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.
5201
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 2:02pm
Subject: preminger and tryon
My favorite Preminger anecdote about his harsh treatment of actors
is related to Tryon on the set of THE CARDINAL. John Huston said
that Preminger had so terrified Tryon that Tryon was visibly
shaking. Huston pulled Preminger aside and said, "You know Otto,
you'll get much more out of this guy if you just get him to relax."
Preminger thanked Huston and told him that it was a wonderful idea.
And so after that, according to Huston, Preminger went around
screaming at Tryon, "Relax!"
But in terms of IN HARM'S WAY, Patricia Neal has gone on record as
saying that working with Preminger was a delight. And in her
autobiography, Ilka Chase said that Preminger was one of the
greatest theater directors she had ever worked with.
5202
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 3:35pm
Subject: FETISH: necessary but not sufficient, it may even interfere
Simple definitions from Merriam-Webster
an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is
psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is a focus
of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual
expression
Simple thoughts from me (but not necessarily about me)
Let's accept that the male has a greater sexual need than the female
(individual differences allowed). Heterosexual males who cannot
readily satisfy that need with basic intercourse with a female must
have some level of distraction with that sexual need. A fetish can
develop if some object (let's say a fur-lined socks or pictures of the
same) must be present to have that male satisfy his sexual need.
The INTERFERENCE created by a fetish is what interests me because
that's when fetishes become apparent.
Let's say that those fur-lined socks now become the object of sexual
desire such that basic intercourse with a female partner is deferred.
Those fur-lined socks are a fetish as they satisfy the original
distraction of the sexual need.
A fetish does not satisfy sexual need; it is necessary but not
sufficient (it cannot be the sexual partner), it may even interfere
with sexual satisfaction in the most basic sense.
The fetish topic is much too big for simple posts but the interference
issue seemed not to be mentioned or else I missed it in the posts.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5203
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 3:39pm
Subject: Brando's "mumbling" (was "Sound: What did they say?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I know I'm not the only one but this is a topic critics never
seem
> > to address: in many "modern" films I have difficulty
understanding
> > the dialogue (I'm talking about mostly mainstream movies,
not "direct-
> > sound" documentaries) and I have been wondering to what extent
that
> > might be a result of the religion of "natural" sound
(overwhelming
> > background noise for realistic effect; sloppy, "life-like"
delivery
> > by actors...)
>
> 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
The major difference, Dan, is that i never understood that
complaint about Brando -- I never have and never had any trouble
understanding him in any movie I've seen, and I have seen practically
all of his movies ( I wouldn't know about Brando on stage, but I
assume the complaint came mostly from moviegoers and film critics)...
I think that because his acting and elocution were different, people
were disconcerted and decided he was mumbling. Which was not just
untrue but absurd because at the time no studio would have released a
movie with unintelligible dialogue (they would have redubbed until it
sounded right). Today anything goes. And I'm glad to find out that
most of the members who responded to my post have had the same kind
of experience (recently MYSTIC RIVER was a problem for me too). Bill
K. seems to be the only lucky one who never has any problem.
JPC
5204
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Brando's "mumbling" (was "Sound: What did they say?)
> The major difference, Dan, is that i never understood that
> complaint about Brando -- I never have and never had any trouble
> understanding him in any movie I've seen, and I have seen practically
> all of his movies ( I wouldn't know about Brando on stage, but I
> assume the complaint came mostly from moviegoers and film critics)...
> I think that because his acting and elocution were different, people
> were disconcerted and decided he was mumbling. Which was not just
> untrue but absurd because at the time no studio would have released a
> movie with unintelligible dialogue (they would have redubbed until it
> sounded right). Today anything goes. And I'm glad to find out that
> most of the members who responded to my post have had the same kind
> of experience (recently MYSTIC RIVER was a problem for me too). Bill
> K. seems to be the only lucky one who never has any problem.
Jaime Christley asked me to post the following on his behalf. - Dan
----------
It seems to me that a lot of theaters in this city (and around the
world) have less-than-optimum sound presentation. Problems range
from improperly set volume controls (which can be fixed in under ten
seconds by an attentive projectionist) to damaged or carelessly
arranged speakers. I mention this because I didn't experience any
difficulty in understanding the actors in MYSTIC RIVER, even the
method ones like Penn. Tim Robbins' conversation with Marcia Gay
Harden while he's watching John Carpenter's VAMPIRES (auteur alert!)
has a great deal more mumbling, if I remember correctly, than any
other scene in the film, and I understood it very well.
What bugs me about complaints about sound and image ("it looks
muddy") is that people tend to overlook the possibility that the
theater hosed up the projection, which is very often the case.
Cinephiles tend to blame the filmmaker or the actors because to do so
is part and parcel with "categorizing" tendencies of people like us,
canonizing some and devaluing others, while blaming the theater
requires a modicum of technical knowledge that most of us don't
possess. Crummy images can very well mean crummy lighting cameramen,
but there are so many individuals and machines that mediate "what the
film is supposed to look/sound like" and what we actually end up
seeing, that it's next to impossible to be sure where the fault
lies. When I saw FAR FROM HEAVEN at a local theater back in
Connecticut, I remember thinking that I couldn't understand the fuss
everyone was making over the film's "look." I though that it looked
sort of dim and flat. In retrospect, I know that I'll probably have
to watch the DVD, or catch it at MoMA in the year 2007, in order to
make an informed judgment.
I think the two most egregious offenders, sound-wise, in Manhattan,
would have to be Alice Tully Hall - whose presenation of PUNCH-DRUNK
LOVE led me to ask Paul Thomas Anderson why he chose to record the
dialogue so as to make it nigh-incoherent (Adam Sandler was present,
and he took my comment as a jab at his own "mumbling" delivery) - and
the Moving Image theater in Astoria, where I saw but could barely
comprehend FORTY GUNS, THE TARNISHED ANGELS, MAJOR DUNDEE, and (one
of your favorites) THE CHASE. When I told the teenage coat check guy
out front to tell the projectionist, he reacted as if I was trying to
teach him to program a space shuttle. (The image was also cropped
badly in the last two cases.) And it's occurred to me that the sound
at Film Forum, which sliced off a good six or seven inches off the
top of Sergio Leone's "Dollars" trilogy when I saw it last weekend,
either cranks up the volume to intolerable levels or keeps it well
below "room-filling" levels. Even Anthology Film Archives is
occasionally guilty of movie-killing mistakes - the volume for their
showing of Godard's MADE IN USA was turned up so high that it scraped
the inside of my skull.
5205
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 4:38pm
Subject: Re: FETISH: necessary but not sufficient, it may even interfere
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> Simple definitions from Merriam-Webster
> an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is
> psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is a
focus
> of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete
sexual
> expression
>
>
>
>
>
> Elizabeth, "fetishism" as defined above by the Dictionary has
not really been discussed at all in this thread. If I recall
correctly the thread was started by someone (you? Gee, I should have
checked; it was a lady anyway...)who was trying to find a male star
who had been "fetishized" the way Monroe was. The thread ran largely
on the topic of members' own personal 'fetishes", the term being used
extremely loosely in most cases as a synonym for "some actress or
actor who turns me on." Otherwise I doubt that any of the countless
professional participants in the eroticizing/fetishicizing of Monroe
were themselves "fetishists" in the clinical sense. They were just
putting out a product (being fully aware, of course, of its erotic
potency). As for the consumer, I doubt that a fixation on a star ever
really "interfered" with "complete sexual expression" (whatever that
means). Except of course in extreme, clinical cases. Of course the
fetish doesn't have to be a conventional object of desire. Kraft-
Ebbing, I think, cited the case of a man who could only be aroused by
the sight or thought of a chicken leg (that Chicken topic again!)
Somewhere I quoted a letter to a sex magazine from a man who had a
fetish for "a fresh filet of fish" which he brought into bed to be
able to perform. His wife obliged, although, the man noted -- in a
line worthy of Woody Allen -- "she doesn't care for fish herself."
PS: Is there such a thing as female fetishism? Cases seem to be
extremely rare...
JPC
5206
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 5:11pm
Subject: Jame on sound, theaters...
I agree 100% with Jame's e-mail forwarded to the group by Dan (why
don't you come back, Jame? We all miss you...) When I wrote my posts
on the trouble with sound I never meant to imply that the filmmakers,
actors, sound techicians etc... are necessarily to blame. I am and
have always been the kind of guy who jumps up when something is or
seems wrong with the projection and runs around trying to find
someone to fix it -- a frustrating endeavor because most of the time
there's no one, or they look at you as a maniac or troublemaker who
doesn't know what he is talking about. When I saw "Lost in
Translation" the image was so dark from the very beginning that you
could barely see anything, and it went on... I could only find a
ticket taker who gave me the usual line: That's the way the film was
shot. I couldn't waste my time because I had been asked to review the
film if I liked it, but I'm sure the theater was at fault (I checked
with people who saw the film at cannes or at press screening).
JPC
5207
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 5:48pm
Subject: Re: "What did they say?"
Jaime's post may also explain my relative lack of experience with
this problem. I live in Los Angeles, where most of the people who
make American films live, and no theatre would be permitted to do
that - one call from Alan Daviau's aunt to little Alan (sp?) and the
theatre gets a call, I would imagine. The thing I've noticed here is
that the habit of playing certain films loud eventually blows out the
speakers, so they have to be regularly fixed or replaced or whatever
it is. But I haven't noticed it much.
5208
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 6:17pm
Subject: Re: Jame on sound, theaters...
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> When I saw
> "Lost in
> Translation" the image was so dark from the very
> beginning that you
> could barely see anything, and it went on... I could
> only find a
> ticket taker who gave me the usual line: That's the
> way the film was
> shot. I couldn't waste my time because I had been
> asked to review the
> film if I liked it, but I'm sure the theater was at
> fault (I checked
> with people who saw the film at cannes or at press
> screening).
> JPC
>
>
Indeed the theater WAS at fault! "Lost in Translation"
is one of the most beautifully shot films of the year.
The images are crystal clear, even in the darkest
scenes.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5209
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 8, 2003 6:20pm
Subject: Re: Brando's "mumbling" (was "Sound: What did they say?)
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
. Even Anthology Film
> Archives is
> occasionally guilty of movie-killing mistakes - the
> volume for their
> showing of Godard's MADE IN USA was turned up so
> high that it scraped
> the inside of my skull.
What was the quality of the print of MADE IN USA that
they screened? There's an awful 16mm dupe of a dupe
that's been floating around in recent years.
5226
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 1:13pm
Subject: Re: Jaime on sound, theaters...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> I am and
> have always been the kind of guy who jumps up when something is or
> seems wrong with the projection and runs around trying to find
> someone to fix it -- a frustrating endeavor because most of the time
> there's no one, or they look at you as a maniac or troublemaker who
> doesn't know what he is talking about.
What do you do in the case of, say, major revival theaters that ought to know what they're doing but in fact can't seem to handle something like the boxy aspect ratio of silent or early '30s films? (Now, that tall, handsome "narrow-screen" ratio is something one could really fetishize. Within recent memory, I think MoMA is the only theater in New York I've seen get it right.) BAM trimmed the heads off Barnet's OKRAINA, particularly annoying in a film that seems to do a lot with hats (as well as shoes) -- and the print wasn't at fault, since the masked matter could be observed above the frameline. BAM may be a frequent offender in this regard since I've seen their projectionists lop the heads off everything (okay, not everything) from MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION (matted to an evidently excessive 1:85) to, improbably, LOST IN TRANSLATION (where a sight gag like Murray being twice as tall as his elevator-mates fell victim to his decapitation). By the way, the early scenes of LOST IN T. looked pretty murky there, too (and much of the dialogue was lost to the hum of a fan or generator, barely discernible as such until it ceased halfway through, whereupon the dialogue suddenly became crystal clear).
5227
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 2:52pm
Subject: Re: MacMahonists
"Cahiers du Cinema: The 60's" edited by Jim Hillier
(Harvard University Press, 1986) features translations
of Mourlet's"In defense of Violence" (from whence the
far from negligible"Charlton heston is an axiom of the
cinema," comes from) plus pieces by Fereydou Hoyveda
on "Party Girl" that also reflect the MacMahonist
esthetic. It's a shame that more of this rhetorical
extravagance isn't available in English.
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Reading a little bit about the MacMahonist movement
> of the '50s and '60s
> today, I wondered if there were any critics still
> writing who subscribed to this
> school of thought? Apologies for my ignorance if
> this is an obvious question.
> I might also ask if any of the classic MacMahonist
> writing is available in
> English (like stuff from Presence du Cinema?) I'm
> less interested in the whole
> "Charlton Heston is an axiom" stuff than what they
> have to say on The Four
> Aces (Lang, Losey, Preminger, and Walsh.)
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Peter
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5228
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 3:28pm
Subject: Re: MacMahonists
> Reading a little bit about the MacMahonist movement of the '50s and '60s
> today, I wondered if there were any critics still writing who subscribed to this
> school of thought?
Jacques Lourcelles is still around, at the least. Here is his rather
MacMahonist top ten for the 2002 Sight and Sound poll:
While the City Sleeps (Lang)
Forever Amber (Preminger)
Nosferatu (Murnau)
The 39 Steps (Hitchcock)
Cat People (Tourneur)
Gentleman Jim (Walsh)
Cattle Queen of Montana (Dwan)
Mon père avait raison (Guitry)
Going My Way (McCarey)
Naked Dawn (Ulmer)
- Dan
5229
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 3:29pm
Subject: Browning
> Browning made a number of mystery movies, esepcially in the
> silent era. His "Outside the Law" (1920) is a gem.
Yes, this is an excellent film. I haven't yet seen another Browning I
like as well. - Dan
5230
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 3:38pm
Subject: Projection of 30s films
> BAM trimmed the heads off Barnet's
> OKRAINA, particularly annoying in a film that seems to do a lot with
> hats (as well as shoes) -- and the print wasn't at fault, since the
> masked matter could be observed above the frameline.
This was maddening, and partly ruined my viewing experience. I
complained in mid-film, to no avail.
It was clear from OKRAINA's title sequence that the bottom of the screen
was trimmed as well. What do you think is going on here? I assumed
that the projectionist was using a lens with too wide a throw, and that
the problem could have been fixed with a different lens. Patrick made
an interesting comment after the screening: he believes that putting an
optical soundtrack on some early 30s films has caused the prints to take
on a more square ratio, closer to 1:1 than to 1.33:1. If this is true,
then the print is already compromised, and the best solution is to use a
squarer mask for projection. According to this theory, the
projectionist's mistake was simply that he or she masked the film as if
it were 1.33:1. Does anyone have more information? - Dan
5231
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 4:38pm
Subject: Re: MacMahonists
It's not that simple - MacMahonism is part of auteurism.
"Sur un art ignore" by Mourlet was published in CdC, and Godard
quotes from it in Histoire(s) du cinema - the line about substituting
for the world a world accorded to our desires, which he is in the
habit of attributing to Bazin, although it is the MacMahonian
dialectical contrary to "Things are there; why manipulate them,"
which also runs thru the Histoire(s). The false attribution is his
way of saying both were present from the beginning.
The three high-school friends who ended up writing for CdC in the
during the last great period - Daney, Oudart and Skorecki - had
MacMahonian tendencies, as shown by their intense involvement with
Lang as opposed to Hitchcock. Daney told me he started reading
Cahiers when he bought #99, a Lang issue; Lang is as central to
Oudart's theories as Bresson (look at the photos published with La
Suture); and Skorecki has been accused of being a MacMahonian by
Pascal Kane, who portrayed the movement as proto-fascist in his film
Liberty Belle, to the great outrage of Pierre Rissient, a MacMahonian
who no longer writes - only produces. I believe that Skorecki (who
recently attacked me in Liberation for spoiling, or attempting to
spoil, the mystery of Night of the Hunter) is a MacMahonian.
Biette was very interested in the MacMahonians, and was increasingly
devoted to Walsh (but not to Preminger and Losey). His love of De
Mille is another example. He believed that Mourlet's theories were
derived from Valery's "Essay on the Method of Leonardo da Vinci."
Much of the loose talk about fetishism here really needs to be
referred back to things like Mourlet's Heston axiom. I believe Maxime
has already made that point by quoting Mourlet in the Fetishisms
thread.
Personally, I find Mourlet's writing very stimulating. Anyone who
loves The Cardinal should read his article on it. I also happen to
agree with him that Anatomy of a Murder is one of Preminger's worst
films. I obviously don't agree with him about Hitchcock, but I can
understand where he's coming from. On the other hand I don't agree
with the obscurantism (hence the contretemps with Skorecki).
Mourlet's Seghers book about De Mille consists of a biography,
interview excerpts and writings by De Mille. "Certain critical
exercises I previously engaged in," he says at the beginning, "have
convinced me that one should say everything about an artist in four
pages, at worst. One page is better. And it would perhaps be better
to say nothing at all."
5232
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 4:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: MacMahonists
--- hotlove666 wrote:
I believe that
> Skorecki (who
> recently attacked me in Liberation for spoiling, or
> attempting to
> spoil, the mystery of Night of the Hunter) is a
> MacMahonian.
What on earth was that about? What "mystery"?
>
> Personally, I find Mourlet's writing very
> stimulating. Anyone who
> loves The Cardinal should read his article on it. I
> also happen to
> agree with him that Anatomy of a Murder is one of
> Preminger's worst
> films.
Now that I don'tunderstand at all. I think it's one of
his very, very best. The interplay between Stewart and
Scott in the courtroomis particularly fascinating. And
that's not to mention the ambiguity of LeeRemick, AND
the great Duke Ellignton score.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5233
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 4:59pm
Subject: Re: Projection of 30s films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Patrick made
> an interesting comment after the screening: he believes that putting an
> optical soundtrack on some early 30s films has caused the prints to take
> on a more square ratio, closer to 1:1 than to 1.33:1. If this is true,
> then the print is already compromised,
Now that you mention it, it probably was a new print (not the original with optical soundtrack strip), incorrectly cropped to 1.33:1 with even more top and bottom missing than the mere "overscan" we detected. In which case it wouldn't really be the projectionist's fault...
5234
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 5:39pm
Subject: Re: Projection of 30s films
>It was clear from OKRAINA's title sequence that the bottom of the screen
>was trimmed as well. What do you think is going on here? I assumed
>that the projectionist was using a lens with too wide a throw, and that
>the problem could have been fixed with a different lens. Patrick made
>an interesting comment after the screening: he believes that putting an
>optical soundtrack on some early 30s films has caused the prints to take
>on a more square ratio, closer to 1:1 than to 1.33:1. If this is true,
>then the print is already compromised, and the best solution is to use a
>squarer mask for projection. According to this theory, the
>projectionist's mistake was simply that he or she masked the film as if
>it were 1.33:1. Does anyone have more information? - Dan
Early sound-on-film, say up to 1931 or so, had a ratio of about 1.15
to 1. Many of these films were indeed re-printed later with the top
and bottom cut off, and the image pulled in so as to fill the 1.37
(the actual post 1931 35mm ratio) screen.
--
- Joe Kaufman
5235
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 6:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Projection of 30s films
> Now that you mention it, it probably was a new print (not the
> original with optical soundtrack strip), incorrectly cropped to
> 1.33:1 with even more top and bottom missing than the mere "overscan"
> we detected. In which case it wouldn't really be the projectionist's
> fault...
I see. But a lot of new prints also have subtitles with a border, or
yellow subtitles, that don't vanish into white backgrounds. I associate
those pure white subtitles with older prints, though maybe it was just a
matter of using the cheapest subtitling option.
I saw OKRAINA 20 years ago at the County Museum of Art in LA, and I
don't recall these unpleasant problems. - Dan
5236
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 7:02pm
Subject: Re: MacMahonists
I believe that
> Skorecki (who
> recently attacked me in Liberation for spoiling, or
> attempting to
> spoil, the mystery of Night of the Hunter) is a
> MacMahonian.
What on earth was that about? What "mystery"?
Good point. He was responding to an article I wrote based on Bob
Gitt's making-of show and the making-of oral history. Who knows what
he had fantasized before? More generally, he was using my article as
a way to stomp on DVD extras, which he seems to hate. It was a funny
article, but it contained a disturbing reference to Bush Jr. as a
Walsh hero, the degree of irony of which I was uncertain about.
>
> Personally, I find Mourlet's writing very
> stimulating. Anyone who
> loves The Cardinal should read his article on it. I
> also happen to
> agree with him that Anatomy of a Murder is one of
> Preminger's worst
> films.
Now that I don'tunderstand at all. I think it's one of
his very, very best. The interplay between Stewart and
Scott in the courtroomis particularly fascinating. And
that's not to mention the ambiguity of LeeRemick, AND
the great Duke Ellignton score.
I will have to revisit. Mourlet was responding to the Parisian press
acclaim at the time, when the McM'ists had been waging a lonely fight
for middle Preminger up until then and suddenly he made a film that
got everyone on board. I actually mean it - last time I looked, with
good memories propelling me, I shut it off because Stewart was being
inexcusably hammy, and I thought the score was simply popped in at
random without the benefit of spotting, like on a porn loop. Maybe I
was having a bad day. It was one of Daney's favorite films, too.
5237
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 7:13pm
Subject: Anatomy of a Murder
> I will have to revisit. Mourlet was responding to the Parisian press
> acclaim at the time, when the McM'ists had been waging a lonely fight
> for middle Preminger up until then and suddenly he made a film that
> got everyone on board. I actually mean it - last time I looked, with
> good memories propelling me, I shut it off because Stewart was being
> inexcusably hammy, and I thought the score was simply popped in at
> random without the benefit of spotting, like on a porn loop. Maybe I
> was having a bad day. It was one of Daney's favorite films, too.
It's definitely one of mine. The striking thing for me about Stewart's
performance in that film is how much Preminger exposes his country-boy
sincerity as the manipulative ploys of a lawyer trying to sway a jury. - Dan
5238
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 8:00pm
Subject: Re: MacMahonists
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"I thought the score was simply popped in at random without the
benefit of spotting, like on a porn loop. "
Though it's been about 15 years since I've seen ANATOMY OF A MURDER
my memory of the score was that it was well-integrated. Jazz piano
playing was a hobby of the Stewart character, and when Ellington
appears the Stewart character plays a duet with him thus allowing the
score to counterpoint the action later like in the slightly overhead
shot of Joseph N. Walsh walking down a concrete path on his way to
the law library where the music has an almost romantic overtone.
Anyway, I thought it fit this movie better than the Modern Jazz
Quartet's score fit ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW (the score by itself was
good.)
Richard
5239
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 8:57pm
Subject: Re: MacMahonists
David E:
> plus pieces by Fereydou [sic] Hoyveda [sic]
> on "Party Girl" that also reflect the MacMahonist
> esthetic. It's a shame that more of this rhetorical
> extravagance isn't available in English.
http://www.hoveyda.org
Viva Hoveyda!
Gabe
5240
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 9, 2003 9:09pm
Subject: Re: MacMahonists
Did you know he was the Iranian Ambassador to the U.S.
under the Shah?
--- Gabe Klinger wrote:
>
> David E:
>
> > plus pieces by Fereydou [sic] Hoyveda [sic]
> > on "Party Girl" that also reflect the MacMahonist
> > esthetic. It's a shame that more of this
> rhetorical
> > extravagance isn't available in English.
>
> http://www.hoveyda.org
>
> Viva Hoveyda!
>
> Gabe
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5241
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 0:38am
Subject: Re: MacMahonists
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Did you know he was the Iranian Ambassador to the U.S.
> under the Shah?
>
> --- Gabe Klinger wrote:
> >
> > David E:
> >
> > > plus pieces by Fereydou [sic] Hoyveda [sic]
> > > on "Party Girl" that also reflect the MacMahonist
> > > esthetic. It's a shame that more of this
> > rhetorical
> > > extravagance isn't available in English.
> >
> > http://www.hoveyda.org
> >
> > Viva Hoveyda!
> >
> > Gabe
> >
> >
> Fereydoun also wrote for POSITIF (under the pseudonym F. Hoda)
at the same time he was writing for Cahiers!His first POSITIF article
was in #12 (November-December 1954, a special issue on American film
genres): "Epouvante et Science Fiction". He also reviewed Ray's HOT
BLOOD in #21 ("Enfin un veritable film d'auteur" was his title). And
he wrote a highly ironic, tongue-in-cheek review of Vadim's ET DIEU
CREA LA FEMME, bunched together with SAIT-ON JAMAIS. He even wrote a
review of a Fernand Raynaud comedy, (FERNAND COW-BOY)which started
with a statement that he was writing about the film "ni par gout du
scandale ni par volonte de donner dans le canular." And he
added: "Quoique j'aime bien le canular." Indeed.
JPC
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
5242
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 0:54am
Subject: Preminger's Anatomy
Strange and interesting that among the Preminger fans in this group,
some think ANATOMY OF A MURDER is one of his best films, others one
of his worst. I belong to the former category. I have seen the film
at least twenty times including three or four times this year, so my
enthusiasm is not based on old memories. It's one of those
comparatively few films I never tire of (like LAURA or KISS ME
DEADLY). To Bill's objection that Stewart is "hammy" in it: the
hamminess is the character's; Paul Biegler works very hard to
convince a jury of "simple folks" against a very skillful
prosecutor.And he is not so sure that he has a case. Of course he has
to be "hammy" (Paul acknowledges his recourse to theatrics). Stewart
is not hammy at all in scenes outside the courtroom. The only thing
that bothers me a bit is to hear this country lawyer playing the
piano exactly like Duke Ellington, who plays it like nobody else! The
score is fine (Ellington is almost always fine) and it's always
wonderful to hear the orchestra (especially the awsome Harry Carney)
but the film is so strong that it would be just as great without any
music at all.
JPC
5243
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 3:09am
Subject: MacMahon Nostalgia
Le MacMahon was a site of movie extasy before being the basis (that's
not the right word) for a para-auteurist theory. I spent so many
hours there -- some of the films I saw for the first time at the Mac
(as we sometimes called it) and that changed -- sort of -- my life:
Singin' in the Rain, The Naked Spur, The Blue Gardenia, The Big
Heat... You went down those stairs and sat down near that tiny
screen and you were in movie heaven. I never had any contacts at the
time with the "MacMahoniens" proper, but the place and the movies it
showed (at least many of them) meant a lot to me and other friends.
It's still there of course, and there was even a kind of party at the
Mac to launch our book (50 ans) some years ago, but it was like an
old flame you meet again 40 years later... I actually walked out of
the party to meet someone across town whom i didn't really care
about. Anyway the place was to hot...
JPC
5244
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:40pm
Subject: Jack Valenti's Worst Nightmare
As I'm sure everyone on the list knows, the MPAA is a
censor board -- period, end of story. The NC-17 rating
was created as a "they shall not pass" to guard
against "offensive" material reaching theaters -- and
Blockbuster video stores. The chief offense these days
is the penis. Any display of said organ is expressly
forbidden. As a result Bernardo bertolucci's"The
Dreamers" is being recut. The British film "Young
Adam" won't be shown in the U.S. in its full form
because so similar castration. The films star Ewan
McGregor (whose penis is briefly on view in "Velvet
Goldmine") has protested this state of affairs.
Happily we have the internet. Enjoy!
http://www.hunkvideo.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?read=74
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5245
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 6:10pm
Subject: Re: Jack Valenti's Worst Nightmare
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> As I'm sure everyone on the list knows, the MPAA is a
> censor board -- period, end of story. The NC-17 rating
> was created as a "they shall not pass" to guard
> against "offensive" material reaching theaters -- and
> Blockbuster video stores. The chief offense these days
> is the penis. Any display of said organ is expressly
> forbidden. As a result Bernardo bertolucci's"The
> Dreamers" is being recut. The British film "Young
> Adam" won't be shown in the U.S. in its full form
> because so similar castration. The films star Ewan
> McGregor (whose penis is briefly on view in "Velvet
> Goldmine") has protested this state of affairs.
>
> Happily we have the internet. Enjoy!
>
> http://www.hunkvideo.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?read=74
>
>
"Breaking the Waves" was also censored, as displays of Jan's penis was
cut out.
The penis is actually not offensive enough to either evoke X or NC-17.
Soft core porno, which can get away with an R-rating, is allowed to
show the Penis, but not acts of touch, lick, suck, inserting and so
on. Its actually possible to bend the rule by performing mastubation
or oral sex while the penis still is covered by for instance boxers; a
clearly outlined erected penis beneart a tight pair of shorts is not
against the rules.
It is not the first time MPPA has made indifferent interpretations of
the rules and not considering presentation or context. I can't
remember who did it, but once a director was accused of being
offensive and a certain scene was demanded cut, so he took the copy
and without cutting anything mailed it back and MPPA was happy that he
had followed their advice.
5246
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:13pm
Subject: Re: Jack Valenti's Worst Nightmare
My favorite put-down of the MPAA and its double-standard regarding
sex and violence came from Jack Nicholson some 30 years ago:
"If you show a breast, that's an X, but if you shoot an arrow through
that breast, you get an R."
5247
From: Rick Curnutte
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:11pm
Subject: Re: Jack Valenti's Worst Nightmare
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> As I'm sure everyone on the list knows, the MPAA is a
> censor board -- period, end of story. The NC-17 rating
> was created as a "they shall not pass" to guard
> against "offensive" material reaching theaters -- and
> Blockbuster video stores. The chief offense these days
> is the penis. Any display of said organ is expressly
> forbidden. As a result Bernardo bertolucci's"The
> Dreamers" is being recut. The British film "Young
> Adam" won't be shown in the U.S. in its full form
> because so similar castration. The films star Ewan
> McGregor (whose penis is briefly on view in "Velvet
> Goldmine") has protested this state of affairs.
>
> Happily we have the internet. Enjoy!
>
> http://www.hunkvideo.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?read=74
Is the MPAA more concerned when it's a movie star's penis? For
instance, this year's U.S. release of 28 DAYS LATER featured
relative unknown (to most domestic film audiences, that is) Cillian
Murphy's penis prominently in the opening moments of the film. Of
course, he was laid out on a hospital bed, not in bed with a woman,
but do you think that the MPAA is more concerned when it's Obi Wan
showing off his goods?
Rick Curnutte
5248
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:37pm
Subject: Testing
I wrote a reply to Dan's post and sent it at about 3:15PM and got
the usual note "Your message has been posted" but it wasn't and still
is not. Just testing to see what happens.
JPC
5249
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:18pm
Subject: Re: Jack Valenti's Worst Nightmare
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> As I'm sure everyone on the list knows, the MPAA is a
> censor board -- period, end of story. The NC-17 rating
> was created as a "they shall not pass" to guard
> against "offensive" material reaching theaters -- and
> Blockbuster video stores. The chief offense these days
> is the penis. Any display of said organ is expressly
> forbidden. As a result Bernardo bertolucci's"The
> Dreamers" is being recut. The British film "Young
> Adam" won't be shown in the U.S. in its full form
> because so similar castration. The films star Ewan
> McGregor (whose penis is briefly on view in "Velvet
> Goldmine") has protested this state of affairs.
>
> Happily we have the internet. Enjoy!
>
> http://www.hunkvideo.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config.pl?read=74
>
>
David, personally I can live without watching Ewan's penis (no
matter how impressive), just as I can live without watching any
actress's vagina. Even if the plot absolutely requires it. I'm old-
fashioned that way, I guess, although the penis scenes in ROMANCE
didn't bother me.
JPC
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
5250
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 0:28am
Subject: GIRL with the PEARL EARRING; FAMILY DIARY
GIRL with the Pearl Earring is the artistic work expected. I remember
watching FAMILY DIARY, a much more powerful story and as artistic, if not
more. Perhaps there will be another screening of FAMILY DIARY on the
artistic coat-tails.
5251
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:47pm
Subject: Thanks for the F. Hoda !
Gabe - thanks a million for the link that 'F. Hoda' site, it made my day!!!
The section on FH and cinema contains not only a piece by Bill K and even
something I once published (by Barrett Hodsdon) in an Australian film
journal, but also a fascinating 1999 reflection 'what is mise en scene' and
quite a few articles on Rossellini ! As for the rest of the site I will let
others comment ...
Yes, David, FH's political life is certainly known to those cinephiles among
us who were surprised to come across him grinning in the photo sections of
the Warhol biographies !!!!
Adrian
5252
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 0:48am
Subject: Re: Question for anyone who has seen Barbarian Invasions
Barbarian Invasions was screened in San Diego with the star, REMY, present
for a Q&A. He was very personable but didn't make the movie any better for
me. He did say that some early scenes (including Sophia Loren from what I
read), were cut as Remy's history with gals / prostitutes was becoming too
much of the story.
I just didn't like content. Hard to feel sorry for a guy who was dying and
seemed to have lead a rather selfish life even though his family rounded up
authetic friends, or at least friends in his hedonism.
Hedonism is fine, but once you create a family, the game changes...otherwise
the rest of society gets to take over your responsibility, and yet the children are
still 'in debt' to the parents.
There were some good dialogue lines, though they escape me now. I originally
thought I would be seeing Barbarian Invasions again and thought I'd take notes
next time, but as it was, I could hardly wait for REMY to die.
Remy said the son was still regarded as a BARBARIAN (prince of the
barbarians), even though the son was responsible for giving REMY the best
death he could have hoped for.
I liked the movie as it dealt with dying and I am always curious about how we
handle dying. People who get almost none of life right...relationships, spouses,
career, children, religion, consumption, etc are frequently put in the position of
dying and now, after failing almost always in life, now want to get dying right! I
find it amusing.
One thing you might want to know is that PAIN CONTROL is much better
managed than news and cinema stories might lead you to believe. Indeed, in
CALIFORNIA, physicians (all physicians) must take 12 hours of countinuing
medical education devoted to the topic of pain control. 12 hours of pain
management education is a lot (someone is making money on this requirement
as each hour can cost $15-20), and there are already specialists who manage
pain quite well, at at least as well as it can be, for much pain is a complicated
matter.
(once on Christmas eve, a regular pain medication seeker came into the ER,
wanted to appeal to the "compassion" of the season, but he said... "Dr. Nolan,
have some PASSION for me, it's Christmas."
My personal policy was to get most people through the night and have their
regular MD's deal with the whole problem in the AM. I've written scripts for 4
(FOUR), only 4, etc. pills.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> Folks --
>
> I have an early morning screening tomorrow of the Denys Arcand. I suspect I
> won't have a chance to finish looking at a tape of "Decline of the American
> Empire" tonight (although with a severe cold driving my insomnia, you never
> know).
>
> The question, simply put, is -- how much will I miss plotwise if I haven't
> seen the earlier film? Will it matter?
>
> I'm not concerned with the aesthetic issues -- I will definitely see Decline
> afterwards -- I just want to know if I'm going to be lost.
5253
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Jack Valenti's Worst Nightmare
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> David, personally I can live without watching
> Ewan's penis (no
> matter how impressive), just as I can live without
> watching any
> actress's vagina. Even if the plot absolutely
> requires it. I'm old-
> fashioned that way, I guess, although the penis
> scenes in ROMANCE
> didn't bother me.
> JPC
What about Mark Rylance's penis in "Intimacy"?
I'll be writing a FaBlog entry on this entire issue shortly.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5254
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:18pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jack Valenti's Worst Nightmare
--- Rick Curnutte wrote:
> Is the MPAA more concerned when it's a movie star's
> penis? For
> instance, this year's U.S. release of 28 DAYS LATER
> featured
> relative unknown (to most domestic film audiences,
> that is) Cillian
> Murphy's penis prominently in the opening moments of
> the film. Of
> course, he was laid out on a hospital bed, not in
> bed with a woman,
> but do you think that the MPAA is more concerned
> when it's Obi Wan
> showing off his goods?
>
Well in that cas I hope someone comes up with pics of
Sir Alec Guinness' penis.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5255
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:02am
Subject: Re: Jack Valenti's Worst Nightmare
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > David, personally I can live without watching
> > Ewan's penis (no
> > matter how impressive), just as I can live without
> > watching any
> > actress's vagina. Even if the plot absolutely
> > requires it. I'm old-
> > fashioned that way, I guess, although the penis
> > scenes in ROMANCE
> > didn't bother me.
> > JPC
>
> What about Mark Rylance's penis in "Intimacy"?
>
> I'll be writing a FaBlog entry on this entire issue shortly.
>
> ____I didn't mind that either although I can't say I remember it
(you know what I liked about the film -- we discussed it privately --
and it has nothing to do with penisses). Are we making fetishes about
body parts here? _Is this an auteurist issue? As a "censorship" issue
I guess I can accept it. But I can't work up much enthusiasm for it.
JPC_____________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
5256
From:
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 10:23pm
Subject: Guinness & Ewan
I saw "Velvet Goldmine" 5 years ago when it came out. Not only cannot I
remember Ewan McGregor naked in this, but in fact cannot even remember that he was
in the picture at all! In fact, I was skeptical about the posts till looking
up the movie in Maltin's "Movie & Video Guide". There McGregor was, and with
top billing too! Honest - total amnesia has set in.
But I can remember every detail of Alec Guiness' performance(s) in "Kind
Hearts and Coronets", seen 25 years ago. Not to mention "the Man in the White
Suit".
Maybe sometimes art really is better than life!
Mike Grost
5257
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:25am
Subject: Re: Question for anyone who has seen Barbarian Invasions
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
"People who get almost none of life right...relationships, spouses,
career, children, religion, consumption, etc are frequently put in
the position of dying and now, after failing almost always in life,
now want to get dying right! I find it amusing."
Reminds me of Don Pietro's last words in ROMA, CITTA APERTA: "To die
well is easy. It's living right that's the hard thing."
Richard
5258
From:
Date: Wed Dec 10, 2003 10:35pm
Subject: The Day I Became a Woman
It is probably not news to many a_film_by posters, but have just seen "The
Day I Became a Woman" (Marziyeh Meshkini, 2000) and am really impressed. This is
a gripping work of cinema. As Chris Fujiwara pointed out in his web site
review, the whole middle section has camera movement in nearly every shot. The
film has vivid metaphors for women's lives. These recall not so much other
movies, as E.M. Forster's fantastic short stories such as "The Story of a Panic",
with their allegories for men's lives. Although their are moments when one
suspects the filmmakers have seen "Two Men and a Wardrobe" (Roman Polanski).
Lots of interesting films are coming out of Makhmalbaf Film House. So far, I
have also liked "Kandahar" and "The Apple".
Mike Grost
5259
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:01am
Subject: Re: Thanks for the F. Hoda !
Adrian:
> Yes, David, FH's political life is certainly known to those cinephiles
> among
> us who were surprised to come across him grinning in the photo
> sections of
> the Warhol biographies !!!!
But did you know he's still quite the societyman? Mr. Hoveyda was the
center of attraction at a posh cocktail in NYC in late 2001 that I
attended. I even have a picture of him--check it out:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/lst
Gabe
5260
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:36am
Subject: Re: CHICKEN scenes
I hadn't heard it's a true story but it's a real gem of a movie.
Should be mandatory watching for film students - what you can do with
no resources except a camera and your own home. It's in English, by
the way, 17 minutes.
--- "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> Has anyone mentioned Rossellini's short "The Chicken" for the
> omnibus film "Siamo donne"?
> It's about Ingrid Bergman's troubled relationship to a neighbor's
> chicken and purports to be a true story.
5261
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:04am
Subject: Stuck on You
Bitchun flick.
5262
From:
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:12am
Subject: Recent Release Round-up: Stuck on You, Big Fish, Gigli
Bill Krohn wrote:
>Bitchun flick.
Great! I loved "There's Something About Mary" and especially "Shallow Hal."
Unfortunately, I missed the press screening and - in an effort to avoid
catching the flu this season - will probably not see it until after the weekend
rush. How would you rank it against the two films I just named?
Scattershot impressions of some other recent releases just seen by me:
"Big Fish" (Tim Burton) - Not entirely successful, but very interesting. I'm
writing a review which positions it as a kind of testament film for him.
It's all about the seductiveness of imagination and exaggeration versus the
blandness of "reality." This is reflected in Burton's strikingly different
directorial approaches to the "real life" sections of the film versus the fantasy
sequences.
"Gigli" (Martin Brest) - Very good and Henry Sheehan's excellent review
strikes me as right on in his description of Brest's distinctive use of long
lenses. What it doesn't take into account is the wholesale recutting of this film
and resultant tonal inconsistencies (especially, as noted by Bill, in the
acting.) Still, pretty damn distinctive, I thought.
Peter
5263
From:
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:16am
Subject: Re: MacMahonists
Dan Sallitt wrote:
>Jacques Lourcelles is still around, at the least. Here is his rather
>MacMahonist top ten for the 2002 Sight and Sound poll:
Thanks, Dan! This list is interesting. It seems to have films from both the
classic figures of MacMahonist adulation - Lang, Preminger, Tourneur, Walsh -
but also a few unexpected choices. For example, from what very little I know
about the MacMahonist 'aesthetic,' I wouldn't have guessed that Dwan or
McCarey would be favorites.
Bill's point that MacMahonism is part of auteurism (and thus has influenced
many auteurist critics to greater or lesser degrees) is well taken. In
"Midnight Movies," Jonathan R. and Hoberman note that a "diluted form" of MacMahonism
made its way into the U.S. I was just curious if there were any critics
currently writing who might be said to subscribe to the aesthetic in "undiluted"
form - if such a thing is even possible.
Thanks to David for the tip on where to find Mourlet in English and to Gabe
for posting the Hoveyda link!
P.S. - Can anyone confirm that the late Don Weis (another MacMahonist
favorite) was married to Orson Welles' daughter with Rita Hayworth, Rebecca?
Peter
5264
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:02am
Subject: Re: The Day I Became a Woman
Can't wholy agree, Mike. The middle section is great, but the first
section features the worst performance ever by a child actor in an
Iranian film, and the last one is a good idea that doesn't gell . All
are good ideas for films by Mr. M, actually, but only the middle one
is a good film by Mrs. M. IMO.
I, too, like The Apple a lot - more than the one film I've seen by
Dad (The Cyclist, of course), or this first one by Mom -- not to
mention the digital doc about Samira by her adoring younger brother.
I understand that another sibling has done another one of those about
her new film. But I'm very much looking forward to finally seeing The
Blackboards one of these days.
Interesting family, as you say. United!
5265
From:
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:25am
Subject: Re: MacMahonists
Dan Sallitt wrote:
>Jacques Lourcelles is still around, at the least. Here is his rather
>MacMahonist top ten for the 2002 Sight and Sound poll:
Thanks, Dan! This list is interesting. It seems to have films from both the
classic figures of MacMahonist adulation - Lang, Preminger, Tourneur, Walsh -
but also a few unexpected choices. For example, from what very little I know
about the MacMahonist 'aesthetic,' I wouldn't have guessed that Dwan or
McCarey would be favorites.
Bill's point that MacMahonism is part of auteurism (and thus has influenced
many auteurist critics to greater or lesser degrees) is well taken. In
"Midnight Movies," Jonathan R. and Hoberman note that a "diluted form" of MacMahonism
made its way into the U.S. I was just curious if there were any critics
currently writing who might be said to subscribe to the aesthetic in "undiluted"
form - if such a thing is even possible.
Thanks to David for the tip on where to find Mourlet in English and to Gabe
for posting the Hoveyda link!
P.S. - Can anyone confirm that the late Don Weis (another MacMahonist
favorite) was married to Orson Welles' daughter with Rita Hayworth, Rebecca?
Peter
5266
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:28pm
Subject: Re: MacMahonists
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> Thanks to David for the tip on where to find Mourlet in English and
to Gabe
> for posting the Hoveyda link!
>
> P.S. - Can anyone confirm that the late Don Weis (another
MacMahonist
> favorite) was married to Orson Welles' daughter with Rita Hayworth,
Rebecca?
>
> Peter
I have no idea but I'm grabbing the opportunity to sing the
praises of Weis and his I LOVE MELVIN, one of my favorite musicals
EVER (Katz called it "simple-minded" along with other Weis films).
Weis was "discovered" by the MacMahonist and other French sub-groups
(so tiny and underground that they didn't even have names).
Lourcelles raves about ADVENTURES OF HADJI BABA, the MacMahonist cult
movie par excellence, in his "Dictionnaire du Cinema" but
incomprehensibly and unfairly doesn't even mention I LOVE MELVIN...
In his HADJI entry Lourcelles lambasts Crowther for his "obscene bad
taste" when he wrote in his review of the film that he would have
preferred Bob Hope in the John Derek role.
JPC
5267
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:56pm
Subject: Re: Re: MacMahonists
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a...
> wrote:
>
>>
> I have no idea but I'm grabbing the opportunity
> to sing the
> praises of Weis and his I LOVE MELVIN, one of my
> favorite musicals
> EVER (Katz called it "simple-minded" along with
> other Weis films).
> Weis was "discovered" by the MacMahonist and other
> French sub-groups
> (so tiny and underground that they didn't even have
> names).
> Lourcelles raves about ADVENTURES OF HADJI BABA, the
> MacMahonist cult
> movie par excellence,
Starring my favorite movie tough-guy, Elaine Stewart.
Who can forget her at the top of the stairs of Kirk
Douglas' place in "The Bad and the Beautiful"?
"Saw the movie, Georgia. You were swell."
in his "Dictionnaire du
> Cinema" but
> incomprehensibly and unfairly doesn't even mention I
> LOVE MELVIN...
> In his HADJI entry Lourcelles lambasts Crowther for
> his "obscene bad
> taste" when he wrote in his review of the film that
> he would have
> preferred Bob Hope in the John Derek role.
> JPC
The art direction for "Adventures of Hadji Baba" was
by Hoynegene Hune.
Don Weis, it shoudl also be noted, was A.D. on Abraham
Polonsky's masterpiece "Force of Evil."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5268
From:
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:16pm
Subject: Don Weis
Don Weis was a prolific director of American TV series, too. He was especialy good at shows that light-heartedly mix mystery with comedy. These include "Burke's Law" in the 1960's and "Remington Steele" and the short-lived but fun "Eye to Eye" in the 1980's.
On a more serious note, an episode of Ironside he directed has a powerful image. Police chief Raymond Burr and his crew are staking out an art musuem, investigating a crime. Burr is in a wheelchair (he played a handicapped man in the series, with enormous dignity). Burr's assistant places him next to a huge statue of the seated Buddha. The two have much in common....
Mike Grost
5269
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:24pm
Subject: MONA LISA SMILE
I know there are some female writers / directors, past and present, but
I think part of the weakness of MONA LISA SMILE is that the writers and
directors are male and never really get to the psyche of characters.
MONA LISA SMILE just touches the surface of the story and characters.
Interesting that one of the main issues for females when I was in
college in the early seventies was pregnancy, with attendant oral birth
control and abortion issues and such was not even references except for
the silly scene with the diaphragm.
5270
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:23pm
Subject: Re: Stuck on You
Glad you liked what there is of Gigli, Peter. Now I don't feel such
a fool for thinking there may have once been something there.
I haven't seen Shallow Hal, but SOY's better than SOM, which I
did enjoy.
But is it - I hear you cry - "visual"?
Good question. It's a little like Laurel and Hardy - are they visual?
Now I have to find a copy of I Love Melvin....
5271
From: Bilge Ebiri
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:30pm
Subject: Re: The Day I Became a Woman
Bill K:
>
> I, too, like The Apple a lot - more than the one film I've seen by
> Dad (The Cyclist, of course), or this first one by Mom -- not to
> mention the digital doc about Samira by her adoring younger
brother.
Mohsen Makhmalbaf can sometimes be painfully inconsistent in his
work -- which is probably related to both the fact that he has
undergone something of an ideological transformation since his early
career, and to the fact that he is an extremely prolific, popular,
and iconic filmmaker -- much bigger than Kiarostami at home, as I
understand -- who has to sometimes play to the crowd (whatever you
do, avoid THE ACTOR).
All that having been said, while THE CYCLIST is a fine little film,
Makhmalbaf's A MOMENT OF INNOCENCE (also sometimes known as BREAD
AND VASE) and SALAAM CINEMA (which is basically a documentary about
the auditions for A MOMENT OF INNOCENCE) are two of the greatest
films of the 1990s. MOMENT, in particular, is pretty much the
finest film about filmmaking I can think of made in the last 20-30
years.
Alas, these two aren't easy to find. MOMENT does pop up on video and
in retros here and there. But SALAAM CINEMA is damn near impossible
to locate. A shame, too, because it's a hilarious film; the audience
I saw it with back in the day just ate it up.
> I understand that another sibling has done another one of those
about
> her new film.
Interestingly, because of age restrictions, the girl was almost
barred from the Venice Fest premiere of her film.
-Bilge Ebiri
5272
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Stuck on You
I have a laserdisc of "I Love Melvin."
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Glad you liked what there is of Gigli, Peter. Now I
> don't feel such
> a fool for thinking there may have once been
> something there.
>
> I haven't seen Shallow Hal, but SOY's better than
> SOM, which I
> did enjoy.
>
> But is it - I hear you cry - "visual"?
>
> Good question. It's a little like Laurel and Hardy -
> are they visual?
>
> Now I have to find a copy of I Love Melvin....
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5273
From: jerome_gerber
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:48pm
Subject: Re: The Day I Became a Woman
SALAAM CINEMA is available on dvd in France. It is part of a set
that includes GABBEH and LE SILENCE. There are english
subtitles.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Bilge Ebiri"
wrote:
SALAAM CINEMA (which is basically a documentary about
> the auditions for A MOMENT OF INNOCENCE) are two of the
greatest
> films of the 1990s. MOMENT, in particular, is pretty much the
> finest film about filmmaking I can think of made in the last
20-30
> years.
>
> Alas, these two aren't easy to find. MOMENT does pop up on
video and
> in retros here and there. But SALAAM CINEMA is damn near
impossible
> to locate. A shame, too, because it's a hilarious film; the
audience
> I saw it with back in the day just ate it up.
>
>
> > I understand that another sibling has done another one of
those
> about
> > her new film.
>
> Interestingly, because of age restrictions, the girl was almost
> barred from the Venice Fest premiere of her film.
>
> -Bilge Ebiri
5274
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 7:09pm
Subject: Re: I Love Melvin (was Stuck on You)
David wrote: "I have a laserdisc of I Love Melvin."
I should have known.
5275
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 7:32pm
Subject: Re: I Love Melvin (was Stuck on You)
David wrote: "I have a laserdisc of I Love Melvin."
I should have known.
5276
From: Maxime
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:21pm
Subject: Wichita
Just come from the theater. More than after any previous watch, I
guess I was quite impressed by the short scenes between McCrea and
Vera Miles: the one outside her home, the picnic. The nobility of
the postures, the truth of the words and hearts, the faded color of
the sky. Eternal moments.
5277
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 9:27pm
Subject: At Long Last!
Press Release:
Thu 11 Dec 2003
HONORARY OSCAR FOR BLAKE EDWARDS
The director of the The Pink Panther movies and Breakfast at
Tiffany's will receive an honourary Oscar, the Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences announced tonight.
Blake Edwards will receive the lifetime achievement award during the
ceremony on February 29.
In addition to the slapstick of The Pink Panther movies with the late
Peter Sellers, the 81-year-old director's credits include the sex
comedies 10, Mickey & Maude, Skin Deep and Switch.
Despite prolific work as a writer, director and producer, Edwards was
nominated only once for an Oscar – for the screenplay to 1982's
Victor/Victoria – and he did not win.
Other credits include the 1962 Jack Lemmon alcoholism drama Days of
Wine and Roses, and the acerbic 1981 Hollywood satire S.O.B., in
which his wife, actress Julie Andrews, skewered her wholesome Mary
Poppins image by baring her breasts.
The citation on Edwards' honorary Oscar will read: "In recognition of
his writing, directing and producing an extraordinary body of work
for the screen."
The son of a production manager and the grandson of a silent screen
director, Edwards began his career in films as an actor, with Ten
Gentlemen from West Point in 1942. He wrote his first film,
Panhandle, which he also produced, in 1948, and debuted as a director
with the television series Four Star Playhouse in 1952.
Other film credits include The Great Race, Operation Petticoat,
Darling Lili, Experiment in Terror, Wild Rovers, Mr Cory and What Did
You do in the War Daddy?
Previous recipients of honorary awards over the Academy's 75-year
history include dancer Gene Kelly, silent-film star Harold Lloyd,
actress Greta Garbo and Looney Tunes director Chuck Jones. The award
went last year to actor Peter O'Toole.
5278
From: Bilge Ebiri
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:09pm
Subject: Makhmalbaf (WAS: Re: The Day I Became a Woman)
Jerome:
> SALAAM CINEMA is available on dvd in France. It is part of a set
> that includes GABBEH and LE SILENCE. There are english
> subtitles.
>
That's terrific news. Have you had a chance to see the DVD? I'll
most likely get it regardless, but I'm curious how it looks.
THE SILENCE is also quite a strong film. Perhaps not as much as the
other big ones, but its rendering of the protagonist's physical
world is pretty hypnotic. I also have a quaint fondness for ONCE
UPON A TIME, CINEMA, which is widely available on video here.
It's intriguing, and a mite unfortunate, that KANDAHAR became the
film Makhmalbaf was best known for in the US (for obvious reasons).
It's not his strongest work, and it's not all that representative of
his films. I haven't seen AFGHAN ALPHABET, but haven't heard great
things about that either.
-Bilge
5279
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:10pm
Subject: Re: I Love Melvin (was Stuck on You)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> David wrote: "I have a laserdisc of I Love Melvin."
>
> I should have known.
I own that laser, too. It's on a double-disc set with THE BELLE OF
NEW YORK. Is owning that laser supposed to be a symptom of
something? Don't tell me if it is. I don't wanna know. Anyway, I'm
not counting on Warners to release a DVD of MELVIN any time soon.
They haven't even put out TOP HAT or MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS yet.
I'm aware of the Weis cult among the MacMahonists. But does anyone
know what it was specifically based upon? What was it they were
seeing in the films which they thought was worth isolating as
specific to Weis? And did they ever interview him? I've seen a
handful of Weis films but I don't know any of the TV work and I
don't have a strong sense of an individual style there. I'm not
saying there isn't one but it just hasn't jumped out at me and I'm
curious as to what their take on him was.
5280
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:47pm
Subject: Re: I Love Melvin (no longer Stuck on You)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> David wrote: "I have a laserdisc of I Love Melvin."
>
> I should have known.
I'm surprised (and immensely pleased)it's on laser disc. I taped
it on TCM (or AMC) a few years ago and run it several times a year.
It seems to get better all the time. It's almost as euphoric as
Singin' in the Rain, with almost as many outstanding numbers. Some
scenes were actually shot in Central Park (great ending).
Another Weis I like a lot is The Affairs of Dobie Gillis, which
displays the same infectiously goofy good humor. Debbie Reynolds
sings a slow ballad version of "All I Do Is Dream of You" in duet
with the great Bobby Van as they paddle down a river. later on they
launch into a fast version of the song and Van, brimming with joie de
vivre, suddenly replaces the lyrics with the exclamation: "This is
exactly like in a scene for Howard Keel!" Kathleen Freeman plays the
head of an all-girl combo called "Happy Stella Kowalski and Her
Schottische Five."
On the basis of Hajji, Melvin and Gillis might we call Weis an
auteur? Three dozens of Parisian cinephiles fifty years ago thought
so (actually only on the basis of Hajji). Yet the manager of the
famed Studi Parnasse adamantly refused to program it.
JPC
5281
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:55am
Subject: Re: At Long Last!
> HONORARY OSCAR FOR BLAKE EDWARDS
Finally a reason to watch the Oscars -- for the first time in years.
JTW
5282
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 0:38am
Subject: Re: At Long Last!
Wow, this is great news!
Edwards is simply a master, one who I have had the great
pleasure of really 'discovering' for the first time this year.
"Breakfast at Tiffany's," "The Party," "Wild Rovers," "10," "The Man
Who Loved Women," "Skin Deep" - the list of great films by this
man goes on and on.
Damien is probably one of the world's biggest Blake Edwards
supporters, so I almost feel as though I should congratulate him
too. ;)
Peter
5283
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 2:48am
Subject: Re: Wichita
Yes, it's a wonderful movie. But what theater? And was it anamorphic
or barred, 35mm or 16mm?
Maxime wrote:
> Just come from the theater.
5284
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:38am
Subject: Re: Wichita
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime" wrote:
> Just come from the theater. More than after any previous watch, I
> guess I was quite impressed by the short scenes between McCrea and
> Vera Miles: the one outside her home, the picnic. The nobility of
> the postures, the truth of the words and hearts, the faded color of
> the sky. Eternal moments.
It was reviewed by Jonathan Rosenbaum in the Chicago Reader just last week: http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2003/1203/031205.html
But I'm assuming you didn't see it in Chicago.
This was one of the Tourneurs omitted from the New York retro last year (ANNE OF THE INDIES was another) ...
5285
From:
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:25pm
Subject: Re: At Long Last!
This is wonderful news about Blake Edwards' Oscar!
Edwards was the first director whose work I knew as a kid. My mother took us
to see "The Great Race" (1965), and talked about Edwards. Soon we saw "A Shot
in the Dark" on TV, which we all also explicitly attributed to Edwards. From
then on, my family always referred to watching a "Blake Edwards film". We were
highly conscious of this with whatever we saw of his. The second director I
learned to recognize was Hitchcock.
A few months, saw "The Great Race" for the first time since I was a kid. Was
amazed at how well it stood up. It is a magical film! Scenes like the ice
melting in the middle came back to me...
Mike Grost
5287
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:52am
Subject: Makhmalbaf (WAS: Re: The Day I Became a Woman)
"Bilge Ebiri" wrote:
> Jerome:
>
>I haven't seen AFGHAN ALPHABET, but haven't heard great
> things about that either.
I like most stuff I've seen from the family Makhmalbaf -- Samira's
contribution to the 9/11 anthology was best in show, IMO -- but
AFGHAN ALPHABET is one where the allegorical faux-documentary style
is yielding diminishing returns. A couple of people who saw it at the
same time I did had ethical problems with the scenes where the little
girl is bullied to show her face on camera, and I think they're
right, assuming it wasn't staged. At the Melbourne festival this
played in the same session as another Iranian doco, AND ALONG CAME A
SPIDER, which was more conventional but mesmerising; one for the
serial killer collection, Bill, if you haven't already seen it.
JTW
5288
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:16am
Subject: Re: At Long Last!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Tonguette"
wrote:
> Wow, this is great news!
>
> >
> Peter
Peter I see no reason to rejoice in those necrophilic Academy
events. Do you really give a damn about what/who the Academy decides
to "honor"? It's all more likely to make me shed a tear, or puke...
JPC
5289
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:07am
Subject: Weis
By the way, I have a 16mm print of a doc about Weis--I think it's
called "The Director" and it's about directing TV. I've only watched
the first five or so minutes but it may be of interest--the imdb
doesn't list it.
Patrick
5290
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:34pm
Subject: The Pacino scene (Gigli)
I just caught up with GIGLI as well (wish I had seen it on the big
screen). I was enjoying the film enough but then came that tonally
wacky and unnecessarily brutal Al Pacino scene. The immorality of this
scene nearly ruined the film, and then, mostly because of the
mise-en-scene of one shot: the placement of Pacino next to the corpse
of the man he's just killed. I have seen a similar shot earlier in the
year, in BAD BOYS II, and it was even more repugnant: after Will Smith
and Martin Lawrence stake-out an abandoned building and manage to kill
every last motha' in the room, Lawrence takes a breather next to one of
the dead bad guys (whose bloodied corpse is just as in focus as
Lawrence) and starts to talk to Smith about life and police work
(played mostly for laughs).
Conventionally, most filmmakers have a system for separating killer
from killed, so not to implicate the guilty party with his victim any
more than necessary. To frame both together brings an entirely
different complexity to the image. The scene in FULL METAL JACKET when
one of the American soldiers lifts up the hat of a dead Vietnamese who
lays next to him and tells Private Joker and Rafterman about "jolly
green giants, with guns!" is deeply morbid, but knows it -- in the
reverse-field we even have Rafterman taking pictures. Neither GIGLI nor
BAD BOYS II offer this kind of honesty and self-reflexivity. Their
images are brutal, over-the-top, and banal. But I wonder if Kubrick
unintentionally started this nasty trend with that image of the
American and the Vietcong soldier, one so animated and the other so
fucking dead in the same shot. It's one of those scenes where you
literally feel dirty after you have seen it. Unlike the Bay and Breast
films, I think Kubrick wanted it that way.
Can anyone think of other examples of this kind of conspicuous framing
device in recent or not-so-recent films?
Gabe
5291
From: dave_garrett
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:05am
Subject: Re: I Love Melvin (was Stuck on You)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > David wrote: "I have a laserdisc of I Love Melvin."
> >
> > I should have known.
>
> I own that laser, too. It's on a double-disc set with THE BELLE OF
> NEW YORK. Is owning that laser supposed to be a symptom of
> something? Don't tell me if it is. I don't wanna know.
If it is, I must be similarly afflicted, because I have it as well. The home
video division of MGM released dozens of musicals on laserdisc, and
comparatively few of those have made it to DVD. I remember picking up
the BELLE/MELVIN set and a bunch of others when Laser Exchange in
Massachusetts sold them off at a big discount several years ago, after
it became apparent that laserdisc was about to be supplanted by DVD.
Dave
5292
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:22am
Subject: Re: At Long Last!
MG4273@a... wrote:
> Edwards was the first director whose work I knew as a kid. My
mother took us
> to see "The Great Race" (1965), and talked about Edwards. Soon we
saw "A Shot in the Dark" on TV, which we all also explicitly
attributed to Edwards. From then on, my family always referred to
watching a "Blake Edwards film". We were highly conscious of this
with whatever we saw of his.
I wonder if it says anything that Edwards was one of the first
directors I knew by name as well, along with John Carpenter and Mel
Brooks. In a way Carpenter's DARK STAR was my first encounter with
art cinema -- it showed you could have long scenes with nothing
happening, which I knew about on TV (e.g. "Hancock's Half Hour") but
not on the big screen.
> A few months, saw "The Great Race" for the first time since I was a
kid. Was
> amazed at how well it stood up.
THE GREAT RACE is sublime. I spent a year studying it with a view to
writing a never-completed Honours thesis, but I could go on watching
it forever. It's an amazing example of self-destructive narrative
(one of my ideas was trying to compare it to TWO-LANE BLACKTOP) but
then there's Natalie Wood singing "The Sweetheart Tree", the still
point in the turning world. Follow the bouncing ball...
JTW
5293
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:38am
Subject: Translation of "I should have known."
David IS Paris.
5294
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:04am
Subject: Makhmalbaf (WAS: Re: The Day I Became a Woman)
Bilge Ebiri wrote:
> I haven't seen AFGHAN ALPHABET, but haven't heard great
> things about that either.
I like nearly everything I've seen by the family Makhmalbaf --
Samira's contribution to the 9/11 anthology was best in show, IMO --
but AFGHAN ALPHABET is one where the folkloric/allegorical/faux-
documentary approach is starting to yield diminishing returns. A
couple of people who saw it at the same time I did had ethical
problems with the scenes where the little girl is bullied to show her
face on camera, and I agree, presuming this wasn't staged. At the
same session at the Melbourne festival they showed another Iranian
doco, AND ALONG CAME A SPIDER, which was more conventional but
mesmerising: one for the serial killer file, Bill, if you haven't
seen it already.
JTW
(Tried to post this earlier but it didn't appear -- apologies if it
winds up duplicating.)
5295
From: jerome_gerber
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:06am
Subject: Makhmalbaf (WAS: Re: The Day I Became a Woman)
They are done by the same company that recently released the
Chaplin restoration...MK2
I thought the transfers were well done.
http://boutique.mk2.com/realisateur.asp?typeProduit=dvd&realis
ateur=108
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Bilge Ebiri"
wrote:
> Jerome:
> Have you had a chance to see the DVD? I'll
> most likely get it regardless, but I'm curious how it looks.
>
> THE SILENCE is also quite a strong film. Perhaps not as
much as the
> other big ones, but its rendering of the protagonist's physical
> world is pretty hypnotic. I also have a quaint fondness for
ONCE
> UPON A TIME, CINEMA, which is widely available on video
here.
>
> It's intriguing, and a mite unfortunate, that KANDAHAR became
the
> film Makhmalbaf was best known for in the US (for obvious
reasons).
> It's not his strongest work, and it's not all that representative of
> his films. I haven't seen AFGHAN ALPHABET, but haven't
heard great
> things about that either.
>
> -Bilge
5296
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:37am
Subject: Re: Good News
Jake, thanks for the And Along Came a Spider tip. Has anyone seen The
Couch, a serial killer movie for tv that Blake Edwards wrote with his
daughter in the 80s? The imdb makes it sound like the Analyze This of
serial killer movies.
5297
From: Maxime
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:21am
Subject: Re: Wichita
Jacques Tourneur complete retrospective
http://www.centrepompidou.fr/
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> Yes, it's a wonderful movie. But what theater? And was it
anamorphic
> or barred, 35mm or 16mm?
>
> Maxime wrote:
>
> > Just come from the theater.
5298
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:38am
Subject: Re: Re: Wichita
Thanks. But can you tell us what kind of print was shown? 16mm or
35mm? Was it anamorphic CinemaScope (about 2.4) or a non-anamorphic
print (about 1.7)?
Maxime wrote:
> Jacques Tourneur complete retrospective
> http://www.centrepompidou.fr/
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> > Yes, it's a wonderful movie. But what theater? And was it
> anamorphic
> > or barred, 35mm or 16mm?
> >
> > Maxime wrote:
> >
> > > Just come from the theater.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12c3j5r6l/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705021019:HM/EXP=1071300086/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3614674&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5299
From: Maxime
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:48am
Subject: Re: Wichita
35mm CinemaScope. Nice print. Don't know where it came from.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> Thanks. But can you tell us what kind of print was shown? 16mm
or
> 35mm? Was it anamorphic CinemaScope (about 2.4) or a non-
anamorphic
> print (about 1.7)?
>
>
>
> Maxime wrote:
>
> > Jacques Tourneur complete retrospective
> > http://www.centrepompidou.fr/
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> > > Yes, it's a wonderful movie. But what theater? And was it
> > anamorphic
> > > or barred, 35mm or 16mm?
> > >
> > > Maxime wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just come from the theater.
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12c3j5r6l/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D
=egroupweb/S=1705021019:HM/EXP=1071300086/A=1524963/R=0/*http://hits.
411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?
camp=556&lineid=3614674&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5300
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:39am
Subject: Re: Re: Wichita
Maxime, very lucky:
> 35mm CinemaScope. Nice print. Don't know where it came from.
Unfortunately the print shown in Chicago (in 16mm) was a reduction
print. And even then, it was more like 2.0 than 2.35. I know Kent Jones
couldn't locate it for the series in New York, but those of us in
Chicago are lucky if we have the chance to see the likes of STARS IN MY
CROWN or EXPERIMENT PERILOUS, so this was really a treat. Joel McCrea's
Wyatt is sort of the archetypical sheriff who exhorts unseemly
cow-wranglers to the edge of Wichita and falls in love with the girl,
but overall I found it pretty enjoyable.
Gabe
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact