Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
2901
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 3:56pm
Subject: NYFF reactions?
I skipped the NYFF this year for a handful of reasons. What are
other New Yorkers thoughts--favorite films, must-sees, etc? How has
it compared to previous years overall?
--Zach
2902
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:01pm
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism II: Editing
Don't say such things until you've seen them in decent prints. You've
been lied to and betrayed and deceived all your life by evil people
showing you wretched dupes of dupes of dupes. And the American edition
of OPEN CITY replaces the gorgeous maintitle sequence of the original
completely (but not in England). The technical quality is awesome if
you see a decent print.
A lot of assine American film criticism of "neo-realism" has been based
on the supposedly "authentic" look of wretched dupes.
Rick Segreda wrote:
> 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?"
>
>
2903
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:03pm
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism
As to whether a film can be "saved in the editing," the discussion here
is once again impoverished by taking commercial narrative cinema as the
sole reference point. Look back to the recent discussion of "Rose
Hobart," and see that film alongside "East of Borneo," to see a film
that consists entirely of editing. A long tradition of fond footage
films followed. But then "Russian Ark," recently cited, obviously
doesn't depend on its editing. These generalizations are, in my opinion,
absurd.
Also, people who are fundamentally opposed to the autuer theory are
asked to reread our group's statement of purpose in our files section.
This group was founded by people who were sick and tired of this
particular debate, and of constantly defending the director as auteur,
especially since the debate always takes the same course: someone cites
a screenwriter or cinematographer, someone else cites bad films that
screenwriter wrote, someone else cites "bad" films a great auteur
directed, and so on. There have been numerous defenses of auteurism here
that have seemed effective to me, including Jaime's recent reply.
Perhaps the best were some posts by Zach early on about the director's
role, and how the director is in a fundamentally different position than
anyone else who works on a film. My recent argument that film art comes
from the relationship between elements, not from any single element
alone, can also be read as suggesting that it is the director who is
uniquely situated. And as for the editing of commercial films, many
directors who don't participate shoot according to conventions that
don't allow the editor a lot of choices, and there are others who, like
Hawks, say the work on the editing "from the beginning and on all my films."
I'm not writing this in my official position as co-moderator, or I would
have written to Peter first and tried to come up with a joint statement,
and I don't wish to exclude all arguments against auteurism, as out
statement of purpose already makes clear. But as one group member with
too many posts to read, I'd like to suggest that this isn't really the
right group to argue that the screenwriter is the primary auteur, or
that there are only three or four directors in film history who qualify
as auteurs.. For most of us such arguments are all too easy to refute
from the evidence on the screen, and there are plenty of other places on
the 'Net where such arguments will find a more sympathetic audience. We
started this group as a place where we wouldn't have to go over those
ancient debates again and again and again.
\
- Fred
2904
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:14pm
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism II: Editing (print quality)
Tag Gallagher wrote:
>A lot of assine American film criticism of "neo-realism" has been based
>on the supposedly "authentic" look of wretched dupes.
>
>
>
Here's the greatest illustration I know of Tag's point.
There's an old article from the 1960s by Donald Skoller in "Cinema
Studies" called "Praxis in the Films of Robert Bresson." He makes the
not implausible point that those moments when Bresson suspends the
narrative completely are keys to his film. I can't remember all his
examples, but the last "shot" of "Diary of a Country Priest" might have
been one.
His ultimate example, though, are shots from the end of "A Man Escaped"
in which he claims that the screen is completely black, and you can't
see anything.
I knew already when I read that article what the story was, from my film
society days. When you tried to rent at 16mm print of "A Man Escaped"
from its only distributor, Contemporary Films, they usually (but not
always) warned you that the third, and final, reel was way too dark. And
actually, it wasn't so much dark as very low contrast: there were shots
in fact which were all gray, and in which you couldn't see anything.
And, even without that warning, that there was a problem should have
been obvious, because the third reel had no true blacks.
The 35mm print at Anthology has no such all gray shots.
The course of academic film studies in America might have taken a
different course if everyone had taken seriously the suggestion of an
aspiring professor that it would be legitimate to "phenomenoligcally"
analyze the scratches and dust on a print. And given the course it did
take, that might not have been such a bad alternative. But with the
exception of George Landow's great " Film In Which There Appear Sprocket
Holes, Edge Lettering and Dirt Particles, etc," that's not an analysis
that ever interested me.
- Fred
2905
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:41pm
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism II: Editing, II
This proves my point; "Open City" completely blew me away as an awesome movie; the acting (espicially the incomparable Anna Magnani) and the story really got to me, despite, according to what you say Tag, was the inferior print that I saw.
Tag Gallagher wrote:Don't say such things until you've seen them in decent prints. You've
been lied to and betrayed and deceived all your life by evil people
showing you wretched dupes of dupes of dupes. And the American edition
of OPEN CITY replaces the gorgeous maintitle sequence of the original
completely (but not in England). The technical quality is awesome if
you see a decent print.
A lot of assine American film criticism of "neo-realism" has been based
on the supposedly "authentic" look of wretched dupes.
Rick Segreda wrote:
> 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 Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2906
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:46pm
Subject: Re: Avoiding Directors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> I just wonder how you can manage to rank them by order of
preference.
Making lists of favorite films (or favorite anything) is a completely
arbitrary and subjective (and probably absurd) endeavor, but ranking
one film above another is based on gut feelings and a remembrance of
how movies affected you when you first saw them.
Breakfast At Tiffany's spoke to me completely as the person I was
when I first saw it at age 22, and every subsequent re-viewing has
revealed new beauties in it.
2907
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 4:47pm
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism II: Editing (print quality)
By the way, Fred -- have there been any recent
sightings of Landow (aka Owen Land)?
--- Fred Camper wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2908
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:00pm
Subject: Re: NYFF reactions?
> I skipped the NYFF this year for a handful of reasons. What are
> other New Yorkers thoughts--favorite films, must-sees, etc? How has
> it compared to previous years overall?
I was away for the first half of the fest, but here are my impressions
of what I did catch:
YOUNG ADAM: saw 30 min. at Toronto and walked out. It was a Toronto
walk-out - i.e., I switched theaters instead of going home - but I
really thought this was one inert, unimaginative piece of direction.
THE FLOWER OF EVIL: I really enjoyed it moment by moment, but it just so
didn't come together for me dramatically. I felt almost exactly the
same about MERCI POUR LE CHOCOLAT (which I enjoyed less along the way),
so I wonder if Chabrol isn't just going in some new dramaturgical
direction that I haven't caught up with yet. Anyway, I basically liked it.
GOOD MORNING, NIGHT: watchable and interesting, but I felt it was
somehow both overstated and underdeveloped. I wasn't wild about it.
FREE RADICALS: interestingly directed, well worth a look, but I didn't
understand it structurally, possibly because of severe jet lag.
CRIMSON GOLD: quite good, meandering but smart and expressive, with an
amazing lead performance, one of those non-professional tours de force
that money can't buy.
GOODBYE DRAGON INN: I feel fond of it, but it wasn't enough for me -
maybe I just wasn't prepared for a character-free, almost dialogue-free
81-minute prowl around a movie theater.
DISTANT: not my cup of tea. As a character study, it's okay in a modest
way, but Ceylan's slowness and minimalism don't register on me as
meaningful strategies. For a director so interested in visuals, he
doesn't seem to care much about space, which bugs me.
RAJA: terrific, possibly a great film. Amazingly complex on a social
and psychological level, witty, reflective, beautiful and subtle
framing. Very sad, and it really earns the right to be sad by exploring
all options.
- Dan
2909
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:05pm
Subject: Breakfast at Tiffany's
I happen to love "Breakfast at Tiffany's" as well, I really do; angelic Audrey, of course, the Truman Capote source material, the color cinematography, the ambiance of Manhattan in the early sixties (of course I was not even born yet) Blake Edward's direction, and "Moon River." But Mickey Rooney's Japanese caricature still makes me wince. I hate political correctness, but the PC brigade does make an occasional valid point.
Damien Bona wrote:--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> I just wonder how you can manage to rank them by order of
preference.
Making lists of favorite films (or favorite anything) is a completely
arbitrary and subjective (and probably absurd) endeavor, but ranking
one film above another is based on gut feelings and a remembrance of
how movies affected you when you first saw them.
Breakfast At Tiffany's spoke to me completely as the person I was
when I first saw it at age 22, and every subsequent re-viewing has
revealed new beauties in it.
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]
2910
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:06pm
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism
Editing is the most important element in "Strike" and "Potemkin",
and the least important in "India Song" or early Warhol. It all
depends.
But more seriously, couldn't it be argued that in "Russian Ark"
(or any film that relies heavily on long takes), the placement,
displacement and manipulation of objects and people in the frame
combined with the camera movements sort of recreate a form of
editing -- editing without cuts? Because they involve choice, just
like editing, and there is always an arbitrariness in any choice.
Editing ("cutting") makes that arbitrariness more obvious. Perhaps
film is "condemned" to editing because it is condemned to choice.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> 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
2911
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Problems with auteurism II: Editing, II
That's great, Rick. I had gotten your point and am glad you got such a
bang out it. Rossellini's movies are pure emotion and feeling and mood.
Could you tell me where you saw it and how the print was and whether it
had the original or replaced main titles? And, please, which were the
technical qualities that you found "not very good" (other than the
dupiness and bad sound of the print)?
Rick Segreda wrote:
> This proves my point; "Open City" completely blew me away as an
> awesome movie; the acting (espicially the incomparable Anna Magnani)
> and the story really got to me, despite, according to what you say
> Tag, was the inferior print that I saw.
>
> Tag Gallagher wrote:Don't say such things until
> you've seen them in decent prints. You've
> been lied to and betrayed and deceived all your life by evil people
> showing you wretched dupes of dupes of dupes. And the American edition
> of OPEN CITY replaces the gorgeous maintitle sequence of the original
> completely (but not in England). The technical quality is awesome if
> you see a decent print.
>
> A lot of assine American film criticism of "neo-realism" has been based
> on the supposedly "authentic" look of wretched dupes.
>
> Rick Segreda wrote:
>
> > 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 Sponsor
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.4052765.5265175.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705021019:HM/A=1754451/R=0/SIG=11tfoi6qi/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60178323&partid=4052765>
>
>
>
> 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]
2912
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 5:15pm
Subject: MoDo on Woody: Aim->Shoot->Score...OUCH!
In today's New York Times, Maureen Dowd launches a guided missile directly at Woody Allen, and I'll be surprised if he survives. MoDo's acidic bitchiness has not been put to such good use since the Clinton administration.
Just read for yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/opinion/19DOWD.html
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2913
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:12pm
Subject: BTW, for "Kill Bill" fans, does anyone remember "Blind Fury"
Phillip Noyce's "Blind Fury", his Americanization of the Japanese Zatoichi movies, with the surprise casting of Rutger Hauer as the hero, a blind, Vietnam veteran samurai, was released back in 1990 to both critical and commercial indifference. I don't see why; the film is a riot, funny (intentionally), witty, suspenseful, and engaging. I don't know if this movie has a cult following or not, but it should. Somebody ought to bring it back.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2914
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism
Life itself is a stream of choices, so how can cinema be
any different? But taking this philosophical viewpoint also
results in erasing real differences. Is a Delmer Daves crane
shot somehow "equal" to a Griffith iris-open (or iris-close)?
Is this a meaningful equation or does it impoverish the
vocabulary available for describing a film experience? For
that matter, buying a ticket for "India Song" rather
than "Dead Pigeon On Beethoven Street" (or "Corpus Collosum")
is a choice. In fact, going to a film at all means choosing
NOT to stay home. When everything is a choice, doesn't choice
lose its meaning?
As for editing without cuts, my first thought was that the
distinction of a cut is its necessarily disjunctive effect,
but then what to make of "seamless" editing and George
Stevens-style lap dissolves?
These are all framed as questions because I don't know the
answers.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
But more seriously, couldn't it be argued that in "Russian Ark"
> (or any film that relies heavily on long takes), the placement,
> displacement and manipulation of objects and people in the frame
> combined with the camera movements sort of recreate a form of
> editing -- editing without cuts? Because they involve choice, just
> like editing, and there is always an arbitrariness in any choice.
> Editing ("cutting") makes that arbitrariness more obvious. Perhaps
> film is "condemned" to editing because it is condemned to choice.
>
2915
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 6:45pm
Subject: Re: auteurism - editing
I believe that alot of confusion arose from my two statements that:
- Editing by far was the most important element of film making
- A film often is saved by editing
I mean this, not just because I am a trained editor, but also because
I, when I analyse film and study style and narrative, see how
important editing is.
I totally agree with Rick, when he says that "Editing can't transform
an improbable story, bad dialogue, and weak acting". I never said it
could. That is not what I meant. Let me explain.
When about to edit "Blue Velvet" Dunham had over seven hours of
incomprehensable footage. There was no real script, there was no real
storyboard. It was Dunham who took these seven hours of footage and
edited to the two hours we now consider as one of Lynch's greatest
films. And to take another extreme, just take any great documentry.
Thats what I meant when I said "saved". I did not imply that a skilled
editor could turn "Plan 9 from out of Space" into a masterpiece :)
I also disagree, that films by the Italian Neo-Realism ("Open City"
was mentioned) is bad technical cinematography. It may appear lesser
structured than a studio production, but Arata was a maestro. The
"look" is due to the stock, grain, no filters and problems with light.
Additional I would like to clearify, that this is no attack on
auteurism. While some directors are deeply involved with the editing
process, some even edit themselves, others trust their editors with
"their life" so to speak, because they think alike. The vision that
makes a director into an auteur was never questioned or discredited.
JPC asks "...couldn't it be argued that in "Russian Ark" (or any film
that relies heavily on long takes), the placement, displacement and
manipulation of objects and people in the frame combined with the
camera movements sort of recreate a form of editing -- editing without
cuts? Because they involve choice, just like editing, and there is
always an arbitrariness in any choice."
Not only can it be argued, its a very precise view on editing. I have
a favorite example to demonstrate this choice.
In Minnelli's "The Bad and the Beautiful" there is a scene, where
Douglas finds Turner drunk at the swimming pool, picks her up and lays
her on a chair (as I recall). Now its all a craneshot, but as Douglas
picks her up, the scene screams on a cut to establish a new line, but
instead Minnelli keeps the camera in motion and with sleight of hand
he ends the movement when the new line is established as Turner is in
the chair. The traditional editing would have suggested three
positions, but instead an almost insignificant camera movement does it
all. That is exactly the choice JPS asks about; And it is editing,
even though no scissors were involved. When Godard says "A Dolly shot
is a moral choise", I think of this shot.
Henrik
2916
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: auteurism - editing
Henrik Sylow wrote:
>
>
> I totally agree with Rick, when he says that "Editing can't transform
> an improbable story, bad dialogue, and weak acting".
Potemkin?
>
>
> ... "Blue Velvet"... we now consider as one of Lynch's greatest
> films.
ugh! ugh!! ugh!!! (Hope that's not forbidden language.)
>
> I also disagree, that films by the Italian Neo-Realism ("Open City"
> was mentioned) is bad technical cinematography. It may appear lesser
> structured than a studio production, but Arata was a maestro. The
> "look" is due to the stock, grain, no filters and problems with light.
It is a studio production. All studio shot except the few exteriors
(and inside of a church, maybe a few other shots). Absolutely
traditional in its production methods. Fully scripted, argued, etc.
Amidei was one of the great champions of the "well-made play" among
scriptwrights. Highly experienced actors, mostly from vaudeville, top
stars; chosen parly because they were "bankable." And you're sure right
about Arata. Rossillini liked cameramen who PAINTED (kind of a
Vidor/Murnau look). Extremely professional, experienced bunch of
people, a good percentage of the best talent of the Fascist cinema. The
stock grain looks fine if you can see an actual original print. They
had a lot of trouble when they started shooting, but they seem to have
re-shot a lot of that later.
2917
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:05pm
Subject: re: Blind Fury
"Blind Fury" has a cult following, but not a very large one. The hard
core asien cults consider all american Kung Fu film blasphemy and
there are few who actually are enough into Kung Fu cinema to
understand its rules.
"Blind Fury" is a very "faithfull" revision of Zatoichi, it even
manages to get the humor (Maybe I should get my license back) and
social comments on family along.
It was largely overlooked as it came in the wake of the "Martial Art
form of the week" films, who came from the success of "American Ninja"
and "Bloodsport".
2918
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:11pm
Subject: Raja
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> RAJA: terrific, possibly a great film. Amazingly complex on a
social
> and psychological level, witty, reflective, beautiful and subtle
> framing. Very sad, and it really earns the right to be sad by
exploring
> all options.
Gee Dan, it's almost as if you and I saw diferent movies. I didn't
like Raja at all. For me, the dialogue and situations were completely
absurdist, but Doillon handled everything in such a straightforward
sincere and sober manner that the whole thing very quickly became
absurd rather than absurdist. I also felt that he pulled away from
the issues he raised in terms of patriarchy, colonialism and sexual
exploitation.
2919
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:21pm
Subject: Re: auteurism - editing: Cut! Cut!
This resurrects ancient arguments that I thought Andre Bazin settled in the 1950's. But I am curious, Tag; "Potemkin" is a silent movie with no dialogue, and a storyline in which the acting is besides the point, and what's "improbable" about it's storyline anyhow?
The "Blue Velvet" story reminds me of the controversy regarding to how much credit should Maxwell Perkins gotten for giving Thomas Wolfe's prose some narrative shape and form. Some people argue that he should be considered a co-author.
Perhaps. I think that with film, especially, that there are always exceptions.
That's my final statement on this issue.
> I totally agree with Rick, when he says that "Editing can't transform
> an improbable story, bad dialogue, and weak acting".
Potemkin?
>
>
> ... "Blue Velvet"... we now consider as one of Lynch's greatest
> films.
ugh! ugh!! ugh!!! (Hope that's not forbidden language.)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2920
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 7:44pm
Subject: Re: Raja
> Gee Dan, it's almost as if you and I saw diferent movies. I didn't
> like Raja at all. For me, the dialogue and situations were completely
> absurdist, but Doillon handled everything in such a straightforward
> sincere and sober manner that the whole thing very quickly became
> absurd rather than absurdist. I also felt that he pulled away from
> the issues he raised in terms of patriarchy, colonialism and sexual
> exploitation.
What do you think he pulled away from? He certainly complicated the
issues by complicating the people, but I thought the political and
sexual power imbalances were shown pretty unflinchingly.
It's true I didn't see absurdism or absurdity there. I'd be interested
to hear a bit more on the subject. - Dan
2921
From: jerome_gerber
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 9:24pm
Subject: Re: Raja
I saw nothing absurdist in the film other than that which stems
from the limitations of the characters themselves and their
abortive, often complex attempts to negotiate with one another. I
thought it a brilliant film about the positions we lock ourselves
into (ok, patriarchy, colonialism and sexual
exploitation in this case among others) and the comic,
heartwrenching results when nothing can come together
because of these positions that we either can't or refuse to
abandon...also like "Mystic River," "Raja" is a very political film...
- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
wrote:
> > Gee Dan, it's almost as if you and I saw diferent movies. I
didn't
> > like Raja at all. For me, the dialogue and situations were
completely
> > absurdist, but Doillon handled everything in such a
straightforward
> > sincere and sober manner that the whole thing very quickly
became
> > absurd rather than absurdist. I also felt that he pulled away
from
> > the issues he raised in terms of patriarchy, colonialism and
sexual
> > exploitation.
>
> What do you think he pulled away from? He certainly
complicated the
> issues by complicating the people, but I thought the political
and
> sexual power imbalances were shown pretty unflinchingly.
>
> It's true I didn't see absurdism or absurdity there. I'd be
interested
> to hear a bit more on the subject. - Dan
2922
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 10:10pm
Subject: QT interview
Whats up with QT and him sounding like Butthead?
http://japattack.com/japattack/film/tarantino.html
2923
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 10:25pm
Subject: Re: QT interview
Cause that's who he is.
--- Henrik Sylow wrote:
> Whats up with QT and him sounding like Butthead?
>
> http://japattack.com/japattack/film/tarantino.html
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2924
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:09pm
Subject: Editing and auteurism: Friedkin
I'm finishing an article on William Friedkin, based on documents at
the Herrick, where I argue that editing is his main creative tool,
beginning even before the script is written in the film I'm working
on. Joe Dante is another montage director. I suspect this is true to
a lesser degree of Lynch or Woody Allen (cf. Ralph Rosenblums[sp?]'s
book: When the Shooting Stops). It's part of being a film artist, not
a hole in the auteur theory!
2925
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:18pm
Subject: Jacques Tourneur Books
Just acquired two small books about Toourneur :
The '75 Edinburgh Film Festival book and
a 86 edition of a French review I did not know up to
now, "camera/stylo", fully dedicated to Tourneur.
The first one is quite interesting with a selection of articles (a
few of them already published elsewhere) trying to replace Tourneur
in auteurism theory.
Not much time to read the second, including a long interview of
Tourneur.
What about the one by Chris Fujiwara?
Maxime
http://mapage.noos.fr/maximer/The_Movies_I_Like.htm
2926
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:20pm
Subject: Jaques Tourneur Paris retrospective
Just to let you know that a full retrospective of Tourneur's work
will take place in Paris, Centre Pompidou, in December/January (from
12/03 to 01/19).
Maxime
http://mapage.noos.fr/maximer/The_Movies_I_Like.htm
2927
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:24pm
Subject: French critics exagerations
I love that one:
"There is nothing to discuss : Clint Eastwood is now the greatest
american film-maker." (Camille Nevers, Cahier, 1992)
2928
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:29pm
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism II: Editing (print quality)
To David,
Someone did track George Landow (also known as Owen Land) down. He is
alive but is ill and doesn't wish to have his whereabouts disclosed.
In response to JPC, Kubelka's theory of film editing is the most
radical, and strictly speaking I think the most correct, in this
regard. He doesn't consider the shot as the fundamental unit of cinema,
but rather the frame. Frames (and sounds) combine to make
"articulations." Two frames that are very different from each other that
are cut together make a "strong articulation," while the same frame
repeated again makes a "weak articulation." Similarly, the viewer will
inevitably have frame 1,456 in subliminal memory while viewing frame
10,456 and all of those relationships (and with sounds too) represent
articulations. A film is a system of every possible interrelationship
between its parts.
Part of his point as I understand it is that each time you continue a
static shot by another frame, you are making some kind of statement, or
at least potentially are.
- Fred
2929
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:30pm
Subject: My 90's
Two directors make the 90's particularly rich to me: Youssef Chahine
and Manoel de Oliveira.
Not sure that the following were mentionned by anybody here:
The Emigrant
Cairo as Told by Youssef Chahine
Voyage to the Beginning of the World
Abraham Valley
Day of Despair
Maxime
http://mapage.noos.fr/maximer/The_Movies_I_Like.htm
2930
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:34pm
Subject: Lancelot print history?
Dear comrades -
Speaking of prints and their effect on critical reception, here is a story I
would like to run past this group. It comes from a Bressonian who is both a
critic and very technically-minded filmmaker, so I tend to believe it. He
saw LANCELOT DU LAC on its first release in France, and claims that Bresson
deliberately graded the prints in such a way that much of the film unrolled
in almost total darkness - a highly radical effect. He further claims that
every subsequent print he has seen in English-speaking territories has taken
the liberty (presumably against Bresson's artistic intention) of
'brightening' the images so that we can see the detail better, in a more
conventional way.
Can anyone confirm or deny this version of film history?? I imagine some of
our list members also saw the film on that first-run in France.
curious Adrian
2931
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:35pm
Subject: Samuel Fuller - A Third Face
[Sorry for so many posts. For once I've some time...]
What's in it?
Is that worth sth?
Is that truly Fuller's?
Thanks for any comment.
Maxime
http://mapage.noos.fr/maximer/The_Movies_I_Like.htm
2932
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 19, 2003 11:45pm
Subject: Re: French critics exagerations
There's PLENTY to discuss. That is simply not true.
I would say that at the moment it's a dead heat
between Todd Haynes and Gus Van Sant.
--- Maxime wrote:
> I love that one:
> "There is nothing to discuss : Clint Eastwood is now
> the greatest
> american film-maker." (Camille Nevers, Cahier,
> 1992)
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2933
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 0:09am
Subject: Re: Lancelot print history?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
>claims that Bresson
> deliberately graded the prints in such a way that much of the film unrolled
> in almost total darkness - a highly radical effect.
Th question I would ask is Why ???? would Bresson do this ?
>He further claims that
> every subsequent print he has seen in English-speaking territories has taken
> the liberty (presumably against Bresson's artistic intention) of
> 'brightening' the images so that we can see the detail better, in a more
> conventional way.
I saw Lancelot in it's first, probably only American run (NYC, with about 4 people in
the theater) I would say it was FAR from a bright, snappy look. And probably
_would_ have been considered "dark" by jelly bean cinema standards.
What I saw worked for me, and beautifully.
-Sam Wells
2934
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 0:15am
Subject: Re: Problems with auteurism
> Frankly, I happen to think that a movie rises and falls on the value of it's screenplay
and acting,
I saw a stunning 35mm print Brakhage's "The Dante Quartet" at the NYFF today, and
you're right - that Dante Alighieri was one helluva screenwriter......... :)
-Sam Wells
2935
From: Maxime
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 0:39am
Subject: Editing - Cut or no cut
Editing? The old days...
Allan Dwan: "I cut the negative - never saw a print - and put it
together the way I wanted the picture to run. They'd simply print it
that way when it got to Chicago, and that's the way it stayed."
Love that line.
Editing without cuts?
See Fuller, Chahine, Vechiali (among others)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> I believe that alot of confusion arose from my two statements that:
>
> - Editing by far was the most important element of film making
> - A film often is saved by editing
>
> I mean this, not just because I am a trained editor, but also
because
> I, when I analyse film and study style and narrative, see how
> important editing is.
>
> I totally agree with Rick, when he says that "Editing can't
transform
> an improbable story, bad dialogue, and weak acting". I never said
it
> could. That is not what I meant. Let me explain.
>
> When about to edit "Blue Velvet" Dunham had over seven hours of
> incomprehensable footage. There was no real script, there was no
real
> storyboard. It was Dunham who took these seven hours of footage
and
> edited to the two hours we now consider as one of Lynch's greatest
> films. And to take another extreme, just take any great
documentry.
> Thats what I meant when I said "saved". I did not imply that a
skilled
> editor could turn "Plan 9 from out of Space" into a masterpiece :)
>
> I also disagree, that films by the Italian Neo-Realism ("Open
City"
> was mentioned) is bad technical cinematography. It may appear
lesser
> structured than a studio production, but Arata was a maestro. The
> "look" is due to the stock, grain, no filters and problems with
light.
>
> Additional I would like to clearify, that this is no attack on
> auteurism. While some directors are deeply involved with the
editing
> process, some even edit themselves, others trust their editors
with
> "their life" so to speak, because they think alike. The vision
that
> makes a director into an auteur was never questioned or
discredited.
>
> JPC asks "...couldn't it be argued that in "Russian Ark" (or any
film
> that relies heavily on long takes), the placement, displacement
and
> manipulation of objects and people in the frame combined with the
> camera movements sort of recreate a form of editing -- editing
without
> cuts? Because they involve choice, just like editing, and there is
> always an arbitrariness in any choice."
>
> Not only can it be argued, its a very precise view on editing. I
have
> a favorite example to demonstrate this choice.
>
> In Minnelli's "The Bad and the Beautiful" there is a scene, where
> Douglas finds Turner drunk at the swimming pool, picks her up and
lays
> her on a chair (as I recall). Now its all a craneshot, but as
Douglas
> picks her up, the scene screams on a cut to establish a new line,
but
> instead Minnelli keeps the camera in motion and with sleight of
hand
> he ends the movement when the new line is established as Turner is
in
> the chair. The traditional editing would have suggested three
> positions, but instead an almost insignificant camera movement
does it
> all. That is exactly the choice JPS asks about; And it is editing,
> even though no scissors were involved. When Godard says "A Dolly
shot
> is a moral choise", I think of this shot.
>
> Henrik
2936
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:51am
Subject: MoDo on Woody: Aim->Shoot->Score...OUCH!
Didn't Bergman do one of those?
2937
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:57am
Subject: Re: Lancelot print quality
Probably true - Le Diable and L'Argent also have some pretty dark
passages.
New prints are often screwed up. Robert Wise supervised the timing of
the Kane prints re-released by Paramount in 1991, and printed the
scene in the newsreel projection room so light that you can see
Joseph Cotten in one of the shots. Hitchcock had Technicolor put more
cyan green in the bath for The Birds, but Universal didn't know to do
that when they made new prints in 1999. A collector friend told me
when the restored Pinocchio was in theatres to save my money and
watch his print if I wanted to see the true colors. Etc.
2938
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:08am
Subject: Re: Negative Criticism
The Cahiers practiced "the criticism of beauties," and I generally
prefer it, but they did some good pans, like one I read in the first
issue I bought going in detail through why A Man and a Woman was no
good, which was quite useful to me, and in the politicized period
they did a lot of that. American auteurists are still pretty much
doing the criticism of beauties unless they have daily or weekly
review jobs. This is where "I never understood the fuss about
Mizoguchi" becomes a useful move.
2939
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:13am
Subject: Print Quality & Sub-titles
Seeing a sharp print makes a big difference. Though I liked
Mizoguchi from the first (courtesy of Fred who screened SANSHO DAYU
and SAIKAKU ICHDAI ONNA in a class that I took from him at NYU in the
the mid-'70s) he became my favorite after I saw 17 Mizoguchi movies
in newly struck prints when I was in Japan some years ago in two
seperate retrospectives. Of course there were no sub-titles, and for
the first series my Japanese language comprehension was about 30%
(I'd seen 5 before)and by the time I saw the second series it was up
to 50%. Even so, I've since seen non-English language movies without
sub-titles in languages that I don't understand and I've come to
prefer no subtitles.
It was the policy of Anthology Film Archives to show non-English
language movies without sub-titles and hand out a synopsis before the
screening. I asked P. Adams Sitney about that once and he
answered, "We are not going to deface the image by putting holes in
it." A possible compromise is the method employed by the Instituto
Italiano here in Los Angeles: a restored print of PAISA was screened
sans sub-titles but with titles appearing beneath the screen on a
blinking light board similar to the ones used at the opera.
Richard Modiano
2940
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:44am
Subject: Paul Vecchiali
> Editing without cuts?
> See Fuller, Chahine, Vechiali (among others)
Maxime - perhaps you can tell me something about Paul Vecchiali, a
director who fascinates me.
I've seen CORPS A COEUR, and I think it's a masterpiece. I've never
seen another Vecchiali film, nor heard of screenings of any, nor even
heard anyone talk about him. Offhand, I can't think of another
filmmaker I love that I know so little about. - Dan
2941
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:44am
Subject: Re: Print Quality & Sub-titles
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
> It was the policy of Anthology Film Archives to show non-English
> language movies without sub-titles and hand out a synopsis before
> the screening.
That's only for their own prints, the Essential Cinema collection,
etc. They're always showing subtitled prints, otherwise: the recent
Bresson series, Asian films from the Silk Road series, Takashi Miike,
Godard, and so on. I applaud the practice but at this point in my
life I need my subtitles (with crucial exceptions: like Tati).
-Jaime
2942
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:02am
Subject: Re: Lancelot print history?
I certainly saw the film in France more than once when it was new:
twice in a row with Bresson and his cast and crew, then (most likely)
once or twice more in theaters--and it WAS very, very dark. I can't
vouch for whether subsequent prints were brightened, but this
wouldn't surprise me.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Dear comrades -
>
> Speaking of prints and their effect on critical reception, here is
a story I
> would like to run past this group. It comes from a Bressonian who
is both a
> critic and very technically-minded filmmaker, so I tend to believe
it. He
> saw LANCELOT DU LAC on its first release in France, and claims that
Bresson
> deliberately graded the prints in such a way that much of the film
unrolled
> in almost total darkness - a highly radical effect.
2943
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:07am
Subject: Re: Lancelot print history?
The answer to this question can be found in Bresson's book Notes on
Cinematography. He believed in replacing image with sound whenever
possible, and darkening the image is a way of according more
functionality and centrality to the sountrack--which in Lancelot is
exceptionally rich.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> >claims that Bresson
> > deliberately graded the prints in such a way that much of the
film unrolled
> > in almost total darkness - a highly radical effect.
>
> Th question I would ask is Why ???? would Bresson do this ?
2944
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:07am
Subject: Re: Print Quality & Sub-titles
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano" wrote:
> "We are not going to deface the image by putting holes in
> it." A possible compromise is the method employed by the Instituto
> Italiano here in Los Angeles: a restored print of PAISA was screened
> sans sub-titles but with titles appearing beneath the screen on a
> blinking light board similar to the ones used at the opera.
This is of course the one area where DVDs have an advantage, since subtitles can be turned on or off (and, in any case, may appear below the image on letterboxed films).
A question: Are American underground films with dialogue (e.g. Warhol - where a certain amount of it might be incomprehensible to begin with) or verbal soundtracks (e.g. TWICE A MAN) ever shown subtitled abroad?
2945
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:19am
Subject: Re: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
I haven't seen the new prints of the Bresson color films but have heard
reliably that there are problems.
Seen at its first New York showing at the New York Film Festival,
"Lancelot" certainly had plenty of color, but the colors were relatively
pale, not super bright. The opening and closing battle scenes, however,
were almost totally drained of color, and very dark, producing an
amazing effect. If those scenes are not so dark you almost have to
strain your eyes to see any color at all, so dark that the white
subtitles prove an annoyance, then it's way off.
I've heard of problems with "Une Femme Douce." For his first color film,
Bresson worked hard to drain it of bright colors, and make gray
dominant. There are lots of colors, of course, but I'v heard that the
new prints are garish.
Thanks to Richard for the comment ts on subtitles. I basically agree;
subtitles really distort the rhythms as well as individual images. On
the other hand, just knowing the general plot isn't enough, because cuts
and camera movement are often also keyed to dialogue. Keep in mind too
that while P. Adams doesn't understand Japanesee, and I don't know if he
gets Danish, Peter Kubelka, another member of the original Anthology
selection committee, learned Dnaish partly because of his love of
Dreyer, and P. Adams knows French, German, and Italian, as does Kubelka.
The ideal solution would be to see a film 20 times with subtitles so
that you know its dialogue by heart, and then see it at Anthology. One
can't do that with too many films, though.
Of course, another problem with subtitles is that they are often very
poor at offering translations. Japanese speakers tell me that
Mizoguchi's dialogue is often far more poetic, even florid, than the
subtitles of his films indicate.
- Fred
- Fred
2946
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:23am
Subject: Re: Lancelot print history?
Has anyone here both seen print from the traveling retro from 1999 and
the original release? LANCELOT has been my favorite film since seeing
it in DC then, and every print I've seen it in since has looked pretty
much the same. (For the record, a 16mm rental print, a 35mm print at
the Cinemtheque francaise [just very slightly faded, with Mme Bresson
and Charles Balsam in attendance], and the 35mm print recently shown
at Anthology, which may be the same as the traveling retro print.)
PWC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
> The answer to this question can be found in Bresson's book Notes on
> Cinematography. He believed in replacing image with sound whenever
> possible, and darkening the image is a way of according more
> functionality and centrality to the sountrack--which in Lancelot is
> exceptionally rich.
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
> wrote:
> > >claims that Bresson
> > > deliberately graded the prints in such a way that much of the
> film unrolled
> > > in almost total darkness - a highly radical effect.
> >
> > Th question I would ask is Why ???? would Bresson do this ?
2947
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:29am
Subject: Re: Fuller and lists
> Along these lines: Jonathan, aren't you writing a book which jumps
off from
> your Alternate AFI 100? I seem to remember seeing a mention of
this somewhere,
> perhaps with a title like "The New Canon"?
>
> Peter
Sorry to be so late in responding, Peter, but I just caught up with
your post. I have a fairly huge collection coming out circa March--
and initially just in hardcover, alas, which may make it too pricey
for anyone but libraries to afford--called ESSENTIAL CINEMA: ON THE
NECESSITY OF FILM CANONS. It was over 900 pages long in manuscript,
and it concludes with a list of my 1000 favorite films--a list that
I'm still putting some final touches on (since, fortunately, Johns
Hopkins will allow some tweaks on the page proofs). This move was
partly inspired, I should add, by the popularity of my earlier list
of 100 favorite American films.
2948
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:37am
Subject: Re: Paul Vecchiali
Paul Vecchiali is one of the glories of French cinema.
From about 1966 on he has made a number of films, all
of them very small scale and intimate like "Corps a
Coeur." He's a humungous Danielle Darrieux fan, and is
reported to have more stills of her in his personal
collection than any person alive. He wrote "En Haut
des Marches" expressly for her. Among his more recent
films, an AIDS drama called "Once More" is of
considerable interest, from all reports. Recently he's
had some difficulty getting projects off the ground.
I wish his work were better known in the U.S.
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2949
From: Tosh
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:42am
Subject: Subtitles
What a fascinating posting! I am going to try that with some Cocteau
and Godard films I have on DVD.
> - and since I am on the subject, how are the English translations
>of the subtitles for Godard and Cocteau?
Best,
TOSH
>
>Thanks to Richard for the comment ts on subtitles. I basically agree;
>subtitles really distort the rhythms as well as individual images. On
>the other hand, just knowing the general plot isn't enough, because cuts
>and camera movement are often also keyed to dialogue. Keep in mind too
>that while P. Adams doesn't understand Japanesee, and I don't know if he
>gets Danish, Peter Kubelka, another member of the original Anthology
>selection committee, learned Dnaish partly because of his love of
>Dreyer, and P. Adams knows French, German, and Italian, as does Kubelka.
>
>The ideal solution would be to see a film 20 times with subtitles so
>that you know its dialogue by heart, and then see it at Anthology. One
>can't do that with too many films, though.
>
>Of course, another problem with subtitles is that they are often very
>poor at offering translations. Japanese speakers tell me that
>Mizoguchi's dialogue is often far more poetic, even florid, than the
>subtitles of his films indicate.
>
>- Fred
>
>- Fred
>
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
2950
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:52am
Subject: Re: Lancelot print/Balthazar
Fred, this description sounds pretty much like the film I've seen: for
me, those are the greatest sequences of the film, with the armor and
the dark green forest merging together. What subtitles would be on
those sequences, though? I don't recall any dialogue up until the
grail scrawl. And at the conclusion, I only remember Lancelot
uttering Guinvievre's name. That is, from the long shot of smoke
rising from the forest onward.
I got to resee the glorious AU HASARD BALTHAZAR this weekend, and plan
to return a couple more times during its New York run. Question: did
Bresson's involvement in the DeLaurentis Bible project that eventually
became John Huston's THE BIBLE happen before or after Bresson made
BALTHAZAR. The sequence where Balthazar finds himself in the circus
strikes me as a sketch for a Bressonian Noah's Ark.
Patrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> I haven't seen the new prints of the Bresson color films but have heard
> reliably that there are problems.
>
> Seen at its first New York showing at the New York Film Festival,
> "Lancelot" certainly had plenty of color, but the colors were relatively
> pale, not super bright. The opening and closing battle scenes, however,
> were almost totally drained of color, and very dark, producing an
> amazing effect. If those scenes are not so dark you almost have to
> strain your eyes to see any color at all, so dark that the white
> subtitles prove an annoyance, then it's way off.
2951
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:56am
Subject: Re: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
Fred and Bresson prints. How are we to know what is right and wrong?
I once had three 16mm IB Technicolor prints of Antonioni's Red Desert.
One of them favored yellow, another blue, the third green. Which was
correct?
Should we trust what filmmakers say? Basil Wright came to Columbia in
the 1970s and watched a print of his SONG OF CEYLON and was delighted.
It was one of the best prints he'd seen of it, and so on. The print
was a mediocre dupe, gray, no blacks, etc.
One of the great things about DVD is that for maybe the first time in
the history of cinema it is possible to get everything about a print
"right" and to keep it "right" in every copy made. With celluloid, no
two prints ever looked alike.
So how dark should the end of a Bresson film be? or how dark should the
end of Murnau's TABU be? And how are we to know? It is naive to think
that it should be one way or another simply because it is that way on
one existing print.
**
Subtitles. The best story is that a few years the Italian government
organization charged with promoting Italian classic films abroad (yes,
they actually have such an organization! and whenever they sponsor an
event, a few dozen of them get free jaunts and they publish a book)
wanted to show VOYAGE IN ITALY in Texas ("Italy in Texas," it was
called: great Rossellini book!). The film, of course, was shot in
English although for some reason English-speakers always refer to it as
"Viaggio in Italia" (which is like saying "Il citadino Kane" -- and
which, in actuality, is a shorter edition in which Ingrid Bergman's and
George Sander's voices are lousily dubbed by Italians).
Anyway, what the Italians went to the trouble of creating, just for
Texas, was a 35mm print of VIAGGIO IN ITALIA in Italian with English
subtitles. A "restoration"!
Around the same time some friends of mine made a film which got selected
for the New York Film Festival. The common practice in Italy then was
to shoot everything in English, because otherwise you had no hope of
export sales, and then dub it into Italian for the domestic market.
(EVERYTHING is post-synched.) But the NY Film Festival refused to take
the original English-language version. The Italian were obliged to put
English subtitles on the Italian dubbing. Maybe this also qualifies as
a restoration?
2952
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:56am
Subject: Re: Lancelot print history?
I'm aware of this. my question was why would he have "deliberately graded the prints in
such a way that much of the film unrolled in almost total darkness"
My recollection is similar to Fred's. (Chances are it could have been the same print that I
saw).
That's not the same thing at all as 'almost total darkness'
-Sam
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
> The answer to this question can be found in Bresson's book Notes on
> Cinematography. He believed in replacing image with sound whenever
> possible, and darkening the image is a way of according more
> functionality and centrality to the sountrack--which in Lancelot is
> exceptionally rich.
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
> wrote:
> > >claims that Bresson
> > > deliberately graded the prints in such a way that much of the
> film unrolled
> > > in almost total darkness - a highly radical effect.
> >
> > Th question I would ask is Why ???? would Bresson do this ?
2953
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:05am
Subject: Re: Paul Vecchiali
> Paul Vecchiali is one of the glories of French cinema.
>>From about 1966 on he has made a number of films, all
> of them very small scale and intimate like "Corps a
> Coeur." He's a humungous Danielle Darrieux fan, and is
> reported to have more stills of her in his personal
> collection than any person alive. He wrote "En Haut
> des Marches" expressly for her. Among his more recent
> films, an AIDS drama called "Once More" is of
> considerable interest, from all reports. Recently he's
> had some difficulty getting projects off the ground.
Do you have any particular favorites? - Dan
2954
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:10am
Subject: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> I haven't seen the new prints of the Bresson color films but have heard
> reliably that there are problems.
Well the current Kodak print stocks, VISION and VISION Premiere yieldd more saturation
than what Bresson's films would have been printed on..... I don't know about the Fuji
although have heard it's softer. There's no AGFA stock now either.
I like the current Kodak print stocks for what they are, but this is definitely an issue
these days....
> If those scenes are not so dark you almost have to
> strain your eyes to see any color at all, so dark that the white
> subtitles prove an annoyance, then it's way off.
I don't remember those scenes (which are memorable) as being quite *that* dark, but
this is subjective..... you get to a certain point close to the maximum density of the stock
and... I mean it's just grain.
-Sam Wells
2955
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:23am
Subject: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
>
> One of the great things about DVD is that for maybe the first time in
> the history of cinema it is possible to get everything about a print
> "right" and to keep it "right" in every copy made. With celluloid, no
> two prints ever looked alike.
Tag,
What about all the differences between color settings on monitors?
I'm sure everyone here who's ever stepped into a department or
electronics store has seen dozens of TVs, none of them displaying same
colors or brightness for the same image.
Patrick
2956
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:25am
Subject: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
> One of the great things about DVD is that for maybe the first time
> in the history of cinema it is possible to get everything about a
> print "right" and to keep it "right" in every copy made. With
> celluloid, no two prints ever looked alike.
I think the essential problems with video (see Fred's essay) are
still with us in the new world of DVD. Some problems are solved
(such as the loss of quality when the tape ages, has been run a lot,
has been recorded from other tapes, etc), but some new problems
arise, such as: poor digital "authoring" that leads to pixelated
images, the use of stereo soundtracks for movies that were made with
a mono soundtrack (see the OTHELLO DVD), and of course, the
inescapable issue of "getting it right." And, of course, it's video,
not film.
The Trouble With Video:
http://www.fredcamper.com/Film/Video.html
The Criterion Collection seems to be doing the best job in this area,
but they are not without their critics (especially when they release
a DVD of a film that had previously been a Criterion laserdisc, like
M, SALO, or ANDREI RUBLEV). To get an idea of just how tricky this
stuff can get, visit DVDBeaver.com, which evaluates DVDs in great
detail, and compares multiple versions. The most telling example is
AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER - two DVDs were released in the U.S. by Fox,
and the *earlier*, non-anamorphic, non-deluxe edition seems to be the
preferred one!
So, in a sense, no two DVD editions are ever the same.
http://207.136.67.23/film/dvdcompare/affair-remember.htm
-Jaime
2957
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:29am
Subject: Re: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
Sure, that's another set of variables. But that set exists in
projection, too: the nature of the projector, the color of the light
from the bulb, the nature of the screen, etc.
Fortunately, though, we don't have to watch Bresson in department
stores, and if we can sense what the "default" settings of our monitor
should be while watching that Bresson dvd (where is it?) we shall arrive
at something close to the dvd's intentions. I think in a few years the
links between software and hardware and color quality should involve
less guesswork. In PAL, even, the color is more pre-set than in NTSC.
And isn't it just as important to turn out all the other lights?
Patrick Ciccone wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
>
> >
> > One of the great things about DVD is that for maybe the first time in
> > the history of cinema it is possible to get everything about a print
> > "right" and to keep it "right" in every copy made. With celluloid, no
> > two prints ever looked alike.
>
> Tag,
> What about all the differences between color settings on monitors?
> I'm sure everyone here who's ever stepped into a department or
> electronics store has seen dozens of TVs, none of them displaying same
> colors or brightness for the same image.
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
2958
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:55am
Subject: Re: Paul Vecchiali
"Corps a Coeur" is my favorite.
I believe Vecchili's use of the Faure Requiem in it
greatly influenced Godard in doing the same in
"Passion."
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Paul Vecchiali is one of the glories of French
> cinema.
> >>From about 1966 on he has made a number of films,
> all
> > of them very small scale and intimate like "Corps
> a
> > Coeur." He's a humungous Danielle Darrieux fan,
> and is
> > reported to have more stills of her in his
> personal
> > collection than any person alive. He wrote "En
> Haut
> > des Marches" expressly for her. Among his more
> recent
> > films, an AIDS drama called "Once More" is of
> > considerable interest, from all reports. Recently
> he's
> > had some difficulty getting projects off the
> ground.
>
> Do you have any particular favorites? - Dan
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2959
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:31am
Subject: Re: Editing - Cut or no cut
Jean-Luc Godard's familiar words in "Montage, mon beau souci":
'Save it in the cutting-room'; true of James Cruze, Griffith,
Stroheim, this maxim hardly applied at all to Murnau, Chaplin, and
became irremediably false with all sound films. Why? Because with a
film like October (and more with Que Viva Mexico!), montage is
above all an integral part of mise en scene. Only at peril can one
be separated from the other. One might as well try to separate
the rhythm from a melody. Elena et les hommes and Arkadin are
both models of montage because each is a model of mise en scene.
`We'll save it in the cutting-room': a typical producer's axiom,
therefore. The most that efficient editing will give a film
otherwise without interest is precisely the initial impression of
having been directed. Editing can restore to actuality that ephemeral
grace neglected by both snob and film-lover, or transform chance
into destiny. Can there be any higher praise of what the
general public confuses with script construction?
If direction is a look, montage is a heart-beat. To foresee is the
characteristic of both: but what one seeks to foresee in space, the
other seeks in time...
Knowing just how long one can make a scene last is already
montage, just as thinking about transitions is part of the
problem of shooting. Certainly, a brilliantly directed film
gives the impression of having simply been placed end to end,
but a film brilliantly edited gives the impression of having
suppressed all direction.
2960
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:40am
Subject: Re: Vecchiali
He was a close associate of Jean-Claude Biette and I believe produced
at least one of his films. After a period when having his own low-
budget production company kept him working nonstop (Les Femmes is the
most famous film of that period, none of which has been shown here),
he ran into problems, as David said. The last film I saw by him was a
tv movie about the French Revolution that was shown almost
clandestinely at Amiens. I liked it - it refers to theatre, as much
of his work does, I gather.
2961
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:42am
Subject: Vecchiali erratum
Excuse me, Femmes Femmes.
2962
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:59am
Subject: Subversive Lists
I remember that Film Comment used to invite critics and celebrities to list their favorite Guilty Pleasures, movies they were embarrassed to admit they enjoyed. It served a liberating purpose for some, though the whole concept outraged the venerable Robin Wood, taking an anti-neurotic stand that we should either shed the guilt or the pleasure.
For myself, I'd like to propose a something slightly different, an opportunity to admit to not enjoying films that they should. Kind of like for some people admitting that they find opera or Shakespeare boring. Oh, BTW, I love both opera and Shakespeare. It's classical ballet I find boring.
I don't even know what to call this. Just "guilty" lists? "Spinach" lists?
I think that I will start my list with "Jules and Jim." This is terrible, since I happen to love François Truffaut as a filmmaker and critic. But "Jules and Jim" has not only never charmed me the way everyone claims it supposed to, but I actually found both Jules and Jim annoying and couldn't get what Jeanne Moreau saw in either of them. To me the whole movie is too self-congratulatory, as are the characters.
That's it for now; I have to go to sleep.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2963
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:08am
Subject: Re: Subversive lists
Sunrise.
2964
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:10am
Subject: Re: Subversive lists
And I feel terrible about it.
2965
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:43am
Subject: re: subtitles
About fifteen years ago I got hold of Dario Argento's films from Italy
on bootleg VHS. No subtitles (but uncut). I had never seen "Profondo
Rosso" prior, so I sat with open jaw and just took it all in... But I
had to wait five years until I saw a danish print with subtitles to
realise that Daria Nicolodi didn't died. One piece of info, two
different stories.
I can understand why someone would watch a film without subtitles if
they hadn't seen it before or had no other way of seeing it. But to
argue that a film becomes better without subtitles, worse "We are not
going to deface the image by putting holes in it", is in my opinion a
misguided approach to film. It is not even snobbish, it is plain
misguided.
Try watching Tarkovsky without subtitles. The spoken word is very
important to the interpretation of his film. Without subtitles any
Tarkovsky film is just a meaningless slideshow of beautiful images.
Try to watch Bergman without subtitles. Try to watch Kiarostami
without subtitles...
While the subtitles and our eyemovements while reading them, reduce
our attention of details, I submit that the loss of visual details are
more than outweighted by the gain of understanding of the narrative.
Henrik
2966
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:54am
Subject: Re: Raja
> - In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> wrote:
>He certainly complicated the issues by complicating the people, but
I thought the political and
>sexual power imbalances were shown pretty unflinchingly.
My problem is I didn't think he complicated the characters at all,
just the opposite. The characters in Raga are stripped of any detail
beyond their bare essence That we had so little information about
their lives and backgrounds – Pascal Greggory's Fred is a Frenchman
in Morocco, but we have no idea as to exactly what he's doing there,
how long he's been in Africa, where his money comes from, etc, so he
becomes an archetype, that of a naïve foreigner in an exotic land.
Najat Benssallem's Raja is given a bit more of a background, but her
details consist of such cliches of sentimental humanism (orphan,
poor, abused by family and boyfriend) that they're hard to take
seriously and seem to be an attempt by Doillon to comment on genre
conventions. They are not to be taken as actual people but as
generalized stand-ins for different strands of humanity.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jerome_gerber"
wrote:
> I saw nothing absurdist in the film other than that which stems
> from the limitations of the characters themselves and their
> abortive, often complex attempts to negotiate with one another. I
> thought it a brilliant film about the positions we lock ourselves
> into (ok, patriarchy, colonialism and sexual
> exploitation in this case among others) and the comic,
> heartwrenching results when nothing can come together
> because of these positions that we either can't or refuse to
> abandon...
The fact that the adjunct characters – the other young women working
in the garden, the Greek Chorus older kitchen help – come and go in
the picture with no sense of verisimilitude but show up when they are
needed for a particular narrative moment, and disappear when their
presence could have smoothed over misunderstandings and thus
eliminated a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth also takes the
film into a more abstract realm. The combination of the highly
stylized non-"realistic" handling of the characters and the extremism
(again non-"realistic) in the back and forth of the relationships
(not just that of Fred and Raja, but also the interplay of each of
them with her brother and Scooter) the film takes on a comic tone,
and that's why I felt a sense of absurdism running throughout. But
Doillon's direction of his actors (these performances could be in an
André Cayatte movie) and his straight ahead visuals don't at all
play up to that quality, and this disharmony is a key reason why this
unfocused film was such a disappointment to me..
The incompatibility of tone is also a key reason why I find that the
sociological/political matters inherent in the material just kind of
lie there. The essential narrative set-up of the film is fraught
with issues stemming from the unequal balance of power and wealth and
social standing with the advantage to Fred (as well as the one area
in which Raja has the upper hand, the power of her youth) but I found
the Doillon didn't present to us anything more than what we already
took in the theatre with us about these points. Where Jeremy
saw "complex attempts to negotiate with one another," I found a
tiresome emotional tennis match and that rather than delving into
psychological intricacies, Doillon was more interested in having the
two would-be lovers act like the Bickersons.
2967
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:58am
Subject: Re: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
Tag wrote:
>Sure, that's another set of variables. But that set exists in
>projection, too: the nature of the projector, the color of the light
>from the bulb, the nature of the screen, etc.
There is a set standard for theatrical exhibition in terms of
illumination, 16 footlamberts I believe. At that level the image
will have a lot of "snap" and "bite" without being overly
exaggerated. In L.A., the Goldwyn Theater at the Academy, the
Egyptian and the Arclight are projecting at these levels. The dull,
murky images at many multiplexes should not be.
Similarly TV sets, both NTSC and PAL, if adjusted to the standard
illumination level (6500 degrees Kelvin), and if the color is
adjusted to standards as well, will produce an extremely "cinematic"
image with a surprising degree of subtlety of tone and color. This
must be done by instrument and not by eye.
Regarding the color of the illumination of theatrical exhibition,
modern projectors are much more white than the older arclight
projectors of years past. It was expected that prints prior to the
modern era would have more yellow in the image as projected. Some
original dye-transfer Technicolor prints may have been adjusted
color-wise with that expectation.
--
- Joe Kaufman
2968
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 8:01am
Subject: re: Subversive Lists
Holy shit !!!
"Sunrise" and "Jules et Jim" as guilty pleasures, as films one is
embarrassed to admit one did not enjoy. I normally associate it with
my "shameful" love for Jim Varney's "Ernest" film (I love "Ernest goes
to Jail") or Z-grade 60s science fiction film. But no... But ok, I got
that beat :)
I find "Birth of a Nation" completely boring and it leaves me cold. I
adore alot of Griffith films, I've watched "Intolerance" more than 50
times, but "Birth of a Nation" is just so boring.
As footnote, I would mention "Last Year at Marienbad". I dont get it,
its just pointless and whatever.
"Hey, you know what I mean?"
Henrik
2969
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 9:48am
Subject: Re: Re: Lancelot print/Balthazar/The Bible
Patrick Ciccone wrote:
> What subtitles would be on
>those sequences, though?
>
Well, sorry, I don't remember. I think you're right that the final
sequence has almost nothing or nothing. I do remember at least a few
subtitles somewhere in the opening.
Someone in our group doubtless knows more about Bresson and "The Bible"
than I do, but what I remember is that Welles was going to do "Noah's
Ark," Bresson was slated to do Adam and Eve, and Dino began to have some
doubts about his directorial choices when Bresson submitted a script
with no dialogue. Too bad he couldn't compromise a little, if only with
"Madam, I'm Adam" (a palindrome that works only in English), or Adam's
legendary follow-up line, "Stand back; I don't know how big this thing
gets." But then of course he wouldn 't have been Bresson.
- Fred
2970
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 9:58am
Subject: Re: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
Tag, those subtitle stories are hilarious. And sure, even filmmakers can
be "wrong" about their film prints, I supposed. But maybe dupey gray
actually was better for Wright. Brakhage has authorized prints with very
different looks.
Fascinating about how the current Kodak prints stocks have a different
look. There's a similar problem with old IB films: you're never going to
get *that* look again. And while I think an IB print is crucial for
"Vertigo" or "Written on the Wind," I'm not sure how much that
particular look matters for the aesthetic of most films.
About DVD, I supposed Tag is right that it offers some hope of
standardization in the long run. But the DVD image also depends on the
print materials used in its making, and how the transfer is tweaked. You
can still have DVDs that are too dark, or too pink.
Brakhage used to say that video can't be an art because of those little
knobs Patrick mentions. I don't agree with Brakhage about this -- by
that logic, classical music can't be an art -- but he does have a point.
Also, while projection may vary, DVD makes possible atrocities less
likely to happen with projected prints. Here's a recent example. I was
seeking out an art exhibit that was hung in a student lounge at the
University of Illinois at Chicago. It turned out they had weekly movies
on DVD or videotape in that lounge. Playing that day, on DVD, was "The
Gangs of New York." A number of students were viewing it. But the lounge
was filled with daylight. The wall the film was being projected on was
so bright that in dark scenes you could literally not see the edge of
the frame. This is not a film I like, but the students watching it were
not even seeing anything remotely resembling it.
- Fred
2971
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 10:53am
Subject: Re: Subversive Lists
Funny, I couldn't see what either of them saw in Moreau. Which makes her
part of my "spinach list" (well only in that film).
I actually like Sunrise, but I have to admit that most of Murnau's work
leaves me impressed but unmoved.
Eisenstein -- everything except Ivan the Terrible (both parts) and the
battle on the ice in Nevsky
Riefenstahl -- but we've been down that road already.
Flaherty
I'm with Henrik on Marienbad, and I'd throw in a lot but not all of
Hiroshima.
A lot of Bergman -- Seventh Seal, Virgin Spring, Shame, Hour of the Wolf
(but, then, my favorite Bergman is The Touch, so maybe I'm just weird).
Most Fellini -- I know this is going to get me in serious trouble on this
list -- except for White Sheik and I Vitelloni.
That ought to piss off enough people for one morning.
George Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Segreda"
To:
[SNIP]
I think that I will start my list with "Jules and Jim." This is terrible,
since I happen to love François Truffaut as a filmmaker and critic. But
"Jules and Jim" has not only never charmed me the way everyone claims it
supposed to, but I actually found both Jules and Jim annoying and couldn't
get what Jeanne Moreau saw in either of them. To me the whole movie is too
self-congratulatory, as are the characters.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
2972
From: Greg Dunlap
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 0:12pm
Subject: Re: Subversive Lists
> I think that I will start my list with "Jules and Jim." This is
> terrible, since I happen to love François Truffaut as a filmmaker and
> critic. But "Jules and Jim" has not only never charmed me the way
> everyone claims it supposed to, but I actually found both Jules and
> Jim annoying and couldn't get what Jeanne Moreau saw in either of
> them. To me the whole movie is too self-congratulatory, as are the
> characters.
I also never connected with Jules and Jim, after a while I was just
like...enough already. However, the big one for me is almost all of
Godard, most notably Breathless. I just could not get emotionally
involved in that film, although from a pure technical standpoint I
found a lot of Godard's techniques pretty interesting. I have been
plain old bored by all the post-Alphaville Godard I've seen. I should
note that I do appreciate many of these films in terms of their
respective places in history, its just as movies that engage they don't
do it for me. I do adore Contempt, which makes sense since many Godard
fans seem to hate it.
=====
--------------------
Greg Dunlap
heyrocker@y...
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2973
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 0:37pm
Subject: RE: Subversive Lists
I say "spinach" to La Grande Illusion. I know what I'm supposed to
appreciate in it, and I do appreciate these qualities in a detached
way. But despite viewing it at least a dozen times, it leaves me
cold.
(I'd much rather re-view Tire-au-flanc or Le Tournoi or Toni, and Le
Crime de M. Lange sits in my all-time top ten).
Also, I love Murnau...except for Sunrise, which I've always found
very fussy and synthetic.
--Robert Keser
2974
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:19pm
Subject: Re: Vecchiali erratum
An excerpt from "Femmes Femmes" is performed at one
point in "Salo" by its stars -- Helene Surgere and
Sonia Saviange.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Excuse me, Femmes Femmes.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2975
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:22pm
Subject: Guilty Unpleasures
Dear all - I think Philip Lopate coined the term 'Guilty Unpleasures' for
the kinds of dutifully admired classics we are currently listing.
I will 'fess up to BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN as my guilty unpleasure.
By the way, on JULES ET JIM, I remember reading some spirited words from
Bertrand Tavernier expressing his distinct lack of enthusiasm for this
particular venerated classic. I think it is far from Truffaut's best; I much
prefer TWO ENGLISH GIRLS, and THE SOFT SKIN.
Adrian M.
2976
From: Dave Garrett
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:08pm
Subject: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Kaufman wrote:
> Tag wrote:
> >Sure, that's another set of variables. But that set exists in
> >projection, too: the nature of the projector, the color of the light
> >from the bulb, the nature of the screen, etc.
>
> There is a set standard for theatrical exhibition in terms of
> illumination, 16 footlamberts I believe. At that level the image
> will have a lot of "snap" and "bite" without being overly
> exaggerated. In L.A., the Goldwyn Theater at the Academy, the
> Egyptian and the Arclight are projecting at these levels. The dull,
> murky images at many multiplexes should not be.
Yes, 16fl is indeed SMPTE standard for screen illumination. Another thing that can make a big difference in projected image quality are the projection lenses used. The average multiplex will often use older lenses that probably weren't even close to state of the art when they were new. At the other end of the spectrum is something like Isco's Blue Star anamorphic lens, which on a correctly set-up projection system produces beautiful, razor-sharp images evenly focused across the entire screen.
> Similarly TV sets, both NTSC and PAL, if adjusted to the standard
> illumination level (6500 degrees Kelvin), and if the color is
> adjusted to standards as well, will produce an extremely "cinematic"
> image with a surprising degree of subtlety of tone and color. This
> must be done by instrument and not by eye.
And for those that may not be aware of it, there's actually a group that promulgates these standards and certifies technicians to properly calibrate home video monitors, the Imaging Science Foundation. A Google search should turn up their website for anyone that's interested in further info. Having a TV professionally calibrated usually runs from $150-300, and is well worth the investment if you want to see what video is really capable of. The sets on display in "big box" electronics stores usually have the brightness and contrast cranked all the way up so they're visible under the harsh fluorescent lighting in such places, and are in no way representative of what they should really look like.
Dave
2977
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:12pm
Subject: Re: Guilty Unpleasures
I'll throw in another vote for JULES ATE JIM, which I could only
review with the following words: Christ, what a fucking drag.
SUNRISE is the real deal, though. I'll stand up for that one any day.
I hope nobody names L'ATALANTE. That's one that really gets to me.
I have a hit/miss relationship with Eisenstein. I love his writing,
and his passion is quite infectious. I don't quite love POTEMKIN but
I think there are many extraordinary moments; on the other hand,
STRIKE is one of the most exhilarating silent films. I've been back
and forth on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (part II has the edge with those
extraordinary color sequences).
All of Dreyer's silent films, I like or love. His "talkies" are
another matter - GERTRUD, VAMPYR, and DAY OF WRATH...I don't know,
they're just not my cup of tea. (I'll keep trying, though.) I sort
of like ORDET, but I'm not crazy about it.
I have a lot of affection for Resnais, but I'm so-so on MARIENBAD and
not very hot on (although I've only seen it once, at the MoMA last
year, or I think it was last year) HIROSHIMA. Instead, I'll take
MURIEL, JE T'AIME JE T'AIME, SAME OLD SONG, MON ONCLE D'AMERIQUE, and
LA GUERRE EST FINIE.
Edward Yang!! I don't like this guy's films at all - what's wrong
with me? (For the record, I've only seen BRIGHTER SUMMER DAY, YI YI,
and TAIPEI STORY, the first two on film.)
When I watch a Bergman film, I try to imagine how much better it
would be if Jerry Lewis was in the background, doing some kind of
idiot dance or knocking shit over.
BICYCLE THIEF! (Or THIEVES.) Also late Bunuel.
-Jaime, who still stands behind Spielberg, Coppola, Fellini, and
other auteurist black sheep
2978
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:15pm
Subject: LANCELOT and the Times
Is it true that a four-string critic at the Times got fired after an
exec read his rave then actually saw the movie with some friends?
(And hated it of course.)
Patrick
2979
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:36pm
Subject: Not Guilty
I don't understand all this hostility to "Jules and
Jim."
With the exception of "The Green Room," all of late
Truffaut is terrible.
"The Rules of the Game" is the most overpraised movie
of all time. And I have never been impressed by
anything of Satyajit Ray's.
"Cries and Whispers" and "Fanny and Alexander" are
tedious bores.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2980
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:37pm
Subject: Re: Not Guilty
YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;)
-Jaime
> "The Rules of the Game" is the most overpraised movie
> of all time.
2981
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 2:50pm
Subject: Re: subtitles
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow" wrote:
> .Without subtitles any
> Tarkovsky film is just a meaningless slideshow of beautiful images.
You've GOT to be kidding !
I watch films I know on DVD with subtitles off often. Note I said films I know.
Even on my Powerbook, the sense of screen space, and interestingly enough the
pacing seems quite different.
Two films recently that benefited from this considerably were In The Mood for Love
and The Vertical Ray of the Sun (on the latter I admit I know the story by heart).
For Kiarostami you may have some kind of a point -- I rented The Wind Will Carry Us
recently, kept the titles on as I'd only seen it once in a theater. But that film just didn't
work for me on DVD.... another thread.
-Sam
2982
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:23pm
Subject: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Fascinating about how the current Kodak prints stocks have a different
> look.
This has been discussed a lot on a Cinematography list I belong to and in that
community. As a filmmaker, I like the Vision stock quite a bit. But I think what Kodak
should do (and I'm not the only person who thinks this by a long shot) is release
something like a "VISION Classic" that would have a somewhat subtler contrast more
suitable for films shot with that look in mind.
My own sense is that Kodak designed the Vision print stocks partly in response to a
perceived threat of competition from electronic projection. As if they were thinking
"let's dazzle 'em" ! Ironically, the Vision Premiere stock (sort of an attempt to get the
look of Technicolor IB, with ultra dense blacks etc) is the stock of choice for projects
originated in video formats, HD etc ! (Not that producers are always willing to spring
the extra $ for Premiere... but from first hand experience I can say it does make a
difference).
Meanwhile the options might be to flash the Internegative or Interpos - or I suppose a
partial bleach bypass on the IP or even the prints, but this is jumping through hoops.
Digital Intermediates are another approach........
Having said that, Vision stock is not without virtue - Fred if you've seen Brakhage's
recent films printed on this stock, especially the very moving "Stan's Window" you can
see, I think, what I mean.
Finally, there is really no technical reason these days why 2, 20, or 200 prints
shouldn't look the same - IF producers, distributors, and the lab cares.
Sorry if this is kind of long....
-Sam Wells
2983
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: Raja
> Pascal Greggory's Fred is a Frenchman
> in Morocco, but we have no idea as to exactly what he's doing there,
> how long he's been in Africa, where his money comes from, etc, so he
> becomes an archetype, that of a naïve foreigner in an exotic land.
I know this isn't your main point, but I don't see him as all that
naive. He's getting what he wants out of the situation until he gets
tangled with Raja, and his downfall there isn't naivete.
> Najat Benssallem's Raja is given a bit more of a background, but her
> details consist of such cliches of sentimental humanism (orphan,
> poor, abused by family and boyfriend) that they're hard to take
> seriously and seem to be an attempt by Doillon to comment on genre
> conventions. They are not to be taken as actual people but as
> generalized stand-ins for different strands of humanity.
Actually, her boyfriend isn't that abusive, I don't think.
For me, whether or not a character is to be taken as an actual person or
a representative figure doesn't have to do with whether her mother is
dead, or how much money she has, or how nice her brother is to her.
(These are all things we learn gradually, by the way. The first thing
we see is Raja and her friend goofing and hanging out, then that "go to
work" discussion between the friend and her mother, then more goofing
among the women and Fred in the garden.) It has to do with how the
character is presented and how she functions in the story. There are so
many points in the film where Raja and Fred react in individualized
ways, depending on their emotional state, that I can't see them as
abstractions.
> The fact that the adjunct characters – the other young women working
> in the garden, the Greek Chorus older kitchen help – come and go in
> the picture with no sense of verisimilitude but show up when they are
> needed for a particular narrative moment, and disappear when their
> presence could have smoothed over misunderstandings and thus
> eliminated a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth also takes the
> film into a more abstract realm.
I think there was only one serious misunderstanding in the film, other
than the language problems between the lovers: when one of the kitchen
maids lies to Fred about her conversation with Raja and reports that
Raja talked only about money. This misunderstanding is intentionally
created by a character with an agenda (which alone would disqualify her
from being part of a Greek chorus, even apart from the character detail
in her scenes) and would have been hard to correct, which makes it
sadder and more organic. I really think the wailing and gnashing of
teeth in this film would have been hard to avoid, given the characters'
desires. Am I forgetting other misunderstandings?
> the film takes on a comic tone,
I found the film quite funny, and laughed a lot. Almost all the humor
was wit, I think, attributable to the sensibility of one of the
characters. (And not just the Westerner.)
> (these performances could be in an
> André Cayatte movie)
Gee, I really don't think so. The interesting thing about the
performances in RAJA is that they are infused with the characters'
reflections and longings - and this is easily justified in terms of
story, because the language barrier means they spend a lot of time
effectively talking to themselves or explaining themselves to others.
The character of Fred is so detached from practical concerns that he
seems to inhabit a more rarified world: he wanders around with a smile
of amusement at his own reactions as he takes in the spectacle of his
surroundings.
> and his straight ahead visuals don't at all
> play up to that quality, and this disharmony is a key reason why this
> unfocused film was such a disappointment to me..
I think it's true that the visuals are doing something a little
different from the rest of the film is doing, but that could be seen as
counterpoint rather than disharmony. The visuals have an objective
quality (when Raja looks through the kaleidoscope, you already sense
that Doillon won't give you her point of view), but the objectivity is a
bit of a mask for the way the ambient camera will find its way to
positions that emphasize the drama. So there's more than a little of
the feeling of classical film drama, broken up by changes in shot size
and redirection of the audience's attention - even though the camera
seems to wander around the people, and there are rarely cuts on key
narrative events. For me, this means that the camera slyly arrives at
documenting the more abstract aspects (the reflections, longing, etc.
that I talked about earlier), even though it rejects obvious subjective
techniques.
> The incompatibility of tone is also a key reason why I find that the
> sociological/political matters inherent in the material just kind of
> lie there. The essential narrative set-up of the film is fraught
> with issues stemming from the unequal balance of power and wealth and
> social standing with the advantage to Fred (as well as the one area
> in which Raja has the upper hand, the power of her youth) but I found
> the Doillon didn't present to us anything more than what we already
> took in the theatre with us about these points.
It strikes me that this is a colonial love affair in more than just the
superficial sense. It is plagued by the issues of age imbalance, power
imbalance, money imbalance, language difference, unfamiliar customs, and
the hidden threat of physical violence. - Dan
2984
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 3:46pm
Subject: Re: subversive Lists
Isn't there a confusion there between films we feel are overrated by
most people and films we really hate? Does anyone really hate Jules
et Jim?
Breathless (Godard) but some other JLG, including Pierrot le fou that
I find a bit more exasperating every time I try to watch it. On the
other hand I love Vivre sa vie and Bande a part. I may not be an
auteurist after all...
Hiroshima mon amour, which I used to love and now find terribly dated.
Imitation of Life (Sirk) ... I'm running for cover.
JPC
2985
From: Tosh
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 4:12pm
Subject: Re: Guilty Unpleasures
Charlie Chaplin. I don't really like any of his films. I don't
think he's funny.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
2986
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
Fred wrote:
> Fascinating about how the current Kodak prints stocks have a different
>look. There's a similar problem with old IB films: you're never going to
>get *that* look again. And while I think an IB print is crucial for
>"Vertigo" or "Written on the Wind," I'm not sure how much that
>particular look matters for the aesthetic of most films.
Certainly I'd add BLACK NARCISSUS and the other color
Powell/Pressburger films of that era to the list of "must see in IB."
If you get right down to it, I think IB benefits just about every
film that was printed in the process, at least until the quality went
way down in the waning years, late 1960s - early 1970s. As an
example, I was watching "a film by"'s favorite director Robert Wise's
WEST SIDE STORY on DVD, then went to the trailer in the supplements.
The trailer seemingly came from an IB print, and it had a vividness,
a directness, an emotionality that wasn't present in the nice,
clean-looking new transfer.
--
- Joe Kaufman
2987
From: ingysdayoff
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:26pm
Subject: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
Unfortunately, people are comparing film to vinyl, in terms of their presences
now. Jeez.
And what's so wonderful about seeing a digitized version of, say, "The Man
Who Shot Liberty Valance?" Yes the audio and visual aspects are decent, but
its mammoth presence is completely missing on video (likewise goes for other
favorites of mine). But since DVD allows each film to be in a cute package,
which they might as well be sold in vending machines, the film really doesn't
even matter anymore. It's a fucking shame, really. Give me audio pops,
scratches, hairs in the gate, and dust!
Michael
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> > One of the great things about DVD is that for maybe the first time
> > in the history of cinema it is possible to get everything about a
> > print "right" and to keep it "right" in every copy made. With
> > celluloid, no two prints ever looked alike.
>
> I think the essential problems with video (see Fred's essay) are
> still with us in the new world of DVD. Some problems are solved
> (such as the loss of quality when the tape ages, has been run a lot,
> has been recorded from other tapes, etc), but some new problems
> arise, such as: poor digital "authoring" that leads to pixelated
> images, the use of stereo soundtracks for movies that were made with
> a mono soundtrack (see the OTHELLO DVD), and of course, the
> inescapable issue of "getting it right." And, of course, it's video,
> not film.
>
>
> The Trouble With Video:
> http://www.fredcamper.com/Film/Video.html
>
> The Criterion Collection seems to be doing the best job in this area,
> but they are not without their critics (especially when they release
> a DVD of a film that had previously been a Criterion laserdisc, like
> M, SALO, or ANDREI RUBLEV). To get an idea of just how tricky this
> stuff can get, visit DVDBeaver.com, which evaluates DVDs in great
> detail, and compares multiple versions. The most telling example is
> AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER - two DVDs were released in the U.S. by Fox,
> and the *earlier*, non-anamorphic, non-deluxe edition seems to be the
> preferred one!
>
> So, in a sense, no two DVD editions are ever the same.
>
> http://207.136.67.23/film/dvdcompare/affair-remember.htm
>
> -Jaime
2988
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "ingysdayoff"
wrote:
> Unfortunately, people are comparing film to vinyl, in terms of
their presences
> now. Jeez.
>
> And what's so wonderful about seeing a digitized version of,
say, "The Man
> Who Shot Liberty Valance?" Yes the audio and visual aspects are
decent, but
> its mammoth presence is completely missing on video (likewise goes
for other
> favorites of mine). But since DVD allows each film to be in a cute
package,
> which they might as well be sold in vending machines, the film
really doesn't
> even matter anymore. It's a fucking shame, really. Give me audio
pops,
> scratches, hairs in the gate, and dust!
Since you have replied to my post, I guess this tirade was supposed
to have been directed at me, but I happen to agree with you (although
I still enjoy video and DVD), and my conflicted feelings about DVD
can be read pretty clearly in my post.
Funny that Bresson is being discussed alongside, but not in
conjunction with, discussions of video vs. film. I didn't quite see
what the big deal with Bresson was until I saw prints of his movies -
especially his films in color. But now, I won't watch L'ARGENT or
LANCELOT DU LAC on video, or BALTHAZAR, COUNTRY PRIEST...
-Jaime
2989
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
Speaking of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is a good case in point.
No one is saying the DVD is perfect, merely that it gives the
possibility of getting things right one time and successive times.
Liberty Valance was shot in VistaVision, meaning an aspect ratio of
somewhere between 1.6 and 1.9 or so (I wish there some way to find out
these things). The initial 16mm prints (VERY few!!!!) had fabulous
print quality and were barred (letterboxed). All other prints have been
extremely gray and flat and 1.3. 35mm prints have also been gray and
flat, and theaters almost never projected them at the proper ratio.
It's all well and good to talk about Academy standards, but those
standards are almost never observed. (Back in the 1970s, someone
compared the aspect ratios used in the excutive screening rooms of the
big studios in NYC, where critics saw the latest releases, and found
absolute lack of any uniformity. Nothing was shown at Academy standards.)
So, in effect, it's only with video, and the pressure for correctness
which DVD has somehow magically introduced to our kingdom after decades
of laissez-faire with vhs and laserdiscs, that now we have the
possibility to Liberty Valance with decent image quality and in the
correct aspect ratio.
I have seen DVDs and other digital media projected in Europe on giant
screens and with a long throw. The result, with decent equipment, is
certainly superior to what can be gained from most (if not all) 16mm
prints, and at least from the rear of the hall is equal or superior to 35mm.
But the fact of the matter, like it or not, is that the future of cinema
is home video. If you are waiting for some big state-of-the-art cinema
to project a glorious 35mm print of GERTRUD, you will probably die
first. Unless you haunt European film festivals or live in NYC or LA or
Paris (and even them...!), your only chance of seeing almost any foreign
films, almost any old film (ie, pre 1990), almost any thing by
independents like Abel Ferrara, is going to be home video.
ingysdayoff wrote
>
>
> And what's so wonderful about seeing a digitized version of, say, "The
> Man
> Who Shot Liberty Valance?" Yes the audio and visual aspects are
> decent, but
> its mammoth presence is completely missing on video (likewise goes for
> other
> favorites of mine).
>
>
2990
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:48pm
Subject: Re: LANCELOT and the Times
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ciccone" wrote:
> Is it true that a four-string critic at the Times got fired after an
> exec read his rave then actually saw the movie with some friends?
> (And hated it of course.)
I don't think so. You may be thinking of a statement by J. Hoberman in a Slate forum in Dec. 2000. I just looked it up -- he wrote: "I assume you know that back in the early '70s, Roger Greenspun--a very intelligent and film-literate second-string reviewer--wrote a rave review of Robert Bresson's Lancelot. Evidently some Times big shot (it might have been Abe Rosenthal) went to see the movie on his lunch hour, expecting some sort of Camelot-like spectacle. Naturally, he returned to the office furious, and, according to the legend, Greenspun lost his job soon after."
Print the legend! In fact, RG lost his job at the NYT in August 1973 (see his "Leaving the Times", Film Comment, Jan-Feb 1974) -- the year before LANCELOT came out.
His article does refer in passing to Rosenthal's dislike of UNE FEMME DOUCE (it's not the main thrust of the story, though).
Who did review LANCELOT for the Times -- can anyone look it up?
2991
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:49pm
Subject: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
> I have seen DVDs and other digital media projected in Europe on
> giant screens and with a long throw. The result, with decent
> equipment, is certainly superior to what can be gained from most
> (if not all) 16mm prints, and at least from the rear of the hall is
> equal or superior to 35mm.
Ambivalent as I am on this issue, there's no way in heck I'd go to a
theater to watch a DVD. And if I didn't know about it in advance, it
would make me very angry.
And a person should be able to tell the difference, even way in the
back, if they have a working pair of eyes. It's not just the quality
of the picture and the brightness levels and all that, video has a
different, I don't know what, a different *rhythm* than film, and no
amount of money thrown away on hardware is going to eliminate video
pixels, artifacts, and other digital pollution.
-Jaime
2992
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
>
>
> Ambivalent as I am on this issue, there's no way in heck I'd go to a
> theater to watch a DVD. And if I didn't know about it in advance, it
> would make me very angry.
The point is, Jaime, that if they were using decent equipment, you
wouldn't know it was a dvd, unless someone told you.
But since you swear there's no way in heck you'd go to such a theater,
how in heck can you make the following statements about something you
have never in heck experienced????
>
>
> And a person should be able to tell the difference, even way in the
> back, if they have a working pair of eyes. It's not just the quality
> of the picture and the brightness levels and all that, video has a
> different, I don't know what, a different *rhythm* than film, and no
> amount of money thrown away on hardware is going to eliminate video
> pixels, artifacts, and other digital pollution.
2993
From: Tristan
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 5:54pm
Subject: Re: subversive Lists
I don't like Antonioni's Blow-Up. I don't understand why it's so
loved. Hiroshima Mon Amour has been mentioned, which is dated and
sort of boring. The first 15 minutes make it all worth it though.
2994
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:07pm
Subject: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
> The point is, Jaime, that if they were using decent equipment, you
> wouldn't know it was a dvd, unless someone told you.
>
> But since you swear there's no way in heck you'd go to such a
theater,
> how in heck can you make the following statements about something
you
> have never in heck experienced????
I didn't say that at all - I have. But I won't anymore.
> The point is, Jaime, that if they were using decent equipment, you
> wouldn't know it was a dvd, unless someone told you.
Also you have to be sitting way in the back, right? Sorry, I'm not
buying. I think I have pretty good eyes, I can spot a 16mm print if
someone doesn't tell me about it (which is arguably more difficult,
if it's a good 16), and I have personally projected a wide variety of
formats: 35mm, 16mm, DVD, and VHS. The only tricky one is
laserdisc, which comes across as really high-quality VHS (without the
knife-edge sharp lines of DVD).
-Jaime
2995
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:18pm
Subject: Re: Print quality, Brakhage, Bresson
I love vinyl. Also, it's cheap now - you can get records that used to
cost 7 dollars for anywhere from 2 dollars to 29 cents at thrift
shops and specialty shops like Aron's in LA. The same thing is
happening with videocassettes, and boy am I stocking up! I'm
sure that if I were more sensitive I'd see and hear the difference,
but...
Did you know that Brakhage's French home video distributor
refuses to put the films out on DVD, because he says that the
digital process renders the films inaccurately? He only does
cassettes. There was an interview with him about that in one of
the Cahiers special issues on DVDs.
On the other hand, I can testify from experience that Bresson is
one of those directors who literally doesn't exist on tv, particularly
the color films, although the tapes I own are better than
broadcast quality. Maybe that problem will be solved eventually
with a DVD transfer, although that will depend on New Yorker
Films, whose high rental prices, I have been told, kept Bresson
out of circulation on celluloid for years. Has that changed, I
wonder? Or was it a base canard...
2996
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:21pm
Subject: Re: Print quality - bon voyage
By the way, you guys do know that this is another ship that has
sailed, right? The El Capitan in LA regularly screens Disney
releases digitally, and the Chinese Theatre across the street
does the same, even advertising when Signs, say, is being
shown digitally. Ditto the Arclight, the 14-dollar-a-pop uberplex
that was added onto the old Cinerama Dome. Right, Joseph K?
2997
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Print quality, Brakhage, Bresson
What are you looking for in vinyl? We've got tons of
it for sale.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> I love vinyl. Also, it's cheap now - you can get
> records that used to
> cost 7 dollars for anywhere from 2 dollars to 29
> cents at thrift
> shops and specialty shops like Aron's in LA.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
2998
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Not Guilty
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> ;)
>
> -Jaime
>
> > "The Rules of the Game" is the most overpraised movie
> > of all time.
Maybe it makes up for it being the most underpraised movie of
all times when it first came out.
When I was an arrogant young cinephile I enjoyed saying that
there were only three important French films: L'Age d'or, L'Atalante
and La Regle du jeu.
Still a bit arrogant but no longer young at all, I'd still say that
they are my three favorite pre-New-Wave French films.
JPC
2999
From: ingysdayoff
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 6:47pm
Subject: Re: NYFF reactions?
The only thing I caught at the NYFF was "Dogville," which I thought was a
masterpiece. I wrote some remarks on it, but feel I am far from grasping some
if the material. Did anyone go to its 10/05 showing, where a few screamed at
the screen during the ending credits?
Also saw "Star Spangled to Death," Ken Jacobs' magnum-opus, which was
overwhelmingly disturbing and moving, and like all of Ken's work, an
imaginative re-evaluation of materials. He's promising a DVD release as well,
if one can believe it!
Michael
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I skipped the NYFF this year for a handful of reasons. What are
> > other New Yorkers thoughts--favorite films, must-sees, etc? How has
> > it compared to previous years overall?
>
> I was away for the first half of the fest, but here are my impressions
> of what I did catch:
>
> YOUNG ADAM: saw 30 min. at Toronto and walked out. It was a Toronto
> walk-out - i.e., I switched theaters instead of going home - but I
> really thought this was one inert, unimaginative piece of direction.
>
> THE FLOWER OF EVIL: I really enjoyed it moment by moment, but it just so
> didn't come together for me dramatically. I felt almost exactly the
> same about MERCI POUR LE CHOCOLAT (which I enjoyed less along the
way),
> so I wonder if Chabrol isn't just going in some new dramaturgical
> direction that I haven't caught up with yet. Anyway, I basically liked it.
>
> GOOD MORNING, NIGHT: watchable and interesting, but I felt it was
> somehow both overstated and underdeveloped. I wasn't wild about it.
>
> FREE RADICALS: interestingly directed, well worth a look, but I didn't
> understand it structurally, possibly because of severe jet lag.
>
> CRIMSON GOLD: quite good, meandering but smart and expressive, with
an
> amazing lead performance, one of those non-professional tours de force
> that money can't buy.
>
> GOODBYE DRAGON INN: I feel fond of it, but it wasn't enough for me -
> maybe I just wasn't prepared for a character-free, almost dialogue-free
> 81-minute prowl around a movie theater.
>
> DISTANT: not my cup of tea. As a character study, it's okay in a modest
> way, but Ceylan's slowness and minimalism don't register on me as
> meaningful strategies. For a director so interested in visuals, he
> doesn't seem to care much about space, which bugs me.
>
> RAJA: terrific, possibly a great film. Amazingly complex on a social
> and psychological level, witty, reflective, beautiful and subtle
> framing. Very sad, and it really earns the right to be sad by exploring
> all options.
>
> - Dan
3000
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 20, 2003 7:15pm
Subject: People Screaming at the Screen at Lincoln Center
Sounds like the good old days.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact