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.
,
encase words you want italicized (such as film titles) with and
, and use the html code for links if you know how (it's not hard to
learn), you'll make Fred's life easier. If you have a bio on your Web
site, just email the url for the bio, and we'll make it into a link, as
Fred has just done with his own bio. Posting it on your own site will
also make it easier for you to update it.
Your friendly co-moderators,
Fred and Peter
7172
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 0:46am
Subject: Re: Re: Aspect ratios
"The Serpent's Egg" was a theatrical release. I've
never seen it either.
--- Jess Amortell
> -- with Scenes and Flute's anomalous ratio in the
> '70s presumably owing to TV origins. So the above
> could suggest that, perhaps alone of the films in
> this box set, at least The Serpent's Egg (1977) -
> which I don't think I've ever seen - *could* have
> been 1:66 ... (or was it TV too?)
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
7173
From: Raymond P.
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 2:14am
Subject: Re: WARNING: MGM has botched the Ingmar Bergman Collection!
I saw both "Shame" and "Hour of the Wolf" at a retrospective last
year, and the films were DEFINITELY not 1.66:1. They were 1.37:1,
just like Peerpee (Nick) confirmed.
Raymond
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper
> Hmm. From the Web site it looks as if the images have been cropped
from
> 1.33:1 to 1.62:1. But isn't that what theaters all over the world
have
> been doing since the 1960s? In the U.S. theaters typically show in
> 1.85:1, and in Europe, 1.66:1. Have the films in question ever been
> shown in 1.33:1 in Europe, or the US? How often? Do we know what
Bergman
> intended? Just because the image on the 35mm film strip is 1.33:1
> doesn't mean it was (a) shown that way or (b) intended to be shown
that way.
>
> I'm not saying the cropped images look right, I'm just questioning
how
> they have been shown in theaters or what was actually intended.
Maybe
> Bergman did intend 1.33:1, but then aside from the fact that the
DVDs
> are botched it would be interesting to know how often theaters and
other
> venues showed the film that way.
>
> Bergman's longtime cinematographer, Sven Nykvist, is still living,
no?
> Why doesn't a member of this group take on a worthwhile research
project
> and try to contact him with some questions?
>
> - Fred
7174
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:45am
Subject: Re: Re: Altman's 3 Women
>>At the time, I certainly felt that the Duvall's dress caught in the
> door
>>was a sign of Altman's contempt for her. - Dan
>
> That would be an extremely innocuous way of
> expressing "contempt"! I took it as making gentle fun of the
> character's pretensions (she thinks she's so perfect and she doesn't
> realize she's doing something klutzy, something that wouldn't be
> funny or even noticeable if an 'ordinary" person did it...) If I
> remember correctly, Alman's direction never attracts attention to
> that piece of coat (it's not her dress) sticking out; everytime it's
> shown in a long shot. Some viewers might not notice it even on the
> big screen. That's what I liked about it. It's thrown away, although
> it obviously had to be carefully directed. (Some Altman films are
> full of such throwaways, especially "Popeye").
Well, you're saying that Altman has comic skill and a sense of balance,
and I'd agree. I'm actually, slowly, becoming more pro-Altman, partly
from liking a lot of his recent work, partly from liking some of the old
films better.
But I don't see Altman's mockery as gentle fun. He likes to make some
characters look ridiculous; the laughter is at their expense. - Dan
7175
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 5:53am
Subject: Re: Altman's 3 Women
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> But I don't see Altman's mockery as gentle fun. He likes to make
some
> characters look ridiculous; the laughter is at their expense. - Dan
I don't find 3 WOMEN as compelling as some of the film's biggest
supporters, but I find this interesting - Duvall's character is pretty
silly to begin with, Altman doesn't point it up too much, as far as
his mise-en-scene is concerned. The only "questionable" scenes might
be the ones in which we hear cruel dialogue directed towards her, that
she can't hear. But these people are semi-anonymous, we're hardly in
their company, or if we are, we can hardly say we enjoy it more than
they enjoy Duvall's.
And, as the film progresses, it becomes clear that Altman is concerned
with stranger things than petty jibes at his heroine.
In any case, sometimes I like contempt in films, if it pleases me and
it doesn't seem to come too easy. The major disappointment with Terry
Zwigoff's BAD SANTA was that the film's most compelling element (its
bitterness, mean spirt, and cynicism) didn't have a worthy adversary:
we were given a very forceful worldview, aimed towards a muddled,
general haze (something to do with Christmas cheer, the holidays, The
Man, regular people, etc).
7176
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 2:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: Altman's 3 Women
--- Dan Sallitt
.
>
> But I don't see Altman's mockery as gentle fun. He
> likes to make some
> characters look ridiculous; the laughter is at their
> expense. - Dan
>
Yes and No. Just about everybody remembers Duvall's
dress getting caught in the car door. But our finding
that funny is a ot diferent than the obvious loathing
of the other people at the motel. Moreover, after
Spacek's suicide attempt Duvall becomes far more
striaghtforwardlysympathtic in the way she tries to
help her and take charge of the situation as best she
can. Consequently when the "new" Spacek turns on her
-- and pointedly becomes part of the motel set -- it's
scarcely set-up to meet with our approval. Put it
altogether and you've got a rather complex array of
possible responses to a group of chracters that aren't
offered upto us in the standard Hollywood manner.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
7177
From:
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 1:24pm
Subject: Altman's The Company
In the end credits to The Company, I noticed that many of the dances featured
in the film were sponsored by various benefactors/institutions (e.g. "Tensile
Involvement" Sponsored by The Marvin and Elaine Gottlieb Family Foundation).
Does anyone know more about this? Is this a clever, unique way to fund a film?
I've swept through the press kit but turned up no information.
The failure to address these matters of funding in the film itself lessened
its impact for me. I liked The Company but I miss the brute economics of a
Showgirls. What was at stake, economically, in Neve Campbell's getting hurt at the
end? Will she still be getting a paycheck while she heals, for instance? We
never find out. And really, what was at stake for her econmically throughout
the entire film? Take her apartment. Sure, it's by the train tracks and not
exactly cavernous. But even at that, I'm sure it cost a pretty penny in Chicago.
Moreover, it seems a far cry from Nomi Malone's trailer not to mention Altman's
statement concerning what he wanted to show in The Company: "Here are
world-class artists who, for the most part, are poorly paid and live hand to mouth;
often in very unglamorous conditions." That doesn't describe Campbell's
conditions which get tons more screen time than the apartment crammed with struggling
dancers. Perhaps a glimpse of Malcolm McDowell's director's pad would have
provided a useful contrast (we see MacLachlan's palace in Showgirls).
And for such a gay subject (potentially gay subject?), the overall thrust was
distressingly het. I appreciate the perversity of ending Campbell's
heterosexual relationship in media res rather than finally formed. But we were still
treated to its every twist and turn. By contrast, what was up with the boy who
got kicked out of one of the productions? Who was that man who dictated his
life? His sugar daddy? His agent? His father? I know such identity politics will
enrage both formalist critics and film theorists and it even goes against my
own better instincts. Joan Crawford knows I'm not asking for more positive or
realistic representations. I'm just waiting for that film about a heterosexual
romance that takes place in a gay and lesbian community center because, ya
know, straight people might work there too.
The only person on earth who thinks Pret-A-Porter and Gosford Park are the
same goddamn movie,
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7178
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 6:56pm
Subject: Re: Altman's The Company
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> The failure to address these matters of funding in
> the film itself lessened
> its impact for me. I liked The Company but I miss
> the brute economics of a
> Showgirls.
Well I sure as hell DON'T.
I cannotcomprehend the high regard in which that piece
of dreck is held. Especially by people who should know
better like Jacques Rivette.
What was at stake, economically, in Neve
> Campbell's getting hurt at the
> end? Will she still be getting a paycheck while she
> heals, for instance? We
> never find out.
No we don't. Her little tumble is deliberately
anti-climactic -- as is much of the action.
And really, what was at stake for
> her econmically throughout
> the entire film? Take her apartment. Sure, it's by
> the train tracks and not
> exactly cavernous. But even at that, I'm sure it
> cost a pretty penny in Chicago.
> Moreover, it seems a far cry from Nomi Malone's
> trailer not to mention Altman's
> statement concerning what he wanted to show in The
> Company: "Here are
> world-class artists who, for the most part, are
> poorly paid and live hand to mouth;
> often in very unglamorous conditions." That doesn't
> describe Campbell's
> conditions which get tons more screen time than the
> apartment crammed with struggling
> dancers.
Well she's got a nice apartment and a gorgeous
boyfriend. This is a movie, after all. Still she works
as a waitress too.
Perhaps a glimpse of Malcolm McDowell's
> director's pad would have
> provided a useful contrast (we see MacLachlan's
> palace in Showgirls).
But he's not romantically involved with her.
>
> And for such a gay subject (potentially gay
> subject?), the overall thrust was
> distressingly het. I appreciate the perversity of
> ending Campbell's
> heterosexual relationship in media res rather than
> finally formed. But we were still
> treated to its every twist and turn.
Well the movie was her idea, she's one of theproducers
and hand a hand in the script too.
By contrast,
> what was up with the boy who
> got kicked out of one of the productions? Who was
> that man who dictated his
> life? His sugar daddy? His agent? His father?
Sugar Daddy seems likely.
I know
> such identity politics will
> enrage both formalist critics and film theorists and
> it even goes against my
> own better instincts.
Well it doens't enrage me. As a matter of fact I'm
usually the one to complain.But not this time out.
"The Company" verydeliberately shies away from
"issues" and grand sweeping "statments." It's the
"Anti-Red Shoes" in that respect. McDowell is in the
Walbrook position, but he's not like Walbrook at all.
He's grand and more than a bit pompous, but practical.
And he doesn't get into his dancer's personal lives.
Joan Crawford knows I'm not
> asking for more positive or
> realistic representations. I'm just waiting for that
> film about a heterosexual
> romance that takes place in a gay and lesbian
> community center because, ya
> know, straight people might work there too.
>
Have you seen "Camp"?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
7179
From:
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 3:04pm
Subject: Re: Altman's The Company
In a message dated 2/2/04 1:03:22 PM, cellar47@y... writes:
> Have you seen "Camp"?
>
Camp was my pick for the very worst film of 2003. I absolutely loathed it.
Since I don't know any better, what's wrong with Showgirls?
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7180
From:
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 3:22pm
Subject: A Decade Under The Influence
Two things that stood out for me in this condescending documentary on 70s
American cinema:
1. Peter Bogdanovich's claim that Welles' Othello was the first
self-financed, independent American film. Shadows was the second. (Admittedly, this was
relegated to an extra on the DVD.)
2. Sydney Pollack: "MTV started to happen and there was an impatience for
linear narrative. You wanted to jump everything and get to the high point and
then make everything a collection of high points. Why sit through valleys? Let's
just do peaks."
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7181
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 8:50pm
Subject: Re: Altman's The Company
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> Camp was my pick for the very worst film of 2003. I
> absolutely loathed it.
>
> Since I don't know any better, what's wrong with
> Showgirls?
>
Well since you loathed "Camp" perhaps we have nothing
to discuss.
"Showgirls" was ugly, grotesque and stupid.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
7182
From: Doug Cummings
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 8:57pm
Subject: Re: A Decade Under The Influence
>Two things that stood out for me in this condescending documentary on 70s
>American cinema:
>
>1. Peter Bogdanovich's claim that Welles' Othello was the first
>self-financed, independent American film. Shadows was the second.
>(Admittedly, this was relegated to an extra on the DVD.)
I just attended a benefit screening of "Salt of the Earth" (1953) a
couple weeks ago for the striking grocery workers in Southern
California, and I bet the union that financed the film despite the
industry and FBI attempts to ban its production would argue that it
was pretty independently produced. (After Welles, before Cassavetes,
at least.)
Doug
7183
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:28pm
Subject: Re: Altman's The Company
David:
> Well she's got a nice apartment and a gorgeous
> boyfriend. This is a movie, after all. Still she works
> as a waitress too.
I wasn't bothered by the nice-sized, well-decorated apartment. My
impression, which the film doesn't promote but certainly makes
plausible, is that Neve is her parents' special little girl and they
probably put up for the place. She pays bills, maybe even some
rent, but it's more than reasonable that her character wasn't
entirely financially dependent.
What bothered me in terms of departures from (or snubs to) 'reality'
is that this dancer nonchalantly stocks eggs, butter, and beer in
her fridge. I couldn't buy it ...
Still, it's an excellent movie.
--Zach
7184
From:
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 5:39pm
Subject: Re: Altman's The Company
In a message dated 2/2/04 2:56:34 PM, cellar47@y... writes:
> Well since you loathed "Camp" perhaps we have nothing
> to discuss.
>
In the interest of not simply shutting down critical discourse just because I
didn't like a movie, here's what I wrote about Camp in my forthcoming Ten
Worst Films of 2003 column:
1. Camp – For sure, there are worse, more inconsequential items on this list
than Camp. But no film in 2003 made me angrier. Here we have an unquestionably
queer setting, theatre summer camp, and the production centers around a hunky
straight white boy whose heteronormative thrust is augmented every step of
the way. His introductory rendition of “Wild Horses,†shot with adoring,
predatory roundlets, stereotypically marks
him as heterosexual to the relief of the counselors and the lust of the
teenage misfits who attend the camp. His obsessive-compulsive disorder supposedly
marks him as a misfit too but it plays a barely existent role in the story. And
his lecherous ways get elided by a rushed dénouement where everyone
inexplicably comes back around to his deadly obliques. It all plays as if
writer/director Todd Graff were nervous about focusing too much on his gay or overweight or
Puerto Rican characters and used this monstrous paradigm of lean, compulsory
heterosexuality to ward off the threat. As a result, they’re reduced to the
secondary characters they’ve always been in cinema. Graff epitomizes a new breed
of filmmakers who trip over themselves to throw identity politics up on the
screen but wind up creating more oppressive representations than most
mainstream product. Like Lost and Delirious but even more dangerous, Camp is a film
best avoided by teenage misfits of any stripe.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7185
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:57pm
Subject: Re: Altman's The Company
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
I'm not so sure about "the relief of the counselors."
Did we see the same film?
" His
> obsessive-compulsive disorder supposedly
> marks him as a misfit too but it plays a barely
> existent role in the story."
Again I disagree.
And
> his lecherous ways get elided by a rushed
> dénouement where everyone
> inexplicably comes back around to his deadly
> obliques.
Ah those obliques!
It all plays as if
> writer/director Todd Graff were nervous about
> focusing too much on his gay or overweight or
> Puerto Rican characters and used this monstrous
> paradigm of lean, compulsory
> heterosexuality to ward off the threat.
Except that in context this lean heterosexual is a
freak.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
7186
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:36pm
Subject: Re: Altman's 3 Women
Dan Sallitt wrote:
> But I don't see Altman's mockery as gentle fun. He likes to make
> > some characters look ridiculous; the laughter is at their
expense.
Cheap derision is everywhere in Altman, but what strikes me is how he
uses mockery and the related habit of pinning down supporting
characters to a small number of repeated gestures (how many of his
movies feature clandestine alcoholics?) as strategies to enforce a
dreamy distance from the narrative, a "flattening" effect I associate
with the use of zooms in the '70s films. It's another strange push-
pull technique -- I don't know another director who holds us between
alienation and entrancement in quite the same way. So many of his
actors, especially the women, are like slightly out-of-control
cartoons, but the best ones -- Shelley Duvall, or Jennifer Jason
Leigh in KANSAS CITY -- have an eccentricity and unreadability that
turns them objects of mysterious fascination rather than
straightforward figures of fun. Satire involves scorn, and like Jaime
I have no problem with that as such; but though nearly all Altman's
films have apparent satirical elements, most of the stronger ones (I
rate THREE WOMEN very highly too) ultimately move away from social
commentary into their own private worlds.
JTW
7187
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 0:14am
Subject: Re: A Decade Under The Influence
I only watched the first episode and about half of the second, but I
also found it pretty wanting. It's extraordinarly shallow, just mad
about sound bites, and full of what seems to be every last
self-congratulatory gesture of '70s mythmaking the directors could get
their hands on. If I didn't know anything about living in America in
the '70s, I would have thought it was populated by nothing but
peace-loving hippies, and there's, like, the Vietnam War and stuff,
and people going to see THE GODFATHER and STAR WARS.
Jeremy Heilman made a great observation when he point out how the doc
would flash a poster from, say, FOXY BROWN or a ten-second clip from
JOE, among posters from seven or eight other films, with some slick
and unchallenging commentary/music track, as if the film was saying,
"Whew, got those out of the way."
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Two things that stood out for me in this condescending documentary
on 70s
> American cinema:
>
> 1. Peter Bogdanovich's claim that Welles' Othello was the first
> self-financed, independent American film. Shadows was the second.
(Admittedly, this was
> relegated to an extra on the DVD.)
>
> 2. Sydney Pollack: "MTV started to happen and there was an
impatience for
> linear narrative. You wanted to jump everything and get to the high
point and
> then make everything a collection of high points. Why sit through
valleys? Let's
> just do peaks."
>
> Kevin
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7188
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 0:41am
Subject: Re: A Decade Under The Influence
> 1. Peter Bogdanovich's claim that Welles' Othello was the first
> self-financed, independent American film. Shadows was the second.
(Admittedly, this was
> relegated to an extra on the DVD.)
I sympathize with Bogdanovich's Welles love, and I understand that
there isn't much else going on in his life right now besides talking
about Welles and telling the same (admittely funny) jokes and
anecdotes over and over again - but really, his statement only makes
sense until you start to examine what's meant by "self-financed,"
"independent," and "American." I mean, to begin with, not even
scratching the surface here, but OTHELLO was entered into competition
at Cannes as a Moroccan film.
> 2. Sydney Pollack: "MTV started to happen and there was an
impatience for
> linear narrative. You wanted to jump everything and get to the high
point and
> then make everything a collection of high points. Why sit through
valleys? Let's
> just do peaks."
Why sit through Sydney Pollack films? RANDOM HEARTS = one of the
biggest valleys of all.
-Jaime
7189
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 1:24am
Subject: Re: A Decade Under The Influence
> Why sit through Sydney Pollack films?
Well he directed the Hollywood version of "Dog Star Man" -
"Jeremiah Johnson" !
-Sam
7190
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 1:57am
Subject: Re: Re: A Decade Under The Influence
--- samfilms2003
> > Why sit through Sydney Pollack films?
>
> Well he directed the Hollywood version of "Dog Star
> Man" -
> "Jeremiah Johnson" !
>
Hah!
Well "They Shoot Horses Don't They" is excellent and
"The Way We Were" not at all bad -- despite the third
act boondoggle. But overall he's a much better actor
than he is a director. His reading of the line "All
rumors are true" in "The Player" is amazing, and he's
the best thing in "Eyes Wide Shut."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
7191
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 2:12am
Subject: Re: Re: A Decade Under The Influence
> and he's
> the best thing in "Eyes Wide Shut."
Oh, good grief.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7192
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:26am
Subject: Re: A Decade Under The Influence
> Well "They Shoot Horses Don't They" is excellent
I think I'd agree. (it's been years since I've seen it....)
-Sam
7193
From:
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Stars in My Crown
Zach Campbell wrote:
>I watched STARS IN MY CROWN the other day and wanted to briefly
>revive the discussion from a few weeks ago (as per Peter's
>suggestion to me). This is a tremendous film. (Spoilers follow.)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this amazing film! It's great to see
that "Stars in My Crown" has so many supporters on a_film_by. Tag has said that
it wasn't too widely seen in the '60s and perhaps this is the reason why even
such a major Tourneur supporter and scholar as Robin Wood doesn't even mention
the film (or barely mentions it) in his otherwise superb entry on the
director in the Roud volume. Does anyone know if Wood wrote about "Stars in My
Crown" at a later date?
>STARS IN MY CROWN has that amazing scene where the Parson prays for
>Faith Samuels in her room,
This is my favorite scene of the movie and I also found myself rewinding it
and watching it again on my first viewing.
>In a room contrasted between light and dark, the wind picks
>up and sets to motion the composition, suggesting the currents
>that 'move' Faith back into health.
What's particularly astonishing is that the atmosphere changes within a
single shot: the long shot of the Parson praying at the bedside of Faith. I
haven't clocked the exact duration of this shot, but it feels lengthy in relation to
the cutting rhythms of the rest of the scene; the wind picks up towards the
very end. Also notable is the shot following it, of Faith turning her head,
'cured'; her recovery has been almost instantaneous.
A small thing I commented upon in my original post on "Stars in My Crown" is
that Tourneur also utilizes qualities of the atmosphere by having the wind
sweep up the fake 'will' of Famous's at the end of that extraordinary scene.
Fred Camper wrote:
>I still
>remember seeing "Mouchette" for the first time in French without
>subtitles, not getting much of the dialogue, and still being
>overwhelmed, and overwhelmed in a way consistent with my later viewings.
You know, I have to say that probably the biggest change I've undergone as a
filmgoer over the past year or so is my belief that looking at even sound
films as one would look at a silent film is >not< an impoverished way of viewing
cinema - provided that it's a great movie. In fact, as Bogdanovich noted
thirty years ago in an essay in his "Pieces of Time," sound movies have an
advantage over silents in terms of one's visual experience of them; there aren't title
cards which interrupt the imagery. Spoken dialogue is a lot easier to block
out than title cards.
Anyway, if I find myself watching a narrative film and drifting from
following the plot as its expressed through dialogue or acting, that's sometimes all
it takes to convince me that the film I'm watching is a great one.
Peter
7194
From:
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:00pm
Subject: Re: Altman's 3 Women
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>This a specifically American vision,
>and one even mor specifically of the American desert.
That's the thing I was trying to tease out in my initial comments on the
film; the movie's this fascinating combination of the 'naturalistic' side of
Altman - the one who can evoke a sense of place and community so effortlessly -
with this incredible dreamlike, "Persona"-like story and atmosphere. And yet it
never feels schizoid; the film is of a piece.
>I wish "Quintet" worked. It has all the elements of a
>one-of-a-kind fascinator, but somehow fails to
>connect.
I'm not sure I'm prepared to make a lengthy defense of "Quintet" (for
starters, I haven't seen it in years), but I remember finding it pretty singular.
What a location!
Henrik, I agree with you about "3 Women," but I have to disagree that
Altman's work disintegrated thereafter. In fact, the entirety of "Tanner '88"
(thanks for the reminder, Tristan) arguably constitutes one of his very greatest
achievements; I find it far superior to "The Player" (with which it shares some
elements.) I'm partial to a number of films you name and would actually argue
that it's Altman's mise-en-scene which makes flawed works from the '80s like
"Fool for Love" or "O.C. & Stiggs" so fascinating. I can't imagine that "O.C."
sounded much different from "Porky's" on paper, but Altman comes onto the set
with his zooms and overlapping dialogue and basically makes an anti-teen
movie; it's actually a great example of the old Altman contempt, as I don't think
he had an ounce of sympathy for the leads in this film.
Anyway, I would agree that the particular side of Altman which manifests
itself so explicitly in "Images" and "3 Women" has not been seen in many years.
Maybe he can't get an original script of his own writing financed ("Images" and
"3 Women" were both originals). I regret this, but that doesn't mean that
he's not done some amazing work during the past twenty years. Anyone with me
that "Short Cuts" is >the< major Altman work of the '90s? I can't wait to see
"The Company."
Peter
7195
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 4:52am
Subject: Re: Altman's 3 Women
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
Anyone with me
> that "Short Cuts" is >the< major Altman work of the
> '90s?
Hear, Hear!
I can't wait to see
> "The Company."
>
>
I love it. Interested to hear what you think.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
7196
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 4:55am
Subject: Re: Re: A Decade Under The Influence
--- samfilms2003
> > Well "They Shoot Horses Don't They" is excellent
>
> I think I'd agree. (it's been years since I've seen
> it....)
>
Originally its screenwriter, James Poe, had hoped to
direct and star his wife -- Barbara Steele (!)-- in
the role that went to Susannah York.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
7197
From:
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 2:10am
Subject: Re: Altman's The Company
In a message dated 2/2/04 4:59:34 PM, cellar47@y... writes:
> I'm not so sure about "the relief of the counselors."
> Did we see the same film?
>
Right after he sings "Wild Horses," the counselors get all amazed and
googly-eyed and say something like "Wow! An actual heterosexual boy."
" His
> obsessive-compulsive disorder supposedly
> marks him as a misfit too but it plays a barely
> existent role in the story."
Again I disagree.>>
Oh come on. He first mentions it in that auditorium or wherever and it comes
up once, maybe two more times tops after that. If he's a misfit, I'm Alain
Delon, c. Purple Noon.
<
Yes, they're divine. But that doesn't make up for appallingly shoddy (and
offensive) storytelling.
<
I honestly don't see how you can say that. Even though he's not the typical
theatre camp kid, he's never made to feel like an outcast. Indeed, he's
downright worshipped.
Love,
Alain Delon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7198
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 4:30pm
Subject: Re: Altman's 3 Women
I can't imagine that "O.C." sounded much different from "Porky's" on
paper, but Altman comes onto the set with his zooms and overlapping
dialogue and basically makes an anti-teen movie
I like Porky's.
7199
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 5:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Altman's 3 Women
> I like Porky's.
How was the Daney conference?
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7200
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 6:20pm
Subject: Daney conference
Good. The game plan seems to have been to make Serge the patron saint
of inter-disciplinary studies (e.g. "Film AND..."), a very lucrative
aca-racket because of double funding sources, but there were enough
a_film_by members present - Chris Fujiwara and me on separate panels,
and Gabe Klinger in the audience - to keep people from forgetting
the "A" word (auteurism). My favorite presentation was Stuart
Klawans' "Unfaithfully Yours: When Cinema Is Linda Darnell, and the
Critic Behaves Like Rex Harrison." I hope it'll be published
somewhere.
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact