Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
2701
From:
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 0:04am
Subject: Taste
As often happens when you have a lot of smart people arguing different
positions on something, I find a little to agree with in what everyone's written on
taste so far. Like everyone, I have my own set of tastes and my own
particular sensibility as a filmgoer. This unavoidably informs how I look at film to
some extent. At the same time, though, I fully agree with Fred that we should
try to not let taste get in the way of appreciating a great film. Let me see
if I can't come up with an example.
Recently I posted on my dislike for the Coens' work. I couched a lot of what
I wrote in terms of taste: the nastiness I detect from so many of their films
rubs me the wrong way. However, it was probably a mistake, from a critical
point of view, to leave my criticism of them at this level because there are
directors who are just as, if not more, cynical than the Coens but whose work I
love: I think immediately of a Fuller or Aldrich or Polanski. The difference
between their work and the Coens is basically that - for a million specific
reasons - I think "Shock Corridor," "Hustle," and "Chinatown" are Very Great and
that "Barton Fink," "Fargo," et al, are not. But cynicism or lack thereof
doesn't even come into the discussion. The lesson I take from this is: cynicism
(or any simplistic attitude; replace it with 'optimism,' if you like) itself
is not a determining factor either way as to a film's quality.
I'd say the same for movies with political outlooks I'm adverse to: if the
work is great, I can get past them; if it isn't, well, it's little better than
propaganda in my book. But the political attitudes themselves - independent of
the formal aspects of film, the things which make great films great - do not
dictate my responses.
So if I pride myself on anything, it's that I try to be able to move past my
own personality and outlook on life when I'm in the presence of a great film.
As Fred often says, one has to remind oneself that anything can theoretically
be great. The challenge is to be prepared to encounter that greatness and
reckon with it when it clashes with one's own sensibility. I'm not saying I
even pass the test 50% of the time - God knows that people I respect make
compelling cases for the Coens, so I could be quite wrong in judging them as not very
great - only that it's something I try to keep in my mind whenever I'm
watching a film.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2702
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:19am
Subject: Re: Taste
Well then it's obvious that what you're responding to
isn't cynicism per se but the way in which its
utilized. Fuller, Aldrich and Polanski deal with
issues of considerable consequence. The Coens never
have. I can't imagine a Coen "Pickup On South Street,"
"Kiss Me Deadly," or "Rosemary's Baby" simply because
they don't have it in them. They've never taken on the
world -- only matchboz replicas of parts of it.
Likewise Tarantino's abstraction leaves me cold
alongside that of Melville. "Le Samourai" isn't a
great film because Alain Delon "looks cool" in it.
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2703
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:26am
Subject: Re: Re: Tarantino's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
I suggested the hooks review to Yoel because (as she notes in the preface) it was written immediately after seeing the film and is the visceral counterpoint to Yoel's response.
It's true that hooks approaches art through the frame of sexuality, gender, race and class, but I believe that this is one possible legitimate way of examining art.
Richard
Zach Campbell wrote:
The formula for hooks' work: decide (with
minimal explication) whether a work of art reinforces or subverts
white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Assign a one-to-one
correlation between linear political schema and aesthetic quality.
Bada-boom.
p.s. Go Red Sox
--Zach
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]
2704
From:
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 0:28am
Subject: Re: Taste
In a message dated 10/17/2003 0:21:39 Eastern Daylight Time,
cellar47@y... writes:
> Well then it's obvious that what you're responding to
> isn't cynicism per se but the way in which its
> utilized.
That's exactly right. Short version of what I just posted: the cynicism of
the Coens wouldn't irk me if their films were great; the cynicism of Polanski
doesn't irk me because his films are frequently very great. Cinematic
greatness can make a lot of things - including philosophical outlook of the filmmaker
- become irrelevant.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2705
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:38am
Subject: Re: Taste
> Recently I posted on my dislike for the Coens' work. I couched a
lot of what I wrote in terms of taste: the nastiness I detect from so
many of their films rubs me the wrong way. However, it was probably
a mistake, from a critical point of view, to leave my criticism of
them at this level because there are directors who are just as, if
not more, cynical than the Coens but whose work I love: I think
immediately of a Fuller or Aldrich or Polanski. The difference
> between their work and the Coens is basically that - for a million
specific reasons - I think "Shock Corridor," "Hustle,"
and "Chinatown" are Very Great and that "Barton Fink," "Fargo," et
al, are not. But cynicism or lack thereof doesn't even come into
the /discussion.
Quick response to this: when we say "cynical" or "optimistic", "left-
wing" or "right-wing" and so on these terms are rough and ready
labels for extremely complex phenomena.
Such labels are often convenient, and there's no reason they
shouldn't be used.
But saying that Polanski and Aldrich and Fuller and the Coens are
all "cynics" doesn't tell us much about what they really feel and
believe. To find that out, we have to look at their films.
To use more summarising terms, we might then say that Polanski's
cynicism is romantic, Aldrich's is decadent, the Coens are mannerists
and Fuller is a realist, of sorts. And the question isn't whether
we "agree" with any of these visions, but whether we find them deep
and rich enough to be worth taking seriously.
What makes a movie good or bad obviously has little to do with
questions like "Is X progressive or reactionary?" But real ideas
can't be reduced to slogans, despite the habits that prevail, by
necessity, in politics, the media and everyday conversation. What
drives people to make art is often the need to invent a better
vocabulary, that will allow them to say the things they really mean.
JTW
2706
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:02am
Subject: Re: Taste (the circle game)
Peter wrote:
> Cinematic greatness can make a lot of things - including
> philosophical outlook of the filmmaker - become irrelevant.
I don't know ... maybe it's better to say that cinematic greatness
can recontextualize in a positive way philosophical outlooks that we
don't like or find problematic.
--Zach
2707
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:03am
Subject: Re: Tarantino's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
Richard Modiano wrote:
> It's true that hooks approaches art through the frame of sexuality,
> gender, race and class, but I believe that this is one possible
> legitimate way of examining art.
I never suggested otherwise. I think that hooks deals with art under
these grids without sophistication, however, and to me this is never
an ideal way of examining art. As I said, hooks is not without her
virtues, but I've yet to come across her reading of a work of art
that is not startlingly simplistic. And written in passive voice.
I'd be more than happy to do an elaborate breakdown on specific
examples if you really want.
--Zach
2708
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:08am
Subject: Re: M. Coursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I'm the one who said that about those films, not
> Jaime.
>
> And I rather like "Land of the Pharoahs."
>
> --- "Jaime N. Christley"
> wrote:
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
2709
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:10am
Subject: Land of the Pharaohs (Hawks)
LAND OF THE PHARAOHS is the tits.
Uh. In a manner of speaking.
-Jaime
p.s. I'm really getting tired of Yahoo junking my messages and
making me rewrite them.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I'm the one who said that about those films, not
> Jaime.
>
> And I rather like "Land of the Pharoahs."
>
> --- "Jaime N. Christley"
> wrote:
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
2710
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:21am
Subject: taste & recontextualization
Can you give more specific, preferably extreme (or major, or your
favorite), examples where a film/filmmaker is able to pull off the
kind of recontextualization you refer to?
-Jaime
p.s. Fuck this Yahoo software in the face. Right in the face.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> > Cinematic greatness can make a lot of things - including
> > philosophical outlook of the filmmaker - become irrelevant.
>
> I don't know ... maybe it's better to say that cinematic greatness
> can recontextualize in a positive way philosophical outlooks that
we
> don't like or find problematic.
>
> --Zach
2711
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:27am
Subject: Re: Taste
I don't think LE SAMOURAI is a great film, period, but a considerable
share of what makes it good has to do with the nimbleness with which
Melville employs Delon's screen personality (better than Visconti,
and I'm not just throwing that out there for kicks), and the effect
that Delon's personality has on the viewer. In other words, because
he looks cool in it.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Likewise Tarantino's abstraction leaves me cold
> alongside that of Melville. "Le Samourai" isn't a
> great film because Alain Delon "looks cool" in it.
2712
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 6:21am
Subject: Chiming in: Tarantino, age, the Coens, Land of the Phraohs
I'm not utterly crazy about Tarantino, but I'll always see his new
movie, including Kill Bill when I have a second. Bonitzer did a good
piece on him in Trafic: "Distraction." I thought Pulp Fiction sagged
in the middle (the Keitel episode) but held up because of the
tentpoles at the beginning and end - maybe that's Hawksian... I
thought it was a self-consciously moral film: Travolta doesn't sleep
with the boss's wife; Willis doesn't throw the fight, then saves the
life of Marcus, who put out a contract on him; Jackson gives up being
a hit man and gets religion. Jackie Brown is another ships-in-the-
night film like Lost in Translation. I own all three and am looking
forward to sitting down and reviewing them someday. Then I'll reread
Bonitzer. I expect it to be an enjoyable experience from start to
finish. It seems to me that Tarantino has been extremely influential.
His influence may even be more important than his films.
On the other hand, lines do definitely get drawn re: age. I remember
when Bosley Crowther panned Band of Outsiders in the Times, David -
he said people who like parody would do better to watch Batman on tv.
And I thought he was an old fart! On the other hand, I also remember
recjoicing when Robin Wood turned into a post-structuralist right in
the pages of Film Comment. From Leavis to "Open and Closed Films" in
20 years is pretty damn good.
I sure can agree with all those people who loved loved loved the
Coens and then started to feel like they lost it. I re-watched
Miller's Crossing recently, and it held up, but I'm afraid to re-
watch Raising Arizona.
Land of the Pharoahs is one of the films that launched modern cinema.
That's why the Straubs paid homage to it in Moses and Aaron, even if
they thought they were paying homage to The Crime of Monsieur Lange.
Was somebody knocking Land of the Phraohs?
Daney torpedoed the idea of "evidence" in Hawks in Rio Lobo: The One
Grows Old, but he did it after thinking with it for 20 years.
2713
From: iangjohnston
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 6:27am
Subject: Tarantino
I haven't read hooks on Tarantino, but I would recommend Dana
Polan's BFI book on Pulp Fiction which, I think, strikes the right
balance in terms of a critical reaction to the film (i.e. I agree
with it!): acknowledging the pleasures of style, narrative,
character, and acting (plus appreciating the in-jokes) that the film
offers, but recognising that there's no depth to it. I love the way
Polan concludes his book:
"Amazed bystanders. Two hip guys who can maintain cool (even with
inappropriate dress). Style winning over substance. This is how the
film ends. More than any explicit message, this is the point of Pulp
Fiction. This is why it is a phenomenon."
For the record, I was pretty much blown away by the style, energy
and wit of Pulp Fiction when I first saw it; but subsequent viewings
have greatly diminished its initial impact, because the film for me
is all surface effects. (And in my personal conception of cinema,
that's not enough.) Which is not the case for Jackie Brown, a film
that grows with every successive viewing. But it does seem
indicative of the wider film culture that Pulp Fiction should have
been greeted with such acclaim, enthusiasm and fandom, while the
response to Jackie Brown (a deeper, far more interesting and
emotionally involving film, which offers such respect and integrity
to the two central characters) was far more muted. I've yet to see
Kill Bill -- it opens here in a week's time -- but I suspect while
I'll enjoy the surface style I'll be disappointed that Tarantino
hasn't gone more in the Jackie Brown direction. Talk to me about The
Thin Red Line; Eloge de l'Amour; Ten; Le Fils: that, and not
Tarantino (nor the Coens or Lars von Trier, those other "buzz"
filmmakers), is what makes me say "Vive le cinema".
Ian Johnston
2714
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 6:30am
Subject: Re: Taste
I remember what I wanted to say. I became a cinephile when my friend
Alan (from Chicago) dragged me to see Red Line 7000 at a shopping
center in suburban New Haven: stock car racing, macho meathead heroes
played by actors half of whom were extras at The Purple Pit in The
Nuty Professor, Holiday Inns, an American girl doing a ridiculous
Francoise Dorleac imitation, "Wild Cat Willy." All of these - and not
some abstraction like "cynicism" - were anathema to me, but the force
of Hawks' genius pulled me in, chewed me up and spit me out, and I
was a film buff from then on.
As I said earlier, although I have my favorite genres (horror and
scifi), which I enjoy pretty much no matter what, I'd watch a
Hallmark Hall of Fame literary adaptation directed by an auteur who
is also a good metteur-en-scene (Paul's Case, Lamont Johnon) in
preference to the latest Wes Craven Presents without thinking twice.
I agree with Fred that "I hate x, and I hate Film Y because it has x
in it" is not something a cinephile would ever say...unless he/she
REEEAALLLY hated x, like I hate John Malkovich. But even then I
wouldn't hate the FILM just because Malkovich was in it. I'd just
avoid seeing it. And I do.
2715
From:
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 2:57am
Subject: Re: Re: Taste
Bill,
Point taken re: the specific stuff you thought you'd dislike in "Red Line
7000" but liked in the context of Hawks' film. I think I may have gotten the
discussion off track in using as broad a term as "cynicism" to describe an
attitude I don't care for in films I care a lot for. As Jake notes, the cynical
attitudes of Aldrich, Fuller, Polanski, and the Coens are quite distinct - except
for the fact that, broadly speaking, we wouldn't confuse any of them for Leo
McCarey.
I think what we can agree on is that thing Fred keeps saying and which bears
repeating again: anything can be great. Expanding on this, I would say that
the things which many people use as evidence that a film ISN'T great - whether
it's the list of pet peeves you had with "Red Line" or a weak story line or an
actor's performance or, yes, an attitude as broad as "cynicism" or
Capra-esque optimism - are not of concern to (the majority of) auteurists. At least not
when the film is great and the things which make a film great are usually
not, for us, related to the above; or, at least, these things won't derail a
great film for us.
Along the lines of your Hallmark network example, I'm not sure I'd have the
patience at all for Bogdanovich's "Mask" outside of the context of his gripping
mise-en-scene. But because of that mise-en-scene, I think it's actually
rather great. I'm sure we can all think of hundreds of examples like this. "The
Hunted" anybody?
Peter
2716
From:
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:16am
Subject: Tarantino's morality
Ironically, this is coming on the heels of my comments about how form can
make irrelevant (or, as Zach says, palatable) moral philosophies with which I
don't agree, but to echo Bill... I think Tarantino is very moral. Every death in
"Jackie Brown" is dwelled upon, thought about, emphasized; the film's
epic-length makes this possible.
"Kill Bill" can get away with its ridiculously high body count because of its
genre origins and overall tone: it's a Movie. But even here, Tarantino goes
to pains to emphasize that the women in the film didn't turn to violence
without having their reasons.
Okay, enough for tonight, back to "The Wings of Eagles" on TV...
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
2717
From: Damien Bona
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 7:23am
Subject: Re: taste & recontextualization
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley" wrote:
> Can you give more specific, preferably extreme (or major, or your
> favorite), examples where a film/filmmaker is able to pull off the
> kind of recontextualization you refer to?
>
I don’t want to speak for Zach, but a prime example for me is Bruno Dumont’s L’Humanité. Dumont’s nihilistic world view is completely contrary to mine, but the sheer power of his unsettlingly beautiful compositions, the inarticulate force of his characters as they stumble through life (not even realizing the extent of their own despair) and the intense commitment he brings in expressing a unique universe permeated by a sense of forlorn stoicism all make the film a singular masterpiece, as far as I’m concerned. Myself, I tend towards cockeyed optimism, but I cherish this deeply melancholy film.
-- Damien
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2718
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 7:37am
Subject: Re: "Those Who Love Me..."
I liked the film (need to see it again, but trying to watch it on DVD wasn't a good idea) but disliked the translation -- I know that's the release title, but always wondered, shouldn't it be "WILL take the train"? Chereau (and the actual source of the phrase) presumably never meant it to sound quite so disdainful.
>In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley" wrote:
>
> p.s. Fuck this Yahoo software in the face. Right in the face.
Indeed, I read in another group that Yahoo, in its wisdom, was apparently accepting "posts" but not "replies" today. (Will they all turn up to embarrass us three days later?) Conceivably it does this when it detects that things are becoming too combative, or something.
2719
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 7:42am
Subject: Re: Tarantino's morality
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Ironically, this is coming on the heels of my comments about how
form can
> make irrelevant (or, as Zach says, palatable) moral philosophies
with which I
> don't agree, but to echo Bill... I think Tarantino is very moral.
Every death in
> "Jackie Brown" is dwelled upon, thought about, emphasized; the
film's
> epic-length makes this possible.
Oddly enough, I'd say that JACKIE BROWN has less of a moral centre
than either PULP FICTION or RESERVOIR DOGS. Tonally, it's quite
faithful to Elmore Leonard, whose fictional universe is basically
absurd -- he doesn't judge his characters and contingency rules the
day. Very un-Hawksian!
With PULP FICTION, I always assumed the point of the structure was to
critique the moral double standards we typically apply while watching
genre films -- i.e. the convention that we care about some characters
while others are just cannon fodder. T subverts this by making the
lead in one "story" a bit player in another, so when he gets rubbed
out we're left at a loss for how to respond; this also implies that
the deaths which are played for laughs, like the kid in the car,
would "matter" in some other context. Altman used a similar idea in
SHORT CUTS: every man an island, trapped within his own egoistic
narrative.
JTW
2720
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 7:53am
Subject: Re: meanwhile, Christmas on Earth...
>After some technical snags due to poor planning, my avant-garde class
>watched this great, strange, hilarious film....
>
>-Jaime
What I hope comes through is how truly radical that film was for its
time. Bear in mind that something like five years later, Ralph
Ginsburg got a prison sentence for pandering for postmarking mailed
ads for his magazine EROS from Blueball, PA., a mag that hardly would
get a PG-13 rating now (if magazines were rated). Barbara Rubin
risked some serious jail time simply for making that film.
--
- Joe Kaufman
2721
From: David Westling
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 8:15am
Subject: Re: Meanwhile, Christmas on Earth...
What do a_film_by people make of this excerpt from a New York Times article
dated June 25, 2000, by Amy Taubin, "Film; Women Were Out Front, Too"?
"MS. RUBIN made ''Christmas on Earth'' in 1964, when she was just 17. It's
her only completed film. Like Ms. Deren, Ms. Clarke, Ms. Rainer and many
other filmmakers in the show, she was intensely competitive with the most
celebrated male artists in her milieu. (The main problem with women-only
shows is that this competitive dynamic is not acknowledged.) ''Christmas on
Earth'' was made at a moment when avant-garde filmmakers like Warhol and
Jack Smith were shocking audiences with explicit sexual imagery, most of it
homoerotic. In a passionate countermove, Ms. Rubin opens her film with a
close-up of a vagina, spread like a landscape across the entire screen. But
the initial bravado of this image gives way to an extreme anxiety. Now that
the long-absent icon is at last front and center, what should it do or what
should be done with it? Far from a celebration of female sexuality, the film
shows a terrible ambivalence toward its central image, and despite its
hard-core action, a total absence of desire."
David Westling
2722
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 8:15am
Subject: Hawks, Pulp Fiction, the 90s
Bill wrote:
> I remember what I wanted to say. I became a cinephile when my friend
> Alan (from Chicago) dragged me to see Red Line 7000 at a shopping
> center in suburban New Haven: stock car racing, macho meathead heroes
> played by actors half of whom were extras at The Purple Pit in The
> Nuty Professor, Holiday Inns, an American girl doing a ridiculous
> Francoise Dorleac imitation, "Wild Cat Willy." All of these - and not
> some abstraction like "cynicism" - were anathema to me, but the force
> of Hawks' genius pulled me in, chewed me up and spit me out, and I
> was a film buff from then on.
Tarantino of course used as one of his models for Jack Rabbit Slim's
the restaurant in RED LINE 7000. And like Daney, Tarantino turned into
cinephile when he saw RIO BRAVO, I believe.
I can relate to Yoel's story about seeing PULP FICTION at age 13. I
remember being so psyched that I insisted all of my friends see it
behind their mother's backs (I guess my 'burb was more conservative --
and the kids less mature -- than most). This was before Clinton's big
crackdown and we could still see R-rated movies. PULP FICTION turned me
into a cinephile. I saw it after it was a huge hit. RED LINE 7000 was a
big flop and left to second-run theaters almost immediately. I can't
imagine being turned on to that film by the press, fans, and Hawks'
reputation. Hell, the Palm in Cannes didn't even mean anything to me at
13 (btw, wasn't that the year Eastwood headed the main jury?). The
Tarantino was very much a movie of the moment and if anything it showed
us that audiences thought differently of b-cinema in the 1990s.
I missed most of the '90s as a cinephile (maybe awakened to the type of
cinema that was important around the time of EYES WIDE SHUT, the Film
Comment poll, etc.) although I know the stars of the '90s -- like
Assayas, Denis, Kitano, Tsai, Desplechin -- never worked with the
possibility to make or break a studio. They were artier and more
independent but we saw that Assayas had Téchiné, Denis had Jarmusch,
Kitano had Fukasaku, etc. etc. They were all more or less dependent on
the type of auteur cinema they watched and more to the point with
directors they had been involved with. Tarantino was fierce with his
influences, but not any more or less so than these directors.
The Cahiers have just published a collection of essays by Thierry
Jousse on 90s cinema, _Pendant les travaux, le cinéma reste ouvert_.
Jousse's top ten of the '90s (from Cahiers #542) has Desplechin's MY
SEX LIFE, Cronenberg's CRASH, Kubrick's EYES WIDE SHUT, von Trier's THE
IDIOTS, Garrel's J'ENTENDS PLUS LA GUITARE, Kitano's BOILING POINT,
Eastwood's BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, Lynch's FIRE WALK WITH ME, Denis'
US GO HOME, and a film I've never heard of called STEP ACROSS THE
BORDER by Nicolas Humbert and Werner Penzel.
I would enjoy it if a group of critics (say, from a_film_by) made a
list of films and filmmakers they liked from the 90s, but restricting
themselves to the films and filmmakers who only started to make films
in the 90s or very very end of the 80s. For example, films by Tsai,
Kitano, Denis, Desplechin, Omirbaev, Tarantino, Jean-Pierre and Luc
Dardenne, Wong Kar-Wai, Pedro Costa, and so forth. I think the results
would be interesting and very telling of new trends.
Gabe
2723
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 8:18am
Subject: anything can be great?
From George Orwell's essay on GULLIVER'S TRAVELS:
"It is often argued, at least by people who admit the importance of
subject-matter, that a book cannot be "good" if it expresses a
palpably false view of life. We are told that in our own age, for
instance, any book that has genuine literary merit will also be more
or less "progressive" in tendency. This ignores the fact that
throughout history a similar struggle between progress and reaction
has been raging, and that the best books of any one age have always
been written from several different viewpoints, some of them palpably
more false than others. In so far as a writer is a propagandist, the
most one can ask of him is that he shall genuinely believe in what he
is saying, and that it shall not be something blazingly silly. To-
day, for example, one can imagine a good book being written by a
Catholic, a Communist, a Fascist, pacifist, an anarchist, perhaps by
an old-style Liberal or an ordinary Conservative: one cannot imagine
a good book being written by a spiritualist, a Buchmanite or a member
of the Ku-Klux-Klan. The views that a writer holds must be compatible
with sanity, in the medical sense, and with the power of continuous
thought: beyond that what we ask of him is talent, which is probably
another name for conviction."
I would go along with this up to a point, though there are obvious
exceptions (e.g. Yeats) and of course silliness is in the eye of the
beholder.
JTW
2724
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 8:21am
Subject: re: taste
Taste can and will never be a standard by which quality is weighted.
Period.
When I read Peter's comments, I really felt like he weighted film
first and foremost by taste, then by what one would read in a
filmbook, never looking at how the film works. I know I probably
offend now, but it is not meant as a personal attack, but Im using his
comments, since he put his head on the block.
To dismiss the Coens as bad filmmakers simply on the grounds of their
brand of cynisism is to me a bad excuse. But worse is, when one
refuses to look beneath the surface our taste reacts to - as Peter
does ("the cynicism ofthe Coens wouldn't irk me if their films were
great").
Jaket Wilson said it before I could, I quote: "but saying (...)
doesn't tell us much about what they really feel and believe. To find
that out, we have to look at their films" and "the question isn't
whether we "agree" with any of these visions, but whether we find them
deep and rich enough to be worth taking seriously."
Taste limits perception and understanding. Taste is the poor man's
argument for quality. Taste brands before watching. As Bill noted
upon: "I hate x, and I hate film y because it has x in it".
That is truly not something a cinephile would say, nor a film student
would do.
The implication of taste is, that if one's approach to X is wrong if
one dislikes X for some reason, one's approach to Y, even if one
adores Y, is equally superficial. Not only does it discredits ones
comments, it limits, in some cases acts against, the learning process.
Perhaps thats why we have a generation of kids calling all their
favorite directors "auteurs" and saying "mise en scene" every five
minuts :)
All jokes aside; Im no saint. I let taste dictate what I watch and
what I like aswell on occassions. After all, it was taste that made me
a cinephile to begin with. But as a good kid, I eat by broccholi and
my liver. And as any kid, I love broccholi and liver, if I dont know
Im eating it. So whats wrong with it to begin with?
2725
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 0:18pm
Subject: re: taste
I've been thinking about this process for, hell I don't know, going
on five or ten or however many years. I definitely think taste can
be "conquered," not in the sense that you think a film sucks, then
someone explains why it's good, and you suddenly like it...
But on quite a few occasions, I've seen a film in a class, disliked
it, but in the ensuing discussion I have considered the film to be of
some, even great, worth. I still disliked the film, but that didn't
seem to "matter": it became something to work on. And I don't even
need a whole, compelling counter-reading of the text - sometimes just
hints of the same, something to hook me into figuring out a counter-
reading, would be good enough.
It's like this: where there's smoke, there's fire (thanks Jeremy
Heilman, for that). If you think a film is good, it's good. If
someone you have an ounce of respect for thinks it's good, then you
at least have to consider, strongly, the *possibility* that it's a
good film. Actually you don't have to do shit. But this is
something that *I* do.
I'm often inclined to enjoy another person's enjoyment of a film,
even if I can't get excited about the same film. That to me is fun.
There's no denying that liking a film will make it easier to find
value in it, though. (As for filmbooks, well, sometimes they help,
especially if you're a knucklehead like me. Sometimes they don't.)
-Jaime
> When I read Peter's comments, I really felt like he weighted film
> first and foremost by taste, then by what one would read in a
> filmbook, never looking at how the film works.
2726
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 0:25pm
Subject: re: silliness
After all is said and done, I'm not sure there are *any* universal
principles in Good art. If there are, please let me know.
As for silliness in writing, how is mankind supposed to get by
without Lewis Carroll, Flann O'Brien, etc.?
-Jaime
> I would go along with this up to a point, though there are obvious
> exceptions (e.g. Yeats) and of course silliness is in the eye of
> the beholder.
2727
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 0:45pm
Subject: a_film_by 1990s poll?
> I would enjoy it if a group of critics (say, from a_film_by) made a
> list of films and filmmakers they liked from the 90s, but
restricting
> themselves to the films and filmmakers who only started to make
films
> in the 90s or very very end of the 80s. For example, films by Tsai,
> Kitano, Denis, Desplechin, Omirbaev, Tarantino, Jean-Pierre and Luc
> Dardenne, Wong Kar-Wai, Pedro Costa, and so forth. I think the
results
> would be interesting and very telling of new trends.
I'd be up for this. If I participated, I would have to add Hideaki
Anno, the Japanese animator who made NEON GENESIS EVANGELION.
What about filmmakers who started before the 1990s and didn't hit
their stride until the last ten or fifteen years? Bringing up anime
made me think of Miyazaki - isn't it true that he didn't have much of
a reputation outside of Japan until at least the late 1980s?
How about Sokurov, who has been making films since the '70s, but
whose films weren't released - even in Russia - until after 1987?
From my lists, a few other names I'd like to suggest (pushing the
time requirement a little): Michael Almereyda [1985]; Gus Van Sant
[ditto]; McG [2000]; P.T. Anderson [1996]; Wes Anderson [ditto];
Michael Haneke [1989 if one begins with THE SEVENTH CONTINENT]; M.
Night Shyamalan [1992]; Jim Sheridan [1989]; Michael Moore [1989];
Robert Rodriguez [1992]; David Mamet [1987]; Jean-Pierre Jeunet
[1991, excluding shorts]; Stanley Kwan [1985...]; Terence Davies, Guy
Maddin, and I really want to say Emir Kusturica but they guy won the
1986 Palme D'Or...
-Jaime
2728
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: "Those Who Love Me..."
"Chereau (and the actual source of the phrase)
presumably never meant it to sound quite so
disdainful."
I'm not so sure about that. It's a camp "command" -- a
death-bed "order" from Francois Reichenbach.
--- jess_l_amortell wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2729
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Taste
"> I agree with Fred that "I hate x, and I hate Film Y
> because it has x
> in it" is not something a cinephile would ever
> say...unless he/she
> REEEAALLLY hated x, like I hate John Malkovich. But
> even then I
> wouldn't hate the FILM just because Malkovich was in
> it. I'd just
> avoid seeing it. And I do."
Well, there goes Manoel De Oliviera!
--- hotlove666 wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2730
From: filipefurtado
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:15pm
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
(one film by each filmmaker; and only by directors that start
in the late 80's on): Cold Water (Assayas); Rosetta
(Dardenne); Cure (Kurosawa); The Hole (Tsai); La Sentinelle
(Deplaschin); Rushmore (Anderson); Sonatine (Kitano); The
Long Day Closes (Davies); Mad Dog & Glory (McNaughton);
Jackie Brown (Tarantino).
Filipe
> > I would enjoy it if a group of critics (say, from a_film_b
y) made a
> > list of films and filmmakers they liked from the 90s, but
> restricting
> > themselves to the films and filmmakers who only started to
make
> films
> > in the 90s or very very end of the 80s. For example, films
by Tsai,
> > Kitano, Denis, Desplechin, Omirbaev, Tarantino, Jean-
Pierre and Luc
> > Dardenne, Wong Kar-
Wai, Pedro Costa, and so forth. I think the
> results
> > would be interesting and very telling of new trends.
>
> I'd be up for this. If I participated, I would have to add
Hideaki
> Anno, the Japanese animator who made NEON GENESIS EVANGELION
.
>
> What about filmmakers who started before the 1990s and didn'
t hit
> their stride until the last ten or fifteen years? Bringing
up anime
> made me think of Miyazaki -
isn't it true that he didn't have much of
> a reputation outside of Japan until at least the late 1980s?
>
> How about Sokurov, who has been making films since the '70s,
but
> whose films weren't released - even in Russia -
until after 1987?
>
> From my lists, a few other names I'd like to suggest (pushin
g the
> time requirement a little): Michael Almereyda [1985]; Gus V
an Sant
> [ditto]; McG [2000]; P.T. Anderson [1996]; Wes Anderson [dit
to];
> Michael Haneke [1989 if one begins with THE SEVENTH CONTINEN
T]; M.
> Night Shyamalan [1992]; Jim Sheridan [1989]; Michael Moore [
1989];
> Robert Rodriguez [1992]; David Mamet [1987]; Jean-
Pierre Jeunet
> [1991, excluding shorts]; Stanley Kwan [1985...]; Terence Da
vies, Guy
> Maddin, and I really want to say Emir Kusturica but they guy
won the
> 1986 Palme D'Or...
>
> -Jaime
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ 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
2731
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:27pm
Subject: Correction
> 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.)
I must apologize for this embarrassing error, as the star of FLOATING
CLOUDS is not Uehara, but the great Masayuki Mori. Uehara appeared in
eight Naruse films, and his unappealing portraits of Japanese husbands
are one of the most conspicuous aspects of Naruse's work in the fifties.
But not in FLOATING CLOUDS.... - Dan
2732
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:58pm
Subject: Re: Tarantino
> I haven't read hooks on Tarantino, but I would recommend Dana
> Polan's BFI book on Pulp Fiction which, I think, strikes the right
> balance in terms of a critical reaction to the film (i.e. I agree
> with it!): acknowledging the pleasures of style, narrative,
> character, and acting (plus appreciating the in-jokes) that the film
> offers, but recognising that there's no depth to it. I love the way
> Polan concludes his book:
>
> "Amazed bystanders. Two hip guys who can maintain cool (even with
> inappropriate dress). Style winning over substance. This is how the
> film ends. More than any explicit message, this is the point of Pulp
> Fiction. This is why it is a phenomenon."
I don't want to push this too hard (especially because I'm repeating
myself), but my feeling is that the "coolness" is part of the content of
Tarantino's style, one of the building blocks, rather than the end
point. I do think there is depth in Tarantino, but I find in the way he
manipulates established forms to put the audience on the screen and
create a more complicated relationship between the viewer and the
fiction. - Dan
2733
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 2:12pm
Subject: Re: anything can be great?
> "It is often argued, at least by people who admit the importance of
> subject-matter, that a book cannot be "good" if it expresses a
> palpably false view of life. We are told that in our own age, for
> instance, any book that has genuine literary merit will also be more
> or less "progressive" in tendency. This ignores the fact that
> throughout history a similar struggle between progress and reaction
> has been raging, and that the best books of any one age have always
> been written from several different viewpoints, some of them palpably
> more false than others. In so far as a writer is a propagandist, the
> most one can ask of him is that he shall genuinely believe in what he
> is saying, and that it shall not be something blazingly silly. To-
> day, for example, one can imagine a good book being written by a
> Catholic, a Communist, a Fascist, pacifist, an anarchist, perhaps by
> an old-style Liberal or an ordinary Conservative: one cannot imagine
> a good book being written by a spiritualist, a Buchmanite or a member
> of the Ku-Klux-Klan. The views that a writer holds must be compatible
> with sanity, in the medical sense, and with the power of continuous
> thought: beyond that what we ask of him is talent, which is probably
> another name for conviction."
>
> I would go along with this up to a point, though there are obvious
> exceptions (e.g. Yeats) and of course silliness is in the eye of the
> beholder.
Maybe silliness is created by social context. So that there might be
societies where a spiritualist, a Buchmanite or a Ku Klux Klanner are
mainstreamed enough to participate in the society's complexities and
therefore generate art; but that at the time Orwell was writing,
membership in these splinter groups bespoke a sort of social autism that
wasn't conducive to good books being written. Spiritualism seems to
have started the journey to the mainstream. (I recall the contempt
Orwell reserved for vegetarians in THE ROAD TO WIGAN PIER; he couldn't
have felt the same today.) - Dan
2734
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 2:33pm
Subject: the 90s
> I would enjoy it if a group of critics (say, from a_film_by) made a
> list of films and filmmakers they liked from the 90s, but restricting
> themselves to the films and filmmakers who only started to make films
> in the 90s or very very end of the 80s. For example, films by Tsai,
> Kitano, Denis, Desplechin, Omirbaev, Tarantino, Jean-Pierre and Luc
> Dardenne, Wong Kar-Wai, Pedro Costa, and so forth. I think the results
> would be interesting and very telling of new trends.
The rules are a bit too vague at the moment. Is Todd Haynes excluded
because SUPERSTAR is 1987? Tsai made his first film in 1989, so I guess
he squeaks in on the "very very end of the 80s" clause.
Here are some of my favorite 90s films, by relative newcomers, in
chronological order:
TRUST (Hal Hartley, USA)
SURVIVING DESIRE (Hal Hartley, USA)
AMBITION (Hal Hartley, USA)
SPANKING THE MONKEY (David O. Russell, USA)
SAFE (Todd Haynes, USA)
LA PROMESSE (Dardenne Bros., Belgium)
THE RIVER (Tsai Ming-Liang, Taiwan)
M/OTHER (Nobuhiro Suwa, Japan)
Here's another batch, a little less exalted than the first:
METROPOLITAN (Whit Stillman, USA)
THE UNBELIEVABLE TRUTH (Hal Hartley, USA)
THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT (Hal Hartley, USA)
DOTTIE GETS SPANKED (Todd Haynes, USA)
LES HISTOIRES D'AMOUR FINISSENT MAL EN GENERAL (Anne Fontaine, France)
PRAISE (John Curran, Australia)
ABERDEEN (Kathy Fehl and Ian Teal, USA)
LA PUCE (Emmanuelle Bercot, France)
- Dan
2735
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 2:48pm
Subject: Re: anything can be great?
"I recall the contempt
Orwell reserved for vegetarians in THE ROAD TO WIGAN
PIER; he couldn't
have felt the same today."
Oh why not? He was a creep. The constant invocation
of Orwell's name makes me ill.
Back to the movies: The Coens are talented but thin.
Tarantino is clever but untalented.
Alain Delon made me gay.
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2736
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 2:55pm
Subject: Re: taste & recontextualization
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
> Can you give more specific, preferably extreme (or major, or your
> favorite), examples where a film/filmmaker is able to pull off the
> kind of recontextualization you refer to?
John Milius, though I've only seen three of his films. He's the most
right-wing filmmaker in Hollywood, a dyed-in-the-wool
paleoconservative. He's the sort of guy who says in interviews
that 'chivalry is probably correct,' or that 'everyone should know
exactly who they are by the time they are sixteen.' His highly old-
school gender politics are visible in any interview. He's obsessed
with warfare, the military, the NRA. He's always, always thinking
about patriarchy, and he's not trying to dismantle it, either.
But Milius' films bear out the paleonconservative critique of
Enlightement liberalism and modernity, and what's more, Milius' films
often have the embodiments of his ideology (Conan, the Raisuli,
Roosevelt, Nick Nolte in FAREWELL TO THE KING) face the death of
their ideology. Jaime, I know I once through Strauss into a
discussion of PICKPOCKET, but really the most Straussian filmmaker is
Milius. By far. Like progressives, Milius believes that 'the
state,' 'patriarchy,' 'religion,' monogamy--these are all myths or
founded on myths, made to perpetuate a certain kind of society.
Unlike progressives, Milius wants to keep these myths (and keep them
as old-school as possible, more old-school than they are now), but
nevertheless he presents brutal analyses of the values he holds
dearest, as well as the values our liberal society privileges.
(By liberal, I'm not talking Dems and Reps obviously: I'm referring
to the tradition of Enlightenment philosophy, which is what the
United States was founded on and not Judeo-Christian texts, thanks
anyway Christian fundamentalists.)
If you haven't seen CONAN THE BARBARIAN especially, you might not
want to read this.
CONAN THE BARBARIAN is, clearly, one of the most devastating analyses
of patriarchy the cinema has given us. It's not an attack on
patriarchy, and though a progressive viewer might wish for patriarchy
to *be* attacked in this film, s/he couldn't hope for a more
demystifying portrait. Conan finds his father slaughtered before his
eyes: the patriarchal mystique is bound up in destruction and
subjugation immediately, and Conan's adult quest is to avenge his
father and recapture the power Thulsa Doom figuratively stole. Conan
will not satisfied as a (hu)man until he does so. (Also the Riddle
of Steel and swords are important, but it'd take a monograph...)
What does Conan find in his long, indirect journey? For starters,
his dead god (who, "realistically" in the diegesis, is probably just
an entombed king who Conan projects his beliefs onto). And in the
end, he kills Thulsa Doom, and the effects are dizzyingly multi-
faceted, for consider:
- Conan's just butchered a messiah before all the messiah's followers.
- He's just killed his figurative father.
- He's fulfilled the most fundamental desire of all his adult years,
and that much-awaited satisfaction is elusive.
Milius presents the moment silently (Ridley Scott would have had that
Carmina Burana going *full blast*), and there's an ever-so-slightly
comical tone to its understatement as Doom's head flops down the
stairs. Conan descends from the heights, into the new disbelievers,
as they extinguish their flames. The moment is a crystallization of
all his feelings of emptiness. We understand that the rest of
Conan's life (which, we can gather from CONAN THE DESTROYER and the
Mako-delivered epilogues that cap both CONAN films, Conan on the
throne in a pitiful slouch, is full of adventure and conquest) is
hollow, that he's deeply wrestling with the lack of satisfaction he
found in defeating Thulsa Doom, and that he's forever waiting to be
reunited with his dead lover Valeria.
This is all extraordinarily sad and chilling. Fuck APOCALYPSE NOW,
which Milius helped write: CONAN THE BARBARIAN is exponentially more
clear-eyed about the world, its myths, its disappointments. This
film is about masculine (-ist) disillusionment, impotence,
loneliness. It is about the death of the Heroic Man. Milius doesn't
mawkishly lament this and call for action now!, as a neocon might.
For him the battle is and always was lost, and his sympathies push
him to prod the bruise of disillusionment. Milius is a nihilist, in
the Nietzschean sense, fusing his sadness over his disillusionment
with his own 'will to power'.
Also: maybe his other films are wildly different (though I doubt it),
but in FAREWELL TO THE KING and especially CONAN and THE WIND AND THE
LION, Milius' defies our expectations of his medieval sexual politics
and presents strong women characters. Is Milius sexist and anti-
feminist? Yes, but it'd be foolish not to look at what's on the
screen and grapple with its sophistication. He's not sexist and anti-
feminist in a way that leads to easy dismissal. Or consider Milius'
treatment of the Other: he's respectful of difference in a way that
leftists often are (but philosophical liberals tend to gloss over).
He sees humanity as essentially tribalistic, not essentially violent
but willing to resort to violence. In Milius, a character respects
the Other always with the knowledge that the Other is a potential
enemy. Cultural gaps are not always bridgeable or desirable.
I could go on and on, but should wrap this up. Suffice it to say
that on paper Milius might disgust me, and (because I sometimes find
paleocons interesting when they're talking about certain issues)
would at best intrigue me mildly. But put his filmmaking into
action, see the principles on which he organizes his narratives,
chooses his shots, pitches the action, etc., and the result is that
we have one of the finest filmmakers in America right now.
--Zach
2737
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:02pm
Subject: Fifteen from the Nineties
LA SENTINELLE (Desplechin)
WHAT HAPPENED WAS… (Noonan)
DAZED AND CONFUSED (Linklater)
VIVE L'AMOUR (Tsai)
FALLEN ANGELS (Wong)
THE WIFE (Noonan)
BOTTLE ROCKET (Anderson)
GUMMO (Korine)
RUSHMORE (Anderson)
BUFFALO '66 (Gallo)
SHOW ME LOVE (Moodysson)
ROSETTA (Dardenne/Dardenne)
WONDERLAND (Winterbottom)
THE VIRGIN SUICIDES (Coppola)
L'HUMANITE (Dumont)
--Zach
2738
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:11pm
Subject: Re: anything can be great?
> "I recall the contempt
> Orwell reserved for vegetarians in THE ROAD TO WIGAN
> PIER; he couldn't
> have felt the same today."
>
> Oh why not? He was a creep.
Creep or no, he would have needed to find a different way to vent his
contempt. His estimation of what a vegetarian was in 1937 (he spells it
out in the book) wouldn't sync up with reality now. - Dan
2739
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:16pm
Subject: Re: In defense of Milius
The following article was written on commision for the
Turin Film Festival, November 2002. The Festival
subsequently launched a smear campaign against me and
suppressed the article with the enthusiastic
(ie, reimbursed) support of my best friend at the time.
The Festival feared giving the impression that John
Milius was not whole heartedly in support of the US
take-over of Iraq. Milius was not consulted about this
decision. He had seen the article and indicated no objections.
I was not compensated for my two months work or for
expenses incurred at the Festival's request.
John Milius
Copyright Tag Gallagher.
"The Seventies are years that haven't yet emerged from
their purgatory. I tell myself that this story goes on,
and that growing older is probably only a matter of
becoming aware that, when the word 'generation' is used,
what it means is 'too late' and that this 'too late' is
altogether normal."
-- Serge Daney.
What's most striking in John Milius's first feature,
Dillinger (1973), and in his subsequent work, is his
delight at making a movie. Each shot has force, wit,
invention, pizzazz. Even the chase and gunfight scenes
have a freshness that belies Milius's debt to Roger
Corman, Arthur Penn (Bonnie and Clyde, 1967) and Mervyn
LeRoy (The FBI Story, 1959).
From Penn especially, I suspect, comes Milius's
"disjunctive" editing, whereby scenes become collages
more than stories; from Penn, too, a clarity of line in
the sets, architecture, landscapes, music, rites,
rituals and character typings that feels American -- not
to mention the Penn-like references to newsreels,
newspaper stories and Dorothea Lange photographs, and
the use of "Red River Valley" as the hymn of the
American Folk. In Big Wednesday an Army draft physical
recalls a similar sequence in Penn's Alice's Restaurant
(1969). And both moviemakers like stories about friends
growing up, going crazy, coming home. Milius's acting
has something of Penn's theatrical and tense manner, but
only on the outside. Penn's people writhe to express
their inmost souls; Milius's maintain stolid simplicity
and have nothing to reveal.
Milius's characters seem icons more than flesh; his
actors probe their masks rather than their emotions. Who
they are is what they do now, a bit like figures in a
video game, particularly in Conan the Barbarian and
Flight of the Intruder, but with a 70s flavor. Living in
the "now" was a moral principle in those years. You could
give offense by asking someone where they came from.
Accordingly, movie personalities in the 70s sometimes
took two hours to achieve the sort of defined complexity
that, in less existential eras, Ford, Wilder, Capra and
Chaplin routinely conveyed in thirty seconds. Milius's
characters, somewhat unfashionably, start out distinct
and defined, and repeat rather than evolve. From Hawks,
perhaps, comes a fondness for big rituals with little
props, like Ben Johnson's lighting a cigar and putting
on gloves before strolling into a gunfight as though his
prime scent is for buggery. This idea -- that the good
guys are inspired less by the ideals of their office
than by the same sadism which defines the bad guys --
was familiar in the 70s, as also during the Depression
and immediate postwar, but had been out of favor in the
50s and 60s.
Milius's heroes are brutes. Dillinger kills casually and
turns people into possessions by humiliating and beating
and raping them. His victims worship him. Sultan Raisuli
in The Wind and the Lion creates slaves through
humiliation, slapping women, using men as chairs,
cutting off fingers and tongues and heads. He is
worshipped even by the American family he kidnaps. Teddy
Roosevelt growls like a grizzly, murders Spaniards, and
gets elected president. This is pretty sick, and the
sicker it gets, the more people behave as though it were
normal, indeed enviable. The pain the hero inflicts does
not tarnish his glory -- a paradox Milius's movies
ponder.
*
Typical, too, of Milius's films is his frequent shift in
point of view, as in a novel when some chapters are
narrated by characters, others by the author. Milius
almost always has a voice-off narrator who is not the
film's hero, but who has a tangential history of his own
to tell. Normally such a voice-off narrator bestows a
definite distance and attitude toward the central
character, and toward the world they both inhabit. But
in Milius this mindset never gets established, so
shifting and casual is the point of view. For example,
Farewell to the King is narrated a Englishman who starts
after the credits; but the film begins with a long
pre-credit sequence about the King which is not from the
voice-off's point-of-view, nor will half the movie be.
Similarly, Rough Riders frames itself as one long memory
narrated decades later by an outlaw. But no sooner does
the outlaw's voice-off begin his story, than he is
interrupted, and ninety percent of what follows mirrors
the subjectivity of various other characters in scenes
the outlaw himself has no knowledge of.
Some moviemakers have exploited contradicting narratives
in order to enrich a subjective memory (like Ophuls in
Letter from an Unknown Woman or Ford in The Man Who Shot
Liberty Valance). In Milius the effect of disjointed
narratives is a discontinuity that "alienates" us a bit
from easy emotional involvement with the drama, as
indeed do his disjunctive editing, the graphic look of
his images, and his iconic characters.
Melius himself described his Red Dawn as a "comic-book
adventure." His worlds are movie fantasy. The native
culture in Farewell to the King is not detailed beyond
costumes and scenery. Cuba has almost no Cubans. In The
Wind and the Lion, Raisuli, the Lord of the Rif (in
northern Morocco), is translated from his lush green
hills and dales to the stony desert (in the deep South);
his Berbers are costumed for Thief of Bagdad; and the man
he kidnapped is changed into a mother with two small
children.
Milius's graphic style seems to want to express concepts
more than characters, in line with the Futurist flavor of
political cartoons in 70s America and 60s France (e.g.,
Godard's Pierrot le fou). Also undercutting our
emotional involvement with the characters, and also from
60s France, are Milius's self-conscious insertions of
hommages to his favorite auteurs -- Penn, Hawks, Lean,
Ford, Welles and others. Moviemakers have always
borrowed (or stolen), since movies began. Ford from
Murnau, French 30s films from Hollywood early 30s films,
Rossellini and DeSica from Vidor, Vidor and everybody
from Chaplin. The history of cinema is almost nothing
but borrowings, everyone pursuing reality and producing
myth. The peculiarity of Milius and the French is the
self-conscious citation. When reality is "now" and the
myth is "Disillusion," citations evoke our trusting
youth, when dreams were real, before it got "too late."
The courage of Milius is to speak strongly in a doubting
age. His heroes are obnoxious murderers, his communities
are dupes, his visions of history are cynical and
fascinating for their paradoxes and inevitable tragedy.
His "comic-book" style often alienates me from his
melodramas into philosophy, away from human realities
that are too disgusting to confront except as cartoons,
in order to incite my outrage, and change the world. The
dilemma of the 70s (which the 70s did not acknowledge)
was its inability to see beyond the sorrow of the times,
the way a Rossellini or Ford could, except as a distant,
blighted memory.
*
In The Wind and the Lion Sean Connery adds human
resonance to Raisuli the way Alec Guiness does to
Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars (George Lucas, 1900). But
Raisuli is more concept than man, and wants to be. He
describes himself as a mere instrument of God's will, a
force of nature, "the lion," and thus kin to Theodore
Roosevelt, also a force of nature with God for a
partner, "the wind." Indeed, in Big Wednesay, it's the
waves that are the central character; we pass fifteen
years with the humans, the surfers, without knowing
anything about their families, women, children, jobs,
war, or drunkenness. We know them only as players on the
pantheistic waves (like the eskimos on the pantheistic
ice in Nicholas Ray's The Savage Innocents, 1960): "Who
knows where the wind comes from. Is it the breath of
God? Who knows what really makes the clouds? Where do
the great swells come from? And for what? And now it was
time. We had waited so long."
All this adolescent obsession with biological forces is
utterly Hawksian. And like Hawks, it is always time to
be tested -- a throw of the dice that leaves us heroes
or dead. Courage won't win the game, but without it we
cannot play, and Milius heroes argue they have no
choice. All through Farewell to the King, people moan
they do things they have to. The King, like Raisuli and
Conan the Barbarian, must choose between death and
murder, and all three gain kingship by killing. Conan's
childhood is nothing but brutality. Only when he is made
a gladiator, is forced to kill people, and is applauded
by the masses, does he find, as the voice-off puts it,
"a sense of self worth." (What is the worth of such
worth?) The King is as alienated by violence as Conan,
and as stone-faced. Such is the path to greatness,
Rossevelt tells us. "I lived in the forest like an
animal," the King recalls. "For the first time in my
life, I was truly free." Facing death, he provokes a
challenge fight, kills his opponent, and the people make
him their king, just as they did Raisuli, just as they
will make Roosevelt their president after he kills
Spaniards. The King wants "freedom. [And] guns -- so
they can't take the freedom away."
Milius is the Jonathan Swift of the movies. There is
always a scent of satire working against his heroes, who
are forever charging ahead like Futurist machines. The
King's troops glide heroically through the jungle and
down the waterways, beautiful and glorious. Force takes
over, massacres ensue, until the unrelentling click,
click, click of the King's empty gun. Guns take away
freedom. Earlier, the Englishman had remarked, "We're
bringing modern warfare to these savages. It's a heavy
responsibility." And one of his men had replied, "Sir,
what's the deal on the woman?"
Are lofty phrases merely excuses?
*
Some men have no choice; the war comes to them. Yet
Roosevelt and his Rough Riders go to the war -- they
even create the war to go to -- arguing that "never
knowing honor, never knowing courage" is not an
alternative. Big Wednesday's beach set even has a rite
of passage, a temple portal Matt must pass through
unassisted. To surf life's big swell cannot be shirked.
On the other hand, maybe it's the heroes who are the big
swells and their lofty ideals only hot air. There were,
for example, lofty Cuban reasons (such as a
hundred-thousand murdered Cubans) for the U.S. to rescue
the island from Spain. But in Rough Riders Milius never
mentions Cuba's reasons. He hardly shows a Cuban face.
Instead he shows an American reason, revenge for blowing
up the Maine, one of the most infamous canards in
American History, known as such to every school child,
up there with LBJ inventing a Gulf of Tonkin "incident"
to engage the U.S. against Vietnam (which Milius shows
in Flight of the Intruder), or Truman announcing our new
atom bomb has been "dropped on Hiroshima, a military
base" (in Farewell to the King). Milius depicts all
three canards without refutation. We and the characters
know they are merely excuses for swells. (Or, rather, we
know it if we bother first to question the canard, second
to wonder if Milius himself is being naive or foxy.
Watching a Milius movie requires a bit of arguing.)
"America is desirous of battle!" Roosevelt sums up. In
contrast to John Ford's soldiers, who trod wearily to
war, crippled by separation from their families,
anguished at firing their guns, abhoring their duty,
despising their politicians, Hawks' and Milius's
soldiers go to war for bully and whoopee. For "the
fighting virtues," as Roosevelt calls them. How
inspiring is the exuberance of William Randolph Heast
reading the headline "WAR" -- a war the newspaper mogul
has essentially created -- and how gloriously Hearst
rides into the sun at movie's end, lean, bold and true.
Led by men like Hearst and Roosevelt, the United States
would proceed to annex Puerto Rico, Guam and the
Philippines, and flex its might around the globe,
slaughtering hundreds of thousands. Milius focuses on a
moment in American history when fascists triumphed over
democrats. The heroes forever pose to exhibit their
manly challenge to death, like Spanish paintings.
Captain O'Neil (Sam Elliott), that most inspiring
leader, even dies for bully, needlessly defying enemy
bullets to hit him. "All the great masterful races have
been fighting races," Roosevelt proclaims.
Like Ford in The Searchers, Milius juxtaposes the heroic
icons with the tawdry killing for whoppee. The heroes are
all insane. "You must become a man killer," Captain
O'Neil instructs his Conans-to-be.
"It is murder, isn't it?" a reporter asks.
"You betcha," O'Neil replies.
"You gonna make these men murderers?"
"I'm gonna try to."
And soon, the more they murder, the more they rejoice:
"We happy few, we band of brothers!" They chant
Shakespeare's Saint Crispin's Day paean from Henry V
while having orgasms machine-gunning Spaniards, because
"They're educated men," as someone explains, and
Milius's irony is that there is no paradox. Am I to
admire a Roosevelt who tortures a German prisoner to
show him how to work a machine gun, and then screams,
"Kill that German, remember the Maine!" as he sallies
forth for a new charge?
"I can see the flags, waving like Freedom," screams the
reporter (Stephen Crane) hysterically, and Milius shows
us our flag waving in brilliant freedom over the bodies
of dead Spaniards and the continuing massacre of those
still living. In The Wind and the Lion, the flag waves
with similar grisly glory after a cartoon battle of
Marine's slaughtering the bashaw's guards. Brecht was in
vogue in the 70s, far less so in 1997; have we gone blind
today to irony? Why does everyone write that Milius
glorifies war?
The more there is death, the more Milius juxtaposes
comedy. Heroes shoot Spaniards in the back and make us
laugh when one man throws down his rifle, holds up his
hands, cries out surrender, and we shoot him anyway,
from three feet away. This is manly. On the other hand,
this Spanish face is the only one we see. Up till now,
it's been like killing spiders in a video game, except
that all the pain and blood has been on our side. Now
Milius puts one of his prophets on stage, a soldier who
intones, "He who have no stomach for this fight, let him
depart."
I feel outrage, not pride.
Why does everyone follow this Roosevelt? "Teddy," the
"New York cowboy," the boy who never grows up, hops
around like Br'er Rabbitt shouting "Bully" in a childish
squeak, so eager to obey and succeed, thoroughly
obnoxious. Oblivious. In a world all his own, with his
stuffed bear. He knows no fear. "Too late" is not in his
vocabulary. Sometimes Milius shows Teddy mythically,
particularly on horseback, and Teddy seems aware he is
making myth. He is a Horatio Nelson type, but as though
playing the role: a boy's game, a satire of poses. The
only event to befuddle him the whole movie long is when
the moment comes for his big charge and he can't find
his sword to wave ceremoniously over his head. "This
glorious hill!" he proclaims at battle's end. "There are
no cowards here." Nor any Spanish prisoners.
*
In Rough Riders' epilogue, the outlaw talks to his
partner's grave that he has became a millionaire and
will die soon, and that Roosevelt became president, lost
a son licking the Kaiser, and said they "turned a page in
History."
It's hard not to wonder what the point was.
The Wind and the Lion gives glory a better show, with
its sweeping score and storybook imagery out of
Delacroix and Lawrence of Arabia, and Raisuli is
magnificent slaying a dozen cutthroats. But his
kidnapped Americans are indifferent to the deaths of
their own friends and servants, not to mention a few
beheadings three feet away, and soon the young boy is
happily killing people as well, and ultimately Raisuli
loses everything, swept away by the wind. It was worth
losing everything, he reflects.
But what was the point? In Farewell to the King, the
king and his people lose everything, too. In Flight of
the Intruder, male bonding becomes the perverted
consolation for the manifold absurdities of the war
against Vietnam, wife and child are discarded.
Women, indeed, have too few appearances in Milius's
movies. They are not needed and keep to the background
(except when being manly in Red Dawn). This is
unfortunate. I like Milius's females more than his
males. For me, Rough Riders' best moments are scenes
with women, none more wonderful than the formal
reception in Washington.
Otherwise, sadness and purposelessness pervade Milius.
His movies are tragedies, except one. Motorcycle Gang,
which he did not script (Kent Anderson did), is a comic
reversal of his themes. Here, when a baddy rapes a girl,
I found myself wishing she would kill him, and I realised
this was what the movie wanted me to feel. It is entirely
constructed around the good feelings of revenge, power,
and righteous violence, and these good feelings are
never questioned or satirized the way Milius does in
every other film. Nor can I gainsay the father who
rescues his daughter, or pity the baddies he has to
kill. Here is a hero it is impossible not to admire: his
quiet ways, his lack of alienation, his lack of a need to
show up. Just the opposite of a real Milius hero.
2740
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:27pm
Subject: re: best of the 90s
My Top 10
01 - Hana-Bi (Takeshi Kitano)
02 - The Insider (Michael Mann)
03 - Huozhe (Zhang Yimou)
04 - The Limey (Steven Soderbergh)
05 - Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick)
06 - Festen (Thomas Vinterberg)
07 - Rhapsody in August (Akira Kurosawa)
08 - Crash (David Cronenberg)
09 - Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson)
10 - The Sweet Hereafter (Atom Egoyan)
11 - Maborosi (Kore-eda), Unforgiven (Eastwood), Fargo (Coen)
2741
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: taste & recontextualization
"But Milius' films bear out the paleonconservative
critique of
Enlightement liberalism and modernity, and what's
more, Milius' films
often have the embodiments of his ideology (Conan, the
Raisuli,
Roosevelt, Nick Nolte in FAREWELL TO THE KING) face
the death of
their ideology."
That's because they're "Male Weepies" (Raymond
Durgnat's exceedingly useful term.) I'm surprised you
don't mention "Big Wednesday" -- which remains his
most popular and well-remembered film.
But I'm not surprised that you don't mention that in
the incident on which "The Wind and the Lion" was
based the person Sean Connery kidnapped was male.
--- Zach Campbell wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2742
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:35pm
Subject: Henrik
I think this poll is focusing on filmmakers who started during (or
near enough to) the 1990s.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> My Top 10
>
> 01 - Hana-Bi (Takeshi Kitano)
> 02 - The Insider (Michael Mann)
> 03 - Huozhe (Zhang Yimou)
> 04 - The Limey (Steven Soderbergh)
> 05 - Thin Red Line (Terrence Malick)
> 06 - Festen (Thomas Vinterberg)
> 07 - Rhapsody in August (Akira Kurosawa)
> 08 - Crash (David Cronenberg)
> 09 - Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson)
> 10 - The Sweet Hereafter (Atom Egoyan)
>
> 11 - Maborosi (Kore-eda), Unforgiven (Eastwood), Fargo (Coen)
2743
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:37pm
Subject: Re: taste & recontextualization
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> That's because they're "Male Weepies" (Raymond
> Durgnat's exceedingly useful term.) I'm surprised you
> don't mention "Big Wednesday" -- which remains his
> most popular and well-remembered film.
Because I haven't seen it yet; as I made clear in my post, I've only
seen three of his films.
> But I'm not surprised that you don't mention that in
> the incident on which "The Wind and the Lion" was
> based the person Sean Connery kidnapped was male.
I didn't talk very much at all about THE WIND AND THE LION. There
are a lot of things I didn't mention about it.
--Zach
2744
From:
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:37pm
Subject: New Filmmakers of the 1990's
Here's a list by year.
Mike Grost
1990
Dances With Wolves (Kevin Costner)
Don't Tell Her It's Me (Malcolm Mowbray)
Europa Europa (Agnieska Holland)
Flashback (Franco Amurri)
Longtime Companion (Norman René)
Metropolitan (Whit Stillman)
Peacemaker (Kevin S. Tenney)
The Station (Sergio Rubini)
1991
Boyz n the Hood (John Singleton)
Daughters of the Dust (Julie Dash)
Hear My Song (Peter Chelsom)
If Looks Could Kill (William Dear)
Mediterraneo (Gabriel Salvatores)
Mystery Date (Jonathan Wacks)
Raise the Red Lantern (Zhang Yimou)
True Identity (Charles Lane)
1992
Baraka (Ron Fricke)
Brain Donors (Dennis Dugan)
Chrome Soldiers (Thomas J. Wright)
Encino Man (Les Mayfield)
Prelude to a Kiss (Norman René)
The Story of Qiu Ju (Zhang Yimou)
Strictly Ballroom (Baz Luhrmann)
Zebrahead (Anthony Drazan)
1993
Body Shot (Dmitri Logothetis)
La Bohème (Baz Luhrmann)
Molly and Gina (Paul Leder)
Orlando (Sally Potter)
Posse (Mario Van Peebles)
The Scent of Green Papaya (Tran Anh Hung)
Swing Kids (Thomas Carter)
Theremin: An Electronic Odyssey (Steven M. Martin)
The Wedding Banquet (Ang Lee)
1994
Chungking Express (Wong Kar-wai)
Desperate Remedies (Stuart Main, Peter Wells)
Dumb and Dumber (Peter Farrelly)
Foreign Student (Eva Sereny)
Lamerica (Gianni Amelio)
The Madness of King George (Nicholas Hytner)
A Man of No Importance (Suri Krishnamma)
The Mask (Charles Russell)
Maybe, Maybe Not (Sonke Wortmann)
The Mystery of Rampo (Kazuyoshi Okuyama)
Princess Caraboo (Michael Austin)
Speed (Jan DeBont)
The Sum of Us (Kevin Dowling, Geoff Burton)
1995
Chameleon (Michael Pavone)
The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill, But Who Came Down A Mountain (Christopher Monger)
Fair Game (Andrew Sipes)
Hackers (Iain Softley)
Kolya (Jan Svarek)
Living in Oblivion (Tom Di Cillo)
Othello (Oliver Parker)
Persuasion (Roger Michell)
Pocahontas (Mike Gabriel, Eric Goldberg)
Sense and Sensibility (Ang Lee)
The Star Maker (Giuseppe Tornatore)
Tommy Boy (Peter Segal)
Unzipped (Douglas Keeve)
Village of Dreams (Yoichi Higashi)
A Walk in the Clouds (Alfonso Arau)
While You Were Sleeping (Jon Turteltaub)
1996
The Associate (Donald Petrie)
Black Dju (Pol Cruchten)
East Palace, West Palace (Zhang Yuan)
Emma (Douglas McGrath)
Eraser (Charles Russell)
Gang in Blue (Mario Van Peebles, Melvin Van Peebles)
Happy Gilmore (Dennis Dugan)
Lost Book Found (Jem Cohen)
That Thing You Do! (Tom Hanks)
1997
The Chambermaid on the Titanic (Bigas Luna)
Character (Mike van Diem)
The Full Monty (Peter Cattaneo)
Isamu Noguchi: Stones and Paper (Hiro Narita)
Last Dance (Tsai Ming-liang)
Ma Vie en rose (Alain Berliner)
Merry Christmas, George Bailey (Matthew Diamond)
Red Corner (Jon Avnet)
Sucre amer / Bitter Sugar (Christian Lara)
1998
Aimée & Jaguar (Max Färberböck)
The Apple (Samira Makhmalbaf)
Big Monday (Michael T. Rehfield)
Dangerous Beauty (Marshall Herskovitz)
Ever After (Andy Tennant)
Gods and Monsters (Bill Condon)
Lola Rennt / Run, Lola, Run (Tom Tykwer)
The Object of My Affection (Nicholas Hytner)
Pleasantville (Gary Ross)
Raw Images from the Optic Cross (Karl Nussbaum)
Shakespeare in Love (John Madden)
The Wall (Alain Berliner)
The Wedding Singer (Frank Coraci)
Wing Commander (Chris Roberts)
1999
Beau Travail (Claire Denis)
Big Daddy (Dennis Dugan)
Boys Don't Cry (Kimberley Pierce)
Happy, Texas (Mark Illsley)
Hit and Runway (Christopher Livingston)
Man of the Century (Adam Abraham)
Mansfield Park (Patricia Rozema)
Murdercycle (Tom Callaway)
Never Been Kissed (Raja Gosnell)
Phörpa / The Cup (Khyentse Norbu)
Solas (Benito Zambrano)
2745
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:40pm
Subject: Chereau apology
Just found out after three attempts at replies that Yahoo doesn't
take replies today! Drat! A whole hour wasted!
Briefly, to David: I apologize for the misattribution of the Chereau
remark, which of course caused my entire argument (assuming it was
one) to collapse. Would be interesting to read your views in support
of your claim that it is the Greatest Movie Ever...
Re: the title. Someone (sorry I forget who) wondered whether a
correct translation of the title shouldn't be "... Will Take the
Train" Indeed it should. And it doesn't sound disdainful in French,
just a bit cavalier, as befits the character. What is meant is "by
going to the trouble of taking the train they'll prove that they
really loved me."
JPC
2746
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:43pm
Subject: Re: Fifteen from the Nineties
I forgot about MY SEX LIFE, HAPPY TOGETHER, and JACKIE BROWN!
--Zach
2747
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Degrees of heterosexuals in films
"He was married. Isn't it at least possible he was
bisexual?"
Yes. But Paul and Jane Bowles were married. And
recently Barry Diller married Diane Von Furstenberg.
--- jaketwilson wrote:
> David Ehrenstein wrote:
> > For the record, Vito Russo says he was.
> >
> > --- Gabe Klinger wrote:
> > > David Ehrenstein:
> > >
> > > > And both Murnau and Vigo were gay.
> > >
> > > For the record Jean Vigo was not gay.
>
> He was married. Isn't it at least possible he was
> bisexual?
>
> Speaking of taboos, male bisexuality is still an
> under-explored topic
> in movies. There are many instances where
> pigeonholing a character or
> a filmmaker as exclusively gay can leave out part of
> the story.
>
> (Bi male films, off the top of my head: GILDA,
> SAVAGE NIGHTS, DOG DAY
> AFTERNOON, CABARET, TEORAMA, THOSE WHO LOVE ME CAN
> TAKE THE TRAIN,
> Ozon's A SUMMER'S DRESS, some Gregg Araki.)
>
> JTW
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2748
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:55pm
Subject: Re: ideas matter - age doesn't
> But I also know more than one older cinephile who
> barely see new films (which is their right) and then make
> remarks about how contemporary films are mostly worthless
I'm 52 and think the last decade (roughly) in cinema is equal to any other:
Hou, Wong Kar-wai, late Brakhage, Nathaniel Dorsky etc etc etc.
I await the NEXT end of cinema with optimism ;-)
-Sam Wells
2749
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:57pm
Subject: Orwell's point, Milius
Celine was an anti-Semite and a supporter of the Nazis. Of course, as
Dan would note, that was a popular position at the time.
Don't be so quick to dismiss Milius's work on Apocalypse Now - I
delved into all the script versions when I wrote "Milius's
Apocalypse" for the Torino Festival, and his first draft would've
made a great movie, very Catch-22/underground comix/Sixties all the
way, although it had little to do with Conrad; when Coppola started
pushing it toward Conrad, JM also came up with a good scene to embody
the Heart of Darkness Kurtz is babbling about: a cave filled with
thousands of black cobras. His ending was much funnier than
Coppola's, but of course Coppola's wasn't funny at all.
I still like the film, and so does Milius, but the question of what
both are saying about the Vietnam War has never been given its due
because film critics knew nothing about the Vietnam War at the time
and still don't. I found it helpful to bone up on military history
and theory written then and now about the War. Some of Milius's
images - like Duvall shooting peasants from a helicopter - came right
out of what was already in print: that example was inspired by a book
on the War published in 1969 by a British imperialist who had fought
successful counter-insurgency campaigns elsewhere and was knocking
the use of air power in Vietnam by saying that it would "give
American generals a chance to do a little big game shooting from
their helicopters." The best scene, which is the village Duvall is
mopping up when Sheen and company first find him, is a surreal but
fairly accurate portrayal of the policy of resttling Vietnamese
peasants from the countryside to "safe villages" to keep them from
being infiltrated (the "safe villages" were more like concentration
camps). Ironically, the "safe villages" policy emanated from the
theories of the same British imperialist, who was denounced
explicitly in one of Kurtz's speeches that didn't make it into the
film.
Milius told me, when I interviewed him for the French communist
paper, L'Humanite, about Apocalypse Redux when it premiered at
Cannes, that he is becoming more Marxist every day. Of course, that
was probably just him being courteous to the host publication, which
I understand may be going out of business soon.
Tag's piece on Milius is great, by the way. And Torino is one of the
best festivals around, in my opinion.
2750
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 3:58pm
Subject: NYC: Lenfilm
I'd like to see a lot of the films in the upcoming Walter Reade
Lenfilm series (http://www.filmlinc.com/wrt/programs/11-
2003/lenfilm.htm ), but are there any can't-miss ones that aren't so
well-known? The Sokurovs, Guermans, Heifitses, and Kozintsevs are
all on my radar as reputable or at least interesting-sounding films,
as are MASQUERADE and TORPEDO CARRIERS.
--Zach
2751
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:00pm
Subject: You've gotta be kidding me!
And recently Barry Diller married Diane Von Furstenberg.
2752
From: Tosh
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:11pm
Subject: Re: Tarantino
I think everyone here has probably made their point(s) about
Tarantino - but for me personally when I go to a theater to see his
films - I really enjoy them. Pulp Fiction I think is his weakest
work - the Bruce Willis scenes are too long - but strange enough when
I watched parts of it on TV, it holds up seperate wise from the other
scenes.
I too think Jackie Brown and Kill Bill are superb films. Odd enough
as he is a major media figure - I don't find him that interesting.
But I do admire that he is a literate film fan - and he is generous
to his public to show 'hey this is what I like, if you like this -
check this out.' One of the things I like about art is how people
share their taste to others who may not have been exposed to a
certain type of films, etc.
Luckly I have a wife who was raised in a town that showed nothing but
Yakuza films! It complements my European/classic Japanese Fox Venice
movie going days!
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
2753
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:15pm
Subject: Re: You've gotta be kidding me!
It's true!
And I wasn't even invited to the ceremony!
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> And recently Barry Diller married Diane Von
> Furstenberg.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2754
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:20pm
Subject: Pavlovian critisism
I've been thinking about this for a while, so let me run it by you
guys. I wont go into details, its just a strain of thought.
It is my impression that modern critisism is arbitrary and arrogant.
So I ask why...
If someone says X is crap, we automaticly will try to defend X, even
begin to like it, if we one inch on the other side of neutral. But it
also goes the other way around. If someone says X is great, we
automaticly will try to destroy X.
I submit that this response is a conditioned reflex. Its Pavlovian
Critisism.
For quiet a while I have noticed that contemporary american directors
are overlooked in favor of comtemporary european (especially easten
europe), even go to the lenght of calling any new director a genius
and any debut (a (near) masterpiece).
I believe the reason for this is, that contemporary american directors
automaticly are crap, because "kids" love them - and if american
directors are crap, then non american directors must be good. QED
(according to Pavlovian critisism).
It also explains the level of arrogance. Since preference is based on
a conditioned reflex, there is little to argue with, hence arbitrary
and arrogance.
I believe there are two reasons for this behavoir. The first is, that
film is easily approachable and to a large degree intuitive. So layman
can discuss film as easy as a person with a master degree. Its taste
vs knowledge (consider how taste was discussed in this forum). The
second is, that even amongst professionals there is competition.
I prefer to see such behavoir as a sign of academic stress, rather
than a sign of indifference.
Anyway, I ran my thoughts :)
Henrik "the ever confused dane"
2755
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:24pm
Subject: Re: Chereau apology
You can read my views in "Film Quarterly" Volume 56,
Number 2, Winter 2002-03.
"A bit cavalier" is the precise tone required. That's
how Jean-Baptiste sounds on the tape that's played
throughout the film, and that's how he's remembered by
literally everyone in it.
I find Reichenbach fascinating. A good portion of my
"Those Who Love Me" article concerns him, and after
reading it (I believe it can be downloaded online for
the University of California Press website) I'd
appreciate hearing anything you'd have to say about
him.
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2756
From: Damien Bona
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:31pm
Subject: Big Wednesday: Attention New Yorkers
I'm surprised you
> don't mention "Big Wednesday" -- which remains his
> most popular and well-remembered film.
>
Big Wednesday is being shown at the SUnshine tonight (Friday) and
tomorrow at midnight.
2757
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:41pm
Subject: Re: NYC: Lenfilm
> I'd like to see a lot of the films in the upcoming Walter Reade
> Lenfilm series (http://www.filmlinc.com/wrt/programs/11-
> 2003/lenfilm.htm ), but are there any can't-miss ones that aren't so
> well-known? The Sokurovs, Guermans, Heifitses, and Kozintsevs are
> all on my radar as reputable or at least interesting-sounding films,
> as are MASQUERADE and TORPEDO CARRIERS.
I think Gleb Panfilov is a good director; THE DEBUT isn't my favorite,
but it's worth a look.
Hoberman had high praise for A LONG HAPPY LIFE when it played in the
Walter Reade's 60s Russian film series.
You've already got Heifits on your radar, but be sure to see THE LADY
WITH THE LITTLE DOG, which is quite good. There's a Cukor interview
somewhere where Cukor is asked what his favorite films are, and LADY was
the only one that he could think of.
- Dan
2758
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:42pm
Subject: Re: Chereau apology
> "A bit cavalier" is the precise tone required. That's
> how Jean-Baptiste sounds on the tape that's played
> throughout the film, and that's how he's remembered by
> literally everyone in it.
Aha, I've found this: "The title is long but mysterious.... Although gentle, it has the ring of an order." --Chereau,
http://www.filmfestivals.com/cannes98/selofus5.htm
So it's more peremptory than I thought, but "gentle" seems like the operative word.
2759
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 4:54pm
Subject: Re: Orwell's point, Milius
> Celine was an anti-Semite and a supporter of the Nazis. Of course, as
> Dan would note, that was a popular position at the time.
Maybe not quite popular, at least among writers, but perhaps more in the
realm of what a socially alert person with a rebellious or perverse
nature might embrace. Milius might have gone that route in the 30s, but
he couldn't now without sacrificing that semblance of social membership
that enables him to communicate as an artist.
I'm not really talking about moral relativity, but more about the
relativity of what Orwell called "silly."
I always wanted to like Milius's films, but I never could. It's not a
political issue: I find him a bit ponderous. - Dan
2760
From:
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 1:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: Degrees of heterosexuals in films
In a message dated 10/10/03 10:09:39 AM, f@f... writes:
> I'm not sure I want take time to read the forthcoming book on why so
> many men who like vaginas also drink beer while watching the game.
>
Jonahtan Ned Katz's The Invention of Heterosexuality goes a tad deeper than
that...
Sorry for the delay in response. Been film festivaling all week.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2761
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:34pm
Subject: Re: Pavlovian criticism
The prejudice against Hollywood is ancient, but like everything
else, I've seen it take a couple of turns around the spiral in my
lifetime before winding up back in the "same" place. Your
observations about the conditioned response of seeking to
"one-up" other critics and journalists is ever with us, and may
even be a permanent and healthy part of cinephilia (cf. the "I've
never understood all the fuss about Mizoguchi" syndrome, which
may be a fruitful basis for discussion, as Dan has shown
us)...healthy, at least, until it becomes so automatic as to be
boring, as it sooner or later does with people in Akademia and
the high-end filmcrit press much of the time. In the latter area,
critics end up reviewing not the film, but what someone else said
about it, sometimes without seeing it, and of course you know
what happens in the Big Rabbit Hutch (present company
excepted in both cases).
If you aren't acquainted with the term "one up," I strenuously
recommend the Stephen Potter Gamesmanship books -
Gamesmanship, Oneupmanship, Lifemanship, Supermanship,
Anti-Woo and Golfmanship. I read them as a teen, and they did
more to prepare me for life at Yale and later in NY and Paris than
that prep school I went to in Austin, which did a lot! The various
ploys and counter-ploys are so ingrained in me that I doubt if I
could stop using them if I had to (that might very well be
suicidal), but it does help to have the system - which is as much
a part of human behavior as sex roles, at least in a certain class
- brought to consciousness. As with the much less important
"I'm OK-You're OK," "He-She-We," "Games People Play" (a weak
derivative of Potter) and all the other self-help books, it helps to
see our programs laid out for inspection. There was a British
film I remember enjoying at the time, apart from the dishonest
"happy ending": "School for Scoundrels," with Terry-Thomas and
Alfred Hyde-White. But there is no substitute for the books.
Note: My remarks about people who become automatic and
boring is not a criticism of Gamesmanship itself, only of bad
Gamesmanship, where ploys are treated as doctrines, then as
dogmas, then as core beliefs for cliques, etc. The history of
humanity is littered with these casualties, many of them physical
casualties.
2762
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:35pm
Subject: Big Wednesday
Big Wednesday is a fucking masterpiece.
2763
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:41pm
Subject: Mizoguchi syndrome
> (cf. the "I've
> never understood all the fuss about Mizoguchi" syndrome, which
> may be a fruitful basis for discussion, as Dan has shown
> us)...healthy, at least, until it becomes so automatic as to be
> boring, as it sooner or later does with people in Akademia and
> the high-end filmcrit press much of the time.
Apart from attributing this automatic behavior to certain circles, I
think I agree with this. There are a few ways to say, "I've never
understood all the fuss about Mizoguchi":
1) "But I want to. Help me out."
2) "But I can sort of see where you folks ar coming from."
3) "And I don't want to, I haven't tried, and I don't care, I just
want to assert my opinion, and I hope it irritates you."
-Jaime
2764
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:42pm
Subject: Re: NYC: Lenfilm
Cukor mentioned "The Lady with the Little Dog" in the
interview conducted by Richard Overstreet published in
"Film Culture" #54, Fall 1964 (with Cukor and Audrey
Hepburn on the cover) but it wasn't in the context of
not being able to remember any others. He went to the
movies quite a lot and was a great appreciator of
foreign film.
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2765
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 5:55pm
Subject: Orwell's point again, Milius
On the other hand Shelley was a vegetarian - although it isn't his
main theme. Blake's self-published poetry expresses, more and
more overtly, the ideas of a religion of two consisting of him and
his wife. And Christopher Smart was stark raving mad when he
wrote Jubilate Agno, which violates every canon of 18th culture.
What's interesting is how out-of-step writers like Blake and
Smart and Lautreaumont eventually find their way to the top of
the milk pitcher. It's one of the strange things about art. Of
course, there may be tons of "mute inglorious Miltons" who,
unlike Gray's illiterate peasant ("Elegey in a Country
Churchyard") actually got around to publishing in limited editions
which have since vanished from the earth because of
incomprehension. But at the end of the day, the cream has a
tendency to rise over time, and silly positions can become wildly
held beliefs, as in the case of Shelley and Blake, so I don't think
Orwell is right about this one.
Re: Milius's politics, directed not especially to Dan: Manny
Farber got it right in his famous first article for City Magazine,
where he saw JM as part of the 60s cohort that included Coppola
and Lucas, not as a right-wing throwback. Farber's remarks
about "grayness" and the 50s could be right out of Frederick
Forrest's remarks about the meat turning gray, which was
echoed by a speech from the head of the French plantation in the
first draft about going to Hanoi and seeing that everything was
gray, with a suitably denigrating addendum on the American
Army. Milius like his colleagues was a 60s kid revolting against
the 50s; the cartoon he directed starts off with a quote from
Erroll Flynn about leading a colorful life ("gray" again). Look at
Big Wednesday, if you're where it's playing: Catch-22 is alluded
to (where do you think he got those names in Apocalypse Now?),
along with Kerouac, a big influence on JM. At the end of Milius's
first draft of Apocalypse Willard joins Kurtz for the same reason
everyone else in the camp has, because they have turned their
back on what's waiting for them at home, portrayed by Milius as
something out of Pleasantville in flashbacks. And the dope is
better.
I still think the best ending was the one in JM's second and third
drafts, which bring the film into the late 70s by showing Willard
at a bar (or a party, as a bodyguard to a corrupt CEO) watching
the Fall of Saigon, and sends him at the end to deliver Kurtz's
message to his wife. "What were his last words?" she asks. "He
spoke of you, ma'am."
2766
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 6:04pm
Subject: Re: NYC: Lenfilm
> Cukor mentioned "The Lady with the Little Dog" in the
> interview conducted by Richard Overstreet published in
> "Film Culture" #54, Fall 1964 (with Cukor and Audrey
> Hepburn on the cover) but it wasn't in the context of
> not being able to remember any others.
Here's the passage. It's true that he didn't claim memory loss - he
changed the subject before naming other pictures.
Q: What are your favorite pictures, Mr. Cukor?
A: I really haven't any. I have favorite pictures which other people
have made, though.
Q: What are they?
A: I loved a picture called LADY WITH A DOG. It was Russian. A most
ravishing, marvelous film.
- Dan
2767
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 8:03pm
Subject: re: big wednesday
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Big Wednesday is a fucking masterpiece.
That is so fucking true. So are The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
and Jeremiah Johnson.
But "Red Dawn" is not lol
2768
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 8:09pm
Subject: Re: Tarantino
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh wrote:
> I too think Jackie Brown and Kill Bill are superb films. Odd enough
> as he is a major media figure - I don't find him that interesting.
> But I do admire that he is a literate film fan - and he is generous
> to his public to show 'hey this is what I like, if you like this -
> check this out.' One of the things I like about art is how people
> share their taste to others who may not have been exposed to a
> certain type of films, etc.
"Kill Bill" won me over to Tarantino. I used to prefer Roger Avary.
I wonder how those who don't love Tanantino feel about the films
that "Kill Bill" references. (Tarantino discusses some of them
here: http://japattack.com/japattack/film/tarantino.html) Do they
dislike these types of films or just Tarantino's efforts?
Paul
2769
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:23pm
Subject: Re: The Big Four of Japanese Directors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> The old-timers I'm most interested in are Naruse (my favorite of them
> all), Ozu, and Gosho. I have a feeling that Tomu Uchida might be up
> there too - what I've seen has been remarkable. And then there's the
> wonderful Sadao Yamanaka, who died at 29.
I haven't seen any of Yamanaka's films. I'm curious which of his
films survive.
Noel Burch lists two films: "A Pot Worth a Million Ryo" and "Humanity,
Paper Balloons." IMDb adds a third film: "Kochiyama Soshun." What
might be a fourth film, "Kawachiyama Shunso," appears in the Sight
and Sound poll, but does sound a little too similar to "Kochiyama
shunso." Kochiyama Soshun is a character from the theater. I think
Kawachiyama Shunso is a proper name as well...
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/voter.php?forename=Shinozaki&surname=Makoto
George Sadoul lists several more films (Dakine no Nagadosu/Sleeping
with a Long Sword, Bangoku no Issho/The Life of Bangoku, Furyu
Katsujinken/The Elegant Swordsman, Machi no Irezumi Mono/The Village
Tattoed Man, Kunisada Chuji, Mori no Ishimatsu/Ishimatsu of the
Forest), but I assume these are lost.
Paul
2770
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:42pm
Subject: Re: Pavlovian critisism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> I've been thinking about this for a while, so let me run it by you
> guys. I wont go into details, its just a strain of thought.
>
> It is my impression that modern critisism is arbitrary and
arrogant.
> So I ask why...
>
> If someone says X is crap, we automaticly will try to defend X,
even
> begin to like it, if we one inch on the other side of neutral. But
it
> also goes the other way around. If someone says X is great, we
> automaticly will try to destroy X.
>
> I submit that this response is a conditioned reflex. Its Pavlovian
> Critisism.
>
> For quiet a while I have noticed that contemporary american
directors
> are overlooked in favor of comtemporary european (especially easten
> europe), even go to the lenght of calling any new director a genius
> and any debut (a (near) masterpiece).
>
> I believe the reason for this is, that contemporary american
directors
> automaticly are crap, because "kids" love them - and if american
> directors are crap, then non american directors must be good. QED
> (according to Pavlovian critisism).
>
> It also explains the level of arrogance. Since preference is based
on
> a conditioned reflex, there is little to argue with, hence
arbitrary
> and arrogance.
>
> I believe there are two reasons for this behavoir. The first is,
that
> film is easily approachable and to a large degree intuitive. So
layman
> can discuss film as easy as a person with a master degree. Its
taste
> vs knowledge (consider how taste was discussed in this forum). The
> second is, that even amongst professionals there is competition.
>
> I prefer to see such behavoir as a sign of academic stress, rather
> than a sign of indifference.
>
> Anyway, I ran my thoughts :)
>
> Henrik "the ever confused dane"
2771
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:57pm
Subject: Sadao Yamanaka
> I haven't seen any of Yamanaka's films. I'm curious which of his
> films survive.
>
> Noel Burch lists two films: "A Pot Worth a Million Ryo" and "Humanity,
> Paper Balloons." IMDb adds a third film: "Kochiyama Soshun."
These are the three I've seen. HUMANITY AND PAPER BALLOONS is the
consensus classic, and a great film. A POT WORTH A MILLION RYO is
excellent too, lively and funny; PRIEST OF DARKNESS (the name under
which I saw KOCHIYAMA SOSHUN) wasn't as good as the other two, in my
opinion.
> George Sadoul lists several more films (Dakine no Nagadosu/Sleeping
> with a Long Sword, Bangoku no Issho/The Life of Bangoku, Furyu
> Katsujinken/The Elegant Swordsman, Machi no Irezumi Mono/The Village
> Tattoed Man, Kunisada Chuji, Mori no Ishimatsu/Ishimatsu of the
> Forest), but I assume these are lost.
Donald Richie suggests that some of Yamanaka's films are archival, so
maybe they exist but don't circulate. - Dan
2772
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:06pm
Subject: Re: Pavlovian critisism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> I've been thinking about this for a while, so let me run it by you
> guys. I wont go into details, its just a strain of thought.
>
> It is my impression that modern critisism is arbitrary and
arrogant.
> So I ask why...
>
What is modern criticism? When did criticism become "modern"?
> If someone says X is crap, we automaticly will try to defend X,
even
> begin to like it, if we one inch on the other side of neutral. But
it
> also goes the other way around. If someone says X is great, we
> automaticly will try to destroy X.
>
Who is "we"? Why "automatically"? How often does this happen?
Often enough to justify a condemnation of "modern" criticism
(whatever that is)?
> I submit that this response is a conditioned reflex. Its Pavlovian
> Critisism.
>
It may be, assuming it exists.
> For quiet a while I have noticed that contemporary american
directors
> are overlooked in favor of comtemporary european (especially easten
> europe), even go to the lenght of calling any new director a genius
> and any debut (a (near) masterpiece).
>
What directors? Overlooked by what critics? American critics?
European critics? Both?
Many a "new" director has never been called "a genius".
>
I believe the reason for this is, that contemporary american
directors
> automaticly are crap, because "kids" love them - and if american
> directors are crap, then non american directors must be good. QED
> (according to Pavlovian critisism).
You might just as well say, conversely, that if non-
American directors are good, then American directors are bad (because
they are different from non-American ones). Both propositions seem
equally silly to me...
American films (aka "Hollywood movies") have always been
treated with at best condescension, at worst thorough contempt by
American critics at large, and by many foreign critics too. Nothing
new under the sun. Many (if not most) of the greatest American films
of the fifties (to single out only one period) were underrated,
dismissed or totally ignored by critics.
>
> It also explains the level of arrogance. Since preference is based
on
> a conditioned reflex, there is little to argue with, hence
arbitrary
> and arrogance.
>
> I believe there are two reasons for this behavoir. The first is,
that
> film is easily approachable and to a large degree intuitive. So
layman
> can discuss film as easy as a person with a master degree.
Yes and know. You could say the same thing of
novels, painting, music.... "Film is intuitive" means what?
Its taste
> vs knowledge (consider how taste was discussed in this forum). The
> second is, that even amongst professionals there is competition.
>
What professionals are you talking about? critics?
Acasdemics? Filmmakers? You lost me there...
> I prefer to see such behavoir as a sign of academic stress, rather
> than a sign of indifference.
>
> Anyway, I ran my thoughts :)
>
> Henrik "the ever confused dane"
2773
From: Tosh
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:11pm
Subject: Re: Tarantino
>Hey thanks for this website! I know Tomo ,who did the interview
>with Tarantino.
But back to the main subject matter, I think most of the films
Tarantino name checks are pretty good works. I disagree with some of
his viewpoints - but nevertheless I have admiration for his work.
It's interesting when he brings up Godard's work. One wonders if he
likes the older and current works - or if he is totally focused on
the Anna Karina years. I suspect he doesn't care for the late 60's or
early 70's Godard stuff - probably too political for him. What he
admires of Godard is his focus on beautiful woman (in his case Uma,
and in Godard's situation: Karina) Anyway Kill Bill is a fascinating
piece of work.
>I wonder how those who don't love Tanantino feel about the films
>that "Kill Bill" references. (Tarantino discusses some of them
>here: http://japattack.com/japattack/film/tarantino.html) Do they
>dislike these types of films or just Tarantino's efforts?
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
2774
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:48pm
Subject: Re: Pavlovian criticism
Another reason to say, "I've never understood the fuss about
Mizoguchi": to raise a question about Mizoguchi, as Dan did
when he said that he doesn't like the acting. I suspect that this
"move," as I called it, can perform some of functions as the CdC
Young Mr. Lincoln text. Cinephiles here may say something
critical about this or that revered auteur, but they never would
write a whole article to deconstruct him.
Also, saying "I've never understood the fuss about Mizoguchi"
can be a way of bringing into focus something that is never
discussed, the acting in certain roles, which can lead to
revaluting Mizoguchi down...or UP! In the case of Young Mr.
Lincoln, it ultimately had the latter effect by showing his
relationship as an artist to the ideology in the script. My Ford in
the 30s piece also took some of the idological motifs that article
picked out and showed that they were Fordian, or at least
echoed in Ford's earlier work: "the refusal to choose," for
example, can be applied back to Arrowsmith, and the vaccine
tests.
Anyway, when an auteurist of Dan's stature does the "Mizoguchi
move," I prick up my ears. Then there are those who do it
constantly with all our favorite old an dnew directors and become
a bore. At least to me.
None of this denies Potter's reading of this sort of move, which I
consider unshakably true in Potter's field of study.
2775
From: iangjohnston
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:48pm
Subject: Re: Pavlovian critisism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> American films (aka "Hollywood movies") have always been
> treated with at best condescension, at worst thorough contempt by
> American critics at large, and by many foreign critics too.
Nothing
> new under the sun. Many (if not most) of the greatest American
films
> of the fifties (to single out only one period) were underrated,
> dismissed or totally ignored by critics.
Wasn't this battle fought and won a long time ago? It seems to me
that American films *are* taken seriously by critics, both in the
States and elsewhere, and that's been the case for quite some time --
I can remember being encouraged in the eighties to take John Landis
and John Badham *very* seriously. I'd argue that it's foreign
language films that are suffering from critical neglect -- just look
at Sight & Sound since the early nineties. (Or the UK critics poll
of the best films of the last 25 years, in which Hou, Tsai,
Kiarostami etc didn't even rate.)
Ian
2776
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 0:29am
Subject: Re: Pavlovian critisism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "iangjohnston" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> >
> > American films (aka "Hollywood movies") have always been
> > treated with at best condescension, at worst thorough contempt
by
> > American critics at large, and by many foreign critics too.
> Nothing
> > new under the sun. Many (if not most) of the greatest American
> films
> > of the fifties (to single out only one period) were underrated,
> > dismissed or totally ignored by critics.
>
> Wasn't this battle fought and won a long time ago? It seems to me
> that American films *are* taken seriously by critics, both in the
> States and elsewhere, and that's been the case for quite some time -
-
> I can remember being encouraged in the eighties to take John
Landis
> and John Badham *very* seriously. I'd argue that it's foreign
> language films that are suffering from critical neglect -- just
look
> at Sight & Sound since the early nineties. (Or the UK critics poll
> of the best films of the last 25 years, in which Hou, Tsai,
> Kiarostami etc didn't even rate.)
>
> Ian
Yes the battle was indeed fought, and to a large extent won, long
ago. However I was responding to the melancholy Dane's complaint
that "modern" criticism (by which I suppose he means present-day,
twenty-first century criticism)puts down American directors in favor
of foreign ones. I was just pointing out that this had been the case
throughout most of the history of film -- until auteurism finally
imposed the view that American directors -- at least some of them --
should be taken seriously. But it took a lot of time,it involved a
lot of wretched excesses, and lots of people still don't buy the
notion. It could also be argued that the past two decades have seen a
comparative decline of the American cinema worthy of being "taken
seriously" as opposed to an explosion of great, original talents in
many other parts of the world. I don't know about Sight and Sound,
which i haven't read in quite some time, but international critics in
various polls have put Kiarostami, Hou and others at the top of their
lists...
JPC
2777
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 0:40am
Subject: Pavlovian critisism: old vs new battles
jpcoursodon: "American films (aka "Hollywood movies") have always been treated with at best condescension, at worst thorough contempt by American critics at large, and by many foreign critics too."
Ian: "Wasn't this battle fought and won a long time ago? It seems to me that American films *are* taken seriously by critics, both in the States and elsewhere, and that's been the case for quite some time."
Me: I'm with Ian on this. In fact, I am reminded of that devil Screwtape in C.S. Lewis's book, whose 'game' is: "to get them running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood.' Get people to crowd to the side of the boat that is already nearly under. When people are lukewarm and apathetic, get them stirred up about the dangers of enthusiasm and emotion. If they are lazy, talk to them about the hypocrisy of the working community. If they are cruel, warn them against the evils of sentimentality. . . . In other words, let them hear loudly and repeatedly the warnings they don't need.'
Just about any college film curriculum will have something on the order of "Deconstructing Dinosaurs: From Harryhausen to Speilberg." The point is that Andrew Sarris' "American Cinema" seems to have been read and absorbed by everybody, but widely misunderstood by a generations of filmmakers and critics, who thought that Sarris was praising genre movies because of their stylistic and technical aptitude alone, not because a Hitchcock or John Ford was trying to use a popular genre to say something meaningful about the human condition. Nowadays, we have Elvis Mitchell (or was it A.O. Scott?) writing solemn thinkpieces in the New York Times on that remake of "Willard," while all sorts of adult foreign films get the short shrift, or even worse, don't even get distributed in the States.
With some exceptions (Tarantino, "X-men") Hollywood's pop genre movies are often lacking in any grown-up, thematic ambition, and artitistic, independent filmmakers have to scramble to find money and audiences for their projects.
I so often run into film school types, who praise a movie for it's editing, camera angles, camera work, digital wizardry...I find myself wondering, well, what does it have to say about life and death and love and morality and God and meaning?
Call me old fashioned, I suppose.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2778
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 0:59am
Subject: Re: Pavlovian critisism: old vs new battles
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Rick Segreda
wrote:
> jpcoursodon: "American films (aka "Hollywood movies") have always
been treated with at best condescension, at worst thorough contempt
by American critics at large, and by many foreign critics too."
>
> Ian: "Wasn't this battle fought and won a long time ago? It seems
to me that American films *are* taken seriously by critics, both in
the States and elsewhere, and that's been the case for quite some
time."
>
> Me: I'm with Ian on this. In fact, I am reminded of that devil
Screwtape in C.S. Lewis's book, whose 'game' is: "to get them running
about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood.' Get people
to crowd to the side of the boat that is already nearly under. When
people are lukewarm and apathetic, get them stirred up about the
dangers of enthusiasm and emotion. If they are lazy, talk to them
about the hypocrisy of the working community. If they are cruel, warn
them against the evils of sentimentality. . . . In other words, let
them hear loudly and repeatedly the warnings they don't need.'
>
> Just about any college film curriculum will have something on the
order of "Deconstructing Dinosaurs: From Harryhausen to Speilberg."
The point is that Andrew Sarris' "American Cinema" seems to have been
read and absorbed by everybody, but widely misunderstood by a
generations of filmmakers and critics, who thought that Sarris was
praising genre movies because of their stylistic and technical
aptitude alone, not because a Hitchcock or John Ford was trying to
use a popular genre to say something meaningful about the human
condition. Nowadays, we have Elvis Mitchell (or was it A.O. Scott?)
writing solemn thinkpieces in the New York Times on that remake
of "Willard," while all sorts of adult foreign films get the short
shrift, or even worse, don't even get distributed in the States.
>
> With some exceptions (Tarantino, "X-men") Hollywood's pop genre
movies are often lacking in any grown-up, thematic ambition, and
artitistic, independent filmmakers have to scramble to find money and
audiences for their projects.
>
> I so often run into film school types, who praise a movie for it's
editing, camera angles, camera work, digital wizardry...I find myself
wondering, well, what does it have to say about life and death and
love and morality and God and meaning?
>
> Call me old fashioned, I suppose.
>
> Hey, why do you quote his response to me and not my response to
his response? Which was the point. I am as old-fashioned as you or
anybody else ("I'm old-fashioned, I love the moonlight, I love the
old-fashioned things; the sound of rain upon my window pane" etc...)
>
JPC
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2779
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:29am
Subject: Re: Re: Tarantino
"Anyway Kill Bill
> is a fascinating
> piece of work."
Not as fascinating as "Elephant" -- which I'm just in
from seeing.
Gus is the superior director of cinematic violence.
--- Tosh wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2780
From:
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:58pm
Subject: Re: re: big wednesday
"Big Wednesday" is indeed the greatest Milius film - at least among the ones
I've seen so far. One of the films Tag discusses at some length in his
wonderful article, "Rough Riders," I've actually not seen yet. No excuse - it's
easily available on video.
Was "Motorcycle Gang" done as part of that series of AIP remakes which
included Friedkin's "Jailbreakers" and Dante's "Runaway Daughters"?
The IMDB indicates he has three films either announced or in production.
Very good news for this all-too-often neglected '70s auteur, though I'm not sure
we should expect "King Conan" anytime soon given that Conan is currently
ruling Calie-for-nia.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2781
From:
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:23pm
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
Well, the best film of the '90s was "The Man in the Moon." I know this
doesn't fit Gabe's criteria at all, but I can never resist a shout-out to that
underrated master, Robert Mulligan.
Anyway.
Here are some favorites of the 1990s by directors who began working either
during or shortly before that decade.
Beau travail (Claire Denis)
Before Sunrise (Richard Linklater)
Bottle Rocket (Wes Anderson)
Jackie Brown (Quentin Tarantino)
Metropolitan (Whit Stillman)
Rushmore (Wes Anderson)
The Son (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne)
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2782
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 2:32am
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
What ?!
New Rose Hotel was the best. Has no one here but me seen it?
ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Well, the best film of the '90s was "The Man in the Moon."
2783
From:
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:39pm
Subject: Van Sant
In a message dated 10/17/2003 22:18:39 Eastern Daylight Time,
cellar47@y... writes:
> Gus is the superior director of cinematic violence.
I haven't seen "Elephant" yet, but maybe this is a good time to bring up the
difficult career of Gus Van Sant. He began with two superbly realized movies,
"Drugstore Cowboy" and "My Own Private Idaho," (1) which had evidence of a
truly idiosyncratic talent - "Cowboy" with its odd passages of surrealism and
generosity of spirit which allowed for something like that stunning scene with
Burroughs; "Idaho" with its seamless integration of paraphrased scenes from
"Chimes at Midnight" (yes, it's originally Shakespeare, but I think the primary
influence is Shakespeare as filtered through Welles) into the story line. Then
came "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues," which isn't as bad as its reputation, but
it did seem like, sadly, a step-down in energy and inspiration from the two
earlier features. Its huge critical and commercial failure seemingly pushed
Van Sant towards safer material. "To Die For" - his first "comeback" movie -
had a sharp Buck Henry script going for it, but on the whole was pretty
uninspired; you can feel GVS kinda calling it in. I don't care for "Good Will
Hunting" or "Finding Forrester" at all; Soderbergh, it seems to me, was far more
successful in applying his eye to self-consciously commercial material, but
perhaps he had more freedom than Van Sant. "Psycho" is kind of a mess, though
interesting on a certain level; it works more theoretically for me than it does in
actuality.
So as Van Sant entered the '00s, it felt like a long, long time since "My Own
Private Idaho" - and then he springs "Gerry" on us. I think it's very great,
by far the most formally bold of all his works; shot in a series of very
long, Tarr-like takes, the final image utterly earns that overused term
"haunting." From what I understand, "Elephant" is shot in a very similar manner to
"Gerry," so evidently the dude is back in business.
I'd be curious for others' thoughts on Van Sant - specific films or his whole
career.
Peter
(1) I've not seen his short films nor "Mala Noche."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2784
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 2:53am
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
>
> What ?!
> New Rose Hotel was the best. Has no one here but me seen it?
Well, I'm barely familiar with Ferrara, Tag, so I haven't. I need to
do something about that soon, though. But I think Jonathan rated it
highly in his capsule review and I'm positive, among all 80 of us,
that there are others who are likeminded!
Peter
2785
From:
Date: Fri Oct 17, 2003 11:00pm
Subject: ATTN: Fred
Fred,
Could you please CC your e-mails to me to this address for the time being:
peter_tonguette@y...
Thanks,
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2786
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:00am
Subject: Re: Pavlovian critisism: old vs new battles
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>I am as old-fashioned as you or
> anybody else ("I'm old-fashioned, I love the moonlight, I love the
> old-fashioned things; the sound of rain upon my window pane" etc...)
> >
"...the starry songs that April sings. This year's fancies are
passing
fancies, but sighing sighs, holding hands, these my heart
understands."
From a movie that joins a preposterous story to sublime musical
numbers: You Were Never Lovelier. The dance by Fred Astaire and Rita
Hayworth was later expanded into a ballet by Jerome Robbins.
--Robert Keser
2787
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:19am
Subject: shout-out to the moon man
Peter - Robert Mulligan's THE MAN IN THE MOON (1993) is such a great,
beautiful and touching film - last Mulligan, first Reese Witherspoon, to
those who haven't yet seen it - so thanks for the shout-out to it! Almost no
one seems to have heard of it; it disappeared direct to video in Australia
and is now unseeable in the DVD age.
Ah for the days when good critics used to ponder the influence of Mulligan
on Pakula, another swiftly forgotten figure ... I am now reaching once more
for my dog-eared copy of Jean-Pierre's 50 ANS DE CINEMA AMERICAIN: by the
way, when will the world ever have an English translation of this critical
masterpiece? Perhaps every a-film-by-er who can translate French should take
a different entry and we'll pool the results, it's only 1269 closely typed
pages ...
wistful Adrian M.
2788
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:24am
Subject: Re: Van Sant
Yes, Gus is back in business. But while it has the
same cinematographer "Elephant" has a look and feel
that's quite different from "Gerry." Sorry you haven't
seen "Mala Noche" yet. One of its leads, Ray Monge,
plays a small part in "Elephant"
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2789
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:25am
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
>
> What ?!
> New Rose Hotel was the best. Has no one here but me seen it?
>
>
> ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> > Well, the best film of the '90s was "The Man in the Moon."
I liked King of New York, Bad Lieutenant, Ms.45, and Body Snatchers a
lot. Rx Xmas seemed pretty weak, in comparison. I haven't seen New
Rose Hotel (not the easiest film to track down!), and I'm embarrassed
to say that a VHS tape of The Addiction has been gathering dust
(without being viewed) on my shelf for quite a while now.
On the other hand, The Man In the Moon is also an excellent film that
I strong-armed friends into seeing when it was playing first run.
Somehow, though, it seems too soon to be making judgments about 90s
films. I realize that it isn't, but that's how it feels to me.
--Robert Keser
2790
From: Tosh
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:30am
Subject: Tarantino turns into Elephant
I am very intrested in seeing 'Elephant,' but isn't the violence
off-screen in that film? Plus I imagine one is 'real' (Elephant)
violence, and the other is 'movie' (Kill Bill) violence. But again,
I maybe totally wrong because I haven't seen the film yet.
>"Anyway Kill Bill
>> is a fascinating
>> piece of work."
>
>Not as fascinating as "Elephant" -- which I'm just in
>from seeing.
>
>Gus is the superior director of cinematic violence.
>
>
>--- Tosh wrote:
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
2791
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:31am
Subject: Re: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
The DVD is excellent. The VHS is to be avoided.
Robert Keser wrote:
> I haven't seen New
> Rose Hotel (not the easiest film to track down!),
2792
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:41am
Subject: Whither Shinji Aoyama
Too add to the list of filmmakers starting around 1990 or later, I
would suggest Shinji Aoyama, though I have only seen EUREKA, which we
all (I think) also left out of the B & W scope films list as well.
This is a truly astonishing film, with echoes of THE SEARCHERS--also,
Bill, this is a serial killer par excellence. And thanks to the
short-lived Shooting Gallery, it was released simultaneously in 20
cities in the US, despite a four-hour runtime! Has anyone seen any of
his other films? DESERT MOON didn't seem to be too well received at
Cannes.
To skip further ahead than the 1990s, EUREKA would probably be fourth
of my favorite films of the aughts--my top three would be WERCKMEISTER
HARMONIES, ESTHER KAHN, and RUSSIAN ARK. But I speed ahead.
pwc
2793
From: jaketwilson
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 4:09am
Subject: Re: Orwell's point again, Milius
But at the end of the day, the cream has a
> tendency to rise over time, and silly positions can become wildly
> held beliefs, as in the case of Shelley and Blake, so I don't think
> Orwell is right about this one.
Exactly: our notions of what counts as "silly" change over time, and
our evaluations change too.
We don't have to take the beliefs of artists literally, because
artists speak in metaphors. All vocabularies are metaphoric in the
end, right? But the question is whether a particular set of terms can
be made to resonate for us (now) as more than historical curiosity or
private myth.
Take Anger, with his interest in black magic, etc. I think accepting
the films as major works of art means acknowledging occultism as a
worldview with a certain validity and purchase on truth. Which I do.
But can a Scientologist make a good movie?
JTW
PS: To Jaime: Lewis Carroll and Flann O'Brien are nonsense writers,
but not madmen! Would you lock up Jerry Lewis?
PPS: Tag's essay is great, and says so much not only about Milius but
the whole '70s generation. I never thought Coppola, Lucas etc were
especially left-wing -- Milius seems to incarnate the fascist streak
that always lay within the hippie fascination with myth, iconography,
heroic posturing, etc. I recently saw the Milius-scripted LIFE AND
TIMES OF JUDGE ROY BEAN, which has a lot of that far-out humour, and
truth be told I found it kind of hateful. Aren't his artistic limits
tied to his moral equivocation? Granting that he consciously draws on
his own dark side, does he really challenge himself enough?
2794
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 4:09am
Subject: Psychic investment
Dear friends -
Henrik has raised an interesting issue about critical reactions, and Bill
has taken it further in his response. For me, an important aspect of this
topic is that critic's reactions are sometimes (often?) not entirely
CONSCIOUS - i.e., it is not a matter of people just choosing to say 'I'm
going against this week's fashionable auteurist trend' for the sake of
provocation (which is sometimes facile, sometimes intellectually healthy),
or even, on a more sophisticated level, engaging in the kind of game-tactics
Bill has mentioned (which inform all manner of polemics).
There is an UNconscious dimension to all of this too - how could there not
be, where human passions and rages are involved? For me, critical reactions
can be related to the processes of 'investment' in the psychic and
psychoanalytic sense. 'Overinvestment', with the irrationality it
necessarily brings into play, is a constant dimension of our critical
speech. What I mean is this: when we become enthusiastic or passionate about
a filmmaker, we form some kind of projection about their significance -
their significance to us, to our 'position', and to our culture. They become
beacons of a certain kind of promise, which we fervently (truly madly
deeply) hope they will fulfill. So, when their new long-awaited film comes
out, we either 'inflate' it to fit the contours of that promise, or we are
disappointed - and disappointment, as we all know, can be bitter! Obviously,
I am suggesting that our psychic investments in films are rather like our
investments in friends, lovers, etc: with all the (melo)drama that entails.
(BTW, I take Scorsese's best films to be dramatisations of psychic
investment: and of what happens when the fantasy-projection bubble bursts -
hence those sudden 'deflationary' endings in his films like GOODFELLAS and
CASINO).
Two random examples. Over-investment in Clint Eastwood. I think he is a very
fine filmmaker, but with an uneven record of achievement. But we see for
example in POSITIF (just to give an example) that Eastwood has to be praised
to the skies no matter what new film appears - one POSITIF-er in fact once
said to me, 'Eastwood is incapable of making a bad film, and in fact every
film is a masterpiece!' And this about MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND
EVIL and BLOOD WORK!! You can't get much more over-invested than that.
Under-investment: Jane Campion - a particularly keen example for someone
like me working within the Australia-New Zealand Antipodal Axis (not the
Axis of Evil). Her early career rode on such extraordinary high hopes,
stoked by her embrace by Pierre Rissient and Cannes: with just a few shorts,
one TV mini-series and a first feature, she was already hailed here as the
greatest, a master, etc. Then THE PIANO came along and seemed for many to
orgasmically fulfill every promise: for women's cinema, for Aust-NZ cinema,
for a popular art cinema, etc etc. Crowned by an Oscar! But then PORTRAIT OF
A LADY: my god, how she was dumped by so many critics! CAHIERS went from
putting her in their 'directors of the 90s' list to decrying her descent
into making 'pretty poster films'. I don't like the film myself and argued
the case in an essay called 'The Decline of Jane Campion' (even the title of
that one got me into trouble!), but the extent of the flip-flop was
obviously stoked by something more than supposedly rational-objective
opinion. She has struggled to make a comeback ever since: and there's
another melodramatic trope in the critical lexicon - comeback (aka 'return
to form'), like in sports and pop music careers!!!
Adrian Martin
2795
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:02am
Subject: Re: Orwell's point again, Milius
> PS: To Jaime: Lewis Carroll and Flann O'Brien are nonsense writers,
> but not madmen! Would you lock up Jerry Lewis?
Hell no! I love Carroll and O'Brien, and of course Lewis.
I guess I didn't realize "silliness" was supposed to be such a
politically loaded term - I didn't associate it with KKK/Nazi
Party/etc. madness.
-Jaime
2796
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:07am
Subject: Aoyama/Ferrara
I haven't been able to get a feel for the appeal of Ferrara, although
I kind of liked significant portions of KING OF NEW YORK and some
others. I didn't care for NEW ROSE HOTEL (saw it on DVD). Sorry,
Tag, maybe I'll give it another spin one of these days. Have you
written anything about it that I could read, get inside the film a
bit better, etc.?
Also, did I write this post? Pat, you've named four films that are
also my favorites of the "oughts." Whoa.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ciccone" wrote:
> Too add to the list of filmmakers starting around 1990 or later, I
> would suggest Shinji Aoyama, though I have only seen EUREKA, which
we
> all (I think) also left out of the B & W scope films list as well.
> This is a truly astonishing film, with echoes of THE SEARCHERS--
also,
> Bill, this is a serial killer par excellence. And thanks to the
> short-lived Shooting Gallery, it was released simultaneously in 20
> cities in the US, despite a four-hour runtime! Has anyone seen any
of
> his other films? DESERT MOON didn't seem to be too well received at
> Cannes.
>
> To skip further ahead than the 1990s, EUREKA would probably be
fourth
> of my favorite films of the aughts--my top three would be
WERCKMEISTER
> HARMONIES, ESTHER KAHN, and RUSSIAN ARK. But I speed ahead.
2797
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:14am
Subject: Re: Psychic investment
Adrian Martin wrote:
> one POSITIF-er in fact once
> said to me, 'Eastwood is incapable of making a bad film, and in
> fact every film is a masterpiece!' And this about MIDNIGHT IN THE
> GARDEN OF GOOD AND
> EVIL and BLOOD WORK!! You can't get much more over-invested than
> that.
What if someone just really likes Clint Eastwood? MIDNIGHT IN THE
GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL was the first film to get my thinking about
Eastwood as a director with a good, personal touch, and I defended
BLOOD WORK as one of last year's strongest films. I don't think that
Eastwood always makes masterpieces, but I do think he is Hollywood's
best working filmmaker (especially since Mulligan is apparently
retired for good), and I've yet to see an actually bad film by him.
He's made more than his share of great films. We can't assume that
just any and every unorthodox opinion we don't quite agree with is
posturing and "over-investment."
--Zach, Eastwood fan regardless of his fashion status
2798
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:15am
Subject: Ferrara, Milius, anti-Hollywood
Let me add a vote for New Rose Hotel. I'm less fond of Abel's
mainstream work than many - Ms. 45 had a 34-pp. script; Fear City was
expanded to 120 at the behest of the producer. The supreme films are
R-'Xmas (what's weak about it?), New Rose Hotel (the best of the
best), The Blackout, Snake Eyes, Bad Lieutenant, Ms. 45 and Driller
Killer - the most experimental ones. But his least film is better
than Scorsese's best.
The Milius Motorcycle Gang is part of the second AIP remake series.
The first contained a Dante (Runaway Daughters). The AIP horror
remakes included a Larry Clark.
I don't know if anyone read my post on the subject, but I borrowed
from one of the group the spiral metaphor to talk about the way
today's anti-Hollywood attitudes are "the same as" (ie different
from) those prevailing before 1967. There are still critics who make
a living beating up on Hollywood and defending foreign films, and
there are a set of commonplaces about the decline of Hollywood that
are new in content but ancient in tone: explosions, car chases, blood
and gore, FX, comic books, cartoons, video games, sequels, violence,
it's all the fault of Spielberg and Lucas, fantasy vs. reality
[whatever that is], movies for 14-year-old boys, etc. - don't tell me
anyone here is unfamiliar with this body of ideas, which is repeated
daily in a hundred outlets by interchangeable voices. With respect to
that doxa a film like Kill Bill (still haven't seen it) could be
defined a priori as "our" worst nightmare come true. And when the
crix pick a film that is supposed to be the exception that proves the
rule, most of them get the wrong one (Spiderman). Olivier Assayas's
interview in CinemaScope is one of the few breaths of fresh air on
this subject in ages.
Everything has changed, and nothing has changed.
2799
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:21am
Subject: Re: Psychic investment
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
>I've yet to see an actually bad film by [Eastwood].
Zach, you know I'm a great admirer of Eastwood, but if you want to
keep your record intact, run screaming anytime The Eiger Sanction
rears its very ugly head.
2800
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:22am
Subject: Tati question
Does anyone here know who owns the rights to Tati's films in the
United States? I'm not totally familiar with copyright laws or
even "the lingo," so I hope the question isn't too naive.
My hunch is that the rights have reverted back to the appropriate
French claimants/organizations, and that no one, at present, has any
copyright to the films in the U.S.
-Jaime
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact