Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:08pm
Subject: Re: a list is a what?
When I suggested an alternate List yesterday I had no idea so
many were going to jump on that bandwagon -- and come up with so many
obscure names and titles. The idea obviously got out of hands and
we're no longer talking about "greatest" directors. However even
auteurists are entitled to have fun. And your suggesting that people
like Besson and Beineix should be on a list of "best director" is, to
put it mildly, mind-bogling. It would have been mind-bogling twenty
years ago, and it is even more so today. Actually the Lists
contributed by most since yesterday (Bill, David and others) are a
mix of actual Greats few if any would contest, and of idiosyncratic
personal tastes in the realm of the marginal and obscure. You can
always sift the latter out, toss the dross and keep the ore.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> The list of the Guardian is bad, but holy shit, it seems good next
to
> the list you guys are about to make.
>
> To me its not a list of the best directors in the world, but a list
of
> the most obscure ones, a list of directors no one but festival
> completists have seen.
>
> Is being cinephile suddenly a contest of whom have seen most
obscure
> films by people like Ed Stabile, The guy who made "Donnie Darko" or
> The guy who made "Trailer Park". If he is so good, why dont you
> remember his name?
>
> Twenty years ago, any "best director" list had Luc Besson and
> Jean-Jacques Beineix on them. Films like "Le Dernier Combat", "Le
> Grand Bleu", "Diva" and "Betty Blue" were on any filmstudents lips
and
> they were praised as the best in european cinema, in world cinema.
>
> By any comparison, they are far better directors than "the guy who
> made Donnie Darko", but I dont se their names on any list.
>
> We need rules. Without rules, there is no way we ever will find the
> best directors. Do they have a personal cinematic language? Can
they
> direct an actor? How do they tell their stories?
>
> Consider Dardennes, Tarr and Sokurov. There is no doubt they are
great
> directors, they are unique. But do we really equal them with "The
guy
> who made that film with the cool piano music"?
4202
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:36pm
Subject: Re: Welles in the classroom
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Yes, Fountain of Youth is fun...until the last 10 minutes or so,
when everything slows down, and age and death rear their heads. But
it's only 30 minutes long, and quite bracing overall - it doesn't
make me suicidal.
Funny, I've forgotten the turn it takes towards the end. I just
remember the exhilaration I felt when I saw it. I remember it
looking like a fairly simple film in terms of resources and Welles
was supposed to shoot it in one week. According to Lucille Ball he
took six weeks, went way over budget, and towards the end of the
shoot asked Desilu for another $10,000 -- which he then spent on a
wrap party. "Boy, it was a great party," Ball said.
>The rights problems will never be resolved. And if they are,
Beatrice will sue Paramount before they can put it out!
I take it the rights problems have to do with the Collier estate? If
so, how much money could they possibly want? Eventually the story
will fall into the public domain and by then maybe Beatrice (she's no
Pat Hitchcock, is she?) will be public domain as well. But then, how
many of us will still be alive to see this happen? (See how Welles
always makes you think of death?)
> You know, it's not just the endings. Touch of Evil is theoretically
> an E-ticket ride, but there's something that comes oozing out of
> every frame that....
Last night I was reading an interview with Kazan and the interviewer
was comparing TOUCH OF EVIL with PANIC IN THE STREETS. In comparison
with his own film, Kazan found the Welles to be "superior in some
ways, but inferior, really, inside because it's portentous." TOUCH
OF EVIL wasn't "as much fun" as PANIC, which Kazan considers "an
affectionate comedy."
4203
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 9:51pm
Subject: a list is a list
Instead of submitting a giant stew of names to this list I would like
to submit one, a director who I think is arguably THE central
filmmaker to emerge after World War II:
Alain Resnais
Do I need to explain my choice?
4204
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:17pm
Subject: Re: a list is a what?
Henrik wrote:
> To me its not a list of the best directors in the world, but a list
of
> the most obscure ones, a list of directors no one but festival
> completists have seen.
Why assume that you know that people are merely playing a game of one-
upmanship, so that you don't stop to consider that maybe the
directors listed are precisely the ones people like? For those
people who listed a great many directors, isn't it overwhelmingly
obvious and self-evident that (as Bill said) they express a broad
range of interests and quality (from "pantheon" to "expressive
esoterica"). You're startling and untriggered resistance to the
mention of any name that isn't extremely successful and famous is a
bit discouraging, if you ask me.
> Twenty years ago, any "best director" list had Luc Besson and
> Jean-Jacques Beineix on them. Films like "Le Dernier Combat", "Le
> Grand Bleu", "Diva" and "Betty Blue" were on any filmstudents lips
and
> they were praised as the best in european cinema, in world cinema.
I've learned to distrust any statement where a person looks back to
his or her own younger cinephilia and proclaims that "everyone" felt
this way. If you took the comments of everyone who talked
about "everyone" doing something at a given time, then "everyone"
would lose any meaning.
> We need rules. Without rules, there is no way we ever will find the
> best directors. Do they have a personal cinematic language? Can
they
> direct an actor? How do they tell their stories?
I'm sure that everyone who provided a list kept such things in mind,
Henrik. Why approach everyone's lists in such bad faith? Why be so
negative and dismal and slyly superior?
> Consider Dardennes, Tarr and Sokurov. There is no doubt they are
> great directors, they are unique. But do we really equal them
> with "The guy who made that film with the cool piano music"?
Nobody was doing this (though Bill was doing something that vaguely
and superficially sounded like it) and therefore you're inventing a
straw man.
--Zach
4205
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:28pm
Subject: Re: a list is a what?
--- Henrik Sylow
> The list of the Guardian is bad, but holy shit, it
> seems good next to
> the list you guys are about to make.
>
> To me its not a list of the best directors in the
> world, but a list of
> the most obscure ones, a list of directors no one
> but festival
> completists have seen.
And that makes it invalid?
>
> Twenty years ago, any "best director" list had Luc
> Besson and
> Jean-Jacques Beineix on them. Films like "Le Dernier
> Combat", "Le
> Grand Bleu", "Diva" and "Betty Blue" were on any
> filmstudents lips and
> they were praised as the best in european cinema, in
> world cinema.
They are both TERRIBLE direcotrs who are to european
cinema what Andrew Lloyd Webber is to musical comedy.
>
> We need rules.
Fine.
Rule # 1: Besson and Beineix don't qualify!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4206
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:54pm
Subject: Rules
Fine by me.
Rule #1: people who aren't willing to learn about new films, or
about new directors, or from people who are engaged in the search for
cinema away from comfortable and arbitrary boundaries of commerce,
the press, and tradition, should not be trusted, since all they are
doing is broadcasting the limits of their curiosity and intelligence.
Rule #2: rules don't apply to art.
-Jaime
4207
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 11:11pm
Subject: Re: a list is a what?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
"Why approach everyone's lists in such bad faith?"
Im sorry for that. It's not bad faith. It has to deal with what you
wrote earlier in your post
"You're startling and untriggered resistance to the
mention of any name that isn't extremely successful and famous is a
bit discouraging, if you ask me."
Discussing "old" cinema, we discuss Welles, Ford, Ozu, Kurosawa,
Hicthcock, Godard, Fellini, Bergman, Eisenstein and so on. We know
what we deal with, these directors have no only proven their worth and
skill, they have also stood against the test of time and writers.
But discussing new cinema, I feel hostility against famous and
succesful directors as for instance Spielberg, Scorsese and Lynch,
even though it is more than likely, that it is them people will
discuss in 50 years rather than "the guy that directed Donnie Darko".
Just as in chess, where everyone is searching for the next Bobby
Fisher, so do I feel, that everyone is searching for the next Welles
or Godard and doing so, they elevate first time directors ahead of
succesful and famous directors in hope of being in on the ground
floor.
It has nothing to do about not being willing to view new directors and
explore new sides of cinema. I like to think I do so, as I watch about
500+ films a year. But I am not willing to sacrifice the legacy of
cinema that is behind me in favor of some "talent". So forgive me if I
wont put "the guy who made Donnie Darko" next to someone who has
proven his skill and stood against contemporary critisism.
But if it is curious and a sign of intelligence to promote obscure
directors, then I am happy to be narrowminded and dumb. In such a
case, ignorence is bliss. I am secure enough in my approach to cinema
to dare to stand against "intelligence".
Henrik
4208
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 11:16pm
Subject: CRUISING on ENCORE 16NOV, 12:35 am; STROMBOLI on TCM 17NOV, 7 am tivo set end of message
4209
From: Justin Stoeckel
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:48pm
Subject: Re: yuck, yuck & superyuck
I can agree with the majority of the list being a "yuck, yuck & superyuck." But calling David Lynch a "figure of extraordinarily blah and derivative talent" is offensive to me. Scorcesee, no problem, but Lynch, come on?
Lynch is an extremely controversial director. The number of my writers, and majority of anyone I've discussed Lynch with, can't stand him, and the reason why is because they don't understand him (and don't want to understand him.)
Lynch's stories, and don't be shocked by this statement, challenge the audience. Unlike the majority of American "directors", Lynch doesn't spoon feed his stories to a lazy, unthinking mass of insipidness. His films are a journey; there is not a single, clear-cut answer for their meaning, and that intentional vagueness is exactly what makes him so alluring and talented. All his pictures, with exception to the Hollywood infected Dune, are like works of art. The artist has his meaning for the work, but that is not what is important. The importance is in the work's ability to generate thought and feeling within the spectator.
When a spectator watches a Lynch, the film is not meant to be offer major stimulus to the eye, similar to the Surrealist painters: the object of the film is to force the spectator into a reaction. Making an audience think for itself is the greatest feat any director can achieve. Lynch has succeeded enough for all the director's that "should be" on that list.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4210
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 11:33pm
Subject: Re: a list is a what?
> But if it is curious and a sign of intelligence to promote obscure
> directors, then I am happy to be narrowminded and dumb.
Yes, I believe you are.
-Jaime
4211
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 11:45pm
Subject: Re: a list is a what?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> But discussing new cinema, I feel hostility against famous and
> succesful directors as for instance Spielberg, Scorsese and Lynch,
I wonder if the hostility is just because these directors are
famous. Maybe some people find them simply overrated.
> even though it is more than likely, that it is them people will
> discuss in 50 years rather than "the guy that directed Donnie
Darko".
How can one be sure? In 1921 ULYSSES was published in an edition of
750 copies, but who can say off the top of his or her head what the
best seller for that year was? Van Gogh only sold two or three
paintings in his lifetime and his reputation as a painter was only
known to handful of fellow painters and their friends. The future is
unpredictable.
> Just as in chess, where everyone is searching for the next Bobby
> Fisher, so do I feel, that everyone is searching for the next
Welles
> or Godard and doing so, they elevate first time directors ahead of
> succesful and famous directors in hope of being in on the ground
> floor.
>
I'd like to propose Bando Tomasaburo as the next Mizoguchi on the
basis of YUME NO ONNA (DREAM WOMAN.) He's an onnagata (female
impersonator of kabuki who lives like a woman off-stage,) and I
beleive Mizoguchi worked as an onnagata at one time before he became
a filmmaker. YUME NO ONNA was adapted from a modern kabuki play by
Tanizaki though Bando filmed
it in a non-kabuki style.
Richard
4212
From: Tosh
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 0:15am
Subject: Re: yuck, yuck & superyuck and then there's Lynch
Overall I think Lynch is great! I even like his music -he just put
out an album - Blue Bob.
Even some of the stuff I don't like regarding Lynch - I find at least
interesting. Also I think he may do amazing things in the future. I
don't feel that way with most of the directors listed on the Guardian
list. One wants to be surprised and the film industry is not based on
surprise. Also Lynch's sound 'soundtracks' are amazing in itself.
That is one thing he has in common with Godard - the use of sound
that is awesome.
Ciao,
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
4213
From: Tosh
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 0:27am
Subject: Bando Tsumasaburo?
>Is this the same Bando Tsumasaburo who did sword films in the
>twenties? He's an actor right, not a director. I never knew that
>he was an onnagatoa. I thought he was more of an action fighting
>hero from the 1920's. Not saying that he can't be a cross-dressing
>actionn hero.
I have seen some of his films in Japan, with the benshi Midori Sawato.
Ciao,
Tosh
>
>I'd like to propose Bando Tomasaburo as the next Mizoguchi on the
>basis of YUME NO ONNA (DREAM WOMAN.) He's an onnagata (female
>impersonator of kabuki who lives like a woman off-stage,) and I
>beleive Mizoguchi worked as an onnagata at one time before he became
>a filmmaker. YUME NO ONNA was adapted from a modern kabuki play by
>Tanizaki though Bando filmed
>it in a non-kabuki style.
>
>Richard
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
4214
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 0:43am
Subject: Re: a list is a list
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> Instead of submitting a giant stew of names to this list I would
like
> to submit one, a director who I think is arguably THE central
> filmmaker to emerge after World War II:
>
> Alain Resnais
>
>
> Do I need to explain my choice?
YES
4215
From:
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 7:48pm
Subject: TV Listings
Thanks for the heads-up, Elizabeth, although we should note that the times
you give appear to be Pacific.
My EST listings indicate "Cruising" airs on Encore Nov. 16 at 3:35 AM; and
"Stromboli" airs on TCM on Nov. 17 at 10 AM. I've never seen "Cruising" - which
Bill, Dan, and others made a very persuasive case for recently - and I've not
seen "Stromboli" - also subject to some recent discussion - in many years.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4216
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 0:51am
Subject: Re: a list is a what?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
> wrote:
>
I
> wont put "the guy who made Donnie Darko" next to someone who has
> proven his skill and stood against contemporary critisism.
>
> ".
>
> Henrik
By the way, the guy who made Donnie Brasco (not "Darko"!) has a
name, it's Mike Newell, and it's a damn good movie.
JPC
4217
From:
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 7:57pm
Subject: Re: A list is . . .
Dan writes:
> BREAKFAST was based on a script that was kicking around
> from Rudolph's early period, and I can't help but wonder if that gave
> the film that little bit of external perspective that I miss from him
> lately.
>
I find your take on Rudolph here interesting, Dan, because I also know you've
written that you tend to find him problematic when he directs from someone
else's script. One would think that those would be his films with the most
external perspective. But I realize this isn't scientific, not by any remote
stretch of the imagination...
I'm an off-and-on fan of Rudolph. He's got weird little movies like
"Equinox" and "Trixie" dotting his body of work, yet all I have to do is see "Choose
Me" or "The Moderns" or (among the more recent films) "Afterglow," "Breakfast,"
and the wonderful "The Secret Lives of Dentists" and I'm back on board the
Rudolph bandwagon. You have some great insights into his style in your "Choose
Me" review, but one thing I'll comment on is how, superficially, he seems so
indebted to Altman - the fly on-the-wall camera angles, the zooming, the
overlapping dialogue - and yet he feels nothing at all like Altman.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4218
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 0:57am
Subject: Re: TV Listings
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Thanks for the heads-up, Elizabeth, although we should note that
the times
> you give appear to be Pacific.
>
> My EST listings indicate "Cruising" airs on Encore Nov. 16 at 3:35
AM; and
> "Stromboli" airs on TCM on Nov. 17 at 10 AM. I've never
seen "Cruising" - which
> Bill, Dan, and others made a very persuasive case for recently -
and I've not
> seen "Stromboli" - also subject to some recent discussion - in many
years.
>
> Peter
>
Don't miss Stromboli, Peter! I watched it (had never seen it)a
few weeks ago urged by Tag (who of course raves about it) and it's
quite something, although I have a hard time swallowing the
mysticism. That's the one Tag says must absolutely be seen on a big
screen (so, since I only watched a tape he is convinced my slightly
less than extatic response is due to the small screen and the music
not loud enough.)
Cruising is a curio worth watching at least once, but I found it
profoundly dishonest.
JPC
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4219
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 1:09am
Subject: Re: Bando Tsumasaburo?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh
> >Is this the same Bando Tsumasaburo who did sword films in the
> >twenties?
Different Bando. Tamasaburo would be 50-something today. He was the
leading onnagata of kabuki in the '80s, and he began his directing
career with a short feature GEKASHITSU (OPERATING ROOM) in 1991
or '92. This has been screened in the US with sub-titles. DREAM
WOMAN (1993) is the best of his three films. It was shot in the
academic aspect ratio and in sepia-toned black & white so as to
recall the late Meiji era when the story takes place. The third
feature is called TENSHU MONOGATARI (1995.) They may be available on
dvd or tape at Japanese video stores or at one of the Kinokuniya
Bookstores.
Richard
4220
From: Tosh
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 1:13am
Subject: Nice Ozu review
Hey, one of my favorite writers on Japan just wrote a small piece on
Ozu: Donald Richie reviewing Ozu on DVD:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?fb20031116dr.htm
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
4221
From:
Date: Sat Nov 15, 2003 8:58pm
Subject: Welles
Bill writes:
> (Leos Carax once said that Marguerite
> Duras' films are like pop records you want to play over and over.)
And you said something similar to me, Bill, during our interview about how,
for you, the garden fragment from "The Dreamers" was like a Beatles song or
Dylan song you couldn't get enough of. (I fully agree!)
Again, I can't relate to the idea of Welles' films being depressing; I
understand where you're coming from, but it's just not the word that describes how I
personally experience them. However I do, of course, agree that the garden
fragment is one of the most exhilarating things he ever committed to film.
Maybe one reason is that it's open-ended, lacking the context of all the scenes
which were to go before and after it. So even if we know the story of "The
Dreamers" quite well (and I've read the Dinesen stories and the Welles/Kodar
screenplay numerous times), as we watch the fragment we don't feel as though
Pellegrina has yet made her journey; it seems as though a whole universe of
possibilities stand in front of her.
I just saw "The Fountain of Youth" and actually would not have thought of it
as a 'positive' Welles film at all! The technique is breathtaking - possibly
as breathtaking as that of "F for Fake" - but it certainly is not a cheerful
vision. Maybe the series of short comic sketches Welles did for CBS (never
aired) in the late '60s and early '70s - "Swinging London"; "Stately Mansions";
"One Man Band"; etc. - qualify... I'm also interested in seeing the filmed
reading he did of Ring Lardner's "The Golden Honeymoon."
Joe, allow me to make a flat-out blanket statement and say that the 'razzle
dazzle' of Welles' style is usually what I respond to the least in his films.
For this reason, "Kane" - while indisputably great - is not a favorite of mine
among Welles' own films; I think the first hour of "Ambersons" is far greater
and its form registers on a much deeper level with me. Even in "Chimes at
Midnight," the Shrewsbury battle doesn't leave me quite as floored as the final
exchange of looks between Hal and Falstaff in the court (with Welles going
from wide to medium to close on the shots of Hal... stunning...) It's like...
the opening shot of "Touch of Evil" is brilliant, brilliant, brilliant... but,
to me, it's not per se the most impressive thing formally in that movie. But
it's the thing everyone talks about because it's so flashy.
On the topic of Welles' Merv Griffin appearances, the last one he made was
the night before his death. He seems to absolutely be living with "King Lear,"
a film he desperately wanted to make at this time. He talks a great deal
about old age. And he quotes de Gaulle on death - "Old age is a shipwreck" -
which is the same quote he used in his videotaped pitch of "Lear."
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4222
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 3:30am
Subject: Rudolph/Carax-Duras/Welles...
I have been a fan of Rudolph from Welcome to L.A.on and until
recently I thought there wasn't a Rudolph film I didn't like, but I
just couldn't stomach Breakfast, walked out of it after 30 minutes or
so. But L.A., Choose Me (perhaps his masterpiece), Trouble in Mind,
Love at Large, Mrs Parker, Equinox are all wonderful. Oh I forgot
Songwriter. I'm not crazy about Made in Heaven or The Moderns though,
but all in all I think he is one of the most underrated American
directors of his generation. I wrote a fairly long piece on Rudolph
in "50 ans"; also various obscure reviews here and there...
I have never listened to pop songs again and again (I hate the
concept of pop) -- well, let's make an exception for some Beattles
stuff, "Here There and Everywhere", maybe -- but if watching Duras is
like listening to pop songs as Carax quaintly claimed, I'd say the
music track to India Song fills the bill. And if you don't have a
print you can listen to the wonderful version by Stephan Oliva (solo
piano) on his CD of film music (he's great on everything from Vertigo
to Accatone, Rosemary's Baby to Le Mepris).
Welles: Greatness is so very often depressing and by the same token
exhilarating.
Why doesn't anybody mention The Eternal story?
JPC
Sorry if this post sounds wacky. I've just watched Three Godfathers
again on TCM and I'm still wiping off tears.
4223
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 3:38am
Subject: Re: Rudolph/Carax-Duras/Welles...
> Why doesn't anybody mention The Eternal story?
Cue Peter! That's one of his very favorites.
I'll go ahead and admit that my Welles-ophilia is somewhat more
traditional than his; I favor CITIZEN KANE over almost any other
movie ever made, and I don't think I'm completely taken by IMMORTAL
STORY, but on the other hand I think it merits another ten or twelve
viewings before I make a final decision.
-Jaime
4224
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:16am
Subject: Re: Rudolph/Carax-Duras/Welles...
As it happens, I just recently saw Wyler's version of Three
Godfathers, Hell's Heroes. It's such a rarity to see this on
the big screen that I was all the more disappointed by the
evidence. In fact, I was wiping away tears of frustration that
this film enjoys any kind of positive reputation, and more tears
because Wyler was unable to evoke any emotion out of the
story, especially in comparison to Ford. The best I could say
was that Wyler made it look convincingly gritty and the unholy
three were a lot more grizzled and small-minded than Ford's trio.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> Sorry if this post sounds wacky. I've just watched Three Godfathers
> again on TCM and I'm still wiping off tears.
4225
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:50am
Subject: Re: A list is what
Henrik, My list is not supposed to be a ten-best or a twenty-best of
all time. It's personal. It's an attempt to set down directors now
working (or still able to) whom I plan to keep watching, and
recommend others do the same - look at it as tips, when it isn't well-
known names, as about 90 percent of the names on the list are, ar
least to most of the people in this group. I should have said that my
aim - following Sarris's lead - was to go all the way from "Pantheon"
to "Oddities, One-Shots and Newcomers," because there are a few of
those. But I'd have to go all the way to "Miscellany" before I'd
consider adding Luc Besson or Jean-Jacques Beneix to the list.
Re: "the author of Donnie Darko" (not "the guy who made," and
not "Donnie Brasco," Monsieur C.) -- LOOK IT UP. He's made one film,
and on the basis of it I'm betting we'll still be talking about him
in a few years, only we'll all know his name then. There are a number
of other people who think so, too - we're talking about a film
produced by Drew Barrymore that got a conventional release here, not
something that played in one festival somewhere. I believe it also
won the Jury Prize at Avoriaz.
I'm a critic, and it's my job to spot and promote talent. Unless I
have bad taste, I believe that in ten years you'll be glad you heard
of at least half the people on my list whom you haven't heard of at
the moment. Hopefully, if I keep offending people who've never heard
of them by talking about them, it'll be more than half.
When I have a second, I'll add names for the one or two that people
with access to the Internet could not be expected to track down on
their own. Sorry I don't have instant recall at 7 in the morning,
which is when I was moved to set down my list, but I'm 58 and I have
these Muriel moments.
Jesus!
4226
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:57am
Subject: Re: Welles in the classroom
For the record, The Fountain of Youth was made in three days for
$49,000, about half what the first Lucy pilot cost. I'm quoting a
budget and production reports. I didn't know Lucy had said
differently, but in Desi's bio, A Book, he says that he heard Welles
went crazy and spent a fortune in Brazil (also not true), but he
didn't do that when he was working for him. Welles told me exactly
what I later saw in the production reports, by the way. But there
have been many wild tales told on this subject, notably by the
production designer, Pato Guzman, who told a packed house I was part
of that it cost $150,000, because Welles built expensive sets and
then destroyed them without using them. That, of course, is the
version that always gets quoted, and will continue to be quoted as
proven fact when I have joined Welles in the Great Beyond, despite
all my eforts to set the record straight.
4227
From: jaketwilson
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 5:49am
Subject: Welles and audiences
The idea of Welles working "against the audience" makes me think back
the discussion on this list about the distinction between art and
entertainment, a distinction that Welles consistently, even
programatically, refused to recognise (cf the sarcastic Kipling quote
in F FOR FAKE: "It's pretty, but is it art?"). Outwardly, at least,
he saw no contradiction between being a capital-A Artist and a
popular showman: after all, it was possible for Shakespeare!
Flamboyant, even shameless razzle-dazzle was an integral part of what
he did, and all his movies seem intended to work -- and in my
experience, do work -- on a big screen with a big crowd, something
quite different from a classroom presentation. They presume an
audience of rapt admirers, not expert connoisseurs -- rhetorically,
he often addresses his viewers as children, ideally open to being
dazzled by magic tricks or enthralled by a bedtime story. Joe's Nero
Wolfe anecdote suggests that Welles cared deeply about his audiences,
but wanted to connect with them in a personal, intimate way on his
own terms, as if, having done his best to please, he demanded no less
than unconditional love.
If, on a deeper level, Welles actually wanted to frustrate viewers
rather than delight them, that would imply he deliberately -- if
unconsciously -- plotted his own commercial failure. Plenty of people
have suggested this, but I'm not too sure. There's always a teasing,
sado-masochistic dimension to the relationship between artist and
audience -- you can't truly excite people unless you're also willing
to baffle them and piss them off. A studio director like Hitchock may
have approached the problem in a more pragmatic way, but VERTIGO and
THE BIRDS aren't altogether easy films on first viewing, and plenty
of people have had problems with them, and still do.
JTW
4228
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:12am
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a what?
>
> Discussing "old" cinema, we discuss Welles, Ford, Ozu, Kuros
awa,
> Hicthcock, Godard, Fellini, Bergman, Eisenstein and so on. W
e know
> what we deal with, these directors have no only proven their
worth and
> skill, they have also stood against the test of time and wri
ters.
Who decides which filmmakers stood the test of time? BTW,
the first discussion ever on this list was on Paul Wendkos
not exactly a very respected name. And we always found time
to talk about people like Gerd Oswald ou Delmer Daves who
didn' got big reputations.
> But discussing new cinema, I feel hostility against famous a
nd
> succesful directors as for instance Spielberg, Scorsese and
Lynch,
> even though it is more than likely, that it is them people w
ill
> discuss in 50 years rather than "the guy that directed Donni
e Darko".
Well, 50 years ago Welles and Ford reputations were very very
low.
Filipe
---
Faça suas compras de Natal sem sair de casa!
Compre no Shopping UOL
http://www.uol.com.br/shopping
4229
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:20am
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a what?
Actually the Lists
> contributed by most since yesterday (Bill, David and others)
are a
> mix of actual Greats few if any would contest, and of idiosy
ncratic
> personal tastes in the realm of the marginal and obscure.
When I read lists like those my interest is
the "idiosyncratic personal tastes", sorry but I don't want
to see my own list of "greats" reproduced over and over. The
best thing abou this sort of list is to get the name of a
filmmaker I've never heard of so I can add him to my list of
filmmakers top keep an eye on. He may be good, he may be bad,
but if the recommendation came from someone whose taste I
respevt I'm quite sure it'll be worthy at least give the guy
a chance.
Filipe
You can
> always sift the latter out, toss the dross and keep the ore
.
> JPC
>
>
>
>
> ---
In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
> wrote:
> > The list of the Guardian is bad, but holy shit, it seems g
ood next
> to
> > the list you guys are about to make.
> >
> > To me its not a list of the best directors in the world, b
ut a list
> of
> > the most obscure ones, a list of directors no one but fest
ival
> > completists have seen.
> >
> > Is being cinephile suddenly a contest of whom have seen mo
st
> obscure
> > films by people like Ed Stabile, The guy who made "Donnie
Darko" or
> > The guy who made "Trailer Park". If he is so good, why don
t you
> > remember his name?
> >
> > Twenty years ago, any "best director" list had Luc Besson
and
> > Jean-
Jacques Beineix on them. Films like "Le Dernier Combat", "Le
> > Grand Bleu", "Diva" and "Betty Blue" were on any filmstude
nts lips
> and
> > they were praised as the best in european cinema, in world
cinema.
> >
> > By any comparison, they are far better directors than "the
guy who
> > made Donnie Darko", but I dont se their names on any list.
> >
> > We need rules. Without rules, there is no way we ever will
find the
> > best directors. Do they have a personal cinematic language
? Can
> they
> > direct an actor? How do they tell their stories?
> >
> > Consider Dardennes, Tarr and Sokurov. There is no doubt th
ey are
> great
> > directors, they are unique. But do we really equal them wi
th "The
> guy
> > who made that film with the cool piano music"?
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
--------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon
or Lexmark
> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the
US & Canada.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/b5IolB/TM
> ------------------------------------------------------------
---------~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.co
m/info/terms/
>
>
>
---
Faça suas compras de Natal sem sair de casa!
Compre no Shopping UOL
http://www.uol.com.br/shopping
4230
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:33am
Subject: Re: Re: A list is a list...
> > Carlos Reichenbach
>
> Who is this fellow?
A brazilian filmmaker who start in the late 60's/early 70's.
He has made a lot of really good films: Lilliam M (75), He
Empiure of Desire (80), Love, Whore Word (81)Filme Demencia
(86), Suburban Angels (87), Bucaneer Soul(93). His biggest
influences (as he would say) are Valerio Zurlini, Shohei
Imamura, Godard and Fuller. Hwe worked very little in the
90's (only two feautures), but he has two new films in post
production now. If I'm not mistaken Jonathan Rosenbaum has
some positive capsules on him in the Reader website.
Filipe
- Dan
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
--------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon
or Lexmark
> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the
US & Canada.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/b5IolB/TM
> ------------------------------------------------------------
---------~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.co
m/info/terms/
>
>
>
---
Faça suas compras de Natal sem sair de casa!
Compre no Shopping UOL
http://www.uol.com.br/shopping
4231
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 8:41am
Subject: Re: a list is a what?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
>
> How can one be sure? In 1921 ULYSSES was published in an edition
of
> 750 copies, but who can say off the top of his or her head what the
> best seller for that year was? Van Gogh only sold two or three
> paintings in his lifetime and his reputation as a painter was only
> known to handful of fellow painters and their friends. The future
>is unpredictable.
In America, the best-selling novel in 1921 was SInclair Lewis's Main
Street. It's not Ulysses, but it's still pretty great. According to
Publishers Weekly, the rest of the 10 Best Sellers were 2) The
Brimming Cup by Dorothy Canfield; 3) The Mysterious Bride by Zane
Grey; 4) The Age Of Innocence by Edith WHarton; 5) The Valley Of
Silent Men by James Oliver Curwood; 6) The Sheik by Edith M. Hull; 7)
A Poor Wise Man by Mary Roberts Rinehart; 8) Her Father's Daughter by
Gene Stratton Porter; 9) The Sisters-In-Law by Gertrude ATherton; 10)
The Kingdom Round The Corner by Coningsby Dawson.
The top 3 non-fiction Best Sellers were The Outline Of History by
H.G. Wells; WHite Shadows In The South Seas by Frederick O'Brien; and
The Mirrors Of Downing STreet by the pseudonymous "A Gentleman With
A Duster"
-- Damien
4232
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 8:48am
Subject: Re: a list is a what?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
> Twenty years ago, any "best director" list had Luc Besson and
> Jean-Jacques Beineix on them. Films like "Le Dernier Combat", "Le
> Grand Bleu", "Diva" and "Betty Blue" were on any filmstudents lips and
> they were praised as the best in european cinema, in world cinema.
With the greatest respect, this is simply not true. In my native Britain, just about the
only Besson and Beineix films that were released to a generally positive critical
reception were 'Diva' and 'Le Dernier Combat' (the latter given a single-print outing at
the ultra-highbrow Institute of Contemporary Arts, which may have swayed opinion
somewhat) - but the backlash started as soon as their second features emerged, and
with only a couple of exceptions ('Betty Blue', 'Leon') they haven't rehabilitated
themselves.
Certainly, in the 1980s they had a disproportionate influence on British cinemagoers
and film students, but I suspect this is more because their films were much easier to
see than most of their European contemporaries than any serious claim that their
work was better than theirs. The 1980s was a dreadful time for distributors of
cutting-edge non-English-language fare - but at a time when the number of subtitled
films on video barely broke double figures you could get hold of the entire Besson/
Beineix oeuvre (except, ironically enough, 'Le Dernier Combat') from even a modestly
ambitious video store.
That said, looking back, I readily agree that 'Diva' and 'Le Dernier Combat' seemed
exceptionally promising at the time - and it's a crying shame that neither director
came remotely close to living up to those debuts.
Michael
4233
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:13am
Subject: Frears (seconded)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> --- Dan Sallitt
> Frears is such a
> > mystery to me: between,
> > say, 1978 and 1986, I think he's absolutely
> > world-class, and every time
> > I revisit the films from this period, I'm just more
> > confirmed in that
> > belief. But, in my eyes at least, he changed so
> > much after LAUNDRETTE,
> > and I can't find his talent anymore.
>
> Then it's time to get your eyes examined. SAMMY AND
> ROSIE GET LAID and THE GRIFTERS are great, great
> films.
> Everything he does is worth seeing -- which is more
> than I can say for most people.
Seconded - though it's worth noting that Frears is unusually respectful of the writer's
contribution, and if the writer has a strong enough personality (i.e. Hanif Kureishi,
Alan Bennett, Roddy Doyle), he's quite happy to ensure that it overshadows his own.
I've just been watching a brace of 1970s TV plays that Frears made from Alan Bennett
scripts, and they're absolute models of quiet understatement - 'A Day Out' (1972) is a
lovely, lyrical film that bears a more than passing resemblance to Renoir's 'Partie de
Campagne', but proves that even at this very early stage in his career Frears eschewed
superficial flashiness. Which may of course explain why he was happier in television
for the first fifteen years or so of his career (the underrated 'Gumshoe' aside), as it
allowed him to build up a rock-solid body of work away from the hype that
accompanies big-screen efforts.
The more 1960s and 1970s British TV plays I watch, the more astounded I am at how
much talent went into such ephemeral pieces ('ephemeral' in the sense that the
overwhelming majority were only screened once, and some were then wiped and lost
forever). You can buy the script of 'A Day Out' in one of Bennett's collections, but I
don't think it's ever had a video release, and it may only have been broadcast on TV
just twice over a thirty-year period - I had to dig it out of the National Film and
Television Archive.
Michael
4234
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 11:58am
Subject:
Im sorry to those I offended and those Ill offend now.
I don't mind being looked at as dumb and narrow minded, I know I am
not. But while the first critic of the Guardian list was that it was
bad, and I totally back that up, J-P's suggestion of making our own
list of "best directors" turned into, in my view, a competition of
mentioning as many directors as possible with somewhat indifference to
cinema itself, as once the list reached obscure and one hit wonders,
it became highly subjective.
I agree with Bill that it is our "job" to spot new talent, but with
all respect, we do worse than the weathermen, which is why I am so
damn grumpy and "narrowminded" - I have been let down so often.
Film is as women. We constantly try to understand them, we never will.
We are always on the look out for the perfect woman, the one we want
to be with for the rest of our lives, and ohh so often we fall in
love, but equally often we are dumped.
While some are driven by their hormones and consider any women a
potentially piece of ass, consider me a three time divorcee. I too am
looking for a new women, I just aint so desperate, that I get an
erection when the wind blows, anymore.
4235
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 1:50pm
Subject: Re: Welles/Fountain
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
>
> Joe, allow me to make a flat-out blanket statement and say that
>the 'razzle dazzle' of Welles' style is usually what I respond to
>the least in his films. For this reason, "Kane" - while indisputably
>great - is not a favorite of mine among Welles' own films; I think
>the first hour of "Ambersons" is far greater and its form registers
>on a much deeper level with me. Even in "Chimes at
> Midnight," the Shrewsbury battle doesn't leave me quite as floored
>as the final exchange of looks between Hal and Falstaff in the court
>(with Welles going from wide to medium to close on the shots of
>Hal... stunning...) It's like... the opening shot of "Touch of Evil"
>is brilliant, brilliant, brilliant... but, to me, it's not per se
>the most impressive thing formally in that movie. But it's the
>thing everyone talks about because it's so flashy.
Peter, I take it you're familiar with Godard on AMBERSONS when he
writes that "it is not the famous kitchen scene in AMBERSONS which I
find shattering but, in this atmosphere of a twilight of the gods,
the little face clutching at happiness which Welles has secured from
Anne Baxter." Welles's termite side, I suppose we could loosely say,
rather than his white elephant. And speaking of those white
elephant/termite categories, have you ever looked up Manny Farber's
review of AMBERSONS from 1942? He's unfavorably disposed, to put it
mildly.
By the way, how are things in Columbus? I'm a native of the area
(I'll be back for the holidays next month) but it looks like the
possibilities for seeing films in Ohio are much greater than when I
lived there in the '70s although this was also before the growth of
cable and video. There was a revival theater on High Street (now
deceased) where I saw a fair number of things but the range of films
you've had access to at your age is quite impressive. I take it
Wexner is a big help, too?
Bill, thanks for the info on FOUNTAIN's modest three-day shoot. I got
my apparently false info from a book called LUCY IN THE AFTERNOON, if
you're wondering. She describes him moving in with her and Desi and
staying in their guest cottage for a long period of time working on
the film, how it was a very MAN WHO CAME TO DINNER situation, how
long it took for him to get things together (that's why he guested on
I LOVE LUCY, because they wanted to give him something to do as
production on YOUTH was delayed), and that she had a "love/hate"
relatinship with him. Do you think it's possible, though, that the
production reports could have been doctored so that Desilu wouldn't
have to answer to CBS for such an outrageously long and expensive
shoot for a 30 minute film?
4236
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:46pm
Subject: fountain follow-up
One other possibility here for the gap between the production reports
and Lucy's claims about a six-week shoot is that she confused in her
mind the long pre-production period when he was staying with her and
working on the script with the shoot itself.
4237
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 3:09pm
Subject:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
> Im sorry to those I offended and those Ill offend now.
>
> I don't mind being looked at as dumb and narrow minded, I know I am
> not. But while the first critic of the Guardian list was that it was
> bad, and I totally back that up, J-P's suggestion of making our own
> list of "best directors" turned into, in my view, a competition of
> mentioning as many directors as possible with somewhat indifference to
> cinema itself, as once the list reached obscure and one hit wonders,
> it became highly subjective.
Lists are subjective by definition - the Guardian one being a classic example. For me,
it was far more a snapshot of the current state of UK distribution and exhibition than
a critical poll per se: I suspect the idea was to encourage people to seek out talent
they might not have previously encountered - but also make sure that that talent was
actually accessible in terms of repertory screenings, video/DVD distribution, outings
on cable channels like Film Four.
Like it or not, for all the undoubted excellence of their work, Straub/Huillet's films are
pretty much totally unavailable in Britain at present in any form (I honestly can't recall
the last time one was even distributed, and when I booked 'The Chronicle of Anna
Magdalena Bach' a decade ago the print was practically falling apart), and much the
same is true of a great many other similarly major names - Godard being a case in
point.
Obviously, this isn't remotely an argument for ignoring them totally, but I'm not
convinced that their inclusion in this particular poll would have been especially
appropriate given its target audience - i.e. general readers with a vague bias towards
the glossily arty rather than hardcore cinephiles. I'm actually quite pleasantly
surprised Luc Besson wasn't on the list - I guarantee he would have been had it been
compiled a decade or so ago!
> I agree with Bill that it is our "job" to spot new talent, but with
> all respect, we do worse than the weathermen, which is why I am so
> damn grumpy and "narrowminded" - I have been let down so often.
So have I, but the more I learn about the films themselves and the people who
champion them, the less I get really hideously let down. I have a much better idea of
whose opinion I trust now than I did, say, fifteen years ago - and also a greater
understanding of a film's original cultural and historical context, so I might well be
able to get something out of it despite its artistic shortcomings.
For instance, last week I watched an obscure 1943 British film about downtrodden
nurses called 'The Lamp Still Burns', which was pretty crappy as drama but weirdly
fascinating as blatant propaganda for what would eventually become Britain's National
Health Service a few years later. Accidental virtues are still virtues to my mind.
Michael
4238
From: Tosh
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 3:14pm
Subject: The end of cinema?
It's interesting to read the thoughts here about making director film
lists. Basically the Guardian's list are not the greatest filmmakers
in the world - but one's who are alive and still making films.
This is probably a harsh thing to say: but I think the golden age of
cinema is now over. There are stuff that are made now, but in no way
is it good as the older stuff.
Since I am not in the film business, I don't feel that bad about it.
I just wish that there was more revival theaters out there - because
I prefer seeing an old film shown in a proper setting. And luckly
through the medium of video and DVD, one can watch an endless amount
of classic older films. It is also great that there are companies
out there that re-releases Melville, Godard, etc.
So basically what I am saying is that it would be great if Hollywood
stopped making movies for about two years - and just re-show some of
their older catalog in proper settings.
Instead of putting out the latrst Hugh Grant film - why not just
release a new print of 'His Gal Friday,' or some other classic.
There are so many masterpieces that have been made -they should just
get a committee or two or three to re-release them.
Of course this is totally an aesthetic urge and I understand that
people need to make their living making bad films, etc.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
4239
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 3:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a what?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
> >
>
> >
>
> Well, 50 years ago Welles and Ford reputations were very very
> low.
>
> Filipe
>
Really?! Very very low? Welles? Ford? Reputation among what kind of
viewers? Among film buffs, cinephiles, film critics, their reputation
was always high (although it may be even higher today). Among
the "general audience" do keep in mind that most people didn't know
the names of more than a very few directors (De Mille, Hitchcock...)
and never thought of movies in terms of the 'reputation", or style,
or past performances, of their directors. As far as recognition by
the "industry", for what it's worth, Ford, with three academy Awards
for best direction (including one Best Picture) in seven years was
not exactly a neglected director.
I would say that over the short history of film, the reputation of
major figures has not fluctuated very much.
JPC
>
> ---
> Faça suas compras de Natal sem sair de casa!
> Compre no Shopping UOL
> http://www.uol.com.br/shopping
4240
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 3:45pm
Subject: Re: A list is what
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> .
>
> Re: "the author of Donnie Darko" (not "the guy who made," and
> not "Donnie Brasco," Monsieur C.)
Mister K., I was only quoting Erik when I wrote "the guy who...";
I should have used quotation marks... As for the title, I'm sorry, my
mistake, I thought you were talking about a different film.
-- LOOK IT UP. but I'm 58 and I have
> these Muriel moments.
>
Don't we all? Wait till you're 68.
JPC
4241
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 3:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a what?
>
> I would say that over the short history of film, the reputat
ion of
> major figures has not fluctuated very much.
As far as I know, both Welles and Ford reputations in the
early 50's were in clearly decline (and I mean among
critics). Welles'Othello didn't get good reviews (with few
exceptions). And 53's critical favorites didn't include
Ford's Mogambo either (or almost any Ford in the 50's). The
were well known for sure, but Welles mostly for Kane and Ford
for a few of his Fox films for late 30's, early 40's.
Filipe
>
> JPC
> >
> > ---
> > Faça suas compras de Natal sem sair de casa!
> > Compre no Shopping UOL
> > http://www.uol.com.br/shopping
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
--------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon
or Lexmark
> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the
US & Canada.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/b5IolB/TM
> ------------------------------------------------------------
---------~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.co
m/info/terms/
>
>
>
---
Faça suas compras de Natal sem sair de casa!
Compre no Shopping UOL
http://www.uol.com.br/shopping
4242
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:11pm
Subject: Re: The end of cinema?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh
> It's interesting to read the thoughts here about making director
film
> lists. Basically the Guardian's list are not the greatest
filmmakers
> in the world - but one's who are alive and still making films.
>
> This is probably a harsh thing to say: but I think the golden age
of
> cinema is now over. There are stuff that are made now, but in no
way
> is it good as the older stuff.
>
We've had the end of history, why not the end of cinema?
Actually it has been a fashionable theme among some circles for quite
some time.
It is true that a certain "Golden Age" is over, but maybe we are
living through a new and different one and are only barely aware of
it (because Golden Ages are rarely perceived as such while they
last).There are too many fine filmmakers who are active for anybody
to have a right to feel so pessimistic
>
> So basically what I am saying is that it would be great if
Hollywood
> stopped making movies for about two years - and just re-show some
of
> their older catalog in proper settings.
>
> Instead of putting out the latrst Hugh Grant film - why not just
> release a new print of 'His Gal Friday,' or some other classic.
> There are so many masterpieces that have been made -they should
just
> get a committee or two or three to re-release them.
>
> Of course this is totally an aesthetic urge and I understand that
> people need to make their living making bad films, etc.
>
>
It's a great idea, but only people like you and the other
contributors to this Group would go see them. The movie audience is
overwhelmingly very young and you'd have to pay them to go see an old
black and white film that was made not only before they were born but
before even their parents were born.
JPC
> Tosh Berman
> TamTam Books
> http://www.tamtambooks.com
4243
From: Justin Stoeckel
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:08pm
Subject: Re: The end of cinema?
The Golden Age of Cinema died at the start of the 80s. At this time, money took complete control. Only a few modern exceptions exist that would constitute for a Golden Age film. And that is only because these films are reminiscent of , and in the vein of, the late greats. For example, Soderbergh's Solaris, Out of Sight, and The Limey; Coppola's CQ; Lynch's films; Tarantino's work; the list continues (and various according to everyone).
Hollywood churns out crap on a regular basis. It's a money business now, and art doesn't even occupy the backseat anymore. CGI does. Bad movies like, god take your pick, I'll choose The Rundown with The Rock, these movies sell because the audience has been dumbed so intensively over time that the kind crap The Rundown showcases appeals to them. Quality, thought-provoking films are labeled artsy and found deplorable and boring. How can small, quality films defeat such a Goliath? The entire situation is very disheartening and infuriating.
The independent world is slowly becoming infested too. What is Sundance anymore? A night showcasing pseudo-independent films, that is Hollywood "indies" that are simply art, just to be art. It is like the rich man that buys all the expensive polo gear and horse to look the part. Can he play? Absolutely not. But all his friends think he is extraordinary and honor him with phony awards. It becomes a big circle jerk of Bourgeoisie politics. Where is Bunuel when you need him? At least we can visit him in the re-releases.
Justin
Cinema 302
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4244
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a what?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
> >
> > I would say that over the short history of film, the reputat
> ion of
> > major figures has not fluctuated very much.
>
> As far as I know, both Welles and Ford reputations in the
> early 50's were in clearly decline (and I mean among
> critics). Welles'Othello didn't get good reviews (with few
> exceptions). And 53's critical favorites didn't include
> Ford's Mogambo either (or almost any Ford in the 50's). The
> were well known for sure, but Welles mostly for Kane and Ford
> for a few of his Fox films for late 30's, early 40's.
>
> Filipe
>
> > Let's say that Ford's greatness was taken for granted. Critics'
attitudes were very different then (meaning the early 50s). They very
seldom established a relationship between a new film by a director
and the rest of his work. Auteurism introduced that approach, or at
least systematized it, but auteurism was in its infancy and certainly
had not reached the U.S. shores in 1953.
> > JPC
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Faça suas compras de Natal sem sair de casa!
> > > Compre no Shopping UOL
> > > http://www.uol.com.br/shopping
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
> --------~-->
> > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon
> or Lexmark
> > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the
> US & Canada.
> > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/b5IolB/TM
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------~->
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.co
> m/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Faça suas compras de Natal sem sair de casa!
> Compre no Shopping UOL
> http://www.uol.com.br/shopping
4245
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: The end of cinema?
--- jpcoursodon
> Actually it has been a fashionable theme among some
> circles for quite
> some time.
>
In 1964 Godard said "I await the end of cinema with optimism."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4246
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a list (Schmid)
Robert Keser wrote:
>What about Daniel Schmid?
>
I saw a couple as part of my capsule-writing duties. I rather liked them
as critiques satires of Swiss complacency, and Beresina (see
http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/capsules/19852_BERESINA) is
deliciously hilarious.
As works of mise en scene, I'd rate them pretty close to zero.
- Fred
4247
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:57pm
Subject: Re: The end of cinema?
Justin Stoeckel wrote:
> The Golden Age of Cinema died at the start of the 80s. At this
> time, money took complete control.
But money hasn't taken complete control, and on the other hand, money
*always* had some control. This isn't to say it's good or bad, but
we can't simply demonize money at a certain point in film history, as
if it reared our ugly head shortly after the New Wave ended and the
Hollywood film school brats came along. Yes, something changed
beginning in the late 70s and early 80s, but it's not as if the
monolithic cinema keeled over.
> Only a few modern exceptions exist that would constitute for a
> Golden Age film. And that is only because these films are
> reminiscent of , and in the vein of, the late greats. For example,
> Soderbergh's Solaris, Out of Sight, and The Limey; Coppola's CQ;
> Lynch's films; Tarantino's work; the list continues (and various
> according to everyone).
And yet these are commercial films and filmmakers, are they not?
Please tell me you are singling out only the Hollywood filmmakers you
think stand up, not the major filmmakers of the era, period.
Otherwise you're endorsing the Hollywood hegemony you nominally
attack by naming in your short list of Golden Age-worthy filmmakers
solely directors who have at least some Hollywood/commercial clout.
What about American directors who really do struggle with the system
to put out their amazing product, like Charles Burnett and Tom
Noonan? What about foreign filmmakers?
> Hollywood churns out crap on a regular basis. It's a money
> business now, and art doesn't even occupy the backseat anymore.
Hollywood *always* churned out crap on a regular basis. And
Hollywood as an institution was never interested in making art.
Artists--Lubitsch, von Sternberg, Ford, Ray--were the ones interested
in making it. Hollywood is many things, one of the better things
being a massive enabling system for great artistic personalities to
do what they do with great resources at hand; one of the things
Hollywood never was (and never will be) is an institution that put
art before commerce.
You can argue that, in the past, when opening weekend returns weren't
so life-or-death, the studios were willing to take certain risks.
But that's not the same thing.
> Quality, thought-provoking films are labeled artsy and found
> deplorable and boring.
Except that Lynch, Tarantino, and Soderbergh have found their rather
large niches, and few people are calling the majority of films by
these folks "boring." For every audience-rejected SOLARIS there are
three beloved OCEAN'S 11's.
--Zach
4248
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 5:08pm
Subject: 2000s lists of favorites
Thanks Peter, for compiling these lists for the project.
Now this is really cool:
2001
DAMIEN BONA
1. ABC Africa (Abbas Kiarostami)
...
2002
DAMIEN BONA
1. Ten (Abbas Kiarostami)
Way to keep the faith, Damien!
Also extremely worthwhile are Gabe's "cinephile's lists," which will
keep me occupied for a while. But really, good job everyone, with
some of the most interesting selections to be found anywhere.
--Zach
4249
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 5:25pm
Subject: Cinema: that's all folks?
I want to second JPC's notion about assesing a Golden Age. It's like what Wordsworth said about poetry being emotion recollected in tranquility. But I do think Justin is onto something with regards to the overall decline of quality movies since the early 80's. But I prefer to think of it as the decline of movie audiences, and I blame George Lucas and "Star Wars" for permanantly infantilizing moviegoing tastes, and shifting the target demographic to adolescent males. Great Hollywood films were made throughout the 80's and 90's, but studios made fewer of them than they would have otherwise, and the audiences for those great films were smaller.
So I welcome the independent scene, even pseudo-independent Hollywood movies that have some degree of artistic ambition. Anyhow, in terms of this more elitist tastes, how bad can things be right now? This year has given us "American Splendor," "Mystic River," and "Lost in Translation."
And I don't get the Hugh Grant-bashing. It reminds me of the similar dismisal of Cary Grant because he used his looks and charm to star in all those "superficial" comedies like "Monkey Business" and "To Catch a Thief," as opposed to some Stanley Kramer message movie. The adult romantic comedy genre is the least guilty of what's wrong with film today, or any other time.
> Instead of putting out the latest Hugh Grant film - why not just
> release a new print of 'His Gal Friday,' or some other classic.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4250
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 5:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: The end of cinema?
Zach Campbell wrote:
>Hollywood *always* churned out crap on a regular basis. And
>Hollywood as an institution was never interested in making art.
>
>
Zach is of course absolutely right, which is why Julian's post surprised me.
There's great story that I am likely getting slightly wrong (so please,
someone correct me) to the effect that when Fritz Lang screened his new
film for his boss Harry Cohn, that maven of art film (not) declared it
nine minutes too long. Lang asked why, and Cohn said because his ass
started to itch nine minutes before the end, and so audiences would
think the film was too long too. I think he ordered nine (or however
many) minutes cut out of it as a result, no? Lang's later remark:
"Imagine that, the whole world wired to Harry Cohn's ass."
I think I could actually argue a contrary position to Julian's, though I
won't debate it at length because I'm not convinced that it's right. But
for me, an end in Hollywood came in the 1960s. In 1966, "El Doradao" and
"Seven Women" marked the apex and conclusion to a certain period of
filmmaking. Great films were made after, and still can be, but with
Walsh and Ray and Vidor and Sirk already having stopped (save for a few
later shorts from three of them, some of them great) and Fuller's
American period having ended and Hitchcock's output greatly slowing,
that was "an" ending.
And what happened soon after is that audiences seemed to get a little
more intelligent about cinema, a little more conscious of directorial
touches and stylistic flourishes. But clichés are sometimes right: "A
little knowledge is a dangerous thing." I know that I was saying by the
early 70s that this new awareness of cinema style in fact was a problem:
that the "anonymous" masterpieces of classical Hollywood, that looked
anonymous because Hawks's style was subtle enough that the average
viewer couldn't tell a Hawks from a Shmawks and most of these new
viewers couldn't either, were no longer possible because audiences
demanded "more." So we got "stylists" such as Altman or Penn (here's
where I part company from most on this list) whose films attracted
attention for their flourishes but which lacked any real stylistic
depth. In other words, my theory went, since audiences were now
demanding "stylish" films, real style was less possible. Don't expect me
to defend this or admit to how many Altman films I've actually seen
(well, it is more than one), because I do think that great art can
emerge from almost any condition of making. It is a thought I had for a
long time, and still have sometimes, though. My main point is that I
think this is a position, that for many filmmakers great art depended on
having obnoxious producers to keep them in line, is at least as
defensible as the
great-art-can't-be-made-because-Hollywood-only-cares-about money rant.
I saw Budd Boetticher speak circa 1986. He said that the Scott westerns
were not personal films or works he cared about, but just assignments
that he undertook in order to make the films he really wanted to make,
such as "Arruza." His statement wouldn't have bothered me so much, or
have seemed so significant, if it were not for the fact that I had seen
"Arruza" twice and found it worthless. ("A Time for Dying" is great,
though). I submit this as further evidence for this position that I say
I don't want to defend: that for many filmmakers, being conscious about
making "art" is the kiss of death.
There is a common art world myth to the effect that artists do their
best work when they have maximum freedom Just as I am sure that this is
true for some artists, so I am equally sure it is untrue for others.
- Fred
4251
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 5:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Late Minnelli
Sorry, that this is now an old thread; I'm just getting caught up.
"Home From the Hill" is the one Minnelli film that is fully the equal of
"Some Came Running." There was a time when I would have called it
greater. "Some Came Running" packs, for me, a greater emotional wallop,
but there are devastatingly moving scenes in "Home From the Hill" too,
and visually (and narratively) it is if anything more complex.
I resaw "The Reluctant Debutante" perhaps five or seven years ago,
relatively recently for me, in 35mm. I thought it wasn't too good at
all. Bill's description is not inaccurate; it just struck me as visually
uninspired, a film that looked like a late Minnelli without behaving
visually like one.
If I were to add the other two of Tag's top three to my list, both of
which I agree are great, then I would also have to add "The Cobweb,"
"Two Weeks in Another Town," and "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,"
which I remember as pretty tremendous. And I would also have to add "The
Pirate," which is sublime, really amazing, ecstatically great, the best
of his early films, and with a level of playful invention and visual
detail that's not really matched in the same way in the later ones.
- Fred
4252
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: The end of cinema?
>
I guess I should wrote a long mail on these, but I ain't
because: a)_ I believe discussionsabou end of cinema are
totally worthless b) the films in the lists of best of 00's
that Peter put in our website are more than enough argument
to me.
Filipe
> Zach Campbell wrote:
>
> >Hollywood *always* churned out crap on a regular basis. An
d
> >Hollywood as an institution was never interested in making
art.
> >
> >
> Zach is of course absolutely right, which is why Julian's po
st surprised me.
>
> There's great story that I am likely getting slightly wrong
(so please,
> someone correct me) to the effect that when Fritz Lang scree
ned his new
> film for his boss Harry Cohn, that maven of art film (not) d
eclared it
> nine minutes too long. Lang asked why, and Cohn said because
his ass
> started to itch nine minutes before the end, and so audience
s would
> think the film was too long too. I think he ordered nine (or
however
> many) minutes cut out of it as a result, no? Lang's later re
mark:
> "Imagine that, the whole world wired to Harry Cohn's ass."
>
> I think I could actually argue a contrary position to Julian
's, though I
> won't debate it at length because I'm not convinced that it'
s right. But
> for me, an end in Hollywood came in the 1960s. In 1966, "El
Doradao" and
> "Seven Women" marked the apex and conclusion to a certain pe
riod of
> filmmaking. Great films were made after, and still can be, b
ut with
> Walsh and Ray and Vidor and Sirk already having stopped (sav
e for a few
> later shorts from three of them, some of them great) and Ful
ler's
> American period having ended and Hitchcock's output greatly
slowing,
> that was "an" ending.
>
> And what happened soon after is that audiences seemed to get
a little
> more intelligent about cinema, a little more conscious of di
rectorial
> touches and stylistic flourishes. But clichés are sometimes
right: "A
> little knowledge is a dangerous thing." I know that I was sa
ying by the
> early 70s that this new awareness of cinema style in fact wa
s a problem:
> that the "anonymous" masterpieces of classical Hollywood, th
at looked
> anonymous because Hawks's style was subtle enough that the a
verage
> viewer couldn't tell a Hawks from a Shmawks and most of thes
e new
> viewers couldn't either, were no longer possible because aud
iences
> demanded "more." So we got "stylists" such as Altman or Penn
(here's
> where I part company from most on this list) whose films att
racted
> attention for their flourishes but which lacked any real sty
listic
> depth. In other words, my theory went, since audiences were
now
> demanding "stylish" films, real style was less possible. Don
't expect me
> to defend this or admit to how many Altman films I've actual
ly seen
> (well, it is more than one), because I do think that great a
rt can
> emerge from almost any condition of making. It is a thought
I had for a
> long time, and still have sometimes, though. My main point i
s that I
> think this is a position, that for many filmmakers great art
depended on
> having obnoxious producers to keep them in line, is at least
as
> defensible as the
> great-art-can't-be-made-because-Hollywood-only-cares-
about money rant.
>
> I saw Budd Boetticher speak circa 1986. He said that the Sco
tt westerns
> were not personal films or works he cared about, but just as
signments
> that he undertook in order to make the films he really wante
d to make,
> such as "Arruza." His statement wouldn't have bothered me so
much, or
> have seemed so significant, if it were not for the fact that
I had seen
> "Arruza" twice and found it worthless. ("A Time for Dying" i
s great,
> though). I submit this as further evidence for this position
that I say
> I don't want to defend: that for many filmmakers, being cons
cious about
> making "art" is the kiss of death.
>
> There is a common art world myth to the effect that artists
do their
> best work when they have maximum freedom Just as I am sure
that this is
> true for some artists, so I am equally sure it is untrue for
others.
>
> - Fred
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
--------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon
or Lexmark
> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the
US & Canada.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/b5IolB/TM
> ------------------------------------------------------------
---------~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.co
m/info/terms/
>
>
>
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
4253
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:16pm
Subject: Re: The end of cinema?
One purpose of the lists we've been making, in my mind, is to
challenge that idea.
1. QUANTITY: I certainly didn't list every single worthwhile
filmmaker now working - otherwise Wes Craven, Robert Zemeckis, George
Miller, Martin Scorsese, Catherine Breillat, Tom Twyker and Atom
Egoyan would have been on there. I just listed the ones I consider
the best, meaning all sorts of things, including: "hasn't succeeded
in pissing me off so much lately that I've stricken the name from my
list," although Oliveira is trying, for example. There are also lots
more I'd have put on if I had time to trundle out all my old Cahiers,
and if this ridiculous yahoo system let you use online resources
while composing an e-mail. Which is to say that by my estimate there
are at least another 200 or so names that could be added to the list.
2. HOLLYWOOD: Look at all the people on our lists who are practicing
Hollywood filmmakers! Mine more than others, probably - I doubt if
George Lucas turned up on many lists from this group - but still,
good work is getting made in Tinseltown. More on that in a second.
3. SUNDANCE: I've never been there, or I'd probably hate it, but my
position is God bless Redford for creating it. The current cross-
pollination between the indy world and Hollywood is a great thing.
When I was poking around the indy world in the early 70s, it was all
people like Jill Godmillow! And not many of them. At that point the
next generation of Hollywood directors - with a few exceptions like
Jim McBride - were working in exploitation films. Which arguably did
NOT have a good effect on cinema when they hit Hollywood five years
later, by the way. I think we're getting more diverse sensibilities
now that Redford has made independent film a viable proving ground
for commercial talent.
4. DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY - The possibilities of CGI are interesting, if
the results are often unconvincing so far, and the possibility of
making a feature digitally for 40 dollars is mind-boggling. Now if
only the critics would NOT attack the occasional DV movie that gets
out for being low-budget. But thus has it always been - cf. Kael and
Crowther on Chimes at Midnight.
5. HOLLYWOOD TODAY - I'm amazed as much good work gets made, given
the situation. This last summer was the worst in history. And there
is no question that people are getting chewed up. I was thinking last
night about two directors I championed in the Cahiers - James Foley
at the time of Glengarry Glen Ross and Jan de Bont at the time of
Speed and Twister. After three indie masterpieces, Jamie has ceased
to make interesting films, I'm told for personal reasons, while Jan,
after announcing two post-Twister projects that sounded great - Ghost
Riders in the Sky with a script by W. D. Richter and Food, a film
about Christmas told from the pov of the foodstuffs in the
refrigerator that will become Christmas dinner - made Speed 2 and
tanked horribly, followed by The Haunting, which I guess he thought
he could turn into The Shining: tanked. Now his post-Twister clout is
gone, and he's just another reliable lug they use to make unwatchable
junk like Tomb Raider 2. Which means that he was always more
dependent on the script than a real auteur (or "cineaste") would be,
but he was at least a good metteur-en-scene, and he's gone: devoured
by a system that has learned that everyone can keep his job by
producing franchise fare for the summer months and spending a small
national budget to promote it.
So yes, Henrik, when I champion Tommy O'Haver I wonder if he can stay
the course, although I suspect he's armored against the kind of
disaster that befell Jamie, but it's sad that we have to ask
ourselves if our filmmaker picks also come equipped with body armor
out of an anime to survive and keep doing good work. It was always
tough, but I'd say it's gotten tougher in about the same proportion
that just holding a job and sending the kids to college has gotten
tougher in this out-of-control late capitalist economy. The flipside
is the strange and lovely flowers I see blooming here and there,
which are of this moment, not of 50 or 60 years ago.
4254
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:20pm
Subject: Re: Late Minnelli
And The Bandwagon. If we're branching out to early and middle
Minnelli, let's not forget The Bandwagon.
4255
From: Justin Stoeckel
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 5:34pm
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
Money has taken complete control. It has always had a portion of control, but for the majority of filmmakers working today, the number one reason to make a film is money. A love for filmmaking, the world films create, is gone. No one cares any more. Their "love for filmmaking" means "love for making money." I understand that is the direction of the world, and has been present through out film history, but doesn't this bother you at all? I think it should bother any true cinephile. But I guess suffering through such aesthetic pain makes the 400 Blows and Kill Bills so wonderfully satisfying.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4256
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a list
J. Mabe wrote:
>I don't think I've seen any of these folks yet (and I've reduced and
reedited the list):
>Travis Wilkerson
>Julie Murray
>Lewis Klahr
>Jem Cohen
These four are avant-gardists. The first three make work I like a lot;
the fourth has one video ("Lost Book Found") that I like. A search of
the Reader database
(http://65.201.198.5/search/briefs?search_type=advanced) should reveal
capsules by me; for Klahr also see
http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2002/0402/020419_2.html
>Shinji Aoyama
(see http://www.fredcamper.com/Film/Aoyama.html)
There are other avant-gardists on your list too. Did I miss a post, or
did you assemble it from a variety of sources?
- Fred
4257
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Welles in the classroom, the fragments
There are two kinds of distinctions to make here.
When a filmmaker of any repute at all says, "This is a finished film of
mine," whether it be one second (Frampton's "Less") or 9-1/2 hours
("Shoah"), then it deserves to be judged as such. The viewer can decide
it's terrible, can decide it looks unfinished, can decide it doesn't
merit the term "film," can decide it's unworthy of the filmmaker's
oeuvre, but anyone constructing a responsible filmography, lacking
evidence that the filmmaker was certifiably insane at the moment of his
declaration, must include it as a finished work.
When we have an unfinished film the director has released in his
lifetime, such as "Puce Moment," while we perhaps should not criticize
it for "looking incomplete," it is in some sense an authorized work.
It is not clear, unless the filmmaker has said otherwise, that
fragmentary and uncompleted and even completed films that the filmmaker
never exhibited publicly in are actually films by that filmmaker, any
more than a fragment of an assemblage found in sculptor's studio is a
"work." The viewer can look at such a fragment, let's say by Welles, and
feel it is a great film, even feel it measures up as a complete film,
feel it belongs in the Welles canon, but those are a critic's arguments,
not a historian's. The historian has to leave it off of the list of
canonical works in the filmography, and include it in some sort of
supplemental list with appropriate footnotes.
I've been thinking about this because I only learned a few months ago
that there exists a very short Brakhage film, apparently a portrait,
called "Wecht." It was donated to an archive connected to its subject.
As far as I know, though, Brakhage never printed it, released it, or
even showed it. I put it onto my filmography, but am wondering if in
fact it doesn't belong in a supplementary section. Brakhage wasn't
exactly abstemious when it came to deciding which of his completed films
to release, to put it mildly, and so when he didn't release something
that fact probably had some significance.
"Stan's Window" is a completed film. Though completed posthumously, it
was done so according to his specs, and he did see a video version of
the rough-cut before he died and ordered a few more changes. It's
accompanied by some unedited rolls that are "fragments." But yes, there
are other avant-garde filmmakers that have shown fragments, but again,
if they exhibit a work in their lifetimes, that's different than a
critic or archivist "authenticating" it posthumously. Indeed, the
"unfinished" aesthetic is arguably a part of some avant-garde
filmmakers' practice. Bruce Baillie's "Quick Billy" ends with "the
Rolls," several edited in camera reels; including them in his
masterpiece was a way of including fragments in his aesthetic, as other
filmmakers have done, and which is very different from viewing something
posthumously. And no, I haven't seen any of the Welles fragments.
4258
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:43pm
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
I wonder if most filmmakers (avant-gardists, narrative and documentary) share the "end of cinema" title as most cinephiles do. I hope to make films some day, so I hold a shred of
hope that I am not emerging at the end of something, but what we are all waiting for is a renaissance, no? A surprising and dramatic rebirth, embodying everything sacred on
which cinema was based. The cinema of today isn't the cinema of 30 or 40 years ago, but shouldn't that motivate us enough to look at where things began to disintegrate and
use that as our inspiration? (Works for me in some ways).
The only thing about cinema that is ending is, well, cinema, or film, celluloid. 16mm stock is becoming more expensive, and most are opting to shoot in digital video.
Understandably, this is creating a new kind of cinema, of which few have really tried to say is a new language in moviemaking. Who's to say where this will lead us (nowhere,
perhaps?), but I hold some shreds of hope that the current state of commercial filmmaking will end up watering down watered-down remakes of masterpieces until there is only
water, the result of which might be our rebirth.
Certainly money controls everything, which is unfortunate for sure, but isn't that how it's always been? I think we're missing the biggest issue, which is the attempt to please
everyone, making films for audiences and not individuals, by using "test audiences" and recutting and changing the reasons in which the film in question was being made. This
is where the end of cinema hyperbole makes sense, though I still have doubts that this will end anything. Cinema is only a bit over 100 years old, why keep delaring its death if
we've barely explored the vast amounts of possibilities; what "we" really need is a rebirth of content, rhythms, and a bit of style, and some money of course.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Stoeckel"
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:34:56 -0500
To:
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] the end of cinema?
Money has taken complete control. It has always had a portion of control, but for the majority of filmmakers working today, the number one reason to make a film is money. A
love for filmmaking, the world films create, is gone. No one cares any more. Their "love for filmmaking" means "love for making money." I understand that is the direction of the
world, and has been present through out film history, but doesn't this bother you at all? I think it should bother any true cinephile. But I guess suffering through such aesthetic
pain makes the 400 Blows and Kill Bills so wonderfully satisfying.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
Search Smarter - get the new eXact Search Bar for free!
http://www.exactsearchbar.com/
4259
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 7:00pm
Subject: like listening to pop songs as Carax quaintly claimed
In CARAX's MAUVAIS SANGUINE (Bad Blood), ALEX says something like he
will put on the radio rather than selecting something to play on the
record player because it seems that whenever you put on the radio, you
will hear the song that is playing in your head already. Perhaps we
see and hear what we are ready to see and hear...we are the final
auteurs of all experience!
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 03:30:00 -0000
> From: "jpcoursodon"
> Subject: Rudolph/Carax-Duras/Welles...
>
> I have never listened to pop songs again and again (I hate the
> concept of pop) -- well, let's make an exception for some Beattles
> stuff, "Here There and Everywhere", maybe -- but if watching Duras is
> like listening to pop songs as Carax quaintly claimed, I'd say the
> music track to India Song fills the bill.
4260
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 7:10pm
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Stoeckel"
wrote:
> Money has taken complete control. It has always had a portion of
control, but for the majority of filmmakers working today, the number
one reason to make a film is money.
There are more variables involved then simply personal greed. I
agree with Fred that the self-concious striving of some commercial
filmmakers for style is a factor in the decline of the artistic worth
of many post '60s Hollywood features. By the '70s many of the
Hollywood masters had retired (either willingly or unwillingly) or
died. Television had become the venue of B movies (and some good
work was done there.)
I would add that macro economic changes made during the Nixon
administration such as going off the gold standard, letting the yen
float, abandoning the Dumberton Woods Agreement while persuing
Military Kensian policies made possible the the acquisition of the
major studios by transnational conglomerates of the late '70s and
early '80s (which in turn lead to de-unionization.) And technical
innovations have lead to marketing innovations and spin-offs
(toys,video games, books, etc.) as important factors. All of this
has lead to a tightening of what sorts of movies get made in
Hollywood and by whom. Also, as someone said in an earlier post,
there's Sturgeon's Law.
But none of this heralds the end of cinema. As for a Golden Age of
Hollywood Cinema for me it's the 1950s. I think we can identify a
Silver Age and look forward to a Platinum Age.
Richard
4261
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 7:20pm
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
Justin Stoeckel wrote:
> Money has taken complete control.
But it hasn't. You're "complete" is mere hyperbole, and you cannot
justify it because you yourself contradict it by pointing out that
certain filmmakers (and you're picking Hollywood royalty like Steven
Soderbergh, for crying out loud!) are still OK.
> for the majority of filmmakers working today, the number one reason
> to make a film is money.
1. On what evidence do you base this claim? No, really, this is not
a rhetorical question.
2. On what evidence can you say that it was any different back in the
day? No, really, this one is not a rhetorical question, either.
Directing films for commercial release has *always* been a job, a way
to earn some income, as long as the commercial cinema has existed!
This isn't news! And we can certainly make a very, very long list of
filmmakers who create cinema for no money. Any avant-gardist, pretty
much any documentarian (even someone like Errol Morris), and the
majority of independent filmmakers (in the US or otherwise) who have
been at work for a long time all sustain themselves through means
other than their artistic cinematic output. And keep in mind that
the number of these kinds of filmmakers is not insignificant: they
outnumber the people on Hollywood rosters.
Hollywood filmmakers, as well as mainstream filmmakers the world
over, do often see their filmmaking as a way to earn money. But,
again, this is really nothing new. Furthermore, directing a film is
not an easy job, and directing commercial films is not something that
one can easily break into. Are most Hollywood filmmakers today
hacks? Yes. (But most of yesterday's Hollywood filmmakers were
hacks too.) And given this hostile career field, I think most
commercial filmmakers do what they do for something more than money,
because it's much easier to earn the same amount of cash by going
into finance, business, or technology. Just because few filmmakers
are "genuine artists" doesn't mean that most filmmakers are wholly
apathetic to anything but their paycheck. For instance, Sam Mendes
is an abomination (IMO), but he certainly thinks he's doing something
more than earning a paycheck. A lot of filmmakers are no different.
Frankly, I think you're complaints are simply unfounded, and in two
posts you haven't come close to putting up a good argument for them.
> A love for filmmaking, the world films create, is gone.
Ah ... I get it. The reason you say this must be because you have
yet to see the films of Kiarostami, Hou, Ferrara, Tsai, Hong,
Makhmalbaf, Desplechin, Techine, Monteiro, Noonan, Jarmusch, Assayas,
Denis, Burnett, or any number of truly major contemporary filmmakers
who are all about "a love for filmmaking" and "the world films
create."
"Gone," my ass.
--Zach
4262
From: J. Mabe
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 7:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a list
--- Fred Camper
There are other avant-gardists on your list too. Did
> I miss a post, or
> did you assemble it from a variety of sources?
>
> - Fred
I just listed my current favorites I could think of
that I hadn't seen listed by anyone else... but Henrik
was right to a degree... at some point I was just
goofing off listing obscurities (the Italian fellas
who made the Afghan documentaries) and mild
provocations (Tom Green). But I still stand by John
Sayles being near the top of any "real" list I would
make of the greatest working filmmakers.
Josh Mabe
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4263
From: Justin Stoeckel
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 8:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: the end of cinema?
Firstly, I'm speaking of American cinema. Rattling off foreign directors is moot. I'm not arguing against foreign cinema. As far as I'm concerned, foreign cinema is the example American cinema needs to consider.
On what evidence can you say that it was any different back in the
day? I'm not saying it was any different back in the day. Money vs. Art has been a battle since the early stages of film. As much as I despise the former, I think it provides a necessary balance. For all of those who enjoy making films about explosions and convenient plot points, there are those who despise this way of filmmaking and seek a change, and in so doing, create films about humanity; rooted in reality; or rooted in the film world. A novelistic approach. Again, in American cinema.
On what evidence do you base this claim? No, really, this is not
a rhetorical question. Read any screenwriting magazine with aspiring screenwriters. Go to film school and talk with future directors. Listen/read any interview with commercial, Hollywood directors. Where are their concerns based? Marketing, toy lines, and box office tallies. Have you ever heard Brett Ratner talk? It's nauseating. Their love of filmmaking is blinded by material effects.
To take a quote from Elizabeth Nolan's post, "Perhaps we see and hear what we are ready to see and hear..." You'll be ready soon.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4264
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:16pm
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Stoeckel"
> Money has taken complete control. It has always had a portion of control, but for
> the majority of filmmakers working today, the number one reason to make a film is
> money. A love for filmmaking, the world films create, is gone. No one cares any
> more. Their "love for filmmaking" means "love for making money." I understand
> that is the direction of the world, and has been present through out film history,
> but doesn't this bother you at all? I think it should bother any true cinephile. But I
> guess suffering through such aesthetic pain makes the 400 Blows and Kill Bills so
> wonderfully satisfying.
>
Not to mention 'Ed Wood', which had an airing on British TV last night. And I got the
distinct impression that Tim Burton knew well in advance of production that it would
tank at the box office - not just because it was in black and white and about a subject
few people today would care about, but also because of its wide-eyed cinephilia, its
acknowledgement that Wood's sheer joy in making films more than compensated for
the manifest inadequacies of those films. Watching it again, I was more than ever
convinced that it's one of the few great mainstream Hollywood films of the past
decade, largely because it was made out of genuine love rather than any kind of profit
motive.
Michael
4265
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:17pm
Subject: RKO Scope Lang Dwan
Finally get on eBay a DVD widescreen edition of "While the city
sleeps".
This "widescreen" edition offers an alternative framing resulting
mainly from shorten top and low parts.
I'm not sure that the 1.33 edition gains anything showing a little
more of the ceiling, but I'd say I feel more comfortable with that
square screen...
Some critics (eg Jacques Lourcelles) believe that the widescreen is
more suitable for Lang's last works. Not sure to be convinced.
As for Dwan, I saw Tennessee's partner in a scope version, with the
feeling that this extra space was rather superfluous.
Any thought?
Maxime
http://mapage.noos.fr/maximer/The_Movies_I_Like.htm
4266
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:18pm
Subject: Re: a list is a list (Jaques Rozier)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> > Jacques Rozier
>
> I've only seen ADIEU PHILIPPINE, which I liked. How many have you
> caught up with?
All movies by Jaques Rozier are TO BE SEEN.
My favorites:
Rentrée des classes (55, short)
Du côté d'Orouët (69)
Les Naufragés de l'Ile de la Tortue (76)
Les Naufragés is unfortunately nearly impossible to catch.
Du côté d'Orouët is available on VHS at fnac.com
4267
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:36pm
Subject: Re: RKO Scope Lang Dwan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime"
> Finally get on eBay a DVD widescreen edition of "While the city
> sleeps".
> This "widescreen" edition offers an alternative framing resulting
> mainly from shorten top and low parts.
> I'm not sure that the 1.33 edition gains anything showing a little
> more of the ceiling, but I'd say I feel more comfortable with that
> square screen...
> Some critics (eg Jacques Lourcelles) believe that the widescreen is
> more suitable for Lang's last works. Not sure to be convinced.
> As for Dwan, I saw Tennessee's partner in a scope version, with the
> feeling that this extra space was rather superfluous.
> Any thought?
>
>
Unless I'm mistaken,these RKO films of the fifties that were
exhibited as SuperScope or RKOScope (the latter the British version
of the former) were shot full-frame at 1.33:1. For scope projection,
the prints were cropped, given an anamorphic optical squeeze and then
projected in various ratios, ranging from 1.75:1 to 2.25:1. (Today's
process of Super 35 works along similar lines.) Theaters that did not
have anamorphic projection capability could show the films in the old
way. As far as what the "proper" aspect ratio of each film is, that's
obviously a subject for research on a title-by-title basis. But I
would imagine that most directors had to keep their compositions
relatively flexible, allowing for all possible variables in
projection.
4268
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: the end of cinema?
> Firstly, I'm speaking of American cinema. Rattling off fore
ign directors is moot. I'm not arguing against foreign cinema
. As far as I'm concerned, foreign cinema is the example Amer
ican cinema needs to consider.
Which foreign cinema? There's many differents "foreign
cinema" inside every national cinema.
>
>For all of those who enjoy making films about explosions and
convenient plot points, there are those who despise this way o
f filmmaking and seek a change, and in so doing, create films
about humanity; rooted in reality; or rooted in the film world
. A novelistic approach. Again, in American cinema.
>
Can some one make a good movie with explosions? And since
they all make movies onl,y for money why did you use the
word "enjoy"?
>Read any screenwriting magazine with aspiring screenwriters.
Go to film school and talk with future directors. Listen/rea
d any interview with commercial, Hollywood directors. Where a
re their concerns based? Marketing, toy lines, and box office
tallies. Have you ever heard Brett Ratner talk? It's nausea
ting.
I'm quite sure there were many Brett Ratners in any period of
hollywood. The difference today is that auterism made
directors better know so people like Ratner actually do
interviews. And talking about interviews, they arwen't very
reliable (specially with the guy is giving i while releasing
a movie). It all depends which sort of publications is doing
the interview. If it was a very industrial oriented magazine
it all will end up in money, don't matter with the filmmaker
has something interest to say. And most filmmakers (good and
bad, and not only in Hollywood) usually give the sort of
answers the interviewer wants. I remember the day Ghost of
Mars opened here. The two biggest São Paulo newspapers run
interviews with John Carpenter, in one the interviewer calls
him the "king of trash" and stuff like that and happilly goes
along, in the other he was very very serious talking about
films, influences, philosophy, politics and so on. Also,
there's the diffuculties of working inside industry (who
obviously want their product to make profit), I'm quite sure
that if I had made an 80m film as Joe Dante just did, I would
be worried with the Box office, after all if the film flopped
it would means even more difficults with my next project.
Filipe
---
Faça suas compras de Natal sem sair de casa!
Compre no Shopping UOL
http://www.uol.com.br/shopping
4269
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: the end of cinema?
Justin Stoeckel wrote:
>Firstly, I'm speaking of American cinema....
>
NO. You are not speaking of "American cinema." You are speaking of some
subset of American cinema; I would guess youi are speaking of commercial
American dramatic narrative lip-sync fiction cinema,.
There are many other American cinemas, including works of film or video
art that cost a few hundred dollars or less, funded entirely out of
their makers' own pockets so they can make them the way they want to,
and that were made out of love. Some of them even show that love on the
screen.
- Fred
4270
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:08pm
Subject: What Boetticher said
Not always to be trusted. He had certainly changed his tune about the
Ranowns by the time I knew him, perhaps from noting the feedback he
was getting from fans...and the relative lack of interest in Arruza.
But he made a sequel to Arruza, My Kingdom For - shot on video and
16, and incorporating paintings, photos and freeze frames - that was
finished in 1985, and for years he was trying to float two scripts
that were expansions of the vision in the Scotts: A Horse for Mr.
Barnum and When There's Something to Do - scripts he wrote himself.
He also very much wanted to make a film of his book When in Disgrace,
about the making of Arruza. There's a script for that -- more than
one actually -- where his instincts as a filmmaker made him
fictionalize the events, not to make them more incredible, but to
make them more shapely.
In other words, he expended a great deal of energy to continuing both
parts of his work - westerns and docudrams about bullfighting - after
Arruza and the Ranowns. And he did, thank God, get one of each made:
My Kingdom For and A Time for Dying. I believe that at one point he
denigrated A Time, but never Kingdom. I think he had different
standards for the two strands. The westerns he dreamed were more
expensive than the ones he got to make - actually, A Time, with its
historical figures, gives a notion of what he had in mind for Barnum
and When There's Something to Do. But he loved the Ranowns and could
recite the dialogue by heart. When Scott died he said he owed him a
great debt, because he had enabled him to show his artistic,
sensitive side for the first time.
That first flowered, of course, in Bullfighter and the Lady, which
everyone should see in the restored version, and even before when he
haunted the Jeu de Paumes in Paris as a young man, studying the works
of the Impressionists. In fact, according to When in Disgrace, he
fell in love with bullfighting not from seeing a bullfight, but from
seeing a painting of one on the wall of the home of the wealthy
madame he was shacked up with in Mexico City. He asked her to take
him to one, and then to sponsor him as an apprentice bullfighter.
Budd was a Truffaut character.
4271
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:33pm
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
wrote:
>
> Can some one make a good movie with explosions?
Apocalypse Now, The Battle of Algiers and That Obscure Object of
Desire all spring to mind...
Michael
4272
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a what?
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
>
> > And 53's critical favorites didn't include
> > Ford's Mogambo either (or almost any Ford in the 50's).
For the record, in '53 Ford did win the Academy Award for direction (THE QUIET MAN, 1952).
4273
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: the end of cinema?
Don't forget "Zabriskie Point" !
--- Michael Brooke
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Can some one make a good movie with explosions?
>
> Apocalypse Now, The Battle of Algiers and That
> Obscure Object of
> Desire all spring to mind...
>
> Michael
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4274
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 10:47pm
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
> Can some one make a good movie with explosions?
Kiss Me Deadly, Play Dirty, They Were Expendable
4275
From:
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 5:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: the end of cinema?
Damien, responding to Filipe:
> >Can some one make a good movie with explosions?
>
> Kiss Me Deadly, Play Dirty, They Were Expendable
In Harm's Way!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4276
From:
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 6:01pm
Subject: Re: The end of cinema? AND 1967
Fred Camper wrote:
>for me, an end in Hollywood came in the 1960s. In 1966, "El Dorado" and
>"Seven Women" marked the apex and conclusion to a certain period of
> filmmaking.
I agree.
There are signs that there was a drastic change of personnel in American
commercial entertainment around 1967, in film, mystery fiction, comic books. Many
veteran Hollywood filmmakers saw their careers come to end around 1967; many
new filmmakers saw their careers begin around the same time, including the 70s
filmmakers who work is so valorized today. The Byron Haskin oral history
interview book has vivid descriptions of the mass firings going on in MGM and other
studios in the later 60s: not just directors, but every sort of creative and
admistrative employee was dismissed as not being "with it". Many had had
careers dating from the 1930s. Similarly, DC Comics fired much of its veteran staff
in 1966, over a dispute over health care benefits. Here, too, many careers
that had gone back to the 40s or even the 30s in American comic books came to an
abrupt end. The change in mystery fiction authors is less clear cut, but one
can make a case for a wholesale change of mystery writers around this time
too. The pre 1967 mystery writers tended to be deeply plot oriented in their
work; the newer writers tended to be far less interested in plot. In Hollywood,
1967 marks the start of the endless invocation of violence as the center of
Hollywood filmmaking, with "Bonnie and Clyde" (1967) being very controversial. We
have seen violence as being highly present in much Hollywood filmmaking since
then.
By contrast, 1967 seems to have had no impact on European filmmakers, or on
American experimental filmmakers such as Brakhage or Jordan Belson. One can
also think of some counterexamples whose work continued across the 1967 border,
such as Blake Edwards or Sam Fuller - although the later Fuller films tended to
be funded in very different ways from his pre 1967 Hollywood work.
Pre 1967 filmmakers, writers and comics creators emerged from an entirely
popular culture background. Their work was seen by society and their employers as
almost wholly entertainment. This does not mean that they were cynical about
their work. There is much evidence that they loved their work, were enormously
committed to it, and that they had high standards of what was usually called
their "craft". They tended to employ what they called their "imagination" to
their work. But their work was not usually seen as being the same as "serious
art". As Fred suggests, this culture might have had some deep merit. This sort
of background might have encouraged the production of what we now realise is
great art.
Mike Grost
4277
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 11:07pm
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
>
>
> > Can some one make a good movie with explosions?
The Big Parade, Hearts of the World, Storm Over Asia,
All Quiet On the Western Front, Westfront 1918, J'Accuse,
Air Force, Paths of Glory...
--Robert Keser
4278
From: jerome_gerber
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 11:22pm
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
The Thin Red Line
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
> >
> >
> > > Can some one make a good movie with explosions?
>
> The Big Parade, Hearts of the World, Storm Over Asia,
> All Quiet On the Western Front, Westfront 1918, J'Accuse,
> Air Force, Paths of Glory...
>
> --Robert Keser
4279
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 11:39pm
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
> > >Can some one make a good movie with explosions?
> >
> > Kiss Me Deadly, Play Dirty, They Were Expendable
>
> In Harm's Way!
The Cavern, The Elusive Corporal
4280
From: Rick Segreda
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 0:02am
Subject: Explosive Cinema
The all-time great explosive moment in movies, for me, is the Jimmy Cagney "Look, Ma, I'm on top of the world!" climax in "White Heat."
After that, there's Antonioni's next film after Blow-Up, Zabriskie Point, where everything BLOWS-UP!
That fit the apocalyptic mood at the time, when Godard was claiming that the cinema was ending. Just look at the explosive ending to "Casino Royale," and, of course, the (literally) final word in explosive conclusions, "Dr. Strangelove."
jess_l_amortell
> >
> > Kiss Me Deadly, Play Dirty, They Were Expendable
>
> In Harm's Way!
The Cavern, The Elusive Corporal
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4281
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 0:14am
Subject: Re: Explosive Cinema
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Rick Segreda
> The all-time great explosive moment in movies, for me, is the Jimmy
Cagney "Look, Ma, I'm on top of the world!" climax in "White Heat."
>
> After that, there's Antonioni's next film after Blow-Up, Zabriskie
Point, where everything BLOWS-UP!
>
> That fit the apocalyptic mood at the time, when Godard was claiming
that the cinema was ending. Just look at the explosive ending
to "Casino Royale," and, of course, the (literally) final word in
explosive conclusions, "Dr. Strangelove."
It's not precisely an explosion, but my favorite end-of-cinema
apocalypse from this period is the collapse of the Eiffel Tower in
the final shot of THE GREAT RACE -- wiping out the whole fictional
world of the film at a stroke.
JTW
4282
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:05am
Subject: explosive cinema
Rio Bravo
The Party
The Trial
(all three involve dynamite)
Blockheads (Laurel & Hardy)
4283
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:07am
Subject: Re: explosive cinema
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> Rio Bravo
> The Party
> The Trial
>
> (all three involve dynamite)
>
> Blockheads (Laurel & Hardy)
Let me add to the above The Big Heat !
4284
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:36am
Subject: Re: RKO Scope Lang Dwan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime"
> Finally get on eBay a DVD widescreen edition of "While the city
> sleeps".
> This "widescreen" edition offers an alternative framing resulting
> mainly from shorten top and low parts.
> I'm not sure that the 1.33 edition gains anything showing a little
> more of the ceiling, but I'd say I feel more comfortable with that
> square screen...
> Some critics (eg Jacques Lourcelles) believe that the widescreen is
> more suitable for Lang's last works. Not sure to be convinced.
> As for Dwan, I saw Tennessee's partner in a scope version, with the
> feeling that this extra space was rather superfluous.
> Any thought?
>
After my tidy little lecture in my last post on the flexible nature
of SuperScope I just noticed that I failed to really address the
question you were asking. (Sorry if I offered you technical knowledge
you already possessed.) I have no firm opinion about the Dwans as I
haven't seen any of them projected in 35mm. scope. Aside from the
poor prints (especially ESCAPE TO BURMA) the DVDs look all right, I
guess, in terms of framing. But the last two Lang films seem a little
top heavy to me, too much ceiling. As far as I know, BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT was never meant to be shown 'scope (Super or
otherwise)and I think IMDB lists the aspect ratio as being 1.37:1.
It's hard to believe that this is right. Lang seems to be allowing
for a fair amount of leeway in terms of how projectionists might be
screening the film and some of the sequences (especially those that
take place in the dressing room of the strippers) have so much top
frame information that in at least one shot you can see top edge of
the set.
WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS was released in 'scope but I had never seen it
this way until about two years ago when I booked a 16mm. print from
Kit Parker for a class and it turned up, much to my surprise,
in 'scope. It looked a little cramped or truncated at times,
especially in close-ups, but it also had a certain...precision,
almost, (I'm searching for the proper word here) in terms of the
compositions which I hadn't always felt in the full-frame versions.
Again, the flexibility factor in terms of not only SuperScope but
almost all widescreen cinema with variable ratios (from VistaVision
to Super 35 to ordinary 1.85) from the 1950s on creates problems in
terms of discussing definitive versions in terms of shot
composition. Scorsese, for example, has said that he equally loves
the compositions of both the full-frame and anamorphic widescreen
versions of AGE OF INNOCENCE.
4285
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:59am
Subject: Re: explosive cinema
And don't forget "1941"!
--- jpcoursodon
>
> Rio Bravo
> The Party
> The Trial
>
> (all three involve dynamite)
>
> Blockheads (Laurel & Hardy)
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4286
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:59am
Subject: Re: RKO Scope Lang Dwan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> But the last two Lang films seem a little > top heavy to me, too much ceiling.
WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS at academy ratio looked ceiling-heavy to me too, but there was an interesting post by Fred regarding Lang's intentions:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/1401
4287
From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:06am
Subject: Re: explosive cinema
Out of the Blue (Dennis Hopper, 1980)
-Jason
4288
From: Tosh
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:12am
Subject: Ed Wood
'Ed Wood' is one of the few contemporary works that made me cry. The
story of someone trying to get eveyone together as well as keeping
the funds going is truly moving. Especially those who try to create
something and keep it going - either by publishing, making a film, or
just getting a group of oddballs together. It doesn't matter if the
end result is a piece of shit or a work of genius (or a combination
of both with respect to Wood's actual films).
It's a very very moving film.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
4289
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:23am
Subject: Re: explosive cinema
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Guthartz"
wrote:
> Out of the Blue (Dennis Hopper, 1980)
This is a great film!
TOUCH OF EVIL
THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY
FISTFUL OF DYNAMITE
DARK STAR
THE FURY
DIVINE INTERVENTION
JTW
4290
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:47am
Subject: Re: explosive cinema
It's not a movie, but SCTV's Farm Film Report must be acknowledged.
Big Jim McBob! Billy Sol Hurok! Bernadette Peters, Brooke Shields,
Dustin Hoffman and a weeping Meryl Streep blowing up real good!
4291
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 3:00am
Subject: Re: explosive cinema
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> And don't forget "1941"!
>
> --- jpcoursodon
> >
> > Rio Bravo
> > The Party
> > The Trial
> >
> > (all three involve dynamite)
> >
> > Blockheads (Laurel & Hardy)
> >
> >
> It's impossible NOT to forget lots of films, because come to
think of it the cinema is EXPLOSIVE by nature.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4292
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 3:01am
Subject: EXPLOSIVE CINEMA
I know there is a fire at the plant, but I don't remember 'for show'
explosions in WAGES OF FEAR, a rather potent film. I always recommend
it to fellows I see looking for DVD's at the library.
4293
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 3:03am
Subject: Re: Ed Wood
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh
> 'Ed Wood' is one of the few contemporary works that made me cry.
The
> story of someone trying to get eveyone together as well as keeping
> the funds going is truly moving. Especially those who try to
create
> something and keep it going - either by publishing, making a film,
or
> just getting a group of oddballs together. It doesn't matter if the
> end result is a piece of shit or a work of genius (or a combination
> of both with respect to Wood's actual films).
>
> It's a very very moving film.
> --
> Tosh Berman
> TamTam Books
> http://www.tamtambooks.com
Totally agree. JPC
4294
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 3:08am
Subject: Re: EXPLOSIVE CINEMA
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan
> I know there is a fire at the plant, but I don't remember 'for
show'
> explosions in WAGES OF FEAR, a rather potent film. I always
recommend
> it to fellows I see looking for DVD's at the library.
No, the point is that you're kept waiting for (or fearing, depending
on your pt of view)an explosion of all that nitroglycerin and it
never happens which is the point, and it couldn't be done today
because people would feel cheated.
By the way I liked your previous post.
JPC
4295
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 3:54am
Subject: Re: Rudolph/Carax-Duras/Welles...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> -- but if watching Duras is
> like listening to pop songs as Carax quaintly claimed, I'd say the
> music track to India Song fills the bill.
I have the Carlos D'Alessio score (on LP !) and it's great.
I think it's available on CD now.
-Sam Wells (one E)
(favorite Welles film: The Lady From Shanghai)
4296
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:07am
Subject: Re: NYC: Jewish Museum; non-NYC: assorted topics
And during their Kafka programs, they showed Class Relations, speaking of
Straub/Huillet.
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: "Zach Campbell"
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 12:43 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] NYC: Jewish Museum; non-NYC: assorted topics
> Who knew about this? Have I just been in the dark about the Jewish
> Museum, are the facilities just worth disregarding, or is this place
> one of New York's best kept secrets? They're most recent program:
> the Straubs' MOSES UND ARON and INTRODUCTION TO ARNOLD SCHOENBERG'S
> ACCOMPANIMENT TO A FILM SCENE both in 16mm.
4297
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:12am
Subject: Re: A list is . . .
On Park Kwang-Su, I've actually seen four of his five features -- the Human
Rights Watch Film Festival did a retro of his work a few years ago.
To the Starry Island is quite lovely, but his most recent film (at that
time), A Single Spark, is one of the finest political dramas I've seen in
the past ten years, an investigation into the death of a young labor
organizer in the same vein as Rosi's best work. On the strength of those two
films alone, he is worth watching. I have to admit that the earlier work
isn't as polished.
By the way, someone else listed "the director of Nowhere to Run" -- his name
is Lee Myung-se and his regular partner is a good friend of mine. Myung-se
has been around for a while and has made several features, but that's the
only one to make its way to the States so far.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
4298
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:19am
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lieberman"
> I wonder if most filmmakers (avant-gardists, narrative and documentary) share
the "end of cinema" title as most cinephiles do.
You mean, linear narrative dramatic cinema is the dated baggage of the 20th
Century ;-)
> The only thing about cinema that is ending is, well, cinema, or film, celluloid.
16mm stock is becoming more expensive, and most are opting to shoot in digital
video.
No if anything it's becoming a hybrid state right now. Half a dozen features shot
Super16 are playing in US Theaters right now - some digital blowups to 35
("Thirteen" for instance).
Lots of paints for the canvas right now...
-Sam wells
4299
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:24am
Subject: Re: the end of cinema?
I'm hardly through half the posts on this very long thread, but in case nobody has
said it, it might be worth pointing out that much of the *function* of
traditional popular cinema has been taken over by television, especially cable..
-Sam
4300
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:31am
Subject: Re: explosive cinema
Or potentially anything remaining on nitrate........
Well anyway, I'd ad The Thin Red Line to the list... the way that artillery explosions
are shot as if *acts of nature itself*
-Sam Wells
Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact