Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:36am
Subject: Re: the end of cinema or the end of the moment for cinema?
I believe all artists who do good work have their 'moment.' The
'moment' can last for one work or a dozen or more. Maybe the medium
of cinema has reached their 'moment.' There will be good films in
the future, but the 'moment' is now gone. Cinema is not cinema
anymore. The cinema we are talking about is the cinema of the past.
Which is great, because there is so much of it. But then again it
could be just me. I feel that way about music as well.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
4302
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:38am
Subject: Welles and comments (inserts)
When watching "Touch of Evil" this afternoon, I noticed something
curious. In the sequences with a lot of typical Wellesian dialogue,
the structure was a central dialogue or monologue, with supporting or
commenting comments as inserted single shot sequences. These sequences
sounded as if each comment had been cut before they ended. Where one
normally would expect an exhalation and lowering of the voice at the
end of a sentence on the last word, this was not here. They sounded
"interrupted".
I checked "Citizen Kane" afterwards and it was the same thing.
Whenever a central piece of dialogue was commented on, the comment
sounded "interrupted" as if it wasn't allowed to exhale out.
I wonder if anyone else ever noticed this or if my ear plays me a
jest.
Henrik
4303
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:47am
Subject: Re: Explosive cinema
At the risk of drawing down the wrath, Spielberg and Lucas have both
done good work with explosives (the end of Jaws, the end of Star
Wars), as has Carpenter (the end of The Thing, Big Trouble in Little
China passim). But the producer who gave explosions a bad name, Joel
Silver, is a good producer, and Die Hard, which is full of
explosions, is a good film. Let me again urge anyone who has room in
his/her life for really good action filmmaking to see Executive
Decision, directed by Joel (uncredited) and Stuart Baird - it starts
off with a suicide bombing right out of today's headlines as prelude
to an uncanny prediction of 9/11 (with no explosions, thanks to Kurt
Russell, Oliver Platt and Halle Berry). Joel is at Warners, where
Raoul Walsh blew up a lot of stuff, including part of the studio in
Northern Pursuit, I'm told - an act which must have given him the
same deep satisfaction Joe Dante no doubt felt when he toppled the
Warner Bros. water tank in effigy in Looney Tunes: Back in Action.
And Budd Boetticher, who was becoming an alcoholic working at
Universal, tried to get out of his contract at one point by putting
extra charges into an explosion for one of the turkeys he was
directing, knocking out windows all over the lot. The destruction of
the Fox Plaza in effigy at the end of Die Hard gave similar
satisfaction to those of us working there at the time - enhanced for
some of us by the fact that Reagan had, I believe, already installed
his offices on the top floor. Vive la plastique!
4304
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:53am
Subject: intros and nitpicking
Justin Stoeckel wrote:
> "Perhaps we see and hear what we are ready to see and hear..." You'll
> be ready soon.
Hey Justin, welcome to the group. By the way, who the hell are you? I
think we should get in the habit here of introducing ourselves,
especially (but not limited to) the times when we're making grandiose
statements like cinema is dead, etc. It's one thing to just lurk, but
if you're going to be an active participant, please let everyone know
who you are.
Don Simpson rules!
Gabe
4305
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:58am
Subject: Re: Re: Explosive cinema
hotlove666 wrote:
>At the risk of drawing down the wrath, Spielberg and Lucas have both
>done good work with explosives
>
OK, no wrath, but at the risk of seeming like one-note Fred, now I have
to offer a greater explosion film than any thus far mentioned (though
"Kiss Me Deadly" and the ending of "In Harm's Way -- the end of the
credits -- are both pretty ultimate):
23rd Pslam Branch (1967), Part I, by Stan Brakhage
Here the explosions aren't only the ones on screen, in the form of WW
II stock footage. They are also in the editing, and in the calculated
intrusions of the frame line at both top and bottom of the picture,
bouncing around and constantly reorienting your eyesight in a formal
form of perceptual violence.
Of course, there's also Bruce Conner's wonderful "Crossroads," a long
presentation of aerial footage of a nuclear test in the Pacific.
- Fred
4306
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:01am
Subject: Newell
> 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.
Mike Newell does good work sometimes. The film of his that really
stands out for me is AN AWFULLY BIG ADVENTURE, which would make an
interesting double bill with ESTHER KAHN. I don't think I've ever seen
Georgina Cates in another role, but she was very good in that film. - Dan
4307
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:03am
Subject: Re: intros and nitpicking
Gabe Klinger wrote:
>Hey Justin, welcome to the group.
>
...and farewell. He unsubscribed about an hour ago. I have had no
correspondence with him so unless someone else has I assume he decided
that based on the resopnses (and ire) he drew that this wasan't the
group for him. We keep gaining members, though, and we gained one today,
so we're still at 91 -- we would be at 94 if our three current "bouncing
members," Schwarz, Sprecher, and Palola, would fix their email accounts.
- Fred
4308
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:04am
Subject: A list is just a list . . .
A thigh is just a thigh.
Oops, sorry my mind was wandering.
All joking aside, I want to respond -- as calmly and politely as possible --
to Henrik's posting.
The problem here is, I believe, two-fold. First, we don't know what the
Guardian film editor told his panel their mandate was but it seems that what
they were trying to do was put together a list of active directors of great
talent and/or promise. But the way the article is written, it's really
unclear what the list is supposed to be. So we are all quarreling over their
mandate without knowing what the heck it is/was. Obviously we conceive a
very different kind of list with a significantly different purpose.
Second, while it is nice to think that we would all recognize the next Ford,
Welles, etc., the nature of the film industry has changed radically. John
Ford made over 30 films in the 1930s alone (Curtiz made 44, which boggles
the mind); unless you are maniacally driven like Takashi Miike, who averages
seven a year, no filmmaker gets to work that frequently. Consequently, we
are trying to make choices based on a considerably smaller sample. Any
schmuck could see that Citizen Kane was the work of a filmmaker of
astounding promise; how many of us could have spotted Preminger if the only
films we had seen were Danger Love at Work and Margin for Error?
My point (and I do have one) is that we have a lot less evidence from which
to judge; I haven't seen Donnie Darko, but a lot of people I respect were
very impressed. Will Richard Kelly turn out to be the Welles of the new
millennium? Too soon to tell, but unlike Welles, he isn't getting to direct
a second feature quite so fast.
The whole point of auteurism for my cohort (I turned 50 last Tuesday, so do
the math for yourself) is that it allowed us to discuss seriously filmmakers
who were dismissed by the self-appointed "humanists." We dared to prefer
Ford's westerns and Welles's post-Kane work to Stanley Kramer and the
bloated parade floats that were winning Oscars (then and now, come to that).
In short, once upon a time, Henrik's list of seemingly obvious great
filmmakers was as outre as the lists he is deriding here.
Finally, I can't speak for anyone else here, but when I suggested including
someone like Park Kwang-Su I did so not because I wanted to show how hip I
was citing an obscure Korean filmmaker (if I wanted to do that, I would have
picked a more conventionally arty misogynist like Ki-Duk Kim); I chose him
because his work embodies precisely those values of political commitment
expressed through cinematic rigor that I find in the best of Welles,
Aldrich, and other sadly departed directors. I didn't name anyone whose work
I don't actively like merely to be provocative -- that's a childish gesture
for college sophomores. Because of the massive changes in film production,
distribution and exhibition in the U.S. -- still the dominant film industry
and market in the world -- many fewer foreign films are getting shown here,
so if some of the names on my list are "obscure" the fault lies with the
industry as much as with me.
George Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
4309
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:13am
Subject: Rudolph, success
> 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.
Yeah, I guess. I don't know what the problem is with the scripts that
Rudolph doesn't direct. Some of them are good: MORTAL THOUGHTS, for
instance, at least until the ending, which is not Rudolph's fault. But
he doesn't seem to feel as free on those projects.
It's not so much that he needs an external perspective: I really meant
to say that at some point he seemed to set out to make Alan Rudolph
films, and the extra layer of self-awareness can seem a bit solipsistic.
Sometimes a director has a success, on whatever terms mean something to
him or her, and he or she seems to decide, "It's okay to be me." The
next film is often very similar to the success, but it's subtly more
enclosed, more encoded, and in danger of seeming self-satisfied. It's
the difference between L'AVVENTURA and LA NOTTE, between RIO BRAVO and
HATARI!, between TRUST and SIMPLE MEN, and maybe between CHOOSE ME and
TROUBLE IN MIND.
> I'm an off-and-on fan of Rudolph. He's got weird little movies like
> "Equinox" and "Trixie" dotting his body of work
EQUINOX is actually one of the later films of his that I like the best,
though I haven't seen it in years.
> 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.
Yeah, he adored and emulated Altman, but he's such a different guy.
It's fun to see his commissioned work TERROR CIRCUS (aka BARN OF THE
NAKED DEAD - how would you like to have one of your films renamed that?)
and listen to all that Altman muliple-mikes-through-a-mixer action let
loose on this subhuman exploitation job. - Dan
4310
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:15am
Subject: Re: Re: explosive cinema
Duck You Sucker -- heck, the hero is a dynamiter.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
4311
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:15am
Subject: Hell's Heroes
> 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.
I'm no Wyler fan (not after 1936 or so, at least), but I actually sort
of like HELL'S HEROES. It doesn't compare well to THREE GODFATHERS, but
there's a dramatic quality to the compositions that appeals to me. - Dan
4312
From: J. Mabe
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:23am
Subject: Re: Re: Explosive cinema
Oh. And Travis Wilkerson's "National Archive Vol. 1"
which is footage of arial bombing in Vietnam.
Josh Mabe
--- Fred Camper
>
>
> hotlove666 wrote:
>
> >At the risk of drawing down the wrath, Spielberg
> and Lucas have both
> >done good work with explosives
> >
> OK, no wrath, but at the risk of seeming like
> one-note Fred, now I have
> to offer a greater explosion film than any thus far
> mentioned (though
> "Kiss Me Deadly" and the ending of "In Harm's Way --
> the end of the
> credits -- are both pretty ultimate):
>
> 23rd Pslam Branch (1967), Part I, by Stan Brakhage
>
> Here the explosions aren't only the ones on screen,
> in the form of WW
> II stock footage. They are also in the editing, and
> in the calculated
> intrusions of the frame line at both top and bottom
> of the picture,
> bouncing around and constantly reorienting your
> eyesight in a formal
> form of perceptual violence.
>
> Of course, there's also Bruce Conner's wonderful
> "Crossroads," a long
> presentation of aerial footage of a nuclear test in
> the Pacific.
>
> - Fred
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4313
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:37am
Subject: Re: Frears (seconded)
>>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.
Frears is very upfront about this. I interviewed him in 1986, and he
got a little impatient, in a polite way, with my auteurist slant. "I
come from a culture where it's the writer that matters," he said.
And yet...I don't buy it. Admittedly, he looks like a writer's helper
in the earlier and later stages of his career, by and large. But if you
think about ONE FINE DAY, BLOODY KIDS, THE HIT, SONG OF EXPERIENCE, or
LAUNDRETTE - and let's throw in AFTERNOON OFF, which is one notch less
confident but in that same middle-period style - is the first thing you
remember the writing? Maybe some of you do, but what I remember is that
fluid, ambient camera and the delicate longing it expresses: that
amazing wordless sequence in ONE FINE DAY where the trapped businessman
has to break out of his office and onto the roof; the phantasmagorical
tracks behind the mute schoolboys in the hell world of BLOODY KIDS;
Terence Stamp's attempted escape leading to a roof, a beautiful
wide-open sky, and a dead end in THE HIT; the camera swiveling past the
actors on that street set in LAUNDRETTE, and Day-Lewis's effortless
vault over the laundry machine. There were a lot of different writers
on these films - Alan Bennett, Stephen Poliakoff, Peter Prince, Hanif
Kureishi, and a fellow named Martin Allen - but the
suspended-between-emotions mood and the wonderfully complex sense of
space carries through the whole period.
> 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.
It makes me so sad that I was in London when this showed at the NFT in
early October, and I passed it up in a completely futile attempt to save
a dying relationship.... - Dan
4314
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:41am
Subject: Re: 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.
>
> 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.)
I was told long ago that the 1976 U.S. Congress revised the tax-shelter
laws so that movies were no longer much good as a tax shelter. This
always made perfect sense to me in terms of the flow of U.S. film
history, but I don't have verification. Does anyone know anything about
it?
I'm temperamentally opposed to talking about the decline and fall of
cinema. Maybe I'd be forced to if I wasn't enjoying much of anything
for a few decades, but that's not at all my case. - Dan
4315
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:45am
Subject: Jacques Rozier
> 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.
They're *all* impossible to catch in the U.S.
> Du côté d'Orouët is available on VHS at fnac.com
I fear I'd be in trouble without subtitles, if PHILLIPINE is any
indication of his dialogue reading.
Thanks again, Maxime, for these reports from the dark side of the moon.
- Dan
4316
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:14am
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a what?
jpcoursodon wrote:
>--- 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).....
>
J-P: Maybe the problem is that we're talking about different countries?
Are you talking about France in 1953? Is Filipe talking about Brazil in
1953?
When I first got interested in "auteurist" cinema, in 1964, I looked at
every Egnlish-language film publication I could find. I can assure you
that I couldn't find any, with one exception, that took John Ford
seriously. I don't even remember who was taken seriously, maybe it was
Bergman, maybe it was Flaherty, maybe it was "The Red Shoes," I'm sure
it was "Citizen Kane" (though not later Welles), but it certainly was
not John Ford, with the possible exception of "The Informer." Indeed, no
one took any westerns seriously at all. The one exception, of course,
was "Film Culture," with Andrew Sarris's American Directors issue and
"Cactus Rosebud" article -- but "Film Culture" also celebrated Brakhage
and Deren and Rice and Anger -- they were clearly so far out of the
mainstream as to be "underground" or something.
My key experiences seeing my first two Fords: "Cheynne Autumn" when it
opened and flopped (but alas, a few days too late to see the pre-Jack
Warner-butchery version, though my friend Tim Hunter did), and then
shortly thereafter, "The Searchers," at the 1 AM show on 42nd Street.
*That* was the only place to see it, and it would be another five or six
years before it was being shown in New York as a John Ford film.
Go down a notch, to say Samuel Fuller or Robert Aldrich or Vincente
Minnelli, and their reputations were far far lower than today. And the
early interest in Sirk was repeatedly ridiculed in print (including in
the New York Times) in the 1960s and early 1970s. And not just in print;
he was referred to by people who should have known better as "the
director of those horrible Rock Hudson/Doris Day movies."
So unless there's something I'm not getting, I think Filipe's point,
that the "reputation of major figures" has fluctuated, is right.
- Fred
4317
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:46am
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a what?
Being slightly younger than Fred, I have to rely on historical rather than
personal memory, but certainly Ford was going through a serious critical
downturn in the '60s -- look at the terrific beating Liberty Valance got
from daily critics. They were p.o'ed that he wasn't still making Grapes of
Wrath.
And there was certainly a massive prejudice against genre films of all
kinds. Heck, that was what made Manny Farber so important -- he took that
stuff seriously before almost anyone else did.
Of course the irony was that the daily critics eagerly embraced people like
Godard and Truffaut (and later, Fassbinder and Wenders) while hating the
filmmakers that they extolled. I have to admit that I cannot understand how
someone could like Fassbinder and hate Sirk at the same time, but that's the
way it frequently was.
Part of it has to do with what Northrop Frye once wryly called the stock
exchange of critical taste -- Keats and Shelley are up, the Metaphysicals
are down; we're selling Ford short and buying Zinneman on margin. In that
respect, list-making is rather dangerous fun -- yes, it's an important part
of canon-making (and cannon-making!), but it's also too easy to mistake mere
assertion for real analysis.
I'm not suggesting that this confusion has been going on here, but it is a
temptation that is, to borrow a line from songwriter Jesse Winchester
"dangerous fun."
George (Hey, I'm dangerous fun myself) Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
4318
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:49am
Subject: Re: Re: a list is a what?
I see that I inadvertently used the phrase 'dangerous fun' several more
times than I intended.
Late hours and too many brain cells killed while in film school. (Memo:
don't sniff that film cleaning stuff again, man.)
George . . . what the heck was my name again?
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
4319
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 8:01am
Subject: Re: Re: explosive cinema
I'd vote for "Pierrot le Fou" for excellent explosion #1. Or the gas station scene in "The Birds." The two Kubrick war films, as well as "Dr. Strangelove." Or, come on kids, the end of
the tracking shot in the opening of "Touch of Evil!" That's an explosion.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Guthartz"
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:06:05 -0000
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: explosive cinema
Out of the Blue (Dennis Hopper, 1980)
-Jason
4320
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:18am
Subject: Re: EXPLOSIVE CINEMA
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- 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.
SPOILER WARNING for 'Wages of Fear'
Actually, there is an enormous explosion in 'Wages of Fear' - have
you forgotten what happened to Luigi and Bimba? I suspect Clouzot
was well aware that even in the 1950s there was a dramatic imperative
to ensure that one of the trucks blew up - which is presumably why
there were two of them.
Michael
4321
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:32am
Subject: Re: Frears (seconded)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> Frears is very upfront about this. I interviewed him in 1986, and
he
> got a little impatient, in a polite way, with my auteurist
slant. "I
> come from a culture where it's the writer that matters," he said.
>
> And yet...I don't buy it. Admittedly, he looks like a writer's
helper
> in the earlier and later stages of his career, by and large. But
if you
> think about ONE FINE DAY, BLOODY KIDS, THE HIT, SONG OF EXPERIENCE,
or
> LAUNDRETTE - and let's throw in AFTERNOON OFF, which is one notch
less
> confident but in that same middle-period style - is the first thing
you
> remember the writing?
In the case of AFTERNOON OFF, most definitely - I certainly
appreciate what Frears brought to it (I love the way he captures the
aimlessness of being at a loose end in a pretty but inert small
English town), but it's the dialogue that largely stuck in my mind,
not least because it's pretty much 100% proof Bennett ("Get this down
your guzzle-holes"/"What do you know about it, you soft
article?"/"It'll take more than Dairy Box to banish memories of Pearl
Harbor").
But I concede that this is much less true of A DAY OUT and ONE FINE
DAY, where Frears is a far more equal partner. As coincidence would
have it, I watched ONE FINE DAY only yesterday (a brace of
Bennett/Frears tapes was finally delivered to my desk last week), and
I completely agree with you - there are just as many (if not rather
more) parallels between it and other Frears-directed films than there
are with other Bennett scripts, and my memories of it are
overwhelmingly visual, especially the vaguely surreal touches like
the endless row of telephones laid out on the floors of the deserted
office block. In fact, I actually find it quite hard to remember any
of the dialogue (not normally a problem I have with Bennett), and I
watched it less than 24 hours ago!
Incidentally, for those interested in the Frears/Bennett
collaborations, some of my pieces are already up on Screenonline and
I hope to have covered the lot over the next month or so. It's
probably easiest if I give you the URL for the Frears biography, as
any new entries will be linked directly to it:
http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/469201/index.html
Michael
4322
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 2:00pm
Subject: Re: RKO Scope Lang Dwan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
> --- 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
Lang may have been unaware that RKO was distributing CITY SLEEPS
in 'scope and it's possible that academy was his preferred ratio for
this and BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. But the ceiling-heavy look of
both films still suggests that he was allowing for the possibility
that they would be projected in various ratios wider than academy.
I would imagine that most filmmakers did this. If they were
insistent upon a ratio being maintained they could release the
prints with a hard matte, as Aldrich sometimes did, although I don't
think Lang was in a position in 1956 to insist on too much.
For what it's worth, IMDB lists the aspect ratio for CITY SLEEPS as
1.66:1 but I've never seen it projected in this way.
4323
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 3:38pm
Subject: RE: Carax-Duras
> 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).
There's also a CD release of the soundtrack to "India Song" that
also includes some music from other Duras films. If this is no
longer available, I could make a dub of it for anyone interested.
4324
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 3:51pm
Subject: Re: RKO Scope Lang Dwan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> For what it's worth, IMDB lists the aspect ratio for CITY SLEEPS
as
> 1.66:1 but I've never seen it projected in this way.
Experience tells me to take anything the IMDB claims regarding aspect
ratios with a very large pinch of salt - I once had an argument with
someone over the aspect ratio of Kurosawa's RAN where he absolutely
insisted that it was 2.35:1 whereas I knew that it couldn't possibly
be, as I'd projected the 35mm print myself and it was 100% definitely
not anamorphically squeezed. It turned out that his sole source was,
inevitably, the IMDB.
That said, I note that they've corrected that particular entry,
although they still claim that Kurosawa's DREAMS is 2.35:1 (to be
fair, I'm not 100% sure that it isn't, but I have a reasonably strong
memory of seeing it in 1.85:1).
Michael
4325
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:03pm
Subject: Re: explosive cinema
Speaking of Hitch, how come no one has mentioned NORTH BY
NORTHWEST?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lieberman"
> I'd vote for "Pierrot le Fou" for excellent explosion #1. Or the
gas station scene in "The Birds." The two Kubrick war films, as well
as "Dr. Strangelove." Or, come on kids, the end of
> the tracking shot in the opening of "Touch of Evil!" That's an
explosion.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Guthartz"
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 02:06:05 -0000
> To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [a_film_by] Re: explosive cinema
>
>
>
>
>
> Out of the Blue (Dennis Hopper, 1980)
>
> -Jason
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
M=243273.4156324.5364586.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1750744/rand=828 091858"> |
> tr>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
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/
4326
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:37pm
Subject: Re: RKO Scope Lang Dwan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
>
> Lang may have been unaware that RKO was distributing CITY SLEEPS
> in 'scope and it's possible that academy was his preferred ratio
for
> this and BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. But the ceiling-heavy look of
> both films still suggests that he was allowing for the possibility
> that they would be projected in various ratios wider than academy.
> I would imagine that most filmmakers did this. If they were
> insistent upon a ratio being maintained they could release the
> prints with a hard matte, as Aldrich sometimes did, although I
don't
> think Lang was in a position in 1956 to insist on too much.
>
> For what it's worth, IMDB lists the aspect ratio for CITY SLEEPS
as
> 1.66:1 but I've never seen it projected in this way.
I saw WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS at the LA County Museum of Art last
Spring and it looked to be projected in 1.85 X 1 aspect ration. By
contrast, the laser disc of the early '90s was cropped to 2 X 1, a
little too tight.
As to SuperScope itself, this is from WIDE SCREEN MOVIES: "SuperScope
would utilize standard cameras and lenses. There was no sacrifice of
focus or depth of field, nor were there any additional lighting
requirements. The only concession to be made was that all action be
framed to fit into a 2 X 1 aspect ratio with equal cropping from the
top and bottom of the frame. The film was then cropped to 2 X 1; a 2
X 1 anamorphic squeeze was added, and the film was printed by
Technicolor in 'scope format with .715" height and .715" width. A
narrow black strip appeared on the right side of the release print
frames to fill in the difference in the .715" SuperScope width and
the .839" width of CinemaScope. Projection was via any 2 X 1
compression anamorphic device. Films not originally shot for
SuperScope could be converted in the lab (and several were.)"
The authors note elsewhere in the book that flat prints of 'scope
movies were distributed along with the 'scope versions and this was
especially true of pictures shot standard and converted to 'scope in
the lab. I once saw a 35mm print of RUN OF THE ARROW where the reels
alternated between being hard matted and full frame.
Richard
4327
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:48pm
Subject: WAGES OF FEAR
I was writing this before I read your There are two trucks, each with
two drivers. I recall that one truck doesn't make it and I think it is
shown as a ball of fire in the distance after an explosion is heard.
Certainly, it is the explosion that draws one's attention in the scene
and the explosion is seen from afar.
Even knowing the outcome of the story, the tension remains.
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:18:18 -0000
From: "Michael Brooke"
Subject: Re: EXPLOSIVE CINEMA
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>> --- 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.
>
> SPOILER WARNING for 'Wages of Fear'
>
>
>
>
>
> Actually, there is an enormous explosion in 'Wages of Fear' - have
> you forgotten what happened to Luigi and Bimba? I suspect Clouzot
> was well aware that even in the 1950s there was a dramatic imperative
> to ensure that one of the trucks blew up - which is presumably why
> there were two of them.
>
> Michael
>
I was writing this before I read your above comments.
There are two trucks, each with two drivers. I recall that one truck
doesn't make it and I think it is shown as a ball of fire in the
distance after an explosion is heard. Certainly, it is the explosion
that draws one's attention in the scene and the explosion is seen from
afar.
Even knowing the outcome of the story, the tension remains.
I think the two trucks creates 4 characters and their pairing off is
part of the story in WAGES of FEAR. The SCORCER 'remake' by Friekin
spends more time with the the characters outside of the transporting of
the NTG, with the murder of the bingo priest, etc.
4328
From: A. Oscar Boyson
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:22am
Subject: Re: WAGES OF FEAR
That's true. The truck driven by Folco Lulli and Peter van Eyck
explodes and I think you do see a ball of fire. The explosion clears a
large area that Mario and Jo see later. It also destroys the
underground oil pipes, causing another obstacle for the second truck.
The other explosion that may be worth noting occurs when Peter van Eyck
uses some of the nitroglycerin to blow the rock that is blocking the
road. This is a huge explosion - but the fact is it's showing how
explosive one quart of the nitroglycerin is, leaving to your
imagination what would happen if the whole truck exploded. So I agree
you're kept waiting for the ultimate explosion, in some respects, but
there are still a few factors that qualify WAGES as "explosive cinema."
On Nov 17, 2003, at 11:48 AM, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> I was writing this before I read your There are two trucks, each with
> two drivers. I recall that one truck doesn't make it and I think it is
> shown as a ball of fire in the distance after an explosion is heard.
> Certainly, it is the explosion that draws one's attention in the scene
> and the explosion is seen from afar.
>
> Even knowing the outcome of the story, the tension remains.
>
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:18:18 -0000
> From: "Michael Brooke"
> Subject: Re: EXPLOSIVE CINEMA
>
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> > wrote:
> >> --- 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.
> >
> > SPOILER WARNING for 'Wages of Fear'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually, there is an enormous explosion in 'Wages of Fear' - have
> > you forgotten what happened to Luigi and Bimba? I suspect Clouzot
> > was well aware that even in the 1950s there was a dramatic imperative
> > to ensure that one of the trucks blew up - which is presumably why
> > there were two of them.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> I was writing this before I read your above comments.
> There are two trucks, each with two drivers. I recall that one truck
> doesn't make it and I think it is shown as a ball of fire in the
> distance after an explosion is heard. Certainly, it is the explosion
> that draws one's attention in the scene and the explosion is seen from
> afar.
>
> Even knowing the outcome of the story, the tension remains.
>
> I think the two trucks creates 4 characters and their pairing off is
> part of the story in WAGES of FEAR. The SCORCER 'remake' by Friekin
> spends more time with the the characters outside of the transporting of
> the NTG, with the murder of the bingo priest, etc.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> 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.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4329
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 5:31pm
Subject: Monte Hellman
Here's a great interview in "Liberation":
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=157913
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4330
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:01pm
Subject: Danish "Halloween" murder
Hundested, Sunday the 16th November at 6am, a father woke up sensing
some noise. He stood up and located the noise coming for his son's
room, so he entered. As he opened the door, he saw his fourteen year
old daughter sitting on top of his eighteen year old son, dressed with
a white mask (as Michael Myers from "Halloween"), manically hammering
a huge kitchen knife into the chest of her brother. When she realized
her father watching her, she ran out of the room and took the car and
drove away. She was arrested shortly after.
Besides being a troubled teenager suffering from severe mental
problems, she was obsessed with horror film, especially "Halloween".
While her friends knew of this and categorized her as "weird", while
the social authorities comment, that they had no idea she ever would
act like this, the media today in Denmark is far more interested in
the "Halloween" connection. There are few notes about her mental
problems or that she currently is hospitalized at a psychiatric
hospital, the press has already chosen side – She did it because she
watched horror films. The press in Denmark today is that the social
institutions have whitewashed themselves and the police are
considering the "horror films" an essential and important element in
their investigation.
Besides this being a horrible crime and has is being mourned by the
entire country, it has stirred up in the old discussion about the
influence of horror. I remember two cases from the last ten years. One
is a "satanic" killing spree in Germany (I have forgotten the details)
and then there is the most notorious, the Jamie Bulgar murder in 1994,
where two kids was "inspired" by "Childs Play", even though this idea
was dismissed as speculative at best during the court case.
When the postmaster general banned dime novels back in the 1860s
because they caused people to be violent and criminal, we laugh today.
But when horror film is accused of having a Svengali effect on kids
and turning sweet innocent children into blood thirsty killers, we
take it all very serious and few dare stand up and defend the genre,
because of the nature of the crime. Yet I see it as a desperate
attempt to find a scapegoat whenever such sad and horrible crimes are
committed.
So why is it that "horror" still gets accused?
4331
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:34pm
Subject: evening also served as a celebration of the auteur theory
I do not subscribe to the Hollywood REPORTER so I can't send the whole
article. Nice to see AUTEUR theory mentioned. Are these directors
good examples of contemporary auteurists?
(I do get the on line version of VARIETY.)
Kidman shares her big night with directors
17 Nov 2003 9:58am EST - By Gregg Kilday
Praised as a risk-taker, Nicole Kidman was awarded the 18th annual
American Cinematheque Award Friday night at a dinner in her honor at
the Beverly Hilton. But the evening also served as a celebration of the
auteur theory, since in accepting the award, Kidman paid tribute to the
directors with whom she has surrounded herself -- among them, Baz
Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge), Stephen Daldry (The Hours), Robert Benton (The
Human Stain) and Anthony Minghella (Cold Mountain) -- who also were
among those she dubbed her "film family" seated with her at the head
table. "I am proud of one thing," Kidman said in acknowledging the
tribute, which was presented to her by Adrien Brody, this year's best
actor Oscar winner for The Pianist. "It is that I have searched out or
I have been searched out by visionaries, and I've surrendered whatever
I have to them. Testified Naomi Watts, a 20-year pal of the
Australian-born Kidman: "You make audiences absorb and feel. You make
actors watch, learn and steal ... You have directors dueling over you
and producers crawling over broken glass, begging, 'Say yes.' "
Director-producer Sydney Pollack, who co-starred with Kidman in Stanley
Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, noted: "I think Nicole's work in this filmis
powerful, ingenious and brave ... Stanley adored her." He called it
"the start of an amazing growth period for her. ... She's really
blossomed and the power of her work has culminated with her being here
tonight." Others who rose to praise Kidman included Lauren Bacall and
Danny Huston, who co-star with her in the upcoming Birth; fellow actors
Stockard Channing, Matt Dillon, Allison Janney, Michael Keaton, Wayne
Knight, Natalie Portman and Chloe Sevigny as well as Miramax Films'
co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, who said: "Nicole Kidman has been a force
for great integrity in my life." Visit HollywoodReporter.com for more
...
Previous Article
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4332
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:51pm
Subject: Kidman's tribute
As previously noted, the expressions of love for their directors from Jodie
Foster (re: Fincher) and the Charley's Angels gals (re: McG - they wrote a
poem to him and recited it) at last year's Hollywood Film Awards suggests
that actresses are especially auteur-friendly - kind of like that well-known love
affair between 16-yr-old girls and horses. Kidman's statement confirms that
hunch.
Also, the editor-in-chief of Hollywood Reporter, Harley Lond, knows the
auteur theory well enough to have inserted that comment himself. He and I
worked together at Boxoffice in '83, and he was hip then. His wife Marilyn is
finishing a book on George Stevens - I see her almost every time I go to the
Academy Library.
4333
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:52pm
Subject: Re: RKO Scope Lang Dwan
> > For what it's worth, IMDB lists the aspect ratio for CITY SLEEPS
> as
> > 1.66:1 but I've never seen it projected in this way.
>
> Experience tells me to take anything the IMDB claims regarding aspect
> ratios with a very large pinch of salt
The odd thing about the IMDB here is that they don't even mention SuperScope for the Lang film (or films -- some listings do give "RKO Scope" for DOUBT) whereas they do in the case of SLIGHTLY SCARLET and THE RIVER'S EDGE, for example. I don't know if that could be intentional on their part, but one could suggest that 1.67 does at least seem a reasonable compromise if one is showing a *non-anamorphic* print of SLEEPS (since it would probably have been a little late for academy ratio), and could well have been what Lang, if he wasn't aware of the SuperScope option, had in mind.
4334
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:56pm
Subject: End of Cinema / Lists: What's the batting average for cinema in general?
What's the batting average for cinema in general?
Coming from a profession (Emergency Medicine) where batting less than
1.000 can be deadly, I'm always curious about the performance rate of
other professions. (really, deciding whether the ubiquitous infant
with a fever has just an ear infection versus meningitis is a daily
occurrence)
Some questions (limited to the films available for screening at some
point in time):
What is the percentage of good films?
I've seen advertisements for DVD bins of WESTERN films most of which
were probably never screened anywhere. The same is probably going to
happen for contemporary action - adventure films that go straight to
DVD shelves.
Just talking about the WESTERNS that have made it to the big screen --
how many are good?
What about HORROR movies?
Certainly there are just a handful of good films when one considers all
the films made. Why should we feel that it is less so today. What we
are being distracted by is all the hype given to the commercial
adventures. There have always been only a handful of good films.
What is the percentage of good films for the small subset of good
filmmakers?
Does anyone bat 1.000?
Cinema is not ending, it is just expanding. Some will be drawn away
and take less cinematic routes as they explore media integration. But
cinema will remain a special experience and film makers who recognize
that will always have an audience. (I wonder if vanilla, chocolate and
strawberry still predominate in the ice cream business?)
If a list is created, I would appreciate including some of the best
films by these best directors.
4335
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 6:59pm
Subject: Re: a list is a what?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper
>
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >--- 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).....
> >
>
> J-P: Maybe the problem is that we're talking about different
countries?
> Are you talking about France in 1953? Is Filipe talking about
Brazil in
> 1953?
>
> When I first got interested in "auteurist" cinema, in 1964, I
looked at
> every Egnlish-language film publication I could find. I can assure
you
> that I couldn't find any, with one exception, that took John Ford
> seriously. I don't even remember who was taken seriously, maybe it
was
> Bergman, maybe it was Flaherty, maybe it was "The Red Shoes," I'm
sure
> it was "Citizen Kane" (though not later Welles), but it certainly
was
> not John Ford, with the possible exception of "The Informer."
Indeed, no
> one took any westerns seriously at all. The one exception, of
course,
> was "Film Culture," with Andrew Sarris's American Directors issue
and
> "Cactus Rosebud" article -- but "Film Culture" also celebrated
Brakhage
> and Deren and Rice and Anger -- they were clearly so far out of the
> mainstream as to be "underground" or something.
>
> My key experiences seeing my first two Fords: "Cheynne Autumn" when
it
> opened and flopped (but alas, a few days too late to see the pre-
Jack
> Warner-butchery version, though my friend Tim Hunter did), and then
> shortly thereafter, "The Searchers," at the 1 AM show on 42nd
Street.
> *That* was the only place to see it, and it would be another five
or six
> years before it was being shown in New York as a John Ford film.
>
> Go down a notch, to say Samuel Fuller or Robert Aldrich or Vincente
> Minnelli, and their reputations were far far lower than today. And
the
> early interest in Sirk was repeatedly ridiculed in print (including
in
> the New York Times) in the 1960s and early 1970s. And not just in
print;
> he was referred to by people who should have known better as "the
> director of those horrible Rock Hudson/Doris Day movies."
>
> So unless there's something I'm not getting, I think Filipe's
point,
> that the "reputation of major figures" has fluctuated, is right.
>
> - Fred
Fred, you make good points and I mostly agree, but you quoted me
out of context and dropped most of my post. I never said reputations
don't fluctuate -- that would be absurd; they always do, in all arts,
because tastes and attitudes change. I wrote that the reputations of
major filmmakers haven't fluctuated "all that much" over the years
and decades. I mean, is there one equivalent in the history of film
of the total eclipse of JS Bach's reputation for at least 150 years?
Have the reputations of, say, Griffith or Murnau or Chaplin changed
much one way or the other since the time they were active? (I mean
reputations with serious film critics and historians and cinephiles
of course).
I made the point that Ford in the fifties was not so much
neglected as taken for granted. I made the point that critics'
attitudes in the early fifties (and well into the sixties in the
U.S., as you point out) were very different from what they would
become. For one thing, genre films (that is 99% of the Hollywood
output) were not taken seriously and were routinely condescended to
and dismissed. Most great Hollywood films of the fifties were
underrated when they came out. And critics did not consider an
individual film in reference to the whole of the director's work.
They were not going to pay attention to Wagon Master (just a western)
or The Sun Shines Bright (just a period comedy) or Mogambo (just a
Technicolor adventure-drama) merely because they admired, or at least
respected, Ford for his prestige, "social-conscious" films (Grapes of
Wrath, How Green Was...)
What has happened in the past two decades or so is that some of
the great directors of the past have become such objects of adulation
that their reputation now towers much higher than it ever did or
could be when they were alive. As a result they seem (to us) to have
been sorely neglected and underrated in the past. Ford is a case in
point. Welles too, although the case is very different.
JPC
4336
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 7:01pm
Subject: Halloween Murder in Denmark
It's very disturbing news. The film didn't cause it, but it's obviously part of her
symptoms. And Carpenter's. His symptoms became hers.
4337
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 7:09pm
Subject: Cinema's batting average
ER - Wrong question. Cinema's batting average is probably a bit worse to
medicine's, if you assume that it is a money-making proposition. My friend
Karl Thiede wrote an article loaded with figures - he's a dollar amount fanatic
- showing that the day, practically, that B westerns stopped being profitable,
all the companies stopped making them. But the studios have a built-in
floogle factor called "creative accounting" which insures that their mistakes
don't put them out of business, unlike the docs who performed the
mastectomy on the wrong patient, for example - I assume their practice
suffered. Universal made Waterworld - which I kinda liked - but they are still
operating.
4338
From: jerome_gerber
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 7:37pm
Subject: Re: evening also served as a celebration of the auteur theory
Conspicuous absence of any mention of Lars Von Trier...or was he just not at
her
table...or
not thought kindly of by the reporter (Hollywood and/or Gregg Kilday)?
Here's the link to the article to those interested (The Reporter is
quite free
with alot of their stuff, Elizabeth)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=
2030061
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan
>
> I do not subscribe to the Hollywood REPORTER so I can't send the
whole
> article. Nice to see AUTEUR theory mentioned. Are these
directors
> good examples of contemporary auteurists?
> (I do get the on line version of VARIETY.)
>
>
> Kidman shares her big night with directors
> 17 Nov 2003 9:58am EST - By Gregg Kilday
> Praised as a risk-taker, Nicole Kidman was awarded the 18th annual
> American Cinematheque Award Friday night at a dinner in her honor
at
> the Beverly Hilton. But the evening also served as a celebration of
the
> auteur theory, since in accepting the award, Kidman paid tribute to
the
> directors with whom she has surrounded herself -- among them, Baz
> Luhrmann (Moulin Rouge), Stephen Daldry (The Hours), Robert Benton
(The
> Human Stain) and Anthony Minghella (Cold Mountain) -- who also were
> among those she dubbed her "film family" seated with her at the
head
> table. "I am proud of one thing," Kidman said in acknowledging the
> tribute, which was presented to her by Adrien Brody, this year's
best
> actor Oscar winner for The Pianist. "It is that I have searched out
or
> I have been searched out by visionaries, and I've surrendered
whatever
> I have to them. Testified Naomi Watts, a 20-year pal of the
> Australian-born Kidman: "You make audiences absorb and feel. You
make
> actors watch, learn and steal ... You have directors dueling over
you
> and producers crawling over broken glass, begging, 'Say yes.' "
> Director-producer Sydney Pollack, who co-starred with Kidman in
Stanley
> Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, noted: "I think Nicole's work in this
filmis
> powerful, ingenious and brave ... Stanley adored her." He called it
> "the start of an amazing growth period for her. ... She's really
> blossomed and the power of her work has culminated with her being
here
> tonight." Others who rose to praise Kidman included Lauren Bacall
and
> Danny Huston, who co-star with her in the upcoming Birth; fellow
actors
> Stockard Channing, Matt Dillon, Allison Janney, Michael Keaton,
Wayne
> Knight, Natalie Portman and Chloe Sevigny as well as Miramax Films'
> co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, who said: "Nicole Kidman has been a
force
> for great integrity in my life." Visit HollywoodReporter.com for
more
> ...
> Previous Article
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4339
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 9:32pm
Subject: The new golden age
I believe that we are about to enter a new golden age of cinema and
that we are experiencing the early stages of a new "studio system"
with A and B productions.
But where the classic studio system secured income for their A
productions by a flow of B films, the new system will allow a flow of
B (small cinema) productions due to the massive succes of A
productions. Allow me to explain.
Looking at key figures, 60% of the box office is paid by 13-21 year
old, and for each $1 they put at the cinema, they put $1 down for
rentals, $4-5 for buying DVD/VHS and $3-5 for merchandise (Clothers,
Food and so forth). This means that even the worst flop actually can
make money - in most cases actually good money.
But what is interesting is how the big films are marketed today.
Twenty years ago a film would run for about ten weeks, today a film
runs for 2-3 weeks. Todays film retun X% in the first week, then drop
about 60% per week after this. This means, that alot of people go to
the film the first two weeks and short running periods allow the
cinema to run more films.
Take a film like Harry Potter. It opened on 3000 screens and the first
week it returned about $27,000 per screen per day. While an average
film will return about $2,000 per screen per day, a film like Harry
Potter hence will secure 14 days of income per screen per day. But few
films match Harry Potter. A weak (almost a flop) block buster will
return around $12,000 per screen per day, but ten such films a year is
$120,000 per screen and if you run them on 3 screens in your 5 screen
average cineplex, thats $360,000 per screen per day or 180 days of
free screening.
The shorter run periods will allow more films to take up screen time.
An average cineplex has 5 screens and if a film average ran for 10
weeks, that would only allow 25 films to be shown a year. With running
times of 2-3 weeks (max 5 weeks) 50-100 films can run. This again
means more viewers, as new film attracts more viewers, which further
will increase income.
This is what I mean with the new A and B film system. Block busters
boost so much income, which is translated into free screen time. So a
good theatre owner could say, "I can allow 180 days screening with no
one showing up, so I am going to take a chance and show art house
film".
I know it will demand a change in the mentality of theatre owners, but
I believe it can, and will, happend. So we need more stupid Hollywood
block busters, because they will allow the theatre to screen more
"small films".
So yes, the very films we hate and consider crap, will save the cinema
we so hard try to promote.
4340
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 9:43pm
Subject: Re: The New Golden Age
Brilliant post, Henrik. I'm passing it on to Karl Thiede, who's in
distribution at Fox and has all the real figures for all the studios
since the silent days. Of course, if you're right, the studios will
also try to control the flow of smaller films. When films were
needed to fill screens in the past (starting round '64 the last time,
I believe) there has been a boom in foreign film distribution
through independent distribution companies to comepnsate.
The majors will want it all now. Which is not a bad thing for the
filmmakers who get picked up - but it could make the small film
pipeline look like Miramax everywhere.
4341
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:06pm
Subject: errata
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
"Take a film like Harry Potter. It opened on 3000 screens and the
first week it returned about $27,000 per screen per day."
This is wrong. I wrote per day, it should say, PER WEEK. I also wrote
that a film would drop 60% the next week, it should say drop 40% (to
60% of the previous week).
4342
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:13pm
Subject: Re: The new golden age - erratum
I believe there was another spike in foreign/indy distribution after
US exhibitors overbuilt in the 80s and screens had to be filled.
4343
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frears (seconded)
> But I concede that this is much less true of A DAY OUT and ONE FINE
> DAY, where Frears is a far more equal partner. As coincidence would
> have it, I watched ONE FINE DAY only yesterday (a brace of
> Bennett/Frears tapes was finally delivered to my desk last week), and
> I completely agree with you - there are just as many (if not rather
> more) parallels between it and other Frears-directed films than there
> are with other Bennett scripts, and my memories of it are
> overwhelmingly visual, especially the vaguely surreal touches like
> the endless row of telephones laid out on the floors of the deserted
> office block. In fact, I actually find it quite hard to remember any
> of the dialogue (not normally a problem I have with Bennett), and I
> watched it less than 24 hours ago!
By the way, I don't mean to advocate some kind of visual cinema, in
which the good films are the ones where you don't remember the dialogue.
There are infinitely many ways of making good art, and I certainly
don't think memorable dialogue is a liability. I guess I'm a little
defensive in the case of Frears, because my ideas about those
middle-period films and about the progression of his career aren't
generally accepted.
I might be able to push the boundaries of my favorite Frears period as
far as 1987's DECEMBER FLOWER. But I don't feel much of a directorial
personality in PRICK UP YOUR EARS, SAMMY AND ROSIE, DANGEROUS LIAISONS,
or THE GRIFTERS, nor do I feel that the scripts of these films pick up
the slack. (But I *do* remember some of the dialogue - especially that
great line from SAMMY AND ROSIE: "Heterosexuality is where the woman
tries to come but can't, and the man tries not to come but can't.") I
have a feeling that MARY REILLY may eventually seem like the most
interesting Frears film of recent years, but I'd need to see it again to
stand behind that claim.
> Incidentally, for those interested in the Frears/Bennett
> collaborations, some of my pieces are already up on Screenonline and
> I hope to have covered the lot over the next month or so. It's
> probably easiest if I give you the URL for the Frears biography, as
> any new entries will be linked directly to it:
> http://www.screenonline.org.uk/people/id/469201/index.html
These essays are very useful - how many British TV films will eventually
get essays? For your information, I notice that SONG OF EXPERIENCE is
missing from Frears' filmography on the site, and that DECEMBER FLOWER
has a date of 8412 on the same page. - Dan
4344
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frears (seconded)
--- Dan Sallitt
> There are infinitely many ways of making good art,
> and I certainly
> don't think memorable dialogue is a liability. I
> guess I'm a little
> defensive in the case of Frears, because my ideas
> about those
> middle-period films and about the progression of his
> career aren't
> generally accepted.
The Frears that got me hooked, now and forever, is
"Bloody Kids." Poliakoff's script is marvelous but it
is an AMAZING piece of direction. Seeing it back in
1980 my first thought was "This is a man who do
ANYTHING." Chances for doing ANYTHING however are
scarce in the current atmosphere. He lucked out with
Kureshi and Westlake, and "Dangerous Liasons" is loads
of fun. But the man needs MEAT!
In "Bloody Kids" he had the central relationship
between victim and victimizer (who only appear
together at the beginning and the end) plus no end of
set-pieces at the club, on the bus, and the hospital
finale.
This may have been made for television but it REALLY
works on the big screen. Much scarier and much more to
the point than "A Clockwork Orange" or even "Rope" --
which in thematic terms it has much in common.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4345
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:44pm
Subject: Frears, availability
Dan:
> I have a feeling that MARY REILLY may eventually seem like the most
> interesting Frears film of recent years, but I'd need to see it
> again to stand behind that claim.
In my very early days as a budding film enthusiast, MARY REILLY was
one of my favorites of '96, though I haven't seen it since then. I
remember loving DANGEROUS LIAISONS back around that time too,
watching it 2-3 times.
How easy it to find videos of Frears' early (pre-LAUNDRETTE) work? I
know a few are on DVD/VHS, but are even dubbed copies pretty hard to
find?
--Zach
4346
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frears (seconded)
> The Frears that got me hooked, now and forever, is
> "Bloody Kids."
Right on - this is probably Frears' greatest. Have you seen ONE FINE
DAY? After one viewing, I have a feeling it may be a contender. - Dan
4347
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:52pm
Subject: Re: RKO Scope Lang Dwan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
> The odd thing about the IMDB here is that they don't even mention
SuperScope for the Lang film (or films -- some listings do give "RKO
Scope" for DOUBT) whereas they do in the case of SLIGHTLY SCARLET and
THE RIVER'S EDGE, for example. I don't know if that could be
intentional on their part, but one could suggest that 1.67 does at
least seem a reasonable compromise if one is showing a *non-
anamorphic* print of SLEEPS (since it would probably have been a
little late for academy ratio), and could well have been what Lang,
if he wasn't aware of the SuperScope option, had in mind.
I wonder if SuperScope is missing from the various official credits
for CITY SLEEPS because of the studio's last minute decision to
release it in this format.
I believe THE RIVER'S EDGE was shot in true CinemaScope, though, and
not SuperScope. Even though the film has a lot of the RKO production
people who worked on the other Dwans of this period the film was
released by Fox. In fact, the film turns up occasionally on the Fox
Movie Channel now, letterboxed at around 1.7 or 8 rather than 2.35
with information obviously missing from the left and right of the
frame. I wasn't too upset by this as I had only seen the film in pan-
and-scan TV prints on Channel 9 in New York in the 1980s and this was
still more visual information than I had ever had to deal with on
this particular Dwan. The film really is a sight to behold.
4348
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 10:52pm
Subject: Re: Frears, availability
> How easy it to find videos of Frears' early (pre-LAUNDRETTE) work? I
> know a few are on DVD/VHS, but are even dubbed copies pretty hard to
> find?
You can rent THE HIT, which is well worth your while. I wonder if
Michael is planning to throw away those Bennett-Frears tapes when he's
done with them.... - Dan
4349
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:00pm
Subject: Re: DREAMS in Scope?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Brooke"
> >
> That said, I note that they've corrected that particular entry,
> although they still claim that Kurosawa's DREAMS is 2.35:1 (to be
> fair, I'm not 100% sure that it isn't, but I have a reasonably
strong memory of seeing it in 1.85:1).
I don't think DREAMS was ever shown at 2.35:1. I've only seen it
projected at around the 1.7 to 8 range and that's how the DVD is
handled as well. IMDB lists the film's process as being Super 35,
which may be where they're getting the 2.35:1. Unfortunately, I have
yet to pick up the latest edition of the Donald Richie book on
Kurosawa, which might be able to confirm if Super 35 was used or
not. Super 35, like SuperScope, does give you certain variables in
terms of aspect ratio although I think most directors use Super 35
today so that they can create a scope film for theaters and alternate
versions for video and television without having to pan and scan.
The latest Kurosawa book I have, written by Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto,
lists DREAMS as being shot in Panavision, which is clearly wrong.
4350
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:03pm
Subject: Re: Frears (seconded)
Dan said: "I have a feeling that MARY REILLY may eventually
seem like the most interesting Frears film of recent years."
Not possible. It stars the same actor who sank Dangerous
Liasons, the only good version of which is still Vadim's.
4351
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:11pm
Subject: Liaisons
> Not possible. It stars the same actor who sank Dangerous
> Liasons, the only good version of which is still Vadim's.
Vadim's is definitely the best. Have you seen CRUEL INTENTIONS? It's
not half bad. I'm no Forman fan, but there's something endearing about
VALMONT as well. - Dan
4352
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:43pm
Subject: Dangerous Liasons
I'l definitely check out Cruel Intentions.
Speaking of Forman, I told a friend at Paramount recently that 40
minutes were slashed from Forman's cut of Ragtime because
Diller didn't want 'two Rosa Luxembourg movies" coming out the
same year. They didn't seem interested, although I understand
some sort of DVD is being cobbled together - without any extra
footage. I've always assumed that's where the "too many notes"
gag in Amadeus came from.
I like the film as it is, mainly because of James Olson, but I hear
Brad Dourif got his title-shot in the eliminated plot. A full
restoration would be nice to see one of these days.
4353
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:50pm
Subject: the very films we hate... will save the cinema
Agreed. Here in San Diego, we are seeing more efforts to get viewers
outside the '13-21 yo males' into the theaters.
We are having more film festivals, including 6 Korean films this past
week. There is an active Latino FF committee which has a 10 day
festival as well as a new Latino film running for a week on a monthly
basis. The most novel approach is taken by the Asian INDIAN community
which was showing films at UCSD and now has a local theater multiplex
showing an INDIAN film on weekends.
Additionally, there is the 'cry baby' theater that screens for parents
and their children at 10am and nobody complaints about crying, etc.
The point is that theaters realize they need to keep the public coming,
however they can get them there. And once there, keep them coming. I
attend several showings with just a handful of viewers in the
afternoons which makes me grateful for even being able to see the movie
in the first place.
I think that whole idea of early weekend box office 'wins' is being
pushed even to shorter runs because of the DVD piracy. Even 1 year
ago, would anyone have predicted that MATRIX 3 (even if it had few
expectations) would be released simultaneously in USA and CHINA? There
will be more screens built to get more of those early box office
dollars, but other films will fill the remainder of the week / month.
Smart theater owners will figure out their audiences. I suspect that
in the future there will be audience choice screenings on less busy
nights, with viewers pre-ordering tickets from a selection of lesser
known films, especially with the explosion of digital screens that will
come eventually. (I predicted the cry-baby theaters a few years
back...the audience choice will be even quicker to be picked up on).
On Monday, November 17, 2003, at 02:45 PM, a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:32:25 -0000
> From: "Henrik Sylow"
> Subject: The new golden age
>
> I believe that we are about to enter a new golden age of cinema and
> that we are experiencing the early stages of a new "studio system"
> with A and B productions.
>
> But where the classic studio system secured income for their A
> productions by a flow of B films, the new system will allow a flow of
> B (small cinema) productions due to the massive succes of A
> productions. Allow me to explain.
>
> Looking at key figures, 60% of the box office is paid by 13-21 year
> old, and for each $1 they put at the cinema, they put $1 down for
> rentals, $4-5 for buying DVD/VHS and $3-5 for merchandise (Clothers,
> Food and so forth). This means that even the worst flop actually can
> make money - in most cases actually good money.
>
> But what is interesting is how the big films are marketed today.
> Twenty years ago a film would run for about ten weeks, today a film
> runs for 2-3 weeks. Todays film retun X% in the first week, then drop
> about 60% per week after this. This means, that alot of people go to
> the film the first two weeks and short running periods allow the
> cinema to run more films.
>
> Take a film like Harry Potter. It opened on 3000 screens and the first
> week it returned about $27,000 per screen per day. While an average
> film will return about $2,000 per screen per day, a film like Harry
> Potter hence will secure 14 days of income per screen per day. But few
> films match Harry Potter. A weak (almost a flop) block buster will
> return around $12,000 per screen per day, but ten such films a year is
> $120,000 per screen and if you run them on 3 screens in your 5 screen
> average cineplex, thats $360,000 per screen per day or 180 days of
> free screening.
>
> The shorter run periods will allow more films to take up screen time.
> An average cineplex has 5 screens and if a film average ran for 10
> weeks, that would only allow 25 films to be shown a year. With running
> times of 2-3 weeks (max 5 weeks) 50-100 films can run. This again
> means more viewers, as new film attracts more viewers, which further
> will increase income.
>
> This is what I mean with the new A and B film system. Block busters
> boost so much income, which is translated into free screen time. So a
> good theatre owner could say, "I can allow 180 days screening with no
> one showing up, so I am going to take a chance and show art house
> film".
>
> I know it will demand a change in the mentality of theatre owners, but
> I believe it can, and will, happend. So we need more stupid Hollywood
> block busters, because they will allow the theatre to screen more
> "small films".
>
> So yes, the very films we hate and consider crap, will save the cinema
> we so hard try to promote.
>
4354
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:59pm
Subject: Joel Silver and Stephen Frears
After my experience of being "deferential" (Peter Conrad's word) to Welles to
get that interview, I was ripe for Joel Silver, who would let me sit in his inner
office all day waiting to go over a presskit. It was great fun. Stephen One day
Frears came in en route to a plane, and Joel told him his plans for a Bugsy
Siegel/Vegas film he wanted Frears to direct - basically acting it all out in front
of him, including the architecture. "If I understand you," Frears said, rubbing
his unshaven chin, "you want Citizen Kane." "EXACTLY!" roared Joel, and
Frears was off to the airport. Pity Levinson ended up making it.
4355
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 0:01am
Subject: Re: Liaisons
I just cannot believe my eyes! The Vadim is one of the worst, most
idiotic films ever made. It's bad even for Vadim, who was almost
always at best mediocre (God Created Woman I find is just as
unbearable today as it was when I first saw it when it came out). I
can't believe anyone can have anything good to say about Vadim's
Liaisons!!!
No one "sank" the Frears, which is great. Valmont is wonderful too.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> > Not possible. It stars the same actor who sank Dangerous
> > Liasons, the only good version of which is still Vadim's.
>
> Vadim's is definitely the best. Have you seen CRUEL INTENTIONS?
It's
> not half bad. I'm no Forman fan, but there's something endearing
about
> VALMONT as well. - Dan
4356
From:
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 7:03pm
Subject: They Rode West (Phil Karlson)
The Western Channel is showing Karlson's fine "They Rode West" (what a
wonderful title!) tonight at 10 PM EST. This is the sort of gracefully made film
that recalls how satisfying a nice movie can be. It has a little bit of
everything: characters, social comment, moral choices, creative images, plot, comedy
relief. It shows plenty of Karlson's themes as well - there are direct links to
his "Hell to Eternity".
Mike Grost
4357
From:
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 7:14pm
Subject: Robert Wilson & Wallace Worsley
Fred Camper mentioned stage director Robert Wilson. CAS recently showed a
clip from Wilson's film version of Gluck's opera "Orpheus and Euridice" (2000).
Boy, was this well directed! This is the first I've ever seen anything from
this famed director. Wilson concentrates on the expressions on the character's
faces, the rhythm of the scene, and simple but geometric patterns of people on
the stage. Somehow, it all seems very vivid. The clip shown was the famous
lament, "I have lost my Euridice", a powerful piece of music.
Oddly enough, the emotional acting style and geometric principles of staging
- simple but always dramatically appropriate and constantly changing and
developing - reminded me of a director of a different era: Wallace Worsley.
Worsley's silent film "Ace of Hearts" (1921), a political thriller with Lon Chaney,
was recently shown on TV. It is gripping and recommended.
Both of these directors have a gift for simple looking but emotionally
effective mise-en-scene.
Mike Grost
4358
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 0:28am
Subject: Re: Re: Liaisons
> I just cannot believe my eyes! The Vadim is one of the worst, most
> idiotic films ever made. It's bad even for Vadim, who was almost
> always at best mediocre (God Created Woman I find is just as
> unbearable today as it was when I first saw it when it came out). I
> can't believe anyone can have anything good to say about Vadim's
> Liaisons!!!
Hmmm. I wouldn't think anyone would find the Vadim that offensive - at
the least, it's intelligent and well done. Did anything particular
about it bother you? - Dan
4359
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 0:42am
Subject: Vadim's Liasons
Snuck in and saw it when I was in NY on a college scouting trip
at 17 and loved it; saw it again when it was re-issued and loved it
again. Although it isn't exactly a visual treasure, it totally gets the
sensuality and cruelty of the book, which is tastefully embalmed
in the remakes. Of course having John ("my panther-like tread
melts women's souls") Malkovich in the Frears, paired with
Glenn Close, the female Malkovich, doesn't help. But personal
prejuduces aside, I just don't think American actors can do this
stuff.
Vadim is a rotten director, granted, but he is an auteur (in the
reduced but coherent sense used by Biette), and his vision
works for some subjects: "All the Pretty Maids in a Row,' for
example.
If we accept Biette's limited definition of auteur, there are plenty
around who couldn't direct their way out of a paper bag. Euro
horror abounds in examples.
4360
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 0:51am
Subject: Liaisons
> Of course having John ("my panther-like tread
> melts women's souls") Malkovich in the Frears, paired with
> Glenn Close, the female Malkovich, doesn't help. But personal
> prejuduces aside, I just don't think American actors can do this
> stuff.
The big surprise in CRUEL INTENTIONS is how much authority Ryan
Phillippe brings to the Valmont-in-high-school role. - Dan
4361
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:27am
Subject: Re: Robert Wilson & Wallace Worsley
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> Fred Camper mentioned stage director Robert Wilson.
> CAS recently showed a
> clip from Wilson's film version of Gluck's opera
> "Orpheus and Euridice" (2000).
> Boy, was this well directed! This is the first I've
> ever seen anything from
> this famed director. Wilson concentrates on the
> expressions on the character's
> faces, the rhythm of the scene, and simple but
> geometric patterns of people on
> the stage. Somehow, it all seems very vivid. The
> clip shown was the famous
> lament, "I have lost my Euridice", a powerful piece
> of music.
Wilson has proven to be something of a disappointment,
IMO. Rather than a writer-director, or even a director
per se, he's become more of a set decorator than
anything else -- what Minnelli's harshest critics
accuse him of being. This wasn't where he started out,
particularly in "Deafman Glance" in which he engaged
Jack Smith to perform -- as only Jack could.
Wilson's reputation in Europe has elevated him to the
stature of an estabishment figure -- which wasn't
where he started out when as "Bryd Hoffman" he created
"The King of Spain."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4362
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:31am
Subject: Re: Joel Silver and Stephen Frears
--- hotlove666
Pity Levinson ended
> up making it.
But Warren Beatty produced and starred -- and re-wrote
Toback's script, needless to say. Rather enjoyed the
results.
I don't think Beatty could work with Frears,should he
decide to make a comeback. I do believe he's retired
to father children (I've lost count as to how many) by
Annette Benning.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4363
From: Maxime
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:36am
Subject: Re: RKO Scope Lang Dwan
THE RIVER'S EDGE was shot in true Cinemascope indeed, but I believe
this movie is not badly affected by a 1.33 frame. Some information
missing of course, but the general dynamic is not that affected, for
a movie that was not "thought in scope", imho.
For some reason, the movie was 3 years ago re-released in France. Do
not know why, since there is not really a strong enthusiasm for Dwan
here (However, Cahiers edited a - non-essential- book on Dwan for
the 2000 Locarno retrospective - 10 happy days)
One of my all time favourites
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> I believe THE RIVER'S EDGE was shot in true CinemaScope, though,
and
> not SuperScope. Even though the film has a lot of the RKO
production
> people who worked on the other Dwans of this period the film was
> released by Fox. In fact, the film turns up occasionally on the
Fox
> Movie Channel now, letterboxed at around 1.7 or 8 rather than 2.35
> with information obviously missing from the left and right of the
> frame. I wasn't too upset by this as I had only seen the film in
pan-
> and-scan TV prints on Channel 9 in New York in the 1980s and this
was
> still more visual information than I had ever had to deal with on
> this particular Dwan. The film really is a sight to behold.
4364
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:47am
Subject: Re: Liaisons
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> > I just cannot believe my eyes! The Vadim is one of the worst,
most
> > idiotic films ever made. It's bad even for Vadim, who was almost
> > always at best mediocre (God Created Woman I find is just as
> > unbearable today as it was when I first saw it when it came out).
I
> > can't believe anyone can have anything good to say about Vadim's
> > Liaisons!!!
>
> Hmmm. I wouldn't think anyone would find the Vadim that offensive -
at
> the least, it's intelligent and well done. Did anything particular
> about it bother you? - Dan
"Intelligent"? AH! "Well done"? Well, you don't see the shadow of
the microphone or the chalk marks on the floor (or maybe you do, I
don't remember), it's "sleek" alright, but beyond that...
My problem is that I can't discuss it seriously because I have
seen it only twice, once in 1959 or 1960 (anybody was born then?) and
the second time at the very least twenty years ago. I do remember
that, just as for the abominable, moronic ET DIEU CREA LA FEMME, I
had exactly the same reaction both times. I tend to believe my gut
reactions, especially when they spread over several decades.
The fact that intelligent people I otherwise respect did and
still do like those films just leaves me in a state of bewilderment.
I remember when Cahiers raved about "God Created" because it was such
a daring departure from traditional French cinema and my feeling was
and still is that EVERYTHING about the film was firmly rooted in what
I hated most about traditional French cinema.
But enough. I don't need a heart attack!
JPC
4365
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:57am
Subject: Re: Vadim's Liasons
Come on Bill, have you read the book? I read it half a dozen times
and love it and even "taught" it, whatever that means. Do you really
think the Vadim has anything to do with it at any serious level?
For one thing it becomes meaningless in a modern setting. I could
write a whole dissertation on the subject but... Oh, what's the use?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Snuck in and saw it when I was in NY on a college scouting trip
> at 17 and loved it; saw it again when it was re-issued and loved it
> again. Although it isn't exactly a visual treasure, it totally gets
the
> sensuality and cruelty of the book, which is tastefully embalmed
> in the remakes. Of course having John ("my panther-like tread
> melts women's souls") Malkovich in the Frears, paired with
> Glenn Close, the female Malkovich, doesn't help. But personal
> prejuduces aside, I just don't think American actors can do this
> stuff.
>
> Vadim is a rotten director, granted, but he is an auteur (in the
> reduced but coherent sense used by Biette), and his vision
> works for some subjects: "All the Pretty Maids in a Row,' for
> example.
>
> If we accept Biette's limited definition of auteur, there are
plenty
> around who couldn't direct their way out of a paper bag. Euro
> horror abounds in examples.
4366
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:15am
Subject: Re: Re: Liaisons
--- jpcoursodon
>
> My problem is that I can't discuss it seriously
> because I have
> seen it only twice, once in 1959 or 1960 (anybody
> was born then?)
I was born in 1947. I saw the Vadim when it was
released here as a hard ticket item at the Henry
Miller's theater. I enjoyed it as trash (Eurotrash
avant la lettre as it were), but little else. Gerard
Philippe was very cute.
I used to see Vadim a lot around town when he was
living here in L.A. in the late 70's/ early 80's. Very
affable guy. Easy to see why he was such a Babe
Magnet.
> I do remember
> that, just as for the abominable, moronic ET DIEU
> CREA LA FEMME, I
> had exactly the same reaction both times. I tend to
> believe my gut
> reactions, especially when they spread over several
> decades.
Now, now, J-P, Bardot has a marvelous dance sequence
in that one, and Jean-Louis Trintignant is adorable.
> The fact that intelligent people I otherwise
> respect did and
> still do like those films just leaves me in a state
> of bewilderment.
Can't we have our "Guilty Pleasures"?
> I remember when Cahiers raved about "God Created"
> because it was such
> a daring departure from traditional French cinema
> and my feeling was
> and still is that EVERYTHING about the film was
> firmly rooted in what
> I hated most about traditional French cinema.
Well true, it was FAR more traditional that Godard and
Truffaur thought. They loved the open air and
Brigitte's derriere -- with Godard made a definitive
study of in "Le Mepris."
>
> But enough. I don't need a heart attack!
Don't waste your seizures on poor old Vadim.
Not while Michael Bay still walks the earth.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4367
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:11am
Subject: Re: Liaisons
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon
>
> >
> > My problem is that I can't discuss it seriously
> > because I have
> > seen it only twice, once in 1959 or 1960 (anybody
> > was born then?)
>
> I was born in 1947. I saw the Vadim when it was
> released here as a hard ticket item at the Henry
> Miller's theater. I enjoyed it as trash (Eurotrash
> avant la lettre as it were), but little else. Gerard
> Philippe was very cute.
>
SO you were what 13, 14? And you enjoyed it as "Eurotrash"? Well,
you sure were precocious (you even coined the term Eurotrash); but
viewed as Eurotrash I guess it might be enjoyable (being myself Euro,
I have a different response).
And sure GP was cute. But that's hardly a reason to love such a piece
of shit.
> I used to see Vadim a lot around town when he was
> living here in L.A. in the late 70's/ early 80's. Very
> affable guy. Easy to see why he was such a Babe
> Magnet.
>
> I can assure you I am NOT jealous of Vadim just because I
didn't fuck all the "babes" he did (only a couple).
> > I do remember
> > that, just as for the abominable, moronic ET DIEU
> > CREA LA FEMME, I
> > had exactly the same reaction both times. I tend to
> > believe my gut
> > reactions, especially when they spread over several
> > decades.
>
> Now, now, J-P, Bardot has a marvelous dance sequence
> in that one, and Jean-Louis Trintignant is adorable.
>
And that's all you have to say for it? Have you ever listened to the
moronic dialogue with the sub-amateurish delivery by everyone
involved? I guess you'd have to understand French (sorry, I know this
is not fair, but I'm getting really annoyed!)
> > The fact that intelligent people I otherwise
> > respect did and
> > still do like those films just leaves me in a state
> > of bewilderment.
>
> Can't we have our "Guilty Pleasures"?
If you call them guilty pleasures then fine. I was taking exception
to people putting down the Frears and the Forman and claiming that
Vadim's turd is the best adaptation of Liaisons dangereuses.
> >
I remember when Cahiers raved about "God Created"
> > because it was such
> > a daring departure from traditional French cinema
> > and my feeling was
> > and still is that EVERYTHING about the film was
> > firmly rooted in what
> > I hated most about traditional French cinema.
>
> Well true, it was FAR more traditional that Godard and
> Truffaur thought. They loved the open air and
> Brigitte's derriere -- with Godard made a definitive
> study of in "Le Mepris."
>
Nobody's derriere (whether Brigitte's or Jean-Louis's) is going to
make me like an awful film.
> >
> > But enough. I don't need a heart attack!
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4368
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:29am
Subject: Re: evening also served as a celebration of the auteur theory
>Conspicuous absence of any mention of Lars Von Trier...or was he just not at
>her
>table...or
>not thought kindly of by the reporter (Hollywood and/or Gregg Kilday)?
A scene was shown from DOGVILLE at the event to not much reaction. I
was at Todd McCarthy's table, coincidentally.
--
- Joe Kaufman
4369
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:38am
Subject: Re: DREAMS in Scope?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
>
> I don't think DREAMS was ever shown at 2.35:1. I've only seen it
> projected at around the 1.7 to 8 range and that's how the DVD is
> handled as well. IMDB lists the film's process as being Super 35,
> which may be where they're getting the 2.35:1. Unfortunately, I
have
> yet to pick up the latest edition of the Donald Richie book on
> Kurosawa, which might be able to confirm if Super 35 was used or
> not. Super 35, like SuperScope, does give you certain variables in
> terms of aspect ratio although I think most directors use Super 35
> today so that they can create a scope film for theaters and
alternate
> versions for video and television without having to pan and scan.
>
> The latest Kurosawa book I have, written by Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto,
> lists DREAMS as being shot in Panavision, which is clearly wrong.
According to Mike Inouye of Kurosawa Productions DREAMS was shot in
spherical Panavision with a 1:85 X 1 aspect ratio.
Richard
4370
From:
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:42pm
Subject: Directors who get good
It seems as though we can all name directors who began promisingly and even
hit their strides mid-career only to then - for whatever reason - begin falling
off. Dan offers Frears as a case in point (I can't comment personally,
having mostly seen his post-"Liasons" films and not finding too much to like in
them). What I wonder is if the group could come up with some examples of the
reverse occurring; that is, the names of some filmmakers who had thoroughly
uninteresting careers and then suddenly got really expressive towards the very end.
I'd offer John Huston as an example. Granted, his late period was as wildly
uneven as any of the other phases of his career (alternating wonderful movies
like "Fat City" and "The Dead" with things like "Annie" and "Victory"), but
I'd take the gems he made during this time over most of his canonized
'classics.' Another potential example: I know Damien lists Fred Zinneman's "Julia" as
one of his favorite pictures, but so far as I can see, Damien isn't a Zinneman
fan until that film. Similarly, I think Bill has mentioned before that he
knows of a critic who even stuck up for the last film of that eternal figure of
auteurist wrath, Stanley Kramer.
This is all undoubtedly related to the auteurist inclination to appreciate a
director's late works. Yet there seems to me something different from a Ford
or Hawks producing a self-reflexive "testament" film (as Fred recently
described Mankieweiz's "The Honey Pot") like "China Doll" or "7 Women" than a Robert
Rossen coming up with a completely unexpected masterpiece at the last minute
("Lillith") after a very so-so career.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4371
From:
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: RKO Scope Lang Dwan
In a message dated 11/17/2003 23:14:58 Eastern Standard Time,
zerospam@n... writes:
> One of my all time favourites
By the way, how is "Tennessee's Partner," Maxime?
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4372
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:47am
Subject: Re: Re: Liaisons
--- jpcoursodon
> And that's all you have to say for it? Have you
> ever listened to the
> moronic dialogue with the sub-amateurish delivery by
> everyone
> involved? I guess you'd have to understand French
> (sorry, I know this
> is not fair, but I'm getting really annoyed!)
Well I DO understand French. And I'm a great fan of
sub-amateur line delivery, paricularly in deluxe
productions.
>
> > > The fact that intelligent people I otherwise
> > > respect did and
> > > still do like those films just leaves me in a
> state
> > > of bewilderment.
> >
> > Can't we have our "Guilty Pleasures"?
>
> If you call them guilty pleasures then fine. I was
> taking exception
> to people putting down the Frears and the Forman and
> claiming that
> Vadim's turd is the best adaptation of Liaisons
> dangereuses.
> > >
At this rateI expect the next version will star the
"Rug Rats."
Can't you see "Angelica" as Madame de Merteuil and
"Chucky" as Valmont?
Vadim was -- at best -- a confector of slick junk --
like "Barbarella." In the 70's he'd run out of steam.
Did you ever see his remake of "And God Created Woman"
with Rebecca de Mornay? YIKES!
Well, you simply have less patience for this sort of
thing than I do I guess.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4373
From:
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:54pm
Subject: Re: Rudolph, success
In a message dated 11/17/2003 0:14:32 Eastern Standard Time,
sallitt@p... writes:
> Some of them are good: MORTAL THOUGHTS, for
> instance, at least until the ending, which is not Rudolph's fault.
I like "Mortal Thoughts" a lot too. "Endangered Spieces" was also pretty
interesting, but I'm not sure which category it falls into; the story is not
credited to Rudolph, but he did work on the screenplay. I'd really like to see
the original cut of "Made in Heaven." It's a mess as it stands today, but
somewhere I remember reading Rudolph saying that his version was one of his best
films.
I think I probably have a weakness for the "It's okay to be me" films you
name. Certainly I think "Hatari!" is just as good as "Rio Bravo" and I have a
lot more fondness for it, actually. There can be something really fun about a
director who has that big success and feels free to do his own thing with the
next film or films. Of course, I also recognize the good things which come
from tension within a project.
Oh, and "Terror Circus" sounds like a must-see! I love to see (or, um, hear)
that Altman multiple-miking applied to the least likely of movies.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4374
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:06am
Subject: Re: Rudolph, success
No one so far has mentioned my favorite Rudolph
--"Remember My Name." It's Geraldine Chaplin's best
performance -- especially for the scenes where she
rehearses her final monologue: "I didn't cry when you
went away. . ." Mr. & Mrs. Perkins are excellent and
Alfre Woodard is a stand-out as Rita, the world's
meanest checkout clerk. Rudolph offers a slice of an
L.A. that I've never seen in any movie, in a style
that might be called neo--Rivette. Almost science
fiction.
All this an Alberta Hunter too!
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4375
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:11am
Subject: Re: Liaisons
-
So we seem to sort of agree after all...
JPC
-- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon
>
> > And that's all you have to say for it? Have you
> > ever listened to the
> > moronic dialogue with the sub-amateurish delivery by
> > everyone
> > involved? I guess you'd have to understand French
> > (sorry, I know this
> > is not fair, but I'm getting really annoyed!)
>
> Well I DO understand French. And I'm a great fan of
> sub-amateur line delivery, paricularly in deluxe
> productions.
>
>
> >
> > > > The fact that intelligent people I otherwise
> > > > respect did and
> > > > still do like those films just leaves me in a
> > state
> > > > of bewilderment.
> > >
> > > Can't we have our "Guilty Pleasures"?
> >
> > If you call them guilty pleasures then fine. I was
> > taking exception
> > to people putting down the Frears and the Forman and
> > claiming that
> > Vadim's turd is the best adaptation of Liaisons
> > dangereuses.
> > > >
>
> At this rateI expect the next version will star the
> "Rug Rats."
>
> Can't you see "Angelica" as Madame de Merteuil and
> "Chucky" as Valmont?
>
>
> Vadim was -- at best -- a confector of slick junk --
> like "Barbarella." In the 70's he'd run out of steam.
> Did you ever see his remake of "And God Created Woman"
> with Rebecca de Mornay? YIKES!
>
> Well, you simply have less patience for this sort of
> thing than I do I guess.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
4376
From:
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 0:15am
Subject: The Immortal Story
In a message dated 11/15/2003 22:31:35 Eastern Standard Time,
jpcoursodon@y... writes:
> Why doesn't anybody mention The Eternal story?
As Jaime indicates, I'm a huge, huge fan of this. Sometimes I think it's my
second favorite after "Chimes at Midnight." This was only Welles' second
attempt at color (counting the color segments in "It's All True") but, to my eyes,
he mastered it instantly. (Intriguingly, though, his subsequent color works
don't look as interesting or bold - at least from the fragments we're able to
view right now - until he got to "The Dreamers" in the early '80s.) Devoted
as he was to B&W, he wasn't going to ignore the potential of color photography
now that he was forced to work in it; "The Immortal Story" just jumps off the
screen with its greens and pinks and autumn reds. I love every single shot in
"The Immortal Story" and the coda is simply one of the great things anyone -
ever - has put on film. What masterful simplicity in that cut to the seashell
dropping to the floor!
The standard interpretation of the story has Welles' character, Mr. Clay, as
a director figure. I think that's a completely valid way to go, but I've also
been toying with the idea that the film is an allegory of human being's
denial of the metaphysical, the intangible in life. The literal-minded Mr. Clay
cannot stand that the old piece of sailor's lore hasn't really happened, that it
exists in people's minds instead of in 'real life.' I sometimes think of
Welles himself as being the opposite of Mr. Clay, a man drawn - in a good way -
to superstitions (and he truly was; Oja Kodar confirmed this in a recent
interview, saying that Orson felt they "made life more interesting").
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4377
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:25am
Subject: Re: The Immortal Story
I sometimes think of
> Welles himself as being the opposite of Mr. Clay, a man drawn - in
a good way -
> to superstitions (and he truly was; Oja Kodar confirmed this in a
recent
> interview, saying that Orson felt they "made life more
interesting").
>
> Peter
A related thing that Oja once said to me: "Orson liked to invent his
own superstitions."
4378
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:27am
Subject: Remember My Name
> No one so far has mentioned my favorite Rudolph
> --"Remember My Name." It's Geraldine Chaplin's best
> performance -- especially for the scenes where she
> rehearses her final monologue: "I didn't cry when you
> went away. . ." Mr. & Mrs. Perkins are excellent and
> Alfre Woodard is a stand-out as Rita, the world's
> meanest checkout clerk. Rudolph offers a slice of an
> L.A. that I've never seen in any movie, in a style
> that might be called neo--Rivette. Almost science
> fiction.
It's my favorite Rudolph, too, and one of my favorite films of the 70s.
- Dan
4379
From:
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 0:29am
Subject: John Korty Alert
Paramount is apparently releasing on DVD the sequel to "Love Story,"
"Oliver's Story"... adapted and directed by John Korty. I know many here are great
fans of Korty's early works. Is there something to "Oliver's Story" or was it
made during the period when his stuff was beginning to get uninteresting? If
there is something to it, boy, talk about finding value in disreputable
packages! (As we auteurists often do...)
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4380
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:33am
Subject: Re: Directors who get good
> This is all undoubtedly related to the auteurist inclination to
appreciate a
> director's late works. Yet there seems to me something different
from a Ford
> or Hawks producing a self-reflexive "testament" film (as Fred
recently
> described Mankieweiz's "The Honey Pot") like "China Doll" or "7
Women" than a Robert
> Rossen coming up with a completely unexpected masterpiece at the
last minute
> ("Lillith") after a very so-so career.
>
> Peter
"Lilith" is pretty great, but I regard "The Hustler" as even
greater....For me, Wellman's "Track of the Cat" is a pretty
unexpected late masterpiece as well; even though Wellman in the early
30s has plenty of interesting qualities, this one is quite different,
and fairly unprecedented--and occasioned, so far as I can tell, by
John Wayne giving him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted
after "The High and the Mighty" made Wayne such a big fortune.
Jonathan
4381
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:35am
Subject: Re: John Korty Alert
> Paramount is apparently releasing on DVD the sequel to "Love Story,"
> "Oliver's Story"... adapted and directed by John Korty. I know many here are great
> fans of Korty's early works. Is there something to "Oliver's Story" or was it
> made during the period when his stuff was beginning to get uninteresting? If
> there is something to it, boy, talk about finding value in disreputable
> packages! (As we auteurists often do...)
I thought OLIVER'S STORY was only so-so, not one of Korty's best. I
wouldn't say Korty was in decline at that point: he went on to make good
TV films like A DEADLY BUSINESS and BABY GIRL SCOTT. I suspect that,
like a lot of TV directors at the time, he wasn't exactly given carte
blanche when he got to make a feature. - Dan
4382
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:43am
Subject: Re: Directors who get good
> What I wonder is if the group could come up with some examples of the
> reverse occurring; that is, the names of some filmmakers who had thoroughly
> uninteresting careers and then suddenly got really expressive towards the very end.
The person I always think of in this regard is Daniel Petrie. He did a
number of reasonably prestigious projects in the 60s, and the ones I've
seen are just awful, no redeeming qualities. Then something good
happened to him, right around the time of 1969's SILENT NIGHT, LONELY
NIGHT, and thereafter he made a whole bunch of worthy films, usually but
not always for TV. - Dan
4383
From: Tosh
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 6:40am
Subject: Re: Liaisons
Oh I have to disagree with this. Vadim's Liaisons is great - because
the performances in it are totally perfect. The soundtrack is superb,
and even more important it has Boris Vian!!!!
The very first film I have ever seen was 'God Created Woman.' My dad
took me to see that film. The theater at first would not let him in
with a minor (at the time I was 4 or 5 years old). But it did affect
me and in a sense Bardot was my first cinematic crush - and in a very
long road ahead it lead me to do TamTam Books.
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
4384
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 6:52am
Subject: Re: Liasons
Tosh, glad to hear someone else likes the Vadim. I have a much easier
time believing Philippe and Moreau in those roles than I do G. Close
and He Who Must Not Be Named. My recollection of the black and white
photography is also agreeable, particularly the snow scenes. I think
it was a Zeitgeist film for people old enough to see it in first run.
Another example: Although I have lost my taste for Chabrol (the
filmmaker, not the critic or the man) I can truly say that Les
Cousins, seen my freshman year in college, changed my life. I saw
Liasons about a year before that. M. Coursodon, I'm sure you didn't
need either of them to attain a level of sophistication far beyond
mine then or now - I was a hick from a small town in Texas, with 3
years in a religious school before college. I NEEDED those films.
But I would like to throw out again the notion that Vadim or Jess
Franco or many another Eurotrash producer-director could legitimately
be considered an auteur, but not a metteur-en-scene. Huston is
actually an A version of that.
4385
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:55am
Subject: Re: Liaisons
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh
My dad
> took me to see that film. The theater at first would not let him
in
> with a minor (at the time I was 4 or 5 years old). But it did
affect
> me and in a sense Bardot was my first cinematic crush - and in a
very
> long road ahead it lead me to do TamTam Books.
Tosh, it sounds so fascinating, so could you elaborate on the
connection between seeing the film and TamTam?
My Mom tried to tke me to The Virgin Spring when I was 5, but the
wizend old lady at the box office wouldn't let me in, and, in fact,
berated my Mom for wanting to let me see a movie which contains a
rape (and this was cosmopolitan Manhattan).
I was also 5 when my parents took me to The Apartment (I think it was
because they couldn't find a baby sitter that night) which shocked
their friends. What affected me most about the movie was that I
couldn't wait to grow up and go to office Christmas parties.
4386
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 8:46am
Subject: Re: Joel Silver and Stephen Frears
Does that mean that Benning isn't going to "act" anymore either?
I've got to get a thank-you note in the mail to Warren right away.
g
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
> I don't think Beatty could work with Frears,should he
> decide to make a comeback. I do believe he's retired
> to father children (I've lost count as to how many) by
> Annette Benning.
>
4387
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 9:01am
Subject: Re: Directors who get good
I don't know how Damien feels about another late Zinneman (I think Julia is
as disorganized and boring as his other work) but Day of the Jackal strikes
me as everything his other films aren't -- taut, cold and detached to great
effect, highly efficient and neither pretentious nor sententious.
George Robinson
The man who does not read good books
has no advantage over the man who cannot read them.
--Mark Twain
4388
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 9:21am
Subject: Remakes and Sequels
A seleceted group of films to be released 2004 and 2005 to demonstrate
how inventive Hollywood is :)
2004 RELEASES
Exorcist: The Beginning (6th Feb)
Kill Bill Volume 2 (20th Feb)
Starsky And Hutch (5th March)
Dawn Of The Dead (26th March)
The Alamo (April)
House Of 1,000 Corpses 2 (April)
The Stepford Wives (11th June)
Shrek 2 (18th June)
Spiderman 2 (2nd July)
The Bourne Supremacy (23th July)
Mad Max 4: Fury Road (23th July – Yes its Miller and Gibson)
Blade 3: Trinity (13th August)
Ocean's Twelve (12th Dec)
The Ladykillers
The Manchurian Candidate
2005 RELEASES
X-men 3 (5th May)
Star Wars Episode III (25th May)
Batman: Intimidation (4th July)
Indiana Jones 4 (4th July)
Fahrenheit 451 (Fall)
King Kong (14th Dec)
Deuce Bigalow 2: European Gigolo
Die Hard 4
Gladiator 2
Jurassic Park 5
Mission Impossible 3
XXX 2
X Files 2
Zorro Unmasked
4389
From:
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:02am
Subject: Varia
On Vadim:
Thought his episode in "Spirits of the Dead" was the absolute pits.
BB
My Dad once watched a whole hyped movie in the 1960's on TV to see Bardot -
only to have her appear for just 2 minutes and be 20th billed. Boy, was he
ticked off!
Cruel Intentions
This was suprisingly entertaining. Have not seen the Vadim. I really liked
Frears' version. His "Gumshoe" is also lots of fun.
Oliver's Story
I started looking at the novel in the bookstore, around 1976. The next thing
I knew, I'd read the whole thing standing up in the store. It is not exactly
"War and Peace"! Have never seen the John Korty film version.
In the 70's, enjoyed several of Korty's TV movies, such as "The People" and
"Return to Manzanar". They ought to re-release these.
The Rugrats
They had a short gem, in which the various characters took turns imagining
themselves starring in a Godzilla type movie, in which a dinosaur called
"Raptor" wrecks New York City. Zany movie spoof of 50's monster flicks.
Glamorous Hollywood Parties that Celebrate the Auteur Theory
How come I'm never invited to any of these?
Mike Grost
4390
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:25pm
Subject: Re: Remakes and Sequels
C'mon... we got reasons to be happy... One of them is that Tolkien has only
written three "Lord Of The Rings" books. Peter Jackson, unfortunately, will
be with us a little longer. "Matrix" is also supposed to be a trilogy. I
can't stand anymore seeing one of each once a year, and I'm glad that in
2004 I won't have to. If you pick those two, the Harry Potter films aren't
so bad after all...
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Sylow"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:21 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Remakes and Sequels
> A seleceted group of films to be released 2004 and 2005 to demonstrate
> how inventive Hollywood is :)
>
> 2004 RELEASES
> Exorcist: The Beginning (6th Feb)
> Kill Bill Volume 2 (20th Feb)
> Starsky And Hutch (5th March)
> Dawn Of The Dead (26th March)
> The Alamo (April)
> House Of 1,000 Corpses 2 (April)
> The Stepford Wives (11th June)
> Shrek 2 (18th June)
> Spiderman 2 (2nd July)
> The Bourne Supremacy (23th July)
> Mad Max 4: Fury Road (23th July - Yes its Miller and Gibson)
> Blade 3: Trinity (13th August)
> Ocean's Twelve (12th Dec)
> The Ladykillers
> The Manchurian Candidate
>
> 2005 RELEASES
> X-men 3 (5th May)
> Star Wars Episode III (25th May)
> Batman: Intimidation (4th July)
> Indiana Jones 4 (4th July)
> Fahrenheit 451 (Fall)
> King Kong (14th Dec)
> Deuce Bigalow 2: European Gigolo
> Die Hard 4
> Gladiator 2
> Jurassic Park 5
> Mission Impossible 3
> XXX 2
> X Files 2
> Zorro Unmasked
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
4391
From: Robert Keser
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:53pm
Subject: Re: Liaisons
Vadim managed to commission some excellent music,
what with the Modern Jazz Quartet for Sait-on jamais?
and Thelonious Monk for Liaisons, but also whoever did
the haunting score for La Curée (another enjoyably
"aren't-we-wicked!" project with chi-chi décor). On the
other hand, the one element that horribly dates the often
charming Barbarella is the soundtrack (I once worked for
the perpetrator, Bob Crewe, whose attempt to make
Patty Duke a singing star was his other contribution to
film history).
I also saw Liaisons in 1960, and remember feeling
disappointed that it seemed so lifeless, despite Philippe
and Jeanne Moreau (who was still a new face to us at the
time). Actually, all the versions of Liaisons seem
unsatisfactory to me (and I have to agree with Bill about
Frear's performers), but maybe Valmont comes off best.
Et Dieu créa la femme is absolutely awful, though, made
the more excruciating by the phony dubbed version that
infected theaters in the U.S.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh
> Oh I have to disagree with this. Vadim's Liaisons is great -
because
> the performances in it are totally perfect. The soundtrack is
superb,
> and even more important it has Boris Vian!!!!
4392
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:15pm
Subject: Re: Remakes and Sequels
Astonishing list. And now comes Lemony Snicket - ten books and
counting. Butr I LIKE Lemony Snicket.
4393
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:17pm
Subject: Re: Vadim
I think it was Vadim signing on for Spirits that knocked out Welles.
Or maybe it was Malle. Welles and Oja had written a fascinating
version of Masque of the Red Death that would have probably outshone
Toby Dammit, if such a thing is possible.
4394
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:54pm
Subject: Re: Liasons
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> M. Coursodon, I'm sure you didn't
> need either of them to attain a level of sophistication far beyond
> mine then or now - I was a hick from a small town in Texas, with 3
> years in a religious school before college. I NEEDED those films.
>
>
Mr Krohn (since you insist on formalities!)I don't know about your
level of sophistication then, but from all your writings and postings
it is clearly far beyond mine now.
I think it's great that Vadim and Chabrol changed your life when
you were an adolescent -- although I wish it had been changed by
worthier material, but anything that helps will do. The point is,
does such an early experience validate an enduring admiration? "But
when I became a man I put away childish things..." (at the same time
I'll concede that there's much to be said for an attachment
to "childish things").
JPC
4395
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Liaisons
> Have you ever listened to the
> moronic dialogue with the sub-amateurish delivery by everyone
> involved? I guess you'd have to understand French (sorry, I know this
> is not fair, but I'm getting really annoyed!)
And yet Vadim has had prominent defenders in France, so language can't
be the only reason for this rift between the film's admirers and
detractors. - Dan
4396
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:08pm
Subject: Re: Liaisons
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
> Vadim managed to commission some excellent music,
> what with the Modern Jazz Quartet for Sait-on jamais?
> and Thelonious Monk for Liaisons, but also whoever did
> the haunting score for La Curée (another enjoyably
> "aren't-we-wicked!" project with chi-chi décor). On the
> other hand, the one element that horribly dates the often
> charming Barbarella is the soundtrack (I once worked for
> the perpetrator, Bob Crewe, whose attempt to make
> Patty Duke a singing star was his other contribution to
> film history).
>
Vadim's use of good jazz tracks is one of his few redeeming
features. Actually Sait-on jamais is the one Vadim film I didn't
dislike, but I haven't seen it in 30 years at least.
> I also saw Liaisons in 1960, and remember feeling
> disappointed that it seemed so lifeless, despite Philippe
> and Jeanne Moreau (who was still a new face to us at the
> time). Actually, all the versions of Liaisons seem
> unsatisfactory to me (and I have to agree with Bill about
> Frear's performers), but maybe Valmont comes off best.
>
> Et Dieu créa la femme is absolutely awful, though, made
> the more excruciating by the phony dubbed version that
> infected theaters in the U.S.
>
In case you only have seen that dubbed version I can assure you
the original French is atrocious too. The dubbing couldn't be worse
than Bardot's exaperating voice and delivery. Not that the others
sound much better.
> --Robert Keser
>
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh
> > Oh I have to disagree with this. Vadim's Liaisons is great -
> because
> > the performances in it are totally perfect. The soundtrack is
> superb,
> > and even more important it has Boris Vian!!!!
4397
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:22pm
Subject: Re: Liaisons
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> > Have you ever listened to the
> > moronic dialogue with the sub-amateurish delivery by everyone
> > involved? I guess you'd have to understand French (sorry, I know
this
> > is not fair, but I'm getting really annoyed!)
>
> And yet Vadim has had prominent defenders in France, so language
can't
> be the only reason for this rift between the film's admirers and
> detractors. - Dan
You're right. I never suggested it was. Actually I have never been
able to understand the enthusiasm of a whole bunch of French critics
and buffs for ... ET DIEU CREA LA FEMME. Because to me, and most of
my friends at the time, the film seemed to represent exactly
everything those same critics and buffs disliked in traditional
french cinema. To see in the Bardot character an example of
the "modern" liberated (although the word was not in use at the time)
young woman as they did was a reflection on the stultifying
atmosphere of French mores in the fifties (you have to have lived
through it to know how bad it was) more than anything else. This is
obvious now but it was just as obvious to me then.
Also, Vadim retained very few admirers among serious French critics
after LIAISONS and the either ridiculous or mindless movies that
followed throughout the sixties.
JPC
4398
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:26pm
Subject: Fluctuating reputations (was: a list is a what?)
I am reposting this because it was a response to Fred who may have
missed it because of the generic title.. JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> >>
> > > 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).....
> > >
> >
> > J-P: Maybe the problem is that we're talking about different
> countries?
> > Are you talking about France in 1953? Is Filipe talking about
> Brazil in
> > 1953?
> >
> > When I first got interested in "auteurist" cinema, in 1964, I
> looked at
> > every Egnlish-language film publication I could find. I can
assure
> you
> > that I couldn't find any, with one exception, that took John Ford
> > seriously. I don't even remember who was taken seriously, maybe
it
> was
> > Bergman, maybe it was Flaherty, maybe it was "The Red Shoes," I'm
> sure
> > it was "Citizen Kane" (though not later Welles), but it certainly
> was
> > not John Ford, with the possible exception of "The Informer."
> Indeed, no
> > one took any westerns seriously at all. The one exception, of
> course,
> > was "Film Culture," with Andrew Sarris's American Directors issue
> and
> > "Cactus Rosebud" article -- but "Film Culture" also celebrated
> Brakhage
> > and Deren and Rice and Anger -- they were clearly so far out of
the
> > mainstream as to be "underground" or something.
> >
> > My key experiences seeing my first two Fords: "Cheynne Autumn"
when
> it
> > opened and flopped (but alas, a few days too late to see the pre-
> Jack
> > Warner-butchery version, though my friend Tim Hunter did), and
then
> > shortly thereafter, "The Searchers," at the 1 AM show on 42nd
> Street.
> > *That* was the only place to see it, and it would be another five
> or six
> > years before it was being shown in New York as a John Ford film.
> >
> > Go down a notch, to say Samuel Fuller or Robert Aldrich or
Vincente
> > Minnelli, and their reputations were far far lower than today.
And
> the
> > early interest in Sirk was repeatedly ridiculed in print
(including
> in
> > the New York Times) in the 1960s and early 1970s. And not just in
> print;
> > he was referred to by people who should have known better as "the
> > director of those horrible Rock Hudson/Doris Day movies."
> >
> > So unless there's something I'm not getting, I think Filipe's
> point,
> > that the "reputation of major figures" has fluctuated, is right.
> >
> > - Fred
>
> Fred, you make good points and I mostly agree, but you quoted me
> out of context and dropped most of my post. I never said
reputations
> don't fluctuate -- that would be absurd; they always do, in all
arts,
> because tastes and attitudes change. I wrote that the reputations
of
> major filmmakers haven't fluctuated "all that much" over the years
> and decades. I mean, is there one equivalent in the history of film
> of the total eclipse of JS Bach's reputation for at least 150
years?
> Have the reputations of, say, Griffith or Murnau or Chaplin changed
> much one way or the other since the time they were active? (I mean
> reputations with serious film critics and historians and cinephiles
> of course).
>
> I made the point that Ford in the fifties was not so much
> neglected as taken for granted. I made the point that critics'
> attitudes in the early fifties (and well into the sixties in the
> U.S., as you point out) were very different from what they would
> become. For one thing, genre films (that is 99% of the Hollywood
> output) were not taken seriously and were routinely condescended to
> and dismissed. Most great Hollywood films of the fifties were
> underrated when they came out. And critics did not consider an
> individual film in reference to the whole of the director's work.
> They were not going to pay attention to Wagon Master (just a
western)
> or The Sun Shines Bright (just a period comedy) or Mogambo (just a
> Technicolor adventure-drama) merely because they admired, or at
least
> respected, Ford for his prestige, "social-conscious" films (Grapes
of
> Wrath, How Green Was...)
>
> What has happened in the past two decades or so is that some of
> the great directors of the past have become such objects of
adulation
> that their reputation now towers much higher than it ever did or
> could be when they were alive. As a result they seem (to us) to
have
> been sorely neglected and underrated in the past. Ford is a case in
> point. Welles too, although the case is very different.
>
> JPC
4399
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Remember My Name
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> > No one so far has mentioned my favorite Rudolph
> > --"Remember My Name." It's Geraldine Chaplin's best
> > performance -- especially for the scenes where she
> > rehearses her final monologue: "I didn't cry when you
> > went away. . ." Mr. & Mrs. Perkins are excellent and
> > Alfre Woodard is a stand-out as Rita, the world's
> > meanest checkout clerk. Rudolph offers a slice of an
> > L.A. that I've never seen in any movie, in a style
> > that might be called neo--Rivette. Almost science
> > fiction.
>
> It's my favorite Rudolph, too, and one of my favorite films of the
70s.
> - Dan
I agree. My favorite with Choose Me. I discuss it at length
in "50 ans..." Especially Chaplin's rehearsals of her speech to her
ex-husband. She is such an extraordinary character. When she begs the
caretaker on her knees to get her new curtains the gesture (which
Rudolph said she improvised!) is such an ironic way of making it
clear she will never beg anybody for anything. So in character!
JPC
4400
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:14pm
Subject: Happy Birthday Mickey
Today it's the 75th birthday of Mickey Mouse, who made is very first
appearence the 18th november 1928.
Cheers
Henrik
Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact