Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
3701
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 10:58pm
Subject: Re: Critics and awards
My suspicion is that the reason for the ban is an entirely fitting if
typically overzealous Times concern with the appearance of or potential for
conflict of interest. For example, NY Times baseball writers are not allowed
to vote for the various post-season baseball awards (Most Valuable Player,
Rookie of the Year and so on), because almost everyone in the game now has
incentive clauses in which they get paid X thousands of dollars for winning
an award like that. Hence -- and it's wildly far-fetched but as Johnny
Carson used to say, 'you buy the premise, you buy the joke' -- there is the
possibility of an inappropriate fiduciary relationship.
Obviously, the connection between year-end film awards and box-office take
is somewhat more direct, so that is probably the rationale for the ban. The
part I find odd is that they only instituted it recently (or so Scott seems
to imply).
George Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Segreda"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 4:56 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] 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?
3702
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 11:14pm
Subject: Critics and awards: show me the money?
Incentive clauses? Are they like kickbacks? Payola? And do both sports writers and film critics profit? I, too, find it odd that after eight decades for its film critics (and who knows how long for its book and theatre critics), the Grey Lady has suddenly prohibited its writers from participating in critic's societies.
The "incentive clause" doesn't make sense too me. When was the last time a critic (or sports writer) profited from awarding a film (or player). That's why we outlaw payola and kickbacks, but I still don't get why the times won't let it's writers vote.
I hope other papers don't follow suit.
George Robinson wrote:My suspicion is that the reason for the ban is an entirely fitting if
typically overzealous Times concern with the appearance of or potential for
conflict of interest. For example, NY Times baseball writers are not allowed
to vote for the various post-season baseball awards (Most Valuable Player,
Rookie of the Year and so on), because almost everyone in the game now has
incentive clauses in which they get paid X thousands of dollars for winning
an award like that. Hence -- and it's wildly far-fetched but as Johnny
Carson used to say, 'you buy the premise, you buy the joke' -- there is the
possibility of an inappropriate fiduciary relationship.
Obviously, the connection between year-end film awards and box-office take
is somewhat more direct, so that is probably the rationale for the ban. The
part I find odd is that they only instituted it recently (or so Scott seems
to imply).
George Robinson
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3703
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 11:18pm
Subject: Re: Critics and awards
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Rick Segreda
wrote:
>
> From A.O. Scott's piece in the New York Times: ... (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?
A number of years ago == my guess would be late 80s, though it may
have been after that -- the Times banned Vincent Canby, Maslin at al
from voting in year-end awards on the grounds that the awards somehow
compromised the integrity of the reviewers (the reasoning never made
much sense to me). The ban was lifted a few years back, but now it
seems to have been re-instated for some reason.
Awards are inherently silly-but-fun, and it seems to me the Times
management is taking it all too seriously. I have to think that
Jayson Blair somehow has something to do with the ban. Something
about "integrity."
>
> 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.
>
The problem with your postulation is that the Critics awards are
every bit as foolish as the Oscars, and it's very rare for quality
pictures to be championed by the Critics' groups.
Among the mediocrities and dogs honored by the New York, LA and
National Society critics over the last 5 years are Traffic, Topsy-
Turvy, Saving Private Ryan, Out of Sight, About Schmidt and In The
Bedroom (Way to go on the latter two, LA Critics!).
The day some critics group names a Kiarostami or Terence Davies film
Best Picture is when I'll show them some respect.
3704
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 11:33pm
Subject: Re: Critics and awards: show me the money?
Incentive clauses in an athlete's contract are more like productivity
bonuses -- if you reach such-and-such a performance plateau, it's worth so
much extra money. Given the amounts that these guys are paid and the
comparatively small sums involved in the incentives (usually somewhere in
the vicinity of $250,000 for a guy making millions a year) it is highly
unlikely that anyone would spread money around trying to win an award. Not
to mention that you'd need to bribe a lot of voters.
I agree with you that it is absurd, but the Times takes its concerns about
the appearance of conflict of interest extremely seriously. Times reporters
are essentially not allowed to take sides on political issues, even in areas
they don't cover, for fear that someone will point at them and charge the
paper with manipulating the truth to fit the reporter's agenda. My wife, who
is a staunch political progressive and an editor on the Book Review,
wouldn't go to an anti-war march with me last winter on the million-to-one
chance that she might be seen by someone she knows. (Of course the fact that
it was about 12 degrees above zero may have influenced her even more than
the fear of Big Brother on 43rd Street.)
It all has to do with the Times's perception of itself as "the newspaper of
record" and the concern that they are being held to an unusually high
standard by their readers and, more important, the government. And that is a
not unfounded suspicion.
I have to say that if Pauline Kael had been held to an even rudimentary
standard of ethical conduct she would have been fired for covering films by
people she hung out with regularly. Forget all her other shortcomings as a
writer and human being -- the homophobia, the internalized anti-Semitism --
and consider the fact that she was cheerleading for people like James Toback
who were personal friends of hers. (Whether Toback is a good filmmaker or
not is completely irrelevant here.) It's inappropriate at the very least.
When I was still doing a lot of book reviewing, I wouldn't right about a
book whose author was even an acquaintance of mine, let alone a personal
friend. And the Washington Post once changed an assignment because the
book's publisher was also publishing my book -- it certainly wouldn't have
influenced me (well, not favorably anyway) but it was the _appearance_ of a
conflict of interest.
(Of course, at the highest levels of journalism you have much much worse
improprieties going on -- Leslie Gelb moving from the Pentagon beat at the
Times into the Clinton Administration and then back again, for a start; the
mere existence of Fox Spews Network with its vicious right-wing agenda, the
Moonie-owned Washington Times -- and the fact that the Times is a major
player in the corporate world, that NBC is owned by General Electric, a
major defense contractor, and so on and so on -- but hey, as A.J. Liebling
said, "A free press is a wonderful thing if you can afford to own one.")
Here endeth the sermon.
George
George Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Segreda"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:14 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Critics and awards: show me the money?
> Incentive clauses? Are they like kickbacks? Payola? And do both sports
writers and film critics profit? I, too, find it odd that after eight
decades for its film critics (and who knows how long for its book and
theatre critics), the Grey Lady has suddenly prohibited its writers from
participating in critic's societies.
3705
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 11:33pm
Subject: Re: Critics and awards: show me the money?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Rick Segreda
wrote:
> Incentive clauses? Are they like kickbacks? Payola? And do both
>sports writers and film critics profit?
The incentive clauses are for players, not sports writers. What
George was saying is that because certain players can get tens or
hundreds of thousands of dollars extra for being named MVP, there may
be an inclination among writers on the sports beat to vote for people
they like personally and, at worst, there is also the possibility
(never documented) of kickbacks to those voting in the awards. Not
in Dick Young's America, but today who knows? . . .
3706
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Nov 4, 2003 11:56pm
Subject: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess
> Among the mediocrities and dogs honored by the New York, LA and
> National Society critics over the last 5 years are Traffic, Topsy-
> Turvy, Saving Private Ryan, Out of Sight, About Schmidt and In The
> Bedroom (Way to go on the latter two, LA Critics!).
The point you're trying to make here is way too subtle for me. While
the Payne film was very disappointing, TRAFFIC isn't spectacular, and
I don't know if I'd go for IN THE BEDROOM if I saw it again, but the
other three films (TOPSY-TURVY, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, OUT OF SIGHT)
are among my favorites from 1998 and 1999.
Damien, I consider you a friend and your commentary on the films that
you like has been and will continue to be extremely valuable to me.
But I can't see the use of constantly bringing up the films and
filmmakers you dislike*, at least w/r/t your approach (throw the
dynamite and walk away). Your tone is, "Well, everyone knows that
Speilberg is a fair-to-middling director at best, everyone knows that
THE GODFATHER isn't much of a movie at all, etc." when in fact *I*
don't know either of those facts, I didn't know them before and I
don't know them now, after hearing you talk about them again and
again and again and again and again and again and again. I've been
hearing that SCHINDLER'S LIST is a lousy picture for ten years and
that SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a wretched piece of shit for five - it's
too bad that so many smart people didn't see the same films that I
experienced, but I can't say I envy your dismay with what I found to
be so overwhelming.
* Especially since it's somewhat redundant: you might not be aware
that this list is top-heavy with people who don't have much use for
Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg, and all the other directors who are
American, alive, and extremely successful.
-Jaime
3707
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 0:28am
Subject: Re: Critics and awards
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> Among the mediocrities and dogs honored by the New York, LA and
> National Society critics over the last 5 years are Traffic, Topsy-
> Turvy, Saving Private Ryan, Out of Sight, About Schmidt and In The
> Bedroom (Way to go on the latter two, LA Critics!).
>
> The day some critics group names a Kiarostami or Terence Davies film
> Best Picture is when I'll show them some respect.
With all respect, to call Traffic, Topsy-Turvy, Saving Private Ryan,
Out of Sight and In The Bedroom mediocre is something that pains me. I
fail to see anything but malice and indifference in such a statement.
What is it with all this hated towards succesful directors?
3708
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 0:37am
Subject: Re: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess
I want to support Jame's statement below. It is a familiar ploy to
claim that some works of art, and some artists, which are widely
admired, are actually mediocre and not even worth discussing. It
gives one such a thrilling feeling of superiority.( But to some
degree most everybody has been at least occasionally guilty of this
kind of stance). The "Of course such-and-such movie -- which has
garnered countless awards and kudos -- is a piece of shit and so-and-
so (a revered director) is a fraud and a hack" attitude I have seen
and heard more than I care to remember from any number of buffs. And
with what scornful air of disbelief they look at you when you
disagree!... I don't mind a good, reasoned putdown of a film I like
(such as OUT OF SIGHT, TRAFFIC, PRIVATE RYAN -- all of which I
reviewed, favorably, for Positif -- or TOPSY TURVY, an underrated
marvel) but sweeping dismissals of the "it goes without saying" kind
I find particularly annoying.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> > Among the mediocrities and dogs honored by the New York, LA and
> > National Society critics over the last 5 years are Traffic, Topsy-
> > Turvy, Saving Private Ryan, Out of Sight, About Schmidt and In
The
> > Bedroom (Way to go on the latter two, LA Critics!).
>
> The point you're trying to make here is way too subtle for me.
While
> the Payne film was very disappointing, TRAFFIC isn't spectacular,
and
> I don't know if I'd go for IN THE BEDROOM if I saw it again, but
the
> other three films (TOPSY-TURVY, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, OUT OF SIGHT)
> are among my favorites from 1998 and 1999.
>
> Damien, I consider you a friend and your commentary on the films
that
> you like has been and will continue to be extremely valuable to
me.
> But I can't see the use of constantly bringing up the films and
> filmmakers you dislike*, at least w/r/t your approach (throw the
> dynamite and walk away). Your tone is, "Well, everyone knows that
> Speilberg is a fair-to-middling director at best, everyone knows
that
> THE GODFATHER isn't much of a movie at all, etc." when in fact *I*
> don't know either of those facts, I didn't know them before and I
> don't know them now, after hearing you talk about them again and
> again and again and again and again and again and again. I've been
> hearing that SCHINDLER'S LIST is a lousy picture for ten years and
> that SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a wretched piece of shit for five -
it's
> too bad that so many smart people didn't see the same films that I
> experienced, but I can't say I envy your dismay with what I found
to
> be so overwhelming.
>
> * Especially since it's somewhat redundant: you might not be aware
> that this list is top-heavy with people who don't have much use for
> Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg, and all the other directors who are
> American, alive, and extremely successful.
>
> -Jaime
3709
From: Tristan
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 0:56am
Subject: Re: Elephant and cell-phones
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> 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.
Ok, it should come as no surprise that John doesn't use a cell phone
to call about his father. He is already in trouble, using a cell
phone would just make it worse. School are becoming fascist about the
use of these devices. I got in trouble for having my cell phone
vibrate outside of class, answering it, and my mom telling me she
would be late picking me up. A teacher saw, I was sent down to the
office, and it was put on my "permanent record." I asked why, and
they said the vibrating disrupts learning. It is realistic that John
wouldn't use his cell phone in this scene. Later, I can't remember if
he uses one(it's quite possible he doesn't own one), but many other
kids could. In the final scenes we don't see much of the police
action or kids warning others, it is more left to our imagination.
3710
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 2:54am
Subject: Re: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess
Jaime: "But I can't see the use of constantly bringing up the films
and filmmakers you dislike, at least w/r/t your approach (throw the
dynamite and walk away.)
My comment was shorthand to show why one shouldn't take critics
awards seriously. If someone wants to believe that these critics
champion obscure and/or challenging films, that's his or her
prerogative (but let's see how Peter Watkins's La Commune or
Kiarostami's 10 fare in the critics awards this year). Whatever you
may think of Private Ryan or Traffic, they were hardly arty little
films needing the imprimatur of year-end awards.
For me, talking about vertain movies I have no time for is like
talking about Republicans most of the people I know hold these
movies in disdain the same way almost everyone I know hates Bush and
his crowd, and so I assume the people I'm addressing are onto the
same shorthand and details aren't necessary. I apologize for my
presumption.
Jaime: "I've been hearing that SCHINDLER'S LIST is a lousy picture
for ten years and
that SAVING PRIVATE RYAN is a wretched piece of shit for five - it's
too bad that so many smart people didn't see the same films that I
experienced, but I can't say I envy your dismay with what I found to
be so overwhelming." Au contraire, I envy your finding these films
overwhelming, because as has been set forth many times here, it's
much more desirable to admire a film than to find it mediocre or
worse.
We went through many posts about how writing in depth negatively is
dispiriting. But anyway, here for example is why I think Saving
Private Ryan is a terrible film: The D-Day invasion is a mess -- a
grab bags of effects. It's a cheat to use different film stocks and
film speeds, the sign of someone who can't get it down through basic
film elements themselves. And have blood on the camera lens only
serves to distance us, rather than the intended effect of drawing us
into the proceedings. The scene is somewhat harrowing for a few
minutes, but because we don't know who these people are (other than
Hanks) we have no emotional investment in it. The final battle has
some emotional commitment for the audience but it is even more
incoherent than the D Day. The basic premise is unconvincing and
nothing that happens in the film makes it any less so. A more
intelligent and thoughtful and deep director might have plumbed some
fascinating themes from the issue of the lives of 8 men vs. 1, but
Spielberg was not that person -- and the issue never gets past the
level of anecdotal griping. It's pretty amazing how anti-climactic it
is when Damon is finally found -- there's no there there. The
characters are not well-developed at all or delineated -- Hanks is a
particular cipher. It's ridiculous that Jeremy Davies's translator
wimps out the film is arguing that intellectuals can't handle
battle. And the wrap-around current day stuff (embarrassingly done)
is another cheap effect -- an attempt to wrangle emotional responses
where none are earned. Spielberg (and the film) lacks a coherent
point of view: The movie is anti-war(isn't war horrifying and
dehumanizing) when it suits its needs ad pro-war when that's what
Spielberg feels is called for (God bless our the heroism of our great
boys from the Greatest Generation.)
JP: "It is a familiar ploy to claim that some works of art, and some
artists, which are widely
admired, are actually mediocre and not even worth discussing. It
gives one such a thrilling feeling of superiority."
It's equally familiar to jump on the backlash against the backlash.
Such a thrill to know that one can mingle with the masses by agreeing
with the idiot reviewers (such as those one finds on TV) who
originally adulated a picture while also having a supposed
intellectual basis in doing so. How exhilarating to be superior to
both those with whom you disagree and those with whom you're on the
same page (albeit for different reasons).
It matters not at all to me whether a filmmaker/movie is admired or
not. (I'm sorry JP that reputation is apparently something you keep
int the forefront.) Such canon classics as Rules of the Game and
Citizen Kane are among my very favorite movies, and more recently I
love The Thin Red Line, Rushmore, The Sixth Sense and Mulholland
Drive.
Ummmm, M. Coursodon, how can Topsy Turvy be considred "an underrated
marvel" when it won several critics awards?
3711
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 3:16am
Subject: Re: Critics and awards
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> With all respect, to call Traffic, Topsy-Turvy, Saving Private
Ryan,
> Out of Sight and In The Bedroom mediocre is something that pains
me. I
> fail to see anything but malice and indifference in such a
statement.
>
> What is it with all this hated towards succesful directors?
WOuld you have said the same thing to the early auteurist critics who
pointed out the inadequacies of such popular/critical favorites as
Marty, From Here To Eternity, Sayonara and Bad Day At Black Rock?
3712
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 3:25am
Subject: Re: Critics and awards: journalism
Thanks, George for filling me in, and though I love the Times, it's not a perfect world alas. I think of Walter Duranty to Rick Bragg and "la plus ca change, la plus ce le meme chose."
To his credit, Andrew Sarris always makes a point of mentioning his close friendship with Robert Benton, and his strained relationship with Peter Bogdanovich when reviewing their respective films.
George Robinson wrote:
It all has to do with the Times's perception of itself as "the newspaper of
record" and the concern that they are being held to an unusually high
standard by their readers and, more important, the government. And that is a
not unfounded suspicion.
I have to say that if Pauline Kael had been held to an even rudimentary
standard of ethical conduct she would have been fired for covering films by
people she hung out with regularly. Forget all her other shortcomings as a
writer and human being -- the homophobia, the internalized anti-Semitism --
and consider the fact that she was cheerleading for people like James Toback
who were personal friends of hers. (Whether Toback is a good filmmaker or
not is completely irrelevant here.) It's inappropriate at the very least.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3713
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 3:50am
Subject: Directors and Reviewers
Henry Sylow asks: "What is it with all this hatred towards succesful directors?"
Good question, and what is it is with all this hatred towards succesful critics? We have more than a few film journalists here, so what gives? How does being "a critic" automatically disqualify you from being taken seriously?
Damien writes: "Would you have said the same thing to the early auteurist critics who
pointed out the inadequacies of such popular/critical favorites as
Marty, From Here To Eternity, Sayonara and Bad Day At Black Rock?"
That's the rub; today's filmmakers and critics reflect the influence of "the early auteurist critics," so the analogy doesn't quite fit. I mean, Spielberg, Sodebergh? Their movies are nothing if not auteurist film buff.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3714
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 4:09am
Subject: Re: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess
Thanks for your post Damien.
> My comment was shorthand to show why one shouldn't take critics
> awards seriously.
Without the support of the Helpful Hint that was the "mediocrities
and dogs" remark, I would have thought that your list of films
represented a mixed bag indeed: a few times when they picked a bad
film, a few times when they could have picked quite a few better
ones, a few times when they did all right, and a few times when they
really picked a great film. In the 1970s, the Oscars awarded THE
GODFATHER and THE GODFATHER PART II their Best Picture award - those
are two rare occasions where the Oscars got it right (although I
think PARADE may be at the top of my 1974 list, while THE
CONVERSATION is #2). *I am already aware* of your feelings towards
these two films, and Coppola in general - how could I not be?
Also, the Republican analogy can't be extended to far - let's say we
believe that certain politics we despise will destroy our way of
life, or whatever. In the interest of announcing that the cinema is
dead or dying or in any case endangered (I don't believe that this
has been your line), we can argue against powerful industry
professionals like Spielberg, Lucas, Weinstein, et al, for the same
reasons, but these reasons are independent of their ability or
inability to make a good film. (Unless evil politics = bad
filmmaking, which is another long thread in itself.)
(On that note, I found it very interesting that Lucasfilm Ltd. is
listed as one of the major funds-providers for Anthology Film
Archives. If that's "killing the cinema" then I just don't know what
to say.)
Any argument that tries to prove that a film is not great, or not
good, or bad, inevitably ends with the notion that the person
speaking *did not see* anything, or very much, in the film that was
good or great or worthwhile. Whether such things were not seen
because they were not there to be seen is up for debate. (If the
film gets vigorous and eloquent support from intelligent viewers,
then it's likely that there *are* good/great things to be seen
[without Jonathan Rosenbaum and others, how would I know that GERTRUD
is supposed to be a good movie?]; however, many take the self-serving
route and see strong support for a film they dislike as a signal that
the film is "overrated." Sigh - nothing is easy.) It is far more
difficult to say that a viewer saw things that *were not* there,
since it implies that the viewer is perhaps insane, guilty of wishful
fantasyland thinking, or simply full of shit, which is quite a few
degrees off from the first fella, who was simply unaware of x,
indifferent to y, or put off by z.
As to to the critics/awards debate, I agree that our culture tends to
foreground as good films films that may not necessarily *be* good, or
if they are good, they may not be much better than (or they may be
significantly inferior to) what is left in the shadows and the
closets, undistributed, underrated, championed by a few only, and so
on. The media machine pushes movies to the center of our collective
radar due to a number of factors (money, the clout of those involved,
the idea of a film or a pop star being a total pan-media mass of
synergy and money rather than simply a performer or a "work"), but I
don't think this creates a situation where the films that get pushed
on Entertainment Tonight, or win all the Oscars, or the stars that
are most commonly seen giving the same inane interview, over and over
again, year after year (or just for their brief stint of fame)
represent *as a rule* a significantly higher ratio of good:shit than
we would see if we look - as many of us do - beyond the evildoings of
the media-industrial thingamabob. Well and good, it is, to question
the authority of the Academy Awards. Fine and also dandy. Certainly
they are devious and low and bear constant watching. But to make a
principle out of it - well hell Damien, they gave two Oscars to Frank
Borzage, it stands to reason they're capable of doing a few things
right, even if it's by accident.
Also...
Damien:
> We went through many posts about how writing in depth negatively is
> dispiriting. But anyway, here [is some more of the same].
Great, thanks.
-Jaime
3715
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 4:17am
Subject: Re: Critics and awards
> WOuld you have said the same thing to the early auteurist critics
> who pointed out the inadequacies of such popular/critical favorites
> as Marty, From Here To Eternity, Sayonara and Bad Day At Black Rock?
I kinda like BAD DAY, but I haven't seen it in many a long year.
What about the oft-invoked picture of major industry stars who
weren't seen as artists until they were near death, or dead, and only
got their due thanks to the tireless support of Auteurist Rescue
Rangers? I can't help but to think that the laughter Fred says he
and other auteurists faced when they called Hitchcock and/or Ford
great artists is similar to the snickering and smirking I deal with
when I go to bat for Spielberg. (For the record, I would place him
on the "B" list if I put together a "favorite directors" listing as
Fred has.)
Not just Hitchcock and Ford, what about Vidor, Minnelli, Mankiewicz,
Preminger, McCarey, Cukor, Renoir, and so on...
-Jaime
3716
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 4:26am
Subject: Re: Elephant and Cell Phones
use a cell phone
to call about his father. He is already in trouble, using a cell
phone would just make it worse. Schools are becoming fascist about the
use of these devices. I got in trouble for having my cell phone
vibrate outside of class, answering it, and my mom telling me she
would be late picking me up. A teacher saw, I was sent down to the
office, and it was put on my "permanent record." I asked why, and
they said the vibrating disrupts learning. It is realistic that John
wouldn't use his cell phone in this scene. Later, I can't remember if
he uses one(it's quite possible he doesn't own one), but many other
kids could. In the final scenes we don't see much of the police
action or kids warning others, it is more left to our imagination.>
OK, so I'll lose the first paragraph - I'm probably going to have to
cut a hundred words anyway.
One question: What is a "permanent record"?
3717
From: Tristan
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 5:59am
Subject: Re: Elephant and Cell Phones
I've been trying to figure that out since elementary school when it
would be threatened against me. I'm assuming it's some kind of lie. I
do know that if I use my cell phone again, I get four hours of
detention.
3718
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:17am
Subject: Re: Re: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess
"For me, talking about vertain movies I have no time
for is like
talking about Republicans most of the people I know
hold these
movies in disdain the same way almost everyone I know
hates Bush and
his crowd, and so I assume the people I'm addressing
are onto the
same shorthand and details aren't necessary. I
apologize for my
presumption."
Even the worst movie hold the promise of some small
flicker of pleasure.
Republicans produce only waste, destruction and death.
--- Damien Bona wrote:
3719
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:20am
Subject: thematic programming
Last week I was talking with some friends, some of whom could recall
the days when New York was dotted with rep houses showing creative
double features back to back, twenty-four hours a day, and that no
matter what time of day or night it was, somewhere in the city
somebody was showing a beat-up 16mm of THE LUSTY MEN. The
observation was made that while the last few years has seen a
dramatic upswing in the number of must-see retrospectives and rep
programming (I can't vouch for this, having only arrived in NYC just
before 9/11), these series were mostly built around directors
(Sternberg, Sokurov, Nick Ray, Ozu, McCarey, etc), national cinemas
(films from Central Asia, Latin Cinema, Cuban cinema, New Italian
Cinema, etc), and sometimes actors (Delphyne Seyrig, Peter Sellers,
etc). But rarely, if ever, themes.
Well, interestingly enough, the Museum of Modern Art just put their
December schedule online, and sure enough, there's a series
programmed around a theme/thesis/idea. It's a bit of a surprise, and
I'm looking forward to seeing or re-seeing almost all what's listed
here; in fact, out of this diverse set of titles, I'll bet there
isn't a single a_film_by member that doesn't consider at least *one*
of these films to be some kind of a masterpiece:
http://www.moma.org/visit_moma/momafilm/hidden_god.html
-Jaime
3720
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:29am
Subject: Re: Thematic Programming
They all sound good to me. Is "hidden God" a Gnostic theme, a
nihilist theme, or a Christian theme?
I'm still waiting for my dream double-bill: STAGE DOOR and L'AGE D'OR.
3721
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:54am
Subject: Our Daily Bread
I was going to write this to Peter, but I figured what the hell.
I tend to be ambivalent about what I take away from film discussions
here, primarily because I still have some trouble throwing myself
into a movie 110%, as some people do, and the chief evidence among
this is the fact that films rarely make me cry, or even get close. I
envy the kind of "power to be amazed" that some a_film_by members
seem to have: Fred, Zach, Gabe, others, the kind of total commitment
of which I feel I only have about 10%. I wish I could be blown away
by Brakhage, Kubelka, I wish I could call nine out of ten Ozu films a
masterpiece, or Bresson films, etc.
As a result, I'm not sure how to approach some of the
more "difficult" movies I enounter on my own Auteurist Adventure, and
I'm generally skeptical, reticent, reluctant, whatever word you want
to use, to form an opinion on these films. If I don't have "help" I
feel a bit lost, and if I *do* get help but I'm still stuck, I just
get frustrated. (It's like trying to program your VCR, and your
friend gives you instructions over the phone, and you understand
everything he says, but you're still just as confused as you were
before.) But as a result of that skepticism, it's enormously
gratifying to see a film that allows me to feel aligned with some of
the formalist attitudes propagated on this board, particularly by
Fred - who I'm guessing may be the most radical formalist on the
list. From the first shots of OUR DAILY BREAD, inside the couple's
apartment building, with its complicated array of light and shadow, I
felt a number of great things: [1] that I was seeing a film
differently than I might have seen it five or ten years ago, [2] that
I was able to consider some "Camperian" ideas (one of them
involves "not minding" a truly uneven lead performance by Tom Keene,
which is made easy by strong performances by Karen Morley and Addison
Richards) while [3] simply grooving to what Vidor was putting in
front of me. Maybe ten years ago the super-super-earnest
collectivist ideas (where everyone manages to help everyone out in
weirdly appropriate ways and at the correct dramatic moments) would
have made me itch, but not today.
This is a really great film, and the climactic sequence is, as many
have stated already, *justly famous*. Everything I've read about
formalism makes sense here: the juxtaposition of shapes in frames,
between frames, across cuts, the varying rhythms of each section of
the action (the water, the men digging, the running, the womenfolk
cheering them on and taking over), the horizontals and the verticals
and the soundtrack (easygoing but motivated conversation, yelling and
giving orders, the rhythmic steps of the work crew, the rhythmic
banging of the tools against the earth, and so on, and so on), and
the overall feeling of triump against the odds - sure, we never
doubted it for a second - and everyone pulling together and
everything. It's so fucking great and it made me weep like a little
girl and I'm getting a little choked up just writing about it, no
kidding. Somebody say amen, etc.
-Jaime
3722
From: rpporton55
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 7:37am
Subject: Re: Thematic Programming
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> They all sound good to me. Is "hidden God" a Gnostic theme, a
> nihilist theme, or a Christian theme?
Well, there is a book entitled "The HIdden God" by Lucien Goldmann which deals
with the relationship between Jansenism and Racine (if my memory is correct). But I
have no idea if this book is being alluded to by MoMa (and I haven't looked at their
schedule yet).
R. Porton
>
>
3723
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 9:38am
Subject: In defence of popularity
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
> wrote:
> >
> > With all respect, to call Traffic, Topsy-Turvy, Saving Private
> Ryan,
> > Out of Sight and In The Bedroom mediocre is something that pains
> me. I
> > fail to see anything but malice and indifference in such a
> statement.
> >
> > What is it with all this hated towards succesful directors?
>
> WOuld you have said the same thing to the early auteurist critics
who
> pointed out the inadequacies of such popular/critical favorites as
> Marty, From Here To Eternity, Sayonara and Bad Day At Black Rock?
If I had read it, I would have said the same.
3724
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 2:04pm
Subject: Re: thematic programming
> Well, interestingly enough, the Museum of Modern Art just put their
> December schedule online, and sure enough, there's a series
> programmed around a theme/thesis/idea. It's a bit of a surprise, and
> I'm looking forward to seeing or re-seeing almost all what's listed
> here; in fact, out of this diverse set of titles, I'll bet there
> isn't a single a_film_by member that doesn't consider at least *one*
> of these films to be some kind of a masterpiece:
>
> http://www.moma.org/visit_moma/momafilm/hidden_god.html
As I've said before, I think auteurism has inherited some of its
aesthetic preferences from Christian culture via the Catholicism of some
of the Cahiers mentors. So a series about religion is almost bound to
contain a heavy load of "masterpieces" according to the auteurist gospel.
Among all the films here that I love or admire, there are two that I had
strong negative reactions to: BABETTE'S FEAST and CRIMES AND
MISDEMEANORS. I do like some Allen films, but CRIMES seemed to me an
undiluted dose of his bad qualities - I can't remember it well enough to
discuss it, but I was perplexed at the time by how wildly my friends'
opinions on it diverged. - Dan
3725
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 4:20pm
Subject: Re: In defence of popularity
Henrik, the movies cited by Damien are inadequate depending on what conceptual frame you're employing. From my idiosyncratic formalist view MARTY is the weakest and BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK the most accomplished (but still not very good.) However, they are interesting to me for other reasons: MARTY because of its television origins, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY because it's a best seller adaption that reverses the themes of the book on which it's based, SAYONARA for its treatment of interracial love, BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK for addressing the injustices suffered by Japanese-Americans during WWII (and for its Dashiell Hammett-like plot.) The same may be said for TRAFFIC and the others. Damien detailed his objections to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN quite convincingly as far as I'm concerned, but the picture still has interest for its treatment of the "greatest generation" phenomenon and its ambiguous take on patriotism and militarism.
Richard
Henrik Sylow wrote:
> WOuld you have said the same thing to the early auteurist critics
who
> pointed out the inadequacies of such popular/critical favorites as
> Marty, From Here To Eternity, Sayonara and Bad Day At Black Rock?
If I had read it, I would have said the same.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3726
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 5:16pm
Subject: Re: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess
> For me, talking about vertain movies I have no time for is like
> talking about Republicans most of the people I know hold these
> movies in disdain the same way almost everyone I know hates Bush
and
> his crowd, and so I assume the people I'm addressing are onto the
> same shorthand and details aren't necessary. I apologize for my
> presumption.
>
Damien: Your point is typical of the clique mentality: everybody I
know feels the same, loves and hates the same movies (and the same
politics). The rest of the world is just a bunch of idiots. You can't
bother with them. By the way this has always been a tendency of film
criticism in France (and in some ways it's worse now than 50 years
ago...)
JPC
>
>
> JP: "It is a familiar ploy to claim that some works of art, and
some
> artists, which are widely
> admired, are actually mediocre and not even worth discussing. It
> gives one such a thrilling feeling of superiority."
>
> It's equally familiar to jump on the backlash against the
backlash.
> Such a thrill to know that one can mingle with the masses by
agreeing
> with the idiot reviewers (such as those one finds on TV) who
> originally adulated a picture while also having a supposed
> intellectual basis in doing so. How exhilarating to be superior
to
> both those with whom you disagree and those with whom you're on the
> same page (albeit for different reasons).
>
> It matters not at all to me whether a filmmaker/movie is admired or
> not. (I'm sorry JP that reputation is apparently something you keep
> int the forefront.) Such canon classics as Rules of the Game and
> Citizen Kane are among my very favorite movies, and more recently I
> love The Thin Red Line, Rushmore, The Sixth Sense and Mulholland
> Drive.
>
> Ummmm, M. Coursodon, how can Topsy Turvy be considred "an
underrated
> marvel" when it won several critics awards?
I didn't realize I had so many reasons to feel superior! You've made
my day!... I don't think I "agree" with "idiot reviewers" when I
praise a film they have praised. I am not sure who/what "idiot
reviewers" are. (I don't watch TV reviewers anyway and don't read
many reviews either). I suspect you call "idiot reviewers" any
reviewer who doesn't agree with you.
I believe you when you say that it doesn't matter to you whether a
filmaker/movie is admired or not. But it just happens that the films
you vehemently put down have all been widely praised (by idiots, of
course). And that is part of the elitist attitude I was criticizing
("Everybody I know" -- that is, all the members of my little high-
minded, so-clever clique -- "feels everybody else is so clueless, so
middle-brow flocking to movies we happy few know are worthless.")
As I have said before we have all been guilty at one time or another
of this kind of attitude. Forty years ago I loved to put down widely
admired films and directors -- Stevens, Wyler, Zinnemann, and any
number of prestigious French directors (Carne, Clouzot...)as well I
have become much more tolerant, if that's the word...
I may have been mistaken in saying thet TOPSY TURVY was underrated. I
check very few if any Ten Best Lists so I didn't know it had been
selected by many critics. The film just didn't seem to me to have
acquired any degree of fame.
JPC
3727
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess
As long as there's Emmanuel Burdeau to write on New Rose Hotel (my favorite
late 90s cahiers text) or DePalma or Scorsese or Tsui or Hou, as long as
there was Lalanne to write about how non-dupes such as the Coens were less
artistically important and vital than Cameron's Titanic (Le Titanic n'a pas
seulement coulι), I'd say french criticism may be bad, but it's still the
best.
ruy
> Damien: Your point is typical of the clique mentality: everybody I
> know feels the same, loves and hates the same movies (and the same
> politics). The rest of the world is just a bunch of idiots. You can't
> bother with them. By the way this has always been a tendency of film
> criticism in France (and in some ways it's worse now than 50 years
> ago...)
> JPC
> >
> >
>
> > JP: "It is a familiar ploy to claim that some works of art, and
> some
> > artists, which are widely
> > admired, are actually mediocre and not even worth discussing. It
> > gives one such a thrilling feeling of superiority."
> >
> > It's equally familiar to jump on the backlash against the
> backlash.
> > Such a thrill to know that one can mingle with the masses by
> agreeing
> > with the idiot reviewers (such as those one finds on TV) who
> > originally adulated a picture while also having a supposed
> > intellectual basis in doing so. How exhilarating to be superior
> to
> > both those with whom you disagree and those with whom you're on the
> > same page (albeit for different reasons).
> >
> > It matters not at all to me whether a filmmaker/movie is admired or
> > not. (I'm sorry JP that reputation is apparently something you keep
> > int the forefront.) Such canon classics as Rules of the Game and
> > Citizen Kane are among my very favorite movies, and more recently I
> > love The Thin Red Line, Rushmore, The Sixth Sense and Mulholland
> > Drive.
> >
> > Ummmm, M. Coursodon, how can Topsy Turvy be considred "an
> underrated
> > marvel" when it won several critics awards?
>
> I didn't realize I had so many reasons to feel superior! You've made
> my day!... I don't think I "agree" with "idiot reviewers" when I
> praise a film they have praised. I am not sure who/what "idiot
> reviewers" are. (I don't watch TV reviewers anyway and don't read
> many reviews either). I suspect you call "idiot reviewers" any
> reviewer who doesn't agree with you.
>
> I believe you when you say that it doesn't matter to you whether a
> filmaker/movie is admired or not. But it just happens that the films
> you vehemently put down have all been widely praised (by idiots, of
> course). And that is part of the elitist attitude I was criticizing
> ("Everybody I know" -- that is, all the members of my little high-
> minded, so-clever clique -- "feels everybody else is so clueless, so
> middle-brow flocking to movies we happy few know are worthless.")
>
> As I have said before we have all been guilty at one time or another
> of this kind of attitude. Forty years ago I loved to put down widely
> admired films and directors -- Stevens, Wyler, Zinnemann, and any
> number of prestigious French directors (Carne, Clouzot...)as well I
> have become much more tolerant, if that's the word...
>
> I may have been mistaken in saying thet TOPSY TURVY was underrated. I
> check very few if any Ten Best Lists so I didn't know it had been
> selected by many critics. The film just didn't seem to me to have
> acquired any degree of fame.
>
> 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/
>
>
>
3728
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 5:57pm
Subject: Re: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> As long as there's Emmanuel Burdeau to write on New Rose Hotel (my
favorite
> late 90s cahiers text) or DePalma or Scorsese or Tsui or Hou, as
long as
> there was Lalanne to write about how non-dupes such as the Coens
were less
> artistically important and vital than Cameron's Titanic (Le Titanic
n'a pas
> seulement coulι), I'd say french criticism may be bad, but it's
still the
> best.
> ruy
I didn't say French criticism was "bad" I said it was clique-ish
and I might add often gratuitously hostile and destructive. I was
thinking of the "Liberation" and "Le Monde" and "Inrockuptibles"
critics mostly, and, of course, the "Cahiers" people. The reviling of
Tavernier's "Laissez-passer" by all of the above and, most famously,
in a despicable Cahiers editorial by Charles Tesson, is a case in
point. But instances of such abuses (in both senses of the word) are
too numerous to be listed. They even triggered a filmmakers' clumsy
and wrong-headed yet justified rebellion a couple years ago.
JPC
>
> > Damien: Your point is typical of the clique mentality:
everybody I
> > know feels the same, loves and hates the same movies (and the same
> > politics). The rest of the world is just a bunch of idiots. You
can't
> > bother with them. By the way this has always been a tendency of
film
> > criticism in France (and in some ways it's worse now than 50 years
> > ago...)
> > JPC
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > JP: "It is a familiar ploy to claim that some works of art, and
> > some
> > > artists, which are widely
> > > admired, are actually mediocre and not even worth discussing. It
> > > gives one such a thrilling feeling of superiority."
> > >
> > > It's equally familiar to jump on the backlash against the
> > backlash.
> > > Such a thrill to know that one can mingle with the masses by
> > agreeing
> > > with the idiot reviewers (such as those one finds on TV) who
> > > originally adulated a picture while also having a supposed
> > > intellectual basis in doing so. How exhilarating to be
superior
> > to
> > > both those with whom you disagree and those with whom you're on
the
> > > same page (albeit for different reasons).
> > >
> > > It matters not at all to me whether a filmmaker/movie is
admired or
> > > not. (I'm sorry JP that reputation is apparently something you
keep
> > > int the forefront.) Such canon classics as Rules of the Game
and
> > > Citizen Kane are among my very favorite movies, and more
recently I
> > > love The Thin Red Line, Rushmore, The Sixth Sense and Mulholland
> > > Drive.
> > >
> > > Ummmm, M. Coursodon, how can Topsy Turvy be considred "an
> > underrated
> > > marvel" when it won several critics awards?
> >
> > I didn't realize I had so many reasons to feel superior! You've
made
> > my day!... I don't think I "agree" with "idiot reviewers" when I
> > praise a film they have praised. I am not sure who/what "idiot
> > reviewers" are. (I don't watch TV reviewers anyway and don't read
> > many reviews either). I suspect you call "idiot reviewers" any
> > reviewer who doesn't agree with you.
> >
> > I believe you when you say that it doesn't matter to you whether a
> > filmaker/movie is admired or not. But it just happens that the
films
> > you vehemently put down have all been widely praised (by idiots,
of
> > course). And that is part of the elitist attitude I was
criticizing
> > ("Everybody I know" -- that is, all the members of my little high-
> > minded, so-clever clique -- "feels everybody else is so clueless,
so
> > middle-brow flocking to movies we happy few know are worthless.")
> >
> > As I have said before we have all been guilty at one time or
another
> > of this kind of attitude. Forty years ago I loved to put down
widely
> > admired films and directors -- Stevens, Wyler, Zinnemann, and any
> > number of prestigious French directors (Carne, Clouzot...)as well
I
> > have become much more tolerant, if that's the word...
> >
> > I may have been mistaken in saying thet TOPSY TURVY was
underrated. I
> > check very few if any Ten Best Lists so I didn't know it had been
> > selected by many critics. The film just didn't seem to me to have
> > acquired any degree of fame.
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
> >
3729
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thematic Programming
hotlove666 wrote:
>I'm still waiting for my dream double-bill: STAGE DOOR and L'AGE D'OR.
>
>
>
Ah, well, you're tripped up by your lack of interest in avant-garde
film, or you would have added a short Brakhage in order to propose a
triple-bill, "Stage Door," "L'Age D'Or," and "Door." Though I suppose
that title is connected too literally: perhaps the third should be "The
Magnificent Matador."
My idiosyncratic taste counts three masterpiece in that Hidden Yahweh
series.
- Fred (who's still way behind reading posts here)
3730
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:06pm
Subject: Re: thematic programming
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Among all the films here that I love or admire, there are two that
I had
> strong negative reactions to: BABETTE'S FEAST and CRIMES AND
> MISDEMEANORS. I do like some Allen films, but CRIMES seemed to me
an
> undiluted dose of his bad qualities - I can't remember it well
enough to
> discuss it, but I was perplexed at the time by how wildly my
friends'
> opinions on it diverged. - Dan
Really, Dan? I'm surprised. I feel it's Allen's masterpiece, an
opinion which becomes more re-enforced each time I see it. I think
it's the perfect amalgam of Allen's "serious" and comedic sides, the
latter especially well-served by Alan Alda's priceless performance
his cluelessly obnoxious Lester is perhaps Allen's greatest creation
ever.
For me Crimes And Misdemeanors is one of the most heartbreaking of
films because it so persuasively argues that morality and simple
decency may very well be irrelevant in the human universe. I
think that one of the reason so many people felt personally betrayed
by Allen during the Soon-Yi Previn scapade was that he so
convincingly presented himself up in this film as the avatar of
goodness and vulnerability
It's fairly remarkable that a (relatively) mainstream movie addresses
philosophical and theological issues, and even more rso that Allen
pulled it off with such intelligence and depth and most
surprisingly of all -- a lack of the pomposity that has often marred
his work. Even the Wild Strawberries homage is carried out with wit
and grace.
3731
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:21pm
Subject: News from France: elitism, populism
Emmanuel Burdeau, the author of that text on New Rose Hotel,
is the new co-editor-in-chief of Cahiers. Jean-Marc Lalanne and
Patrice Blouin are moving to Les Inrock, and some of the other
young editors are also leaving.
I have never understood the reluctance of the Cahiers (and
others) to respond to my two favorite English directors of the
moment, Mike Leigh and Terence Davies, who happen to be
diametrical opposites in their methods. I can't attribute either
choice to elitism, because both are commercially marginal, even
if they're widely admired. If anything, expect to see more
populism coming from Cahiers now that Emmanuel, who has
said that every American action film deserves an article, is back.
3732
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:30pm
Subject: Re: News from France: elitism, populism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> If anything, expect to see more
> populism coming from Cahiers now that Emmanuel, who has
> said that every American action film deserves an article, is back.
Isn't that part of a desperate (and IMHO misguided) strategy to
capture some of the youth audience ("les Jeunes")at a time when
Cahiers are in what looks like a near-desperate financial situation?
JPC
3733
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:30pm
Subject: Crimes and Misdemeanors
> Really, Dan? I'm surprised. I feel it's Allen's masterpiece, an
> opinion which becomes more re-enforced each time I see it.
Unfortunately, my memory of it is so vague that I can't discuss it
properly. - Dan
3734
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: News from France: elitism, populism
> Isn't that part of a desperate (and IMHO misguided) strategy to
> capture some of the youth audience ("les Jeunes")at a time when
> Cahiers are in what looks like a near-desperate financial situation?
> JPC
Isn't this the same escape route that FILM COMMENT have taken recently?
I'd call it dumbing down, they'd call it "surviving". I can understand
it, but it's sad.
-N>-
3735
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:43pm
Subject: News from France
No, that's what Emmanuel believes. His writing style is not
designed to attract the young - cf. the piece on Mission to Mars.
The previous group's approach was much more designed to pull
in the under-25s.
3736
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess
What did he say???!!!!!
Ruy Gardnier wrote:
> As long as there's Emmanuel Burdeau to write on New Rose Hotel (my
> favorite
> late 90s cahiers text)
3737
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 7:21pm
Subject: Re: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess
jpcoursodon wrote:
> Damien: Your point is typical of the clique mentality: everybody
I
> know feels the same, loves and hates the same movies (and the same
> politics). The rest of the world is just a bunch of idiots. You
can't
> bother with them.
Clique mentalities are part and parcel with film buffdom, and they
have their upsides (sense of community and dialogue) and downsides
(elitism and exclusivity). But to be fair to Damien, it seems to me
that he was just trying to explain his shorthand dismissals rather
than endorse them--he ended the paragraph you quoted with, "I
apologize for my presumption," did he not?
--Zach
3738
From:
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 3:24pm
Subject: Re: Crimes and Misdemeanors
I think I'd agree with Damien that "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is one of
Allen's best (although not in the same league as "Manhattan" or "Stardust
Memories"). I hope the group won't mind if I plug my own just-published piece on
Allen's latest (and to my thinking, his best since "Crimes"), the majorly neglected
"Anything Else":
http://thefilmjournal.com/issue7/anythingelse.html
I attempt something like a career overview in the piece, although I should
probably add the caveat that I think these films can be a little inconsistent
formally. For example, as fond as I am of a little divertissment like "Small
Time Crooks," I wouldn't make the same claims for its mise-en-scene as I do that
of "Anything Else."
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
3739
From:
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 9:44pm
Subject: Re: thematic programming
I've wanted to see "The Flowers of Saint Francis" for decades.
New Yorkers are very lucky. (The book is terrific!).
Warning: SPOILERS!
"Stromboli" is a film about a not-so-hidden God who materializes at the end.
Hitchcock's "Young and Innocent" and "Rear Window" are full of vivid religious ideas. In "Young and Innocent", it is only when the heroine insists on helping the sick man that the mystery is solved. Her act of concern for a fellow human being changes everything. Similarly, in "Rear Window" Thelma Ritter and Grace Kelly are genuinely concerned with helping their neighbors, whereas James Stewart only wants to watch them. Their intervention brings a genuinely religious dimension to these films.
Mike Grost
PS I liked Peter Tonguette's article om Woody Allen!
In my head, my favorite Allen film is "Zelig" - it is pretty amazing.
In my heart, my favorite Allen moment is the playing of "The Flight of the Bumble Bee" over the credits for "Radio Days" - the theme song of the Green Hornet!
3740
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 9:47pm
Subject: Re: Thematic Programming
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> hotlove666 wrote:
>
> >I'm still waiting for my dream double-bill: STAGE DOOR and L'AGE D'OR.
> >
> >
> >
> Ah, well, you're tripped up by your lack of interest in avant-garde
> film, or you would have added a short Brakhage in order to propose a
> triple-bill, "Stage Door," "L'Age D'Or," and "Door." Though I suppose
> that title is connected too literally: perhaps the third should be "The
> Magnificent Matador."
>
>
If you want a really bizarre double-bill, try the one I saw at the Riverside Studios
cinema in London a few years ago as part of their A-Z of Cinema series - the idea was
to do a different double bill every Sunday, kicking off with two films beginning with A
and proceeding through the alphabet.
So of course I couldn't help but wonder what they'd come up with for X, given the
dearth of titles available - based on what I knew about what was actually in British
distribution at the time, I concluded that the only possible double bill was Ousmane
Sembene's 'Xala' and Roger Corman's 'X - The Man with the X-Ray Eyes', but I couldn't
believe for one second that they'd actually go through with it as both films seemed so
wildly disparate. But they did!
(Mind you, as I sat through a double bill of 'Ugetsu Monogatari' and 'Unforgiven' a
fortnight or so earlier, I shouldn't have been that surprised...)
Michael
3741
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 10:32pm
Subject: Re: thematic programming
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I've wanted to see "The Flowers of Saint Francis" for decades.
> New Yorkers are very lucky.
It's available on video from the New York Film Annex:
http://www.nyfavideo.com/content/cat-ROSELLINI.htm
Paul
3742
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 10:34pm
Subject: Woody Allen's Anything Else
Peter, your terrific essay did what I thought was near-impossible
after Curse of the Jade Scorpion -- it makes me actually want to see
the latest Woody Allen picture.
I don't completely agree with all of your evaluations of Allen's
earlier films --e.g. "charming" is about the last word I would use to
describe Mighty Aphrodite -- but you show a deep understanding of
both the director's style and his concerns.
I haven't seen Stardust memories since it was first released, and
found its bitterness very off-putting and unresolved. Might you
elaborate on why it's one of your favorite Allens?
One other bit of over-the-top humor in Annie Hall: Chris Walken
driving and staring into the on-coming headlights.
3743
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 10:41pm
Subject: Re: thematic programming
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Warning: SPOILERS!
> "Stromboli" is a film about a not-so-hidden God who materializes at
the end.
It's deeply ironic that Rossellini and especially Ingrid Bergman were
castigated as immoral sinners and yet they were collaborating on one
of the most deeply-felt spiritual films ever.
Perhaps its only peer in expressing a profound appreciation of the
mysteries of God is Neil Jordan's version of The End of the Affair.
3744
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 10:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: thematic programming
Damien Bona wrote:
>--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
>
>
>>Warning: SPOILERS!
>>"Stromboli" is a film about a not-so-hidden God who materializes at
>>
>>
>the end.
>
>It's deeply ironic that Rossellini ....
>
I'm curious, are you responding to the version in which there's a
narrator who announces at the end that "Krain had found God," or are you
responding to the version without narration, which is also considerably
longer, and has some wonderful scenes of Karin's wanderings not in the
truncated version that used to be the one shown on American TV? Tag's
book confirms what I'd always "known," which is that he "Karin had found
God" version is not Rossellini's. I'm not saying that Rossellini's
version isn't spiritual, but it is very different, more profound, and
more ambiguous, and doesn't name "God."
Tag, correct me if I've made any mistakes, please.
- Fred
3745
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 11:14pm
Subject: Re: Critics and awards: journalism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Rick Segreda wrote:
>
> I have to say that if Pauline Kael had been held to an even rudimentary
> standard of ethical conduct she would have been fired for covering films by
> people she hung out with regularly. Forget all her other shortcomings as a
> writer and human being -- the homophobia, the internalized anti-Semitism --
> and consider the fact that she was cheerleading for people like James Toback
> who were personal friends of hers. (Whether Toback is a good filmmaker or
> not is completely irrelevant here.) It's inappropriate at the very least.
>
Am I the only one who honestly can't see what the problem is here? Why should
personal friendships (or indeed animosities) disqualify a critic from writing about a
filmmaker's work, especially if such relationships are common knowledge - and, as in
this case, the friendship arose in the first place from mutual admiration? (Correct me
if I'm wrong, but I believe Kael's wildly enthusiastic review of 'Fingers' predated any
personal friendship with its director).
I've been lucky enough to form reasonably close personal relationships with some of
the filmmakers I've supported over the last decade or so - I'm thinking of one in
particular whose work I tirelessly championed for a decade across a wide range of
media (distribution, exhibition, journalism, a large-scale website) before we finally
met in person some five or six years ago when I needed his help to clear up a few
copyright issues. Now, we get on well enough to meet up socially every time we're in
the same city at the same time - but I don't remotely think that this makes it unethical
or inappropriate for me to continue to promote his work: the fact that there's an
element of personal friendship doesn't in any way alter my opinion of the quality of
the films, and nor should it. If anything, any disappointment is likely to be far more
acutely felt!
Michael
3746
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 11:44pm
Subject: Speaking of Stromboli
did anyone besides me see Cold Heaven, Nicolas Roeg's
quasi-remake of Stromboli with Theresa Russell? The
Stromboli reference is really just at the end, but it's quite evident.
THAT'S sure an odd duck...
3747
From:
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 6:57pm
Subject: Roeg's Cold Heaven
In a message dated 11/5/2003 18:53:35 Eastern Standard Time,
hotlove666@y... writes:
> THAT'S sure an odd duck...
I saw "Cold Heaven" years ago when I was first discovering Roeg's films and I
thought it wasn't too bad (I hadn't seen the Rossellini at that time, so I
can't say I remember the similarities, Bill). Sad to say, I'm not too crazy
about much of Roeg's output since "Bad Timing" (his greatest film, in my
opinion), though I suppose all of them are of varying degrees of interest. "The
Witches" works the best for me: a genuinely effective children's film (and I loved
it as a kid too) which tempers some of his stylistic tics while at the same
time remaining identifiably his work.
Does anyone know what he's been doing lately? If anything?
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3748
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 10:55pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thematic Programming
My favorite double bill of all-time is "Cobra Woman"
and "Duck Soup" -- which Fabiano Canosa once
programmed at the New Yorker. On paper it sounds like
fun, but the actual experience of seeing these films
bak-to-back is rather profound -- and a great tribute
to the aesthetic sensibilities of Jack Smith.
--- Michael Brooke wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3749
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 0:00am
Subject: Re: Re: Critics and awards: journalism
"the fact that there's an
element of personal friendship doesn't in any way
alter my opinion of the quality of
the films, and nor should it. If anything, any
disappointment is likely to be far more
acutely felt!"
Absolutely! I'm quite friendly with Gus Van Sant AND
his ex-boyfriends and extended family. And it's been
my great pleasure to know Martin Scorsese from way
before he became Martin Scorsese (since 1964
actually).
In fact there's quite a long list of filmmakers I've
had the pleasure of knowing personally. But it's never
gotten in the way of my judging their obvious failures
-- like "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" and "Gangs of
New York"
--- Michael Brooke wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3750
From:
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 7:17pm
Subject: Re: Woody Allen's Anything Else
Thanks to Damien and Mike for their kind words about my piece on "Anything
Else"!
I actually liked "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion," Damien, though it's
undeniably a slight work. If there were any Woody Allen auteurists left in the
world, I think it's the sort of thing which someone might take up the cause for in
years to come; both Jonathan Rosenbaum and Kent Jones wrote perceptively of
its minor pleasures when it came out. It's kind of a weird movie for Allen to
have made under the DreamWorks deal in that, unlike "Small Time Crooks" (which
made somewhere around $20 million domestically - a huge figure for him), I
can't imagine anyone thinking of it as a commercial movie - maybe in 1942, but
not today. Very termite-like, that film.
I think it's mainly the denouement of "Mighty Aphrodite" that's "charming,"
but my pairing of it with other Allen films with similar tones shouldn't be
taken as a ringing endorsement of all of them. I don't much care for "Mighty
Aphrodite," while I think "Everyone Says I Love You" is kind of a major work.
As far as "Stardust Memories," I think the film itself is perhaps a little
uneven. Nevertheless, I would argue that it contains the single greatest
instance of mise-en-scene in his entire body of work. It's the scene, late in the
film, where Woody's character remembers the one perfect moment in his life.
His narration in this section is wonderfully evocative. After a few shots, he
cuts to a long, unbroken take of Charlotte Rampling (his crazy, though amazing
ex-girlfriend) looking into the camera, laying on the floor, reading a
newspaper on a Sunday afternoon. The duration the shot goes without cutting,
extraordinary use of Louis Armstrong music on the soundtrack, and the look on
Rampling's face combine to make for perhaps the greatest single moment in his canon.
Finally, to Mike: I'm with you on "Radio Days." The film's an underrated
gem. I loved its sense of unabashed nostalgia, its episodic structure, and that
amazing final piece of narration + final shot.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3751
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 0:24am
Subject: Re: thematic programming
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> I'm curious, are you responding to the version in which there's a
> narrator who announces at the end that "Krain had found God," or
are you
> responding to the version without narration, which is also
considerably
> longer, and has some wonderful scenes of Karin's wanderings not in
the
> truncated version that used to be the one shown on American TV?
Tag's
> book confirms what I'd always "known," which is that he "Karin had
found
> God" version is not Rossellini's. I'm not saying that Rossellini's
> version isn't spiritual, but it is very different, more profound,
and
> more ambiguous, and doesn't name "God."
>
I've only seen the original, longer version, which ends with Bergman
addressing God. There was narration in the released American
version? -- that certainly sounds like overkill. I can't imagine the
film without those scenes of Bergman wandering, which are both
extraordinarily mysterious and extraordinarily moving.
3752
From:
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 7:56pm
Subject: Stromboli versions
Hope this is all factually correct!
There are two authentic versions of Stromboli, and one bad one.
Rossellini first made an English language version, called "Stromboli".
Then he made a slightly different Italian version, "Stromboli, terre del dio"
("Stromboli, Land of God"). (My Italian is non-existant - I'm faking it here
from my French! So I hope this Italian title is right.)
Then butchers took over, and chopped down the English language version, which
was the only version much shown in the US for decades.
I have only seen the original full-length Rossellini English language
"Stromboli". This is the version widely available now on videotape in the US, and
regularly shown on Turner Classic Movies.
This version ends with Karin wandering around the volcano, and genuinely
finding God. There is no male narrator; instead we hear Karin speaking her
thoughts.
The three versions are discussed in detail in Tag Gallagher's Rossellini
book.
Mike Grost
3753
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 1:10am
Subject: Re: Woody Allen's Anything Else
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Thanks to Damien and Mike for their kind words about my piece
on "Anything
> Else"!
> Peter I'm looking forward to reading your piece when I have
seen "Anything Else". As to "Stardust Memories" I agree with you on
that "perfect moment" scene (the Armstrong record is his 1932 version
of "Stardust"). At the time the film came out and Allen was
castigated by most critics for reasons that had little if anything to
do with the quality of his film (shades of things to come)I felt it
was his most daring, most interesting, richest movie, and it's still
one of my favorites. With "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and the
neglected "Another Woman", his most Bergmanian film. But there are so
many great ones -- until "Husbands and Wives" after which Allen
pretty much lost me.
JPC
> As far as "Stardust Memories," I think the film itself is perhaps a
little
> uneven. Nevertheless, I would argue that it contains the single
greatest
> instance of mise-en-scene in his entire body of work. It's the
scene, late in the
> film, where Woody's character remembers the one perfect moment in
his life.
> His narration in this section is wonderfully evocative. After a
few shots, he
> cuts to a long, unbroken take of Charlotte Rampling (his crazy,
though amazing
> ex-girlfriend) looking into the camera, laying on the floor,
reading a
> newspaper on a Sunday afternoon. The duration the shot goes
without cutting,
> extraordinary use of Louis Armstrong music on the soundtrack, and
the look on
> Rampling's face combine to make for perhaps the greatest single
moment in his canon.
>
> Finally, to Mike: I'm with you on "Radio Days." The film's an
underrated
> gem. I loved its sense of unabashed nostalgia, its episodic
structure, and that
> amazing final piece of narration + final shot.
>
> Peter
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3754
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 11:54pm
Subject: Re: Speaking of Stromboli
Not only did i see it I have a tape of it around here
somewhere. Weird movie.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> did anyone besides me see Cold Heaven, Nicolas
> Roeg's
> quasi-remake of Stromboli with Theresa Russell? The
>
> Stromboli reference is really just at the end, but
> it's quite evident.
>
> THAT'S sure an odd duck...
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3755
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 1:26am
Subject: Re: Stromboli versions
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Hope this is all factually correct!
> There are two authentic versions of Stromboli, and one bad one.
> Rossellini first made an English language version,
called "Stromboli".
> Then he made a slightly different Italian version, "Stromboli,
terre del dio"
> ("Stromboli, Land of God"). (My Italian is non-existant - I'm
faking it here
> from my French! So I hope this Italian title is right.)
Mike Grost
It's ""Stromboli, terra di Dio." For the rest, see Tag's book.
JPC
3756
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 1:42am
Subject: Re: Speaking of Stromboli
For what it's worth, I see the film was shown in 1993 at
a "Festival international du film fantastique" in Spain. A French
critic called it "a pseudo-erotic thriller". It does seem that God
raises its ugly head at some point, though...
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Not only did i see it I have a tape of it around here
> somewhere. Weird movie.
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
> > did anyone besides me see Cold Heaven, Nicolas
> > Roeg's
> > quasi-remake of Stromboli with Theresa Russell? The
> >
> > Stromboli reference is really just at the end, but
> > it's quite evident.
> >
> > THAT'S sure an odd duck...
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3757
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 2:16am
Subject: Re: Re: thematic programming
MG4273@a... wrote:
> I've wanted to see "The Flowers of Saint Francis" for decades.
That title is the American edition, which omits one of the better
episodes (on "Perfect Happiness") which is, however, present in the
British edition, "The Adventures of St. Francis of Assisi."
>
> "Stromboli" is a film about a not-so-hidden God who materializes at
> the end.
Truly?
3758
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 2:34am
Subject: Re: Stromboli versions
Stromboli terra di Dio -- no comma. The working title was "Land of God."
1) STROMBOLI: Feb. 15, 1950 (U.S., RKO edition); 81 minutes. This one
re-edits the rough cut, adds a narrator, and says at the end that Karin
(Bergman) goes back to her husband.
2)STROMBOLI: Aug. 26, 1950 (Venice Festival, Rossellini.s edition, in
English); 105 minutes [2885m]. This is the version shown
internationally, except in the US, except that Kino Internationalhad a
35mm print and maybe still does. It's available on VHS here (as is the
longer version of FRANCESCO GIULLARE DI DIO, the one NOT titles "The
Flowers of St. Francis").
3) STROMBOLI TERRA DI DIO: Mar. 9, 1951 (Italy, Rossellini.s edition, in
Italian); 99 minutes.
In my book I give, incorrectly, a longer running time for the Italian
edition. Rossellini made some small changes in this one (but has same
ending). It's available on video in Italy and France (although #2 was
shown theatrically in France). Problem is it's dubbed into Italian; it
was shot in English.
In #2 and #3, the film ends with Karin on the volcano crying "God!"
Rossellini himself had not decided how to end the movie even months
after shooting stopped when the first rough cut had been assembled. He
seems to have changed her mind about Karin returning to her husband; now
the picture doesn't explicitly say whether she will or not; that's no
longer the main issue.
3759
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 2:34am
Subject: Re: News from France: elitism, populism
I like both Blouin and Lalanne, though I can never understand what they see
in Matrix Reloaded. Burdeau put the first Matrix in his best-of list of that
year (as he also put Enemy Of The State, another one I don't care for). But
Burdeau cares mainly for Oliveira, De Palma, Tsui Hark, Kiarostami, Hou
Hsiao-hsien, Wong Kar-wai, Abel Ferrara, Desplechin, Godard, and all those
happen to be some personal favorites of mine. I wouldn't consider Burdeau as
a populist; together with Bernard Benoliel (that apparently stopped writing
to curate festivals, which is another way of doing film criticism), I think
he's the strongest formalist of the Cahiers for the last, say, ten years.
I think Patrice Blouin was the most interesting cahier writer of the past
year or so. His text on Spider-Man is great (better than the film, imo), so
as his text on the thread on teen-movies and teen-spirit. The one on
Elephant is awesome too. Joyard had better days and I can't seem to fully
understand or strongly like any text by Erwan Higuinen.
The only british director I care for nowadays is Chris Cunningham. By Leigh
I only like Meantime and Secrets & Lies. Profoundly despise his last one,
All Or Nothing or How To Animate Caricatures.
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 4:21 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] News from France: elitism, populism
> Emmanuel Burdeau, the author of that text on New Rose Hotel,
> is the new co-editor-in-chief of Cahiers. Jean-Marc Lalanne and
> Patrice Blouin are moving to Les Inrock, and some of the other
> young editors are also leaving.
>
> I have never understood the reluctance of the Cahiers (and
> others) to respond to my two favorite English directors of the
> moment, Mike Leigh and Terence Davies, who happen to be
> diametrical opposites in their methods. I can't attribute either
> choice to elitism, because both are commercially marginal, even
> if they're widely admired. If anything, expect to see more
> populism coming from Cahiers now that Emmanuel, who has
> said that every American action film deserves an article, is back.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
3760
From:
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2003 10:11pm
Subject: Stromboli
Thanks to everyone for the information on Stromboli!
My one sentence summary used the word "materialize". This is not the best
choice, but I was stumped to write more clearly - am down with a cold. God is
clearly present throughout Stromboli. Karin becomes profoundly aware of His
presence for the first time at the end of the film.
Mike Grost
I am in God's presence every day
And he never turns his face away.
-William Blake
3761
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 3:33am
Subject: Re: Stromboli
Yes!
According to Eric Rohmer:
"My aesthetic and ideological itinerary...started with existentialism,
with Jean-Paul Sartre. His essays...revealing Faulkner, Dos Passos, and
Husserl too, gave me a lot....It was Rossellini who turned me away from
existentiaIism. It happened in the middle of Stromboli. During the
first minutes of the projection I felt the limits of the Sartrian sort
of realism I thought was going to be the film's. I detested the way it
urged me to look at the world, until I understood that it was urging me
also to go beyond that. Then came my conversion. That's what's so
terrific in Stromboli, it was my road to Damascus: in the middle of the
film, I was converted, I changed perspective....What I tried to do in my
review...was to show how values that were completely rejected at that
time -- values of grandeur, of making something great out of something
great, whereas the current ideology was to make something out of nothing
-- cinema permitted them to exist."
MG4273@a... wrote:
> God is
> clearly present throughout Stromboli. Karin becomes profoundly aware
> of His
> presence for the first time at the end of the film.
> Mike Grost
>
> I am in God's presence every day
> And he never turns his face away.
> -William Blake
>
3762
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 5:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Critics and awards: journalism
The key word here is that you "promote" his work.
That's what a publicist gets paid for.
Your job is to cover his work -- and to do that you are supposed to have at
least the appearance of objectivity.
I have become friends with a few sources over the years -- a couple of the
Jewish musicians I cover -- and once that happened, I started handing off
their work to other reporters on Jewish Week because I felt it was no longer
appropriate for me to write about them.
Was my objectivity compromised? Not in the sense that I could no longer tell
their good stuff from the bad, but I didn't feel comfortable saying negative
stuff about their work in print because I was concerned about damaging the
relationship -- yeah, we're all big boys and girls here but feelings get
hurt anyway, I understand that and accept it as only natural. And there's a
big difference between my saying to a friend, "this isn't your best work, I
know you can do better and you have in the past" and my saying it in print.
And I was more interested in keeping the friendship than in covering their
new record -- whether it was good or bad. There are plenty of artists around
for me to write about.
That said, do I insist to my editor that someone else should do a story on
their work? If it's worth the space in the paper, yes.
(It's interesting and difficult writing about a community as small as the
Jewish music world -- there are several circles that don't intersect much,
but within each of those circles everyone knows everyone else, and there are
deep friendships and enmities. I try to stay out of the latter. I'm sure
there are similarly self-contained worlds within worlds in film, although
I'm at a loss for an example.)
I'm not perfect. I plugged a friend's book in my column in INSIDE Magazine
last winter, but I identified the author as a longtime friend, and I
wouldn't have done it if I hated the book.
But on the whole I try to live by the same standards as the men and women on
news side are taught. (And if they don't live up to them, that between them
and their editors and consciences.)
Sorry, that sound awfully pompous, but this is one area where I wish film
journalism was more professional.
G
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
>
> Am I the only one who honestly can't see what the problem is here? Why
should
> personal friendships (or indeed animosities) disqualify a critic from
writing about a
> filmmaker's work, especially if such relationships are common knowledge -
and, as in
> this case, the friendship arose in the first place from mutual admiration?
(Correct me
> if I'm wrong, but I believe Kael's wildly enthusiastic review of 'Fingers'
predated any
> personal friendship with its director).
>
> I've been lucky enough to form reasonably close personal relationships
with some of
> the filmmakers I've supported over the last decade or so - I'm thinking of
one in
> particular whose work I tirelessly championed for a decade across a wide
range of
> media (distribution, exhibition, journalism, a large-scale website) before
we finally
> met in person some five or six years ago when I needed his help to clear
up a few
> copyright issues. Now, we get on well enough to meet up socially every
time we're in
> the same city at the same time - but I don't remotely think that this
makes it unethical
> or inappropriate for me to continue to promote his work: the fact that
there's an
> element of personal friendship doesn't in any way alter my opinion of the
quality of
> the films, and nor should it. If anything, any disappointment is likely
to be far more
> acutely felt!
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
3763
From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 5:12am
Subject: Basic Elements (Re: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona" wrote:
>Spielberg (and the film) lacks a coherent
> point of view: The movie is anti-war(isn't war horrifying and
> dehumanizing) when it suits its needs ad pro-war when that's what
> Spielberg feels is called for
I agree with your summation about Private Ryan, although not with your dismissal
of the D-Day sequence. But
> It's a cheat to use different film stocks and
> film speeds, the sign of someone who can't get it down through basic
> film elements themselves.
That's kind of a "Huh ?" for me. How basic do "basic" film elements have to be ? Is
color a basic element or a cheat ? Camera movement ? Use of something other than
a 50mm lens in 35mm photography ?
By the logic of rejecting off-speed shots as non-basic film elements, we'd nearly
have to throw out the pre-sound dramatic cinema...
-Sam
3764
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 6:01am
Subject: Re: Re: Critics and awards: journalism
Well, I don't have any opinion on the awards issue, except to point out
that a newspaper has to be concerned not only with possible
improprieties but also with any appearance of impropriety; the latter
could permanently damage its credibility with its readers. And any
critic should be similarly worried.
But I do have an opinion, or rather several opinions, about the issue of
writing on friends' films. In general, I agree with George.
George, the analogy to the Jewish music world in cinema is the world of
avant-garde film. It is very hard to write reasonably well over a period
of time on an avant-garde filmmaker whose work you love without
developing some sort of a friendship. The filmmaker, starved for
intelligent and sympathetic reactions, will want to meet you, even if
you don't want to meet him. And since he or she is the best source of
information on films that are not going to be well documented otherwise,
you really need to meet him if he wants to.
One distinction I make is between filmmakers who became friends with me
because I liked their work before I met them, and friends who were
friends with me first but who also make films. Writing about the latter
is something I have almost always avoided.
But George is right that once you know the person it is harder to be
objective. Now if you are asked to write a catalogue essay on his work
for a festival program book, you're not necessarily expected to be
objective, you're really expected to be an advocate. But if you're, for
example, a newspaper critic, your readers are expecting an appraisal
that is not tainted by friendship. And it's not easy remain "pure" --
even if you're the rare person who can, how do you know?
The fact is that friends are more likely to like films of their friends
than other films. My only evidence is anecdotal, but it's also
overwhelming. George is not the first critic who has said that it's hard
to write negatively about a friend's work. Indeed, one of the original
Cahiers critics, I think it was Truffaut, said something like, "It's
hard to write that someone has made a terrible film in the morning if
you know you're going to have lunch with him in the afternoon."
I was able to get away with telling Brakhage that even in his mature
period I thought he had made a handful of bad films. First of all, he
tended to be generous about intelligent criticism. But more importantly,
he knew my opinion of his work as a whole was almost as high as his was,
so the fact that I thought there were a few turkeys was no threat. But
even with him, I wonder what I would do if he were still alive, and I
was charged with reviewing the Chicago premiere of, oh, say,
"Confession" (a *really* bad Brakhage film), at which he would also be
speaking.
There are really two phenomena at work here. One, your friend makes a
bad film but you're reluctant to write that. But two, you tend to view
your friends' films more generously than you would otherwise.
I of course believe that I am largely immune to both of these phenomena.
And luckily, though I have friendships with many of the avant-garde
filmmakers I write on, they are particularly close friendships. Plus, I
tend to like a much higher percentage of the works by an auteur I love
than many other critics do, and this is true of the avant-garde
filmmakers I've written on who have not become friends or who I've never
even met (Yvonne Rainer, Kenneth Anger, Joyce Wieland, Andy Warhol).
Nevertheless, this is a danger we should all be aware of.
In the short history of avant-garde film criticism, I know of at least
three essays rapturously praising filmmakers that were written by the
filmmakers' lovers, with the author not identified as such. Now *that*
really is crossing the line!
- Fred
3765
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 6:09am
Subject: Does anyone recognize this dialogue?
To get back to film . . .
I have an exchange from a western -- probably a '50s western -- that has
been running through my head for weeks and for the life of me I can't figure
out where it comes from.
The line goes something like this, and obviously it refers to drawing a gun:
"He was quick (or fast); hate made me quicker (or faster)."
Of course, the parentheticals are my alternate recollection of the line, not
actual dialogue. (Although that is not without promise. Finish-it-yourself
movie dialogue: "Joan, I love/hate/am indifferent to you." Push button 1 for
selection number 1 . . . )
George (Weirded out in Washington Heights) Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3766
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 6:13am
Subject: Re: Re: Critics and awards: journalism
Fred --
Thank you so much for your usual insightful take.
I would add that there are times when it is entirely appropriate to be an
advocate -- certainly the retrospective booklet example is an excellent one.
I don't have a problem with someone writing liner notes for an album -- if
asked I would probably do it if I liked the music. On the other hand, I
would donate any money received to an appropriate charity.
(Probably the George Robinson Foundation for Indigent Film Critics. By the
way, you are all welcome to send in donations to that charity. Just make the
checks out to cash and contact me off-line.)
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3767
From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 6:34am
Subject: Basic Elements (Re: let's hear it for dogs and mediocrities, I guess)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
>
> >Spielberg (and the film) lacks a coherent
> > point of view: The movie is anti-war(isn't war horrifying and
> > dehumanizing) when it suits its needs ad pro-war when that's what
> > Spielberg feels is called for
It sort of bugs me that Spielberg is so often criticised for his
supposedly simplistic worldview, but when he makes a film that DOES
possess a degree of moral complexity, he gets called incoherent.
I think Jaime's comments about "interruption" in PRIVATE RYAN are on
the money: the film is marked by abrupt shifts between a universe
where rational moral choice seems possible and a chaotic hell where
the only "choice" is between survival and death.
If you see the film as built on a (typically Spielbergian) tension
between romantic idealism and nihilism, this might help make sense of
the character arc of the Jeremy Davies character,
the "depersonalisation" of the action scenes, the "anti-climax" of
Matt Damon's appearance, etc. That is, if you're willing to grant
that Spielberg is capable of subtlety and complexity in the first
place.
JTW
3768
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 7:02am
Subject: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
Okay -- this will probably mean that Damien is going to boycott my birthday
party (or give me the Collected Works of Pauline Kael as a present -- hey,
it will make a great doorstop for a bank vault), but I want to say a few
words in mild defense of a few Spielberg films. (Did I equivocate enough
there?)
First, I think E.T. is absolutely wonderful in a slightly gooey Capra-esque
way. Narrative is not, I think, Spielberg's forte, an unconventional view I
admit but one that I can only justify by saying that I think he is more
effective in establishing moods than in telling a story.
I think this even truer of the more conventional narrative pieces -- I'm
thinking here of Jaws as an example -- think how differently Don Siegel
would have handled the same material -- and it makes Jaws one of his most
successful films because his affinity for mood pieces balances out the
essentially slender story line quite handsomely.
The same goes double for E.T. -- the best sequences are ones that don't do
all that much storywise -- the Halloween sequence comes to mind. The notable
exception is the scene in which E.T. "lets go" of Henry and, ostensibly,
dies, and that works brilliantly. The problem is the ending, where Spielberg
feels compelled to replay that scene, and this points to one of his major
shortcomings, his tendency when uncertain of his material to push all the
obvious manipulative buttons.
This weakness reaches its nadir in the last ten minutes of Schindler's List.
[Damien, I know we really part company on this one. Those of you who are
still with me, hang on.)
I've been working on and off on a book on Hollywood and the Holocaust for
several years now; I've seen a huge number of American films on the Shoah,
and almost none of them -- even some of the very few good ones -- seem to
understand the reality of the situation at all. Until very recently I had
come to believe that it is impossible by the very nature of classical
American film narrative to make a film that faces that reality -- why I
changed my mind is another story for another time but I will merely say that
Tim Blake Nelson's The Grey Zone and Robert M. Young's Triumph of the Spirit
(except for the awful title) break through the limitations of the paradigm.
One of the notable exceptions is Schindler's List.
Up to a point.
What does Spielberg get right that virtually no previous American filmmakers
got right?
Spielberg manages to convey a sense of the sheer terrifying randomness with
which death occurs in the labor camp at Plaszow. As prominent Holocaust
scholar Lawrence Langer writes, "Spielberg's major achievement has been to
eliminate the context of normalcy from the lives of his victims. . . ." In
the context of American film discourse, that is a significant achievement.
Equally significant, he at least attempts to depict a universe whose moral
center is so utterly degraded that doctors and nurses _killing_ patients can
be seen as heroic (a real incident from the liquidation of the Warsaw
Ghetto, by the way), and he seems to understand -- as few previous American
filmmakers had -- that this was a universe in which every choice that
preserve one life meant that another was forfeit.
Then he fucks it all up with that ending. If the movie ended with the title
card that announced that Schindler's last 'factory' never manufactured a
single usable shell for the Wehrmacht, then cut to the scene at Schindler's
grave in Israel, this would be, arguably, a great film. But that last ten
minutes of Liam Neeson "emoting" with Ben Kingsley about the lives he should
have saved is so out of character for Schindler and so phoney that it pisses
a lot of the film's value away.
It's that old aesthetic devil of his again -- when in doubt, punch the
audience's buttons. Hard. No, harder than that. They're not crying yet? Keep
punching.
And he did again in Minority Report, which is actually pretty nicely made
until that stupid "they had a new baby and lived happily ever after"
Capra-corn ending.
(and if it seems like I'm beating up on Capra, well I am, but that's another
post for another thread and another time)
So, yes, I share the distaste of many of the people here for Spielberg, but
I think he has a considerable talent that he doesn't seem to know how to
harness.
G
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3769
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 7:09am
Subject: Conflicts of interest, critics as advocates, Spielberg
1. Jonathan R has pointed out that the NY Times is a financial backer
of Sundance, but they review it - giving it a lot of space. Is this
still the case?
2. I don't New York Review of Books parody of PK reviewing a new
Altman film about a convention of department story Santas, which she
was helping edit as she wrote - a reference to her advance review of
Nashville based on seeing a rough-cut. It was very funny, but a few
years later, when Jacky Raynal and Serge Daney were premiering Numero
deux at a Semaine des cahiers at the Bleecker, I sent Kael word
through a friend at the New Yorker inviting her to see the film and
write about it, since Godard was always sp important to her. She sent
back word that she had gotten so much flack - from fellow critics -
over the Nashville review that she no longer reviewed films not in
release. I found this sad, but I was mad at those other critics, who
were just reinforcing the monopoly of the people who control
distribution, not at Kael. She was right to review Nashville, which
needed a push, and she should have reviewed Numero deux.
3. I love A.I.
3770
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 7:12am
Subject: George on Spielberg
I absolutely agree 100 percent with everything George just said about
Spielberg.
3771
From: Philip Fileri
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 7:48am
Subject: Critical Professionalism (was Re: Critics and awards: journalism)
Fred and George, you've made some good points, on a practical level, about the
difficulties of writing objectively and truthfully when the critic personally knows the
artist. But, in a larger sense, I think it's all pretty irrelevant. The consumer-guide and
evaluative aspects may be rendered impure, and this is, of course, a
something of a concern in the particular context of a journalistic review. But the
overwhelmingly more important funtions of criticism--strength of analysis, quality of
writing, for example--remain intact, out in the open to be judged by the reader.
Simply put, all I care about as a reader is whether what the critic writes is insightful
about the art under consideration. Ultimately, I couldn't care less about the critic's
possible close relationship to the artist. A critic isn't a straight-ahead journalist
covering politics, needing above all to establish professionalism, objectivity and
integrity in reporting and analysis. A critic writes in order to provide the reader with
greater insight into the work of art and help reveal/create new meanings.
So, sure, Pauline Kael was tight with Brian De Palma -- but, who cares? She either
wrote good criticism about the man's films or she didn't. And she can do that
regardless of her relationship to De Palma and we can judge that regardless of her
relationship to De Palma.
Fred's work on Brakhage is the perfect counterexample, if you need one, to disprove
this prescription for critical "professionalism". I don't think we really need to fret over
critics' underlying motives and intentions, since, in the end, it's all secondary. What
matters is how well their critical arguments stand up, and one needn't know critic/
artist relationship in order to judge that.
To broaden the examples, think of art history: Ruskin and the Pre-Rraphaelites; Zola
and Manet; Greenberg and Pollack. There's a fine tradition of excellent, enduring
criticism emerging out of authors writing about fellow authors/artists who all worked
in close social networks (e.g., the Surrealists in the 20s or the Bloomsbury Circle).
-Phil
3772
From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 8:16am
Subject: Re: News from France: elitism, populism
> The only british director I care for nowadays is Chris Cunningham.
By Leigh
> I only like Meantime and Secrets & Lies. Profoundly despise his
last one,
> All Or Nothing or How To Animate Caricatures.
This seems to be my day for defending people. It's strange how Leigh
is such a divisive figure: those who don't love the recent films (as
I do) tend to loathe them intensely.
There's undeniably caricature in Leigh's films -- in a sense which
makes him an heir to Dickens -- but for me, anyway, his characters
never seem remotely like "flat" targets for satire (unlike, say,
everyone in Todd Solondz). Leigh seems to me very much a humanist, in
a valid sense of that overworked term, in that he's concerned, first,
with what he defines as "universal" human emotions (primarily, the
need to love and be loved) and, second, with how people are
nonetheless defined, and define themselves, by external traits like
age, class, nationality, gender and physique, as well as by personal
habits that turn into mechanical routines (like Brenda Blethyn's
refrain of "sweetheart, darling" in SECRETS AND LIES).
The way that his characters (all of them) are hemmed in by contingent
circumstance means that the expressions of emotion in Leigh's films
often register as grotesque -- in ALL OR NOTHING, say, the old man
who makes a pass at the nursing home attendant or the boy who carves
up his chest to impress the neighbour girl. But I don't believe that
Leigh is presenting the emotions themselves as merely absurd -- quite
the reverse. And it's simply wrong to think that Leigh patronises his
lower-class characters as "little" people with relatively trivial
problems and feelings: he doesn't treat his working-class families
any differently from how he treats W.S. Gilbert in TOPSY-TURVY.
Leigh's people are frequently absurd, but they're hardly ever viewed
with contempt -- the only exception I can think of is the upper-class
villain in NAKED -- and even the minor comic figures are allowed to
retain their humanity. Take the doctor in ALL OR NOTHING with his
inane exclamations ("Wizard! Super!"): the comedy doesn't arise
because he's stupid or corrupt, but because his artificial mannerisms
are wildly at odds with the impression he's hoping to convey. Leigh
has a sardonic, very British fascination with failed, awkward, or
simply eccentric forms of self-presentation (one reason his movies
seem both "realistic" and elaborately theatrical). But he's not just
sneering from a distance: unglamorous and limited as his characters
tend to be, how far we can go along with his work probably depends on
how far we're willing to recognise ourselves there.
JTW
3773
From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 8:39am
Subject: Space revisited
Following the recent discussion on space in film, I was struck to
come across the following passage in an essay by James Leahy in the
recent book Soundscape:
"Paralinguistics [the study of "the non-verbal aspects of speech"] is
one of several systems of non-verbal communication which have been
described and analysed by verbal and behavioural scientists, and
which nowadays are too often invoked by the vague use of the
term "body language". They include proxemics the systemic analysis
of the use of space in human interaction, pioneered by Edward Hall,
one of my teachers at graduate school. The ways in which space is
deployed vary from culture to culture, and can determine the nature
of a human interaction, and the extent and content of the
communications achieved through it. Seen in the light of this
empirical scientific approach, spatial relationships represent
something more fundamental than the "metaphor for human
relationships" which film critic Ray Durgnat suggested...
"Kinesics, the study of body-motion communication pioneered by
Raymond Birtwhistle, is the system closest to the popular notion of
body language. Kinetic patterns vary not only from culture to
culture, but within cultures. I remember a Birtwhistle lecture in
which he mimicked the interaction between a New Englander and a
Southerner. Years later, this account was vividly reborn in my mind
as the explanation of the fact that, no matter how serious the
situation or how grave his words, Bill Clinton's grin never seemed to
leave his face!
"I would suggest that much of the poetry and power of motion pictures
derives from the ways in which these non-verbal systems are deployed.
Like music and soundtrack in the classic cinema, much of their work
is done subliminally. Of course the three systems overlap: if one
interacts with a person at a closer than usual distance in other
words, if one alters one's proxemic relation to that person one's
awareness of their paralinguistic and kinesic production is
heightened. The effect is often very close to hypnotic. It may, for
example, temporarily undermine aspects of one or other person's
identity their sexual orientation, for example. This I have
observed on at least two occasions, both terminated before things
went too far! The first occasion was during an improvisation my
friend, film director Nick Ray, set up for a dozen or more of my
students, using the techniques of improvisation he had learnt and
developed in the theatre in New York in the 1930s, then deployed when
collaborating on the first North American experiments in therapeutic
psychodrama at the St Elizabeth Hospital in Washington DC in
collaboration with Les Farber, brother of the film critic Manny and
subsequently when directing films in Hollywood."
Incidentally, a longer account of the incident mentioned in the last
paragraph appears in the memoir of working with Nick Ray which James
recently published in Senses of Cinema:
www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/03/27/nicholas_ray_leahy.html
JTW
3774
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 10:06am
Subject: more Cold Heaven
Well, it turns out that a few of us have seen Roeg's COLD HEAVEN ... and
almost all of us think it's strange! This is a short review I did of it in
the early 90s:
"Nicolas Roeg's Cold Heaven, little seen anywhere in the world since its
completion in 1990, is a certified oddball experience.
It is sad to see Roeg dimly plagiarising his former triumphs (especially
Don't Look Now, 1973) in this fragmented tale of an adulterous woman
alternating between mystical visions, soul-searching dialogues with her
undead husband (Mark Harmon), stream-of-consciousness voice-over ravings,
and sweaty trysts with her lover (James Russo).
Years ago Roeg's keen interest in mental processes and parallel universes
seemed compelling, largely because his cinematic style was so fresh and
innovative. Now his trademark touches - chaotic editing, patchwork casting,
self-reflexive irony - come over like David Lynch on a bad day.
Still, watch out for Will Patton - it's hard to forget him ascending
serenely skywards in The Rapture (1991) - as a priest whose final, unctuous
sermon sorts out all mysteries on earth as in heaven."
... Actually, re-reading that, it occurs to me that the enigmatic ending of
COLD HEAVEN is the Missing Link in Film History between the enigmatic ending
of STROMBOLI and the enigmatic ending of THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS !!! (How's
that for an up-to-the-minute reference?)
BTW, COLD HEAVEN is adapted from a novel by Brian Moore - author of BLACK
ROBE which was filmed by Aussie Bruce Beresford in 1991.
Adrian
3775
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 2:20pm
Subject: Re: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
You make some excellent points about aspects of
pielberg's style. But he also has a destructive streak
which comes out in "Duel," much of "A.I." (his best
film, IMO) and most decisively in "1941" -- the
greatest "film maudit" since "Party Girl"."
The ending of "Schindler's List" was beautifully
parodied on "Seinfeld" in the episode featuring the
woefully forgotten Judge Reinhold.
As for the randomness of death in the Holocaust,
Polanski trumps Spielberg in "The Pianist."
--- George Robinson wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3776
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 4:07pm
Subject: Re: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't seen A.I., 1941 or Saving Private
Ryan, but now that I have a DVD player I will remedy some of the gaps in my
viewing. Admittedly, Spielberg is not exactly a high priority.
Ira Hozinsky, a friend of Damien's and mine (and the man for whom the Iras
were named -- long story, you hadda be there) is a big fan of 1941; when it
came out, he told me, only half-jokingly, that the entire purpose of cinema
was the mindless anarchic destruction of property and that this film was the
culmination of that theme. Hey, John Belushi, Robert Stack and the mindless
destruction of property? I'm there in a heartbeat.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ehrenstein"
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'}
[WARNING -- LONG POST]
> You make some excellent points about aspects of
> pielberg's style. But he also has a destructive streak
> which comes out in "Duel," much of "A.I." (his best
> film, IMO) and most decisively in "1941" -- the
> greatest "film maudit" since "Party Girl"."
>
> The ending of "Schindler's List" was beautifully
> parodied on "Seinfeld" in the episode featuring the
> woefully forgotten Judge Reinhold.
>
> As for the randomness of death in the Holocaust,
> Polanski trumps Spielberg in "The Pianist."
>
> --- George Robinson wrote:
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
3777
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 5:42pm
Subject: Re: Critical Professionalism (was Re: Critics and awards: journalism)
Thanks for Phillip for a very strong post, and one I largely agree with,
though its mention of me means that, along the lines of our present
discussion, I may not be its most objective evaluator.
But Phil speaks from the Ivory Tower, even if upper Manhattan isn't
quite that "white.". Those of us who are trying to make a living as
writers need to watch our backs, so to speak. Part of the issue is
appearances, and no writer can afford to have his integrity thrown into
serious question.
More importantly, I still think things are a bit more nuanced than "What
matters is how well their critical arguments stand up." Even though I'm
hardly a pomo relativist, the first thing to point out is that "stand
up" is itself not an objective criterion, but is influenced by times and
past discourses.
Despite the frequently repeated old saw that the last person one should
trust for insight into an art work is the artist, I hold the contrary
view. I'm also an art critic, and have interviewed literally hundreds of
artists over the years, from Ellsworth Kelly to artists still in grad
school, and more often than not the artist's view of the work confirms
my own, which I take to be a sign both that I'm pretty good at
understanding work that I like and that artists themselves do in fact
have a pretty good understanding of what they are doing. But perhaps
what's really going on is that while I have a good feel for the ways
artists see their works, other ways, ways artists typically resist, are
just as valid, and "stand up" just as well, depending on the observer.
Take the example of Brakhage. Sitney once said, at the time he was
completing "Visionary Film," that there is a way in which everything
worth being said about Brakhage has been said in some form by Brakhage
himself. Leaving aside the fact that Sitney then surprised a deeply
appreciative Brakhage by coming up with his connection to Romanticism
and Wordsworth, I've found that at least to some extent his observation
is true. Much of my own writing about Brakhage involves ways of
understanding things he's said in relationship to his films. My point
about how his work opposes object fetishism is perhaps my most original
one, but even that can be at least related to statements he's made. Now
of course the trick is knowing which of his statements to use (I don't
use his comparison of art to parsley, as both continuing ingredients
essential for human life, for example but the decision not to use that
one was not exactly a tough call) and how to use them and how to morph
them into new forms that make new -- and useful -- points about the
films. I could defend my practice on the grounds that like many artists,
Brakhage does in fact have a deep understanding of his work. But perhaps
the feeling that interpretations based on his statements "stand up" is
based on the natural tendency many of us have to privilege artists'
statements. Maybe if Brakhage had said a whole different set of things
about his work -- not, for example, that he's trying to resist language
and is inspired by music but rather that his primary drive is to
incorporate multiple poetic associations to the objects and colors into
his films and to have them amount to a narrative, a statement that also
has at least some truth -- his position would have entered the
consciousness of many viewers to the extent that if I wrote about
Brakhage the same way my interpretations wouldn't seem to stand up as well.
I'm not really making a sharp point here, or explicitly disagreeing
Phil. Rather I wish to claim that the question of why an interpretation
seems to work well for a particular set of viewers is itself a vexed
one, and culturally dependent too, and one that could be applied to the
artist-critic pairings Phil mentions as well. In the end I guess what we
want is full disclosure: just what was the writer's relationship to the
artist?
The other side is also something of which one should be careful. The
reaction of the naοve viewer who knows nothing about the work he is
seeing can be interesting, and sometimes brilliant, but is often also
ridiculous. One of the few times I felt embarrassed to be appearing in
the "Chicago Reader" was a decade or so ago when the first and only (I
believe) performance of a play by the great avant-garde theater director
Robert Wilson was held in Chicago. I'd seen perhaps ten of his works in
New York, when I lived there and on tripod back (sometimes timed to see
them). The theater critic who reviewed the Wilson basically said it
didn't have much to offer because there was no story, if I remember
right. He made no acknowledgement of Wilson's fame, or intent. His
review was akin to objecting to Pollock because his paintings don't show
recognizable things. Looking at the Wilson through one set of
expectations blinded him to what the work was doing.
I don't think my journalistic coverage of films in the Reader has ever
been influenced by acquaintanceships or friendships with filmmakers. But
I think it might have been had the hypothetical I mentioned in my last
post occurred: faced with reviewing the Chicago premiere of "Confession"
with Brakhage coming to Chicago to introduce it, I think I would have
let another critic do it, not because I feared I wouldn't be honest
about why I hated it, but for fear of offending Brakhage. While I don't
think a journalist who recuses himself ever has his integrity
questioned, the fact is that my knowing Brakhage would have had some
effect on the way his film was covered.
And artists and filmmakers court critics, and they try to build
friendships to critics they see as sympathetic, not always with the
purest of intentions. And critics need to be aware of this phenomenon,
and be very, very careful.
- Fred
3778
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 6:11pm
Subject: Re: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
> As for the randomness of death in the Holocaust,
> Polanski trumps Spielberg in "The Pianist."
Not being a huge fan of the Ron Howard movie of which you speak, I
disagree, but I also wasn't aware of the ongoing contest between
filmmakers to create the "best experience of the randomness of
Holocaust death." Anyway both Spielberg and Polanski have Oscars for
their entries in this sweepstakes.
-Jaime
3779
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 6:57pm
Subject: Re: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
"he told me, only half-jokingly, that the entire
purpose of cinema
was the mindless anarchic destruction of property and
that this film was the
culmination of that theme."
If so then "1941" is greater "Citizen Kane,"
"Battleship Potemkin," "Rules of the Game," and "Tokyo
Story" combined.
--- George Robinson wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3780
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 7:25pm
Subject: Critical Professionalism (was Re: Critics and awards: journalism)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Fileri" wrote:
> So, sure, Pauline Kael was tight with Brian De Palma -- but, who
cares? She either
> wrote good criticism about the man's films or she didn't. And she
can do that
> regardless of her relationship to De Palma and we can judge that
regardless of her
> relationship to De Palma.
Was she a friend of De Palma? I recall an interview -- which I can't
locate now -- in which De Palma stated he met Kael only a few times.
I also recall Kael writing that her only close friend among directors
was Jean Renoir (and she didn't like his post-1939 films, apart from
"The Golden Coach"). My impression from Phillip Lopate's essay
on Kael was she was friends with Woody Allen, Coppola, James
Wolcott, Paul Schrader, and Altman. The latter two friendships didn't
last.
Paul
3781
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 7:42pm
Subject: The Pianist
Just a note: I thought this was a beautiful film which didn't get the
kind of critical analysis it deserved because people have never
really understood Polanski's style, preferring to focus on his
subject matter, as again happened with The Pianist.
In Hollywood and after he has carried out very interesting
"research," to use a French kind of word, on the properties of
screen spectacle, not by showing things that have never been
seen before (the constant and ultimately futile race to maintain
the gap between "never seen" and "already seen" which Oudart
predicted in 1970 that late classical cinema would now be
trapped in, like a treadmill it can't get off of), but be exploring
ways that the spectacle, the filmed image, can be made
fascinating in and of itself, without recourse to the techniques of
fascination invented by practitioners of classical cinema like
Lang and Hitchcock.
This is the subject of Pascal Kane's excellent little book on
Polanski, which he wrote after Fearless Vampire Killers, where
he points out the importance of a constant in Polanski's films
that he calls The Place, a magical, mysterious, terrifying place in
the film where the characters go, which symbolizes the film itself
and its powers. In Pianist this is the ever-narrowing prison
created for the hero by the Nazis, where among other things the
customary laws of time and space become fantastically flexible:
Polanski cuits without a fade from a family meeting on the
subject of "will we wear the stars or resist'" to the father walking
in the street wearing a star that is obnviously shabby with long
use and not reacting as we do when he sees a man beaten by
Nazi hooligans. Because Polanski has completely mastered the
properties of the spectacle, he can hold you fascinated for 3
hours with a story whose oultines and outcome you already
know - a fascination that combines pleasure (despite the
"unpleasure" of the subject) with thought, which is another
characteristic of Polanskian spectacle defined by Kane.
Whether this is just a new version of what great filmmakers
always did by other means (or in some cases, the same means)
is an open question, but it does have the virtue of defining
Polanski's ambitions as an artist who is always trying new
things, as he did in What?, one of my favorite Polanski films,
where he discarded narrative and tried to create a film out of
repetition and variation of happenings, images, etc., explicitly
modelled on the forms of classical music. His autobiography
contains some interesting passages on his study of Gestalt
psychology and problems of synesthesia - how to render
physical sensation with images and sounds, as he does at the
beginning of Frantic, which renders the experience of jet lag
palpable. I also love the little perceptual games played in that
film, like the opening riddle: Where are we? the cab driver is
North African, the cab and freeway could be anywhere, and ditto
the carefull selected scenery seen through the windows, until the
very end of the sequence when a small far-off green garbage
truck (already a clue) pulls away revealing at the end of the
street, much further off, the Eiffel Tower.
3782
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 8:20pm
Subject: Re: Critical Professionalism (was Re: Critics and awards: journalism)
A little more, but shorter:
I think Phil writes from the position of a consumer of criticism,
confident in his ability to judge whether the writing is helpful. That's
fine. But for the critic, vigilance is needed when friendships with the
subjects are involved, because the situation may have complexities not
readily apparent even to the critic. That's really my point.
- Fred
3783
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 8:24pm
Subject: Critical Professionalism
On the subject of directors knowing about their own films: When
Bazin interviewed Hitchcock, he told him the transference of guilt
theory as worked out by the young Turks (Rohmer, Chabrol...) on
the magazine. As described by Bazin in his article (it's an article,
not a transcribed conversation) Hitchcock listened intently with a
look of dawning understanding on his face, combined with the
pleasure of hearing an idea he had never thought of himself.
After that, of course, we can assume that games with
transference in the films are played with some degree of
consciousness.
3784
From: Rick Curnutte
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 8:38pm
Subject: Re: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> A ton of perceptive stuff about Spielberg.
But the best point you made was about his continued "punching" of
his emotional climaxes. My wife and I were talking recently about
how, basically, Spielberg has no idea how to end a film. Nearly
every film he's made since EMPIRE OF THE SUN (his most underrated)
has suffered from the predicament you mentioned. SCHINDLER'S LIST
would have benefited from trimming the "one more person" scene;
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN would have benefited from trimming the terrible
contemporary bookend segments and the cringe-inducing "Earn this"
line; MINORITY REPORT, the aforementioned "baby/happy ending" mess;
even A.I., the Spielberg film I value the most since EOTS, suffered
a bit from Spielberg's typical laying-it-on-thick narrative style.
Rick Curnutte
Editor, THE FILM JOURNAL
www.thefilmjournal.com
thefilmjournal @ yahoo.com
3785
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 9:38pm
Subject: Spielberg
I think George is right when he says that Spielberg doesn't really
know how to tell a story - not knowing how to end is part of that.
(That isn't necessarily a criticsm, although in the post-Maoist
Cahiers it would have been: inability to narrate pretty much
replaced being right-wing or privileging the signified over the
signifier as the big no-no, and was allied to a host of sins.
Needless to say, Spielberg had already taken it in the chops for
all the previous ix-nays - don't know if he was ever accused of
being narratively-challenged, though.)
Anyway, George is right that side-moments like Halloween are
what make ET work, and in that one, light is very important, as it
was in Jaws and Close Encounters. (French filmmaker Benoit
Jacquot told me in 77 that he liked the way Spielberg used light.)
The unusual lighting SS and Alan Daviau got in that Halloween
sequence makes the sequence more than Drew Barrymore (in
that particular case), and when I wrote about the film for CdC I
stressed the non-naturalistic moments of transition, the most
striking being when Henry Thomas is in the closet and the
lighting changes from night to day in one shot. And everyone
remembers the night scenes, which like those in Jaws and
CEOTK are inspired by Mother Night in Fantasia. We don't talk
enough about lighting, perhaps because we suspect it's the
cameraman's job, but a) that's not the case with Spielberg and
b) it's not just a decorative element. In films like this or, say, The
Thin Red Line, Two-Lane Blacktop or Nuits de la pleine lune.
Light carries connotations, which are one form - if not the form -
of signification by which films "mean."
As for the endings, they are a symptom of the problem George
has fingered, and they are truly horrrible, but SS finally beat the
problem in A.I., because he had an ending and a story Kubrick
handed him after 15 years of getting it right. I think the ending of
A.I. is exquisite and profound. Many accused it of being a
Spielberg add-on, but no one who has suffered through the
endings of Close Encounters, ET and Schindler could imagine
that it came from the maker of those films.
Oddly, the ending of 1941 works, and at least the ending of
Catch Me If You Can doesn't spoil the film. The title, by the way, is
part of the language, but it was originated by Jack the Ripper,
who used it as the salutation of one of his famous letters to
Scotland Yard. (from the Serial Killer side of my brain).
3786
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 4:33pm
Subject: Re: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
George,
liked your post. I don't like most of Spielberg films (and not any of the
so-called "serious" ones), but I consider him a case that deserves great
attention.
I would like to know what did you think of the scene in which the nazi
official shoots a boy in the back for not cleaning well his bath-tub. I gave
up the film in that scene.
To me at the time (I admit only having seen it when it started in theaters,
back in 1993), it read "nazism is so evil that the nazis shoot little
children in the back"; or simply "he's evil", by which you also may get very
deel history-wise....
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Robinson"
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:02 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'}
[WARNING -- LONG POST]
3787
From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 10:52pm
Subject: Re: Spielberg (light)
We don't talk
> enough about lighting, perhaps because we suspect it's the
> cameraman's job, but a) that's not the case with Spielberg and
> b) it's not just a decorative element. In films like this or, say,
The
> Thin Red Line, Two-Lane Blacktop or Nuits de la pleine lune.
> Light carries connotations, which are one form - if not the form -
> of signification by which films "mean."
I think the key to Spielberg is taking his metaphysical
preoccupations seriously -- obviously light is his central symbol for
God/transcendence/the unknowable, but his relation to that is very
ambiguous. One of the central images in his whole body of work -- one
that inverts and, in a sense, justifies many of his criticised
excesses -- is the blast of white light in EMPIRE OF THE SUN, which
(as in the book) the hero sees as a vision of a soul ascending to
heaven, and which later turns out to be the atom bomb at Nagasaki.
By the way, I don't believe EMPIRE is a betrayal of the Ballard book
-- along with A.I., it's one of Spielberg's strongest films because
of the intelligence and power of the source material, which he's able
to make his own the same way he later did with Kubrick. Spielberg has
a lot in common with both of them: the erotic fusion of the organic
and the mechanical (aircraft are sexual symbols in 1941, EMPIRE,
ALWAYS and CATCH ME IF YOU CAN -- see the amazing scene of Christian
Bale embracing a plane like it's his mother); the fascination with
macrocosm and microcosm (compare Spielberg's domestic spaces with a
Ballard story like "The Enormous Room"); the self-consciously
quoted "pop" imagery. Spielberg also has a lot in common with Philip
K. Dick, but MINORITY REPORT is much less satisfactory as a version
of that author.
JTW
3788
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 11:30pm
Subject: Re: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
I feel like I've passed over into the twilight zone.
Spielberg doesn't know how to tell a story, Spielberg's best film is
"A.I"...
My head is spinning. Part of my brain tells me "These are intelligent
people, they have watched thousand of films, read and written
commentary for many, many years" while the rest of my brain is stunned
as if Belluchi just flashed me and said "Take me, I'm yours".
I too agree that Schindler's "I could have saved more" monologue at
the end feels wrong. It is not wrong. Schindler has to make the
comment, but it's being dragged out and should have ended before
begins to talk about his car and the pin. It's an honest point of
critic. I don't know if it's in the book, but it's too corny for
Zaillian - perhaps it's a rewrite. But that this small blunder should
fuck up the entire film and that the film, if this sequences wasn't
there, only where a great film, I find demoting it on very thin
ground.
Equally I do not agree with that Spielberg is a bad storyteller and
can't handle a narrative. Quiet the opposite, I consider Spielberg one
of our times best storytellers and in time only equaled by Disney. I
consider the opening sequence of "Close Encounters" as perfect as can
be, and have frequently used it aside the opening sequence of "Seven
Samurai", as both sequences employ the same cinematic and narrative
devices. I consider the ending of "ET" the best written piece of
dialogue ever, expressing friendship and love, as ET says "Come" and
Elliott replies "Stay". And to no surprise, I consider "Schindlers
List" his best film.
What I fail to comprehend is, why "AI", a film that has so many flaws
that it becomes painful to analyze, should be the best film by the
hack? If one should trash Spielberg, why not do it with truly bad
films like "AI" or "Amistad"?
If that was a defense of Spielberg, I sure hope that George isn't a
lawyer :)
Henrik "Serling"
3789
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003 11:57pm
Subject: Re: Critics and awards: journalism
I don't know if this is one of the three, but check out Tom Zummer's
essay on Leslie Thornton in Senses of Cinema's Great Directors...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Well, I don't have any opinion on the awards issue, except to point
out
> that a newspaper has to be concerned not only with possible
> improprieties but also with any appearance of impropriety; the
latter
> could permanently damage its credibility with its readers. And any
> critic should be similarly worried.
>
> But I do have an opinion, or rather several opinions, about the
issue of
> writing on friends' films. In general, I agree with George.
>
> George, the analogy to the Jewish music world in cinema is the
world of
> avant-garde film. It is very hard to write reasonably well over a
period
> of time on an avant-garde filmmaker whose work you love without
> developing some sort of a friendship. The filmmaker, starved for
> intelligent and sympathetic reactions, will want to meet you, even
if
> you don't want to meet him. And since he or she is the best source
of
> information on films that are not going to be well documented
otherwise,
> you really need to meet him if he wants to.
>
> One distinction I make is between filmmakers who became friends
with me
> because I liked their work before I met them, and friends who were
> friends with me first but who also make films. Writing about the
latter
> is something I have almost always avoided.
>
> But George is right that once you know the person it is harder to
be
> objective. Now if you are asked to write a catalogue essay on his
work
> for a festival program book, you're not necessarily expected to be
> objective, you're really expected to be an advocate. But if you're,
for
> example, a newspaper critic, your readers are expecting an
appraisal
> that is not tainted by friendship. And it's not easy remain "pure" -
-
> even if you're the rare person who can, how do you know?
>
> The fact is that friends are more likely to like films of their
friends
> than other films. My only evidence is anecdotal, but it's also
> overwhelming. George is not the first critic who has said that it's
hard
> to write negatively about a friend's work. Indeed, one of the
original
> Cahiers critics, I think it was Truffaut, said something
like, "It's
> hard to write that someone has made a terrible film in the morning
if
> you know you're going to have lunch with him in the afternoon."
>
> I was able to get away with telling Brakhage that even in his
mature
> period I thought he had made a handful of bad films. First of all,
he
> tended to be generous about intelligent criticism. But more
importantly,
> he knew my opinion of his work as a whole was almost as high as his
was,
> so the fact that I thought there were a few turkeys was no threat.
But
> even with him, I wonder what I would do if he were still alive, and
I
> was charged with reviewing the Chicago premiere of, oh, say,
> "Confession" (a *really* bad Brakhage film), at which he would also
be
> speaking.
>
> There are really two phenomena at work here. One, your friend makes
a
> bad film but you're reluctant to write that. But two, you tend to
view
> your friends' films more generously than you would otherwise.
>
> I of course believe that I am largely immune to both of these
phenomena.
> And luckily, though I have friendships with many of the avant-garde
> filmmakers I write on, they are particularly close friendships.
Plus, I
> tend to like a much higher percentage of the works by an auteur I
love
> than many other critics do, and this is true of the avant-garde
> filmmakers I've written on who have not become friends or who I've
never
> even met (Yvonne Rainer, Kenneth Anger, Joyce Wieland, Andy Warhol).
>
> Nevertheless, this is a danger we should all be aware of.
>
> In the short history of avant-garde film criticism, I know of at
least
> three essays rapturously praising filmmakers that were written by
the
> filmmakers' lovers, with the author not identified as such. Now
*that*
> really is crossing the line!
>
> - Fred
3790
From: Damien Bona
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 1:10am
Subject: Re: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
Having not liked to any degree at all any Spielberg film
since Jaws, I was absolutely shocked when I was blown away by A. I.
one of the most unexpected occurrences of my movie-going life.
It's extraordinary how many themes and subjects -- personal
and social A.I. encompasses. Apart from other things, I feel it's
the greatest fairy tale ever put on film. It strikes me that the
reason I find this so deeply moving as opposed to Schindler and
Private Ryan is that the mode in which Spielberg is most
comfortable is the fantasy/fairy tale genre. When he tackled "adult"
themes he was in over his head, working in a form he had no
inclination for, other than the feeling that this is what "serious"
filmmakers do. (The Color Purple is for me is his most inadequate
picture painfully so. He seemingly had no comprehension of the
people or situations in the film.)
In A.I. Spielberg took what had become a benign genre and
imbued it with the darkest and most primal and innate feelings
imaginable. Because he was comfortable with the essence, he could
take off from it. And he made a film that has both hope and despair,
and if ultimately it comes up with a hesitant sense of hope, it is
nevertheless the darkness that one takes away from it. There are very
few other movies that tap into the need -- not the desire, but the
absolute NEED -- that human beings have to feel loved. Spielberg,
the last person I would have expected to do so, has delved into a
particular aspect of human nature in a very profound way. Most of
us, do have -- at least -- familial love, and in presenting a
character bereft of that gift which we mostly take for granted, he
causes us to re-examine life as it might have been if we were
stripped down to the lonely and unembraced Id. And whereas I found
that Spielberg couldn't completely face the utter and unknowable
horror of the Holocaust -- thus sugarcoating it here working on a
fantasy level enabled him to let loose with his grimmest feelings and
deepest fears.
I feel that the sequence where Frances O'Connor leaves Haley
Joel Osment in the woods -- and he's begging her with the most
pathetic pleads imaginable -- is the most extraordinary -- and
affecting -- sequence in any Spielberg movie, with the possible
exception a little over an hour later when Osment is staring at the
Blue Fairy beseeching her to make him a real boy. Osment alone on
his own in the woods: in the past, Spielberg would have shot things
in a prettified fashion, with a quaintness and even charm, but here,
Osment and Teddy together seem so vulnerable, so sad and so
heartbreaking it's devastating.
The film also tackles a "big" issue -- racism -- along with
the more personal issues that dominate the film, but Spielberg melds
the various aspects together beautifully. The violence against non-
human creatures, similarly, seems more real than that in Private
Ryan.
Even the scene with Dr. Know, which borders on the coy -- and
which earlier Spielberg would have played unbearably in that
direction -- is fraught with fear and sinister overtones. And Teddy --
at first glance I thought, oh, no, the R2D3 comic character -- is an
unanticipatedly deeply moving presence and filled with a
heartbreaking need of attachment all his own. The way his injured
self moves as the film goes on is quite beautiful in its own
understated way. The imagery of the Manhattan scenes are pretty
astounding -- and its perfect thematically that among the
recognizable underwater locales are Radio City Music Hall and Coney
Island -- both places of fantasies and dreams.
For the first time Spielberg has tapped into the emotionalism
that I was always hearing that his films were all about. How much is
Kubrick's influence doesn't matter, for all we need to know is on the
screen, and what's there is beautiful and profound. I can think of
few films that so evocatively and empathetically convey the pang of
longing, for when all is said in done, just about all the characters
in this film are longing for something.
Because A.I. is so rich and insightful and deep, I hoped it
signaled a new maturity in Spielberg's filmmaking. All the more
reason why I was so disappointed in Minority Report and Catch Me If
You Can, where to me he reverted back to his old superficiality and
emotional detachment.
-- Damien
3791
From: Damien Bona
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 1:19am
Subject: The Pianist/Judge Reinhold
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> As for the randomness of death in the Holocaust,
> Polanski trumps Spielberg in "The Pianist."
>
I think The Pianist is so much more effective than Schindler's List
(or nearly any other narrative Holocaust film) is that Polanski
daringly portrayed an absurdist world, which may be the only way that
something as unfathomable as the Shoah can be effectively conveyed.
Such moments as Jewish civilians being forced to dance with each
other emphasized the spiritual degradation these people were
enduring, and as such were more emotionally imediate to an audience
that to some degree has become inured to violence on screen.
> The ending of "Schindler's List" was beautifully
> parodied on "Seinfeld" in the episode featuring the
> woefully forgotten Judge Reinhold.
I always though that the completely charming Reinhold would become a
big star, and that he -- not Tom Hanks -- should have been THE light
comedy romantic lead of the 80s and early 90s. I think the last time
I saw hm was on a car commercial.
-- Damien
3792
From: Tosh
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 2:00am
Subject: Re: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
Isn't AI a rip off of Astro Boy? Same story basically.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
3793
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 2:39am
Subject: Re: Re: Critics and awards: journalism
Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
>I don't know if this is one of the three...
>
No, that makes four; thanks for adding to my "collection."
- Fred
3794
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 4:06am
Subject: Re: Re: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
Is Astro Boy Jewish?
--- Tosh wrote:
> Isn't AI a rip off of Astro Boy? Same story
> basically.
> --
> Tosh Berman
> TamTam Books
> http://www.tamtambooks.com
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
3795
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 4:49am
Subject: my Special Effects adventure
I guess every week I've been coming here to report on how my avant-
garde film ("history of the") class went, but tonight my report is on
my screening log. More specifically, Hollis Frampton's SPECIAL
EFFECTS:
http://filmwritten.org/#specialeffects
Also, please, who has comments/opinions/thoughts about Peter Gidal's
ideas, either in opposition to Sitney's, or not, and what are those
opinions?
-Jaime
p.s. I hope this stuff was "okay" to do. I mean it's not like we
were watching it and saying, This film sucks ass, let's mess around a
little.
3796
From: George Robinson
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 10:41am
Subject: Re: The Pianist/Judge Reinhold
I firmly believe that one of the principle reasons The Pianist is so good is
that Polanski essentially transcribed his own experience of the Shoah onto
the material. If you read the book -- which is quite good by the way -- you
will see that he and Harwood made Szpilman much more passive than he was in
real life, as befits the small boy that Polanski was when he lived through
some of the same torments.
And I also have a warm spot for Judge Reinhold, one that was increased when
I spoke with a friend of mine who had acted with him (this must be 20 years
ago now) and thought he was one of the nicest, most decent people in the
business. Which may be why his career has withered and seemingly died.
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: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:19 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] The Pianist/Judge Reinhold
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> >
> > As for the randomness of death in the Holocaust,
> > Polanski trumps Spielberg in "The Pianist."
> >
>
> I think The Pianist is so much more effective than Schindler's List
> (or nearly any other narrative Holocaust film) is that Polanski
> daringly portrayed an absurdist world, which may be the only way that
> something as unfathomable as the Shoah can be effectively conveyed.
>
> Such moments as Jewish civilians being forced to dance with each
> other emphasized the spiritual degradation these people were
> enduring, and as such were more emotionally imediate to an audience
> that to some degree has become inured to violence on screen.
>
> > The ending of "Schindler's List" was beautifully
> > parodied on "Seinfeld" in the episode featuring the
> > woefully forgotten Judge Reinhold.
>
> I always though that the completely charming Reinhold would become a
> big star, and that he -- not Tom Hanks -- should have been THE light
> comedy romantic lead of the 80s and early 90s. I think the last time
> I saw hm was on a car commercial.
>
> -- Damien
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
3797
From: George Robinson
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 10:46am
Subject: Light and Dark (was Re: Spielberg]
There is an interesting trope that occurs in many films noirs involving the
sudden appearance of light -- the best example I can give is in Force of
Evil (one of my very favorite films, starring the man who I would choose to
play me in the film of my life, John Garfield), when in the final gunfight
between Ficco, Tucker and Joe Morse, the former, who is crouching behind a
desk in the now-darkened room, is suddenly revealed by a shaft of light
created when someone opens the door to the office. Paul Fix looks up at the
light with a mixture of shock and incomprehension, just before he is shot to
death. I can't think of other specific examples, but there are several other
noirs in which light -- and some kind of revelation, usually rather
literal -- immediately precedes destruction.
Just thought I'd mention it.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
3798
From: George Robinson
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 11:05am
Subject: Re: The Pianist
I have never been a big Polanski fan. I respect a lot of his work but don't
like most of it. I have always found his films cold and, frankly, rather
unpleasant, albeit highly skillful. I'm not gainsaying his considerable
talent, I'm just saying I get little pleasure from it.
That said, I think The Pianist is quite, quite good. I also think that it's
intensely personal (about as autobiographical as he's likely to ever get)
and at the same time, fits beautifully into Polanski's oeuvre.
I won't impose you your good will by including my review of the film, but if
you want to see it, it is online at:
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=7144&offset=50&B1=1
&author=George%20Robinson&issuedates=&month=&day=&year=&issuedate=20030507&k
eyword=
George
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: Thursday, November 06, 2003 2:42 PM
3799
From: George Robinson
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 11:22am
Subject: Re: A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'} [WARNING -- LONG POST]
It's been a long time since I've seen it either, but I didn't have any
particular problem with the pervasive violence committed by the Nazis in the
film. That is pretty much historical fact, and would you really want to see
a movie in which the Nazis were the "good" guys? Agreed, from a dramatic
standpoint more nuance would be helpful and, in fact, I think Spielberg
provides some of that in his characterization of Ammon Goeth, especially his
relationship with Schindler.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ruy Gardnier"
To:
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'}
[WARNING -- LONG POST]
> George,
> liked your post. I don't like most of Spielberg films (and not any of the
> so-called "serious" ones), but I consider him a case that deserves great
> attention.
> I would like to know what did you think of the scene in which the nazi
> official shoots a boy in the back for not cleaning well his bath-tub. I
gave
> up the film in that scene.
> To me at the time (I admit only having seen it when it started in
theaters,
> back in 1993), it read "nazism is so evil that the nazis shoot little
> children in the back"; or simply "he's evil", by which you also may get
very
> deel history-wise....
> ruy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Robinson"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 5:02 AM
> Subject: [a_film_by] A timid defense of Spielberg (was 'Basic Elements'}
> [WARNING -- LONG POST]
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
3800
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Fri Nov 7, 2003 3:43pm
Subject: Light and Dark (was Re: Spielberg]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson" wrote:
> There is an interesting trope that occurs in many films noirs
involving the
> sudden appearance of light -- the best example I can give is in Force of
> Evil (one of my very favorite films, starring the man who I would
choose to
> play me in the film of my life, John Garfield), when in the final
gunfight
> between Ficco, Tucker and Joe Morse, the former, who is crouching
behind a
> desk in the now-darkened room, is suddenly revealed by a shaft of light
> created when someone opens the door to the office.
Serge Toubiana observed that in "Under the Sun of Satan," there is
a reversal of the usual connotations of light and darkness. Light,
and movement and the outdoors, are associated with death and evil,
while darkness, stillness, and confinement are associated with
life and goodness.
Rivette once commented, "It was insane to adapt the book in the
first place since the core of the narrative, the encounter with
Satan, happens at night black night, absolute night. Only
Duras could have filmed that." But Pialat does film it, in open
daylight, by altering the metaphorical associations of light and
darkness.
Paul
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact