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.
6101
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 5:23pm
Subject: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
> Recently I've suffered through a series of films recommended by
> critics that
> had almost no plot and very thin characterization. Just saw "Lost in
> Translation" (Sophia Coppola); another extreme example is "What Time
> Is It There?"
> These films have been touted by critics as masterpieces. They have
> almost no
> story; nothing happens in them; and you know almost as little about
> the characters
> at the end of the film as you do in the beginning.
I beg to differ. While I don't think 'Lost in Translation' is a
masterpiece, I think that 'What Times Is It There?' -can- be said to be
closer to this designation. Why? Because of Tsai's treatments of
space and time; because of his ability to redefine the entire notion of
"comic timing"; because of the elegance with which he transforms his
own spiritual/magical ideas into dramatic elements and with which he
can dislocate them from any specific brand of faith so that they become
universal notions; because of the tremendous beauty of his images --
and the weird aleatory?!/not-aleatory?! occurrences/resonances within
his frame (cf. the fish snapping in 'What Time..'). "Story" isn't
absent in 'What Time Is It There?,' nor even in 'Lost in Translation'
-- the two films -have- stories albeit ones told in different ways than
the normal method of cascading "plot beats" and typical dramatic
structure. In a simple defense of the latter film, I would say that
both Bill Murray's and Scarlett Johanssen's characters here are far
more rich and resonant than "Matt Murdoch" -- because Bill Murray is
interesting, and Scarlett Johanssen is interesting (and sensitive, and
careful, and radiant), and Matt Murdoch is Ben fucking Affleck, who has
as much as screen presence as sloppily chiseled marble.
> As far as I can tell,
> neither of these films has much in the way of visual style. They seem
> to be
> exercises in Minimalism - films in which nothing happens.
I think a lot happens -- especially in 'What Time Is It There?'.
> I never liked Minimalism is painting or sculpture - always found it to
> be a
> worthless gimmick.
Broad generalizations get us nowhere. Also gets us nowhere: adherence
to absolute "-isms." One man's minimalism is another's maximalism.
So, in this case, your "worthless gimmick" isn't worthless to me, nor
does it smack of "gimmickry"; watching Tsai's film, my neurons fired at
exactly 34.8 times the rate than they did watching 'Daredevil.' Fact.
> Cinematic minimalism seems disasterous, too.
As the tail-end of your paragraph, this statement sounds paranoid and
confused, even a little cult-like -- in that it chooses not to provide
any substantial evidence to support its thesis, and in that the
admonition inevitably contains a misspelling.
> Nirgendwo in Afrika / Nowhere in Africa (Caroline Link, 2001)
I would rate this as one of the worst films I've seen last year.
Plodding pacing, sentimental dramatics, risible score, cumbersome
editing. Expansive time-frame and "one family's narrative" be damned.
> Let's go further, and really stick my neck out.
> Critics today are full of complaints about Hollywood films. They are
> vulgar,
> they are made by committee, they are disgraces to the potential of the
> film
> medium, and so on.
You're absolutely correct.
> Yet when I compare characterization in the Hollywood action
> film "Daredevil" with that in "Lost in Translation" and "What Time Is
> It
> There?", a funny thing happens. The protagonist Matt Murdock in
> "Daredevil" is
> elaborately developed. We learn his whole life history, and see him in
> many modes.
But it's done in a manner bereft of subtlety and beauty. His
life-history is based on one lurid gimmick which springboards him into
action-hero-fulfillment, which as a "mode" is neither Guermantes nor
Lee Kang-sheng.
> Matt Murdock is a vastly better developed character than anybody in
> "Lost in
> Translation" and "What Time Is It There?".
See first paragraph.
> "Daredevil" seems to be a much better work of art than "Lost in
> Translation"
> and "What Time Is It There?"
Oh, Christ. Tomorrow, let's throw lauds on 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike
Back.' Your argument would have had far more force if the staple of
comparison was, um, 'Father of the Bride' instead of 'Daredevil,' but I
think 'Lost in Translation' and 'What Time Is It There?' can hold up on
their own either way -- different modes of cinema maintain different
aesthetic strategies (maybe). 'Daredevil' has no strategy except to
set-piece the spectator's adrenaline. With that in mind, and an eye on
the sheer amount of CGI at work, 'Daredevil' is truly closer to a video
game than a movie, which seems a desirable outcome to your perfect
revisionism anyway.
craig.
6102
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 5:21pm
Subject: Re: Madison, Indiana
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> TCM regularly shows a little documentary, comparing what Madison
locations
> look like today, versus their appearance in "Some Came Running"
(Minnelli,
> 1959). It is surprizing how much more "Minnellian" everything looks
like in the
> 1959 movie. The director's choice of camera angles, staging, and
color schemes
> all combine to make these real life locations look as if they were
invented by
> and for Minnelli in the film. When you see these same locations
today in the
> documentary, they have little of any Minnelli-like feel.
> Mike Grost
They were indeed "invented" by Minnelli. I never expected anything
in a Minnelli film to look like the drab reality he may have used as
his material. The TCM docu (which they must have shown 500 times)
just confirms it.
JPC
6103
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 5:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Madison, Indiana
But does Madison look the way von Sternberg showed it? (He was a
realist, unlike Minnelli.)
> MG4273@a wrote:
>
> > TCM regularly shows a little documentary, comparing what Madison
> locations look like today, versus their appearance in "Some Came
> Running."
>
jpcoursodon wrote:
> I never expected anything
> in a Minnelli film to look like the drab reality he may have used as
> his material.
>
6104
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 5:48pm
Subject: Lost in Translation
> It return, he got the minimum from
> the relationship, and was happy with it, as are audiences with the
> movie. {the most telling point is that these people did not have
> sex together; that would have required too much effort; just drink
> with me, that's all I want}
So what you're saying is that Murray's/Johanssen's relationship would
only have been validated if they'd had sex? They'd only been seeing
each other for just over a week in the hotel, and only in passing for
the first few days at that. He's (presumably) late-40s, she
(presumably) early-20s; both are married (though we assume both
marriages came about on impetuous premises); he sets the budding
relationship back a couple steps by getting trashed and sleeping with
the horrid lounge-singer -- don't all of these factors contribute to
their situation and not unwillingness but inability to sleep together
so quickly? Who's to say what another week or two would have done?
> Coppola's skill is in tapping into this ennui, and giving the audience
> the minimum required; it was perfect. Personally, I like more engaging
> narrative, but when there is nothing to say, there is nothing to say.
I agree with Jean-Pierre's feeling that the film is something intimate,
rather than vapid. It's a light air -- extended in time an
hour-and-a-half, granted, but suitably unpretentious.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6105
From: Dave Garrett
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 5:57pm
Subject: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney" wrote:
> So many of Minnelli's films were released on laser by MGM/UA in the
> early '90s because of who was in charge of making decisions on what
> titles would get released from the Turner archives. One man in
> particular, George Feltenstein, was (and is) a big Minnelli fan and
> stated at the time that his plan was to release every Minnelli film
> on laser. And he almost made it before he and his staff were fired.
> (Some of the titles Feltenstein put out, like TWO WEEKS and THE
> COBWEB, have still only received laser release, not VHS.) We also
> have him to thank for putting out rarities like a letterboxed PARTY
> GIRL or double-disc sets of things like I LOVE MELVIN and THE BELLE
> OF NEW YORK or EASY TO LOVE and TEXAS CARNIVAL.
>
> The pitiful selection of Minnelli titles on DVD at the moment is a
> sign of the shift at work from when a small group of cinephiles are
> responsible for putting out classic titles to when a major
> corporation does it alone, as all of Turner is now released by Warner
> Bros. Warners has more titles than they can effectively handle and
> so major films languish, waiting for "restoration" before they can
> meet the supposedly high standards of the DVD format. And so we have
> (for Minnelli) no MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, no BAND WAGON, no CABIN IN
> THE SKY, no SOME CAME RUNNING (even though they released every other
> crappy Rat Pack movie last year), etc. But these films are only the
> tip of the iceberg of things Warners has yet to put out. So far, no
> Astaire/Rogers, none of the Val Lewton films, no OUT OF THE PAST, no
> Garbo (although GRAND HOTEL is due very soon), no Hitchcock Warners
> titles except for STRANGERS, no MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, and almost
> none of their classic silent titles.
Feltenstein, Allan Fisch, and that entire team at MGM/UA Home Video did
outstanding work in releasing so many otherwise obscure titles on laser,
many of which I'm convinced won't see the light of day on DVD for quite
some time. In the waning days of laserdisc, when distributors and retailers
were beginning to heavily discount their remaining inventories, I bought as
many of the MGM discs as I could at $10 each.
Feltenstein is now a senior VP at Warner Home Video, and given that
the titles formerly held by Turner via MGM/UA now belong to Warner,
he is effectively once again responsible for the DVD release of the
same catalog titles he formerly oversaw. Granted, the Byzantine
politics of a multinational colossus like Warner are probably a bit
trickier to navigate than what he may have been accustomed to dealing
with in the past, but I think Feltenstein's stewardship bodes well
for the Warner catalog titles in the long run.
The absence of virtually all the RKO films (Astaire/Rogers, Lewton, and
so on) on DVD to date is certainly vexing; nearly 200 of the RKO
features were released on laserdisc by Image and Turner, but on DVD
so far, we have CITIZEN KANE and ALICE ADAMS. Warner has claimed
that the elements to most of the RKO films are in pretty rough shape, and
will need a lot of TLC before they're ready for DVD release. That didn't
stop their release on laserdisc, but I guess we live in a new world now.
There's an interesting interview with Feltenstein at:
http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showinterview.php3?ID=55
Dave
6106
From:
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 1:02pm
Subject: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
Thank everybody for their replies!
They are very helpful.
I was not trying to lay down permanent aesthetic laws.
Rather, was trying to understand why films look so "different" to me than to
many critics and other cinephiles. My brain seems to be set on a different
film-going wavelength from the cinephile community.
It is not a matter of subtitles. A subtitled film like "Nowhere in Africa"
seems like a classic to me, while "Lost in Translation" seems like a big
nothing. There is a difference in "sensibility" here I'm not getting. Unless I ask
people to speak up and explain what is in their minds, I will never understand.
Now, after reading people's posts, I'm beginning to understand a little better
what people think.
Jean-Pierre Coursodon's post on "Voyage in Italy" (Rossellini) is very
cogent. Unfortunately, I have not seen this film in decades, and cannot comment on
it. Could I switch the discussion (unfairly perhaps) to "Stromboli", a film
seen many times here recently? The husband and wife in Stromboli seem like very
complex characters, with rich life histories, and complex responses to a huge
variety of unusual situations. They are the opposite of the stick figures I
keep seeming to see in recent "Minimalistic" films. Also, Rossellini has a
fabulous visual style. I could not see much visual style in the current so-called
"Minimalist" films.
I like some current films with simple plots, but with baroque and beautiful
visual styles. Examples:
Ghost Dog (Jim Jarmusch)
Beau Travail (Claire Denis)
The Vertical Ray of the Sun (Tran Anh Hung)
If visual style is rich and glorious, a film is certainly NOT minimalist.
Mike Grost
6107
From: Tosh
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:07pm
Subject: Re: Lost in Translation
Speaking of 'Lost in Translation,' I always thought the Bill Murray
character was based on Harrison Ford. I don't think Murray himself
think in those terms -but maybe Coppola had Ford in mind when she
wrote the character in the first place.
Harrison Ford has done numerous commercials in Japan - both shot
there and here in L.A. and he maybe thought of as an over-the-hill
action hero - who has (had) a marriage that is going through the
motions.
Now saying all this, I realize that there are many many Hollywood
stars who have done commercials in Japan - but for whatever reason
the character sort of reminds me of Harrison Ford. Was Ford ever
involved with this production? Again, this is totally a theory, and
I don't have any inside information - but it struck me strongly that
the main character is Harrison Ford (originally).
Also I think Bill Murray actually did a whiskey commercial during the
shoot of Lost in Translation or right before it. So there might be a
tie-in with the Suntory ad and the film itself.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
6108
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:09pm
Subject: Re: Lost in Translation
No, not at all. And for the sake of the 'ennui personified'
characterization, sex was forbidden. The relationship as experienced
was what these two people wanted from each other; very satisfying.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
> > It return, he got the minimum from
> > the relationship, and was happy with it, as are audiences with the
> > movie. {the most telling point is that these people did not have
> > sex together; that would have required too much effort; just drink
> > with me, that's all I want}
>
> So what you're saying is that Murray's/Johanssen's relationship would
> only have been validated if they'd had sex? They'd only been seeing
> each other for just over a week in the hotel, and only in passing for
> the first few days at that. He's (presumably) late-40s, she
> (presumably) early-20s; both are married (though we assume both
> marriages came about on impetuous premises); he sets the budding
> relationship back a couple steps by getting trashed and sleeping with
> the horrid lounge-singer -- don't all of these factors contribute to
> their situation and not unwillingness but inability to sleep together
> so quickly? Who's to say what another week or two would have done?
>
> > Coppola's skill is in tapping into this ennui, and giving the audience
> > the minimum required; it was perfect. Personally, I like more engaging=
> > narrative, but when there is nothing to say, there is nothing to say.
>
> I agree with Jean-Pierre's feeling that the film is something intimate,
> rather than vapid. It's a light air -- extended in time an
> hour-and-a-half, granted, but suitably unpretentious.
>
> craig.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6109
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:24pm
Subject: RKO on DVD
> The absence of virtually all the RKO films (Astaire/Rogers, Lewton, and
> so on) on DVD to date is certainly vexing; nearly 200 of the RKO
> features were released on laserdisc by Image and Turner, but on DVD
> so far, we have CITIZEN KANE and ALICE ADAMS.
In France, Éditions Montparnasse has recently released a medley of RKO
titles, all of which are unified by an across-the-boards blue-on-white
"RKO" packaging. There are about 15-20 titles in the series so far, I
think. You can browse through at the following address (click on
"cinéma classique" -- they bafflingly do not have a separate section on
their site for the RKO line):
www.editionsmontparnasse.fr/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6110
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:21pm
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?
"As far as I can tell,
> neither of these films has much in the way of visual style."
I'd argue that "What Time Is It There?" has a a very dynamic, still-like visual style, comparable with Bresson and Hou. Tsai's shots are almost always composed of
masters, and are either medium or long shots. The colors and stillness of these images are a visual style already, and by visual style, are you implying a Ophulsesque
moving camera? I'd argue that the visual style of Tsai's films is more beautiful and challenging to American movie goers than any decently-released foreign imports we
can find, aside from Kiarostami.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: MG4273@a...
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:28:05 EST
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
> Recently I've suffered through a series of films recommended by critics that
> had almost no plot and very thin characterization. Just saw "Lost in
> Translation" (Sophia Coppola); another extreme example is "What Time Is It There?"
> These films have been touted by critics as masterpieces. They have almost no
> story; nothing happens in them; and you know almost as little about the characters
> at the end of the film as you do in the beginning. As far as I can tell,
> neither of these films has much in the way of visual style. They seem to be
> exercises in Minimalism - films in which nothing happens.
> I never liked Minimalism is painting or sculpture - always found it to be a
> worthless gimmick. Cinematic minimalism seems disasterous, too.
>
> There are plenty of subtitled movies in which a LOT happens, and which are
> rich in well developed characters and events. Recent examples include:
> Character (Mike van Diem, 1997)
> Alice et Martin (André Téchiné, 1998)
> Dr. Akagi (Shohei Imamura, 1998)
> Goya (Carlos Saura, 1999)
> Solas (Benito Zambrano, 1999)
> Malena (Giuseppe Tornatore, 2000)
> La Veuve de St. Pierre (Patrice Leconte, 2000)
> Nirgendwo in Afrika / Nowhere in Africa (Caroline Link, 2001)
> I've been wholeheartedly recommending these films on my web site. But somehow
> I get they impression that these films are considered "un-hip" by the
> critical powers that be. "Telling a story, with real characters - how un-hip!" One
> NEVER sees discussions of "Goya" or "Nowhere in Africa" in film journals,
> despite these films' high quality.
>
> Let's go further, and really stick my neck out.
> Critics today are full of complaints about Hollywood films. They are vulgar,
> they are made by committee, they are disgraces to the potential of the film
> medium, and so on. Yet when I compare characterization in the Hollywood action
> film "Daredevil" with that in "Lost in Translation" and "What Time Is It
> There?", a funny thing happens. The protagonist Matt Murdock in "Daredevil" is
> elaborately developed. We learn his whole life history, and see him in many modes.
> Matt Murdock is a vastly better developed character than anybody in "Lost in
> Translation" and "What Time Is It There?".
> "Daredevil" seems to be a much better work of art than "Lost in Translation"
> and "What Time Is It There?"
>
> Mike Grost
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
6111
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:21pm
Subject: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> If visual style is rich and glorious, a film is certainly NOT minimalist.
Just to clarify (and at the risk of obnoxiousness), you did see WHAT TIME IS IT THERE? on a screen, right? This is one filmmaker where it might make a real difference - Tsai's earlier films more or less came across on video(tape) (and DVD is better, of course), but still, from THE RIVER on, I don't know...
6113
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:32pm
Subject: Dial M for Murder
Is anyone in New York planning on seeing the new print of 'Dial M for
Murder' (and in 3D!) at Film Forum this week? I'm going to try to go
this afternoon. I saw it once in 3D at school around 1997 or '98 as
part of a 3D double-bill with 'House of Wax' -- what a great, great
night.
craig.
6114
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:27pm
Subject: Re: Madison, Indiana
von Sternberg a realist? He might have challenged you to a duel for
saying that (although his A,erican Tragedy is arguably much
more "realistic" than Stevens')
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> But does Madison look the way von Sternberg showed it? (He was a
> realist, unlike Minnelli.)
>
>
> > MG4273@a wrote:
>
> >
> > > TCM regularly shows a little documentary, comparing what Madison
> > locations look like today, versus their appearance in "Some Came
> > Running."
> >
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > I never expected anything
> > in a Minnelli film to look like the drab reality he may have used
as
> > his material.
> >
6115
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:28pm
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?
Michael Lieberman wrote:
> I'd argue that the visual style of Tsai's films is more beautiful and
> challenging to American movie goers
Is there something special about American movie goers?
6116
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:29pm
Subject: Re: Lost in Translation
There is an earlier thread on Lost in Translation where members cited
films, many made in the 70s, in which the main characters are ships
passing in the night. Given the fact that American movies and others
built on their model tend toward the formation of a couple, movies
where that doesn't happen usually have a political dimension. Often
the alienation that keeps the couple from forming is expressed in a
visual style which shows that the society around them as a series of
false appearances. Zabriskie Point, which just came up in another
post, is a good example of both these features.
In many ways Lost in Translation seems to be the opposite of The
Virgin Suicides, whose heroines kill themselves to avoid ever having
to give up their Laura Ashley childhood and adolescence. But no-sex
(with the notable exception of Kirsten Dunst) is the common ground
between them and Murray and Johannsen in Translation, whose unreal
world is modern Tokyo, in all its One from the Heart neon glory. And
in both cases the filmmaker's heart seems to be with the unreality,
and the refusal of sex.
One recent film which shares these attitudes is In the Mood for Love,
where Tokyo is, ironically, the city the unfaitful spouses go to to
HAVE sex. In Lost in Translation, at least, "Tokyo" is Hollywood, the
place the protagonists come from, as represented by two of the
cruellest caricatures in a recent film, Johannsen's husband and the
motor-mouthed bimbo actress, his real soul mate, who enters the movie
jabbering about her armpits. (How accurate that is: these idiots all
seem to think they're on talk shows 24/7.)
There is a nostalgia in both of SC's films for the 70s (or 1982, the
date of One of from the Heart, the last in a series of films whose
failure sealed the corporate take-back of Hollywood). But I think her
strange brand of romanticism goes deeper than that, and I'm curious
to see where it eventually takes us. There's no question, in any
case, that she's one of the most promising American filmmakers of her
generation.
However, I do plan to rent Daredevil after reading Mike's post.
6117
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Madison, Indiana
Von Sternberg only shows what's real.
Minnelli only shows what people think is real.
jpcoursodon wrote:
> von Sternberg a realist? He might have challenged you to a duel for
> saying that (although his A,erican Tragedy is arguably much
> more "realistic" than Stevens')
> Tag Gallagher wrote:
> > But does Madison look the way von Sternberg showed it? (He was a
> realist, unlike Minnelli.)
> MG4273@a wrote:
> > > TCM regularly shows a little documentary, comparing what Madison
> locations look like today, versus their appearance in "Some Came Running."
> jpcoursodon wrote:
> > > I never expected anything
> in a Minnelli film to look like the drab reality he may have used
> as his material.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6118
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:40pm
Subject: Found in Translation
Nice post on SF's film, Bill. "Tokyo in all it's One from the Heart
neon glory" -- I wished I had thought of that when I wrote my review.
6119
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Madison, Indiana
Madison is in the eye of the beholder.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> Von Sternberg only shows what's real.
> Minnelli only shows what people think is real.
>
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > von Sternberg a realist? He might have challenged you to a duel
for
> > saying that (although his American Tragedy is arguably much
> > more "realistic" than Stevens')
>
>
> > Tag Gallagher wrote:
> > > But does Madison look the way von Sternberg showed it? (He was
a
> > realist, unlike Minnelli.)
>
>
> > MG4273@a wrote:
> > > > TCM regularly shows a little documentary, comparing what
Madison
> > locations look like today, versus their appearance in "Some Came
Running."
>
>
> > jpcoursodon wrote:
> > > > I never expected anything
> > in a Minnelli film to look like the drab reality he may have used
> > as his material.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6120
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:52pm
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?
"Michael Lieberman" wrote:
> I'd argue that the visual style of Tsai's films is more beautiful and challenging to
>American movie goers than any decently-released foreign imports we
> can find, aside from Kiarostami.
Not surprisingly, I agree with what Mike & Craig are saying here; maybe I would
not exclude some other directors (Hou....) but anyway.
I think there is exactly one cut within a scene in the entire film, well at least
just one in interiors (but I think in the exteriors, it's always pretty much an
elipses when the camera remains at the same geographical location, e.g. the
ending scenes) -- and this one cut, which happens with the two women in the
hotel room, seems -- how to put this, so *right* -- it, it seems, has to cut
from fg/bg to frontal 2-shot.
How many films do I keep thinking about one cut long after the movie's over ?
This is typical of how I am seeing the two Tsai films (the other is "The River")
that I know -- these focused intensities of articulation.
I thought the dynamics between the 2 women in that scene were amazing.
I want to see all his films now.
-Sam Wells
6121
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:58pm
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There? P.S.
Plus, that scene I mentioned has two other scenes woven around it in
variations on the theme, it's like a Bach fugue.
I don't consider this kind of structure to be "minimal" !
-Sam
6122
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 7:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: What Time Is It There?
> This is typical of how I am seeing the two Tsai films (the other is
> "The River")
> that I know -- these focused intensities of articulation.
And if I'm not mistaken, the apartments and family-members (even if not
necessarily the same "characters" or narrative world, -- I'm going to
rewatch 'What Time..' this week to try to get to the bottom of this)
are identical -- carried over from 'The River' to 'What Time Is It
There?'. Although I haven't seen it yet, 'The Skywalk Is Gone' either
carries over the characters of 'What Time Is It There?' or acts as a
prologue to 'Goodbye, Dragon Inn' (which I also haven't seen yet) --
I'm pretty sure I read that it's the former.
'The River' is a devastating film.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6123
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 7:19pm
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> And if I'm not mistaken, the apartments and family-members (even if
not necessarily the same "characters" or narrative world
> are identical -- carried over from 'The River' to 'What Time Is It
> There?'.
Yes, all of this is carried over from THE RIVER to WHAT TIME? Tsai
so often links his films in this way, with characters and spaces from
one film journeying into another. He is a great filmmaker. And while
I find the links between WHAT TIME and LOST IN TRANSLATION
interesting, for me the Coppola never gets beyond a certain charming
anecdotal level WHAT TIME IS IT THERE? is a masterpiece.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6124
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 7:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: What Time Is It There?
>
> Yes, all of this is carried over from THE RIVER to WHAT TIME? Tsai
> so often links his films in this way, with characters and spaces from
> one film journeying into another. He is a great filmmaker. And while
> I find the links between WHAT TIME and LOST IN TRANSLATION
> interesting, for me the Coppola never gets beyond a certain charming
> anecdotal level WHAT TIME IS IT THERE? is a masterpiece.
I'm also interested in seeing whether the King Hu film in 'Goodbye,
Dragon Inn' expands the same kinds of dimensions as the Truffaut film's
placement in 'What Time Is It There?'...
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6125
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 7:36pm
Subject: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
, MG4273@a... wrote:
> It is not a matter of subtitles.
In fact, I often watch films on DVD w/ subtitles off once I know
the story.....
> The Vertical Ray of the Sun (Tran Anh Hung)
> If visual style is rich and glorious, a film is certainly NOT minimalist.
..like this, which I've seen maybe 5 times.
I think we are dealing with a matter of degrees. I asked an art house
programmer I know if he was going to show this when it was out, and
his reply was something along the lines of "it's watching paint dry."
Once I saw it, I couldn't have disagreed more. Then again, I have Vietnamese
friends who call it a "lah di da" movie, (but other Vietnamese friends who
love it) -- again I cannot agree... but my response to it's detractors
is that, on a surface level as compared to "Cyclo" even, yes you might even
say that there is a certain, not minimal but reductionism... here, after all,
is a Hanoi in which the aftermath of war, and attendent poverty seem to
have been stripped away from the screen.
But this "reductionism" so to speak lets Tran Anh Hung explore, I think,
deeper psychic rifts in the society with a surprising economy of expression;
think of the silent duets between Lien and her suitors, and the other duets
such as the thwarted "seduction" in the South, which speaks *volumes* in
political subtext, and so on.
There's also a complex of connecting personalities here; Tran using Hou's
DP Li Ping-bin; as Tsai uses Benoit Delhomme on What Time; previously
Delhomme had shot Cyclo; Li Ping-bin replacing Chris Doyle on "In The
Mood For Love" -- anyway there are many echoes and resonances here
I think, and all of it "rich" in various ways...
-Sam Wells
6126
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 7:43pm
Subject: Alphaville
Can anyone help to identify the source of the quotes read by the man in
the hotel office in Godard's 'Alphaville'? ("At the end of Galata
Bridge, one finds the Red Star. You can't compare it to our splendid
galactic corridors..." etc.)
craig.
6127
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 7:56pm
Subject: Re: Dial M for Murder
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> Is anyone in New York planning on seeing the new print of 'Dial M
for
> Murder' (and in 3D!) at Film Forum this week? I'm going to try to
go
> this afternoon. I saw it once in 3D at school around 1997 or '98
as
> part of a 3D double-bill with 'House of Wax' -- what a great, great
> night.
Speaking of 3-D at Film Forum, anyone in or near New York should make
a note that the theatre will be showing 3-D prints of Walsh's Gun
Fury (March 4), De Toth's The Stranger Wore A Gun (March 18) and John
Brahm's The Mad Magician (April 1). (And with the Walsh and Braham,
you also get a Three Stooges 3-D short, with the De Toth it's a Fred
F. Sears picture, The Nebraskan.)
6128
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 8:24pm
Subject: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Garrett" wrote:
>
> Feltenstein, Allan Fisch, and that entire team at MGM/UA Home Video
did
> outstanding work in releasing so many otherwise obscure titles on
laser,
> many of which I'm convinced won't see the light of day on DVD for
quite
> some time. In the waning days of laserdisc, when distributors and
retailers
> were beginning to heavily discount their remaining inventories, I
bought as
> many of the MGM discs as I could at $10 each.
>
> Feltenstein is now a senior VP at Warner Home Video, and given that
> the titles formerly held by Turner via MGM/UA now belong to Warner,
> he is effectively once again responsible for the DVD release of the
> same catalog titles he formerly oversaw. Granted, the Byzantine
> politics of a multinational colossus like Warner are probably a bit
> trickier to navigate than what he may have been accustomed to
dealing
> with in the past, but I think Feltenstein's stewardship bodes well
> for the Warner catalog titles in the long run.
>
> The absence of virtually all the RKO films (Astaire/Rogers, Lewton,
and
> so on) on DVD to date is certainly vexing; nearly 200 of the RKO
> features were released on laserdisc by Image and Turner, but on DVD
> so far, we have CITIZEN KANE and ALICE ADAMS. Warner has claimed
> that the elements to most of the RKO films are in pretty rough
shape, and
> will need a lot of TLC before they're ready for DVD release. That
didn't
> stop their release on laserdisc, but I guess we live in a new world
now.
>
> There's an interesting interview with Feltenstein at:
>
> http://www.digitallyobsessed.com/showinterview.php3?ID=55
>
Thanks for the updated info, Dave, and for the interview link. It
still doesn't sound terribly hopeful for anxious types like myself,
who want all of their favorites right now. Auteurist that I
essentially am, I am none too thrilled with most of the upcoming
titles on the Warners/Feltenstein agenda: MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY,
GREAT ZIEGFELD, GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS, etc. all those "classic"
dinosaurs. But let's hope they pay and pave the way for Tourneur,
Preminger, Lang, Minnelli, Ray, Ford, etc.
6129
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 9:06pm
Subject: Minimalism / Character
There are countless ways to introduce characters, but never tell the
audience more than they need to know. Always keep them hungry.
Look at "Strangers on a Train". Crosscutting parallel syntagma of
shoes approaching a trainstation, entering a train and then bumping
into eachother by accident. We know nothing yet, but we are hooked.
Following the conversation where persons are introduced and plot is
setup (past, present, motifs, plot). I assume this is maximasation.
Then look at "The Limey" and the opening montage.
(sound: Shower)
a - ECU Wilson's hand and letter (Name Ed Rowe showing)
b - CU Wilson (PoV)
c - CU Wilson (adressing Ed Rowe)
d - CU Eduardo (correcting Eduardo Roel)
a - ECU Wilson's hand and letter (Name Ed Rowe showing)
e - CU (analepse) Wilson on the plane (Shower --> Chimes)
(sound: Chimes)
b - CU Wilson (PoV)
f - ECU Wilson's hand with pic of Jenny
b - CU Wilson (PoV)
g - ECU Jenny on the beach (child)
b2 - ECU Wilson (PoV)
e2 - ECU (analepse) Wilson on the plane
g - ECU Jenny on the beach (child) (Chimes --> Humming)
h - CU Jenny peeking thru a door (older child, tinted brown)
(sound: Humming)
b3 - CU Wilson (PoV)
i - ECU Jenny in a car with Eduardo
f2 - (insert) Wilson's hand with pic of Jenny (in a car)
b4 - ECU Wilson
b5 - MS Wilson
j - ECU Wilson driving (back of Car) (normal sound)
This is such a beautiful demonstration of minimalism. Its almost like
a visual poem, the rythm, the structure, the introduction of character
and plot.
One can say, that while maximalism works intellectually (as it makes
us think and connect the dots), minimalism works emotionally (as we
associate) and in most cases consists of a fixed point and inserts.
And just as much maximalism isnt as structured and tight as Hitchcock,
most minimalism isnt as tight as the here demonstrated.
Just as one can overflesh a character, so can one underdo minimalism,
and few sit down and actually note the structure of a minimalistic
film and weight it against the plot, as one understands it
emotionally. Hence, you feel if its good or not - and that is the
pitfall, as taste will color your feeling, as failed expectations of
explaination will color your reading.
Henrik
6130
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 10:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
--- Dave Garrett wrote:
>
> Feltenstein is now a senior VP at Warner Home Video,
> and given that
> the titles formerly held by Turner via MGM/UA now
> belong to Warner,
> he is effectively once again responsible for the DVD
> release of the
> same catalog titles he formerly oversaw. Granted,
> the Byzantine
> politics of a multinational colossus like Warner are
> probably a bit
> trickier to navigate than what he may have been
> accustomed to dealing
> with in the past, but I think Feltenstein's
> stewardship bodes well
> for the Warner catalog titles in the long run.
>
> The absence of virtually all the RKO films
> (Astaire/Rogers, Lewton, and
> so on) on DVD to date is certainly vexing; nearly
> 200 of the RKO
> features were released on laserdisc by Image and
> Turner, but on DVD
> so far, we have CITIZEN KANE and ALICE ADAMS. Warner
> has claimed
> that the elements to most of the RKO films are in
> pretty rough shape, and
> will need a lot of TLC before they're ready for DVD
> release. That didn't
> stop their release on laserdisc, but I guess we live
> in a new world now.
>
So glad I held on top my laser discs! I've got "Cabin
in the sky," "An America in paris," "Some Came
Running," "The Clock," "The Cobweb,""Yolanda and the
Thief," "Two Weeks in Another Town," "Seven Women," "I
Love Melvin," "The Belle of New York," "The Seventh
Victim" and many many more.
Anybody want to come over to my place for a laser party?
6131
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 10:36pm
Subject: Re: Alphaville
I'm guessing it's from Paul Eluard's "Le Capital de la
Douleur."
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> Can anyone help to identify the source of the quotes
> read by the man in
> the hotel office in Godard's 'Alphaville'? ("At the
> end of Galata
> Bridge, one finds the Red Star. You can't compare
> it to our splendid
> galactic corridors..." etc.)
>
> craig.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6132
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 1:16am
Subject: Re: Alphaville
"Capitale de la douleur," David (or was that a Marxian joke? If so I
apologize; but your witticisms might confuse some...)
GLOIRE A L'ARMEE ROUGE
UNE ETOILE EST NEE DE LA TERRE
Aragon (Front rouge)
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I'm guessing it's from Paul Eluard's "Le Capital de la
> Douleur."
>
> --- Craig Keller wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone help to identify the source of the quotes
> > read by the man in
> > the hotel office in Godard's 'Alphaville'? ("At the
> > end of Galata
> > Bridge, one finds the Red Star. You can't compare
> > it to our splendid
> > galactic corridors..." etc.)
> >
> > craig.
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
> http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6133
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 1:39am
Subject: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> So glad I held on top my laser discs! I've got "Cabin
> in the sky," "An America in paris," "Some Came
> Running," "The Clock," "The Cobweb,""Yolanda and the
> Thief," "Two Weeks in Another Town," "Seven Women," "I
> Love Melvin," "The Belle of New York," "The Seventh
> Victim" and many many more.
>
> Anybody want to come over to my place for a laser party?
>
> __Will there be sex at intermission?________________________________
>
6134
From: iangjohnston
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 2:49am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> > This is typical of how I am seeing the two Tsai films (the other
is
> > "The River")
> > that I know -- these focused intensities of articulation.
>
> And if I'm not mistaken, the apartments and family-members (even
if not
> necessarily the same "characters" or narrative world, -- I'm going
to
> rewatch 'What Time..' this week to try to get to the bottom of
this)
> are identical -- carried over from 'The River' to 'What Time Is It
> There?'. Although I haven't seen it yet, 'The Skywalk Is Gone'
either
> carries over the characters of 'What Time Is It There?' or acts as
a
> prologue to 'Goodbye, Dragon Inn' (which I also haven't seen yet) -
-
Yes, indeed. The same actors play the mother/father/son characters
(of different families and stories) in 'Rebels of the Neon
God', 'The River' and 'What Time Is It There?' (and Lee Kang-Sheng --
the 'son' -- uses the other two to play grandparents of different
families and separate stories in his directorial debut 'The
Missing').
> I'm pretty sure I read that it's the former.
>
> 'The River' is a devastating film.
>
> craig.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6135
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 2:53am
Subject: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
--- > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:> >
> >
> > >
> > So glad I held on top my laser discs! I've got "Cabin
> > in the sky," "An America in paris," "Some Came
> > Running," "The Clock," "The Cobweb,""Yolanda and the
> > Thief," "Two Weeks in Another Town," "Seven Women," "I
> > Love Melvin," "The Belle of New York," "The Seventh
> > Victim" and many many more.
> > Anybody want to come over to my place for a laser party?
In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> > __Will there be sex at intermission?
If there IS sex at intermission at David's, and if you're squeamish
about such things, those of you on the East Coast can come to a laser
party at my place. I have all of the titles above along with some
others like PARTY GIRL, the Gene Kelly collection, the Judy Garland
collection, etc. The only appropriate place to have sex while films
are being shown is a theater, even when the film is only something
like TEXAS CARNIVAL -- or maybe especially if the film is something
like TEXAS CARNIVAL.
By the way, David, I could find no reference to Minnelli directing
the finale to LILY MARS, in Harvey's book or anywhere else. Minnelli
does mention the film and the finale in his own book but lays no
claim to having directed it. According to Harvey, VM did direct
the "Honeysuckle Rose" number from THOUSANDS CHEER (although that
number looks rather Sidney-ish to me.) Maybe you were thinking of
that? Minnelli often publicly praised the work Walters did on ST.
LOUIS as well as the work Walters did in replacing him on EASTER
PARADE.
________________________________
> >
6136
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 3:09am
Subject: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> --- > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> > wrote:> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > So glad I held on top my laser discs! I've got "Cabin
> > > in the sky," "An America in paris," "Some Came
> > > Running," "The Clock," "The Cobweb,""Yolanda and the
> > > Thief," "Two Weeks in Another Town," "Seven Women," "I
> > > Love Melvin," "The Belle of New York," "The Seventh
> > > Victim" and many many more.
>
> > > Anybody want to come over to my place for a laser party?
>
> In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> > > __Will there be sex at intermission?
>
> If there IS sex at intermission at David's, and if you're squeamish
> about such things, those of you on the East Coast can come to a
laser
> party at my place. I have all of the titles above along with some
> others like PARTY GIRL, the Gene Kelly collection, the Judy Garland
> collection, etc. The only appropriate place to have sex while
films
> are being shown is a theater, even when the film is only something
> like TEXAS CARNIVAL -- or maybe especially if the film is something
> like TEXAS CARNIVAL.
>
I'd love to come, sex or no sex, but is it within walking distance?
> ________________________________
> > >
6137
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 4:01am
Subject: Re: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> I'd love to come, sex or no sex, but is it within
> walking distance?
> > ________________________________
> > > >
>
>
I don't think you can walk from Paris to Los Angeles.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6138
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 4:07am
Subject: Re: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
>
> By the way, David, I could find no reference to
> Minnelli directing
> the finale to LILY MARS, in Harvey's book or
> anywhere else. Minnelli
> does mention the film and the finale in his own book
> but lays no
> claim to having directed it. According to Harvey, VM
> did direct
> the "Honeysuckle Rose" number from THOUSANDS CHEER
> (although that
> number looks rather Sidney-ish to me.) Maybe you
> were thinking of
> that? Minnelli often publicly praised the work
> Walters did on ST.
> LOUIS as well as the work Walters did in replacing
> him on EASTER
> PARADE.
>
Well then it must have been on the laser disc where
the fact that Minnelli directed it is mentioned.
That's the mammoth Garland set that Has "The Harvey
Girls," "The Pirate," and "Summer Stock." The trailers
to all her films, special shorts sent to theaters for
the holidays, her filmed performances with the Gumm
sisters, and a separate audio track of every rehearsal
she ever did with Roger Edens and Kay Thompson.
"Honeysuckle Rose" was most definitely filmed by
Minnelli, who took great interest in Lena Horne and
did everything in his power to try to convince MGM
that she should be a full-press star rather than a
featured specialty act. Sadly racism got in the way.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6139
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 5:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
If anyone is interested, I have a spare laserdisc (still sealed in
celophane) of SOME CAME RUNNING, scope. $20 plus postage.
6140
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 0:56am
Subject: Re: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
This is an interesting discussion to me because I'm at a place right now
where I place considerably less emphasis on plot and character than I do visual
style. I like what Fred said about this (a quote I misattributed to Tag a while
back - apologies!) - that the stories in narrative film are sort of excuses
for the director to blast off into other universes. So I don't see any trends
in the films I like in terms of how heavily or lightly plotted they are. I
love a film full of incident like "North by Northwest" (or "An American
Romance"!) right alongside an episodic film like "Good Sam." The common denominator
between them is that they are both great films, full of the things which make
film >film<, not that they are great "stories," necessarily. And often great
films >do< have great stories too, but it's not necessarily the first thing I
remember about them. I love the Isak Dinesen tale that Welles's "The Immortal
Story" is taken from, but the plot of that amazing movie is the last thing
that comes to mind when I think about it. It's the mise-en-scene - those autumn
colors, the music of Satie, the dolly shot as Jeanne Moreau approaches the
gate of the old man's house, etc.
And, guys, I think Mike's championing of "Daredevil" (a film I haven't seen,
for the record) over "What Time Is It There" (a film I love, for the record)
is right in line with the auteurist tradition. Auteurists have very frequently
been the first ones to point to universally despised/ignored Hollywood films
and say, "No, there's something interesting going on here." Filipe touches on
this idea in a terrific article he wrote for us at The Film Journal.
Peter
6141
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 0:56am
Subject: Charles Walters
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>I wouldn't discount "High Society" either -- though
>everyone seems to.
I like this one too. As I note on the little screening log I keep up on my
web page, Walters' cinema was a really pleasant discovery for me in 2003. I'd
say my favorite so far is "The Tender Trap," which I know Zach also saw last
year and liked a lot. Zach?
Peter
6142
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 0:59am
Subject: Career "Breakdown"s
A few months ago, Bill touched on the topic of contemporary Hollywood auteurs
who get chewed up by the system and cease to make interesting films. His two
examples were, I believe, James Foley and Jan de Bont. I agree 100% on
Foley; "After Dark, My Sweet," for one, is a great film, but most everything he's
done since "Glenngarry" is sadly subpar, including the recent "indie"
"Confidence." I never liked de Bont much to begin with, but I would never argue that
"Speed" isn't superior to "The Haunting"!
Anyway, I just re-watched on television Jonathan Mostow's "Breakdown." Some
of you may have seen it. It's a neat little piece from 1997 with Kurt Russell
as the husband of a woman who has been kidnapped by... well, I won't give too
much away. Mostow's direction is both tight - as in the storytelling is
economical and efficient - and roomy - as in he is able to hold on a shot, he
seems to like the possibilities of wide angle lenses, and he doesn't cut the film
up into MTV. It's a film unquestionably enlivened by strong direction, in my
opinion.
But look at what Mostow's done since. I saw "U-571" and couldn't detect any
of the same sensibility. I didn't even bother with his latest film,
"Terminator 3," but assuming (assuming!) it's mediocre/bad/awful, what happened? Where
did his talent go and/or what producer(s)/studios/corporate execs are
responsible?
I guess this is what Sarris created the "One Shot" category for, but it's
still puzzling to me. I look at a guy at Richard Fleischer and marvel at how he
extracted himself from even the worst scripts with some dignity; that old
Fleischer visual sense is in evidence in just about every film of his I've seen.
Where have you gone, Richard Fleischer?
Peter
6143
From: magaroulian
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 6:22am
Subject: If in doubt, shout! (from )
Dear friends here at 'a film by' -
After a very long time away, I am returning to duty on the Web tomorrow. The non-ersatz "Editor's Day" feature
will re-commence on the Hitchcock Scholars website's News & Comment (Home) page. Also coming soon will be a page on the
same website
devoted to "Hitchcock and Dickens", utilising material from "Editor's Day" written as long ago as 1998 but going
much, much further. It will take some inspiration from Grahame Smith's 'Dickens and the Dream of Cinema'
(2003) which I am currently reading and enjoying.
But - please - do not think of the said website as either narrow and esoteric, on one hand, nor trivial and
beneath your dignity, on another hand, nor yet un-entertaining and lacking in inspiration, on yet another hand
(use your friend's hand if your own are already accounted for). I will do my utmost to steer a course that
caters to a generous assortment of Hitchcockians and film aficionados and their inclinations.
Just reading some past "Editor's Day" entries from previous years recently, made me very aware of how much
valuable stuff came from our readers, often on an almost daily basis. So I am hoping that you will start tuning
in again regularly and won't think twice about asking a question, passing a remark, or tossing your hat into the
circle. The heading of this email is asking you not to be inhibited about it. My email address will also be
found near the top of this message.
Have a good year, all the way.
Sincerely - Ken Mogg (Ed., 'The MacGuffin').
Website: http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin
P.S. 'The MacGuffin' #29 (hardcopy) comes out this month and contains really good stuff. But I will not blow
trumpets about it here. With you, a wink is as good as a clarion call.
6144
From: magaroulian
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 6:45am
Subject: Re: If in doubt, shout! (from )
P.S. I was happy to read the post here a couple of months back about Jean Douchet's remarks on THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY.
(Thanks, Adrian Martin, for alerting me to it.) And I was chuffed when both Bill Krohn and Joe McElhaney said very nice things about
my own piece on that film that's on the Hitchcock Scholars/'MacGuffin' website. (Joe was kind enough to call it 'definitive'.) I love that
film. (The only tiny problem with it I have is the doctor's parting line, more suited to a radio comedy than to a movie, where it seems
like an eternity before the good doctor escapes the house after his feeble remark, 'This is the first nightmare I've had in 25 years!')
Btw, there's a review of James Vest's fascinating book 'Hitchcock and France' (2003) now up on the Hitchcock Scholars site's New
Publications page. That book, though expensive, is a must-read for anyone who wants to re-live (or get acquainted with), almost
blow-by-blow, the critical furore and debate that went on in France throughout the 1950s, with the introduction of the 'politique des
auteurs'.
Best to all at 'a film by' - from fellow-member 'magaroulian' (Ken Mogg).
6145
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 6:51am
Subject: Re: Career "Breakdown"s
Mostow was rapidly championed by CdC enthusiasts for Breakdown. After
that he was supposed to do a remake of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, but
veered into routine action films instead. Breakdown was a bit nasty
for my taste anyway, but it did show promise - particularly the whole
sequence where Russell is free to move around in the small town. Of
Biette's four categories, I'd say Mostow so far has turned out be a
director - the zero degree on the Biette scale: a hack, basically -
but not without skills. De Bont was a metteur-en-scene who has been
crushed and turned into a hack. Speed and Twister both reflect on the
medium, and arguably influenced its evolution - De Bont told me that
no less a colleague than John McTiernan viewed a rough-cut of Speed
while editing Die Hard 3, and it shows. James Foley was an auteur
with three masterpieces to his credit whose talent was sabotaged by
personal problems. I miss him, and I hope he'll be back.
6146
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 7:05am
Subject: Re: Re: Alphaville
>
> "Capitale de la douleur," David (or was that a Marxian joke? If so I
> apologize; but your witticisms might confuse some...)
>
> GLOIRE A L'ARMEE ROUGE
> UNE ETOILE EST NEE DE LA TERRE
> Aragon (Front rouge)
The Éluard text is cited much throughout, of course -- is this in fact
it, David?
Also/alternately: Is citing the Aragon text your own candidate for an
answer to this Jean-Pierre, or just a similar witticism?
cmk.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6147
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 7:01am
Subject: Re: Career "Breakdown"s / Auteurism
I have previous used the term "Looking for Bobby Fisher" about
approaching any director as auteur. Doing so undermines the notion of
auteurism and makes it pointless. I do understand the urge to promote
the director of a good film (of two even) to auteur level, but it is
my impression that we apply terms to directors not suited for it and
thus we have to call bad directors auteurs because the terms apply to
them aswell.
I question how one can apply the same notion to a first time director
as one does to directors who made dusins of film. I also question what
Peter says, when implying "If its good, its the director, if its bad,
its the producer".
I agree with Peter that Mostow's "Breakdown" is a great little film,
very tight and all that. But why would you even consider him to be an
auteur to begin with? Or why Jan de Bont? None of these directors have
any signature, as you can not identify any of their films as
"a_film_by" if you didn't knew it was them who directed it.
Take Joseph Ruben. An average director at best, but his films
(Dreamscape, Stepfather, True Believer, Sleeping with the Enemy, The
Good Son) all depicts someone caught up in a world they dont belong to
and how they react against it. Clearly a leitmotif present in the
majorit of his films, so is Ruben an Auteur like Cronenberg, Hitchcock
and Wenders?
I do not question auteurism, I question the approach to it. If we
apply the term to every talented one hit wonder or "I direct anything
for a buck" hack, when is the term so undermined that it becomes
pointless?
Henrik
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> A few months ago, Bill touched on the topic of contemporary
Hollywood auteurs
> who get chewed up by the system and cease to make interesting films.
His two
> examples were, I believe, James Foley and Jan de Bont. I agree 100%
on
> Foley; "After Dark, My Sweet," for one, is a great film, but most
everything he's
> done since "Glenngarry" is sadly subpar, including the recent
"indie"
> "Confidence." I never liked de Bont much to begin with, but I would
never argue that
> "Speed" isn't superior to "The Haunting"!
>
> Anyway, I just re-watched on television Jonathan Mostow's
"Breakdown." Some
> of you may have seen it. It's a neat little piece from 1997 with
Kurt Russell
> as the husband of a woman who has been kidnapped by... well, I won't
give too
> much away. Mostow's direction is both tight - as in the
storytelling is
> economical and efficient - and roomy - as in he is able to hold on a
shot, he
> seems to like the possibilities of wide angle lenses, and he doesn't
cut the film
> up into MTV. It's a film unquestionably enlivened by strong
direction, in my
> opinion.
>
> But look at what Mostow's done since. I saw "U-571" and couldn't
detect any
> of the same sensibility. I didn't even bother with his latest film,
> "Terminator 3," but assuming (assuming!) it's mediocre/bad/awful,
what happened? Where
> did his talent go and/or what producer(s)/studios/corporate execs
are
> responsible?
>
> I guess this is what Sarris created the "One Shot" category for, but
it's
> still puzzling to me. I look at a guy at Richard Fleischer and
marvel at how he
> extracted himself from even the worst scripts with some dignity;
that old
> Fleischer visual sense is in evidence in just about every film of
his I've seen.
> Where have you gone, Richard Fleischer?
>
> Peter
6148
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 7:17am
Subject: Re: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
> And, guys, I think Mike's championing of "Daredevil" (a film I haven't
> seen,
> for the record) over "What Time Is It There" (a film I love, for the
> record)
> is right in line with the auteurist tradition. Auteurists have very
> frequently
> been the first ones to point to universally despised/ignored Hollywood
> films
> and say, "No, there's something interesting going on here."
I would only ask what is going on in 'Daredevil' that's interesting.
(I'm totally open to hearing about it, and not just being a smart-ass.)
cmk.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6149
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 2:29am
Subject: Re: Re: Career "Breakdown"s / Auteurism
Henrik Sylow wrote:
>I have previous used the term "Looking for Bobby Fisher" about
>approaching any director as auteur. Doing so undermines the notion of
>auteurism and makes it pointless.
See, I would disagree here. I think part of my job as a critic who sees a
lot of new releases is to be looking for auteurs. In other words, to look
beyond the guys who are promoted as auteurs (Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Roman
Polanski, etc., to pick three names out of a hat) and sift my way through
everything else with the hope that I might stumble upon a promising filmmaker. I
really can't help it because, as an auteurist, the thing that interests me the
most is direction, so if the direction seems interesting in a film, I perk up and
take note. I know that you and I disagree on the merits of McG's "Charlie's
Angels" films, Henrik, but I feel somewhat validated that my initial feeling
on the basis of the first film that McG was more than just a hack was confirmed
(for me) by the sequel.
Mostow is an example of the reverse. On the basis of his films since
"Breakdown," I'd say that my intuition in 1997 that Mostow had the goods proved not
to be the case.
(Note: I'm all for adopting the Biette scale so that one is able to say that,
oh, Otto Preminger and John McTiernan are both more than "directors" [lowest
level in the Biette scale] but aren't both full-fledged auteurs. That might
help to clarify things.]
>I also question what
>Peter says, when implying "If its good, its the director, if its bad,
>its the producer".
Ah, I didn't mean to say this exactly. I wrote, "Where did his talent go
and/or what producer(s)/studios/corporate execs are responsible?" The "and/or"
kind of got lost here, as my intent was to ask, "Where did his talent go and/or
are the studios to blame?" My own vote would be that Mostow's case is a
mixture of the two along with a feeling I have - based on Bill's revelation that
he was going to do a "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" remake at one point - that
he's gotten saddled with some awful projects.
>I agree with Peter that Mostow's "Breakdown" is a great little film,
>very tight and all that. But why would you even consider him to be an
>auteur to begin with? Or why Jan de Bont? None of these directors have
>any signature, as you can not identify any of their films as
>"a_film_by" if you didn't knew it was them who directed it.
Sometimes I wonder, though, if a great director needs to have a signature
beyond great direction? This is an idea that we've bounced around before, I
know. I'm not saying that the direction of either "Breakdown" or "Speed" is by
any means great (I'd vote "above average" for each), just that I'm not sure that
I need a consistent vision running throughout a director's body of work. I
mean, look at Fleischer. He definitely developed a distinctive visual style
over the years, but it's not Orson Welles-identifiable either. I just think
he's, well, >good<. And that's enough.
Peter
6150
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 7:36am
Subject: Re: Career "Breakdown"s
> I never liked de Bont much to begin with, but I would never argue
> that
> "Speed" isn't superior to "The Haunting"!
I can't remember much of 'Speed,' and can only remember my vague
general dislike for 'Twister' (Helen Hunt accounted for -- but let's
exempt her for 'Dr. T & the Women' which despite would most of
mainstream criticana thought was actually quite good -- and as a
tangent, can anyone answer whether Daney re-accepted Altman post-'70s?
and if not, does anyone feel like refuting his condemnations of
Altman's reliance on The Word?) -- but I have to say that I got into
quite a pissy little fight with a cantankerous old friend as to how
-dare- I find more value in 'Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: The Cradle of
Life' over 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.' The variation in
episodic decor alone was more fresh and thrilling to me than anything
in LOTR-2, with the most beautiful sequences containing near-, um,
not-'One from the Heart'-neons, but 'Fallen Angels'-neons -- of course,
really, so what?, because a neon-backdrop is a neon-backdrop, and my
father could shoot against it just as well as any on-the-outs-auteur --
but as for the climax of 'The Cradle of Life,' with the whole quasi-Ent
thing happening in a more serial-sci-fi
thrilling-but-schlock-but-thrilling-endgame-setpiece than anything
dispersed among the persuasion of the "actual" Ents in LOTR-2, I'll
take the [D/d]e Bont hands down. It was like a blatant invocation of
Genre and refutation of '...the Lost Ark.' I enjoyed it. Still, it's
worth repeating that either Angelina needs a new agent, or I need a new
Hollywood.
cmk.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6151
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 2:35am
Subject: Re: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
Craig Keller:
>I would only ask what is going on in 'Daredevil' that's interesting.
>(I'm totally open to hearing about it, and not just being a smart-ass.)
Cool - and I'm sure that Mike could expand on his thoughts on the film, if he
hasn't already. (I seem to remember it coming up a few weeks ago...)
On the subject of interesting films derived from comic books, have you seen
Ang Lee's "Hulk," Mike? I think it's Lee's best picture!
Peter
6152
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 2:44am
Subject: Altman
Craig Keller wrote:
>Helen Hunt accounted for -- but let's
>exempt her for 'Dr. T & the Women' which despite would most of
>mainstream criticana thought was actually quite good
Sarris put it on his 10 best that year. I like it and would argue that it's
part of the new, warmer Altman that's emerged over the past few years. For
all of its alleged misogyny, the film's viewpoint was, as Godfrey Cheshire put
it, fundamentally "insiderist" - not mocking or condescending.
The amiable comedy "Cookie's Fortune" and incredibly sympathetic "Gosford
Park" are also part of this 'warming' trend and, though I haven't seen it yet,
I've read that "The Company" is too. Looks like we're in the midst of another
fascinating phase of this director's career. (My favorite is still the side of
him that made "Images," "3 Women," and "Quintet.")
Peter
6153
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 10:24am
Subject: Re: McG and Auteurism
How can McG ever be even assumed an auteur, when what he does is to
arrange product placements and action sequences within eachother to
pre determined soundbites picked according to whats hot on MTV? At
best he a backstage director, following his list making sure the
chorusgirls get in on cue and time.
McG is not the creator of "Charlies Angels 2". The film made itself,
because there was a first and that one made itself because there was a
series. The story of both films is as important as the one of a porn
film, whats important is its function as commercial for cell phones,
soft drinks and CDs. As such, the entire body of the film serves only
to expose a consumer segment (here teens age 13-17) to specific
products.
Here in the midst of my rambeling I ask, can a director, by any other
name, be considered an auteur, if story and execution of it already
has been ascribed by the target audience?
Can someone be an auteur, if he doesn't direct and McG doesnt direct.
All he has to do is make sure people doesnt trip and say their lines
as cool as possible. That is no more direction than a stagehand
holding a sign during Jerry Springer saying either "APPLAUSE" or
"BOO".
Listening to the interviews he made and the audio commentary on the
DVD, McG takes himself very serious, actually he compares his own
direction to Godard and Leone and "Charlies Angels" to the classics.
One thing is to listen to QT and his distorted sense of film, but this
is really as if McG did a simply dolly shot and then says "The dolly
shot is an homage to Godard and the entire french nouvelle vague". I
wonder, is an insert of a happy child eating ice cream in a commercial
an homage to Bergman?
A curious thought is, that there was made a french film during the 60s
(I believe it was Leloch's "Un homme et une femme") which was filmed
entirely as commercials, with fast cuts, smart angles and so forth. I
did consider, if we on one hand hold this one film up as original and
inventive, why shouldn't McG have the same priviledge? Isn't "Charlies
Angels 2" another celebration of commercial montages and music video
editing style and as such a manifistation of todays youth culture?
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps McG is a genius, perhaps "Charlies Angels"
is a "celebration of commercial montages and music video editing style
and as such a manifistation of todays youth culture", but I will not
accept it until I've put up a damn good fight to advocate against such
a notion.
Im glad I got that out :)
Henrik
6154
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 1:32pm
Subject: Mostow, de Bont, Silver, product placements
The only Mostow seen here, U-527, was reasonably fun as long as it stuck to derring-do on submarines. But then it had to spoil it all with a lot of pro-war propaganda. I used to like Hollywood action films a lot more a decade ago, when they were harmlessly apolitical thrillers like Die Hard or Speed. I do not want to see "war is fun" films under any circumstances. Had no idea that Mostow was critically admired. Have never heard of "Breakdown" - thanks for the tip!
"Speed" is a lot better than anything else seen here by de Bont. Have even entertained the thought that producer Joel Silver is the real auteur of his action pictures. They seem to be a lot alike - and similarly well made and entertaining - no matter who is credited with directing them. John McTiernan is the only Silver alumnus who was gone on to a career of consistent, quality films.
Twister (de Bont) is awful. Oddly enough, its big problem is the same as such "art films" as "Lst in Translation" and "What Time Is It There?": no plot and bad characters. First a tornado wrecks something, then another tornado wrecks something, then... There is no story and paper thin characters. I get just as ticked off when Hollywood does this as when "art films" do it! Being locked in a room with Twister and "What Time Is It There?" running over and over is my idea of Hell.
I hate product placements in movies! Dante's satire on them in "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" is a gem. Peter Weir got off some good salvos in "The Truman Show" too.
Mike Grost
6155
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 2:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
I feel emphasis is always misplaced when it's on "story" or (even worse)
"narrative." To me the stories derive secondarily from the characters
(and their feelings and the world they inhabit -- which is part of what
Imean by a character) and that it is within this point that the director
blasts off (not into other universes; he's already there).
I would thus dispute the sense of the quote attributed to Fred (or me),
as well as Peter's diminishment of "character."
Plot, as such, seems to me the least worthy of attention of any aspect
of film.
Curiously, Rossellini also thought that once you decide to do a film
about a certain person in a certain place, all other script problems
essentially vanish.
ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I place considerably less emphasis on plot and character than I do
> visual style. I like what Fred said about this (a quote I
> misattributed to Tag a while back - apologies!) - that the stories in
> narrative film are sort of excuses for the director to blast off into
> other universes. So I don't see any trends in the films I like in
> terms of how heavily or lightly plotted they are. I love a film full
> of incident like "North by Northwest" (or "An American Romance"!)
> right alongside an episodic film like "Good Sam." The common denominator
> between them is that they are both great films, full of the things
> which make film >film<, not that they are great "stories," necessarily.
>
6156
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 3:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Alphaville
--- Craig Keller wrote:
> Aragon (Front rouge)
>
> The Éluard text is cited much throughout, of course
> -- is this in fact
> it, David?
>
I don't know for sure. I was just guessing.
> Also/alternately: Is citing the Aragon text your own
> candidate for an
> answer to this Jean-Pierre, or just a similar
> witticism?
>
>
Over to you, J-P.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6157
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 3:21pm
Subject: Re: Charles Walters
"The Tender Trap" is another teriffic Walters comedy.
And the finale is a musical number-- as the title song
became one of Sinatra's biggest pop hits. A popular
Broadway comedy of the period -- much in line with
George Axelrod's broadway comedies that became hit
films -- "The Tender Trap" is in some ways a percursor
of aspects of "Sex in the City" (though that seris is
a direct derivative of "How To Marry a Millionaire"
and "The Greeks had a Word For Them.") Though quite in
line with the strictures of the Production Code, the
film still manages to "read between the lines" to get
atwhat sexual and romantic relationships are actually
about.
So far I don't think anyone has mentioned "Lili." In
the 50's this was Walters's most singular achievement
in that MGM treated it as an "art film" -- just the
way it did Minnelli's "Lust For Life." "Lili" ran for
over a solid year at one theater in New York
city--"the "Trans-Lux." I saw ti there as a kid and it
impressed me almost as much as "Singin' in the Rain."
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
> David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> >I wouldn't discount "High Society" either -- though
> >everyone seems to.
>
> I like this one too. As I note on the little
> screening log I keep up on my
> web page, Walters' cinema was a really pleasant
> discovery for me in 2003. I'd
> say my favorite so far is "The Tender Trap," which I
> know Zach also saw last
> year and liked a lot. Zach?
>
> Peter
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6158
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 3:51pm
Subject: Re: Alphaville
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> >
> > "Capitale de la douleur," David (or was that a Marxian joke? If
so I
> > apologize; but your witticisms might confuse some...)
> >
> > GLOIRE A L'ARMEE ROUGE
> > UNE ETOILE EST NEE DE LA TERRE
> > Aragon (Front rouge)
>
> The Éluard text is cited much throughout, of course -- is this in
fact
> it, David?
>
> Also/alternately: Is citing the Aragon text your own candidate for
an
> answer to this Jean-Pierre, or just a similar witticism?
>
> cmk.
A similar witticism, I'm afraid. David affects me that way. I
still don't know whether or not he was punning on "Capital"
and "Capitale". He remains silent (on this matter at least). I
haven't seen Alphaville in ages and don't remember the quotes in
question.
JPC
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6159
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 3:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: Alphaville
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
>
> A similar witticism, I'm afraid. David affects
> me that way. I
> still don't know whether or not he was punning on
> "Capital"
> and "Capitale". He remains silent (on this matter at
> least). I
> haven't seen Alphaville in ages and don't remember
> the quotes in
> question.
> JPC
> >
It was a typo.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6160
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 4:02pm
Subject: Re: Alphaville
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
>
> >
> > A similar witticism, I'm afraid. David affects
> > me that way. I
> > still don't know whether or not he was punning on
> > "Capital"
> > and "Capitale". He remains silent (on this matter at
> > least). I
> > haven't seen Alphaville in ages and don't remember
> > the quotes in
> > question.
> > JPC
> > >
> It was a typo.
> > >
What? No witticism?! On ne prete qu'aux riches...
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> > removed]
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
> http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6161
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 4:05pm
Subject: Novak exposure
For those interested,there will be a one-hour Kim Novak interview by
Larry "suspenders" King on CNN tomorrow night (Monday) at 9PM. Be
prepared for dumb questions.
JPC
6162
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 4:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Alphaville
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> What? No witticism?! On ne prete qu'aux riches...
La chair est triste, helas! et j'ai vu tous les films.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6163
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 6:34pm
Subject: Re: Career "Breakdown"s
> I saw "U-571" and couldn't detect any
> of the same sensibility.
Great sound design, tho... ;-)
(really not a bad "movie movie" if you can get past the very ahistorical premise)
-sam
6164
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 6:54pm
Subject: Re: Mostow, de Bont, Silver, product placements
> I hate product placements in movies!
I've heard dual time wristwatches have been selling like hotcakes in Taipei :)
-Sam
6165
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 2:03pm
Subject: Re: Far From Heaven
In a message dated 12/27/03 10:35:37 AM, cellar47@y... writes:
> 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."
>
While I agree that there is precious little camp in Haynes, there are other
camp moments in his oeuvre besides that one in Velvet Goldmine you mentioned.
What about the overly rigid narration that asks "What happened?" after the
opening sequence in Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story? Or when another narrator
explains how the anorexic experiences an extreme high as a reward for her
denial of food and then we hear Karen Carpenter singing "Such a feeling's coming
over me"? Whether or not those moments are camp, they make it difficult to
claim that Superstar is dead serious at every turn. At the very least, those
scenes elicited laughter from audiences both times I saw the film in a theatre.
Sorry this is so late in the camp game but it was many a milk crate before I
found my copy of Superstar to double check.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6166
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 2:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director books
In a message dated 12/27/03 10:03:53 AM, cellar47@y... writes:
> Alexandrian libraries have been written
> about "Letter to an Unknown Woman" but next to nothing
> about "The Reckless Moment."
>
I have a review of it here:
http://neumu.net/continuity_error/2002/2002-00001_continuity.shtml
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6167
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 7:10pm
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?
I should've rephrased. But I was arguing to American movie goers (as far as I know) from one myself, that Tsai is one of the most visually dynamic narrative filmmakers
that we have been allowed to see in the U.S. If my comment had the faint scent of xenophobia, I apologize, and should've previewed my comment.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:28:11 -0500
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] What Time Is It There?
Michael Lieberman wrote:
> I'd argue that the visual style of Tsai's films is more beautiful and
> challenging to American movie goers
Is there something special about American movie goers?
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
6168
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 3:39pm
Subject: Daredevil: Character and Story
"Daredevil" is the story of Matt Murdock, a small time lawyer who defends the
needy by day, secretly the crime fighter Daredevil by night. Like many
super-hero stories, his life resembles that of most artists in our society. Just as
he has super-powers, so do they have artistic gifts. Just as he works by day,
so do most artists have day jobs. Just as he operates as a lone individual by
night, so do most artists have a private, little recognized life of painting
or writing by night. Both Matt and most artists dream of "making a difference"
in society, accomplishing something that will benefit everybody. But both are
frequently tormented by self-doubt.
Matt is also a highly individual person. While he is kind hearted and wants
to help people, he does not fit easily into social norms. He is frequently
rejected by people and institutions in society.
Such metaphors have been an important part of super-hero stories from the
beginning. The first super-hero, Superman, was created by writer Jerry Siegel and
artist Joe Shuster in the 1930's. At the time, the two young men were
unknown, and lived in Cleveland, Ohio. Shuster made his living by delivering
groceries, lived with his parents, and drew by night. The team spent many years
writing and drawing in their spare time, before Superman became a huge hit in 1938,
thus turning the small comic book business into a huge American industry.
The subject of "Daredevil" is the same subject as such Vincente Minnelli
pictures as "Lust for Life" and "The Cobweb": the difficulties of the creative
outsider in our society. The picture opens a metaphoric space to consider all
sorts of aspects of artists' lives.
As a working artist (abstract painter and mystery writer), I identify
strongly with Matt Murdock. His life is a lot like my life. As the Quakers so
beautifully put it, he has the ability to "speak to my condition".
Super-hero stories have long been designed as allegories. To take a different
example, consider "Superman Under the Green Sun" (Superman #155, August
1962), a tale written by Bill Finger and drawn by Wayne Boring. In this story,
Superman loses his powers on a planet with a red sun (his powers come from Earth’s
yellow sun), and winds up imprisoned by the planet's dictator in his gulag of
slave labor camps. This story created a (positive) sensation among comics
readers in the 1960's. As the letters column pointed out three issues later, the
story was an allegory about the Nazi concentration camps. The dictator in the
story is drawn to look like Hitler, complete with idiotic mustache. The tale
is immensely powerful, both emotionally and intellectually. Comics readers are
used to reading super-hero stories like this, and seeing them as allegories
about different aspects of life.
Such allegorical reading has to be learned. It is part of the culture that
surrounds super-hero tales. Such stories will lose most of their meanings till
the reader is adjusted to this aspect. It is like understanding camera movement
in film. If you do not understand or recognize camera movement on screen,
such films as "Lola Montes" or "Fallen Angel" will seem almost meaningless to
you.
I like the feminist subtext running throughout "Daredevil". Sometimes it is
tragic. Other times it is cheery and sympathetically witty.
A couple of other points about Daredevil. I really like Ben Affleck. He comes
across as someone like most artists: a person from a working class or lower
middle class background, who has to work for a living. He is not a big shot.
Instead, he seems like a regular guy who is trying to do his best. His modest,
sincere and gentle performance in "Daredevil" adds immeasurably to the
meaningfulness and sense of reality for the character.
All super-heroes have a spectacular costume. It is part of the fun of their
character. I love the red costume Daredevil wears in the film. It is the work
of the talented James Acheson, who frequently collaborates with Bertolucci and
Terry Gilliam, two directors who otherwise do not have much in common. If I
knew where to buy a costume like this, I'd get one this afternoon. Like most
artists, I love to wear brilliantly colored clothes. I have red track pants, and
both plain and shiny red tee shirts. Sporting goods stores are amazing. For
very little money, you can get the most wonderful clothes in them, every sort of
shiny material and in brilliant colors. Rock stars used to pay thousands of
dollars for costumes like this. Now everyone can get them for almost nothing.
The most beautiful scene in "Daredevil" is the rain scene. I do not want to
"spoil" it for those who plan on seeing the movie. It is an example of special
effects used for something positive. Today, special effects tend to be used
for violence: battle scenes, people dying in agony on the Titanic, spaceships
being blown up. I hate this! The rain scene here is the opposite: special
effects being used for something beautiful, joyous, imaginative and life affirming.
Cocteau would have loved it.
Mike Grost
6169
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 3:55pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
Tag Gallagher wrote:
>To me the stories derive secondarily from the characters
>(and their feelings and the world they inhabit -- which is part of what
>Imean by a character) and that it is within this point that the director
>blasts off (not into other universes; he's already there).
Characters are certainly more interesting to me than plot, which, I agree, is
perhaps the least interesting thing one can talk about. You know, something
I've observed is that I have a hard time identifying when a great film has a
bad script. I don't mean a Richard Fleischer film with an obviously poor
script enlivened by a memorable visual sense; I mean a capital-G Great movie. I
think this is because truly astonishing and amazing mise-en-scene sort of
"elevates" everything else, from the story to the dialogue to the acting. Someone
on another movie forum I read commented a while back that he felt that Robert
Mulligan's "The Man In the Moon" had a poor script. Maybe it does, maybe it
doesn't; I think Mulligan's >film< is so great that the only way I'd know would
be to read the screenplay. Does this make any sense? I think Fred has said
something like this before.
>I would thus dispute the sense of the quote attributed to Fred (or me),
It was Fred's quote; a few hundred posts back, I misattributed it to you.
>Curiously, Rossellini also thought that once you decide to do a film
>about a certain person in a certain place, all other script problems
>essentially vanish.
That's fascinating!
Peter
6170
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 9:05pm
Subject: Re: Daredevil
Now I have to see it! The superhero-artist equation was made by the
reviewer in Comics Journal re: DK2, the brilliant sequel to Frank
Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, which inspired the present Batman
film cycle. In DK2 all the DC superheroes band together to topple a
society not unlike Bush's America, provoking worries in some readers
that Miller had gone "fascist." I believe, as the reviewer argues,
that it's an allegory of the artist in society, and specifically of
Miller and his colleagues, the comix/graphic novel artists.
6171
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 9:11pm
Subject: Re: Alphaville
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
> > What? No witticism?! On ne prete qu'aux riches...
>
> La chair est triste, helas! et j'ai vu tous les films.
>
> __________________________________
> So: "Fuir, la-bas fuir, je sens que des auteurs sont ivres..."?
(bet Fred is going to frown upon this exchange if he's looking).
6172
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 9:13pm
Subject: Re: Far From Heaven
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> What about the overly rigid narration that asks
> "What happened?" after the
> opening sequence in Superstar: The Karen Carpenter
> Story? Or when another narrator
> explains how the anorexic experiences an extreme
> high as a reward for her
> denial of food and then we hear Karen Carpenter
> singing "Such a feeling's coming
> over me"? Whether or not those moments are camp,
> they make it difficult to
> claim that Superstar is dead serious at every turn.
> At the very least, those
> scenes elicited laughter from audiences both times I
> saw the film in a theatre.
>
Just because it elicited laughter doens't mean the
film isn't serious. And laughter alone doesn't make it
camp either.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6173
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 9:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Alphaville
Oh frown away, Fred!
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > What? No witticism?! On ne prete qu'aux
> riches...
> >
> > La chair est triste, helas! et j'ai vu tous les
> films.
> >
> > __________________________________
> > So: "Fuir, la-bas fuir, je sens que des auteurs
> sont ivres..."?
>
> (bet Fred is going to frown upon this exchange
> if he's looking).
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6174
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 9:15pm
Subject: Re: Daredevil: Character and Story
I wonder how many of you guys are Marvel fans and have read the
comics? Especially the two stories which "Daredevil" has raped: "Born
Again" (Frank Miller / David Mazzucchelli) and "Elektra Saga" (Frank
Miller).
To begin with, "Daredevil" is no superhero. He does not fight
supervillians, he fights criminals. He is not really the sort of "lose
in court, win on the streets" avenger the film depicts him as. He is
far more complex.
When Miller took over Daredevil, he added a dark side to his
character. There was a sense of despair beneath the coath of
protector. Where Murdoch fought more and more aggresively in court,
Daredevil would begin to wonder, why he should risk his life for
people who wanted him behind bars. He realised that it only would take
a slight push to turn him from protector to "I dont give a fuck"
avenger. And Kingpin hit him with a steamroller.
My problem with "Daredevil" is that they have taken two of the best
stories ever written for comic books and reduced both characters and
story to the barest essentials, never allowing any depth further than
one dimensional poses. The comic story is a complex study of revenge
and anger. Kingpin is a very complex character, who both
supports/helps and fights against Daredevil. The only character which
is somewhat true to his comic form is Bullseye.
Mike, if you really like the film, then I strongly recommend you to
read the graphic novels, as they are superior in both character and
story.
Henrik
6175
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 9:39pm
Subject: In Defense of Plot
I love plot, but that's a function of the kind of mind I have, which
is particularly adept at grasping and analyzing structures spread out
in time. Like Mike, I also enjoy mystery stories.
One of the puzzles to me, faced continually with Fred's strong
polemic for non-narrative cinema, is: just what is the special power
exercised by narrative cinema? Is it a regressive taste, or do these
films offer something that can't be found in non-narrative, or (if
such a thing exists) in plotless films, where theoretically you would
have nothing to look at but fictional or documentary characters being
themselves and interacting? Gerry comes close to that ideal, but it
still has a plot. On the other hand, lots of abstract or structural
films, when analyzed, have plots or ghosts of plots, but no
characters, unless we apply the term metaphorically.
Hawks, by the way, speaks eloquently about his growing realization of
the greater importance of character in film in the interview with
Bogdanovich in Who the Devil Made It? - something his later films
certainly illustrate. Biette wondered when I summarized that
interview for him if this theory of character over plot hadn't
perhaps been elicited in conversation with Becker during Hawks'
sojourn in Europe. Daney got interested in the theory of character
late in his career as a critic, and Harold Bloom makes characters the
centerpiece of his book on Shakespeare, in defiance of post-
structuralist critics for whom Hamlet or Falstaff are just a
constructs of words - to Bloom, they are real people. He even has a
series of critical anthologies about great characters in literature,
according them a status he doesn't grant to other elements of the
Aristotelian picture: there's no Bloom series of critical anthologies
about great themes, or great metrical schemes, or great plots. Just
one on works, one on authors, and one on characters.
Aristotle, on the other hand, made the tragic "action" the basis of
his definition of tragedy and the touchstone for the evaluation of
tragedies. House of Sand and Fog, book and film, consciously recall
Aristotle and Aeschylus, for whom the tragic plot involves a conflict
between irreconcilable laws or gods (vengenace and maternal piety, or
Zeus and Prometheus). Such plots force us to think about
contradictions in society and in our daily lives - that's how I
explain the continuing importance of revenge plots in film,
particularly when treated by sophisticated storytellers like Walsh
and Lang, whose films raise the same moral and metaphysical questions
raised by the Greek tragedians, or their descendants in Elizabethan
and Jacobean England.
Another recent film where plot is minimized: All the Ships at Sea.
Most of it is two-character dialogue scenes, and much of the dialogue
is about abstract religious questions. Yet it has a plot, which
supplies the context for the two sisters' dialogues, and even for the
other dialogues in the film if we consider the larger family story in
which the film's plot is embedded. It even has a carefully thought-
out - and rather enigmatic - plot contrivance at the end: the lost
message. In this it recalls one of my favorite Rohmer films, Story of
Springtime, where the focus is definitely on characters as it is in
most Rohmer films, but the plot contrivance of the missing necklace
plays an important role. (The fact discovered in the last scene of My
Night at Maud's is another example of this.) I generally find the way
Rohmer inserts these MacGuffins in his character-driven films more
satisfying than the way Rivette does the same - the business with the
ring in Va Savoir, for example, which seems contrived in the papier-
mache sense.
And since I've mentioned MacGuffins, finding the correct balance of
plot and character was THE great task for Hitchcock in the script
stage - he and Truffaut discussed this at some length, and the 1000-
pp. transcript of his prelimnary conversations with Lehman on Family
Plot are a fascinating study in the question.
6176
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 9:40pm
Subject: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
something
> I've observed is that I have a hard time identifying when a great
film has a
> bad script. I don't mean a Richard Fleischer film with an
obviously poor
> script enlivened by a memorable visual sense; I mean a capital-G
Great movie.
Can anyone here cite a Great film ("Capital-G great")that has a
poor script? I can't think of one.
Also, what is a script? A script may be poor at the start and
after a talented director has tinkered with it (on his own or with
the writer, or others) it may have become a pretty good script, or
even a great one. Isn't that work part of the mise-en-scene too? JPC
I
> think this is because truly astonishing and amazing mise-en-scene
sort of
> "elevates" everything else, from the story to the dialogue to the
acting. Someone
> on another movie forum I read commented a while back that he felt
that Robert
> Mulligan's "The Man In the Moon" had a poor script. Maybe it does,
maybe it
> doesn't; I think Mulligan's >film< is so great that the only way
I'd know would
> be to read the screenplay. Does this make any sense? I think Fred
has said
> something like this before.
>
I like the Mulligan film a lot (although probably not as much as
you do) and I agree that I don't understand what this person meant
when he said the script was poor. Maybe the script didn't conform to
some of those rules they keep harping on in screenwriting courses and
books.
JPC
>
> >Curiously, Rossellini also thought that once you decide to do a
film
> >about a certain person in a certain place, all other script
problems
> >essentially vanish.
>
> That's fascinating!
Rossellini's theory (especially as reported by Truffaut) is
strangely deterministic and I don't think it can apply to many others
beside himself. Tag quotes Truffaut's comments in his Rossellini bio.
Here is my version: "When Rossellini writes a script he encounters no
narrative problem at all; the premise is enough. Given such
character, his religion, his food, his nationality, his activity he
can only have such and such needs and such and such desires. A
discrepancy between needs and desires is enough to create a conflict
that will naturally evolve by itself..."
Well, mabe, and maybe not. Anyway RR didn't really consider a script
and its problems the way most filmmakers do. Which accounts for the
enormous hostility to (and commercial failure of) most of his films
after the first two.
JPC
>
> Peter
6177
From: George Robinson
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 9:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
As a writer I'm inclined to agree with this question but as an Orthodox
auteurist (I never take my hat off in a John Ford film), obviously I want to
bristle.
The only problem is, I can't think of too many great movies with bad
scripts. One does leap to mind, though:
Vidor's The Fountainhead, which may be the best movie ever made from the
worst script imaginable. The visual dynamism of Vidor's direction gives
voice to all the stupid ideas that Rand mutters on about and the sexual
chemistry between Cooper and Neal (which I gather was recapitulated
off-screen as well) smolders in a way that the author's fatuous prose never
does. A terrific film, a mind-bogglingly bad screenplay.
I might also try to make a case for Minnelli's Four Horsemen of the
Apocalypse, although the real problem there is as much the cast as the
script which I don't recall being particularly egregious, just pedestrian.
(But Glenn Ford as a playboy, even a faux playboy who's really a Resistance
fighter? Glenn Ford as anything but an American? Uhn-uhn.)
George (I've written some very very bad scripts but I'm waiting for Vidor
and Minnelli to rise from the dead to save them) Robinson
To find a form that accommodates the
mess, that is the task of the artist.
--Samuel Beckett
----- Original Message -----
From: "jpcoursodon"
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 4:40 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
> Can anyone here cite a Great film ("Capital-G great")that has a
> poor script? I can't think of one.
6178
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 5:21pm
Subject: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
Perhaps some background about why I care about these questions.
Today, film as an institution is frequently described as being in a crisis.
Jonathan Rosenbaum's "Movie Wars" discusses this in detail. Tenth rate product
is being shoved down the public's throat, while major filmmakers go
undistributed or only seen by tiny minorities (at best) in art houses in big cities.
Critics, in this scenario, are supposed to bring great artistic successes to
the attention of the public, who will then broaden their film culture. People
who are supposed to do this include members of a_film_by, with our film lists
and recommendations.
But what film did American critics pick as the best film in World Cinema for
2003? According to the Village Voice poll, it is "Lost In Translation".
Meanwhile, many critics have touted "What Time Is It There?" as a supreme
masterpiece.
When I saw those films, they did not look like even good movies to me. I
could not see they had plot or characterization or visual style, in any
traditional senses of these terms. They seemed instead like "Sterile Theoretical
Exercises in Minimalism", designed at best to please a handful of theoreticians who
hate plot, characters, visual beauty, and anything else in film that people
enjoy.
This is a formula for disaster. These films are not even as good as pleasant
above average Hollywood productions such as "Daredevil" or "Catch Me If You
Can" or "Miss Congeniality" or "Shanghai Noon" or "Maid in Manhattan".
Can we all look ourselves in the eye, and honestly say that "Lost in
Translation" is a major work of cinema, on the order of "Citizen Kane" or "Sansho the
Baliff" or "Dog Star Man" or "L'Avventura"? Aren't films of this ambition what
we should be looking for in world cinema?
Mike Grost
6179
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 10:24pm
Subject: Silly Great movie
I can't think to a movie as a "filmed-script". It doesn't make any
sense to me, and I thought it was the general idea of this group.
What makes the movie anyway?
What was the written script before the very first shot should be the
very last of our concern. It has no existence by itself. The long
process of filmmaking digested it, adding, subtracting, giving life
to this vision, which we believe, most of the time, to be the one of
the filmmaker.
There can't be any great movie with a poor script, if we call script
what we can read between the images. If the film is a great one, it
means it succeeded in giving life to characters/ideas, which stand
valuable as they are.
I can't think to a filmmaker as the one who may give visual dynamism
to silly ideas. Visual dynamism is not cinema. There is no Silly
Great movie (Capital S, Capital G).
Maxime
6180
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 10:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> Can we all look ourselves in the eye, and honestly
> say that "Lost in
> Translation" is a major work of cinema, on the order
> of "Citizen Kane" or "Sansho the
> Baliff" or "Dog Star Man" or "L'Avventura"?
So what areyou proposing? Take Sofia out and shoot her
because she isn't Welles, Mizoguchi,Brakhage or
Antonioni? How rude!
She's not Michael Bay either, you know. I'm surprised
"Lost in Translation" won out when there's been so
much critical blather about "Mystic River."
Frankly I prefer "Mystic Pizza." (Note: I don't like
"Mystic Pizza.")
Rivette's remarks about Eastwood being an auteur and
therefore above reproach stick in my craw. I love much
of Eastwood. He deserved his Oscar for "Unforgiven"
and I'm a great fan of "The Gauntlet," "Buffalo
Billy," "Play Misty For Me" and (brace yourselves)
"Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil." But "Mystic
River" stinks on ice. Almost as much as "The Eiger
Sanction."
Being an auteur isn't everything. Many of directors I
admire (George Cukor and Charles Walters being perfect
examples) aren't auteurs. So what?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6181
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 5:50pm
Subject: Matters of plot
Bill Krohn wrote:
>Hawks, by the way, speaks eloquently about his growing realization of
>the greater importance of character in film in the interview with
>Bogdanovich in Who the Devil Made It? - something his later films
>certainly illustrate.
Hawks is the classic example of a director explicitly favoring character over
plot. He also grew to favor, in the years after "The Big Sleep," >scenes<
over plot. In other words, he believed that it didn't particularly matter that
the story of "The Big Sleep" was rather incoherent because each scene worked
on its own terms. This has been written about a lot of the years by Hawks
scholars, but has anyone ever connected it with Kubrick's feelings about these
matters late in his life? Kubrick was supposed to have said to more than one
screenwriter that all you need in a film are a bunch of good scenes. Kubrick
infuriated Frederic Raphael with his apparent lack of interest in structure. Of
course, a lack of structure can be a structure in and of itself; after years
of thinking about "Full Metal Jacket," and being inspired by Bill's writings on
the film, I've come to the conclusion that the "formlessness" of the second
act in Vietnam is absolutely intentional following the "formality" of the first
act.
I guess what I'm trying to communicate in my posts on this topic is what is
>most< important in film. To me, it's the stuff organic to the medium itself.
As Bogdanovich (a very visual director) says, that doesn't mean that you
don't also want good dialogue, for example - it's just not the most important
thing. I think this is one of the reasons why I so love the work of directors who
began in silent films; there's a sense of space and movement to even the most
minor Allan Dwan because his visual imagination was formed in an era where
pictures were all you had (except title cards!)
Peter
6182
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 5:51pm
Subject: Film Classics rewritten
What would some film classics look like, if they had been made in the style
of "Sterile Theoretical Exercises in Minimalism"? Some suggestions:
The Birds (Alfred Hitchcock) Mitch and Melanie have a two hour picnic, during
which they play a game of parchesi. No birds show up, nothing happens, and
Mitch and Melanie mainly discuss different kinds of booze.
Stagecoach (John Ford). The Ringo Kid and Dallas spend two hours in bars in
Lourdsberg. They exchange banal dialogue about different kinds of booze, and
occasionally sing pop songs. Nothing else happens. (This is the "plot" of "Lost
in Translation" - hey, it wowed the New York Critics!)
Madame de... (Max Ophuls) De Sica and another man's wife spend two hours in
bars in Paris, while they discuss different kinds of booze and sing songs. The
husband never learns of their affair, there is no political subplot about
warrior Boyer versus diplomat de Sica, there is no camera movement, and Darrieux
is fired from the production, and replaced by an actress young enough to be de
Sica's granddaughter.
Metropolis (Fritz Lang) The son of the Master of Metropolis spends two hours
wandering around shops in the city, buying dual-time watches and resetting
clocks. Nothing else happens (This is the "plot"of "What Time Is It There?")
Mike Grost
6183
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 5:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
George Robinson wrote:
>The only problem is, I can't think of too many great movies with bad
>scripts.
But wait! Couldn't it be that some great movies do have poor scripts, but
the movies are so great (read = the direction is so great) that you just can't
tell? I don't know how "A Distant Trumpet" would read on paper, but I do know
that it never even occurs to me that the script is fine or poor as I watch it
because the film itself is amazing.
Peter
6184
From: Maxime
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 11:26pm
Subject: Re: Matters of plot
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
I think this is one of the reasons why I so love the work of
directors who
> began in silent films; there's a sense of space and movement to
even the most
> minor Allan Dwan because his visual imagination was formed in an
era where
> pictures were all you had (except title cards!)
Allan Dwan (to PB): "Give it a sense of motion. That's what you do
with any script you get ahold of. Because we write with the camera,
not with a pencil or a pen and we've got to remember that and not
get trapped by the fellow who writes with words. (…) But if you
haven't got any story, you've got nothing."
(about camera-placement): "For me, it's
mathematics. There is nothing more beautiful than mathematical
perfection."
Whatever my (huge) admiration for Dwan's work is, he certainly does
not represent the alpha and the omega of cinema to me. (Or does he?)
I don't think we have to compare the respective merits of narrative
and non-narrative movies.
Story or not, characters or not, who cares?
We need the adequacy between a vision and its film expression.
It may the story of a life, it may be the smell of death or the cry
of a bleeding heart, it may be just a dream... Just show me what you
have in your guts, fellow filmmaker, and I'll see if I can take it.
6185
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 0:40am
Subject: What's minimalism?
In his intense dislike for some recent films, especially "Lost in
Translation" and "What Time..." Mike keeps telling us they
are "minimalist" sterile exercise, even though quite a few of us have
argued the opposite. But dear MG, what is your definition
of "Minimalism"? To me early Warhol movies ("Empire" or "Sleep") are
truly minimalist. "Wavelength" may be minimalist, but I'm not even so
sure. Other than that, I don't see minimalism anywhere in even the
most "modern" narrative movie-making.
I find it hard to accept your idea that if nothing much happens in a
movie, that earns it the label "minimalist" and worthless.
Nothing much happens in many films by Rohmer. Nothing much happens
in "India Song" or "Detruire, dit-elle". Nothing much happens in "The
Mother and the Whore". Nothing much happens in "Nostalghia". Nothing
much happens in "Taste of Cherry" or "The Wind Will Carry us".Hardly
anything at all happens in "El Sol del membrillo". Do you reject all
those films as sterile minimalist exercises?
I suspect I'm repeating myself. In an earlier post I mentionned that
your objections were very much the same as the ones directed to
Rossellini's "Voyage in Italy" when it came out. Is "Voyage" really a
minimalist exercise in sterility? few would argue it today.
"Lost in Translation" is not "Voyage in Italy," and it's certainly
not "Citizen Kane" or "L'avventura" or any of the "classics" you
evoke, but so what? No one claims it is. It's just a very talented
and sensitive personal movie (I suspect there's a lot of personal
feeling and experience in it). If it doesn't satisfy your
expectations, maybe you should question your expectations before
vituperating against the film.
JPC
6186
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 0:51am
Subject: Re: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
jpcoursodon wrote:
> RR didn't really consider a script
> and its problems the way most filmmakers do. Which accounts for the
> enormous hostility to (and commercial failure of) most of his films
> after the first two.
>
I must admit that I too have no idea what a good script is. I doubt
that most people would regard the script for Morocco as having much
merit. I can recognize what I think are bad scripts: almost any film
where people talk too much. But most critics don't consider this a fault.
I don't think Rossellini's scripts had anything to do with the hostility
or commercial failure of his films. Was Europe '51 a big success in
Italy because it had a good script? or was it a total dud in America
because it had a lousy script?
There WAS the political problem for Rossellini that the resolutions of
many of his movies were personal rather than societal (e.g., Bergman may
find God on the volcano, but how does that help us solve the problems of
postwar Europe?). But the fact that critics did not fail to ask how
Bergman committing herself to an insane asylum helped solve the problems
of postear Europe did not stop that film from being successful.
In any case, a plot is not a script.
I challenge someone to come up with a movie that has a wonderfully
interesting character, richly directed, richly acted (or impersonated),
living in a fascinating world -- and that fails because of a bad
"script" (whatever that word means: please define).
6187
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 1:17am
Subject: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
>
>
I can recognize what I think are bad scripts: almost any film
> where people talk too much. But most critics don't consider this a
fault.
>
The question is: what is "too much"? People talk incessantly in
most Rohmer movies. "The Mother and the Whore" is three hours + of
torrential talk. It it too much? And in some cases (the Eustache film
at any rate) the talk, very carefully written, IS the script.
If the talk is good, it can't be too much.
Do people talk "too much"' in filmed plays? "Rope", "Dial M for
Murder", Resnais' "Melo", "Inherit the Wind", Welles' Shakespeare
plays etc...
JPC
6188
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 1:23am
Subject: Re: What's minimalism?
JP:
> If it doesn't satisfy your
> expectations, maybe you should question your expectations before
> vituperating against the film.
And that's exactly it. If you expect frenetic pacing from Manoel de Oliveira, you
are in for torture. If you expect close-ups from Hou Hsiao-hsien, you'll be
rolling your eyes. If you expect the Straubs to give a damn about naturalism
(or whatever), good luck.
This isn't about minimalism, art cinema, or anything that has been discussed.
This is about Mike Grost not being used to a certain type of film -- I know I had
a bad reaction to filmmakers like Wong Kar-wai and Manoel de Oliveira when
I started watching their films. I found films like HAPPY TOGETHER and
ABRAHAM VALLEY to be pretentious, artsy-fartsy (I really don't have any
other terms because my analysis at the time was shallow and reactionary).
Eventually I realized that was only because these were the ideas that people
put in my head about "artsy" movies, not based on any of my genuine,
personal reactions to these films. And this is not exclusively an American
thing either: when I lived in Europe I knew several critics who were quick to
dissent on Kiarostami and Hou. Even in Brazil, Hou Hsiao-hsien is hated by
most critics I have spoken to.
But Mike claims to like BEAU TRAVAIL, so I don't know.
The turning point for me was TASTE OF CHERRY, which I went to see in late
'97 in a neighborhood theater in Barcelona before I knew anything about
Kiarostami or the film. My reaction was so profoundly positive that I couldn't
shrug off Kiarostami with any preconceived ideas (I had none), or statements
by other critics (which I hadn't read). And at that point I wasn't reading
Rosenbaum, or Cahiers, or anything. I barely had an email address either.
Then I saw THE RIVER (Tsai), films by Imamura (I count DR. AKAGI as one of
my favorites, Mike), lots others...
But at the beginning it was just a matter of not being used to this type of
cinema (rather than being swayed by critics, which came later one). Art
cinema itself was already new to my Tarantino sucking whore self.
Gabe
6189
From: Dave Garrett
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 2:00am
Subject: Re: What's minimalism?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger" wrote:
> And that's exactly it. If you expect frenetic pacing from Manoel de Oliveira, you
> are in for torture. If you expect close-ups from Hou Hsiao-hsien, you'll be
> rolling your eyes. If you expect the Straubs to give a damn about naturalism
> (or whatever), good luck.
>
> This isn't about minimalism, art cinema, or anything that has been discussed.
> This is about Mike Grost not being used to a certain type of film -- I know I had
> a bad reaction to filmmakers like Wong Kar-wai and Manoel de Oliveira when
> I started watching their films.
It's interesting that you should mention Wong, because I was just going to
ask Mike how he felt about Wong's films. I certainly don't put Sofia C. in the
same class as Wong, who has to date had one of the most astonishing runs
in recent memory, but his films are deeply felt evocations of specific moods if
nothing else, and that's a category into which I feel LOST IN TRANSLATION fits
comfortably as well.
> The turning point for me was TASTE OF CHERRY, which I went to see in late
> '97 in a neighborhood theater in Barcelona before I knew anything about
> Kiarostami or the film. My reaction was so profoundly positive that I couldn't
> shrug off Kiarostami with any preconceived ideas (I had none), or statements
> by other critics (which I hadn't read).
Given the accolades that have been heaped on Kiarostami, I'm afraid I may
be in the minority when it comes to him - TASTE OF CHERRY did absolutely
nothing for me when I saw it screened under optimal circumstances. But I'm
generally reluctant to judge a film based on a single viewing, and I need to
revisit CHERRY to see if my initial reaction still holds true or not.
Dave
6190
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 2:15am
Subject: Tsai
THE SKYWALK IS GONE is the continuation of WHAT TIME IS IT THERE -- a
beautiful, beautiful film that is even more perfect than its predecessor (it does
have the advantage of being short). Going all the way back, the dynamic in
Tsai's films are usually son (Lee Kang-sheng), mom (Lu Hsiao-ling), dad
(Miao Tien), with other actors frequently recurring. At least Lee has gone on to
fame and celebrity in Taiwan, don't know about the others, but they certainly
all got their start in Tsai's films. Miao Tien was spotted on the street by Tsai, as
the story goes, and was immediately cast in the role of the father in REBELS
OF THE NEON GOD. He appears memorably at the end of WHAT TIME IS IT
THERE, his symbolic departure from the role of "dad"; and briefly in the new
one, GOODBYE DRAGON INN, as a cinema patron with a small child (now in
the role of "grandfather", I guess).
THE RIVER is a great father's day movie !
6191
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 9:50pm
Subject: Tastes & Criteria
I love Wong Kar-wai, especially "Chungking Express", "Fallen Angels" and "In
the Mood for Love". His films seem visually brilliant - magnificent visual
style. Plus the characters in "In the Mood for Love" are highly complex people.
My posts keep saying that my values include: complex plot; rich
characterization; brilliant visual style. If a film has any ONE of these three, even if the
others are absent, I can enjoy it, admire it, and recommend it to others. I
also like Shakespeare & other classic drama (brilliant poetic dialogue); opera
(great music) and ballet films (great dancing), although all three of these
have been produced in smaller quantities than films with good plot, characters
or visual style.
I have repeatedly expressed admiration for the genius of Stan Brakhage in
these posts, and other experimental filmmakers. Brakhage, Belson, Ron Rice, Oskar
Fischinger, James Whitney, Storm de Hirsch, et al are good examples of
filmmakers who made visually brilliant films, and who deliberately decided not to
make films with plots or characters. Their visual brilliance is magnificent
artistry, and more than enough for me!
I've never seen "The Quince Tree Sun" - the only Erice seen here is "The
Spirit of the Beehive", about which my feelings are complex and ambivalent. The
only Kiarostami seen here was "Life and Nothing More..." which I recently
praised here twice in two posts. By the way those posts begged members of a_film_by
to respond to their comments on Kiaorstami - and no one did! I am certainly
NOT proud of my ignorance about Erice and Kiarostami, and am trying to rectify
it.
Rohmer is too talented for me to dismiss, but never gets close enough to
making a film I love. This might be more my fault than his. "Perceval le gallois",
"An Autumn Tale" and "Ma nuit chez Maud" are the ones I've liked best so far.
The one screening seen of "The Mother and the Whore" 30 years was not
enjoyed. This is my only Eustache. Once again, this ignorance should be corrected.
By contrast, I am madly enthused about Feuillade, Feyder, Clair, Renoir,
Bresson, Tati, Godard, Becker, Ophuls, Resnais, Varda, Costa-Gavras, Techine,
Beneix, Laconte, de Broca, Berliner and others in French cinema.
Mike Grost
6192
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 2:51am
Subject: Re: Film Classics rewritten (plot)
MG4273@a... wrote:
> What would some film classics look like, if they had been made in
the style of "Sterile Theoretical Exercises in Minimalism"? Some
suggestions:
> The Birds (Alfred Hitchcock) Mitch and Melanie have a two hour
picnic, during which they play a game of parchesi. No birds show up,
> Mitch and Melanie mainly discuss different kinds of booze.
> Stagecoach (John Ford). The Ringo Kid and Dallas spend two hours in
bars in Lourdsberg. They exchange banal dialogue about different
kinds of booze, and
> occasionally sing pop songs. Nothing else happens.
Both these movies sound fun to me. Aren't they just a little like
L'AVVENTURA and RIO BRAVO respectively?
> Metropolis (Fritz Lang) The son of the Master of Metropolis spends
two hours wandering around shops in the city, buying dual-time
watches and resetting clocks. Nothing else happens (This is
the "plot"of "What Time Is It There?")
I would definitely call WHAT TIME IS IT THERE a plot-driven movie,
even if the whole basis of plot -- the concept of causality -- is put
into question. But the final scene is a great narrative punchline.
Incidentally I too think it's a masterpiece.
Mike, I do sympathise with your point of view: I think storytelling
is about the most important thing in the world, and I've expressed
bafflement here before about the idea that a taste for narrative is
somehow regressive (that makes no sense to me, even theoretically).
But I also love the feeling you can get when plot loses its moorings
and starts drifting,and we're left with just people and objects, what
Rohmer called the "existential charm" of film. This is still a form
of storytelling, the same way jazz still uses melodies: you set up
some kind of narrative convention, then see how far you can stretch
its limits. That happens in Antonioni and Hawks, and to a lesser
degree in LOST IN TRANSLATION.
JTW
6193
From: Tosh
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 3:11am
Subject: Lost in Translation
The Bill Murray part is a strong character in a very conservative
nature. He's a burned-out (maybe has-been movie star) who has to
deal with what he may suspect is an empty marriage, and on top of
that he's misplaced in a different culture. And he's facing
middle-aged agnst. So he meets a fellow traveler of sort - and they
are attached to each other - but not forever.
So to me, Lost in Translation has a strong narrative. It has a
beginning, middle and end. I don't find it miminalist in any sense.
It's a really enjoyable film, but not a great one. I don't think
there are any really great new films at the moment. I also thought
'Mystic River' was a case of so-what.
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
6194
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 3:11am
Subject: Minimal Kane
Little Charles' parents, over a jug of malt liquor, decide that
wealth is not for them simple folk, and they sign it over to the bank.
Charles grows up to be a drunk. One winter they burn "Rosebud" to
keep themselves warm. The end.
6195
From:
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: Re: What's minimalism?
I apologize for hectoring the team. No one enjoys "vituperation". I will try
again, more rationally.
John Ford's "The Searchers" (1956) is in some ways a typical example of
classical film. On page 325 of Tag Gallagher's book on Ford, there is a chart
outlining the plot. It takes a whole page of small print to summarize the complex
events of the film. The plot details seven years in the lives of a large group
of characters.
In "What Time Is It There?" the protagonist resets a few clocks in Taipei; a
woman has a few casual conversations in Paris, and a mother covers up some
windows in her apartment. These simple events are slowly spread out over the
course of a feature film.
The suggestion is that "What Time Is It There?" is a drastically different
kind of film than "The Searchers". Leaving aside the question of whether one or
the other or both or neither are good, is it fair to suggest that we are
seeing two really different kinds of cinema here?
I called the plot of "What Time Is It There?" minimalist. Admittedly, this is
still a lot more plot than such Andy Warhol films as "Empire". It might be a
bad name.
6196
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 3:13am
Subject: Re: Minimal Kane
How about two hours of Big Charles writing his opera review?
jpcoursodon wrote:
> Little Charles' parents, over a jug of malt liquor, decide that
> wealth is not for them simple folk, and they sign it over to the bank.
> Charles grows up to be a drunk. One winter they burn "Rosebud" to
> keep themselves warm. The end.
>
6197
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 3:21am
Subject: Re: What's minimalism?
It seems that in your defence for minimalism, you dismiss the
possibility that some minimalist directors are bad, just as some
"normal" directors are bad.
I don't believe that minimalism is some sort of filmmaking only done
by an auteur elite. Just because Hou, Kiarostami and Kitano are
minimalists doesnt make them masters. They are so because they are
good directors, good story tellers.
Just because Sofie is named Coppola and because she uses minimalism as
technique doesn't make her a good director. Does she tell a story
which we can relate to?, is it told good? Just because she uses
minimalism doesn't give her a yes in both.
The problem as I see it is, that minimalism is such a fragile
technique, that unless the story and message is strong, and is to ones
liking, the technique wont survive. I hate Wai, to me his films are
cold, his characters alienated. It wasn't until I saw "In the Mood for
Love" I realised that he was a good director; and still to this day, I
can't find any sign of quality in neither "Fallen Angels" or
"Chungking Express" no matter how hard I look, because the films just
urk me.
Another thing, why do we have to like minimalism per se? We dont like
film per se, otherwise we wouldn't discuss if Film X is good or not.
Again, I don't believe that minimalism only are for an auteur elite.
In the end, it is the story that matters.
Henrik
6198
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 3:27am
Subject: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> They seem to be
> exercises in Minimalism - films in which nothing happens.
Since WHAT TIME IS IT THERE? is "about" bereavement to the point of near-catatonia, in a way it's true that not much happens -- between the death at the beginning, that is, and the apparent resurrection at the end. One might wonder, though, whether all this is
"nothing," or almost too much.
I found some food for thought in the review and interview at
http://www.insound.com/zinestand/feature.cfm?aid=9009
Tsai's film and (the more performance-driven) LOST IN TRANSLATION strike me as an odd pair; I didn't see much in common between them (although I'm beginning to think I should see the latter again).
6199
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 3:58am
Subject: Re: Tsai (Miao)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger" wrote:
> Miao Tien was spotted on the street by Tsai, as
> the story goes, and was immediately cast in the role of the father in REBELS
> OF THE NEON GOD.
I thought he was an actor in classical martial arts films, including King Hu's original DRAGON INN. http://www.rarekungfumovies.com/star340.html
Of course both stories could be true.
> THE RIVER is a great father's day movie !
6200
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 4:01am
Subject: Re: In Defense of Plot
hotlove666 wrote:
> One of the puzzles to me, faced continually with Fred's strong
> polemic for non-narrative cinema, is: just what is the special
power
> exercised by narrative cinema?
The basic problem of filmmaking could be stated as: how do you link
one image, or one moment, with another? Plot is one of the easiest
and strongest ways to do this, because it resembles the chains of
cause-and-effect we're used to perceiving in actual life. Making
everything cohere using only visual and conceptual echoes, reversals,
and so forth seems like a much harder job, particularly in longer
works: if these connections are basically achronological, how do you
use them to order a work which exists in time? I'd be curious to know
Fred's thoughts on this.
> Daney got interested in the theory of character
> late in his career as a critic, and Harold Bloom makes characters
the
> centerpiece of his book on Shakespeare, in defiance of post-
> structuralist critics for whom Hamlet or Falstaff are just a
> constructs of words - to Bloom, they are real people.
I think this is probably true in literature, but "character" gets
tricky in film, because the idea of the actor, and more particularly
the star, seems to take primacy over the fictional creation. Who
would be the real person -- John Wayne, "John Wayne", or John T.
Chance?
> I generally find the way
> Rohmer inserts these MacGuffins in his character-driven films more
> satisfying than the way Rivette does the same - the business with >
> the ring in Va Savoir, for example, which seems contrived in the
> papier-mache sense.
But they're working to fundamentally different purposes. Wouldn't it
be disappointing if the plot of VA SAVOIR actually made sense?
JTW
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact