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.
5601
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:40pm
Subject: B&W to Color (was: Re: Lang's Indian Diptych)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> As for Bergman, much as I like Cries and Whispers, I'm not sure that
> rarefied production design does the job...
Of ? Of retrospectively psychoanalyzing his own mythologies ? (my assumption of
what you meant) Or, something else ?
Thanks,
-Sam
5602
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 7:10pm
Subject: Director books
I have a query that will indicate that I'm somewhat out of touch with
current film books.
Let's say I wanted to know how an "auteurist" director is generally
assessed. As of the early 80s I would look to Sarris, Roud's two volume
book, JPC's two volume book, and perhaps the St. James Press dictionary
of filmmakers.
Are there more current volumes with essays assessing the work of
directors? I'm not talking about books on individual directors, but
dictionary/guide type books, and I'm looking for authoritative ones,
that might contribute answers to the question, "How is Minnelli regarded
today."
- Fred
5603
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 7:23pm
Subject: Re: Director books
John Wakeman, ed. "World Film Directors" (vol. 1: 1890-1945. vol. 2:
-1985). New York: H.W.Wilson, 1987. Each volume is nearly 1300 pages,
double-columned. Most of the contributors are British but the essays
are often pretty good notwithstandings.
David Thomason: Dictionary of Film [Directors].
JPC & Bertrand Tavernier: 50 ans de Cinéma américaine. (also nearly
1300 pages, double-columned). There's an attractive paper edition,
revised, that sold for 150F a few years ago. (The annoying thing is
that one doesn't know which of the authors wrote which sentences.)
Jacques Lourcelles, Dictionnaire du Cinéma: Les Films. Laffont,
paperback. More than 1700 pages, doubled-column. His essays are
auteurist, not just of the separate movies, and he's often quite
interesting. There are probably a dozen Maltin-like books out in French
and Italian, all of them nonchalantly auterist, generally not worth
consulting.
Fred Camper wrote:
>
> Let's say I wanted to know how an "auteurist" director is generally
> assessed. As of the early 80s I would look to Sarris, Roud's two volume
> book, JPC's two volume book, and perhaps the St. James Press dictionary
> of filmmakers.
>
> Are there more current volumes with essays assessing the work of
> directors?
5604
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 7:30pm
Subject: Re: Director books
Actually there isn't.
If "Film Comment" is anythign to go byfew people are
seriously concerned with film history -- and even less
with the history of film criticism -- anymore.
That's why this list has been such a godsend. Its kept
me sane.
--- Fred Camper wrote:
> I have a query that will indicate that I'm somewhat
> out of touch with
> current film books.
>
> Let's say I wanted to know how an "auteurist"
> director is generally
> assessed. As of the early 80s I would look to
> Sarris, Roud's two volume
> book, JPC's two volume book, and perhaps the St.
> James Press dictionary
> of filmmakers.
>
> Are there more current volumes with essays assessing
> the work of
> directors? I'm not talking about books on individual
> directors, but
> dictionary/guide type books, and I'm looking for
> authoritative ones,
> that might contribute answers to the question, "How
> is Minnelli regarded
> today."
>
> - Fred
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5605
From:
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 7:38pm
Subject: Lang's Indian Films
Have not seen the 1950's Lang Indian films. But did see a lot of "The Indian Tomb" (directed by Joe May, 1921). This was a serial written by Lang and his silent film era collaborator / wife Thea von Harbou. Lang planned to direct this, but Joe May stepped in and took the scripts away from Lang. Years later, Lang was still bitter about this. His comments to Peter Bogdanovich in "Who The Devil Made It" were still fierce. One can sum them up in words not by Lang: "we wuz robbed!"
The 1921 "The Indian Tomb" is about as bad as a film I have ever seen. It is visually dead, dull, and filled with horribly offensive racist stereotypes of Indians. Presumably, Joe May can take full blame for this. I confess I bailed in the middle of this endless serial. No wonder Lang was bitter about this piece of tripe.
Good silent era serials: "Les Vampires" (Louis Feuillade), "Dr. Mabuse, Der Spieler" (Fritz Lang).
Mike Grost
New Years' Resolution:
Watch the Lang 1950's Indian films.
5606
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 7:49pm
Subject: Re: Director books
>David Thomason: Dictionary of Film [Directors].
I couldn't recommend this work... I've read portions of it and it comes off to me as full of the mad ramblings of a hateful little man, who has lost any sense of cinema's redemptiveness (or any sense for cinema, period). In the foreword, Thomson pulls off both ignorance and condescension in one fell swoop when he proclaims that every director's primal wish is to have been an author: having realized one is no good at the discipline, craft, isolation, or determined time necessary to write literature, he turns to making cinema instead. It's a disgusting soapbox, this book, -- with a sensibility that can barely be differentiated from Pauline Kael's -- 'The New Biographical Dictionary of Film' traffics in all the old cliches (European cinema died in the '70s; modern globalized Hollywood product's sheer permeation of the semiosphere = "renewed vigor"; Godard stopped being brilliant after 'Week-end', etc.), and employs this predatorily haughty tone all throughout.
When I think of David Thomson, I think of Liz Taylor almost falling off the stage at the Oscars three years ago, rapt like a deer dazed in headlights, squawking: "GLAAAAAAAAAAAAA-di-AYTER!"
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5607
From: Tosh
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 8:07pm
Subject: Feuillade's Fantomas?
Speaking of Louis Feuillade - are there any plans for the release of
Fantomas here in the U.S. on DVD? I was hoping that the success of
'Les Vampires' would lead to a DVD version of Fantomas.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
5608
From:
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Director Books
Critics today (2003) seem to be keeping their views on film history a deep, dark secret. It is virtually impossible to discover which films / directors are admired by most commercial film reviewers, or by academics specializing in Film Studies. It is unclear why this is so... Are people afraid to commit themselves? Could someone lose their job for going on record and saying they like Cocteau or Minnelli or Jordan Belson?
This is one reason that I feel such wild enthusiasm for a_film_by's film list projects. They are almost the only records anywhere in any medium of what a group of cinephiles likes, in this new millenium. They are in the proud tradition of the Cahiers and Positif and other major French journals of the 1950's, which always went on record about the great films.
I have learned so much about film history from the group's lists (and posts and web sites!) They are full of hundreds of recommended films I've never seen. It is like a whole film education.
Thank you!
Mike Grost
5609
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 8:53pm
Subject: Re: Feuillade's Fantomas?
There's an excellent box set available from France with a small book
included and all sorts of wonderful interactive features; it's in
many ways the most ingenious French DVD that I have.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh wrote:
> Speaking of Louis Feuillade - are there any plans for the release
of
> Fantomas here in the U.S. on DVD? I was hoping that the success
of
> 'Les Vampires' would lead to a DVD version of Fantomas.
> --
> Tosh Berman
> TamTam Books
> http://www.tamtambooks.com
5610
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 9:33pm
Subject: Blake / Son of the Pink Panther
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
>Over the years, I've loved Edwards' comedies the most. Especially:
> The Pink Panther films:
> A Shot in the Dark, Return of the Pink Panther, Son of the Pink
Panther.
Wow! Son of the Pink Panther! So I am not the only one who likes this
film. There is evidence that "Son" had a lot cut out of it by the
time it reached the theaters. I remember the trailer had shots of
Clouseau lighting a match in a fireworks warehouse followed by the
explosive results over Paris. Perhaps this may have been part of the
pre-title sequence, for "Son" is the only Edward's Panther film that
doesn't have one. A friend at the time told me that he saw Edwards
and Benigni on, I believe, "The Tonight Show" talking about how they
spent three days improvising and shooting what they referred to as
the "Clouseau Dance." Well, it's not there in the film. The
laserdisc jacket and VHS cover list a running time of 115 minutes–
which me to think, HOPE, it may have been a longer cut- but it is a
misprint, it is the theatrical release with a running time of 93
minutes.
I'll never forget reading about Michael Musto of the Village Voice
thinking he was really clever by asking why Edwards, with all the
people in Hollywood who want to work with him (Musto's belief), would
waste his time on another Panther film. Edward's response was
brief; "because I wanted to."
By the way, I apologize for misspelling Fantomas, I need to compose
my posts on Word first, and then verify some of the title spellings.
MW
5611
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 0:13am
Subject: Fritz Lang
The bonus disc of Criterion's CONTEMPT has a 1964 interview with LANG and
GODARD called THE DINOSAUR and THE BABY. LANG talks about what it is
to be a director, censorship and mise-en-scene. The preparedness of LANG
and the improvisation of GODARD are discussed.
There is another section on LANG alone with a clip from DESTINY (1921): a
man and woman walk into room with many candles. The man lifts a flame from
one of the candles to the height of his chest, a baby appears in his arms, then
disappears.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- ptonguette@a... wrote:
> > I received for a Christmas present Fritz Lang's "The
> > Tiger of Eschnapur" and
> > "The Indian Tomb." Wow. Talk about transforming
> > one's ideas about film art!
> > Do we have any other fans of these amazing films on
> > the group?
> >
>
> Right here, Peter! Welcome to Le MacMahon! Not only do
> they constitute Lang's greatest achievement,
> "Tiger/Tomb" is the rosetta stone of "mise en scene."
> This/these are is/are the film/films in which Lang's
> desire to be an architect is transformed into the
> architecture that only the cinema can devise.
5612
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 0:53am
Subject: Re: Director books
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
David Thomason: Dictionary of Film [Directors].
>
> JPC & Bertrand Tavernier: 50 ans de Cinéma américaine. (also
nearly
> 1300 pages, double-columned). There's an attractive paper edition,
> revised, that sold for 150F a few years ago. (The annoying thing
is
> that one doesn't know which of the authors wrote which sentences.)
>
> .
> It's "americain," Tag, not "americaine". And you just have to
ask me who wrote which sentences. Make a little list. For one thing
some of the essays are entirely Bertrand's, some entirely mine; and
many are mainly by one of us with just a little bit by the other guy.
So that makes it easy. Sometimes we have forgotten who wrote what but
not often. Also His style and mine are quite different so that can be
a cue too. The anonymity was our choice from the start (in "30 years"
back in 1970 too...)
JPC
>
>
>
> Fred Camper wrote:
>
> >
> > Let's say I wanted to know how an "auteurist" director is
generally
> > assessed. As of the early 80s I would look to Sarris, Roud's two
volume
> > book, JPC's two volume book, and perhaps the St. James Press
dictionary
> > of filmmakers.
> >
> > Are there more current volumes with essays assessing the work of
> > directors?
5613
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:11am
Subject: Re: Re: Director books
Sorry about the e. Am VERY embarrassed!
Isn't anonymity inconsistent with auteurism?
The implication is that both of you agree with everything the other says.
jpcoursodon wrote:
> wrote:
> (The annoying thing is
> > that one doesn't know which of the authors wrote which sentences.)
> > It's "americain," Tag, not "americaine". And you just have to
> ask me who wrote which sentences. Make a little list. For one thing
> some of the essays are entirely Bertrand's, some entirely mine; and
> many are mainly by one of us with just a little bit by the other guy.
> So that makes it easy. Sometimes we have forgotten who wrote what but
> not often. Also His style and mine are quite different so that can be
> a cue too. The anonymity was our choice from the start (in "30 years"
> back in 1970 too...)
>
> JPC
> >
5614
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:23am
Subject: B&W to Color
Yes, I guess that's what I meant. Cries and Whispers is definitely
Bergman's most ambitious use of color, but it's not a rereading of
the oeuvre. Fanny and Alexander is that, but although the color is
beautiful, I don't know that it is a discourse in itself. Maybe I
should look again. Or maybe it's that Bergman was always indifferent
to changes of medium, quite happy to work in film, theatre or tv,
color or black and white, without concerning himself too much about
their properties - the drama was always the main thing. He had a kind
of Pagnol attitude about media, I think. Unlike, say, Tati.
5615
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:35am
Subject: Re: Director books
I'm not sure what you're asking, Fred. A book about Ford by one
author won't tell you how Ford is thought of generally, nor would a
collection like the one published a couple of years ago on Jerry
Lewis. Thomson's dictionary contains Thomson's opinions, etc. There's
that Sight and Sound poll that I haven't seen, but I gather from what
I've read about it here that it's a little screwy. In a way,
something like Maltin reflects changes of status as well as anything.
I still have the first edition of Movies on Television, where Shock
Corridor is classed as a "BOMB." In the current editions, it has been
upgraded, reflecting a general shift of opinion. Also, I have the
impression that many hands write the capsules. But why are you
interested in finding out how specific auteurs are generally
evaluated today? If I understood the question better I might have a
more useful answer.
5616
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:38am
Subject: Re: Fritz Lang
Elizabeth - Thanks for the info about The Dinosaur and the Baby,
which is one of Godard's first films, made for the famous Cineastes
de notre temps series. For Lang fans, I hear that Friedkin's Lang
interview was shown this year at Torino. I don't know if it was in
any kind of final shape for distribution - it would be great to have
it available.
5617
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:23am
Subject: Re: Re: Director books
hotlove666 wrote:
.... But why are you interested in finding out how specific auteurs are generally evaluated today? If I understood the question better I might have a more useful answer....
So I can write something like, "Even in serious histories of Hollywood
film, Minnelli is taken more as an entertainer than as a real auteur,
and his musicals are given more attention than his melodramas" -- if
it's true, of course. Certainly the essay in the Roud book would support
this, and JPC's essay supports it partially. I know some people take the
melodramas seriously and think they're great, and I wouldn't be
surprised if that was the consensus among this enlightened group (if
it's not, it ought to be), but in terms of US publications at least most
of what I've looked at so far in the way of books doesn't seem to give
the melodramas their proper due.
This is not a huge issue -- I'm just looking for a way to introduce my
view, if I can reasonably claim that it's not the mainstream one in
terms of the established literature. And since this is for a possible
Reader piece, I'm only really concerned with what American critics
think.. Then I can follow something like the above with something like,
"But actually, in the subtle camera movements and complex relationships
between areas of color in 'Some Came Running' and 'Home From the Hil'"
can be found the profoundest commentary on bourgeois American life this
side of Douglas Sirk...".
- Fred
5618
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:28am
Subject: Re: Director books
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> Sorry about the e. Am VERY embarrassed!
>
> Isn't anonymity inconsistent with auteurism?
> The implication is that both of you agree with everything the other
says.
>
> Valid question. But if two persons get together to write a book
about movies (and mostly directors) they are not likely to disagree a
lot about the movies and directors they are going to discuss. A book
by two critics with widely diverging opinions might be interesting
but that wasn't the book we were writing. If serious disagreements
had come up we might have opted for signatures, or more probably
(and more logically)we would have dropped the project, or I would
have looked for another partner. We did have disagreements but they
never seemed important enough for either of us to strongly object. We
disagreed on some individual films, but very seldom on the work of a
director as a whole. In a number of cases we did mention that we had
a disagreement about such and such film -- we still do. The main
difference between us was not in evaluating directors or individual
films but in the way we approach them. Some people have told me they
can tell who wrote what most of the time(although in a couple of
instances they were mistaken -- "I imitated Bertrand's style," I
explained).
Interestingly, in the many decades we've worked together those
theoretical questions never came up. From the beginning it seemed
cumbersome and useless to affix signatures to each entry (especially
in view of the fact that many were co-written). Of course I couldn't
have written such a book with, say, Tag, or Bill. Maybe we're not
real auteurists after all...
JPC
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> > (The annoying thing is
> > > that one doesn't know which of the authors wrote which
sentences.)
>
>
>
> > > It's "americain," Tag, not "americaine". And you just have to
> > ask me who wrote which sentences. Make a little list. For one
thing
> > some of the essays are entirely Bertrand's, some entirely mine;
and
> > many are mainly by one of us with just a little bit by the other
guy.
> > So that makes it easy. Sometimes we have forgotten who wrote what
but
> > not often. Also His style and mine are quite different so that
can be
> > a cue too. The anonymity was our choice from the start (in "30
years"
> > back in 1970 too...)
> >
> > JPC
> > >
5619
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:52am
Subject: Re: Director books
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> hotlove666 wrote:
>
> .... But why are you interested in finding out how specific auteurs
are generally evaluated today? If I understood the question better I
might have a more useful answer....
>
> So I can write something like, "Even in serious histories of
Hollywood
> film, Minnelli is taken more as an entertainer than as a real
auteur,
> and his musicals are given more attention than his melodramas" --
if
The question is, Fred, what are the "serious histories of
Hollywood film"? I can assure you that most people who consider
Minnelli an auteur have as much respect (or more) for his melodramas
as for his musicals. See for example Steven Harvey's 1989 Minnelli
book. Are you interested in the opinion of critics who do not
consider him an auteur, but just an 'entertainer" whatever that
means?
JPC
> it's true, of course. Certainly the essay in the Roud book would
support
> this, and JPC's essay supports it partially.
I don't think I ever suggested that I thought M's musicals were more
important or better than his melodramas. I'm just somewhat ambivalent
about the melodramas just as I am sometimes about Sirk's no matter
how much I admire them (it's actually some of the auteurist praise
for them that bothers me, not the films themselves). Moreover in the
case of Minnelli I think the distinction between genres is of minor
importance, because his comedies and musicals tend to be downbeat and
melancholy and the dramas upbeat which blurs the differences.
JPC
I know some people take the
> melodramas seriously and think they're great, and I wouldn't be
> surprised if that was the consensus among this enlightened group
(if
> it's not, it ought to be), but in terms of US publications at least
most
> of what I've looked at so far in the way of books doesn't seem to
give
> the melodramas their proper due.
Again I would suggest Harvey. JPC
>
> This is not a huge issue -- I'm just looking for a way to introduce
my
> view, if I can reasonably claim that it's not the mainstream one in
> terms of the established literature. And since this is for a
possible
> Reader piece, I'm only really concerned with what American critics
> think.. Then I can follow something like the above with something
like,
> "But actually, in the subtle camera movements and complex
relationships
> between areas of color in 'Some Came Running' and 'Home From the
Hil'"
> can be found the profoundest commentary on bourgeois American life
this
> side of Douglas Sirk...".
>
> - Fred
5620
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:59am
Subject: Re: Director Books
From google, here's the Academy press release about their centennial
Minnelli tribute earlier this year. Note that the musicals and
comedies were shown in the LACMA auditorium, which pulls in an older,
AFI-list audience, while the melos were shown in the much smaller
(and less comfortable) Bridges Auditorium at Melnitz, nestled within
the groves of Academe. That tells me that your impression is true,
even though lip service is paid to VM's versatility in the body of
the release.
Interpretation: Auteurism has affected how film history is written
more than it has affected what gets screened...and where. The battles
won in print decades ago, in other words, currently have something
like the status of the Bill of Rights, which most people don't even
know. (When a priest accused of child abuse took the Fifth in March
of 2002 I happened to be near a boob tube in a hotel, and I actually
heard a third-string CNN reporter asking, on-air, in a very
disapproving voice, how it was possible for him to do that!) A
federal court just said that Jose Padilla can't be stripped of his
citizenship on Turdburger's say-so, but the Supremes will reverse the
decision, saying that Turdburger can do whatever he wants in the
interest of national security, when it gets to them: 5-4. Anyone want
to bet? I think it's basically the same thing with Minnelli's
melodramas.
Another indication would be how many of them are out on DVD. If it's
a much smaller percentage than the musicals, that says something,
given that MGM and Turner are pretty good about exploiting the
archives.
Academy to Celebrate Career of Vincente Minnelli
Beverly Hills, CA - Legendary director Vincente Minnelli - whose wide-
ranging credits include glossy musicals, serious dramas, period
films, comedies and melodramas - will be honored with a tribute
program featuring Leslie Caron, Cyd Charisse and Kirk Douglas at the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences on April 30, at 8 p.m.,
in the Academy's Samuel Goldwyn Theater. The event is presented in
honor of the centennial of Minnelli's birth.
Born to a family of touring entertainers, Minnelli began performing
at the age of three with the "Minnelli Brothers Dramatic Tent Show."
Later a costume and set designer for the theater, he began directing
on Broadway in 1935. Invited to Hollywood in 1940 by producer Arthur
Freed, Minnelli served an intensive apprenticeship at MGM, which laid
the groundwork for his phenomenally successful career. He earned an
Academy Award nomination in 1951 for directing "An American in Paris"
and took home the directing Oscar statuette for "Gigi" in 1958.
(Caron starred in both those films).
Among Minnelli's other impressive credits are "The Band Wagon"
and "Brigadoon," in which Charisse starred, "Cabin in the Sky," "Meet
Me in St. Louis," "Madame Bovary," "Father of the Bride," "Tea and
Sympathy" and "The Courtship of Eddie's Father." Douglas starred in
three Minnelli films: "Lust for Life," "The Bad and the Beautiful"
and "Two Weeks in Another Town."
Film critic, author and television host Robert Osborne will serve as
the evening's master of ceremonies.
The Academy's Centennial Tribute serves as the kick-off for a month-
long, cross-town film series. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art
Film Department will present "M is for Minnelli: The Musicals and
Comedies," while the UCLA Film and Television Archive will feature "M
is for Minnelli: The Melodramas."
Tickets for the Academy's Centennial Tribute to Vincente Minnelli are
available to the public for $5, but quantities are limited. For
availability and other information, please call 310-247-3600. The
Academy is located at 8949 Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills.
For information on the Minnelli film series, please contact:
LACMA 323-857-6010 or www.lacma.org
UCLA 310-206-FILM or www.cinema.ucla.edu
.
5621
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 6:05am
Subject: Re: Re: Director books
jpcoursodon wrote:
>--- In
>
>I don't think I ever suggested that I thought M's musicals were more
>important or better than his melodramas.
>
True, but you also don't seem to consider him a great filmmaker who has
major statements to make, the auteur of flat-out masterpieces, etc.
That's what I meant by the awkward "support it partially."
I do like very much your point about Minnelli's "melancholy," but I
think melancholy pervades the dramas too.
I'm not trying to exclude auteurists or look to only people who regard
Minnelli as an "entertainer." Maybe instead of assuming some consensus
I'll just couch my intro in terms of answering the things I've read.
- Fred
5622
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:05pm
Subject: Re: B&W to Color
I used to sort of think this too, but I never could explain Summer With Monika or
parts of Sawdust And Tinsel/Clown's Twilight along these lines...
I've been watching the Criterion "Trilogy" -- I just have to conclude Bergan is some
kind of *formal* Master -- the muses may be those of theater, but so what ? For
Brakhage it's poetry, Godard - cinema & philosophy (& I can't imagine Pierot w/o
Monika).....
So now I want to see Cries and Whispers in this light so to speak.
I don't know how the Face to Face era stuff relates..
Fanny and Alexander doesn't seem to be a discourse in itself to me either, but now
I'm not sure....
-Sam
> Yes, I guess that's what I meant. Cries and Whispers is definitely
> Bergman's most ambitious use of color, but it's not a rereading of
> the oeuvre. Fanny and Alexander is that, but although the color is
> beautiful, I don't know that it is a discourse in itself. Maybe I
> should look again. Or maybe it's that Bergman was always indifferent
> to changes of medium, quite happy to work in film, theatre or tv,
> color or black and white, without concerning himself too much about
> their properties - the drama was always the main thing. He had a kind
> of Pagnol attitude about media, I think. Unlike, say, Tati.
5623
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:08pm
Subject: Re: Director books
> "But actually, in the subtle camera movements and complex relationships
> between areas of color in 'Some Came Running' and 'Home From the Hil'"
> can be found the profoundest commentary on bourgeois American life this
> side of Douglas Sirk...".
Well if they understand what you mean by "this side of Douglas Sirk" in the first place
maybe you're case won't be that hard to make....
-Sam
5624
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books
Fred Camper wrote:
> Maybe instead of assuming some consensus
> I'll just couch my intro in terms of answering the things I've read.
What intro? What are you talking about?????
For whatever it's worth here's what I wrote about Minnelli (I forgot to
include my own encyclopediette of directors in my list):
Vincente Minnelli (Chicago. 1903-86). Minnelli was a decorator for
department stores and a set designer for Broadway shows before
embarking, at age 40, on a film career customarily noted, first, for its
remarkable musicals -- indeed, Minnelli's other films are not even
mentioned in Roud's Cinema: A Critical Dictionary -- and, second, for
its surfeit of style and dearth of substance or personality.
The second misjudgment perhaps follows from the first. The Hollywood
musical, following its Broadway parentage, was the most restrictive of
genres, not only in its subservience to structure, but far more,
particularly at Minnelli's home studio, Metro, to middle-class
platitudes, cuteness, picturesqueness, and the cult of the pedestrian.
It is instructive that the only scene in which Minnelli's Madame Bovary
takes on fire is the neurasthenic waltz where passion bursts social
constraint, or that his romantic leads who always succeed are banal
beaux and blah belles, while his lonely losers are caustic pugs and
ardent gamins of genuine talent and personality (Oscar Levant versus
Gene Kelly in An American in Paris [1951] and The Band Wagon [1951]; Van
Johnson in Brigadoon [1954]). No matter how sincerely Minnelli believes
that only sincerity is necessary to make our dreams come true, the
doctrine never inspires him the way it does Murnau in Sunrise (1927),
Borzage in Seventh Heaven (1927), McCarey in Love Affair (1939), or
Dreyer in Ordet (1955). Transports of ecstasy and yearning in Minnelli’s
musicals are squelched by the urbanity of Lerner & Loewe, where rapture
takes the form of a sap crooning "It's Almost like Being in Love." In
Minnelli's melodramas there is no almost; there is insanity and rage,
the word "almost" cannot possibly modify love, and it is precisely
urbanity that is being opposed at every second by passions as extreme as
possible: witness society's incapacity to accommodate Van Gogh (Lust for
Life [1956]), Tom Lee (Tea and Sympathy [1956] or Dave Hirsh (Some Came
Running [1958]).
In the musicals "home" is a paradise that is always gained, as in Meet
Me in St. Louis (1944) or Brigadoon. In the melodramas "home" is the
unfindable place where we belong. When lovers gaze at each other across
the screen, the scene is a prelude to a pedestrian embrace in the
musicals; but in the melodramas, where the embrace never comes, such
scenes are the high points of the pictures: who can forget Van Gogh
staring at the minister’s daughter, Deborah Carr staring at Tom Lee,
Dave Hirsch confronting Martha Hyer in her bedroom mirror?
5625
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books
samfilms2003 wrote:
>
> > "But actually, in the subtle camera movements and complex relationships
> > between areas of color in 'Some Came Running' and 'Home From the Hil'"
> > can be found the profoundest commentary on bourgeois American life this
> > side of Douglas Sirk...".
>
> Well if they understand what you mean by "this side of Douglas Sirk"
> in the first place
> maybe you're case won't be that hard to make....
Who wrote the line you quote?
Sirk is considered by some people who don't know his work and prefer to
regurgitate clichés from others who don't know his work to the effect
that Sirk was making commentary on bourgeois American l life --
specifically, they mean acidic commentary, since (as we know) it's
difficult to think of any American filmmaker who has not made commentary
on bourgeois American life. If you see Todd Haynes's Far from Heaven
you can see a vomitosious parody of Sirk that is, in fact, exactly the
sort of commentary on bourgeois American life that Sirk never did and
which regurgitators have decreed as though it were a truism to be the
essence of Sirk himself.
There's a certain type of critic who finds "profound" and
"anti-bourgeois" to be indistinguishable.
>
5626
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:12pm
Subject: Re: B&W to Color
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Yes, I guess that's what I meant. Cries and Whispers
> is definitely
> Bergman's most ambitious use of color
I beg to differ.
Bergman's most ambitious use of color is in "All These
Women." It's also his most woefully negelected work.
Utilizing pastel tones in the way Jerry Lewis uses
primary ones in "The Ladies Man" (and what a
double-feature theywould make!) Bergman confronts his
own womanizing with a delightfully jaundiced eye. If
only Sondheim had chosen to make a musical out of it
instead of "Smiles of a Summer Night"!
5627
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books
--- Tag Gallagher wrote:
> If you see Todd
> Haynes's Far from Heaven
> you can see a vomitosious parody of Sirk that is, in
> fact, exactly the
> sort of commentary on bourgeois American life that
> Sirk never did and
> which regurgitators have decreed as though it were a
> truism to be the
> essence of Sirk himself.
>
>
"Far From Heaven" is NOT a parody of Sirk.It's a
revisiting of his themes combined with a revisiting of
aspects of Ophuls' American works -- particularly "The
Reckless Moment" -- a very important film. While
"sampling" "All That Heavn Allows," and "Imitation of
Life" Todd does so in order to introduce additional
material that wouldn't have been dealt with in the
50's -- in the style of the 50's. This parallels what
McGehee and Siegel do with their "Reckless Moment"
remake "The Deep End" which is set in contemporary
circumstance and style.
5628
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books
I love The Reckless Moment. Been proclaiming it for forty years (to
universal indifference). Even made a video about it.
But, pray, in what sense do you feel it is "very important"?
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> "The
> Reckless Moment" -- a very important film.
5629
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:44pm
Subject: Far From Heaven
>>If you see Todd
>>Haynes's Far from Heaven
>>you can see a vomitosious parody of Sirk that is, in
>>fact, exactly the
>>sort of commentary on bourgeois American life that
>>Sirk never did and
>>which regurgitators have decreed as though it were a
>>truism to be the
>>essence of Sirk himself.
>
> "Far From Heaven" is NOT a parody of Sirk.It's a
> revisiting of his themes combined with a revisiting of
> aspects of Ophuls' American works -- particularly "The
> Reckless Moment" -- a very important film. While
> "sampling" "All That Heavn Allows," and "Imitation of
> Life" Todd does so in order to introduce additional
> material that wouldn't have been dealt with in the
> 50's -- in the style of the 50's. This parallels what
> McGehee and Siegel do with their "Reckless Moment"
> remake "The Deep End" which is set in contemporary
> circumstance and style.
It's interesting to me that so many auteurists have a very negative
reaction to FAR FROM HEAVEN. Despite the obvious cues that invite us to
see the film as an extension of Sirk's (or Ross Hunter's?) work, Haynes
is his own man, with his own rather difficult personality.
The hardest thing to grapple with about Haynes is that he does seem to
invite us to laugh at his people in a way, and yet he also has great
empathy for the same characters that are his objects of campy fun. It
took a little bit of acclimation for me to realize that, for Haynes,
laughing at his characters is not incompatible with loving them and
feeling their anguish.
SAFE is probably the film that lays this seeming contradiction most out
in the open. Sitting through SAFE from beginning to end (which some
people have trouble doing) practically forces one to deal with this issue.
David's reference to THE RECKLESS MOMENT is right on: there's even a
scene in FAR FROM HEAVEN (the heroine crying on the bed in the dark,
called back to mundane reality by a ringing phone) which is a direct
lift from the Ophuls.
- Dan
5630
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books (Vincente Minnelli. & Haynes's Far From Heaen)
Tag Gallagher wrote
>Who wrote the line you quote?
>
I made it up, sort of as a self-parody that's probably closer to what I
think than I'd like to admit.. Sorry to make all this so public; I'm
working on something on Minnelli.
>There's a certain type of critic who finds "profound" and
>"anti-bourgeois" to be indistinguishable.
>
>
True, but that doesn't mean that a great film can't also be
"anti-bourgeois," just because the description has been much over-used.
(I would love to see a paper, especially an academic paper, that praised
the aesthetic beauties of a great Hollywood film while also showing how
it is "pro-bourgeois.") I do think it's unmistakable that Sirk was
making some sort of commentary on American materialism. And not that
what an artist thinks he is doing necessarily proves anything, but I
Sirk did think he was offering some sort of commentary on people he felt
a certain critical distance from. Confirming when I spoke with him that
he had used 50s interior decorating magazines as a source, he said, with
what I took to be a certain amused detachment, "I knew these people"
(emphasis on "knew"). The definitive scene here (though about something
a little bit richer than "bourgeois") is the entrance to the the hotel
suite Kyle has provided in "Written on the Wind." You can argue that
that isn't such a key scene, that the film is really "about" something
else (though I probably would not agree), but I don't see how one can
deny that that scene, visually as well as in the narrative, comments on
some aspect of American materialism. Indeed, it's pretty acidic: the
close-up of Lucy handling a purse resonates phallic-ly across the film
with Kyle's feelings of his own sexual inadequacy: he substitutes for
the power he thinks he lacks by "throwing my money at you."
I rather like "Far From Heaven," though not nearly as much as I like
Sirk. I went to it expecting to hate it, "ripoff of Sirk without the
profundity," et cetara, that I thought I "should" see. It's a good deal
more sophisticated than that. I think what it's really about is Haynes's
own reimagining of Sirk. It's a kind of postmodern meditation on the
memory of a certain aspect of 50s culture filtered through the
sensibility of a gay man who was barely born then. It's about his own
subjective "seeing" of Sirk.
Thanks much for your Minnelli text, and many thanks to Bill for the text
he posted.
- Fred
5631
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:57pm
Subject: Re: Far From Heaven
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> The hardest thing to grapple with about Haynes is
> that he does seem to
> invite us to laugh at his people in a way, and yet
> he also has great
> empathy for the same characters that are his objects
> of campy fun. It
> took a little bit of acclimation for me to realize
> that, for Haynes,
> laughing at his characters is not incompatible with
> loving them and
> feeling their anguish.
I don't know what you're talking about, Dan. There may
be something ever-so-mildly humorous about 50's
accoutrments, but not the story.
Todd wrote "Far From Heaven" in a great emotional
rush. He and james Lyons (his editor, co-writer and
soemtimes perfomer in earlier films -- who played
Billy Name in"I Shot AndyWarhol") had just broken up
after having been a couple for eons. Todd said "I went
to Hawaii, finished Proust and wrote this script." The
pain in it is quite real and quite sincere. He and
Julianne Moore are in total rapport.
"Safe" may also bring an occasional smile. But it's
Todd's nightmare of turning into a San Fernando valley
housewife.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5632
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:00pm
Subject: Re: Director books
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> Are there more current volumes with essays assessing the work of
> directors?
For what it's worth, there's a sort of brief history of Minnelli criticism in the first chapter of Naremore's (1993) book on Minnelli.
I checked Michael Grost's website (remembering his post here on Four Horsemen): it has a long, long page on Minnelli, filled with insights (and drawing links between the musicals and melodramas). Another online resource, Senses of Cinema's Great Directors database, doesn't seem to have tackled Minnelli yet...
5633
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books
I think it's Ophuls greatest American film. It looks
right ata number of issues dealing with class,
sex,race and criminality in a way very few films have
ever done. Alexandrian libraries have been written
about "Letter to an Unknown Woman" but next to nothing
about "The Reckless Moment." Mason gives one of his
greatest performances in it, and Joan bennett's no
slouch either. And that's not to mention Geraldine
Brooks.
I knew the late Frances Williams who played Joan
Bennett's housekeeper. She adored Ophuls and he her.
In fact he expanded her performance from the original
script. It was his idea that Frances drive Joan
Bennett in that climactic scene.
--- Tag Gallagher wrote:
> I love The Reckless Moment. Been proclaiming it for
> forty years (to
> universal indifference). Even made a video about
> it.
>
> But, pray, in what sense do you feel it is "very
> important"?
>
>
>
> David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> > "The
> > Reckless Moment" -- a very important film.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5634
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:09pm
Subject: Re: Director books
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> "Far From Heaven" is NOT a parody of Sirk.It's a
> revisiting of his themes combined with a revisiting of
> aspects of Ophuls' American works -- particularly "The
> Reckless Moment" -- a very important film. While
> "sampling" "All That Heavn Allows," and "Imitation of
> Life" Todd does so in order to introduce additional
> material that wouldn't have been dealt with in the
> 50's -- in the style of the 50's. This parallels what
> McGehee and Siegel do with their "Reckless Moment"
> remake "The Deep End" which is set in contemporary
> circumstance and style.
I wondered if Far From Heaven was responding to The Deep End as well, in that it restored the character of the maid (excised from Deep End) and even gave her the same name as in the Ophuls.
5635
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:11pm
Subject: Re: B& & W to Color
Thanks, David. You've given me an excuse to revisit a Berghman I've
been itching to re-see. Now if I can just find a dubbed copy...
5636
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books (Vincente Minnelli. & Haynes's Far From Heaen)
Fred Camper wrote:
>
> >Who wrote the line you quote?
>
> I made it up, sort of as a self-parody that's probably closer to what I
> think than I'd like to admit.. Sorry to make all this so public; I'm
> working on something on Minnelli.
When we had our long correspondance about Sirk c. 1997 you were
reluctant to speak of discursive content...
> >There's a certain type of critic who finds "profound" and
> >"anti-bourgeois" to be indistinguishable.
> >
> >
> True, but that doesn't mean that a great film can't also be
> "anti-bourgeois,"
Sure, a great film can be anti-bourgeois. Balzac was anti-bourgeois,
but the term had a precise sense then and he went to great trouble to be
precise in his aims. Such has seldom been the case during the last half
century.
> just because the description has been much over-used.
> (I would love to see a paper, especially an academic paper, that praised
> the aesthetic beauties of a great Hollywood film while also showing how
> it is "pro-bourgeois.")
I did write a long paper about Sirk (which you read) which praised his
aesthetic beauties and argued that he was frequently "pro-bourgeois"
(albeit not that term), e.g., Has Anybody Seen My Gal.
> I do think it's unmistakable that Sirk was
> making some sort of commentary on American materialism.
How many filmmakers can you name who have not done so? How many French
or Italian or German or Spanish or British filmmakers have not made some
sort of commentary on their national materialsm?
> And not that
> what an artist thinks he is doing necessarily proves anything, but I
> Sirk did think he was offering some sort of commentary on people he felt
> a certain critical distance from.
How many filmmakers anywhere can you cite who have not made some sort of
commentary on their characters and felt a critical distance? (How can
they NOT feel a critical distance?)
> Confirming when I spoke with him that
> he had used 50s interior decorating magazines as a source, he said, with
> what I took to be a certain amused detachment, "I knew these people"
> (emphasis on "knew"). The definitive scene here (though about something
> a little bit richer than "bourgeois") is the entrance to the the hotel
> suite Kyle has provided in "Written on the Wind." You can argue that
> that isn't such a key scene, that the film is really "about" something
> else (though I probably would not agree), but I don't see how one can
> deny that that scene, visually as well as in the narrative, comments on
> some aspect of American materialism.
We agree the hotel is total barf. We agree characters confuse
materiality and happiness. But why is this specifically American?
(Doesn't Sirk make similar distanced comments on his characters in his
films set in Germany, Australia, Russia, France, Italy and ancient
Rome?) And the materialist character here in fact is not bourgeois,
he's a billionaire. And the woman who rejects his materialism is in
fact bourgeois (and also American). So the scene can be equally read as
a rejection of American materialism by the American bourgeoisie.
> Indeed, it's pretty acidic: the
> close-up of Lucy handling a purse resonates phallic-ly across the film
> with Kyle's feelings of his own sexual inadequacy: he substitutes for
> the power he thinks he lacks by "throwing my money at you."
True. But this doesn't mean that Sirk is anti-bourgeois or
anti-American. If you want a director who REALLY goes after
specifically American culture with an ax, there's John Ford. Sirk, it
seems to me, finds infinitely more to praise and admire (with distance!)
in American middleclass culture than he finds to despise or lament. Not
so Ford.
5637
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:18pm
Subject: Re: Far From Heaven
> Todd wrote "Far From Heaven" in a great emotional
> rush. He and james Lyons (his editor, co-writer and
> soemtimes perfomer in earlier films -- who played
> Billy Name in"I Shot AndyWarhol") had just broken up
> after having been a couple for eons. Todd said "I went
> to Hawaii, finished Proust and wrote this script." The
> pain in it is quite real and quite sincere. He and
> Julianne Moore are in total rapport.
>
> "Safe" may also bring an occasional smile. But it's
> Todd's nightmare of turning into a San Fernando valley
> housewife.
I don't doubt Haynes' emotional commitment, and I love both these films.
But the way he expresses sincere emotion looks like mockery at some
points. He's talked about this sort of dichotomy in interviews, so I
don't think it's unconscious on his part. - Dan
5638
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:21pm
Subject: Re: Director books
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> >
>
> Sirk is considered by some people who don't know his work and
prefer to
> regurgitate clichés from others who don't know his work to the
effect
> that Sirk was making commentary on bourgeois American l life --
> specifically, they mean acidic commentary, since (as we know) it's
> difficult to think of any American filmmaker who has not made
commentary
> on bourgeois American life.
True. But let's not forget that Sirk himself has encouraged
misreadings of his films, notably in the famous (or infamous)
Halliday book-length interview "Sirk on Sirk". If what Sirk says in
that book about the "message" and social criticism of Imitation of
Life is true then I don't think his commentary on "bourgeois American
life" is worth all that much. He sounds so superior to and
contemptuous of his characters. "Her life is a very cheap imitation"
etc... Of course I've been taken to task in the past for
misunderstanding Sirk when I was just pointing out the fallacy of
some of his unconditional admirers...
JPC
5639
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:28pm
Subject: The Reckless Moment
> I think it's Ophuls greatest American film.
I think it's his greatest film, period. I do admire most of the later
French films, but there's a tiny something in the Ophuls's attitude in
the 50s that seems to me to frame the tragedy in too cozy and
comfortable a way, like an open wink to the audience about the sorrows
and joys of life.
> Alexandrian libraries have been written
> about "Letter to an Unknown Woman" but next to nothing
> about "The Reckless Moment." Mason gives one of his
> greatest performances in it, and Joan bennett's no
> slouch either. And that's not to mention Geraldine
> Brooks.
I think that RECKLESS MOMENT's rep has been on the way up for many
years, perhaps since Robin Wood wrote so admiringly about it in PERSONAL
VIEWS. (Wood ten-best-listed the film in the last Sight & Sound poll.)
The vogue for film noir during the last few decades hasn't hurt it
either, even though there's not much of a noir feeling to the story the
way Ophuls approaches it. - Dan
5640
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:34pm
Subject: Re: Far From Heaven
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I don't doubt Haynes' emotional commitment, and I
> love both these films.
> But the way he expresses sincere emotion looks
> like mockery at some
> points. He's talked about this sort of dichotomy in
> interviews, so I
> don't think it's unconscious on his part. - Dan
>
What I'm fighting here is the sense of "Gay Man
Therefore Campy." There's precious little camp in
Todd. Even "Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story" is
dead serious. In fact that only real campmoment in his
entire oeuvre that I can think of is in the opening
segment of "Velvet Goldmine" when a very young Oscar
Wilde declares "I want to be a pop idol."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5641
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books
I love Halliday's book. But it should be noted that:
a) Sirk wouldn't allow him to tape, so every word attributed to Sirk is
from notes Halliday wrote down afterward.
b) Halliday, at the time, was vociferously anti-American (in ways I
essentially agree with: his book on the Korean War is utterly damning),
maybe the most anti-American anybody has ever been ever, and it's pretty
obvious he is doing everything possible to make Sirk appear to subscribe
to Halliday's unmodulated hate for America. I don't fault Halliday for
his hate. But the book is simply not a reliable reflection of Sirk's
views on America, which I think in reality were, not surprisingly, a
mixture of likes and dislikes.
What neither Halliday or Halliday's Sirk succeeds in doing (and what
films today avoid) is to make connections between American foreign
policy and domestic "bourgeois" culture.
c) A good page and a half of Sirk's words are taken verbatim from a
Cahiers interview -- without attribution.
d) Sirk himself was born in Germany of German parents. He was so
alienated by the course of Germany that he stopped speaking German and
let people (like Halliday) think he was Danish. He had left his German
wife and married a Jewish woman; the first wife kept the son, raised him
as a Hitler Youth and got the courts to bar Sirk from seeing him (even
when the son, a child moviestar, was working on neighboring sets). Sirk
stayed in Germany until 1937 in an effort to rescue his son (for which
reason he was for decades condemned as a Nazi sympathizer). There's no
doubt he found considerable comfort in America and was grateful for
this. After the war, he went back to Germany, hated the place, and
tried to find out what had happened to his son -- who had been sent to
the Russian front. His movie, A Time to Love and a Time to Die, is an
autobiographical projection of this lost son.
jpcoursodon wrote:
> .
>
> True. But let's not forget that Sirk himself has encouraged
> misreadings of his films, notably in the famous (or infamous)
> Halliday book-length interview "Sirk on Sirk". If what Sirk says in
> that book about the "message" and social criticism of Imitation of
> Life is true then I don't think his commentary on "bourgeois American
> life" is worth all that much. He sounds so superior to and
> contemptuous of his characters. "Her life is a very cheap imitation"
> etc... Of course I've been taken to task in the past for
> misunderstanding Sirk when I was just pointing out the fallacy of
> some of his unconditional admirers...
> JPC
5642
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:45pm
Subject: Re: The Reckless Moment
To be noted that it's been nearly impossible to see. Prints have not
been in distribution for years (I have one) and it's not been on tv for
years or on video.
Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
>
> I think that RECKLESS MOMENT's rep has been on the way up for many
> years,
5643
From: Tosh
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 4:50pm
Subject: Todd Haynes
With respect to David's comments on Todd Haynes' work - I am always
thinking before going to any of his films - ah this is going to be
too campy for my taste (or mood) and then seeing the work and being
totally blown away by its emotional content and his skills as a
filmmaker.
I avoided seeing The Karen Carpenter Story for a long time - and
finally saw it a couple of years ago. It's a great film and I am
amazed how he almost plays with subject matter that could be 'camp,'
but instead it's a strong work of emotional involvment and really
smart as well.
And I have nothing against 'camp,' I like it in fact. But I find it
interesting that on the surface Haynes work seems like 'camp' (the
subject matter or how the movies are marketed), but once in the
theater it is a different experience.
I am looking forward to Haynes' Bob Dylan project. It sounds great.
Does he have the dollars/currency to make this film?
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
5644
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books (Douglas Sirk)
Tag Gallagher wrote:
>....c) A good page and a half of Sirk's words are taken verbatim from a
>Cahiers interview -- without attribution.....
>
>
Yes, and it's the key stuff, such as the "happiness" and "surface of
glass" business. I know Halliday tried to get Sirk to repeat it and
failed, which is probably why he just lifted it.
I agree with most of what you wrote about Sirk, Tag. He certainly didn't
have an unqualified hatred for America. But it's also an undeniable fact
that he left at the commercial height of his career for Germany and
Switzerland. And one doesn't have to take his films as critiques of
"American materialism," I suppose, but their setting is undeniably
American, and I think the critique of materialism per se is more pointed
than in the four of his German films I've seen.
But the reference to the "Cahiers" interview brings up a search that
perhaps the collective wisdom of our group can help with. The greatest
of all Sirk interviews is the one in Cahiers 189, the first serious
interview he gave that I know of. I've read it (with the dictionary I
need to refer to often when trying to read French) and also read two
different translations. But what I have always wondered is, what
language was it originally conducted in? If that language was not
French, can a transcript of the original be obtained? My hope, of
course, is that it was conducted in English. I wrote to Cahiers more
than 30 years ago about this and never received a reply. My copy is in
storage and I don't remember the names of the interviewers, but perhaps
someone else does. The point is, is there some way to search for answers
and, one hopes, an original transcript? I would imagine that one would
begin by looking for the original interviewers.
- Fred
5645
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:01pm
Subject: Re: Far From Heaven
> What I'm fighting here is the sense of "Gay Man
> Therefore Campy."
I am sorry to be on the other side of this, because I have never wanted
to promote this identification. But this was the issue I had to fight
my way through to appreciate Haynes. I don't have a natural
appreciation for camp, and my first reaction to both SUPERSTAR and SAFE
was to reject the films' agendas as too campy for my taste. Having to
deal with the fact that I love SAFE was one of the things that forced me
to think about camp in a more complicated way than I used to. (One
result is that I have finally come to love Sternberg's THE DEVIL IS A
WOMAN!)
> There's precious little camp in
> Todd. Even "Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story" is
> dead serious. In fact that only real campmoment in his
> entire oeuvre that I can think of is in the opening
> segment of "Velvet Goldmine" when a very young Oscar
> Wilde declares "I want to be a pop idol."
Well, maybe one person's camp doesn't register on the other's
camp-o-meter. I do feel that there's an aspect of campiness in Haynes'
style, though I certainly do not deny the ultimate seriousness of the
films. - Dan
5646
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:04pm
Subject: Re: The Reckless Moment
> To be noted that it's been nearly impossible to see. Prints have not
> been in distribution for years (I have one) and it's not been on tv for
> years or on video.
And yet it's been popping up in theaters in NYC quite a lot this last
decade. Is it possible that some rights issue was cleared up? - Dan
5647
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:14pm
Subject: Re: Director's Books
I had to smile reading Fred's post where he says he would like to
read a defense of a film as pro-bourgeois. I just resaw Meet Me in
St. Louis on TCM, and Tag's delightfully acerbic entry to the
contrary notwithstanding, Minnelli was able in that film to transmute
Sam Goldwyn's institutionalized poshlost into something very fine,
and devoid of mockery.
Melodrama was the yang to the yin of the musicals for Minnelli. One
could argue that the melodramas were more personal, in that
Minnelli's own life was perhaps closer to melodrama conventions than
to musical conventions, but is The Tempest less Shakespearian than
Hamlet just because Shakespeare had a son named Hamnet? (Me, I've
always thought it highly significant that when he was forced to
rename Sir John Oldcastle in the Henriad, he gave him a name -
Falstaff - which was a pun on his own.)
The whole bourgeois thing tempts me to get in and mix it up, but I
hardly know where to begin. Perhaps "bourgeois" has become a
euphemism for "capitalist" or even "capitalism" because any use of
that word makes one a suspected Red, but the two are quite distinct,
and when you talk about the bourgeoisie you have to put that class,
which has been a key player on the scene of History for many a moon
now, into some kind of historical perspective.
To the best of my limited knowledge, Marx was not "anti-bourgeois" -
he admired enormously the achievements of that class, as members of
it who actually read him are always pleasantly dumfounded to
discover. But he was definitely anti-capitalist and advocated class
warfare (now regularly used by the Bush junta as a code word
for "Commie thinking") as the solution to the hegemony of capitalism,
whose sins are much more to be laid to the account of the upper
middle class - the billionaires - than to the middle or lower-middle
class, who can be self-satisfied porkers or pathetic dupes or
warriors against fascism depending on the historical circumstances.
One of Marx's sharpest observations about capitalism was that it
destroyed the values it created, something we see going on at high
speed today, when upward mobility, according to Business Week, has
ceased to be commonplace in American society, when IBM has announced
that its executives are the next to be outsourced to Bengal, and when
our demented attorney general is tearing up that great flawed
masterpiece, the Constitution, and getting away with it.
I have no idea what will come of this, but I think Todd Haynes'
kamikaze attack on the 50s is useful politically in one respect: with
the world those of us over forty grew up in becoming a distant
memory, nostalgia for the 40s and 50s will inevitably become a
widespread indulgence, and we need to be reminded of what Ray and
Minnelli were saying about the suburbs when they still existed in
their pristine form: "I'd go mad if I had to live there." (cf. Bigger
Than Life)
That said, as Minnelli's work illustrates, American filmmakers on the
whole had a complex relationship to the class from which they came at
a time when that class's eternal hegemony seemed assured, if we could
just convert those pesky Commies to our way of life, and so did
European filmmakers who had fled from fascism. Even Bunuel had a
complex attitude toward "his" bourgeoisie, and it makes his films
much more interesting to me than those of Chabrol, whose relentless
anti-bourgeois satire seems not to obviate expressing warm feelings
about his school chum Le Pen on French tv.
But if we observe a few simple distinctions - say, between the haute
bourgeoisie and the moyenne bourgeoisie, between "bourgeois"
and "capitalist," and between different eras of history - we can talk
about this important dimension of world cinema, at a time when full-
blown American fascism is becoming a real historical possibility,
without falling into needless wrangling. I'm sure I've committed
errors myself in this post, which is about something film critics are
notoriously ignorant of, but I hope I've made my meaning clear, and
I'd be curious to hear what others think.
5648
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books (Douglas Sirk)
Fred Camper wrote:
>
> their setting is undeniably
> American, and I think the critique of materialism per se is more pointed
> than in the four of his German films I've seen.
I'm not sure which films you feel the materialism critique is pointed.
Do you feel that the end of All That Heaven Allows, in which the
wealthy bourgeois couple are happily wed in their lavish log cabin with
picturewindow of deer is a critique of materialism or a praise of it?
Are Batle Hymn, Anybody Seen, Take me to town, Meet me at the fair,
Tarnished angels, All I desire or Tarnished angels "pointed" critiques
of materialism? (His German films are filled with critiques.)
Where are the pointed critiques of materialism, aside from the obvious
Imitation of Life and (but only as subtext) Written on the Wind?
Limiting ourselves to Sirk's American films:
Set in:
Germany: Hitler's madman. Time to love.
Russia: Summer storm (one of his best)
France: Scandal in Paris (his best).
Rome: Sign of the pagan
Ireland: Captain Lightfoot
Korea: Battle hymn (is this a critique of American materialism?)
Italy: Interlude
England: Lured
and there are some others set outside America.
Fred wrote: it's also an undeniable fact
that he left at the commercial height of his career for Germany and
Switzerland.
Yes, but no one knows why he left. Surely people who flee materialism
can find more appropriate refuges than Switzerland!
Someone who knows German should search that language for interviews and
conversations with Sirk after 1959.
5649
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:24pm
Subject: Re: Sirk
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > Sirk is considered by some people who don't know his work and
> prefer to
> > regurgitate clichés from others who don't know his work to the
> effect
> > that Sirk was making commentary on bourgeois American l life --
> > specifically, they mean acidic commentary, since (as we know) it's
> > difficult to think of any American filmmaker who has not made
> commentary
> > on bourgeois American life.
>
> True. But let's not forget that Sirk himself has encouraged
> misreadings of his films, notably in the famous (or infamous)
> Halliday book-length interview "Sirk on Sirk". If what Sirk says in
> that book about the "message" and social criticism of Imitation of
> Life is true then I don't think his commentary on "bourgeois
American
> life" is worth all that much. He sounds so superior to and
> contemptuous of his characters. "Her life is a very cheap imitation"
> etc... Of course I've been taken to task in the past for
> misunderstanding Sirk when I was just pointing out the fallacy of
> some of his unconditional admirers...
> JPC
For what it's worth, I have always had a huge problem viewing Sirk
both subversive (in the sense of smuggling a messege into the text)
and as social critic. While I consider Sirk a master, who could take
the most corny love story and elevate it to something extraordinary
beautiful, I have always had problems accepting his interpretations of
his own work.
Laura Mulvay wrote "The melodrama (of Sirk) is part of american myth..
. an aspiration to retreat into the privacy of the new white suburbs
out of the difficulties of contemporary political life". Sirk's world
is "Americana", strictly divided in gender and class, immune and
ignorent to outside worldly events; matters which are discussed by
men.
To me, Sirk uses "myth" as a catalyst to make his protagonist undergo
resignation, only later to emerge as an independent human being. While
the resignation is a product of abiding the conservative "americana"
way of life, the emerging (awakening) is a conscious decision; Sirk's
women are not mindless zombies, but thinking beings, immune and
ignorent to outside worldly events. What Sirk's women break free of is
class, not gender, as the strict division between male and female
worlds still are intact. Thus, Sirk doesnt attack the patriarctic
gender code, nor the notion, that one can find happiness and love
within the "americana" way of life.
In "All That Heaven Allows" Cary meets resignation when she has to
chose between her children and her heart. This is no critism of
society, but a melodramatic function (girl loses boy). We can
interpret the motif, but they are still within the bounderies of the
"myth". Even as the children abandon Cary, as she faces solitude,
society stands, even as Cary then makes the choice to follow her heart
and not do what is expected of her. Sirk then, as a footnote, points
out, that she made the right choice, by letting the children move away
from home and expose them as being social leeches. But having rejected
being a traditional mother, by the code of suburbia class, we are
still within the female world. Cary is still immune and ignorent to
the outside world, her choice stands as one made of love and should
not be read in the context of political events in the Eisenhower era.
Henrik
5650
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:26pm
Subject: Re: The Reckless Moment
Decade?
I'm told that Sony restored it, and then found out Columbia doesn't own
it. Entertainment Corporation of America used to sell excellent 16mm
prints of it quite cheaply -- twenty years ago. Whether it's never on
tv because of rights mix-up or because (as I've been told) the owners
want too much money, I don't know.
You should all see La signora di tutti!
Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > To be noted that it's been nearly impossible to see. Prints have not
> > been in distribution for years (I have one) and it's not been on tv for
> > years or on video.
>
> And yet it's been popping up in theaters in NYC quite a lot this last
> decade. Is it possible that some rights issue was cleared up? - Dan
>
5651
From:
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:30pm
Subject: Re: The Reckless Moment
> > To be noted that it's been nearly impossible to see. Prints have
not
> > been in distribution for years (I have one) and it's not been on
tv for
> > years or on video.
>
It's probably a somewhat dodgy copy, but you can find it on VHS here:
www.bestvideo.com
5652
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:39pm
Subject: Re: Far From Heaven
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
my first reaction to both
> SUPERSTAR and SAFE
> was to reject the films' agendas as too campy for my
> taste. Having to
> deal with the fact that I love SAFE was one of the
> things that forced me
> to think about camp in a more complicated way than I
> used to. (One
> result is that I have finally come to love
> Sternberg's THE DEVIL IS A
> WOMAN!)
I still fail to see the camp in "Safe." It's one of
the grimmest films ever made. Here's a character
willing to annihilate what little personality she has
in a desperate attempt to regain her health -- a fight
she's destined to lose.
"Safe" is most definitely an AIDS film. Todd brings
AIDS out of the "safety" of the "gay world" into the
"reality" of "normal" America.
"The Devil is a Woman" ROCKS.
My favorite moment: Atwill trying to get Dietrich's
attention while she primps in the mirror. Finally she
says "Just a minute and I'll give you a kiss."
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5653
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:43pm
Subject: Re: Todd Haynes
The last I heard from Christine, Todd was still
working on the script. Dylan has given him his
permission to use any of his songs that he wants. This
is a major breakthrough as Todd was in a protracted
struggle to get David Bowie songs for "Velvet
Goldmine" -- and the bitch wouldn't give him ONE!
Todd's living in Portland now, as is Gus -- thus
making Portland the gay auteur epicenter of the
universe.
--- Tosh wrote:
> With respect to David's comments on Todd Haynes'
> work - I am always
> thinking before going to any of his films - ah this
> is going to be
> too campy for my taste (or mood) and then seeing the
> work and being
> totally blown away by its emotional content and his
> skills as a
> filmmaker.
>
> I avoided seeing The Karen Carpenter Story for a
> long time - and
> finally saw it a couple of years ago. It's a great
> film and I am
> amazed how he almost plays with subject matter that
> could be 'camp,'
> but instead it's a strong work of emotional
> involvment and really
> smart as well.
>
> And I have nothing against 'camp,' I like it in
> fact. But I find it
> interesting that on the surface Haynes work seems
> like 'camp' (the
> subject matter or how the movies are marketed), but
> once in the
> theater it is a different experience.
>
> I am looking forward to Haynes' Bob Dylan project.
> It sounds great.
> Does he have the dollars/currency to make this film?
> --
> Tosh Berman
> TamTam Books
> http://www.tamtambooks.com
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5654
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:57pm
Subject: La signora di tutti
> You should all see La signora di tutti!
Is it unavailable? I remember it having a theatrical release in LA in
the early 80s, and I think it played in the Ophuls retro in NYC during
the last five years. (Which Todd Haynes attended - I remember seeing
him at DIVINE.) - Dan
5655
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 6:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books (Douglas Sirk)
Tag Gallagher wrote:
>....Do you feel that the end of All That Heaven Allows, in which the
>wealthy bourgeois couple are happily wed in their lavish log cabin with
>picturewindow of deer is a critique of materialism or a praise of it? ....
>
Neither and both. I find it impossible to take the deer as simply an
image of the happy nature they will now enjoy. It is one of many endings
in which objects replace characters, a line that stretches back at least
as far as the dance-book at the end of "Summer Storm," but also
continues with "A Scandal in Paris" and (I believe) "No Room For the
Groom," onward to the most devastating endings of all, those of "A Time
to Love and a Time to Die" (love letter) and "Imitation of Life" (coffin
and funeral decor).
There's also the matter of the interior decor of Kirby's mill. The first
time we see it it is rough and unfinished. When he shows it off to
Carrie in the hope of winning her over it is now decorated and livable
but "rustic." But the third time we see it, when she comes after the
accident, it has been fixed up in a manner more consistent with her own
home. As he says, he is well aware of how easy it would be to be changed
by her, which she translates as the "love" he put into it.
Throughout Sirk's oeuvre, objects have a peculiar power, one that can
devalue the people. This occurs on an obvious level (the robot toy in
"There's Always Tomorrow") but more subtly in the way Sirk ends a scene
in that film on a doll. What Sirk is really doing is much more than
critiquing materialism; he comes close to constructing an ontology
(insofar as one can "construct an ontology") in which the existence of
humans is qualified at best. When materialism (not philosophical
materialism, but a fascination with or fixation on the objects of
American culture) enters into his stories, he treats it the way he
treats the masked dancers in "The Tarnished Angels" -- as a threat to
the protagonists' humanity.
Perhaps because of my particular view of Sirk, "Has Anybody Seen My
Gal," "Meet Me at the Fair," and "Take Me to Town" are minor films,
though great ones.
- Fred
>
>
>Where are the pointed critiques of materialism, aside from the obvious
>Imitation of Life and (but only as subtext) Written on the Wind?
>
>
5656
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books (Douglas Sirk)
Fred Camper wrote:
> Neither and both.
I think this is one of the best things I've ever read about Sirk.
Where I fault you is in your inability to acknowledge a happy ending as
such -- not only in Has Anybody etc (and his own favorite picture, A
Scandal in Paris) -- but in All That Heaven Allows.
Sure people's objects are important, but you are arguing that all
objects -- therefore, all human art -- dehumanizes us ("the existence of
humans is qualified at best"). Well, if art qualifies my existence, I
can't imagine a happier fate than being qualified by Mozart and Bach.
Again my critique is that you deny the possibility of a happy ending.
Sure, a happy ending is always ironic, liked Stendhal's dedication to
"the happy few." You can argue that the ending of All That is as
unrealistic, and therefore fanciful, as that of Mr Smith Goes to
Washington. But this is a far more transcendent sense of irony than you
are arguing for, one that enriches rather than contradicts the happy ending.
I think Rock's cabin is nice. Today it would might sell for
$10,000,000, but why be materialistic about it? It's a fine place, true
to the spirit of Thoreau, not to be knocked merely because it's warm,
has electricity, a kitchen, plumbing, some soft pillows, some flowers, a
stationwagon outside and a woman inside (which you argue is a compromise
to manly spartan values). If a deer peered into my window, I'd think it
was groovy and I wouldn't start masochistically faulting my purity
because I'm not standing naked outside in the deer's shit, the snow,
freezing.
To argue that this is some kind of lampoon of American values is just
ridiculous -- I say that as humbly as I can (maybe I'm just hopelessly
naive). What's that line of Mencken's about some people not being able
to stand the idea that someone somewhere somehow might actually be happy?
5657
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 7:55pm
Subject: Re: Director books
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> I love Halliday's book. But it should be noted that:
>
> a) Sirk wouldn't allow him to tape, so every word attributed to
Sirk is
> from notes Halliday wrote down afterward.
>
So that Halliday could put pretty much whatever words in Sirk's mouth
he wanted.
> b) Halliday, at the time, was vociferously anti-American (in ways I
> essentially agree with: his book on the Korean War is utterly
damning),
> maybe the most anti-American anybody has ever been ever, and it's
pretty
> obvious he is doing everything possible to make Sirk appear to
subscribe
> to Halliday's unmodulated hate for America. I don't fault Halliday
for
> his hate. But the book is simply not a reliable reflection of
Sirk's
> views on America, which I think in reality were, not surprisingly,
a
> mixture of likes and dislikes.
> What neither Halliday or Halliday's Sirk succeeds in doing (and
what
> films today avoid) is to make connections between American foreign
> policy and domestic "bourgeois" culture.
>
I agree completely, but how can you "love" a book that you say
is "not a reliable reflection of Sirk's view" when the purpose of the
interview was ostensibly to be just that -- a reliable reflection?
> c) A good page and a half of Sirk's words are taken verbatim from a
> Cahiers interview -- without attribution.
>
And we all know how high-handed Cahiers were with their
trasncriptions/translations of their interviews, so there is no
reason to believe the Cahiers text is more accurate than Halliday's.
>
> JPC
>
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > .
> >
> > True. But let's not forget that Sirk himself has encouraged
> > misreadings of his films, notably in the famous (or infamous)
> > Halliday book-length interview "Sirk on Sirk". If what Sirk says
in
> > that book about the "message" and social criticism of Imitation of
> > Life is true then I don't think his commentary on "bourgeois
American
> > life" is worth all that much. He sounds so superior to and
> > contemptuous of his characters. "Her life is a very cheap
imitation"
> > etc... Of course I've been taken to task in the past for
> > misunderstanding Sirk when I was just pointing out the fallacy of
> > some of his unconditional admirers...
> > JPC
5658
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 9:58pm
Subject: Sirk interview in Cahiers #189
Fred,I dug up the issue of Cahiers you asked about. Sirk was
interviewed by Serge Daney and Jean-Louis Noames (a taped interview)
but it doesn't say in what language. Cahiers never specified in what
languages their interviews were conducted, as far as I remember. I
doubt very much that they kept the tapes all that time but who knows?
Of course Daney can no longer be reached. I don't know about Noames.
Comolli, who wrote a fine article in that issue, might know. Maybe
you could ask our Cahier man Bill Krohn to inquire.
JPC
5659
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:18pm
Subject: Re: Far From Heaven
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> my first reaction to both
> > SUPERSTAR and SAFE
> > was to reject the films' agendas as too campy for my
> > taste. Having to
> > deal with the fact that I love SAFE was one of the
> > things that forced me
> > to think about camp in a more complicated way than I
> > used to. (One
> > result is that I have finally come to love
> > Sternberg's THE DEVIL IS A
> > WOMAN!)
>
> I fail to see the camp in DEVIL. Do you agree with Sontag who
labelled as camp "the outrageous aestheticism of Sternberg six
American movies with Dietrich, all six but especially the last, The
Devil Is a Woman"? Camp is certainly in the eye of the beholder.
DEVIL is the most openly and delightfully masochistic of
JVS's films. Perhaps there's an intrinsic campiness about masochism.
JPC
/
5660
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:54pm
Subject: Re: Sirk interview in Cahier #189
Serge spoke Englsih well; I don't know about Skorecki. My guess is
that the tapes weren't kept, but I can ask.
There's another Sirk interview that appeared in 1978, done by Biette
and a Positif critic at Locarno and published simultaneously in both
magazines. I'm sure it was accurate, because they invited me to
listen with them and make sure they got it right-I couldn't because I
was in France to work and had no spare time. It's a good interview,
and the article by Biette is good, too - it was reprinted in Poetique
des auteurs.
5661
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: Far From Heaven
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > I fail to see the camp in DEVIL.
Wow. That's kind of like failing to see that "An
American in Paris" is a musical.
Do you agree
> with Sontag who
> labelled as camp "the outrageous aestheticism of
> Sternberg six
> American movies with Dietrich, all six but
> especially the last, The
> Devil Is a Woman"?
Definitely.
Camp is certainly in the eye of
> the beholder.
Not really.
There are two varieties of camp: intentional and
unintentional. Sternberg and Dietrich know exactly
what they're doing in creating their films together --
works that have nothing whatsoever to do with
conventional realism PARTICULARLY at the emotional
level. The Marlene Dietrich of those films existed
purely on celluloid. Just like the characters in
Firbank and Beckford.
> DEVIL is the most openly and delightfully
> masochistic of
> JVS's films. Perhaps there's an intrinsic campiness
> about masochism.
>
Oh it's definitely campy about masochism. Masochism,
expecially when theatricalized, lends itself to camp.
I don't think it's possible to read"The Story of O"
without giggling. Much of Sade is camp. Robbe-Grillet
often aspires to camp, but falls short, IMO.
Bacon knew the camp side of masochism quite well, but
there's little of it in his actual work.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5662
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Dec 27, 2003 11:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sirk interview in Cahier #189
hotlove666 wrote:
>...There's another Sirk interview that appeared in 1978....
>
I read that at the time, and found it interesting but not revelatory. I
also have a 1977 interview with Sirk (and another with Robert Stack) in
the French "Cinema," interviewers Biette and Rabourdin, and again I made
some inquiries; in this case the original was in English, because
Berenice Reynaud is credited as translator, but she didn't have the
English original when I wrote to her.
Bill, any help on locating the originals on any of these would be much
appreciated. Mainly I just want to read them, but if the copyright
holders consented I could also put them on the Web.
- Fred
5663
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 0:20am
Subject: Re: Sirk interview in Cahier #189
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Serge spoke Englsih well; I don't know about Skorecki. My guess is
> that the tapes weren't kept, but I can ask.
>
> There's another Sirk interview that appeared in 1978, done by
Biette
> and a Positif critic at Locarno and published simultaneously in
both
> magazines. I'm sure it was accurate, because they invited me to
> listen with them and make sure they got it right-I couldn't because
I
> was in France to work and had no spare time. It's a good interview,
> and the article by Biette is good, too - it was reprinted in
Poetique
> des auteurs.
Bill, no interview with Sirk by Biette and "a Positif critic" was
ever published in Positif. An interview with Sirk was conducted in
English by Michael Henry and Yann Tobin on April 27 and 29, 1982 in
Paris and published in Positif #259, Septembre 1982. (translation by
Tobin).
JPC
5664
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 0:48am
Subject: Re: Far From Heaven
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
> Do you agree
> > with Sontag who
> > labelled as camp "the outrageous aestheticism of
> > Sternberg six
> > American movies with Dietrich, all six but
> > especially the last, The
> > Devil Is a Woman"?
>
> Definitely.
>
I thought auteurists had gone beyond the enjoyment of Sternberg's
films as "camp". I was mistaken. Seems to me seeing the Sternberg-
Dietrich film as camp is a very reductive approach -- unless you make
a religion of camp (which of course is itself a campy attitude).
So you find his "aestheticism" "outrageous"? In what way are
you "outraged"?
> >
DEVIL is the most openly and delightfully
> > masochistic of
> > JVS's films. Perhaps there's an intrinsic campiness
> > about masochism.
> >
> Oh it's definitely campy about masochism. Masochism,
> expecially when theatricalized, lends itself to camp.
> I don't think it's possible to read"The Story of O"
> without giggling.
I didn't giggle once. That's why I said "camp is in the eye of the
beholder." But everything when theatricalized, especially to excess,
can be viewed as camp.
Much of Sade is camp. Robbe-Grillet
> often aspires to camp, but falls short, IMO.
>
But his wife doesn't...
>
Bacon knew the camp side of masochism quite well, but
> there's little of it in his actual work.
>
> Lloyd or Francis?
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
5665
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 1:18am
Subject: Re: Re: Far From Heaven
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> I thought auteurists had gone beyond the
> enjoyment of Sternberg's
> films as "camp". I was mistaken. Seems to me seeing
> the Sternberg-
> Dietrich film as camp is a very reductive approach
> -- unless you make
> a religion of camp (which of course is itself a
> campy attitude).
The problem, J-P, is that you think camp belies a lack
of seriousness. Camp is a playful attitude but it can
be as serious as a heart attack, eg. Oscar Wilde.
Robbe-Grillet
> > often aspires to camp, but falls short, IMO.
> >
>
> But his wife doesn't...
> >
HA! Now you've got it!
> Bacon knew the camp side of masochism quite well,
> but
> > there's little of it in his actual work.
> >
> > Lloyd or Francis?
> >
Francis.
When I worked as a guard at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art in New York I used to see him all the time. The
other guards were terrified of him-- because of the
paintings. But he was most charming. He used to hang
out in the galleries in the early morning before they
were open to the public to look at his own paintings.
it was as if he were looking at works someone else had
painted.
He giggled quite a lot.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5666
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 1:40am
Subject: Re: Far From Heaven
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> > >
>
> Francis.
>
> When I worked as a guard at the Metropolitan Museum of
> Art in New York I used to see him all the time. The
> other guards were terrified of him-- because of the
> paintings. But he was most charming. He used to hang
> out in the galleries in the early morning before they
> were open to the public to look at his own paintings.
> it was as if he were looking at works someone else had
> painted.
>
What an interesting life you've had! I have often wondered about
Museum guards. Where do they come from, what's their background, are
they bored etc... I may have seen you at the Museum having no idea
you were an auteurist!
I guess one way to live with one's masochism is to giggle about it.
JPC
He giggled quite a lot.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
5667
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:00am
Subject: Re: Re: Far From Heaven
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> What an interesting life you've had! I have often
> wondered about
> Museum guards. Where do they come from, what's their
> background, are
> they bored etc... I may have seen you at the Museum
> having no idea
> you were an auteurist!
>
Museum guards are overwhelmingly interesting.
Marginals by choice there are no two alike. Guarding
at the met was a very zen-like business that gave me a
lot of time to think and write.
In point of fact I've been going over that period a
lot lately as I'm working on my memoirs. As luck
wouldhave it Met director Philippe de Montebello gave
a lecture here in L.A. last week. I used to work with
him in the early 70's when he worked under Thomas
Hoving. Now he really runs the joint. Fascinating man.
Born of wealth and privilege he doesn't have a
snobbish bone in his body and has dedicated himself to
public service.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5668
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:31am
Subject: Mea culpa/My stars!/My God!
Mea culpa: I don't have my CdC collecttion with me in Kentucky, and I
couldn't remember Rabourdin's name. I do remember Jean-Claude telling
me at the time that the interview was being published in two places,
though. Anyway, we're all talking about the same interview. Chances
of a transcript surviving are slight. I save all mine, but my Cahiers
colleagues don't seem to.
My stars, M. C.! Who is Robbe-Grillet's wife, anyway?
My God, David! You're writing your memoirs? Now I know why you quoted
Mae West in your Jackson article for the Weekly.
5669
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:40am
Subject: Re: Mea culpa/My stars!/My God!
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> My stars, M. C.! Who is Robbe-Grillet's wife,
> anyway?
Catherine Robbe-Grillet has appeared in several of her
husband's films in small roles.
J-P was referring to their off-screen/off-page
relationship.
>
> My God, David! You're writing your memoirs? Now I
> know why you quoted
> Mae West in your Jackson article for the Weekly.
>
HAH!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5670
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:58am
Subject: Re: Mea culpa/My stars!/My God!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Mea culpa: I don't have my CdC collecttion with me in Kentucky, and
I
> couldn't remember Rabourdin's name. I do remember Jean-Claude
telling
> me at the time that the interview was being published in two
places,
> though. Anyway, we're all talking about the same interview. Chances
> of a transcript surviving are slight. I save all mine, but my
Cahiers
> colleagues don't seem to.
>
> My stars, M. C.! Who is Robbe-Grillet's wife, anyway?
>
>.
This was a little private joke between David and me , Bill. She is
into BDSM and she wrote the "Story of O" rip-off "The Image" under a
pseudonym. She once appeared on the Pivot show wearing a mask. How
more campy can you get?
JPC
5671
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:02am
Subject: Re: Mea culpa/My stars!/My God!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> >
> > My stars, M. C.! Who is Robbe-Grillet's wife,
> > anyway?
>
> Catherine Robbe-Grillet has appeared in several of her
> husband's films in small roles.
>
> J-P was referring to their off-screen/off-page
> relationship.
>
> >
> > My God, David! You're writing your memoirs? Now I
> > know why you quoted
> > Mae West in your Jackson article for the Weekly.
> >
>
> HAH!
>
> Aren't we all writing our memoirs on-line?
Re: Catherine. "I hope I haven't said anything I oughtn't" as
Eliza Doolittle said
> __________________ JPC________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
5672
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:24am
Subject: Haynes/Russell/Sternberg/Camp
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
In fact that only real campmoment in his
> entire oeuvre that I can think of is in the opening
> segment of "Velvet Goldmine" when a very young Oscar
> Wilde declares "I want to be a pop idol."
Speaking of camp, I really thought that Nicholas Roeg and
particularly Ken Russell should have filed a law suite against Todd
Haynes with his Velvet Goldmine. I think Haynes' film owes a bit to
Russell's Lisztomania, yet Haynes' film was applauded while Russell's
was, and still is, reviled. (I also think; going way back to the
posts on major/minor musicals that Russell's The Boyfriend is a
major… okay, let the torrents of protest begin.)
In regards to Sternberg, The Scarlet Empress first struck me as the
results of a Hollywood mogul mistaking camp for good taste - Louise
Dresser as a Russian Empress colliding with a pastiche of Tchaikovsky-
yet my friend Jack Angstreich read me Robin Wood's essay on the film
which totally turned me around on the film. Have you read that essay
David? Wood makes a very compelling argument of what JPC was writing
about.
5673
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 7:01am
Subject: Re: Silhouettes
Wise uses silhouettes to sell a dud love duet between Andrews and
Plummer in The Sound of Music. Kind of kitschy, but in a fun Ken
Russell way.
5674
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:16am
Subject: Re: Silhouettes
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Wise uses silhouettes to sell a dud love duet between Andrews and
> Plummer in The Sound of Music. Kind of kitschy, but in a fun Ken
> Russell way.
I haven't seen `The Sound of Music' in its entirety since my sister
dragged me to it when I was 9 years old, and all I remember from that
viewing was that it was shown in 70mm. A week later she talked me
into seeing Zeffirelli's adaptation of Romeo & Juliet which I walked
out of.
Of all the directors I like, most of them are listed in my Yahoo
profile, Ken Russell is the one director I take the most heat on. I
believe he shares a relationship/tradition with the Aesthetic
movement of 1800's Europe, which Wilde came out of, and that he
posses a true and dynamic cinematic voice rather than a simple minded
button pusher he is accused of being. I tend to drown in Russell's
baroque imagery, which `Lisztomania' is running over with, and I have
always found his camerawork to be breathtaking. Russell's films
strike me like the work of Mahler, (a composer Russell knows
something about), where one moment I am catapulted into a volcanic
eruption and then wrapped in a tender embrace. The sex scene on the
couch between Blair Brown and William Hurt in `Altered States' is a
perfect example of this, various forms of passion being interchanged.
Sometimes I regret not writing on Russell for my undergrad studies, I
chose to further investigate the hold that John Boorman had on me,
and I also think that the British cinema from the late 60's to 80's
is unfairly dismissed.
This group is a godsend and all the exchanges on auteurism make me
feel like I am sane- my co-workers talk about film in a casual way
and think I am a nut who hates film because I just can't "enjoy it
for what it is"- but I have limited access and time to the internet
so composing statements/arguments and follow up on them is
difficult. Thanks for listening though.
5675
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Silhouettes
--- Michael Worrall wrote:
> Of all the directors I like, most of them are listed
> in my Yahoo
> profile, Ken Russell is the one director I take the
> most heat on. I
> believe he shares a relationship/tradition with the
> Aesthetic
> movement of 1800's Europe, which Wilde came out of,
> and that he
> posses a true and dynamic cinematic voice rather
> than a simple minded
> button pusher he is accused of being.
Sing Out Louise!
> Sometimes I regret not writing on Russell for my
> undergrad studies
I regret that as well. There is a death of serious
writing on Russell "The Devils" is his masterpiece.
The greatest political film ever made it throughly
explains the anti-Clinton jihaad avant la lettre. His
television films are amazing, particularly "Dante's
Inferno" and "Isadora: The Biggest Dancer in the
World." From 1968-1972 he had run of luck and was able
to confectall maner of marvelous insanity on the
grandest scale imaginable. Lately he's taken to
creating video-films in his backyard.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5676
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:46pm
Subject: Re: Haynes/Russell/Sternberg/Camp
--- Michael Worrall wrote:
> Speaking of camp, I really thought that Nicholas
> Roeg and
> particularly Ken Russell should have filed a law
> suite against Todd
> Haynes with his Velvet Goldmine. I think Haynes'
> film owes a bit to
> Russell's Lisztomania, yet Haynes' film was
> applauded while Russell's
> was, and still is, reviled.
Well that's not Todd's fault. He's a Russell fan --
and a Derek Jarman fan even more. Of course he's crazy
about "Performance" oo -- which is really Cammell's
film more than Roeg's though it's co-signed.
(I also think; going way
> back to the
> posts on major/minor musicals that Russell's The
> Boyfriend is a
> major… okay, let the torrents of protest begin.)
>
Not from me. I was just looking at it again yeserday
on video. the baccanal scene in the woods is like Don
Weis on acid.
> In regards to Sternberg, The Scarlet Empress first
> struck me as the
> results of a Hollywood mogul mistaking camp for good
> taste - Louise
> Dresser as a Russian Empress colliding with a
> pastiche of Tchaikovsky-
> yet my friend Jack Angstreich read me Robin Wood's
> essay on the film
> which totally turned me around on the film. Have
> you read that essay
> David? Wood makes a very compelling argument of
> what JPC was writing
> about.
>
Yes I've read that essay. It's not bad, but Wood is
too humorless to understand Sternberg.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5677
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 2:54pm
Subject: Re: Haynes/Russell/Sternberg/Camp
I'd agree about Wood. But I also have Big Problems with your use of the
term "camp." To me it seems to suggest much more distance and
detachment from the storybook reality on the screen.
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>--- Michael Worrall wrote:
>
>
>> Wood makes a very compelling argument of
>>what JPC was writing
>>about.
>>
>>
>>
>Yes I've read that essay. It's not bad, but Wood is
>too humorless to understand Sternberg.
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5678
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:26pm
Subject: Re: Haynes/Russell/Sternberg/Camp
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Worrall"
wrote:
>
> (I also think; going way back to the
> posts on major/minor musicals that Russell's The Boyfriend is a
> major… okay, let the torrents of protest begin.)
>
I don't know if it's major or minor ("How strange the change
from major to minor")-- don't even know if it's a "musical" in the
traditional sense, but The Boyfriend is a wonderful film that
brilliantly transcends its inherent -- and avowed -- campiness.
JPC
5679
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:33pm
Subject: Re: Russell/Sternberg/Camp/An American Tragedy
> (I also think; going way
>>back to the
>>posts on major/minor musicals that Russell's The
>>Boyfriend is a
>>major… okay, let the torrents of protest begin.)
>
> Not from me. I was just looking at it again yeserday
> on video. the baccanal scene in the woods is like Don
> Weis on acid.
I don't know what "Don Weis on acid" would be like, but it sounds pretty
cool. THE BOYFRIEND is actually one of the few Ken Russell films that I
like: the fellow's undiluted personality is just too much for me. (I
also like ALTERED STATES and the Delius film.)
>>In regards to Sternberg, The Scarlet Empress first
>>struck me as the
>>results of a Hollywood mogul mistaking camp for good
>>taste - Louise
>>Dresser as a Russian Empress colliding with a
>>pastiche of Tchaikovsky-
>> yet my friend Jack Angstreich read me Robin Wood's
>>essay on the film
>>which totally turned me around on the film. Have
>>you read that essay
>>David? Wood makes a very compelling argument of
>>what JPC was writing
>>about.
Even though I now love THE DEVIL IS A WOMAN, THE SCARLET EMPRESS still
brushes me back a little bit. I'm interested in how the movie speaks to
us through the decor, and how the set design manages to be completely
fantastic (as in "fantasy") while still retaining enough ambivalence
about the pseudo-Orthodox gargoyle sculpture that the film doesn't
become pure expressionism. (The mixture of semi-plausible religious
gloom-and-doom and out-and-out sadomasochism is balanced in an
interesting way.) But the "camp" in the performances, or rather in the
way the characters are conceived, is so overt that I can't get a
foothold. In particular, I'm troubled at the way Dietrich's
goo-goo-eyed innocent transforms into Mae West, without either extreme
of the performance really illuminating the other or creating any
interesting in-between areas. It just seems like two shticks. Really,
she doesn't become interesting to me until that last shot where she's
raving on top of the staircase. The supporting actors do more for the
film: I find Louise Dresser's character pretty inspired.
Whereas THE DEVIL IS A WOMAN is forever contrasting Dietrich's sham
seductiveness with the stoical reactions of her admirers/victims. So
the "camp" of her performance and her alleged allure is always
interacting with some other, less outlandish mode. And then she moves
in and out of her masquerade more easily than in EMPRESS, which makes
her genuinely elusive, though not genuinely erotic.
> Yes I've read that essay. It's not bad, but Wood is
> too humorless to understand Sternberg.
It may not need to be said, but talking about "camp" in these films is
not the same as not taking them seriously. Personally, I'm not much
interested in camp for its own sake: it's always an element that I have
to work with actively, try to figure out what good it can be
contributing. As a younger person I just recoiled from it, and I still
don't have an easy time integrating it into the big picture.
One more Sternberg comment: I just revisited his stunning AN AMERICAN
TRAGEDY, and am more in awe of it than ever. There's something I've
always wanted cinema to do, some way of fashioning the unordered bits
and pieces of life into a new unity without denying their randomness,
that this movie does brilliantly: in a completely different way, I feel
that Pialat sometimes manages this feat also. I think AMERICAN TRAGEDY
contains the keys to unlock the mystery of why Sternberg might have
wanted to film an entire life from beginning to end - really, the film
is not so far from that concept as it stands.
The last half-hour of courtroom stuff, rather good in itself, always
seems a comedown after the astonishing floating meditation of the first
hour. The broken-backed structure is a pretty big problem to overlook,
but I feel like overlooking it and calling this film one of my favorites
of all time. - Dan
5680
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:44pm
Subject: Re: Haynes/Russell/Sternberg/Camp
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> I'd agree about Wood. But I also have Big Problems with your use
of the
> term "camp." To me it seems to suggest much more distance and
> detachment from the storybook reality on the screen.
>
> David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> >--- Michael Worrall wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Wood makes a very compelling argument of
> >>what JPC was writing
> >>about.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Yes I've read that essay. It's not bad, but Wood is
> >too humorless to understand Sternberg.
> >
> >
> >
> To Tag: the moment one uses the term "camp" there's bound to be
big problems. David thinks Sternberg is campy and i know what he
means yet I don't think JVS is campy at all so we don't define the
term in the same way. Different "sensibilities" (to use the Sontag
terminology), I guess.
To David: having too much "humor" can also be a hindrance to
understanding. I'm not saying that we should be dead serious all the
time, but seeing JVS's films as tongue-in-cheek jokes seems to me
impoverishing. Sontag again: "The whole point of camp is to
dethrone the serious." Okay but what do you put on that throne in its
place?
JPC
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
5681
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: Haynes/Russell/Sternberg/Camp
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> I don't know if it's major or minor ("How
> strange the change
> from major to minor")-- don't even know if it's a
> "musical" in the
> traditional sense, but The Boyfriend is a wonderful
> film that
> brilliantly transcends its inherent -- and avowed --
> campiness.
>
J-P did you know that Max Adrian was dying while he
made "The Boy Friend." In point of fact, he was so
close to the end that he insisted to Russell that
should he buy the farm on camera that he be popped
into a wheelchair and the shooting go on as planned.
That suggestion inspired the wheelchair ballet that
Russell created for the "It's Never Too late to Fall
in Love" number. For his part Adrian survived the
shooting and popped off right afterwards.
A very great performer Adrian created the role of
Dr.Pangloss in the original production of Bernstein's
"Candide." His rendition of "The Best of AllPossible
Worlds" on the original cast album is definitive.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5682
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:03pm
Subject: Re: Re: Haynes/Russell/Sternberg/Camp
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > To Tag: the moment one uses the term "camp"
> there's bound to be
> big problems. David thinks Sternberg is campy and i
> know what he
> means yet I don't think JVS is campy at all so we
> don't define the
> term in the same way. Different "sensibilities" (to
> use the Sontag
> terminology), I guess.
I think you're mistaking camp for mere frivolity.
That's not it at all.
>
> To David: having too much "humor" can also be a
> hindrance to
> understanding. I'm not saying that we should be dead
> serious all the
> time, but seeing JVS's films as tongue-in-cheek
> jokes seems to me
> impoverishing.
They're NOT "tongue-in-cheek jokes." When Dietrich
waves away Sam Jaffe's sword with a wisp of chiffon in
"The Scarlet Empress" it's a moment of sublime camp
that underscores the fact that her sexual power trumps
mere brute force every time. A very serious point.
Sontag again: "The whole point of
> camp is to
> dethrone the serious." Okay but what do you put on
> that throne in its
> place?
Dethroning is its own reward. C'est La Revolution!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5683
From: jerome_gerber
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:10pm
Subject: Re: Russell (Alan Bates)
Alan Bates passed away last night at 69. Work with Russell,
Losey, Frankenheimer, Richardson, Forbes, Schlesinger, Reed,
Cacoyannis, Torre-Nilsson, deBroca, Mazursky, Pinter, Lindsay
Anderson...and I'm sure i left a couple out...still remember vividly
his dance with Quinn and his wrestling with Oliver Reed.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > I don't know if it's major or minor ("How
> > strange the change
> > from major to minor")-- don't even know if it's a
> > "musical" in the
> > traditional sense, but The Boyfriend is a wonderful
> > film that
> > brilliantly transcends its inherent -- and avowed --
> > campiness.
> >
>
> J-P did you know that Max Adrian was dying while he
> made "The Boy Friend." In point of fact, he was so
> close to the end that he insisted to Russell that
> should he buy the farm on camera that he be popped
> into a wheelchair and the shooting go on as planned.
> That suggestion inspired the wheelchair ballet that
> Russell created for the "It's Never Too late to Fall
> in Love" number. For his part Adrian survived the
> shooting and popped off right afterwards.
>
> A very great performer Adrian created the role of
> Dr.Pangloss in the original production of Bernstein's
> "Candide." His rendition of "The Best of AllPossible
> Worlds" on the original cast album is definitive.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
5684
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:23pm
Subject: TEQUILA SUNRISE
Does this mean you watched THE SOUND OF MUSIC on TV yesterday?
I opted for Towne's TEQUILA SUNRISE which is occasionally mentioned in
screenwriting discussions.
Interesting scene near the end has Pieffer telling Gibson "I love you"
repeatedly -- was a failed attempt (or homage to himself?) to duplicate the
famous "My sister, my daughter" scene in CHINATOWN.
Open question: anyone mindful of similarly written scenes where a writer
'repeats' a successful writing point from one movie in another? Can such a
well-written plot line work only once?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Wise uses silhouettes to sell a dud love duet between Andrews and
> Plummer in The Sound of Music. Kind of kitschy, but in a fun Ken
> Russell way.
5685
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Haynes/Russell/Sternberg/Camp
Agreed. But why do you call it "camp"?
A note: I have always had the impression that the official rediscovery
of "old" Hollywood movies, thus of auteurism, began in NYC with
screenings of von Sternberg films (at the old Thalia (?) ) which made a
hit with gay audiences because they were taken as "camp." I disliked
the term then, for the same reasons JPC cites, and thought the audiences
essentially missed the point of von Sternberg's movies. To me, there is
nothing "camp" about the moment you cite with the chiffon.
Maybe we could find agreement if you'd tell us what you mean by "camp."
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> When Dietrich
> waves away Sam Jaffe's sword with a wisp of chiffon in
> "The Scarlet Empress" it's a moment of sublime camp
> that underscores the fact that her sexual power trumps
> mere brute force every time. A very serious point.
>
5686
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: Russell (Alan Bates)
--- jerome_gerber wrote:
> Alan Bates passed away last night at 69. Work with
> Russell,
> Losey, Frankenheimer, Richardson, Forbes,
> Schlesinger, Reed,
> Cacoyannis, Torre-Nilsson, deBroca, Mazursky,
> Pinter, Lindsay
> Anderson...and I'm sure i left a couple out...still
> remember vividly
> his dance with Quinn and his wrestling with Oliver
> Reed.
>
My favorite Bates performance is the
Schlesinger-Bennett telefilm "An Englishman Abroad." A
solid hour of pure acting heaven. Never seen anything
like it before or since. The last shot of Bates in his
new suit going out for a very brisk jaunt --and eyeing
a passing sailor in the process -- is how I'll always
remember him.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5687
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:58pm
Subject: Re: Silhouettes
My original silhouette / profile question was seeking (for no particular reason
other than learning more about cinema -- I am neither a formal student nor
public commentator on cinema) to know if certain directors used silhouettes
or profiles regularly in their films.
In my mind, I was limiting the question to the facial silhouette and profile. I
think one could reference a few movies of the Barrymore (DINNER AT
EIGHT) and Garbo (QUEEN CHRISTINA) profiles.
Certainly, there are directors / cinematographers who prefer the half-lit facial
close up (?Harry Lime in THE THIRD MAN)
What I am trying to get at is certain 'still images' that stay with me.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Wise uses silhouettes to sell a dud love duet between Andrews and
> Plummer in The Sound of Music. Kind of kitschy, but in a fun Ken
> Russell way.
5688
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Silhouettes
Michael, what did you think of Boorman's autobiography?
5689
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:07pm
Subject: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
Again, a question calling on our collective knowledge three decades ago
Stuart Byron wrote an article on Minnelli in which he argued that
Minnelli's main theme was "freedom." As far as I know, this was never
published. Am I wrong; was it in fact published somewhere?
- Fred
5690
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:42pm
Subject: Re: TEQUILA SUNRISE
ER - If you took out the repetitions (of lines, situations, plot
points), Hawks' oeuvre would be 40 percent shorter than it currently
is. And it works.
5691
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:51pm
Subject: Re: Silhouettes
ER - I watch Sound of Music every Christmas with my sister. It's one
of her favorite films.
The scene in question is probably the only song in Sound of Music
that isn't famous, the duet between Laurence Harvey and Julie Andrews
when he finally breaks down and tells her he loves her, and she
replies. Part of it is sung by silhouettes of their heads, and part
by full-figure silhouettes symmetrically posed, like one of those
silhoette cut-out from the 18th Century, against a brilliant blue-lit
background. It certainly saves the song from a) its own insipidity
and b) the lack of chemistry between the co-stars. One of the nicest
scenes in the film.
After that they go right to the big "church wedding," with everyone
in the cathedral singing "How do you solve a riddle like Maria?"
THAT's camp!
5692
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:54pm
Subject: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
Fred - I have no idea.
How does your formalist approach permit you to argue a value
distinction between the musicals and the mellers? Are they, first of
all, markedly different in their visual styles?
5693
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
hotlove666 wrote:
>...How does your formalist approach permit you to argue a value
>distinction between the musicals and the mellers? Are they, first of
>all, markedly different in their visual styles?....
>
>
>
Actually, to paraphrase something that Brakhage once said about men and
women versus human differences, I think "The Pirate" is more different
from "An American in Paris" than it is from "Some Came Running," or
something like that. The differences among melodramas and among musicals
are huge huge, as well as between different comedies -- "Father of the
Bride" has a lot to do with some of the late 'Scope family melodramas,
and not much at all to do with "Bells Are Ringing," which, in my view,
is not very good. Then there's also his one real bomb, "Kismet"
(Minnelli lays an egg, to borrow a joke from "The Band Wagon") -- what
does that have to do with, except maybe his desire to make "Lust for
Life"? Anyway, I should finish writing this darn thing, which is really
only about three films; assuming it appears as expected I'll post the
url when it does.
- Fred
5694
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:26pm
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
--- Fred Camper wrote:
Then there's also his one real
> bomb, "Kismet"
> (Minnelli lays an egg, to borrow a joke from "The
> Band Wagon")
Well it's certainly minor and Minnelli didn't
reallywant to do it,but was contracturally obligated
tod so. I treasure it for Dolores Gray's "Not Since
Nineveh" number.
So you could say it's really Jack Cole's film.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5695
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Haynes/Russell/Sternberg/Camp
--- Tag Gallagher wrote:
> Agreed. But why do you call it "camp"?
>
> A note: I have always had the impression that the
> official rediscovery
> of "old" Hollywood movies, thus of auteurism, began
> in NYC with
> screenings of von Sternberg films (at the old Thalia
> (?) ) which made a
> hit with gay audiences because they were taken as
> "camp." I disliked
> the term then, for the same reasons JPC cites, and
> thought the audiences
> essentially missed the point of von Sternberg's
> movies. To me, there is
> nothing "camp" about the moment you cite with the
> chiffon.
>
> Maybe we could find agreement if you'd tell us what
> you mean by "camp."
>
You're equating camp with simple mockery. That's not
what camp is about. It's an appreciation of the
ridiculous bolstered by an irreverant attitude towards
pomposity. "The Scarlet Empress" is the opposite of a
tortured "serious" film about catherine the Great. In
its giddiness it deals with the machinations of power
and sexualityfar more profoundly than a sober
"realistic" drama could have.
That's one form of camp. Other serious camp
practitioners in this mode would include Jean Cocteau,
Jack Smith, Derek Jarman, Ken Russell in "The Devils,"
"The Boy Friend," and "Lisztomania," Fassbinder in
"The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant," George Cukor in
"The Women" and "Sylvia Scarlet," and Charles Walters
in the "A Great Lady Has An Interview" number he
staged for "Ziegfeld Follies."
Camp as free-flowing attitude is part of an audience's
appreciation of the moviegoing experience. The Maria
Montex cult is an expression of this. There are any
number of "bad" films but "Cobra Woman," "Arabian
Nights," "Ali Bab and the 40 Thieves" and "Gypsy
Wildcat" are something special. Technically they're
well-made. But they come alive because Montez has such
onviction in what she's doing. She reads every corny
line as if it were Racine.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5696
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:42pm
Subject: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
--- Fred Camper wrote:
> Again, a question calling on our collective
> knowledge three decades ago
> Stuart Byron wrote an article on Minnelli in which
> he argued that
> Minnelli's main theme was "freedom." As far as I
> know, this was never
> published. Am I wrong; was it in fact published
> somewhere?
>
Yes it as.The article is called "On a Clear Day You
Can See Minnelli" and it was published in "December: A
magazine of the Arts and Opinion" Volume XV, Number 1
& 2, 1973.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
5697
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:47pm
Subject: Re: Haynes/Russell/Sternberg/Camp
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> J-P did you know that Max Adrian was dying while he
> made "The Boy Friend." In point of fact, he was so
> close to the end that he insisted to Russell that
> should he buy the farm on camera that he be popped
> into a wheelchair and the shooting go on as planned.
In Russell's autobiography, Altered States a.k.a A British Picture,
he writes of an MGM executive feeling uneasy about shooting the said
scene with the ailing Adrian. Russell said that he would be sure to
capture the entire scene in an extreme long shot so if Adrain died
during the shooting, Russell could cut to the long shot and no one
would know and the show would go on.
"You are a sick man Rusell," the executive replied.
5698
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 9:22pm
Subject: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Fred Camper wrote:
> Then there's also his one real
> > bomb, "Kismet"
> > (Minnelli lays an egg, to borrow a joke from "The
> > Band Wagon")
>
In France they replaced the pastel drawing of an egg with a
drawing of turnips (navets=pop for a flop, a turkey).
>
Well it's certainly minor and Minnelli didn't
> reallywant to do it,but was contracturally obligated
> tod so. I treasure it for Dolores Gray's "Not Since
> Nineveh" number.
>
> So you could say it's really Jack Cole's film.
>
> __________________________________Ah, Dolores Gray! Camp again! You
must cherish her Madeline in "It's Always Fair Weather".
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
> http://photos.yahoo.com/
5699
From:
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:31pm
Subject: Cobra Woman (Robert Siodmak)
The one viewing of Cobra Woman (Robert Siodmak) a decade ago made it seem
like one of the most jaw-dropping color films ever made. Every scene was a riot
of brilliant colors, slathered on the screen in completely over the top
combinations. Especially lots of purple. It is not the last word in artistry in color
- but it is ceratinly one of the most adventurous color films ever made.
Would love to see it again, and do a long analysis of its technique.
Mike Grost
5700
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 28, 2003 9:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> > __________________________________Ah, Dolores
> Gray! Camp again! You
> must cherish her Madeline in "It's Always Fair
> Weather".
But of course! I've always said the most important
contributing factor to homosexuality was exposure to
Dolores Gray production numbers at an impressionable
age.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact