Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
4801
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 0:09am
Subject: Re: Sound Keaton
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> 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?"
I can't imagine anyone (let alone Rohmer) being perverse
(perverted?) to the point of actually liking the Keaton sound
features.It would mean sadistically enjoying the total humiliation
and desecration of a great artist. Perhaps the most depressing movie
experience of my life was screening all those horrible MGM things in
preparation for my book. And the saddest thing is that they made more
money than his silent masterpieces...
JPC
4802
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 0:33am
Subject: Re: Who Is the Author of Apocalypse Now?
And the answer comes -- Joseph Conrad
--- hotlove666 wrote:
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4803
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 0:35am
Subject: Re: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
And I really dislike "Windows."
--- samfilms2003 wrote:
> > > > (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
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4804
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 0:38am
Subject: Re: Who Is the Author of Apocalypse Now?
OK, but I wasn't attributing authorship per se -- I'm saying what I think worked for
me...
As for "political message" this film manages to acheive what Robert McNamara
never could which is to erase the Vietnamese from their own history.
It's a fascinating cultural artifact however
-Sam
4805
From: jaketwilson
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:36am
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
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.
I'd say we study as cinephiles and judge as critics, but it's
possible to engage in both activities without presuming to stand on
an equal footing with filmmakers. "The claims of art are higher than
the claims of scholarship", and critics who think it takes as much
genius to appreciate beauty as to create it are deluding themselves.
JTW
4806
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:51am
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>> 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?
I am in total agreement with Fred Camper on Woody Allen. A dead on
criticism is the essay "The De-evaluation of Woody Allen" in
Rosenbaum's book "Placing Movies."
4807
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:39am
Subject: Re: Re: Sound Keaton. DVD sale
> I can't imagine anyone (let alone Rohmer) being perverse
> (perverted?) to the point of actually liking the Keaton sound
> features.It would mean sadistically enjoying the total humiliation
> and desecration of a great artist. Perhaps the most depressing movie
> experience of my life was screening all those horrible MGM things in
> preparation for my book. And the saddest thing is that they made more
> money than his silent masterpieces...
Gee, they're not all bad, are they? I actually think PARLOR, BEDROOM
AND BATH is a pretty good film. And LE ROI DE CHAMPS-ELYSEES wasn't bad
either.
By the way, for those of you in the USA: www.deepdiscountdvd.com is
giving 20% off their already low prices if you enter one of these coupon
codes:
dvdtalk
usatoday
Region 1 DVDs only. I have no DVD collection at all, other than LA
NOTTE, which was given to me as a gift, and the two DVDs that came with
my player (THE WEDDING SINGER and THE MASK) - but I just doubled the
size of my collection by ordering Deville's LA FEMME EN BLEU (I was
amazed to find it available - they're also bringing out LE MOUTON ENRAGE
in December), Ferrara's R-XMAS, and Larry Clark's TEENAGE CAVEMAN. - Dan
4808
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:48am
Subject: Re: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
Jake:
> I'd say we study as cinephiles and judge as critics, but it's
> possible to engage in both activities without presuming to stand on
> an equal footing with filmmakers.
No, but to be treated with equal respect as filmmakers, and not just as
an auxiliary part.
> "The claims of art are higher than
> the claims of scholarship", and critics who think it takes as much
> genius to appreciate beauty as to create it are deluding themselves.
I think I understand, but the same greatness in criticism is not the
same greatness in art. Anyway I believe film is a highly analytical art
and that most filmmakers are influenced by criticism one way or the
other.
Gabe
4809
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:51am
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
> 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.
I guess I don't think critics have to act like students in every sense.
Certainly it's good to have the confidence to contribute when you have
something to contribute.
I don't think it's wrong to say something bad about a great director;
but I think it's in poor form to be too cocksure about it. (And in very
poor form to be happy about it.) There's great mystery in this art
form, mystery which we can chip away at but never completely clear away:
I think it's appropriate to have reverence for the sources of that
mystery, and to keep trying to learn from them. - Dan
4810
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:09am
Subject: Re: Re: Who Is the Author of Apocalypse Now?
--- samfilms2003 wrote:
> As for "political message" this film manages to
> acheive what Robert McNamara
> never could which is to erase the Vietnamese from
> their own history.
Which makes it quintessentially American. Our cinema
is always about the effacement of history. We don't
want the truth we want the myth. "Don't print the
facts -- print the legend."
And this is seen as an admirable quality.
No wonder George W. Bush is POTUS.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4811
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:26am
Subject: New Ferrara Flick
Does anyone know about this?
http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=LVD013940
The imdb doesn't yet list it.
Patrick
4812
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:49am
Subject: Re: New Ferrara Flick
> Does anyone know about this?
> http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=LVD013940
>
> The imdb doesn't yet list it.
Looks as if it's in the IMDb as WHITE BOY, directed by John Marino.
It's not clear to me what Ferrara did on the film; his directing credit
at Deep Discount DVD is probably an error. - Dan
4813
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:49am
Subject: Re: New Ferrara Flick
Patrick, that's very good news. I'm going to see if I can rent it
right now.
4814
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:50am
Subject: Re: Who Is the Author of Apocalypsr Now?
David, are you using the Magic 8-Ball again?
4815
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:04am
Subject: Critics and Artists
I'll side with Dan on this one, but also specifically with Gabe
saying crix are better crix than directors, as a rule. Harold Bloom
used to always say Wordsworth would get a B plus in Wordsworth
critcism, and he would...if that. Bloom also of course equated
criticism and poetry because he saw both as forms of (mis)reading.
That's an interesting argument, but I bow to creators when I meet
them.
My question has always been: How can non-geniuses understand genius?
I've known a lot of filmmakers, and they're pretty smart people about
what they do, even if they can't interpret it. I mean, they're REALLY
smart, some of them - smarter than my best teachers, Bloom included.
So when I read someone holding forth on Renoir or Dreyer or
Hitchcock, sometimes I just get the feeling that they aren't smart
ENOUGH to understand what they're talking about. You have to at least
come within spitting distance, and a lot of crix of all stripes
don't. Result: The work is misread in a reductive way, and (in
biographical and critical comments alike) motives are attributed to
artists that would make more sense attributed to a bureaucrat or a
hustling journalist. I see a lot of that.
4816
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:05am
Subject: Re: New Ferrara Flick
Oh, poo.
4817
From: brack_28
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:08am
Subject: Re: New Ferrara Flick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Does anyone know about this?
> > http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=LVD013940
> >
> > The imdb doesn't yet list it.
>
> Looks as if it's in the IMDb as WHITE BOY, directed by John
Marino.
> It's not clear to me what Ferrara did on the film; his directing
credit
> at Deep Discount DVD is probably an error. - Dan
Allmovie.com says Ferrara produced it.
4818
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:14am
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, vincent lobrutto
Vinny I appreciate your response and the reference books. I was
speculating and indulging in some Keatsian "negative capability."
There are still some unresolved and debateable points.
wrote:
"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."
Who for example?
"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."
I didn't mean to imply that all or even most of the film crafts were
created at the behest of auteurs. I was thinking of (adimtedly
anecdotal) accounts of Mizutani Hiroshi who credited Mizoguchi with
innovations in set design when Mizoguchi rejected the studio's
standing period sets intended for GENROKU CHUSHINGURA and asked
Mizutani to construct sets that could accomodate certain crane shots
and camera movements, and gave him directions on how it could be
acomplished and that eventually became standard practice in the
Japanese film industry, or of story told by Jim Glennon (himself a
cinematographer) about his father Bert Glennon who got a low-light
problem solved for him by Sternberg on DOCKS OF NEW YORK that he was
able to apply in other films.
Another interesting anecdote: when the Japanese cinematographer
Otsubo Gengo was interviewd at age 85 in the middle 1970s he told how
Nikkatsu Studios moved production out of the open air by building
glass stages in 1913, and that the cinematogpher had to not only
crank the camera with one hand but adjust the apreture opening with
the other to compensate for light changes. He also said that the
cinematographer developed the film and printed it too. This suggests
that a lot of research needs to be done on the technical crafts of
not just Hollywood but of the cinemas of other nations as well before
a comprehensive history of cinema can be assembled.
As for film history, the historiography of cinema seems to still be
developing and I would certainly like to enlarge my understanding of
film history. What are the most illuminating paradigms at
present?
"You are avoiding my issue with Sarris and many (not all) auteur
critics."
It seems that Sarris has abandoned auterism.
"Too often here filmmakers are "credited" with accomplishments they
had little or nothing to do with."
Possibly an honest mistake on the part of some folks. I'm still
learning myself.
"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."
Every few weeks I get together with a gaffer friend of mine who often
works for the aforementioned Jim Glennon and watch movies from his
16mm collection in the company of ADs and DPs (as they call
themselves) and other gaffers. Since I'm usually the only "civilian"
there I'll raise this issue with them next we meet.
Richard
4819
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:27am
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
> And I really dislike "Windows."
So do I.
I prefer OS X......
-Sam
....never seen it....
4820
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:32am
Subject: Re: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
--- Michael Worrall wrote:
>
> I am in total agreement with Fred Camper on Woody
> Allen. A dead on
> criticism is the essay "The De-evaluation of Woody
> Allen" in
> Rosenbaum's book "Placing Movies."
>
Actually the only two Allen films I really like
haven't been mentioned by anyone. They're "Radio Days"
and "Broadway Danny Rose."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4821
From:
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 0:45am
Subject: Radio Days, Anything Else
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>Actually the only two Allen films I really like
>haven't been mentioned by anyone. They're "Radio Days"
>and "Broadway Danny Rose."
We talked about "Radio Days" a few weeks back - Mike Grost's also a big fan.
And "Broadway Danny Rose" is, I think, a great film; sometimes I think it's
Woody's greatest. I know I'm virtually alone in this group in my admiration
for the directions Woody's gone in the '90s and beyond (though, as it turns out,
there is a tiny subset here who likes his magical musical comedy "Everyone
Says I Love You"), but I'd really urge anyone who has given up on him to see
"Anything Else" when it comes to DVD. It got very tepid reviews and the good
reviews it did get focused on the wrong things - like, in Ebert's case, the
dialogue, which is only fair in my judgment. Where the film really succeeds is on
a formal level with its roomy, well composed widescreen compositions. I talk
a lot about the film's mise-en-scene in my review.
Peter
4822
From:
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:02am
Subject: Late Aldrich
I haven't seen all of the late Aldrich films mentioned, but I have seen his
1975 film "Hustle," which I think is superb. There seems to be a little bit of
a cult for it; Kehr's Chicago Reader capsule calls it "brilliant" and I seem
to remember it being mentioned by someone as a "Guilty Pleasure" in a recent
Film Comment. (Not that that category - FC's "Guilty Pleasures" column - has
ever made any sense to me. I just don't get the concept as it relates to
cinema.) Anyway, I can attest to late Aldrich being inconsistent. I'd put
"Hustle" on one end and "The Frisco Kid" on the other...
Bill, do you know if that MIA of Aldrich's was shot on 35 or 16 or some early
form of video? And did he shoot the entire script or just a few scenes?
Thanks for the heads-up!
Fred, didn't you make a case for his reviled "The Choirboys" (not seen by me)
at some point? You're not alone on "All the Marbles" (also, alas, not seen
by me); Kehr likes it too.
Peter
4823
From:
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:13am
Subject: Re: Sarris
I think Dan has it right-on about Sarris. A deviation from the recent Sarris
might be his 1998 book "You Ain't Heard Nothin' Yet." Yes, there are
chapters on actors and studios and genres in addition to the chapter on directors,
but the chapter on directors is very good with quite a few sharp entries - "The
American Cinema"-level sharp. Of course, some of them are likely recycled (in
whole or in part) from previous Sarris columns and essays...
It can be dangerous territory when we begin talking about auteurist "tastes"
- as though all auteurists like similar films and filmmakers when clearly, as
this group demonstrates, there's a great deal of divergence - but the thing
that most strikes me about recent Sarris is how, if you look at his historical
Top 10s, there's a point when they begin to look like all the other critics'
Top 10s. Odd auteurist choices still turn up - like his placing of Altman's
"Dr. T & the Women" on his 2000 list - but a lot of his selections are very
uniform.
BUT... none of this, of course, takes away from the enormity and importance
of "The American Cinema" (and the Film Culture issue which it was based upon.)
Peter
4824
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 6:43am
Subject: Re: Late Aldrich
Peter, It may have been video, but it certainly wasn't 35, and yes,
he shot the whole thing, according to my informant, Mike Kaplan.
Isn't "Hustle" the one with my favorite Burt Reynolds line? - "Where
do you think you are, kid? This is Guatemala with color tv."
4825
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 6:54am
Subject: Re: Re: Sound Keaton. DVD sale
>Region 1 DVDs only. I have no DVD collection at all, other than LA
>NOTTE, which was given to me as a gift, and the two DVDs that came with
>my player (THE WEDDING SINGER and THE MASK) - but I just doubled the
>size of my collection by ordering Deville's LA FEMME EN BLEU (I was
>amazed to find it available - they're also bringing out LE MOUTON ENRAGE
>in December), Ferrara's R-XMAS, and Larry Clark's TEENAGE CAVEMAN. - Dan
Clark mentions the alterations made to TEENAGE CAVEMAN to get an R
rating, different angles mostly, and one line taken out, in his new
book PUNK PICASSO. Does anyone know of an original version available
for sale anywhere in the world from which one might order a DVD?
--
- Joe Kaufman
4826
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 7:44am
Subject: Re: Late Aldrich
> I haven't seen all of the late Aldrich films mentioned, but
I have seen his
> 1975 film "Hustle," which I think is superb. There seems to
be a little bit of
> a cult for it; Kehr's Chicago Reader capsule calls it "brill
iant" and I seem
> to remember it being mentioned by someone as a "Guilty Pleas
ure" in a recent
> Film Comment. (Not that that category -
FC's "Guilty Pleasures" column - has
> ever made any sense to me. I just don't get the concept as
it relates to
> cinema.)
Yeah, it's a great movie (and it has Reynolds best
performance).
>Anyway, I can attest to late Aldrich being inconsistent. I'd
put
> "Hustle" on one end and "The Frisco Kid" on the other...
>
I get the impression that after the cold reception of
Twlight's Last Leaming, he didn't make much of an effort in
the later ones, but I do like All the Marbles, very minor,
but still a fine movie. The Choirboys is pretty bad, as Four
for Texas, it feels like Aldrich keep smiling at us saying "I
know it's garbage, but I need to pay the bills". He is very
consistent beetwen 68-76, even the lesser movies of this
period (Too Late the Hero, The Longest Yard) are a lot better
than their reputations.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
4827
From: vincent lobrutto
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 0:40pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Richard
Richard,
I very much appreciate your gracious post and stimulating questions into this important question of auteurism and collaboration.
To start directors I feel are able to apply the entire craft pallete in their films include; Stanley Kubrick, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, King Vidor, Robert Altman, Sam Peckinpah, Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Jean-Luc Godard, W.R. Fassbinder, Darren Aronofsky, David Lynch, Tim Burton, Ridley Scott, Francis Copolla, Martin Scorsese, Akira Kurosawa, Oliver Stone, Spike Lee, Steven Spielberg and many others.
Your examples of director's contributions to the crafts are excellent. They are the exception and not the rule. Sternberg like Kubrick was a cinematographer in his own right. I do believe that a true comprehensive history of the cinema is underway. In the last 10 years or so there has been movement beyond just looking at actors, writers, directors, narrative and characters into other properities of motion pictures. For me this is not as much about giving "credit" to those who collaborate but to explore the contribution of these aspects of the medium; editing, cinematography, sound, music, production design, costumes, make-up, visual effects - they comprise this wonderful medium. I am always pleased when I teach a production design or sound design class and see students now able to become more "articulate" filmmakers because they can now express their ideas in ways that had been hidden to them when they were less conscious of the narrative and expressive powers of in this case sound
and production design.
You relationship with your gaffer friend sounds wonderful. Bert Glennon was a wonderful DP. You will continue to get insights from his son's experience. I have learned so much over the years from all of the people in the crafts. The technical aspects are minor compared to the artistic contribution - they considered themselves filmmakers - technician masks what they do on a film.
I started on my quest of exploring the crafts because of my admiration for film directors. The good and great ones understand the totality of this complex artistic medium.
As for film history I notice with much satisfaction that most biographies now explore the many relationships directors have during their careers and a better understanding of how the crafts contribute to their work. The history of the American Cinema series has done an excellent job in this area. There is a very good book out recently on Henry Bumsted, the popular volume on Walter Murch's career as an editor and sound designer are examples of where film history is going. Studies of craft masters and the crafts themselves are important but it is when a discussion of a film involves an understanding or criticism of how the craft interpret and impact on the narrative and characters and themes etc that we are getting closer to a comprehensive understanding. The paradigm must extend to the physical properties of the cinema - literature, psychology, semiology and others have been insightful but the path to understanding pure film in my view is to look at very nature of the medium itself.
This group is a refreshing and enlightening step in that direction. I continue to enjoy the voyage.
Vinny
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4828
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:01pm
Subject: Re: Critics and Artists
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> I'll side with Dan on this one, but also
> specifically with Gabe
> saying crix are better crix than directors, as a
> rule. Harold Bloom
> used to always say Wordsworth would get a B plus in
> Wordsworth
> critcism, and he would...if that. Bloom also of
> course equated
> criticism and poetry because he saw both as forms of
> (mis)reading.
> That's an interesting argument, but I bow to
> creators when I meet
> them.
>
> My question has always been: How can non-geniuses
> understand genius?
> I've known a lot of filmmakers, and they're pretty
> smart people about
> what they do, even if they can't interpret it. I
> mean, they're REALLY
> smart, some of them - smarter than my best teachers,
> Bloom included.
Don't get me started on Harold Bloom! He's in a dead
heat with John Simon for Pompous Ass of All-Time. His
ceaseless bleat about "genius" is anathema to any
truly serious critic. In fact he makes Dale Peck look
reasonable.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4829
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:41pm
Subject: Re: Late Aldrich
ptonguette@a... wrote:
>Fred, didn't you make a case for his reviled "The Choirboys" (not seen by me) at some point?
>
Uh, yeah. I think I'm almost alone in thinking it to be a great film,
and the best of the late ones. I see Filipe doesn't agree, for
example. It is admittedly offensive in a variety of ways, and includes
a gay character who is so ridiculous that I could almost argue he's a
parody of stereotypes rather than an actual stereotype. It's got no
sense of space, and the case for it is a tough one to make, but I'd
argue that the lack of space is so consistent in "Choirboys" (as opposed
to, for example, the truly awful "Frisco Kid" which is simply a mess) as
to become an expressive organizing principle.
Also, people forget the opening minute, which puts the whole thing in
the context of the Vietnam war and provides a great de-contextualizing
context, explaining how war destroys space.. Indeed, the film's nihilism
seems to me a profounder comment on the Vietnam war than the movies I've
seen that comment on it directly by actually trying to show it.
- Fred
4830
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 3:58pm
Subject: Re: Sound Keaton. DVD sale
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Gee, they're not all bad, are they? I actually think PARLOR,
BEDROOM
> AND BATH is a pretty good film. And LE ROI DE CHAMPS-ELYSEES
wasn't bad
> either.
>
Dan
PARLOR is probably the least atrocious of the MGM batch. I haven't
watched it since I wrote the book more than 30 years ago (I'm not
that masochistic)but looking it up I see that I made the point that
even though the bedroom farce nature of the vehicule was totally
alien to BK's comedy style, some effort had been made to introduce
scenes or moments of physical, silent action for him. However they
are mostly gratuitous and unfunny. Keaton is shown as totally clumsy,
as in the MGM films, keeps doing pratfalls (he was still in great
physical shape), bumping into things, tripping over things. People
push him and he falls down -- a dozen times. No real gags. Dialogue
is mostly cretinous, again in the style of the other MGMs. The scenes
with Charlotte Greenwood are the only faintly redeeming feature. By
the way I haven't seen the French language version,BUSTER SE MARIE,
directed by Claude Autant-Lara (and, according to AFI Catalog, Ed
Brophy!) the entire cast of which was French (Francoise Rosay, Andre
Luguet, also credited as dialogue director). No Charlotte Greenwood!
LE ROI DES CHAMPS ELYSEES is a French film, an interesting failure,
better than the MGMs for sure, but that's damning with faint praise.
Keaton has a dual role -- the subject-matter is basically the same as
in Ford's THE WHOLE TOWN IS TALKING (the two films were relased
within a few weeks of each other. It has some Clair-like fantasy
touches (the board of directors of a company in trouble start
singing "We are bankrupt" wringing their arms and shedding copious
tears,a gang of hoodlums turns into a chorus singing "C'est nous qui
sommes les gangsters..." But these are only isolated touches. Keaton
is dubbed by a guy using a ridiculous stage foreign accent.
The point is, comparing even the "best" of the sound features to the
silents is like comparing a three-year-old's doodlings to Cezanne or
Michelangelo.
JPC
4831
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:11pm
Subject: Re: Late Aldrich
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> Fred, didn't you make a case for his reviled "The Choirboys" (not
seen by me)
> at some point? You're not alone on "All the Marbles" (also, alas,
not seen
> by me); Kehr likes it too.
>
> Peter
Peter, dont forget the ... !
Fred and Dave are not alone. I love ... All the marbles. In
American directors I called it "his most personal and controlled film
since ULZANA'S RAID and EMPEROR of the North POLE, whose almost
antithetical qualities it manages to reconcile." and I
concluded: "...one of those 'powerful and nonest' films that
periodically restore our faith in the integrity of the most Phoenix-
like if American directors."
JPC
4832
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:25pm
Subject: Who'll Stop the Rain, one-shots
> Indeed, the film's nihilism
> seems to me a profounder comment on the Vietnam war than the movies I've
> seen that comment on it directly by actually trying to show it.
Not related to Aldrich at all, but this comment makes me think of a film
I love, Karel Reisz's WHO'LL STOP THE RAIN, which feels so like the
ultimate Vietnam film that I have to stop and remind myself that the war
is shown only in a brief flashback or two.
One of the interesting things about this film is that it Hollywoodizes,
to an extent, its respectable source material (Robert Stone's novel DOG
SOLDIERS) by nudging the characters closer to a heroic vision. And yet
the Hollywoodism seems to me a good thing in this case, lifting the film
to a more resonant place by introducing a transcendent note. It's
pretty common for good movies simply to trash their source material and
go their own way, but I can't think of too many other cases where the
commercialization of the subject matter worked out artistically.
WHO'LL STOP THE RAIN is an example of a film that I love without being
able to justify the rest of the director's career. (I'm not talking
about guilty pleasure, but of a solid film that seems a notch above the
rest of the director's filmography. Sarris discussed this concept with
regards to Parrish's THE PURPLE PLAIN.) Not that Reisz ever seems an
untalented guy - even his nemeses at Movie magazine gave him that, and
many of his films suggest greatness for a few moments, at least - but
none of his other projects fly for me. (I'd like to resee THE GAMBLER,
which I think has the best chance of providing the support I'm looking for.)
This category of film is obviously an embarrassment for auteurists: it
is our unstated hope that the rest of a director's career will provide
support for our aesthetic judgments. Some other films that I'd put in
this category are Ridley Scott's THE DUELLISTS, Leisen's REMEMBER MY
NAME and EASY LIVING, Schrader's AMERICAN GIGOLO, Nichols' THE GRADUATE
and CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, Maurice Tourneur's THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS....
Obviously there are many who would make a case for these directors'
overall output (I certainly know Robert Parrish fans who were outraged
when Sarris called him a one-shot), so this kind of list is even more
dizzyingly subjective than most of our judgments.
Then there's the closely related category of problemsome directors who
work for you only once or twice.... - Dan
4833
From:
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:27am
Subject: Re: Sarris
Sarris' "The American Cinema" is a masterpiece, and his essays in
"Confessions of a Cultist", and his many director studies that have now been collected
into "You Ain't Heard Nothing Yet!" are not far behind. He is certainly the
writer most responsible for introducing the great auteur filmmakers to
English-speaking readers. He is deservedly the most influential thinker on the arts in
our time.
Oddly enough, Sarris post-1975 writings are almost entirely uncollected. One
hopes that someday soon there will be a collection of his best later writing
for the Village Voice and the NY Observer. Until that time, it is going to hard
for anyone to comment on the substance of his later writings.
I agree that the Sarris sentence under discussion, which seems to trash the
later work of Orson Welles, is poor. The responses to it seem intelligent and
well thought out.
However, some of the later posts, with gossip about Sarris' writing career,
etc, seem poorly conceived. Discussing personalities, rather than ideas, is
always a mistake. In fact, I think there is even an official Latin name for this
type of bad argument: "ad hominem". As comedian Norm Crosby once put it, "it's
a proven fallacy!"
Mike Grost
4834
From:
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:42am
Subject: Leisen and Maurice Tourneur
Dan Sallitt's post on "Who'll Stop the Rain" is very interesting!
Several of the directors he cites have made other interesting films too.
Robert Parrish's "Cry Danger" is not on the same level as the fascinating
"The Purple Plain", but it's a pleasant little crime thriller all the same.
For Mitchell Leisen, "Golden Earrings" is a classic, and "Midnight", "To Each
His Own" and "The Mating Season" also have merit. "The Eagle and the Hawk", a
grim anti-war drama reported largely directed by Leisen, is also creditable.
Even "Artists and Models Abroad" has its moments.
For Maurice Tourneur, his early "Alias Jimmy Valentine" is a really good
movie. "Lorna Doone" has many beauties, too. There is a discussion of "Alias Jimmy
Valentine" on my web site, in the Maurice Tourneur article, trying to analyze
its visual style and mise-en-scene. Please see:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/mtour.htm
Mike Grost
4835
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:49pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Michael Worrall wrote:
>
> >
> > I am in total agreement with Fred Camper on Woody
> > Allen. A dead on
> > criticism is the essay "The De-evaluation of Woody
> > Allen" in
> > Rosenbaum's book "Placing Movies."
> >
>
> > I find the Rosenbaum piece one of the least convincing ever
written by this eminent critic, full of dubious or irrelevant jabs --
Allen doesn't handle language and persona as well as Chaplin and
Tati, Allen doesn't have blacks or minorities in his films, Allen
avoids controversial issues, Allen doesn't analyze the implications
of his character's attraction to "beautiful WASP women", Allen is not
likely to give us a comedy about "American idiocy in blundering
through the Third World", Allen is guilty of "a kind of soul-
searching that excludes any possibility of social change..." and so
on and so on... This is in the great tradition of blaming an artist
for not doing what he never intended to do in the first place...
I think Jonathan's "Moving Places" is one of the greatest "film
books" (for lack of a better term) ever written, and "Placing Movies"
has a lot of fine writing in it, but the Allen piece -- published
originally in "A bi-monthly Jewish Critique of Politics, Culture and
society" -- seems to me ideology-oriented criticism at its most
debatable.
JPC
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
4836
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:54pm
Subject: Parrish, Leisen
> Robert Parrish's "Cry Danger" is not on the same level as the fascinating
> "The Purple Plain", but it's a pleasant little crime thriller all the same.
My Parrishophile friends (Blake Lucas foremost among them) are very big
on THE WONDERFUL COUNTRY. So far, THE PURPLE PLAIN does seem to me the
only major one.
> For Mitchell Leisen, "Golden Earrings" is a classic, and "Midnight", "To Each
> His Own" and "The Mating Season" also have merit. "The Eagle and the Hawk", a
> grim anti-war drama reported largely directed by Leisen, is also creditable.
I didn't even know about his participation in THE EAGLE AND THE HAWK.
I'm aware that many auteurists make a strong case for Leisen, to the
extent that it probably seems perverse for me to put him on a one-shot
list. And there's a whole other problemsome layer to my Leisen choices,
in that they are both written by Sturges. Even so, I'm convinced that
the directing in those films is of great value.
THE MATING SEASON would be my next favorite Leisen, though I don't know
if I'd guess that he directed it. I've heard a lot of arguments for TO
EACH HIS OWN over the years - I need to revisit sometime. - Dan
4837
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:07pm
Subject: Re: Leisen and Maurice Tourneur
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Dan Sallitt's post on "Who'll Stop the Rain" is very interesting!
> Several of the directors he cites have made other interesting films
too.
> Robert Parrish's "Cry Danger" is not on the same level as the
fascinating
> "The Purple Plain", but it's a pleasant little crime thriller all
the same.
Parrish's other masterpiece is THE WONDERFUL COUNTRY, one of the
finest westerns of the late fifties, and one of the most underrated.
JPC
> For Mitchell Leisen, "Golden Earrings" is a classic,
and "Midnight", "To Each
> His Own" and "The Mating Season" also have merit. "The Eagle and
the Hawk", a
> grim anti-war drama reported largely directed by Leisen, is also
creditable.
> Even "Artists and Models Abroad" has its moments.
>
Leisen can hardly be called a one-shot director. MIDNIGHT,
REMEMBER THE NIGHT (his masterpiece in my opinion; yes Sturges wrote
it), ARISE MY LOVE, EASY LIVING (Sturges too) are very very good, NO
MAN OF HER OWN is a first-rate noir adaptation of the Cornell
Woolrich novel "I Married a Dead Man" (remade in France in 1982
as "J'ai epouse une ombre"). LADY IN THE DARK is an interesting curio
and FRENCHMAN'S CREEK has its admirers...
JPC
>
> Mike Grost
4838
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:35pm
Subject: Ridley Scott
Circling around of lot of the discussions we've been
having here is the problematic nature of auteurism
when confronted by directors who confound it. Ridley
Scott comes to mind most strongly for me in this
regard. "The Duellists" is indeed a nice little movie.
At the time of its release it was cited by several
critics as preferable to "Barry Lyndon" -- an opinion
I do not share. But "Alien," "Blade Runner" and
"Thelma and Louise" are incredibly important and
influential works -- each a classic in its own way.
But let us not forget that Scott is also responsible
for "Someone to Watch Over Me," "1492" (I think that's
what the Depardieu as Columbus thing was called),
"Black Hawk Down" (the most noxious piece of
propagandistic tripe since "The Sands of Iwo Jima")
and "Matchstick Men." In other words he is a hack. But
hack of the highest caliber. Like Michael Curtiz.
Leisen was a stylish and talented director but the
auteur of "Remember the Night" is Preston Sturges, and
the sublime "Midnight" is a Billy Wilder movie.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4839
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:37pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
> vincent lobrutto wrote:
> To start directors I feel are able to apply the entire craft pallete in their films
include;
> Ingmar Bergman,
> Sternberg like Kubrick was a cinematographer in his own right.
And Bergman certainly was not a cinematographer, but certainly one of Sven
Nykvist's great achievements was to get what's in Ingmar's head onto the screen in
light & shadow...
I 'm singling them out as a model that I think can really be studied....
-Sam
4840
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:44pm
Subject: Sarris suggestion
Why don't Peter and Fred, or someone, approach Sarris and ask him
to explain (and justify if need be) his now-famous sentence?
I bet he is blissfully unaware of the discussion raging over the
internet about his alleged decline.
He must have an e-mail address. I have their phone number if
anyone cares to give him a call...
JPC
4841
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 5:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sarris
MG4273@a... wrote:
>...However, some of the later posts, with gossip about Sarris' writing career, etc, seem poorly conceived. Discussing personalities, rather than ideas, is always a mistake.....
>
I dunno, Mike, I think I agree only in part.
I mean, "John Simon is an idiot, therefore his review of XYZ must be
idiotic," that's an ad hominem attack. But remember some of this
discussion started with Bill proposing that film criticism was a
collaborative venture and that critics were influenced by their
contemporaries and their contexts, and I largely agree.
Also, people don't always act out of the purest motives. Can someone
confirm the reliability of the story that Hawks cut many of John
Ireland's scenes out of "Red River" because he was annoyed with Ireland
(was it even Ireland? I think so) over an, um, extra-cinematic matter?
Shouldn't we know this? What about the knowledge that Nicholas Ray got
drunker and drunker as his career progressed. Or that longtime drunk
Jackson Pollock was on the wagon from 1948-50, coincidentally regarded
by many as his best period? If we're discussing a dissonance between
Sarris's early and later writings, the possibility that some of his
early writings were influenced (or, in the account Filipe mentions,
co-authored) by Eugene Archer (who died some decades ago; I can't
remember when) seems relevant.
Perhaps the problem you're having is that the discussion itself was
partly about Sarris as a critic, not just about his ideas. But there
are lots of cases where a filmmaker's, or critic's, personal life can
also help explain the ideas or the work.
None of this applies to me, of course.
- Fred
4842
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 7:34pm
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this sentence?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
I find the Rosenbaum piece one of the least convincing ever
> written by this eminent critic, full of dubious or irrelevant jabs –
I think Rosenbaum calls people on their reception of a filmmaker I
find to be a fraud. No matter who Allen has working behind the
camera, I have always found his films to be almost inept. The
camerawork in "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and "Shadows and Fog" is
belabored and at times very sloppy. The cutting in "Sleeper" is
borderline incompetent because Allen has no idea how to frame and
execute a joke. Allen has always struck me as a sincere cineaste
whose bungled and amateurish work has been elevated by people who
think they think about film. And yes, I also find a problem with
the lack of minorities and gays in Allen's version of NYC and the way
Allen centers people in his films around his raging narcissism,
making everyone the butt of his jokes. The audience, along with
Allen, can have a smug laugh and pat themselves on the back for their
superiority.
I remember talking with Tom Gunning about Allen and he
mentioned "Bullets over Broadway". He said it surprised him because
Woody Allen had made a good film despite himself, though Tom
contributed the films qualities to the writing of Doug McGrath and
cinematographer Carlo Di Palma, who Tom called a master. Allen seems
to think that with working with the collaborators of the filmmakers
he emulates, some of the greatness will rub off. These are strong
words to start off posting with but I can't believe that people who
know better take Allen seriously.
4843
From: George Robinson
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 7:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sarris
Gee Fred, does that mean you don't have a personal life?
George (I have a personal life, I just can't remember where I put it)
Robinson
Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
But there
> are lots of cases where a filmmaker's, or critic's, personal life can
> also help explain the ideas or the work.
>
> None of this applies to me, of course.
>
> - Fred
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
>
4844
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 8:07pm
Subject: Mitchell Leisen
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Leisen was a stylish and talented director but the
> auteur of "Remember the Night" is Preston Sturges, and
> the sublime "Midnight" is a Billy Wilder movie.
>
I have to disagree with you, David. Sturges and Wilder (and
Brackett) are, of course, present in these respective films, but
Remember The Night and Midnight each possesses a gracefulness and
warmth lacking in the films Sturges and Wilder directed, and as such
I'd cited Leisen as the primary auteur of these pictures.
I think Leisen's great masterpiece is Arise, My Love (another
Wilder/Brackett script), a film in which the director beautifully
melded the personal (here, the romance between Colbert and Milland)
and the worldly/topical (the Spanish Civil War, Hitler's conquest of
Europe) in a way Wilder was never able to. In fact, Leisen brings a
Borzage-ian feel to Arise, My Love, and it's a film I never tire of
viewing.
4845
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 8:38pm
Subject: Late Pabst
I only have to read a review, any one, on any of the late movies
directed by Pabst to fly into a blind rage… I'm not sure I can
explain why so few consideration… besides the sad fact that the
movies are rarely shown.
It's true that, in the late 50's and early 60's (when a few books
were written on Pabst), Fassbinder/Sirk hadn't revived the melodrama
genre. "Rosen für Bettina" (1956) is yet one of the most beautiful
movies (melodramas) I have ever seen. Between Mizoguchi's and
Rossellini's pieces, it should find a little place. Pabst's attitude
during WW2 (not leaving Germany) may also explain such a disdain...
But the very idea that his genius would have suddenly disappear in
31 is purely insane… I shall admit that his French period is less
impressive (though I like the movies, from the crazy "Du haut en
bas" to "Mademoiselle Docteur"). And I sill can't get why he made a
thing like "Cose da pazzi".
All films made in Germany after the war are to be seen. On the top:
Rosen für Bettina (56) and Es geschah am 20. Juli (55).
Haven't seen yet his very last, "Durch die Wälder, durch die Auen"
(1956),though I have a VHS copy (damned TV…)
Maxime
4846
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 8:48pm
Subject: Re: Late Aldrich
All the Marbles is among my true favorites (in my 80's ten...). Such
a grace when the sordid could show up in most scenes, that's a
miracle. The tenderness and the integrity of Aldrich's direction is
quite impressive.
Maxime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> >Fred, didn't you make a case for his reviled "The Choirboys" (not
seen by me) at some point?
> >
> Uh, yeah. I think I'm almost alone in thinking it to be a great
film,
> and the best of the late ones. I see Filipe doesn't agree, for
> example. It is admittedly offensive in a variety of ways, and
includes
> a gay character who is so ridiculous that I could almost argue
he's a
> parody of stereotypes rather than an actual stereotype. It's got
no
> sense of space, and the case for it is a tough one to make, but
I'd
> argue that the lack of space is so consistent in "Choirboys" (as
opposed
> to, for example, the truly awful "Frisco Kid" which is simply a
mess) as
> to become an expressive organizing principle.
>
> Also, people forget the opening minute, which puts the whole thing
in
> the context of the Vietnam war and provides a great de-
contextualizing
> context, explaining how war destroys space.. Indeed, the film's
nihilism
> seems to me a profounder comment on the Vietnam war than the
movies I've
> seen that comment on it directly by actually trying to show it.
>
> - Fred
4847
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 9:01pm
Subject: Vittorio Cottafavi
I drop that name mainly because someone in French TV had recently
the bright idea to show '54 Nel gorgo del peccato, a rarely seen one.
This unique way to swoop down on tormented faces always makes me cry.
I'd be curious to know what is the circulation of his work in the US
(or anywhere else), besides the two Hercules (that have their true
merits)?....
Maxime
4848
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 9:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Late Aldrich
I haven't seen anyone mention it yet so I thought I would just throw it
out: Claude Chabrol has a fun essay on Aldrich, translated in
Projections 4 1/2. He pays homage to late Aldrich (only at the end of
his article, but neverthless) by listing his last twelve films, "his
own dirty dozen". This is also the essay where he says Aldrich would
drink Coca-cola at dinners and would always be apologetic about it. My
own personal favorites are ULZANA'S RAID and THE BIG KNIFE. Also I just
watched Ralph Meeker in RUN OF THE ARROW, and I have to say this guy
does the angry/impatient/bottled-up like nobody I've ever seen. In the
Fuller he really makes you hate him.
Gabe
4849
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 9:25pm
Subject: Re: Late Pabst
> Pabst's attitude
> during WW2 (not leaving Germany) may also explain such a disdain...
> But the very idea that his genius would have suddenly disappear in
> 31 is purely insane…
My sense is that, with exceptions made for PANDORA'S BOX, Pabst's
reputation has been pretty low for many decades now. Too bad - he's got
a great command of visual drama. He's one of those rare directors who
seems to make every shot count.
> All films made in Germany after the war are to be seen. On the top:
> Rosen für Bettina (56) and Es geschah am 20. Juli (55).
I've never had a chance to see these films. THE TRIAL played in NYC a
few years ago, but without subtitles.... I also managed to see
MYSTERIOUS SHADOWS at some point, though I don't remember enjoying it
that much. - Dan
4850
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 9:35pm
Subject: Re: Vittorio Cottafavi
> I drop that name mainly because someone in French TV had recently
> the bright idea to show '54 Nel gorgo del peccato, a rarely seen one.
> This unique way to swoop down on tormented faces always makes me cry.
> I'd be curious to know what is the circulation of his work in the US
> (or anywhere else), besides the two Hercules (that have their true
> merits)?....
Almost no circulation here, though HERCULES CONQUERS ATLANTIS was widely
seen in a version parodied on the "Mystery Science Theater 3000" TV show....
I notice that LA VENDETTA DI ERCOLE (GOLIATH AND THE DRAGON) is
available on Region 1 DVD in an English version with no subtitles.
Anyone have an opinion on either the movie or the DVD? - Dan
4851
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 10:04pm
Subject: aldrich and leisen
I haven't looked at any late Aldrich in years and have no clear
memory of them so I can't jump into this discussion as to their
merits. But I just want to point out that Fred is not the only major
critic to defend THE CHOIRBOYS. A somewhat forgotten auteurist named
George Morris also defended the film during its initial release, in
either TAKE ONE or TEXAS MONTHLY (or perhaps both.) Also Chabrol, in
his short POSITIF essay on Aldrich, lists the film as being among the
dozen late works which he considers "pure jewels" and "unforgettable,
iconoclastic works of admirable energy and daring."
As for David's argument that REMEMBER THE NIGHT belongs to Sturges
more than Leisen, according to David Chierichetti's book on Leisen,
the director made a number of major cuts and revisions to Sturges's
script. As to whether Leisen's claims for making these changes are
accurate or not this would, of course, have to be measured against
more specific research. I do recall, though, that the first time I
saw REMEMBER THE NIGHT during a Sturges retro at Film Forum about a
decade ago, this film by a "stupid fairy" (as Billy Wilder called
Leisen) seemed to have a delicacy of observation, particularly in the
way that Leisen worked with his actors, which the films Sturges later
directed himself often lacked. But again, that was just an
intuition.
4852
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 0:18am
Subject: Re: aldrich and leisen
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
>
>
> As for David's argument that REMEMBER THE NIGHT belongs to Sturges
> more than Leisen, according to David Chierichetti's book on Leisen,
> the director made a number of major cuts and revisions to Sturges's
> script. As to whether Leisen's claims for making these changes are
> accurate or not this would, of course, have to be measured against
> more specific research. I do recall, though, that the first time I
> saw REMEMBER THE NIGHT during a Sturges retro at Film Forum about a
> decade ago, this film by a "stupid fairy" (as Billy Wilder called
> Leisen) seemed to have a delicacy of observation, particularly in
the
> way that Leisen worked with his actors, which the films Sturges
later
> directed himself often lacked. But again, that was just an
> intuition.
I completely agree that there is "a delicacy of observation" in
REMEMBER that is quite unlike Sturges, and I am pretty sure that
Leisen toned down Sturges's usual weakness for broad slapstick (a
trace of which remains in the cow-milking scene). The subtlety of the
relationship and exchanges between the two sisters and the Stanley
Holloway character and the two visitors is extraordinary. The
Christmas eve sequence with Holloway singing "The End of a Perfect
Day" is unforgettable and even after seeing the film maybe 30 times I
find it hard not to shed a tear. I yield to no one in my admiration
for Sturges, but I don't think he ever made me shed a tear in one of
the films he directed (except, quite often, tears of laughter).
JPC
4853
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 0:40am
Subject: Allen is a fraud (used to be: What is wrong...)
Hey gang, I think this anti-Allen tirade shouldn't pass unheeded.
I think it's typical of a rather fashionable attitude among some
cognoscenti (some of them members of this group). It would be
interesting to know how many agree, how many don't.
I've heard and read this kind of argument many times. There may be
some truth to some of it, but I'm certainly not going to be convinced
by criticism of the kind "Allen doesn't show minorities or gays in
his films" any more than I'd find any relevance to the criticism that
Rohmer doesn't show Arab immigrants in his.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Worrall"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> I find the Rosenbaum piece one of the least convincing ever
> > written by this eminent critic, full of dubious or irrelevant
jabs –
>
>
> I think Rosenbaum calls people on their reception of a filmmaker I
> find to be a fraud. No matter who Allen has working behind the
> camera, I have always found his films to be almost inept. The
> camerawork in "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and "Shadows and Fog" is
> belabored and at times very sloppy. The cutting in "Sleeper" is
> borderline incompetent because Allen has no idea how to frame and
> execute a joke. Allen has always struck me as a sincere cineaste
> whose bungled and amateurish work has been elevated by people who
> think they think about film. And yes, I also find a problem with
> the lack of minorities and gays in Allen's version of NYC and the
way
> Allen centers people in his films around his raging narcissism,
> making everyone the butt of his jokes. The audience, along with
> Allen, can have a smug laugh and pat themselves on the back for
their
> superiority.
>
> I remember talking with Tom Gunning about Allen and he
> mentioned "Bullets over Broadway". He said it surprised him
because
> Woody Allen had made a good film despite himself, though Tom
> contributed the films qualities to the writing of Doug McGrath and
> cinematographer Carlo Di Palma, who Tom called a master. Allen
seems
> to think that with working with the collaborators of the filmmakers
> he emulates, some of the greatness will rub off. These are strong
> words to start off posting with but I can't believe that people who
> know better take Allen seriously.
4854
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 0:59am
Subject: Re: Re: Allen is a fraud
Michael wrote:
> I remember talking with Tom Gunning about Allen and he
> mentioned "Bullets over Broadway". He said it surprised him because
> Woody Allen had made a good film despite himself,
I know Tom also thinks THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES is a great
film, despite Billy Wilder. But just because he doesn't care for Wilder
doesn't mean he doesn't give a damn about him. Whether you like Allen
or not, he's a director that deserves to be studied and watched.
I just caught a few minutes of SLEEPER on television, a film I haven't
seen since like 8th grade. Based on the few scenes I caught, your
statements sound kind of overblown: Allen doesn't seem to have a
problem with "cutting"; the scenes that I caught were all framed in one
shot (Keaton playing a song on the guitar and Woody jumping into the
frame to give her a kiss -- an incredibly tender moment). And tight
shots of Allen's reactions (cut-in immediately after we transition to a
scene with Woody walking along and seeing Keaton kissing someone else).
I refuse to believe Woody Allen is an incompetent filmmaker. He is a
very good, purposeful one. It's his worldview that I find kind of
limiting and annoying. One of my favorite Allen moments is when
Samantha Morton tells Sean Penn about her husband and children at the
end of SWEET AND LOWDOWN and Allen keeps the shot over Penn's shoulder
on Morton, not allowing us to see Penn's reaction. It's totally
effective.
Gabe
4855
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 0:59am
Subject: Ralph Meeker
Gabe, check out Meeker's performance in Bert I. Gordon's Food of the
Gods. Memorable moment: While his mega-venal character is frantically
loading up on the presumably valuable "food" as giant animals that
ate it menace the humans with extinction, someone asks him why he's
doing it. "I'm doing it for the children!" snarls Meeker.
4856
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 1:10am
Subject: Re: Re: Allen is a fraud
> I know Tom also thinks THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES is a great
> film, despite Billy Wilder. But just because he doesn't care for Wilder
> doesn't mean he doesn't give a damn about him. Whether you like Allen
> or not, he's a director that deserves to be studied and watched.
I should say "in my opinion".
gabe
4857
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 1:21am
Subject: Woody Allen
In most of Allen's films he's a mere auteur, but so many of them make
me laugh that that's enough. Allen's career parallels Eastwood's in
some ways, and I've always been more reserved than many of my friends
about both - I think they're both very uneven. But by virtue of
filming constantly, they have both become metteurs-en-scene of their
own auteur visions. Are they - in all their films, or in any of them -
cineastes as well? That's kind of what the debate was about here
when Mystic River opened.
One of the nice things about having blue, red and white ribbons to
distribute instead of just blue is that we don't have to let the
obvious fact that Eastwood and Allen are auteurs stop us from
assessing the actual quality of their work in each new film.
As a side note, I agree with J-PC that the fact of not showing this
or that group in a film doesn't prove anything about the film's
politics. The comparison to Rohmer is apt. Absences can be a symptom,
but you need more than absences to build a case about someone's
politics. A lot of political film criticism suffers from the fact
that film critics don't know any more about politics than anyone
else - ie not much. That's my impression, and I certainly don't
excerpt myself from the remark.
4858
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 1:53am
Subject: Re: Woody Allen
.
>
> As a side note, I agree with J-PC that the fact of not showing this
> or that group in a film doesn't prove anything about the film's
> politics. The comparison to Rohmer is apt. Absences can be a
symptom,
> but you need more than absences to build a case about someone's
> politics. A lot of political film criticism suffers from the fact
> that film critics don't know any more about politics than anyone
> else - ie not much. That's my impression, and I certainly don't
> excerpt myself from the remark.
The point is, why should Allen, or anyone else, be "politically
involved" (whatever that means)? Aside from the fact that "everything
is political" (including being a-political) -- a platitude I'm
willing to accept rather than waste time arguing -- what relevance
does it have to anything? Truffaut said he had never read a line of
Marx (Karl). Does that make him an inferior, despicable bourgeois
filmmaker?
I do get riled by people who tell me that I should know better than
thinking that Allen is anything but a "fraud" and an inept filmmaker.
JPC
4859
From:
Date: Sun Nov 30, 2003 9:21pm
Subject: Re: Ralph Meeker
I'm a big Ralph Meeker fan, too. He gave lots of really lively performances
in 1950's films. These tend to fit in with the personal visions of the various
directors with whom he worked. "Shadow in the Sky" and "Code Two", his outings
with Fred Wilcox, look at Wilcox's interest in male bonding, working class
heroes, and problems of the unconscious mind, that also appear in Wilcox's
landmark sf film "Forbidden Planet". "Shadow in the Sky" is much less entertaining
than the other two movies. But it has merit in its portrait of a shell-shocked
veteran, reminding us of the horrible costs of war, as politicians and their
followers keep sending people off to die in war. Meeker's co-star in "Shadow
in the Sky", Nancy Davis, reportedly kept us out of war during the period in
the 1980's in which she served as de facto President of the United States. She
has my deep gratitude for this.
Mike Grost
4860
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 2:32am
Subject: Political film criticism (was "Woody Allen")
J-PC: Tag and I asked the Straubs if they were Marxists and they
replied, "We'd have to read Marx first!" That was 1975. So Truffaut's
boast (understandable in France, where the Communist Party's policies
turned out to be just as lame as the characters in La Chinoise said
they were) is nothing special. All of my French family are blue
collar and distrust the Party and French unions from long experience.
I guess I'm enough of a sixties person that I do believe everything
is political, and that artists can be judged on that. (See my recent
post about Bunuel and Dali.) It's a question the group may have
multitudinous feelings on, however.
I am also enough of a sixties person that I would characterize myself
as a total political illiterate. (Serge Daney, private
communication: "When May 68 happened, we became political, but all we
knew about politics was what we'd read in Marie-Claire.") I could be
wrong, but I believe that that is generally true of film critics. I
don't mean identity politics, which most of us know enough about to
do it skillfully - I mean politics, economics, history.
Lately I have been stocking up on books about those topics in hopes
that I'll find time to read them, so that by the time I die I'll
actually know something about what I've been talking about all my
life. The present world situation and the situation in this country
have supplied the incentive. (By the way, there are people in this
very group who know more about these things than I do - but I'm going
to let my general remarks stand until someone makes me eat them.)
In the meantime, I would just say that "doing political film
criticism politically" has to include, as a minimum, knowing what
you're talking about, which means knowing about more than films. And
then it requires subtler thinking than I am accustomed to seeing
deployed in its name.
4861
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 2:40am
Subject: Re: Ralph Meeker
Mike wrote:
in the Sky", Nancy Davis, reportedly kept us out of war during the
period in
the 1980's in which she served as de facto President of the United
States. She
has my deep gratitude for this.>
Now THAT'S an original post on politics! Thanks, Mike.
PS - But what about Grenada, 1983? That was during Nancy's presidency.
By the way, one of the films that makes me think Eastwood may be a
cineaste when he tries is Heartbreak Ridge, which ends with that
invasion. One of his best, IMO.
4862
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 3:07am
Subject: Re: Political film criticism (was "Woody Allen")
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> J-PC: Tag and I asked the Straubs if they were Marxists and they
> replied, "We'd have to read Marx first!" That was 1975. So
Truffaut's
> boast (understandable in France, where the Communist Party's
policies
> turned out to be just as lame as the characters in La Chinoise said
> they were) is nothing special. All of my French family are blue
> collar and distrust the Party and French unions from long
experience.
>
I didn't say it was "anything special". And it was not a "boast".
Just a statement of fact. He hadn't read Marx. Few people have. He
couldn't care less about "politics". I think he said "I never read
one line of Marx." That was part of his explanation for drifting away
from the late sixties- early seventies Cahiers.
Originally one of the major bones of contention between the
Positif gang and the Cahiers gang was that the former were leftists,
very politicized, Communists or sympathizers, atheistic etc... and
the latter unpoliticized rightists, bourgeois, Catholic etc... It's
amusing but very credible that Daney admitted that they knew nothing
about politics before politics were forced upon them by the zeitgeist
in '68.
JPC
> I guess I'm enough of a sixties person that I do believe everything
> is political, and that artists can be judged on that. (See my
recent
> post about Bunuel and Dali.)
But saying that everything is political is such a glib,
meaningless statement. Sure it sounds "right" but what does it lead
to? You might as well say that nothing is political, it wouldn't be
any more helpful. And certainly judging artists on that can only be
very limited. JPC
It's a question the group may have
> multitudinous feelings on, however.
>
> I am also enough of a sixties person that I would characterize
myself
> as a total political illiterate. (Serge Daney, private
> communication: "When May 68 happened, we became political, but all
we
> knew about politics was what we'd read in Marie-Claire.") I could
be
> wrong, but I believe that that is generally true of film critics. I
> don't mean identity politics, which most of us know enough about to
> do it skillfully - I mean politics, economics, history.
>
> Lately I have been stocking up on books about those topics in hopes
> that I'll find time to read them, so that by the time I die I'll
> actually know something about what I've been talking about all my
> life. The present world situation and the situation in this country
> have supplied the incentive. (By the way, there are people in this
> very group who know more about these things than I do - but I'm
going
> to let my general remarks stand until someone makes me eat them.)
>
> In the meantime, I would just say that "doing political film
> criticism politically" has to include, as a minimum, knowing what
> you're talking about, which means knowing about more than films.
And
> then it requires subtler thinking than I am accustomed to seeing
> deployed in its name.
Couldn't agree more. I started the whole thing this morning
responding to someone who thought Jonathan had written something
profound about Allen's limitations when i felt the piece is a perfect
example of the limitations of political criticism you point out above.
JPC
4863
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 3:47am
Subject: Re: Political film criticism (was "Woody Allen")
>
> Couldn't agree more. I started the whole thing this morning
> responding to someone who thought Jonathan had written something
> profound about Allen's limitations when i felt the piece is a
perfect
> example of the limitations of political criticism you point out
above.
>
> JPC
If I might chime in a little at this late stage in the discussion, I
don't think I ever had anything profound to say about Allen's
limitations, political or otherwise. For better or for worse, I was
interested in trying to account for Allen's popularity and
criticizing some of the reasons that I assumed were operative. My
argument about the absence of blacks and Hispanics in Allen's
Manhattan (meaning the film AND the city) was that "this is the
Manhattan that a certain class of whites `see,' or want to see". In
other words, rightly or wrongly, I was criticizing portions of the
audience--some of Allen's fans--for what I took to be their
endorsement of Allen's highly partial and romanticized view of the
city. Similarly, throughout my article I was trying to pinpoint some
of the reasons that I thought were behind Allen's popularity and
which I found--and to some extent still find--repugnant. Maybe this
constituted a misjudgment of Allen's fans and an oversimplification
of his appeal, but it wasn't really an evaluative statement about
Allen as a filmmaker.
Admittedly, my article DOES criticize Allen as a filmmaker, but
mostly on different grounds (mainly originality). But I also noted
that, "As a comic writer, Allen is easily the equal of Robert
Benchley, George S. Kaufman, and S.J. Perelman." More generally, I
started out by interrogating why American intellectuals were
contemptuous of Jerry Lewis and crazy about Allen, and ended my piece
by explaining why I preferred Elaine May, Lewis, and both Mel and
Albert Brooks as satirists to Allen as a satirist. Of course if one
decides that Allen isn't a satirist, or that satire isn't central to
his work, or that, on the contrary, what he satirizes is broader than
I implied, than I certainly can be challenged on any of those
grounds. Equally, I suppose one can decide that criticizing an
audience's motivations is an illegitimate or misguided activity.
Jonathan
4864
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 4:15am
Subject: Re: Re: Political film criticism (was "Woody Allen")
If I might be permitted a self-indulgent meta-post here, while I read
and liked Jonathan's Allen article long ago, and have already made clear
that my negative views of Allen are based on very limited experience, I
want to mention something else about Jonathan's response.
Some background first: some of us, including all our group's founders,
are "refugees" from another Yahoo! group that, for various reasons, made
us think there was a real need for a group such as ours. That group,
which we've been asked not to name, is not public: only members can read
the archives. And one reason for that is that the people in the group
wanted to be free to attack people outside of the group, including other
critics, without those critics seeing these attacks. I really didn't
like this in principle: it seems to me that something worth saying about
film criticism is worth saying publicly.
It was in fact an attack that led me to join. Someone in that group
posted an attack on me that was factually false in a couple of respects,
and that also called me "very neurotic." I found out about it from one
or more friends who were already in the group, and joined. That friend
or friends was promptly labeled a "Judas" for violating the rule that
you can't tell outsiders about posts. And hey, as I protested at the
time, "neurotic," as anyone who knows me well would agree, is not even
my correct diagnosis!
The point is, while we've banned personal attacks, and there have been
hardly any of those here, what just happened I think is worth noting: A
group member criticized, rather strongly, another member's writing, and
the other member responded quite reasonably. In other words, it is
possible for writers to criticize each other publicly and still have a
civil discourse about it. The important thing is to stay away from
criticisms that approach the ad hominem: "Only an idiot could have liked
that film;" "Only an idiot could have written that," et cetera.
Carry on, gang.
- Fred
4865
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 4:54am
Subject: Re: aldrich and leisen
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
> I haven't looked at any late Aldrich in years and
> have no clear
> memory of them so I can't jump into this discussion
> as to their
> merits. But I just want to point out that Fred is
> not the only major
> critic to defend THE CHOIRBOYS. A somewhat
> forgotten auteurist named
> George Morris also defended the film during its
> initial release, in
> either TAKE ONE or TEXAS MONTHLY (or perhaps both.)
> Also Chabrol, in
> his short POSITIF essay on Aldrich, lists the film
> as being among the
> dozen late works which he considers "pure jewels"
> and "unforgettable,
> iconoclastic works of admirable energy and daring."
Late Aldrich is incredibly problematic. "Ulzana's
raid" and "Emnperor of the North Pole" are great the
rest is piffle. I think the financial success of "The
Longest Yard" (a terrible film) ruined him. He headed
off in a Completely Commercial direction he had
previously avoided.
>
> As for David's argument that REMEMBER THE NIGHT
> belongs to Sturges
> more than Leisen, according to David Chierichetti's
> book on Leisen,
> the director made a number of major cuts and
> revisions to Sturges's
> script. As to whether Leisen's claims for making
> these changes are
> accurate or not this would, of course, have to be
> measured against
> more specific research. I do recall, though, that
> the first time I
> saw REMEMBER THE NIGHT during a Sturges retro at
> Film Forum about a
> decade ago, this film by a "stupid fairy" (as Billy
> Wilder called
> Leisen) seemed to have a delicacy of observation,
> particularly in the
> way that Leisen worked with his actors, which the
> films Sturges later
> directed himself often lacked. But again, that was
> just an
> intuition.
>
Yes they're nicely directed films -- but they're BY
Preston Sturges.
Sometimes the director is the auteur. Sometimes the
writer.
And sometimes Joan Crawford.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4866
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 4:56am
Subject: Re: Vittorio Cottafavi
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I drop that name mainly because someone in French
> TV had recently
> > the bright idea to show '54 Nel gorgo del peccato,
> a rarely seen one.
> > This unique way to swoop down on tormented faces
> always makes me cry.
> > I'd be curious to know what is the circulation of
> his work in the US
> > (or anywhere else), besides the two Hercules (that
> have their true
> > merits)?....
>
> Almost no circulation here, though HERCULES CONQUERS
> ATLANTIS was widely
> seen in a version parodied on the "Mystery Science
> Theater 3000" TV show....
>
And that's unfortunate because HERCULES CONQUERS
ATLANTIS is one of the greatest films ever made. Of
it's genre I'd rank it right alongside Lang's DER
TIGER VON ESCHNAPUR and DAS INDISCHE GRABMAL.
Michel Mourlet has written the best stuff on Cottafavi
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4867
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 5:06am
Subject: Re: Woody Allen
Jonathan wrote: "I was criticizing portions of the
audience--some of Allen's fans--for what I took to be their
endorsement of Allen's highly partial and romanticized view of the
city."
I would just add - uninvited - that I don't think Jonathan was
claiming to read audiences' minds. Rather, he was criticizing the
attitudes of an assumed audience as he saw them reflected in what
other critics had written about the films. This is something the
Cahiers did, often well, in the late 60s and early 70s. I just did
it - I hope well - in my post about Political Film Criticism, without
invoking the audience. And criticizing the critic is something
Jonathan has always done.
It's also true, J-PC, that critiquing a favorable review of a film
can be a way into critiquing the film, or can sound like it, or even
take the place of it in some cases.
I'm glad the article under debate, which I remember, included a
defense of Allen's humor, which is what I like most about his work.
Anyone who wrote 30,000 gags before drawing his first regular
paycheck as a comedy writer is some kind of genius. If you have the
May-June 1977 issue of Film Comment, with the Woodman on the cover,
George W. S. Trow's little essay on Annie Hall in that issue, "A Film
About a Very Funny Man," is still in my opinion the best thing
written about that film. And the gag he quotes at the end is very
relevant to the topic of narcissism, which is the quality under
debate in the films: "Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone
I love."
And why shouldn't an assessment and analysis of Woody Allen start
from the stream of wisecracks that pours out of him in most of the
films? At the end of the day, isn't Duras also someone who films the
spoken word, sometimes to the extent of not having anything on the
screen? Actually, it was Duras, sounding like Farber in her special
issue of the Cahiers (available here as "The Green Eyes") who
observed that Chaplin occupies much more space than Allen, implicitly
comparing Chaplin's City to Allen's Manhattan. My pretentious mentor
Harold Bloom would say that's part of the internalization that all
artforms undergo with time, because of the anxiety of influence.
Duras is mentioned a couple of times in the test appended to Richard
Thompson's great interview with Farber and Patterson in the same
issue, which also contains Robin Wood's article on La Cecilia and
Numero Deux. A few of the other contributors: Raymond Durgnat, Amos
Vogel, Mitch Tuchman, George Morris (on John Stahl), Andrew Sarris
("The Hollywood Gangster: 1927-1933"), Carlos Clarens ("The Hollywood
G-Man: 1934-1945") and Jonathan Rosenbaum, defending Carwash, Elaine
May and Providence - and getting in a jab at Kael on the last page.
Any wonder I used to race to buy the new issue the way I used to race
to buy the new Cahiers? We had ideas then.
4868
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 5:42am
Subject: Re: Political film criticism (was "Woody Allen")
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> The point is, while we've banned personal attacks, and there have
been
> hardly any of those here, what just happened I think is worth
noting: A
> group member criticized, rather strongly, another member's writing,
and
> the other member responded quite reasonably. In other words, it is
> possible for writers to criticize each other publicly and still
have a
> civil discourse about it. The important thing is to stay away from
> criticisms that approach the ad hominem: "Only an idiot could have
liked
> that film;" "Only an idiot could have written that," et cetera.
>
> Carry on, gang.
>
> - Fred
I appreciated the other member's "reasonable" response. I
wouldn't have criticized his piece in the first place except for the
fact that yet another member (by now I have forgotten who)cited the
piece as the most perceptive and convincing exposure of Allen's
worthlessness. Whereas I happened to think his arguments were largely
irrelevant (although, from a certain point of view, oh so politically
correct).
I have also stated that I have great admiration for the other
member and much of what he has written. However I must take exception
to the critical strategy that consists in condemning an entire
audience ( after all, we are all part of the audience, or some
audience)because the critic doesn't happen to like a filmmaker whom
that audience happens to like.
For example, although I lived in Manhattan for nearly 30 years
and am probably somewhat closer socially to the audiences excoriated
in said piece than to the blacks and hispanics who lived a few
blocks north of my Upper West Side (actually Morningside Heights)
residence, I never shared the kind of "yuppie sensibilities" so
repugnant to Jonathan, never felt my "ego" was "flattered" by Allen's
movies, and so I feel I am being unfairly treated when I am
associated with such an audience merely by virtue of liking Allen's
films.
I am all for civil discourse. That's why I suggested we ask Mr
Sarris to explain his Welles remark. However, Fred, one might argue
that people are constantly being "uncivil" here, albeit in an
indirect (not "ad hominem") way, by stating that such and such
director or such and such film is worthless while others have
expressed admiration for same. The expression of differences of
opinion cannot avoid being to some degree antagonistic. If it were
not, we'd all get bored to death.
JPC
4869
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 5:58am
Subject: Re: Woody Allen
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Jonathan wrote: "I was criticizing portions of the
> audience--some of Allen's fans--for what I took to be their
> endorsement of Allen's highly partial and romanticized view of the
> city."
>
Fine, but what's wrong about a partial and romanticized view of
the city? He was not doing a documentary about the seamy side of city
life. MANHATTAN is far from being one of my favorite Allen films
(it's so manipulative...) but again I won't blame him for not doing
what he never intended to do. If I want seamy, if I want indictments,
I know where to look.
JPC
> I would just add - uninvited - that I don't think Jonathan was
> claiming to read audiences' minds. Rather, he was criticizing the
> attitudes of an assumed audience as he saw them reflected in what
> other critics had written about the films.
So we are not talking about real audiences at all, but an abstract
concept of an "assumed" audience derived from what some critics have
written, not about audiences, but about films. Now I understand (I
think...)
JPC
This is something the
> Cahiers did, often well, in the late 60s and early 70s. I just did
> it - I hope well - in my post about Political Film Criticism,
without
> invoking the audience. And criticizing the critic is something
> Jonathan has always done.
>
> It's also true, J-PC, that critiquing a favorable review of a film
> can be a way into critiquing the film, or can sound like it, or
even
> take the place of it in some cases.
>
> . I have no quarrel with that. Completely true. JPC
4870
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 7:35am
Subject: What Auteurs Do In Their Free Time
I was quite startled to turn on Iron Chef on the Food Network tonight
and see that one of the guest diners/judges was Nagisa Oshima.
And getting back to Robert Aldrich, I also saw part of a PBS special
featuring folk-oriented pop/rock singers of the 60s and 70s. One of
the performers was Dirty Dozen co-star Trini Lopez, singing "If I Had
A Hammer," and looking very old. But not as old as Judy Collins, who
had her gray hair up in a bun and looked like your grandmother.
4871
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 11:25am
Subject: Re: aldrich and leisen
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Sometimes the director is the auteur. Sometimes the
> writer.
>
> And sometimes Joan Crawford.
Well, if you think hard about it Joan Crawford really is the auteur
of everything, isn't she?
__________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
4872
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 2:09pm
Subject: Re: What Auteurs Do In Their Free Time
--- Damien Bona wrote:
> I was quite startled to turn on Iron Chef on the
> Food Network tonight
> and see that one of the guest diners/judges was
> Nagisa Oshima.
>
Really? That's great to know. How did he look? he's
been at Death's Door lately.
Oshima was an enormous TV star in Japan throughout the
1960's and into the 70's. I fact a whole segment of
the japanese public knows him prrimarily as a Phil
Donahue-style TV host of topical shows.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4873
From: Tosh
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 3:58pm
Subject: Oshima on Japanese talk shows, etc.
During my stays in Japan, I would see Oshima on various talk shows
during the morning, day and night. He is (was?) a popular pop tv
figure - I am sure most of the viewers have'nt seen his film work.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
4874
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 4:01pm
Subject: Re: Ralph Meeker
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"By the way, one of the films that makes me think Eastwood may be a
> cineaste when he tries is Heartbreak Ridge, which ends with that
> invasion. One of his best, IMO."
I saw it when it opened and was absolutely certain then that it would
end with the Beirut bombing which took place just before the Grenada
invasion.
Richard
4875
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 4:20pm
Subject: Re: Oshima on Japanese talk shows, etc.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh wrote:
> During my stays in Japan, I would see Oshima on various talk shows
> during the morning, day and night. He is (was?) a popular pop tv
> figure - I am sure most of the viewers have'nt seen his film work.
> --
> Tosh Berman
> TamTam Books
> http://www.tamtambooks.com
His most famous work during his talk show career was IN THE REALM OF
THE SENSES because it was banned (though a censored version was
finally released in Japan.) You're probably right about his tv
audience being unfamiliar with his film work, but at the time he was
making television documentaries and would gave himself a plug when
one was dued to be telecast.
One of his most intriguing unrealized projects when an adaptation of
Sessue Hayakawa's autobiograhy ZEN SHOWED ME THE WAY. Almost two
thirds of the book was about Hayakawa's early days as a
filmmaker/actor and his company Haworth Productions and his
relationship with Thomas Ince. I suspect this what Oshima was
interested in.
Richard
4876
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 4:52pm
Subject: Re: Political film criticism (was Woody Allen)
J-PC: Let me clarify what Serge said. We were talking about my
puzzlement at the sudden appearance - and equally sudden
disappearance - of one Philippe Pakradouni as the political commissar
who seems to have overseen the brief transformation of CdC into a
Maoist magazine with no pictures. Serge was explaining that they
realized after May 1968 that they had little understanding of
revolutionary politics and had reached out to people who knew more
than they did. (This is also how Serge Toubiana, Serge Le Peron and
Danielle Dubroux, young activists all, joined the magazine.)
So his statement that all the CdC team knew about politics was "what
they read in Marie Claire" was typical Daney humor, and I'm sure
somewhat exaggerated. (Serge himself went of on a trip to India
either before or after May during which he literally just kept
walking into the interior till he collapsed, apparently.) The fact
is, they proceeded to educate themselves by studying the general
principles and concrete applications of the thoughts of Marx, Engels,
Trotsky, Lenin, Mao, Gramsci etc. I'm told that somewhere there's
actually a pseudonymous pamphlet Serge wrote during this period
exposing the involvement of Bank of America in the Haitian blood
trade.
And like all fans of La Chinoise, they brought in their own Comrade X
and submitted to his instruction and discipline. The results were not
the most interesting issues they produced - "That period was a
nightmare for me," is how I had kicked off the conversation, which
happened in 1977 - but the madness did eventually end, when at the
bottom of a cover-list of topics being treated in the new issue
(Chinese films, etc.) appeared the word "Avanti," which I at first
thought was some Italian terrorist group. It turned out to be Pascal
Kane's favorable review of the Wilder film, the first herald of the
thaw.
The punch line to Serge's account was that getting rid of Pakradouni
was a breeze. As soon as they disagreed with one thing he said, he
vanished. "This guy never uttered a sentence that didn't include the
word 'struggle' just vanished like a soap bubble.'" End of anecdote.
But let me append something I read last night, which says better what
I said in my post beginning this no doubt short-lived "thread,"
although it was written in 1891 and concerns Ibsen's The Master
Builder [which was made into a powerful post-heart attack film by S.
Ray, BTW]: "Only those who take an active part in politics can
appreciate the grim fun of the situation, which, though it has an
intensely local Norwegian air, will be at once recognized as typical
of England - not, perhaps, by the professional literary critics, who
are for the most part faineants as far as political life is
concerned, but certainly by everyone who has got as far as a seat on
the committee of the most obscure Ratepayers' Association." GBS
always says it better.
And another thing... When I was researching an encyclopedia entry on
La Chinoise recently for a "criminal organization" in Bologna that
still hasn't paid me, I rediscovered Godard's great interview with
the Cahiers about that film (available in English in Godard on
Godard), where he said that it was going to take a thousand years to
achieve a classless society. Apparently he was right about that.
Where do I apply to have my head frozen?
4877
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 5:06pm
Subject: Re: The Isle
Chabrol's review of The Isle was cute (as long as I'm yarnin'): We
were in the same elevator at Venice so I asked him what he thought of
the film. Jerking at an invisible cord, eyes popping even more than
usual, he did a startling imitation of a hooked fish and shouted: "Je
te tiens! Je te tiens par mon gros hamecon!" ("I've got you! I've got
you with my big fish-hook!")
4878
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 5:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Political film criticism (was Woody Allen)
> "Only those who take an active part in politics can
> appreciate the grim fun of the situation, which, though it has an
> intensely local Norwegian air, will be at once recognized as typical
> of England - not, perhaps, by the professional literary critics, who
> are for the most part faineants as far as political life is
> concerned, but certainly by everyone who has got as far as a seat on
> the committee of the most obscure Ratepayers' Association." GBS
> always says it better.
My head seems to be in a similar place to yours these days with regards
to politics. I'm kind of troubled by the belief that only people who
actually run part of the world, or take a study course in how to do it,
have a grasp of political reality. Troubled, because these are the
people who have to make decisions about whether a thousand or a million
people die. So you have to have a strong stomach, stronger than mine
perhaps, to approach any kind of truth about this most difficult
subject. - Dan
4879
From: Gary W. Tooze
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 5:32pm
Subject: King Vidor's 'The Fountainhead' or Why Audiences Shrugged!
Hello !
This being my first post, I was hoping to say something significant, but it
won't turn out that way ;)
I'll briefly introduce myself. My name is Gary Tooze and I run
DVDBeaver.com - a site mentioned in a previous post by Mr. Rosenbaum.
I still messing with this article on The Fountainhead, but didn't know a
better place to show it than here.
You can also see it with some screen captures of the film here:
http://www.articles.dvdbeaver.com/
Ohh.. and before I forget - Demy's "Lola" is coming out on DVD a week
tomorrow. I luckily received an early copy and have done a review (of the
Region 1 DVD) here:
http://www.articles.dvdbeaver.com/
King Vidor's 'The Fountainhead' or Why Audiences Shrugged!
Man has a single choice; to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue"
One of the more misunderstood and unjustly maligned films in Hollywood
history; King Vidor's 1949 thematically authoritative "The Fountainhead"
was unable to shift many perceptions and find acceptance for its
"expressionist fable" qualities. This derivation from usual Hollywood fare
of the 40's required a much higher level of suspension of disbelief, one
that the audience of the day were unwilling to respond with. It reached top
spots on many of the worst film lists of that year with novelist and
screenwriter Ayn Rand's deep and unbound dialogue helping to vault her
philosophy known as 'Objectivism' (a cerebral anthem for day-to-day
existence) into the more mainstream public eye. Intellectuals of the day
expectantly applauded it, the bulk of society dismissed its melodrama and
misunderstood its profound messages.
Ironically the very core fundamentals of the The Fountainhead deny public
conformist reaction; that which would determine its box-office success or
failure. To have had financial success would have meant either it had
succumbed to the will and desire of the masses that it staunchly opposed OR
that it had achieved an impossibly idealistic goal of altering society's
entrenched perceptions. Instead though it failed the studio financially
thereby adhering to the principles of its premise. Ironic indeed, and a
strange gamble for Warner Brothers to take especially if they thought Rand
would allow her scintillating discourse to be "dumbed-down" to appeal to a
larger slice of the box-office gate. They were obviously attempting to
capitalize on the popularity of her best-selling novel and spared little
expense in production.
The film focuses on the uncompromising and dogmatic philosophical stance of
the protagonist, architect Howard Roark - played by a strong, impassive and
abruptly stoic Gary Cooper. He, in defense of artistic integrity and
individualism, blows up a partially constructed building site, called
Cortlandt Homes, manipulated from his own original design. The film
introduces us to him, his philosophy, his actions, and finally the defense
of the unwavering principles that he lives by.
The climax of the film is his court case. At his trial he soliloquizes
about the formulaic adjustment of a creator's vision to adhere to popular
opinion. He explains how this prevalent truism is as damning as the
destruction of expression and individuality simply made in an effort to bow
to the blind adherence and whims of the conformist mob. Using evolutionary
man's discovery of fire, he argues that without allowing complete freedom
of expression nothing of any value or substance would ever have been, or
will be, created.
Hinting into Roark's lifestyle foundations are Rand's Objectivism
principles of self-interest. The concept of selfishness as a virtue remains
a difficult sell to her audience. As the film progresses we see the
complete denial of altruistic values. Roark expounds "I don't ask for help,
or do I give it". In his speech to parasite architect Peter Keating prior
to clandestinely accepting to design Cortlandt, Roark states "A man who
works for others without payment is a slave. I do not believe slavery is
noble... not in any form, or for any purpose whatsoever." This validates
his reason for rejecting to design Cortlandt on the sole basis of
humanitarianism - to help shelter the masses. This harkens straight to the
core of Rand's novel by stating that the creative 'self' is more important
than the denial of 'self' for the sake of others. Roark states before his
trial, "I'm selfish? - is that what they say? It's true I live for the
judgment of my own mind and for my own sake". Rand's concept of man is as a
completely heroic figure (in Roark's case as a psychologically isolated
hero), with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with
productive accomplishments as his noblest activity, and 'reason' as his
only judgmental divining-rod. Perhaps idealistic, but ultimately appealing
to U.S. audiences as Roark's speech links it to the very core of
capitalistic and democratic flag waving values. This is the reason for the
success of her book and my feeling is that it was far too unconventional
for modern film as its vehicle of expression. The final result is the ethos
of an "Art" film entangled within a perceived lecturing melodrama. The
Fountainhead and its complete character focus deviates drastically from the
standard cinema of the day with its more obvious definability and structure.
The film expression that I was initially drawn to the resolute "integrity
of the artist" stance of Roark. I found this quite in common with the
writings of Russian master filmmaker "Andrei Tarkovsky" as stated in his
book "Sculpting in Time". This stalwart lack of capitulation to bend to the
desires of the masses is exceedingly noble - in some minds bordering upon
martyrdom when financial gains are the rejected reward. Ayn Rand evolved to
be the mostly widely read philosopher of the 20th century. She (originally
Alice Rosenbaum) is also of Soviet origins with St. Petersburg, Russia as
her birthplace. An interesting co-incidence to Tarkovsky that doesn't
escape me. Perhaps those bred in a more repressed culture and more apt to
find obvious flaws and the means of identifying and coping in a more
autarchic system.
Quite amusingly, The Fountainhead is filled with sexual and erotic symbols
and motifs. I found these quite out-of-place for the times. Large office
towers representative of phallic metaphors with a stunning 22-year-old
Patricia Neal playing ice princess Dominque Francon. Jack Warner considered
and then rejected Bette Davis, Ida Lupino and Barbara Stanwyck for the
coveted role. Neal's Dominique sizzles as a tempest pot of strong-willed
feminine sexuality. Initially she is marked as a domineering woman (her
first name is no coincidence), complete with riding crop which she slashes
across Roark's face to encourage his aggressive sexual conquest of her. She
eventually acquiesces into a submissive and pouting lover... the passive
love slave of Howard Roark, bowing to the strength of his "edifice".
Cleverly imbedded, this symbolism is generally oblivious to most. Even when
Dominique first spots Roark and his sinewy forearm muscles pumping the
drill into the marble at her fathers granite quarry we rarely think twice
about the scenes hidden implication.
Rand's book "The Fountainhead" (actually all her novels) expresses an
extremely machismo archetype structure where male physical conquest of
females are a prelude to desire and true love. Dominique is self-described
as a character "with strength but not courage". She believes in Roark's
philosophy, as does her husband of convenience and Roark's friend,
newspaper magnate Gail Wynand (played by Raymond Massey). His one-sided
adoration of her and her openly loveless expression to him are pragmatic if
in total denial by all concerned. They do share one resolute bond though; a
lack of courage to follow the trail which Roark is quietly marching ahead
of them.
Comparisons to Wynand as media mogul William Randolph Hearst and to Roark
as master architect Frank Lloyd Wright seem too obvious, but the true
champion of the film is Rand's wonderfully parable-infused dialogue. It is
the blatant separation of this film to anything of a comparable nature,
before or since. Each sentence harkens directly to a more universal meaning
while not simply filling in the plot with expected conventions and
expressions. We also see instances where Rand is furtively playing with
words. As Dominique stares down into the granite quarry to the laboring
Roark she states "Why are you looking at me?" Roark replies with a smile:
"For the same reason you're looking at me!". Her coquettish attempts at
teasing are easily discernable by the taciturn Roark. She later advises him
to stop ogling her as it may be misinterpreted. His flat response; "I don't
think so Miss Francon".
The Fountainhead has been aptly described as post-German expressionism from
director Vidor with its fabulous model set designs of buildings.
Cinematographer Robert Burks' low to medium camera angles reflect Roark
adeptly as the strong-willed 'everyman' who battles the persistent
seductions and temptations that cross his path. The camera lingers
consistently on Patricia Neal as a beacon of sexuality. The shots taken
below her show her dominance and in the final scene have her rising in the
outdoor construction elevator to meet Roark as he majestically stands atop
the tallest building in the world. Casting is perfect for Neal and this
should have been her springboard to superstardom had the film garnered its
anticipated box-office return. In my minds eye I see Henry Fonda as a more
powerful and contemplative Howard Roark than Cooper portrayed but perhaps I
am being too picky - Cooper made the role his own as he always seems to
have done throughout his career.
What we are left with is a sterling example of Hollywood attempting to
deviate and grow with expressionism centralized within a compelling plot of
an uncompromising genius who copes and succeeds. The films edict remains
timeless but certainly more appropriate for modern 'art' film buffs with
dialogue as its nerve-center and consistent and even pacing as its
foundation. Although Hollywood is finally breaking new ground it doesn't
make films like this anymore... and aside from The Fountainhead, truly
never did. Looking back today, I found it such a refreshing and unique change.
Regards,
Gary William Tooze
http://www.DVDBeaver.com
4880
From: vincent lobrutto
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 6:12pm
Subject: RE: King Vidor's 'The Fountainhead' of Why Audiences Shrugged!
Welcome to the group Gary,
Excellent article. The Fountainhead is truly a misunderstood and neglected film. King Vidor was the ideal director for it in many ways as you point out. Vidor along with Fritz Lang and Antonioni are film directors who masterly express architecture in their films which often deal with how mankind relates and deals with its environment. For me it is a part of Vidor's excellent body of work but to audiences the film did not live up to their expectations or mind's eye visualization of a popular and controversial novel.
Vinny
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4881
From: vincent lobrutto
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 6:19pm
Subject: Re: Fwd Kubrick quote
Paula,
I can't say I have ever seen a quote from Kubrick like this. It seems unlikely Kubrick would say it was easy to decide what to say in a film - his decision process was so meticulous I can't imagine him thinking that. In terms of covering up what he wanted to say - that sounds to me more like a critical comment not something by Kubrick. He didn't cover up what he wanted to say he expressed it visually and never wanted to explain his work. Sorry can't be of more help, a quote of this nature didn't come up during the research of my biography. Good luck, let me know if you find it. Since Kubrick's passing a lot of new information (and misinformation) has been uncovered.
Vinny
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
4882
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Political film criticism (was Woody Allen)
Reply to Dan: I consider the Bush Presidency to be a free 4-year
course in Politics 101 - all you have to do is keep up with the
supplementary reading, some of which is on the Net. Then comes the
problem of "making [political] films politically" and "writing
[political] film criticism politically," instead of doing both in
kneejerk fashion, particularly the latter: "The lights are on, but
nobody's home."
One of the things I like about your film All the Ships at Sea is that
it's about a subject which has big political implications of the kind
you allude to in your post: the conflict between charismatic and
traditional versions of the established religions - Christianity in
your film, but there's also the Jewish version (which I know a bit
about having recently barely lived through Vero's near-conversion to
Orthodox Judaism) and of course Islam, the big world problem (leaving
us out of it for the moment). As for Honeymoon, it was about gender
politics with a vengeance, so much so that programmers like Jean-
Pierre Garcia of Amiens, a good friend who is also a terrible
womanizer, were scared to show it.
On the religion front, I'm reading an amazing book that Gide loved
(written about by Edith Sedgwick in Between Men, but it's bigger than
what she wrote) called Confessions of a Justified Sinner (by James
Hogg), which portrays the conflict between extreme Calvinists and
Cavaliers in 17th Century Scotland. It's a horror story with a
Calvinist as the Monster (although I haven't read Part 2 yet, which
retells the same events from the fratricidal Calvinist's pov), unlike
your film, which is a dialogue of equals, but it reminds me that this
problem has been around a long time, and has caused many, many
millions of deaths. Quite apart from its esthetic qualities, and the
cinema allegory I insist on seeing in it, All the Ships... addresses
the subject of religious wars, and does it with considerably more
finesse and intelligence than Holy Smoke!
Question: The younger sister isn't a Christian - she's like a
Heaven's Gate cultist. Could you have made a film that presented a
dialogue like that between a traditional and a charismatic Christian -
a post-Carter Baptist, for example?
4883
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 6:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Political film criticism (was Woody Allen)
> Reply to Dan: I consider the Bush Presidency to be a free 4-year
> course in Politics 101 - all you have to do is keep up with the
> supplementary reading, some of which is on the Net.
Yeah, it's working that way for lots of us, isn't it? I think it's the
one-two of the WTC attack and the subsequent implementation of Bush's
global agenda: in a visceral way, we've been pulled in all political
directions.
> Question: The younger sister isn't a Christian - she's like a
> Heaven's Gate cultist.
Very much like: the most persuasive research materials I could find were
written by the HIM activists in the 70s, who went underground and
emerged years later as Heaven's Gate.
> Could you have made a film that presented a
> dialogue like that between a traditional and a charismatic Christian -
> a post-Carter Baptist, for example?
Yes, in many ways. I even put a few jokes in the script likening the
cultist to a Protestant. And I read a good point/counterpoint book by a
charismatic and a traditional Catholic that influenced the dialogue.
The biggest reason to make the younger sister more than a mere
charismatic is that, in my mind at least, it was important for her to
alternate between being sensible and seeming utterly beyond the pale.
Hence the aliens, magnetic fields, etc. - Dan
4884
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 6:47pm
Subject:
Dan wrote: It was important for her to
alternate between being sensible and seeming utterly beyond the pale.
Hence the aliens, magnetic fields, etc.
What's beyond the pale about aliens and magnetic fields? Seriously,
that's also what makes her a spokesman for current H'wd cinema -
younger audiences love that stuff, and "seeing is believeing" is
their motto. Unlike Bergman's audience!
4885
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 7:04pm
Subject: ATSAS
hotlove666 wrote:
> Dan wrote: It was important for her to
> alternate between being sensible and seeming utterly beyond the pale.
> Hence the aliens, magnetic fields, etc.
>
> What's beyond the pale about aliens and magnetic fields? Seriously,
> that's also what makes her a spokesman for current H'wd cinema -
> younger audiences love that stuff, and "seeing is believeing" is
> their motto. Unlike Bergman's audience!
I've actually been amazed at how many viewers have been completely
unfazed by the cultist's beliefs, and just see her as a valiant warrior
against organized religion. I thought the aliens were an easy way to
throw some identification toward the Catholic sister. Oh, well -
hopefully I can hide behind the film's veneer of objectivity. - Dan
4886
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 7:19pm
Subject: Re: ATSAS
About un film de Dan Sallitt
> > Hence the aliens, magnetic fields, etc.
Wouldn't some of H-wood side with the cult sister too--e.g. Cruise et
al.
There's a great Onion article about the religion/sci-fi divide from a
few years back with the headline something like "American Public's
Belief Divided Between Angels, Aliens" with a poll showing 51%
believing in angels and 49% in aliens.
Bill, what's that in your bio about Roswell?
PWC
4887
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 7:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: Oshima on Japanese talk shows, etc.
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> One of his most intriguing unrealized projects when
> an adaptation of
> Sessue Hayakawa's autobiograhy ZEN SHOWED ME THE
> WAY. Almost two
> thirds of the book was about Hayakawa's early days
> as a
> filmmaker/actor and his company Haworth Productions
> and his
> relationship with Thomas Ince. I suspect this what
> Oshima was
> interested in.
Actually Oshima was interested in Hayakawa's
relationship with Rudolph Valentino. Jeremy Thomas was
on-board to produce and Ryuichi Sakamoto was to star
as Hayakawa -- with Antonio Banderas as Valentino.
Sadly the film never came to be.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4888
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 10:35pm
Subject: Re: Le Revelateur
I've seen these for sale on video: "Le Cicatrice intérieure," "Un
Ange passe," "Berceau de cristal," "Liberté, la nuit," and "Rue
fontaine" from "Paris vu par... 20 Years Later." They show up on eBay
once in a while, and the first two are available at vsom.com.
There's a video at vsom.com that I don't recognize: "J'entedis,"
described as "a documentary about Nico, the former VELVET UNDERGROUND
lead singer, compiled by Philippe Garrel."
Paul
4889
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 0:33am
Subject: Re: Leisen and Maurice Tourneur
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> For Maurice Tourneur, his early "Alias Jimmy Valentine" is a really
good
> movie. "Lorna Doone" has many beauties, too. There is a discussion
of "Alias Jimmy
> Valentine" on my web site, in the Maurice Tourneur article, trying
to analyze
> its visual style and mise-en-scene. Please see:
> http://members.aol.com/MG4273/mtour.htm
>
> Mike Grost
I had a question about "A Girl's Folly." Where are Emile Chautard,
Maurice Tourneur, and Joseph von Sternberg in the film? Does Tourneur
play the director? Does Sternberg play the camera operator?
Paul
4890
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 1:00am
Subject: A Girl's Folly
> I had a question about "A Girl's Folly." Where are Emile Chautard,
> Maurice Tourneur, and Joseph von Sternberg in the film? Does Tourneur
> play the director? Does Sternberg play the camera operator?
I saw it, but darned if I can remember. But the AFI Catalog 1911-1920
(which I worked on) says, "A viewing of a print of the film strongly
supports claims of Von Sternberg's participation, playing the part of
the cameraman who shoots the film-within-the-film...Viewing the film
also brought up the possibility that Emile Chautard...played a bit part
in the movie-within-the-movie." - Dan
4891
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 2:03am
Subject: Quelles sont nos taches sur le front culturel? (was something else)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> J-PC: Let me clarify what Serge said. We were talking about my
> puzzlement at the sudden appearance - and equally sudden
> disappearance - of one Philippe Pakradouni as the political
commissar
> who seems to have overseen the brief transformation of CdC into a
> Maoist magazine with no pictures. Serge was explaining that they
> realized after May 1968 that they had little understanding of
> revolutionary politics and had reached out to people who knew more
> than they did. (This is also how Serge Toubiana, Serge Le Peron and
> Danielle Dubroux, young activists all, joined the magazine.)
>
> So his statement that all the CdC team knew about politics
was "what
> they read in Marie Claire" was typical Daney humor, and I'm sure
> somewhat exaggerated.
>
Thanks Bill for pointing out to me that his statement must have
been humorous and exaggerated. But you might not know it reading some
of the stuff they published at the time.
Seriously, I feel it was appalling that a bunch of very
bright young intellectuals allowed themselves to be browbeaten and
told what to think and what to write by some dubious pseudo-
charismatic "leader" with some murky Marxist agenda (thanks too for
the info on the mysterious Pakradouni, who seems something like the
Frederic Wiseman character in VIVA ZAPATA!. I'll never forget that
#242-43 issue. ("Les membres de la revue doivent appliquer la ligne
de masse." That sort of things...)Of course it was all in the air --
Dame Fashion says "Mao."
O course as you say the madness finally came to an end, but
what a mess. No great harm, sure, but it was the same pattern that
ended in millions of massacred innocents in China (they loved Mao and
everything Mao, for a while, at Cahiers, at Change etc...) in
Cambodia, and long before in Russia. And Cahiers were becoming a
slightly more sophisticated (?) version of L'Ecran Francais in the
late forties... Oh well it's all water under the bridges...
Bill I'm not getting my head frozen. A classless society would be
the most boring thing imaginable.
Sorry I have no access to circumflex accents on this Yahoo
thing, but I think it gives a rather amusing slant to my title.
JPC
> .
>
> Where do I apply to have my head frozen?
4892
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 3:11am
Subject: Re: Allen is a fraud (used to be: What is wrong...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> I've heard and read this kind of argument many times. There may be
> some truth to some of it, but I'm certainly not going to be convinced
> by criticism of the kind "Allen doesn't show minorities or gays in
> his films" any more than I'd find any relevance to the criticism that
> Rohmer doesn't show Arab immigrants in his.
>
> JPC
When I read Jonathan Rosenbaum's essay on Allen, my first question
was why he is generally supportive of Whit Stillman's films, which
seem to have the same faults he sees in Allen's films, magnified. I
may be missing something.
Concerning the absence of minorities: I've ventured inside the Upper
East Side a few times and been surprised to discover that the
monoculture depicted in some of Allen's films really exists,
though hidden away, barely visible from the street. (I preferred
"Coming Soon" as a more amiable depiction of this gentry.)
I think it was Amy Taubin or Georgia Brown who made a comment
to the effect that Allen isn't the poet laureate of Manhattan,
but more accurately the poet laureate of zip codes 10021 and 10024.
A bit of trivia that I thought interesting is that Allen wanted
Jerry Lewis to direct "Take the Money and Run" and "Bananas."
Negotiations with the production company prevented the former;
Lewis' prior commitment to filming "The Day the Clown Cried"
prevented the latter. The results would have been interesting.
Paul
4893
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 3:26am
Subject: Re: A Girl's Folly
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I saw it, but darned if I can remember. But the AFI Catalog 1911-1920
> (which I worked on) says, "A viewing of a print of the film strongly
> supports claims of Von Sternberg's participation, playing the part of
> the cameraman who shoots the film-within-the-film...
The cameraman looked like Sternberg, but I'd guess he was about 5'
tall. According to IMDb, Sternberg was 5'5". Obviously either
my guess or IMDb could be wrong.
Paul
4894
From: A. Oscar Boyson
Date: Mon Dec 1, 2003 9:20am
Subject: hitmen in film
Hey,
To introduce myself and write a more serious first post - my name is
Oscar Boyson and I'm a sophomore at Northwestern. I volunteer and work
on the programming committee at Block Cinema, which is our on-campus
movie house for showing the kind of movies y'all like to see (chicago
cinephiles are probably familiar). I'm currently proposing a series
about the "Hitman" in film - his adaptability through genres, national
film cultures, eras, and other films. One of the ideas that runs
through the series is that of the hitman as a sort of international
hybrid - combining the Gangster and Western film cultures of the United
States with the Yakuza and Samurai genres of Japan, and to some extent
the Italian Spaghetti Western as well. I'd like to show GHOST DOG as
the ultimate statement on this international merger, expressing the
solitude and spiritual side of Hitmen. I also think KILL BILL VOL. 1
may be a sufficient counterpart to GHOST DOG in showing the violence
that is essential to the hitman film, while also commenting on the
hybrid of film cultures (though I don't think it's half the movie GHOST
DOG is). I was wondering what you guys thought of some of these ideas,
and the tentative list of films, which is below.
MURDER BY CONTRACT I. Lerner
double feature: YOJIMBO and FISTFUL OF DOLLARS (though this will
probably be SANJURO and FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE because we're doing a
Kurosawa retro right before Hitmen would play and YOJIMBO is a part of
that. I also like the idea of SANJURO and FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE
standing on their own - the hitman can be adapted into sequels quite
successfully, both films are sequels and Leone's are adaptations of
Kurosawa's).
THE GUNFIGHTER H. King
POINT BLANK J. Boorman
LE SAMOURAI J.P. Melville
double feature: BRANDED TO KILL and PISTOL OPERA (again the adaptations
and updating. Is the hit"man" no longer limited to the male gender.
KILL BILL speaks for this also). S. Suzuki
THE CONFORMIST B. Bertollucci
THE KILLER J. Woo
KILL BILL VOL. 1 Q. Tarantino
GHOST DOG J. Jarmusch.
I've written justifications for each film, and a lengthy proposal
exploring some of the connections and differences between the movies.
One thing that came up when our committee was debating was the idea of
the Hitman as a capitalist creature. Any comments on that? I'd
appreciate any insight, challenges, comments, criticisms, questions,
suggestions, etc.
Thanks,
Oscar
4895
From: Paul Fileri
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 4:27am
Subject: Larry Doyle and the Looney Tunes
Feuding and disagreement at Warner Bros. over BACK IN ACTION and the
current attempt at a Looney Tunes revival:
http://u.sbsun.com/Stories/0,1413,216~24281~1763892,00.html
- Paul
4896
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 4:45am
Subject: Re: Re: Allen is a fraud (used to be: What is wrong...)
--- Paul Gallagher wrote:
>
> I think it was Amy Taubin or Georgia Brown who made
> a comment
> to the effect that Allen isn't the poet laureate of
> Manhattan,
> but more accurately the poet laureate of zip codes
> 10021 and 10024.
>
Well when your're right you're right -- and they're
right.
When I think of New York in the movies it's the New
York of "The Cool World," "Guns of the Trees,"
"Shadows" and "Who's That Knocking at My Door" (even
more than "Mean Streets") -- not anything by Woody
Allen.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
4897
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 5:15am
Subject: Re: Allen is a fraud (used to be: What is wrong...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Paul Gallagher wrote:
>
> >
> > I think it was Amy Taubin or Georgia Brown who made
> > a comment
> > to the effect that Allen isn't the poet laureate of
> > Manhattan,
> > but more accurately the poet laureate of zip codes
> > 10021 and 10024.
> >
> Well when your're right you're right -- and they're
> right.
>
> When I think of New York in the movies it's the New
> York of "The Cool World," "Guns of the Trees,"
> "Shadows" and "Who's That Knocking at My Door" (even
> more than "Mean Streets") -- not anything by Woody
> Allen.
>
>
David, let's face it, your movie New York and my movie New York
and anybody's movie New York is a New York of the mind. The New York
of the films you quote is neither more nor less real than Allen's New
York. "Gritty realism" on film doesn't make things more "real". It's
still cinema. "The Cool World" and "Shadows" are poetic visions and
just as fantasy-like as Allen's "Manhattan".
My zip code was 10027 for twenty years. Where does that put me?
JPC
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> http://companion.yahoo.com/
4898
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 5:20am
Subject: Re: Digest Number 277
On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 08:45 PM, a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
> Message: 23
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:20:34 -0500
> From: A. Oscar Boyson
> Subject: hitmen in film
>
> I also think KILL BILL VOL. 1
> may be a sufficient counterpart to GHOST DOG in showing the violence
> that is essential to the hitman film, while also commenting on the
> hybrid of film cultures (though I don't think it's half the movie GHOST
> DOG is). I was wondering what you guys thought of some of these ideas,
> and the tentative list of films, which is below.
>
>
> One thing that came up when our committee was debating was the idea of
> the Hitman as a capitalist creature. Any comments on that? I'd
> appreciate any insight, challenges, comments, criticisms, questions,
> suggestions, etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Oscar
>
My immediate response to Ghost Dog / Kill Bill comparison is related to
the capitalist creature idea. Ghost Dog is 'paying a debt or returning
a favor' but essentially for hire; Kill Bill is about personal revenge.
A HIT MAN seems to be distant from his objective is a way that makes
KILL BILL a totally different kind of killing. The HIT MAN probably
often evolves to someone personally involved, as the assassin UMA does
in KILL BILL, but we don't really see that evolution. A HIT MAN is in
the service of revenge, but not after revenge and that seems very
different
4899
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 5:38am
Subject: Re: Allen is a fraud (used to be: What is wrong...)
>
> When I read Jonathan Rosenbaum's essay on Allen, my first question
> was why he is generally supportive of Whit Stillman's films, which
> seem to have the same faults he sees in Allen's films, magnified. I
> may be missing something.
>
"Generally supportive"? Stillman has made three films; I thought I
was being fairly critical of--and even sarcastic about--"Barcelona,"
and didn't exactly give raves to the other two, despite the fact that
I think his dialogue is sometimes more intelligent than Allen's. But
to assume in any case that I judge Allen and Stillman exclusively
because of the way they show certain New York streets is as reductive
of my reviews as you're accusing me of being of Allen's films. If
politics were the only criterion, Stillman as a neocon would have to
be more criticizable tha Allen (who's surely closer to being a
liberal)--but I never said that politics was the only criterion. As I
mentioned in an earlier post, a large part of my critique regarding
Allen was of the reasons why I thought he was being critically
overvalued. And, for the record, I'm a big fan of Broadway Danny Rose
and a moderate fan of Annie Hall--to cite only two of the Allen films
I like more than dislike.
4900
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 2, 2003 5:59am
Subject: Allen vs. Stillman
> "Generally supportive"? Stillman has made three films; I thought I
> was being fairly critical of--and even sarcastic about--"Barcelona,"
> and didn't exactly give raves to the other two, despite the fact that
> I think his dialogue is sometimes more intelligent than Allen's.
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily Jonathan's, but there's
a difference in the way Stillman and Allen present their material.
Allen always runs the risk of toppling into a kind of solipsism, whereby
he seems unaware that his world is crafted to give him certain kinds of
gratification. (I do like a few Allen films, especially ANNIE HALL.)
Whatever other problems he has - and I think he developed some problems
after his initial artistic success with METROPOLITAN - Stillman always
seems aware that he's showing a subculture. The sociological boundaries
are clearly drawn, and the audience is given the opportunity to distance
themselves, or even to reject. - Dan
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact