Date: Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:22pm
Subject: Re: someplace I learned that the firework displays were linked to sexual happenings... why is that so? Where did I learn that?
I think there is very much indeed a basic curriculum in film studies. And I
think you answered your own question when you said: "I suspect there are
probably textbooks (I have Gianetti's, and others) that share a common set of
classic films, etc. but there seems to be no common ground, ala a periodic table or
three rules of thermodynamics, etc. that all film students would seem to know
about." Those textbooks (most classes in the US use Bordwell and Thompson's
Film Art but I cannot imagine anyone getting through film school without also
having read Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" or Walter
Benjamin's "Work of Art" essay or something by Bazin or Wollen or Sarris on the
auteur theory, etc.) and films (I took a nine-year break from film studies and
when I got back, I saw Psycho, Metropolis, Singin' in the Rain yet again) do
form the common ground of a basic curriculum in film studies. Personally, I find
that a problem to a certain degree but we can argue that some other time.
As a budding film scholar, I have a basic knowledge that I share with other
film scholars. I mean, there's Psycho (in my recent grad seminar composed
mostly of non-film students, only one had never seen it before) and then there's
Laughter (1930) which is difficult for anyone to see. But even there, I
mentioned it to my current film prof and he knew who Harry D'Abbadie D'Arrast, the
director of Laughter, was. Since this list is largely organized around the auteur
theory, I hardly need to explain who Anthony Mann is. In fact, if I wrote
something like "Anthony Mann, who directed many well-known Westerns with James
Stewart in the 1950s...," it would read quite awkwardly.
Labels and definitions are given in film studies. I had no idea what
shot-reverse shot or the 180 degree rule or whatnot was before I went to film school.
I was taught there. I'm not saying that you have to go to film school to learn
these. But the labels and definitions are there.
Also, after having seen diagrams of the "rugged vagina" and the "fragile
anus" in 1980s AIDS paranoia literature, I'd question the idea that "cinema seems
so much more dependent on the 'tastes'" than science or social science.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3102
From: Fernando Verissimo
Date: Tue Oct 21, 2003 5:49pm
Subject: Cassavetes
George Robinson wrote:
>> I completely understand the importance of Maurice Pialat and John
Cassavettes as avatars of a fearlessly and ferociously independent cinema,
but I just don't see the films themselves as successful.
Every single time I watch GLORIA and OPENING NIGHT, I find myself
drowning in tears in the end. THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE and HUSBANDS
were two of the most intense emotional
experiences I've ever had as a cinephile. Don't know why, they just strike a
nerve, I guess.
fv
www.contracampo.com.br
3103
From: J. Mabe
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:13am
Subject: Re: re: Subversive Lists
I don't know how old this discussion is (I've been
away in NYC all weekend, and still have 100 more posts
to look through)... but I saw Au Hasard Balthazar on
Friday and was moved, though its the kind of film that
takes a long period of brewing in my mind for me to
really appreciate. The next morning I saw Carriage
Trade and a bunch of Robert Breer (one of my favorite
filmmakers), then off to the Views from the Avant
Garde Program, where I saw what is for me now, the
greatest thing I've ever seen in a theater: Star
Spangled to Death (and I can only imagine that my head
would explode if I ever get to see it on film). So,
after all the great work I saw afterwards, I can
remember very little of Balthazar. It's probably a
great disservice to the film and I'm sure if I ever
get the chance to see it again, I'll reconsider, but I
simply can't think as highly of the film as I think I
should.
Josh Mabe.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3104
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:20am
Subject: Re: negative criticism and guilty unpleasures
I don't think anyone doubts that Godard is a provocateur, not
even Godard himself. Your example below, where he decides to
change the terms of reference, reminds me of the story about
the Harvard Lampoon in 1946 deciding to name (the magnificent)
Duel In the Sun "the worst movie of the century". Then the next
year, when the utterly wooden Joan of Arc appeared, they were
stuck for a globally negative quote, so they called Joan of Arc
"the worst movie of the century 1847-1947".
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda"
wrote:
>
> An interviewer asks Godard: "You said ten years ago that 'cinema is
> dead'
> and there are still films you like and you still make films, what
did
> you mean?"
> and the answer of the most profound person in the history of cinema
> is: "What
> I meant is that the cinema, the way we know it, is dead" (Doesn't
> the cinema,
> the way we know it, die with every single great filmmaker we
> discover?)
...
>
> To me, Godard is a 'provocateur'.
>
3105
From: J. Mabe
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:31am
Subject: Re: Re: Lancelot print quality, & subtitles
Personaly (and I have no idea why), I have no
attention span for video/dvd/ld/tv. I have let films
sit on the self unwatched (some I really want to see
through like some Mambety and Pyaasa), but any time I
try I lose interest very quickly. On the other hand,
I can sit for hours in a theater (I've seen
Werkmeister Harmonies straight through, and would
gladly see Satantango, if I ever get the chance). go
figure.
Josh Mabe
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> --- 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
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3106
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:32am
Subject: Re: Negative Criticism
Armond White can pretty much be relied on to give the contrarian
view, but he always applies a very respectable amount of brain
power to working out his arguments, whether mounting a defense
of Gigli or tearing apart School of Rock. When he argues negatively,
it's usually in the service of defending some bedrock principle
that he propounds with great passion. He's not simply taking
snide potshots, which I think is the secret of his keeping us
as readers despite his frequent negative criticisms.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jaketwilson"
> Armond White does great negative criticism. Anyone read his pan of
> MYSTIC RIVER?
3107
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:40am
Subject: Re: Realism: Pro and Con
Nothing turns me off more quickly than a sense that a filmmaker feels
superior to his subjects. Well, maybe "serious" comes close.
MG4273@a... wrote:
> Implicitly, realism is defined as "serious films about
> the daily life of ordinary talentless people in modern times".
3108
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:41am
Subject: Re: Re: More unloved "classics"
That's cause you were with Positif !
jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> But, Peter, come to think of it, I must reverse myself, because at
> the time I, and a few others, were actually aware that it was a
> Golden Age, that amazingly, every month, every week almost, there
> came some new stupendous marvel.
>
>
3109
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 3:07am
Subject: Re: The Corleone Saga, the Honeymoon Killers
Marty wasn't unhappy to leave "The Honeymoon Killers."
It was just a job, and Kastle -- who had planned only
to write and produce -- really knew what he wanted
anyway. Especially when it came to Tony LoBianco, of
who he was terribly superfond.
But I'm not one to gossip so you didn't hear that from
me.
--- Rick Segreda
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3110
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:00am
Subject: Some loved classics
JPC writes:
>And you could make as stunning a list for almost any year in
> the decade. Let's not get carried away, I won't...
Okay, but one more for 1958: Borzage's "China Doll," which I just
watched for the first time on television this evening. I think I
like it as much as any of the films named so far from this amazing
year in film history. And that ending... phew. I think all of
these '58 films also have singularly moving endings and final shots
(well, okay, maybe not the Chuck Jones one); but, then, is it
possible for a film to be Truly Great without a great ending?
Jaime: Does "The Naked and the Dead" really have that high a rep? I
know Fred has said that, in general, late Walsh is very erratic and I
know that Tag gives this specific film only one star in his Great
Directors piece. I can't comment, not having seen the film and
having only started to sample late Walsh.
Peter
3111
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:09am
Subject: Re: Some loved classics
I got into a lot of trouble by disliking this film. Many (most?) Walsh
people adore it.
I agree that the person who likes a movie most is "right."
And I agree with your earlier thought -- I don't relish people sharing
my dislikes but hope they share my likes.
>
>
> Jaime: Does "The Naked and the Dead" really have that high a rep? I
> know Fred has said that, in general, late Walsh is very erratic and I
> know that Tag gives this specific film only one star in his Great
> Directors piece. I can't comment, not having seen the film and
> having only started to sample late Walsh.
>
> Peter
>
>
3112
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:36am
Subject: The Sticky Fingers of Time
>>Indeed. One of my favorite "unrealistic" films of
>>recent years is "The Sticky Fingers of Time" --
>>arguably the best lesbian time-travel film ever made.
>>I scarcely know anyone who has seen it. And it's on
>>DVD.
>
> Ardent fan of lezzie action that I am, I have always been intrigued
> by the DVD cover of this one, which has two hot chicks
I like THE STICKY FINGERS OF TIME, but my recollection is that it's not
much as far as hot lesbian action goes. - Dan
3113
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:38am
Subject: The Naked and the Dead
> Jaime: Does "The Naked and the Dead" really have that high a rep? I
> know Fred has said that, in general, late Walsh is very erratic and I
> know that Tag gives this specific film only one star in his Great
> Directors piece. I can't comment, not having seen the film and
> having only started to sample late Walsh.
I'm only a moderate Walsh fan, but I like THE NAKED AND THE DEAD a lot,
and know a bunch of other people who do as well. My sense is that its
rep is pretty high among auteurists. - Dan
3114
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:40am
Subject: Re: someplace I learned that the firework displays were linked to sexual happenings... why is that so? Where did I learn that?
When I eneterd the Cinema Studies program at NYU in the mid-'70s
Franco-American autuerism was in the process of giving way to
Lacanian psycoanalytic analysis, Althusserian marxist analysis,
structuralist models, semiotic models, etc. I came to the program
with a social science background and was struck by this
transformation of a subject that was considered part of the
humanities.
It seemed to me that the humanities were striving for the precision
and exactitude of the social sciences and that the social sciences
that I had so recently left were aspiring to become as rigorous as
the hard sciences. I agree that Bordwell's apporach is reductionist,
and if I understand Elizabeth correctly,she would like to see a
common paradigm that can account for the whole phenomenon of cinema.
The problem is to construct such a model that avoids the pitfall of
being reductionist.
Incidentlly, Fred addressed this issue about 25 years ago with a long
paper that he handed out to few people that proposed a "unified
theory of film" (my title, not Fred's.) I don't know what he thinks
of it today, but it was useful than.
Richard
> Probably the most widely-used textbook along these lines is FILM
ART:
> AN INTRODUCTION by David Bordwell and co. I really don't like
> Bordwell, though I've learnt from him, and I think the problem is
> exactly the pretence of scientific objectivity, which leads him to
> reduce aesthetics to various kinds of quantifiable data.
>
> JTW
3115
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:12am
Subject: Re: The Naked and the Dead
Dan Sallitt wrote:
>>Jaime: Does "The Naked and the Dead" really have that high a rep? I
>>know Fred has said that, in general, late Walsh is very erratic ....
>>
Ah, but for me this is one of greatest of the lates ones; I agree with
Dan. Makes great use of the widescreen frame to "frame" war as a
struggle for space.e My favorite late Walshes: "The Tall Men," "Band of
Angels," "The Naked and the Dead," and "A Distant Trumpet."
I've only seen it in 35mm, though; I doubt it would show up well on video.
- Fred
3116
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:19pm
Subject: Re: The Sticky Fingers of Time
Well maybe not hot for YOU, but lesbian cineastes love
it.
--- Dan Sallitt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3117
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:23pm
Subject: Re: someplace I learned that the firework displays were linked to sexual happenings... why is that so? Where did I learn that?
"I don't want to be spoon fed, but someplace I
learned that the firework displays were linked to
sexual happenings...
why is that so? Where did I learn that?"
"To Catch a Thief" of course.
--- Elizabeth Nolan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3118
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 2:03pm
Subject: Re: Fireworks & sex
Or Kenneth Anger's FIREWORKS (hey, how bout that), from 1947...but
the visual metaphor (as demonstrated in FIREWORKS) is pretty clear-
cut.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> "I don't want to be spoon fed, but someplace I
> learned that the firework displays were linked to
> sexual happenings...
> why is that so? Where did I learn that?"
>
> "To Catch a Thief" of course.
3119
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 3:55pm
Subject: Is the unified theory of film paper available?
I don't know what I want, but as we learn more about the brain
(stimulations of certain areas lead to certain emotional responses that
then get imposed on the images we are looking at: an electrical
stimulation makes us laugh and then we say the image we are looking at
is funny {sounds like those Russian editing experiences} ), there
will be some 'reductionism.' Additionally, the whole universality of
emotional responses to basic instinctual events...reductionism.
Is the unified theory of film paper available?
> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:40:03 -0000
> From: "Richard Modiano"
> Subject: Re: someplace I learned that the firework displays were
> linked to sexual happenings... why is that so? Where did I learn > that?
>
> When I eneterd the Cinema Studies program at NYU in the mid-'70s
> Franco-American autuerism was in the process of giving way to
> Lacanian psycoanalytic analysis, Althusserian marxist analysis,
> structuralist models, semiotic models, etc. I came to the program
> with a social science background and was struck by this
> transformation of a subject that was considered part of the
> humanities.
>
> It seemed to me that the humanities were striving for the precision
> and exactitude of the social sciences and that the social sciences
> that I had so recently left were aspiring to become as rigorous as
> the hard sciences. I agree that Bordwell's apporach is reductionist,
> and if I understand Elizabeth correctly,she would like to see a
> common paradigm that can account for the whole phenomenon of cinema.
> The problem is to construct such a model that avoids the pitfall of
> being reductionist.
>
> Incidentlly, Fred addressed this issue about 25 years ago with a long
> paper that he handed out to few people that proposed a "unified
> theory of film" (my title, not Fred's.) I don't know what he thinks
> of it today, but it was useful than.
3120
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 3:57pm
Subject: Fireworks & sex
Yes, I actually do remember TO CATCH A THIEF. I was using the
fireworks/sex as an example that most would be recognize.
The question is how does the VIRGINAL VIEWER (someone who has not seen
movies) make the connection...the visual metaphor. When I see movies
with familiar metaphors, I remind myself that there is some youngster
(or virginal viewer) who is seeing it for the first time. And I often
wonder, how much I am missing as a virginal viewer of more complex
metaphors.
At the screenwriting conference, one director spoke about having to add
a voiceover about nuns (in a baseball movie) because the audience
didn't know much about nuns. The basic cultural knowledge is lacking.
> From: David Ehrenstein
> Subject: Re: someplace I learned that the firework displays were
> linked to sexual happenings... why is that so? Where did I learn > that?
>
> "I don't want to be spoon fed, but someplace I
> learned that the firework displays were linked to
> sexual happenings...
> why is that so? Where did I learn that?"
>
> "To Catch a Thief" of course.
> From: "Jaime N. Christley"
> Subject: Re: Fireworks & sex
>
> Or Kenneth Anger's FIREWORKS (hey, how bout that), from 1947...but
> the visual metaphor (as demonstrated in FIREWORKS) is pretty clear-
> cut.
>
> -Jaime
>
3121
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:09pm
Subject: Re: Is the unified theory of film paper available?
I really think this is a snare and a delusion and that such searches for
objective science have done great harm to cinema studies over the years.
Semiotics, montage-theory, culture theory: all of these have been like
bubonic plagues. The primary reality of cinema studies is the
experience of films. The problem is not to be objective but to be
honestly subjective. If you find a unified theory of human experience,
then you can go on to verbalize a unified theory of human experience of
films. But I don't know how relevant it will be to my experience of
Walsh compared to my experience of, say, Godard. Or of my wife. Art is
about experience of individuals, not of experience of theory. It makes
no sense to speak of "close-ups" in the abstract (or any other
arbitrarily defined film element), because each really true artist
re-invents close-ups in each authentic movie. The problem is to
experience the individual close-ups in the individual movie, and then to
account, honestly, for your experience.
This is the problem. This is the challenge. More than one person in
this group has remarked that it is easy to say what you don't like about
a movie, difficult to say what you do like.
Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
>
> Is the unified theory of film paper available?
>
>
3122
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:07pm
Subject: Re: Fireworks & sex
"The question is how does the VIRGINAL VIEWER (someone
who has not seen
movies) make the connection...the visual metaphor."
It all comes from context. Fireworks go off at the
climax of "Mr. Hulot's Holiday" but there's nothing
sexual about it. When Grace Kelly offers herself to
Cary Grant in "To Catch a Thief" and they go into one
of the all-time great movie smooches it's pretty
obvious.
--- Elizabeth Nolan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3123
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:11pm
Subject: Re: someplace I learned that the firework displays were linked to sexual happenings... why is that so? Where did I learn that?
"I learned that the firework displays were linked to sexual
happenings... why is that so? Where did I learn that?"
A cinepistemological question if any. While I am certain that
Elizabeth and everyone else are very aware of that "fireworks" is a
cultural convention, that amongst other is a synonym for an orgasm, in
the same way an earthquake represents a strong emotional kiss, it is
still an interesting question when asked as "Are there no standards in
cinema?"
There are lots of standards in cinema. There are standards for
narrative, for genre, for cinematography, for editing. But where you
on one side have pretty solid standards, it all suddenly became very
fluid after WW2. Consider the shockwave when Ophüls broke the
180-degree rule and later generation of new filmmakers began not only
questioning old standards but also bending, even breaking the rules.
The Cahiers boys, the Method guys, the avant-gardes. And then
deconstruction gave along and gave almost unlimited freedom in
interpretation and hence allowed revision of cinema.
I both love and hate the freedom that followed deconstruction. I love
it when I can use it to prove my point, I hate it when others defend
ideas I consider wrong. But I accept it, because we work by the same
rules, but disagree because we don't think alike. So as much I hate
it, it enriches my day.
But when I hear about reductionism, my toes curl. Sure Scorsese can
say, "We can see the development of both the Western and Ford by three
of his films: Stagecoach, She wore a yellow Ribbon and The Searchers",
sure those of us who know about the Western and know about Ford can
smile, but can you tell a student, "Watch and study these three films
and you will know all about Ford and the Western". Only the other day
Bill talked about Ford and how he felt that there was a complexity in
Ford not yet addressed. I feel the same way about cinema. The more I
dig, the more I study, the more I realise how vast cinema is. Only
recently as I very late nights watched Fellini's "Roma" as I was about
to fall asleep, it dawned on me how surreal it was, and now I
revisited several of his films and rediscovered Fellini.
If cinema is art, and I believe it is, then cinema is to be
experienced. As John Keating says about poetry in "Dead Poets
Society", "We're not laying pipe! We're talking about poetry." One
thing is to ask for reference when for instance facing notions about
character development. Another thing is to ask for A (one) standard, a
unified standard for film. I believe that the idea of a unified
standard for appreciating and understanding film is harmful. Just look
at what people like Syd Field has done to the creative process of
scriptwriting with the idea of a standard. More so, do we really want
to approach cinema and film the same way McDonalds approach their Big
Mac?
With a unified theory of film, Elizabeth's question would be "I
realised that fireworks are linked to sexual happenings… Why was I not
taught that?"
Henrik
3124
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:17pm
Subject: Re: Fireworks & sex
And the bicentennial fireworks display in "Les Amants du Pont Neuf," though the fireworks display is deliberately contrived and out of control, works astonishingly well, and
the montage of various pop and classical pieces on the soundtrack adds to this.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Fireworks & sex
"The question is how does the VIRGINAL VIEWER (someone
who has not seen
movies) make the connection...the visual metaphor."
It all comes from context. Fireworks go off at the
climax of "Mr. Hulot's Holiday" but there's nothing
sexual about it. When Grace Kelly offers herself to
Cary Grant in "To Catch a Thief" and they go into one
of the all-time great movie smooches it's pretty
obvious.
--- Elizabeth Nolan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com">http://shopping.yahoo.com">http://shopping.yahoo.com
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers
3125
From: samfilms2003
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:19pm
Subject: Re: Is the unified theory of film paper available?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher
> I really think this is a snare and a delusion and that such searches for
> objective science have done great harm to cinema studies over the years.
Plus they always seem most applicable to predetermined mass market cinema -
Laugh, Cry, Buy the Action Figures...
-Sam
3126
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: someplace I learned that the firework displays were linked to sexual happenings... why is that so? Where did I learn that?
Because the couple are making out at the same time.
Henrik Sylow wrote:
> "I learned that the firework displays were linked to sexual
> happenings... why is that so? Where did I learn that?"
>
3127
From: brack_28
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 6:52pm
Subject: Re: Let me propose a different list
Chameleon Street was a great one-off. Although Wendell Harris still
has time to do more films and I hope he does.
Josh Mabe
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> What are some of your favorite one-offs? Of course "Night of the
Hunter" is
> probably the greatest example of all time, but "Murder by
Contract" is one
> of those extraordinary leaps that can't be explained by any normal
cognitive
> means. I've never seen "Carnival of Souls" but I suspect that if
it's as
> good as its reputation, it might be another.
>
> George (sort of a one-off myself) Robinson
3128
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:14pm
Subject: One-offs
Unfortunately, The House Is Dark is the only film by
Forugh-farokzad, the Iranian poet. She died in a car crash after
making this poetic black-and-white documentary about a
leprosarium, which is one of the very best Iranian films I've seen.
I know that Jonathan was working on new subtitles with Mehrnaz
Saeed-Vafa, but I don't know if the subtitled version is distributed.
My impression was that Facets was going to pick it up.
And there will never be another collaboration between Jaccques
Avila and Vonyeska Gee (sp?), because the Haitian curse on
Krik-Krak, their extraordinary essay film about Haitii under the
Duvaliers, wrecked their marriage and damn near killed them. I
believe it is out on Facets - in any case, it's rentable.
The documentary/essay field is full of people who've done one -
like me - because it's pretty unrewarding, and people may do
one because the subject demanded it and forget about making a
"career."
3129
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:18pm
Subject: Cleopatra's Second Husband
Another recommendation: the above-titled film by the maker of
the very successful Better Living Through Circuitry is the film that
got me thinking about the erotic relationship of director-actor (vs.
director-actress) in film. The third act is very grim, but I
recommed CSH to anyone who has the remotest interest in film
theory - also as pretty good first feature. It's out now from FRF
(First Run Films).
3130
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:34pm
Subject: Re: Negative Criticism (Denby as Paulette)
>A particuarly egregious example of
>negative criticism (if it can
>be called
>criticism at all) is cited in the odd
>David Denby piece in last week's New
>Yorker which
>recounts his "life as a Paulette."
>R. Porton
This is a disturbing piece. Denby feels he was (unconsciously) imitating Kael "as late as 1980" and writes that "in 1986 I re-started myself and ... began to remove the borrowed rhythms, line by line." He may have succeeded in excising the "hectoring second person" pronoun as such, but my general impression is that he continues to honor her style (a tough habit to break). In the Oct. 27 issue:
"...even though 'Mystic River' is about a malaise overtaking a community, one can see intimations of ordinary life in it. There's no ordinary life in 'In the Cut,' just art-thriller flourishes."
"Meg Ryan has [Fonda's] pucker-lipped moue and her relaxed carriage and easy, swiveling neck, and she's bravely naked in a few scenes, but she doesn't have the range and power to make us overlook what's tiresome in Frannie's character. This woman is a ninny wandering through a maelstrom."
"I guess we get the point: a woman's lot is to be imprisoned and mutilated. But is that enough of a view for a talented director?"
Of course Denby isn't Kael, but (a propos of this thread) he obviously isn't reluctant to write "negative" reviews either (this one is titled "Creep Shows").
3131
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:37pm
Subject: Re: More unloved "classics"
Tag, I was definitely NOT with Positif in the fifties. I just read it
once in a while when I could borrow or steal a copy. Same with
Cahiers (although I translated dialogue from early Marx Brothers
movies for a series of articles by Andre Martin for Cahiers around
1955).
jpc
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher
> That's cause you were with Positif !
>
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
> > But, Peter, come to think of it, I must reverse myself,
because at
> > the time I, and a few others, were actually aware that it was a
> > Golden Age, that amazingly, every month, every week almost, there
> > came some new stupendous marvel.
> >
> >
3132
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Let me propose a different list
Peter Lorre's "Der Verlorene" is a truly great
one-off.
--- brack_28
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3133
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:55pm
Subject: Re: The Naked and the Dead
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> > Jaime: Does "The Naked and the Dead" really have that high a
rep? I
> > know Fred has said that, in general, late Walsh is very erratic
and I
> > know that Tag gives this specific film only one star in his Great
> > Directors piece. I can't comment, not having seen the film and
> > having only started to sample late Walsh.
>
> I'm only a moderate Walsh fan, but I like THE NAKED AND THE DEAD a
lot,
> and know a bunch of other people who do as well. My sense is that
its
> rep is pretty high among auteurists. - Dan
I'm not crazy about "The Naked and the Dead" although Tag's one
star may be a bit harsh. But the one late "masterpiece" that
everybody raves about and I really don't care very much for is "Band
of Angels". I loved "Mamie Stover" and "Esther and the King" but
haven't seen them in a long time. I still enjoy "The King and Four
Queens," which hasn't got such a high reputation among walsh
auteurists. In late Walsh I really like the focus on female
characters (Stover, Four Queens, Esther...) Of course Walsh was
always great in dealing with women characters (Joan bennett in "Me
and My Gal", Ida Lupino and others in "The Man I Love", Dorothy
malone in "Colorado Territory" etc...) I discussed Walsh and Women in
a Positif article, April 2001.
JPC
3134
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:13pm
Subject: Der Verlorene
David,
Any idea where I could find this one? Or see it? It's very relevant
to a project of mine, and your high evaluation makes me that
much more eager to check it out.
3135
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:51pm
Subject: Re: One-offs
Point about documentarians is particularly well-taken. I have a lot of
interviews with filmmakers who made one doc that showed at NYFF or elsewhere
and ended up back as techies on other people's films. One of the good ones,
Jacki Ochs, who did an excellent doc about Agent Orange in the early '80s.
George Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3136
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:25pm
Subject: Re: Der Verlorene
I wish I knew. I saw it many years ago at Filmex.
I don't know of its video availability.
--- hotlove666
> David,
>
> Any idea where I could find this one? Or see it?
> It's very relevant
> to a project of mine, and your high evaluation makes
> me that
> much more eager to check it out.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3137
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:28pm
Subject: Late Walsh
As I have discussed w. Fred, who saw the same MOMA series I
did, there's really not much late Walsh I DON'T like. The war
films (up to and including Marines, Let's Go), the Gables, the
Pecks, the woman films (Band, Mamie, Sea Devils, which Tag
turned me on to), one no one has mentioned: Distant Drums, the
Objective Burma remake with Cooper, A Distant Trumpet of
course, even the Hudsons (I just had the joy of seeing Gun Fury
in a great 3-D print: what a gem!), Great Divide, even (in a minor
key) the comedies (A Private's Affair, the Mansfield...)
Seeing these films in the 70s as the climax of a retrospective
that showed everything available at the time, I was much
influenced by the cumulative weight of allusion, the way that he
seems to keep referring to the early films in the late ones, quite a
few of which are remakes that revisit the prewar films with
postwar eyes (meaning WWII). There are many fine points to be
discussed and compared, but I think Walsh's 50s will stand up
to anyone's, and if the MOMA retrospective ran tomorrow in LA, I'd
see as many of them as I could.
3138
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:31pm
Subject: One-Offs
So far the films mentioned for this category have been wonderful choices.
Let me propose one that might be slightly more controversial, Brando's
"One-Eyed Jacks." It's a bit overlong, but I think it is one of the more
interesting westerns of the '60s, certainly inventive within the framework
of the genre but respectful of its parameters.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3139
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:35pm
Subject: Jack Elam
A piece of sad news that I know you will all be interested in -- Jack Elam
has died at the age of 84.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3140
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:36pm
Subject: Re: Late Walsh
I'm surprised no one has mentioned The Tall Men, which I think is one of
Walsh's best films, and a brilliant use of 'Scope. It also has one of the
best opening lines in American film.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3141
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 9:45pm
Subject: Re: Der Verlorene
Facets Video has it for $29.95. Go to:
http://www.facets.org/asticat
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ehrenstein"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Der Verlorene
> I wish I knew. I saw it many years ago at Filmex.
> I don't know of its video availability.
>
> --- hotlove666
> > David,
> >
> > Any idea where I could find this one? Or see it?
> > It's very relevant
> > to a project of mine, and your high evaluation makes
> > me that
> > much more eager to check it out.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
3142
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:31pm
Subject: The opening line olf Tall Men
Gable: (seeing hanged bodies) We must be getting close to
civilization.
3143
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:32pm
Subject: Jack Elam
I hope they let him take his fly with him.
3144
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:40pm
Subject: Re: One-Offs
I was just about to mention that one.
--- George Robinson
> So far the films mentioned for this category have
> been wonderful choices.
> Let me propose one that might be slightly more
> controversial, Brando's
> "One-Eyed Jacks." It's a bit overlong, but I think
> it is one of the more
> interesting westerns of the '60s, certainly
> inventive within the framework
> of the genre but respectful of its parameters.
>
> g
>
> The man who does not read good books
> has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
> --Mark Twain
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3145
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2003 11:30pm
Subject: Re: Late Walsh
I saw the same MOMA retro, and that was the first and last time I
saw "Esther and the King", which I found fascinating. It seems to be
very rare these days, and I wonder if anyone has been able to see a
decent print of it anywhere in the past few years.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> As I have discussed w. Fred, who saw the same MOMA series I
> did, there's really not much late Walsh I DON'T like. The war
> films (up to and including Marines, Let's Go), the Gables, the
> Pecks, the woman films (Band, Mamie, Sea Devils, which Tag
> turned me on to), one no one has mentioned: Distant Drums, the
> Objective Burma remake with Cooper, A Distant Trumpet of
> course, even the Hudsons (I just had the joy of seeing Gun Fury
> in a great 3-D print: what a gem!), Great Divide, even (in a minor
> key) the comedies (A Private's Affair, the Mansfield...)
>
> Seeing these films in the 70s as the climax of a retrospective
> that showed everything available at the time, I was much
> influenced by the cumulative weight of allusion, the way that he
> seems to keep referring to the early films in the late ones, quite
a
> few of which are remakes that revisit the prewar films with
> postwar eyes (meaning WWII). There are many fine points to be
> discussed and compared, but I think Walsh's 50s will stand up
> to anyone's, and if the MOMA retrospective ran tomorrow in LA, I'd
> see as many of them as I could.
3146
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:35am
Subject: Negative criticism
Just thought I'd add a little something before the subject dies -- I
think negative criticism can be something good to do, even though
it's not easy. The general rule of thumb is that negative criticism
should not be scathing: rarely is there a need to attack any film
much more than an initial expression of dislike. (I'm guilty of
perpetuating dismissals in reviews I've written before.) I think
many people here tend to practice this humble, flexible approach, at
least with works and filmmakers they or their respected peers and
colleagues are predisposed to liking.
My favorite mainstream reviewer of any art is Washington Post book
critic Michael Dirda. This is an exchange from a live chat a few
months ago that I came across recently -- I think it sheds some light
on the subject.
----------
Fairfax, Va.: Hi. I'm the bloke that was gonna read "White Noise"
last week. Just wanted to give you my impressions.
I hated it. Strongly and deeply. I thought, without hyperbole, that
it was the worst book I'd ever read. I found it bland, self-absorbed
and pretentious. I have never wanted to burn or deface a book until
now. Why oh why it gets so much praise, not to mention a National
Book Award -- it's enough to make me completely lose faith in
humanity.
Which brings me to my question: Which book or books have you openly
detested, despite high critical and public acclaim? Which award-
winning or -nominated book or books have caused an intensely negative
visceral response in you? I invite everybody to share their bad
reading experiences.
Michael Dirda: Very few books have elicited that kind of reaction
from me. But then I'm a soft reviewer, and my presumption is always
that if a book doesn't work for me, it's my fault. So I try harder to
understand what the author was doing or trying to do. You know, art
doesn't have to be successful to matter; the experiments that try new
things and fail are likely to be more valued than those that continue
purring along down the well trodden ruts. One of my mottos is from
Schopenhauer: We should stand before works of art like servants
before their masters and wait until they speak to us.
That said, I have found a handful of books really meretricious--
perhaps the best example is Judith Krantz's Dazzle. Not even the sex
was interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/liveonline/03/regular/books/r_books_dirda061903.htm
--Zach
3147
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:45am
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
"Gravity's Rainbow"
"The Corrections"
--- Zach Campbell
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3148
From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 2:41am
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
Zach Campbell wrote:
> Michael Dirda: Very few books have elicited that kind of reaction
> from me. But then I'm a soft reviewer, and my presumption is always
> that if a book doesn't work for me, it's my fault. So I try harder
to
> understand what the author was doing or trying to do. You know, art
> doesn't have to be successful to matter; the experiments that try
new
> things and fail are likely to be more valued than those that
continue
> purring along down the well trodden ruts. One of my mottos is from
> Schopenhauer: We should stand before works of art like servants
> before their masters and wait until they speak to us.
I think that approach is much too kind. For a critical rule of thumb
that applies across all media, I can't go past Sturgeon's
Law: "Ninety percent of everything is crap."
Often it's much more than ninety percent, which is exactly why it's
normally best to devote energy and attention to the saving remnant,
rather than bother with endless denunciations of business-as-usual.
JTW
3149
From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:00am
Subject: Re: One-Offs
> --- George Robinson wrote:
> > So far the films mentioned for this category have
> > been wonderful choices.
> > Let me propose one that might be slightly more
> > controversial, Brando's
> > "One-Eyed Jacks." It's a bit overlong, but I think
> > it is one of the more
> > interesting westerns of the '60s, certainly
> > inventive within the framework
> > of the genre but respectful of its parameters.
> >
> > g
Which reminds me, speaking of one-offs, how about Johnny Depp's THE
BRAVE, with that indelible oameo from Brando near the start? It's far
from perfect, but watching it late at night on video certainly
freaked me out.
JTW
3150
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:56am
Subject: Re: The opening line olf Tall Men
Very good.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 6:31 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] The opening line olf Tall Men
> Gable: (seeing hanged bodies) We must be getting close to
> civilization.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
3151
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:01am
Subject: Re: One-offs
It might have been the zeitgeist, but I remember digging Magical Mystery Tour, apparently the one film directed by The Beatles (although several of them have individual credits).
Is the single film (written and) directed by Anna Karina any good?
3152
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:03am
Subject: Interesting fortnight on TV5
I don't know if any of you get the French channel, TV5 on cable, but they
are doing a bunch of interesting stuff over the next couple of weeks:
Bunuel's Diary of a Chambermaid (should be letterboxed), Melville-Cocteau
Les Enfants Terribles, four or five films by Jacques Doillon and, for
serious music fans, a 1947 Portuguese film, "Fado" with Amalia Rodrigues.
George Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3153
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:35am
Subject: Re: Interesting fortnight on TV5
I hope they show Doillon's "La Pirate" with Jane
Birkin and Maruska Detmers.
--- George Robinson
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3154
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:40am
Subject: Re: Interesting fortnight on TV5
They are, in November.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ehrenstein"
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Interesting fortnight on TV5
> I hope they show Doillon's "La Pirate" with Jane
> Birkin and Maruska Detmers.
>
> --- George Robinson
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
3155
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:52am
Subject: Re: Interesting fortnight on TV5
Not to be missed under any circumstances!
--- George Robinson
> They are, in November.
> g
>
> The man who does not read good books
> has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
> --Mark Twain
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Ehrenstein"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Interesting fortnight on
> TV5
>
>
> > I hope they show Doillon's "La Pirate" with Jane
> > Birkin and Maruska Detmers.
> >
> > --- George Robinson
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product
> search
> > http://shopping.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3156
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:06am
Subject: films interpreted by (bad?) paintings
I say bad with a question mark because most of them aren't mine.
We of a small group on another message board have begun "intepreting"
images from our favorite films using Microsoft Paint and other
programs. The results are extremely amateurish but you might find
more to say than "Ah, that's...that's......interesting."
Please visit the following link:
http://www.moviemartyr.com/fanart/fanart.htm
love
Jaime
(who did the ones for FIREWORKS, JE T'AIME JE T'AIME and, soon to be
uploaded, TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT)
3157
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:17am
Subject: The good old Hays days
LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
"Reading the Code(s)" chapter from Patricia White's book Uninvited - Classical
Hollywood Cinema and Lesbian Representability... Her
ostensible point, though, is that homosexuality was very much "there" in Code-era
cinema.
Rick Segreda:
>Her ostensible point, though, is that homosexuality was very much "there" in Code-era
> cinema. The presence of "actual" gay characters in a film doesn't automatically
> make it more realistic or progressive or adult or richer or whatnot.
Ah, yes...if you look at old Hollywood movies from the imposition of the Hays code to the sixties, there are all sorts of subtle, coded references to gayness, to lesbianism, and most of all, to straight sex. Codes for this, symbols for that, metaphors for this, suggestions of that...it all looks a wee bit tedious now. Remember how you couldn't even show MARRIED couples sleeping in the same bed? And when a couple sat on a bed, each had to have a foot on the floor? Bizarrely, you couldn't show a fully pregnant woman, either(and you couldn't even say "pregnant" until Lucy broke the taboo on TV) as if that were some sort of obscenity. All those great, sophisticated, smart, witty, engrossing movies from that time were all hampered by idiotically puritanical censorship, and would have been even better, and would appear less dated, than if they had the same freedom to deal with sex that European movies had.
No, there are few movies today that attain the greatness of Ophuls' "Letter From an Unknown Woman," or the enchantment of Lubitsch's "The Shop Around the Corner." Any five minutes of either one of those movies will say more about the human condition that most movies you see today.
What happened once the censors took off is a classic example of the neurotic extemism in American culture, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. So we rejected all the stupid codes, and went the other extreme of nihilistic crassness and bottom-line vulgarity as limp substitutes for creativity and feeling; i.e; Chloe Sevigny actually blowing Vince Gallo in order for Gallo to make a "statement."
Oy vey. Maybe one day the center will hold and a Hegelian synthesis in American films will result.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3158
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:38am
Subject: Chaplin/Keaton and Their Betters
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
Chaplin vs. Keaton is like Callas vs.
> Tebaldi in many ways, as far as most of their
> respective fans are concerned: the knives are out and
> nobody wants to pull them back in.
>
Count me as one who is happy to let the Chaplin and Keaton
contingents fight it out among themselves, knowing that Laurel &
Hardy reign supreme.
3159
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:44am
Subject: The Brown Bunny
> So we rejected all the stupid codes, and went the
> other extreme of nihilistic crassness and bottom-line vulgarity as
> limp substitutes for creativity and feeling; i.e; Chloe Sevigny
> actually blowing Vince Gallo in order for Gallo to make a
> "statement."
By the way, there's a rumor that Chloe was actually blowing a prosthetic
penis that Gallo purloined from the set of TROUBLE EVERY DAY. And it
looks that way to me. (I like the scene, though.) - Dan
3160
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:48am
Subject: Re: Interesting fortnight on TV5
> I don't know if any of you get the French channel, TV5 on cable, but they
> are doing a bunch of interesting stuff over the next couple of weeks:
> ...four or five films by Jacques Doillon...
Do you know which ones? Are there English subtitles on TV5? - Dan
3161
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:54am
Subject: Robert Breer
The Re:Voir videotape of Robert Breer's animated films (eleven in
all) is quite good, especially for a cinephile like myself who isn't
a 100% film-only purist. The films themselves are really
extraordinary, each as mesmerizing as any film ever made. Thanks
Fred and any other Breer-ian.
-Jaime
3162
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:59am
Subject: Pre-Code Movies
I was certainly startled watching 42nd STreet a little while ago when
Una Merkel is sitting on a guy's lap and comments that she's
situated ""on a flagpole."
If the Code hadn't been imposed, Chloe Sevigny and Vincent Gallo
might have been pre-dated by Janis Paige and Dennis Morgan.
3163
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:05am
Subject: Re: Chaplin/Keaton and Their Betters
> Count me as one who is happy to let the Chaplin and Keaton
> contingents fight it out among themselves, knowing that Laurel &
> Hardy reign supreme.
Neither L nor H were "film artists" like Chaplin, while it's a
quarrel among sports fans as to who is "the best" at physical
comedy. (I value all of them.) For direction, it's Keaton all the
way.
But on the other hand, being the insane person that I am, I prefer
Jerry Lewis on both counts: in front of and behind the camera. And
he was generous, too...in his most underrated picture, THREE ON A
COUCH, both Janet Leigh and James Best are allowed to "upstage" Jerry
while he goes about his usual impersonation/mugging routines, and
it's a strange and beautiful film otherwise.
Jer also had a super "faux Stan (or was it Ollie?)" gag in THE
BELLBOY.
-Jaime
3164
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:11am
Subject: RE Chaplin/Keaton and Their Betters
Stan Laurel was a comic creator in his own right, and the brains
behind L&H. Lewis in his autobiography has a chapter about Laurel,
where he acknowledges him as his master.
3165
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:14am
Subject: Re: One-offs
Wanda.
3166
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:18am
Subject: comedians & auteurs
Haven't read the bio. Aren't there conflicting stories of how L&H
got together? Leo McCarey seems to be named most often as the
catalyst behind that team-up. (And if not, he made the wonderful BIG
BUSINESS and especially LIBERTY.)
Certainly the classic silent comedians are superior in every way,
technique-wise. And they began their trade in thoroughly
mythologized Vaudeville and/or the American Silent Cinema, and are
therefore beyond criticism in every way. I just happen to find
myself attracted to the strange and often irritating qualities of
Jerry Lewis performances and (for different reasons) his films.
-Jaime
3167
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:46am
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
No no no - if you folks had read more GOOD negative criticism you
wouldn't be skeptical about its value. I have already cited in my
last post on this subject several articles in CdC from the 70s which
taught me the value of looking at the current succes d'estime or de
scandale and dismantling it. Last night I watched Irreversible on
tape. I would very much like to have not a "bad review," but an
analysis of Irreversible as an operation, which I think it is.
(Barthesians will remember "Operation Astra"...) It would take 3 or 4
or 20 carefully thought-out pages dealing with the film on more
levels than just the plot or the Big Scene, from the camera moves at
the beginning to the treatment of gays and women, the discourse at
the beginning (and the way it draws on Noe's previous film) and end,
the hysterical acting styles, the visual style (lighting, angles,
movements, legibility-illegibility, all-in-oneism, etc. etc.), the
actual effects of the backward gimmick - all to analyze the aims of
the film (the effects it seeks to produce, apart from making money),
the ideology supporting them on both sides of the camera, and the way
the style serves to render the film unanswerable and neither above
nor below criticism, but beyond it. It would have taken someone like
Oudart to do the job right in the old days; now there's no one, and
the absence is felt. Films like that that now appear and disappear
with nothing but a like/don't like response from critics are events
in our lives, and in the lives of everyone who sees them, just as The
Night Porter was in its day, but we don't have a magazine where
Michel Foucault, if he were alive, could write an analysis of what
this thing appearing in our midst means, as he did with Night Porter
while it was still uin theatres. Film is not just pretty light
patterns. A film like Irreversible or Mystic River or Kill Bill I or
Attack of the Clones (which is the anti-Irreversible on one level) is
an event in the life of the planet, or the part of it where the
particular film in question is seen; even the ones that aren't
obviously about subjects like the Holocaust (the subject of Night
Porter) are ABOUT something - let's take the word revenge, which
covers all of the movies in that list I just ran off - and often
something important to all of us at that - let's take 9/11 and what
it has done to this country and the world, as a wild random example.
The dessicated, mechanical, ill-educated version of political
analysis practiced most of the time in the all-turniphead-press is
inadequate to this situation, and I deplore that fact. It should be
people who really love and understand film writing about these films,
and not saying - "It's an unpleasant job" or "I'd rather write about
what I love." If not us, who? When the Cahiers attacked "le mode
retro" in the 70s, they had India Song to set against it; what can we
set against Irreversible, or its big-budget equivalent? I do not
believe that it is a good thing for the world or for cinema - those
eternal quarrelling lovers - that we can't answer that question.
3168
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:03am
Subject: problems with Negative Criticism
My problem with negative reviews isn't the principle, it's the
examples we have that demonstrate "how it's done." Chief among
Denby/Lane's traits as writers of negative reviews is their ability
to sound superior to the film in question, and witty in a "literary"
way. *MOST* other negative reviews in the U.S. are either the same
way or a few rungs down on the evolutionary ladder.
But no, negative criticism has just as much potential to be
illuminating and enlightening as positive criticism; however, in
practice I agree that those who love a film know it best, and that
those who are most often called upon to write pans are those who
review 3-5 films per week for whatever newspaper or magazine,
ergo "it's a dirty job," etc.
In practice it's PROFOUNDLY uninteresting (for the most part). While
in theory, like anything "in theory," it could be great.
But at the same time, given the choice between a 1,000-megawatt
negative review and a positive review of the same luminescence, I'll
take the positive.
-Jaime
3169
From: J. Mabe
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:03am
Subject: Re: Robert Breer
Why the video? You live in NYC right? I've seen
Breer only on film, and recently spent all Monday
morning seeing as many Breers as I could at the
Donnell Media Library before my flight back to
One-Breer-Film-Print-In-the-Whole-State, South
Carolina... It was well worth the wait... and the
Donnell Library is 100% free, and has many Breers...
and LMNO is still my favorite Breer, and the one Breer
print in the state (at the USC library, where I've
seen it at least 40-50 times).
Josh Mabe
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> The Re:Voir videotape of Robert Breer's animated
> films (eleven in
> all) is quite good, especially for a cinephile like
> myself who isn't
> a 100% film-only purist. The films themselves are
> really
> extraordinary, each as mesmerizing as any film ever
> made. Thanks
> Fred and any other Breer-ian.
>
> -Jaime
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3170
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:13am
Subject: Re: Robert Breer
Funny you should mention. In a few days I'm screening one Anger
(INAUGURATION) and one Breer (FISTFIGHT, never heard of) for myself
and some friends, on account of just having discovered Donnell. As
far as I can tell without having taken full advantage of it, it's a
great resource to get prints and tapes and whatnot. The next step is
MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and Rossellini's LOUIS XIV; one setback with
Donnell is the small amount of prints you can actually *take with
you*, i.e. project for friends and such.
Then again, as I said, the video for the Breers is suprisingly well-
done. I can get a very, *very* good idea of how great these films
are.
I guess because I actually *live* in NYC (for now at least), I'm lazy
about waiting for prints/procuring them for myself. But I'm not all
bad; instead of renting tape copies of same, I'm waiting for proper
and good prints of Jack Smith and Stan Brakhage, others, to play at
Anthology. And so on, with Walsh, Vidor, even Tashlin, etc.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe"
> Why the video? You live in NYC right? I've seen
> Breer only on film, and recently spent all Monday
> morning seeing as many Breers as I could at the
> Donnell Media Library before my flight back to
> One-Breer-Film-Print-In-the-Whole-State, South
> Carolina... It was well worth the wait... and the
> Donnell Library is 100% free, and has many Breers...
> and LMNO is still my favorite Breer, and the one Breer
> print in the state (at the USC library, where I've
> seen it at least 40-50 times)
3171
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:41am
Subject: Re: Jack Elam
Jack Elam was the first actor I conscious was aware of. I recall
watching him in either "Support your local Sheriff or Gunfighter" when
I was 4 or 5, and my father would joke, that he should have been a
lawyer, because he would be able to view a case from two sides (due to
his lazy eye).
He had slipped into the back of my head, when I then in 1988 saw "Once
Upon a Time in the West" and like a little kid recognising an object
it knows the word for, I said our loud, "Jack Elam". Ever since then I
never forgot him and always made sure to speak highly of him when I
could.
I will watch "Support your local Gunfighter" today, because it's not
only his best part ever, but its's also a comedy that warms your
heart.
Henrik
3172
From:
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:44am
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
Bill,
What do you think of the Ian Cameron/"Movie" story I quoted from the Sarris
the other day? I guess I'm split on this issue. I understand what you're
talking about, but I'm also partial to the (radical?) idea that those who love a
film best are the ones best equipped to talk about it. Put it another way: I'd
rather read a compelling case FOR a film I hate than a compelling case
AGAINST a film I hate, because the former instance might expand the way I look at
cinema, whereas the latter is only going to confirm my own beliefs/tastes/etc.
I guess the inverse might be equally true (a compelling case AGAINST a film I
love), but, echoing Jaime from a few days ago, how many of us want to try and
convince ourselves that we shouldn't love the films we love?
And I keep coming back to Cameron's point about "Lawrence of Arabia": if
someone at "Movie" or the Cahiers or someone on this group argued on its behalf
with great depth of insight and force of persusasion, I'd be willing to say that
they are in tune with that movie in a way I'm not and thus understand it
better than I (someone who does not care for David Lean movies practically en
masse) do. And couldn't Cameron's gesture of NOT reviewing an Event Movie like
"Lawrence" - of ignoring it because no one on staff liked it well enough to
write about it - be as forceful a gesture as giving it a negative review?
These aren't rhetorical questions! I'm geniunely curious for everyone's
opinions.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
3173
From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:56am
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
"hotlove666"
> Film is not just pretty light patterns. A film like Irreversible or
Mystic River or Kill Bill I or Attack of the Clones (which is the
> anti-Irreversible on one level) is an event in the life of the
planet, or the part of it where the particular film in question is
seen; even the ones that aren't obviously about subjects like the
> Holocaust (the subject of Night Porter) are ABOUT something - let's
take the word revenge, which covers all of the movies in that list I
just ran off - and often something important to all of us at that -
> let's take 9/11 and what it has done to this country and the world,
as a wild random example. The dessicated, mechanical, ill-educated
version of political analysis practiced most of the time in the all-
> turniphead-press is inadequate to this situation, and I deplore
that fact. It should be people who really love and understand film
writing about these films, and not saying - "It's an unpleasant job"
> or "I'd rather write about what I love."
I take the point. I guess this is why I said that useful negative
criticism (beyond the kind that simply tells you a film is not worth
seeing) has to take up some sort of moral or political stance. But
then that's true of positive criticism too. At least if you believe,
as I've kept saying, that morality and politics and art are all
complexly bound together.
"Film is not just pretty light patterns" -- great to have someone say
that. I agree totally that even so-called escapist movies are "about"
vitally important subjects.
Take KILL BILL, which I liked but didn't love. It's not the simple
document of barbarism some would claim, but I don't think it's
possible to analyse the "form" of a film like that meaningfully
without acknowledging the way it flirts with various brands of moral
outrage. Saying it's just comic book fantasy evades the question of
why we might get off on fantasies like this.
The question which all this leads to is, what is criticism good for?
What imperative is it that makes us feel like we have the right, or
the obligation, to get between the audience and the screen? I ask
myself that a lot.
JTW
3174
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:26am
Subject: Re: Jack Elam
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> Jack Elam was the first actor I conscious was aware of. I recall
> watching him in either "Support your local Sheriff or Gunfighter"
when
> I was 4 or 5, and my father would joke, that he should have been a
> lawyer, because he would be able to view a case from two sides (due
to
> his lazy eye).
>
I like to think that somewhere in heaven he and Marty Feldman are
comparing eyes.
3175
From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:28am
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
Peter Tonguette wrote:
> I guess the inverse might be equally true (a compelling case
AGAINST a film I
> love), but, echoing Jaime from a few days ago, how many of us want
to try and
> convince ourselves that we shouldn't love the films we love?
I think it's often useful to challenge ourselves like this, the same
way it's useful to be familiar with the best arguments put forward by
people we disagree with in politics, philosophy, etc. I find that
often when I come out of a film that I adored, I can't imagine anyone
not feeling the same way. So finding out why others disagreed can
mean learning something new both about the film and about myself.
It has happened to me MANY times that I've been forced to reconsider
my opinion of a film I liked because of comments made by others,
either in person or in print. One example from this list: Dan's
comments on A.I., specifically about emotional manipulation and the
moral double standard of Spielberg making the audience view Osment as
human while the other characters view him as a robot. I still think
the film's a masterpiece, but those comments troubled me enough that
I was forced to think through my responses again, asking questions
about legitimate and non-legitimate uses of melodrama and the
script's overall argument about the nature of consciousness.
Similarly with Armond White's reviews: his attacks on stuff I like
(whether it's Waking Life or Demonlover or The Matrix Reloaded) often
teach me more than I learn from reading critics who share my
enthusiasm.
JTW
3176
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:05pm
Subject: Re: Pre-Code Movies
"If the Code hadn't been imposed, Chloe Sevigny and Vincent Gallo
might have been pre-dated by Janis Paige and Dennis Morgan."
Hey! Why not Cary Grant and Randolph Scott? Since most of us are more familiar with the movies that came after the code, it is a bit startling to go back and watch actors saying and doing things (like Claudette Colbert flashing her rack in "Sign of the Cross") that would not be allowed again for decades.
It was startling for me to see a French movie from the same time, like Marc Allegret's "Zou Zou," with Gabin and Josephine Baker, featuring more than a flash of nudity, as well as an interracial love story. If this had been a Hollywood movie, the National Guard would have been called out to quell the rioting.
Damien Bona
I was certainly startled watching 42nd STreet a little while ago when
Una Merkel is sitting on a guy's lap and comments that she's
situated ""on a flagpole."
If the Code hadn't been imposed, Chloe Sevigny and Vincent Gallo
might have been pre-dated by Janis Paige and Dennis Morgan.
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]
3177
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:11pm
Subject: The good old Hays days [Forward from auteurwannabe]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The good old Hays days
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 05:11:58 -0000
From: "auteurwannabe2000"
To: a_film_by-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Her ostensible point, though, is that homosexuality was very
much "there" in Code-era
> cinema. The presence of "actual" gay characters in a film doesn't
automatically
> make it more realistic or progressive or adult or richer or
whatnot.
Ah, yes...if you look at old Hollywood movies from the imposition of
the Hays code to the sixties, there are all sorts of subtle, coded
references to gayness, to lesbianism, and most of all, to straight
sex. Codes for this, symbols for that, metaphors for this,
suggestions of that...it all looks a wee bit tedious now. Remember
how you couldn't even show MARRIED couples sleeping in the same bed?
And when a couple sat on a bed, each had to have a foot on the floor?
Bizarrely, you couldn't show a fully pregnant woman, either(and you
couldn't even say "pregnant" until Lucy broke the taboo on TV) as if
that were some sort of obscenity. All those great, sophisticated,
smart, witty, engrossing movies from that time were all hampered by
idiotically puritanical censorship, and would have been even better,
and would appear less dated, than if they had the same freedom to
deal with sex that European movies had.
No, there are few movies today that attain the greatness of
Ophuls' "Letter From an Unknown Woman," or the enchantment of
Lubitsch's "The Shop Around the Corner." Any five minutes of either
one of those movies will say more about the human condition that most
movies you see today.
What happened once the censors took off is a classic example of the
neurotic extemism in American culture, and throwing out the baby with
the bathwater. So we rejected all the stupid codes, and went the
other extreme of nihilistic crassness and bottom-line vulgarity as
limp substitutes for creativity and feeling; i.e; Chloe Sevigny
actually blowing Vince Gallo in order for Gallo to make a "statement."
Oy vey. Maybe one day the center will hold and a Hegelian synthesis
in American films will result.
3178
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:31pm
Subject: [Fwd: The good old Hays days [Forward from auteurwannabe]]
Sorry, I forwarded this with the wrong date, so some may not see it
because of the way some email programs organize emails, and so I'm now
resending with my computer's date set correctly.
Fred
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The good old Hays days [Forward from auteurwannabe]
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:11:53 -0300
From: Fred Camper
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The good old Hays days
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 05:11:58 -0000
From: "auteurwannabe2000"
To: a_film_by-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Her ostensible point, though, is that homosexuality was very
much "there" in Code-era
> cinema. The presence of "actual" gay characters in a film doesn't
automatically
> make it more realistic or progressive or adult or richer or
whatnot.
Ah, yes...if you look at old Hollywood movies from the imposition of
the Hays code to the sixties, there are all sorts of subtle, coded
references to gayness, to lesbianism, and most of all, to straight
sex. Codes for this, symbols for that, metaphors for this,
suggestions of that...it all looks a wee bit tedious now. Remember
how you couldn't even show MARRIED couples sleeping in the same bed?
And when a couple sat on a bed, each had to have a foot on the floor?
Bizarrely, you couldn't show a fully pregnant woman, either(and you
couldn't even say "pregnant" until Lucy broke the taboo on TV) as if
that were some sort of obscenity. All those great, sophisticated,
smart, witty, engrossing movies from that time were all hampered by
idiotically puritanical censorship, and would have been even better,
and would appear less dated, than if they had the same freedom to
deal with sex that European movies had.
No, there are few movies today that attain the greatness of
Ophuls' "Letter From an Unknown Woman," or the enchantment of
Lubitsch's "The Shop Around the Corner." Any five minutes of either
one of those movies will say more about the human condition that most
movies you see today.
What happened once the censors took off is a classic example of the
neurotic extemism in American culture, and throwing out the baby with
the bathwater. So we rejected all the stupid codes, and went the
other extreme of nihilistic crassness and bottom-line vulgarity as
limp substitutes for creativity and feeling; i.e; Chloe Sevigny
actually blowing Vince Gallo in order for Gallo to make a "statement."
Oy vey. Maybe one day the center will hold and a Hegelian synthesis
in American films will result.
3179
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 2:25pm
Subject: Re: Is the unified theory of film paper available?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan
> I don't know what I want, but as we learn more about the brain
> (stimulations of certain areas lead to certain emotional responses
that
> then get imposed on the images we are looking at: an electrical
> stimulation makes us laugh and then we say the image we are looking
at
> is funny {sounds like those Russian editing experiences} ),
there
> will be some 'reductionism.' Additionally, the whole universality
of
> emotional responses to basic instinctual events...reductionism.
>
> Is the unified theory of film paper available?
>
You'll have to ask Fred about that. My more than 25 year old
recollection of that untitled paper was that it tried to set up a an
aesthetic continuum that could account for films as disparate as OUR
TRIP TO AFRICA (Kubelka) and HATARI (Hawks), and its approach was not
definitive but suggestive.
Richard
3180
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:25pm
Subject: Re: Chaplin/Keaton and Their Betters
When I wrote my first published article back in 1958 it was about
Keaton, who at the time had not really been "re-discovered" (the
dismal biopic "The BK Story" had just been released, which provided a
pretext for my article and a much lengthier one by Andre Martin in
Cahiers du Cinema). At the time it seemed almost inevitable to take a
stand "against" Chaplin to bring Keaton out of the unfair obscurity
Chaplin's fame (among other factors) had consigned him to. Then came
the Keaton reissues (amid a renewed interest in silent comedy, thanks
in part to Robert Youngson's compilations)and Buster was up there on
a pinnacle at last (although some continued to place Chaplin way
above him because Chaplin was "human") so the Callas-Tebaldi kind of
feud was no longer necessary; it became, actually, unproductive. In
my book on Keaton (1973, revised 1986) I largely ignored the
comparison between the two. It's possible to admire both Chaplin and
Keaton, although they are so different that it's hard to imagine
someone loving and enjoying them both in the same way. It's futile to
always want to put one artist "above" or "under" another when they
are at such a high level of achievement.
I also love Laurel and Hardy (wrote a little book on them too); and
the much underrated Langdon; and Lloyd. And Larry Semon. They're all
up there in the silent comedy pantheon. They don't have to be given
grades. Genius is genius.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> Chaplin vs. Keaton is like Callas vs.
> > Tebaldi in many ways, as far as most of their
> > respective fans are concerned: the knives are out and
> > nobody wants to pull them back in.
> >
>
> Count me as one who is happy to let the Chaplin and Keaton
> contingents fight it out among themselves, knowing that Laurel &
> Hardy reign supreme.
3181
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:44pm
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
I agree so much with most of what you say here that I'm not deleting
any of it! What makes it impossible for you to write those 3 or 4 or
even twenty pages on "Irreversible" as an "operation", and publish
them? You've got the material right here! I've been pondering that
film for weeks and,yes, would love to read something like what you
suggest. Because it is indeed "unanswerable" and someone should
analyze the strategies that have made it so.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> No no no - if you folks had read more GOOD negative criticism you
> wouldn't be skeptical about its value. I have already cited in my
> last post on this subject several articles in CdC from the 70s
which
> taught me the value of looking at the current succes d'estime or de
> scandale and dismantling it. Last night I watched Irreversible on
> tape. I would very much like to have not a "bad review," but an
> analysis of Irreversible as an operation, which I think it is.
> (Barthesians will remember "Operation Astra"...) It would take 3 or
4
> or 20 carefully thought-out pages dealing with the film on more
> levels than just the plot or the Big Scene, from the camera moves
at
> the beginning to the treatment of gays and women, the discourse at
> the beginning (and the way it draws on Noe's previous film) and
end,
> the hysterical acting styles, the visual style (lighting, angles,
> movements, legibility-illegibility, all-in-oneism, etc. etc.), the
> actual effects of the backward gimmick - all to analyze the aims of
> the film (the effects it seeks to produce, apart from making
money),
> the ideology supporting them on both sides of the camera, and the
way
> the style serves to render the film unanswerable and neither above
> nor below criticism, but beyond it. It would have taken someone
like
> Oudart to do the job right in the old days; now there's no one, and
> the absence is felt. Films like that that now appear and disappear
> with nothing but a like/don't like response from critics are events
> in our lives, and in the lives of everyone who sees them, just as
The
> Night Porter was in its day, but we don't have a magazine where
> Michel Foucault, if he were alive, could write an analysis of what
> this thing appearing in our midst means, as he did with Night
Porter
> while it was still uin theatres. Film is not just pretty light
> patterns. A film like Irreversible or Mystic River or Kill Bill I
or
> Attack of the Clones (which is the anti-Irreversible on one level)
is
> an event in the life of the planet, or the part of it where the
> particular film in question is seen; even the ones that aren't
> obviously about subjects like the Holocaust (the subject of Night
> Porter) are ABOUT something - let's take the word revenge, which
> covers all of the movies in that list I just ran off - and often
> something important to all of us at that - let's take 9/11 and what
> it has done to this country and the world, as a wild random
example.
> The dessicated, mechanical, ill-educated version of political
> analysis practiced most of the time in the all-turniphead-press is
> inadequate to this situation, and I deplore that fact. It should be
> people who really love and understand film writing about these
films,
> and not saying - "It's an unpleasant job" or "I'd rather write
about
> what I love." If not us, who? When the Cahiers attacked "le mode
> retro" in the 70s, they had India Song to set against it; what can
we
> set against Irreversible, or its big-budget equivalent? I do not
> believe that it is a good thing for the world or for cinema - those
> eternal quarrelling lovers - that we can't answer that question.
3182
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:02pm
Subject: IRREVERSIBLE
Bill,
What kind of operation do you mean? Because, until you mentioned it,
I hadn't thought of the film as a medical layer-by-layer unpeeling of
the tissues of time. The penetration isn't just sexual but
surgical. (Spirals like drills, etc.)
Patrick
3183
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:02pm
Subject: Cahiers...
A little bird told me, that the November issue of CdC is dedicated to
Japanese cinema - and of interest to me, on page 6 begins an article
about Kitano.
Can anyone scan the article to me?
Thanks in advance :)
Henrik
3184
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:38pm
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
Jakes writes:
> I think it's often useful to challenge ourselves like this, the
same
> way it's useful to be familiar with the best arguments put forward
by
> people we disagree with in politics, philosophy, etc.
I don't think any of us could argue that this isn't a very healthy
thing; as long as the arguments presented are strong, they are worth
our time independent of considerations of agreement or disagreement.
Now my own belief, as yet unshaken, is in line with Cameron's: that
those who are most sympathetic to a film are the ones who usually
will write most insightfully on it. Maybe there's a huge, gaping
hole in this approach in the sense that I don't find it at all valid
when moved to the realm of, say, politics: I don't find William F.
Buckley (or, God forbid, Bill "Fair and Balanced" O'Reilly) more
persuasive than Noam Chomsky or Edward Said because Buckley/O'Reilly
are sympathetic to Dubya and Chomsky/Said aren't! We can quickly see
how that becomes absurd.
Back to film: it's interesting to me that "the criticism of beauties"
(originally, of course, an approach to literature) seems very much
tied to some other traditions in auteurist criticism. Hugo
writes, "People will consent to place themselves at the author's
standpoint, to view the subject with his eyes, in order to judge a
work intelligently." That's a perfect summation of my own approach
to film, as is: "Defects—at all events those which we call by that
name—are often the inborn, necessary, inevitable conditions of good
qualities." What was it Dan was saying about Ford and floatsam?
Peter
3185
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
Peter,
I totally agree with you about Chomsky and Said.
But I don't think the analogy can be floated over to movies. It seems
to me that the first and indispensable step to relating to a movie is to
render yourself completely open to it, on a physical and emotional level.
Arguably we need to do something similar in order to comprehend a serial
murderer. And, arguably, if voters opened themselves up to the "vibes"
of politicians, they would vote for good holy people.
But arguably the aesthetic experience of a killer is not an art experience.
Tag
Peter Tonguette wrote:
> I don't find William F.
> Buckley (or, God forbid, Bill "Fair and Balanced" O'Reilly) more
> persuasive than Noam Chomsky or Edward Said because Buckley/O'Reilly
> are sympathetic to Dubya and Chomsky/Said aren't! We can quickly see
> how that becomes absurd.
>
3186
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
> I totally agree with you about Chomsky and Said.
Well, couldn't one say that people like Chomsky have a bit of trouble
understanding the motivations of conservatives, and so have a tendency
to present them as stupid, evil, or crazy? Whereas you can get some
understanding of a conservative position by reading articulate
conservatives.
I think it's the same with politics as with film: negative criticism is
sometimes so incisive that you must agree with it, but positive
criticism is the only kind can help you form an appreciation. - Dan
3187
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:44pm
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
Don't we have a Chomsky of film criticism already, in Mr. Armond
White?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> > I totally agree with you about Chomsky and Said.
>
> Well, couldn't one say that people like Chomsky have a bit of
trouble
> understanding the motivations of conservatives, and so have a
tendency
> to present them as stupid, evil, or crazy? Whereas you can get
some
> understanding of a conservative position by reading articulate
> conservatives.
3188
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
Well the overwhelming majority of so-called
"Conservatives" ARE stupid, evil or crazy.
Film criticism is much more becalmed. The differences
between "Cahiers" and "Positif" back in the 60's
weren't all that severe -- and there were many film
directors both groups loved. Likewise the MacMahonists
-- and everybody else.
I think the sharpest critical divisions came along in
the late 70's with the rise of semiotics -- which
people tended to either embrace whole-heartedly or
reject out of hand, with little in the way of middle
ground.
--- Dan Sallitt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3189
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
To some degree, yes. But Armond is very good today in
his piece about "Porn Theater" and "In the Cut." It's
interesting too because he's found an opportunity ot
priase one film over another for reasons that make
critical sense.
--- Patrick Ciccone
> Don't we have a Chomsky of film criticism already,
> in Mr. Armond
> White?
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3190
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 9:05pm
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
Were (or Are) these competing magazines "effecting" a feud to match
the epic struggle between opposing political commentators? Besides
the presence of actual or implied political content in film writing,
I mean.
Feuds like Positif/Cahiers can be good if they aren't simply about
disagreeing with the other group for disagreement's sake, creating a
field of alienation that nobody can really cross. The petty rivalry
between the "New York Press" and the "Village Voice" (which is barely
acknowledged by the "Voice," but brought up seemingly in every issue
of the "Press") is the worthless kind, based on envy for readership
and little else.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Well the overwhelming majority of so-called
> "Conservatives" ARE stupid, evil or crazy.
>
> Film criticism is much more becalmed. The differences
> between "Cahiers" and "Positif" back in the 60's
> weren't all that severe -- and there were many film
> directors both groups loved. Likewise the MacMahonists
> -- and everybody else.
>
> I think the sharpest critical divisions came along in
> the late 70's with the rise of semiotics -- which
> people tended to either embrace whole-heartedly or
> reject out of hand, with little in the way of middle
> ground.
>
> --- Dan Sallitt
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
3191
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 9:34pm
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
The critiques and analyses of high-profile films in the 70s in the
Cahiers had nothing to do with the Cahiers/Positif quarrels of
the 50s and 60s. They had to do with May 1968.
The drastic deterioration of film criticism in the 80s and 90s is
what I'm talking about, not the Golden Age of French cinephilia in
the 50s. As I see it, the mainstream national press (ON THE
WHOLE, to quote John Hurt at the beginning of Heaven's Gate)
has become PR for various commercial interests. Occasionally
to make up for being flacks, they'll decide to gang up on an
agreed-on scapegoat, like Gigli, an interesting, kind of ambitious
film which they should have been screaming about because of
the well-known and obvious MASSIVE mutilation of the
filmmaker's work by Revolution Studios. Their rampant
anti-Hollywood rhetoric serves the same hypocritical purpose,
because most of the time they promote the current hits, and
when they pick one to attack or single out for praise as different
and good, they inevitably get that wrong, too. There's a reason for
this - it's the utter hollowness of the 14-Year-Old Boys theory of
American cinema, which is as unseen and un-analyzed as ever
because stale rhetoric (not even related to praxis) has replaced
all thought.
On the "left," what I jokingly call the all-turniphead press has
settled into routines that make poor old Chomsky - whose first
reaction to 9/11 was that most of the victims, "as usual," were
from "the working class" - look like a supple dialectician. So we
read Ella Taylor (in the L.A. Weakly) attacking Eastwood in Mystic
River for emotionally siding with the Penn character (???)
because it's the character he usually plays, when he has never
to the best of my knowledge played a character like it . Even the
killer in Unforgiven is a hired gun; it's the people who hire him
who are out for revenge.
Critical thought is unfashionable and headed for extinction. This
goes way beyond what has happened to the rest of the press. It's
all knee-jerk reactions now, and it scarcely matters what dead
frog's leg is kicking - they're all just going through the motions.
So I repeat: How can something like Irreversible just blow into
town, get screened, get "reviewed" and go to video without
provoking a single thought in anyone's head? Is that really the
way it's supposed to be?
3192
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:18pm
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
Jake:
>I think that approach is much too kind. For a critical rule of thumb
>that applies across all media, I can't go past Sturgeon's
>Law: "Ninety percent of everything is crap."
>
>Often it's much more than ninety percent, which is exactly why it's
>normally best to devote energy and attention to the saving remnant,
>rather than bother with endless denunciations of business-as-usual.
You don't think it's important to grapple with the lower 90%? When I
quoted Dirda (it's probably best to know his writing in general
anyway, so hopefully I didn't decontextualize too much), I wasn't
trying to say that we should stick to the criticism of beauties, or
that we should assume that everything we dislike is somehow beyond
our right to critique. I'm more less nodding in the direction Tag is
pointing out--that we should leave ourself open for everything. Not
everything is going to work for us, and maybe we can calculate to see
that 90% of everything is crap. But sometimes that 90% gives us
films that are worth engaging anyway. I've disliked a good deal of
the new releases this year--I almost wish I'd forced myself to write
about them. I very strongly disliked DOWN WITH LOVE, for instance,
and think it might have been wise to do a review of it: not a
demolition job, something more along the lines of what Bill keeps
advocating.
Bill:
> Critical thought is unfashionable and headed for extinction. This
> goes way beyond what has happened to the rest of the press. It's
> all knee-jerk reactions now, and it scarcely matters what dead
> frog's leg is kicking - they're all just going through the motions.
>
> So I repeat: How can something like Irreversible just blow into
> town, get screened, get "reviewed" and go to video without
> provoking a single thought in anyone's head? Is that really the
> way it's supposed to be?
The state of criticism is dismal, but I'm not sure it's headed for
extinction. The fact that a strong youth contingent in cinephilia,
of which I'm proud to be a small part, points to a potential future
of good critical thought. Many of us hovering around the age of
twenty, give or take five, are searching for our voices and starting
to refine our techniques. I've no doubt that some of the young names
here are going to be major figures in film culture in 20-30 years.
I think the problem begins largely in the American educational
system, where critical thinking, philosophy, and aesthetics are
usually jettisoned to make room for curricula that teach to the
test. We get a bunch of easy interpretations for famous novels and
poems, and practically no understanding of cinema, painting,
sculpture, music, etc. Is it any wonder that criticism of the arts
today so often falls into issues of instant gratification or
sociological analysis? One is the result of pop culture without
skepticism, the other is an earnest attempt at seriousness (by
invoking 'science') because we're no longer taught that the
humanities and arts as such even really exist. It doesn't get better
at the university levels.
--Zach
3193
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:15pm
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
Zach,
Point taken (re: the next generation), although your description of
the colleges doesn't sound too encouraging.
The word "critical' actually includes several ideas: crinein means
sifting, separating wheat from chaff, so right there you have a
use of the negative side of the critical faculty. In the 20s and 30s
people like Benjamin or Adorno in Germany practiced what they
called critical thinking, by which they meant an ambitious
program of interpretation, analysis, debunking and prophecy
applied to the whole of society, as well as its parts. negative
criticism was certainly part of that, as you can see by reading
Adorno in particular. It has almost never meant just
"appreciation" or "connoisseurship," which is what I keep
hearing being championed here. Even there, a real connoisseur
would be able to tell true from false (forgery) and so on.
The criticism of beauties is a very appealing idea, because it
sounds so nice, but I'm not sure it's true. Sylvie Pierre told me
that Comolli and Narboni gave her a pranging when she turned
in a breathless piece about The Old Man and the Boy (Berri),
although I'm sure her rave would have lovely, because obviously
she hadn't done the basic first task of sifting. And once you have
done that, how well you talk about something may dependd on
many factors. A pan by Farber is more interesting - and makes
the WORK more interesting - than a rave by Reed. Arguably
Farber-Patterson's famous Taxi Driver piece is not as
wholeheartedly favorable as some of the raves at the time, but
which would you rather read? I used to learn a lot from Cahiers
pans of films, because they analyzed and interpreted better than
raves here. Etc.
As for the pseudo-scientism of the university, if Elizabeth is
listening, I just finished a piece I'm quite proud of on Cruising
where I used everything I learned in the humanities at Yale:
philology, art history, lit crit, history, philosophy. There is nothing
scientific about what I wrote, although it's fact-grounded (based
on lots of production archives). It's normal that Elizabeth would
be looking for scientific certainty, because medicine is a
science. It scares me to hear that kids in the humanities - or
"cultural studies" - think they're studying a science. All the old
disciplines in the humanities need to be kept, analyzed,
critiqued, transformed and built on. You can't do critical thinking if
you cut yourself off from those traditions and methods and
pretend that there was an epistemological "coupure" (cut) in the
70s that made it all scientific, and what preceded is like alchemy!
3194
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
I would be most interested to read you piece on
"Cruising."
I trust you've read mine:
http://www.ehrensteinland.com/htmls/library/cruising.html
--- hotlove666
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3195
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:34pm
Subject: Re: Interesting fortnight on TV5
TV5 generally subtitles feature films and drama series -- they show a lot of
cop shows, mostly lousy. Unfortunately, if the film is not in French, they
may show it with French 'titles.
As for the schedule and which films they are showing, go here:
http://www.tv5.org/TV5Site/programmes/accueil_continent.php?tps=1066952023
And, at the risk of sounding like a commercial -- and they don't pay me a
dime, but I pay for the service, more's the pity -- if you don't get it,
call your local cable operator, etc.
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: "Dan Sallitt"
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Interesting fortnight on TV5
> > I don't know if any of you get the French channel, TV5 on cable, but
they
> > are doing a bunch of interesting stuff over the next couple of weeks:
> > ...four or five films by Jacques Doillon...
>
> Do you know which ones? Are there English subtitles on TV5? - Dan
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
3196
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 0:44am
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
Bill, right on about the Farber-Patterson work on TAXI DRIVER and
criticism of its type.
For those of you who are interested enough for two self-indulgent
paragraphs, let me go off on a tangent about my impressions of
academia and scholarship these days. Scientific pretension and
charlatanism isn't only pervading the humanities. I'm currently in a
course that is firmly and justifiably grounded in the social sciences
(Sex & Gender). One article in one of our books, titled "'I'm Taking
Back My Pussy!': A Transgression of Privatized Gynecological
Boundaries," particularly sticks out. It could make for an
undistinguished Reader's Digest essay, but a few strategically placed
references to studies and a handful of "shock" words, as well as
laughable appeals to scientific analysis ("I identify my embodied
self as a locus of abuses done to women in the practice of modern
medicine," etc.), get it into the feminist reader, not all of which
is of this appallingly low quality.
The biggest problem with universities, at least mine anyway, doesn't
seem to be an invasion by cultural studies as it is an extension of
high school mentalities into undergraduate studies. You get a
bachelor's degree that'll help you get a job: you don't really study
for the sake of learning; you don't become a learned person by simply
going to college anymore. At times I feel like I'm in elementary
school again, rolling my eyes as I get bored with the lectures that
lag behind. It can't be right that I'm at a respectable school and
my biggest intellectual challenges of the semester are often
memorizing the dates and titles of paintings. (Or rather, that's how
it would be if I wasn't reading things myself that are helping me out
more than assigned readings.) It's no wonder that many of those who
go into grad school in the humanities simply mimic others like
themselves, and we're presented with watered-down and
murky "applications" of perfectly brilliant theorists (like Foucault)
to, mm, texts.
--Zach, who in this essay seeks to deconstruct the forms of dominant
discourse and build a radical Black feminist praxis.
3197
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:34am
Subject: An Auteurist Adventure
Thanks for the interest that everyone has shown! This is just a
(plaintive, almost forlorn) ping* for all participants to please send
what lists you have. The directors again are Sam Fuller and Otto
Preminger. A list by itself is the core of the project, and just
what I'd need to get started, but on the other hand, short comments
would be terrific, and longer pieces of writing would be just
orgasmic.
If you want to send in a list and have me ask questions about this or
that film, or to excerpt something from an essay or article you've
written about either filmmaker, let me know. (Tag, I believe that's
what we're doing, I just need to get your green light to "use" your
wonderful Sam Fuller article for "raw material." See my e-mail.)
thanks again everyone!
-Jaime
* Trivia: it's an acronym that stands for Packet INformation Groper!!
3198
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:40am
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
"hotlove666" wrote:
So we
> read Ella Taylor (in the L.A. Weakly) attacking Eastwood in Mystic
> River for emotionally siding with the Penn character (???)
> because it's the character he usually plays, when he has never
> to the best of my knowledge played a character like it . Even the
> killer in Unforgiven is a hired gun; it's the people who hire him
> who are out for revenge.
Eastwood hasn't always played a hired gun; he's clearly out for
personal revenge in HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER.
JTW
3199
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:04am
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
"Zach Campbell" wrote:
> You don't think it's important to grapple with the lower 90%?
I guess because "good" and "interesting" to me mean roughly the same
thing, I feel like any time you write about a movie as a noteworthy
cultural event, you automatically wind up encouraging people to take
it seriously, regardless of whether you claim to have "liked" it or
not.
Maybe purely negative criticism only has a point when it's aimed at
the sacred cows of your probable readership (which depending on the
context, could mean anything from Tarentino to THE HOURS to Hou Hsiao-
hsien). But even then, you need good ethical reasons to launch an
attack; there's no point just saying "This sucks because it didn't
interest me."
Why did you hate DOWN WITH LOVE?
JTW
Why did you hate DOWN WITH LOVE?
3200
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:53am
Subject: Eastwood as Revenger
Eastwood hasn't always played a hired gun; he's clearly out for
personal revenge in HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER.
I stand corrected - it's been years, and I remembered it as another
case of someone else's fight, like PALE RIDER.
Still, Taylor writes as if the typical Eastwood hero from Harry C to
Bill M is an avenger. I don't see that. Scott in Ride Lonesome or
Seven Men, sure, but curiously, not Clint. And I don't think
it "shows" in the film that he is emotionally identified with Penn's
character. That's the kind of thing that gives political criticism a
bad name. It's always a risk you run when you get fired up, but it
becomes dangerous when it becomes an automatism.
Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact