Posts from the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact

Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by

This group is dedicated to discussing film as art from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.

Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires that person's permission. It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post they have written in the a_film_by archives at http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and emailing them from that Web site.

4701

From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Nov 26, 2003 2:19am
Subject: Re: Re: Shooting on DV - Ruy's post (Vies)

my friend and moviemaker carlos reichenbach loves this welles' piece more
for its power of "presence/absence" (he said he felt like anytime welles
himself could come out) than for historical reasons. I like the surgery
piece best.
ruy

----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 8:58 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Shooting on DV - Ruy's post (Vies)

> Just for the record, the section about Welles in Vies (Cavalier) is
> a pack of lies spouted by a (charming) straw woman (Oja's
> word) for Mehdi Boucheri, the Iranian investor who kept Welles
> from finishing the film. Vies was produced by his company. It
> doesn't affect the esthetics, but it is important from an historical
> pov that people who see the film know this, and that reviewers at
> least note that this is Boucheri's assistant talking and Boucheri's
> company signing the checks.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
4702

From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Nov 26, 2003 2:22am
Subject: Re: cavalier

people interested in cavalier should definitely see THERESE. But I thought
LIBERA-ME was a piece of crap.

----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 9:49 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Vies

> i have nothing against Cavalier - that's the only film of his I've
> actually seen - but apart from the fact that it was (as far as I
> know) the house where Welles stayed, the statements of the
> unseen woman are to be taken with a grain of salt. I'm talking
> about her account of the production, not the setting. And you're
> told at the end of F for Fake that the Picasso story is invented. Big
> difference.
>
> Any review of One Man band will mention that the pretty Yugoslav
> is Welles' girlfriend. I'd like the same truth in reviewing for Vies -
> then people can judge for themselves, from the limited
> information that documentaries like those give.
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
4703

From:
Date: Tue Nov 25, 2003 9:28pm
Subject: Re: ivansxtc.

I'm way, way behind on reading posts, but I thought I'd chip in to say that I
also really liked Bernard Rose's "ivansxtc." I thought the look of the DV
photography maybe even added something to it aesthetically.

Last March, I interviewed Rose about his film and DV in general. Y'all might
find it interesting:

http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue5/bernardrose.html

Peter

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4704

From:
Date: Tue Nov 25, 2003 9:51pm
Subject: Full Frontal

Bill writes:

> The few problems I had with Full
> Frontal had nothing to do with the film's deliberately crummy look
> (which was predictably attacked by the defunct New Times).

In its stunning final shot, "Full Frontal" posits that film style alone (lush
35mm vs. ugly, grainy DV) cannot be used as an indicator of a movie's
'realism' or lack thereof. In other words, the sections of "Full Frontal" which the
audience is encouraged to believe as being 'real' (the DV stuff) are shown to
be as patently false as the Hollywood meet-cute movie-within-a-movie sections
of the film. In this sense, the crummy look of the DV in "Full Frontal" was,
as Bill says, completely intentional and is to very powerful ends.

Peter

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4705

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:46am
Subject: RE: Le Revelateur

--- Jonathan Takagi wrote:
>
> > "Le Revelateur"? Wow -- do they have any other
> early
> > Garrel?
>
> Most of these seem to be DVD-Rs from VHS sources.
> If this is
> the case, it's only a matter of time before "La
> Cicatrice
> intérieur" makes it there. I have both of these on
> VHS if
> anyone's interested. I'm kicking myself for not
> picking up
> the CdC Garrel 2-pack while in Paris.
>

LA CICATRICE INTERIEURE?!?!!!!!

You're talking to the world's biggest Nio-maniac!
I have a bootleg "Le Berceau de Cristal," and before
he died David Bombyck gave me the Frederic Pardo
posterfor that one, knowing how much I liked Garrel's
Nico movies.

Never forget seing "La Cicatrice Interieure" at the
1972 New York Film Festival. Amazing work comparable
to "Gerry" (I don't believe Gus knows it) and Snow's
"La Region Centrale."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4706

From: Greg Dunlap
Date: Wed Nov 26, 2003 3:51am
Subject: Re: Shooting on DV

> I'm told that, in addition to the already huge cost of the blow-up to
>
> film, you need to go to a high-end post house to make your DV movie
> look
> really good on screen. So transferring to film takes you to a
> realm
> where money is king. - Dan

I first looked into DV a few years ago, right around when the Sony
VX1000 was really hot and the whole concept of people taking it
seriously was just beginning. Back then the party line was that you
could shoot your movie for cheap and get it finished, then shop for the
funding to get it blown up rather than the other way around. It was
seen as a big liberator because you could shop around a finished
product rather than a concept. How has this worked in practice? It is
my impression (and I could be way off on this) that a lot of the higher
profile DV movies that have made it out there have been well funded
from the get go as opposed to home brew kind of things (leave docs out
of the mix for the moment.)

=====
--------------------
Greg Dunlap
heyrocker@y...

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4707

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:28am
Subject: Re: Shooting on DV

Michael wrote: "DV is far from close to being up to par with film
projection. The main issue
with DV makers (including many friends of mine and I) is that there
still isn't
one specific way to show a
DV work in ideal circumstances, albeit installation, projected from
the DV
source, or DVD, which isn't perfected for individual use."

Actually, Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye, which I'm trying to
write about now, was installed first and now is being projected
digitally in a theatre. The installation was in a funhouse
environment, where the director says half the fun was watching and
half the fun was watching other people watching. (It's pornography.)
That would be one way to see it, and the linear theatre projection,
for which the director has invented a funny one-paragraph narrative
in the press notes, would be quite another. Inevitably, when
projected in a linear format, the film becomes a narrative, albeit
one entirely composed of barely linked sexual fantasies (and a brief
clip from the Zapruder film). This way of playing in and out of
narrative conventions somehow seems appropriate to a DV film, but I
suppose it's not format-specific.
4708

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:37am
Subject: Re: Le Revelateut

David wrote: "Never forget seing "La Cicatrice Interieure" at the
1972 New York Film Festival. Amazing work comparable
to "Gerry" (I don't believe Gus knows it) and Snow's
'La Region Centrale.'"

I was there, too, and I'm reluctant to trade those memories for a
dupe-y VHS. The Zanzibar Films were recently screened again in a
French retrospective, at Toulon, as I recall, and Jackie Raynal, who
produced them (with money from a rich girl), probably knows about
prints. I assume Cicatrice was Zanzibar - somebody certainly had a
little money to put into that one.
4709

From: Frederick M. Veith
Date: Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:39am
Subject: RE: Le Revelateur

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, David Ehrenstein wrote:

> You're talking to the world's biggest Nico-maniac!
> I have a bootleg "Le Berceau de Cristal," and before
> he died David Bombyck gave me the Frederic Pardo
> poster for that one, knowing how much I liked Garrel's
> Nico movies.

Any chance of putting a photo of this up on your website?

F.
4710

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 26, 2003 6:46am
Subject: Re: Shooting on DV

For the record, Budd Boetticher's last film, My Kingdom For, was
started on film by Lucien Ballard and was supposed to continue on
that medium with Gary Graver. But the day of the horse exhibition
that Budd wanted to film, Gary was tied up on The Other Side of the
Wind, so Budd commandeered a visitor's video camera to cover the
event. (I'm not sure who pointed it.) He then kept shooting on video,
transferred the Ballard footage to video, edited the film on two VCRs
in his bedroom (that's where you have Proustian moments: cf. my
earlier post) and had a San Diego tape house smooth out the cuts. It
only exists on tape and is very arty (Budd's word) in form: freeze
frames, paintings incorporated into the narrative, an ontologically
mind-bending credit sequence. He loved the control. As quoted in a
previous post, when I asked him how he edited it himself he
said, "You just cut out all the shit - it's as simple as that!"
4711

From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Wed Nov 26, 2003 7:33am
Subject: Re: Shooting on DV

I made a sound short on 16mm this past year, which took about two months of hard editing (A&B rolling, mag transfer, optical transfer, image and optical print), costing nearly a
grand for about five minutes of an OK film. I made a 20 minute short on video, cut it over night, made simple audio changes, saturated the color, removed some audio gain, and I
think I made a much better work than the 16mm film. So perhaps the comfort of DV, cost wise and personal aesthetic wise, has made me a supporter. Either way, I'd rather do
every step myself.

Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:14:37 -0500
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Shooting on DV

> But shooting DV is a completely different matter. It allows more to > be done for less money, without the ability to have the rich > projection that even Super 8mm film allows. And DV is also quite > convenient, and with the current airplane securities, one could > travel around the world without damaging DV tapes. There's a psychological comfort, too. Anyone who does a low-budget movie on film today has a lot of post-production fun to look forward to: sound and image go separate paths, with many opportunities to lose sync; and a zillion unsympathetic lab people charge you a lot of money to do a careless job with your film in their own sweet time. With DV, you dump it onto your hard disk, and a while later it emerges through the DVD burner or a Firewire port, finished. Image and sound stay married the whole time, and you keep your own schedule. You really feel in charge of your own project. > Transferring DV to film has had some lovely results; look no further > than "In Praise of Love" to see what I mean. But who is going to pay > for it? If one makes a narrative without actors or high profile > individuals backing it in any way, it's doubtful that the transfer > would ever take place. For experimental filmmakers or documentary > filmmakers, the chances decline. I'm told that, in addition to the already huge cost of the blow-up to film, you need to go to a high-end post house to make your DV movie look really good on screen. So transferring to film takes you to a realm where money is king. - Dan

tr>

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT
http://
rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cmusjn3/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705021019:HM/EXP=1069895695/A=1853618/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/
Default?mqso=60178338&partid=4116732" alt="">

http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ne/netflix/yhoo1103_a_300250A.gif" alt="click here" width="300" height="250"
border="0">

">http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1853618/rand=278173169">

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT
http://
rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12chj36ln/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705021019:HM/EXP=1069915615/A=1853618/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/
Default?mqso=60178338&partid=4116732" alt="">

http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ne/netflix/yhoo1103_a_300250A.gif" alt="click here" width="300" height="250"
border="0">

">http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1853618/rand=713591844">

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT
http://
rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cb6hlnp/M=267637.4116719.5338353.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705021019:HM/EXP=1069946799/A=1853618/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/
Default?mqso=60178338&partid=4116719" alt="">

http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ne/netflix/yhoo1103_a_300250A.gif" alt="click here" width="300" height="250"
border="0">

">http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116719.5338353.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1853618/rand=320165883">

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm

ADVERTISEMENT

4724

From: jtakagi@e...
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 1:58am
Subject: RE: Le Revelateur

I bought the poster for "Elle a passé tant de temps
sous les sunlights" without having ever seen the film,
just because I thought it was so attractive. I still
do that, from time to time.

Any thoughts on the film? Did I get the title right?

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Frederick M. Veith fmv@s...
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:08:38 -0500 (EST)
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [a_film_by] Le Revelateur

Well, I'd love to see it when you can find the time. The only Garrel
poster I've ever seen was for "Le Vent de la nuit".

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
4725

From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:57am
Subject: http://www.thegoldenyears.org/ good web links for directors (1939-69) eom

4726

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:07am
Subject: RE: Le Revelateur

Here it is:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089081/

One of two films he made about Nico, this one was
apparently shot just after they broke up. She died two
years later.

The female lead, Mirelle Perrier, appeared in several
Leos Carax films.
--- "jtakagi@e..." wrote:
> I bought the poster for "Elle a passé tant de temps
> sous les sunlights" without having ever seen the
> film,
> just because I thought it was so attractive. I
> still
> do that, from time to time.
>
> Any thoughts on the film? Did I get the title
> right?
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Frederick M. Veith fmv@s...
> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:08:38 -0500 (EST)
> To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [a_film_by] Le Revelateur
>
>
> Well, I'd love to see it when you can find the time.
> The only Garrel
> poster I've ever seen was for "Le Vent de la nuit".
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4727

From: Michael
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 9:17am
Subject: Re: DREAMS in Scope?

I saw Dreams in it's theatrical release, and it was 1:85. I have
found incorrect ratio listings on the IMDB.

Michael Worrall

> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think DREAMS was ever shown at 2.35:1. >
> According to Mike Inouye of Kurosawa Productions DREAMS was shot in
> spherical Panavision with a 1:85 X 1 aspect ratio.
>
> Richard
4728

From: Michael Worrall
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 9:29am
Subject: Introduction

I guess before I add a comment (and I made my first reply with a
mistake, it's should be its), I should introduce myself.

My name is Michael Worrall and I studied film history, theory and
production at SUNY Purchase from 1988-1992. You can check out my
profile to get the low down on my directors. Thanks to Fred V. for
directing me to this site.
4729

From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 0:13pm
Subject: Re: DREAMS in Scope?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael" wrote:
> I saw Dreams in it's theatrical release, and it was 1:85. I have
> found incorrect ratio listings on the IMDB.
>
> Michael Worrall
>
>
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't think DREAMS was ever shown at 2.35:1. >
> > According to Mike Inouye of Kurosawa Productions DREAMS was shot
in
> > spherical Panavision with a 1:85 X 1 aspect ratio.
> >
> > Richard

Dreams was shot on Super 35mm, which is a non anamorphic 35mm system
allowing matting from 1,66:1 to 2,4:1. In fact the Super 35 monitor
has two safety areas - one for normal widescreen and one for 2,35:1.

The theatrical release format was "Widescreen". That means it was
matted to, in this case, 1,85:1 (US standard). Also, Donald Richie
doesn't comment on the format (he uses widescreen for anamorphic
aspect ratios), which also suggests matted format.

The comments on IMDB are false. So are their comment of the laserdisc,
which framing I just measured and dividing lenght by height I get 1,
85:1, and not to 2,1 as stated on IMDB.

However the DVD is not in 1,85:1, but in 1,78:1 (16x9). I dont know if
the matting was limited to allow slighty more picture or if it is due
to overscan.

Henrik
4730

From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:30pm
Subject: Garrel notes

David wrote:

"One of two films he made about Nico ... "

Only two, David?? L'ENFANT SECRET (my third-favourite film in the universe)
is about Nico, J'ENTENDS PLUS LA GUITARE is about Nico, SUNLIGHTS is about
Nico, WILD INNOCENCE is about Nico ... just about all of them are about Nico
!!! Indeed, that last-named even has jokes (a very un-Garrelian reflex)
about the obsessive nature of this eternal return!!! of course, all the
other women, men and children in his life are there too ...

Ah, we lucky Garrelians in Dublin two years ago, sitting back to watch
HAUTES SOLITUDES, L'ENFANT SECRET, J'ENTENDS PLUS ...

CICATRICE INTERIEUR is a film I refuse to watch until I can see a proper
35mm print: those pirate dupey videos which circulate are absolutely
shocking. (Althouygh the pirate tape of his music-TV segments from the 60s
with Donovan, Marianne Faithful, Zouzou, etc - and Philippe as a
spooky-looking host - are a delight.) Why Not films in Paris have been
distributing CICATRICE afresh in 35mm for a couple of years.

And that new double DVD of NAISSANCE DE L'AMOUR and WILD INNOCENCE is
wonderful! (with English subtitles, by the way) The 'analytical supplement'
is OK, too ...

Hail Garrel!

Adrian
4731

From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:00pm
Subject: New e-mail address for George Robinson

Dear Friends --

Due to some bureaucratic/corporate fiddle-faddle at my ISP, my e-mail
address has changed. My new address is:

grcomm@g...

Mail sent to the old address will be forwarded automatically for the
foreseeable future -- they're a little unclear on how long that will be --
but the new address is in effect right now.

Sorry for the inconvenience (especially if you are getting multiple copies
of this).

George Robinson

Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
4732

From: Michael Worrall
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:46pm
Subject: Re: DREAMS in Scope?

I saw the film in a multi-plex around White Plains, NY- and these
types of theaters are equipped only to show 1:85 and 2:35, having
been a projectionist and manager of a shoebox myself at one point,so
some information may have been cut off.

I am familiar with Super35, John Boorman had to shoot "Beyond
Rangoon" in that format for which I remember him being none too
pleased with. "Point Break" and "Age of Innocence", "Knock Off"
and "Time and Tide" are also Super35. With the exception of "Point
Break" these are all films that Columbia Pictures had something to do
with, production wise.

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:

>
> Dreams was shot on Super 35mm, which is a non anamorphic 35mm
system
> allowing matting from 1,66:1 to 2,4:1. In fact the Super 35 monitor
> has two safety areas - one for normal widescreen and one for 2,35:1.
>
> The theatrical release format was "Widescreen". That means it was
> matted to, in this case, 1,85:1 (US standard). Also, Donald Richie
> doesn't comment on the format (he uses widescreen for anamorphic
> aspect ratios), which also suggests matted format.
>
> The comments on IMDB are false. So are their comment of the
laserdisc,
> which framing I just measured and dividing lenght by height I get 1,
> 85:1, and not to 2,1 as stated on IMDB.
>
> However the DVD is not in 1,85:1, but in 1,78:1 (16x9). I dont know
if
> the matting was limited to allow slighty more picture or if it is
due
> to overscan.
>
> Henrik
4733

From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 4:50pm
Subject: Re: DREAMS in Scope?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:

> Dreams was shot on Super 35mm, which is a non anamorphic 35mm
system
> allowing matting from 1,66:1 to 2,4:1. In fact the Super 35 monitor
> has two safety areas - one for normal widescreen and one for 2,35:1.
>
> The theatrical release format was "Widescreen". That means it was
> matted to, in this case, 1,85:1 (US standard). Also, Donald Richie
> doesn't comment on the format (he uses widescreen for anamorphic
> aspect ratios), which also suggests matted format.
>
> The comments on IMDB are false.

Thanks for the clarification Henrik. And Michael, I believe Scorsese
used Super 35 on a few more pictures besides AGE OF INNOCENCE, KUNDUN
for example. On a TV talk show he told a viewer/caller that Super 35
allowed for scope-like theatrical presentation and television full
frame presentation and that it presented fewer problems than
anamorphic scope.

As for IMDB, I've come across a fair share of erroneous information
there and I've concluded it's good to cross check with another source
when in doubt.

Richard
4734

From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 4:51pm
Subject: Re: cukor and lubitsch

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Speaking of acting, One Hour With You has always
> > interested me as a project where the acting style
> > encouraged by Lubitsch crossed swords with the
> > Cukor style. At this late date, it's pretty fruitless to
> > try to untangle their differing contributions to that
> > movie, but can we more generally distinguish
> > between their styles? Offhand, and this might not
> > withstand careful thought, I'd say that Lubitsch's
> > dialogue and mise-en-scene carry the meaning,
> > while Cukor's subtext lies more in the nuances
> > and psychological insights of performance. This
> > doesn't address the specifics of the different styles,
> > though, I realize.

It's interesting, though, that one of the "official" problems with
Cukor on ONE HOUR WITH YOU (at least as stated in the legal documents
of Cukor's lawsuit) was that he was directing the actors,
particularly Chevalier, in too broad a fashion. But S. Raphaelson
also complained about Cukor's concern with "obscure" directorial
touches, such as the use of a more behaviorial form of gesture and
use of props which Raphaelson (and no doubt Lubitsch) felt was
killing the humor. I wonder if Cukor was attempting to incorporate
some of his own more nuanced approaches to performance via the use of
gesture, etc. while also doing a weak imitation of Lubitsch's more
controlled methods? We'll probably never know for sure but I think
that the film overwhelmingly looks and plays like Lubitsch, placing
it within the cinema of rigour, rather than Cukor, the cinema of
behavior (to sound CAHIERS-like for a moment).

McGilligan claims, however, that some people feel that ONE HOUR WITH
YOU is the first "real" Cukor film. I'm not sure that I buy this nor
am I even sure what this means, especially as his only back-up for
this claim is Paul Morrissey. Morrissey feels that the film has "the
energy and pacing of Cukor, not the deadly pauses of Lubitsch."
4735

From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:17pm
Subject: Re: Cukor and Lubitsch

Morrissey gave one of the best eulogies for Cukor at the DGA. Very
impressive.
4736

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 7:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: cukor and lubitsch

What's really interesting about the whole "One Hour
with You" story is that Lubitsch wanted Cukor's name
taken off as director and Cukor fought back and won.

If Cukor departed from Lutisch, as some have argued,
then I one can only guess that Lubitsch approved of
this departure --because he wanted to take credit for
it.

More importantly this dust-up shows how tough Cukor
was. Lubitsch was a well-established name at that
point -- Cukor wasn't. And the film WAS a Lubitsch
production in every way. But Cukor was the director
and he wanted to get the credit.

He was very VERY tough. And in that sense not at all
that far from James Whale.

--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4737

From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 8:39pm
Subject: THE LONG GRAY LINE a digital versus real image

I've just watched GOODBYE, Mr. Chips.

I'm reminded of FORD's THE LONG GRAY LINE, the autobiography of the
Irish immigrant, MARTY MAHER, who was at the center of the West Point
athletic department for half a century and obviously touched many
lives. The last scene is of cadets marching on the field.

I think it would have been perfect is the cadets marched on the field
forever and ever, really the scene just going on and on and the
audience not knowing when to leave because the cadets just keep on
marching and marching and marching and marching and marching and
marching and marching and marching and marching and marching and
marching and marching and marching and marching and marching and
marching and marching and marching and marching and marching and
marching and marching and marching and marching and marching and
marching and marching and marching and marching and marching and
marching and marching and marching and marching and marching and
marching and marching and marching and marching and marching and
marching and marching and marching and marching and marching and
marching and marching and marching and marching....

You get what I mean. As far as digital goes, such a scene would have
less power if it were CGI'd today; but in the '1950's it would have
been outstanding to just see scene after scene of the marching
cadets...you could eventually pull back to miniscule figures or move
forward to a single cadet to finally end the scene.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4738

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 9:44pm
Subject: Re: cukor and lubitsch

> What's really interesting about the whole "One Hour
> with You" story is that Lubitsch wanted Cukor's name
> taken off as director and Cukor fought back and won.

Didn't Cukor say that it was Schulberg who wanted his name off the
picture?

> If Cukor departed from Lutisch, as some have argued,
> then I one can only guess that Lubitsch approved of
> this departure --because he wanted to take credit for
> it.

In the same interview (the one in the Cinema One series), Cukor
claims that Lubitsch re-shot practically everything after he got
finished with ONE HOUR WITH YOU.

> More importantly this dust-up shows how tough Cukor
> was.

Yeah, that's the feeling you get. In this case, Cukor said he sued
the studio. - Dan
4739

From: madlyangelicgirl
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 11:27pm
Subject: Horror

Hi,

What do people make of this question...

`Do you agree that in the horror film "abject terror is
gendered
feminine" whilst "angry displays of force belong to the
male"? What
pleasures, therefore, might horror offer a female viewing audience?
Discuss with reference to two films."

There are lots of films that deal with these issues, but I want some
that are a bit different, that I could really get my teeth into!
Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

p.s Does anyone know of any good film resource sites that sell
books? I'm having real problems finding things, especially in
libraries!
4740

From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Nov 27, 2003 11:49pm
Subject: Re: Horror

That was true until the 60s - things were more complicated after
that. The issue is dealt with in detail in Men, Women and Chainsaws:
Gender in the Modern Horror Film by Carol J. Clover. I'm not a book
orderer, so I'll let someone else tell you where to get it.

The slasher film stock character Clover baptised the Final Girl
started off just scared in Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Halloween and
quickly turned tough and angry: Friday the 13th, Halloween H20
(recent), Texas Chain Saw Massacre 2, Hell Night and Slumber Party
Massacre feature Final Girls who are tougher than the men. As I
recall, the version of Marion Crane's sister played by Julianne Moore
in Van Sant's Psycho remake has more of the tough-girl
characteristics of the Final Girl than her predecessor played by Vera
Miles - she kicks Norman in the groin or something.

Clover offers the interesting comment that Final Girls who whimper
and wail would have been laughed out of theatres at a certain point,
so it's really a case of audience attitudes dictating a change in the
films, rather than vice versa.
4741

From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 1:09am
Subject: Re: Horror

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "madlyangelicgirl"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What do people make of this question...
>
> `Do you agree that in the horror film "abject terror is
> gendered
> feminine" whilst "angry displays of force belong to the
> male"? What
> pleasures, therefore, might horror offer a female viewing audience?
> Discuss with reference to two films."

If I understand the first question correctly, if suggests that women
just screams and guys hits. As Bill already said, that was true until
the 60s. It is the general view on "late night movies", those late 40s
and 50s sci fi and horror films.

While Psycho did rock the foundations, it was IMO, and of the top of
my head at this late hour, Polanski who changed the landscape with
Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, where the female suddenly became the
active part, both able of resisting terror and displaying force.

Gender was attacked during the 70s in films as The Wicker Man, but it
wasnt until Halloween, that women got rid of the Polanski touch. With
Halloween the traditional boy / girl role was removed and it became
sinners / virgins. More so, the virgin was always a woman, often with
a man's name as nickname. Only by being innocent can the heroine
defeat the terror. It is this line of gender we still see in horror
films today.

As I understand the second question, it more or less suggests that the
gender approach of pre Psycho still is in effect. But anyway...

To suggest that horror doesn't appeal to female viewers is very
sexist. Horror is about having fun, about the BOO, about being scared.
Former editor of Deep Red, Chas Balon, once said about Horror, that
Horror is as a good rollercoaster ride; You feel like you are going to
die, but you are as safe as anything.

I guess the reason why fewer women watches horror than guys is a
gender thing. We guys love horror films, girls watch chick flicks and
cries for 5 hours after having seen Pretty Woman.
4742

From: Michael Worrall
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:36am
Subject: Re: Horror

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "madlyangelicgirl"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What do people make of this question...
>
> `Do you agree that in the horror film "abject terror is
> gendered
> feminine" whilst "angry displays of force belong to the
> male"? What
> pleasures, therefore, might horror offer a female viewing audience?
> Discuss with reference to two films."

A very good text is Noel Carrol's "The Philosophy of Horror" which
comments on the ideas on the statement above. This text was used in
a class on the horror film with Tom Gunning, and he also used a
chapter from Clover's book entitled "Her body, Himself"

The role of the feminine is rather strong in supernatural films like
Robert Wise's version of "The Haunting", "Exorcist II: The Heretic"
and "Poltergeist". The female is anything but passive in
Murnau's "Noseferatu", where it is the wife who knows what must be
sacrificed in order to destroy the vampire.
4743

From: Michael Worrall
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:42am
Subject: Correction

"Nosferatu" rather.

Another series with female protagonists are the "Nightmare on Elm
Street" films
4744

From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 4:27am
Subject: Re: Horror

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> That was true until the 60s - things were more complicated after
> that. The issue is dealt with in detail in Men, Women and Chainsaws:
> Gender in the Modern Horror Film by Carol J. Clover. I'm not a book
> orderer, so I'll let someone else tell you where to get it.

She seems to be addressing these same issues in her "Her Body, Himself: Gender in
the Slasher Film which is printed in the collection "Fantasy and the Cinema" -Ed James
Donald. A good book.

Where do folks think "The Isle" (Kim Ki-Duk) falls on this chart ?

I have serious reasons for not liking this film, but I confess it "got under my skin"

Uh, so to speak. Sorry.....

-Sam
4745

From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:47am
Subject: Re: The Isle

I saw it at a festival and liked it. I like the way he creates the
milieu; I like the ghastly bits; I like the way the man is redeemed,
from what, I've forgotten - it was three years ago. Didn't he kill
someone before coming to the lake? It's a good version of that kind
of extreme gender politics, which runs from Woman in the Dunes
(didn't like) to Realm of the Senses (liked) to Audition (so-so) in
Japan. I'm sure I'm overlooking important cultural differences, but
to me The Isle fits onto that line somewhere between Oshima and
Imamura's recent romantic comedies, The Eel and Red Bridge Over Warm
Water - whatever that title was. There are also a few remarkable
films like these by Marco Ferreri, beginning with The Ape Woman and
climaxing in The Last Woman, which someone should re-release here.

The category I'm pointing to is a vague, inclusive group of films
where women are awesome, sublime (=potentially fearsome) beings.
Obviously the vamps of Hollywood and Europe got some of that, but I
don't know of any western films with heroines like these. Something
LIKE them is hinted at in films like Bringing Up Baby and Man's
Favorite Sport. Maybe that's why Shigehiko Hasumi writes well about
Hawks!
4746

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Horror

--- hotlove666 wrote:
. As I
> recall, the version of Marion Crane's sister played
> by Julianne Moore
> in Van Sant's Psycho remake has more of the
> tough-girl
> characteristics of the Final Girl than her
> predecessor played by Vera
> Miles - she kicks Norman in the groin or something.

Gus wanted her played as a lesbian. That's one of a
number of subtle departures in this color Xerox.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4747

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:41pm
Subject: Re: Horror

>
> Where do folks think "The Isle" (Kim Ki-Duk) falls on this chart ?
>
> I have serious reasons for not liking this film, but I confess
it "got under my skin"
>
> Uh, so to speak. Sorry.....
>
> -Sam

I have serious reasons too, but the girl's stubborn, unsmiling
concentration on what she's doing reminded me of Keaton (Buster).
Until the gruesomeness gets out of hands it really got me hooked.

JPC
4748

From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:42pm
Subject: Re: The Isle

> "hotlove666" wrote: > Something
> LIKE them is hinted at in films like Bringing Up Baby and Man's
> Favorite Sport. Maybe that's why Shigehiko Hasumi writes well about
> Hawks!

I've described "The Isle" to people as "Ringu meets Woman in the Dunes" but
Brining Up Baby ?? THAT'S a conceptual leap across the water !!!

Have to think about that one.....

-Sam
4749

From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 4:27pm
Subject: Re: The Isle

> Message: 16
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:47:17 -0000
> From: "hotlove666"
> Subject: Re: The Isle
>
> I saw it at a festival and liked it. I like the way he creates the
> milieu; I like the ghastly bits;

The contrast between the beautiful lake and the events taking place
makes the horror more striking except for its symbolic nature. Most
of those injuries would soon prove fatal (if the man were not already
done in by the drowning) either from hemorrhage or infection.

> I like the way the man is redeemed,
> from what, I've forgotten - it was three years ago. Didn't he kill
> someone before coming to the lake?

You may be right about that as I seem to remember some hint of him
being a wanted person. He may even have been a security guard or
police man or something like that. I think he also killed one of the
men on the lake at some point in the movie...as did she.

> It's a good version of that kind
> of extreme gender politics, which runs from Woman in the Dunes
> (didn't like) to Realm of the Senses (liked) to Audition (so-so) in
> Japan.

Interesting that his oral cavity was mutilated; her vaginal
cavity...why wasn't his sexual organ involved. Certainly there was
opportunity for getting a fish hook caught somewhere down there.
(as an aside, ER MD's - and any veteran fisherman/woman - have a
special technique of removing impaled fishing hooks. Often, victims
just push the hook all the way through the finger or ear and snip the
barb, then retract the barb free shank. This is not a good idea as
more damage can be done, sometimes you can't push the barb through, and
if it is steel like, it will be impossible to cut. There is a
technique of tying a string to the hub of the barb end of the embedded
hook and pressing down on the shank...a quick pull on the snug line
will extract the barb alone its same entry track.)

I wish movies would offer some interesting tid-bits of 'common
knowledge or sense.' In the ISLE, there would have been a perfect
opportunity for the 'string trick' with all that fishing going on, and
it would have looked very quaint and cultural.

> I'm sure I'm overlooking important cultural differences,

the instruments of mutilation in foreign films are often 'household,
craft, or everyday items,' rather than the ubiquitous kitchen knife or
gun in American movies. (The movie THE SON held a lot of tension for
me because I knew the inherent danger in saws, hammers, ladders, and
even a stacking of wood as weapons).

> but to me The Isle fits onto that line somewhere between Oshima and
> Imamura's recent romantic comedies, The Eel and Red Bridge Over Warm
> Water - whatever that title was. There are also a few remarkable
> films like these by Marco Ferreri, beginning with The Ape Woman and
> climaxing in The Last Woman, which someone should re-release here.
>
> The category I'm pointing to is a vague, inclusive group of films
> where women are awesome, sublime (=potentially fearsome) beings.
> Obviously the vamps of Hollywood and Europe got some of that, but I
> don't know of any western films with heroines like these. Something
> LIKE them is hinted at in films like Bringing Up Baby and Man's
> Favorite Sport. Maybe that's why Shigehiko Hasumi writes well about
> Hawks!
4750

From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 5:17pm
Subject: Re: The Isle

> > I saw it at a festival and liked it. I like the way he creates the
> > milieu; I like the ghastly bits;

I guess I have "issues" with the ghastly bits, but something about the milieu was
exceptional...

In any case, Elizabeth, this is hardly realism..... then again one can nearly pick a
commercial film at random where trauma never leads to hemorrhage or infection...
(I'd start with the 3 Stooges but that would start a Jules White thread ;-)

Perhaps Kim Ki-Duk should be brought in to direct ER episodes THAT would give
the series a sorely needed shot in the arm (as it were)......

> I wish movies would offer some interesting tid-bits of 'common
> knowledge or sense.' In the ISLE, there would have been a perfect
> opportunity for the 'string trick' with all that fishing going on, and
> it would have looked very quaint and cultural.

> the instruments of mutilation in foreign films are often 'household,
> craft, or everyday items,' rather than the ubiquitous kitchen knife or
> gun in American movies. (The movie THE SON held a lot of tension for
> me because I knew the inherent danger in saws, hammers, ladders, and
> even a stacking of wood as weapons).

Have you seen "Surrender Dorothy" ? !

-Sam
4751

From: Michael E. Grost
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 5:45pm
Subject: Horror: Pyscho - the color remake

Loved the colors in the remake of "Psycho" (Gus Van Sant). The whole
film was built around the contrast of red-orange versus blue. Every
object on screen, every piece of clothing, tended to be in one of
these color groups, with an occasional light green thrown in. This
color scheme also showed up in Van Sant's "My Own Private Idaho". It
is all over Almodovar, too.
In the fifties, this color scheme appeared in two movies of 1954: "A
Star is Born" (George Cukor)(after the opening scene, which is multi-
colored) and "Masterson of Kansas" (William Castle). Later, versions
were used by Vincente Minnelli in "The Reluctant Debutante" (where
it is mixed with gold) and "Some Came Running".
Variations of the scheme appeared in "Trainspotting" (Danny Boyle)
(not a film I liked) and even lesser current films. It is turning
into something of a cliche. Still, in the hands of most of the
filmmakers above, it is really fascinating to watch. I went back
to "Psycho" for a second time, just to watch the colors.

Mike Grost
4752

From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:10pm
Subject: Re: The Isle

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> > > I saw it at a festival and liked it. I like the way he creates the
> > > milieu; I like the ghastly bits;
>
> I guess I have "issues" with the ghastly bits, but something about the milieu
was exceptional...
>
> In any case, Elizabeth, this is hardly realism..... then again one can nearly
pick a
> commercial film at random where trauma never leads to hemorrhage or
infection...
Agreed, the events aren't real in terms of their outcome, but these are real
events that can happen and the setting is real --

>
> > the instruments of mutilation in foreign films are often 'household,
> > craft, or everyday items,' rather than the ubiquitous kitchen knife or
> > gun in American movies. (The movie THE SON held a lot of tension for
> > me because I knew the inherent danger in saws, hammers, ladders, and
> > even a stacking of wood as weapons).
>
> Have you seen "Surrender Dorothy" ? !
>
> -Sam
4753

From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 7:18pm
Subject: SURRENDER DOROTHY

In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:

> > Have you seen "Surrender Dorothy" ? !
> >
> > -Sam

No, but I've put it on my NETFLIX queue...any comments or suggested internet
readings about SURRENDER DOROTHY would be appreciated.
4754

From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 8:20pm
Subject: Re: SURRENDER DOROTHY

> No, but I've put it on my NETFLIX queue...any comments or suggested internet
> readings about SURRENDER DOROTHY would be appreciated.

P.S. Just to make sure, I'm talking about the film by Kevin DiNovis.

(Not the Wizard of Oz "sequel" with Drew Barrymore.......)

-Sam
4755

From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Fri Nov 28, 2003 10:17pm
Subject: Re: SURRENDER DOROTHY

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> > No, but I've put it on my NETFLIX queue...any comments or suggested
internet
> > readings about SURRENDER DOROTHY would be appreciated.
>
> P.S. Just to make sure, I'm talking about the film by Kevin DiNovis.
Right, NETFLIX has broadened its library as the competition has increased.

A bold, compelling psychosexual cross-dressing drama that offers a different
twist in its treatment of same-sex relationships. A troubling but bracing
departure from the typical gay-themed films today, Surrender Dorothy is a tale
that is infused with moments of both intense drama and black comedy.
4756

From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 2:01am
Subject: Re: SURRENDER DOROTHY

Sounds like the below was written by automatic film-description software...

It's *far* from how I'd describe the film.... it's not at all accurate...see for yourself....

-Sam

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan" wrote:
> A bold, compelling psychosexual cross-dressing drama that offers a different
> twist in its treatment of same-sex relationships. A troubling but bracing
> departure from the typical gay-themed films today, Surrender Dorothy is a tale
> that is infused with moments of both intense drama and black comedy.
4757

From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 7:34am
Subject: What's wrong with this sentence?

"Also, as an auteurist, I can never forget that Mr. Allen has given us Annie Hall (1977) and Manhattan (1979), anymore than I could've forgotten Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941) and The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) in light of his declining talents in later years."

--Andrew Sarris, New York Observer, 9/29/03

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7942
4758

From: jaketwilson
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 9:08am
Subject: Re: Horror

> > Where do folks think "The Isle" (Kim Ki-Duk) falls on this
chart ?
> >
> > I have serious reasons for not liking this film, but I confess
> it "got under my skin"
> >
> > Uh, so to speak. Sorry.....
> >
> > -Sam
>
> I have serious reasons too, but the girl's stubborn, unsmiling
> concentration on what she's doing reminded me of Keaton (Buster).
> Until the gruesomeness gets out of hands it really got me hooked.
>
> JPC

I was reminded of Keaton, too -- he certainly could have done a lot
with all those boats and huts and trapdoors. I also thought for some
reason of DEEP END (Skolimowski, not the RECKLESS MOMENT remake).

JTW
4759

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 11:56am
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

Declining TALENTS?
4760

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 0:01pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

I can never forget Mr. Sarris's The American Cinema in light of his
declining talents in later years.
4761

From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 0:46pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

jess_l_amortell wrote:

>"Also, as an auteurist, I can never forget that Mr. Allen has given us Annie Hall (1977) and Manhattan (1979), anymore than I could've forgotten Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941) and The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) in light of his declining talents in later years."
>
>--Andrew Sarris, New York Observer, 9/29/03
>
>
>
Well, not everyone will agree with me about what's wrong, but

1. The two Allen films he names are stylistically bland and worthless,
whatever merits one does or does not find in script, acting, etc. (And
I've seen them too long ago to engage in a detailed debate.)

2. Obviously most of us agree that Welles didn't decline.

3. In my version of auteurism, being convinced a director's "decline"
would at least cause a reconsideration of the earlier films. My general
observation is that great directors get better and bad ones get worse.
Even figures like Vidor and Ray, whose last Hollywood films may not have
been so great, redeemed themselves later. While there may be a few
exceptions to this, it's common that a director who is commonly believed
to have "declined," or who was believed to have declined by
pre-auteurist sensibilities, but whom auteurists will recognize as only
getting greater: Ford, Hitchcock, Griffith, Lang. I'm not insisting that
the last few films be the best, only that if there was a "peak" it came
relatively late in the director's career.

One pretty certain exception is Aldrich: whatever the (minor, in my
view) merits of "Twilight's Last Gleaming" or "All The Mables..." (he
has worse later films than these), they're in a whole different league
from "Kiss Me Deadly" or "The Legend of Lylah Clare."

Also, I disagree slightly with Bill: FILM CULTURE 28, Sarris's "American
Directors" issue, is even better than the book Bill cites. I can no
longer cite specifics, but I remember well that when the book came out
it seemed to me that every change I noticed in either writing or
rankings was a change for the worse.

Sarris's "last hurrah" for me was his great review of "Seven Women," a
lone voice in the wilderness that correctly called it true film poetry.
But I also admit to not having read his later books, only some of the
later "Voice" and a few of the "Observer" columns.

- Fred
4762

From: filipefurtado
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 2:19pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

>
> One pretty certain exception is Aldrich: whatever the (minor
, in my
> view) merits of "Twilight's Last Gleaming" or "All The Mable
s..." (he
> has worse later films than these), they're in a whole differ
ent league
> from "Kiss Me Deadly" or "The Legend of Lylah Clare."

Let me disagree here. I think Aldrich best period is beetwen
68-76, and I would takeGrimsom Gang or The Emperor of the
North over his more celebrated classics any day (with
exception of Kiss Me Deadly). After Twlight's Lsst Gleaming
(which I think is great), things really looked worse.

Filipe

---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
4763

From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 2:53pm
Subject: Subject: Re: SURRENDER DOROTHY

You are correct; I should have made it clear the description was from
the NETFLIX site.

> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 02:01:06 -0000
> From: "samfilms2003"
> Subject: Re: SURRENDER DOROTHY
>
> Sounds like the below was written by automatic film-description
> software...
> It's *far* from how I'd describe the film.... it's not at all
> accurate...see for yourself....
> -Sam
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
> wrote:
>> A bold, compelling psychosexual cross-dressing drama that offers a
>> different
>> twist in its treatment of same-sex relationships. A troubling but
>> bracing
>> departure from the typical gay-themed films today, Surrender Dorothy
>> is a tale
>> that is infused with moments of both intense drama and black comedy.
4764

From: vincent lobrutto
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:53pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

>"Also, as an auteurist, I can never forget that Mr. Allen has given us Annie
Hall (1977) and Manhattan (1979), anymore than I could've forgotten Orson
Welles' Citizen Kane (1941) and The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) in light of his
declining talents in later years."
>
>--Andrew Sarris, New York Observer, 9/29/03

Several things are wrong with this sentence least of all in my view the issue of declining talent.

It is a sad state of affairs that a man who created such an important critical theory - one very useful up to a point continues to not get it.

There are many reasons why the films cited are good or great. Of course what a filmmaker has to say, the clarity of their vision, the importance of their material is essential. But Sarris and many auteurists still don't get it. The director is the prime author of a film but it is impossible for me not to look at who their collaborators were on a project and the point of time it was made. Filmmakers often respond to the world around them - it may be in a realistic mode or a totally abstract or metaphorical manner. Just look at the collaborators Allen and Welles had then and follow the trail throughout their careers. As stated before Gordon Willis is largely responsible for the visual style of Annie Hall and Manhattan and those visual ideas and concepts can be seen throughout his body of work with other directors. Apply the auteur theory to cinematographers, editors, production designers and others and you will arrive at the revelations I have experiences with decades of investigation
into the film crafts. Many of the directors admired here had wonderfull narrative gifts, or the ability to communicate with actors but were not responsible for all of the stylisic flourishes that autuerists attribute to them. What is wrong with this statement is that Andrew Sarris can not get off the dime - no director, not even Kubrick, Fellini, Bergman, Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Scorsese etc makes a movie by themselves - their vision is translated by the crafts and the craft artists. In some cases the contributions are sizeable in other subtle but still significant. It is really time to expand the autuer theory and have it reflect the way films are really made.

Vinny

>

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4765

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:55pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

> >--Andrew Sarris, New York Observer, 9/29/03
> >
> >
> >
> Well, not everyone will agree with me about what's wrong, but
>
> 1. The two Allen films he names are stylistically bland and
worthless,
> whatever merits one does or does not find in script, acting, etc.
(And
> I've seen them too long ago to engage in a detailed debate.)
>

Fred, isn't "bland and worthless" a bit of an over-statement?
Especially since you can't support your claim, having seen the films
too long ago. Aren't you indulging in a bit of old-time auteurist
terrorism? Although there are Allen films that I much prefer
(Stardust Memories, Zelig, Another Woman, Crimes and Misdemeanors,
Husbands and Wife, among others)I don't see how any one can seriously
call them worthless. Is it just because they are universally admired
and loved? Are you saying that Allen has not "declined" because he
was always "worthless" and not an auteur?

Aside from that I agree with most of your post. On Aldrich, I'd agree
that he never made another film that approaches "Kiss Me Deadly" but
that doesn't make his late career worthless. "Emperor of the North
Pole" (original title) is a great, sadly underrated movie.
JPC
> >
> - Fred
4766

From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:55pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> 3. In my version of auteurism, being convinced a director's "decline"
> would at least cause a reconsideration of the earlier films.

Yes, I guess what surprised me more than the opinions was the somewhat revised/reduced conception of auteurism, as if it were no more than an agreement to excuse a director's supposed failures in light of his/her successes, like "let's tolerate Seven Women because of The Informer" or something. In the same column he writes: "Ms. Coppola has ...conquered the sophomore jinx for auteurs...", which (granted the variety of possible meanings of the term) struck me as being more or less the way non-auteurists would use it.
4767

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:00pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> >
> > 3. In my version of auteurism, being convinced a
director's "decline"
> > would at least cause a reconsideration of the earlier films.
>
>
> Yes, I guess what surprised me more than the opinions was the
somewhat revised/reduced conception of auteurism, as if it were no
more than an agreement to excuse a director's supposed failures in
light of his/her successes, like "let's tolerate Seven Women because
of The Informer" or something.

Of course it should be "let's tolerate The Informer because of
Seven Women."
JPC
4768

From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:02pm
Subject: Late Aldrich

I would argue that, after Kiss Me Deadly, Ulzana's Raid (1972) is Aldrich's
best film and I think it is a considerably more mature and complex film than
KMD, although it doesn't have the over-the-top lunacy that lifts the earlier
film . . . well, over the top. Twilight's is probably his last fully
realized work, a really intelligent and dense film (which features some of
the most sophisticated use of split screen in a narrative film ever). But
after that, oy.

George Robinson

Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
4769

From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:07pm
Subject: New e-mail address

Sorry for the personal-ish message, but
due to some bureaucratic/corporate fiddle-faddle at my ISP, my e-mail
address has changed. My new address is:

grcomm@g...

Mail sent to the old address will be forwarded automatically for the
foreseeable future -- they're a little unclear on how long that will be --
but the new address is in effect right now.

Sorry for the inconvenience (especially if you are getting multiple copies
of this).

George Robinson

Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
4770

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:18pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

> 3. In my version of auteurism, being convinced a director's "decline"
> would at least cause a reconsideration of the earlier films. My general
> observation is that great directors get better and bad ones get worse.

I guess I differ from many auteurists, in that I notice no pattern in
the shape of good filmmakers' careers. The "great late period" model is
very satisfying, not least in that it's a way to get in the face of the
many critics who care only about the latest big thing. But I see all
sorts of arcs when I look at the careers of directors I like, as well as
lots of breakdowns and inexplicable changes.

However, one of the things I most love about auteurism is the humility
it encourages in the face of artistry. I very much like the idea that,
if we don't like the recent or late works of a good director, we are
expected to take into account the possibility that he or she is simply
ahead of us. I am very uncomfortable with all kinds of criticism (for
instance, almost all rock music criticism) in which decline and fall is
expected. For one thing, I think this attitude plays into one of the
least attractive aspects of journalism, its need for new material and
new fads to stimulate jaded audiences and writers. For another thing,
it encourages critics to indulge their natural and unattractive tendency
to put themselves above the artist, looking down as a judge instead of
up as a student. - Dan
4771

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:21pm
Subject: Decline and fall

One glaring exception to Fred's theory: Buster Keaton. No one doubts
that he was an auteur. So what do you make of his MGM talkies?
JPC
4772

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:26pm
Subject: Re: Late Aldrich

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> I would argue that, after Kiss Me Deadly, Ulzana's Raid (1972) is
Aldrich's
> best film and I think it is a considerably more mature and complex
film than
> KMD, although it doesn't have the over-the-top lunacy that lifts
the earlier
> film . . . well, over the top. Twilight's is probably his last fully
> realized work, a really intelligent and dense film (which features
some of
> the most sophisticated use of split screen in a narrative film
ever). But
> after that, oy.
>
> George Robinson
>

I agree on Ulzana's Raid, also my favorite Aldrich after KMD. and
i can't think why I didn't mention it in my earlier post. It's almost
as underrated as Emperor...
JPC
> Suppose you were an idiot.
> And suppose you were a member of Congress.
> But I repeat myself.
> -- Mark Twain
4773

From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:28pm
Subject: Re: Decline and fall

Keaton's talkies are the product of two forces -- his drinking and the
brutalizing nature of the MGM factory. And they are very, very bad movies
from a very great filmmaker.

George Robinson

Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain

----- Original Message -----
From: "jpcoursodon"
To:
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 11:21 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Decline and fall

> One glaring exception to Fred's theory: Buster Keaton. No one doubts
> that he was an auteur. So what do you make of his MGM talkies?
> JPC
>
4774

From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: Late Aldrich

Yes, Emperor is a wonderful film and sadly neglected. The fact that the
studio panicked and didn't know what to do with it probably didn't help.

What could they possibly have been thinking when the dropped "Pole" from the
title? As if that would boost box-office.

George Robinson

Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
4775

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:32pm
Subject: Re: What is wrong with this sentence?

1. I don't think Allen or Welles declined, but I don't think they are
comparable: Welles is a cineaste, Allen is just an auteur (hence
highly susceptible to reflecting changes of personnel). I like their
early and late work, but they're hardly in the same league.

2. I like Aldrich's early and late work, although obviously the
script of Kiss Me Deadly was special - I'd love to see Twilight's
Last Gleaming again just for kicks. And BTW, there's a later film
than All the Marbles kicking around on 16mm somewhere - a grosser-
than-Sister-George melodrama starring Anne Sothern that RA shot with
Dogville sets as a previsualization of something he ultimately
couldn't raise money for. His family has it. MIA alert, Peter T....

3. The Informer was Sam Fuller's favorite film - I don't think anyone
has to apologize for it. But it's an interesting case of what happens
when a consumate auteur-metteur en scene-cineaste is looking for his
myth, as Ford was in the 30s. It's a brilliantly written, acted and
filmed movie that is wholly engaged with the history of cinema up
till then and with History as well. It just doesn't connect to the
deepest archetypes in Ford's soul, so it doesn't live the way, say,
Wagonmaster does. So in this case it was a failure of the auteur to
find the right material, even though the other two parts of his
talent were cooking on all four burners. That still ain't chopped
liver.

4. I think the shocking decline of Sarris as a critic is a very
interesting subject for study and discussion. He started off, as Fred
says, very good, and should have just kept getting better. It's
probably not a unique case - in fact, it's a useful cautionary tale
for us all.

One standard answer which certainly seems to apply to many daily
reviewers is that history passed him by. Bosley Crowther, I'm
told, "got" neo-realism, but obviously very little that came after. I
believe Vincent Canby was pretty well attuned to the 70s. etc.

Another answer less often heard is Vinny's collaborator theory, which
I don't agree with a whole lot on film (I can filter those
contributions), but do, oddly, on the less collaborative art of
criticism. I believe the Cahiers critics of the 50s and their equally
brilliant counterparts of the 60s and 70s got a lot of ideas from
each other, and declined as critics when they were on their own. Who
was Sarris talking to in the Film Culture days? At a certain point,
it was Molly Haskell, and that was disatrous for Sarris the critic,
if not for Sarris the man. And I continue to see examples of this -
look at what happened to Richard Jameson. That is is one big reason
why I'm so happy that a_film_by exists.
4776

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:34pm
Subject: Re: Decline and fall

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> Keaton's talkies are the product of two forces -- his drinking and
the
> brutalizing nature of the MGM factory. And they are very, very bad
movies
> from a very great filmmaker.
>
> George Robinson
>
> We all know that, George. I spent a hundred pages analyzing this
sad phenomenon. Whatever the reasons, I was making the point that an
auteur is not necessarily an auteur and a great one forever.
JPC
> Suppose you were an idiot.
> And suppose you were a member of Congress.
> But I repeat myself.
> -- Mark Twain
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jpcoursodon"
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 11:21 AM
> Subject: [a_film_by] Decline and fall
>
>
> > One glaring exception to Fred's theory: Buster Keaton. No one
doubts
> > that he was an auteur. So what do you make of his MGM talkies?
> > JPC
> >
4777

From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:34pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

I agree completely with Dan about the dangers of journalism, and about
the humilty encouraged by auteurism. And his turnabout is right too:
just as one might reconsider good early works in light of late bad ones,
so I am always suspicious of a cliam that a great auteur has made a bad
film, and certainly such a film seen only once is always ripe for
reevaluation. Filipe and George mention three of the best late Aldrich
films, all of which I've seen twice -- and sorry, I 've only seen
"Twlight's Last Gleaming" once, so maybe I'd like it more on later
viewings. And I did think "All the Marbles..." had something. Also, he's
always been uneven, even within films: "Four For Texas" has a great
scene or two; "Lylah Clare" is great while "The Killing of Sister
Goerge" isn't much good at all.

About Woodly Allen,:
4778

From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

Sorry, last one sent too soon

Re my comments on "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan""

jpcoursodon wrote:

>>>--
>>>
> Aren't you indulging in a bit of old-time auteurist
>terrorism?
>
I suppose, if you mean the sort that sneers at someone who likes Bergman
and that sort of thing. But then we do allow for the occasional
unjustified claim or assertion of taste here.

Also, I called them "stylistically bland and worthless" -- I meant
"stylistically bland and stylistically worthless." I don't mind if
people want to find merit in their unitegrated elements like plot,
acting, script. And I really shouldn't say anything more about Allen
except that it totally baffles me how people could make any claims for
him at all beyond the level of claiming interesting social comment,
enjoyable stories and gags, whatever. But I've seen almost nothing, so I
shouldn't have made my original comment, as I'm not really prepared to
debate his oeuvre.

- Fred
4779

From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: What is wrong with this sentence?

Having been a student of Sarris's for several years at Columbia I won't
comment at too great length on what happened to him except to say that Andy
doesn't like to work real hard. Changing from the Voice to the Observer
re-energized him for a while -- he was writing better, fresher stuff even if
I didn't always agree with his critical judgment -- but I think there comes
a point when every full-time film critic should take a year or two off.

George Robinson
4780

From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: What is wrong with this sentence?

Bill, I agree very much with your "collaborative" theory. I know I was
very influenced by what I read at the beginning, which included a heavy
dose of Sarris, as well as by my friends in Cambridge and at Yale, and I
know I influenced them too.

hotlove666 wrote:

>Who was Sarris talking to in the Film Culture days?
>
Eugene Archer. I think they were even roommates for a time. I know
Sarris has acknowledged Archer's importance to his early criticism. And
Archer was reading Cahiers.

Now it's time to hear from someone who has studied Sarris more than I,
such as Mr. Ciccone?

- Fred
4781

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:59pm
Subject: Sarris

> 4. I think the shocking decline of Sarris as a critic is a very
> interesting subject for study and discussion. He started off, as Fred
> says, very good, and should have just kept getting better.

We're in a public forum, of course, and Sarris's work has been
immeasurably important to me, so I'm hesitant to dwell on the aspects or
periods of his writing that don't work for me.

I think that an auteurist and a non-auteurist have always co-existed
within Sarris. Which is probably not an unusual thing. In the period
of his work that is most important to me (1961-1976, maybe?), the
auteurist was the part of himself that he ratified. He was always open
about whatever mixed feelings he experienced, but he mostly treated his
other impulses as subject matter rather than as a viewpoint he wanted to
put across. I believe that, at a certain point, for whatever reason,
Sarris began to feel that the non-auteurist side of himself deserved
critical legitimacy. If there's a problem with his recent writing, it's
that he still uses auteurist critical language to describe experiences
for which it doesn't seem suited - for instance, formal analysis that
winds up centering on the look in an actress's eyes. Obviously
everything is fair game for formal analysis, but it requires great rigor
to talk about an actress's eyes in ways that others can relate to. - Dan
4782

From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 5:04pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, vincent lobrutto
wrote:
>
>
> "There are many reasons why the films cited are good or great. Of
course what a filmmaker has to say, the clarity of their vision, the
importance of their material is essential."

What do you mean by the importance of the material? Is "big themes"
vs. "little themes?"

"But Sarris and many auteurists still don't get it. The director is
the prime author of a film but it is impossible for me not to look at
who their collaborators were on a project and the point of time it
was made."

As to the director being the prime author of a film, sometimes the
collaborators have more to do with the final product. Some directors
are litle more than traffic cops, so I would argue that not all
directors are auteurs.

"Apply the auteur theory to cinematographers, editors, production
designers and others and you will arrive at the revelations I have
experiences with decades of investigation into the film crafts."

It would be interesting to read a history of the film crafts. Many
auteurs who started in the early days, Ford for example (and
obviously Griffith) worked with monochromatic black & white in hand-
cranked cameras and shot thier films outdoors (including roofless
sets in the open for interiors.) Many auteurs who started in the
teens and '20s mastered a wide range of technical innovations such as
motorized cameras, panchromatic B & W, sound, color, wide screen
formats, etc. Ford ended shooting in color and Panavision on a sound
stage. These auteurs learned the crafts as they were being created
and created some of these crafts.

"no director, not even Kubrick, Fellini, Bergman, Hitchcock,
Kurosawa, Scorsese etc makes a movie by themselves - their vision is
translated by the crafts and the craft artists. In some cases the
contributions are sizeable in other subtle but still significant. It
is really time to expand the autuer theory and have it reflect the
way films are really made."

But some filmmakers are very nearly wholly responsible for thier
work. Take a look at THE MOVING PICTURE GIVING AND TAKING BOOK by
Stan Brakhage, especially part I. Since the "American Directors"
issue of FILM CULTURE is often cited, it's important to note that the
next issue was "Americn Directors, Part II" and had articles about or
by Jack Smith, Brakhage, Baille, Maya Deren, etc. Like Fred I favor
an expansive version of auterism. Just as those who apprciate
painting view with pleasure and understanding the works of, say,
Rubens (who produced his paintings in a workshop with the assistance
of many collaborators) and, say, Jackson Pollack who worked alone,
one can view the films of Ford and Baille and appreciate the singular
beauties they've created from a common medium.

Richard

Richard
4783

From: filipefurtado
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 5:25pm
Subject: Re: Sarris

Bill, in Who thedevil Made It, Bogdanovich says that the Film
Culture 28 wasactually a collaborative effort beetwen Sarris
and Eugene Archer (who didn't get credit because of his
position at the Times) and he also says that Archer's ideas
were very clear through much of The American Cinema as well.

I agree with Dan about Sarris having two sides, even The
American Cinema seems to have as much attacks against anti-
auteurists as against hardcore auteurists.

I pretty much dislike the majority of Sarris recent work (but
on ocasion he still menage to make a very good review), to
borrow something Zach said to me, he seems to have becoming
more Kaelian than Kael herself sometimes.

Filipe

> > 4. I think the shocking decline of Sarris as a critic is a
very
> > interesting subject for study and discussion. He started o
ff, as Fred
> > says, very good, and should have just kept getting better.

>
> We're in a public forum, of course, and Sarris's work has be
en
> immeasurably important to me, so I'm hesitant to dwell on th
e aspects or
> periods of his writing that don't work for me.
>
> I think that an auteurist and a non-
auteurist have always co-existed
> within Sarris. Which is probably not an unusual thing. In
the period
> of his work that is most important to me (1961-
1976, maybe?), the
> auteurist was the part of himself that he ratified. He was
always open
> about whatever mixed feelings he experienced, but he mostly
treated his
> other impulses as subject matter rather than as a viewpoint
he wanted to
> put across. I believe that, at a certain point, for whateve
r reason,
> Sarris began to feel that the non-
auteurist side of himself deserved
> critical legitimacy. If there's a problem with his recent w
riting, it's
> that he still uses auteurist critical language to describe e
xperiences
> for which it doesn't seem suited -
for instance, formal analysis that
> winds up centering on the look in an actress's eyes. Obviou
sly
> everything is fair game for formal analysis, but it requires
great rigor
> to talk about an actress's eyes in ways that others can rela
te to. - Dan
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
--------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon
or Lexmark
> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the
US & Canada.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/b5IolB/TM
> ------------------------------------------------------------
---------~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.co
m/info/terms/
>
>
>

---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
4784

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 5:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: What is wrong with this sentence?

--- hotlove666 wrote:
Who
> was Sarris talking to in the Film Culture days? At a
> certain point,
> it was Molly Haskell, and that was disatrous for
> Sarris the critic,
> if not for Sarris the man.

Well I talked to Sarris quite a lot in his "Film
Culture" days. As a matter of fact I get a "thank you"
in "Confessions of a Cultist" for turning him on to
Joe McGrath's "The Bliss of Mrs. Blossom."

The cinema that once interested Sarris simply doesn't
exist anymore.

And he wasn't a lone voice in the wilderness re"Seven
Women." I wrote a take-no-prisoners defense of it for
"December" -- a marvelous Chicago-based arts magazine
edited by Robert Wilson -- who is also responsible for
collecting the film criticism of Otis Ferguson. He
also was instrumental in reviving interest in Manny
Farber.

A lot of critical attitudes are simply old-Fashioned
knee-jerk anti-intellectualism. For years it was easy
for critics to say that "The Informer" was great and
Ford went downhill after that. Auteurism corrected
that. Likewise with Hitchcock. The British films were
long considered sperior to the American ones as a
matter of course. Today you can barely get people
interested to even look at the British Hitch.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4785

From: vincent lobrutto
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 5:27pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Richard Modiano wrote:

"What do you mean by the importance of the material? Is "big themes"
vs. "little themes?"

The story, the content, the subject, the narrative, any and all themes.

"As to the director being the prime author of a film, sometimes the
collaborators have more to do with the final product. Some directors
are litle more than traffic cops, so I would argue that not all
directors are auteurs."

This is precisely my point - some, possibly many of the directors discussed among us are little more than traffic cops - in my view a great filmmaker, film director, an auteur is able to apply or harness all of the film crafts in their work.

It would be interesting to read a history of the film crafts. Many
auteurs who started in the early days, Ford for example (and
obviously Griffith) worked with monochromatic black & white in hand-
cranked cameras and shot thier films outdoors (including roofless
sets in the open for interiors.) Many auteurs who started in the
teens and '20s mastered a wide range of technical innovations such as
motorized cameras, panchromatic B & W, sound, color, wide screen
formats, etc. Ford ended shooting in color and Panavision on a sound
stage. These auteurs learned the crafts as they were being created
and created some of these crafts."

Richard, go to the library and look through "Selected Takes", "By Design", "Sound-On-Film". and Principal Photography" these books are oral histories of the film crafts. Trying to attribute the creation of the crafts largely to auteur directors over the men and women who spent their creative lives developing these crafts to serve the vision and purpose of a film and its director is insulting and presents a narrow understanding of film history.

But some filmmakers are very nearly wholly responsible for thier
work. Take a look at THE MOVING PICTURE GIVING AND TAKING BOOK by
Stan Brakhage, especially part I. Since the "American Directors"
issue of FILM CULTURE is often cited, it's important to note that the
next issue was "Americn Directors, Part II" and had articles about or
by Jack Smith, Brakhage, Baille, Maya Deren, etc. Like Fred I favor
an expansive version of auterism. Just as those who apprciate
painting view with pleasure and understanding the works of, say,
Rubens (who produced his paintings in a workshop with the assistance
of many collaborators) and, say, Jackson Pollack who worked alone,
one can view the films of Ford and Baille and appreciate the singular
beauties they've created from a common medium.

You are avoiding my issue with Sarris and many (not all) auteur critics. Of course we should be expansive. I have been admiring the beauty of Baillie, Brakhage, Snow, Anger, Deren, and Smith's (Jack and Harry) since 1967. Instead of playing contrarian contemplate that films whether they are made by a group or an individual are created utilizing the film crafts. Too often here filmmakers are "credited" with accomplishments they had little or nothing to do with. A sincere and comprehensive study of the crafts and those who work in them would clearly reveal this point rather than this endless hero worship of some filmmakers who have a dim understanding of their medium.

Vinny

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4786

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 5:34pm
Subject: Sound Keaton

Rohmer likes them. He made UA distribute one of them as a short with
one of the Moral Tales.
4787

From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 5:50pm
Subject: Re: Sarris

> it requires great rigor
> to talk about an actress's eyes in ways that others can relate to. - Dan

And I'd still value that particular column if only for observations (auteurist or otherwise) like "...Mr. Murray gets all the laughs with his exquisite timing and wry delivery, but Ms. Johansson makes an eloquent and charismatic listener; it's in her alert and intelligent responses to Bob's malaise that his passions toward her are ignited."
4788

From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:12pm
Subject: EMPEROR OF THE NORTH

EMPEROR OF THE NORTH must have seemed kind of violent at the time with
the hand to hand hammer sledging and the steel shank bouncing up from
the railroad ties. Blunt trauma pain is pain audiences can identify
with (if only in accidental occurrences), unlike knife stabs and bullet
wounds.

There will be an Ernest Borgnine retrospective someday, and EMPEROR of
the NORTH will get some attention then. Those scene on the top of the
train roofs are more daring than what we see today in many action /
adventure movies. I watched FIGHT CLUB last night in an audience of
mostly males. It dawns on me that EMPEROR OF THE NORTH should run as a
double bill.

> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:55:31 -0000
> From: "jpcoursodon"
>
> "Emperor of the North
> Pole" (original title) is a great, sadly underrated movie.
> JPC
4789

From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:27pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, vincent lobrutto wrote:
> You are avoiding my issue with Sarris and many (not all) auteur critics. Of course
we should be expansive. I have been admiring the beauty of Baillie, Brakhage,
Snow, Anger, Deren, and Smith's (Jack and Harry) since 1967. Instead of playing
contrarian contemplate that films whether they are made by a group or an
individual are created utilizing the film crafts. Too often here filmmakers are
"credited" with accomplishments they had little or nothing to do with. A sincere and
comprehensive study of the crafts and those who work in them would clearly reveal
this point rather than this endless hero worship of some filmmakers who have a
dim understanding of their medium.

But Vinny, that'll be a lot of work !

Seriously, *sometime* that work WILL have to be done, I think, if we really are going
to have a History that is as responsible to its subject as histories in other fields are
expected to be.

-Sam Wells
4790

From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:34pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano" wrote:

> one can view the films of Ford and Baille and appreciate the singular
> beauties they've created from a common medium.

One can also, I suppose, look at an axis --- for instance, Apocalypse Now (Re or
PreDux) doesn't do much for me me in terms of Coppola <-> Milius; but as
Coppola <-> Storaro, I'm a fan....

(I remember saying to someone after seeing Stardust Memories "it's a great Gordon
Willis movie")

-Sam
4791

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:52pm
Subject: Re: Sound Keaton

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Rohmer likes them. He made UA distribute one of them as a short
with
> one of the Moral Tales.

Can you be more specific, Bill?
4792

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Late Aldrich

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> Yes, Emperor is a wonderful film and sadly neglected. The fact that
the
> studio panicked and didn't know what to do with it probably didn't
help.
>
> What could they possibly have been thinking when the dropped "Pole"
from the
> title? As if that would boost box-office.

Yes. I saw a press screening in New York with the full title and
I think the initial release had the full title too (John
Willis's "Screen World" lists it under the original title). Then some
people at Fox must have decided audiences were staying away because
they thought it was about some polar expedition, or about Eskimos.
The shortened title is, of course, meaningless, and audiences
continued to stay away... Aldrich said Borgnine's performance was the
best of his career and it's probably accurate.
JPC
>
> George Robinson
>
> Suppose you were an idiot.
> And suppose you were a member of Congress.
> But I repeat myself.
> -- Mark Twain
4793

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 7:41pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> > (I remember saying to someone after seeing Stardust
Memories "it's a great Gordon
> Willis movie")
>
> -Sam

True, yet very unfair to Allen. And you could have said the
same (just as unfairly) about Zelig and Manhattan (to stick to black
and white).
JPC
4794

From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 8:03pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
>
> "Also, as an auteurist, I can never forget that Mr. Allen has given
us Annie Hall (1977) and Manhattan (1979), anymore than I could've
forgotten Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941) and The Magnificent
Ambersons (1942) in light of his declining talents in later years."
>
> --Andrew Sarris, New York Observer, 9/29/03

One thing I find odd about Sarris's statement is that he had always
been a great supporter of Welles's post-Ambersons work, and had set
forth that Lady From Shanghai, Touch of Evil, etc. were at least as
worthwhile as Kane. In fact, he listed Mr. Arkadin as his number two
film of 1962 (after Liberty Valence) and Chimes At Midnight as number
6 in '67. Also, he called the restored Macbeth the third best
picture of 1980. I had never heard him mention Welles's
supposed "declining talents." It's almost as if Sarris has amnesia
about his own critical evaluations.
4795

From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 8:21pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

> > > (I remember saying to someone after seeing Stardust
> Memories "it's a great Gordon
> > Willis movie")

> True, yet very unfair to Allen. And you could have said the
> same (just as unfairly) about Zelig and Manhattan (to stick to black
> and white).
> JPC

I wasn't being "fair" - I really disliked Stardust Memories.
But parts of it really were something to look at.

I rather like Zelig. Manhattan - no opinion.

-Sam
4796

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 9:58pm
Subject: Re: Sarris

--- filipefurtado wrote:
> Bill, in Who thedevil Made It, Bogdanovich says that
> the Film
> Culture 28 wasactually a collaborative effort
> beetwen Sarris
> and Eugene Archer (who didn't get credit because of
> his
> position at the Times) and he also says that
> Archer's ideas
> were very clear through much of The American Cinema
> as well.

Archer has a wonderfully wry acting turn in Rohmer's
"La Collectionneuse."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4797

From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 10:38pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?

Dan:

> I am very uncomfortable with all kinds of criticism (for
> instance, almost all rock music criticism) in which decline and fall is
> expected. For one thing, I think this attitude plays into one of the
> least attractive aspects of journalism, its need for new material and
> new fads to stimulate jaded audiences and writers. For another thing,
> it encourages critics to indulge their natural and unattractive
> tendency
> to put themselves above the artist, looking down as a judge instead of
> up as a student.

I agree with the feeling here. But why must critics/cinephiles be
students? Isn't this the exact opposite of being above the filmmaker
(as a judge)? I think it's possible to find a more comfortable
middleground, where critics can look at filmmakers as equals, capable
of the same greatness and of the same errors. For example what Serge
Daney was to Godard and vice versa. What do you think Dan? As a
beginner cinephile, I had my "student" period --like everybody else --
where I took in films, "classics", as the works of masters who *know*
about cinema and could teach me. But I didn't stay in that milieu
forever.

Gabe
4798

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 11:12pm
Subject: Who Is the Author of Apocalypse Now?

Commenting on posts by Vinny and Sam: I read every script of
Apocalypse Now, and Milius's contribution was enormous. Everything I
like, just about: Kilgore (word for word), the bunny show, the tiger,
the bridge and the recently added scene of the mud-hole camp,
although Coppola's brilliant visualization of the latter really took
it somewhere Milius hadn't envisioned. I am less fond of Coppola's
solo contributions, although the improvised scene where they massacre
the sampan people is great.

Nonetheless, filming what's left of Milius's script, and the rest of
it, Coppola made a very different film from what Milius would have
made, while still getting the maximum out of Milius's scenes - and
that includes the "political message," for example, in the first
Kilgore scene. Coppola made it clearer that we are seeing people
being transferred to a "strategic hamlet," for example, by
translating what the voice on the loudspeaker is saying. Nonetheless,
he completely discarded the style envisioned by Lucas and Milius and
did something diametrically opposed to what they had planned.

I am less happy with the changes he made in the script - I don't
think he understood Conrad or the "heart of darkness," which are
relatively unimportant in Milius's first draft. When Coppola became
the director Milius gamely came up with a "heart of darkness" scene
where Kurtz remembers how his montagnards went into a cave filled
with hundreds of black cobras, who killed them all before being
burned out with flamethrowers. But Coppola wanted "We are the hollow
men..."

And I still think Milius, in his last draft, came up with the best
ending. (See my previous post when we were talking about Milius.)

I haven't seen production documents, so I'm not going to comment on
Storaro's contribution or Tavoularis' contribution or Murch's
contribution, which were obviously great, as were the contributions
of Robert Burks, Henry Bumstead and Bernard Herrmann on Vertigo - for
that film, I went to some trouble in Hitchck at Work to give Angus
MacPhail his due for the first time, and I'm happy that Patrick
MacGilligan followed me on that. If you add up those four and throw
in Samuel Taylor (I discount Coppel's contribution pretty much, pace
Charles Barr), you may just have a collection of talent that
outweighs the collaborators on Apocalypse, if only because Herrmann
was the greatest film composer of all.

But none of these people has ever claimed to be the author of
Apocalypse Now and Vertigo, and without hard evidence to the
contrary, I'm not making that claim for them, singly or collectively.
Here's what Milius said about Coppola and his Apocalypse team a
couple of years ago: "Francis worked with people of his generation
when he made APOCALYPSE, and often with unknowns. After GODFATHER 2
he could have had the hottest screenwriter in Hollywood, his
GODFATHER cameraman Gordon Willis... But no, he made my script of
APOCALYPSE NOW; he took Brando to convince the bankers, but the star
of the movie was Martin Sheen; he took Vittorio Storaro, Walter
Murch...You only get the kind of energy you see in APOCALYPSE NOW by
working with revolutionaries."

If ALL he did was assemble those talents, he'd be a great producer,
but I think he did a lot more than that. I think he directed the
picture. Here's Milius again - not a humble man about his work, and
in my opinion the one person besides Coppola who has some claim to
being the author of Apocalypse Now, to a degree that most writers of
most films don't: "I think it's a great film. I don't much like the
new version, although some things have been improved. The new version
contains added scenes that I wrote, and I think he was right to
eliminate them in 1979. But Francis has the right to remake it every
ten years if he wants, because it's his film and it's thanks to him
that it's a great film. If I'd made it I would have filmed it in a
documentary style -- he made it a surreal film."
4799

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 11:14pm
Subject: Re: Sound Keaton

I fear I can't be more specific. It's something I heard in NY at the
time - possibly from John Hughes, who was my ears and eyes in those
days. I didn't see any such program, however. Maybe the distributor
balked at pairing "L'amour apres-midi" and "What, No Beer?"
4800

From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Nov 29, 2003 11:57pm
Subject: Re: The Isle/Sound Keaton

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> In any case, Elizabeth, this is hardly realism..... then again one
can nearly pick a
> commercial film at random where trauma never leads to hemorrhage or
infection...
> (I'd start with the 3 Stooges but that would start a Jules White
thread ;-)
>

Between this reference and the posts about Keaton's sound films, it
looks like a Jules White thread is inevitable (he directed 7 Keaton
sound shorts and co-directed one-feature). All I can say about White
is that his Stooges shorts are much better than those of Edward
Bernds.

a_film_by Main Page

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact