Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
5101
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 4:19am
Subject: Re: chickens, carmen jones
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Fujiwara"
wrote:
> 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....
As I recall, LeRoi Jones also wrote pejoratively (but possibly more
interestingly) about Carmen Jones. (Baldwin's best film criticism is
still in THE DEVIL FINDS WORK, although I believe he also wrote an
attack on Porgy and Bess, included in his Library of America
collection.) But I would recommend far more--for its insights into
what both this film and the Preminger Porgy and Bess meant for many
black intellectuals in the 50s and 60s--a fascinating article by
Arthur Knight (not the author of The Liveliest Art, but a much
younger film scholar currently teaching at William & Mary) called "It
Ain't Necessarily So That It Ain't Necessarily So: African American
Recordings of PORGY AND BESS as Film and Cultural Criticism,"
included in a recent collection coedited by Pamela Robertson Wojcik
and Knight and called, SOUNDTRACK AVAILABLE: ESSAYS ON FILM AND
POPULAR MUSIC. Among other things, it's one of the most eye-opening
pieces of jazz criticism that I know.
Jonathan
5102
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 5:23am
Subject: Re: GILDA/RITA
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
> Rita said it but every sex symbol of the silver screen could
have said it. How do you deal with being a manufactured object of
desire in real life? The more eroticized and the more fetishized (to
use today's terms of choice) the harder it must be. hence Hayworth's
and Monroe's sad lives.
Glen Ford has a great line in GILDA: "Statistics show that there
are more women in the world than anything else -- except insects." Of
course he's saying just the opposite of what he really feels because
there's only one woman -- Gilda -- for him.
She remains dressed because it's not a striptease. Only a
metaphor -- or perhaps more accurately a metonymy - for one.
JPC
5103
From:
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 1:31am
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese bashing
Bill mentions two other Scorseses I value quite a bit: "Alice Doesn't Live
Here Anymore" and his short from the "New York Stories" anthology film, "Life
Lessons." Maybe David E. can confirm or deny this, as it comes from a very
spurious source (Peter Biskind's awful book "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls"), but my
understanding is that part of the reason Scorsese accepted the "job" of
directing "Alice" was that he felt he needed to sort of do a 180 after "Mean
Streets," branch out with some different material, and not get stereotyped as a
certain type of director. Biskind claims that part of this decision was inspired by
Bogdanovich's canny move of following "The Last Picture Show" with "What's
Up, Doc."
In any case, I think it is loosely true that the Scorsese films I like the
most are the ones which don't originate with him or, echoing Bill, that even go
against what we think of as "a Martin Scorsese picture." This is interesting
because I often love a director's pet projects and most "personal" films; but
this isn't the case with Scorsese so much. In fact, my selection for his best
film, "The King of Comedy," is a film he has regarded quite ambiguously
through the years. I gather that he's proud of it now, but I don't know if this
was always the case.
David, feel free to correct any of the above in terms of my "facts."
"After Hours" is certainly very influenced by "The Trial." Jonathan talked
about all this in his review of "Eyes Wide Shut," but the three films - the
Welles, the Scorsese, and the Kubrick - would make one stunner of a midnight
movie triple bill.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5104
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 6:55am
Subject: Re: One Two Three
I have seen it recently - last Christmas, with my sister and niece
who now live in Kentucky, where I'll be again in two weeks - and they
fell out of their chairs when the guy singing "Yes, we have no
bananas" in German turned to face the camera. Easy laugh, you say?
Wilder always knew the value of those: pure gold if you're making
films for audiences. I was fascinated by the balloon at the
beginning. The camera doesn't follow it as long as the feather at the
start of Forrest Gump, but the choreography is similar, and it's pre-
CGI. I literally couldn't tell how it was done. The Cagney
performance is a tour de force because so many of the cracks he's
uttering are rancid beyond redemption. But the story is great farce
plotting. That's where Wilder and Diamond can't be beat. That balloon
is a metaphor: it stays afloat and does just what they want it to,
but you can't see the strings.
5105
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 6:57am
Subject: Re: CHICKENS
Gleason hallucinating Stang as a chicken in SKIDOO! goes back to THE
GOLD RUSH.
5106
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 0:09pm
Subject: Re: Fetischism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> 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
My first instinct was to name Dean, then Delon, then Valentino. The
reason I didn't was, that although the erotififaction is a central
part, I was not sure if Delon or Dean were sexobjects, and while
Valentino was, he was "the worlds greatest lover", his marketing was
too wholesome for the purpose of the asked question.
Simple idolising isn't fetishism. Just because some teenager have
mastubation fantasies about some movie star and has his/hers room full
of posters doesn't make it a fetish as such. It is when a non sexual
act of that person invokes sexual desire in more than just a small
group I would suggest the person to be a fetish. Thats why I don't see
Monroe, or any pin-up doll, as a fetish. They are sex symbols.
Marlene Dietrich was a fetish by two things she did; the way she
smoked a cigarette and the way she walked (she did have the most
beautiful legs in the world). So in my book, in order to become a
fetish, the person has to approached outside of film, as a normal
person, and a non sexual feature approached as sexual.
That is why I mentioned Beckham, because he is openly a fetish, in his
hair, when playing soccer, the way he walks. Delon is also a clear
case, as his very behavoir as became an icon (the way he smoked, wore
a coat...).
Anyway that is my take on fetishism of stars :)
-----
David,
I've not seen the entire commercial, just a clip and pics, so I cant
say if the play the Nico song in the background :)
Henrik
5107
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 1:41pm
Subject: Re: Fetischism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
>
> Simple idolising isn't fetishism. Just because some teenager have
> mastubation fantasies about some movie star and has his/hers room
>full of posters doesn't make it a fetish as such. It is when a non
>sexual act of that person invokes sexual desire in more than just a
>small > group I would suggest the person to be a fetish.
One of the most basic definitions of a fetish is that it is "an
object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion." (Webster's).
The real life person Marilyn Monroe was no more intrinsically a
fetish than any of us but as a movie star she was repeatedly
subjected to fetishistic treatment, not only in her films but
especially in the culture surrounding her. She is one of the most
fetishized of all female stars, Monroe memorabilia being among the
most valued on the market. I know someone who collects paper dolls
of fifties starlets (Debra Paget, Ann Blyth, Sheree North, etc.)which
he preserves and treats quite lovingly, often reverently presenting
them to the star when they make a personal appearance somewhere. (He
flew from New York to Texas recently and did this with Paget but he
had to compete with a fan from Mexico who presented her with his
personal object of preservation and devotion, a costume that she had
worn in PRINCESS OF THE NILE.) Both of these men, I should add, are
gay and so these drives to collect items which they associate with
Paget seems quite erotic but in a highly displaced manner. So
wouldn't teenagers constructing a shrine to a star in their bedroom,
plastering the walls with photos and posters of the star, be
performing an act of fetishistic devotion? The very act of
collecting memorabilia about a favored star, director, whatever IS
fetishism so far as I've ever understood the term, which is to say
that fans perpetually break off pieces of the star/director through
these displaced objects which stand in for the entirety of the body
of the star or the totality of the body of work.
5108
From: Tosh
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 2:37pm
Subject: Japanese Blue Lipstick commercial
With respect to the Japanese commercial with Matt (I forgot his last
name) wearing blue lipstick - is that real? I saw it on 'Friends.'
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
5109
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 2:37pm
Subject: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> 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. 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.
> 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? 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.
>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--I'm impressed by your ability to view films in their sublime
totality. It's something which I try to force myself to do all the
time and I do think it's an important way of viewing films or looking
at art in general. And I understand your impatience or irritation
with the giddiness of some of the posts re Dewey Martin and company.
However, I would like to just note that discussing fetishism is not
simply a way to "think of cinema primarily in terms of one's own
particular attractions, tastes, fixations, or fetishes." Film theory
and criticism has, almost from its very beginnings, been haunted by
this question of fetishism since the act of both making and viewing
films (as has been noted time and again) has a strong fetishistic
component to it -- through the question of the frame and off-frame,
of the way that editing breaks down spaces and bodies into fragments,
of the camera's proximity to objects, faces, bodily parts bringing
forth dimensions "hidden" by the naked eye, etc. You see this in the
writings of Epstein and the Surrealists up through Metz, Deleuze and
beyond. I'm not sure we can adequately deal with the way that the
cinema structures itself or works upon us as spectators without
discussing fetishism, provided we can divest that term of negative or
recessive connotations. Granted, every film and every filmmaker will
not urgently lend itself to a discussion in this regard. But how can
we talk about filmmakers like Eisenstein, Hitchcock, Lang, Bunuel,
Anger, Sternberg, Warhol without it? I fully share in your high
regard for ROSE HOBART, for example. But what is that film if not
the work of a fetishist, breaking into another film, rearranging and
reordering it in order to bring it in line with his own desires and
paying devoted tribute to an actress who obsesses him? I don't think
that the cinema, at its best, frees us from our desires (which you
posit as an ideal) nor does it simply confirm them but rather allows
us to reimagine our desires in new and sometimes startling ways.
5110
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 3:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese bashing
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
>Maybe David E. can confirm or deny this,
> as it comes from a very
> spurious source (Peter Biskind's awful book "Easy
> Riders, Raging Bulls"), but my
> understanding is that part of the reason Scorsese
> accepted the "job" of
> directing "Alice" was that he felt he needed to sort
> of do a 180 after "Mean
> Streets," branch out with some different material,
> and not get stereotyped as a
> certain type of director. Biskind claims that part
> of this decision was inspired by
> Bogdanovich's canny move of following "The Last
> Picture Show" with "What's
> Up, Doc."
Biskind is indeed egregious. Marty did take on the
project because he wanted to branch out, but not
because he was"competing" with Bogdanovichj. He had
made films based entiurely in his own life experiences
and he wanted to do one about a character whose life
experiences were entirely outside his own. Pretty
straightforward I'd say.
"The King of Comedy," is a film he has
> regarded quite ambiguously
> through the years. I gather that he's proud of it
> now, but I don't know if this
> was always the case.
He had to get some distance from it because he was
kicking drugs at the time. And was in and out of a
number of romantic relationships as well. He quite
loves the film.
>
> "After Hours" is certainly very influenced by "The
> Trial." Jonathan talked
> about all this in his review of "Eyes Wide Shut,"
> but the three films - the
> Welles, the Scorsese, and the Kubrick - would make
> one stunner of a midnight
> movie triple bill.
>
Indeed. "Before the Law" is even quoted directly i the
scene where he tries to get into the Disco. "After
Hours" also deals with the way New York had changed
for Marty since "Mean Streets." The addition of gay
characterswas quite an innovatio for him at the time,
and he credits Robert Plunkett with helping him out in
this regard.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5111
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 3:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cold Mountain
Neither did I. I'm quite crazy about as it. It deals
with class in America,and that great and fascinating
period in Italian history known as "Il Boom."
It also boast a very mature take on same-sex
attraction and the promblems of "coming out."
--- jaketwilson wrote:
> 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
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5112
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 3:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
Joe,
I don't want to seem like I'm criticisng people for pursuing their
passions -- or fetishes. We've all got our stuff, so to speak.
It's been a long time since I've read Epstein, but did he actually write
about attraction to particular faces as an end, or were they not a
window onto the same pantheistic aspects of the universe revealed in
shots of the sea?
And of course Cornell's film is a document of fetishism. Arguably he
took the lip sync away because that made Rose into a flesh and blood
person rather than an idealized object of adulation, which the figures
in his boxes also are.
But my view of Cornell's film supports my general point: the viewer
doesn't have to feel the slightest attraction to Rose Hobart the actress
in order to experience the power of this great film. The editing gives
an objective form to Cornell's fetishism, in the same way the
cinematography of "Scorpio Rising" gives form to Anger's attraction. The
viewer of "Rose Hobart" might in fact feel an attraction to Rose which
he doesn't feel at all when viewing its source film, "East of Borneo" --
that was certainly my experience. And of course the editing of "Rose
Hobart" does other things too. So if Rose were to show up on some list
here of "actresses we especially love," that's fine with me, but it
doesn't reveal much about Cornell's film.
- Fred
5113
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 4:00pm
Subject: fetisches
-- jean seberg's hair & looks in à bout de souffle & bonjou tristesse.
obviously i love godard and preminger films without seberg, but i wonder if
i'd love those two pieces as much if there was another actress.
-- the camera moving in the dance pieces of give a girl a break, donen 53.
can i fetishize a movement of camera?
-- julia roberts as a cinematic figure & for her charm
-- drew barrymore and salma hayek as WOMEN
-- i have a lauren bacall pic hanging on my door. below it there's Klee's
"Plants Over Rocks". do i fetishize Paul Klee?
5114
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 4:39pm
Subject: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
---
> > 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. 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.
>
BUT, Fred, isn't auteurism blatantly fetichistic per se? Isn't
the revered "auteur" made into a fetish by the auteurist? The
auteurist's fascination with every bit and piece ever filmed by the
Auteur can be likened to the "sexual" fetichist's focussing on the
foot, shoe or hair of his (her?) object of desire.
JPC (who drinks only moderately and never before sundown)
5115
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 4:48pm
Subject: Re: fetisches
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
.
> can i fetishize a movement of camera?
>
YES! I once published a very long article on ROPE the subtitle
of which was "Notes on the Fetichism of the long take in ROPE". The
ten-minute takes were both Hitchcock's and my fetish. I think I made
a fairly good case for the implicit sexual nature of that "aesthetic"
fetish.
> -- i have a lauren bacall pic hanging on my door. below it there's
Klee's
> "Plants Over Rocks". do i fetishize Paul Klee?
I DO!
JPC
5116
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 5:03pm
Subject: Re: One Two Three
Easy (as in cheap) was not the correct word; what I meant was easily
accessible (as the movie is full of cinematic references many might not
get), but as you suggest irresistible is better.
> Message: 22
> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 06:55:02 -0000
> From: "hotlove666"
> Subject: Re: One Two Three
>
> I have seen it recently - last Christmas, with my sister and niece
> who now live in Kentucky, where I'll be again in two weeks - and they
> fell out of their chairs when the guy singing "Yes, we have no
> bananas" in German turned to face the camera. Easy laugh, you say?
> Wilder always knew the value of those: pure gold if you're making
> films for audiences.
5117
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 5:09pm
Subject: Re: One Two Three BALLOONS
I didn't appreciate the effort of the balloons, but thought the message
telling. The balloons drifting (presumably across the 'border')
reminded me of the recent movie DIVINE INTERVENTION in which a balloon
with the face of Arafat drifts over the checkpoint border. Without
getting into the politics of the Middle East, it was quite a striking
image.
> Message: 22
> Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 06:55:02 -0000
> From: "hotlove666"
> Subject: Re: One Two Three
>
> I have seen it recently - last Christmas, with my sister and niece
> who now live in Kentucky, where I'll be again in two weeks - and they
> fell out of their chairs when the guy singing "Yes, we have no
> bananas" in German turned to face the camera. Easy laugh, you say?
> Wilder always knew the value of those: pure gold if you're making
> films for audiences. I was fascinated by the balloon at the
> beginning. The camera doesn't follow it as long as the feather at the
> start of Forrest Gump, but the choreography is similar, and it's pre-
> CGI. I literally couldn't tell how it was done. The Cagney
> performance is a tour de force because so many of the cracks he's
> uttering are rancid beyond redemption. But the story is great farce
> plotting. That's where Wilder and Diamond can't be beat. That balloon
> is a metaphor: it stays afloat and does just what they want it to,
> but you can't see the strings.
5118
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 5:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
jpcoursodon wrote:
> BUT, Fred, isn't auteurism blatantly fetichistic ....
>....auteurist's fascination with every bit and piece ever filmed by the
>Auteur can be likened to the "sexual" fetichist's focussing on the
>foot, shoe or hair of his (her?) object of desire.
>
Well, I don't think this is true for me. There's an old Sirk interview
by Michael and Jane Stern and in the introduction, describing the visit
to his house in Lugano, Jane says she was thinking "This is Sirk's
bathroom," etc., and I was somewhat appalled. Much later when I met him
in New York I certainly noticed what he was wearning, his height (tall),
what his wife looked like, but only as things to take note of, not as
bearers of any great fascination or significance.
The quest for every last bit of film can be seen as a quest for
illumination or revelation -- even if that scrap isn't great, it might
illuminate the great stuff.
I'm not saying there isn't some trace of fetishism in my interests, but
I don't think that's the main point. You may also be using the word
differently from my understanding of it. I don't use fetishism to denote
"like," or "love," or "worship," but rather to describe the attraction
to a fixed object, a particular set of details or circumstances. If
there was a scrap of film by Sirk that contradicted what I thought his
career was about, I'd certainly want to see it, and consider its
implications.
Fetishism resists change. A fetishistic attraction seeks the same forms
and conditions again and again. What I care about in art is the way it
has, and can still, changed me.
- Fred
5119
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 5:56pm
Subject: Re: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
--- Fred Camper wrote:
>
> Fetishism resists change. A fetishistic attraction
> seeks the same forms
> and conditions again and again.
This is why film is, bt it's very nature,
super-fetishistic. It perserves the same moments in
time and space for infinite review.
What I care about in
> art is the way it
> has, and can still, changed me.
>
And that's the critic's role.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5120
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 6:06pm
Subject: Re : Fetishism and fascination
I am confused... Are we discussing on auteurism fetishism, from the
cinephile toward "his" auteur (I shall admit that posters of "I shot
Jesse James" and "Slightly Scarlet" are on my walls... ), or on the
original fetishism from the the auteur toward the bodys and objects
of his creation?
Dealing with dead creations and desire, I guess that cinema is
linked with fetishism by nature, no?
Here are some words by Mourlet [I'm sorry, I can't translate]about
seduction and "blazing objects":
"La proximité la plus aigüe du corps de l'acteur véhiculera les
hantises et la volonté de séduction, engendrant une direction de
gestes rares, un art de l'épiderme et des intonations de voix, un
univers charnel."
"Le point d'accomplissement du cinéma consiste à dépouiller le
spectateur de toute distance consciente pour le précipiter dans un
état d'hypnose soutenu par une incantation de gestes, de regards,
d'infimes mouvements su visage et du corps, d'inflexions vocales, au
sein d'un univers d'objets étincelants, blessants ou bénéfiques, où
l'on se perd pour se retrouver élargi, lucide et apaisé"
5121
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 6:09pm
Subject: Woody Allen doesn't like me
Allen could film whatever minority he wants, whatever street he
wants, I don't think it would change anything.
Maybe a little more respect toward the characters, puppets trapped
in a narrow world of easy truths and witty remarks.
The dirt is in the eyes, not in the streets.
As for the sloppiness of the mise-en-scene, I don't think it has
anything to do with any work by Cassavetes, as expressed in the late
Cahiers....
5122
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 6:20pm
Subject: James Gray
"The Yards" had a mixed reception here. I guess some were irritated
by the pomp of the "tragedy".
I was impressed by the pure classicism of the mise-en-scene and by
the strong actors direction.
I'd be curious to know what is the rating of Gray among members of
this group?
5123
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 6:28pm
Subject: Re: James Gray
> "The Yards" had a mixed reception here. I guess some were irritated
> by the pomp of the "tragedy".
> I was impressed by the pure classicism of the mise-en-scene and by
> the strong actors direction.
> I'd be curious to know what is the rating of Gray among members of
> this group?
I'm not sure yet, but I find him at least interesting. LITTLE ODESSA
worked a bit better than THE YARDS for me, but both had an impressive
sense of stasis - I like that heavy, tangible feeling that his
compositions have. I'm a bit concerned about his sense of drama, which
verges on seeming ponderous to me. - Dan
5124
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 6:38pm
Subject: Re: guy madison & gail russell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>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).
Guy Madison and Gail Russell (with those amazing liquid eyes of hers)
were married for a while so our fetishes could, in fact, meet up
there. I bought a few beautiful posed color shots of the two of them
once, taken shortly after they were married. I'm not normally a
collector of these sorts of things but in this case I couldn't
resist. But I better stop this kind of talk before Fred slaps me on
the wrist for not noticing the totality of all things. (And right
now, I'm just drinking coffee.)
5125
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 6:42pm
Subject: Re: James Gray
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime" wrote:
> "The Yards" had a mixed reception here. I guess some were irritated
> by the pomp of the "tragedy".
> I was impressed by the pure classicism of the mise-en-scene and by
> the strong actors direction.
> I'd be curious to know what is the rating of Gray among members of
> this group?
I liked both of his films very much although I only saw them once and
I'm not sure if on a second viewing they would gain in interest or
seem ponderous. What especially struck me about both films was his
skill in handling actors. Anyone who could cast Vanessa Redgrave and
Maximilian Schell as Russian Jews and make it work, or get
naturalistic performances out of powerhouses like Ellen Burstyn and
Faye Dunaway has a talent which I would hesitate to call minor.
5126
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 6:52pm
Subject: Re: James Gray
One scene that sticks in my mind from The Yards is
a street fight between Joaquin Phoenix and Wahlberg
that's shown only in a cool, unblinking long shot, which
renders it amazingly more immediate and convincing
than any array of tricked-up closeups plus attendant
POWs and BAMs resounding on the soundtrack.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
>
> I liked both of his films very much although I only saw them once
and
> I'm not sure if on a second viewing they would gain in interest or
> seem ponderous. What especially struck me about both films was his
> skill in handling actors.
5127
From: Rebecca Shone
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 6:55pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fetish
'surprised no one has mentioned Delon and his contemporary equivalent, Jude Law.'
Jude Law in 'A.I' a very fetishised, man, woman, plastic robot thingy!?
hotlove666 wrote:
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.
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/
---------------------------------
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5128
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:00pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism and eroticism
I was just trying to stay "on-thread" when I substituted "fetishized"
for "eroticized" in my report of the conversation with JCB. Eroticism
is healthy; fetishism is a sicko perversion. You guys are all SICK!!!
5129
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:04pm
Subject: Groundhog Day
One of my favorite films of the 90s. Multiplicity wasn't bad, either.
http://www.nytimes.com/ads/reliaquote/popunder_reliaquote.html
Of course, it's really Nietzschean.
5130
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Re : Fetishism and fascination
Maxime wrote:
> I am confused... Are we discussing on auteurism fetishism, from the
> cinephile toward "his" auteur (I shall admit that posters of "I shot
> Jesse James" and "Slightly Scarlet" are on my walls... ), or on the
> original fetishism from the the auteur toward the bodys and objects
> of his creation?
Yeah, we all seem to be talking about something different.
Sounds as if madlyangelicgirl and Mulvey are talking about films or
filmmakers as if they have the option to fetishize their subjects or
not. Which makes sense to me on some level. And madlyangelic girl is
asking about actors that are made into fetish objects by the filmmaking
process.
At a basic level, you can say that a film fetishizes an actor if there
is some indication in the filmmaking that he or she is offered for
sexual appeal. This could be indicated by what goes on before the
camera (nudity, for instance, especially when not otherwise well
motivated), or what goes on with the camera (choice of shot distance and
duration, lighting, etc.).
If you restrict yourself only to this basic level, I think it's fair to
say that Hollywood has always been quite comfortable with fetishizing
men. Certainly women have a big edge here, but Hollywood doesn't seem
to be unusually troubled by playing the game both ways and offering
attractive men as an inducement for audiences to lay down their money.
And then one can think about ways in which fetishism can be inscribed
into the movie. For instance, seeing Guy Madison/Errol Flynn/Valentino
taking off his shirt is one kind of experience, but providing another
character who functions as a spectator within the film (perhaps with
subjective editing reinforcing the audience's identification) kicks the
experience to a different level. For one thing, it gives the game away.
No longer is it possible to pretend that the actor is simply taking
his shirt off because the plot requires it: the fetishization becomes an
issue in itself, and audiences can be expected to have an attitude
toward it.
At this level, Mulvey's comment about the display of women starts to
pick up some support. It's extremely common to see a Hollywood film in
which a woman's attractiveness is inscribed into the film by means of
on-camera spectators, dialogue, plotting, etc. But it's rarer to see a
man's appeal framed in that way. When it happens, one starts to feel a
small challenge to social conventions - social roles feel as if they are
shifting a bit.
Sometimes the inscription can be attributed to a particular perspective
within the film: for instance, a gay character, like Brando in
REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE. This attribution does a little bit to rein
in the voyeurism and make it acceptable for a conventional audience, but
it's still rather volatile stuff that feels as if it jars conventions.
Anyway, I'm just trying to make a beginning at formulating the issue. - Dan
5131
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:09pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism and eroticism
It's only sick if you do it in b/w. If it's Technicolor or
DeLuxe Color or Cinecolor or, hell, SovexportColor,
then it's normal healthy eroticism.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I was just trying to stay "on-thread" when I substituted
"fetishized"
> for "eroticized" in my report of the conversation with JCB.
Eroticism
> is healthy; fetishism is a sicko perversion. You guys are all
SICK!!!
5132
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:12pm
Subject: Re: Ripley (wasCold Mountain)
-
I've seen RIPLEY several times both in theaters and on DVD. I
think it's one of the finest American films of the past few years. I
am aware that it is "unfaithful" to the novel, especially the ending
( I don't care much for the film's ending, actually) but so what? So
was PLEIN SOLEIL (and the Minghella is so much better...)
JPC
-- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Neither did I. I'm quite crazy about as it. It deals
> with class in America,and that great and fascinating
> period in Italian history known as "Il Boom."
>
> It also boast a very mature take on same-sex
> attraction and the promblems of "coming out."
>
> --- jaketwilson wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
5133
From: Rebecca Shone
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:17pm
Subject: Re: Re : Fetishism and fascination
Here is the question that I am considering, I am dyslexic, so terrible at expressing myself!
'With close reference to at least two films studied, explore the validity of Laura Mulvey’s assertion that, in narrative cinema, woman is the “icon, displayed for the gaze and enjoyment of men” and men are “the active controllers of the look”? What are the implications of this for male and female spectators?
Hope this makes what I am trying to say a bit clearer.
Watched a fantastic film the other day, 'Peeping Tom' this film deals with everything in terms of voyerism and scophophilia.
Dan Sallitt wrote:
Maxime wrote:
> I am confused... Are we discussing on auteurism fetishism, from the
> cinephile toward "his" auteur (I shall admit that posters of "I shot
> Jesse James" and "Slightly Scarlet" are on my walls... ), or on the
> original fetishism from the the auteur toward the bodys and objects
> of his creation?
Yeah, we all seem to be talking about something different.
Sounds as if madlyangelicgirl and Mulvey are talking about films or
filmmakers as if they have the option to fetishize their subjects or
not. Which makes sense to me on some level. And madlyangelic girl is
asking about actors that are made into fetish objects by the filmmaking
process.
At a basic level, you can say that a film fetishizes an actor if there
is some indication in the filmmaking that he or she is offered for
sexual appeal. This could be indicated by what goes on before the
camera (nudity, for instance, especially when not otherwise well
motivated), or what goes on with the camera (choice of shot distance and
duration, lighting, etc.).
If you restrict yourself only to this basic level, I think it's fair to
say that Hollywood has always been quite comfortable with fetishizing
men. Certainly women have a big edge here, but Hollywood doesn't seem
to be unusually troubled by playing the game both ways and offering
attractive men as an inducement for audiences to lay down their money.
And then one can think about ways in which fetishism can be inscribed
into the movie. For instance, seeing Guy Madison/Errol Flynn/Valentino
taking off his shirt is one kind of experience, but providing another
character who functions as a spectator within the film (perhaps with
subjective editing reinforcing the audience's identification) kicks the
experience to a different level. For one thing, it gives the game away.
No longer is it possible to pretend that the actor is simply taking
his shirt off because the plot requires it: the fetishization becomes an
issue in itself, and audiences can be expected to have an attitude
toward it.
At this level, Mulvey's comment about the display of women starts to
pick up some support. It's extremely common to see a Hollywood film in
which a woman's attractiveness is inscribed into the film by means of
on-camera spectators, dialogue, plotting, etc. But it's rarer to see a
man's appeal framed in that way. When it happens, one starts to feel a
small challenge to social conventions - social roles feel as if they are
shifting a bit.
Sometimes the inscription can be attributed to a particular perspective
within the film: for instance, a gay character, like Brando in
REFLECTIONS IN A GOLDEN EYE. This attribution does a little bit to rein
in the voyeurism and make it acceptable for a conventional audience, but
it's still rather volatile stuff that feels as if it jars conventions.
Anyway, I'm just trying to make a beginning at formulating the issue. - Dan
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/
---------------------------------
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5134
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:21pm
Subject: Re: guy madison & gail russell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
>
> Guy Madison and Gail Russell (with those amazing liquid eyes of
hers)
> were married for a while so our fetishes could, in fact, meet up
> there. I bought a few beautiful posed color shots of the two of
them
> once, taken shortly after they were married. I'm not normally a
> collector of these sorts of things but in this case I couldn't
> resist. But I better stop this kind of talk before Fred slaps me on
> the wrist for not noticing the totality of all things. (And right
> now, I'm just drinking coffee.)
What a wonderful coincidence, Joe, this Madison-Russell thing! I
didn't know! And actually I cited Gail at random, I might as well
have said Arlene Dahl or Debra Paget -- I have never made a fetish of
any of them anyway.
Don't allow Fred to slap your wrist (or spank you, for that
matter)! Just to nag him I may drag my fetish out of the closet. To
Be Continued...
JPC
5135
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:26pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism and eroticism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I was just trying to stay "on-thread" when I
substituted "fetishized"
> for "eroticized" in my report of the conversation with JCB.
Eroticism
> is healthy; fetishism is a sicko perversion. You guys are all
SICK!!!
Oh so you "just" substituted one word for another! And you
thought it was inconsequential! Look what you've done!
Please define "eroticism". Please define "sicko". Please
define "perversion" (and please don't respond: "please
define "define")
JPC
5136
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ripley (wasCold Mountain)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> -
> I've seen RIPLEY several times both in theaters
> and on DVD. I
> think it's one of the finest American films of the
> past few years. I
> am aware that it is "unfaithful" to the novel,
> especially the ending
> ( I don't care much for the film's ending, actually)
> but so what? So
> was PLEIN SOLEIL (and the Minghella is so much
> better...)
> JPC
I've always had a "let a hundred Ripleys bloom"
attitude. back when the DVD came out I had
Ripley-a-thon at my place. We watched my Japanese
subtitle laser of "Plein Soleil" (the DVD hadn't come
out at that point) and the DVD of "The Talented Mr.
Ripley" back to back. Most revealing.
Ripley's primping in the mirror is eroticized in the
Clement. In the Minghella it's comedy.
By contrast Delon is the erotic center of the Clement
with Ronet's Dickie Greenleaf having a far less
sexually seductive role.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5137
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:36pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism and eroticism/Anger
JP, Define "please." Seriously, there's nothing random about Gail
Russell. Did Madison turn her into a lush? She was already showing it
in Moonrise, but she still outshone the moon. Definition of eroticism
(following Ruy): Drew Barrymore and Salma Hayek.
Strange that this comes up now. I just rewatched, several times,
Kenneth Anger's Magic Lantern Cycle, Fred, and it seems to define the
idea of what people usually call cinematic fetishism. I think
Rabbit's Moon (the Andy Arthur version) is now one of my ten favorite
films of all time. And again, let me recommend to francophones
Olivier Assayas's incredible Cahiers book on Anger.
5138
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:47pm
Subject: Re: Re : Fetishism and fascination
"Peeping Tom". It deals with nearly everyting in movies indeed..
The cinephile as a permanent voyeur.
What is also interesting in "Peeping Tom" is that the character only
films dead people. Twice dead, first through bloodshed, then on the
celluloid.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Rebecca Shone
wrote:
> Here is the question that I am considering, I am dyslexic, so
terrible at expressing myself!
>
> 'With close reference to at least two films studied, explore the
validity of Laura Mulvey's assertion that, in narrative cinema,
woman is the "icon, displayed for the gaze and enjoyment of men" and
men are "the active controllers of the look"? What are the
implications of this for male and female spectators?
>
>
> Hope this makes what I am trying to say a bit clearer.
>
> Watched a fantastic film the other day, 'Peeping Tom' this film
deals with everything in terms of voyerism and scophophilia.
>
5139
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:47pm
Subject: YARDS Fight Scene
Interesting that you mention YARDS fight scene. I remember watching it and
thinking it was quite good because the fellows seemed to react to the punches
they were receiving. Those extra moments of "sustained hurt reactions" might
have made the filming of the unblinking long shot possible as they give some
time for the unblinking long shot camera movement.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> One scene that sticks in my mind from The Yards is
> a street fight between Joaquin Phoenix and Wahlberg
> that's shown only in a cool, unblinking long shot, which
> renders it amazingly more immediate and convincing
> than any array of tricked-up closeups plus attendant
> POWs and BAMs resounding on the soundtrack.
>
> --Robert Keser
5140
From:
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 2:54pm
Subject: Anger
Bill Krohn wrote:
>And again, let me recommend to francophones
>Olivier Assayas's incredible Cahiers book on Anger.
Bill, Assayas was just here at OSU for a retrospective of his films. He
decided to pair a screening of "demonlover" with Cronenberg's "Videodrome" and
Anger's "Lucifer Rising," two of his favorite films. Alas, I wasn't able to
attend.
As Fred knows, I'm just making my way through Anger's canon. "Rabbit's Moon"
is extraordinary, though my favorite so far - and one of my twenty or so
favorite films of all-time - is "Puce Moment."
P.S. - Bill, if "Rabbit Moon" is one of your ten favorites, how 'bout
submitting it and the other nine to our Top 10 project? Hint hint.
Peter
5141
From:
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 2:59pm
Subject: Re: fetisches
Ruy Gardiner wrote:
>-- jean seberg's hair & looks in à bout de souffle & bonjou tristesse.
>obviously i love godard and preminger films without seberg, but i wonder
>if
>i'd love those two pieces as much if there was another actress.
Seberg is one of my very favorites too. Didn't she sort of function as a
muse for Preminger and Godard? That would seem to indicate that the
mise-en-scene, as such, of both films is sort of inseperable from the presence of Seberg.
(Sort of like how Fred has said, I believe, that "The Man Who Shot Liberty
Valance" wouldn't be the film that it is without the presence of John Wayne.) I
know the horror stories about Preminger's treatment of Seberg on the set, but
that doesn't mean she couldn't have also been an artist muse for him of
course...
Peter
5142
From: Rebecca Shone
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 8:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: Re : Fetishism and fascination
Strong female character of Helen too. It would be really good to compare her to Marilyn Monroe, as I think she is very 'active' in the film. She questions (when watching Mark’s home videos) and does not show any fear at the end when he is filming her. Also found it interesting how Mark was filmed by his father, making his position in the film problematic, i.e. he appears quite passive (when he isn't killing people!).
Sadly, I can't write about Peeping Tom as it was watched as part of the course. We have to find our own films.
Maxime wrote:
"Peeping Tom". It deals with nearly everyting in movies indeed..
The cinephile as a permanent voyeur.
What is also interesting in "Peeping Tom" is that the character only
films dead people. Twice dead, first through bloodshed, then on the
celluloid.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Rebecca Shone
wrote:
> Here is the question that I am considering, I am dyslexic, so
terrible at expressing myself!
>
> 'With close reference to at least two films studied, explore the
validity of Laura Mulvey's assertion that, in narrative cinema,
woman is the "icon, displayed for the gaze and enjoyment of men" and
men are "the active controllers of the look"? What are the
implications of this for male and female spectators?
>
>
> Hope this makes what I am trying to say a bit clearer.
>
> Watched a fantastic film the other day, 'Peeping Tom' this film
deals with everything in terms of voyerism and scophophilia.
>
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/
---------------------------------
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5143
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 8:22pm
Subject: Re: Anger
P.S. - Bill, if "Rabbit Moon" is one of your ten favorites, how 'bout
submitting it and the other nine to our Top 10 project? Hint hint.
Peter
At the moment? Scorpio Rising, Lucifer Rising, Fireworks,
Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome, Eaux d'artifice, Puce Moment,
Kustom Kar Kommandos, Invocation to My Demon Brother. How many does
that leave?
5144
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 8:25pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
Rebecca, Have you seen Marnie?
5145
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 8:36pm
Subject: Gail Russell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> JP, Define "please." Seriously, there's nothing random about Gail
> Russell. Did Madison turn her into a lush? She was already showing
it
> in Moonrise, but she still outshone the moon.
I think Gail Russell is one of the great cinematic presences of the
1940s (and, of course, the jazz standard "Stella By Starlight" from
The Uninvited is about her).
Russell was pathologically shy, and reportedly drank to help her
overcome her introversion. The drinking got out of control, and it
was the reason Guy Madison divorced her. Her alcoholism also led to
her death at age 36 (empty liquor bottles were found next to her
body).
5146
From: Rebecca Shone
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 8:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fetishism
No I haven't. It's a Hitchcock film isn't it? Is it good?
hotlove666 wrote:
Rebecca, Have you seen Marnie?
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/
---------------------------------
BT Yahoo! Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5147
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 9:11pm
Subject: Re: Fetishism
hotlove666 wrote: Rebecca, Have you seen Marnie?
No I haven't. It's a Hitchcock film isn't it? Is it good?
Yes, it's quite good, and it's about your topic. So is Hitchcock's
Vertigo. Robin Wood's Hitchcock's Films Revisited has good sections
on both; Laura Mulvey's "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," which
I have in a collection called The Sexual Subject by the editors of
Screen, is good on Vertigo. Many people writing about your topic
based on Mulvey have distorted the article, so it's best to go back
to the source. The Women Who Knew Too Much: Hitchcock and Feminist
Film Theory by Tania Modleski also has a good chapter on Vertigo, and
if you can handle French theory, Raymond Bellour's Analysis of Film
has a good chapter on Marnie. All speak to your topic.
5148
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 9:44pm
Subject: Re: Re : Fetishism and fascination
The character films dying people, not dead people. A very
important difference.
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime" wrote:
> "Peeping Tom". It deals with nearly everyting in movies indeed..
> The cinephile as a permanent voyeur.
> What is also interesting in "Peeping Tom" is that the character
only
> films dead people. Twice dead, first through bloodshed, then on the
> celluloid.
>
>
>
>
> i> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Watched a fantastic film the other day, 'Peeping Tom' this film
> deals with everything in terms of voyerism and scophophilia.
> >
5149
From:
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 4:44pm
Subject: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
Joe, thanx soooo much for mentioning Daniel Blum's A PICTORIAL HISTORY OF THE
TALKIES. I had tons of books like this as a kid and I never imagined they
could be "recuperated" in any way. Now it's yet another glimpse (a glorious
rather than medicinal or judicial or angst-ridden one) into the gayness of my
childhood, like my disdain as a 7 year old for the treatment of C-3PO in Star Wars.
Blum's book provided me with endless hours of staring at the stars (and if I
remember correctly, there's a nice shot of Charles Farrell's bare ass). My
copy is missing the years 1965-70 even though it was store-bought (at a great
little place called Metro Golden Memories in Chicago - any Chicagoans on the list
know if it still exists?).
After reading your post, I went searching for Guy Madison and found this
great website:
http://www.briansdriveintheater.com/beefcake.html
Tab Hunter was always my fave beefcake model and his pix on this site are
jaw-dropping (dig that perky pork link). I hope some gay-boy-in-the-making
stumbles on it in this post-book era.
Kevin
5150
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 9:56pm
Subject: Re: fetisches
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
I
> know the horror stories about Preminger's treatment of Seberg on
the set, but
> that doesn't mean she couldn't have also been an artist muse for
him of
> course...
>
> Peter
He burned her at the stake (like Rossellini did Ingrid). The
artist's instinct is always to destroy his "muse". More generally, of
course, "each man kills the thing he loves" as Wilde ( Oscar, not
Cornel)put it.
JPC
5151
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 10:05pm
Subject: Re: Joseph K's drunk friend who saw London After Midnight
>How was it?
I don't recall getting into a critical exegesis with this guy, who
was rather tipsy. The word from William K. Everson, however, who saw
it as late as the 1950s, was that it isn't particularly good.
I did once read the photoplay novelization of the film, and it
follows pretty much the storyline of the remake, MARK OF THE VAMPIRE,
with the (* spoilers *) phoney vampires and spooky old house routine.
--
- Joe Kaufman
5152
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 10:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fetishism and eroticism/Anger
hotlove666 wrote:
>....Kenneth Anger's Magic Lantern Cycle, Fred, and it seems to define the idea of what people usually call cinematic fetishism.....
>
Well, the distinction I keep insisting on as crucial to me is between
the kind of viewer fetishism that responds to what we is shown on the
screen and the expression of fetishism through form. Thus someone who
fetishizes motorcycles and motorcyclists might love "Scorpio Rising,"
and also Emshwiller's bike film (which I don't like) and also "The Wild
Ones," and also that Corman, "The Wild Angels" (which I liked only
mildly). What Anger does is use light and composition and camera
movement to create a formal expression of a fetishist's attractions.
Bill, I realize you already may agree with this, but I wanted to be
clear about it. I think there's a huge difference between responding to
a film's form and being attracted to the objects contained therein. You
don't have to share any of Anger's fetishes to be deeply moved by his films.
- Fred
5153
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 10:39pm
Subject: Re: Gail Russell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > JP, Define "please." Seriously, there's nothing random about Gail
> > Russell. Did Madison turn her into a lush? She was already
showing
> it
> > in Moonrise, but she still outshone the moon.
>
> I think Gail Russell is one of the great cinematic presences of the
> 1940s (and, of course, the jazz standard "Stella By Starlight" from
> The Uninvited is about her).
>
Isn't that a bit of an overstatement? She made so few good films...
MOONRISE, THE UNINVITED, WAKE OF THE RED WITCH. I can't remember her
at all in Losey's THE LAWLESS,in WAKE, or in SEVEN MEN FROM NOW, but
I haven't been able to see that one in 30 years... I did like her as
Cornelia Otis Skinner in the pleasantly minor OUR HEARTS WERE YOUNG
AND GAY...
Anyway "The songs a robbin sings Through years of endless Spring..."
yes, good Victor Young song. But what do you mean it's "about her"?
JPC
>
5154
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 10:49pm
Subject: PEEPING TOM
I'm glad you clarified that 'dying' as I think that is a big part of the story.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> The character films dying people, not dead people. A very
> important difference.
> JPC
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime" wrote:
> > "Peeping Tom". It deals with nearly everyting in movies indeed..
> > The cinephile as a permanent voyeur.
> > What is also interesting in "Peeping Tom" is that the character only
> > films dead people. Twice dead, first through bloodshed, then on the
> > celluloid.
> >
> > > Watched a fantastic film the other day, 'Peeping Tom' this film
> > deals with everything in terms of voyerism and scophophilia.
> > >
5155
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 10:55pm
Subject: Re: fetishism/ guy madison/films&filming
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Tab Hunter was always my fave beefcake model and his
> pix on this site are
> jaw-dropping (dig that perky pork link). I hope some
> gay-boy-in-the-making
> stumbles on it in this post-book era.
>
As you may know, Tab is preparing to "tell all" in a
memoir he's writing even as I post.
Can't wait to read what he had to say about Tony Perkins.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5156
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 10:58pm
Subject: Re: Gail Russell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> Anyway "The songs a robbin sings Through years of endless
Spring..."
> yes, good Victor Young song. But what do you mean it's "about her"?
>
> JPC
She played Stella in The Uninvited. Every time I hear the song I
can't help but think of her.
5157
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 10:58pm
Subject: Re: Re : Fetishism and fascination
Dying people, absolutely. It is more important for him to film the
face when suffering, rather than dying. I can't remember if his mis-
en-scenes go beyond the death of his victims?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> The character films dying people, not dead people. A very
> important difference.
> JPC
>
5158
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 10:58pm
Subject: Re: Gail Russell
--- Damien Bona wrote:
> I think Gail Russell is one of the great cinematic
> presences of the
> 1940s (and, of course, the jazz standard "Stella By
> Starlight" from
> The Uninvited is about her).
>
> Russell was pathologically shy, and reportedly drank
> to help her
> overcome her introversion. The drinking got out of
> control, and it
> was the reason Guy Madison divorced her. Her
> alcoholism also led to
> her death at age 36 (empty liquor bottles were found
> next to her
> body).
>
In the opening chapter of his invaluable"The
Fifty-Year Decline and Fall of Hollywood," Ezra
Goodman interviews an aged D.W. Griffith who confesses
his admiration for "That Russell girl -- Gail, not
Jane."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5159
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 11:00pm
Subject: Re: Re : Fetishism and fascination
I should have written "rather than dead", precisely...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime" wrote:
> Dying people, absolutely. It is more important for him to film the
> face when suffering, rather than dying. I can't remember if his
mis-
> en-scenes go beyond the death of his victims?
5160
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 11:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: Gail Russell
And every time I hear the song I can't help but think
of Stella Stevens -- as a very up-tempo version of
"Stella By Starlight" is the main theme for "The Nutty
Professor."
--- Damien Bona wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Anyway "The songs a robbin sings Through years of
> endless
> Spring..."
> > yes, good Victor Young song. But what do you mean
> it's "about her"?
> >
> > JPC
>
>
> She played Stella in The Uninvited. Every time I
> hear the song I
> can't help but think of her.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5161
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: fetisches
Irony of ironies, they were both Joan of Arcs, directed by their respective
directors.
r.
> He burned her at the stake (like Rossellini did Ingrid). The
> artist's instinct is always to destroy his "muse". More generally, of
> course, "each man kills the thing he loves" as Wilde ( Oscar, not
> Cornel)put it.
> 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/
>
>
5162
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 11:36pm
Subject: Re: YARDS Fight Scene
Don't remember a single long shot. But rather a few large short
shots. Is that possible? But no tricked-up closeups indeed.
I remember more Charlize Theron'hand on the breathless face of
Wahlberg.
BRW, did Howard Shore do a better score on any other movie?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
> Interesting that you mention YARDS fight scene. I remember
watching it and
> thinking it was quite good because the fellows seemed to react to
the punches
> they were receiving. Those extra moments of "sustained hurt
reactions" might
> have made the filming of the unblinking long shot possible as they
give some
> time for the unblinking long shot camera movement.
>
>
5163
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 11:55pm
Subject: Re: fetisches
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> He burned her at the stake (like Rossellini did Ingrid). The
> artist's instinct is always to destroy his "muse". More generally,
of
> course, "each man kills the thing he loves" as Wilde ( Oscar, not
> Cornel)put it.
Hmmm, I wonder if Cornel Wilde ever killed Jean Wallace in a movie he
directed.
5164
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 0:02am
Subject: Re: Re : Fetishism and fascination
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Rebecca Shone
wrote:
> Here is the question that I am considering, I am dyslexic, so
terrible at expressing myself!
>
> 'With close reference to at least two films studied, explore the
validity of Laura Mulvey's assertion that, in narrative cinema, woman
is the "icon, displayed for the gaze and enjoyment of men" and men are
"the active controllers of the look"? What are the implications of
this for male and female spectators?
>
Here's an interesting discussion:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=CLLMCK.20z%40inmet.camb.inmet.com
Click on "Complete Thread" to view the responses.
Paul
5165
From: Maxime
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 0:07am
Subject: Re: fetisches
Remember the end of "The Legend of Lylah Clare"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> > He burned her at the stake (like Rossellini did Ingrid). The
> > artist's instinct is always to destroy his "muse". More
generally,
> of
> > course, "each man kills the thing he loves" as Wilde ( Oscar,
not
> > Cornel)put it.
>
5166
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 0:17am
Subject: Re: Gail Russell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Anyway "The songs a robbin sings Through years of endless
> Spring..."
> > yes, good Victor Young song. But what do you mean it's "about
her"?
> >
> > JPC
>
>
> She played Stella in The Uninvited. Every time I hear the song I
> can't help but think of her.
So the song is about Stella or about Gail? Or is it the same
thing to you?
Of course i often think of Gene Tierney when I hear the
song "Laura" but I don't think of the song as being "about Gene
Tierney". Maybe I should.
JPC
5167
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 0:26am
Subject: Re: Fetishism and eroticism/Anger
Fred Camper wrote:
> Well, the distinction I keep insisting on as crucial to me is
between the kind of viewer fetishism that responds to what we is
> shown on the screen and the expression of fetishism through form.
Thus someone who fetishizes motorcycles and motorcyclists might
> love "Scorpio Rising," and also Emshwiller's bike film (which I
don't like) and also "The Wild Ones," and also that Corman, "The Wild
Angels" (which I liked only mildly). What Anger does is use light and
composition and camera movement to create a formal expression of a
> fetishist's attractions.
I think this is a useful point. Someone like Anger may start with a
private obsession, but then has to figure out a way of making that
obsession meaningful to his audience. I think this is what most
artists do in one way or another.
I'm not talking specifically about sexual fetishes here, but an
alternate way of looking at this would be to say that by
communicating an obsession through form, successful art extends the
range of subjects we have feelings about. Once a film has made a
particular subject imaginatively real to me, that subject tends to
occupy a permanent place in my mental universe -- watching Iranian
movies has made me more interested in Iranian culture, watching Judy
Garland movies has made me more interested in Judy Garland, etc.
Also, isn't there a big difference between an attachment to, say,
motorcycles and an attachment to performers who are artists in their
own right (e.g. Garland) and whose skill consists in making
themselves into objects of fascination?
JTW
5168
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 0:40am
Subject: Re: Groundhog Day
"hotlove666" wrote:
> One of my favorite films of the 90s.
Mine too. Bill, a while back I forwarded your list of favorite living
directors to a friend of mine -- a big science-fiction fan -- and he
was puzzled about why you left off Ramis but included Bill Murray.
I've been following up some of the tips from that list, and I can't
resist asking a couple more questions:
1. Was the omission of Terrence Malick accidental, or deliberate?
2. Rob Reiner?
JTW
5169
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 0:56am
Subject: Re: Re: Fetishism and eroticism/Anger
jaketwilson wrote
>Also, isn't there a big difference between an attachment to, say,
>motorcycles and an attachment to performers who are artists in their
>own right (e.g. Garland) and whose skill consists in making
>themselves into objects of fascination?
>
>
Well, the Guggenheim Museum mounted a gigantic exhibit of motorcycles as
art objects a few years back. I didn't see it, but they seemed to be
showing them as art objects. A couple of art-lover friends who saw it
thought it was idiotic, though. But they're not Judy Garland fans either.
At the same time, it isn't clear to me that the case being made for, oh,
Tab Hunter, was that he was an "artist."
Just to repeat: I have no problem with someone loving Tab Hunter for
whatever reason, going to all his movies, et cetera. I just wanted to
articulate that it is possible to love cinema without that love stemming
from fetishistic attractions to particular objects.
I would imagine that the defense of Garland as an artist would have to
do with the expressiveness of her voice and gestures and singing, not
with, say, how she looks in different kinds of clothing. Much as I love
the performances of John Wayne in certain great films, I wouldn't make a
case that he was a "stand alone" artist, because though what he does
requires tremendous skill it doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of
full blown aesthetic expression; rather, it articulates a single
personality.
I'm using "artist" here in a restrictive sense, as in, "good artist in
my opinion" or "great artist in my opinion." There's another meaning
whereby every creative person would be an artist, which would include
Wayne, and I respect that meaning too.
- Fred
- Fred
5170
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 1:03am
Subject: Re: Re: Fetishism and eroticism/Anger
--- Fred Camper wrote:
>
> Well, the Guggenheim Museum mounted a gigantic
> exhibit of motorcycles as
> art objects a few years back. I didn't see it, but
> they seemed to be
> showing them as art objects. A couple of art-lover
> friends who saw it
> thought it was idiotic, though. But they're not Judy
> Garland fans either.
Actually the fetishism in "Scorpio Rising" revolves
around leather gear far more than motorcycles
themselves.
>
> At the same time, it isn't clear to me that the case
> being made for, oh,
> Tab Hunter, was that he was an "artist."
> Just to repeat: I have no problem with someone
> loving Tab Hunter for
> whatever reason, going to all his movies, et cetera.
> I just wanted to
> articulate that it is possible to love cinema
> without that love stemming
> from fetishistic attractions to particular objects.
Well he certainly had his moments in "Damn Yankees"
and "Polyester" -- especially in the latter where he
was staging a Marguerite Duras film festival at his
drive-in.
> I would imagine that the defense of Garland as an
> artist would have to
> do with the expressiveness of her voice and gestures
> and singing, not
> with, say, how she looks in different kinds of
> clothing.
Definitely. Plus her acting skill. She gives amazing
performances in "Meet Me in St. Louis," "The Pirate,"
"The Clock" and "Girl Crazy" as well as "A Star is
Born."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5171
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 1:51am
Subject: Re: Keeping Tabs on Fetishism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
>
> At the same time, it isn't clear to me that the case being made
for, oh,
> Tab Hunter, was that he was an "artist."
>
> Just to repeat: I have no problem with someone loving Tab Hunter
for
> whatever reason, going to all his movies, et cetera. I just wanted
to
> articulate that it is possible to love cinema without that love
stemming
> from fetishistic attractions to particular objects.
>
I'm using "artist" here in a restrictive sense, as in, "good artist -
Fred
>
> - Fred
Maybe we SHOULD have a problem with someone "loving" Tab Hunter
(or "Tab Hunter") and making it into an aesthetic statement. We live
in a world where "art" is whatever anybody (you, me, anybody, --
everybody being an "artist") decides it is (including the artist's
bottled urine or worse). It's fun (sometimes) and art should also be
fun (or "fun") but it has its limitations. Motorcycles are beautiful
machines, but so are many other machines (most machines are
beautiful). And I suppose Tab Hunter is a beautiful machine too. But
IS IT (IS HE) ART???
I not only agree with Fred that "it is possible to love cinema
without that love stemming from fetishistic attractions to particular
objects" -- I would replace his "possible" by a perhaps conservative
but very vigorous "NECESSARY".
JPC
5172
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 2:31am
Subject: Re: Keeping Tabs on Fetishism
Actually, Tab Hunter *IS* Art. His "real" name is Art(hur) Gelien.
But why is it *necessary* to love cinema untied to festishistic
attractions? What's wrong with going to Land of the Pharoahs
for Dewey Martin's biceps (or Joan Collins' bewelled navel) but
staying to admire the 360-degree pan shot? How many budding
auteurists were converted to Nicholas Ray when they originally
bought their tickets to see James Dean?
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > At the same time, it isn't clear to me that the case being made
> for, oh,
> > Tab Hunter, was that he was an "artist."
> >
> > Just to repeat: I have no problem with someone loving Tab Hunter
> for
> > whatever reason, going to all his movies, et cetera. I just
wanted
> to
> > articulate that it is possible to love cinema without that love
> stemming
> > from fetishistic attractions to particular objects.
> >
> I'm using "artist" here in a restrictive sense, as in, "good artist
-
> Fred
> >
> Maybe we SHOULD have a problem with someone "loving" Tab Hunter
> (or "Tab Hunter") and making it into an aesthetic statement. We
live
> in a world where "art" is whatever anybody (you, me, anybody, --
> everybody being an "artist") decides it is (including the artist's
> bottled urine or worse). It's fun (sometimes) and art should also
be
> fun (or "fun") but it has its limitations. Motorcycles are
beautiful
> machines, but so are many other machines (most machines are
> beautiful). And I suppose Tab Hunter is a beautiful machine too.
But
> IS IT (IS HE) ART???
>
> I not only agree with Fred that "it is possible to love cinema
> without that love stemming from fetishistic attractions to
particular
> objects" -- I would replace his "possible" by a perhaps
conservative
> but very vigorous "NECESSARY".
>
> JPC
5173
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 2:51am
Subject: Re: Keeping Tabs on Fetishism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> Actually, Tab Hunter *IS* Art. His "real" name is Art(hur) Gelien.
>
> But why is it *necessary* to love cinema untied to festishistic
> attractions? What's wrong with going to Land of the Pharoahs
> for Dewey Martin's biceps (or Joan Collins' bewelled navel) but
> staying to admire the 360-degree pan shot? How many budding
> auteurists were converted to Nicholas Ray when they originally
> bought their tickets to see James Dean?
>
> --Robert Keser
> I don't know how many. I suspect very few but I may be wrong. I
can only speak about my own experience, which was never about going
to a movie to see a particular star's biceps or navel or ass or
whatever... I enjoy camp as much as the next person (althoug probably
more than some next person and less than some other next person), but
from a safe distance -- I've never been "into" it. And that is where
Tab Hunter and Dewey Martin and Joan Collins's navel are situated.
I'm not saying any kind of moviegoing for any kind of reason
is "wrong" but many kinds just are not my cup of tea. And I'd like to
ask the question: Is this group some kind of Highbrow version of a
fan magazine?
JPC
JPC
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> > Maybe we SHOULD have a problem with someone "loving" Tab
Hunter
> > (or "Tab Hunter") and making it into an aesthetic statement. We
> live
> > in a world where "art" is whatever anybody (you, me, anybody, --
> > everybody being an "artist") decides it is (including the
artist's
> > bottled urine or worse). It's fun (sometimes) and art should also
> be
> > fun (or "fun") but it has its limitations. Motorcycles are
> beautiful
> > machines, but so are many other machines (most machines are
> > beautiful). And I suppose Tab Hunter is a beautiful machine too.
> But
> > IS IT (IS HE) ART???
> >
> > I not only agree with Fred that "it is possible to love cinema
> > without that love stemming from fetishistic attractions to
> particular
> > objects" -- I would replace his "possible" by a perhaps
> conservative
> > but very vigorous "NECESSARY".
> >
> > JPC
5174
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 2:58am
Subject: Seberg and Preminger (was "Fetisches")
He burned her at the stake
You can see the moment when something caused a flame to pop out and
burn Seberg during the stake sequence - it's in the making-of
documentary on the VHS of Saint Joan.
5175
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 3:05am
Subject: Re: Re: Keeping Tabs on Fetishism
I agree with JPC's last two posts.
I try very hard to resist my tendency to call tastes that don't agree
with my own "wrong." I'm not going to tell anyone that they're "wrong"
for going to the cinema for somebody's biceps or somebody else's
bellybutton. My other posts and writing try to make a case that being
given a whole vision of the cosmos in an ecstatically beautiful
aesthetic form is a little bit more, oh, life-expanding than feeding
your desires, fantasies, and fetishes. But we all need to feed those
too, or at least almost all of us do, and we all have our ways. It has
always seemed to me that making cinema into a creature of that feeding
process -- which is certainly something that the machinery of commercial
filmmaking encourages, and with good reason as this kind of process is
something that the great majority of the "public" likes -- is to defile
its "higher" possibilities. I *really* don't want, and don't have time
to, get into the old "high" and "low" debate. But I also don't see
what's to be gained in different people listing their favorite fetish
objects. The world is full of people simply asserting their tastes; this
group, to all of our great credit, has primarily been about something else.
That said, list away if you want to. Just keep our group's "statement of
purpose" in mind too.
- Fred
5176
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 3:11am
Subject: Re: Groundhog Day
I left off Ramis because I only love one film by him and like
another. But I need to see more. On the other hand, Quick Change is
one of the best modern comedies - right up there with Groundhog Day -
and it's Murray's only venture, so far. It's his Night of the Hunter.
Did I omit or include Rob Reiner? I like his work, although I haven't
been keeping up as I'd like to. Initially I just liked the films,
noting that he seemed good at many kinds; then I got interested in
his use of performative utterances as a sort of philosophical theme
in Princess Bride (which he recut to end on a performative, wrecking
the emotionalism of the first cut, which ended with a Tristana-esque
reverse flashback of scenes from the story), in Misery, in Harry Met
Sally, in A Few Good Men... I forget what-all. Paul Schrader sneered
during a roundtable on auteurism in the 80s that auteurs now were
people like "Opie" and "Meathead." Well, I like one film by "Opie"
(Parenthood), and I like everything I've seen by "Meathead." He seems
very intelligent, like that whole BH brat-pack: Albert Brooks (did I
include him? I meant to), Christopher Guest et al.
5177
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 3:22am
Subject: Re: Fetishism
There are certain filmmakers who make the image itself a fetishistic
power to fascinate: Sternebrg with his lighting and all those veils,
and Anger by means too complex and varied for me to begin analyze
here. In each case there may also be a fetish-object in the shot, so
that making Dietrich's image, or an image of a motorycle boy, a
fetish is a way of fetishizing that object. What matters, and has
larger esthetic and philosophical implications, is the image as
fetish, whatever may be in it, and in Anger's case that can be quite
a varied array of objects and substances.
5178
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 3:43am
Subject: Monstrous Evil (was: "What did they say?")
I went to Odyssey Video in the Valley today to see if they had The
Notorious Landlady (and to see what was in the free book box at the
Iliad Bookstore next door...). As usual, something was "on" - a tv
kid show called "GI Joe" or "The GI Joes." [The] GI Joe[s] does not
refer to the comic book hero of WWII. It's an "elite anti-terrorist
unit" fighting an organization called Cobra. In this episode, they
have just seized Cobra's assets, and Cobra strikes back by implanting
subliminal messages in a rock song which a group of moronic rockers,
dupes of the terrorists, are paid $5 an hour to lip-synch at a
concert.
But quite apart from the grunginess of the material, this damn thing
was so LOUD I literally couldn't think. It was like the mixer had 3
buttons to push - Loud, Louder and Loudest, and he had only used the
last two. I actually had a list of films I was looking for, which I
had fortunately written down, because my thought processes were
stopped dead by the witless, grating decibels the monitors around the
store were cranking out with no lull or variation for 23 minutes -
but I checked, and they hadn't turned the sound up. This is what the
show would sound like if you turned on your tv on Staurday morning,
or whenever it plays.
My nerves were very badly jangled when I left the store. I would
cringe irritably if someone spoke loudly in my presence. Driving, I
was a road rage accident looking for someone to happen to. I still
have a slight headache. And I only heard one episode! You could use
this thing to torture confessions out of illegally detained prisoners
in Guantanamo - it's better than the warped record of "Itsy-Bitsy
Teeny-Weeny Yellow Polkadot Bikini" that the East Germans torture
Horst Buchholz with in One, Two, Three.
I'm not unfamiliar with children's programming. When we had cable and
the boys were 9 and 10, Yorgan would turn on the Cartoon Channel when
he got up and we'd turn it off when he went to bed - much of the day,
he'd be planted in front of it, particularly when we were still
living in an apartment where there wan't a lot to do outside. I heard
sound efects, recycled "music," dialogue yelled out endlessly by the
same three voices. I never heard anything like this. Is it typical of
today? Because any kid exposed to that sheer noise level (forget the
appalling propagandistic poison) is going to grow up to have one of
several personality disorders if he/she's at all susceptible to begin
with. Is that the aim of the venal, grasping monsters who create and
purvey this shit?
5179
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 3:48am
Subject: Re: Keeping Tabs on Fetishism
"jpcoursodon" wrote:
I don't know how many. I suspect very few but I may be wrong. I
> can only speak about my own experience, which was never about going
> to a movie to see a particular star's biceps or navel or ass or
> whatever... I enjoy camp as much as the next person (althoug
probably more than some next person and less than some other next
person), but from a safe distance -- I've never been "into" it. And
> that is where Tab Hunter and Dewey Martin and Joan Collins's navel
are situated. I'm not saying any kind of moviegoing for any kind of
reason is "wrong" but many kinds just are not my cup of tea. And I'd
like to ask the question: Is this group some kind of Highbrow version
> of a fan magazine?
Is there anything wrong with that?
Seriously, Tab Hunter means nothing to me either, but eroticism, as
opposed to pornography, is a major aspect of cinema, and it's not
just about beautiful bodies: if it were, how do we explain why Cindy
Crawford, say, never became a star? It's bound up with the way
performers talk and move and, yes, wear clothes: the whole business
of projecting a screen personality, which is not quite the same as
acting. Seems to me that screen glamour or star quality or sex
appeal -- not claiming these terms are synonymous -- IS an aesthetic
achievement: I keep remembering that Yeats poem "To A Young Beauty"
which begins "Dear fellow artist..."
Much of the discussion on "fetishism" seems underwritten by the
Freudian idea that the need for art is always driven by sublimated
libido. Instinctively, I tend to go along with this -- not in a
crudely reductive way, but I do believe that "high" and "low" desires
ultimately stem from the same psychological sources.
JTW
PS: My fetishised star for the day: Veronica Lake dressed as a boy in
SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS. I'd keep going, but I agree this discussion might
get out of hand...
5180
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 4:12am
Subject: Re: Re: Joseph K's drunk friend who saw London After Midnight
Joe K:
> I don't recall getting into a critical exegesis with this guy, who
> was rather tipsy. The word from William K. Everson, however, who saw
> it as late as the 1950s, was that it isn't particularly good.
I'm told that Everson was never a fan of Browning or Chaney anyway, so
he can't be a fair judge.
Speculating about PLAYTIME, perhaps the film is just lost *in* the
Swiss Cinematheques vaults. Sometimes films disappear for years at
Eastman House and are suddenly found.
And briefly on collectors: I was exposed to the world of private
collectors for a while during my tenure at Eastman House and I didn't
find it to be a very pretty situation at all. The tendency to collect
is already one I mistrust: there are several professional and dedicated
film institutions in the world today that don't wish to profit from
private findings -- why not donate collections to these places?
Gabe
5181
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 4:16am
Subject: Re: Monstrous Evil (GI JOE)
Bill,
I'm not sure if this is the GI JOE I watched as a kid in the Reagan
1980s, or a newer, modern evolution, but some of the funniest
filmmaking I've seen in recent times comes from the altering of the
30-second spots at the end of the cartoons, which taught children
important lessons like not talking to strangers, because "knowing is
half the battle". There is some editing here, but mostly it's just
dubbing. Maybe having watched this stuff as kid makes this funnier
than it is, but I find it tremendously hilarious:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/gijoe.html
http://www.heavengallery.com/fenslerfilms/
(The one that requires DiVX is the best, but be wary, as most DiVX
drivers on the net install spyware)
Cheers,
PWC
5182
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 4:35am
Subject: Re: Gail Russell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> So the song is about Stella or about Gail? Or is it the same
> thing to you?
>
> Of course i often think of Gene Tierney when I hear the
> song "Laura" but I don't think of the song as being "about Gene
> Tierney". Maybe I should.
Yeah, I guess I do think of Gail Russell and Stella Meredith as one
and the same.
Funny, but when I hear the Raksin/Mercer "Laura" I tend to think not
of Gene Tierney but Otto Preminger. But for me Tierney will always
be, above all, Leave Her To Heaven's Ellen Berent.
5183
From:
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 0:02am
Subject: Re: Keeping Tabs on Fetishism
Ok Coursodon and Camper are making me nervous (again) so I feel I have to
defend myself. I wasn't making "loving" Tab Hunter into an aesthetic statement
(at least not in my post) nor, just to be perfectly clear, was I making the case
for Tab Hunter as an "artist" or art. Nor did I merely list my favorite
fetish object(s). Even though I completely disagree with the idea that "it is
NECESSARY to love cinema without that love stemming from fetishistic attractions to
particular objects," my Tab Hunter lust was limited to one sentence towards
the end of what I honestly thought (and after re-reading it, still do) to be a
substantial post that was in keeping with the list's statement of purpose.
In the hope that that's that, I'll reserve my comments on camp and the cosmos.
Kevin
5184
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 5:05am
Subject: Re: Gail Russell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
> > So the song is about Stella or about Gail? Or is it the same
> > thing to you?
> >
> > Of course i often think of Gene Tierney when I hear the
> > song "Laura" but I don't think of the song as being "about Gene
> > Tierney". Maybe I should.
>
>
> Yeah, I guess I do think of Gail Russell and Stella Meredith as one
> and the same.
>
> Funny, but when I hear the Raksin/Mercer "Laura" I tend to think
not
> of Gene Tierney but Otto Preminger. But for me Tierney will always
> be, above all, Leave Her To Heaven's Ellen Berent.
Which brings us back, somehow, to Cornel Wilde...
His character is so dumb (and he's supposed to be a famous
writer!) that you can't help siding with evil Tierney. And she looked
so decorative lying at the bottom of those stairs.
The forties were such a great decade for female objects of
desire.
JPC
5185
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 5:28am
Subject: The Heart Is a Lonely (Tab) Hunter
I didn't intend to make anyone nervous. I would be in an awkward
position putting down other people's fetishes when I myself have
claimed that auteurism is per se fetishistic, and I moreover think
that there is some form and degree of fetishism associated with any
kind of art appreciation. However, again we would have to define what
kind of fetishism we're talking about. I really don't think that a
fascination for motorcycles, or large bosoms, or whatever
other "object" of desire, will ever lead anyone to a genuine
appreciation of film as art. Or of any other form of art, for that
matter. I may be wrong. On the other hand fetishism can be and very
often is a major source of inspiration for the artist. Von Sternberg,
Joseph Cornell are almost too obvious examples. Many others are not
quite as obvious...
JPC
5186
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 5:52am
Subject: Re: Seberg and Preminger (was "Fetisches")
> You can see the moment when something caused a flame to pop out and
> burn Seberg during the stake sequence - it's in the making-of
> documentary on the VHS of Saint Joan.
One of the most terrifying moments in cinema for me is when a sudden
blast of flame leaps toward Seberg in SAINT JOAN, with Preminger
characteristically holding the shot over the change of mood. Was Seberg
actually injured by that flame? - Dan
5187
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 5:59am
Subject: Re: Keeping Tabs on Fetishism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"We live in a world where "art" is whatever anybody (you, me,
anybody, --> everybody being an "artist") decides it is (including
the artist's bottled urine or worse)."
I recall that it was Marshall McLuhan who said "Art is anything you
can get away with" about 40 years ago and I heard it in a college art
class about 10 years later as a lamentation of the instructor.
"I not only agree with Fred that "it is possible to love cinema
without that love stemming from fetishistic attractions to
particular > objects" -- I would replace his "possible" by a perhaps
conservative > but very vigorous 'NECESSARY'."
There are many non-aesthetic reasons for seeing certain movies not
necessarily stemming from fetishistic attractions to particular
objects. For example, I'll probably see THE LAST SAMURAI because I
have an interest in how Japan is represented by the West and to test
Edward Said's propositions about orientalist appropriation. I should
add that I don't claim this particular reason as somehow privileged,
but do you find any validity other reasons such as intellectual
curiosity?
Richard
5188
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 6:05am
Subject: Re: Seberg and Preminger (was "Fetisches")
Dan wrote:
> One of the most terrifying moments in cinema for me is when a sudden
> blast of flame leaps toward Seberg in SAINT JOAN, with Preminger
> characteristically holding the shot over the change of mood.
There's a similar shot in FOREVER AMBER, with some smoldering wood
nearly collapsing over Linda Darnell's head.
On a slightly different not (or not): Is it true Preminger was awful
(read: cruel) with his actors?
Gabe
5189
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 6:06am
Subject: Re: Sound: "What did they say?"
> 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...)
I recently saw MYSTIC RIVER, in which I could not understand a good deal
of the dialogue; and Sean Penn's performance made me remember that your
objection first popped up in a big way around method acting when it made
its way to screens in the 50s. Brando used to be practically identified
with the word "mumbling." All this way before Altman got ambitious with
his soundtracks. - Dan
5190
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 6:35am
Subject: Preminger
I asked ingenuously:
>Is it true Preminger was awful
> (read: cruel) with his actors?
I guess I had forgotten this little part of history.
Isn't it about time we get a full Preminger retro a go-go?
Gabe
5191
From: brack_28
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 6:45am
Subject: Vendredi soir
I just got back from watching Vendredi soir (which was just
amazing), and I was wondering if someone could explain something for
me. Early in the film Laure is looking at the car in front of her
and on the trunk is written "15 Valve" (or something like that), and
what appears to be a computer generated "S" floats down and makes
it "15 Valves." Now as I write this description, I realize it seems
completely absurd and I'm wondering if I imagined it. But if I'm
correctly remembering this, could someone explain what this means?
Is it a joke?
Josh
5192
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 7:24am
Subject: GAIL RUSSELL movies on TV in DEC check your time zones
from this site
http://www.tv-now.com/stars/gailruss.html
check your time zones
comments about the films appreciated
Angel and the Badman
125 minutes- USA, 1947, BW, Video
Directed by James Edward Grant and starring
John Wayne, Gail Russell, Harry Carey
Irene Rich, Bruce Cabot, Lee Dixon
Stephen Grant, Tom Powers, Olin Howlin, Paul Hurst
A notorious outlaw is reformed by the Quaker woman who nurses him back
to health.
Sat Dec 20 06:05A AMC- American Movie Classics
Mon Dec 22 02:00P NOST- The Goodlife Network
Wake of the Red Witch
130 minutes- USA, 1948, (CC), BW, Video
Directed by Edward Ludwig and starring
John Wayne, Gail Russell, Gig Young
Luther Adler, Grant Withers, Dennis Hoey
Paul Fix, Henry Daniell, Adele Mara, Eduard Franz
A sea captain and a ruthless trader become bitter rivals for an East
Indies woman and a fortune in pearls.
Fri Dec 26 09:20A AMC- American Movie Classics
5193
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 7:34am
Subject: Re: Monstrous Evil (GI JOE)
I don't think that's it, Patrick, but thanks. I could be wrong - I
never even looked at the screen after confirming that it was cheap
action animation. I haven't even gotten to the point of liking anime
yet - except of course for Anime Wong.
5194
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 7:37am
Subject: Re: Seberg and Preminger (was "Fetisches")
According to the making-of doc, she was injured. OP not only left it
in the film, he played it up in the making-of, which would've been
aired on tv to lure people into theatres. I'm surprised he didn't
pass out scratch-'n'-sniff cards: "Scratch during the immolation
scene and smell the burning flesh!"
Hey, I kid because I love.
5195
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 7:40am
Subject: Re: Seberg and Preminger (was "Fetisches")
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Gabe Klinger wrote:
>
> There's a similar shot in FOREVER AMBER, with some smoldering wood
> nearly collapsing over Linda Darnell's head.
>
> On a slightly different not (or not): Is it true Preminger was
awful
> (read: cruel) with his actors?
>
> Gabe
Preminger was infamous for being cruel to his actors. I've heard
that during production of In Harm's Way he got on a microphone and,
to a large audience of actors and extras and production personnel,
proceeded to berate Tom Tryon for his acting and. more particularly,
for being queer.
On the other hand, any number of actors worked with Preminger on
several occasions including Henry Fonda, Peter Lawford and Burgess
Meredith, who made 6 films with Preminger.
As an aside, given that Linda Darnell died in a fire, the Great Fire
of London sequence in Forever Amber is a bit hard to sit through.
5196
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 7:49am
Subject: Re: Gail Russell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> Which brings us back, somehow, to Cornel Wilde...
> His character is so dumb (and he's supposed to be a famous
> writer!) that you can't help siding with evil Tierney. And she
looked
> so decorative lying at the bottom of those stairs.
> The forties were such a great decade for female objects of
> desire.
>
I think that one of John M. Stahl's great accomplishments is how he
managed to make Tierney's character -- as evil and nuts as she is --
the most sympathetic in Leave Her To Heaven.
It's interesting that that Leave Her To Heaven was one of the highest
grossing pictures of 1945 (second only to Bells Of St Mary's if I'm
not mistaken), which indicates that audiences were fascinated -- at a
time when Greer Garson reigned supreme -- by an unremittingly evil
woman.
5197
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 7:58am
Subject: Re: Seberg and Ptreminger (was "Fetsiches")
Damian wrote: Preminger was infamous for being cruel to his actors.
I've heard that during production of In Harm's Way he got on a
microphone and, to a large audience of actors and extras and
production personnel, proceeded to berate Tom Tryon for his acting
and more particularly, for being queer.
I've learned that most of what's been written about that movie is
horseshit, just by doing a little research - starting with what OP
wrote himself. The indications are that Wayne brought the MS. to him,
not vice versa - OP claims that he found the book, asked Douglas and
Wayne if they wanted to do it, and they both signed on without even
asking to read a script. That's either megalomania or an early
sympytom of the Alzheimer's coming on.
Anyway, as the story goes, OP drove Tryon (whom some of us still
remember for the bizarre hat* he wore as Texas John Slaughter on tv)
clean out of the film business, even though they had a contract for
another picture. (BTW, I think Tryon's perfect in The Cardinal, but
acting had little to do with it.) It's possible OP just wanted out of
that three-picture contract and was egging TT into walking. That's
kind of standard practice in Hollywood. Fox forced David Begelman to
recut The Sicilian not because they wanted a shorter film, but
because they want to break Begelman's indie production contract,
which they were losing money on because it was written by a friend of
his, also a crook, who had previously been head of production at
Fox.
For Tryon the exit from Hollywood was the beginning of a successful
career as a novelist, the first installment of which was the book
Robert Mulligan made into The Other.
*but no doubt authentic. P. J. Pesce clapped a hat like that on an
extra during the hanging at the start of From Dusk Till Dawn 3
(q.v.), and I'm sure he researched it.
5198
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 8:02am
Subject: Re: Gail Russell
Damien wrote of Leave Her to Heaven:
atime when Greer Garson reigned supreme -- by an unremittingly evil
woman.>
Nobody went to GWTW to see Melanie - a simple fact Selznick had
forgotten by the time he re-cut The Paradine Case to give the film
to Ann Todd. Scarlett is not a monster, but she is a bitch, and boy
do we love her - women as much as or more than men, I'd say.
5199
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 8:34am
Subject: Re: Seberg and Ptreminger (was "Fetsiches")
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> For Tryon the exit from Hollywood was the beginning of a successful
> career as a novelist, the first installment of which was the book
> Robert Mulligan made into The Other.
With Tryon writing The Other and Crowned Heads -- part of which
became Wilder's Fedora -- then, as much as I loved him in The
Cardinal when I was an 8-year-old devout Catholic Boy, we should be
grateful to Preminger if indeed he helped turn Tryon from actor to
author.
5200
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 8:40am
Subject: Re: Re: Joseph K's drunk friend who saw London After Midnight
>And briefly on collectors: I was exposed to the world of private
>collectors for a while during my tenure at Eastman House and I didn't
>find it to be a very pretty situation at all. The tendency to collect
>is already one I mistrust: there are several professional and dedicated
>film institutions in the world today that don't wish to profit from
>private findings -- why not donate collections to these places?
>
>Gabe
There's the notorious Al Detlaff, who wants $1 million for his unique
copy of Edison's 1910 "Frankenstein".
I never understood the attitude. Rarities should be protected,
preserved and put back into circulation.
--
- Joe Kaufman
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact