Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 4:18pm
Subject: Re: Re: Space, Mankiewicz, etc
"Isn't it more precise to say that 'performance' is
more at the heart
of this style than 'theater'? "
It's a chicken or egg question. James Mason in "Five
Fingers" (a very important Mankiewicz film) and Rex
Harrison in "The Honey Pot" aren't all that different
from one another -- and relate in turn to Sanders and
Baxter in "All About Eve" and Harrison and Taylor in
"Cleopatra."
(I love it when Cleopatra/Taylor says "The corridor is
dark gentlemen, but I am with you" -- pulling rank in
that she is the Goddess of Light.)
--- Zach Campbell
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
3602
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 6:15pm
Subject: Space
Some interesting posts about this topic. Let me just reiterate that
there is a lot of precise discussion in Rohmer's The Taste for Beauty
and The Use of Space in Murnau's Faust, both now available in
English. Louis Seguin came out with a book of essays on the topic a
few years back, for those who read French: Space in the Cinema.
3603
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 6:18pm
Subject: LA in film
Let me just reiterate (this seems to be my morning for that): Los
Angeles Plays Itself by Thom Andersen deals with this topic very
well. It played at Toronto and was just shown at UCLA. Distribution
is impossible because of the clip costs, but if it comes your way,
don't miss it. Scott Foundas reviews it at length in the current LA
Weekly, which is available online by just searching LA Weekly on
google or yahoo.
3604
From: Dave Garrett
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Buster Keaton and space
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh
> There is a wonderful book called 'Silent Echo' (I am hoping that I
> have the correct title) published by Santa Monica Books that deals
> with how Los Angeles had changed via Keaton's films. Also if one
> gets the DVD box set of Keaton's work - the author presents a
> program/slide show regarding how Keaton used actual locations as part
> of his work. Fascinating book and DVD! It serves both as a critique
> on Keaton's work as well as the history of Los Angeles.
John Bengtson's 'Silent Echoes' is indeed a marvelous book; it has scores of stills from Keaton's films juxtaposed with modern-day photos of the same locations, and the amount of detective work that went into finding those locations with often just the barest of clues to go on is staggering.
The 'Keaton Plus' DVD was initially only available in the Keaton box set, but you can now obtain it separately, albeit only directly from Kino. Details available on their website: http://www.kino.com/video/index.html
Dave
3605
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 6:54pm
Subject: Re: Space for its own sake
Isn't "space for its own sake" the common under laying element of film that is shared by both narrative and non-narrative movies?
I would also say that the linear, continuous and temporal aspect of narrative cinema is undepinned by the many dimensional, discontinuous and spatial, and the that the relation between these two is what makes narrative films interesting.
Richard
David Ehrenstein
"Elephant" is ENTIRELY about "space for its own
sake."
Losey is also space-centric: "The Damned," "Eve,"
Servant," "Modesty Blaise," "Boom!" "Secret Ceremony,"
and "Don Giovanni" in particular.
And then there's the all-time "Space Cadet," Michael
Snow.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3606
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 7:02pm
Subject: Re: Space for its own sake
"Isn't "space for its own sake" the common under
laying element of film that is shared by both
narrative and non-narrative movies?"
It all depends. "The Blue Light" and "La Region
Centrale" are both set on mountain ranges but couldn't
be more different from one another.
Most narrative films take the spaces in which their
stories are set for granted. An American version of
"Eclipse" would be a 20 minute short in which
Antonioni's last sequence wouldn't appear at all.
--- Richard Modiano
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
3607
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 7:55pm
Subject: Re: Space for its own sake
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> Most narrative films take the spaces in which their
> stories are set for granted. An American version of
> "Eclipse" would be a 20 minute short in which
> Antonioni's last sequence wouldn't appear at all.
>
...and both '2001' and 'Once Upon a Time in the West' wouldn't be much
longer. Indeed, Sergio Leone is a very good example of a director
whose spatial sense gradually came to dominate his narrative one.
Michael
3608
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 8:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: Space for its own sake
It occasionally seems to me that space underwent a terrible
deterioration in the 1950s. It eventually became impossible to compose
space in definition with the frame, because there was no way to control
or predict how, in projectio or broadcast, an image would be cropped.
If you study John Ford, one remarkable aspect is how crucially his
internal lines and angles (arguably the most geometrically obsessive
filmmaker ever!) are composed in terms of a definite rectangle. If you
alter that rectangle, terrible and unexpected catastrophes befall his
movies -- disastrous not only when Academy-ratio pictures are cropped,
but equally (or more so) when wider-ratio pictures are not cropped.
16mm print editions of Horse Soldiers and Donovan's Reef (as also of,
say, Sirk's Imitation of Life) didn't just crop off a bit of the sides,
they also added significant amounts of headroom and footroom, which
results, curiously, in a two hour movie sometimes behaving like a three
hour movie, proving the interchangeability of space and time and the
limited dimension thus far of this topic.
3609
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 11:29pm
Subject: Mankiewicz/ Rohmer
To the already eloquently stated defenses of Mankiewicz posted by
Fred Camper, David Ehrenstein, Chris Fujiwara and Adrian Martin, and
to the repeated references to Godard's admiration for Mankiewicz, I
would also want to call attention to Eric Rohmer's review of THE
QUIET AMERICAN. The notion that Mankiewicz's scenario-based cinema is
(to borrow Rivette's recent derogatory phrase, the opposite of mise-
en-scene)is succintly addressed and, if not refuted, at least
considerably complicated by Rohmer. The review (available in THE
TASTE FOR BEAUTY) is rather lengthy and resists easy summarizing.
But near the end of the piece Rohmer writes: "In this film we have
the mixture of languages, sketched out in the novel, but that the
cinema uses more subtly and effectively. The method is not new...but
until now it was only ornamental, whereas it constitutes the the
basis of this story of plastic and plastic explosives. Let us beware
of hasty definitions: Would we have believed, for example, that one
day, our old friend, the mise-en-scene, would hide beneath the cloak
of a play on words?" Rohmer's defense of Mankiewicz is stronger than
Godard's in his review of the same film. In language which echoes Tag
Gallagher's earlier post here, Godard concedes Mankewicz's brilliance
as a writer but complains that the film "has everything...but no
cinema" while longing for Aldrich or Welles to have directed
Mankiewicz's script. For those looking for a brief introductory
explanation as to why Mankiewicz was such a central figure for French
filmmakers and critics, see Jean Douchet in FRENCH NEW WAVE, p.
67.
My sympathies are entirely with the pro-Mankiewicz group although
having to make a case for Mankiewicz, I must confess, is also part of
the cinephilic pleasure of loving his work, of repeatedly having to
defend the turf. Unlike Fred Camper, though, I re-see the films all
the time and find them endlessly pleasurable and fascinating, this
script-heavy cinema which (perhaps not so paradoxically) seems
profoundly cinematic. When I heard Manoel de Oliveira speak about a
year or two ago before a screening of PALAVRA E UTOPIA he said that
as soon as sound cinema began to discover the spoken word the notion
that the essence of cinema resided in the image alone was over. As
part of this history of a cinema of language which gives birth to
images, Mankiewicz is a central figure.
3610
From:
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 0:20am
Subject: Charles K. Feldman bio?
Is there a biography on Charles K. Feldman out? If so, who is the author and what is the title of the book?
Thanks in advance!
3611
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 0:32am
Subject: Re: Charles K. Feldman bio?
There's a big piece on Feldman by Peter Biskind in the
April 2003 "Vanity Fair."
--- tosh3@e... wrote:
>
>
> Is there a biography on Charles K. Feldman out? If
> so, who is the author and what is the title of the
> book?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
3612
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 3:02am
Subject: Keaton and space
I'm glad to see Keaton brought up on the subject of film space,
because I devoted a lot of space to Keaton's handling of space in my
book on Buster Keaton. Has anybody by any chance ever looked at it?
As far as space in film is concerned I think the thread (Space for
its own sake) was mis-titled. Film is spatial by nature and the use
of space in film is always meaningful. There is no such thing
as "space for its own sake". I really don't even understand the
phrase.
By the way, Peter, I watched Barabbas again a few days ago and the
use of space is fantastic. There isn't a single shot in this entire
movie that isn't visually/spacially interesting. Glad you love
Fleischer.
JPC
3613
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 3:30am
Subject: Keaton, Coursodon, De Toth
JPC:
Is your Keaton book available in English?
Also, I've been meaning to ask you for a while, never got around to
it, but someone told me that you might know something about a "late
film" partially directed by Andre de Toth:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0094124/combined
I tried contacting the writer of the single "user comment," received
no reply.
Here's what Fred told me after asking a friend and fellow De Toth
enthusiast:
"It was begun by another director, and became a very troubled
project; there was trouble with the director, money trouble, trouble
with the results. De Toth was brought in after the other director
quit, or was fired. He wrote a framing story and shot some new
material, about 20 minutes out of 90 in the final film. De Toth had
been eager to get back to directing, which is apparently why he took
on this project, but trying to behave like his old energetic self, he
was prancing around and fell and was injured, though he continued to
direct. De Toth's friend saw the final film, says it wasn't very good
at all (and he's a de Toth admirer), and that he doesn't think it
ever had a commercial release; he saw it at a preview or premiere. He
suspects that de Toth didn't think all that much of it either."
That seems to seal the deal, but I was wondering if you knew any
information regarding the whereabouts of this film, or anything to
elaborate on the above.
Also do you (or does anyone) know how one can obtain De Toth's five
Hungarian films, which are dated 1939-40?
Semmelweis (1940)
Hat hét boldogság (1939)
Két lány az utcán (1939)
Öt óra 40 (1939)
Toprini nász (1939)
A local contact "knows a guy" who has all of these on tape, but so
far it's been impossible to verify this, or even to contact the "guy"
who supposedly has them. (It's all very mysterious and dubious-
sounding.) Perhaps someone else knows...........?
-Jaime
3614
From:
Date: Sun Nov 2, 2003 10:42pm
Subject: Space and Fleischer
JPC writes:
> Film is spatial by nature and the use
> of space in film is always meaningful. There is no such thing
> as "space for its own sake". I really don't even understand the
> phrase.
>
I think I may have gotten things a little bit confused by taking Dan's phrase
("space for its own sake") out of context. In message 3526, he was talking
about the use of space in Fregonese as being "for its own sake" but only in
contrast with Mankiewicz's "House of Strangers," a film which Dan feels uses the
visuals as a kind of pat "shorthand" for the movie's themes. I understood him
to mean that Fregonese operates more on a level of what pleases him than an X
= X intellectual approach to connecting a movie's themes and a movie's visual
design. (Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your stance, Dan! I'm
curious for your thoughts on this whole thread anyway.)
"Barabbas" is actually one of the few readily available Fleischers I've not
yet seen, JPC. Thanks for the recommendation!
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3615
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 4:55am
Subject: Re: Saint-Germain-des-Pres films?
> I think ONLY this list can help me out. I am looking for any films
> that are shot in the Saint-Germain-des-Pres section of Paris.
> Especially around the time of late 40's to early 50's. And if it has
> Saint-Germain nightclub scenes -even better yet.
I think I have the perfect film for you: RENDEZ-VOUS DE JUILLET by
Jacques Becker, the only film I can think of that gets the sound of a
real music club right. I'm not 100% sure that the clubs are in
Saint-Germain-des-Pres, but it's a good guess - one of my reference
books says the clubs are on the Left Bank. - Dan
3616
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 5:01am
Subject: Re: Saint-Germain-des-Pres films?
> I think ONLY this list can help me out. I am looking for any films
> that are shot in the Saint-Germain-des-Pres section of Paris.
> Especially around the time of late 40's to early 50's. And if it has
> Saint-Germain nightclub scenes -even better yet.
I haven't seen this, but it sounds like it might have some of what
you're after:
http://frenchfilms.topcities.com/nf_Pigalle_St_Germain_rev.html
Melville's BOB LE FLAMBEUR is set in Pigalle and Montmartre, has lots
of nighttime scenes, but is 1956.
-N>-
3617
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 5:32am
Subject: Re: Keaton, Coursodon, De Toth
Gee, my answer has to be "no" on all counts. The keaton has not been
translated into English (the usual problem: too long, not enough
money; and it's not even semiotics-oriented...) The De Toth puzzle is
murky. He says nothing about such a film in "Fragments" (which I
translated into French)and I have never heard about any such
endeavor. Of course it can't have anything to do with his involvment
with Billion Dollar Brain or El Condor... I have never seen the
Hungarian films, unfortunately. Tavernier has seen them (there was a
retrospective in 1994 at Institut Lumiere in Lyon)and discusses them
in our book (he raves about "Ket Lany..."). I have no idea where they
can be found, maybe he (or Thierry Fremaux at Lumiere) can. I'll ask
him when he returns from Cambodia. Of course there always is and
always has been "a guy" who has prints and stuff and cannot be
traced. Good luck with your investigation.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> JPC:
>
> Is your Keaton book available in English?
>
> Also, I've been meaning to ask you for a while, never got around to
> it, but someone told me that you might know something about a "late
> film" partially directed by Andre de Toth:
>
> http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0094124/combined
>
> I tried contacting the writer of the single "user comment,"
received
> no reply.
>
> Here's what Fred told me after asking a friend and fellow De Toth
> enthusiast:
>
> "It was begun by another director, and became a very troubled
> project; there was trouble with the director, money trouble,
trouble
> with the results. De Toth was brought in after the other director
> quit, or was fired. He wrote a framing story and shot some new
> material, about 20 minutes out of 90 in the final film. De Toth had
> been eager to get back to directing, which is apparently why he
took
> on this project, but trying to behave like his old energetic self,
he
> was prancing around and fell and was injured, though he continued
to
> direct. De Toth's friend saw the final film, says it wasn't very
good
> at all (and he's a de Toth admirer), and that he doesn't think it
> ever had a commercial release; he saw it at a preview or premiere.
He
> suspects that de Toth didn't think all that much of it either."
>
> That seems to seal the deal, but I was wondering if you knew any
> information regarding the whereabouts of this film, or anything to
> elaborate on the above.
>
> Also do you (or does anyone) know how one can obtain De Toth's five
> Hungarian films, which are dated 1939-40?
>
> Semmelweis (1940)
> Hat hét boldogság (1939)
> Két lány az utcán (1939)
> Öt óra 40 (1939)
> Toprini nász (1939)
>
> A local contact "knows a guy" who has all of these on tape, but so
> far it's been impossible to verify this, or even to contact
the "guy"
> who supposedly has them. (It's all very mysterious and dubious-
> sounding.) Perhaps someone else knows...........?
>
> -Jaime
3618
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 5:43am
Subject: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
The owners of a child star are like leaseholders --
their property diminishes in value every year. Time's
chariot is at their back; before them acres of
anonymity. What is Jackie Coogan now but a matrimonial
squabble? Miss Shirley Temple's case,though, has
peculiar interest: infancy is her disguise, her appeal
is more secret and more adult. Already two years ago
she was a fancy little piece (real childhood,I think,
went out after The Littlest Rebel). In
Captain January she wore trousers with the
mature suggestiveness of a Dietrich: her neat and
well-developed rump twisted in the tap-dance; her eyes
had a sidelong searching coquetry. Now in Wee
Willie Winkie, wearign short kilts, she is
completely totsy. Watch her swaggering stride across
the Indian barrack-square; hear the gasp of excited
expectation from her antique audience when the
sergeant's palm is raised; watch the way she measures
a man with agile studio eyes, with dimpled depravity.
Adult emotions of love and grief glissade across the
mask of childhood,a childhood skin-deep.
It is clever, but it cannot last. Her admirers --
middle-aged men and clergymen -- respond to her
dubious coquetry, to the sight of her well-shaped and
desirable little body, packed with enormous vitality,
only because the safety curtain of story and dialogue
drops between their intelligence and their desire.
'Why are you making Mummy cry?' -- what could be purer
than that? nd the scenes when dressed in a white
nightdress she bes grandpa to take Mummy to a dance --
what could be more virginal? On those lines her new
picture, made by John Ford, who directed The
Informer, is horrifyingly competent. It isn't hard
to stay to the last prattle and the last sob. The
Story -- about and Afgan robber converted by Wee
Willie Winkie to the British Raj -- is a long way
after Kipling. But we needn't be sour about that. Both
stories are awful, but on the whole Hollywood' is
better."
-- Graham Greene, first published in "Night and day,
October 28, 1937
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
3619
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 5:48am
Subject: Re: Saint-Germain-des-Pres films?
Actually almost all those clubs (jazz clubs) were located on the left
bank, at least in the late forties-early fifties, and most of them in
Saint Germain des Pres. They were in old cellars ("caves"). There was
a famous one the name of which I forget just round the corner from
the La Hune book store off Boulevard Saint Germain. I remember Claude
Luter playing there. Can't remember what club Rendez-vous de juillet
was filmed in or even if it was in a club or on a sound stage
(those "caves" were pretty small to accommodate movie equipment).
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> > I think ONLY this list can help me out. I am looking for any
films
> > that are shot in the Saint-Germain-des-Pres section of Paris.
> > Especially around the time of late 40's to early 50's. And if it
has
> > Saint-Germain nightclub scenes -even better yet.
>
> I think I have the perfect film for you: RENDEZ-VOUS DE JUILLET by
> Jacques Becker, the only film I can think of that gets the sound of
a
> real music club right. I'm not 100% sure that the clubs are in
> Saint-Germain-des-Pres, but it's a good guess - one of my reference
> books says the clubs are on the Left Bank. - Dan
3620
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 5:57am
Subject: Re: Saint-Germain-des-Pres films?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> > I think ONLY this list can help me out. I am looking for any films
> > that are shot in the Saint-Germain-des-Pres section of Paris.
> > Especially around the time of late 40's to early 50's. And if it has
> > Saint-Germain nightclub scenes -even better yet.
>
> I think I have the perfect film for you: RENDEZ-VOUS DE JUILLET by
> Jacques Becker, the only film I can think of that gets the sound of a
> real music club right. I'm not 100% sure that the clubs are in
> Saint-Germain-des-Pres, but it's a good guess - one of my reference
> books says the clubs are on the Left Bank. - Dan
I was thinking of suggesting this terrific film too (and it has been on videotape), but wasn't positive of the location -- but I see that several Web sources confirm St-Germain-des-Pres, and one even adds that Daniel Gelin, the star, was "part of the Saint-Germain set gathered around Jean-Paul Sartre, Juliette Greco and Boris Vian" (the last of whom you mentioned). http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/10/1039379833551.html
3621
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 8:06am
Subject: Theatre, space, narrative
Zach - A good point about distinguishing between theatre (theatricality) and
performance (performativity). However, I don't agree with you! I did mean to
indicate theatre as a central metaphor in Mankiewicz (when it is not the
explicit subject, as in ALL ABOUT EVE, or some Renoir, or OPENING NIGHT, or
in much Rivette and Oliveira). Because 'theatre' evokes a whole social (and
spatial!) ritual, with the performance on a stage, an audience watching, the
framing proscenium arch, etc - and all kinds of social connotations too,
depending on whether the reference is to bourgeois theatre, or music hall,
etc etc. For an example of what I mean, study the great scene (way
pre-Tarantino in its construction) in BAREFOOT CONTESSA where Ava leaves one
guy for another: it's all staged by Mankiewicz as a kind of show for the
social set (and also as the thrilling transgression of that spectacle). You
can have 'performance' (eg, histrionics) as a thematic core in a film
without this association with theatre - precisely because it doesn't always
need an audience, a social space or ritual.
Richard - you ask whether space is what UNITES narrative and avant-garde
film. I think it would be rather easy to argue that it is what
DIFFERENTIATES them! Because narrative almost always presupposes
representational form (and hence 'space', it's hard to get away from if
you're actually filming anyone or anything) - whereas in the avant-garde one
can reach pure pictorial abstraction (as in some experimental animation). Of
course, I know that the art of many films is precisely in exploring the
middle-ground between representationalism and abstraction (Michael Mann,
Michael Snow, Antonioni, etc etc).
I'm reminded of a clever column by Louis Seguin (a terrific critic whom Bill
recently mentioned here) from about a decade ago, deriding the way in which
a certain modish film theory & criticism seizes, every few years, on a new
'essential' definition of what cinema 'is' - cinema is space, cinema is
time, cinema is action, cinema is thought, cinema is desire ... and all
these are interesting as metaphors or tools to think with that might well
turn our attention to some hitherto ignored facet of cinema - but no ONE
thing ever sums up what this mixed, impure art 'is'.
And by the way: in all our talk of images and space, let's not forget, as my
friend Philip Brophy says, that 'cinema is 100% image and 100% sound'! And
sound brings in yet other kinds of spaces !!
- Adrian
3622
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 7:19am
Subject: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
David, you didn't mention that this wonderful and famous piece by
Greene (I especially love "Her admirers -- middle-aged men and
clergymen -- respond to her dubious coquetry, to the sight of her
well-shaped and desirable little body, packed with enormous vitality,
only because the safety curtain of story and dialogue drops between
their intelligence and their desire") led to Greene and the journal
for which he wrote, Night And Day, being successfully sued by Fox for
libel against its number one star property.
Three decades later, the original cut of Myra Breckinridge had a
scene in which Rex Reed is thinking about a blow job followed by a
shot of Shirley getting squirted in the face while milking a cow in
Heidi. She threatened to sue and her presence was deleted.
3623
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 9:23am
Subject: Re: Charles K. Feldman bio?
So there must be a bio. Where else could Biskind have copied his
article from?
There's a big piece on Feldman by Peter Biskind in the
April 2003 "Vanity Fair."
--- tosh3@e... wrote:
>
>
> Is there a biography on Charles K. Feldman out? If
> so, who is the author and what is the title of the
> book?
3624
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 9:24am
Subject: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
That is pretty amazing. I suspect he'd get lynched as a potential sexual
predator if he wrote that today.
George Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3625
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 9:27am
Subject: Re: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
I thought someone objected to the obvious fiction of Rex Reed thinking.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
----- Original Message -----
From: "Damien Bona"
To:
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:19 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
[SNIP]
> Three decades later, the original cut of Myra Breckinridge had a
> scene in which Rex Reed is thinking about a blow job followed by a
> shot of Shirley getting squirted in the face while milking a cow in
> Heidi. She threatened to sue and her presence was deleted.
>
>
3626
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 11:35am
Subject: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> That is pretty amazing. I suspect he'd get lynched as a potential
sexual
> predator if he wrote that today.
I had two experiences recently when I was watching films on my laptop
(I have a long daily commute) and had to switch them off because I
was genuinely worried about the impression they might create on
anyone who happened to glance in my direction and might take the
footage out of context.
The first was a Lynne Ramsay short ('Kill the Day') that features
prolonged sequences of naked boys frolicking in a field, and the
second was a 1921 feature called 'My Boy', included as a supporting
feature on Warner/MK2's DVD of Chaplin's 'The Kid', which contains a
remarkably prolonged scene of a naked Jackie Coogan elaborately
soaping himself down in the bath.
I don't for one second imagine the makers of 'My Boy' intended any
response other than "aaah, how cute", but it's virtually impossible
to watch that scene through the same eyes today.
Michael
3627
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 11:45am
Subject: Re: Theatre, space, narrative
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
> Richard - you ask whether space is what UNITES narrative and avant-
garde
> film. I think it would be rather easy to argue that it is what
> DIFFERENTIATES them! Because narrative almost always presupposes
> representational form (and hence 'space', it's hard to get away
from if
> you're actually filming anyone or anything) - whereas in the avant-
garde one
> can reach pure pictorial abstraction (as in some experimental
animation). Of
> course, I know that the art of many films is precisely in exploring
the
> middle-ground between representationalism and abstraction (Michael
Mann,
> Michael Snow, Antonioni, etc etc).
Another example that springs to mind is Walerian
Borowczyk's 'Blanche' (1971), a film that deliberately seeks to
create a two-dimensional effect not unlike a medieval tapestry,
whereby all the actors are on the same plane for 90-95% of the
running time. But then, just before the end, the rigidly-imposed
authoritarian and patriarchal systems that have been governing the
film's narrative completely break down into out-and-out anarchy,
paralleled by a similar liberation of the camera and mise-en-scene -
and the film suddenly breaks into three-dimensional space. It's a
decidedly unnerving effect, and if I hadn't already known of
Borowczyk's roots in graphic art and animation, it wouldn't have been
too hard to guess.
> And by the way: in all our talk of images and space, let's not
forget, as my
> friend Philip Brophy says, that 'cinema is 100% image and 100%
sound'! And
> sound brings in yet other kinds of spaces !!
Indeed - Robert Bresson's films being a defining example.
Michael
3628
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 0:49pm
Subject: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
Last month I saw Benjamin Christensen's The Mysterious X (1913)
which includes a scene where a 9 or 10 year old boy is silhouetted
against a window (but facing the camera) and takes off all his
clothes and then puts on another set of clothes all in one long
take. Since this is quite gratuitous (if indeed anything in cinema
is gratuitous), it leaves the impression of Christensen rather
audaciously smacking his lips at the audience. The good old
days...!
--Robert Keser
3629
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 2:17pm
Subject: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
Back then he was simply sued -- for telling the truth.
--- George Robinson
> That is pretty amazing. I suspect he'd get lynched
> as a potential sexual
> predator if he wrote that today.
>
> George Robinson
>
> The man who does not read good books
> has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
> --Mark Twain
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
3630
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 2:18pm
Subject: Re: Re: Charles K. Feldman bio?
I would guess Biskind is working on something.
--- hotlove666
> So there must be a bio. Where else could Biskind
> have copied his
> article from?
>
>
> There's a big piece on Feldman by Peter Biskind in
> the
> April 2003 "Vanity Fair."
>
> --- tosh3@e... wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is there a biography on Charles K. Feldman out? If
> > so, who is the author and what is the title of the
> > book?
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
3631
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 2:27pm
Subject: Re: Theatre, space, narrative
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
> Zach - A good point about distinguishing between theatre
(theatricality) and
> performance (performativity). However, I don't agree with you! I did
mean to
> indicate theatre as a central metaphor in Mankiewicz (when it is not the
> explicit subject, as in ALL ABOUT EVE, or some Renoir, or OPENING
NIGHT, or
> in much Rivette and Oliveira).
Here's an excerpt from Jacques Bontemps' and Richard Overstreet's
interview with Mankiewicz (Cahiers du Cinéma, May 1966; Cahiers du
Cinéma in English No. 8).
It doesn't really address Adrian Martin's point that theater is a
central metaphor in Mankiewicz' films, but it does show how
Mankiewicz thought of his films in relation to the theater.
Mankiewicz says, "[M]y films, with very rare exceptions, could
have been plays in the theatre. One could very well have acted
them on the stage."
JOSEPH L. MANKIEWICZ - I never wanted to be a producer. I have been
the producer malgré lui (in French in the conversation).
Besides, you have undoubtedly noticed that I have never indicated
on the credit list of my films "produced by. . . . " I have
never claimed that. What I wanted, when I was only a scenarist,
was to be a director. Only I was then under contract to
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, where they did not permit me to direct a
film. When I showed my eagerness, Louis B. Mayer asked me to
become a producer first. "One must," he said, "learn to crawl
before walking." I think that that is the best definition of
a producer's function that I know.
But for a scenarist, to want to direct is very naturally to want to
bring your own writing to the screen. That cuts very deeply into
what I think of the work of creation in cinema. I remember an
article that I wrote for the Bulletin of the Screen Writers' Guild.
In it I expressed very clearly what I mean by writing and directing
cinema. I think that they are-with respect to the kind of films
that I make-two absolutely inseparable moments. Directing is the
second- half of a work of which writing is the first. Let us say,
in other words, that a script, if it has been written by a scenarist
worthy of the name, has in fact already been directed. The scenarist,
while he is writing, ought to visualize what he writes. That is
not at all as at the time of the writing of a novel. Moreover,
after that, the spectator does not maintain at all the same
relationship with the film as the reader with the book. With respect
to a book, the relation that is established between the printed
page and your intellect is direct; it knows no intermediary. It is
a purely cerebral function. It is not the same in cinema. So that
our work approaches more nearly that of the playwright, for in the
theater, we hear words to which we immediately give an emotional
response. No doubt that is why so many great novelists have been
very poor writers of dialogue. I personally have been attacked as
if I had spat on the American flag because it happened once that
I rewrote some dialogue by F. Scott Fitzgerald. But indeed it needed
it! The actors, among them Margaret Sullavan, absolutely could not
read the lines. It was very literary dialogue, novelistic dialogue
that lacked all the qualities required for screen dialogue. The
latter must be "spoken." Scott Fitzgerald really wrote very bad
spoken dialogue.
So, to come back to what I was saying, a script
as such has already been directed. The scenarist has seen the
protagonist enter a room, under a certain angle, at a certain speed,
before a certain back-drop. He hears music, feels an atmosphere,
sees a frame, a composition, and so on. And when at last he writes,
he has directed. So it is completely stupid after that to give this
script to someone else who will necessarily have an entirely
different point of view and manner. Here I digress for a moment to
make explicit that I speak only of my films, of the kind of film
that I make, "films théatraux," "theatrical films;" I do not speak
of the geniuses who go about, camera in hand, and bring you a
semblance of film that offers you a semblance of knowledge. I speak
of people who make films about something. Of those who approach
human beings analytically, whether they do so in depth or
superficially. Consequently, if there are a scenarist and a
director, there are in fact two directors, unless, of course,
they are as close to each other as Wilder and Diamond, for in
that case they make only one, the work of each completes that
of the other. But in general, in Hollywood, such a proximity
did not often exist. The scenarist
submitted a script without showing the slightest interest in the
person who would direct it. As for me, I had the itch to complete
my work. I wanted to be responsible for the second half of what I
had undertaken in writing, to direct it, to bring it to the screen.
Obviously, certain writers are not capable of that. It is a matter
of personality. One can very well be incapable of spending the day
on a set, of talking to the actors, of explaining to them what one
wants, and so on. For me, all that constitutes one single activity,
one and the same function.
CAHIERS - What do you mean by the expression "theatrical films"?
MANKIEWICZ - It is not my own. It is a French expression, "le théatre
filmé," filmed theatre, that people have often applied to my films.
That signifies in other words that my films, with very rare
exceptions, could have been plays in the theatre. One could very
well have acted them on the stage.
CAHIERS - But when everything has been taken into account, do you
not find that, once filmed, they evoke indeed still more the
technique of the novel?
MANKIEWICZ - To the extent that that is the fact with certain plays,
that is true.... Fundamentally that is true, I believe that you
are entirely right, the mode of narration that I employ can be
called that of a novel.
But when I evoke the theatre, here is what
I mean. The reason why I combat, well, not exactly, let us say what
I propose, is a point of view that is perhaps in process of losing
ground more and more. My deep conviction is that since cinema
compromised itself by starting to talk, it has the obligation to
say something. Since in the attention of the spectator the sound
aspect of the film holds a place as great as its visual aspect,
the former must have a choice role and a certain bearing. From
then, I firmly believe that there is not and ought not to be a real
difference between the fact of writing for the theatre and that of
writing for the screen, unless it is that cinema permits writing
for the theatre in a freer and more complete way.
I know very well that most people, the critics in
particular, are wrongly convinced
that the film is something visual before everything, and that one
ought not expect of the audience that it listen. I find that
difficult to accept and I do not accept it. I think that the
audience-I hope that the audience is as capable of listening to a
film as it is of seeing it. Our means of expression is a sound as
well as a visual means. But it is certainly infinitely easier to
arrive at a simulacrum of film by quasi-photographic tricks. It is
equally true that to make a film as if it were a matter of a play
for the theatre-where one asks attention-requires on the part of
the audience a deeper attention, perhaps an attention on a higher,
more valuable level. I add that I do not at all pretend to have
attained those levels. But it is not because it is difficult to
attain the objectives that I have set myself that I should abandon
them. They represent always in my opinion what a film ought to be
because it can be, and because it gains thereby, in comparison with
the films that people call "purely visual."
CAHIERS - To ask an audience to pay attention rather than to satisfy
itself with listening, is that not at the same time to ask it to
think?
MANKIEWICZ - I think of the theatre as such, of the audience as such,
in so far as they respond to their essence, to the concept that I
have of them. I really do not see why a play, under pretext that
it is cinematographic, must be flawed with some fault. It is as if
restaurants counted on their bad quality to obtain a clientele that
would satisfy itself with food of bad quality. It seems to me that
an audience is an audience and that one does not ask an audience
to think, one tries to make it think. Whether it is a matter of a
play or a film, one ought to make the audience think in spite of
itself. In fact, it is only very rarely with that intention that
a person enters a theatre. The audience comes and, if you are a
good playwright, it goes out thinking. That is in my opinion the
mark of our success. But if the audience comes in order to think,
then all that becomes a little pedantic, a little sad too.
3632
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 3:27pm
Subject: Re: Space and Fleischer and Sjoberg
> I think I may have gotten things a little bit confused by taking
Dan's phrase
> ("space for its own sake") out of context. In message 3526, he was
talking
> about the use of space in Fregonese as being "for its own sake" but
only in
> contrast with Mankiewicz's "House of Strangers," a film which Dan
feels uses the
> visuals as a kind of pat "shorthand" for the movie's themes. I
understood him
> to mean that Fregonese operates more on a level of what pleases him
than an X
> = X intellectual approach to connecting a movie's themes and a
movie's visual
> design. (Please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your stance, Dan!
I'm
> curious for your thoughts on this whole thread anyway.)
After a day or two away from the computer, I'm dismayed to see that an
unsatisfactory phrase that I wrote in haste has become the center of a
discussion.
I don't think I really meant "for its own sake," exactly. Certainly
Fregonese is a very narrative director, very involved with his story line.
I guess I'm showing my Bazinian roots, but I think it actually takes
some effort just to document a place with a camera. You'd think it
would simply be a matter of saying action and cut, but my feeling is
that it's easy to obliterate the world by playing up some aspect of the
composition that turns your shot into psychology (as Rohmer argued about
Chaplin) or drama or an idea. I admit that it would be hard for me to
turn this opinion into a set of rules.
I know that when I'm making a film with a cinematographer who's not on
my wavelength, one of my most time-consuming jobs is saying no to all
the interesting visual ideas that he or she comes up with. I feel as if
I'm looking for an image with a certain pure relationship to the world
in front of the camera, and it seems that there are a million different
ways to interfere with that: a foot too close and the
foreground-background opposition takes over the shot, a foot to the
right and the relationship of the actors is too highlighted. The end
result looks just like an average TV-drama composition to some people,
but I think there's a difference.
I don't think every good director has to be interested in documenting
the world. Someone mentioned Preston Sturges, whom I love and wouldn't
want to be any different than he is. That day when I was watching HOUSE
OF STRANGERS, I felt that Mankiewicz had coerced the camera into the
service of his dramatic ideas (which I wasn't enjoying in the first
place), and that I couldn't experience the room that the camera was
pointed at.
Hope that this clarifies my thoughts, despite its imprecision.
> "Barabbas" is actually one of the few readily available Fleischers
I've not
> yet seen, JPC. Thanks for the recommendation!
BARABBAS is one of my favorite Fleischers too. The subject matter is
very good, though: Sjoberg made a good movie from the same book, I think.
Anyone for Sjoberg? I think he's still underrated, and has made some
great films. - Dan
3633
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 3:31pm
Subject: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
> -- Graham Greene, first published in "Night and day,
> October 28, 1937
I suppose it's great writing, but how is it great film criticism? All he has to say about Ford is: "On those lines her new picture, made by John Ford, who directed The Informer, is horrifyingly competent. It isn't hard
to stay to the last prattle and the last sob." Temple herself arguably provided better film criticism when she called it her best film. Anyway, a line like "What is Jackie Coogan now but a matrimonial squabble?" already sets off the alarm bells for me.
3634
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 3:34pm
Subject: The writer as director
> So, to come back to what I was saying, a script
> as such has already been directed. The scenarist has seen the
> protagonist enter a room, under a certain angle, at a certain speed,
> before a certain back-drop. He hears music, feels an atmosphere,
> sees a frame, a composition, and so on. And when at last he writes,
> he has directed.
This is rather a good idea, and perhaps one that auteurists can take
into account when thinking about writers. We often describe
screenwriters we like in much the same terms that we do directors, and
for good reason. - Dan
3635
From: Tosh
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 4:05pm
Subject: L'Ecume des Jours film
One, I want to thank everyone on the list who responded to my
question about films made or about Saint-Germain-des-Pres. THe
answers have been really helpful!
I have been looking for a print of L'Ecume des jours for awhile now.
Has anyone on this list seen the film, and if so what did you think
of it?
Within two weeks I am putting out a new translation of Vian's
'L'Ecume des Jours (Foam of the Daze), and I am collecting
information on Vian and his world for this project and another one.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
3636
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 4:31pm
Subject: Re: Theatre, space, narrative
Certainly the treatment of space distinguishes narrative from non-narrative films. I was thinking of the description of space as haptic and optic, one kind of space in which linear perspective is employed to create the illusion of three dimensions and the other kind that draws attention to the flatness of the picture plane (also, the illusion of space can be compelling even when the forms are almost completely non-objective.) I was suggesting that maybe narrative and non-narrative films exist on a continuum and that the continuum is spatial.
Michael's description of Borowczyk's BLANCHE as being evocative of a medieval tapestry makes it sound very intriguing inasmuch it harks back to the pre-15th century treatment of space before the use of linear perspective became common.
Richard
Adrian Martin
Richard - you ask whether space is what UNITES narrative and avant-garde
film. I think it would be rather easy to argue that it is what
DIFFERENTIATES them! Because narrative almost always presupposes
representational form (and hence 'space', it's hard to get away from if
you're actually filming anyone or anything) - whereas in the avant-garde one
can reach pure pictorial abstraction (as in some experimental animation). Of
course, I know that the art of many films is precisely in exploring the
middle-ground between representationalism and abstraction (Michael Mann,
Michael Snow, Antonioni, etc etc).
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!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3637
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 5:09pm
Subject: Re: L'Ecume des Jours film
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh
> One, I want to thank everyone on the list who responded to my
> question about films made or about Saint-Germain-des-Pres. THe
> answers have been really helpful!
>
> I have been looking for a print of L'Ecume des jours for awhile
now.
> Has anyone on this list seen the film, and if so what did you think
> of it?
>
> Within two weeks I am putting out a new translation of Vian's
> 'L'Ecume des Jours (Foam of the Daze), and I am collecting
> information on Vian and his world for this project and another one.
>
>
> --
> Tosh Berman
> TamTam Books
> http://www.tamtambooks.com
"Foam of the Daze"? A punning title? But what does it mean?
Vian is tough to translate, but it's a challenge. You should
tackle his collection of short stories, "Les Fourmis", one of his
best books (the title story is a masterpiece).
JPC
3638
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 5:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
It's great film criticism because it KICKS ASS!!!
Specifically Little Shirley's.
When a critic is sued for libel it means he's really
doing his job.
--- jess_l_amortell
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
3639
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 5:44pm
Subject: Writer as director
Obviously this also happens, and can be verified by looking at
the script. I haven't seen the script for Kiss Me Deadly, but Greg
Ford told me a lot of the indications for mise en scene are in it,
courtesy of "Buzz." Having finally met him a couple of years ago, I
believe it.
3640
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 5:52pm
Subject: Space again
Michael, my Dwan article posted at senses of cinema escribes
how AD did the same thing you correctly credit WB with in Getting
Gertie's Garter - and, dare I say, did it better?
Mimo Calpresti (a good Italian director) told me: "I wait until the
cameraman has set everything up, and then I move the camera
back six inches. This is my work."
3641
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 6:01pm
Subject: Shirley Temple
David, See Young People for the best of Shirley (already
adolescent and playing herself for a change). Have you read
volume 1 of her autobiography? I was amazed to discover when
I was working on Dwan that I like both. To my further surprise,
when I mentioned Young People to Thom Andersen, he sprang
to life talking about what a terrific film it was.
I doubt that I'll like volume 2 as much as the first, but that's life -
they do grow up, and not always in the most delightful way. But
she is to this day a smart lady. Dwan to Bogdanovich: "If you told
Shirley to do something in a scene, she'd remember it for the
rest of her life."
3642
From: Tosh
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 6:13pm
Subject: Re: L'Ecume des Jours film
>My edition of 'L'Eume des jours' is a new translation, with full
>approval from the Vian estate. It also has detailed endnotes
>regarding Vian and his world at the time of writing L'Ecume des
>jours.'
I think Les Fourmis was translated in a collection of his short
stores 'Blues for a Black Cat & Other Stories' edited and translated
by Julie Older.
Back to the film version of L'Ecume des jours, it was directed by
Charles Belmont and made in 1968. I have a Japanese program for this
film with stills, etc. The photos look amazing! But I can't find
this film either via a film print or video. It did play in Tokyo in
the early 90's - but I lost contact with the people there who put the
show on.
Ciao,
Tosh
>
> "Foam of the Daze"? A punning title? But what does it mean?
>
> Vian is tough to translate, but it's a challenge. You should
>tackle his collection of short stories, "Les Fourmis", one of his
>best books (the title story is a masterpiece).
> JPC
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
3643
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 6:08pm
Subject: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
> It's great film criticism because it KICKS ASS!!!
It seems safe to assume that, since you called it "The Greatest Piece
of Film Criticism Ever Written," that you also believe it "KICKS
ASS!!!"; a lot of things kick ass but to group together all of life's
ass-kicking things and to say that all of those things are also great
film criticism might be stretching it. Or does a writer need to do
nothing more than write suggestive things about a nine-year-old
superstar to win laurels from Ehrensteinland?
> When a critic is sued for libel it means he's really
> doing his job.
I have to admit, this idea never occurred to me.
-Jaime
3644
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 6:40pm
Subject: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
"When a critic is sued for libel it means he's really doing his job."
If so, then sign me up, give me a million dollar salery and give me an
army of lawyers, because I am able to write "critisism" so spiteful,
that even the inventor of the font I would use would sue me for abuse.
Not Kick Ass, but more Kiss Ass.
3645
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 6:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
Greene isn't the one being "suggestive."
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
3646
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 7:06pm
Subject: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
> Greene isn't the one being "suggestive."
Right. He's just KICKING ASS!!!!!!!
I really wish it was easier to get a direct answer from you.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
3647
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 7:23pm
Subject: Re: Writer as director
> Obviously this also happens, and can be verified by looking at
> the script. I haven't seen the script for Kiss Me Deadly, but Greg
> Ford told me a lot of the indications for mise en scene are in it,
> courtesy of "Buzz." Having finally met him a couple of years ago, I
> believe it.
I wasn't even thinking about specific camera directions. If a good film
has a kind of soul, a gestalt that animates all its parts, and if a
screenwriter imagines a film and then writes down only the words, that
gestalt should be refracted onto the paper: we should find traces of it
in all the choices the writer makes. - Dan
3648
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 7:26pm
Subject: Re: Space and Fleischer and Sjoberg
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> BARABBAS is one of my favorite Fleischers too. The subject matter is
> very good, though: Sjoberg made a good movie from the same book, I
think.
>
> Anyone for Sjoberg? I think he's still underrated, and has made some
> great films. - Dan
I haven't seen Sjoberg's "Barabbas," but I saw "Only a Mother",
"Miss Julie", and "Karin Mansdotter" back in the 1980's and
remember them as very great films. He has been criticized for
"style for its own sake" -- the frequent tracking shots, the complex
compositions and lighting -- but I recall admiring the films'
beauty, even if much of the beauty is ornamental.
Paul
3649
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 7:53pm
Subject: Re: Theatre, space, narrative
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
> I'm reminded of a clever column by Louis Seguin (a terrific critic
whom Bill
> recently mentioned here) from about a decade ago, deriding the way
in which
> a certain modish film theory & criticism seizes, every few years, on
a new
> 'essential' definition of what cinema 'is' - cinema is space, cinema is
> time, cinema is action, cinema is thought, cinema is desire ... and all
> these are interesting as metaphors or tools to think with that might
well
> turn our attention to some hitherto ignored facet of cinema - but no ONE
> thing ever sums up what this mixed, impure art 'is'.
That reminds me of Bazin's comments on Pagnol: Bazin who defended
the impurity of the cinema, and Pagnol who like Mankiewicz
saw his films as extensions of the theater and considered the
spoken word central to his films.
`In his best films at least, Pagnol demolished the formalist
myth of Cinematographic Art. A heritage of silent cinema, this
was the feeling that cinema should be pure, specific and unable
to be reduced to its content; the cinema was to be an art
of moving images and depended totally on the rhythm of its
montage. Quietly but irrefutably, Angele and The Baker's
Wife disproved this idea. Not because, as Pagnol believed, his
successes contradicted the existence of the cinema as a specific
means of expression, but because his ignorance of those technical
habits and customs current in professional circles led him
unconsciously to the discovery of other, no less cinematographic
values which only his turning to realism could reveal. Pagnol's
oeuvre is there to negate not only those who believe that the
cinema has only to do with framing, lighting or decoupage;
it also demonstrates the foolishness of Pagnol's own belief
in the future of "filmed theatre". Alas, his failures, more
numerous than his successes, are sufficient proof that a
contempt for technique is an even more dangerous recipe than
formalism.' (quoted by Richard Roud, "Cinema: A Critical Dictionary)
And that reminds me of David Kehr's comment:
"[Mise en scène]: the mysterious X factor that made movies
different from literature, painting, photography, and the theater.
Movies were not a bastard art (though Bazin and his followers
continued to conceive of them as gloriously "impure," mixing
elements from all the arts), but a major one with a unique
component, one that a true auteur could mold and manipulate
into a personal expression that no studio chief could eradicate
or repress - being the stuff of the cinematic experience itself."
http://www.filmlinc.com/archive/fcm/9-10-2001/cahiers.htm
3650
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 7:59pm
Subject: Re: Space again
> Mimo Calpresti (a good Italian director) told me: "I wait until the
> cameraman has set everything up, and then I move the camera
> back six inches. This is my work."
That's great! I liked the one film of Calopresti's (I PREFER THE SOUND
OF THE SEA)that I've seen. - Dan
3651
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 8:11pm
Subject: Sjoberg
> I haven't seen Sjoberg's "Barabbas," but I saw "Only a Mother",
> "Miss Julie", and "Karin Mansdotter" back in the 1980's and
> remember them as very great films. He has been criticized for
> "style for its own sake" -- the frequent tracking shots, the complex
> compositions and lighting -- but I recall admiring the films'
> beauty, even if much of the beauty is ornamental.
I never think of him as being stylistically frivolous: his films are
sort of born in those portentous compositions.
ONLY A MOTHER and IRIS AND THE LIEUTENANT are brilliant films, I think.
MISS JULIE and TORMENT aren't perfect, but are quite powerful. Some
think that KARIN MANSDOTTER is his best, but that one is working a
little too hard for my taste. - Dan
3652
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 8:29pm
Subject: Re: Mankiewicz/ Rohmer
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> To the already eloquently stated defenses of Mankiewicz posted by
> Fred Camper, David Ehrenstein, Chris Fujiwara and Adrian Martin, and
> to the repeated references to Godard's admiration for Mankiewicz, I
> would also want to call attention to Eric Rohmer's review of THE
> QUIET AMERICAN. The notion that Mankiewicz's scenario-based cinema is
> (to borrow Rivette's recent derogatory phrase, the opposite of mise-
> en-scene)is succintly addressed and, if not refuted, at least
> considerably complicated by Rohmer.
It might be interesting to compare Rohmer and Mankiewicz, since
the spoken word is central to both director's films.
I was thinking in particular of Rohmer's comments (also in "The
Taste for Beauty"):
"My films, you say, are literary: The things
I say could be said in a novel. Yes, but what do I say? My
characters' discourse is not necessarily my film's discourse.
"There is certainly literary material in my tales, a preestablished
novelistic plot that could be developed in writing and that is, in
fact, sometimes developed in the form of a commentary. But
neither the text of these commentaries, nor that of my
dialogues, is my film: Rather, they are things that I
film, just like the landscapes, faces, behavior, and gestures.
And if you say that speech is an impure element, I no longer agree
with you. Like images, it is a part of the life I film.
"What I say, I do not say with words. I do not say it with images
either, with all due respect to the partisans of pure cinema,
who would speak with images as a deaf-mute does with his hands.
After all, I do not say, I show. I show people who move and speak.
That is all I know how to do, but that is my true subject.
The rest, I agree, is literature."
Rohmer states that his films establish a point of view separate
from and often contradictory to the characters' self-description.
I'm not sure whether Mankiewicz' films could be said to do that.
Maybe you could say that like Rohmer's characters Mankiewicz'
characters lack self-knowledge: they talk about themselves but
don't really know themselves.
Paul
3653
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 9:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Mankiewicz/ Rohmer
"I'm not sure whether Mankiewicz' films could be said
to do that.
Maybe you could say that like Rohmer's characters
Mankiewicz'
characters lack self-knowledge: they talk about
themselves but
don't really know themselves."
Fabrice Luchini in "Full Moon in Paris" plays a very
Mankiewiczian character -- masterfully ironic,
supremely sure of himself and very much in love with
the sound of his own voice.
By the same token "The Lady and the Duke" deals with a
historical incident in a dramatic tone that would have
appealed to Mankiewicz
--- Paul Gallagher
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
3654
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 10:15pm
Subject: Brakhage screenings in Chicago in November
On November 22, the night after Chicago Filmmakers' November 21 Brakhage
show consisting of Chicago premieres of several late handpainted films
at Columbia College (see http://www.chicagofilmmakers.org/navkino.htm
for further info and location), Patrick Friel and myself are presenting
a free show of Stan Brakhage films mostly based on private prints. This
will be held at 6:00 PM at the Chicago Filmmakers office at 5243 N.
Clark, second floor. This will be announced at the November 21 show, but
not otherwise widely publicized. The starting time is 6 PM. You are
invited, along with any QUIET (as in: they don't talk during movies)
friends. Similarly, if you wish to tell others about this, please do so,
reminding them that these are silent films and then silence is expected.
Please do not publicize it overly widely -- we are not, for example,
listing it in the Reader's film listings.
The list of films to be shown, listed in the order they will be shown in
(largely but not strictly chronological), is below.
The program is very long, perhaps four hours. Time permitting, a few
films will be shown twice based on audience requests. If you only want
to see films later in the programs, you can show up after 6 PM. Go up to
the second floor, but if the lights are out, GO NO FURTHER until the
film being shown is finished and the lights are turned on. That's when
you can find a seat. Aside from "Anticipation of the Night," all the
films on the program are less than 20 minutes. If you want to see
"Anticipation of the Night," come on time, as you are asked not to take
a seat during any of the films.
Running times, years made, and in some cases stills and/or short
descriptions by me, can be found for each film on my Brakhage
filmography page, http://www.fredcamper.com/Brakhage/Filmography.html If
you're calculating when to come, figure there will be a break of at
least two minutes between each film, possibly longer.
Fred
__________________________________________________________________
THE FILMS:
Anticipation of the Night
The Dead
Mothlight
Dog Star Man: Part II
The Process
The Riddle of Lumen
Aquarien
Sol
Arabics 1 and 2
Murder Psalm
Chartres Series
Commingled Containers
Last Hymn to the Night - Novalis
The Lion and the Zebra Make God's Raw Jewels
Divertimento
Loveseong 2
Stately Mansions Did Decree
3655
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 10:16pm
Subject: wirter as director
I can think of another great example of this -- I have no idea if the script
as written was specific about visual elements but it doesn't matter -- and
ironically enough, it's another Aldrich film. Ulzana's Raid is one of the
finest original screenplays I've ever seen, and as brilliantly as it is
directed (I would argue that after Kiss Me Deadly, it's Aldrich's best
film), much, if not most, of its power, a blast of rue and rage, comes from
Alan Sharp's writing.
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: Monday, November 03, 2003 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Writer as director
>
> I wasn't even thinking about specific camera directions. If a good film
> has a kind of soul, a gestalt that animates all its parts, and if a
> screenwriter imagines a film and then writes down only the words, that
> gestalt should be refracted onto the paper: we should find traces of it
> in all the choices the writer makes. - Dan
>
>
>
3656
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 3, 2003 11:28pm
Subject: Pagnol
My ex-wife is from "the South" and taught me to love Pagnol,
which involves seeing past the picturesque qualities to the dark
realms beneath. Obvious enough in Angelique or The
Well-Digger's Daughter, they are also there in the lighter films,
like her sentimental favorite, Le Schpountz, which shows that
Fernandel was as great an actor as Raimu. (Pagnol's essay
about working with the two of them together is a delight.) My
favorites include Manon des Sources and Uguelin, which bear
little resemblance to the Berri remakes - they're proto-Straub
films, really. If you haven't seen them and can get them, do: they
will astonish you, whatever your opinion of Pagnol going in the
door. They astonished Bazin, who was already a fan.
3657
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 0:39am
Subject: Re: L'Ecume des Jours film
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh
> >My edition of 'L'Eume des jours' is a new translation, with full
> >approval from the Vian estate. It also has detailed endnotes
> >regarding Vian and his world at the time of writing L'Ecume des
> >jours.'
>
> Great! But I still don't get the English title. Sounds like
Spike Lee (School Daze). "The Foam of Days" is a fine title both in
French and English, why tamper with it?
JPC
> I think Les Fourmis was translated in a collection of his short
> stores 'Blues for a Black Cat & Other Stories' edited and
translated
> by Julie Older.
I didn't know that. One of the stories in the French collection
is indeed called "Blues pour un chat noir" so that must be it.
>
> Back to the film version of L'Ecume des jours, it was directed by
> Charles Belmont and made in 1968. I have a Japanese program for
this
> film with stills, etc. The photos look amazing! But I can't find
> this film either via a film print or video. It did play in Tokyo
in
> the early 90's - but I lost contact with the people there who put
the
> show on.
>
> Ciao,
> Tosh
>
> > I remember reading a mostly negative review of the film in a
french film mag -- for what it's worth. It's a really obscure film
even though Vian is (has become) incredibly famous over the years
> >
Belmont made two other features (Histoire d'A and Pour Clemence)
then seems to have dropped out...
JPC
"Foam of the Daze"? A punning title? But what does it mean?
> >
> > Vian is tough to translate, but it's a challenge. You should
> >tackle his collection of short stories, "Les Fourmis", one of his
> >best books (the title story is a masterpiece).
> > JPC
> >
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> --
> Tosh Berman
> TamTam Books
> http://www.tamtambooks.com
3658
From:
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 0:45am
Subject: Re: Re: L'Ecume des Jours film
L'Ecume des jours is sort of a hard poetic title to translate. There were two early English translations in the past: One was british: Froth on the Daydream and the American one was 'Mood Indigo.' So, I will let the critics decide about the title - but Spike Lee's School Daze -no, no it is totally different. But I do promise that this book is a masterpiece! For sure!
Ciao,
Tosh
3659
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 1:14am
Subject: When a critic is sued for libel
> --- jess_l_amortell
> When a critic is sued for libel it means he's really
> doing his job.
My understanding of a critic is that he writes his personal response to
a piece. I'm curious how a critic can be sued for libel if he is
writing his personal response.
3660
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 1:19am
Subject: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written... it KICKS ASS!!!
From: David Ehrenstein
Subject: Re: Re: The Greatest Piece of Film Criticism Ever Written
It's great film criticism because it KICKS ASS!!!
It surprised me that the comments about Shirley Temple and her effect
on adult men could bring libel charges. It seems to me that Shirley
Temple movies would be seen as 'corny' today, even with their sexual
subtleties, given all the 'soft porn' that is out there today, in
movies, advertising and daily the dress for youngsters and teens.
I don't think the comment is as 'surprising' today as then.
3661
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 2:49am
Subject: Re: When a critic is sued for libel
People can't stand the truth. And if they're in
positions of power (like Shirley's keepers) they'll
squash you like a bug for telling it.
--- Elizabeth Nolan
> > --- jess_l_amortell
> wrote:
> > When a critic is sued for libel it means he's
> really
> > doing his job.
>
> My understanding of a critic is that he writes his
> personal response to
> a piece. I'm curious how a critic can be sued for
> libel if he is
> writing his personal response.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
3662
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 4:18am
Subject: Urgent question for group, whether you've seen Elephant or not
Why are there no cell-phones in El;ephant?
Many schools banned cell-phones in the 80s as part of the War on
Drugs, but those bans are being lifted everywhere since 9/11. (!)
Curiously, the article I'm quoting notes: "Students with cell phones
are credited with alerting authorities to the 1999 Columbine High
School shootings in Colorado." So there were cell-phones at
Columbine, the school where the real events occurred which inspired
Van Sant's film. But we never see (unless I'm blanking out) a student
use a cell-phone in the film, in school or away from it. How come?
3663
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 4:48am
Subject: Re: Elephant and cell phones
Bill wrote:
> But we never see (unless I'm blanking out) a student
> use a cell-phone in the film, in school or away from it. How come?
We see John alerting people on the street to not go into the school.
And presumably (off-screen) calling the police. Anyway, I don't exactly
understand the nature of the question. If we're thinking along the
lines of docu-realism in ELEPHANT, why don't we see people trying to
overpower the shooters, like what happened in Columbine high school? Or
a SWAT team flooding in through the hallways (or any police presence)?
Or any number of things...
I remember the ban on pagers when I was in school (cell phones were
rarer). The consensus among students was that the drug thing was a
front to make sure kids wouldn't bring any devices into class that
would distract them from their work. At least at my school.
3664
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 4:51am
Subject: Libel laws and film critics
The Cahiers was successfully sued in the 50s or 60s for saying that
one of the Tradition of Quality directors was "senile." (I think it
was Autant-Lara.) Later, Serge Daney (who told me that story,
laughing, when I joined the magazine), panned Claude Berri's Uranus
in Liberation, and Berri sued demanding a "droit de reponse" - a
right to respond in the paper. Serge July, the editor, was obliged by
a judge to grant it - Serge was really mad at him for not fighting
back. It was not a glorious moment for Libe or for friends like Serge
Toubiana (then editor of the Cahiers) who didn't back Serge, even
though the stakes were principles rather than money. (All the more
reason...)
Oddly, the detail that everyone quotes concerns a scene where someone
looks at a movie magazine of the period (the Occupation) and it's a
real copy of the magazine, its pages visibly yellowed with time.
Serge said that detail summed up the film's esthetic: "When the past
has become decorative to this point, it means that it has ceased to
travailler (very roughly: have meaning for, have an impact on) the
present."
"It was a good observation, no?" asked Charles Tesson and Jean-Marc
Lalanne in a recent career interview with Berri in CdC. "Yes, yes,"
said Berri. "No, re-reading it now, I realize I shouldn't have
responded. I didn't know he was a 'cult' critic; I didn't know he was
homosexual; I didn't know he was sick. If I had known, I wouldn't
have responded. I was shooting at an ambulance. I'm not proud that I
responded." He admitted that Serge was right, then took it back by
saying he shouldn't have responded because Serge had AIDs, which is
kind of a crappy maneuver, no? By the end of this part of the
interview he was saying he shouldn't have sued because "it wasn't
worth it," adducing by way of excuse all the "humiliations" he, as
one of France's richest producers, had suffered in his life. I wish I
could hear Serge's analysis of that one.
In England libel laws nakedly favor wealth. I'm very careful when I
review something in The Economist, and they are, too.
3665
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 4:53am
Subject: Re: Urgent question for group, whether you've seen Elephant or not
Isn't John using a cell phone in a scene near the end
of the film?
--- hotlove666
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3666
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 4:55am
Subject: Re: Elephant and cell-phones
Gabe, thanks for the personal reminiscence, which is worth a dozen
newspaper articles. When John tells people not to go in, it's vive
voce, though. Am I right that there isn't a single cell-phone visible
in the film?
I'm not advocating documentary realism - I'm just wondering why Van
Sant made that esthetic decision. What would have been different in
the highly stylized tableau he's painting if it had included a few
kids yacking on cell-phones?
3667
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 4:58am
Subject:
David wrote: Isn't John using a cell phone in a scene near the end
of the film?
That's what I'm trying to establish. If so, why did he use a pay
phone to call his brother to pick up his Dad at the beginning? Or is
it the case that he's using a cell-phone at the end? I just remember
him telling people there on the spot to clear out, not go in etc.
3668
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 4:59am
Subject: Re: Elephant and cell-phones
Repeat message to keep the thread straight:
David wrote: Isn't John using a cell phone in a scene near the end
of the film?
That's what I'm trying to establish. If so, why did he use a pay
phone to call his brother to pick up his Dad at the beginning? Or is
it the case that he's using a cell-phone at the end? I just remember
him telling people there on the spot to clear out, not go in etc.
3669
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:02am
Subject: Re: Libel laws and film critics
In US libel law all the case law is on the side of the critic. First, in
Bose v. Consumer Union (Damien, you're the lawyer here, check my cites, will
ya?), the Supremes ruled that the right of a reviewer to express an
opinion -- not a statement of fact, mind you, an opinion -- is essentially
absolute. There have been cases at the lower levels that pretty much support
that position. (My favorite, when I was a sportswriter, was a suit by a
coach against a local sports columnist, in which the judge in his opinion
basically said that sportswriters were paid specifically to be rude,
opinioniated and obnoxious louts. I fully concurred.)
More than that, ever since the landmark libel case Sullivan v. New York
Times, journalists have had a pretty free hand when writing about public
figures. The standard they are held to is, if memory serves, that they
cannot print an untruth with malice -- not malice as you and I know it (like
what I feel for Kael and the Paulettes for instance), but malice as defined
in the law to mean a deliberate and knowing disregard for the truth. This,
in turn leads to debates about the reporter's and editor's state of mind and
so on (about which the less said the better!).
Anyway, none of this prevents someone from suing you for libel, costing you
a fortune in lawyers' fees and tying you up in the courts for years, but it
makes it a lot less likely that a film critic will lose a libel judgment --
hell when do any of us ever deal in facts anyway?
George (Not a lawyer but I play one on TV) Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3670
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:06am
Subject: Question for anyone who has seen Barbarian Invasions
Folks --
I have an early morning screening tomorrow of the Denys Arcand. I suspect I
won't have a chance to finish looking at a tape of "Decline of the American
Empire" tonight (although with a severe cold driving my insomnia, you never
know).
The question, simply put, is -- how much will I miss plotwise if I haven't
seen the earlier film? Will it matter?
I'm not concerned with the aesthetic issues -- I will definitely see Decline
afterwards -- I just want to know if I'm going to be lost.
George (usually lost anyway) Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3674
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:06am
Subject: Libel, malice, Elephant
Does that mean that Scott Foundas' attack on Elephant in the LA
Weakly, which contains at least blatant lies, is actionable?
3675
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:15am
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant and cell-phones
Well I've only seen the film once and as I recall he
did use the payphone at the start of the film to call
about his father's being drunk, and he does tell
people not to go into the building on two occasions in
the last part of the film. And I believe he has a cell
phone then.
But "Elephant" doesn't recapitulate Columbine in an
exact way. For example, the killers shot each other.In
the film one shoots the other and at the end is still
alive.
--- hotlove666
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3676
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:21am
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant and cell-phones
"What would have been different in
the highly stylized tableau he's painting if it had
included a few
kids yacking on cell-phones?"
I think it would. The cell-phone reconfigures space.
--- hotlove666
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3677
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:22am
Subject: Re: Libel, malice, Elephant
That would depend on the nature of the lies and whether he knew they were
untruths when he wrote them and whether his editor knew and decided to print
them anyway and whether Gus van Sant has nothing better to do with his time
than to draw attention to a pipsqueak in an alternative weekly who will
probably have no effect whatsoever on the film's success or failure or GvS's
reputation.
(What exactly did he say?)
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: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:06 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Libel, malice, Elephant
> Does that mean that Scott Foundas' attack on Elephant in the LA
> Weakly, which contains at least blatant lies, is actionable?
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
3678
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:24am
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant and cell-phones
> I'm not advocating documentary realism - I'm just wondering why Van
> Sant made that esthetic decision. What would have been different in
> the highly stylized tableau he's painting if it had included a few
> kids yacking on cell-phones?
Hmm. Maybe for the same reason ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 wouldn't be
completely shocking if one of the officers could just reach in his or
her purse and call on a phone.
On the other hand, the way that the students interconnect is all
visual, and except for the three bulimic girls, they all cross each
other in the hallways by chance -- whereas the appearance of a cell
phone would almost imply that there would be no need for their physical
"chance" encounters. In my opinion one of the lovely things about high
school is that all of your friends are forced to be at the same place
at more or less the same time every day, and the opportunity to make
plans, hang-out, or just be able to say "hi" are made easier without
having to rely on phone, email, etc. Point is, school is already a
social facilitator without the aid of devices.
3679
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:30am
Subject: Cells in Elephant
I don't recall John using a cell near the end of the film.
It could have been a mistake on the part of Van Sant or the
screenwriters.
But it could very well have been an aesthetic decision because, in a
movie that is about a specific and strange configuration of personal
and private space (high school; ex. where the Ugly Duckling girl must
silently absorb unwelcome insults regarding her appearance during the
most private of moments [changing clothes - which first
becomes "public" for many Americans *in* high school, or middle
school at least]), the cell phone has its own strange public/private
configuration of spaces (i.e. the moment a person on the sidewalk
begins talking on his cell phone, he moves into a space that's very
much a private one, while his body remains in a public space.
Some of the effects of ELEPHANT's camerawork: slow movement,
inexorable movement, sudden stops, the *sense* of free mobility but
the reality of restriction (one restriction is death), and the
extreme difficulty (impossibility for some) of the exit, or
the "restart game" option. (Some persuasive arguments have been made
for ELEPHANT-is-video-game, but I'm not 100% taken by this
comparison. 60% maybe.) By introducing the cell phone, each of
these variables changes - I suspect that with cell phones comes
handheld shaky-cam, running, more characters, more self-reflexivity,
more pauses, more BLAIR WITCH-ery, and of course a *kind* of exit
that's available at the touch of a button.
So back to our discussion of space, in other words.
-Jaime
3680
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:36am
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant and cell-phones
It may also have been a matter of narrative convenience like the famous
story about the guy who asked Ford why the Indians don't shoot the horses in
the chase scene in Stagecoach, to which the Admiral replied, "Because that
would have been the end of the movie, stupid."
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe Klinger"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Re: Elephant and cell-phones
3681
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:48am
Subject: Re: My Son John
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/30/03 9:49:24 PM, j_christley@y... writes:
> It's a beautiful film (pace the final reel) anyway. I'd actually
be really
> curious for Jonathan to say a few words on it since it makes his
Alternate AFI
> 100.
>
> Peter
>
> http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
I consider it the most complex and multifaceted of all the Hollywood
anticommunist films I can think of--despite the fact that it was
obviously hampered by Walker's death before the end of the shooting
(and I'd love someone to do the proper research someday and discover
in detail what the original ending would have been). Among other
things, it's the definitive 50s statement about the interfacing of
closet homosexuality and anticommunism that's so central to the
stories of Whittiker Chambers, Roy Cohen, and J. Edgar Hoover (among
others), and the fact that Walker himself seems completely conscious
of this theme--as James Baldwin has pointed out in The Devil Finds
Work--is only part of what's so intricate about it. The taking for
granted of FBI surveillance in the Washington, D.C. segment is as
blood-chilling a depiction of 50s paranoia as anything I can think
of. McCarey's relation to all the characters is both ambivalent and
creatively confused, as I suspect it is in all his best work.
3682
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:56am
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant and cell-phones
> "What would have been different in
> the highly stylized tableau he's painting if it had
> included a few
> kids yacking on cell-phones?"
>
> I think it would. The cell-phone reconfigures space.
This is a good observation, David (and Jaime and Gabe, who said similar
things).
On the naturalism front, it struck me that ELEPHANT wasn't all that
interested in the practical cause-and-effect aspects of the shootings,
nor in any causal relationship of character to action. For instance, it
really didn't show much of the reaction to the slaughter inside the
building. And that's where the cell phones would have come in.
What ELEPHANT *is* interested in is harder for me to say.... - Dan
3683
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 6:25am
Subject: Re: Elephant and ideas
> What ELEPHANT *is* interested in is harder for me to say.... - Dan
I hope Jeremy Heilman writes his review soon, as his assessment of
the film's ideas is very compelling. (Our own as-yet-silent Sky
Hirschkron eloquently explores the film's complex use of signs.) It
seems that no one is really very sure about it, unless they dislike
it.
The only thing that I'm sure about it, after one viewing, is that the
film very powerfully expresses the *interruption* of the Columbine
shooters, their role as invaders; their trojan horse is nothing less
than absolute and full battle dress, armed to the teeth, etc.
Interruption extends to the very structure of the film, in that: the
use of title cards (with character names) implies a long and complete
and satisfactory narrative sub-arc. The "interruption" factor is
closest to the surface when the black dude (I've forgotten his name)
is shot down. His death is almost a complete surprise - we expected
there to be a little dialogue, some character information, some
conflicting planes re: his part of the action, etc. But it seems
he's shot down very quickly after his first appearance. In this
instance, the shooter (forgotten his name as well) assumes a role not
dissimilar to Anton Walbrook in LA RONDE, in the short scene where he
plays the role of editor during a love scene.
The idea of "interruption" in narrative filmmaking is not new. But
it has long been corrupted and made limp by stupid slasher films and
predictable war films (most recently, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN has
refreshed the potency of the idea; yes, I know the auteurist set is
overfull with Spielberg detractors, nevermind that). ELEPHANT
employs the idea with no small amount of eloquence - it says, at each
moment, this too can be snuffed out in an instant.
-Jaime
3684
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 6:29am
Subject: Elephant and cell-phones and malice
Thanks to all for your comments. A non-group friend who saw the film
very recently has confirmed that there are no cell-phones in it. I
don't think it's really a plot convenience, George - it's an esthetic
decision without which the stylization of space and light and
solitide and interaction and silence and sound in the film wouldn't
work. Someone's cell-phone going off during one of those tracking
shots would be like Vermeer's girl with the pitcher picking her nose.
By the way, Van Sant picked Ordinary People as a neglected
masterpiece he wanted to champion for that Locarno retrospective
where we interviewed filmmakers about that in 1995. He said among
other things that there was some Ordinary People in everything he had
done up till then, and that it was seeing and reseeing Redford's film
that taught him about structure - one of many avenues by which the
richness of Elephant can be explored. (ER please note - no book of
screenwriting rules contains what Elephant can teach you about
structure in modern narrative cinema.) The thematic similarities to
Elephant are obvious.
Foundas said there are almost no girls in the film, then proceeded to
name four, deliberately omitting the girl who may be pregnant. She
and her lifeguard boyfriend are never mentioned, because they put the
skids to Foundas' argument that Van Sant is only interested in
outsiders - which also presumes that the shutterbug is a geek rather
than simply an artistic kid, or that John is a weirdo, or that Bennie
is an outsider because he's black, or....
To Foundas' credit, he says upfront that he hated the film violently
at Cannes and was forced to rethink it after, although his way of
reethinking is a little like Berri's "rethinking" of his lawsuit
against Serge Daney. (See Libel and Film Critics.) There must have
been an intense herd reaction against the film among some American
critics when it was screened at Cannes - the exact opposite of the
French reaction. I can't recall a film before this getting four stars
from every member of the CdC's Conseil des dix (which is a spectrum
of French critics, not just Cahierists). What I can't figure is the
hot-under-the-collar reactions of intelligent people like Foundas or
Todd McCarthy, who excoriated the film in Variety, with no
resevations, before it won the Golden Palm. On moral grounds.
3685
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 6:34am
Subject: Elephant and Interruption
The black kid is Bennie. He's glimpsed playing football at the
beginning, and his "walk-on" at the end is one of the most
extraordinary moments in the film. Trying to avoid spoilers re:
Bennie, I'll just say that I think The Shining was a big influence on
Elephant.
By the way, getting back to cell-phones, Kubrick used them as
interrupters in Eyes Wide Shut. Brilliantly.
3686
From: filipefurtado
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 6:50am
Subject: Re: Question for anyone who has seen Barbarian Invasions
>
> The question, simply put, is --
how much will I miss plotwise if I haven't
> seen the earlier film? Will it matter?
No, the only difference will be that you didn't know the
carachters as well, but plot-wise the two films are completly
independent. Anyway, both stinks.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
3687
From: filipefurtado
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 6:56am
Subject: Re: Elephant and cell-phones and malice
There must have
> been an intense herd reaction against the film among some Am
erican
> critics when it was screened at Cannes -
the exact opposite of the
> French reaction. I can't recall a film before this getting f
our stars
> from every member of the CdC's Conseil des dix (which is a s
pectrum
> of French critics, not just Cahierists). What I can't figure
is the
> hot-under-the-
collar reactions of intelligent people like Foundas or
> Todd McCarthy, who excoriated the film in Variety, with no
> resevations, before it won the Golden Palm. On moral grounds
.
According to a friend who was in Cannes both Elephant and
Dogville created outrage in a good part of the american
press. He even wrote later that without the american press
screaming in horror, Dogville looked a lot worse when he saw
it again a couple of weeks ago.
Filipe
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.co
m/info/terms/
>
>
>
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
3688
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 7:10am
Subject: Re the trouble with DOGVILLE
> According to a friend who was in Cannes both Elephant and
> Dogville created outrage in a good part of the american
> press. He even wrote later that without the american press
> screaming in horror, Dogville looked a lot worse when he saw
> it again a couple of weeks ago.
I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I recall only one visceral
response from a fellow audience-member at the DOGVILLE screening I
attended (@ the New York Film Festival), and it was a
vocal "Yessss!!!" when, er, the plot turned completely on its axis.
I think the film is very great and very troubling as well, it
irritates more than it gratifies.
-Jaime
3689
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 7:18am
Subject: Re: Re the trouble with DOGVILLE
When I saw Dogville at the NYFF (Sunday screening), a gentleman to my right kept screaming "Hateful piece of shit!" throughout the (I thought) shocking and
satisfying credit sequence. Of course, the several bravos and a standing ovation nearly eclipsed this response. I was wondering if this response was due to its
suggestions about American immigration or because of the fragility of the subject matter on a human level. Either way, a great film.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaime N. Christley"
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 07:10:50 -0000
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] Re the trouble with DOGVILLE
> According to a friend who was in Cannes both Elephant and
> Dogville created outrage in a good part of the american
> press. He even wrote later that without the american press
> screaming in horror, Dogville looked a lot worse when he saw
> it again a couple of weeks ago.
I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I recall only one visceral
response from a fellow audience-member at the DOGVILLE screening I
attended (@ the New York Film Festival), and it was a
vocal "Yessss!!!" when, er, the plot turned completely on its axis.
I think the film is very great and very troubling as well, it
irritates more than it gratifies.
-Jaime
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
| http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705021019:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG= 12o885gmo/*">http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3614674&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM"> sleepangel/sleep_300x250.gif" alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"> |
475243438"> |
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
3690
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 7:24am
Subject: Re: Re the trouble with DOGVILLE
Filipe, then Jaime:
>> He even wrote later that without the american press
>> screaming in horror, Dogville looked a lot worse when he saw
>> it again a couple of weeks ago.
> I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I recall only one visceral
> response from a fellow audience-member at the DOGVILLE screening I
> attended (@ the New York Film Festival),
Read Kent Jones in Cinema scope on why Cannes is a place for angry,
premature proclamations on films, unlike New York, Toronto, etc. Also I
think what Filipe's colleague meant is that it is tempting to look at
DOGVILLE and try to embrace it just to spite Todd McCarthy and the
other idiot reactionaries. Or not, I don't know.
3691
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 7:40am
Subject: Denys Arcand double-dip
Well, as you can see, I was right about the insomnia, saw "Decline" and will
now try to get at least a few hours sleep before "Invasions" tomorrow at 10
A.M.
Oy.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3692
From: filipefurtado
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 8:03am
Subject: Re: Re the trouble with DOGVILLE
>
> Read Kent Jones in Cinema scope on why Cannes is a place for
angry,
> premature proclamations on films, unlike New York, Toronto,
etc. Also I
> think what Filipe's colleague meant is that it is tempting t
o look at
> DOGVILLE and try to embrace it just to spite Todd McCarthy a
nd the
> other idiot reactionaries. Or not, I don't know.
>
Gabe, you're right. According to him, the overall feeling
during the festival towards Doville was of uneasiness and it
was easy to conclude that if Von Trier menage to make some
people that angry, he most have done something right (I can
easily imagine someone having the opposite reaction, turning
against the film because of the relish some people seems to
have after the screening towards cerian aspects of it).
Filipe
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
--------~-->
> Rent DVDs from home.
> Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping
> & No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/I3w.vC/hP.FAA/3jkFAA/b5IolB/TM
> ------------------------------------------------------------
---------~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.co
m/info/terms/
>
>
>
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
3693
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 2:45pm
Subject: Re: Elephant and cell-phones and malice
"Foundas said there are almost no girls in the film,
then proceeded to
name four, deliberately omitting the girl who may be
pregnant."
I think Scott is truly discombobulated by the
phenonenon of an "openly gay" (hate that phase!)
director with an undisguised enthusiasm for male
beauty. I think it's a genuine plus,particuarly in the
case of John Robinson who is so dazzlingly blonde we
write him off completely. Yet he proves to be tough
enough to throw his alcoholic father out of the car,
quite conviningly.
Todd's a victim of BushCo zeitgeist. Here we were
bombing the living shit out of Iraqi peasants while
down at the Croisette Gus was supplying the skinny on
home grown "shock and awe" with "Elephant." I was
almost expecting him to push for Meg Ryan to be
charged with treason -- her being a Cannes jury member
and all. Likewise (why hold back on the paranoia?)"the
fix was in" as jury president Patrice Chereau is not
only "openly gay -- he's "openly French" as well!
--- hotlove666
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3694
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 3:34pm
Subject: Re: Elephant and cell-phones and malice
David:
> fix was in" as jury president Patrice Chereau is not
> only "openly gay -- he's "openly French" as well!
Well, the supermarket tabloid the Weekly World News accurately
captures the national mood of those distant times several months back
in an article this week "CANNIBALISM ALL THE RAGE IN FRANCE!"
Patrick
3695
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 5:34pm
Subject: Re: Elephant and cell-phones and malice
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ciccone"
> Well, the supermarket tabloid the Weekly World News accurately
> captures the national mood of those distant times several months back
> in an article this week "CANNIBALISM ALL THE RAGE IN FRANCE!"
>
> Patrick
It's people! Croque Monsieur is made out of people!
Paul
3696
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 8:41pm
Subject: MY ELEPHANT ARTICLE! THANKS, COMRADES!
Shooting an Elephant
Why are there no cell-phones in Gus Van Sant's Elephant, which
won the Golden Palm at Cannes? The film is set in a modern
high school and was inspired by events that occurred in 1999 at
Columbine High School in Colorado. Even though many US
schools banned them in the 80s, there were cell-phones at
Columbine, where students and staff used them to alert the
community that two armed students had just walked in and
started shooting everyone in sight. But in Van Sant's film, which
takes us inside a Portland, Oregon, high school in the minutes
leading up to a Columbine-style disaster, there isn't a cell-phone
to be seen, even when the shooting starts.
The systematic absence of a gadget that American teens
cherish is just part of the stylization which keeps Elephant from
being a docudrama, even though it was produced by HBO.
Closing one's eyes while watching it and imagining a cinema
verite film on the same subject - jiggly five-second shots, a
deafening noise-track recorded on the spot, familiar images of
halls crowded with shrieking kids - is like trying to imagine
Vermeer's Woman with a Pitcher smiling to reveal blackened
teeth, and a cacophony of street noises coming in the window
that admits that famous golden light.
There is more than a little Vermeer in the way Van Sant paints
the corridors of his unnamed school, where late-morning light
burnishes the floors and the silence is broken by vague far-off
sounds that are impossible to identify, while ravishing
cloudscapes and trees turning red and gold frame an autumnal
Arcadia, with death lurking just outside the frame. The events
leading up to the shooting take place when most students are in
class (never shown), so the few youngsters we end up following
(all played by non-professional actors) stroll through the
deserted halls with no company but the camera. Their dreamy
solitude – who hasn't savored the delicious sensation of cutting
Algebra? - would be shattered by a glimpse of even one kid
yacking on a cell-phone, so Principal Van Sant has banished
those distracting devices, along with any encounters that would
distract us with insights into the social life and "home
environments" of these angelic wanderers before their final
encounter with an absurd destiny.
Elephant is a modernist tribute to Gus Van Sant's favorite
Hollywood film, Ordinary People, concerning which he has said
that there are pieces of it in every film he has made. What
Pachabelle did for that film, the Moonlight Sonata does for
Elephant in a breath-taking sequence at the beginning where
characters wander in and out of a lingering shot of a touch
football game, and one gawky girl pauses in the frame,
spellbound as if she were hearing Beethoven's music. "Some
movies you watch, others you feel," said the ads for Ordinary
People, and that's a good description of Elephant, which doesn't
try to explain its bloody, fiery climax, but makes us feel it through
the magic of cinema, that almost forgotten enchantment which is
reinvented in every frame of this remarkable film.
3697
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 9:26pm
Subject: Australia Vanishes
Here's a link to a very interesting interview with
that esteemed auteur Dr. George Miller
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s982221.htm
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3698
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 9:56pm
Subject: Critics and awards
From A.O. Scott's piece in the New York Times: "The National Society of Film Critics and the New York Film Critics Circle voted to proceed with their awards, though there has been agitation within the national society for a second vote. (I should disclose that I am a past member of these two groups. The Times no longer permits its movie critics to participate in awards voting.)"
This strikes me as odd; does anyone have inside info as to why this is so?
He goes on to say: "In the long run, for anyone who cares about movies, awards are trivial by definition. If they were banned altogether, the state of movie-going would hardly suffer, and might even improve, since ambitious films could be released throughout the year, rather than crammed into its final eight weeks. If there were no awards, nobody would need screeners, and critics, rather than feverishly trying to cram 12 months of movie-going into a few frenzied weeks, could bask in the glow of the screening-room projector beam, which is where we would rather be."
I strongly disagree. Frankly, I am afraid that without awards, audiences would be less motivated to see artistically ambitious films, whether from the big studios or the independents, and fewer good movies would be made.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3699
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 10:06pm
Subject: Re: Critics and awards
The only interest of the New York Times is the
protection of the status quo. In this case it's the
status quo of the MPAA.
The Times cares not for critics outside of those on
its payroll.
--- Rick Segreda
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3700
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 10:44pm
Subject: Re: Critics and awards
You're missing the point. The Times DOES care about copyright protection --
they are manufacturers and owners of copyrighted materials (including
television and radio) and their interests coincide with those of other large
corporate copyright holders.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact