominously dragged
away and lackys shovel sand over a pool of his blood. By comparison
LA MARSEILLAISE is presented on a human scale with many nicely
observed anecdotal scenes.
The climactic tournement of LE TOURNOI is as well directed as an
Anthony Mann single combat sequence. Perhaps the Renior of the '60s
would have made an epic with the sweep of a Mann epic and the
distanced intimacy of a Rosselini history picture.
Richard Modiano
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
>
> I would not have thought epic-style action to be Renoir's forte,
and
> his canonical works (RULES, ILLUSION, LA CHIENNE, BOUDU, etc) don't
> seem to have been directed by a man given to doing this kind of
> thing, marshalling a literal army of extras and using Spielbergian
> crane shots and a pounding, orchestral, Hollywood-ish score. Can
you
> imagine Renoir behind one of those massive 70mm epics from the
1950s
> or '60s? That is what this film is quite a bit like - and it was
> made in 1938!
>
> -Jaime
2517
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:19am
Subject: Earth to J-P FCoursodon
JP
Your email account has something wrong with it, it seems; please get a
working accoun t and then follow the instructrions below.
\
Fred
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Returned mail: Service unavailable
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:29:56 -0500
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem
To:
The original message was received at Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:29:54 -0500
from RJ176161.user.veloxzone.com.br [200.149.176.161]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mx1.mail.yahoo.com.:
>>> DATA
<<< 554 delivery error: dd Sorry, your message to jpcoursodon@y... cannot be delivered. This account is over quota. - mta117.mail.scd.yahoo.com
554 ... Service unavailable
Subject:
Bouncing
From:
Fred Camper
Date:
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:16:19 -0300
To:
jpcoursodon@y...
Dear JPC,
Please fix your "bouncing member" status. Make sure your eamil account
is working and that your box isn't full and then go to
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/mygroups/mygroups-07.html and
follow the instructions.
Fred
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2518
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:35am
Subject: Re: The Dark and Bloody Crossroads Where Art & Politics Meet
"who is married to JFK's niece"
You imagine me enamored of the Kennedys? Your second
mistake.
"but the fact remains that
> the Southern California chapter of the National
> Organization of Women did refuse to condemn OJ out
> of fear of being perceived racist"
So much the worse for them. Bruce's squacking about OJ
was merely cheap oportunism -- as her recent move to
the hard right bears out.
"I don't approve of Andrew
> Sullivan's words or actions regarding HIV either,
> but he did pull up an honest-to-goodness quote
> rationalizing why Ahnuld's boorishness was bad and
> Bubba's was passable."
Specious nonsense.
--- Rick Segreda
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2519
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:37am
Subject: Re: Vive Tarantino! Vive le Cinema!
How does it stand up in comparasion to "Duelle" and
"Noroit"?
--- Rick Segreda
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2520
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:42am
Subject: Re: The Dark and Bloody Crossroads Where Art & Politics Meet
Could you guys please take this discussion offlist?
Thanks
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> "who is married to JFK's niece"
>
> You imagine me enamored of the Kennedys? Your second
> mistake.
>
> "but the fact remains that
> > the Southern California chapter of the National
> > Organization of Women did refuse to condemn OJ out
> > of fear of being perceived racist"
>
> So much the worse for them. Bruce's squacking about OJ
> was merely cheap oportunism -- as her recent move to
> the hard right bears out.
>
> "I don't approve of Andrew
> > Sullivan's words or actions regarding HIV either,
> > but he did pull up an honest-to-goodness quote
> > rationalizing why Ahnuld's boorishness was bad and
> > Bubba's was passable."
>
> Specious nonsense.
>
>
>
> --- Rick Segreda
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
2521
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:47am
Subject: Re: The Dark and Bloody Crossroads Where Art & Politics Meet
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Rick Segreda
>
"Steroid Nazi" (who is married to JFK's niece),
Umm, what is the relevance of the universally-known Kennedy
connection?
>So what NOW was telling black women was it is okay for your husband
to beat and kill you if he's a popular athlete or celebrity.<
Simpson's wife was a white woman.
>I don't approve of Andrew Sullivan's words or actions regarding HIV
either, but he did pull up an honest-to-goodness quote rationalizing
why Ahnuld's boorishness was bad and Bubba's was passable.
>
It's a bit tired at this time to refer to Clinton as "Bubba," but the
distinction between Clinton and Schwarzenegger is that with the
former the encounters were at least arguably consensual, those of the
latter clearly were not.
>
> And, oh, yes, John Ford's "Stagecoach" is rousing populist (except
if you're a Native American), but it ain't preachy like "The Grapes
of Wrath," (the last third of the film looks like a government-issued
industrial documentary extolling the virtues of the New Deal), which
was my point.
>
I don't think of the last section of Grapes of Wrath (or any of it,
for that matter) as much specifically political as it is poetic.
2522
From:
Date: Sun Oct 12, 2003 10:54pm
Subject: Re: Vive Tarantino! Vive le Cinema!
I must concur that "Kill Bill" is a wonderful movie. On the basis of it and
"Jackie Brown," Tarantino may be the most feminist-oriented director working
in Hollywood. In the earlier film, Pam Grier was not merely presented as an
icon, but as a beautiful, empowered, indepedent human being; Tarantino hung on
her every move in that film and it was, as Kent Jones noted at the time in Film
Comment, amazing to watch. "Kill Bill" is much more cartoony, to say the
least, but you still have at its base a cinematic universe which permits Uma
Thurman (who conceived of her character with Tarantino and suggested at least the
opening sequence) to take on (literally) hundreds of Yakuza guys - and win,
without a trace of irony or camp. Sarris writes appreciatively of these aspects
of the film in the current New York Observer, by the way.
But simply as a work of kinetic cinema, "Kill Bill" astonishes; it's a
gloriously achieved work and perhaps Tarantino's best directed to date if you're
thinking exclusively of things like composition and camera movement and editing
and sound - as I often am. Mark me down as much more impressed by "Jackie" and
"Bill" than his canonized early works.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2523
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:28am
Subject: Re: Vive Tarantino! Vive le Cinema!
Peter,
I seem to agree with a lot of your tastes, so I'm really pleased to
hear you like KILL BILL. I haven't seen it yet -- it comes out next
week in Australia and I've been awaiting it with some nervousness. I
like all three of T's earlier films, but action sequences haven't
been his strong suit in the past, despite his reputation.
Actually I haven't seen PULP FICTION all the way through since I was
in high school, when that kind of helter-skelter narrative
playfulness (also in Rivette!) felt like exactly what my friends and
I wanted to see. I don't know if I could recapture that euphoria now -
- a film that gave me a similar buzz around that time was THE
HUDSUCKER PROXY, but the later Coen Bros films don't do it for me to
the same extent and the new one, which I just saw, leaves me cold. I
can't tell if the change is in me or them!
JTW
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I must concur that "Kill Bill" is a wonderful movie. On the basis
of it and
> "Jackie Brown," Tarantino may be the most feminist-oriented
director working
> in Hollywood. In the earlier film, Pam Grier was not merely
presented as an
> icon, but as a beautiful, empowered, indepedent human being;
Tarantino hung on
> her every move in that film and it was, as Kent Jones noted at the
time in Film
> Comment, amazing to watch. "Kill Bill" is much more cartoony, to
say the
> least, but you still have at its base a cinematic universe which
permits Uma
> Thurman (who conceived of her character with Tarantino and
suggested at least the
> opening sequence) to take on (literally) hundreds of Yakuza guys -
and win,
> without a trace of irony or camp. Sarris writes appreciatively of
these aspects
> of the film in the current New York Observer, by the way.
>
> But simply as a work of kinetic cinema, "Kill Bill" astonishes;
it's a
> gloriously achieved work and perhaps Tarantino's best directed to
date if you're
> thinking exclusively of things like composition and camera movement
and editing
> and sound - as I often am. Mark me down as much more impressed
by "Jackie" and
> "Bill" than his canonized early works.
>
> Peter
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2524
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:08am
Subject: Vive Tarantino! Vive le Cinema! Rivette?
I gotta admit you caught me up short here: I have never seen anything by Jacques Rivette. Somebody somewhere said that his movies were pretentious and boring; and to be really impolitic, that is the judgment I have against certain movies by Goddard and Resnais (though not Eric Rohmer, even though Gene Hackman quipped in "Night Moves" that attending a Rohmer film is "like watching paint dry.") I've been too undisciplined and too fearful to take the time out to find out for myself. Are "Duelle" and "Noroit" kick-ass action movies?
David Ehrenstein
"Noroit"?
--- Rick Segreda
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
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!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2525
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:23am
Subject: Re: Vive Tarantino! Vive le Cinema! Rivette?
"Duelle" and "Noroit" are two parts of an unfinished
quartet of films entitled "Scenes de la vie parallele"
They all involve a battle between goddesses of the Sun
and the Moon over posession of a magic diamond, and
echo particular genres. "Duelle" is a "film noir"
starring Bulle Ogier and Juliet Berto as the godesses
and features Hermione Karagheuz, Jean Babilee and
Nicole Garcia. It's filled with echoes of "Kiss Me
Deadly" and "The Big Sleep," but is also inspired by
"The Seventh Victim" -- which Rivette screened for the
entire cast before shooting. Shot in a spookily
unpopulated Paris it has many Cocteau references (most
strongly "Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne") as well, ad
his verse play "The Knights of the Round Table" is
frequently quoted. The film's music, which is
performed live, is by Jean Wiener, who was an
associate of Les Six and performed atBouef Sur le Toit
in the 20's.
"Noroit" is a pirate movie ("Moonfleet" was screened
for the cast) starring Bernadette Laffont and
Geraldine Chaplin and the quoted text is Tourneur's
"The Revenger's Tragedy."
Both films contaoin rapturous ninja-like battles
between the antagonist/ protagoists with much fancy
footwork executed in a deliberate almost slow motion
style.
Rivette started the third film "The Story of Marie and
Julien" starring Leslie Caron and Albert Finney as the
mortals in the story, but after three days suffered a
nervous breakdown.
This year he took up that script -- much altered and
with a different cast -- and filmed it. Instead of
goddesses Rivette had ghosts.
I think "Duelle" is my favorite Rivette.
--- Rick Segreda
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2526
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:56am
Subject: Rivette, Tarantino, Eastwood
So David, what is Merry-Go-Round, the film with Maria Schneider that
I saw at UCLA and liked as much as Duelle and Noroit? I was under the
impression it was the 3d film in the unfinished teralogy (sp?). I
haven't seen the new one, but I definitely felt that Secret Defense
was a sort of fourth film of the series, because it has the goddesses
again, in human guise this time. Not as good as the actual Filles du
feu films, of course.
Rick, you probably won't like Rivette, but he is arguably the
Tarantino of the New Wave, the only one of those directors who still
sees everything and loves films like Starship Troopers. He just does
something else. (By the way, is Alan Sharp's line about paint drying
lifted from somehwere? Tonight I snuck into exactly one minute of the
pre-title sequence of Kill Bill, saw Uma get iced in black and white
and will go back for more. I had just seen Mystic River and was in no
mood to see more.
Mystic River is a good Eastwood, not as good as Unforgiven, but I
always prefer his Leone/Ford films to his Siegel/Hitchcock films.
(Theory: Hitchcock was to Siegel as Ford was to Leone - Eastwood is
just better at introjecting his western grandpa than his eastern
grandpa.) Nonetheless, it's very good, and very well acted. Even
though Eastwood doen't write his scripts, his films stand or fall on
the quality thereof, and this is a good script. The direction is
transparent, not flashy as in Unforgiven, but we like that, too.
Biette might say "an auteur who is a good metteur-en-scene of his own
themes," but not a filmmaker (a cineaste), engaged in a creative
dialogue with the world and time and the history of his artform.
(Metteurs-en-scene and auteurs can have anxiety of influence and
resolve it successfully, too.)
As Biette points out, citing The Ghost and Mrs. Muir and The Private
Life of Sherlock Holmes, auteurs who are good metteurs-en-scene of
their own themes sometimes make more beautiful movies than cineastes.
(I have to adopt the French for "filmmaker" when I use Jean-Claude's
terms.) For example, the last film-by-a-cineaste I saw was Georges
Bataille's Story of the Eye, and it is nowhere near as beautiful as
Mystic River - in fact, it's ugly.
In any event, I'm as eager as anyone for Clint to knock one out of
the park, and where there's life there's hope. Huston (whom he played
very deftly) finally became a cineaste in his last film, and The Man
with No Name may earn his yet, but he'll have to struggle with the
angel, as Huston did, to get it.
2527
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 0:53pm
Subject: second- (or third-) tier Rivette
Those Rivettes that David mentions sound awesome. I've only seen
three Rivette films, the most recent was L'AMOUR PAR TERRE, recently
shown at New York's French Institute. I didn't much care for it,
although I was able to identify characteristic "Rivette-ness" all the
way through. The premise is fascinating: holding a complex
theatrical production in a person's house or apartment, keeping the
ending a secret even from the actors, having Jane Birkin play the
male lead (or something like that). Anyway, maybe it was the print,
but the film looked horribly drab, and there didn't seem to be much
life in it overall. Still there were a few clever moments, perhaps I
missed something.
-Jaime
2528
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 1:35pm
Subject: Re: Rivette, Tarantino, Eastwood
"Merry Go Round" is separate from the "Scenes de la
Vie Parallele" project, but related in mood. Rivette
wanted to put himself back in the game again, and make
a film with Maria Schneider. Schneider said she'd love
to provided her leading man was . . .Joe Dallesandro.
As Dallesandro had just appeared in Boroscyck's [sp]
"La Marge" with considerable success (it never played
the U.S.) there was the hope of "Merry Go Round" being
a serious erotic film. But when the time came to shoot
it Schneider wasn't up to it. In fact toward's the
last part Rivette "replaces" her in the story with
Hermione Karagheuz.
It's a very strange film -- even for Rivette. I love
the use of the jazz players in it and Dallesandro's
climactic "OK cut the crap, Shirley!"
"L'Amour par Terre" is pleasant but definitely
second-drawer Rivette. It was inspired by "Tamara" --
a play that was enacted thorughout a mansion here in
Los Angeles. I think his notions of
theatrical/cinematic interplay were better served in
"La Bande des Quatres."
"Secret Defense" is indeed a revenge film. In fact
it's a modern dress take on "Electra." But it's not an
'action' film at all in the usual sense. In fact the
entire story pivots on a lengthy train ride during
which Sandrine Bonnaire decides to slay the film's
chief villain.
--- hotlove666
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2529
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 2:39pm
Subject: LISTS I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
I like to peruse 'best' lists as guides for movies to see (should the
opportunity arise).
One of the problems I see with lists, however, is that no one knows
what movies have not been seen. If a movie has not been seen, how can
it be on the list? The absence of a movie on a 'best' list has no
meaning.
Suggestions?
Perhaps from a corpus of 100 Best Movies, like AFI's or Rosenbaum's or
others, people could rate their top 20 and bottom 20 and include a
category of "have not seen."
Personally, I find it difficult to even imagine making a list of best
movies for myself or others. I don't even keep a list of the movies I
have seen. In the past few years, I have averaged at least 2 movies
daily, if not more -- I know I won't catch up with the career cinema
people -- and will keep following lists for guidance. At the same
time, I am beginning to have a sense of what cinema can be about and
how my own taste can develop. For a long time, I was interested in
seeing whatever was available in San Diego theaters outside of the main
stream.
I might not like a movie, but can recognize some artistic merit, as in
LOST IN TRANSLATION.
I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
Do you keep a running log of movies and then displace a movie when a
'better' one comes around?
Does a better movie replace a lesser movie of the same genre?
Do you re-rank your films?
2530
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:21pm
Subject: how people who make a list actually make it.
In terms of how I make a list...it depends on the context. The list I submitted (see post: "Listomania!") was a subjective stream-of-consciousness thing; I'd shudder if I had to submit something that was supposed to be objective and official; among other problems is that there many, many movies out there I haven't seen. It's this wee little problem I have with my life called time.
Elizabeth Nolan
opportunity arise).
One of the problems I see with lists, however, is that no one knows
what movies have not been seen. If a movie has not been seen, how can
it be on the list? The absence of a movie on a 'best' list has no
meaning.
Suggestions?
Perhaps from a corpus of 100 Best Movies, like AFI's or Rosenbaum's or
others, people could rate their top 20 and bottom 20 and include a
category of "have not seen."
Personally, I find it difficult to even imagine making a list of best
movies for myself or others. I don't even keep a list of the movies I
have seen. In the past few years, I have averaged at least 2 movies
daily, if not more -- I know I won't catch up with the career cinema
people -- and will keep following lists for guidance. At the same
time, I am beginning to have a sense of what cinema can be about and
how my own taste can develop. For a long time, I was interested in
seeing whatever was available in San Diego theaters outside of the main
stream.
I might not like a movie, but can recognize some artistic merit, as in
LOST IN TRANSLATION.
I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
Do you keep a running log of movies and then displace a movie when a
'better' one comes around?
Does a better movie replace a lesser movie of the same genre?
Do you re-rank your films?
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!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2531
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 3:58pm
Subject: the Manny Farber exam
This is only part of the notorious "Manny Farber final exam," printed
in Film Comment during the 1970s. I was just wondering if we could
collectively attribute all of the quotes to their correct films. I
know one right off the bat, but I won't say it. (It's very obvious.)
9 Identify the movies which provide posterity with the following
great lines:
a "This is the face that says it knows a lot about something."
b "How many breakfasts in the Cafe Kroner?"
c "I have nothing to say and my students sleep in class."
d "We'll be leaving the neighborhood soon. My husband's getting a
promotion."
e "He's going to come toward me, he's going to take me by the
shoulders, he's going to kiss me…he'll kiss me…and I'll be lost!"
f "You were made to the measure of my body."
g "No one's ever crossed our family before."
-Jaime
2532
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:30pm
Subject: Re: LISTS I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
It's no trick to become aware of the "official lists," whether they
contain THE GODFATHER or AU HASARD BALTHAZAR or what. I can
identify "official" listings - but I haven't got much use for them
outside of general reference and curiosity.
It's the individual lists that I like. Looking over my lists, I
noticed that my taste tends towards a number of types of "official"-
dom but eventually betrays all of them. A closer look reveals a
number of "crimes": placing John Carpenter's CHRISTINE over
L'ARGENT, NOSTALGHIA, and THE BOYS FROM FENGKUEI, or placing ATTACK
OF THE CLONES over, well, anything at all.
But here's my secret. I don't give a shit about good movies and bad
movies. You can get that kind of information anywhere - tracking
auteurist tendencies, looking on the AFI website or the IMDb, or the
Sight & Sound poll, and so on. I only care about what I find
stimulating, fascinating, memorable, difficult, life-changing, and so
on.
That's how I order my lists.
As far as what I haven't seen, there's really no time to list all of
the films I haven't seen, although I could take an hour or two to
list the "notable" movies I have *yet* to see, like BALTHAZAR or JACK
FROST 2. Maybe I'll do that one of these days. Until then, nerd
that I am, I *have* kept track of all the films I've seen, throughout
my life, and since May I have maintained a screening log that I
update every day or every couple of days:
log: http://www.filmwritten.org
all films seen: http://www.filmwritten.org/allfilms.htm
later
Jaime
2533
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: LISTS I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
One * for "Rose Hobart" ?!?!!
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2534
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 4:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: LISTS I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
Okay. "Ten Best English-Language Films of the Last Seven Years":
1. New Rose Hotel.
2. New Rose Hotel.
3. New Rose Hotel.
4. New Rose Hotel.
5. New Rose Hotel.
6. New Rose Hotel.
7. New Rose Hotel.
8. New Rose Hotel.
9. New Rose Hotel.
10. New Rose Hotel.
11. New Rose Hotel.
2535
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 5:00pm
Subject: Re: LISTS I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
Thanks for your feedback David. I guess I expect people to focus on
the things that they have problems with, so your reaction is not a
surprise.
However, don't align my ratings system with the Maltins and the
Eberts. (It's explained on the site, just look for the links near
the top.) It's a (rather unscientific) measure of the impact that
the film had on me. A single star means something positive, it's not
meant to imply the absence of the other three (i.e. something
negative).
I failed to see the enormous appeal of ROSE HOBART on one viewing,
but for all I know I could grow to like it or love it. There's a
tribute to Cornell coming to Anthology in October or November, so
there's an immediate second chance.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> One * for "Rose Hobart" ?!?!!
>
> --- "Jaime N. Christley"
> wrote:
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
2536
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 5:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: LISTS I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
A number of yeas ago in New York there was a screening
(at a place whose name escapes me at the moment) of
"Rose Hobart" followed by the film from which it's
chiefly derived, "East of Borneo." Once the latter was
screened I insisted that "Rose Hobart" be screened
again -- and it was to the delight of the crowd.
As I'm sure Fred Camper will attest, "Rose Hobart" was
an enormously influential film, impressing both Jack
Smith and Ken Jacobs among others.
BTW, it was not until the last years of her life that
Rose Hobart became aware of "Rose Hobart."
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2537
From: programming
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 5:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: LISTS I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
> David E. wrote:
>
> As I'm sure Fred Camper will attest, "Rose Hobart" was
> an enormously influential film, impressing both Jack
> Smith and Ken Jacobs among others.
>
> BTW, it was not until the last years of her life that
> Rose Hobart became aware of "Rose Hobart."
>
>
>
> Speaking of Jacobs, for those of you in/near Chicago, DOC Films at the
> University of Chicago is showing the great Tom Tom the Pipers Son tonight
> (7pm). A must see. Better than anything you're likely to see at the
> International fest.
>
> David, is there any information as to whether Rose ever *saw* Rose Hobart
> and/or what she thought of it (or the idea of it if she didn't see it)?
>
>
> Patrick Friel
> Chicago
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2538
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 5:39pm
Subject: Re: LISTS I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
David - Thanks for the information and the delightful anecdote. What
impresses you about the film? I would like to learn more about it (I
am already aware of its status as a classic).
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
2539
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 5:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: LISTS I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
Cornell was a great movie fan, and an enormous
appreciator of actresses. He was mezmerized by the
impression certain women had on him, especially in
regard to his love of silent film. He once wrote (and
here I'm paraphrasing) that Hedy Lamarr carried with
her some aspect of the silent cinema into the talkies.
"East of Borneo" was a sound film. "Rose Hobart" is a
silent one. Re-edited by Cornell we see Hobart moving
about the maharajah's palace much like Delphine Seyrig
in "Last Year at Marienbad."
What Cornell does her must also be compared with Bruce
Conner's work, particularly "A Movie" and "Valse
Triste."
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2540
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 5:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: LISTS I am curious how people who make a list actually make it.
Rose Hobart spent her last years at the Motion Picture
County Home -- a very nice place, BTW. I believe she
may have seen Cornell's film, but I'm not entirely
sure. In any case she was amazed to have learned of
its existence.
--- programming
wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2541
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 6:05pm
Subject: Recantation
I take back what I said about Mystic River. Ironically, it was a
review by Andy Klein - one that is as moderate in its estimate of
the film as my first post - that changed my mind completely. I
think he did knock it out of the park this time. Now I'll have to
revisit Heartbreak Ridge and Unforgiven, and along with them
my statement that this is the first time.
2542
From: Eric Henderson
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 8:39pm
Subject: Re: lists; sense of futility
This is an interesting discussion because, in the midst of
procrastinating on an essay about "Gertrud" and another short piece
on Donna Summer's "On the Radio," I found myself attempting to revise
some of my top ten lists that ought to die.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
> I'm very lazily working on my personal webpage top 10 lists, and am
> doing them in tiers, which in principle is identical to the color
> system (though with fewer degrees). Paul Fileri submitted a "best
> of" list to 24fps for 2001 that was done in three tiers ... that's
> more or less what I'm leaning towards for my eventual upload.
>
I think the tier system is starting to resemble some sort of ideal
with me as well, as far as structured lists go. Some of the more
splattered-out lists that I've seen (no set number of films, no
tangible order, no constraints by genre, year, country, format, or
sexual preference) are probably the most *meaningful*, in their way.
But I really think I need to give up on listmaking until I have
enough material to make a list with. The sad truth of the matter is
that I haven't seen very many films; I'm in the group of cinephiles
with smaller appetites.
At this point, my list of "greatest ever" films is invariably
populated by at least one-third (sometimes one-half) with films I've
seen within the two or three months previous to drafting the list.
(Does anyone else have this problem? or is it even a problem?) The
result? At this moment, I've actually found a slot for the pretty bad
Dolemite film "Human Tornado" on my 1976 list, simply because I feel
like covering the Blaxploitation base and I happen to have seen it
yesterday.
2543
From:
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:39pm
Subject: Eastwood
Bill,
Add "A Perfect World" to your list of Eastwood films to re-see. I haven't
seen "Mystic River" yet, but the instant the earlier film ended, I felt it was
Eastwood's masterpiece. I believe Kehr thinks so too. Oddly enough, I've
never warmed to "Unforgiven" like most of the rest of the world; I like it, but it
can't help but look like a warm-up when put next to "A Perfect World." I
should probably give it another shot.
Of his films in between "Perfect" and "Mystic," nothing feels very major to
me, but a few come incredibly close: most notably, for me, "The Bridges of
Madison County" with its very sophisticated and moving portrayal of adultery and
Eastwood's quartet of recent films reflecting on his own aging (which Zach has
written very perceptively about), "Absolute Power," "True Crime," "Space
Cowboys," and "Blood Work." My own favorites among those are probably the middle
two.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2544
From: Frederick M. Veith
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 0:02am
Subject: Re: second- (or third-) tier Rivette
Jaime,
You should know that the print screened at the French Institute was (a
16mm print) of the 125m cut. There is a longer cut, approximately 3 hours
long. I'm not totally clear as to whether the longer cut enjoys greater
directorial sanction (though this is the version which recently appeared
on DVD in France). Nor have I seen it, but here's what Jonathan Rosenbaum
had to say about it (Sight and Sound, Spring 1989) when it screened at
Rotterdam:
"For most viewers, alas, the length of such films [Out 1 and L'Amour par
terre] automatically places them 'outside competition,' and it was no
surprise to find them sparsely attended. But Rivette sorely needs his
extended structures, and both films demonstrate beyond any doubt that the
more extended they are, the more lucid their intentions become. At two
hours L'Amour par terre seemed mainly a rehash of Rivettean intrigues
about theatre, and I feared an additional hour would only mean more of the
same. But in fact most of this hour focuses on the sexual relationships of
the two heroines (Geraldine Chaplin and Jane Birkin), and the film falls
into place as a classically balanced story about friendship and betrayal,
with theatre now serving a much more marginal role. While it still can't
be regarded as major Rivette, it can no longer be deemed a failure like
Hurlevent."
(For the record, I don't agree that Hurlevent is a failure.)
Also, on the question of alternate cuts and directorial sanction, I would
caution people to stay away from the Facets video release of Rivette's
Jeanne la Pucelle. It's a distributor enforced cut which Rivette has
disavowed (and with good reason, it butchers the film).
Finally, David wrote a longer piece on Duelle and Noroit which appeared in
Cine-Tracts #3, which is available online at:
http://www.modjourn.brown.edu/MJP_Cine.htm
Fred.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Jaime N. Christley wrote:
> Those Rivettes that David mentions sound awesome. I've only seen
> three Rivette films, the most recent was L'AMOUR PAR TERRE, recently
> shown at New York's French Institute. I didn't much care for it,
> although I was able to identify characteristic "Rivette-ness" all the
> way through. The premise is fascinating: holding a complex
> theatrical production in a person's house or apartment, keeping the
> ending a secret even from the actors, having Jane Birkin play the
> male lead (or something like that). Anyway, maybe it was the print,
> but the film looked horribly drab, and there didn't seem to be much
> life in it overall. Still there were a few clever moments, perhaps I
> missed something.
>
> -Jaime
2545
From: filipefurtado
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 0:20am
Subject: Re: Eastwood
Honkytonk Man is wonderful. Other early Eastwood's that are
very good are Play Misty for Me, Outlaw Josey Welles, Bronco
Billy, Pale Rider and Firefox. Everything from Bird on (with
exception of the Rookie which I like more than most people,
BTW) is really very good or better(and that includes the much-
maligned Absolute Power, which is a lot better than William
Goldman's awful script).
I do think A Perfect World is almost as good as Unforgiven.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
2546
From: filipefurtado
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 0:39am
Subject: Re: Re: H'art core
>At least this gives me a chance to praise
> Limosin. My first JPL film was l'Autre nuit, shown in a doub
le bill
> from Unifrance with Brisseau's aptly named Le bruit et la fu
reur, a
> loud-
mouthed, crude piece of fake filmmaking that drowned out for
> most members of the audience the beauty of the second featur
e, which
> reminded me a bit of Cocteau. I have also seen and like Gard
ien de
> nuit, co-
directed by Limosin and former Cahiers guy (due for a
> comeback at the magazine, my sources say) Alain Bergala.
Let me disagree here, Bill. I've seen two films by Brisseau
and two by Limosin and I think Brisseau is a far better
filmmaker. I didn't care to Tokio Eyes at all, but I do like
Novo, but I'm afraid that the many gynecological shots of
Anne Mouglais sticks in the mind a lot more than the film.
Great to heard that Bergala will be back at Cahiers.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
2547
From: iangjohnston
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 1:26am
Subject: Bergala
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
> Great to heard that Bergala will be back at Cahiers.
>
> Filipe
>
Bergala's already back, in the October Cahiers, with a piece on
Godard's "Six Fois deux" and "France Tour Detour Deux Enfants" at
the Lussas Documentary Festival.
Ian
2548
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 2:58am
Subject: Re: Eastwood
BREEZY!!!
-Jaime
2549
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:10am
Subject: Re: the Manny Farber exam
Tennis? Anyone?
Name the movie:
a "This is the face that says it knows a lot about something."
b "How many breakfasts in the Cafe Kroner?"
c "I have nothing to say and my students sleep in class."
d "We'll be leaving the neighborhood soon. My husband's getting a
promotion."
e "He's going to come toward me, he's going to take me by the
shoulders, he's going to kiss me…he'll kiss me…and I'll be lost!"
f "You were made to the measure of my body."
g "No one's ever crossed our family before."
-Jaime
2550
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:31am
Subject: Re: Eastwood
"Bronco Billy" is just sublime - it calls to mind another film of the
early '80s about a rag-tag troupe of idealistic performers, George A.
Romero's wonderful "Knightriders." Ironically enough, in the case of
each movie, the director has called it their personal favorite among
their own works. I think this has something to do with the way in
which the movies reflect an idealized vision of a movie company, a
film set, full of backstage camaraderie, transience (moving from town
to town; from movie to movie), and a commitment among the whole
company to a single goal. It's easy to see why Eastwood and Romero -
two directors who, by the way, almost invariably work with the same
crew - are fond of this vision.
Of all the Eastwood movies I've watched this year (I've been going
through his canon systematically, as I also have been doing with
Cimino and Vidor lately), I think "Bronco Billy" was my most pleasant
discovery.
And Filipe's right about "Absolute Power" too. Eastwood is way too
sophisticated to let William Goldman's words get in his way.
Peter
2551
From:
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 11:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Vive Tarantino! Vive le Cinema!
Jake,
I'd agree that, reputation aside, one can't really tell from Tarantino's past
work whether or not he'd be at all adept with action sequences. I'm relieved
to say - since "Kill Bill" has many of them - that he is (or has become) very
adept with them. There's real spatial integrity in this film in the sense
that the audience is generally always very clear where they are in a given
space. I believe this is at least partly because his editing during these
sequences, while tight and certainly very kinetic and involving, is not MTV-quick nor
does it obscure space as Michael Bay and his minions do in their action
movies. I marveled at the way Tarantino and (presumably) his fight choreographers
blocked these scenes, particularly the final fight between The Bride and O-ren
- which takes place outdoors, at night, in a snow garden.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2552
From:
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 11:57pm
Subject: A note on the Coens
Like Jake, my enthusiasm for the Coens peaked about the time of "Hudsucker
Proxy." Said enthusiasm has waned considerably in the years since, although I
liked "The Big Lebowski" (which came out a few years after "Hudsucker") a great
deal at the time and it's one I still have some fondness for. A few months
back, we were discussing the Coens in the context of Wilder, and Bill, I
believe, pointed out that they are Wilders' true heirs. That's my problem - I can't
disagree! And, in my view, they've yet to make anything close to the more
melancholy, toned down works which dot Wilder's career and justify it for me - a
"Love in the Afternoon" or "Avanti!" I haven't seen "Intolerable Cruelty"
yet, but I've heard from friends that it's as cold as anything they've done.
This is why Dan's periodic comments that the auteur theory may be more of a
collection of tastes than an actual "theory" makes increasing sense to me - the
Coens are as directorially distinctive as they come, they are clearly auteurs,
yet I resist most of their works because it always comes off as too nasty, too
remote for my tastes.
Maybe I'm missing something, though, because people make those same charges
about Kubrick and I think Kubrick's a very emotional, committed director in his
best films. A cynic, sure, but increasingly inclined to follow that cynicism
down tragic rather than nihilistic paths - there is a difference!
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2553
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 4:17am
Subject: Eastwood loses the subplot
Filipe : "I do think A Perfect World is almost as good as Unforgiven."
Except maybe for that godawful subplot with Laura Dern??
Subplots: the curse of TV-oriented American cinema today. Can you imagine a
Catherine Breillat film (just as one of many possible examples) with a
subplot - half of ROMANCE or PERFECT LOVE! devoted to a couple of cops
working out their whimsical ways in order to give us a little light relief
from the 'intense' stuff ?? VOYAGE TO ITALY with a subplot? NEW ROSE HOTEL
(I like it too!) with a subplot ???
And the difference between a contrived subplot and a true, meaningfully
structured 'parallel plot' can be spotted a mile away. That's the difference
between the art-film conventions that gave cinema new life in the 60s, and
TV formulae.
Although I did note that Chris Marker is a fan of THE PRACTICE !!!!
Adrian M.
2554
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:13am
Subject: Eastwood, The Coens
1. I like some things in Perfect World - of course, the scene in the
tied-up peoples' home with the phonograph going - but it shares a
failing with other Eastwoods, like Bridges: There are really only 2
characters in the film, the hero (whether or not played by Eastwood)
and the audience surrogate throuygh whose eyes he is seen, and
valorized: the kid, Meryl Streep. (This is what Luc Moullet calls
Eastwood's "liberal demagogic side." It's not unrelated to what
Adrian was saying about other troublesome conventions in his work.)
When I saw Perfect World I had just seen The Young One, one of my
favorite Bunuels, which also has a "young one" at the center, and I
was painfully aware of the thinness of the Eastwood in comparison: in
Bunuel's film of Hugo Butler's script, you have three full-blown
characters, each acting out his/her own destiny in a way that is
neither predictable nor ultimately even understandable to the
spectator.
That's a hell of a long way from the conventions that Spielberg and
others established for Hollywood beginning in the 70s, and which
Eastwood follows in his own way, with that need to control and
channel audience response through a surrogate figure. Eastwood
himself can become a surrogate for the audience, too, as he does when
he is observing the signs of sexual repreession in Streep's
character, which the audience sees with him, making them feel smart
and empowered like Clint. On the one hand: Clint as the director
figure, whose acute insights into everything we can share; on the
other hand: an audience surrogate through whose eyes Clint, or even
the problematic man played by Costner, is built up, made ok, shown to
be loveable and good, or in the case of Bridges, desirable. I agree
that that moment in Perfect World with the record playing is great
cinema, precisely because it breaks out of the reassuring set-up,
making us feel for an uncomfortable couple of minutes that Butch
isn't what we thought he was - that's a scene Bunuel would have
liked, but it is one scene, and not really well integrated into the
film, which goes back to canonizing Butch as he lies dying. And I
agree that no one could have done it but Eastwood. There's a scene a
bit like it with Tim Robbins and Marcia Gay Hardin in Mystic River.
Let's take a lesser film, Absolute Power. It is impossible to read
the spatial relationships in the scene of the murder Clint witnesses
because he refused, over the dead bodies of his own collaborators, to
film a shot of himself on the closet side of the two-way mirror
seeing into the bedroom. He didn't want that shot - even though it's
what the scene is about. That's a powerful resistance to tarnishing
one's image, despite the claims of critics that he constantly puts
his image at risk. No star does. He doesn't.
A complex, gifted guy, and an auteur all the way - no doubt of that.
But as Peter just said about the Coens, that's not always enough in
itself. Huston is the perfect example: so determined to get his
iconoclastic vision on film that he always felt he could present a
card that read, as Jean-Claude said, "excused from mise-en-scene."
Until The Dead. Eastwood is an auteur and a metteur-en-scene, like
Wilder, but it isn't by playing the old game of "hot" and "cold" that
we can determine if he really deserves a place in the pantheon next
to Siegel or Leone. That's the terrain where my struggle with myself
over Mystic River is going on.
2. The Coens made Miller's Crossing: the exception that proves
(probat) the rule. The music sure helped, but it didn't do the job
all by itself.
2555
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:41am
Subject: Re: the Manny Farber exam
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> Tennis? Anyone?
>
> Name the movie:
Well, this would seem to be the section of his legendary exam that had least to do with matters cinematic, and most to do with whether the students were simply paying attention. Presumably, they had the advantage of having seen (and heard) all the films that semester and in that classroom, which would considerably narrow the playing field.
> f "You were made to the measure of my body."
I assume this is HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR, although (if so) I'm cheating by resorting to Google and he seems to be cheating by eliminating the giveaway incantatory rhythm: "How could I know that this city was made to the measure of love? How could I know that you were made to the measure of my body? ..." (And then I seem to hear the P.A. system chiming "Hiroshima, Hiroshima, Hiroshima")
2558
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:53am
Subject: Re: limiting transvestism to heterosexuals
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan
> For the purposes of discussion, I was limiting transvestism to
> heterosexuals (your straight uncle).
While looking through an old Harvard Film Archive calendar that a friend sent
me for its Ozu blurbs, I belatedly came across a listing for a (non-Ozu) film
that actually seems to fill the bill: JUST LIKE A WOMAN (1994), starring Julie
Walters and Adrian Passar, dir. Christopher Monger. "By day Gerald is a
conservative banker, but by night he is Geraldine. When his wife gets fed up
and throws him out, Gerald rents a room from Monica, a lonely divorcee. A
romance blossoms but when Monica discovers that Gerald is a cross-dresser the deceivingly generic romance takes an unexpected turn. Monica becomes
Geraldine's accomplice in the ruse, accompanying him to transvestite clubs and on an outrageous shopping spree. With a touching understated performance as Gerald/Geraldine, Adrian Passar avoids the usual camp and absurdity, lending his character an odd dignity."
I suspect the outrageous shopping spree is where my own tolerance would end,
but in any case, Maltin's description is similar: "...a heterosexual American
in London who derives pleasure from becoming 'Geraldine' and wearing women's
clothes. The film works because it's never condescending toward Gerald; he's
not a caricature, but rather a guy with an unusual predilection."
2559
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:27am
Subject: Re: The Manny Farber final exam
"How many breakfasts at the Cafe Kroner?" - Unreconciled
2560
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 11:09am
Subject: One confused Dane... / QT
Please forgive me for being confused. Am I right in understanding,
that on one side you guys proclaim QT as a genius and on the other
side trash the Coens a "has beens"? Am I right that you guys think QT
tells amazing stories and that the Coens leave you cold?
I used to be a champion of QT. I still believe that "Reservoir Dogs"
is one hell of a impressive debut, that it shows both talent and flair
and has some refreshing stylistic elements. When "Pulp Fiction" came
out, I was not only impressed, I even deconstucted it and wrote a
paper on it in relation to "the new cinema" and considered it the most
important american film towards renewing american cinema since "Easy
Rider". While I still consider "Pulp Fiction" one of the best films of
the nineties, I overestimated its DJ editing; Not only did it fail to
influence (only a handful of directors show influence) but the
audience grew tired of it extremely fast. That was however irrelevant,
since QT was hotter than hell and everyone wanted to rub on him - and
he didn't mind at all, since he was the center of attention and got
paid more than well.
Then "Jackie Brown" came. I was the first in line and first to leave
the theater. I began to question if QT had any talent. Despite having
been served Hollywood on a silver platter, he had not developed as a
director and relied on the same techniques he had used the last five
years, not realising that the audience had grown bored with them. More
so he's skills as scriptwriter was here limited to take an Elmore "I
write the coolest dialogue" Leonard novel and rewrite it with his own
dialogue, reducing the central story to being less than half of the
film and giving "name" actors more screen time than their parts and
the story ever could justify. Where any decent film maker would note
on something with a mere insert, QT spend several minuts with
bullshitting dialogue, serving no point unless filling time and
allowing some actor screen time. To make it all worse, in the
interviews with QT, it became obvious to me, that he knew tons about
film but little about film making. In short: He could quote any
blaxploitation film ever made, but had no clue why and when a close up
should be used.
I have not seen "Kill Bill" yet and I wont see it until one of my
friends rent it on DVD. Having read the reviews and the fanboy
comments, it is everything that I predicted it to be: A film so flashy
that the audience is distrated from its lacking of depth and story. In
my book QT is all about being cool, he is a copy and paste director,
lacking the knowledge of what he does. I also compare him against the
Coens, but where the Coens study a genre and a style to determine its
mechanisms and then transposes their narrative onto them, QT never
gets further than the intuitive element.
And further, why on earth compare the Coens with Wilder? I can, if I
really try, see the releation in terms of approach to genre, but as
they dont share motifs I really dont understand this comparison.
Finally, what value does the lable "Auteur" have, when it can be
applied to someone as QT?
2561
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 1:50pm
Subject: Re: One confused Dane... / QT
SING OUT LOUISE!
(or in this case, Henrik)
--- Henrik Sylow
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2562
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:24pm
Subject: The Coens and Wilder
A non-dialectical relationship to their own screenplays. Makes the
films kind of heavy and granite-like. Also, cynical, dialogue-driven,
etc. Not that much to do with genre, because Wilder wasn't a director
of genres. I like 'em better than Peter - I like O Brother a lot.
The "auteur" concept is in the process of being deepened and
expanded. J-C Biette's "What is a filmmaker" proposes 4 terms:
director, metteur-en-scene, auteur, cineaste. Cf. Trafic 22. The
Coens, like Wilder, are metteurs-en-scene and auteurs, not cineastes.
2563
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:31pm
Subject: Re: One confused Dane... / QT
> While I still consider "Pulp Fiction" one of the best films of
> the nineties, I overestimated its DJ editing; Not only did it fail to
> influence (only a handful of directors show influence) but the
> audience grew tired of it extremely fast.
Since when are film directors supposed to "influence" and who
determines that everyone who saw PULP FICTION grew tired of the editing
extremely fast?
> Then "Jackie Brown" came. I was the first in line and first to leave
> the theater.
As Sam Jackson says, "Well, bully for you, nigga."
> I began to question if QT had any talent. Despite having
> been served Hollywood on a silver platter, he had not developed as a
> director and relied on the same techniques he had used the last five
> years, not realising that the audience had grown bored with them.
Huh? Again, who determines that everyone was bored with these
techniques that apparently Tarantino had "relied on" as he is so
obviously a hack with no vision, etc.? I am not getting the assumption
here.
1) Tarantino is an overpraised money-driven jerk
2) Everyone hated JACKIE BROWN
WTF???
> More so he's skills as scriptwriter was here limited to take an
> Elmore "I
> write the coolest dialogue" Leonard novel and rewrite it with his own
> dialogue, reducing the central story to being less than half of the
> film and giving "name" actors more screen time than their parts and
> the story ever could justify.
Hell, so sorry that QT wasn't respectful of the hack storyteller Elmore
Leonard who has maybe written one good book and played on the same
genre for years. Bully for Tarantino that he was able to take the
source material and create his own goddamn movie.
> Where any decent film maker would note
> on something with a mere insert, QT spend several minuts with
> bullshitting dialogue, serving no point unless filling time and
> allowing some actor screen time.
Maybe, Henrik, you should abandon your notions of what makes a "decent"
filmmaker and consider that maybe QT (and other directors) think about
dialogue in ways that go beyond the mere storytelling function.
> To make it all worse, in the
> interviews with QT, it became obvious to me, that he knew tons about
> film but little about film making. In short: He could quote any
> blaxploitation film ever made, but had no clue why and when a close up
> should be used.
I have seen JACKIE BROWN no less than 10 times and every time I am
amazed at the technically astute QT as well as cinematographer
Guillermo Navaro (a first-timer, I believe) who also gets a special
thanks credit on KILL BILL. Take for example the final shot of Robert
Forester as he walks into the background of his office, a shot that has
him slowly going out of focus until the image is all specs and blurs.
Very deliberate and also very effective (of where his character stands
at that point, etc.) Or the crane shot that takes us into the empty
yard where the character Beaumont gets shot. Or the split-screen
montage where we see that Jackie has taken Forester's gun. Or the shot
of Jackie approaching Forester once she is bailed out of prison, edited
between Forester's reaction shots and Jackie's defeated image behind
the prison fence. Or the interchanging angles of Forester and Sam
Jackson as they are driving the car to meet Jackie (from a side angle,
cut to Jackie, back and in front). Or the 360 panorama shot when Jackie
is desperate and searching for Ray in the mall. This is not an inept
filmmaker.
> I have not seen "Kill Bill" yet and I wont see it until one of my
> friends rent it on DVD.
Do you really think any film should be watched on DVD?
> Having read the reviews and the fanboy
> comments, it is everything that I predicted it to be: A film so flashy
> that the audience is distrated from its lacking of depth and story.
Go see it, man.
> In my book QT is all about being cool, he is a copy and paste
> director,
> lacking the knowledge of what he does. I also compare him against the
> Coens, but where the Coens study a genre and a style to determine its
> mechanisms and then transposes their narrative onto them, QT never
> gets further than the intuitive element.
Maybe the "intuitive element" is lacking in the Coens....
> Finally, what value does the lable "Auteur" have, when it can be
> applied to someone as QT?
Nobody in this country thinks in terms of genre in the same way at
Tarantino. Except Jarmusch. But they are the only two.
Gabe
2564
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 3:32pm
Subject: Re: One confused Dane... / QT
Henry,
"You guys?" Are you implying that the rest of us love QT/diss the Coens? I greatly admire both filmmakers. I am also put off by this other bit of presumption: "Not only did it [Pulp Fiction]fail to influence (only a handful of directors show influence) but the audience grew tired of it extremely fast." I could point to the flood of "Pulp Fiction" clones that came out in it's wake, the ressurection of John Travolta's career, and even that it made "The Sopranos" possible...but my real problem is with "the audience grew tired of it extremely fast." Not the audience I sat with, or anyone else I talked to.
QT auterism comes across even in his screenplays for "True Romance" and "From Dusk 'till Dawn;" there is a consistent vision of the world that is grim, ironic, and romantic.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2565
From: ingysdayoff
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 4:28pm
Subject: RE: Ken Jacobs
Hello, new writer here.
I was wondering if anyone was going to Ken Jacobs' "Star Spangled to Death"
in NY this Sunday? I believe it's the complete version, over forty years in the
making! I'll be there, supporting one of my favorite former professors.
Michael
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, programming
wrote:
> > David E. wrote:
> >
> > As I'm sure Fred Camper will attest, "Rose Hobart" was
> > an enormously influential film, impressing both Jack
> > Smith and Ken Jacobs among others.
> >
> > BTW, it was not until the last years of her life that
> > Rose Hobart became aware of "Rose Hobart."
> >
> >
> >
> > Speaking of Jacobs, for those of you in/near Chicago, DOC Films at the
> > University of Chicago is showing the great Tom Tom the Pipers Son
tonight
> > (7pm). A must see. Better than anything you're likely to see at the
> > International fest.
> >
> > David, is there any information as to whether Rose ever *saw* Rose
Hobart
> > and/or what she thought of it (or the idea of it if she didn't see it)?
> >
> >
> > Patrick Friel
> > Chicago
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2566
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 4:37pm
Subject: Re: The Coens and Wilder
> The "auteur" concept is in the process of being deepened and
> expanded. J-C Biette's "What is a filmmaker" proposes 4 terms:
> director, metteur-en-scene, auteur, cineaste. Cf. Trafic 22. The
> Coens, like Wilder, are metteurs-en-scene and auteurs, not
cineastes.
Could you explain each term, and how a filmmaker ends up as one (or
more) and not another?
-Jaime
2567
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:06pm
Subject: Re: The Coens and Wilder
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"A non-dialectical relationship to their own screenplays. Makes the
films kind of heavy and granite-like. Also, cynical, dialogue-driven,
etc."
Ok and very true :)
"The Coens, like Wilder, are metteurs-en-scene and auteurs, not
cineastes."
I would argue that the very proces Joel and Ethan underwent writing
both "Miller's Crossing" and "Barton Fink" suggests that they are very
much so cineastes aswell.
2568
From: Yoel Meranda
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:50pm
Subject: "Uzak" means "Far" in Turkish
There are lots of interesting discussions in the group and I really
do believe
we should discuss Tarantino in depth (especially because I don't know
what I
feel about Kill Bill and everybody else around me seems to feel the
same
way).
My question is: Has anybody seen anything from the Turkish director
Nuri
Bilge Ceylan? His last film, Uzak, translated to English as
`Distant`, was
shown in the Chicago Film Festival.
I saw Uzak this summer in Istanbul. It is a beautiful film, by far
the best new
film I have seen since spring and definitely one of the best Turkish films ever.
The short thing they wrote about it in the Chicago Film Festival web
site is
actually very good so I'll just paste it here: (no spoilers or
anything like that)
-----
After earning Cannes' Grand Prix and Best Actor awards and the
International
Critics' Film of the Year prize, Distant poises Nuri Bilge Ceylan
(Clouds of
May) for discovery by U.S. audiences. Often compared to auteurs like
Tarkovsky, Antonioni, and Angelopoulos, he returns a third time with
this sly,
stunningly beautiful effort. Urbanite Mahmut's obsessively ordered,
numbed
existence is disrupted when he's forced to put up his unsophisticated
country
relation, Yusuf. But despite their physical proximity, the cousins
find it difficult
to bridge the awkward emotional gulf separating them. An exquisitely
cinematic director, Ceylan (who also wrote, produced, shot, and
co-edited)
lets details, sounds, images, and atmosphere quietly accumulate like
the
snow in his Istanbul cityscapes, ultimately building an emotionally
potent
portrait of profound loneliness.
-----
Unfortunately, I haven't seen the ones he made before that but if you get a
chance of seeing Uzak, don't miss it.
Yoel
2569
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 6:00pm
Subject: Re: "Uzak" means "Far" in Turkish
I enjoyed this film, but mildly. There's no denying the ingenuity of
Ceylan's framing and his ability to express the theme of isolation
(even when you're in close proximity with another person, and he's
your brother), but the development of the narrative felt cliched to
me, and that there was more dry (as in, me itching) space than the
visual and thematic expressiveness could really carry.
SEMI-SPOILER WARNING
However, of the people around me who have seen it, I'm one of the
only ones that feels this way, so there's a good chance that people
will like it a lot, and therefore they should check it out if they
can. It's playing at Anthology later this month, and it will
probably get a low-level "indie"-style release. It is a crowd-
pleaser in a subdued sort of way - the ending is not happy or
triumphant or anything, but it's a likable film. Sad but not
depressing. Kind of sweet.
-Jaime
2570
From:
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 2:18pm
Subject: Re: One confused Dane... / QT
In a message dated 10/14/03 11:31:43 AM, cklinger@e... writes:
>Take for example the final shot of Robert
>Forester as he walks into the background of his office, a shot that has
>him slowly going out of focus until the image is all specs and blurs.
This is an amazing image - the film's penultimate image - and I'm glad you
pointed it out, Gabe. Tarantino has repeatedly cited "They All Laughed" as a
reference point for the style of "Jackie Brown" and I must say that there's a
vaguely similar shot in the Bogdanovich film of Ben Gazzara turning his back to
camera and walking, as I recall, slightly out of focus - emotionally, the
scenes are very similar too.
This couldn't be further from "homage" in my mind - it's all about Tarantino
unpacking the aesthetic of a film he loves and intelligently adapting it to
his own work and style.
Another wonderful cinematic element of the scene you mention: watch the quick
cutting between shots of Forster watching Jackie get in her car and leave,
and POV shots of same; she's left his life with such speed - speed which
registers in the flitting nature of the cutting style - that there's barely a moment
for him to register it. I hope my descriptions do some justice to the
extraordinary technique in this movie.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
2571
From: Sam Wells
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:45pm
Subject: Re: Vive Tarantino! Vive le Cinema!
> I'd agree that, reputation aside, one can't really tell from
> Tarantino's past
> work whether or not he'd be at all adept with action sequences.
I find this a little strange, especially if QT is going to being
praised for the editing re Pulp Fiction: as a director, if you know how
to shoot for the cut, and the cuts "add up" to what I think should be
called the sustained action - which they do in Pulp Fiction IMO, then
it would not surprise me at all that Tarantino has pulled off the
action shooting in Kill Bill (I haven't seen it yet).
>> I have seen JACKIE BROWN no less than 10 times and every time I am
>> amazed at the technically astute QT as well as cinematographer
>> Guillermo Navaro
I really liked this film.... I've read a bunch of Elmore Leonard and
dialogue aside (I don't care) it had the tawdry low-rent *feel* I've
gotten from those books more so than any adaptation or variation on
Leonard style....
(I was virtually alone on a cinematography list I belong to in
defending how that guy shot Jackie Brown.... for the same reasons...
the visuals were an analog to what the film was about, not boilerplate
technical mannerism...
-Sam Wells
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2572
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 8:29pm
Subject: Kill Quentin Volume 1
Here's a piece on Tarantino with which I heartily
concur:
http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=844
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2573
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Kill Quentin Volume 1
Yes, it looks like that article shares your point of view and appeals
to a writer of your sensibility. I can see why you concur with it so
strongly.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Here's a piece on Tarantino with which I heartily
> concur:
>
> http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=844
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
2574
From: Rick Curnutte
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 8:45pm
Subject: Re: Kill Quentin Volume 1
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Here's a piece on Tarantino with which I heartily
> concur:
>
> http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=844
I think that's one of the funniest articles I've read this year. Is
this supposed to be posing as serious commentary of any kind? I
can't believe anyone would take such an uber-PC, lifeless piece of
flaming "journalism" seriously.
"SCREAM was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers..."
COME ON! Is there anyone who is still legitimately trying to blame
high school killings on violent movies? Give me a break.
Rick Curnutte
Editor, THE FILM JOURNAL
www.thefilmjournal.com
2575
From:
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 8:59pm
Subject: Ken Jacobs
Good night nurse! So Ken Jacobs has finally completed "Star Spangled to Death"! He was working on that when I was still a teenager in the 1960's.
Jacobs' "Little Stabs at Happiness" is one of the more endearing experimental films of the 1960's. I saw this film at Anthology Film Archives in 1973. It is bringing back happy memories of youth.
Recently, some of Jacobs' recent films have shown up on Sundance Channel, here in the US. They were followed by interviews with the director. I'd never seen Mr. Jacobs, and was very pleased to see this gifted film maker look so hale and hearty. Not to mention VERY articulate.
Mike Grost
PS. Pa Perkins always used to say "Good night nurse!" in the 1910's comic strip "Polly and her Pals". This is one of the high points of comics history.
David Ehrenstein is not the only person with exclamations :)
2576
From: programming
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 9:12pm
Subject: Re: Ken Jacobs
Mike G. wrote:
"Good night nurse! So Ken Jacobs has finally completed "Star Spangled to
Death"! He was working on that when I was still a teenager in the 1960's.
Jacobs' "Little Stabs at Happiness" is one of the more endearing
experimental films of the 1960's. I saw this film at Anthology Film Archives
in 1973. It is bringing back happy memories of youth.
Recently, some of Jacobs' recent films have shown up on Sundance Channel,
here in the US. They were followed by interviews with the director. I'd
never seen Mr. Jacobs, and was very pleased to see this gifted film maker
look so hale and hearty. Not to mention VERY articulate."
Well, I think it's more correct to say it's "completed" - you never know
with Ken!
And it's 6 plus hours!!
Mike G., what of Ken's work was on the Sundance Channel??
Michael, I'll be in NY for the Views and wouldn't miss SSTD.
Perhaps there should be a mini-"a_film_by" get together if enough of you NY
based listmembers can tear yourselves away from the Coens and Tarantino and
go see a REAL filmmaker!
Patrick Friel
(Chicago)
from the NYFF website:
(Jacobs on SSTD)
Video makes its present release possible. Yeah, yeah, it ain't film, and I'd
already begun my quest with it into the actuality of film rather than film
as transparency. Rising from my own abstract-expressionist mindset. Let me
be. I so appreciate what video permits (although the work, with one sinful
exception, the reprise of "Are You Havin' Any Fun?", does not take off into
electron freeplay but stays respectful of film limits), and I appreciate the
possibility of cheap DVD distribution. And if anyone has the passion and
money and patience the video can guide final assembly of the film. At age 70
I have to attend to other cine-demands, like leaving something lasting of
what Flo and I did in live performance with the Nervous System and Nervous
Magic Lantern.
"Something lasting"? Habit of thought. I wonder if our masters (the hallowed
image of the White House insists, to the subconscious, that The Old
Plantation prevails) figure, in rationalizing a way to live with their
crimes, that "natural death" is often no less painful than an accelerated
conclusion, so what the hell, the little fuckers will replenish their
numbers soon enough. From where they are we all look alike, excepting those
of us that stand up. I don't feel hopeful when Bush lies are exposed,
implausible to begin with; followers elect to believe, and hold on to
beliefs doggedly. Followers expect leaders to lie and believing an obvious
lie is how they demonstrate their faith. Lying mostly offends professors and
not all of them by a long shot. No, I think we're due to be interrupted,
that history is about to come down through the roof on us this time. Sorry,
truly, but I believe my film-title. Perhaps that it arose to mind almost a
half-century ago and so many of us are still here, in sight of scientific
breakthroughs galore, is reason for confidence in ongoing life. We certainly
can resist the bastards! They are taking our lives, what more can we lose?
Jack fumbled the making of his last film but how meaningful a title is No
President.
Here, explaining, you get gravity. The movie achieves levity.
Is this video the real thing? In the winter of 1959 editing facilities were
two nails in a wall holding two film reels and an enlarging glass and in
2003 a G4 with Final Cut Pro. Better to figure the entirety as another entry
in my found-film oeuvre. I did drop some found-films from the original
collage, including all biographic elements (like my maybe-father's
third-wedding home movies), replacing with items more on track with central
concerns of the work. Stuff gathered over the years with SSTD in mind, only
some that could be squeezed into its ultimate realization. The Follies
entered sometime in the Sixties, the Micheaux's Ten Minutes To Live entered
my life with a bang in 1968 (being up there with the greatest; the DVD of
SSTD should by rights be a double-feature with Ten Minutes To Live seeing as
the titles go so well together) but only infiltrated SSTD during this latest
editing. Ronald Reagan and the twerp presiding now, how ignore them? Perhaps
with precisely the same pitch of outrage as my younger self I would not have
made any concessions to audience capacity, only added things.
There's friends, I know, that will be glum over what they will perceive as
signs of an orderly mind. My head, inside, isn't all that different from
what it was, I didn't become someone else, but I did get the work together
and, in a profound way, that's the problem. It was supposed to lie in a
jumbled heap, errant energies going nowhere, the talented viewer inferring
form. A Frankenstein that fizzled but twitching and still dangerous to
approach. Thoroughly star spangled but still kicking. -
Ken Jacobs
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2577
From:
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 9:21pm
Subject: Violence is Boring
Fight scenes have always seemed like boring interruptions to stories. Do not understand why fight scenes, either fist fights or martial arts, interest people so much. They sure do - box office tallies prove it. But why?
Would much rather see music or colorful spectacle in films - not to mention camera movement!
Uma Thurman was wonderful in "The Golden Bowl". She had a movie with a PLOT - and what a plot. If James Ivory had interrupted the film every two minutes for a sword fight, he wouldn't have had any time left over for the story.
Mike Grost
Narrative rules!
2578
From:
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 5:40pm
Subject: Re: Violence is Boring
In a message dated 10/14/03 5:29:14 PM, MG4273@a... writes:
>Would much rather see music or colorful spectacle in films - not to mention
>camera movement!
I'm not sure you'll like "Kill Bill," Mike, but the film does have these
things in spades - as I've been trying to express in my posts, it's a very, very
elegant piece of work, not just a series of form-less fight sequences.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
2579
From: Eric Henderson
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:16pm
Subject: Re: Violence is Boring
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Narrative rules!
yes, of course, but cinema is also pretty good.
I agree with Peter here. Many violence sequences in films I deeply cherish
(Dressed to Kill, for instance) have the same qualities you speak of, and in
spades. Camera movement, air-tight spaciality (and provocative violations
thereof), codes of color, atmosphere, references to the underlying themes of
the film (in this case, mirrors and doubles), the wrap-up of one story thread
and the seamless introduction of a new one... it's all there in the elevator
sequence of Dressed to Kill.
2580
From:
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 7:12pm
Subject: Re: Violence is Boring
I have to agree with Peter and Eric, on second thought - its true, a film can
have both violence AND cinematic merit. The example that springs to mind
right away is "Blade Runner" (Ridley Scott). This is an remarkable science fiction
movie. I saw it in 70mm, projected in a large auditorium. You felt that you
were really flying on winged vehicles through the city of the future! It is a
real experience, unlike anything else in the cinema.
I looked away during the gory parts!
I wish special effects were more often used to create a sense of wonder,
rather than for gruesomeness. Maybe some day we'll have an IMAX film that is a
trip through the "bottled city of Kandor" in Superman comics - Otto Binder's
glorious science fiction invention.
I loved a 3D IMAX film that showed us huge versions of DNA molecules. The
camera flew all over these giant structures, which seemed hundreds of feet long.
It was wonderful.
Mike Grost
2581
From: Sam Wells
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 0:29am
Subject: Re: Violence is Boring
> If James Ivory had interrupted the film every two minutes for
> a sword fight, he wouldn't have had any time left over for the story.
If James Ivory interrupted his films every two minutes for sword fights
he might actually get me into the theater once in a while ;-)
-Sam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2582
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 11:44pm
Subject: Re: Ken Jacobs
I had the opportunity of taking one of Ken's final classes last fall, before he retired. His cinematic innovations match his challenging and always fascinating personality, and I
am enthralled to see that he's been so productive in the past year! J. Hoberman wrote some very nice comments about "Star Spangled to Death" today in the Voice, and I
think he was a Jacobs student as well.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: MG4273@a...
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:59:39 -0400
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] Ken Jacobs
Good night nurse! So Ken Jacobs has finally completed "Star Spangled to Death"! He was working on that when I was still a teenager in the 1960's.
Jacobs' "Little Stabs at Happiness" is one of the more endearing experimental films of the 1960's. I saw this film at Anthology Film Archives in 1973. It is bringing back happy
memories of youth.
Recently, some of Jacobs' recent films have shown up on Sundance Channel, here in the US. They were followed by interviews with the director. I'd never seen Mr. Jacobs,
and was very pleased to see this gifted film maker look so hale and hearty. Not to mention VERY articulate.
Mike Grost
PS. Pa Perkins always used to say "Good night nurse!" in the 1910's comic strip "Polly and her Pals". This is one of the high points of comics history.
David Ehrenstein is not the only person with exclamations :)
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
| http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705021019:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12o885gmo/* ">http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3614674&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM"> sleep_300x250.gif" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"> |
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!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers
2583
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Tue Oct 14, 2003 11:48pm
Subject: Re: Ken Jacobs
I might be around after Star Spangled to Death, but I'm driving from out of town, so I'll see what the other SUNY Binghamton kids are up to. Anyone know if Ken will be there
in person? [He must be!]
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: programming
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 16:12:34 -0500
To: a_film_by
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Ken Jacobs
Mike G. wrote:
"Good night nurse! So Ken Jacobs has finally completed "Star Spangled to
Death"! He was working on that when I was still a teenager in the 1960's.
Jacobs' "Little Stabs at Happiness" is one of the more endearing
experimental films of the 1960's. I saw this film at Anthology Film Archives
in 1973. It is bringing back happy memories of youth.
Recently, some of Jacobs' recent films have shown up on Sundance Channel,
here in the US. They were followed by interviews with the director. I'd
never seen Mr. Jacobs, and was very pleased to see this gifted film maker
look so hale and hearty. Not to mention VERY articulate."
Well, I think it's more correct to say it's "completed" - you never know
with Ken!
And it's 6 plus hours!!
Mike G., what of Ken's work was on the Sundance Channel??
Michael, I'll be in NY for the Views and wouldn't miss SSTD.
Perhaps there should be a mini-"a_film_by" get together if enough of you NY
based listmembers can tear yourselves away from the Coens and Tarantino and
go see a REAL filmmaker!
Patrick Friel
(Chicago)
from the NYFF website:
(Jacobs on SSTD)
Video makes its present release possible. Yeah, yeah, it ain't film, and I'd
already begun my quest with it into the actuality of film rather than film
as transparency. Rising from my own abstract-expressionist mindset. Let me
be. I so appreciate what video permits (although the work, with one sinful
exception, the reprise of "Are You Havin' Any Fun?", does not take off into
electron freeplay but stays respectful of film limits), and I appreciate the
possibility of cheap DVD distribution. And if anyone has the passion and
money and patience the video can guide final assembly of the film. At age 70
I have to attend to other cine-demands, like leaving something lasting of
what Flo and I did in live performance with the Nervous System and Nervous
Magic Lantern.
"Something lasting"? Habit of thought. I wonder if our masters (the hallowed
image of the White House insists, to the subconscious, that The Old
Plantation prevails) figure, in rationalizing a way to live with their
crimes, that "natural death" is often no less painful than an accelerated
conclusion, so what the hell, the little fuckers will replenish their
numbers soon enough. From where they are we all look alike, excepting those
of us that stand up. I don't feel hopeful when Bush lies are exposed,
implausible to begin with; followers elect to believe, and hold on to
beliefs doggedly. Followers expect leaders to lie and believing an obvious
lie is how they demonstrate their faith. Lying mostly offends professors and
not all of them by a long shot. No, I think we're due to be interrupted,
that history is about to come down through the roof on us this time. Sorry,
truly, but I believe my film-title. Perhaps that it arose to mind almost a
half-century ago and so many of us are still here, in sight of scientific
breakthroughs galore, is reason for confidence in ongoing life. We certainly
can resist the bastards! They are taking our lives, what more can we lose?
Jack fumbled the making of his last film but how meaningful a title is No
President.
Here, explaining, you get gravity. The movie achieves levity.
Is this video the real thing? In the winter of 1959 editing facilities were
two nails in a wall holding two film reels and an enlarging glass and in
2003 a G4 with Final Cut Pro. Better to figure the entirety as another entry
in my found-film oeuvre. I did drop some found-films from the original
collage, including all biographic elements (like my maybe-father's
third-wedding home movies), replacing with items more on track with central
concerns of the work. Stuff gathered over the years with SSTD in mind, only
some that could be squeezed into its ultimate realization. The Follies
entered sometime in the Sixties, the Micheaux's Ten Minutes To Live entered
my life with a bang in 1968 (being up there with the greatest; the DVD of
SSTD should by rights be a double-feature with Ten Minutes To Live seeing as
the titles go so well together) but only infiltrated SSTD during this latest
editing. Ronald Reagan and the twerp presiding now, how ignore them? Perhaps
with precisely the same pitch of outrage as my younger self I would not have
made any concessions to audience capacity, only added things.
There's friends, I know, that will be glum over what they will perceive as
signs of an orderly mind. My head, inside, isn't all that different from
what it was, I didn't become someone else, but I did get the work together
and, in a profound way, that's the problem. It was supposed to lie in a
jumbled heap, errant energies going nowhere, the talented viewer inferring
form. A Frankenstein that fizzled but twitching and still dangerous to
approach. Thoroughly star spangled but still kicking. -
Ken Jacobs
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
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!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers
2584
From: jaketwilson
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 0:31am
Subject: Re: The Coens and Wilder
> A non-dialectical relationship to their own screenplays. Makes the
> films kind of heavy and granite-like. Also, cynical, dialogue-
driven,
> etc. Not that much to do with genre, because Wilder wasn't a
director
> of genres. I like 'em better than Peter - I like O Brother a lot.
I agree with this. In both cases everything seems worked out on the
page (or on storyboards) with the actors given little room to
breathe. While I'm ambivalent about Kubrick, I agree that the
similarities are superficial and he's a whole lot more intuitive.
O BROTHER is my favorite Coen Bros since HUDSUCKER, granting that it
has about as much to do with the Depression as, say, Gilbert and
Sullivan's THE MIKADO has to do with imperial Japan. It took two
viewings before I realised that what they were really after was a
kind of classical model of comedy (mock-epic form, reconciliation
between heroes and society achieved through music). THE BIG LEBOWSKI
improved for me the second time round, too -- maybe I should give
INTOLERABLE CRUELTY another shot.
Peter Greenaway: auteur rather than filmmaker, for roughly the same
reasons?
JTW
2585
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 0:57am
Subject: Re: "Uzak" means "Far" in Turkish
I also felt that UZAK is a good film, but that the elements did not
quite add up, despite some very impressive images. The following is
what I'm writing about the film for the next issue of Bright Lights
(Chicago International Film Festival report).
--Robert Keser
A scrawny mouse struggling to free itself from a strip of
sticky paper becomes a metaphor for both protagonists of
DISTANT (UZAK), two cousins who enact a country mouse/city
mouse polarity while trapped in their own circumstances.
One is a lean, languid, fastidious photographer accustomed
to indulging his refined tastes (his intellectual friends
squabble over Tarkovsky) . The other is a young
village man laid off when the local factory closes, leaving
him only with a desire to see the world and a responsibility
to send home money. Snowy vistas of Istanbul alternate with
stunning Anatolian landscapes as attention shifts from one
man to the other. The photographer pursues his career,
reluctantly tends his ailing mother, and still more
reluctantly faces up to his own shortcomings.
Meanwhile, the cousin's goal of a seafaring life proves
to be a pipe-dream, as wrecked as the massive ship on its
side that forms one splendid image, and he longs to connect
with a woman yet cannot make a decisive move. With no
dialogue at all in the opening fifteen minutes, and much
natural sound thereafter, including wind-chimes tinkling
and discreet passages of Bach, director Nuri Bilge Ceylan
lets the contrasts between the men build, using Turkey's
economic downturn as simply a jumping-off point to trace
the knots of alienation in his characters. Eventually,
personal frustrations boil over in the arena of sharing
the photographer's electronics-filled apartment, with
the camera moving into intense close-ups to support the
sincere, thoughtful performances of the two stars (who
shared the Best Actor prize at Cannes). Despite the polished
widescreen photography, which plays with shallow focus to
map out visual planes, the emotional content still seems to
thin out in the end. When Ceylan withholds details—about how
the intellectual contributed to the failure of his
marriage, about what provoked the villager's final
decision—it may seem modish, but life and meaning live in
those details. Considering that the film won the Grand Prize
at Cannes, its concluding image of loneliness—-the cold sea
splashing across the stormy waterfront with
Angelopoulos-like drama—-falls somewhat short of the intended
resonance.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> I enjoyed this film, but mildly. There's no denying the ingenuity
of
> Ceylan's framing and his ability to express the theme of isolation
> (even when you're in close proximity with another person, and he's
> your brother), but the development of the narrative felt cliched to
> me, and that there was more dry (as in, me itching) space than the
> visual and thematic expressiveness could really carry.
>
2586
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 1:02am
Subject: Re: The Coens and Wilder
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jaketwilson"
> O BROTHER is my favorite Coen Bros since HUDSUCKER, granting that it
> has about as much to do with the Depression as, say, Gilbert and
> Sullivan's THE MIKADO has to do with imperial Japan.
Wonderful comparison :)
Actually O Brother is a hypertext of Homer's "Ulysses", there are the
three sirens, Turturro turning into a "frog" represents Circe, Goodman
is the cyclop, the disguese as KKK are the escape from the cyclop (KKK
= sheep), the two politicians are Homer (Homer Strokes) and Joyce
(Pappy).
THE BIG LEBOWSKI improved for me the second time round
I have a personal reading of The Big Lebowski that suggests it to be a
transposition of Hawk's "The Big Sleep" into contemporary LA. The Dude
is Bogey, Bunny is Carmen, Maude is Vivian and so forth. Basicly they
have removed the characters from the story, transposed the skeleton
narrative into 80s LA and rethought the characters. For instance,
where the Femme Fatale in classic Noir was an independent women able
to match any man, she is now everything that Vivian Lebowski is:
Independent to the point that she only needs semen to get pregnant.
And how I love the entrance of Ben Gazzara coming out of the dark into
the light accompanied by this thropical seductive tune.
I honestly dont know if Intolerable Cruelty holds up against the rest.
I find the second half weak and I would have liked to see them tease
eachother some more. Considering their next film "The Ladykillers" (a
remake), they either are taking a break or saving up favors for
something really great. As one of my friends said earlier today: "You
cant expect Fargo every time".
Henrik
2587
From: filipefurtado
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 1:09am
Subject: Re: Eastwood loses the subplot
> Filipe : "I do think A Perfect World is almost as good as Un
forgiven."
>
> Except maybe for that godawful subplot with Laura Dern??
>
I wouldn't call it godawful, but yes it's the least inspired
part of the film (and it's one of the reasons I would rank it
below Unforgiven). Anyway, I do think that it does has some
good moments in it. I like what Kent Jones wrote on Eastwood
related to these in the last Film Comment.
Filipe
> Subplots: the curse of TV-
oriented American cinema today. Can you imagine a
> Catherine Breillat film (just as one of many possible exampl
es) with a
> subplot -
half of ROMANCE or PERFECT LOVE! devoted to a couple of cops
> working out their whimsical ways in order to give us a littl
e light relief
> from the 'intense' stuff ?? VOYAGE TO ITALY with a subplot?
NEW ROSE HOTEL
> (I like it too!) with a subplot ???
>
> And the difference between a contrived subplot and a true, m
eaningfully
> structured 'parallel plot' can be spotted a mile away. That'
s the difference
> between the art-
film conventions that gave cinema new life in the 60s, and
> TV formulae.
>
> Although I did note that Chris Marker is a fan of THE PRACTI
CE !!!!
>
> Adrian M.
>
>
> ------------------------ 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/mOAaAA/3exGAA/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
2588
From: Eric Henderson
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 2:23am
Subject: Re: Violence is Boring
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I wish special effects were more often used to create a sense of wonder,
> rather than for gruesomeness.
Now we're back on the same page again, though I still wish to clarify that my
relationship with violence on screen (being the horror movie freeeak that I
am) is actually pretty based in a sense of wonderment at the relatively
unprotected nature of the human body. Take, for instance, John Carpenter's
remake of "The Thing," which many have (reasonably) faulted for cashing in
the sort of austere, polite terror of "The Haunting" variety in exchange for
some of Rob Bottin's insanely graphic filets of gore. I instead find myself even
more alarmed by the relative ease Carpenter has getting into, around, and
exploding out of the human shell. This violence is in service of an exploration
of what makes a human a human and what makes a pile of organs simple raw
meat. (Brakhage's "Autopsy" does the same thing, non-narratively of course.)
2589
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 1:07am
Subject: Re: Re: Violence is Boring
Permit me to indulge myself in another of my standard-issue diatribes
against "taste." I'll try to limit these to one per year, though I fear
that this may be my second of this year.
Many kids have favorite colors. Some adults do too. This seems to me
exactly the kind of preference one should learn to overcome, since it's
based on a projection of the most superficial level of one's ego onto
the world. Besides, if you don't overcome it, you might wind up
preferring Rembrandt to Vermeer because you prefer brown to white -- or
vice versa.
Similarly, much of what passes for taste in cinema seems to me to be
something to try to overcome, or at least, efface. I'll admit to a
preference, for example, for melodramas over musicals, but I see that as
something to struggle against.
So: whether a film does or does not have violence, comedy, mystery,
speed, silence, action quietude, narrative, sound, blood, shots of the
Buddha, representational versus totally abstract images -- all these
things have no bearing on how good a film it is. And I think the film
viewer, discovering a preference for one of those things over another,
should struggle against such taste. I believe this because for me the
cinematic experience at its highest takes you out of yourself, and
asking that it instead plug itself into your preferences starts you down
the opposite, and ultimately fetishistic, path.
- Fred
2590
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 1:30am
Subject: Rose Hobart (was: LISTS etc.)
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>A number of yeas ago in New York there was a screening
>.... of "Rose Hobart" followed by the film from which it's
>chiefly derived, "East of Borneo." ....
>
>
David, we may have been at the same screening. At least, I was at a
screening exactly like the one you describe, at the Collective for
Living Cinema.. But I'm sorry, I don't remember your presence, though I
tend to walk around in a fog and might well have just not noticed.
I certainly agree with you about the (a) influence and (b) greatness of
"Rose Hobart." Indeed, it seems to have set the modern American found
footage movie on its course, though that mode took a few decades to get
going.
One thing I love about "Rose Hobart" is the abrupt ruptures or breaks in
the editing, moments of extreme disjunction through which magic seems to
enter, a little bit like the effect Cornell gets when marrying disparate
materials or images in his sublime boxes and collages.
It was interesting to see "East of Borneo" too. Near its opening,
there's a scene in which the woman journeys to the jungle kingdom, and
there are lots of hokey Hollywood cuts between her and close-ups of all
those bad things in the forest. I wondered if that highly synthetic
editing, which any experienced movie watcher -- and Cornell, a film
collector himself, certainly was one -- would read not as a successful
creation of menace but rather as failed attempts at synthesis, might
have inspired the extreme disjunctions of Cornell's film.
To anyone who doesn't see the magic of "Rose Hobart," I'd suggest
looking at Cornell's boxes and collages. The Art Institute of Chicago
has a great collection of boxes. The MoMA has some great boxes too,
though who knows if they have any out in their temporary warehouse.
- Fred
2591
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 2:33am
Subject: Greenway
I saw Draftsman's Contract and bowed out. Yes, if he's anything at
all, he's an auteur. Which is why we need more terms.
2592
From: J. Mabe
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 3:23am
Subject: Re: Ken Jacobs
--- Michael Lieberman
> I might be around after Star Spangled to Death, but
> I'm driving from out of town, so I'll see what the
> other SUNY Binghamton kids are up to. Anyone know if
> Ken will be there
> in person? [He must be!]
He was there last year, doing his magic lantern
nervous system performance, and commenting after
Michelle Smith's film... so I don't see why he
wouldn't be... also, I'll be there for the whole Views
program again, too.
There's a question I wanted to pose to some people
who've probably been to far more films then I have...
my interest in movies began in video, and still there
are very few places around my part of the world to see
great films, fewer to see in great settings (I don't
mind multiplexes, just stadium seating). The
Nickelodeon in Columbia is a wonderful little theater
and the Manor in Charlotte hasn't changed much in its
60 years, but is still beautiful (inside anyway)...
so, I was wondering what theaters, either because of
the programming, personnel, the grandeur of the
building, or just the feel of the place, do you love
to visit... if you made a film, where would you love
it to be shown?
My few choices: The Anthology Film Archives, The
theater in the National Gallery in DC, and the Walter
Reade... and I hear the Music Box in Chicago is just
beautiful.
-Josh Mabe
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2593
From: jaketwilson
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 3:47am
Subject: In defense of taste
Fred Camper wrote:
> Similarly, much of what passes for taste in cinema seems to me to
be
> something to try to overcome, or at least, efface. I'll admit to a
> preference, for example, for melodramas over musicals, but I see
that as
> something to struggle against.
Fred,
I've given some thought to this proposition since you advanced it a
while back, but philosophically I'm still in the opposite camp: I
believe "taste" is all there is, and that there is no such thing as
objective value aside from the preferences of specific people with
their idiosyncratic beliefs, attitudes and biographies. To be clear,
what I'm claiming isn't that all opinions are equal, but that having
a subjective point of view is a necessary condition of perception
rather than a block to it. While I don't think criticism is an art,
the best critics resemble artists in having a way of seeing which is
unique to them alone, and illuminating for just that reason. The only
way I know of learning about anything is to trust your tastes and see
where they lead you -- everyone has to follow their bliss, as Josh
Hartnett says in HOLLYWOOD HOMICIDE (not otherwise a good movie).
JTW
2594
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:00am
Subject: Re: Rose Hobart (was: LISTS etc.)
Yes! "Collective For Living Cinema."
Your description of "East of Borneo" is quite
accurate. I have it on tape. Its director, George
Melford, also did the Spanish language version of
"Dracula" -- shot simultaneously with Browning's on
the same sets.
--- Fred Camper
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2595
From: Greg Dunlap
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:06am
Subject: Re: Favorite Theatres
> My few choices: The Anthology Film Archives, The
> theater in the National Gallery in DC, and the Walter
> Reade... and I hear the Music Box in Chicago is just
> beautiful.
The Music Box was going to be my choice, its such a great place. I'm
actually looking into having my wedding there. When I sit down and
think about it, I know that much of my reaction to it is emotional
because of the many many wonderful Music Box viewings I've had. Half
the chairs have busted springs. You can't see the screen in the front
third of the house unless you're six feet tall. Still, it is gorgeous,
the sound is great, and I can't think of anything I'd rather do on a
Saturday morning than go a little early, listen to the organist, and
watch some Buster Keaton movies or whatever else they happen to be
pulling up. They just got outfitted for 70mm too.
I can't say much about places out of town, I've done very little
traveling film viewing.
=====
--------------------
Greg Dunlap
heyrocker@y...
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2596
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:13am
Subject: Re: The Coens and Wilder
Hello? Anyone? I hate to ask for things more than once.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
>
> > The "auteur" concept is in the process of being deepened and
> > expanded. J-C Biette's "What is a filmmaker" proposes 4 terms:
> > director, metteur-en-scene, auteur, cineaste. Cf. Trafic 22. The
> > Coens, like Wilder, are metteurs-en-scene and auteurs, not
> cineastes.
>
> Could you explain each term, and how a filmmaker ends up as one (or
> more) and not another?
>
> -Jaime
2597
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:17am
Subject: the appeal of the problematic text
I just saw one of my very favorite Ozu films yesterday, THE MUNEKATA
SISTERS, and when I mentioned how much I liked it to Michael Kerpan
(Japan/cinema/Ozu-phile at large), he replied, quite unequivocally,
that it was his least favorite Ozu film. Also the two friends I saw
the film with, Dan Sallitt and Jeff Capp, seemed to characterized
their response as: so-so.
Mr. Kerpan's remark alarmed me (I would like everyone to like the
films I like as much as I do) but not too much, since, as a few of us
can attest, when we become mad about a director we develop a baseline
that is likely to omit "problematic texts," of which THE MUNEKATA
SISTERS is certainly a member, insofar as the Ozu canon, and second-
tier canon (RECORD OF A TENEMENT GENTLEMAN, some silents, etc) is
concerned.
Here are my comments on SISTERS:
"...it's like Ozu directing half of a Naruse stock company in a
bizarre melodarama with Ophuls touches here and I don't know what
else. Hideko Takamine (so intense and reserved in the Naruse films)
gives an awesome comic performance, she's like a refugee from a
Howard Hawks comedy; it's as if Paula Prentiss hijacked a Carl Dreyer
film and did some singing, some funny voices, and some dances. She's
so great, I don't know what all. The plot seems ordinary, maybe it
is, but it builds to an immensely satisfying conclusion. (Only
quibble: Yoriko Mashita, the widow who seems snotty, is more a plot
device than a character.)"
This is what Mr. Kerpan had to say:
"This is my least favorite Ozu film. While there are a number of
really interesting scenes, this has never worked for me as a whole.
Ozu (and Noda) apparently had the least freedom in scripting this of
any film he made -- and also the least freedom in casting. This was
based on a popular book of the day, and (Shin)Toho wanted the books
to be transformed into film pretty literally -- and they specified
the actors Ozu would have to use. Normally Ozu would develop his
characters (in script) with a knowledge of who _he_ wanted to cast.
The result here was a film that is exceptionally talky, with
performers shoe-horned into roles in a way not typical for Ozu."
and my response:
"I agree that it's problematic, but that's what's great about it, to
me at least. There are so many conflicting planes (Takamine's
perf., "the Ozu style," the trashy plot, the quiet "just hanging out"
scenes [like when Takamine and Chishu Ryo are doing bird calls],
etc), crashing into one another, sometimes finding strange and
beautiful effects. There are so many jagged edges to the picture...
Even a more problematic Ozu text like HEN IN THE WIND has more
thematic/dramatic unity overall; MUNEKATA SISTERS seems to visit
every possible zone before coming in for the kill. But I like it. I
like it a lot."
I am not mad about Ozu. There seems to be a barrier* between me and
the Ozu style, and I tend to overrate the Ozu films I like because
[a] of the normal reasons but also [b] because they have broken
through that barrier. It's not so simple as someone put it in a post-
screening comment, comparing Ozu's highly consistent style to punk
rock ("I would say to myself, is there some union that says they all
have to have this same beat, etc..."). I guess that Ozu appeals to
my intellect more than my emotions (but to neither one exclusive of
the other), and that neither my instincts nor my intellect are in the
necessary good enough shape to tune into Ozu completely.
(* A barrier that is difficult for me to define because I am
reluctant to set down in words or even conscious thought that which I
resist in art/cinema; I know that as soon as I say it, I will find
exceptions everywhere.)
Also, it is possible that THE MUNEKATA SISTERS is not as good as the
pictures that appear below it in my "favorite films of 1950" list,
such as DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST, GONE TO EARTH, and STARS IN MY
CROWN. If the actors are not 100% suited for their roles, there may
exist a disconnect between Ozu's (and Kôgo Noda's) directorial
(and writerly) impulses, impulses which may be said to be Wicked
Awesome by some commentators, and the impulses of Toho, which may be
said to be mediocre by the same commentators. This disconnect may
have resulted in a film of inferior aesthetic/expressive value. It
could very well be that it is a complete wash-up and I just can't see
it.
It may also be the case that the things that make THE MUNEKATA
SISTERS problematic are also those things that make it great, as Bill
has said about John Ford (but obviously for different reasons). As a
friend of mine said recently, I like films that confuse me.
But then again, maybe I'm just retarded. Good night.
-Jaime
-Jaime
2598
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:36am
Subject: Re: the appeal of the problematic text
"it's as if Paula Prentiss hijacked a Carl Dreyer
film and did some singing, some funny voices, and some
dances."
"Gentlemen Prefer Gertrud," right?
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2599
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 4:39am
Subject: Re: the appeal of the problematic text
YES!!!
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> "it's as if Paula Prentiss hijacked a Carl Dreyer
> film and did some singing, some funny voices, and some
> dances."
>
> "Gentlemen Prefer Gertrud," right?
>
> --- "Jaime N. Christley"
> wrote:
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
2600
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Oct 15, 2003 5:02am
Subject: Re: the appeal of the problematic text
> I just saw one of my very favorite Ozu films yesterday, THE MUNEKATA
> SISTERS, and when I mentioned how much I liked it to Michael Kerpan
> (Japan/cinema/Ozu-phile at large), he replied, quite unequivocally,
> that it was his least favorite Ozu film. Also the two friends I saw
> the film with, Dan Sallitt and Jeff Capp, seemed to characterized
> their response as: so-so.
I'm wrestling with MUNEKATA SISTERS. The part that is sticking with me
is all the stuff around the doomed, semi-unsympathetic husband played by
So Yamamura: his tenderness toward cats; his grim, Naruse-like refusal
to let his wife into his emotional world; the truly scary scene where he
beats her; the weird look on his face when he announces that he's
finally found a job, in the film's most moving scene.
The Kinuyo Tanaka character makes sense to me, probably because she
mostly exists in relation to the Yamamura character.
One of the things I *didn't* think worked is the Ken Uehara character,
the Universal Romantic Interest for the women in the film. I never
really figured out what he was doing in the film or what his issues
were. There's a hint in an Ozu interview somewhere that this character
was not in the book and was added to give the film some romance. (In
which case why cast Uehara, who is convincing only in weak or malevolent
roles? Ozu and Noda seem to sense this, and hint at the character
having a weird passivity. Which helps some, but does not promote the
studio's romance agenda.)
And I must stay that I found Hideko's chipperness a little too much - or
rather, I found it a little too much for its own sake, a little too much
there to entertain us rather than to characterize her. Her banter with
Uehara lacked variety, at the least: that routine where she imitates an
old-fashioned theater narrator is worked pretty hard. (Extratextually,
it's also hard to forget that these are the two actors who will torture
each other in FLOATING CLOUDS five years later.)
In the beginning of the film, I felt as if the script was a bit weak,
hitting ideas too squarely. It recovered somewhat, but there's still a
lot of schema that doesn't really take root for me. Like Hideko being
the modern girl and Kinuyo representing old-fashioned Japan. It doesn't
connect enough to anything else.
> "...it's like Ozu directing half of a Naruse stock company
And part of a Mizoguchi stock company too. Kinuyo didn't seem quite in
the Ozu mold. Apparently Ozu had difficulty working with her, not that
that's relevant.
> in a
> bizarre melodarama with Ophuls touches here and I don't know what
> else.
A lot of Naruse in the story, actually, with a side order of Sandra Dee
and John Gavin from IMITATION OF LIFE.
And then after this I saw LATE SPRING, which works so well and is so
dense with internal connections that I stopped thinking about MUNEKATA
for a while. My feeling at the moment, which is not shared by most
commentators, is that Ozu rarely rises to the level of his best work.
He's never without interest, but most everything I've been seeing has
been levels of inspiration lower than LATE SPRING.
I'm just back from a month away, and have 1000's of messages to catch up
with, so I might not be able to stay current with the discussions here
for a while.
Hi, Gary! Long time no see. - Dan
Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact