Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 11:33am
Subject: Re: PLAYTIME
Joseph K. wrote:
Egyptian in Hollywood on January 22nd-24th.>
This could provoke a new Gold Rush, Joseph K.
5002
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 0:00pm
Subject: Re: nos taches sur le front culturel / witch hunt / laughed
And this Jousse piece is great.
Anyone for Witch Hunt by Paul Schrader? Jousse said somewhere Schrader's
recent work is more interesting than Scorsese's, but I just can't find out
why. Every time I try to watch this film I see 10 minutes of it and then
start doing something else. Still trying to go through this one, though.
I've just seen They All Laughed for the first time and two french films came
to my mind after the end: Demy's Les Demoiselles de Rochefort and Rivette's
Haut Bas Fragile (never seen Celine et Julie). btw, it's a masterpiece.
guess that's not new (to fellow americans), but it deserves to be said.
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Gallagher"
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:34 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Quelles sont nos taches sur le front culterel?
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> > Paul, I'm very happy you are thinking about these things. The fact
> > that film criticism passed through an era when form and politics
> > were being debated - and sometimes equated - has left all sorts
> > of marks on the present which need to be sifted, reactivated,
> > questioned or overgone. I keep citing the dead hand of political
> > criticism deforming or cutting short criticism in many film
> > reviews by members of my generation, but of course there's
> > what has happened in the university system, as well. I don't view
> > all this stuff as a negative intrusion on esthetics, although I'm
> > sure some in the group do, but it is taking the place of
> > something better that can only come about if we question the
> > heritage that has dumped all these bones on the beach.
>
>
> By the way -- I noticed Comolli wrote an essay, "Pour un
> cinema pauvre," in last month's Cahiers. Thierry Jousse disagrees
> in the Novemeber issue.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
5003
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 0:40pm
Subject: Request from Jaime N. Christley
I am forwarding a request from Jaime N. Christley, who recently withdrew
as a member of this group. He wrote me, "Someone has recently hacked
into one of my e-mail accounts and sent a hostile and profane e-mail to
at least one friend of mine." He asks that if you receive a questionable
message from him, you send it back to him to confirm its authenticity.
- Fred
5004
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 2:19pm
Subject: Re: Lang, Preminger, Cukor
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> Why doesn't Preminger's "Carmen Jones" get
> more respect? (Or does it? I'm bad at following what's in
fashion.)
Godard has spoken of how much he and Anne-Marie Mieville loved CARMEN
JONES after it was finally released in France in (I think) the late
1970s when the opera fell into the public domain and the Bizet estate
could no longer forbid the film from being screened there. To a
certain extent, FIRST NAME: CARMEN came about because of Godard and
Mieville's response to the Preminger film. Paul Mayersberg wrote a
piece on CARMEN and PORGY AND BESS for MOVIE in the early 1960s and
which was re-printed in THE MOVIE READER. And David Bordwell has
discussed Preminger's use of 'Scope in CARMEN and RIVER OF NO RETURN
in VELVET LIGHT TRAP. If it's worth anything, my students always love
the film so it still "speaks" to contemporary spectators. One
student told me it was her all-time favorite movie.
> And is the reason why Cukor's "Two-Faced Woman" gets so little
>respect due to, as Jean-Pierre puts it in "American Directors,"
>people's idealized visions of what Garbo's final screen role
>should have been? I can't figure out any other reasons why the film
>would be so widely disliked; I thought it was quite good.
Robin Wood published a very good piece on THE LADY EVE and TWO-FACED
WOMAN in CINEACTION (Issue 54). While Wood notes that EVE is a more
consistently brilliant and funny film, he finds WOMAN in some ways
more interesting.
>
Joe
5005
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 2:19pm
Subject: Re: Quelles sont nos taches sur le front culturelle
I saw Witch Hunt, Ruy. It's fun tv, but not great cinema. We all bash
Scorsese at times because he's an easy target, but Schrader is barely
a filmmaker, and he indisputably is. Glad you've discovered They All
Laughed. It was first discovered by LA's film buffs, and then the
word spread. Peter told me and Olivier A. a couple of things when we
interviewed him in 82: that he had the devil of a time making
interiors and exteriors flow into each other visually (all but the
office were real), and that he often thought of Hawks and Red Line
when editing it, because Hawks made Red Line to lick a problem -
multiple plots - that his master Marshall Neilan hadn't licked in
Bits of Life: "As soon as the audience gets interested in one story,
you switch to another and lose them." Hawks felt he hadn't licked it,
either, and Peter was very conscious of his predecessors in the
editing room. His one change after release, when the film didn't make
money for various reasons, was to add a prologue explaining the
detective agency so as not to confuse people. I think I have both
versions somewhere.
5006
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 2:32pm
Subject: Re: Sound: "What did they say?"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> I know I'm not the only one but this is a topic critics never
seem to address: in many "modern" films I have difficulty
understanding the dialogue (I'm talking about mostly mainstream
movies, not "direct- sound" documentaries) and I have been wondering
to what extent that might be a result of the religion of "natural"
sound (overwhelming background noise for realistic effect;
sloppy, "life-like" delivery by actors...) Another explanation would
be that I'm growing deaf, but then why do I understand every single
world in most or all pre-1970 movies?...
Same problem here, especially when I watch a contemporary film on TV
or DVD. I'm often hitting the subtitle button or the button on my TV
for closed-captioning. In addition to the reasons you've cited, I
wonder to what extent the "advances" in digital sound technology are
also creating this problem. For example, when watching contemporary
films I repeatedly have to raise and lower the volume on my TV set:
Sound effects and music are almost always too loud, dialgoue is
almost always too low. Hasn't digital sound often had problems in
terms of capturing standard middle-range sound levels?
5007
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 4:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: PLAYTIME - in NY, ever??
I'd drive through two feet of snow to see a 70mm print of PLAYTIME. Any news on a NY screening?
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:33:28 -0000
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: PLAYTIME
Joseph K. wrote:
please note that it will be playing in a "restored" 70mm print at the
Egyptian in Hollywood on January 22nd-24th.>
This could provoke a new Gold Rush, Joseph K.
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
5008
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 4:22pm
Subject: Re: Sound: "What did they say?"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
>
>
>
> Same problem here, especially when I watch a contemporary film on
TV
> or DVD. I'm often hitting the subtitle button or the button on my
TV
> for closed-captioning. In addition to the reasons you've cited, I
> wonder to what extent the "advances" in digital sound technology
are
> also creating this problem. For example, when watching
contemporary
> films I repeatedly have to raise and lower the volume on my TV
set:
> Sound effects and music are almost always too loud, dialgoue is
> almost always too low. Hasn't digital sound often had problems in
> terms of capturing standard middle-range sound levels?
Good point, but TV and/or DVD are not the only, or even, the main
culprits. In my post I cited a couple of experiences watching DVDs
but it's often the film itself, even watched under the best possible
screening conditions, that is the problem. It started a long time ago
(as garland sings in "Born in a Trunk"). I remember seeing HEAVEN'S
GATE the day it opened in New York (afternoon show, before the
disastrous gala opening at night) and being overwhelmed by the
loudness of the sountrack in the early sequences , the sound effects
engulfing the dialogue in the scene of the train's arrival in
Wyoming, especially. Went back to see it again two days later, partly
to understand why everybody hated it so much, but also to better
understand "what was going on" (I did). By the way I don't think any
of the reviewers went to the trouble of seeing it twice...
At the time I wrote a long article defending the film for the
French mag CINEMA 81 (February 81,#266), for which UA absolutely
refused to let me have stills (I finally managed to get some but too
late for publication). But I digress. I'm sure the difficulties with
the soundtrack had something to do with the negative response (in
his Voicereview Sarris complained that the prologue didn't make
sense and the speeches in it were unintelligible -- I quote from
memory)although they probably would have panned the film no matter
what...
JPC
5009
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 4:47pm
Subject: Re: PLAYTIME - in NY, ever??
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lieberman"
> I'd drive through two feet of snow to see a 70mm print of PLAYTIME.
Any news on a NY screening?
The Walter Reade screened a 70mm. print of it once about a half dozen
years ago. I went. About 20 minutes into the film the projector
broke down and I got a pass. Moving Image announced a 70 print
fairly recently, I think, but they ended up showing a 35. But some
other New Yorker here may have a better memory for this than I do. My
memory fades as I get older and everything increasingly seems to have
happened to me ten years ago.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "hotlove666"
> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:33:28 -0000
> To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [a_film_by] Re: PLAYTIME
>
>
>
>
>
> Joseph K. wrote:
> please note that it will be playing in a "restored" 70mm print at
the
> Egyptian in Hollywood on January 22nd-24th.>
>
> This could provoke a new Gold Rush, Joseph K.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1853618/rand=428 534968"> |
> tr>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Service.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ___________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
5010
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 4:58pm
Subject: Re: Sound: "What did they say?"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
Good point, but TV and/or DVD are not the only, or even, the main
> culprits. In my post I cited a couple of experiences watching DVDs
> but it's often the film itself, even watched under the best
possible screening conditions, that is the problem.
Yes, the incredibly uneven quality of sound systems in theaters is
another problem, particularly in relation to Dolby, which is why
Kubrick wanted all of his films mixed for mono. Robert Towne has
spoken of the problem of going to see new films in which things like
that THX logo comes on with its deafening soundtrack roaring across
all of the speakers in the theater so that by the time the film
starts your ears have been detonated and can no longer hear anything
properly. Towne also spoke of how Polanski used sound in CHINATOWN
in such a way that Towne feels would be almost impossible to do in
Hollywood today, a very quiet soundtrack in which the spectator had
to, in a sense, lean forward and listen intently and in which even
the smallest of sound effects had a resonance.
5011
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 5:00pm
Subject: Re: Sound: "What did they say?"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> Sound effects and music are almost always too loud, dialgoue is
> almost always too low. Hasn't digital sound often had problems in
> terms of capturing standard middle-range sound levels?
No, digital is very linear !
I generally attribute these problems to what I call "make everything in the mix
louder than everything else in the mix" syndrome. A legacy from pop music.
-Sam
5012
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 5:21pm
Subject: Re: scorsese bashing
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> We all bash Scorsese at times because he's an easy target, but
Schrader is barely a filmmaker, and he indisputably is.
Could I ask the group a general question in relation to this: Why
the Scorsese-bashing and what makes him an easy target? I ask this
as a way of working through a disenchantment I've been having with
his later work. Perhaps unlike many of you I loved his films (with
some exceptions, like LAST TEMPTATION, COLOR OF MONEY, CAPE FEAR) up
through and especially THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, which I still think is a
great film. Scorsese was a major figure for me in my early
cinephile/film student days, a key transitional filmmaker for
absorbing and and revising the example of classical Hollywood and
European art cinema, all of which I was discovering and loving at
around the same period in the mid to late 1970s. I'm somewhat
embarrassed to admit this but I will anyway: I saw NEW YORK, NEW
YORK in a theater 12 times when it came out in 1977. (But it was
Columbus, Ohio and I was lonely and there wasn't much else to
see.)
Except for the first hour of CASINO I haven't liked anything since
AGE. I wasn't able to jump on the band wagon for accaliming KUNDUN,
which bored me to death, a completely academic work. Ditto BRINGING
OUT THE DEAD and GANGS OF NEW YORK. The films just seem to get
bigger, more elaborate, more baroque and self-consciously allegorical
(those idiotic ghosts coming out of the streets in DEAD, like
something out of CHUD)and more irrelevant. I dutifully see the films
now rather than devotedly. I keep hoping for a breakthrough with the
later ones and when they turn up on cable I'll start watching them
again but I always turn them off.
Any thoughts?
5013
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 5:29pm
Subject: Re: PLAYTIME - in NY, ever??
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
e:
>
> The Walter Reade screened a 70mm. print of it once about a half dozen
> years ago. I went. About 20 minutes into the film the projector
> broke down and I got a pass.
I also fled that extraordinary screening -- what apparently happened was th=
at the lamp fizzled out but they continued projecting it, through a glass di=
mly (the bulb is too hot to replace, I think I was told). Have always wonde=
red if they actually completed the screening that way, and whether this is l=
ikely to be part and parcel of the real-world 70mm experience.
5014
From: Bilge Ebiri
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 5:41pm
Subject: Carmen Jones
Peter T:
>
> >
> > Why doesn't Preminger's "Carmen Jones" get
> > more respect? (Or does it? I'm bad at following what's in
> fashion.)
>
>
Just a note for New Yorkers: The Film Forum's new Winter/Spring rep calendar
includes the following:
February 3 -- AN EVENING WITH MARILYN HORNE and “Carmen Jones”
A dazzling new color & CinemaScope restoration of Otto Preminger’s all-black
musical Carmen Jones will be screened in honor of its 50th anniversary,
followed by an on-stage conversation with legendary opera singer Marilyn
Horne who, at age 20, provided the singing voice for the film’s star,
Dorothy Dandridge.
I guess the anniversary, plus the restoration, may fuel some interest and
reassessment in the film. (Although it is unfortunate that they're only
screening it that one night.)
Also in the cards for the FF: Six weeks of Orson Welles. You heard that
right.
-Bilge Ebiri
5015
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 8:47pm
Subject: Re: Lang, Preminger, Cukor
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
Why doesn't
> Preminger's "Carmen Jones" get more
> respect? (Or does it? I'm mad at following what's
> in fashion.) I saw this
> tonight on DVD and thought it a wonderful film;
> Preminger's gliding camera moves
> and long takes have rarely been as hypnotic. And is
> the reason why Cukor's
> "Two-Faced Woman" gets so little respect due to, as
> Jean-Pierre puts it in
> "American Directors," people's idealized visions of
> what Garbo's final screen role
> should have been? I can't figure out any other
> reasons why the film would be
> so widely disliked; I thought it was quite good.
>
> So what I'm basically asking is: are there any other
> particularly big fans of
> these two films on the group?
>
I'm a huge "Carmen Jones" fan. It's one of my favorite
Preminger films. Can't say I care for "Two-Faced
Woman" very much.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
5016
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 9:14pm
Subject: Re: Lang, Preminger, Cukor
> Why doesn't Preminger's "Carmen Jones" get
> more
> respect? (Or does it? I'm bad at following what's in fashion.)
I always thought that distinction actually belonged to PORGY AND BESS, which I've never seen. It was, of course, suppressed forever by the Gershwin estate (or something like that), but has surfaced nontheatrically in recent years, and was scheduled at AMMI a month or so ago (in a Sammy Davis tribute) but then postponed -- what's up with that?
By the way, concerning
> movies (mostly of the
> action-thriller-crime variety) where one character (usually the
> hero or anti-hero) causes the death of another character (usually
> the villain, mob boss, etc) - but indirectly, by setting them up
> somehow
-- couldn't this apply to something like BONJOUR TRISTESSE where (spoiler...!) Seberg's machinations result in Kerr's death -- not exactly the intention, admittedly, but then psychological ambiguity in Preminger can usually be given its due...
5017
From: Bilge Ebiri
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 9:36pm
Subject: Re: Decisive plot move query
Adrian:
>
> I am studying scenes in movies (mostly of the
> action-thriller-crime variety) where one character (usually the
> hero or anti-hero) causes the death of another character (usually
> the villain, mob boss, etc) - but indirectly, by setting them up
> somehow, or forcing them into a situation where they will
> inevitably be killed.
>
I think my favorite version of this is in CARLITO'S WAY, when Pacino
removes the bullets from Sean Penn's gun, without him or the
audience realizing it. Of course, it's De Palma's cutting that makes
the sequence so exquisite. [Note to self: Watch CARLITO'S WAY again.]
This kind of set-up seems to me like something that happens in a lot
of Joseph Losey films. Maybe not specifically resulting in a
character's actual death, but I'm reminded of the final acts of both
THE CRIMINAL and his (terrific) remake of M.
-Bilge Ebiri
5018
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 9:37pm
Subject: Re: Sound: "What did they say?"
When watching video, dialogue in everything seems to go out the window; I've found that listening through headphones (hifi VCRs used to have headphone jacks) clarifies the speech and helps prevent having to replay every other passage. I sometimes wish there could be headphone use in theaters -- noise-blocking headphones, of course, which would obliterate audience conversations into the bargain. Or is that what those hearing impairment devices do?
5019
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 3:37am
Subject: Re: What did he say?
I haven't been having this problem. I'm certainly one of the older
members, but I can truthfully say that I never went to a rock concert
in my life after the my first and last trip to the Filmmore East to
hear The Band. (They might as well have been Vanilla Fudge for all
that I could tell.) I know that many of my generation did go to
concerts - they can have that effect. Listening to music loud on
earphones - another wonderful invention of the rock era - can really
mess up your hearing, too. But honest to God, I haven't noticed the
sound in films getting worse - different, but not worse. Nonetheless,
the various comments on how sound has changed are fascinating.
5020
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 4:13am
Subject: CHICKEN scenes
I know about the PATHE CHICKEN, the CHICKEN woman in FREAKS (at least
that's what I thought she was), earlier saw the CHICKENS shot at in
RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, and just saw Steve MCQueen scatter the CHICKENS
in THE CINCINNATI KID. CHICKENS sure show up a lot in the movies,
though less so today.
Of course, there are all of those other chicken scenes, ala, REBEL
WITHOUT A CAUSE.
I suspect one could do an essay / book on THE CHICKEN IN THE MOVIES.
5021
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 4:40am
Subject: Re: CHICKEN scenes
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan
> I know about the PATHE CHICKEN, the CHICKEN woman in FREAKS (at least
> that's what I thought she was), earlier saw the CHICKENS shot at in
> RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, and just saw Steve MCQueen scatter the CHICKENS
> in THE CINCINNATI KID. CHICKENS sure show up a lot in the movies,
> though less so today.
> Of course, there are all of those other chicken scenes, ala, REBEL
> WITHOUT A CAUSE.
> I suspect one could do an essay / book on THE CHICKEN IN THE MOVIES.
Chickens in FURY!
5022
From: Bilge Ebiri
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 4:57am
Subject: RE: Re: CHICKEN scenes
>
> > I suspect one could do an essay / book on THE CHICKEN IN THE MOVIES.
>
Do roosters count? The film INBRED REDNECKS has a big ass rooster in it,
named, appropriately enough, Big Ass Rooster. (It's played by a guy in a
rubber suit, alas.)
-Bilge
5023
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 5:06am
Subject: Re: PLAYTIME
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> e:
> >
> > The Walter Reade screened a 70mm. print of it once about a half
dozen
> > years ago. I went. About 20 minutes into the film the projector
> > broke down and I got a pass.
>
> I also fled that extraordinary screening
I luckily got to see it at the Walter Reade without a breakdown. But
bear in mind that the version that has surfaced more recently (at
Cannes, then theatrically in Paris, then on French DVD)is a
restoration that looks and sounds even better, even though there's no
extra footage, alas. (The 70 mm version given by Tati to the Swiss
Cinematheque in the 70s, about 15 minutes longer, corresponding to
the original release version--"the only version I really believe in,"
Tati once told me--and which they inexplicably managed to lose, has
yet to be uncovered. How a state arhcive could misplace a 70 mm film--
above all, THAT 70mm film--has got to be one of the great unsolved
mysteries of all time.)
5024
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 5:13am
Subject: Cold Mountain
>
> I listened to Cold Mountain tonight - Murch mixed as well as edited
> the film. He's a genius at creating sound perspectives. And at
> editing. The battle at the beginning is his tribute to Chimes at
> Midnight. Not as good, of course, but way better than standard
> Hollywood action.
I agree. And, in fact, I have to admit that Cold Mountain blew me
away--which was quite a surprise after Minghella's last two pictures,
in spite of Murch's work on them. Perhaps the best old-fashioned
Hollywood film I've seen all year, and in some ways the much-maligned
Renee Zellwegger is as impressive in it as Kidman.
Jonathan
5025
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 5:21am
Subject: Re: CHICKEN scenes
Don't forget those chickens nudged by the locomotive in SHANGHAI EXPRESS
and then shooed off the tracks. Also, the farm mother in John Ford's PILGRIMAGE
not only feeds her chickens but also talks to them.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ciccone"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan
> > I suspect one could do an essay / book on THE CHICKEN IN THE MOVIES.
>
> Chickens in FURY!
5026
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 5:37am
Subject: Re: Sound: "What did they say?"
About fifteen years ago I actually went to a hospital to
have my hearing tested solely because so many dialogue
scenes in movies sounded unintelligible to me. After hours
of elaborate tests through all ranges of hearing and types
of sound, it turns out my hearing is perfect, yet certain films
still sound problematic to me and I sometimes have to resort
to closed-captioning at home. All I know is: it ain't MY fault!
--Robert Keser
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
in many "modern" films I have difficulty
> understanding the dialogue (I'm talking about mostly mainstream
> movies, not "direct- sound" documentaries)
5027
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 5:42am
Subject: Re: CHICKEN scenes
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan
> I know about the PATHE CHICKEN, the CHICKEN woman in FREAKS (at least
> that's what I thought she was), earlier saw the CHICKENS shot at in
> RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, and just saw Steve MCQueen scatter the CHICKENS
> in THE CINCINNATI KID. CHICKENS sure show up a lot in the movies,
> though less so today.
> Of course, there are all of those other chicken scenes, ala, REBEL
> WITHOUT A CAUSE.
> I suspect one could do an essay / book on THE CHICKEN IN THE MOVIES.
If a chicken gets offered a part in a movie, I'd advise turning
it down, since chickens meet unhappy ends in so many movies:
Monte Hellman's "Cockfighter," Claire Denis' "No Fear, No Die,"
Catherine Breillat's "Une vraie jeune fille," Miike's "City of
Lost Souls," "Angel Heart"... I'd definity recommend chickens stay
far away from John Waters, as "Mondo Trasho," "Multiple Maniacs,"
and "Pink Flamingos" prove.
There are a few films where chickens come out on top. There's
"Chicken Run" and of course there's Foghorn Leghorn.
Paul
5028
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:09am
Subject: Re: Re: CHICKEN scenes
"Chicken Run"
the opening sequence of "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid"
Innumerable WB cartoons, especially any one with Foghorn Leghorn.
Or don't roosters count?
g
A free press is a wonderful thing
if you can afford to own one.
--A.J. Liebling
5029
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:24am
Subject: Re: Re: CHICKEN scenes
Chickens hypnosis in THE ENIGMA OF KASPAR HAUSER. And weirdo chickens
in the recent mainland Chinese CHICKEN POETS.
5030
From: A. Oscar Boyson
Date: Fri Dec 5, 2003 8:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: CHICKEN scenes
And let's not forget the ending of STROSZEK. I think Herzog digs
chickens.
oscar
On Dec 6, 2003, at 3:09 AM, George Robinson wrote:
> "Chicken Run"
> the opening sequence of "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid"
> Innumerable WB cartoons, especially any one with Foghorn Leghorn.
>
> Or don't roosters count?
>
> g
>
> A free press is a wonderful thing
> if you can afford to own one.
>
> --A.J. Liebling
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5031
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:52am
Subject: Re: Woody Allen
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> 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
It's been almost a week since I posted my remarks on Allen and I do
regret it a bit. I am familiar with your writings JPC, through Jack
Angsterich, so when Jack pointed out to me who I said "who should
know better" to, I inserted my foot in my mouth over such a hasty
remark. I really don't like Allen as a filmmaker for many reasons,
and I find myself having to retract like Fred did, not having seen an
Allen film in over 5 years and, quite frankly, not wanting to now. I
get riled when Allen is taken seriously, thus my hotheaded post, but
JPC I have read some of your writings on American filmmakers and find
them extraordinary. One director I find interesting is Richard
Fleischer, and your essay on him not only confirmed my opinions on
his work but also shed new insights.
I studied with Tom Gunning for 5 years and he was my sponsor and
advisor on my senior thesis on John Boorman. I believe he found
Billy Wilder overrated, but I do know he liked "Double
Indemnity", "The Apartment" and "Sherlock Holmes". He did not,
however, say anything kind about Allen in the past 12 years I have
known him. Tom's a major influence on me, but we certainly
disagree. I know that I have directors in my pantheon that are
universally reviled by theorists, autuerists, cineastes and critics.
In a conversation with (again) Tom, he noted how many of the Cahier
du Cinema critics didn't talk much about films and filmmakers they
didn't like. I will try to follow that example in the future.
5032
From: madlyangelicgirl
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 11:22am
Subject: Fetishism
I'm looking for a male star that has been fetishised. I'm exploring
the validity of Mulvey's claim that woman is the icon displayed for
the enjoyment of men. I completely agree with her when considering
Marilyn Monroe, but I am interested in finding a male version of
Marilyn Monroe. One I thought of was Erol Flynn, as in Robin Hood
there is an overinvestment in his thighs and who can forget his
sparkling teeth!
Is this a good choice? Any over suggestions would be much
appreciated.
5033
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 1:39pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "madlyangelicgirl"
> I'm looking for a male star that has been fetishised. I'm exploring
> the validity of Mulvey's claim that woman is the icon displayed for
> the enjoyment of men. I completely agree with her when considering
> Marilyn Monroe, but I am interested in finding a male version of
> Marilyn Monroe. One I thought of was Erol Flynn, as in Robin Hood
> there is an overinvestment in his thighs and who can forget his
> sparkling teeth!
>
> Is this a good choice? Any over suggestions would be much
> appreciated.
The only male in western culture who openly is a sex symbol and is
exposed as one is IMO Beckham (the british soccer player). Long before
his mariage with Spice Girl Vic, he was a fashion icon and used the
soccer field as a platform to demonstrate new looks in hair fashion.
But he then took two steps towards and into becoming a male sex icon.
The first was his marriage with Victoria, which instantly propelled
him into the world of no privacy. As much as it was for love, and I do
believe they love eachother, it was also a calculated step for both of
them. The second was appearing with completely topless in jeans
commercials in a gay magazine; zipper down, calvin visible. The
messege was unmistakable: I am heterosexual but I am sexy to everyone,
you may look, but not touch. Not since Sean Connery, as 007, has a
male been considered sexy by men and women alike.
Looking at the two biggest sex symbols of Hollywood, Affleck and Pitt,
they enjoy no where near the fame and diefication of Beckham. And even
though BenLo is a more calculating love affair than Vic and Beckham,
and Loreal paid him $3 million for his commercial, Affleck will always
be the sidekick of JLo, as he ultimately is without talent.
In Japan there is a differently, more fetish-like, approach to male
celebs. Recently Matt le Blank of "Friends" fame appeared on Japanese
TV in a new lipstick commercial (blue lipstick for men is the shit)
and such appearences are only possible because of the diefication of
celebs in Japan. Honestly, where else would J-Pop find a home lol :)
I don't know if it helps, but that was my two cents :)
Henrik
5034
From: jerome_gerber
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 1:52pm
Subject: Re: CHICKEN scenes
The one that sticks with me is Goulding's NIGHTMARE ALLEY
where Tyrone Power playing a geek in a carnival has to eat (I
believe) just the heads of chickens.Don't remember whether it
was bitten off the neck of a live bird. Very grueling stuff.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, A. Oscar Boyson
> And let's not forget the ending of STROSZEK. I think Herzog
digs
> chickens.
>
> oscar
>
> On Dec 6, 2003, at 3:09 AM, George Robinson wrote:
>
> > "Chicken Run"
> > the opening sequence of "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid"
> > Innumerable WB cartoons, especially any one with Foghorn
Leghorn.
> >
> > Or don't roosters count?
> >
> > g
> >
> > A free press is a wonderful thing
> > if you can afford to own one.
> >
> > --A.J. Liebling
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5035
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 2:02pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "madlyangelicgirl"
wrote:
> I'm looking for a male star that has been fetishised. I'm exploring
> the validity of Mulvey's claim that woman is the icon displayed for
> the enjoyment of men. I completely agree with her when considering
> Marilyn Monroe, but I am interested in finding a male version of
> Marilyn Monroe. One I thought of was Erol Flynn, as in Robin Hood
> there is an overinvestment in his thighs and who can forget his
> sparkling teeth!
>
> Is this a good choice? Any over suggestions would be much
> appreciated.
Cary Grant would seem to be the obvious choice here, which may of course be an
argument for not opting for him! But it certainly seems to me that what's particularly
interesting about Grant is that he was not only fully complicit in fetishising himself
('Cary Grant' being, after all, the creation of Archie Leach) but at a relatively early
stage in his career his more imaginative directors - Hawks, Hitchcock - were
capitalising on the way he'd been fetishised, deliberately seeking to both undermine
and reinforce that image.
Michael
5036
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 2:05pm
Subject: Re: PLAYTIME
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
> (The 70 mm version given by Tati to the Swiss
> Cinematheque in the 70s, about 15 minutes longer, corresponding to
> the original release version--"the only version I really believe
in," Tati once told me--and which they inexplicably managed to lose,
has yet to be uncovered. How a state arhcive could misplace a 70 mm
film-- above all, THAT 70mm film--has got to be one of the great
unsolved mysteries of all time.)
Most likely the print was not lost but stolen, especially given the
extreme rareness of that version of PLAYTIME. Someone probably has
the film stashed away in a basement somewhere and until they're
arrested or they die we'll never see that print. While this has
nothing to do with Tati, apparently 3-D prints are especially
desirable for collectors who steal and refuse to share. A strange
mentality, isn't it, stealing rare prints not in order to preserve
them and keep them out of the hands of indifferent corporations who
would let the films disintegrate but stealing in order to prevent
anyone (except for the thief, of course) from viewing the films. If
that PLAYTIME print was, in fact, stolen I wonder if the thief even
has a 70mm. projector.
5037
From:
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:05am
Subject: Chickens, Hitchcock, Hawkman and The Birds
Arthur Williams' comic gem "Being a Murderer Myself" (1948) is a spoof short
story, about a farmer murderer who disposes of a body by feeding it to his
chickens. Not surprisingly, it did not escape the director of The Birds, and it
was adapted on the Hitchcock TV show. The farmer gets away with it in the
original story, but that would not do with TV censors of the time. So Hitchcock and
writer James Allardyce had Hitchcock telling of subsequent events at the
show's end. As Hitchcock told his viewing public: "You will be pleased to learn
that the farmer ultimately met retribution for his crimes. The chickens
developed a taste for human blood. And one night, while the farmer was crossing the
chicken yard... But it is just too, too horrible to discuss any further."
Hawkman was a super-hero of the Golden Age of comic books in the 1940's. He
was a man who could fly, using a pair of wings he had made. In "Smoke from
Nowhere" (Flash Comics #23, November 1941), he becomes the leader of Earth's
birds, learning their language, and drawing on the birds as his allies. This became
a permanent part of his characterization. Here, and in later tales, the birds
mass in large groups, and attack human bad guys. The scenes where birds
attack humans oddly anticipate Hitchcock's film, The Birds (1963). I have no idea
if Hitchcock ever saw any Hawkman comics tales. They do anticipate both The
Birds, and such earlier Hitchcock films with sinister bird imagery, such as
Spellbound (1945) and Psycho (1960).
Bill Krohn's Hitchcock at Work (1999-2000) documents interest in comics by
Hitchcock's collaborators during the making of Strangers on a Train. These
included Milton Caniff's Terry and the Pirates, and Charles Addams. It would not be
surprising if Hitchcock liked Charles Addams: both men mixed the macabre with
sly humor. One also wonders if Patricia Hitchcock read comic books while
growing up, and if she ever shared them with her parents. Other directors, such as
Fritz Lang, Federico Fellini and Alain Resnais are on record as loving
comics. Lang learned English from reading newspaper comic strips; Resnais is a
famous collector of comic strips, and Fellini made a movie about Italian
photographic comic books, The White Sheik.
There are articles on my comic book web site on the 1940's Hawkman:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/ghawkman.htm
and the 1960's revival:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/hawkman.htm
Mike Grost
PS - Now that Brendan Fraser has made George of the Jungle, Dudley Do Right,
and Looney Tunes, maybe he can make Super Chicken, who appeared on the old Jay
Ward animated series along with George of the Jungle and race car driver Tom
Slick. The secret identity of Super Chicken was playboy rooster Henry Cabot
Henhouse the Third.
5038
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 2:52pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
Brando and Dean
g
A free press is a wonderful thing
if you can afford to own one.
--A.J. Liebling
5039
From: jerome_gerber
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 3:05pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
I would think Tom Cruise currently...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
> Brando and Dean
> g
>
> A free press is a wonderful thing
> if you can afford to own one.
>
> --A.J. Liebling
5040
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 3:15pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
On Saturday, December 6, 2003, at 04:07 AM, a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
ELVIS
You might consider anyone with a single name, as it suggests an
intimacy for many.
Tom Jones
Frank Sinatra
There is a problem with the male icon as a fetish in that the male is
often considered 'active' and does one fetishize a 'predator?'
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:22:46 -0000
> From: "madlyangelicgirl"
> Subject: Fetishism
>
> I'm looking for a male star that has been fetishised. I'm exploring
> the validity of Mulvey's claim that woman is the icon displayed for
> the enjoyment of men. I completely agree with her when considering
> Marilyn Monroe, but I am interested in finding a male version of
> Marilyn Monroe. One I thought of was Erol Flynn, as in Robin Hood
> there is an overinvestment in his thighs and who can forget his
> sparkling teeth!
>
> Is this a good choice? Any over suggestions would be much
> appreciated.
5041
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 3:31pm
Subject: Re: CHICKEN scenes
Somebody has!
"Cluck!: The True Story of Chickens in thr Cinema" by
Jon-Stewart Fink with additional material by Mieke van
der Linden, Virgin Books, 1981.
--- Elizabeth Nolan
> I know about the PATHE CHICKEN, the CHICKEN woman in
> FREAKS (at least
> that's what I thought she was), earlier saw the
> CHICKENS shot at in
> RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, and just saw Steve MCQueen
> scatter the CHICKENS
> in THE CINCINNATI KID. CHICKENS sure show up a lot
> in the movies,
> though less so today.
> Of course, there are all of those other chicken
> scenes, ala, REBEL
> WITHOUT A CAUSE.
> I suspect one could do an essay / book on THE
> CHICKEN IN THE MOVIES.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5042
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 3:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Lang, Preminger, Cukor
--- jess_l_amortell
> > Why doesn't Preminger's "Carmen Jones" get
> > more
> > respect? (Or does it? I'm bad at following
> what's in fashion.)
>
> I always thought that distinction actually belonged
> to PORGY AND BESS, which I've never seen. It was,
> of course, suppressed forever by the Gershwin estate
> (or something like that), but has surfaced
> nontheatrically in recent years, and was scheduled
> at AMMI a month or so ago (in a Sammy Davis tribute)
> but then postponed -- what's up with that?
The Gershwin estate nenevr liked Preminger's film.A
few years ago they had a film made of a German Opera
company production of the piece that they hoped would
rpelace it as "definitive." No such luck. Gershwin
purists can bleat all they want but this is a major
film starring Dorothy Dandridge, Sidney Poitier, Sammy
Davis Jr., Pearl Bailey and a host of other great
black perfomers. I saw it when it came out and was
absolutely floored by it -- especially for Sammy's
"There's a Boat That's Leavin' Soon For New York."
This is a film in great need of restoraion.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5043
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 3:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: scorsese bashing
--- joe_mcelhaney
> Could I ask the group a general question in relation
> to this: Why
> the Scorsese-bashing and what makes him an easy
> target?
Because Marty is one of us -- a cineaste. We hold him
to a higher standard because he raised the bar so high
for everybody with "Taxi Driver," "New York New York,"
"Raging Bull" and "King of Comedy." With those films
on your resume it's almost churlish to ask for more --
but we do. Personally I think "Casino" is his finest
work. Recently he's been "off," but at such a high
level of "off"! "Gangs of New York" is a botch -- and
as such i better than half the films released that
year. I'm holding out hope that he'll regain is
equilibrium with "The Aviator." But it's such a
different moviemaking world today than the one he
started out in.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5044
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 3:46pm
Subject: Re: Sound: "What did they say?"
On Saturday, December 6, 2003, at 12:10 AM, a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
wrote:
My hearing is so acute that I sometimes plug my ears if the theater
sound is too loud. I have thought of using the theater listening
devices to block out other noises in the theater but most often the
theater is pretty empty when I go.
It is certainly the case that the sound track sometimes overwhelms the
dialogue. I think the problem goes back to the fact that everyone
working on the film at the point of mixing the sound track and the
dialogue track is so familiar with the dialogue that if the dialogue
track was on mute, it would still be "heard." There needs to be a
person unfamiliar with the script / movie in the editing booth who can
listen and simply say whether they heard the dialogue or not.
Just as a suggestion, especially for males who seem prone to hearing
problems (although I think the high noise generations coming up will
de-genderize hearing problems): consider getting an ear wax removal
kit. In some people, wax accumulates to the point of obstructing sound
waves; it's worth the price of a kit. Most doctors don't bother to
look into adult ears. You can ask them to look. They may or may not
remove ear wax, unless they are ENT specialists.
> Message: 23
> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 05:37:39 -0000
> From: "Robert Keser"
> Subject: Re: Sound: "What did they say?"
>
> About fifteen years ago I actually went to a hospital to
> have my hearing tested solely because so many dialogue
> scenes in movies sounded unintelligible to me. After hours
> of elaborate tests through all ranges of hearing and types
> of sound, it turns out my hearing is perfect, yet certain films
> still sound problematic to me and I sometimes have to resort
> to closed-captioning at home. All I know is: it ain't MY fault!
5045
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 4:04pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
> I'm looking for a male star that has been fetishised.
Star, fetishised: what's the difference ?
-Sam
5046
From:
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 11:08am
Subject: Re: Re: Fetishism
Rudolph Valentino. Miriam Hansen has a terrific chapter about this very
subject in her terrific book Babel and Babylon.
Kevin
5047
From: Bilge Ebiri
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 4:24pm
Subject: RE: Re: Fetishism
>
> > I'm looking for a male star that has been fetishised.
>
> Star, fetishised: what's the difference ?
>
These days, when "everybody" awaits People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive
issue with bated breath...not much.
But ironically, I'd say the greatest amount of fetishization of men today
occurs in music, and particularly hiphop. Despite their status as men of
action of sorts, male hip hop stars have as much pseudo-sexual attention
lavished on their "look" as the women do.
It's really all over the place. I'd say looking for a male star being
fetishized today is like looking for a female star being fetishized. There
is some difference in the way they're being fetishized, and that's probably
a more fruitful avenue of research.
-Bilge
5048
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 4:49pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
Not every star is fetishized: think of genuine stars like
Walter Matthau, James Stewart, Bing Crosby, Henry Fonda,
and Jack Lemmon who were not fetishized in terms of physical
objectification. You could argue the same for Bogart, Holden,
Glenn Ford, and Anthony Quinn, although non-physical qualities
of the actors might be fetishized.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003"
>
> Star, fetishised: what's the difference ?
5049
From: A. Oscar Boyson
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 4:11am
Subject: Re: Re: Fetishism
Valentino's a good one. Hollywood Babylon has the bit about the
scandals surrounding his death. There were rumors he'd been shot by a
past flame of his, or by a jealous husband. Two women tried to kill
themselves. And, "an elevator boy of the Ritz in Paris was found dead
on a bed covered with Valentino's photos." Sexy to everyone.
On Dec 6, 2003, at 11:08 AM, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Rudolph Valentino. Miriam Hansen has a terrific chapter about this very
> subject in her terrific book Babel and Babylon.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5050
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 5:17pm
Subject: Re: CHICKEN scenes
Has anyone mentioned Rossellini's short "The Chicken" for the
omnibus film "Siamo donne"?
It's about Ingrid Bergman's troubled relationship to a neighbor's
chicken and purports to be a true story.
JPC
5051
From: Tosh
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 5:26pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
I agree with all the names mentioned so far - but I would also add Alain Delon.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
5052
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 6:00pm
Subject: lost/stolen prints
> Most likely the print was not lost but stolen, especially given the
> extreme rareness of that version of PLAYTIME. Someone probably has
> the film stashed away in a basement somewhere and until they're
> arrested or they die we'll never see that print.
I know nothing about lost/stolen prints, but if this is the case, would it make
sense / $ for a studio to offer a huge reward for the return of prints, no
questions asked?
I
5053
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 6:06pm
Subject: Re: CHICKEN scenes
I wonder if there will be a CHICKEN RUN on now for CLUCK?
Thanks, I'll look for it...will be interesting to see if any of the group's chicken
references prior to the 80's are referenced.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> Somebody has!
>
> "Cluck!: The True Story of Chickens in thr Cinema" by
> Jon-Stewart Fink with additional material by Mieke van
> der Linden, Virgin Books, 1981.
>
> --- Elizabeth Nolan
> > I know about the PATHE CHICKEN, the CHICKEN woman in
> > FREAKS (at least
> > that's what I thought she was), earlier saw the
> > CHICKENS shot at in
> > RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, and just saw Steve MCQueen
> > scatter the CHICKENS
> > in THE CINCINNATI KID. CHICKENS sure show up a lot
> > in the movies,
> > though less so today.
> > Of course, there are all of those other chicken
> > scenes, ala, REBEL
> > WITHOUT A CAUSE.
> > I suspect one could do an essay / book on THE
> > CHICKEN IN THE MOVIES.
5054
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 6:08pm
Subject: Re: Cold Mountain
I was surprised, too, and people I've told that they should see it
have expressed shock and disbelief. Zellweger is a surprise-within-a-
surprise, and I thought Seymour Philip Hoffaman was equally
memorable...but he always steals the show. Led by Kidman, who is now
our brightest female star, the cast is strong after all the chilly
Euro-posing in English Patient, and the story involving - even though
the plot (Jude Law slogging endlessly to get back to Nicole Kidman)
is the stuff of which great Mad parodies are made. A magnificent
slice of ham in the underappreciated tradition Leslie Fielder
calls "The Accidental Epic": mass-market anti-racist, matriarchal
utopias whose enduring popularity is proof that the homosocial
patriarchal myths Fiedler wrote about in "The Vanishing American"
aren't all there is to America's soul: Uncle Tom's Cabin, Gone with
the Wind and Roots being the main components of the "epic." The only
element missing in Cold Mountain is black characters, although
Zellweger is a transparent substitute for Hattie McDaniel. Solid
craft contributions up and down the line, and proof that there may be
more to Minghella than we thought - he even seems to have written
some of the songs. Interesting that this is turning out to be the
year of epics by arty directors: Minghella, Weir and Zwick.
5056
From:
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 1:13pm
Subject: Bogdanovich, Schrader, Scorsese, Preminger, Cukor
Ruy, that's great that you liked "They All Laughed" so much. I love the
attention it's getting on this group. It was among the first three or four
Bogdanovich films I saw, which I've sometimes suspected may relate to my
enthusiasm
for it, but I really do think it's his best film. I'm currently writing an
essay on Bogdanovich (combined with an interview I just conducted with him)
and
although I cover his entire career, roughly 2/3 of the whole piece right now
is devoted to either "Laughed" or his other neglected masterpiece, "Daisy
Miller." The comparison to "Rochefort" is, I think, spot-on ("Laughed" isn't
a
musical, of course, but it has musical interludes).
I think Dan recently identified Schrader as a one-shot for "American
Gigolo." I think he may well be a one-shot, but, for me, not for that film.
I'd
nominate his recent, barely seen "Forever Mine" - which I actually prefer to
"Far from Heaven" if we're talking about contemporary melodramas vaguely (or
not
so vaguely) influenced by Douglas Sirk. Given the fact that nothing, to my
eyes, that Schrader's ever done before remotely resembles it and the fact
that
I've never been a particularly big fan of his before it, the film was
something
of a surprise to me - to say the least. It's a beautiful film which makes
genuinely thoughtful and meaningful use of the widescreen space. And
Gretchen
Mol... she should have worked in the '50s!
I like Scorsese, but I don't tend to go wild for his canonized films. I
think "The Age of Innocence" is very likely his greatest, although I've long
contended that the confrontation between De Niro and Jerry Lewis in the
latter's
home in "The King of Comedy" (probably my second favorite) is Scorsese's
finest
single moment as a filmmaker. I also have a real fondness for "After Hours."
It's wonderful to hear from some supporters of "Carmen Jones"! Thanks for
the tips on the Mayersberg essay, Joe; and thanks for the tip on the Perkins
book, Damien. I know I have "Film As Film" around here somewhere...
Joe, I agree with Wood that "Two-Faced Woman" is more fascinating in many
ways than "The Lady Eve." It'd be very interesting to read him compare the
two
at length.
Peter
5057
From: Tosh
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Bogdanovich, Schrader, Scorsese, Preminger, Cukor
I think Paul Schrader's MISHIMA is the best film on an artist. Due
to legal problems he was forced to go into Mishima's written work -
and I think the film is better for it.
I also like his Auto-Focus, Patty Hearst, and Cat People I thought
was pretty good too.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
5058
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 6:31pm
Subject: Re: CHICKENS
You poor fools! You have forgetten the ending of EL BRUTO! Hah!
More forgiveably, few have probably even seen THE DAY AND HOUR OF
RECKONING, Sam Fuller's last film. Adapted by Christa from Patricia
Highsmith's story, it's part of a tv series of half-hour Highsmith
adaptations intro'd (in English) by Tony Perkins: an oafish chicken
farmer (Philipe Leotard - SP?? - horribly voiced in English) is
married to ever-dishy Assumpta Serna, and she's makin' whoopee with a
young nephew of PL's who's visiting them to the country. PL abuses
his chickens, who are in one of those modern mega-coops like a
feedlot and have gone mad. The bf ends up letting them loose, and
guess who gets eaten. Samantha also has a small but crucial role.
The film is a mixed bag - some scenes really drag, and a long
tracking shot when they visit a Rousseauist farm run by Christa
needed another take, but the bf's nightmare where the chickens break
free singing "Old MacDonald Had a Farm" in chickenspeak is a few
kilometers beyond Shock Corridor in over-the-topness. I had watched
the 1989 doo-wop parade feting the Revolution with the Fullers and
sat up all night talking to Sam when I learned, as I stumbled out the
door at 3, that he was supposed to start shooting at 6. His last
words to me (when I next saw him, he had had a stroke) were about the
chickens, 30,000 of them living in the dark: "When you turn on the
light, you should hear the noise!"
The associations with revolution in general are obvious, and the fact
that the farm is a concentration camp for chickens makes a nice
closure to an oeuvre that begins with 8mm footage of Belsen. Must-see
for all Fullerians, along with THE MADONNA AND THE DRAGON, THIEVES
AFTER DARK and the jughead-producer-recut STREET OF NO RETURN.
5059
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 6:34pm
Subject: Re: Fetish
David and I had an exchange on Alain Delon near the beginning of this
group in which I quoted the late Jean-Claude Biette about the fact
that Delon was the first fetishized (he says eroticized) actor in
French cinema, but only after first having made a film with Visconti.
I don't remember the heading, but it was not long after I joined. I'm
surprised no one has mentioned Delon and his contemporary equivalent,
Jude Law.
5060
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 6:37pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
James Dean is one of the cinema's greatest fetish
objects.
--- madlyangelicgirl
wrote:
> I'm looking for a male star that has been
> fetishised. I'm exploring
> the validity of Mulvey's claim that woman is the
> icon displayed for
> the enjoyment of men. I completely agree with her
> when considering
> Marilyn Monroe, but I am interested in finding a
> male version of
> Marilyn Monroe. One I thought of was Erol Flynn, as
> in Robin Hood
> there is an overinvestment in his thighs and who can
> forget his
> sparkling teeth!
>
> Is this a good choice? Any over suggestions would be
> much
> appreciated.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5061
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 6:52pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
Sorry I missed your Delon post, Tosh. Let me just say that I recently
watched Last Tango in Paris again (how many can make that claim!),
and Bertolucci's ffetishizing of Brando is on a par with Visconti's
fetishizing of Delon. No wonder Kael went bananas. "And then Brando
cashes the check that Stanley Kowalski wrote 20 years earlier" may be
her best line. Ah, the 70s! I lent the tape (borrowed from the local
library!) to my stepson and he liked it, but didn't even notice
anything transgressive going on. When you can download Paris Hilton...
And speaking of Maria Schneider - Merrygoround - Rivette - David, did
you know that the new Rivette is the third installment of "Les filles
du feu"? Probably you already announced it. Anyway, it's on the cover
of the Cahiers for November, with Emmanuelle Beart (rhymes with: be
still my heart) in the Leslie Caron role. "Duelle" is being re-
released concurrently. Maybe there'll be a DVD now. Droo-elle!
5062
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 6:57pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "madlyangelicgirl"
> I'm looking for a male star that has been fetishised. I'm
exploring
> the validity of Mulvey's claim that woman is the icon displayed for
> the enjoyment of men. I completely agree with her when considering
> Marilyn Monroe, but I am interested in finding a male version of
> Marilyn Monroe. One I thought of was Erol Flynn, as in Robin Hood
> there is an overinvestment in his thighs and who can forget his
> sparkling teeth!
>
> Is this a good choice? Any over suggestions would be much
> appreciated.
I'm not sure if Monroe still qualifies under for Mulvey's concept,
because, uber sex symbiol as she was in her lifetime, I think
Monroe's iconic status now is not as a figure "displayed for the
enjoyment of men," but rather as Victim. I could be wrong, but I
doubt that many straight men who weren't around in Monroe's lifetime
look upon her as a sex object -- as opposed to, say, Sophia Loren and
Grace Kelly, to name two extremes of Monroe's contemporaries.
As for men, I think the point that was made about a predator not
being an apt candidate for fetishism is spot on. I would say that
the two prime examples of fetishized males are James Dean and Monty
Clift -- sexually ambiguous, vulnerable and quite beautiful.
Tom Cruise - no, no, no! The only one who fetishes Cruise is Tom
Cruise himself.
5063
From: Tosh
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 7:05pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
I think in general Dean was made for the camera. The same goes for
Delon. But overall that is the nature of commercial cinema is to
fetshisize the male form. I always thought that the comercial cimena
went over big over males than females.
Is there a form of sexism taking place? I don't really know. But I
always felt that the male figure was projected more sexually
throughout commercial cinema history than the female.
It's an interesting subject matter!
Ciao,
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
5064
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 7:27pm
Subject: What is a filmmaker" proposes 4 terms
From post 2596
The "auteur" concept is in the process of being deepened and
expanded. J-C Biette's "What is a filmmaker" proposes 4 terms:
director, metteur-en-scene, auteur, cineaste. Cf. Trafic 22. The
Coens, like Wilder, are metteurs-en-scene and auteurs, not cineastes.
Were these terms ever defined in a post? If so, please post the number.
Thanks.
5065
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 7:34pm
Subject: Re: PLAYTIME
The other Joe wrote:
>A strange mentality, isn't it, stealing rare prints not in order to preserve
>them and keep them out of the hands of indifferent corporations who
>would let the films disintegrate but stealing in order to prevent
>anyone (except for the thief, of course) from viewing the films. If
>that PLAYTIME print was, in fact, stolen I wonder if the thief even
>has a 70mm. projector.
Persistent rumor has it that someone has five out of six reels of Tod
Browning's lost Lon Chaney film LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT in his
collection and is waiting for the copyright to run out (in 2022 now,
with the recent changes in the copyright law) before revealing his
find and making a bundle. Someone I know, when very drunk, told me
had seen the film in a secret screening.
--
- Joe Kaufman
5066
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:01pm
Subject: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
Another much-fetishized male figure (he never quite became a star) is
Guy Madison, whose major status in this regard occurred largely
through underground discourses surrounding him in gay male culture in
the 1940s and '50s. Photos and pin-ups of him were probably even
more central to his mythology than his films. (There's a full-page
photo of him, shirtless, in Ron Haver's coffee table book on Selznick
which is typical of the kind of photo of him I'm talking about.) I
can only recall the first two of his films ever strongly drawing upon
his appeal in sexual terms, SINCE YOU WENT AWAY (he plays a sailor in
a strange sequence with Jennifer Jones and Robert Walker in which
Jones and Walker almost seem to be picking him up) and TILL THE END
OF TIME. Madison had this very languid, amateurish way of speaking
and moving, a bit like Hedy Lamarr, while also anticipating gay male
porno stars of the seventies of eighties.
If we're going to talk about fetishism of the male star and of male
bodies in general during these more closeted periods, looking outside
of the films themselves may sometimes be necessary since the films
will often only provide this kind of erotic response to men in the
most tangential of ways. The film still, already a fetish object by
its very nature, is significant here. A good place to start would be
old issues of FILMS AND FILMING. The magazine's editors had the
uncanny ability to choose film stills and portraits of male stars in
such a way that, when reproduced out of context, seemed to bring
forth a type of latent or unconscious gay erotic content. Daniel
Blum's A PICTORIAL HISTORY OF THE TALKIES, which just about every
library across America had a copy of (to the delight of gay film fans
everywhere), is another typical example of this kind of closeted
fetishism. Among other things, there's a photo of Ralph Meeker in
the Blum book wearing a very revealing beathing suit, a photo which
quickly became one of the most valued and fetishized of all photos
for gay collectors.
Oh, and one more major figure: Dewey Martin, especially in THE BIG
SKY.
5067
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:30pm
Subject: YANKEE DOODLE CUCKOO Clock in ONE, TWO, THREE
Just watched/listened to ONE, TWO, THREE and it had some fun moments
for me as I make more and more film connections. There are lots of
references that the general viewer could not possibly get and I am sure
I missed quite a few, but the CUCKOO CLOCK is the best because of the
set up from THE THIRD MAN with line delivered by Welles!
Reed's THE THIRD MAN (Orsen Welles): What did the Swiss give us? The
CUCKOO CLOCK!
Curtiz' YANKEE DOODLE DANDY with James Cagney
Wilder's ONE, TWO, THREE staring James Cagney has a cuckoo clock with
Uncle Sam chiming "Yankee Doodle went to town."
The movie is filled with film references, second favorite is from
PUBLIC ENEMY with James Cagney's grapefruit scene
Wilder's ONE, TWO, THREE with Cagney holding grapefruit near facial
target of groom asking "How would you like some dessert?"
Third favorite is 'Is this the end of Rico?" as McNamara envisions his
just rewards coming.
But the CUCKOO CLOCK is the best because of the set up from THE THIRD
MAN with line delivered by Welles! This game is better than the KEVIN
BACON Degrees of Separation.
5068
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:37pm
Subject: Re: CHICKEN scenes
Reminds me of the book "Movie Stars in Bathtubs."
Maybe what we need now is a book, "Chickens in Bathtubs."
George (I prefer a shower myself) Robinson
A free press is a wonderful thing
if you can afford to own one.
--A.J. Liebling
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ehrenstein"
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] CHICKEN scenes
> Somebody has!
>
> "Cluck!: The True Story of Chickens in thr Cinema" by
> Jon-Stewart Fink with additional material by Mieke van
> der Linden, Virgin Books, 1981.
>
5069
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: CHICKEN scenes
Just reminded me:
"The Egg and I"
g
A free press is a wonderful thing
if you can afford to own one.
--A.J. Liebling
----- Original Message -----
From: "jpcoursodon"
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 12:17 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: CHICKEN scenes
> Has anyone mentioned Rossellini's short "The Chicken" for the
> omnibus film "Siamo donne"?
> It's about Ingrid Bergman's troubled relationship to a neighbor's
> chicken and purports to be a true story.
> JPC
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
5070
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:44pm
Subject: Re: scorsese bashing
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Because Marty is one of us -- a cineaste. We hold him
> to a higher standard because he raised the bar so high
> for everybody with "Taxi Driver," "New York New York,"
> "Raging Bull" and "King of Comedy." With those films
> on your resume it's almost churlish to ask for more --
> but we do.
> But it's such a
> different moviemaking world today than the one he
> started out in.
My sense with much of Scorsese's work over the last ten years or so
is that, on the one hand, the subject matter of the films clearly
indicates his increased interest in making historical films and, more
specifically, films about what a culture loses in its passage from
one era into another. This aspect of the films is very interesting
and shows a clear development on his part. But where I'm having
difficulties in fully appreciating and understanding these films is
in their style. Most of the films seem overscaled to me and almost
entirely without any incidental pleasures, prime examples of white
elephant cinema. He seems to be constantly attempting to keep ahead
of both his imitators and his earlier accomplishments, leading to
films which become increasingly inflated. (And I also think this is
true of his documentaries on American and Italian cinema. Do they
really need to go on for hours and hours?) I may be wrong, but I
sense a desperation and unhappiness behind his filmmaking, which may
be related to that change in the moviemaking world that David is
referring to. It's no fun anymore and if it's no fun then the result
better be stupendous. Result: GANGS OF NEW YORK. I'm also struck by
performances in the weakest of his films which, to my eyes, are not
only awful performances but ugly ones, as though these actors have
become the embodiment of Scorsese's own misery and attitude towards
the project, especially De Niro in CAPE FEAR and Day Lewis in
GANGS.
As I said in my earlier post, I keep trying to like these later films
and I am still hoping for that moment of revelation when they WILL
finally work for me. But I suspect that what he needs to do now is
make something small, perhaps a film with no or very little camera
movement, a very simple soundtrack, no fancy montage. I realize that
this doesn't sound like a Scorsese film at all (although it might
describe KING OF COMEDY) but maybe he needs to begin making films
AGAINST his own widely recognized style, the way that Renoir or
Rossellini did in their later work.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
5071
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:46pm
Subject: Re: Cold Mountain
--- Jonathan Rosenbaum
wrote:
>
> I agree. And, in fact, I have to admit that Cold
> Mountain blew me
> away--which was quite a surprise after Minghella's
> last two pictures,
> in spite of Murch's work on them. Perhaps the best
> old-fashioned
> Hollywood film I've seen all year, and in some ways
> the much-maligned
> Renee Zellwegger is as impressive in it as Kidman.
>
I'm rather surprised at your reaction. To me it was
"Gone with the English Patient" -- a remake of his
Oscar winner mixed with a revamped GWTW in which the
story is told from Melanie's perspective and Scarlett
(Renee Z.) gets a supporting role. The battle of
Vicksberg is impressively staged but after that it's a
long slog through a slow-motion romance that left me
colder than that mountain. Kidman has only one scene
of interest -- where she tells Renee that she was
raised to arrange flowers not to grow them. And as a
conventional romantic lead Jude Law has nothing to do
but look pained and wan for two and half hours.
Bring back bathtub chess!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5072
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:50pm
Subject: "What is a filmmaker" proposes 4 terms
ER,
I've been talking about this article since Jean-Claude Biette died,
and using the terms as if they were defined in English somewhere, but
I can't tell you which posts. I'm waiting to see if an editor of
Trafic will give me the English rights in return for my waiving
payment for my contributions through the years, which I never expect
to be paid for anyway. Then I'll translate the article for
sensesofcinema.com, who want a tribute to Jean-Claude.
The first 3 terms are pretty self-evident. A regisseur/director is
just someone who directs movies, not an artist; a metteur-en-scene is
an artist who expresses himself through how he/she directs; an auteur
is someone who expresses him/herself through themes, obsessions and
other continuities (J-C says the auteur is always too much "in a
hurry" to express himself to bother with the form: John Huston); and
a cineaste ("filmmaker") - here's where it gets very trick - is
somone whose films are engaged both with the world and history,
including personal history, on the one hand, and with the history of
the artform on the other.
One characteristic of a cineaste is that he/she doesn't simply
recycle the cliches of the era (as De Sica recycles Italian petit
bourgeois ideology in Bicycle Thief) and the cliches of the medium at
the moment the cineaste engages with it. But the examples he gives of
films by cineastes - all of Murnau, Bunuel and the Straubs, all of
Walsh except The Enforcer, Huston's The Dead - require a full
translation to even begin to understand what he's getting at. If I
can't get the rights, I'll just go ahead and quote genrously in a
tribute to Jean-Claude for senses, and I'll post a link here.
A lot of talk after I joined was about whether all directors are
auteurs - in the sense of having constants, including formal ones -
and if so, whether the use of "auteur" as a value judgement wasn't
problematic. I think Jean-Claude's four terms give us much-needed
flexibility in talking about writer-directors like Wilder or
Mankiewicz who are obviously auteurs and flawless - too flawless -
metteurs-en-scene of their own visions, for example, while
encouraghing us not to neglect them because we feel the "something
else" that makes a cineaste is missing. Jean-Claude notes that films
by this class of directors can even be more beautiful than those of
certain cineastes, citing The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes and The
Ghost and Mrs. Muir as examples. That's the category he puts the
Coens in. And a long article called "La barbe de Kubrick" ("Kubrick's
Beard"), written before he invented the terms, talks about how
the "grains of sand" in the mechanism of an oeuvre erected
in "idolatry of Cinema" make Lolita (which he says he had seen 7
times) and Eyes Wide Shut (where he stresses the seemingly vacuous
repetition of phrases) the work of a cineaste. Grains of sand seem to
have a lot to do with what pulls a film or filmmaker into the fourth
category.
I have started using these categories half-blindly because I want to
push past some of the theoretical and terminological road blocks that
keep auteurism from developing. A post where I was doing that was the
one on Mystic River, where I had just about decided it was a film by
a masterful metter-en-scene and auteur when I read Andy Klein's
remark about the (no doubt unintentional) parallels with 9/11 and
Afghanistan and Iraq and decided I wasn't so sure. Etc.
5073
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:56pm
Subject: Re: "What is a filmmaker" proposes 4 terms
It's impossible to make more than an educated guess from such a sketchy
precis, but the "grains of sand" concept sounds somewhat comparable to the
notion from Cahiers (in their "political" period, i.e. the time of the
in/famous collective piece on Young Mr. Lincoln) that there are works that,
through their gaps and dislocations, draw attention to the operation of the
dominant ideology.
Nu?
g
A free press is a wonderful thing
if you can afford to own one.
--A.J. Liebling
----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 3:50 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] "What is a filmmaker" proposes 4 terms
And a long article called "La barbe de Kubrick" ("Kubrick's
> Beard"), written before he invented the terms, talks about how
> the "grains of sand" in the mechanism of an oeuvre erected
> in "idolatry of Cinema" make Lolita (which he says he had seen 7
> times) and Eyes Wide Shut (where he stresses the seemingly vacuous
> repetition of phrases) the work of a cineaste. Grains of sand seem to
> have a lot to do with what pulls a film or filmmaker into the fourth
> category.
5074
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:02pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese bashing
I thought he had found a new path (through Hawks and Cukor) with King
of Comedy; then he seems to have gone Hollywood, Last Temptation
(which I half-like) to the contrary notwithstanding. But I don't
think De Niro in Cape Fear and Day-Lewis in Gangs are "awful." The
character who embodies MS's new sense of himself as a "Hollywood
professional" is Liotta in the last shot of Goodfellas (which I love)
picking up his paper like a Golden Age studio director collecting
script pages off the lawn on Monday morning: "Now I'm just another
schmuck."
5075
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:02pm
Subject: Re: Joseph K's drunk friend who saw London After Midnight
How was it?
5076
From: Chris Fujiwara
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:03pm
Subject: chickens, carmen jones
More chicken cinema:
Tarkovsky's Mirror
Giulio Questi's Death Laid an Egg with J-M Trintignant - chickens for
once are a major part of the plot
Tourneur's War-Gods of the Deep (a rooster)
Carmen Jones: Apart from the film's having been officially
unavailable in France for more than 25 years after it was made (a
factor that may have helped keep its critical reputation down even
outside of France, since the film was unable to benefit from the
positive French criticism it might have received), an obvious
obstacle to the film's being widely accepted in America is the
uneasiness of many Americans with the cultural baggage it carries, as
a film with an all-black cast in a production conceived, written,
directed, and produced by whites, based on an opera based on an opera
based on... etc.
James Baldwin's extremely hostile review of the film (collected in
Notes of a Native Son) has certainly influenced its reception.
Baldwin explicitly develops some negative opinions that are probably,
in the form of unformulated, second-hand prejudices, still taken for
granted by many people, and which boil down to: here is a film in
which white people use black people to act out the whites' fantasies
about black people, while congratulating themselves on their own
enlightenment.
By the way, I think there might be a chicken in Carmen Jones.... does
anyone remember?
5077
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:06pm
Subject: Re: Fetischism
Back in those early posts I referred to, I quoted Biette as saying
that American cinema eroticized men in a way that pre-Delon French
cinema didn't, citing the secondary actors in Hawks as the favored
objects for that kind of attention - specifically Dewey Martin. Jean-
Claude loved De Mille, of whom he said - and here I'm repeating the
early post - "Everything in a De Mille movie is eroticized - even a
scarab."
5078
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:09pm
Subject: Re: Auteur has been replaced with 4 terms
To George: Yes - but I'm probably simplifying the concept by relating
it to something I'm familiar with. Jean-Claude's concept has a lot to
do with film's relationship to the world, and Time. I'm still working
on it.
5079
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:26pm
Subject: Re: chickens, carmen jones
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Fujiwara"
>>
> an obvious obstacle to the film's being widely accepted in America
is the uneasiness of many Americans with the cultural baggage it
carries, as a film with an all-black cast in a production conceived,
written, directed, and produced by whites, based on an opera based on
an opera based on... etc.
I have no doubt that this attitude still persists in relation to the
film. But I have to say that I've never encountered it when showing
the film in classes and black students are among the most response to
CARMEN JONES. (That student I mentioned in a previous post who told
me that CARMEN was her all-time favorite film is black.) Most
students, black or white, are quite surprised by the boldness of the
eroticism of the relatonship between Dandrige and Belafonte. It was
certainly unusual up to that time to see that sort of sexual
chemistry between an equally-paired black man and black woman.
> By the way, I think there might be a chicken in Carmen Jones....
>does anyone remember?
Yeah, Dandridge buys a whole chicken (dead and hanging) off of a
woman selling them on the street, along with some vegetables, to cook
for Belafonte.
5080
From: Chris Fujiwara
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 9:57pm
Subject: Re: chickens, carmen jones
Yes, I was going to add that I think the negative attitude toward
Carmen Jones I characterized is a residual cultural thing that mainly
hampers people who were alive and picking up cultural signals before,
say, 1980....
Also, I was at a screening of the film in August in LA, and the
audience, which had a large proportion of black people, seemed to be
with the film and applauded at the end (though maybe influenced by
the presence in the house of Dandridge's sister).
The positive reception the film can receive in the US today may have
something to do with a shift having to do with auteurism.... I think
people who respond positively to the film because of its eroticism,
or for other reasons of performance, behavior, and characterization,
are often responding to the actors themselves as auteurs, as agents
responsible for their own self-presentation in the film. "Dorothy
Dandridge" is also now of course a huge cultural icon (Halle Berry
said something like "This is for Dorothy Dandridge," during her long
Oscar-acceptance speech), and Carmen Jones, in spite of Baldwin's
criticisms, now benefits from the (very resonant and significant)
possibility of seeing Dandridge as an author or free agent rather
than as a puppet and victim.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> I have no doubt that this attitude still persists in relation to
the
> film. But I have to say that I've never encountered it when
showing
> the film in classes and black students are among the most response
to
> CARMEN JONES. (That student I mentioned in a previous post who told
> me that CARMEN was her all-time favorite film is black.) Most
> students, black or white, are quite surprised by the boldness of
the
> eroticism of the relatonship between Dandrige and Belafonte. It
was
> certainly unusual up to that time to see that sort of sexual
> chemistry between an equally-paired black man and black woman.
>
>
5081
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 10:56pm
Subject: Re: scorsese bashing
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> Result: GANGS OF NEW YORK. I'm also struck by
> performances in the weakest of his films which, to my eyes, are not
> only awful performances but ugly ones, as though these actors have
> become the embodiment of Scorsese's own misery and attitude towards
> the project, especially De Niro in CAPE FEAR and Day Lewis in
> GANGS.
I felt the DDLewis character in GONY, the BUTCHER was anything but
frightening, the one characteristic he should have had was lacking. He seemed
like a caricature rather than a threat. GONY got lost in its own spectacle and
Leonardo DiCapprio hasn't a vengeful streak in him. Poor casting for that
movie.
5082
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 11:03pm
Subject: Re: CHICKEN scenes / rooster
The rooster / Herr Professor in THE BLUE ANGEL
5083
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 0:45am
Subject: Re: chickens, carmen jones
Not quite sure why we're counting chickens, but chickens surely are also on view in Hurry Sundown, as in so many films with rural settings (confirmed by Gerald Pratley: "The chickens had by now been over-fed and wouldn't 'come on scene' when called.... Preminger ... bellowed them all into line, chickens and children alike"). And perhaps there's egg on my face, but am I remembering correctly that Gleason in Skidoo hallucinates the slaughtered Arnold Stang as a giant chicken? (Unless that was Sinatra in Man with the Golden Arm...)
5084
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 0:50am
Subject: Re: Fetishism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Sorry I missed your Delon post, Tosh. Let me just say that I
recently
> watched Last Tango in Paris again (how many can make that claim!),
>
I did! And Oh what a tedious piece of crap! Few films have
ever be so overrated. Leaud is still enjoyable in his inimitable
goofy way, though, but Brando-Schneider are a yawn.
JPC
> And speaking of Maria Schneider - Merrygoround - Rivette - David,
did
> you know that the new Rivette is the third installment of "Les
filles
> du feu"? Probably you already announced it. Anyway, it's on the
cover
> of the Cahiers for November, with Emmanuelle Beart (rhymes with: be
> still my heart) in the Leslie Caron role. "Duelle" is being re-
> released concurrently. Maybe there'll be a DVD now. Droo-elle!
Strange how Schneider somehow always ended up speaking English (like
Caron) -- with an accent that Brando rudely mocks in Tango. I wish i
could see Merry-Go_Round again and revisit all those Parisian
subburbs with that weird bunch -- Dallessandro, Garrel, Stevenin,
Berto, the mysterious Hermine Karagheuse (the Other)-- what a cast!
and what fun! What is (was) Sunshine Productions?
JPC
5085
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 1:00am
Subject: Re: Re: Fetishism
--- Henrik Sylow
Recently Matt le Blank of "Friends" fame
> appeared on Japanese
> TV in a new lipstick commercial (blue lipstick for
> men is the shit)
And in the background they played Nico singing "Purple
Lips," right?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5086
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 1:08am
Subject: Re: Fetischism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Back in those early posts I referred to, I quoted Biette as saying
> that American cinema eroticized men in a way that pre-Delon French
> cinema didn't, citing the secondary actors in Hawks as the favored
> objects for that kind of attention - specifically Dewey Martin.
Jean-
> Claude loved De Mille, of whom he said - and here I'm repeating the
> early post - "Everything in a De Mille movie is eroticized - even a
> scarab."
Everybody has been writing about "fetishism" since this
morning but no one has defined it (posters don't even agree on the
word's spelling!) It seems -- as appears in Bill's words above and
in other posts -- that "fetishizing" is broadly considered as
synonymous with "eroticizing". Is that legitimate? Many stars
(almost all female ones and many male ones) are "eroticized". Does
that make them all "fetishes"? What constitues a fetish in our
context?
Actually, "eroticized" also calls for a definition that would
clarify what Biette meant when saying that everything "even a scarab"
is eroticized in a De Mille movie.
JPC
5087
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 1:36am
Subject: Re: CHICKEN scenes / rooster
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
> The rooster / Herr Professor in THE BLUE ANGEL
Yves Montand imitates a rooster in Cukor's LET'S MAKE LOVE, and
his thereby humiliated, although not to the extent of Jannings.
5088
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 1:40am
Subject: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
--- joe_mcelhaney
> Another much-fetishized male figure (he never quite
> became a star) is
> Guy Madison, whose major status in this regard
> occurred largely
> through underground discourses surrounding him in
> gay male culture in
> the 1940s and '50s. Photos and pin-ups of him were
> probably even
> more central to his mythology than his films.
> (There's a full-page
> photo of him, shirtless, in Ron Haver's coffee table
> book on Selznick
> which is typical of the kind of photo of him I'm
> talking about.) I
> can only recall the first two of his films ever
> strongly drawing upon
> his appeal in sexual terms, SINCE YOU WENT AWAY (he
> plays a sailor in
> a strange sequence with Jennifer Jones and Robert
> Walker in which
> Jones and Walker almost seem to be picking him up)
> and TILL THE END
> OF TIME. Madison had this very languid, amateurish
> way of speaking
> and moving, a bit like Hedy Lamarr, while also
> anticipating gay male
> porno stars of the seventies of eighties.
Indeed.
Guy Madison (whose picturre adorns my bathroom) was,
uh, "discovered" by Henry Willson. He was in the Navy
at the time ("Hello Sailor!") hence the "Since You
Went Away" debut scene.
>
> Oh, and one more major figure: Dewey Martin,
> especially in THE BIG
> SKY.
Especially in LAND OF THE PHAROAHS -- hubba-hubba!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5089
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 1:45am
Subject: Re: Re: Fetishism
--- hotlove666
> And speaking of Maria Schneider - Merrygoround -
> Rivette - David, did
> you know that the new Rivette is the third
> installment of "Les filles
> du feu"? Probably you already announced it. Anyway,
> it's on the cover
> of the Cahiers for November, with Emmanuelle Beart
> (rhymes with: be
> still my heart) in the Leslie Caron role.
and Jerzy Radzilowiczas AlbertFinney. But the sun and
moon goddesses have apparently been replaced by. .
.ghosts
"Duelle"
> is being re-
> released concurrently. Maybe there'll be a DVD now.
> Droo-elle!
I sincerely hope so. I have a fragment of it that
Myron Meisel taped for me off of a cable station that
played French films some years back.
I think it's my favorite Rivette -- particularly for
its use of live sound.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5090
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 2:17am
Subject: Re: Scorsese bashing
My favorite Scorseses are the films that are the least "him": Alice
Doesn't Live Here Anymore and The King of Comedy. I also like very
much Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, After Hours, Goodfellas, Life
Lessons, Casino, Kundun. I have nothing agaisnt Cape Fear, which I
consider his only real studio assignment. The other films are all
flawed, but always fascinating. The Last Temptation, for example, has
a ghastly script, like a sermon designed to put the Christ story "in
modern terms" for an imaginary church full of JDs, but the
resurrection of Lazarus and the Crucifixion kick ass. Etc.
When I bash him it's always in comparison to Ferrara, who despite
everything seems to have grown artistically while Scorsese was
marking time or veering off on tangents. In Ferrara's case, I have no
love for the studio jobs - I like the films that are all him, and
unredeemable from a studio standpoint. These are just my tastes. Tag,
for example, makes a good case for China Girl, and he's probably
right.
Similarly I'm all set to revisit NY NY and Age of Innocence because
group members say they're great.
Maybe the best Scorsese films reflect their time, and are right-wing
anarchist films. The atypical films I hold up as exceptions are
really the more progressive ones, whereas a gem like After Hours
unmistakably echoes the Kracauer favorite The Street: Get back where
you belong, little man. Cranked thru the meatgrinder of Welles - he
was watching The Trial a lot on tv when he was making it.
So I regret that his main project since Bush stole the White House
has been Gangs, which I simply consider to be a Miramax mutilation
job. I agree with Charles Tesson's reading: "What is the story of
Gangs of NY? The story of a failed remake. The child-spectator grown
up cannot be the actor and metteur-en-scene of what he has seen." So
Amsterdam is a cinephile, and a largely passive character, and I
agree Day-Lewis isn't scary - his best scene is the hilarious improv
about the rabbit. But he is great, and the film could be. I saw it
with an editor friend whose god is Thelma Schoonmaker, and he
observed that scenes where dialoguie from scene A plays over the
image of scene B - a Schoonmaker signature, because Scorsese always
overshoots - were at an all-time high of 15%. Meaning that Weinstein
won. I'd like to see the director's cut. I have great hopes for the
Hughes film, which is about the American right.
As for the idea of selling out, I think De Niro has come pretty close
to that, but not Scorsese. I think that if Bush steals another 4
years you'll see a series of great Scorsese films, right in tune with
the pulse of America.
5091
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 2:22am
Subject: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
I wish someone knowledgable would write up the inside
story of Henry Willson, who certainly contributed more
than his share to the postwar American cinema: Guy! Rory!
Rock! Tab! Clint! God knows who else...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Guy Madison (whose picturre adorns my bathroom) was,
> uh, "discovered" by Henry Willson.
Dewey Martin,
> Especially in LAND OF THE PHAROAHS -- hubba-hubba!
Not James Robertson Justice, eh?
--Robert Keser
5092
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 2:36am
Subject: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> Guy Madison (whose picturre adorns my bathroom) was,
> uh, "discovered" by Henry Willson. He was in the Navy
> at the time ("Hello Sailor!") hence the "Since You
> Went Away" debut scene.
And why is Guy Madison's picture in your bathroom, David? Seems like
a funny place to...never mind.
As for Dewey Martin, I still opt, in spite of David and Biette, for
THE BIG SKY over PHAROAHS since that leather outfit he wears in SKY
wins out for me, in pure fetishistic allure, over the more revealing
whatever it is he wears in the Egyptian film. Jean-Pierre is
correct, though, in demanding some clarification here in terms of the
blurring of the terms eroticism and fetishism that we've been doing
all day. I've just had two drinks with dinner, though, and I'm not
sure I'm capable of doing it adequately right now. But cinephilia,
in all its manifestations is, of course, fetishistic in virtually
every definition of that term, from the mythical to the
psychoanalytic and erotic.
>
>
> >
> > > __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
5093
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 2:50am
Subject: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
In the movie Cinemania, Jack Whatsisname admits to
the erotic aspect of cinephilia and says he fantasizes
about making love to Rita Hayworth in Gilda...only it would
have to be in black-and-white!
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
>
But cinephilia,
> in all its manifestations is, of course, fetishistic in virtually
> every definition of that term, from the mythical to the
> psychoanalytic and erotic.
5094
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 3:02am
Subject: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Guy Madison (whose picturre adorns my bathroom) was,
> > uh, "discovered" by Henry Willson. He was in the Navy
> > at the time ("Hello Sailor!") hence the "Since You
> > Went Away" debut scene.
>
> And why is Guy Madison's picture in your bathroom, David? Seems
like
> a funny place to...never mind.
>
> As for Dewey Martin, I still opt, in spite of David and Biette, for
> THE BIG SKY over PHAROAHS since that leather outfit he wears in SKY
> wins out for me, in pure fetishistic allure, over the more
revealing
> whatever it is he wears in the Egyptian film. Jean-Pierre is
> correct, though, in demanding some clarification here in terms of
the
> blurring of the terms eroticism and fetishism that we've been doing
> all day. I've just had two drinks with dinner, though, and I'm not
> sure I'm capable of doing it adequately right now. But cinephilia,
> in all its manifestations is, of course, fetishistic in virtually
> every definition of that term, from the mythical to the
> psychoanalytic and erotic.
> >
Thanks Joe for ackowledging my question.
I've been having a couple of drinks too (for medicinal
reasons, of course) so won't go into erudite discussion at this
point. Just want to say that my interest in Guy Madison and Dewy
Martin has always been minimal at best but I understand other folks'
fetishes. I could counter -- since we're all politically correct
here -- with a fetish for, say, Gail Russell, or even Yolande Donlan,
but that would be considered just silly (and possibly off topic)
since I am merely and abjectly heterosexual... (or so I think).
JPC
> > >
> > > > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> > http://photos.yahoo.com/
5095
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 3:36am
Subject: Re: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
joe_mcelhaney wrote:
>--
>
>And why is Guy Madison's picture in your bathroom....
>
>I still opt....THE BIG SKY over PHAROAHS since that leather outfit he wears in SKY wins out for me, in pure fetishistic allure.....
>
>But cinephilia, in all its manifestations is, of course, fetishistic in virtually every definition of that term, from the mythical to the
>psychoanalytic and erotic.
>
It may be that what you say is true for "cinephilia" the way the terms
is most often used, which is why I rarely use it.
Maybe the problem is that I don't drink, but I would counter that
insofar as I understand the meaning of "fetish," and unless someone can
convince me otherwise, my love of cinema is *anti*-fetishistic.
There is no particular object, particular actor, particular visual
"look," or even particular mode of presentation that attracts me about
cinema. Rather I see one particular great filmmaker as undercutting,
even contradicting, the achievement of another. What moves me about a
great film is that it establishes a system of relations between elements
that is both aesthetically beautiful and expressive of a vision. That
vision can be warm and humanist or bleak and haunted by fate; it can be
sexual or asexual; it can be political or apolitical. While I'm not much
of a fan of viewing films on video, I have had some great experiences
doing so, and though I "learned" on 16mm prints in film society
screening rooms and even smaller film society offices, or 16mm prints
seen at home, of course I love a great 35mm print screened under great
conditions too.
If one's response to acting is partly determined by the particular
quality of a film's camera movements, and vice versa, and on and on
through all the elements, is that mode of perception not
anti-fetishistic? If I can love "Green Light" as well as "Magnificent
Obsession," "Back Street" as well as "Imitation of Life," Brakhage's
abstract "Arabics" as much as Anger's very fetishistic "Scorpio Rising,"
Bresson and also Mizoguchi, what exactly is it that I'm fetishizing?
My view is that if you're really feeling the way all the formal elements
of a great film interact, you're being taken out of yourself, and way
beyond any particular attractions to particular objects that you might
have. A foot fetishist (to take a crude version of what a fetishist is)
who really understands cinema is going to love the faces in Dreyer's
"Joan," even if he has little interest in faces in his daily life,
because the framing and lighting and long takes and rhythm make the film
beautiful and true.
I know I'm to some extent repeating things I've posted here before, and
I wouldn't feel the need to if people just wanted to list their favorite
fetishes, and I certainly have my own fixations and attractions, but my
own love of cinema is largely free, or at least I would like to think it
is, of my particular desires. And I guess I think it's limiting, almost
tautologically so, to think of cinema primarily in terms of one's own
particular attractions, tastes, fixations, or fetishes.
- Fred
5096
From: jaketwilson
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 3:53am
Subject: Re: Cold Mountain
Speaking of male fetishism, I thought THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY was a
very handsome and quite adventurous film -- I don't see why everyone
disses it, apart from being down on Minghella for THE ENGLISH PATIENT.
JTW
5097
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 4:00am
Subject: Re: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
--- Robert Keser
> I wish someone knowledgable would write up the
> inside
> story of Henry Willson, who certainly contributed
> more
> than his share to the postwar American cinema: Guy!
> Rory!
> Rock! Tab! Clint! God knows who else...
>
Actually my friend Bob Hofler (who writes for "Daily
Variety") is doing just that.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5098
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 4:05am
Subject: GILDA/RITA
I'm sure many of you know of Rita Hayworth saying: men want to go to bed
with GILDA, but they wake up with RITA. "Put the blame on Mame" is a great
example of less is more as she remains dressed throughout the striptease.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
> In the movie Cinemania, Jack Whatsisname admits to
> the erotic aspect of cinephilia and says he fantasizes
> about making love to Rita Hayworth in Gilda...only it would
> have to be in black-and-white!
>
> --Robert Keser
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
>
> >
> But cinephilia,
> > in all its manifestations is, of course, fetishistic in virtually
> > every definition of that term, from the mythical to the
> > psychoanalytic and erotic.
5099
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 4:06am
Subject: Re: YANKEE DOODLE CUCKOO Clock in ONE, TWO, THREE
--- Elizabeth Nolan
> Just watched/listened to ONE, TWO, THREE and it had
> some fun moments
> for me as I make more and more film connections.
ONE TWO THREE is minor Wilder but it's major Cagney. I
would show it to anyone interested in knowing what
film acting in really all about. It's a crash course.
Awe-inspiring in its intensity. Right up there with
WHITE HEAT.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5100
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 4:17am
Subject: Re: YANKEE DOODLE CUCKOO Clock in ONE, TWO, THREE
TCM host R CLOONEY said that working with Wilder was such a strain on the
60 yo CAGNEY, that he then retired from film until he was in his eighties and
did RAGTIME. One scene reportedly took over 50 takes as Wilder wanted the
pace faster and faster.
I think CAGNEY is not often enough mentioned as a great actor.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> --- Elizabeth Nolan
> > Just watched/listened to ONE, TWO, THREE and it had
> > some fun moments
> > for me as I make more and more film connections.
>
> ONE TWO THREE is minor Wilder but it's major Cagney. I
> would show it to anyone interested in knowing what
> film acting in really all about. It's a crash course.
> Awe-inspiring in its intensity. Right up there with
> WHITE HEAT.
Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact