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.
6501
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:14pm
Subject: Biette challenged
My objection to Biette's hierarchy is that it is a subjective
taxonomy. Taxonomies are useful, even necessary for the purpose of
classification, but they have to be based on objective observation
and identification. Biette's is mostly based on personal tastes and
preferences and as such has no "scientific" merit or practical use.
Filmmakers will be shifted from one category to another according to
each person's tastes and values, as clearly shown by Jess's and Joe's
objections in response to Bill this morning. So battles will rage
anew, needlessly. "O, that way madness lies; let me shun that."
JPC
6502
From:
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:53am
Subject: Testable Hypothesis
Biette's definition of a cineaste contains formal difficulties.
If a critic says, "Rossellini is a cineaste" or "De Sica is not a cineaste",
it is not going to be easy for someone else to test whether these assertions
are true or false. Is there an easy way for an outside observer to determine if
Rossellini has "an individual stance with respect to the world and with
respect to cinema" - a way that all critics from David Bordwell to Peter Wollen
will agree is obviously correct? Or that De Sica doe NOT have such a stance?
This does not mean that Biette's idea of a cineaste has no value. But it
sounds like something that is 1) very personal for each critic; and 2) something
that can be arrived at after a long, intensive study of a filmmaker.
Forgive me. I was trained in formal logic and theory of science. I
automatically scan everything I read to see if it is a "Testable Hypothesis": something
whose truth or falsity can be determined objectively by outside observers.
It's an unbreakable habit by this point.
One can see a lot of untestable hypotheses floating through film critcicism.
For example, in Olivier Assayas' interview in Cinemascope, he makes a
statement like (this is a paraphrase from memory) "big commercial films are in touch
with important ideas of our society's unconscious, in the way that small
independant films usually are not". He means that blockbuster films like "The
Matrix" connect up with hidden social issues and technological innovations in a way
that art films like "Far From Heaven" and "Before Night Falls" allegedly do
not. My first thought on reading this is: Assayas might be right or he might be
wrong, but how the heck can I test this? I can't look into society's
unconscious mind. How can one know if "The Matrix" or "Before Night Falls" is linked to
it meaningfully or not?
(By the way, I loved "Far From Heaven" and "Before Night Falls", and did not
like "The Matrix", but that is a side issue.)
By contrast, it is much easier to think about testable hypotheses. A good
example of a testable hypothesis, is Fred Camper's assertion on his web site that
"Brakhage's 'Anticipation of the Night' is the first film to show his mature
personal style" (once again, I'm paraphrasing from memory). I can test this!
Memories of seeing 'Anticipation of the Night' confirm that it is full of the
trademark bobbing and weaving that Brakhage did to express the act of seeing.
And that it deals with a wide range of visual experiences, in and out of focus,
light effects, sudden bursts of movement. A memory search also suggests that
such features were not fully present in Brakhage films before 'Anticipation of
the Night', such as "Wonder Ring'. The assertion turns out to be true...
A testable hypothesis has many merits, that untestable assertions do not. For
one thing, it corresponds to something other people can actually examine in
the real world - here, something about the concrete style of some Brakhage
films. For another, other writers can build on it, or expand it, or modify it or
correct it, because they know exactly what it means in terms of actual real
world experience.
Mike Grost
6503
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:02pm
Subject: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
> The first film I saw in 2004 was the acclaimed "Young Adam" by David
> McKenzie. The director, who was present, was a very nice bloke, and
> he chatted amiably about his experience with Tilda Swinton, Peter
> Mullan, etc. But the film is plain BAD - dull, lacking in tension,
> utterly predictable, and a courtroom scene that is the most
> jarringly false since "Dancer in the Dark". And the constant sex is
> just *so* monotonous. Plus, the whole plight of the writer/artist as
> he descends into darkness is done much better by, say, Cronenberg.
> Ugh - it's been a while since I've had a terrible urge to just walk
> out of a film, but this nearly drove me to it.
I gave in to that urge when I saw the film at the Toronto Film Festival.
But, you know, there are always lots of good films being made out
there; the trick is being around when they get projected. My movie life
has improved a lot since I started going to Toronto four or five years
ago.
If I had to guess, I'd say that cinema hit a bad patch in the 80s and
has been picking up steam ever since. But it's possible that I missed a
lot of good films because foreign film distribution in the US was so
poor in the 80s; it's improved a great deal since then. - Dan
6504
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Biette challenged
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> My objection to Biette's hierarchy is that it is a
> subjective
> taxonomy. Taxonomies are useful, even necessary for
> the purpose of
> classification, but they have to be based on
> objective observation
> and identification. Biette's is mostly based on
> personal tastes and
> preferences and as such has no "scientific" merit
> or practical use.
Well all criticism is based in personal taste and
preference. All of us in here may agree that Orson
Welles is a great filmmaker, but why we think he's
great and which of his films are greater than the
other is pretty much up for grabs. I think "F For
Fake" is his best film and I can make an argument to
that effect. But I'd be a fool to presume I could
convince anyone else.
A fortiori, J-P, as I'm sure you know I consider
"Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train" to be the
greatestfilm ever made and Chereau to be the greatest
dirctor of three different media (fil, opera, theater)
This is a provocation. But it is also quite sincere.
I would accept Biette's categories in a spirit of
playfulness only -- not something to be carved in
stone.
There are many different kinds of good directors. Some
master traffic cops like Curtiz. Some are stylists
like Minnelli. Some are masters of what Manny Farber
calls "Termite Art." I'd put Chuck Walters in that
category.
And as I've said Fellini and Hitchcock are not simply
directors but names that conjure up the Cinema itself.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6505
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:39pm
Subject: Re: Biette Challenged, etc.
Well, there are alternatives. As usual, literary theory leads the way:
Studying Literature by the Numbers
The New York Times
January 10, 2004
By EMILY EAKIN
If Franco Moretti had his way, literature scholars would
stop reading books and start counting, graphing and mapping
them instead. For an English professor, this is an ambition
verging on apostasy. But Mr. Moretti, a professor of
English and comparative literature at Stanford and director
of the university's center for the study of the novel,
insists that such a move could bring new luster to a tired
field, one that in some respects, he says, is among "the
most backwards disciplines in the academy."
Mr. Moretti, 53, has been honing his vision of a text-free
literary scholarship in books and articles over the last
two decades. And now he is issuing a manifesto. "Graphs,
Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History," which
just appeared in the November/December issue of New Left
Review, a British journal of politics and culture, is
merely the first installment. (Two more will follow in
subsequent issues.) But in it Mr. Moretti makes his most
forceful case yet for his approach, a heretical blend of
quantitative history, geography and evolutionary theory.
Literary study, he argues, has been a random, unsystematic
affair. For any given period, scholars focus on a select
group of a mere few hundred texts: the canon. As a result,
they have allowed a narrow, distorting slice of literary
history to pass for the total picture.
"What a minimal fraction of the literary field we all work
on," Mr. Moretti declares, tactfully including himself
among the guilty. "A canon of 200 novels, for instance,
sounds very large for 19th-century Britain (and is much
larger than the current one), but is still less than 1 per
cent of the novels that were actually published: 20,000,
30, more, no one really knows - and close reading won't
help here, a novel a day every day of the year would take a
century or so."
The perils of such a method, he writes, are clear: "A field
this large cannot be understood by stitching together
separate bits of knowledge about individual cases, because
it isn't a sum of individual cases: it's a collective
system, that should be grasped as such, as a whole."
Equally clear, he maintains, is the remedy: the way to "a
more rational literary history" is to replace close reading
with abstract models borrowed from the sciences.
Where other scholars quote from "Pamela," "Moll Flanders"
or "Tom Jones" - traditionally considered among the first
modern novels - Mr. Moretti offers bar charts, maps and
time lines instead. A vast synthesis of material (much of
it gathered by other scholars working on a single period or
genre), his is a history of literature as data points, one
that looks as if it could have been lifted from an
economics textbook.
Here the 18th-century British novel is represented by its
publication rate: a single, undulating fever line. Likewise
entire genres - including the epistolary, the gothic and
the historical novel - as well the literary outputs of
countries like Japan, Italy, Spain and Nigeria.
Viewed from this level of abstraction, Mr. Moretti argues,
literary history looks significantly different from what is
commonly supposed. For example, it is clear, he writes,
that the novel did not experience a single "rise," as is
frequently taught (following the title of a famous book by
the critic Ian Watt), but went through repeated cycles of
growth and retrenchment, with political crises
corresponding to dips in publication rates. So, too,
according to another graph, did the ratio of male to female
authors.
As Mr. Moretti sums up the point: "It's fascinating to see
how researchers are convinced that they are all describing
something unique (the gender shift, the elevation of the
novel, the gentrification, the invention of high and low,
the feminization, the sentimental education, the invasion .
. . ), whereas in all likelihood they are all observing the
same comet that keeps crossing and recrossing the sky: the
same literary cycle."
In some ways, Mr. Moretti's quantitative method is simply
the latest in a long line of efforts to make literary
criticism look more like science. From Russian formalism in
the 1920's to New Criticism in the 1950's and structuralism
and semiotics in the 1960's and 70's, the discipline's
major movements share a desire to portray literature as a
system governed by hidden laws and structures whose
operations it is the critic's job to reveal. But in its
formal renunciation of individual texts - and, more
provocatively, of reading - Mr. Moretti's approach, at
least as he sketches it in New Left Review, is conceivably
more radical than anything his predecessors dreamed up.
Which doesn't mean that he always knows what to make of his
findings. For example, disparate novelistic genres, when
mapped out together across a time line, appear to share
some intriguing features: an individual life span of about
25 to 30 years and a tendency to emerge and die out in
clusters. Thirty years is the length of a human generation,
Mr. Moretti notes. But then, he concedes, people are born -
and generations begun - every day. So what explains the
regularity with which genres appear and disappear? Mr.
Moretti isn't sure. But it is precisely this kind of
question, he argues, that scholars have overlooked by
focusing on specific texts rather than literature as a
whole.
As he put it in a telephone interview from Rome, where he
was on vacation: "The big picture is not just bigger in
terms of the number of texts. The system is literally a
system with different properties than individual texts.
This is something literary studies would never face if we
just kept reading and rereading the same texts."
Maybe so. But given the extent to which instruction,
research and reputations in the field are yoked to just
that activity, even Mr. Moretti's admirers say his approach
is unlikely to win many converts. "It's an extraordinarily
brave and promising project that carries the danger of
taking the study of literature away from reading, which is
what keeps us and our students going," said Jonathan Arac,
the chairman of the English department at Columbia
University and a specialist in the 19th- and 20th-century
novel.
Harold Bloom, the Yale English professor famous for his
prodigious command of canonical literature, was more
dismissive. Interrupting a description of the theory, he
pronounced Mr. Moretti "an absurdity."
"I am interested in reading," he said with an audible
shudder. "That's all I'm interested in."
Mr. Moretti cheerfully acknowledged that his ideas were
controversial. But that has not dampened his enthusiasm.
"After Christmas, I'm going to teach a class on electronic
data in which we will work on 8,000 titles from the
mid-18th century to the 19th century," he said, eagerly
elaborating his vision of what he called "literature
without texts."
"My little dream," he added wistfully, "is of a literary
class that would look more like a lab than a Platonic
academy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/10/books/10LIT.html?
ex=1074849261&ei=1&en=b5050c0d8843dcd8
6506
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: New Trends in Filim Study (was: iette Challenged, etc.)
hotlove666 wrote:
>Well, there are alternatives. As usual, literary theory leads the way:
>
>Studying Literature by the Numbers
>
>
>
I just read this yesterday! It's pretty funny, or would be if the
malefactor weren't a high-falutin' professor at a "top" university.
But actually, film studies led the way. There was an article by Barry
Salt, I'm pretty sure in "Film Quarterly," more than two decades ago,
called something like "A Computer Analysis of Film Style." As a parody
of moronic academic studies it was pretty good. Unfortunately I don't
think he meant it as a parody. He did charts of things like the
percentages of close-ups versus medium shots in various films of Hawks
and Wyler. The fact that the ratio of the two stayed more constant from
Hawks film to Hawks film than it did fro Wyler film to Wyler film was
said to be possible evidence that Hawks was an "auteur," With friends
like this, the auteur theory sure doesn't need enemies. Actually, John
Simon was an enemy more to my taste: his argument against the auteur
theory was on the order of "Look at all those horrible films by supposed
autuers, such as "Kiss Me Deadly," "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,"
"El Dorado," "The Naked Kiss," etc.
I'm not against the idea of a study such as Salt's if the person doing
it were far more modest and provisional about the meaning of his results
than Salt was.
- Fred
6507
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:27pm
Subject: Re: New Trends in Filim Study (was: iette Challenged, etc.)
I'm not quite sure if Moretti's totally serious or just nuts. I've
read a chapter of his "Atlas of the European Novel" and it's actually
really good--I recommomend it, despite the impolications. And you
know how I feel about t*****y....
PWC
6508
From:
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:43pm
Subject: Vagueness
I did not mean to sound angry or sarcastic in my earlier post on Biette and
"Testable Hypotheses". If I did, please forgive me.
What is really bothering me has nothing to do with Biette.
It is that I feel so out of sync with current film taste and opinion, as
expressed in film journals, movie polls, etc.
But trying as hard as I can, I cannot understand why critics have the current
taste they do.
Since posting against "What Time Is It There?" last week, I've been reading
on line studies of its director Tsai Ming-liang. They do not help. The cliche
is that Tsai has some "mysterious power" that makes his films memorable. What
is this power? No one seems to be able to say, or put into words what it is.
By the way, articles in Senses of Cinema, Sight and Sound and the Chicago
Reader all agree: many Tsai films have almost no plot. Tony Rayns of Sight and
Sound also says that "What Time Is It There?" has characterization that is
difficult to decipher - that the characters are wearing "masks" that are difficult
to penetrate as to motive. All of this is close to what I said last week -
that Tsai's films have little plot or traditional characterization. Boy, was I
firebombed by the list for saying so! But still, the entire cinephile community
is convinced that Tsai is a genius. But they won't say why...
I do not just have a Tsai problem - I have a whole communication problem! The
Guardian list of the top 40 world filmmakers largely left me cold. It looked
to me as if a list of the "world's 40 most depressing filmmakers" would look
just the same! Some of the people on the list I actually like - Samira
Makhmalbaf, for instance. Others I've never seen. But mainly, this looked like a list
of cinematic downers. But gee, how can I be so out of sync with world film
opinion?
I have a fantasy: film writers would actually start explaining why they like
filmmakers, in clear terms everyone can understand, accept or reject. The idea
is that if we all started to explain our ideas with precision, we could get a
much better understanding of what is good in the film world. That is why I
jumped on the vagueness in Biette. It rubbed me the wrong way. It IS likely,
however, that Biette is onto something - an idea that needs just a little
polishing or clarification to make it precise and clear.
Mike Grost
6509
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:47pm
Subject: Re: New Trends in Filim Study (was: iette Challenged, etc.)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> I just read this yesterday! It's pretty funny, or would be if the
> malefactor weren't a high-falutin' professor at a "top" university.
>
> But actually, film studies led the way. There was an article by
>Barry Salt, I'm pretty sure in "Film Quarterly," more than two
>decades ago, called something like "A Computer Analysis of Film
>Style." As a parody of moronic academic studies it was pretty good.
>Unfortunately I don't think he meant it as a parody. He did charts
>of things like the percentages of close-ups versus medium shots in
>various films of Hawks and Wyler.
Barry Salt is the author of book called FILM STYLE AND TECHNOLOGY and
the book is largely based on this kind of quantitative research into
matters of lighting, sound, editing, etc. (I believe that some of his
early essays, such as that FILM QUARTERLY piece, which was called
something like "A Statistical Analysis of Film Style," were expanded
upon in the book.) I've assigned FILM STYLE AND TECHNOLOGY to my
History of Cinematography classes at Hunter and NYU as it contains a
good deal of research that can be very useful. I do not like
everything in it, however. The conclusions that he draws from his
research are often problematic and there is a very contentious and
wrong-headed chapter on Max Ophuls near the end of the book. Still,
I'm happy that he did all this work (God knows I don't have the
inclination or the energy for it) since one can build upon it in
other ways. And I would imagine that literary critics will be able
to do the same with Moretti's work.
6510
From:
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 6:07pm
Subject: Barry Salt and Visual Style
Oddly enough, I was just going to post positively on Barry Salt.
Last week Elizabeth Nolan asked for a list of writers who had tried to
analyze "visual style" - and Salt certainly belongs on such a list.
Salt is the author of:
Film Style and Technology: History and Analysis (1992, 2nd Exapanded Edition).
One suspects that Chapters 12, 16 and 22 of this book might be similar to the
article Fred Camper mentioned, which I have not seen.
Salt is different from the professor in the Times article, who wants people
to stop reading books, and run analyses of publishing trends, instead. Salt
wants people to watch films very carefully - then do a statistical analysis of
what they've seen. It is a provocative idea. It is not the last word in
analyzing film - but then, what is yet? We need all the help and all the fresh ideas
we can get in film studies. The art of film is still deeply mysterious.
Salt has long been a direct inspiration in my own film writing.
One notes Salt has fans. In "A Long Hard Look at Psycho", Raymond Durgnat
calls Salt's book "The closest thing to a Bible that Film Studies has yet
produced." And Jonathan Rosenbaum is quoted on Salt's back cover as declaring the
book "indispensable".
Mike Grost
6511
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:17pm
Subject: Re: what is great about tsai ming-liang
Mike,
Since I include myself in the pro-Tsai camp I just want to explain,
very briefly and impressionistically, what I love about his films. My
aim here is less precision than concision since I'm writing quickly
and off the top of my head.
1) The films are very funny. When I watch the films I think less of
Asian "art" filmmkers like Hou Hsiao-Hsien than I do Buster Keaton or
Jacques Tati. So much of Tsai's staging of action and his use of
space is based around sight gags and various forms of visual and
aural humor. That moment when the parents in THE RIVER come to pick
up their son at the hospital and walk right past him as he writhes in
agony on a couch is priceless.
2) The films are very beautiful. His use of the urban landscape and
architecture of Taipei, its sidewalks, highways, apartments shows an
uncommonly sensitive response to these spaces. Perhaps the most
beautiful of these is the largely abandoned apartment building in
VIVE L'AMOUR, the victim of real estate overdevelopment and into
which its lonely protagonists move.
3) The films are very erotic. Tsai's response to both the
faces/bodies of his actors and to the spaces they inhabit creates an
atmosphere in which almost everything seems to be erotically
charged. I am thinking, in particular, about the apartment setting
of THE HOLE, water pouring down everywhere outside and inside, the
walls and floors becoming fleshlike and an extension of the bodies of
the male and female protagonist. (Virtually all of his films are
about water.) I can think of fewer more erotic moments in recent
films than the moment when the male protagonist takes his leg and
dangles it down the hole in the floor of his apartment into the
apartment of the woman underneath him, a very strange gesture of
seduction.
4) They sound great. I know of almost no other contemporary
filmmaker who uses ambient sound in such a way that every element of
the soundtrack makes its presence fully felt. Whenever I walk out of
a Tsai film, I hear the world differently as a result and my ears
begin to function like the soundtrack of a Tsai film, noticing every
sound detail around me.
Anyway, those are my random thoughts. And by the way, it's never
occurred to me that these are films in which nothing much happens.
On the contrary, these are films full of incidents, major and minor
events, from infidelity and incest, sickness and death, and (in the
case of THE HOLE) possibily the end of the world itself.
Joe
6512
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:18pm
Subject: Re: Vagueness
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 8:43 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Vagueness
> I did not mean to sound angry or sarcastic in my earlier post on Biette
and
> "Testable Hypotheses". If I did, please forgive me.
> What is really bothering me has nothing to do with Biette.
> It is that I feel so out of sync with current film taste and opinion, as
> expressed in film journals, movie polls, etc.
> But trying as hard as I can, I cannot understand why critics have the
current
> taste they do.
> Since posting against "What Time Is It There?" last week, I've been
reading
> on line studies of its director Tsai Ming-liang. They do not help. The
cliche
> is that Tsai has some "mysterious power" that makes his films memorable.
What
> is this power? No one seems to be able to say, or put into words what it
is.
> By the way, articles in Senses of Cinema, Sight and Sound and the Chicago
> Reader all agree: many Tsai films have almost no plot. Tony Rayns of Sight
and
> Sound also says that "What Time Is It There?" has characterization that is
> difficult to decipher - that the characters are wearing "masks" that are
difficult
> to penetrate as to motive. All of this is close to what I said last week -
> that Tsai's films have little plot or traditional characterization. Boy,
was I
> firebombed by the list for saying so! But still, the entire cinephile
community
> is convinced that Tsai is a genius. But they won't say why...
> I do not just have a Tsai problem - I have a whole communication problem!
The
> Guardian list of the top 40 world filmmakers largely left me cold. It
looked
> to me as if a list of the "world's 40 most depressing filmmakers" would
look
> just the same! Some of the people on the list I actually like - Samira
> Makhmalbaf, for instance. Others I've never seen. But mainly, this looked
like a list
> of cinematic downers. But gee, how can I be so out of sync with world film
> opinion?
> I have a fantasy: film writers would actually start explaining why they
like
> filmmakers, in clear terms everyone can understand, accept or reject. The
idea
> is that if we all started to explain our ideas with precision, we could
get a
> much better understanding of what is good in the film world. That is why I
> jumped on the vagueness in Biette. It rubbed me the wrong way. It IS
likely,
> however, that Biette is onto something - an idea that needs just a little
> polishing or clarification to make it precise and clear.
>
> 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/
>
>
6513
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:24pm
Subject: What is a Cineaste? (was: New Trends in Film Studies)
I plan to check out Moretti's book, too. The only person who could
maybe do something like it for film is Karl Thiede, a very serious
cinephile-collector and student of H'wd economic history, based only
on primary sources. It would be invaluable to have.
Isn't Barry Salt the guy who disproved Bellour's structural analyis
of means of locomotion in North By Northwest by showing he could get
the same results filpping a coin? I think he's also the author of a
useful history of film technique, and more recently co-author of a
coffee table book on cinematography that looks like it might be good.
The problem with theory in the humanities is when it pretends to
substitute science for judgement, knowledge and original thought, and
acquires what I'd call imperial ambitions, as Salt no doubt did in
the study Fred cites. That's one thing Jean-Claude never did.
I don't want to get into discussions of objectivity and subjectivity -
two words that are just too big and slippery for the modest aims of a
group like this, but for the record I think Kant was right in his
Critique of Judgement when he noted that esthetic judgements are
subjective in content and objective in form. There, that makes FOUR
words I'm not in the habit of using in one sentence...
As for verifiability, Mike, it's tricky. The seemingly wild
statements of early auteurists are verifiable in the (for me) limited
sense that, yes, one can identify themes running through directors'
ouevres, as well as stylistic constants. More generally, their
judgements of value have been verified by many people over the years,
with the result that we now have a fairly established canon of
directors. But that verification is still the sum of a lot of people
agreeing about what's good - maybe it's just a collective delusion.
And don't be surprised if the canon changes drastically some day.
Canons do!
Sarris's canon was very serviceable, but it was just a list of
auteurs and non-auteurs, broken down into historical and economic
categories: Pantheon directors all started in silents (including
Welles, thanks to Too Much Johnson, and Walsh, who should've been in
the Pantheon). Far Side directors started in sound; some started
after WWII and had short careers. Expressive Esoterica directors were
not Oscar-fodder and worked near the low end of the studio food
chain, but Fuller was Far Side because Sarris loved him, while
arguments have been made for many other EE'ers being promoted: Dwan
(mostly stuck in so-called "B's" during sound), Ulmer, Boetticher
(per Peter Wollen)... And among the non-auteurs, Less Than Meets the
Eye polemically identified directors without expressive styles, and
Strained Seriousness (polemically including Kazan, as I recall) was
reserved for pretentious bores. Etc. A pretty mixed system of
hierarchization, where sociological and esthetic ideas were kind of
jumbled together, but it served us all well when we were learning,
and then we (I at least) pretty much forgot it.
What was left terribly unclear by this and the equivalent discussions
in France was "What Is An Auteur"? Writer-directors only, hired hands
need not apply? People with themes? People with styles? It's a mess,
and the fact that auteurism was not, in Dan's immortral words, ready
for its closeup when the theory actually triumphed left it open for
ignorant pot-shotting from all sides and a massive invasion of
academia by time-serving Dunces (cf. A. Pope for a precise definition
of the term: it hasn't changed) armed with worthless theories.
A measure of the confusion in our camp is the early discussion here
of Wilder and Huston. Are they auteurs? By one definition - themes -
that's hard to deny. And Wilder definitely has his own distinctive
approach to mise-en-scene - Huston pretty much doesn't, although I
imagine some stylistic constants can be adduced (not really the same
thing). Moreover, they are both writer-directors, making them
more "auteurs" (by that other definition) than Ulmer or Dwan!
So it was not in the interests of creating confusion that I proposed
we at least take a look at Biette's four categories as a way of
dealing with what appears to be a pretty mixed field of study -
without falling back on the (ironically) sociological and historical
markers Sarris overlapped with esthetic ones in constructing his
hierarchy. (Ironically, because he was Mister Anti-Sociology when it
came to film esthetics!)
Yes, I do think Hawks is a cineaste, and a reference back to earlier
threads in which Dan talked about convention and realism in Hawks
will show a surprising convergence of ideas with Biette, who is
saying that a cineaste doesn't just use the tools as he/she found
them (justifying David's observation that we think of "cineastes" as
being somehow identified with cinema), and that he/she doesn't simply
accept the worldview that he/she has inherited, as De Sica accepts
that of the Italian petit bourgeoisie - in contrast to Rossellini,
for example.
I'll stick by my flash that Casablanca is the same kind of thing as
Bicycle Thief - and I didn't say anything about the audience's
unconscious, Mike: Casbalanca is resounding, resonant summing up of
America's self-image entering WWII (we're like Bogart); a
quintessential example of the structure of classical narrative (a
political-economic struggle mirrored and effaced by a romantic
one: "It's still the same old story/A fight for love and glory..."),
and a consummate example of studio visual and star-acting style of
the epoch.
Interestingly, those who have sought to define another role for
Curtiz look not to that film, but to Roughly Speaking, which does not
just repeat the doxa about women's place in society, or The Breaking
Point, which eliminates diegetic music, adopts a style of acting that
breaks with Hollywood conventions (per Monte), etc.
As for the word cineaste, sure it just means filmmaker, but J-C is
using an old word in a very precise new way, and I think it would
work fine in English, where the magazine Cineaste has made it a known
import. Also, using it polemically as J-C does and propagating that
usage would at least serve to remind the English-speaking press that
it DOESN'T mean "film buff"!
I'm throwing it out there, as Jean-Claude did, not trying to impose
it, because I think this group could use a few more terms
than "auteur" (which I notice we are so ashamed of that we hardly
ever use it anyway) to talk about complex issues in a way that is NOT
so confusing.
6514
From:
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Best writing nominations?
jess_l_amortell wrote:
>> Tag Gallagher's DVD of film criticism
>
>Please explain!
Hopefully Tag will jump in here himself, but briefly: Tag's recently been
experimenting with making videos of film criticism. They comprise of his
narration discussing aspects of a film or filmmaker (as he would in a print article),
but are 'illustrated' by actual clips from the movies in question. I've seen
his pieces on Ophuls, "Stagecoach," and "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" and they
are superb; he's able to >show< what he's talking about in a way that just
might be revolutionary.
I believe that you showed the Ophuls one at a conference last year, Tag?
What was the response?
Peter
6515
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:37pm
Subject: Vagueness / What Time Is It There?
To Mike Grost: I hope sometime this week, or tonight, depending on
whether or not I have the time, to write an explication of the
aesthetic merits of 'What Time Is It Now?' starting from the beginning
of the film and working to the end. Hopefully this will represent
sufficient enough evidence that you can reject the film or change your
mind and accept it -- in either case, that for once you aren't
encountering praise of Tsai that feels diaphanous or incensey. I must
admit that I've read lots of pieces on Tsai that appraise his work in
concrete terms, and few if any that bow to the conceit of some "magic,
invisible element" as being his main aesthetic strength -- as though
all he did was indulge the practice of "zen filmmaking."
As a very brief prologue, I'd examine the very beginning of the film:
as discussed in a few earlier posts, the apartment revealed to us in
the first shot is recognizable to those who've seen 'The River' (and
'Rebels of the Neon God' I believe? this is the only Tsai I haven't
seen, err, in addition to the latest short and feature) as the same
apartment from the previous film(s). (It is, in fact, Lee Kang-sheng's
home in "real life.") Miao Tien paces desultorily throughout the
hallway, the kitchen area, an off-camera space from which he calls out
to Lee Kang-sheng (a response is barely audible if at all -- and we
never find out what it is he wants), and a back patio area filled with
plants -- all at once we have a sense of the geography of the dwelling,
know something about its size, and understand that this is a family
domicile. The plants in the background which Miao examines will take
on an increased significance as the film plays out (these are the same
potted plants into which Lee will empty out his piss-bottle), but it is
this scene that should establish either in the front or the back of the
viewer's mind that they can be identified with Miao. Likewise, as Miao
paces to the foreground and takes a seat at the kitchen table, we
should keep in mind that his presence in this area, near the visible
rice-cooker, has just been established. Looking at him clearly for the
first time in the film, watching him as he smokes, the viewer can
perceive something between "fraught" and "resigned" in his eyes; a
thousand-yard stare.
Cut to: Lee Kang-sheng in the back of a taxi, holding a box which, as
the viewer soon finds out, contains the cremated remains of his father,
Miao Tien. This cut serves at once as a savage ellipsis and a grim
joke ("gallows humor" would be semi-accurate), and for me at least is
quite hilarious. Life goes on, death comes and goes; one day you're
there (in your kitchen), the next day you're not (you're in a baker's
box). But is "one day you're there, the next you're not" entirely
true? A series of potential "meanings" of life, death, and the beyond
will be explored before the film ends; will be in fact unified in the
closing scene. The next cut takes us inside a mausoleum of the
cremated -- the absurdity of the struggle to retain the spiritual (and
indeed, some of the absurdity of the spiritual itself) in the modern
age is given image here: Buddhistic chants and incense in a cramped,
fluorescently lit corridor of drawers. Is this the dignity of the
dead? How much significance is modern society willing to bestow to any
one man's life when there are people dying all the time? The remains
of probably one-thousand dead are given 200 square feet of "memorial."
Real-estate is precious in Taipei.
craig.
6516
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:48pm
Subject: Re: What Is a Cineaste?
Erratum: Casblanca does violate convention by having Bogart not get
the girl, going off instead to join the fight - a decision I seem to
have heard was arrived at during production. I believe this is an
ideologically-correct choice made because Casablanca is an engaged
film, but not a personal one by the filmmaker. It therefore does not
violate the doxa of 1942, and violates convention only in order to
adhere to that doxa: We've got a war to fight. Nothing wrong with
that, but it doesn't make Curtiz a cineaste any more than filming the
lives of humble folk makes De Sica one.
6517
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:57pm
Subject: how to make our ideas clear / lots in "...translation"
Was vagueness a word made up by Charles Sanders Peirce? Peirce was the
subject of my endterm monography to get my major in journalism. In fact,
this was a philosophy monography, and I didin't even use the words icon or
index (since his theory of signs, or at least its semiological side only
[there's much more to it, in fact, its a theory of cognition in fact] is the
only think people generally read by him). There's much of Peirce on this
post, Mike, but I don't think you can apply "testable hypothesis" thoroughly
when you're dealing with human sciences. You might as well use concepts and
theories as tools for understanding the world, films, society, human
behavior, etc. (in this I'm completely Deleuzian), they will work out really
better if you consider them that way.
About the films of Tsai, I like his first four features a great deal: Rebels
Of The Neon God, Vive l'Amour, The River and The Hole. I find Vive l'Amour
to be his only masterpiece, though (tomorrow I may think The Hole is also a
mp). I like What Time Is It There? a lot, have written on it for
Contracampo, but I think it repeats itself in a way that's not so strong as
his other features. I found Goodbye Dragon Inn only an exercise in style,
very self-indulgent and floating around the same terrain he's worked over
and over. Its beautifulness, I thought, was very free from any aesthetic
tension, and the Cinema Paradiso-like theme didn't help at all. I wonder if
his next film will be about people wandering through a soccer field,
starring Pele and Maradona as zombies saying that soccer is not what it used
to be anymore. It's terrible when a true author gets stuck on the perfection
he achieved formerly and never adds to that. Hope this is only a pit-stop
for more gets. It would be really sad if he hasn't got anymore to say and
starts to be like Angeolopoulos or Wenders preaching about how communication
and human warmth don't belong in this world anymore.
Having said that, I don't think "minimalism" is a good word to describe the
work of Tsai Ming-liang or Sofia Coppola. There is nothing in their films to
slightly ressemble the work made by musicians such as Terry Riley, Steve
Reich or Phillip Glass. I can't think, indeed, of a work by any movie author
that can be called "minimalist". Maybe Bruce Conner's "Crossroads", which
makes progressions on the same "melody" played over and over. There's lots
in "... Translation", only its pace is calmer (like in Yang's wonderful Yi
Yi, also not a bit minimalist) and its plots don't "change" much of the
characters minds (why should them?). You're free, of course, to not like
films like these.
Ruy
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 8:43 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Vagueness
> I did not mean to sound angry or sarcastic in my earlier post on Biette
and
> "Testable Hypotheses". If I did, please forgive me.
> What is really bothering me has nothing to do with Biette.
> It is that I feel so out of sync with current film taste and opinion, as
> expressed in film journals, movie polls, etc.
> But trying as hard as I can, I cannot understand why critics have the
current
> taste they do.
> Since posting against "What Time Is It There?" last week, I've been
reading
> on line studies of its director Tsai Ming-liang. They do not help. The
cliche
> is that Tsai has some "mysterious power" that makes his films memorable.
What
> is this power? No one seems to be able to say, or put into words what it
is.
> By the way, articles in Senses of Cinema, Sight and Sound and the Chicago
> Reader all agree: many Tsai films have almost no plot. Tony Rayns of Sight
and
> Sound also says that "What Time Is It There?" has characterization that is
> difficult to decipher - that the characters are wearing "masks" that are
difficult
> to penetrate as to motive. All of this is close to what I said last week -
> that Tsai's films have little plot or traditional characterization. Boy,
was I
> firebombed by the list for saying so! But still, the entire cinephile
community
> is convinced that Tsai is a genius. But they won't say why...
> I do not just have a Tsai problem - I have a whole communication problem!
The
> Guardian list of the top 40 world filmmakers largely left me cold. It
looked
> to me as if a list of the "world's 40 most depressing filmmakers" would
look
> just the same! Some of the people on the list I actually like - Samira
> Makhmalbaf, for instance. Others I've never seen. But mainly, this looked
like a list
> of cinematic downers. But gee, how can I be so out of sync with world film
> opinion?
> I have a fantasy: film writers would actually start explaining why they
like
> filmmakers, in clear terms everyone can understand, accept or reject. The
idea
> is that if we all started to explain our ideas with precision, we could
get a
> much better understanding of what is good in the film world. That is why I
> jumped on the vagueness in Biette. It rubbed me the wrong way. It IS
likely,
> however, that Biette is onto something - an idea that needs just a little
> polishing or clarification to make it precise and clear.
>
> 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/
>
>
6518
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 0:04am
Subject: Re: Best writing nominations?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I've seen
> his pieces on Ophuls, "Stagecoach," and "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" and they
> are superb; he's able to >show< what he's talking about in a way that just
> might be revolutionary.
After posting, I googled and found that these are on the French DVD editions of the two Fords.
http://www.dvdnet-fr.com/lire-news-dvd-529.html
6519
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 0:10am
Subject: kiyoshi kurosawa
I've just watched my third Kiyoshi Kurosawa film, CURE, and I am stunned on
how much I liked all the three films I saw by him. Seeing CURE made me want
to see CHARISMA and PULSE again and see all films by him (there are lots and
lots, actually). Did anyone got to see a great deal of films by him? The
only one I could see in a moviehouse was Charisma, but the one I found
really great was Pulse. Terrific use of indoor space (Ozu is a major
influence, he says, and you can realize that by seeing how he works vertical
lines) and great use of tracking shots and camera movements. I re-read his
Cahiers interview (december 99) and realized I have turned into a fan.
Really hoping I get a chance to see Bright Future.
Ruy
6520
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 0:15am
Subject: Re: Re: what is great about tsai ming-liang
great post. My best Tsai scene is that lady walking in that park all tore
down to be rebuilt. That geography matches exactly with the feeling of the
characters (hence of the film) and specifically with the feeling of the
lady. One of the best scenes in 90s moviemaking, IMO.
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 9:17 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: what is great about tsai ming-liang
> Mike,
>
> Since I include myself in the pro-Tsai camp I just want to explain,
> very briefly and impressionistically, what I love about his films. My
> aim here is less precision than concision since I'm writing quickly
> and off the top of my head.
>
> 1) The films are very funny. When I watch the films I think less of
> Asian "art" filmmkers like Hou Hsiao-Hsien than I do Buster Keaton or
> Jacques Tati. So much of Tsai's staging of action and his use of
> space is based around sight gags and various forms of visual and
> aural humor. That moment when the parents in THE RIVER come to pick
> up their son at the hospital and walk right past him as he writhes in
> agony on a couch is priceless.
>
> 2) The films are very beautiful. His use of the urban landscape and
> architecture of Taipei, its sidewalks, highways, apartments shows an
> uncommonly sensitive response to these spaces. Perhaps the most
> beautiful of these is the largely abandoned apartment building in
> VIVE L'AMOUR, the victim of real estate overdevelopment and into
> which its lonely protagonists move.
>
> 3) The films are very erotic. Tsai's response to both the
> faces/bodies of his actors and to the spaces they inhabit creates an
> atmosphere in which almost everything seems to be erotically
> charged. I am thinking, in particular, about the apartment setting
> of THE HOLE, water pouring down everywhere outside and inside, the
> walls and floors becoming fleshlike and an extension of the bodies of
> the male and female protagonist. (Virtually all of his films are
> about water.) I can think of fewer more erotic moments in recent
> films than the moment when the male protagonist takes his leg and
> dangles it down the hole in the floor of his apartment into the
> apartment of the woman underneath him, a very strange gesture of
> seduction.
>
> 4) They sound great. I know of almost no other contemporary
> filmmaker who uses ambient sound in such a way that every element of
> the soundtrack makes its presence fully felt. Whenever I walk out of
> a Tsai film, I hear the world differently as a result and my ears
> begin to function like the soundtrack of a Tsai film, noticing every
> sound detail around me.
>
> Anyway, those are my random thoughts. And by the way, it's never
> occurred to me that these are films in which nothing much happens.
> On the contrary, these are films full of incidents, major and minor
> events, from infidelity and incest, sickness and death, and (in the
> case of THE HOLE) possibily the end of the world itself.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
6521
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 0:49am
Subject: Re: What is a Cineaste? (was: New Trends in Film Studies)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I plan to check out Moretti's book, too. The only person who could
> maybe do something like it for film is Karl Thiede, a very serious
> cinephile-collector and student of H'wd economic history, based
only
> on primary sources. It would be invaluable to have.
For the record, Moretti has dabbled in film studies as well:
www.newleftreview.net/NLR24306.shtml
He's a brilliant and charming writer, but far more impressionistic
and less scientific than he pretends to be. His ideas, however, are
genuinely antithetical to auteurism or to any belief that art is
created by individuals and not just by historical forces.
One thing that separates Moretti from Salt (or David Bordwell) is
that he's working in the service of a supposedly radical politics. As
we all know, thanks to the triumph of Theory (or bastardised versions
thereof) a great many people, not just academics, now believe that
auteurists and their equivalents in other fields are reactionary,
undemocratic, deluded etc simply because of their focus on individual
creators.
I recall Bill saying a while back that auteurism needs to
be "radicalized and theorized anew" and in the context of that
project I'm wondering what arguments we can muster to counter people
like Moretti. Does a new kind of auteurism require a new kind of
humanism?
JTW
6522
From: Greg Dunlap
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 0:48am
Subject: Re: kiyoshi kurosawa
--- Ruy Gardnier wrote:
> I re-read his
> Cahiers interview (december 99) and realized I have turned into a
> fan.
> Really hoping I get a chance to see Bright Future.
I saw Bright Future last year at CIFF and found it wildly
disappointing, but from what I understand it is a lot different from
his other films. It was made very well, and I appreciated the craft
behind it, but its really saying something when you watch a film and
decide the character who made you feel the most was a jellyfish. There
seem to be some region-free DVDs of it on Ebay, although obviously
thats not ideal. What are his other films like?
=====
--------------------
Greg Dunlap
heyrocker@y...
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6523
From:
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 8:16pm
Subject: Thank you & apology
Thanks to everybody for their informative comments, both on Biette and Tsai
Ming-liang!
Once again, I apologize to everyone for my cranky comments this morning. I
have got to start being more positive!
I am sorry if I hurt anyone feelings.
Mike Grost
6524
From: grimmyhk
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:27am
Subject: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I gave in to that urge when I saw the film at the Toronto Film
Festival.
> But, you know, there are always lots of good films being made out
> there; the trick is being around when they get projected. My movie
life
> has improved a lot since I started going to Toronto four or five
years
> ago.
>
> If I had to guess, I'd say that cinema hit a bad patch in the 80s
and
> has been picking up steam ever since. But it's possible that I
missed a
> lot of good films because foreign film distribution in the US was
so
> poor in the 80s; it's improved a great deal since then. - Dan
2000 was, to me, one of the best film years in a long time. Eureka,
Werckmeister Harmonies, In the Mood for Love, Yi Yi, Peppermint
Candy, Songs from the Second Floor....the list just goes on. But the
lack of good cinema is evident when even the recent Cannes Film Fest
is described as the worst in years. I first thought this description
was hyperbole, but as I increasingly am able to watch those films,
the more I agree.
The 80s had its fair share of good and bad, but yes, like you
suggested, foreign cinema distribution was very weak then. It would
have been inconcievable for films like Hou Hsiao-Hsien's to be
distributed in the 80s. But now, Palm Pictures is finally
distributing one of Hou's in the US - for the first time ever! Too
bad it had to be Millennium Mambo....
6525
From: grimmyhk
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:37am
Subject: Re: kiyoshi kurosawa
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> I've just watched my third Kiyoshi Kurosawa film, CURE, and I am
stunned on
> how much I liked all the three films I saw by him. Seeing CURE made
me want
> to see CHARISMA and PULSE again and see all films by him (there are
lots and
> lots, actually). Did anyone got to see a great deal of films by
him? The
> only one I could see in a moviehouse was Charisma, but the one I
found
> really great was Pulse. Terrific use of indoor space (Ozu is a major
> influence, he says, and you can realize that by seeing how he works
vertical
> lines) and great use of tracking shots and camera movements. I re-
read his
> Cahiers interview (december 99) and realized I have turned into a
fan.
> Really hoping I get a chance to see Bright Future.
> Ruy
Indeed, Kiyoshi Kurosawa is one of the few modern directors whom I
admire - his incredible long shots and use of sound are incredibly
mood-inducing. Plus, he actually goes beyond the the confines of the
genre and delivers what are very thoughtful, disturbing and
psychological studies of the nature loneliness and madness. "Pulse"
slowly reveals its intricate observations to deliver a powerful
thesis at the end - same as "Cure".
Unfortunately, Kurosawa is also widly inconsistent. His remake
of "Seance on a Wet Afternoon", titled "Seance", was just terrible.
It won, for some inexplicable reason, a major award at Cannes, even
though I actually walked out of my screening. Terrible special
effects, annoyingly portrayed characters, and a sense that the horror
is more comedic than serious realy undercuts the whole film. I really
was greatly disappointed, especially since Koji Yakusho was also
involved.
For those who are disappointed with "Bright Future", check out his
newest film with Koji Yakusho, "Doppelganger", which premiered at
Pusan to acclaim. Looks like Kurosawa's back on form with this new
one. Still, I'd like for him to branch out and use his extraordinary
skill to create a moody observation of something else apart from
death and insanity.
6526
From: grimmyhk
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:40am
Subject: Re: what is great about tsai ming-liang
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> great post. My best Tsai scene is that lady walking in that park
all tore
> down to be rebuilt. That geography matches exactly with the feeling
of the
> characters (hence of the film) and specifically with the feeling of
the
> lady. One of the best scenes in 90s moviemaking, IMO.
> ruy
I completely agree. Vive L'Amour's ending is one of the most powerful
I have seen in the 90s - I could not help to weep with her. IMO, it
still remains Tsai's best film, though pretty much all of them are
excellent.
I cannot wait to see Lee Kang-Shen's "The Missing", since it received
rave reviews, and is supposedly very much like his mentor's in terms
of film style.
6527
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:52am
Subject: Re: Thank you & apology
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Thanks to everybody for their informative comments, both on Biette
and Tsai
> Ming-liang!
> Once again, I apologize to everyone for my cranky comments this
morning. I
> have got to start being more positive!
> I am sorry if I hurt anyone feelings.
>
> Mike Grost
We need MORE cranky comments, not less.
This is a forum for debate, not consensus. No one has to conform
to any "correctness" -- even auteurist (or "cineaste") correctness.
"Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness"
JPC
6528
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:53am
Subject: Re: Re: what is great about tsai ming-liang
Lee Kang-Shen's "The Missing", since it received
> rave reviews, and is supposedly very much like his mentor's in terms
> of film style.
and this is the major problem. I find Lee Kang-cheng's film to be completely
(or almost) flawed, as well as Uzak: both borrow much from Tsai's length of
plans and themes (incommunicability über alles). I wrote a brief essay on
how the cristallization of certain "art cinema" clichés (thematically as
well as formally) are beginning to make it poorer and more standardized than
standard classical narrative cinema. It's called "What to do next once
perfection was obtained?" and it's on Contracampo. Unfortunately it is
available only in portuguese...
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "grimmyhk"
To:
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 12:40 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: what is great about tsai ming-liang
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
> wrote:
> > great post. My best Tsai scene is that lady walking in that park
> all tore
> > down to be rebuilt. That geography matches exactly with the feeling
> of the
> > characters (hence of the film) and specifically with the feeling of
> the
> > lady. One of the best scenes in 90s moviemaking, IMO.
> > ruy
>
> I completely agree. Vive L'Amour's ending is one of the most powerful
> I have seen in the 90s - I could not help to weep with her. IMO, it
> still remains Tsai's best film, though pretty much all of them are
> excellent.
>
> I cannot wait to see Lee Kang-Shen's "The Missing", since it received
> rave reviews, and is supposedly very much like his mentor's in terms
> of film style.
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
6529
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:08am
Subject: Re: Kiyoshi Kurosawa
I've seen Charisma, Pulse and Cure, the ones that have widely
circulated. I also went to a couple of his films in Paris in 1999,
when CdC organized a retro during the Autumn Festival. He's a card -
insists calmly that he puts his early low-budget slasher, The Night
Watchman, on the same level as Charisma. (Interesting film,
actually.) He knew what I was referring to when I brought up Better
Watch Out: Silent Night, Deadly Night 3 as a comparison - ie I got
the impression he'd seen it. I saw another KK I loved in LA at the
Cinematheque - can't remember the title, but it was a strangely
Capraesque tale of a young man who awakens from a 10-yr coma after
getting hit by a car and discovers that his family has split up in
the meantime. He buys back the family home/business, a tacky
attraction where kids can ride ponies and adults can fish in a big
tank, and succeds in reassembling the scattered family - mom, pop,
sis, him - around it. I also saw here two revenge tales, Eye of the
Spider and another with a similar title, that were kind of Japanese-
outlaw-ghastly, but good, and a remake of Seance on a Wet Afternoon,
quite good. KK still a card. I rented at Cinefile his early ghost
story, Happy Home, with FX by Dick Smith - fun, but nothing special.
He's the McCoy, IMO.
6530
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:10am
Subject: Re: Thank you and apology
Mike, if you get any more positive, the Pope will declare you a
saint. I understand he's looking for a few good men.
6531
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:33am
Subject: Re: Re: Thank you and apology
Actually he's looking for a few naughty boys.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Mike, if you get any more positive, the Pope will
> declare you a
> saint. I understand he's looking for a few good men.
>
>
6532
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:00am
Subject: Re: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
> distributing one of Hou's in the US - for the first time ever! Too
> bad it had to be Millennium Mambo....
What's wrong with 'Millennium Mambo'? It's an incredible movie.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ADVERTISEMENT
6533
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Kiyoshi Kurosawa
> I saw another KK I loved in LA at the
> Cinematheque - can't remember the title, but it was a strangely
> Capraesque tale of a young man who awakens from a 10-yr coma after
> getting hit by a car and discovers that his family has split up in
> the meantime. He buys back the family home/business, a tacky
> attraction where kids can ride ponies and adults can fish in a big
> tank, and succeds in reassembling the scattered family - mom, pop,
> sis, him - around it.
That's LICENSE TO LIVE. - Dan
6534
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:09am
Subject: Re: Re: Kiyoshi Kurosawa
> can't remember the title, but it was a strangely
> Capraesque tale of a young man who awakens from a Ù¡Ù -yr coma after
> getting hit by a car and discovers that his family has split up in
> the meantime. He buys back the family home/business, a tacky
> attraction where kids can ride ponies and adults can fish in a big
> tank, and succeds in reassembling the scattered family - mom, pop,
> sis, him - around it.
That one is 'License to Live' (1998).
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6535
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:20am
Subject: Re: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
> But the
> lack of good cinema is evident when even the recent Cannes Film Fest
> is described as the worst in years. I first thought this description
> was hyperbole, but as I increasingly am able to watch those films,
> the more I agree.
All the Cannes reporters are talking about when they say such things are
the twenty-some films in competition that year. There are so many more
films in the world than that.
Personally, I wasn't wild about the competition films I saw this year
(except for SHARA, which barely got mentioned by the press), but I liked
a lot of films in the other sections of Cannes, and a lot that played
other festivals. - Dan
6536
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:49am
Subject: Re: Kurosawa / Japanese horror
Kurosawa reminds me somewhat of Argento, in his way of abandoning
logic in favor of the sensations (horror) a scene evokes. While this
is quiet normal for Japanese horror, Kurosawa seems to be the one who
is less concerned with plot.
There is a unique sense of sterility, visual despair and loneliness in
Japanese horror, which often is the only thing that carries the story.
But what I find disturbing is, that japanese horror often is less
about people than about events, thus the people are reduced to
bystanders. Just look at Kurosawa's "Kaïro", Hideo Nakata's "Ringu"
and Takashi Shimizu's "Juon" - we care less about the people, that we
await the horror. To me, this summons up the strenght and weakness of
Japanese horror.
But there are really great films. Kurosawa's "Cure" is actually quiet
good, so is "Ju-on 2" (one of the scariest films I have seen) - but my
favorite Japanese horrorfilm, IMO the only one with a story that holds
water (sorry for the pun) is Nakata's "Dark Waters".
"Dark Waters" is about a young single mother trying to survive and not
neglecting her very young daughter. It ouzes of loneliness and
sterility. The scenery is drained for colors and elements, only
showing grey concrete and rain. I highly recommend it to anyone who
loves horror and/or Japanese horror.
Henrik
6537
From:
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 0:24am
Subject: Re: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
While I don't think I've seen a "Touch of Evil" or "The Big Parade" in recent
years, I find myself pretty enthusiastic about the state of cinema. I won't
speak to 2003, as there are so many key '03 films which haven't played in
Columbus yet that I'm in no position to talk about how good or poor a year it was.
(I'm thinking of "A Talking Picture," "The Story of Marie and Julien,"
"Elephant," "The Flower of Evil," and on and on.)
But I look back on the rest of the 2000s as being a rich period. Among
foreign language films, Kiarostami's "Ten" was, I felt, one of his very greatest
films; perhaps his greatest. The Dardennes' "The Son" was astounding, as was de
Oliveira's "I'm Going Home" in its own quiet, self-reflexive way. Yang's "Yi
Yi" was wonderful. So were Wong's "In the Mood for Love" and Almodovar's
"Talk to Her." The French New Wave dudes are still going strong with amazing
films such as Rohmer's "The Lady and the Duke," Rivette's "Va savoir," Chabrol's
"Merci pour le chocolat," and Godard's "In Praise of Love" (though it's not as
good as the Rohmer, Rivette, and Chabrol.) Imamura's "Warm Water Under a Red
Bridge" was very good, very much a classical "late work"; it made Kehr's Top
10. Haneke has done some extremely interesting work.
Among English language cinema, I think the highlight during the past few
years has been Terence Davies' "The House of Mirth"; what a movie! Devastating,
haunting, and emotionally exhausting. Apart from that, I'm still a follower of
the '70s dudes like Altman (especially for "Gosford Park"), Bogdanovich ("The
Cat's Meow"), De Palma ("Femme Fatale"), Hill ("Undisputed"), Friedkin
("Rules of Engagement"), and others. How could I forget Polanski ("The Pianist")
and Eastwood ("Blood Work")? I think that each and every one of those guys are
better filmmakers today than they were during their heydays (with the possible
exception of Hill, who has never topped "The Driver," and Polanski, who
strikes me as alarmingly consistent.) And we have a new Armitage film in two wee
ks...
As someone who sees a fair number of current Hollywood films, I might also
observe that it looks like the younger generation seems to be doing pretty well
within the system. I won't repeat my defense of McG, but he's not the only
one. On Bill's recommendation, I just watched Tommy O'Haver's teen comedy "Get
Over It"; it's very good, made with a lot of style. That something this
worthwhile (albeit very minor) could emerge out of this most disreputable of genres
- and from within Miramax, no less! - is kinda heartening. Maybe McG and
O'Haver will go the way of Jonathan Mostow; too soon to tell, but I'm encouraged.
I don't know how good a reply this is to Grimfarrow's post; if he dislikes
most or all of the titles I like, my argument for the 2000s being a good period
goes right out the window!
Peter
6538
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:04am
Subject: Re: Revised 2003 Film List/Best Writing of 2003
I forgot until I read two recent posts by Peter T. that two of my
favorite recent films opened in 2003 - I had them put back a year in
my mind. So herewith is another revision (again, not in order of
preference):
1. Lost in Translation
2. Spider
3. The Hulk
4. Stuck on You
5. All the Ships at Sea
6. Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye
7. Elephant
8. 25th Day
9. Looney Tunes: Back in Action
10. The Pianist*
That makes it a 100% American list, I guess - unless The Pianist is a
Polish film, as the credits suggest, or a French film, based on RP's
current residence. Oh well, it's been a good year for the home team.
I've had reviewing priorities and a time crunch, so I'll have to
catch up with Ten, What Time..., Porno House etc. on tape or DVD.
BTW, I DID see The Swimming Pool because I was dragged to it. What
drek! And I agree with David about Eloge d'Amour.
Is anyone else going to nominate best writings for 2003 besides me
and Peter, or is Vlad the Deconstructor going to carry it by default?
I thought of two more nominations, both French, unfortunately: La
fable contrariee, which is the introduction to Jacques Ranciere's
essay collection of that name - IMO, the best book of film theory
since Deleuze, which it critiques - and La barbe de Kubrick by J-C
Biette in Trafic - unless that was another year. Come on, opinion-
makers, let's hear some faves!
*Honorable menshun on the boob tube: The first four episodes of Taken.
6539
From:
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:09am
Subject: Get Over It (WAS: Re: 2004: Not a promising year)
Peter:
> On Bill's recommendation, I just watched Tommy O'Haver's teen
comedy "Get
> Over It"; it's very good, made with a lot of style. That
something this
> worthwhile (albeit very minor) could emerge out of this most
disreputable of genres
> - and from within Miramax, no less! - is kinda heartening.
While I wouldn't classify GET OVER IT as "very good," I agree that
it was pleasantly surprising in many ways. The lead actor, Ben
Foster, had a genuine nebbishy charm that was convincing and
compelling; Kirsten Dunst is a terrific actress (and getting better
each passing day, although the films often aren't); their chemistry
is effective. I could have done without the eager-to-please hyper-
stylization, or the wink-wink VERTIGO references, or, well, anything
involving Martin Short. But I agree that it's a worthwhile film that
got almost no respect when it came out. Good soundtrack, too; makes
excellent use of Elvis Costello's "Allison".
Due to, um, professional obligations, I've had to see a shocking
number of teen comedies over the last few years. As a genre, its
tropes are just too smarmy and cynical for the standouts to ever
rise above being flawed curiosities. But they have their moments.
I could recommend a few but I'm afraid I'd need to take a shower
afterwards.
-Bilge
6540
From: grimmyhk
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:18am
Subject: Dilution of Art Films (Re: what is great about tsai ming-liang)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> and this is the major problem. I find Lee Kang-cheng's film to be
completely
> (or almost) flawed, as well as Uzak: both borrow much from Tsai's
length of
> plans and themes (incommunicability über alles). I wrote a brief
essay on
> how the cristallization of certain "art cinema" clichés
(thematically as
> well as formally) are beginning to make it poorer and more
standardized than
> standard classical narrative cinema. It's called "What to do next
once
> perfection was obtained?" and it's on Contracampo. Unfortunately it
is
> available only in portuguese...
> ruy
Hmmm...That sounds quite disappointing. But I do see a trend, of
sorts, of this phenomenon though - the "dilution of art cinema", you
may say. And I know I will get a TON of flack for this, but there is
no one more representative of this dilution than the recent films of
Gus van Sant.
Okay, I haven't see Elephant yet, but I *really* had a problem
with "Gerry". Why? It's because I felt the whole time that it is a
very desperate attempt at a Bela Tarr film (with none of the poetic
social commentary nor the cultural backdrop). Yes, I know that Tarr
himself was influenced by Miklos Jancso, but Tarr actually *expanded*
upon Jancso's worldview and blew it up wide with something as epic as
the Laszlo Krasnahorkai trilogy. Gerry was just someone studying the
camera techniques and visuals very carefully, then doing a paint-by-
the-numbers. Truthfully, I'm a bit miffed also that van Sant won the
Palm D'Or, while Bela Tarr has never even been much acknowledged.
This is also evident in Yu Lik-Wai's "All Tomorrow's Parties", which
is just a poorer version of a Jia Zhangke film (nevermind that Yu is
Jia's DP).
Have we reached a point where the next few years, all we'll see are
people mimicking masters? IMO, it has already started.
6541
From: grimmyhk
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:19am
Subject: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> > distributing one of Hou's in the US - for the first time ever! Too
> > bad it had to be Millennium Mambo....
>
> What's wrong with 'Millennium Mambo'? It's an incredible movie.
>
> craig.
There's nothing particularly "wrong" with it, except that it's weaker
than most of his output.
6542
From: grimmyhk
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:22am
Subject: Re: Kurosawa / Japanese horror
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> "Dark Waters" is about a young single mother trying to survive and
not
> neglecting her very young daughter. It ouzes of loneliness and
> sterility. The scenery is drained for colors and elements, only
> showing grey concrete and rain. I highly recommend it to anyone who
> loves horror and/or Japanese horror.
>
> Henrik
Hmmm...I'm definitely not a big fan of "Dark Water". Nicely
photographed, but it did not manage to scare me, nor do it find it a
particularly "eeep" film. And it seemed to drag at the end - is it
necessary to have the scenes with the girl all grown up and
revisiting the building? I thought that was particularly useless.
6543
From: grimmyhk
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:28am
Subject: Re: Revised 2003 Film List/Best Writing of 2003
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> That makes it a 100% American list, I guess - unless The Pianist is
a
> Polish film, as the credits suggest, or a French film, based on
RP's
> current residence. Oh well, it's been a good year for the home
team.
> I've had reviewing priorities and a time crunch, so I'll have to
> catch up with Ten, What Time..., Porno House etc. on tape or DVD.
> BTW, I DID see The Swimming Pool because I was dragged to it. What
> drek! And I agree with David about Eloge d'Amour.
My list for 2003, which is still subject to change, pending my
catching-up of older films I missed. Also, I live in Hong Kong, so
the releases are quite different:
1. Distance (Hirokazu Kore-Eda)
2. Ten (Abbas Kiarostami)
3. Friday Night (Claire Denis)
4. Public Toilet (Fruit Chan)
5. Divine Intervention (Elia Suleiman)
6. The Twilight Samurai (Yoji Yamada)
7. Irreversible (Gaspar Noe)
8. The Son (The Dardennes brothers)
9. Mystic River (Clint Eastwood)
10. Finding Nemo (Andrew Stanton)
Honorable mentions: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,
Japon, The Triplets of Belleville, Tiresia, My Mother's Smile.
6544
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:37am
Subject: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
> > distributing one of Hou's in the US - for the first time ever! Too
> > bad it had to be Millennium Mambo....
>
> What's wrong with 'Millennium Mambo'? It's an incredible movie.
Ha ! The peace was short-lived ! I plan to see it soon, maybe I'll
bring back fuel for the fire...
As for good years and blimps, my trouble with the whole thing is that
the gestation period for almost any film is sooooo long... I mean, a year
is nothing in that regard - and that's just the making, and all it entails..
let alone when it becomes available to see (I missed M Mambo in
Philly at the Festival in 2002, I had the flu..)
-sam
6545
From:
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:52am
Subject: Re: Re: Revised 2003 Film List/Best Writing of 2003
Bill Krohn wrote:
>I forgot until I read two recent posts by Peter T. that two of my
>favorite recent films opened in 2003 - I had them put back a year in
>my mind. So herewith is another revision (again, not in order of
>preference):
Actually, I believe that "The Pianist" >is< a 2002 release by most people's
standards. In my post, I intentionally didn't talk about '03 releases because,
while I've liked a lot of '03 films, there's just too much I haven't seen to
begin generalizing about how good or bad the year was. So I was talking about
movies from '02, '01, and '00 as evidence that we're living in pretty good
cinematic times. Or what I thought were movies from those years.
>BTW, I DID see The Swimming Pool because I was dragged to it. What
>drek!
Agreed; it struck me as 'art cinema' at its worst, I'm afraid. Ozon's turned
out to be not so interesting, although I know Fred recommends the one he did
from a Fassbinder play; alas, that's the one I haven't seen.
>Is anyone else going to nominate best writings for 2003 besides me
>and Peter, or is Vlad the Deconstructor going to carry it by default?
Well, I forgot to mention Chris Fujiwara's wonderful piece on Jerry Lewis for
Senses of Cinema.
>*Honorable menshun on the boob tube: The first four episodes of Taken.
I'll have to catch those! Who was the director(s)? I didn't see too many
tele-movies from last year to recommend, but I did see and like Frank Pierson's
"Soldier's Girl." I know Dan is ten-besting it, so apparently I wasn't alone.
Peter
6546
From:
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:04am
Subject: Re: Get Over It (WAS: Re: 2004: Not a promising year)
Bilge Ebiri wrote:
>While I wouldn't classify GET OVER IT as "very good," I agree that
>it was pleasantly surprising in many ways.
I really liked its widescreen spaces and I felt that some care went into
them. I haven't seen O'Haver's first film yet, but I understand that it's in
'Scope too; nice to see a young director who is a fan of the format.
But, yeah, basically it's just refreshingly and surprisingly good in a genre
which doesn't seem to often produce such results. I felt for once that there
were some brains behind the camera. Thanks to Bill for recommending it!
>Kirsten Dunst is a terrific actress (and getting better
>each passing day, although the films often aren't); their chemistry
>is effective.
In particular, she's wonderful as Marion Davies in "The Cat's Meow" (easily
the best thing she's been associated with so far). And I didn't like Raimi's
"Spider-man" (go Ang Lee's "Hulk"!!), but she was pretty easy to fall in love
with in that film, I must say.
Peter
6547
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:05am
Subject: Get Over It (WAS: Re: 2004: Not a promising year)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
> Peter:
>
> > On Bill's recommendation, I just watched Tommy O'Haver's teen
> comedy "Get
> > Over It"; it's very good, made with a lot of style. That
> something this
> > worthwhile (albeit very minor) could emerge out of this most
> disreputable of genres
> > - and from within Miramax, no less! - is kinda heartening.
I'd be interested to hear more about this film from Peter or other
defenders -- I did see it on release, but can't remember much except
for Martin Short camping it up.
Without making any extravagant claims, a "disreputable" younger
Hollywood director who sort of interests me is Steve Carr: as far
as "family comedies" go I prefer DADDY DAY CARE to SCHOOL OF ROCK.
JTW
6548
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:21am
Subject: Re: how to make our ideas clear / lots in "...translation"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier" wrote:
>
> Having said that, I don't think "minimalism" is a good word to describe the
> work of Tsai Ming-liang or Sofia Coppola. There is nothing in their films to
> slightly ressemble the work made by musicians such as Terry Riley, Steve
> Reich or Phillip Glass. I can't think, indeed, of a work by any movie author
> that can be called "minimalist". Maybe Bruce Conner's "Crossroads", which
> makes progressions on the same "melody" played over and over. There's lots
> in "... Translation", only its pace is calmer (like in Yang's wonderful Yi
> Yi, also not a bit minimalist) and its plots don't "change" much of the
> characters minds (why should them?). You're free, of course, to not like
> films like these.
Having finally caught up with 'Lost in Translation' over the weekend (it's only just
opened in the UK), I have to agree - I really couldn't see anything particularly
"minimalist" about it in the sense that I understand the term.
Going from Mike's comments, I was expecting something stripped down to its barest
essentials, along the lines of the two Samuel Beckett TV plays that I watched at work
recently ('Ghost Trio' and '...but the clouds...', both of which contain little more than
about half a dozen visual and aural ideas constantly repeated with relatively little
variation - though this isn't a negative response, as I found both weirdly hypnotic).
By contrast, 'Lost in Translation' was a much richer experience than I'd been led to
believe: visually, thematically, narratively, you name it. It beautifully paralleled the
relationship of the two leads with the relationship of two fundamentally different
cultures (the karaoke performance of the Sex Pistols' 'God Save The Queen' summed
this up perfectly), it had a huge amount to say about loneliness and isolation (and
made it clear that in the case of Bob and Charlotte this is as linked to their own
unsatisfactory lives and marriages as it is to their presence in Tokyo: the alien
Japanese landscape merely helps emphasise it), and I thought it was visually
enthralling - I particularly liked the trompe l'oeil (or was it?) shot of the golf game in
the shadow of Mount Fuji.
The only way in which it significantly differed from a typical mainstream Hollywood
vehicle is that it felt able to trust its audience to tease out its narrative without
spelling things out in flashing neon every five minutes - but I find that a refreshing
change. And, tellingly, so did my wife, who normally has very little patience with
anything experimental or 'different' (until this weekend, the ghastly 'Love, Actually'
was her favourite film of the last few months!), but who was as gripped by Sofia
Coppola's film as I was. We certainly spent more time talking about it afterwards than
about almost anything else in recent memory, a fact that also belies a great many of
Mike's accusations about its lack of substance.
Sorry if this sounds like I'm getting at you, Mike, but my reaction was so different to
yours that I couldn't help but mention it.
Michael
6549
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:32am
Subject: Re: Revised 2003 Film List
Peter wrote: "Actually, I believe The Pianist is a 2002 film by most
people's standards."
Jesus FUCKING Christ! OK, Mach 4:
1. Lost in Translation
2. Spider
3. The Hulk
4. Stuck on You
5. All the Ships at Sea
6. Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye
7. Elephant
8. 25th Day
9. Looney Tunes: Back in Action
10. O Fantasma*
*Honorable menshun on the boob tube: The first four episodes of
Taken. Don't know who directed. The producer is the auteur. (Not
Spielberg - another guy.)
And if anyone is still interested in Tommy O'Haver after seeing
Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss, I have all his short films on tape and
can make a copy for that person, while we're waiting for Uni to
greenlight Archie and His Friends.
Daddy Day Care? Oh well, I haven't SEEN it, so...
Now where are those 2003 writing nominations? Vlad the Deconstructor
going once, going twice....
6550
From:
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:35am
Subject: Re: Kiyoshi Kurosawa
Curtis Harrington is a great admirer of Kiyoshi Kurosawa - he has praised him
in interviews.
It is interesting that KK has made non-horror movies - these sound fun. I do
not usually go to modern horror movies - they are just too scary and gory for
me to take (probably am missing some fine works of art). A film about pony
rides sounds a lot more like my speed! Will be watching for KK's "License to
Live".
Vincent Price, who admired both old and new horror films, said that his 60's
films by Roger Corman probably couldn't be called "horror films" by modern
standards. Price suggested that the Corman Poe films might better be called
"Gothic Tales". Not a bad idea... It might be a better description of such classic
chillers as "Night of the Demon" (Tourneur) or "Vampyr" (Dreyer), two films
with amazing mise-en-scene.
Mike Grost
6551
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 0:34pm
Subject: minnelli completists
If there is any member of this group (besides yours truly) who is
interested in seeing anything that Minnelli shot, according to Gavin
Lambert's new bio of Natalie Wood, Minnelli directed two sequences in
ALL THE FINE YOUNG CANNIBALS. Lambert doesn't know which ones they
are but he talked to Robert Wagner about it. Wagner did not work with
Minnelli on the film but he does remember Wood being very excited
that Minnelli would be directing her. Lambert feels that at least
one sequence in the film shows evidence of Minnelli's visual flair, a
scene of Wood alone, drunk.
I've never seen this film and it's supposed to be a dog but it may
bear at least one look now.
Vincente Minnelli: auteur, metteur-en-scene, cineaste?
6552
From: filipefurtado
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 0:40pm
Subject: Re: Jonathan Mostow
> Wow! See, I knew that someone just might make a case for
T3, which is why I
> emphasized the word "assuming" when I said "assuming that
it's bad/awful."
> I'll definitely have to check it out now.
What I like about T3 has much to do with what i like about
Charlie's Angels (actually the reason why I use it in the
Film Journal piece is that some of that section of the
article was taken from an unfinished article on summer
blockbusters that included T3). The thing is this sort of big
budget action film changed a lot during the last decade or so
(even though almost nobody seems to notice). This happened
for many reasons (HK films becoming more popular, videogames,
MTV, a change of taste on audiences...). T3 plays very much
like a film that could have come out in 93. There's nothing
new on this since the same can be said about all recent
Scharwzenegger vehicles, but Mostow seems to be very self-
aware of this. Actually his whole mise en scene strategy
seems to me to be about how to approach a genre material that
is by now dated and out of fashion. Also, there's a very down
to earth element in the film, it's scale feels very small
next to most recent big budget films. It somehow plays like a
critical revision of Cameron's previous film, which was so in
love with CGI and the terminator itself. Actually, although I
didn't read anyone else mention it, Scharwzenegger is really
only a supporting actor here (he is pretty much a gun that
Nick Stahl has).
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
6553
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:07pm
Subject: the breaking point
I watched THE BREAKING POINT again yesterday, in the midst of these
discussions about cineastes and metteur-en-scenes and Howard Hawks.
And while it may be true that Hawks is a cineaste and ultimately a
more central figure in the history of cinema than a mere metteur-en-
scene than Curtiz, THE BREAKING POINT is the kind of great film which
Hawks would be completely incapable of making. This isn't a matter of
comparing apples and oranges since we are talking about a film based
on the same source material and made for the same studio within a six-
year period. The greatness of BREAKING POINT at least partly has to
do with Curtiz pushing the material in a much darker direction than
Hawks does, divesting it of all the fun and romantic adventure of the
Hawks. In some ways, BP may be more profitably seen not as a remake
of TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT but a sequel, Harry a decade later after he
has returned to the US, gotten married and had two children and now
has real economic problems to face. The domestic scenes between John
Garfield and Phyllis Thaxter (her erotic attraction for him still
intense), the sense of economic despair that hovers over virtually
everyone (Wallace Ford's character is especially memorable among the
supporting players), the lack of self-consciousness in the way that
the film deals with the friendship of Garfield and Juano Hernandez,
and the ending of the film, which is absolutely devastating -- one
cannot imagine Hawks being able to deal adequately with any of this.
I love TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT but when THE BREAKING POINT is placed
next to it there is a way in which many of the issues which the Hawks
film suppresses come forward. Hawks, as usual, creates a
magnificent, self-contained world which seems to obey its own laws
and codes of ethics and behavior, even with World War II raging
outside somewhere. Curtiz takes a similar set of characters and
situations and measures them against a world marked by a much deeper
sense of loss and despair,in which reality constantly insists on
interfering with our fantasies of ourselves.
6554
From: filipefurtado
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: Charlie's Angels
Michael,
I've seen a lot of HK films and so I'm sure did McG. It's
very obviously an influence on him (as is his early work on
video clips), but he is far from only copycat them. His sense
of space certainly is influenced by people like Hark, but
even Hark has a more old fashionable sense of stablishing a
coherent space than McG. Also there's nobody in HK who use
color like him. His quick transitions are also very much his
own. I do think that anyone can argue against the films, but
the sensibility at work here seems very particular for me.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
6555
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:42pm
Subject: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
O Ye of little faith...
I am already so hyped about 2004. Next week I'll attend IFFR and I've
already picked out a few films I am gonna watch while I am there.
Zatoichi (Kitano Takeshi)
Anatomie de l'enfer (Catherine Breillat)
Elephant (Gus van Sant)
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring (Kim Ki-Duk)
The Fog of War (Errol Morris)
Father and Son (Alexander Sokurov)
The Agronomist (Jonathan Demme)
Then later this year
Izo (Miike Takashi)
Eros (Almodovar, Wai, Soderbergh)
Ocean's 12 (Soderbergh)
The Aviator (Scorsese - prod: Mann)
The Terminal (Spielberg)
Then for my personal perverted pleasure
Starsky & Hutch (Wilson/Stiller flick)
Already out on DVD
Ikiru
Ten
Then later this year
Zatoichi
Lots of Bresson
Ugetsu
Stray Dog
Then from Warner alone
Heat SE
The Searchers SE
Blazing Saddles SE
Meet me in St. Louis SE
King Kong SE
(Wild Bunch SE)
and many, many more
This is enough to make a dying man wanna live again. So I beg to
differ that 2004 isnt a promising year :)
Henrik
6556
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:18pm
Subject: Re: Revised 2003 Film List/Best Writing of 2003
Two that have stuck with me are Eric Henderson's piece on Gertrud
(in Slant at http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=884)
and the Daisy Kenyon exchange in 24fps. Local talent!
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Is anyone else going to nominate best writings for 2003 besides me
> and Peter...Come on, opinion-
> makers, let's hear some faves!
6557
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:25pm
Subject: Re: minnelli completists
I just read about that,as I'm reviewing Lambert's book
for"The Advocate." It opens up a whole can of worms re
auteurism in that there any number of films signed by
one director that have sequences directed by others.
Minnelli was called in to direct musical numbers for
"Presenting Lily Mars" and "Lovely to Look At" aswe
all know, and Walters was called in to re-shoot
sequences of Minnelli films. The "authorship" of
"Ziegfeld Follies" and "Til the Clouds Roll By" is as
difficult to ascertain as "Casino Royale."
"All The Fine Young Cannibals" is indeed not very
good. But it's fascinating to watch Robert Wagner play
a character based on Chet Baker.
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
> If there is any member of this group (besides yours
> truly) who is
> interested in seeing anything that Minnelli shot,
> according to Gavin
> Lambert's new bio of Natalie Wood, Minnelli directed
> two sequences in
> ALL THE FINE YOUNG CANNIBALS. Lambert doesn't know
> which ones they
> are but he talked to Robert Wagner about it. Wagner
> did not work with
> Minnelli on the film but he does remember Wood being
> very excited
> that Minnelli would be directing her. Lambert feels
> that at least
> one sequence in the film shows evidence of
> Minnelli's visual flair, a
> scene of Wood alone, drunk.
>
> I've never seen this film and it's supposed to be a
> dog but it may
> bear at least one look now.
>
> Vincente Minnelli: auteur, metteur-en-scene,
> cineaste?
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6558
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:29pm
Subject: Re: Get Over It (WAS: Re: 2004: Not a promising year)
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
> In particular, she's wonderful as Marion Davies in
> "The Cat's Meow" (easily
> the best thing she's been associated with so far).
Easily the best thing she's been associated so far is
Andrew Fleming's "Dick."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6559
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:34pm
Subject: Re: minnelli completists
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>It opens up a whole can of worms re
> auteurism in that there any number of films signed by
> one director that have sequences directed by others.
> Minnelli was called in to direct musical numbers for
> "Presenting Lily Mars" and "Lovely to Look At" aswe
> all know, and Walters was called in to re-shoot
> sequences of Minnelli films. The "authorship" of
> "Ziegfeld Follies" and "Til the Clouds Roll By" is as
> difficult to ascertain as "Casino Royale."
Stanley Donen has also warned about the unreliability of the credits
on MGM musicals as he says that he himself worked without credit on
some of these. It's well known that he had to do a fair amount of
clean-up work on KISMET after Minnelli left the project early, for
example. But Donen also claims that he worked on something like that
Xavier Cugat production number from Sidney's HOLIDAY IN MEXICO.
Alas, Donen doesn't explain precisely what it was that he did and it
looks more like a Sidney number than a Donen -- including the favored
Sidney device of placing a performer on a platform and then raising
and lowering them as the camera cranes up and down with them.
The question of retakes gets even more complicated. Cukor shot a
retake on LUST FOR LIFE when Minnelli was busy on TEA AND SYMPATHY.
But what was the problem with Minnelli's original scene? Was it
purely a technical problem or something else? And in shooting the
retake, did Cukor simply follow Minnelli's original staging or come
up with something different? I have the same question when it comes
to Walters's retake of "The Parisians" number in GIGI when the
original problem with that sequence was, in fact, unrelated to
Minnelli's staging but (as I noted in an earlier post) had to do with
Previn's conducting of the song. Did Walters copy Minnelli or do
something of his own? I suspect the latter for a couple of reasons.
One is that the number has a visual flatness (or, to be fair to
Walters, simplicity) in comparison with the rest of the film. (I've
had students who see the film for the first time in my classes and
comment on this without any prompting from me.) Also, I recall
seeing Leslie Caron on Merv Griffin's show in the 1970s and she was
talking about shooting this number with Minnelli on location in
Paris. She said that he kept doing take after take, not because of
her but because he was waiting for the swans in the background to
move in a certain pattern. What Minnelli was most likely aiming for
here was a visual rhyme with a moment much later in the film, when
Gaston sings the title song on the same bench and the swans do indeed
form a beautiful, choreographed pattern behind him. It's not
Walters's film so he doesn't both with any of this but instead just
gets the shot and goes on to the next one.
David -- I still haven't found any record of Minnelli working on LILY
MARS. It's not on the Garland laser disc liner notes either. I
wonder where you saw this information...
>______________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6560
From: iangjohnston
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:41pm
Subject: Re: what is great about tsai ming-liang
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> great post. My best Tsai scene is that lady walking in that park
all tore
> down to be rebuilt. That geography matches exactly with the
feeling of the
> characters (hence of the film) and specifically with the feeling
of the
> lady. One of the best scenes in 90s moviemaking, IMO.
> ruy
A point of factual detail (with no bearing on any interpretation of
the film -- tho' I do agree it IS one of the best scenes in 90s
moviemaking): the park looks that way in the film because it was in
the process of being built and not, I suspect, officially open. What
was torn down to make way for it was a KMT "soldiers' village" (i.e.
a community for soldiers and their dependents), which itself was
built on the site of a Japanese graveyard. Nowadays it's probably
Taipei's most pleasant and most popular park.
Ian
6561
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:56pm
Subject: Re: Re: minnelli completists
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
> David -- I still haven't found any record of
> Minnelli working on LILY
> MARS. It's not on the Garland laser disc liner
> notes either. I
> wonder where you saw this information...
>
Not on the liner notes -- on the disc itself. And I
know I've seen references to the fact that Minnelli
staged it elsewhere. Walters partners Minnelli in the
sequence as they sing and dance "Broadway Rhythm" but
the staging is pure Minnelli.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6562
From: iangjohnston
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:15pm
Subject: The Missing (Was: what is great about tsai ming-liang)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> Lee Kang-Shen's "The Missing", since it received
> > rave reviews, and is supposedly very much like his mentor's in
terms
> > of film style.
>
> and this is the major problem. I find Lee Kang-cheng's film to be
completely
> (or almost) flawed, as well as Uzak: both borrow much from Tsai's
length of
> plans and themes (incommunicability über alles). I wrote a brief
essay on
> how the cristallization of certain "art cinema" clichés
(thematically as
> well as formally) are beginning to make it poorer and more
standardized than
> standard classical narrative cinema. It's called "What to do next
once
> perfection was obtained?" and it's on Contracampo. Unfortunately
it is
> available only in portuguese...
> ruy
"Completely flawed" is a bit extreme, surely? Granted Lee's film is
very much in the style of Tsai's cinema and neither it nor Goodbye
Dragon Inn are masterpieces of the stature of Vive L'Amour. (Do you
write off La Notte because it's not the equal of L'Avventura?)But
there was still a lot I liked in The Missing -- particularly the
long sequence in the park with the grandmother running back and
forth frantically looking for her grandson. Also, I think critics
can overplay the "incommunicability" theme, which I don't think is
so valid for The Missing: it's more a portrait of individuals with a
sense of isolation played off against a social background of
heightened anxiety (the SARS references...).
Ian
6563
From: iangjohnston
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:19pm
Subject: Millennium Mambo (Was: 2004: Not a promising year)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> > distributing one of Hou's in the US - for the first time ever!
Too
> > bad it had to be Millennium Mambo....
>
> What's wrong with 'Millennium Mambo'? It's an incredible movie.
>
> craig.
A minor work from an incredible director, and something of a
disappointment after Goodbye, South Goodbye and Flowers of Shanghai
(both masterpieces, IMO). A rather uninvolving narrative, and a weak
central performance from Shu Qi.
Ian
6564
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:30pm
Subject: Son frère
Since there are some Chéreau supporters on this list,
could anyone give some comments on last year's "Son frère"?
It dropped out of sight on Parisian screens right when
I arrived in the fall, but am contemplating purchasing
the upcoming DVD. With the strength of the euro these days,
one must be picky.
Jonathan
6565
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Millennium Mambo
> There's nothing particularly "wrong" with it, except that it's weaker
> than most of his output.
There's nothing particularly "weak" about it, except that it's less
correct than most of his output. So explain what you take to be its
weaknesses.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6566
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
> Eros (Almodovar, Wai, Soderbergh)
Henrik --
Isn't this entry missing the biggest name of all associated with it?
Michelangelo Antonioni!
(Also, the surname in "Wong Kar-wai" is "Wong," not "Wai." Wink wink.)
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6567
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:00pm
Subject: Dilution of Art Films (Re: what is great about tsai ming-liang)
> "grimmyhk" wrote:
Well one might make the case that the Renaissance was a case of people
mimicking masters (but then, they did the masterpiece and moved on in
their own direction....)
I'm not sure what to make of "Gerry" - as unfortunately I've never seen a
Bela Tarr film, I found myself thinking of "The Shooting" (Monte Hellman) !
(which is a compelling film, I must say)
I think Gus van S threw a curve that missed with the issue of water, it had
the kind of effect on me that seeing a mic in the shot might, pulls me
out of the space....
FWIW "The Salt Lake Gus" thing on the DVD was kind of interesting,
maybe it's because I work behind the camera, but -- I liked it.
That is a LOT of dolly track, have to say :)
> Have we reached a point where the next few years, all we'll see are
> people mimicking masters? IMO, it has already started.
Is this so new, though ? Paul Mazursky his Own Private 8& 1/2, threre's
the Woodman....
-sam
6568
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:20pm
Subject: RE: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
> > Eros (Almodovar, Wai, Soderbergh)
> Isn't this entry missing the biggest name of all associated with it?
> Michelangelo Antonioni!
I think Almodovar was originally slated to participate when
the project was announced (at least 3 or 4 years ago), but
was replaced by Soderbergh. Who was Antonioni's "back up"?
I remember seeing the pictures in CdC a few years back from
the shooting. I hope his section is not like "Beyond the
Clouds"...
6569
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
> I think Almodovar was originally slated to participate when
> the project was announced (at least 3 or 4 years ago), but
> was replaced by Soderbergh. Who was Antonioni's "back up"?
> I remember seeing the pictures in CdC a few years back from
> the shooting. I hope his section is not like "Beyond the
> Clouds"...
Yes, and then he pulled out, I think. There was an article in
Libération about this over the summer, but I'm sure by this point it's
lapsed into their paid-archives. I can't recall mention of a back-up
for this (although Wenders of course acted as such for 'Beyond the
Clouds'), but I know Antonioni's producer at first had the idea to get
the film together as a project based around sketches by dormant
old-masters -- specifically, Antonioni, Elia Kazan, and Billy Wilder.
Upon investigation, they found out Wilder was too frail or ill to work;
not sure about Kazan, he seemed pretty spry even up to a year or two
ago.
Has anyone seen (or can anyone provide) links to photos of what
Antonioni looks like today?
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6570
From: Raymond P.
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:53pm
Subject: Re: Millennium Mambo
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> > There's nothing particularly "wrong" with it, except that it's
weaker
> > than most of his output.
>
> There's nothing particularly "weak" about it, except that it's
less
> correct than most of his output. So explain what you take to be
its
> weaknesses.
>
> craig.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It is weak because, unlike his other films which are borne out of
his recollections and sense of history, he reveals how little he
understand the generation in which he is trying to portray. His
examination of the fleetingness of youth would have more conviction
if the film actually portrayed "youth". Plus, wasn't this much more
convincingly done anyways, in City of Sadness? And could you find a
worse actress than f***ing Shu Qi?
Still, the film is not without merit. Mark Li Ping-Bin has done it
again with the exquisite frames of beauty, shot after shot. The film
seems to me more of a meditation of an old man quietly wondering
where his youth has gone. The problem is that this old man isn't in
the movie at all, but is sitting somewhere in a director's chair.
6571
From: Raymond P.
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:03pm
Subject: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> O Ye of little faith...
>
> I am already so hyped about 2004. Next week I'll attend IFFR and
I've
> already picked out a few films I am gonna watch while I am there.
>
> Zatoichi (Kitano Takeshi)
> Anatomie de l'enfer (Catherine Breillat)
> Elephant (Gus van Sant)
> Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring (Kim Ki-Duk)
> The Fog of War (Errol Morris)
> Father and Son (Alexander Sokurov)
> The Agronomist (Jonathan Demme)
Here's my list (some missing, I'm sure):
The Last Train (Poslednyi Poezd) Alexei Gherman Jr
Singing Behind the Screens Ermanno Olmi
Forest Benedek Fliegauf
The Kite Randa Chahal Sabag
Doppelganger Kiyoshi Kurosawa
2046 Wong Kar-Wai
House of Flying Daggers Zhang Yimou
Ae Fond Kiss Ken Loach
Hana to Alice Shunji Iwaii
Saraband Ingmar Bergman
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Michel Gondry
Hungry Heart Emir Kusturica
The Weeping Land Theo Angelopoulos
The Incredibles Various
Eros Michaelangelo Antonioni, etc.
Coffee Time Hou Hsiao-Hsien
Freedom Price Michael Winterbottom
Fahrenheit 911 Michael Moore
6572
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:07pm
Subject: Re: Son_frère
Buy It!
It's his most intimate film to date -- a two-character
study of brothers who were never especially close
suddenly having the relationship they should have had
all these years when one of them is dying of a blood
disease that is destroying all his platelets.
And the brother that's dying is the straight one.
Bruno Todeschini plays that brother and a wonderful
new actor named Eric Caravaca plays the gay brother.
Sylvain Jacques plays that brother's boyfriend.
Maurice Garrel turns up as an old man who lives on the
beach with the brothers spend their last days
together. And Pascale Greggory makes his inevitable
appearance as a doctor.
The film is an ode to fraternal ove. Very tender, and
savage at the same time. The operations that
Todeschini's character goes through in a desperate
attempt to stave off his blood infection are brutal
yet never sensational.
There is no music in the film at all until the end
when suddenly we hear the voice of Marianne Faithfull
( a new member of La Famille Chereau) singing "Sleep"
from her "A Secret Life" album.
It's a quietly devestating film. And verypersonal too.
Chereau told me he has an older brother who has never
accepted the fact that he's gay "so we don't have a
relationship."
--- Jonathan Takagi wrote:
> Since there are some Chéreau supporters on this
> list,
> could anyone give some comments on last year's "Son
> frère"?
> It dropped out of sight on Parisian screens right
> when
> I arrived in the fall, but am contemplating
> purchasing
> the upcoming DVD. With the strength of the euro
> these days,
> one must be picky.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6573
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:41pm
Subject: RE: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
> Yes, and then he pulled out, I think. There was an article in
> Libération about this over the summer, but I'm sure by this point it's
> lapsed into their paid-archives.
Actually, now I remember. One of the actors talked about how
frustrating it was working with him. A good source for his current
method (and for pictures of what he looks like) is Wim Wenders'
book "Avec Michelangelo Antonioni" (also published in Italian,
and in English, without all the pictures). Basically he
gestures, makes crude sketches and makes it known when he
doesn't like something. His wife "translates".
6574
From: Raymond P.
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:49pm
Subject: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Takagi"
wrote:
>
> > Yes, and then he pulled out, I think. There was an article in
> > Libération about this over the summer, but I'm sure by this
point it's
> > lapsed into their paid-archives.
>
> Actually, now I remember. One of the actors talked about how
> frustrating it was working with him. A good source for his current
> method (and for pictures of what he looks like) is Wim Wenders'
> book "Avec Michelangelo Antonioni" (also published in Italian,
> and in English, without all the pictures). Basically he
> gestures, makes crude sketches and makes it known when he
> doesn't like something. His wife "translates".
Actually, this is what the real story behind "Eros":
Almodovar could not film his part of Eros due to scheduling conflict
with his next film, "Bad Education". So he had to pull out. Nothing
about Antonioni being difficult, since all three parts of Eros are
filmed separately anyways (Wong's was shot in Shanghai, starring
Gong Li, Soderbergh's was shot in the US). Antonioni nowadays could
barely get out of his wheelchair, so his part is mostly "supervised"
by his wife.
6575
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:55pm
Subject: RE: Re: 2004: Not a promising year
> Almodovar could not film his part of Eros due to scheduling conflict
> with his next film, "Bad Education". So he had to pull out. Nothing
> about Antonioni being difficult, since all three parts of Eros are
> filmed separately anyways
Sorry, my grammar betrayed me. I didn't mean to imply any
misunderstanding between Almodovar and Antonioni. I was referring
to the article in Liberation about Antonioni's segment. One of
the participants was interviewed and was a little displeased
with Antonioni's working methods.
Jonathan Takagi
6576
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:57pm
Subject: Antonioni
>
> Actually, now I remember. One of the actors talked about how
> frustrating it was working with him. A good source for his current
> method (and for pictures of what he looks like) is Wim Wenders'
> book "Avec Michelangelo Antonioni" (also published in Italian,
> and in English, without all the pictures). Basically he
> gestures, makes crude sketches and makes it known when he
> doesn't like something. His wife "translates".
Very interesting. Who is Antonioni's wife now? Did he stay with
Monica Vitti? (I'm not too caught-up on Antonioni biographically.)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6577
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:43pm
Subject: Re: Antonioni
There's a breathless onp-set account of the maestro shooting
his new film in CdC. The wife isn't Vitti. Can't wait to see the film -
it's one part of a 3-parter called EROS. I think Wong Kar-Wai did
one of the other parts.
6578
From:
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:51pm
Subject: Re: Antonioni
"Eros" souns fascinating.
The most recent Antonioni seen here is "Beyond the Clouds". Thought it was an amazingly beautiful picture. It is very much in the same rich visual style as the great trilogy and "Red Desert".
Wish Antonioni were making a short film every month!
Mike Grsot
6579
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 8:57pm
Subject: Re: 2004 Not a Promising Year
Star Wars 3 is going to be GREAT. There'll be a new Godard,
hopefully better than the last, shot in Sarajevo. I, Robot by Alex
Proyas. A very interesting-looking rotoscope-y Zemeckis with
Hanks. That new Fruit Chan sounds bitchun. A bunch of new
Looney Tunes going out in theatres. Spiderman 2, hopefully
better than the last one. Battle Royal 2. A retrospective of unseen
Welles at the Cinematheque in LA. Burton's Willy Wonka
remake. That film Lynch just shot in Poland. And for those of us
who don't consider variety the last word on cinema, the
much-awaited Dogville and Ken Park..
6580
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:48pm
Subject: Re: minnelli completists
And very pleasant to watch Susan Kohner at her most gorgeous, hitting him
with a riding crop.
g
To find a form that accommodates the
mess, that is the task of the artist.
--Samuel Beckett
>
> "All The Fine Young Cannibals" is indeed not very
> good. But it's fascinating to watch Robert Wagner play
> a character based on Chet Baker.
>
> --- joe_mcelhaney <
6581
From: Maxime
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:46pm
Subject: a few words by Jacques Tourneur
In 1977, a few months before he died, Tourneur gave a filmed
interview for French TV. You will find below a short video extract.
He talks about light, French lampshades and striped ties. That's in
French. Hope it works (windows media player file)
http://mapage.noos.fr/maximer/Tourneur.htm
6582
From: Maxime
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:52pm
Subject: Re: 2004 Not a Promising Year
The new Chahine will probably be released in 2004. Initially
called "Anger", it could be now "Alexandria - New york". Announced
as the fourth part of its autobiographical trilogy (after Alexandria
Why, An Egyptian Story, Alexandria Again And Forever), focused on
the time he spent in the US after the war.
6583
From: Maxime
Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:56pm
Subject: Losey in Paris
For anyone who might be interested, a complete retro of his work is
starting next month at the Cinematheque.
6584
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:16am
Subject: Re: Eros
Thanks for correcting me - DUH, what a blunder.
Anyway... Its currently in post production. Soderbergh finished his
segment in November, as the last one. I expect it to run at Cannes.
6585
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:43am
Subject: Re: Antonioni
Antonioni's wife is Enrica Fico Antonioni, who directed the
docuemtary about him called MAKING A FILM FOR ME IS TO LIVE (FARE UN
FILM PER ME E VIVERE). She seems to have the knack of understanding
his intentions, through some kind of post-stroke shorthand.
--
- Joe Kaufman
6586
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 5:52am
Subject: Re: Millennium Mambo
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Raymond P." wrote:
>
> It is weak because, unlike his other films which are borne out of
> his recollections and sense of history, he reveals how little he
> understand the generation in which he is trying to portray. His
> examination of the fleetingness of youth would have more conviction
> if the film actually portrayed "youth". Plus, wasn't this much more
> convincingly done anyways, in City of Sadness? And could you find a
> worse actress than f***ing Shu Qi?
>
> Still, the film is not without merit. Mark Li Ping-Bin has done it
> again with the exquisite frames of beauty, shot after shot. The film
> seems to me more of a meditation of an old man quietly wondering
> where his youth has gone. The problem is that this old man isn't in
> the movie at all, but is sitting somewhere in a director's chair.
I'd like to defend Millennium Mambo, but I'm not sure where to
start. I've been a Hsi Chi fan for a long time, so I have no problem
understanding why she should fascinate Hou. As to whether the
film actually portrays "youth," I can see your point, but the
film gives me the sense of either looking at Vicky and at "youth"
from a great distance, both in time and emotionally, or looking
in close-up -- the "magnifying glass" Hou talked about in interviews.
It's an unusual point of view, but I think it succeeds -- it reminds
me a little of the strangely compelling combination of distance
and mundane detail in "Elephant." So many of the small details
seem right to me, in that I've noticed them in real people I know:
to name just a few, the way Vicky's squeaky voice comes out when
she's drunk, Hello Kitty throughout the apartment, her taste for
chili sauce, her two smallpox vaccination scars -- tiny details,
but they feel true. (I doubt the techno in the clubs -- is techno
still popular in Taipei?) The repeated emphasis on the flatness of the
image, on blocked or distorted view-points, the views through
the video monitors or under black light as well as metaphors
like the face prints in the snow and half-metaphors like the lap
dance, all emphasize a life of vivid, pleasurable, exhilirating,
but empty or artificial or fleeting surfaces. I think there's
some wisdom in that. The emphasis on youth is maybe not so much
an assertion that the lives of the young are particularly empty,
but instead that for the young there's still the chance to escape and
still time to learn. I think Vicky describing her life in
the third-person from ten years later, the example of the old
woman hoping to live to be 100, and the metaphor of a cold
winter, which of course is followed by spring, all empasize
the hopefulness of the film -- in contrast there's little hope
of escape in "Flowers of Shanghai" or "Goodbye South Goodbye"...
Paul
6587
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 6:44am
Subject: Re: What is a Cineaste? (was: New Trends in Film Studies)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> As for the word cineaste, sure it just means filmmaker, but J-C is
> using an old word in a very precise new way, and I think it would
> work fine in English, where the magazine Cineaste has made it a known
> import. Also, using it polemically as J-C does and propagating that
> usage would at least serve to remind the English-speaking press that
> it DOESN'T mean "film buff"!
>
> I'm throwing it out there, as Jean-Claude did, not trying to impose
> it, because I think this group could use a few more terms
> than "auteur" (which I notice we are so ashamed of that we hardly
> ever use it anyway) to talk about complex issues in a way that is NOT
> so confusing.
My hastily restated and probably shopworn two cents: the categories are certainly useful but the problem is that their designations don't seem intuitive, at least to a non-Francophone who hasn't read Biette's book and doesn't know how he used them. It's not so much that "cineaste" can mean any old filmmaker (you were speaking, I think, of Aparajito's "synecdoche" & "metonymy" -- there must be a name for *this* familiar figure of speech in which a general term is used to denote its most ideal example, e.g. "*** was a versifier but Milton was a poet"), but that all four terms -- director, metteur-en-scene, auteur, cineaste -- seem to be more or less synonymous, so their respective definitions seem slightly arbitrary. (Also, the fact that someone can apparently inhabit two categories at once is a nice complication that may need further explaining: presumably, you can't be *more* than two?)
In any case, as we're dealing with *three* French terms here (not just one as in auteur theory), I almost think that, to successfully import the system, they'd have to be translated into more immediately graspable, self-explanatory categories -- don't know how...!
6588
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 7:11am
Subject: Re: Millennium Mambo
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher" wrote:
> Vicky describing her life in
> the third-person from ten years later,
I was tempted to bring that up in the "disembodied narrator" thread, by the way -- here's a narrator who is and isn't "diegetic" at the same time. (Had no way of knowing how accurate the translation is in that respect, though.)
6589
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 7:26am
Subject: Re: Re: Narrative/Avant-garde/Theory
Sorry, getting to reply to this a week later, which I realize is a
hundreds-of-posts eon in our group.
Henrik Sylow wrote:
>I assume that by this Fred suggests, that non commercial narrative
>film has a particular artistry attached to it...
>
No, no, no.
There's a curious pattern here: whenever I say negative things about the
ethos of commercial narrative filmmaking, taking the "voice" of
avant-gardists who work differently and even in opposition to it. It's
assumed that I dislike things because they are popular, like them
because they are unpopular, etc. etc.
Let me be as clear as I can: I think the popularity of a film has almost
no correlation with its artistic merit And it often seems, in fact, as
if others assume that it does, and thus my attitude is taken as weird or
something. The fact that my disregard of popularity is taken as
opposition to popular films suggests to me that those who take it that
way think of popularity as a sign of merit. In my view, it is not.
> and if so, what is a
>non commercial narrative film? Is that a film which is made with the
>intention never to make money? or never to be of interest to the
>general population?
>
It's a film made out of personal passion, because it had to be made, and
whose maker didn't want to use the kind of style that would likely
attract a wide audience. "Dog Star Man" is in some ways a narrative
film, actually. Some slightly more conventional examples include Larry
Jordan's beautiful and neglected "The Old House, Passing," "Christopher
Maclaine's great "The End," Yvonne Rainer's moving "Film About a Woman
Who..., and so on and so on.
> If so, is a flop artistic? If so, is a non
>commercial narrative film which by chance becomes a success (a sleeper,
>in lack of other terms) not artistic?
>
>I fail to see how the notion of wanting as many people as possible to
>see ones film can invalidate any artistic skills put into a film.
>
See above. What *I* fail to see is how the notion of wanting as many
people as possible to see one's film can in any way be regarded as a
good thing, from an aesthetic point of view. That doesn't mean I regard
it as a bad thing either. But when you start calculating what "as many
as people as possible" will like, you're certainly on dangerous ground.
According to his own testimony, not even Howard Hawks did that.
>Fred continued...
>
>"The avant-garde filmmaker argument against such a mechanism is that
>it's stupidly manipulative and locks the viewer into particular
>emotions rather than frees him to find his or her own."
>
>But doesn't the very nature of narrative, of discourse, lock the viewer
>into the course of the teller? Film in its very nature steals part of
>our imagination, avant-garde or commercial, as it creates imagery.
>
>Take a joke. The very structure of a joke (introduction, build-up,
>punchline) manipulates us into laughter.
>
Yes, but not all "narrative" films are this manipulative. Many others
are not. I don't think "Au Hasard, Balthazar" can be described in the
way you describe narrative above. I certainly don't feel "locked" into
"particular emotions" when I watch it, except at a very few moments and
even then, not really.
>... But even the representation of state
>of mind does not rule out a narrative, as one has to make others aware
>of it.
>
The representation of a state of mind can be done through narrative, or
without what most would call "narrative." Brakhage's "Romans" and
"Arabics" are examples of the latter.
>
>I would argue, that in order to make one aware of anything, even a
>state of mind, one has to manipulate the viewer. If I for instance
>showed a bouncing ball and wanted to express the ever-growing problem
>of world hunger, few would see the connections. I would have chose
>imagery which would at least hint at world hunger and as such wouldn't
>I manipulate and lock "...the viewer into particular emotions rather
>than frees him to find his or her own"?
>
The problem is with your example. Not all filmmakers want to express
something as specific as the "problem of world hunger." A filmmaker
might want to express a particular kind of emotional chaos, or a desire
to push things beyond language, or a state of intellectual uncertainty.
There are aspects of "The Man With a Movie" camera that in fact might be
said to express doubt more than certainty. Most great films don't
express single themes that can be easily translated into words anyway.
- Fred
6590
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:01am
Subject: Re: What Is a Cineaste
Craig, as a French speaker I have no trouble understanding and using
the terms, which are not at all synonymous in French. J-C's
definitions are closely based on usage in French film criticism
for "metteur-en-scene" and "auteur," which mean different things.
Of course, "metteur-en-scene" was also used by some auteurists to
mean what J-C calls a director, but they never wrote about metteurs-
en-scene, really - it was just a place-holder for "non-auteur." The
use of mise-en-scene as an almost mystical designation of the art in
the art of cinema, notably by the MacMahonians, is what J-C is
harking back to in his usage of "metteur-en-scene." And his example
is Murnau.
"Director," as David notes, can be the guy who "directs traffic" on a
set all day and goes home to watch football.
"Cineaste" is the one brand-new usage, and if you don't insist on
translating it as "filmmaker," it is a perfectly serviceable new
usage for an old word - French, like "auteur" before it - to
designate a filmmaker whose films express an individual attitude
toward his tools (cinema, understood not as a collection of
techniques, but as an art and a tradition) and toward the world.
Someone can be a metteur-en-scene, an auteur and a cineaste all at
once. A mere auteur like Huston can become a cineaste in his last
film. Or a metteur-en-scene like Curtiz can become a cineaste in one
film: The Breaking Point (as some seem to want to suggest). Etc.
Having four terms of which three can be applied to one film artist,
but not necessarily all the time, gives you a lot of flexibility to
talk about something that is not as monolithic as the old
alternative "auteur/non-auteur" tried to make it.
Two problems with the terms: One, like all words, they don't define
themselves, and you can't find these words in Larousse. You need to
read the article, which means that I have to make time to translate
at least the key parts of it for non-francophones. Two, Jean-Claude
died without adding much to the edifice, except for the piece on
Kubrick, ways that recall what he says about The Dead.
Are the four terms something we shouldn't take seriously because he
didn't? But J-C, despite the terminologies he invented in two
articles (we haven't talked about the other one yet, which is a triad
of terms for analyzing films), wasn't someone who WOULD use the terms
after introducing them - it would be more fun, and less prissy, to
try to talk about the knotty problem of Kubrick without falling back
on them.
I'm inclined to say, let's use them to see if they work, if they make
a difference, if they enable us to talk beter about our subject.
Because the alternative is not being able to talk about certain
things at all - things which NEED NAMES. But for that to be possible,
I have to do some translating.
I repeat, how often does anyone ever use the word "auteur" in a post
at "a_film_by?" Could that a symptom of something?
What if we made a list of directors and tried to mark them "auteur"
and "non-auteur"? How far would we get? Does that mean the term
should be junked, or refined?
6591
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:07am
Subject:
Maxime wrote: "For anyone who might be interested, a complete retro
of his work is starting next month at the Cinematheque."
Wo!
6598
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:08am
Subject: Losey in Paris
Maxime wrote: "For anyone who might be interested, a complete retro
of his work is starting next month at the Cinematheque."
Wo!
6599
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:17am
Subject: Re: Losey in Paris
The Film Society of Lincoln Center is doing a major Losey retro May 7-27.
g
To find a form that accommodates the
mess, that is the task of the artist.
--Samuel Beckett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maxime"
To:
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 6:56 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Losey in Paris
> For anyone who might be interested, a complete retro of his work is
> starting next month at the Cinematheque.
6600
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:16pm
Subject: Chahine
> The new Chahine will probably be released in 2004. Initially
> called "Anger", it could be now "Alexandria - New york". Announced
> as the fourth part of its autobiographical trilogy (after Alexandria
> Why, An Egyptian Story, Alexandria Again And Forever), focused on
> the time he spent in the US after the war.
I've been curious to know what others think about these three films. I
own them on DVD -- bought them as a cold purchase -- and find
'Alexandria...Why?' to be the best, but the last two, especially the
third, to be pretty awful. Anyone?
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact