Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:24am
Subject: Re: Re: Psychic investment
>
> Zach, you know I'm a great admirer of Eastwood, but if you w
ant to
> keep your record intact, run screaming anytime The Eiger Sa
nction
> rears its very ugly head.
I like this one. Minor for sure, but the last act is really
good (everything else is really just an excuse). Eastwood's
worst (I've seen all but Breezy) is Rookie which is still
kind good (I Know Chris Fujiwara even included it in his best
of the year list in 90).
Filipe
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
--------~-->
> Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
> No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
> Try Netflix for FREE!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Tq9otC/XP.FAA/3jkFAA/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
2802
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:30am
Subject: Re: shout-out to the moon man
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
> 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.
>
Every year, my old gang who wrote on/studied film at Columbia
University in the 1970s (including A Film By member George Robinson)
gets together and votes on our movie bests. I'm very proud of the
fact that in 1991 our Best Picture choice was Man In The Moon, which
also won Best Director and Best Cinematography for Freddie Francis.
I still sit through those god-awful movies Reese WItherspoon has been
making for the last several years because she was such a revelation
in the Mulligan.
2803
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:31am
Subject: Re: Ferrara, Milius, anti-Hollywood
New Rose Hotel is Ferrara's best (the only reason it isn't in
my list was that Ferara start in the late 70's). I also love
R X'Mas, Blackout, King of NY, Dangerous Game, Bad
Lieutenant, Ms.45, even China Girl.
I like Millius a good deal too. Everything but Red Dawn
(which didn't work, but is a lot more interesting than it's
make it looks like). Haven't seen the ones he did for TV.
>
> Everything has changed, and nothing has changed.
I just argue that in an article.
Filipe
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
--------~-->
> Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
> No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
> Try Netflix for FREE!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Tq9otC/XP.FAA/3jkFAA/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
2804
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:32am
Subject: French critics and exaggeration
That "every Eastwood film is a masterpiece" statement, I doubt even
the speaker believes that to be so...but such exaggeration, if it's
done well, can be effective, polemically.
Question for those who have read a lot of French film criticism -
isn't there a long history of this kind of thing among the French?
It seems like every page of GODARD ON GODARD has some outlandish
generalization or declaration of greatness, or something extreme and
intentionally exaggerated - but if you can resist the temptation to
flinch or call the writer a screwball, there's a (subliminal?)
impulse in the reader to take the statement seriously. Or the
messages comes through as: Take Clint Eastwood seriously as a great
filmmaker and a great artist!
-Jaime
2805
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:33am
Subject: Re: Re: Psychic investment
BREEZY is one of the loveliest movies I've ever seen, it's really
sweet. I hope you see it soon.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
> >
> > Zach, you know I'm a great admirer of Eastwood, but if you w
> ant to
> > keep your record intact, run screaming anytime The Eiger Sa
> nction
> > rears its very ugly head.
>
> I like this one. Minor for sure, but the last act is really
> good (everything else is really just an excuse). Eastwood's
> worst (I've seen all but Breezy) is Rookie which is still
> kind good (I Know Chris Fujiwara even included it in his best
> of the year list in 90).
>
> Filipe
>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
> --------~-->
> > Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
> > No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
> > Try Netflix for FREE!
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Tq9otC/XP.FAA/3jkFAA/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
2806
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:36am
Subject: Re: French critics and exaggeration
>
> Question for those who have read a lot of French film critic
ism -
> isn't there a long history of this kind of thing among the F
rench?
Yes.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
2807
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:38am
Subject: Re: Re: Psychic investment
> BREEZY is one of the loveliest movies I've ever seen, it's r
eally
> sweet. I hope you see it soon.
>
It isn't available at any format here. That's the problem.
> -Jaime
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
>
> > >
> > > Zach, you know I'm a great admirer of Eastwood, but if y
ou w
> > ant to
> > > keep your record intact, run screaming anytime The Eige
r Sa
> > nction
> > > rears its very ugly head.
> >
> > I like this one. Minor for sure, but the last act is reall
y
> > good (everything else is really just an excuse). Eastwood'
s
> > worst (I've seen all but Breezy) is Rookie which is still
> > kind good (I Know Chris Fujiwara even included it in his b
est
> > of the year list in 90).
> >
> > Filipe
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------
----
> > --------~-->
> > > Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
> > > No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
> > > Try Netflix for FREE!
> > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/Tq9otC/XP.FAA/3jkFAA/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.yaho
o.co
> > m/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
> > AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
> > http://antipopup.uol.com.br
>
>
> ------------------------ 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
2808
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:42am
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
Some films which I don't think have been mentioned yet:
An Angel At My Table (Jane Campion)
Impulse (Sondra Locke)
A Midnight Clear (Keith Gordon)
32 Short Films About Glenn Gould (François Girard)
Bhaji On The Beach (Gurinder Chadha)
Go Fish (Rose Troche)
Dead Man Walking (Tim Robbins)
Rob Roy (Michael Caton-Jones)
Gods And Monsters (Bill Condon)
The Opposite Of Sex (Don Roos)
Last Night (Don McKellar)
Human Resources (Laurent Cantet)
2809
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:44am
Subject: Re: Van Sant
Actually I think Psycho and Gerry are very similar films.
Neither of them work for me, but both are interesting
failures. I really like Good Will Hunting (haven't seen
Finding Forrest. I lose a chance to see Elephant today in the
São Paulo film Festival (now, only when it'll be released),
which din'y bother me much since I've also seen my first
serious candidate to best film of the year today (João Cesar
Monteiro's Come and Go).
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
2810
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:48am
Subject: Re: Aoyama
Eureka is great. Last year I've seen in Rio, A Florest
without a Name, a very good Alphaville-like sci-fi, which was
shot as TV pilot.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
2811
From: jaketwilson
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:11am
Subject: Retraction
On reflection, I take back my criticism of silly beliefs.
Ed Wood was often silly, to go back to an earlier example, and he
couldn't have done what he did otherwise. Many forms of silliness
have my wholehearted support. The hard part is distinguishing between
the excess that leads to the palace of wisdom, and the excess that
leads to running round like a chicken with its head cut off.
JTW
2812
From: iangjohnston
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:27am
Subject: Re: Pavlovian critisism/Best Films of the last 25 years?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "iangjohnston"
> >
> > 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
>
> 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
Yes, various critics *do* put Hou etc at the top of their lists; but
I think that the UK critics poll that Sight & Sound instituted as a
form of up-date on their latest 10-yearly poll is indicative of a
general critical tendency. Their list of the best ten films of the
last 25 years was:
1. Apocalypse Now
2. Raging Bull
3. Fanny and Alexander
4. GoodFellas
5. Blue Velvet
6. Do The Right Thing
7. Blade Runner
8. Chungking Express
9. Distant Voices Still Lives
10= Once upon a Time in America
10= Yi Yi
Hence, my original point that I don't see evidence of a
neglect/downplaying of American cinema -- more the opposite.
Ian Johnston
2813
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:34am
Subject: Re: critisism
If I didn't knew better, I would assume that JPC was a freshman, since
his first year highschool rhetorics certainly made me convinced that I
was wrong... NOT
Disecting someones ideas (even though I pointed out that they were
just a strain of thought) by reversing them to questions without
offering an argument (even though I clearly stated that I wouldn't go
into detail) is not only a display of the arrogance and arbitrary I
questioned to begin with, but hence also proof that I was on the right
track, as JPC did exactly what I postulated :)
I thank Bill kindly for his comments on "gamemanship" and Potter and
its relation to modern akademia and critisism (which does exists) and
I equally thank Adrian for his brilliant comments about "investment".
However I have a questions...
When I hear "Whats all the fuzz about Mizoguchi anyway?" I was not
aware of it's Potterism. And how many were? Is academia a "boys club"
who speak in code and those not understanding it are outsiders? If so,
what about those looking up to academia and imitating its code,
unaware of its proper use, thus instead of sounding sophisticated
appear dumb?
And what about those who imitate critics who "overinvest"? Do they
ever question the truth or even analyse the films themself?
So how does a well educated cinephile tell the differende between PhD
Bob's sophisticated code and Highschool Bub who just wants to stand
out in the crowd?
Henrik
2814
From: Eric Henderson
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 0:23pm
Subject: Re: criticism; telling the difference
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
So how does a well educated cinephile tell the difference between PhD
Bob's sophisticated code and Highschool Bub who just wants to stand
out in the crowd?
--------------------------------------------
(Speaking for myself) He doesn't. And he doesn't worry about it.
Because there are plenty of self-taught high-schoolers who seem to
know just as much about film theory as do people working on their
Master's. And vice versa.
2815
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 0:49pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara, Milius, anti-Hollywood
To me, the acting in 'R Xmas was really weak. Ice T seemed
totally unconvincing as a menacing kidnapper, plus he had
miles of dialogue that did not exactly roll off his
tongue. My mind kept trying to justify this as some kind of ironic
tension between actor and character, but it finally seemed
just a misguided performance. Lillo Brancato who played the
husband also seemed like a weaker character than intended
(but Drea De Matteo was terrific and it's a fascinating
story).
--Robert Keser
Sorry if this cross-posts!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
. The supreme films are
> R-'Xmas (what's weak about it?)
2817
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 0:51pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara, Milius, anti-Hollywood
To me, the acting in 'R Xmas was really weak. Ice T seemed
totally unconvincing as a menacing kidnapper, plus he had
miles of dialogue that did not exactly roll off his
tongue. My mind kept trying to justify this as some kind of ironic
tension between actor and character, but it finally seemed
just a misguided performance. Lillo Brancato who played the
husband also seemed like a weaker character than intended
(but Drea De Matteo was terrific and it's a fascinating
story).
--Robert Keser
Sorry if this cross-posts!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
. The supreme films are
> R-'Xmas (what's weak about it?)
2818
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:12pm
Subject: Re: Psychic investment
I know precisely what you mean.I can see this at work
with "Mystic River," which while well-made and
interesting in a general way is being praised to the
skies farover and above its actual level of
achievement.
By contrast (and in contrast with you andmany others,
Adrian) I think "Midnight in the Garden of Good and
Evil" has been egregiously underrated.
--- Adrian Martin
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2819
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:23pm
Subject: Re: Tarantino turns into Elephant
The violence in "Elephant" is sometimes on-scre and
sometimes not, if by violence you mena actual
gun-shots and falling bodies. Part of the film's power
is that the threat of violence is ever-present but not
in the cliched "dark foreboding" manner of ny other
film I've ever seen. In factGus pretty much sends up
such cliches in a shot of gathering storm clouds at
the 3/4 mark. He holds on it so long that the storm
clouds becomesomething entirely unto themselves rather
than a melodramatic device.They're there because
atsome point there'srain. Moreover they play off the
long-held shot of the sky that opens the film. There's
no indication of what these shots "mean."
--- Tosh
> 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.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2820
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
Take it down off the shelf, Robert! "The Addiction" is
one of his very best films!
--- Robert Keser
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2821
From: Chris Fujiwara
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 2:39pm
Subject: Re: Psychic investment
One always goes into a film, I think, with some investment, sometimes
rational, sometimes unconscious - and if unconscious, all the
stronger for it - an investment in certain notions of what the cinema
was in the past, is currently, and should be in the future.
In the immediate film-going situation these investments take the form
of "expectations," and for my own part, I try at least some of the
time to be conscious of my own expectations before going into a film
and of how they're formed by my values, by my consciousness of having
said or written something that I might have to defend or take back
depending on what the film I'm about to see is like, and by things
I've heard or read or that are just "in the air."
As while I watch a film, it wins me over or turns me against it, I
often ask myself whether my reaction to the film isn't just a
continuation of my expectations, whether affirming them, correcting
them, or affirming them by correcting them (as in, "I expected not to
like Kill Bill: Vol 1, so is my enjoyment of it just an unconscious
attempt to prove that I'm capable of a non-predetermined response?")
or even correcting them by affirming them (as in, "I expected to like
Mystic River, so I'd better question every moment of this film
closely to make sure that I'm not just giving it a pass because of my
prejudices").
The investments of newspaper reviewers are heavily rationalized: they
can dislike only so many films before they piss off too many readers
and endanger their jobs, their alliances, and their self-images as
regular people who "really love movies." Hence their eagerness to
apologize for mid-level Hollywood crap (all the films that get
a "mixed" press in the U.S. like, this week, Runaway Jury and
Veronica Guerin - two films that, I hasten to full-disclose, I
haven't seen; why would anyone see them except on assignment?), their
relief and pleasure when they get to go after an obvious stinker that
will make all its money from people who never read reviews, and their
readiness to join in the critical hosannas raised across the land (to
borrow a phrase from the great Manny) by films like (insert title of
overrated film here).
I regard the sort of investments that may be assumed to lie behind
reviewers' positions as largely dominated by the reality principle
and for the most part lacking a strong libidinal component.
Cinephilic investments (as opposed to the investments of professional
reviewers who "really love movies") are always libidinal, and all
libidinal investments are "overinvestments" - which is why I'm
usually not bothered if I happen to like some movie more than other
people do, like Blood Work or Appointment in Honduras.
What film critics (who are also cinephiles) do is defend their
cinephilic investments, which they're driven to do because they also
have a strong investment in - an erotic involvement with - writing
and, often, with theory.
And there's a certain category of films that must be completed by the
viewer, that only the viewer's investment can realize, because the
films were left unrealized by the director or were taken away from
the director. (Cf. certain Cahiers reviews from the '50s like
Godard's reviews of Hot Blood and The True Story of Jesse James.)
This category is, clearly, the most libidinal and overinvested of all.
The cinephile is looking for happiness. Freud, Civilization and Its
Discontents: "The feeling of happiness derived from the satisfaction
of a wild instinctual impulse untamed by the ego is incomparably more
intense than that derived from sating an instinct that has been
tamed. The irresistibility of perverse instincts, and perhaps the
attraction in general of forbidden things finds an economic
explanation here." (James Strachey translation)
2822
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 2:56pm
Subject: Re: Aoyama/Ferrara
Yes !!!
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fr0600/tgfr10d.htm
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
> Have you
> written anything about it that I could read, get inside the film a
> bit better, etc.?
2823
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:00pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara, Milius, anti-Hollywood
Ferrara himself still likes CHINA GIRL best among his movies. To me,
that movie can demonstrate why Ferrara belongs in an utterly different
league of filmmaking than his American contemporaries, why Ferrara, say,
belong in the Pantheon whereas the others aren't even in Far Side of
Paradise -- at least in MY terms of the formal elements of cinema
(composition, cutting, camera, lighting, mise en scène, construction of
characters). On first viewing I think CHINA GIRL may seem trivial and
slight, and certainly the script is trivial and slight (but so is the
script of SUNRISE). But if you watch it a second time (the next day --
not a week later), you start to notice the qualities that, as with
SUNRISE, make it something very special.
filipefurtado wrote:
> New Rose Hotel is Ferrara's best (the only reason it isn't in
> my list was that Ferara start in the late 70's). I also love
> R X'Mas, Blackout, King of NY, Dangerous Game, Bad
> Lieutenant, Ms.45, even China Girl.
>
>
2824
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
Right on, David!
But it's a difficult movie to swallow and the ending poses all sorts of
challenges. How to do you understand it?
(My own interpretation is at
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fr0600/tgfr10d.htm
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> Take it down off the shelf, Robert! "The Addiction" is
> one of his very best films!
> --- Robert Keser
>
>
2825
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:10pm
Subject: Re: Psychic investment (Eastwood)
Chris, fantastic comments! I'm afraid I spoke too hastily last night
in response to Adrian's points about over-investment: I'm sensitive
to the case of Eastwood only because now (and who might have thought
it given his last few films), Eastwood is again poised for mainstream
critical success and maybe even Oscars with MYSTIC RIVER, and those
critics--even those who like Eastwood, as many here do--who find
RIVER solid but lacking can make generalized comments about Eastwood
fanatics (a demographic I fit into) even while much of the alleged
overpraising for this film in particular is being done by the
mainstream critics who have dismissed Eastwood's last several movies,
or given them faint praise ("a fine, old-fashioned entertainment--
three stars"). I also agree with David E, MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF
GOOD AND EVIL *is* egregiously underrated.
(I haven't had the chance to see MYSTIC RIVER yet, myself. Maybe
today or tomorrow. Definitely in the next week. Saw KILL BILL last
night. Interesting. Not a favorite, but even more so not the work
of the antichrist.)
Every time I see an Eastwood film for the first time, I think that
maybe it'll be the first one that's underwhelming. At worst, I get
an interesting and involving movie with personality (ABSOLUTE POWER,
TRUE CRIME). At best, though, I get a movie that makes me wonder why
I ever doubted in the first place (WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART,
HONKYTONK MAN).
Sacred cows don't do much for me, and I'm well aware that I might end
up disliking the next Eastwood movie I see--and I won't be bitter
about it, these things happen. But I see no reason to penalize
Eastwood for making films that I've found valuable with remarkable
consistency. I'll continue to over-invest, I suppose.
--Zach
2826
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
I don't quite no what to say, because Ferrara for me
is about an overall mood rather than a story with an
ending that produces meaning.
--- Tag Gallagher
> Right on, David!
>
> But it's a difficult movie to swallow and the ending
> poses all sorts of
> challenges. How to do you understand it?
>
> (My own interpretation is at
>
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fr0600/tgfr10d.htm
>
> David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> > Take it down off the shelf, Robert! "The
> Addiction" is
> > one of his very best films!
> > --- Robert Keser
> >
> >
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2827
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
That's not a problem for me. Do you feel his moods have modal meaning?
Do you feel they is any modal logical to the order in which he places
his modal moments? (I'm not trying to be funny. I'd be happy to
construct an entire aesthetic of cinema simply on mood, it seems closer
to me to music and thus to what I like about movies than does the
lit-crit stuff that dominates our field.)
More to the point: how would you describe (or denominate, or something)
the moods in the hospital at the end (the priest and the scene with the
girl in bed and the light descending down the wall) and in the final
sequence in the cemetery?
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> I don't quite no what to say, because Ferrara for me
> is about an overall mood rather than a story with an
> ending that produces meaning.
> --- Tag Gallagher
> > Right on, David!
> >
> > But it's a difficult movie to swallow and the ending
> > poses all sorts of
> > challenges. How to do you understand it?
> >
> > (My own interpretation is at
> >
> http://www.latrobe.edu.au/www/screeningthepast/firstrelease/fr0600/tgfr10d.htm
> >
> > David Ehrenstein wrote:
> >
> > > Take it down off the shelf, Robert! "The
> > Addiction" is
> > > one of his very best films!
> > > --- Robert Keser
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> Click Here!
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705021019:HM/A=1595053/R=0/SIG=124gf29oe/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH=3707890&yhad=1595053>
>
>
>
> 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
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2828
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
Let's just say that Ferrara is a believing Catholic
who's nonetheless highly conflicted about his beliefs.
His films might be said to all be about redeemed
sinners.
And heroin.
--- Tag Gallagher
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2829
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 3:51pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara, Milius, anti-Hollywood
> Ferrara himself still likes CHINA GIRL best among his movies. To me,
> that movie can demonstrate why Ferrara belongs in an utterly different
> league of filmmaking than his American contemporaries, why Ferrara, say,
> belong in the Pantheon whereas the others aren't even in Far Side of
> Paradise -- at least in MY terms of the formal elements of cinema
> (composition, cutting, camera, lighting, mise en scène, construction of
> characters). On first viewing I think CHINA GIRL may seem trivial and
> slight, and certainly the script is trivial and slight (but so is the
> script of SUNRISE). But if you watch it a second time (the next day --
> not a week later), you start to notice the qualities that, as with
> SUNRISE, make it something very special.
I like CHINA GIRL too. I remember watching it for the first time and
being reminded of the way that a good 50s director like Nick Ray, for
instance, might handle material that was undistinguished in its own
right. There's something old-Hollywoodish about the way Ferrara brings
his virtues to bear on the slight story, and makes the story seem less
slight by his conviction.
For me, Ferrara's peak is BAD LIEUTENANT. I have a bit of trouble with
all his films after that: certainly he's ratcheted up his ambition
level, but in this artier period his style gets a bit too ambient for
me, so that I don't feel it growing out of the movie as much. - Dan
2830
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 4:04pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara, Milius, anti-Hollywood
I find his films extremely uneven. There is a Ferrara cult and I don't
think any two people in it would agree about which movies are the best.
I've seen Blackout, for example, eight times; disliked it the first time
and liked it less EACH of the next seven times; to me it's a nothing --
but I sure tried; other Ferrara cultists think it's one of his very very
best.
Similar disagreements abound about Dangerous Games (aka Snake Eyes),
Body Snatchers, etc.
My three favorites are New Rose Hotel, The Addiction and China Girl --
but some cultists don't care for any of these! (Runners up would be
King of New York -- if only the whole movie were at the level of the
first ten minutes, incredible!!!!; Bad Lieutenant; the strip tease in
Fear City. I don't care at all for The Funeral.)
Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
>
> For me, Ferrara's peak is BAD LIEUTENANT. I have a bit of trouble with
> all his films after that: certainly he's ratcheted up his ambition
> level, but in this artier period his style gets a bit too ambient for
> me, so that I don't feel it growing out of the movie as much. - Dan
>
2831
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 4:27pm
Subject: Midnight in the Garden, Mystic River
David, Midnight has two GREAT scenes, the party and the trial, the
latter being one of Clint's more explicit Ford tributes, and the rest
of it's pretty good, too. It also does something interesting with the
structure I described in an earlier post, calling it (in a phrase
borrowed from Moullet) the director's "liberal demagogic side":
showing a character through another character's eyes to justify him,
these two being (polemical hyperbole) the "only" characters in the
film.
In A Perfect World, Butch's character is questionable, and showing
him through the boy's eyes wins the audience over. And they are the
only real characters in the film. This can be contrasted with
something Budd Boetticher told me when he was eulogizing Randolph
Scott after his passing: "I figured that if the bad guy fell in love
with Randy, the audience would, too." But Seven Men from Now isn't
told through Lee Marvin's eyes! And Lee Marvin and his colleagues and
the woman and her husband are all real characters!
What's interesting about Midnight in the Garden in this respect is
that Spacey is a questionable character (questionable because he's
gay, for some of Clint's people; questionable because he's a possible
murderer for the rest of us) whom we come to accept because we're
seeing him through Cusak's eyes. But Spacey is a much more seductive
actor than Costner (seduction is his main acting tool), and the
subtext of the film is his attempted/real seduction of Cusak. The
buried subtext of World is probably pedophilia (if Butch can kill
that family, he can do other things we don't expect), but it's barely
operative, whereas the seductive interplay betwen Spacey and Cusak is
right on the surface, and is a blocked version of what really comes
to pass in Bridges.
So the simplified structure that bothers me, which I believe he got
from Spielberg, is more interestingly used by Clint than by
Spielberg - even in films where it bugs the hell out of me, like
Bridges. Again, to go back to playing devil's advocate, compare the
webwork of many characters in a classical melodrama like Some Came
Running with the simplistic structure of Bridges, which was ranked
with those films by critics at the time of its release. Daney wrote,
I believe in his capsule on The Turning Point, that that webwork is
the Symbolic (Lacanian term), and that the spectator identifies with
the webwork, not with any one character. In Bridges there are just
two characters.
I once asked Boetticher, actually, why that was so often the case in
modern H'wd films, where there is often just ONE character, with
everyone else in the movie a stooge: in French, a faire-valoir,
someone who exists to give value to someone else. He said: "With the
salaries stars get these days, a lot of productions can only afford
one." I remember that was why Hawks didn't think The Big Sky worked -
he needed someone of equal weight opposite Douglas, and Dewey Martin
didn't have it. (Douglas said, "He didn't have the fire in his
belly.")
SPOILER coming up on the new Eastwood. I had the same reaction to
Mystic River that everyone here did, and my Economist review reflects
that. (BTW, my headline was Vengeance Is Clint's - the header putting
down the marketing campaign for Kill Bill isn't mine. I like good
marketing campaigns.) But one thing you can't say about it is that it
only has two characters. It's more like the webwork melos that Daney
was talking about. This'll strike some as crazy (here comes the
spoiler), but what made me start rethinking the film was an aside by
Andy Klein - who was moderate in his praise, too - to the effect that
despite appearances it COULDN'T be an allegory of current American
foreign policy because of when it was shot. But consciously or
unconsciously, it is.
2832
From: jerome_gerber
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 4:41pm
Subject: Re: shout-out to the moon man
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
> > Peter - Robert Mulligan's THE MAN IN THE MOON (1993) is
such a
> great,
> > beautiful and touching film -
> > and is now unseeable in the DVD age.
For those of you who can play R2 DVDs, THE MAN IN THE
MOON has been released in the UK
Jerry
2833
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 4:54pm
Subject: (smiley)
I just got the Criterion Collection CAV Laserdisc of "Bram Stoker's
Dracula" (got it because of its great audio commentary).
But what I didn't knew was, that There are linernotes by David
Ehrenstein on the back of the cover. Here I believe that he was just
another grumpy critic and then I read such a wonderful comment that
really makes you want to watch and love cinema.
This really made my day and my evening aswell, as I am about to turn
on my trusty old CLD player.
Drinks on me :)
2834
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 5:21pm
Subject: Re: Pavlovian criticism
Henrik: "I've never understood the fuss about Mizoguchi" (to give a
generic name I had come up with for something we all do before Dan
actually said it, more or less) is a ploy, in Potter's terms, AND a
way of raising fundamental questions about Mizoguchi and cinema.
Ploys can be used for their own sake by people who only care about
one-upping others, but they can have great meaning. Serious film buff
discourse, American, French or whatever, is riddled with ploys. But
the daily discourse of an Oxford Don is, too, and some of those folks
are pretty smart! This is a whole area for research that is rarely
even talked about. Look at the conniptions we're all going through
over the new Eastwood. There's a part of every one of us that is
reacting to the fact that this thing has been praised by critics like
Kenneth Turan in terms we usually reserve for Getrud and Limelight!
So what you said in your initial post is quite true, but only part of
the story.
2835
From: Dave Garrett
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:00pm
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Here are some favorites of the 1990s by directors who began working either
> during or shortly before that decade.
[...]
> Before Sunrise (Richard Linklater)
Peter, I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on BEFORE SUNRISE, since it's the sole film by Linklater that I really haven't cared for (DAZED AND CONFUSED, on the other hand, is usually somewhere on my continually-shifting personal all-time top ten list). It's garnered lavish praise since its release, but I must confess it left me wondering what all the fuss was about. More recently, it's been compared to LOST IN TRANSLATION, a film I really liked, so I've been thinking I need to revisit BEFORE SUNRISE to see if it still remains a cinematic blind spot for me.
Dave
2836
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:06pm
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
-
Tag has been raving about New Rose Hotel for so long that I
finally broke down and got the DVD. I'll watch it any day now.
But Peter, "Man in the Moon" best film of the 90s?! Come on!
It's a very fine movie and I am a Mulligan fan too, but I can think
of several dozens of films I would place above it. Although I myself
could never come up with one film that's the "best" of any decade,
let alone of all times (as David provocatingly did with "Ceux qui
m'aiment...")
JPC
-- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Tonguette"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher
> >
> > 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
2837
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:10pm
Subject: Re: Pavlovian critisism: old vs new battles
Yes but what about crediting Jerome Kern? A sublime melody (the
verse is great, too)
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
> --- 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
2838
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:32pm
Subject: Re: critisism
-
Well thanks, I love you too...
Your original post was so vague that I couldn't make out what you
were trying to say, so I asked a few questions in an effort to
clarify your thinking. Sorry that offended you. I obviously couldn't
offer an "argument" until I knew what you meant. Anyway I don't mind
being called a freshman (makes me feel so young...)by someone who
can't even spell -- or can but doesn't bother, which, if true, is
also a display of arrogance.
JPC
-- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> If I didn't knew better, I would assume that JPC was a freshman,
since
> his first year highschool rhetorics certainly made me convinced
that I
> was wrong... NOT
>
> Disecting someones ideas (even though I pointed out that they were
> just a strain of thought) by reversing them to questions without
> offering an argument (even though I clearly stated that I wouldn't
go
> into detail) is not only a display of the arrogance and arbitrary I
> questioned to begin with, but hence also proof that I was on the
right
> track, as JPC did exactly what I postulated :)
>
> I thank Bill kindly for his comments on "gamemanship" and Potter
and
> its relation to modern akademia and critisism (which does exists)
and
> I equally thank Adrian for his brilliant comments
about "investment".
>
> However I have a questions...
>
> When I hear "Whats all the fuzz about Mizoguchi anyway?" I was not
> aware of it's Potterism. And how many were? Is academia a "boys
club"
> who speak in code and those not understanding it are outsiders? If
so,
> what about those looking up to academia and imitating its code,
> unaware of its proper use, thus instead of sounding sophisticated
> appear dumb?
>
> And what about those who imitate critics who "overinvest"? Do they
> ever question the truth or even analyse the films themself?
>
> So how does a well educated cinephile tell the differende between
PhD
> Bob's sophisticated code and Highschool Bub who just wants to stand
> out in the crowd?
>
> Henrik
2839
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Psychic investment
-
I wrote a near-rave review of "Midnight in the Garden" for
Positif.
JPC
-- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I know precisely what you mean.I can see this at work
> with "Mystic River," which while well-made and
> interesting in a general way is being praised to the
> skies farover and above its actual level of
> achievement.
>
> By contrast (and in contrast with you andmany others,
> Adrian) I think "Midnight in the Garden of Good and
> Evil" has been egregiously underrated.
>
> --- Adrian Martin
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
2840
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:09pm
Subject: re: spelling
I can spell, but I dont bother to run a spell check online. That is
not a sign of arrogance. I am simply lazy :)
So am I uneducated, since I cant spell and hence not smart enough to
make observations? lol
2841
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:22pm
Subject: re: Spelling
Let me try another way :)
What is the big deal about this spelling anyway?
I just couldn't resist lol
2842
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:26pm
Subject: Re: Pavlovian critisism: old vs new battles
Jerome Kern and Johnny Mercer (lyrics!) are certainly co-creators
with Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth of the sublimity ("Dearly
Beloved" and the title song are also wonderful). The same for Ted
Tetzlaff whose b/w photography looks both creamy and seductively
shadowy, and even Xavier Cugat is entertaining. But what do we
make of poor William Seiter, who did not achieve Sarris' level
of "Lightly Likable" or even "Miscellany"? I recently saw his
equally preposterous "Four Jills and a Jeep", and it's hard to
see that he did much more than keep the energy levels of the
players high. The plot purports to be a true story but goes off
in patently false directions, yet the lies are somehow a-l-m-o-s-t
compelling. Was Seiter a hack who knew how to exploit cheap
sentiment or did he touch some "authentic" emotions? The sole
Seiter classic is the raucous "Sons of the Desert", although
his swan song thriller "Make Haste to Live" is suprisingly
persuasive. A "Subject For Further Research", if you ask me!
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> Yes but what about crediting Jerome Kern? A sublime melody (the
> verse is great, too)
> JPC
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
wrote:
> > --- 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
2843
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:35pm
Subject: re: Spelling. My Milius boo boo
I misspelled the last word of my Milius article.
Should be "show off." Not "show up."
Stupid typo.
Henrik Sylow wrote:
> Let me try another way :)
>
> What is the big deal about this spelling anyway?
>
> I just couldn't resist lol
>
2844
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:36pm
Subject: Before Sunrise
Dave,
Well, interestingly, "Before Sunrise" is Linklater's one flat-out
success for me. Now I like "Slacker" and "Waking Life" very much
(and "School of Rock" is a terrific mainstream divertissment),
but "Before Sunrise" remains my favorite for a variety of reasons.
First and foremost, I think I simply appreciated Linklater's
sincerity and even earnestness in making what is, at heart, an old-
fashioned romance with a young, present day cast. This gesture alone
makes "Before Sunrise" almost revolutionary in the context of
1990s "indie" cinema.
The comparison to "Lost in Translation" is very apt, with both films
placing their characters in foreign enviroments and allowing them to,
however briefly, connect. There's also a lost-in-time-and-space
aspect to both movies, as the characters walk these alien streets
during a finite period of time.
"Before Sunrise" is very dialogue heavy, needless to say, and most of
that dialogue is very good. But my favorite sequence is non-verbal
and it is also one of my favorite moments in American cinema in
the '90s: Hawke and Delpy listening to the record in the booth,
exchanging glances. This scene alone proves what a rare lyrical
sensibility Linklater possesses.
Peter
2845
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:40pm
Subject: Re: spelling
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> I can spell, but I dont bother to run a spell check online. That is
> not a sign of arrogance. I am simply lazy :)
>
> So am I uneducated, since I cant spell and hence not smart enough
to
> make observations? lol
Ignorance is excusable, laziness is not. Deliberate bad spelling is
bad manners. It's just rude.
I didn't say you are uneducated -- I have no idea how "educated"
you are. I said that either you cannot spell or you can and don't
care. You tell me the latter is true. I'm telling you what I think
about not caring.
If you don't care about the way you write, how can you expect me
to take your "observations" seriously?
Fuzzy spelling,fuzzy writing, fuzzy thinking usually go hand in
hand. My questions about your original post had to do with fuzzy
thinking.
JPC
2846
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:43pm
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> But Peter, "Man in the Moon" best film of the 90s?! Come on!
> It's a very fine movie and I am a Mulligan fan too, but I can think
> of several dozens of films I would place above it.
Hmm. I think I could come up with several which I might place above
it on a given day, but definitely not several dozen! (Those "several"
would probably include, oh, Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut";
Mambety's "Hyenas"; Malick's "The Thin Red Line"; Altman's "Short
Cuts.") I expect at least one of those to be displaced by "New Rose
Hotel" if I can trust Tag's enthusiasm!
What are some of your favorites from the '90s which, for you, better
the Mulligan, JPC?
Peter
2847
From:
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 4:02pm
Subject: Re: shout-out to the moon man
Adrian,
Do we know that Mulligan is retired for sure? I remember Fred (another big
Mulligan fan who would argue that Mulligan's penultimate film, "Clara's Heart,"
is even better than "The Man in the Moon") telling me that he'd heard that
Mulligan's a little "too fond of firewater." If true, that kind of depresses me
- not that I can imagine the studios clamoring to work with an artist with as
subtle and lyrical a sensibility as Mulligan.
On the other hand, "The Man in the Moon" is seemingly the perfect Last Film.
Perhaps after working very infrequently in the '80s (he only made two films
during that decade, "Kiss Me Goodbye" and "Clara's Heart," and only the latter
was artistically successful), he was simply glad to have made one more film -
and a tiny critical success at that - and then hang it up.
After immersing myself in Mulligan's films over the past year (during which
time I saw all of the above films for the first time, as well as "Summer of
'42" [my favorite], "Love With a Proper Stranger," "Baby The Rain Must Fall," and
others), I'm convinced that it's simply a privilege - there's no other word
for it - to watch this guy move his camera. His images are possessed by a
grace and emotional impact which seems ever more precious with each subsequent
re-viewing.
Pakula's also a seemingly neglected guy these days. At least "To Kill A
Mockingbird" has been canonized, but in all the tributes its received - the AFI
stuff, etc. - I almost NEVER hear Mulligan's name mentioned. It's as if many
who praise it to do for its liberal values and as though it directed itself.
JPC's "50 ans de Cinema Americain": please someone translate this! I doubt
my failing French could handle it in its language of origin. :(
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2848
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 8:15pm
Subject: re: spelling
With all respect, I am a Dane, I have not had tutoring in english
since 9th grade and thats 21 years ago. On the few occassions I have
had to write in english, I have had a spellchecker and an editor.
JPC wrote: "If you don't care about the way you write, how can you
expect me to take your "observations" seriously?"
With all respect, my spelling isnt of such a nature that it makes my
language not understandable. One thing is to be indifferent towards
minor spelling errors, another thing is to be indifferent towards what
one writes. So your point of view is wrong and your defense flawed and
I dare say biased to begin with.
With all respect, this is an online forum and as such casual. If I
dont run everything I write thru a spellchecker to correct minor
errors, please forgive me. But I am not about to accept being told
that what I write is not worth taking serious, because I dont write
100% correct. While you consider it rude to be lazy towards incorrect
grammar and spelling, I consider it ruder to dismiss what people write
based on their spelling in a carefree and casual enviroment.
With all respect
Henrik Sylow
And with that I put it behind me.
2849
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 8:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Psychic investment
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
>(I Know Chris Fujiwara even included it in his best
> of the year list in 90).
Since we have Chris on this group, I suppose this is as good a time
as any to ask: where can we find his lists? I don't see them on your
site, Chris.
Peter
2850
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 8:42pm
Subject: Re: lust for translation [shout-out to the moon man]
Adrian's chain-translation proposal seems like a great idea.
My French is probably okay for translation purposes, so I'm
willing to volunteer for a chapter. Is it really...gulp...
1269 pages?
Does the author have any advice?
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
>... 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.
2851
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 8:44pm
Subject: Avoiding Directors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> 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.
There is no genre from which I absolutely stay away (although martial
arts action films have always bored me to tears) and no actor that
would make me stay away from a movie that otherwise sounds promising
(I'd prefer never to see Tom Cruise on screen, but when he works with
a De Palma or a Kubrick, what are you gonna do?).
But I'm curious if there are directors whose films people here --
based on past experience – adamantly and studiously avoid. There's
no particular reason to see any films by, say, Tom Shadyac or Les
Mayfield or Francis Coppola, but if you happen to find yourself in a
theatre or, more likely, on an airplane showing one of their
pictures, it's probably not a grave crisis-level situation. On the
other hand, I hope never again to endure the torture of sitting
through a movie by Paul Thomas Anderson, Joel Schumacher or Mike
Leigh.
2852
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:01pm
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> -
> Tag has been raving about New Rose Hotel for so long that I
> finally broke down and got the DVD. I'll watch it any day now.
I love "New Rose Hotel," but I wonder whether too much would
be lost watching it on TV, since what impressed me above all
about the film is its physical beauty.
I could be wrong. I should try watching it on TV: maybe something
will be gained as well as lost. Watching it together with "The
Addiction" and "The Blackout" might be enlightening. For example
the emphasis on images of war atrocities in "The Addiction" seems
more pointed in retrospect, after I've seen the emphasis on
surveillance, perception, representation, etc., in the later films.
It also might be interesting to compare "New Rose Hotel" to
another story of corporate espionage and virtual reality,
"Demonlover" (which doesn't really work for me despite the abundance
of fascinating images and ideas).
Paul
2853
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:08pm
Subject: Re: spelling
> >
> With all respect
> Henrik Sylow
>
> And with that I put it behind me.
... where it belongs...
However:
I never would have brought up your spelling if you hadn't seen fit
to rudely berate me for asking some reasonable questions in view of
clarification. I was originally referring to unclear language, not
grammar.
With all respect, I am not a native speaker either (I was born and
raised in France). This is precisely why I try to write as correctly
as I possibly can.
JPC
2854
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:29pm
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
Tag says that there are only three or four films that should be
seen on the big screen only. New Rose Hotel is not among them.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > -
> > Tag has been raving about New Rose Hotel for so long that I
> > finally broke down and got the DVD. I'll watch it any day now.
>
> I love "New Rose Hotel," but I wonder whether too much would
> be lost watching it on TV, since what impressed me above all
> about the film is its physical beauty.
>
> I could be wrong. I should try watching it on TV: maybe something
> will be gained as well as lost. Watching it together with "The
> Addiction" and "The Blackout" might be enlightening. For example
> the emphasis on images of war atrocities in "The Addiction" seems
> more pointed in retrospect, after I've seen the emphasis on
> surveillance, perception, representation, etc., in the later films.
>
> It also might be interesting to compare "New Rose Hotel" to
> another story of corporate espionage and virtual reality,
> "Demonlover" (which doesn't really work for me despite the abundance
> of fascinating images and ideas).
>
> Paul
2855
From: Maxime
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:29pm
Subject: Re: Tati question
As far as I know no copyright in the US.
In 2001, all rights for most of the films (if not all) was acquired
by Sophie Tatischeff, in association with Macha Makeïeff and Jérôme
Deschamps, and the support of some banks, through the project "Les
Films de Mon Oncle" (http://www.tativille.com)
Maxime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> 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
2856
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:41pm
Subject: Re: shout-out to the moon man
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
Thanks for the plug, Peter (but don't forget my worthy co-author
Bertrand Tavernier). No American publisher will publish it because
they don't want to pay for a translation. I offered to translate it
myself when U. of Wisconsin Press wanted to do it but all they could
come up with was an insulting three thousand dollars for this huge
book, which is way way below minimum wage! Columbia University Press
said it was too "intellectual" (sic) for their readers...
JPC
>
> JPC's "50 ans de Cinema Americain": please someone translate this!
I doubt
> my failing French could handle it in its language of origin. :(
>
> Peter
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2857
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:52pm
Subject: Re: Midnight in the Garden, Mystic River
What a coincidence! I just finished my long and conflicted review of
MYSTIC RIVER for the Reader next week, and this is my approach
exactly. And it's not just an allegory about the present; it could
apply to all sorts of things this country has done over the past
decade or so--and is already asking and even expecting to be forgiven
for...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
This'll strike some as crazy (here comes the
> spoiler), but what made me start rethinking the film was an aside
by
> Andy Klein - who was moderate in his praise, too - to the effect
that
> despite appearances it COULDN'T be an allegory of current American
> foreign policy because of when it was shot. But consciously or
> unconsciously, it is.
2858
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:19pm
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Tonguette"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> > But Peter, "Man in the Moon" best film of the 90s?! Come
on!
> > It's a very fine movie and I am a Mulligan fan too, but I can
think
> > of several dozens of films I would place above it.
>
> Hmm. I think I could come up with several which I might place
above
> it on a given day, but definitely not several dozen!
(Those "several"
> would probably include, oh, Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut";
> Mambety's "Hyenas"; Malick's "The Thin Red Line"; Altman's "Short
> Cuts.") I expect at least one of those to be displaced by "New
Rose
> Hotel" if I can trust Tag's enthusiasm!
>
> What are some of your favorites from the '90s which, for you,
better
> the Mulligan, JPC?
>
> Peter
I think it's absurd to say that a great film is "better" than
another great film. I don't mind making lists, but I hate placing one
work of art above the other (which means placing the other below).
However, since I have trapped myself into this quandary, here are a
few titles, off the top of my head -- in no order whatsoever:
El sol del membrillo
Goodfellas
A Perfect World
Le petit criminel
Ponette
La fausse suivante
The Grifters
The Player
Short Cuts
Conte d'automne
Le Vent nous emportera
The Flowers of Shanghai
Magnolia
L'Humanite
Comment je me suis dispute (ma vie sexuelle)
The Thin red Line
Delits flagrants/Muriel Leferle
Carlito's Way
La Promesse
Rosetta
Le Temps retrouve
Black Cat White Cat
Happiness
L627
Valmont
Dangerous Liaisons
Code Unknown
The Piano
Funny Games
....
The Erice on top of the list is the one that probably affected me
most. But again, I can't put any one ahead of any other.
2859
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 10:27pm
Subject: Re: Avoiding Directors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> There is no genre from which I absolutely stay away (although
martial
> arts action films have always bored me to tears) and no actor that
> would make me stay away from a movie that otherwise sounds
promising
> (I'd prefer never to see Tom Cruise on screen, but when he works
with
> a De Palma or a Kubrick, what are you gonna do?).
>
> But I'm curious if there are directors whose films people here --
> based on past experience – adamantly and studiously avoid. There's
> no particular reason to see any films by, say, Tom Shadyac or Les
> Mayfield or Francis Coppola, but if you happen to find yourself in
a
> theatre or, more likely, on an airplane showing one of their
> pictures, it's probably not a grave crisis-level situation. On the
> other hand, I hope never again to endure the torture of sitting
> through a movie by Paul Thomas Anderson, Joel Schumacher or Mike
> Leigh.
Why was it a torture? What movies? Why "no particular reason"
to see a film by Coppola? Sweeping statements are fun, but some
explanation is warranted.
2860
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:19pm
Subject: Re: (smiley)
Merci, Henrik!
--- Henrik Sylow
> I just got the Criterion Collection CAV Laserdisc of
> "Bram Stoker's
> Dracula" (got it because of its great audio
> commentary).
>
> But what I didn't knew was, that There are
> linernotes by David
> Ehrenstein on the back of the cover. Here I believe
> that he was just
> another grumpy critic and then I read such a
> wonderful comment that
> really makes you want to watch and love cinema.
>
> This really made my day and my evening aswell, as I
> am about to turn
> on my trusty old CLD player.
>
> Drinks on me :)
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2861
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:31pm
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> Tag says that there are only three or four films that should be
> seen on the big screen only. New Rose Hotel is not among them.
> JPC
Now I have to know what those three or four films are!
Paul
2862
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:32pm
Subject: Re: Midnight in the Garden, Mystic River
"What's interesting about Midnight in the Garden in
this respect is
that Spacey is a questionable character (questionable
because he's
gay, for some of Clint's people; questionable because
he's a possible
murderer for the rest of us) whom we come to accept
because we're
seeing him through Cusak's eyes. But Spacey is a much
more seductive
actor than Costner (seduction is his main acting
tool), and the
subtext of the film is his attempted/real seduction of
Cusak. "
True but the seduction relates to class rather than
sexuality. Jim Willimas is a literal nobody who has
re-invented himself as a "Southern Gentleman To the
Manner Born." Because he's so damned entertaining
everyone goes along with this. But he believes his own
publicity. He thinks he has the right to get away with
shooting his boytoy just as the ladies of Savannah
have had the right to shoot their husbands. And he
wins in court. But loses in life/death. The Lady
Chablis is a pivotal character in that,unlike Jim, she
knows just how far to go "too far" (as she does at the
Cotillion.) In many ways Eastwood's film is more
honest than Berendt's book in that Berendt wrote
himself out of it -- as he's more than a tad closeted.
By constructing Cusack's character as a stand-in,
Eastwood and John Lee Hancock have found a way to
approach the book's subjects more honestly in screen
terms. Cusack plays a straight, but very sophisticated
guy, who isn't shocked by Williams' sexuality,and is
quite charmed by Chablis.
This is quite different Eastwood than the one who made
the lamentabl "Eiger Sanction." Doubtless in making
"Midnight" Clint was recalling the days early on in
his career when he was kept by Arthur Lubin. It takes
a REAL hustler to have the wit to cast Jude Law as
white trash rough trade. (Hubba-Hubba!)
--- hotlove666
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2863
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:37pm
Subject: Re David's and Jonathan's last posts
Well I'll be a suck-egg mule!
2864
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:37pm
Subject: An Important Announcement
The Los Angeles Film Critics Association has just
voted that if the MPAA does not rescind its ban on
video cassette and DVD screeners the organization will
cancel its awards for the Best Pictures of 2003.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2865
From:
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 7:40pm
Subject: Re: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
In a message dated 10/18/2003 18:21:28 Eastern Daylight Time,
jpcoursodon@y... writes:
> I think it's absurd to say that a great film is "better" than
> another great film.
For years, I didn't rank my lists either and there are several critics and
cinephiles I respect who don't either - our own Mike Grost, for one.
Personally, I did eventually decide that I wanted to communicate an order of importance
in my lists, but I can completely sympathize with the feeling that, once one
is dealing with films of a certain level of achievement, it's kind of
impossible to rank them numerically. On my personal web site, wherein my lists are
housed, I can point to the year of 1974 as an example of a year wherein my top
six choices should really, perhaps, all be tied for #1.
I'm sure Fred has had his fill of list-talk over the past week or two, so
I'll stop here.
Anyway, thanks for listing some titles that mattered to you in the '90s,
Jean-Pierre.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2866
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:48pm
Subject: Re: shout-out to the moon man
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> Thanks for the plug, Peter (but don't forget my worthy co-author
> Bertrand Tavernier).
I should be clear that I haven't read "50 ans de Cinema Americain" in
any language, so I don't know if my comments constitute a "plug" as
much as a plea based on a deep admiration for your other work (and
Tavernier's as well.) "American Directors, Vols. 1 & 2" has a
permanent place on my shelf.
That's so depressing, the responses of those publishers. Maybe we'll
have to do the a_film_by collective translation after all...
Cheers,
Peter
2867
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:50pm
Subject: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > Tag says that there are only three or four films that should
be
> > seen on the big screen only. New Rose Hotel is not among them.
> > JPC
>
> Now I have to know what those three or four films are!
>
> Paul
One is Stromboli. I have to look up the others.
JPC
2868
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:58pm
Subject: Screeners
Go, LAFC! I hate shit that can't be copied, too. It always had that
light-dark wavering thing going on. The ship has sailed - they're
still looking for their ticket.
2869
From: iangjohnston
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 11:59pm
Subject: Re: Avoiding Directors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> > wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > There is no genre from which I absolutely stay away (although
> martial
> > arts action films have always bored me to tears) and no actor
that
> > would make me stay away from a movie that otherwise sounds
> promising
> > (I'd prefer never to see Tom Cruise on screen, but when he works
> with
> > a De Palma or a Kubrick, what are you gonna do?).
> >
> > But I'm curious if there are directors whose films people here --
> > based on past experience ?adamantly and studiously avoid.
There's
> > no particular reason to see any films by, say, Tom Shadyac or
Les
> > Mayfield or Francis Coppola, but if you happen to find yourself
in
> a
> > theatre or, more likely, on an airplane showing one of their
> > pictures, it's probably not a grave crisis-level situation. On
the
> > other hand, I hope never again to endure the torture of sitting
> > through a movie by Paul Thomas Anderson, Joel Schumacher or Mike
> > Leigh.
>
>
> Why was it a torture? What movies? Why "no particular
reason"
> to see a film by Coppola? Sweeping statements are fun, but some
> explanation is warranted.
It seems a bit bizarre to single out Joel Schumacher -- hardly an
auteur in my pantheon; there's no reason for a dislike of 8mm to
stop you seeing Phone Booth. And if PT Anderson and Mike Leigh are a
torture, I'd think there's a whole are of interesting, contemporary
cinema that must be a torture to you -- an endless list of
directors, surely.
And, Bill, what's the problem with Malkovich? I've always rather
enjoyed his style myself -- certainly he's the only interesting
thing in Ripley's Game. But avoiding Ruiz (Le Temps Retrouve) or De
Oliveira (The Convent, I'm Going Home) because of him is a *big*
loss.
Ian Johnston
2870
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 0:00am
Subject: Re: Tarantino
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh
> 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.
I agree. I admire some of his inspirations more than others (and there
are many more I haven't seen). "Kill Bill's" multivalence maybe
accounts for its fascination as well as why I have some doubts
about it, but Tarantino handles the shifts in tone with grace.
For example, I don't like Takashi Miike's films nearly as much
as Tarantino does -- in fact I might be tempted to fault them with
some of the same words that people use to fault "Kill Bill."
I haven't been too impressed with Fukasaku's films: here "Kill
Bill" seems to attempt some of the same things and does it much
better. (I should qualify this by saying I've only seen a handful
of their many films.)
On the other hand I could imagine people preferring Kenji Misumi's
"Lone Wolf and Cub" series to "Kill Bill." My first thoughts
are that the series is more morally serious and severe, that
there's a greater sense of the faint possibility of nobility
and honor. But my second thoughts are that those traits are in
"Kill Bill" as well: there's a moral gravity to the killing of
Vivica Fox's character, and a moral center in Sonny Chiba's
character. The bitterness in the "Lone Wold and Cub" series isn't
in "Kill Bill": that might be a problem. I don't like killing to
be depicted lightly -- but I'd add that taking visceral pleasure
in violence is usually preferable to draping it in sanctimony.
It was interesting to see "Kill Bill" the same day on which I saw
Ozu's "Hen in the Wind." The violence in "Hen in the Wind" is
more shocking than in "Kill Bill," in part because of
the almost complete absence of violence or even physical contact
in most of Ozu's films, because it brings to mind and is a
consequence of the violence of war and poverty that's off-screen,
and because everyone involved is sympathetic. Ozu better depicts
the consequences of violence. But Kinuyo Tanaka's character asks to be
struck again, and the film ends in forgiveness and a resolution to
forget everything. Forgiving and forgetting don't seem adequate
responses either to family violence or, by implication, to the
consequences of World War II. At the time I hoped Kinuyo Tanaka would
take Uma Thurman's approach. I'm not sure what my point is -- maybe
it's that both Ozu's and Tarantino's values have their uses.
Paul
2871
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 0:20am
Subject: Re: Screeners
We RULE!
--- hotlove666
> Go, LAFC! I hate shit that can't be copied, too. It
> always had that
> light-dark wavering thing going on. The ship has
> sailed - they're
> still looking for their ticket.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2872
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 0:21am
Subject: Malkovich
I love Mike Leigh. And I love Hard Eight - the best American Melville
I've seen. And I enjoyed Phone Booth.
So obviously, my hates are few. Let me enjoy hating Malkovich. He's
such a swell-headed twit. I met him once in a parking lot: "John," he
said, extending a hand like a stomped chihuaha. I also had a crazy
business partner - female - who thought he was "incredibly sexy."
Granted, she thought that about a lot of people, but we were writing
some kind of proposal on Mary Reilly without seeing it, and when I
did see it I saw that Malkovich WAS thinking he was incredibly sexy
whenever he was Hyde ("my panther-like tread..."), thereby ruining a
good script by trusting to a talent that rxisted only in his head and
that of my ex-partner.
I saw The Convent, which like 3 out of 4 current Oliveiras struck me
as a bit of a snooze (a bit more of a snooze than usual, actually,
probably because of Malkovich), but that was before my vow. When
Joseph K. made me a copy of Beyond the Clouds, I fast-forwarded
through the interludes. Then I did see Le temps retrouve, not knowing
that Malkovich was in it, AND DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM!!! Raoul had
worked a miracle, like Monte with Troy Donahue in Cockfighter!
2873
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 0:42am
Subject: Re: Avoiding Directors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
>
> Why was it a torture? What movies? Why "no particular
reason"
> to see a film by Coppola? Sweeping statements are fun, but some
> explanation is warranted.
With the exception of One From The Heart – insufferable! – Coppola's
films, like those of Shadyac and Mayfield, are time-fillers, perhaps
best encountered when flipping through movie channels on cable.
Coppola's are, admittedly, more pompous than those of the other two.
As for the Torture Masters:
Mike Leigh is filled with contempt for his characters, his
condescending arrogance in stark contrast to the leftist rhetoric
he's always spouting off. The results are just dispiriting.
Paul Thomas Anderson's Boogie Nights and Magnolia are the works of an
obnoxious child who thinks he knows all about life because he's seen
a lot of movies, and proof that no matter how much technical bravura
a director is capable of, if he has nothing to say his movies are
still going to be empty and worthless. Magnolia in particular is
bereft of originality and intolerably superficial and one-note. I
found the banality of the characterizations and inter-actions
staggering, and the frog shower – while admittedly pretty cool to
watch – shows that Anderson confuses cheekiness with intelligence.
As for Anderson's handling of actors, out of innumerable inadequate
performances, Tom Cruise stands out for his inept impersonation of
someone with charisma.
Joel Schumacher, ah Joel Schumacher. The combination of story-
telling ineptitude, thematic vapidity and dubious a moral stance adds
up to torture.
2874
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 0:44am
Subject: Re: Malkovich
Dare I ask your opinion of "Being John Malkovich"?
--- hotlove666
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2875
From:
Date: Sat Oct 18, 2003 9:14pm
Subject: I'm Going Home
In a message dated 10/18/2003 20:00:49 Eastern Daylight Time,
nzt@m... writes:
> But avoiding Ruiz (Le Temps Retrouve) or De
> Oliveira (The Convent, I'm Going Home) because of him is a *big*
> loss.
>
And his role in "I'm Going Home" (one of my very favorite de Oliveira films)
is pretty marginal and might even be enjoyable for Malkovich-haters - he plays
a film director making what looks to be a fairly awful movie version of
"Ulysses." In other words, he's something of a fool.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2876
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 1:29am
Subject: Re: Re: Midnight in the Garden, Mystic River
"Mystic River" is very political, from the one-liners about Clinton and Reagan, to the idea of pre-emptive murder. If anyone has seen "Absolute Power" and didn't think it was
a Clinton allegory, well then...
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:52:39 -0000
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Midnight in the Garden, Mystic River
What a coincidence! I just finished my long and conflicted review of
MYSTIC RIVER for the Reader next week, and this is my approach
exactly. And it's not just an allegory about the present; it could
apply to all sorts of things this country has done over the past
decade or so--and is already asking and even expecting to be forgiven
for...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
This'll strike some as crazy (here comes the
> spoiler), but what made me start rethinking the film was an aside
by
> Andy Klein - who was moderate in his praise, too - to the effect
that
> despite appearances it COULDN'T be an allegory of current American
> foreign policy because of when it was shot. But consciously or
> unconsciously, it is.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers
2877
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 1:56am
Subject: Re: Avoiding Directors
Well of course I completely disagree, but that doesn't matter a
bit. Tell us about something you do like, for a change.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Why was it a torture? What movies? Why "no particular
> reason"
> > to see a film by Coppola? Sweeping statements are fun, but some
> > explanation is warranted.
>
> With the exception of One From The Heart – insufferable! –
Coppola's
> films, like those of Shadyac and Mayfield, are time-fillers,
perhaps
> best encountered when flipping through movie channels on cable.
> Coppola's are, admittedly, more pompous than those of the other
two.
>
> As for the Torture Masters:
> Mike Leigh is filled with contempt for his characters, his
> condescending arrogance in stark contrast to the leftist rhetoric
> he's always spouting off. The results are just dispiriting.
>
> Paul Thomas Anderson's Boogie Nights and Magnolia are the works of
an
> obnoxious child who thinks he knows all about life because he's
seen
> a lot of movies, and proof that no matter how much technical
bravura
> a director is capable of, if he has nothing to say his movies are
> still going to be empty and worthless. Magnolia in particular is
> bereft of originality and intolerably superficial and one-note. I
> found the banality of the characterizations and inter-actions
> staggering, and the frog shower – while admittedly pretty cool to
> watch – shows that Anderson confuses cheekiness with intelligence.
> As for Anderson's handling of actors, out of innumerable inadequate
> performances, Tom Cruise stands out for his inept impersonation of
> someone with charisma.
>
> Joel Schumacher, ah Joel Schumacher. The combination of story-
> telling ineptitude, thematic vapidity and dubious a moral stance
adds
> up to torture.
2878
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 2:00am
Subject: Re: Malkovich
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
s. Then I did see Le temps retrouve, not knowing
> that Malkovich was in it, AND DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HIM!!! Raoul had
> worked a miracle, like Monte with Troy Donahue in Cockfighter!
Raoul ALWAYS (or almost) works miracles. "Le Temps retrouve" is
a miracle from start to finish.
JPC
2879
From: jaketwilson
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 3:48am
Subject: Re: Malkovich
> So obviously, my hates are few. Let me enjoy hating Malkovich. He's
> such a swell-headed twit. I met him once in a parking lot: "John,"
he said, extending a hand like a stomped chihuaha. I also had a crazy
> business partner - female - who thought he was "incredibly sexy."
> Granted, she thought that about a lot of people, but we were
writing some kind of proposal on Mary Reilly without seeing it, and
when I did see it I saw that Malkovich WAS thinking he was incredibly
> sexy whenever he was Hyde ("my panther-like tread..."), thereby
ruining a good script by trusting to a talent that rxisted only in
> his head and that of my ex-partner.
Talking with a friend about the movie versions of LOLITA, we agreed
that both Mason and Irons were too masochistically British to play
Nabokov's Humbert, and what was needed might be more like a Malkovich
type.
Humbert thinks he comes across like a matinee idol, but who knows how
much of that is in his head?
JTW
2880
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 3:55am
Subject: Re: Avoiding Directors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
>Tell us about something you do like, for a change.
There's no reason to be snotty. In the last week, I posted my 20
favorite films:
1. Breakfast At Tiffany's (Blake Edwards)
2. Make Way For Tomorrow (Leo McCarey)
3. The Awful Truth (Leo McCarey)
4. Rules Of The Game (Jean Renoir)
5. Imitation of Life (Douglas Sirk)
6. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (John Ford)
7. The Bells Of St. Mary's (Leo McCarey)
8. Lola Montes (Max Ophuls)
9. The Seventh Victim (Mark Robson/Val Lewton)
10. Portrait Of Jennie (William Dieterle)
11. The Band Wagon (Vincente Minnelli)
12. There's Always Tomorrow (Douglas Sirk)
13. Skin Deep (Blake Edwards)
14. She Wore A Yellow Ribbon (John Ford)
15. Kiss Me Deadly (Robert Aldrich)
16. Day Of The Outlaw (Andre De Toth)
17. The Shop Around The Corner (Ernst Lubitsch)
18. Playtime (Jacques Tati)
19. Viaggio In Italy (Roberto Rossellini)
20. An Autumn Afternoon (Yasujiro Ozu)
And a dozen films to add to the poll of memorable 90s films by
relatively new filmmakers:
An Angel At My Table (Jane Campion)
Impulse (Sondra Locke)
A Midnight Clear (Keith Gordon)
32 Short Films About Glenn Gould (François Girard)
Bhaji On The Beach (Gurinder Chadha)
Go Fish (Rose Troche)
Dead Man Walking (Tim Robbins)
Rob Roy (Michael Caton-Jones)
Gods And Monsters (Bill Condon)
The Opposite Of Sex (Don Roos)
Last Night (Don McKellar)
Human Resources (Laurent Cantet)
Some more:
My favorite films from 1996, the year of Mike Leigh's most acclaimed
picture, Secrets And Lies:
1. Stonewall (Nigel Finch)
2. The Quiet Room (Rolf de Heer)
3. Irma Vepp (Olivier Assayas)
4. Ponette (Jacques Doillon)
5. Gabbeh (Mohsen Makhmalbaf)
And from 1999, the year of Magnolia:
1. L'Humanité (Bruno Dumont)
2. The Wind Will Carry Us (Abbas Kiarostami)
3. Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick)
4. Color of Paradise (Majid Majidi)
5. The End Of The Affair (Neil Jordan)
As for Schumacher, I don't know what one might refer to as his most
highly regarded picture.
2881
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:12am
Subject: Malkovich
Nabokov's Humbert, and what was needed might be more like a Malkovich
type.
Humbert thinks he comes across like a matinee idol, but who knows how
much of that is in his head?>
I wouldn't see it.
2882
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:14am
Subject: Re: Malkovich
I considered seeing it because people told me it was made against
Malkovich. But then I reconsidered.
2883
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:20am
Subject: Re: Malkovich
Peter, Thanks for warning me. I'll probably see I'm Going Home
anyway, and just go into the lobby when Malkovich is on, like I used
to do when the Witch came on in Snow White. How many scenes are we
talking about in this "small part?"
2884
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:35am
Subject: Re: Re: Malkovich
Most of them are in the trailer for I'M GOING HOME. It's all very near
the end, when the phrase Je rentre a la maison is finally uttered.
Malko's role in A TALKING PICTURE is more rewarding, and very very
funny. A perverse ship captain who flatters his international actress
guests. They stare him down with contempt--well, with some humor,
mostly contempt.
Speaking of SNOW WHITEs, can Felipe describe how the audience in São
Paulo liked VAI-E-VEM? Toronto never got BRANCA DE NEVE but I can't
imagine the reaction was as bad with this one.
On Saturday, October 18, 2003, at 11:20 PM, hotlove666 wrote:
> Peter, Thanks for warning me. I'll probably see I'm Going Home
> anyway, and just go into the lobby when Malkovich is on, like I used
> to do when the Witch came on in Snow White. How many scenes are we
> talking about in this "small part?"
2885
From: Chris Fujiwara
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:01am
Subject: best of 1990
Peter: Thanks for your interest! I never published a top-ten list for
1990. Filipe must have seen a note I gave the Village Voice
explaining why I thought Kitano's Brother was the 10th best film of
2001 and comparing it to The Rookie, which in a kind of pointless
joke about pointlessness I called the 10th best film of 1990. If I
had a 10-best list for 1990, Nouvelle vague, Close-up, Conte de
printemps, Goodfellas, White Hunter Black Heart, The Match Factory
Girl, Alexandria Again and Forever, and King of New York would be on
it. Not sure what order....
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Tonguette"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
>
> >(I Know Chris Fujiwara even included it in his best
> > of the year list in 90).
>
> Since we have Chris on this group, I suppose this is as good a time
> as any to ask: where can we find his lists? I don't see them on
your
> site, Chris.
>
> Peter
2886
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:11am
Subject: negative criticism
I don't want to pick on Damien, first because he's a friend and
second because this is a general observation: it occurred to me
today, reading his post on P.T. Anderson and Tom Cruise (two big
names in the movies that he dislikes but I like a lot), that it's a
lot harder to say something interesting/illuminating/enlightening
about things we dislike than things we like. On one end
(transmission), I think we have a "head start" in engaging with a
TEXT if we enjoyed ourselves, found the aesthetic so-and-so
stimulating, took pleasure from what we saw, etc. On the other end
(reception), no one is going to have anything bad to say about Jerry
Lewis, or Michael Almereyda, or David Foster Wallace, or PLAYTIME
that I haven't already accepted or rejected. What are the chances
that the smartest guy in the world is going to sit down with Zach
Campbell and convince him that he's actually not a good filmmaker?
Or Damien: Leo McCarey. Or Fred: Stan Brakhage. Or David: Patrice
Chereau. Or Gabe, Monteiro or Oliveira?
-Jaime
2887
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:13am
Subject: Re: negative criticism
> What are the chances
> that the smartest guy in the world is going to sit down with Zach
> Campbell and convince him that he's actually not a good filmmaker?
Ah, pretty good, since to my knowledge Zach has yet to make a film.
The missing antecedent is Clint Eastwood. My bad.
-Jaime
2888
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:41am
Subject: Re: negative criticism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> I don't want to pick on Damien, first because he's a friend and
> second because this is a general observation: it occurred to me
> today, reading his post on P.T. Anderson and Tom Cruise (two big
> names in the movies that he dislikes but I like a lot), that it's a
> lot harder to say something interesting/illuminating/enlightening
> about things we dislike than things we like.
I remember as a teenager reading a comment from somebody like Judith
Crist or Gene Shalit stating how enjoyable it was to write a negative
review because it gives you license to be so clever and bitchy
(Crist won some newspaper award for her pan of Premminger's Hurry
Sundown which she wrote in cliched SOuthern dialect). But then not
long after I began reviewing films for my college paper at Columbia
it hit me how much more fulfilling it was to write in praise of a
movie rather than in condemnation, there being a sense of
exhileration in sharing the joy you found in a certain film, whereas
pointing out what's bad in a bad movie just seemed like a
disheartening sense of duty.
2889
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:45am
Subject: An Auteurist Adventure
I am in the planning stage of the Auteurist Adventure project, which
(to those who didn't read my previous gibberish) will be a web page
highlighting all of the important films by the stars in the auteurism
constellation. My hope is, the page will serve as a guide to young
cinephiles as they start their journey through the cinema, a
checklist for mid-range cinephiles as they chart their progress, and
something else entirely for aged cinephiles as they look back on a
life of moviegoing (and perhaps as a list that will give them some
idea of what they'd like to see again).
Given the (potential, but very likely) complexity of the project, I
think it's best that I do it in small bites. So I'll start with two
directors and work from there.
That said...
- Would those a_film_by participants that hold Samuel Fuller in high
esteem please contact me offlist.
- Would those a_film_by participants that hold Otto Preminger in high
esteem please contact me offlist.
I'll be in touch with some of you anyway, but it would make my job
easier if you wrote to me first.
-Jaime
2890
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:52am
Subject: Re: negative criticism
> I remember as a teenager reading a comment from somebody like
Judith
> Crist or Gene Shalit stating how enjoyable it was to write a
negative
> review because it gives you license to be so clever and bitchy
> (Crist won some newspaper award for her pan of Premminger's Hurry
> Sundown which she wrote in cliched SOuthern dialect). But then not
> long after I began reviewing films for my college paper at Columbia
> it hit me how much more fulfilling it was to write in praise of a
> movie rather than in condemnation, there being a sense of
> exhileration in sharing the joy you found in a certain film,
whereas
> pointing out what's bad in a bad movie just seemed like a
> disheartening sense of duty.
I hasten to agree. With the great movies, you're off in the
stratosphere. With bad movies or "just okay" movies, you're in a
swamp.
It's also disheartening to the people who don't agree with what you
say. Once you say, "This film/filmmaker has nothing to say," you've
sorta ended the discussion for both parties. Uncomfortable silence
ensues, etc. Or if not, it's just a battle of egos, not a mutual
endeavor to engage with the TEXT.
-Jaime
p.s. We've already had it out re: PT Anderson and MAGNOLIA, and I
think Tom Cruise is a pretty underrated actor, given his pretty-boy
looks and his bankability. In general, everyone gives in to the
temptation to damn an actor with those two things going for him. But
I can't deny or argue with your complaints re: Cruise, since 99% of
what makes actors "happen" for us, or not, has to do with the effect
of their personality, their looks, and so on. Technical excellence
in acting (Meryl Streep and the like) is something I can admire,
coldly, but it takes more for me to really dig an actor/performance.
2891
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:54am
Subject: Problems with auteurism
Personally, I consider "School of Rock" to be Chuck White's third movie, and Linklater to be functioning here as the metewer-on-scene (or however that's spelled)...but this does give me an opportunity to express some of my misgivings about auteurism as it is generally applied. Frankly, I happen to think that a movie rises and falls on the value of it's screenplay and acting, and the notion that a great director can transcend bad writing and bad acting is about as spurious a notion, IMJ, as the old idea that a bad movie could be "saved in the editing room." I recently watched "Godfather III" on television, and all the Sofia Coppola scenes confirmed that for me. The story and the acting is what the audience responds to, form be damned, for the most part.
I'd say that "Mystic River" is Clint Eastwood's best movie (and a stunning rebound from lame products like "True Crime" and "Absolute Power")but I'd like to give credit in equal measure to a great story courtesy of Dennis Lehane, Brian Helgeland's adaptation, the cast, as well as Clint. (I also feel that, on the evidence of "Mystic River" and "L.A. Confidential," as opposed to his own original material like "The Postman," that Helgeland shoud stick to writing adaptations of great noir novels). Clint deserves credit as a director for coalescing all these elements into one compact package, but unless a director contributes significantly to the story and/or dialogue, we really shouldn't give him or her all the credit for the success of a film.
Peter Tonguette
Dave,
Well, interestingly, "Before Sunrise" is Linklater's one flat-out
success for me. Now I like "Slacker" and "Waking Life" very much
(and "School of Rock" is a terrific mainstream divertissment)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2892
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:39am
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Rick Segreda
> Personally, I consider "School of Rock" to be Chuck White's third
movie, and Linklater to be functioning here as the metewer-on-scene
(or however that's spelled)...but this does give me an opportunity to
express some of my misgivings about auteurism as it is generally
applied. Frankly, I happen to think that a movie rises and falls on
the value of it's screenplay and acting, and the notion that a great
director can transcend bad writing and bad acting is about as
spurious a notion, IMJ, as the old idea that a bad movie could
be "saved in the editing room." I recently watched "Godfather III" on
television, and all the Sofia Coppola scenes confirmed that for me.
The story and the acting is what the audience responds to, form be
damned, for the most part.
It's strange, almost 3000 messages and only just now this debate
rears its unattractive head. (This group started out as an off-shoot
of another board where the idea(s) of auteurism were generally
laughed at and not really understood by its opponents.)
I can't remember all of my counterarguments offhand. But to address
your post:
General observations
Screenwriters write screenplays - if all they do is write (i.e. they
aren't writer-directors like Sam Fuller and the rest), then they view
cinema as a vehicle to "deliver" their work, their dialogue, their
scenes, etc. In old theater (or, for all I know, contemporary
theater), the composer and the writer would quarrel frequently,
because one believed that the work of the other cast a shadow on
their genius.
Actors are the same way. If they had the least amount of respect for
filmmaking as an art form, they'd realize that their job consists
solely of serving the TEXT, and that a film isn't just another kind
of theatrical setting. Naturally there are actors who can serve the
text AND THEN SOME (Cagney, Welles, Mifune, Kinski, but also Hideko
Takamine, Arthur Kennedy, Gaston Modot, etc), but if we're speaking
strictly about technical acting - the ability simply to carry out a
scene and say all the lines convincingly and express the correct
emotions, etc., the actor is subordinate to the.............
DIRECTOR. If film is an art, and not a craft, there is an artist.
We can go on and on about "film is a collaborative art," but there is
one person who marshals all of the different collaborators and brings
it home. This point is better stated in previous a_film_by posts,
would someone be so good as to recall who said what, and in what
message, thanks.
-Jaime
2893
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 8:24am
Subject: Re. Brian Helgeland
Rick Segreda wrote:
"I also feel that, on the evidence of "Mystic River" and "L.A.
Confidential," as opposed to his own original material like "The
Postman," that Helgeland shoud stick to writing adaptations of great
noir novels"
I consider Brian Helgeland as one of todays most promising and
talented new writers. I dont believe we have seen his best work yet.
Even in his "original" work, there is a structure tighter than any Syd
Field clone ever could come up with; This guy has talent.
While I, as Rick, would love to see more great scripts from Helgeland,
we wont see it for a while. He has too much fun writing, he gets $1
million per script, so why become "serious". And what if he only
writes an Oscar script once per five years?
I envy him.
2894
From:
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:31am
Subject: Re: Re: a_film_by 1990s poll?
In a message dated 10/18/03 5:31:17 PM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
> Tag says that there are only three or four films that should be
> seen on the big screen only. New Rose Hotel is not among them.
>
I'm quite shocked to hear this. I would have thought that most people, if not
everyone, on this list would be vehemently opposed to the idea that only
three or four films should be seen on the big screen only. So Tag, what are they?
Or did I misunderstand this post?
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2895
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 9:47am
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism
Rick Segreda wrote:
"Frankly, I happen to think that a movie rises and falls on the value
of it's screenplay and acting, and the notion that a great director
can transcend bad writing and bad acting is about as spurious a
notion, IMJ, as the old idea that a bad movie could be "saved in the
editing room." "
That is partially true. A film also, and mainly in my opinion, falls
and rises on the value of cinematography, editing and sound editing
(and lighting). The idea that the director is a one man genius is only
as true as the team behind him.
My favourite example is Michael Mann's "LA Takedown" vs. "HEAT".
Originally a TV film, Mann felt so frustrated about it, that he remade
it. And watching them its no surprise. Take a look at the scene where
Hannah and McCauley have coffee. Both scenes are basically identical,
same framings, same dialogue, but the difference is light,
cinematographer (TV style Ron Garcia vs. maestro Dante Spinotti) and
actors (two mediocre TV actors vs. Pacino and de Niro).
The main difference is the acting. Where "LA Takedown" reminds you of
a reading (uninvolved and overacted), "HEAT" sucks you in and makes
you listen (The Method). But what encapsules the scene is the
cinematography and good editing (nothing is as hard to edit as two
people talking to eachother).
This is why all the great directors have more or less the same team
behind them on each film. They are an unit. They work well together.
But lets not forget that what we see is an illusion. The original
script is never the same as the final shooting script. Scenes are
planned in detail on storyboards, several hours are spend to light
even a two second insert, actors prepare ahead and a scene is shot
several times. Finally its all edited, color and sound corrected.
Lars von Trier once asked Kieslowski about the secret behind character
director and Kieslowski told him - "A nice comfy chair". "You get a
nice comfy chair, put it all the way in the back when they barely can
see you, and when the actors look at you in desperation, you just nod
and smile". And lets all remember Hitchcock, who basically only said
Action and Cut. Such anecdotes are fun to read, but would never had
been told if not for the team behind the director.
Perhaps "The Team" is implicit when one talks about "The Auteur", but
I know to little about modern auteur theory to talk of this; Yet it is
my impression, that the notion of the "auteur" still is approached
with naivity and fails to recognize the entire production mechanism
surrounding a film.
The making of a film has three stages: Preproduction, The Shooting and
Postproduction. The director does NOT "marshall all of the different
collaborators" nor participates in all the stages. What all good
directors do is trusting the team behind them. They are as a
conductor, not only making sure that everyone plays the same tune, but
also adding their personal touch. Perhaps we should look at management
theory in our search for new definitions of auteurism.
Henrik
PS: A film is often saved in the editing room (basically all the films
by David Lynch were created - saved - by his editor). Editing is by
far the most important element of film making.
2896
From: jaketwilson
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 10:38am
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism
Exercise for those who think screenwriting is what matters: check out
some movies made by different directors from Tom Stoppard scripts,
such as DESPAIR, THE HUMAN FACTOR, BRAZIL (what do people think of
Gilliam?) and EMPIRE OF THE SUN.
Then try sitting through the film Stoppard wrote and directed from
his own play, ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDERSTERN ARE DEAD.
I rest my case.
JTW
2897
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 0:55pm
Subject: Re: negative criticism
"Lewis, or Michael Almereyda, or David Foster Wallace,
or PLAYTIME
that I haven't already accepted or rejected. What are
the chances
that the smartest guy in the world is going to sit
down with Zach
Campbell and convince him that he's actually not a
good filmmaker?
Or Damien: Leo McCarey. Or Fred: Stan Brakhage. Or
David: Patrice
Chereau. Or Gabe, Monteiro or Oliveira?"
When I talked with Chereau earlier this year (just
before he went to Cannes to head the jury that gave
Gus the Palme d'Or) I asked him about his first film
"Flesh of the Orchid" which I'd never seen. He
immediately launched into a denunciation of it,
ssaying that it was a waste of time and that he
didn'twant to have anybody seeing it. So I asked him
how an adaptation of "No Orchids For Miss Blandish"
sstarring Charlotte Rampling, Simone Signoret, Edwige
FFeulliere and Eve Francis could be a waste of time
aand he said "Well, I'll send you some stills."
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2898
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 3:15pm
Subject: Re: Avoiding Directors
Sorry, I was not being snotty (not intentionally at least). And
your lists are crammed with some of my favorite films. I love or at
least like very much all of your top twenty (I had missed that post).
I just wonder how you can manage to rank them by order of preference.
You must have solid personal reasons to say that Breakfast at
Tiffany's is your favorite film of all times. Or to put the Ozu at
the bottom of the list.
When I was nineteen I made lists too, but couldn't decide whether my
number one favorite was Singin' in the rain, Sherlock Jr or Norman
McLaren's Blinkity Blank.
If I rearranged your list, I'd probably put Kiss Me Deadly at the
very top...
Ponette, L'Humanite, The Wind will carry us... all among my favorites
of the 90s. But then I love Magnolia. Oh well...
JPC
-- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
> >Tell us about something you do like, for a change.
>
> There's no reason to be snotty. In the last week, I posted my 20
> favorite films:
>
> 1. Breakfast At Tiffany's (Blake Edwards)
> 2. Make Way For Tomorrow (Leo McCarey)
> 3. The Awful Truth (Leo McCarey)
> 4. Rules Of The Game (Jean Renoir)
> 5. Imitation of Life (Douglas Sirk)
> 6. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (John Ford)
> 7. The Bells Of St. Mary's (Leo McCarey)
> 8. Lola Montes (Max Ophuls)
> 9. The Seventh Victim (Mark Robson/Val Lewton)
> 10. Portrait Of Jennie (William Dieterle)
> 11. The Band Wagon (Vincente Minnelli)
> 12. There's Always Tomorrow (Douglas Sirk)
> 13. Skin Deep (Blake Edwards)
> 14. She Wore A Yellow Ribbon (John Ford)
> 15. Kiss Me Deadly (Robert Aldrich)
> 16. Day Of The Outlaw (Andre De Toth)
> 17. The Shop Around The Corner (Ernst Lubitsch)
> 18. Playtime (Jacques Tati)
> 19. Viaggio In Italy (Roberto Rossellini)
> 20. An Autumn Afternoon (Yasujiro Ozu)
>
>
> And a dozen films to add to the poll of memorable 90s films by
> relatively new filmmakers:
>
> An Angel At My Table (Jane Campion)
> Impulse (Sondra Locke)
> A Midnight Clear (Keith Gordon)
> 32 Short Films About Glenn Gould (François Girard)
> Bhaji On The Beach (Gurinder Chadha)
> Go Fish (Rose Troche)
> Dead Man Walking (Tim Robbins)
> Rob Roy (Michael Caton-Jones)
> Gods And Monsters (Bill Condon)
> The Opposite Of Sex (Don Roos)
> Last Night (Don McKellar)
> Human Resources (Laurent Cantet)
>
> Some more:
>
> My favorite films from 1996, the year of Mike Leigh's most
acclaimed
> picture, Secrets And Lies:
>
> 1. Stonewall (Nigel Finch)
> 2. The Quiet Room (Rolf de Heer)
> 3. Irma Vepp (Olivier Assayas)
> 4. Ponette (Jacques Doillon)
> 5. Gabbeh (Mohsen Makhmalbaf)
>
> And from 1999, the year of Magnolia:
>
> 1. L'Humanité (Bruno Dumont)
> 2. The Wind Will Carry Us (Abbas Kiarostami)
> 3. Eyes Wide Shut (Stanley Kubrick)
> 4. Color of Paradise (Majid Majidi)
> 5. The End Of The Affair (Neil Jordan)
>
> As for Schumacher, I don't know what one might refer to as his most
> highly regarded picture.
2899
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 3:32pm
Subject: Problems with auteurism II: Editing
Henrik Sylow
What all good
directors do is trusting the team behind them. They are as a
conductor, not only making sure that everyone plays the same tune, but
also adding their personal touch. Perhaps we should look at management
theory in our search for new definitions of auteurism.
Rick: I think that is a good analogy, and I agree about the management theory notion.
Henrik: PS: A film is often saved in the editing room (basically all the films
by David Lynch were created - saved - by his editor). Editing is by
far the most important element of film making.
Rick: Again, I beg to differ. Editing can't transform an improbable story, bad dialogue, and weak acting. It's no different than the difference between brilliantly written and performed but bargain basement off-Broadway theatre and cheesy big-budget Broadway shows. If editing could save, then we could hand "Plan 9 From Outer Space" to a genius editor and he'd turn it into "Au Hasard Balthazar." And I think good cinematography and lighting is merely window dressing. The technical quality of some of Renoir and Rosselini's movies isn't very good, but has any audience been less than bowled over by "Open City?"
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]
2900
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 3:43pm
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism
Saying that "Editing is by far the most important element of film
making" will be hard to defend, Henrik. The sole cut at the end of
Russian Ark does not determine the overall effectiveness of the film.
If you think that's an exception, what about the long takes in Mother
And Son that gain their effect from staging, manipulation/distortion
of the image, and stylized natural sound? Or how about the long takes
in Flowers of Shanghai, where the camera glides very, very, very
slowly in a diagonal from right to left while each courtesan
negotiates with her patron? Or the devastating long takes with the
screen empty of people but with strong offscreen presence in
Millennium Mambo (and Maborosi)? At any rate, other elements of
mise en scene can be far more important than editing, at least in
certain films.
--Robert Keser
Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact