Posts from the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact

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.

7701

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:43pm
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

When I'm not passing out in my chair, I will happily read some of your
stories, Mike. And it would be fascinating to see those films!

Jaime

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In the early 1970's, made several short silent experimental films.
These were
> mainly just collections of "pretty" images, in a sub-Brakhage,
Baillie, Ron
> Rice mode. Never showed them anywhere. They DID teach me a lot about
> filmmaking, about how a film is put together.
> It is a lot easier to paint or write fiction, than to make films. Not
> artistically, but in terms of production difficulties. I've made
several thousand pen
> and paper abstract drawings, which have never been shown in public -
am not
> part of the "art world". Occasionally work in water color too, but
not for a
> long time. And have completed ten mystery short stories, 7 of which
are on my
> web site. Collectively, they are around 200 pages, the size of a
book. Am hard
> at work on more.
> Mike Grost
> author of the Jacob Black "Impossible Crime" mysteries, at:
> http://members.aol.com/MG4273/mymyst.htm
>
> Jake solves crimes in 1920's silent era Hollywood. The stories are
light
> hearted and designed to give pleasure. The best one is "Extra! Extra!".
7702

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 4:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

>>On my next film, if there ever is one, I'm going to try to get two
> boom
>>operators instead of one
>
> That's what I was told that directors normally do, they get two or
> three boom mics and it solves a lot of problems. Kind of (but not
> really) like how Ridley Scott will use two camera set-ups on a given
> scene in order to alleviate the camera-consciousness of the actors.

It's a tradeoff, because extra crew people mean more money for
transportation, housing, management on the set. And more possible
points of failure. Ridley Scott is in a diffferent situation, of
course. - Dan
7703

From: J. Mabe
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 4:38pm
Subject: Micheaux Was: To Kill a Middlebrow

How do you mean? Micheaux made plenty of original
films, but some of them do seem to be retelling
earlier Hollywood pictures (not in the way that some
race films of the time simply remade the popular
westerns or dramas, but to critique them). Not only
Within Our Gates, but God’s Stepchildren and Body and
Soul. Stepchildren (my favorite Micheaux) takes some
elements from John Stahl’s Imitation of Life (and
probably the novel), and though I haven’t seen it,
Charles Musser has written about Body and Soul
directly referencing some Eugene O’Neil plays.

Josh Mabe

Fred C:
I recently saw "Within Our Gates" (1920), which I
liked very much, and which is thought to have been a
response to "The Birth of a Nation."

David E:
Only by those looking for a response to "The Birth of
a Nation." Micheaux wasn't that kind of filmmaker.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7704

From:
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:00pm
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

Jaime N. Christley:

> 1) Low-budget films (as in, in the thousands) might have awkward
> you-read-your-line-and-pause-then-I'll-read-my-line delivery with
the
> actors for technical reasons. Because I used only microphone, and
it
> was a directional mic, the boom operator has to tilt the mic from
left
> to right with each line delivery in, say, a two-shot or an unbroken
> take featuring dialogue. Consequently, the director (i.e. me) will
> resort to shot/reverse shot, since each take of a dialogue scene
can
> be recorded without tilting the mic.

Actually, a good boom operator should be able to go back and forth
between characters in an unbroken shot with minimal effects on your
sound. It's done all the time, and it requires a bit of patience and
practice. A good way to cover yourself (and of course this is also a
budget issue) is very often to place an additional stationary mike
somewhere nearby in order to catch sounds and words you might miss
in the back and forth. (If you have the luxury of having an
additional mike or two, you can actually place mikes in certain
places just to catch one word, or a specific sound.) And any
problems caused by mike sounds can often be fixed in sound editing.
The trick there is to get a lot of wild track, and several takes of
the actors giving their lines, sans camera. (You can even record
this last part in a space with less ambient sound, like a walk-in
closet, as long as it doesn't alter the quality of the voices too
much.)

>
> 3) A tracking shot still means rails.
>

You can use a good wheelchair, too, actually. Or you can do what we
do, which is use one of those Magliner wheeled dolly thingies that's
used for carrying heavy equipment, weigh it down and balance it out
with sandbags, and rig a high-hat to it using sash cord. We found
that to be a cheaper alternative to both rails and steadi. Alas, it
offers limited movement and angles (most of them low), so you can't
get too close to your actors, and some of your shots will look like
they came straight out of THE SHINING (which isn't so bad).

> 4) SteadiCams are for the rich.

Yes. The reason for this, btw, is that Steadicam basically licenses
out its rigs to those who operate them, so they're not really
independent operators. In a way, they are partly owned by Steadicam
still, and cannot charge below certain prices. So you never hear of
any such thing as a cheap Steadicam operator (unless you're working
with much higher budgets of course, in which case they're only
relatively cheap).

>
> 5) Other high-ticket items (from my perspective as a student)
include
> a variable-speed motor for under- and over-cranking;

Funny. I always found this to be cheaper than a crystal sync motor,
personally.

> a decent
> lens other than the one NYU gives you;

Um, I could have lent you a whole set. Oh well.

>
> 7) Acting by professional actors > Acting by fellow film
students. I
> still can't fathom how somebody can kiss a stranger or cry on cue,
it
> kind of freaks me out.

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that people whose background is
in theater can't act on film. That's a cardinal error that a lot of
filmmakers make, and it's based on a false assumption. Those final
performances often have a lot more to do with directing than with
acting.

> Without looking at the list, I know for sure that Peter Tonguette,
Dan
> Sallitt and (of course) Bill Krohn have made films or DV
> features/shorts, above and beyond simply playing around with the
> camera with friends and cutting it on a Steenbeck. Anyone else?
>

Hi Jaime. My name is Bilge F. Ebiri. You may not remember me, but I
am a friend of yours. I have made a feature and numerous short
films. Also, I believe I gave you a DVD of my film some six months
ago (a DVD I may actually need back soon, believe it or not). I take
it you have either not watched it, or hated it so much that you've
decided I don't deserve to be called a filmmaker. (That last part's
a joke, but of course, it may well be the case, I dunno.)

-Bilge
7705

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:02pm
Subject: Re: Micheaux Was: To Kill a Middlebrow

Micheaux's principle subject was light-skinned blacks
and "passing."

--- "J. Mabe" wrote:
> How do you mean? Micheaux made plenty of original
> films, but some of them do seem to be retelling
> earlier Hollywood pictures (not in the way that some
> race films of the time simply remade the popular
> westerns or dramas, but to critique them). Not only
> Within Our Gates, but God’s Stepchildren and Body
> and
> Soul. Stepchildren (my favorite Micheaux) takes
> some
> elements from John Stahl’s Imitation of Life (and
> probably the novel), and though I haven’t seen it,
> Charles Musser has written about Body and Soul
> directly referencing some Eugene O’Neil plays.
>
> Josh Mabe
>
>
> Fred C:
> I recently saw "Within Our Gates" (1920), which I
> liked very much, and which is thought to have been a
> response to "The Birth of a Nation."
>
> David E:
> Only by those looking for a response to "The Birth
> of
> a Nation." Micheaux wasn't that kind of filmmaker.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7706

From: Greg Dunlap
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:26pm
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

--- "Jaime N. Christley" wrote:
> Without looking at the list, I know for sure that Peter Tonguette,
> Dan
> Sallitt and (of course) Bill Krohn have made films or DV
> features/shorts, above and beyond simply playing around with the
> camera with friends and cutting it on a Steenbeck. Anyone else?

While it won't carry as much weight with this group, I went through a
very intense pre-production and a decent amount of photography on a doc
that I had to shelve and eventually handed over to someone who is in
the process of completing it. Of course he's completely ruined my very
personal vision! No, he's making a different film than I would have
made but its still good. Watching him take this material and put
together his film, and contrasting it with how I would have done it has
been EXTREMELY educational about the different paths films can take
depending on what you use, what order you put things together, use of
music, etc. I knew all this from a conceptual standpoint but seeing
things play out really opened my eyes.

From a production standpoint, really, my situation was a freaking
breeze. I spent much of my pre-production time planning my interview
environment out, experimenting with camera placement, lighting, sound
recording, etc. This was all helped immensely by the fact that I
graduated with a photography degree. Eventually I got it down to the
point that when I started doing interviews for real I was a one man
crew. I have a friend who runs a large recording studio which he
generously let me use on off days. I would go in a couple hours early
and set up, my subject would show, I'd adjust lighting and camera
angles (I was running two DV cameras - one wide, one tight), run some
sounds tests and roll. Every hour I'd change tape. It was great and
perfect for me since I'm kind of a control freak.

I'm working on a screenplay for a short that I'd like to make someday,
but it would have to be on film and semi-expensive and I'd need a
crew...I respect, admire, and am in awe of those that can get this done
and manage it within very tight budgets. Just the thought of it makes
my stomach kind of queasy.

=====
--------------------
Greg Dunlap
heyrocker@y...

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7707

From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:10pm
Subject: Way OT: "a_pot_by" (was: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow, by Mike Grost)

MG4273@a... wrote:

>Some com
>Lucky Chicagoans get to see all the time the Art Institute's great collection
>of pre-Columbian art.
>
Are you sure you don't mean the Field Museum? The Art Institute has some
great things, but the Field museum has much more on display. If you've
never been, keep that in mind for your next trip.

Other great museum collections: The Metropolitan Museum in New York
(which tends to have some amazing masterpieces out); Dumbarton Oaks in
Washington, the Dallas Museum of Fine Art. The Barnes outside
Philadelphia has some great things. Most large synoptic museums do too
-- I'd assume Detroit's Institute of Arts does. The Brooklyn Museum has
some great things, and of course the American Museum of Natural History.
The Museum of the American Indian, closed for many years, had an
incredible collection; I'm not optimisitc as to how it will be displayed
when it reoopens in D.C., but let's hope for the best. There's a small
branch in lower Manhattan that I've never been to.

- Fred
7708

From:
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 1:20pm
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

Jaime N. Christley wrote:

>Without looking at the list, I know for sure that Peter Tonguette, Dan
>Sallitt and (of course) Bill Krohn have made films or DV
>features/shorts, above and beyond simply playing around with the
>camera with friends and cutting it on a Steenbeck. Anyone else?

Well, Bilge has already spoken up. And don't forget about Fred, whose
feature-length experimental film "SN" I hope screens somewhere near me someday!
(I'm fairly certain that we won't be getting a video or DVD release, heh heh...)

Fascinating how many of us on the group have made or worked on films. My own
output as a director to date is fairly modest (a couple of B&W DV shorts) and
also largely silent; I'm still figuring out how and where to move and place
the camera to have the time to worry about dialogue and sound.

Peter
7709

From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Welles The Magic Show/Merchant of Venice

I believe there was a fund-raiser for Michael Dawson's hope-
for "restoration" of the film. I believe I was out of town at the
time.

That's great news about Ciro screening some of the unseen Quixote
stuff on Italian TV. I wish Ray Carney were able (or willing) to do
something similar with the first version of Cassavetes' Shadows,
which he screened in Rotterdam...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I'd love to see that silent footage from The Magic Show. I had
missed
> Stefan's explanation of the "rope" trick because I got there late -

> apparently that's when OW switched the bundles.
>
> Actually, Stefan did show the movie theatre scene from Quixote
> tonight. It was mediocre quality, taped off Italian tv, of all
> things! Apparently Ciro Giorgine has access to Bonnani's material
and
> just ran some of it on RAI one night at around two in the morning,
so
> Stefan showed that (including some of the Patty M/OW exchanges for
> the wraparound) as an addendum to the extensive rushes he has on
> film.
>
> As part of the theatre episode, I got to see the available
sequences
> from Merchant of Venice on a big screen for the first time, and it
> was the high point of the series for me so far (given the video
> quality of the new Quixote material). Welles was pushing the
envelope
> from wherever he left it after Chimes. Can't wait to see all of
it, I
> hope. I was glad to hear that the series will be run at Film Forum
> for a_film_byers in NY to see.
>
> There was talk tonight during the q and a of a Chimes screening in
> Chicago. Has that happened?
7710

From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley" ..> wrote:

> 1) Low-budget films (as in, in the thousands) might have awkward
> you-read-your-line-and-pause-then-I'll-read-my-line delivery with
the
> actors for technical reasons. Because I used only microphone, and
it
> was a directional mic, the boom operator has to tilt the mic from
left
> to right with each line delivery in, say, a two-shot or an unbroken
> take featuring dialogue. Consequently, the director (i.e. me) will
> resort to shot/reverse shot, since each take of a dialogue scene can
> be recorded without tilting the mic. I more or less agree with a
> friend of mine that s/rs sequences are usually where most films fall
> asleep, but there are reasons for using the technique beyond
laziness.

Add 1) Boom and 180s
You dont need more than one boom. Operating a boom is actually quiet
simple, once you get used to it, but it takes a good sound guy to
handle the sound. Key rules are always keeping a 45 degree towards the
nose of the actor speaking and to be as close to the speaker as the
shot allows it. NOTE: Do NOT tightend the cabel (it has to be loose)
and do NOT use a tight grip holding the boom - You transfer sound thru
the boom itself.

Doing 180s, I agree with Dan. The easiest way is to have a master
shot, then edit in the sound from the 180s. A trick is to have the
actors insert a pause, that makes it easier for the editor afterwards.

>
> 6) What absolutely kills me is how expensive it is just to marshall
> all the elements of the production together so that things can
> actually be *shot*. Catering, petty cash, TRANSPOR-FUCKING-TATION
and
> hauling, the insurance deductible (a hold, not a charge), a decent
> d.p. and a decent sound recordist, all of these things will suck the
> cash right out of your pocket. And I still have to run this bitch
> through post: a supervised transfer is $225/hr right off the bat,
and
> that's just the beginning. Thankfully, NYU gives students vouchers
> for doing some of their post work, or has them carry out various
> things on
> campus, like editing on AVID or on a Steenbeck.

You need a producer. Logistics of a production is enough to make
anyone to give up making film. To know that you have a car or a truck
when needed, to know you will get lunch and have coffee ready and so
on is a life saver.

Catering is free. I have arranged food for crews of 10 people for a
week and we got it all free. Transportation is consuming and
expensive: Buy a cheap old minibus, they have lots of storage capacity
and can room 8-10 people.

If you edit, consider buying a computer. A powerful editing computer
only needs 2 Hard Discs (7200 RPM with cache are fast enough), min. 1
GB Ram, Firewire or USB2 and the software. Im a trained editor and you
can get very professional results on simple editing programs, but try
to get something alike Final Cut Pro. There are many advantages of
digital editing and thanks to Adobe, you can add filters to make it
look like real film.

The biggest expense making a film is marketing. Making DV or HD copies
are cheap enough, but you want to travel around and promote your film.
Most festivals will give you a hotel room, but travel can be
expensive.

Henrik
7711

From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:33pm
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow

David, Thanks for your pithy replies. On most of it we're just going to
disagree, I think. When you write,

"A superior filmmaker has more complexity thanto allow one element to
outweigh others in such a vulgar manner,"

if your "such a vulgar manner" refers to "To Kill a Mockingbird," then I
don't agree about that film. I do think that most "superior filmmakers"
can be defended on your terms: "The Searchers" is far more complex in
its racial views than the racism some impute to it, for example. But I
also don't think there are *any* rules about what a great film is, so
I'm willing to believe there is a great film with extremely bad politics
presented in a vulgar manner.

Also, I want to make clear that I don't want to exclude social
criticisms. They are important. And one cannot, and certainly should not
abandon one's knowledge of history or moral sense. When I finally was
able to visit Rome a year ago, I found I didn't *want* to forget that
its stupendous monuments were made possible by the labor of slaves, and
that knowledge contaminated my appreciation of them a little bit, as I
think it should have, just as my knowledge of its use in human sacrifice
will always affect my viewing of sculptures of Tlaloc, or my knowledge
of the tauntings and beatings of Jews that accompanied German showings
of "The Triumph of the Will" will always affect my viewing of
Riefenstahl's films.

It's when such things are said to be "flaws" as compared with other
"superior" works of art that are supposedly not so flawed that I get off
the bus.

As someone else said, citing Tag, I'm not convinced that we have evolved
"superior" morals to those works we judge. It's hard to judge yourself.
Maybe the U.S. response to 9/11, paid for by our tax dollars no matter
who we voted for, will, if it leads to the worldwide holocaust I fear,
come to seem far more ignorant and deadly and stupid and evil than many
of the thigns we criticize films for. Though an atheist, I still put
great credit in the wisdom underlying Christianity's injunction against
judging others too easily. Reversing the "you're better than that"
cliché, I'm not good enough for that, nor do I think the culture that I
live in is either. The Aztecs who sacrificed children to bring about
rain had not overrun the planet with their machines, were not causing
the extinction of tens of thousands of entire species each year, and
were not threatening the future of life on earth with their pollutants.

- Fred
7712

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow

--- Fred Camper wrote:
"The Searchers" is
> far more complex in
> its racial views than the racism some impute to it,
> for example.

I agree -- as one of those who fought for years to
"impute" it. When I first brought it up some people
were so outraged they could barely speak. Now they
realize they have to. "The Searchers" is indeed a very
complex film, but its incipient racism can't be
overlooked.

Incidentally Gavin Lambert's Natalie Wood bio includes
information about how much she disliked doing it and
didn't get along with John Ford. Yet Natalie Wood is
one of the things everyone most recalls about the film
-- outside of the closing and openign shots of course.

But I
> also don't think there are *any* rules about what a
> great film is, so
> I'm willing to believe there is a great film with
> extremely bad politics
> presented in a vulgar manner.
>
How about a great film with great politics presented
in a vulgar manner?

IMO the greatest political film ever made is Ken
Russell's "The Devils."

> Also, I want to make clear that I don't want to
> exclude social
> criticisms. They are important. And one cannot, and
> certainly should not
> abandon one's knowledge of history or moral sense.
> When I finally was
> able to visit Rome a year ago, I found I didn't
> *want* to forget that
> its stupendous monuments were made possible by the
> labor of slaves, and
> that knowledge contaminated my appreciation of them
> a little bit,

You don't have to go as far as Rome. Once of the first
things my friend Lucian K. Truscott IV points out
about his great-great-great grandfather Thomas
Jefferson's home is that it was built by slaves.

or my knowledge
> of the tauntings and beatings of Jews that
> accompanied German showings
> of "The Triumph of the Will" will always affect my
> viewing of
> Riefenstahl's films.
>

A "preview of coming attractions" for Mel Gibson's
latest?

> It's when such things are said to be "flaws" as
> compared with other
> "superior" works of art that are supposedly not so
> flawed that I get off
> the bus.
>
> As someone else said, citing Tag, I'm not convinced
> that we have evolved
> "superior" morals to those works we judge. It's hard
> to judge yourself.
> Maybe the U.S. response to 9/11, paid for by our tax
> dollars no matter
> who we voted for, will, if it leads to the worldwide
> holocaust I fear,
> come to seem far more ignorant and deadly and stupid
> and evil than many
> of the thigns we criticize films for. Though an
> atheist, I still put
> great credit in the wisdom underlying Christianity's
> injunction against
> judging others too easily.

And as I'm sure you know I consider "The Night of the
Hunter" to be the greatest of all American films.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7713

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:54pm
Subject: Re: Welles The Magic Show/Merchant of Venice

The whole film exists somewhere. It was stolen, and apparently the
thief still has it. It would be an Italian thief, of course.
7714

From:
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:16pm
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow

In a message dated 2/22/04 12:48:39 PM, cellar47@y... writes:

> or my knowledge
> > of the tauntings and beatings of Jews that
> > accompanied German showings
> > of "The Triumph of the Will" will always affect my
> > viewing of
> > Riefenstahl's films.
> >
>
> A "preview of coming attractions" for Mel Gibson's
> latest?
>

I blew off a press screening of the Christ tomorrow because I was disgusted
at all the hoops of fire I had to jump through just to see the thing. Plus it
will be the first screening that I'm aware of in my pathetic market that will
have security. I hope I get invited to the semi-illicit employee screening
tonight as a matter of principle.

Not tauntings and beating but David's comment is well placed.

Kevin

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7715

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:47pm
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow

I have yet to be extended an invite to a screening.

Maybe I'll wait for the DVD at Xmas time.

--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/22/04 12:48:39 PM,
> cellar47@y... writes:
>
>
> > or my knowledge
> > > of the tauntings and beatings of Jews that
> > > accompanied German showings
> > > of "The Triumph of the Will" will always affect
> my
> > > viewing of
> > > Riefenstahl's films.
> > >
> >
> > A "preview of coming attractions" for Mel Gibson's
> > latest?
> >
>
> I blew off a press screening of the Christ tomorrow
> because I was disgusted
> at all the hoops of fire I had to jump through just
> to see the thing. Plus it
> will be the first screening that I'm aware of in my
> pathetic market that will
> have security. I hope I get invited to the
> semi-illicit employee screening
> tonight as a matter of principle.
>
> Not tauntings and beating but David's comment is
> well placed.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7716

From: Adrian Martin
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 9:51pm
Subject: De Vito as director

A passing query after having idly watched DUPLEX on a plane: Does anyone on
this list have regard for the films of Danny De Vito as a director? I was
very impressed by WAR OF THE ROSES in its day, but a decade later it seems
completely forgotten. Virtually all of De Vito's films have intrigued me on
a first (and so far only) viewing, and I prefer his work to that of, say,
the Coen brothers, but I have never taken my interest any further. Any other
opinions?

Adrian
7717

From: A R Ervolino
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 9:43pm
Subject: RE: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

I'm a student currently at Temple, but for the last year I was working
at Brooks Institute, which is a 30,000 sq. ft. movie studio (Erin
Brokevich was filmed there). I haven't gotten the money together to
make my film, I'm trying to get in contact with Producers so that when
I'm in my last year at Temple I can make a really nice final project.
It always helps to know people in the end. People with power will do
you favors, I was able to meet some very interesting film makers in
California and I still keep in contact with them often, without that I'd
be pretty lost. But also, if you ever need any help on the set I'd be
happy to help every now and again. I go up to NYC often, so just let me
know.

PS. I saw the Dreamers twice last week, and I thought it was beautiful.
It was a spiral that came in on itself, we watched a movie about those
who love cinema, re-enacting films, and the story of their lives
reflecting cinema on life. The images were so beautiful, as I'm sure
all that have seen it can agree that that the bathroom sequence was so
calming (I've listened the The Door's The Spy several times since then).
Well, I will say that it felt like a Bertolucci film, going back to
films like Spider's Strategum and the Conformist, as well as Last Tango.
The only problem I had with it? No dance sequence .. that puzzles me and
bothers me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Henrik Sylow [mailto:henrik_sylow@h...]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:24 PM
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: any filmmakers on the list?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley" .> wrote:

> 1) Low-budget films (as in, in the thousands) might have awkward
> you-read-your-line-and-pause-then-I'll-read-my-line delivery with
the
> actors for technical reasons. Because I used only microphone, and
it
> was a directional mic, the boom operator has to tilt the mic from
left
> to right with each line delivery in, say, a two-shot or an unbroken
> take featuring dialogue. Consequently, the director (i.e. me) will
> resort to shot/reverse shot, since each take of a dialogue scene can
> be recorded without tilting the mic. I more or less agree with a
> friend of mine that s/rs sequences are usually where most films fall
> asleep, but there are reasons for using the technique beyond
laziness.

Add 1) Boom and 180s
You dont need more than one boom. Operating a boom is actually quiet
simple, once you get used to it, but it takes a good sound guy to
handle the sound. Key rules are always keeping a 45 degree towards the
nose of the actor speaking and to be as close to the speaker as the
shot allows it. NOTE: Do NOT tightend the cabel (it has to be loose)
and do NOT use a tight grip holding the boom - You transfer sound thru
the boom itself.

Doing 180s, I agree with Dan. The easiest way is to have a master
shot, then edit in the sound from the 180s. A trick is to have the
actors insert a pause, that makes it easier for the editor afterwards.

>
> 6) What absolutely kills me is how expensive it is just to marshall
> all the elements of the production together so that things can
> actually be *shot*. Catering, petty cash, TRANSPOR-FUCKING-TATION
and
> hauling, the insurance deductible (a hold, not a charge), a decent
> d.p. and a decent sound recordist, all of these things will suck the
> cash right out of your pocket. And I still have to run this bitch
> through post: a supervised transfer is $225/hr right off the bat,
and
> that's just the beginning. Thankfully, NYU gives students vouchers
> for doing some of their post work, or has them carry out various
> things on
> campus, like editing on AVID or on a Steenbeck.

You need a producer. Logistics of a production is enough to make
anyone to give up making film. To know that you have a car or a truck
when needed, to know you will get lunch and have coffee ready and so
on is a life saver.

Catering is free. I have arranged food for crews of 10 people for a
week and we got it all free. Transportation is consuming and
expensive: Buy a cheap old minibus, they have lots of storage capacity
and can room 8-10 people.

If you edit, consider buying a computer. A powerful editing computer
only needs 2 Hard Discs (7200 RPM with cache are fast enough), min. 1
GB Ram, Firewire or USB2 and the software. Im a trained editor and you
can get very professional results on simple editing programs, but try
to get something alike Final Cut Pro. There are many advantages of
digital editing and thanks to Adobe, you can add filters to make it
look like real film.

The biggest expense making a film is marketing. Making DV or HD copies
are cheap enough, but you want to travel around and promote your film.
Most festivals will give you a hotel room, but travel can be
expensive.

Henrik

_____

Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7718

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:52pm
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

> Funny. I always found this to be cheaper than a crystal sync motor,
> personally.

No way on Dog's green earth am I going back to the ARRI S or any
equivalent non-sync-sound camera.

> Um, I could have lent you a whole set. Oh well.

That didn't occur to me, I thought you only did DV! :(

> Don't fall into the trap of assuming that people whose background is
> in theater can't act on film. That's a cardinal error that a lot of
> filmmakers make, and it's based on a false assumption. Those final
> performances often have a lot more to do with directing than with
> acting.

I have no doubt about any of this - it's not like I had John Barrymore
on the set shouting "JUDAS ISCARIOT!!!" My actors were fantastic, for
the most part. And probably knew ten times more than me about the
dynamics of acting, film vs. theater vs. whatever else.

> Hi Jaime. My name is Bilge F. Ebiri. You may not remember me, but I
> am a friend of yours.

Bilge...I know I've heard that name somewhere...

:)

> I have made a feature and numerous short
> films. Also, I believe I gave you a DVD of my film some six months
> ago (a DVD I may actually need back soon, believe it or not). I take
> it you have either not watched it, or hated it so much that you've
> decided I don't deserve to be called a filmmaker. (That last part's
> a joke, but of course, it may well be the case, I dunno.)

No no no! I have it, I want to watch it, and will soon if you need it
back in the near future. The thing with my situation here at the
house is that I have so many tapes and DVDs that people gave or lent
me that I'm swamped. A certain LIZZIE MAGUIRE MOVIE fan that we all
know and love lent me TRICK, a film I would otherwise not have seen
except I was dying of curiosity to see what the deal with LMM, and he
wouldn't lend me *that*, apparently wanting me to start at the
beginning of Jim Fall's development as an auteur. (No sarcasm there -
sight unseen, anything could happen.)

-Jaime
7719

From:
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 6:13pm
Subject: Re: Genre AND any filmmakers on the list?

Henrik Sylow wrote:

<< The biggest expense making a film is marketing. Making DV or HD copies
are cheap enough, but you want to travel around and promote your film.
Most festivals will give you a hotel room, but travel can be
expensive. >>

This is one of the things that used to be so neat about "genre" (center of
commercial filmmaking, 1910-1970). When people made a crime thriller or Western
or musical or melodrama, it had a built-in audience of people who liked such
things. Today Hollywood needs to promote its films by advertising (up to $50
million per flick), and independent filmmakers face an uphill battle to promote
their films, traveling to film festivals, etc. Is this really a good system
for independents?
Critics are always bad-mouthing genre; Dogme 95 expressly forbids it. Genre
films rarely show up on critics' ten best lists.
As an audience member, I like genre films. I do not need publicity OR critics
to tell me to go see such films. I see there is a film in a favorite genre,
go, and have a great time! Most moviegoing before 1970 was like this.
I know this sounds terminally unfashionable.
BUT
If an independent filmmaker made a genre film, and there was any way for me
to see it, I would gladly send him $8.50 and watch his or her movie.
The film would not have to be on the cover of film magazines, or featured on
Entertainment Tonight.
It would not have to compete with "Lost in Translation" as a so-called
"independent film".
If Lars Van Trier villified the filmmaker in Dogmeville 2: The Setless
Sequel, I wouldn't care at all - I'd still have a good time!

The genre system was a great boon to filmmakers and audiences.
It enabled the careers of Hitchcock, Lang, Minnelli and Ozu.
Mike Grost
7720

From:
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 0:08am
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

>
> > Um, I could have lent you a whole set. Oh well.
>
> That didn't occur to me, I thought you only did DV! :(
>

A common problem for me, and a weird one at that. I have shot one
feature on DV, and it was the first time I'd ever used DV.
Everything else I'd ever done had been on 16mm (and I actually own
some of my 16mm equipment), but when it's a feature people just
assume things. Now I'm preparing to shoot a short on film, and
everybody keeps saying, "Decided to give celluloid a shot, eh?" To
which I just respond with an angry stare.

Grr.

-Bilge
7721

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:07am
Subject: Re: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

href="http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_jimfall.shtml"
target="_blank">Jim Fall

--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
A certain LIZZIE MAGUIRE MOVIE
> fan that we all
> know and love lent me TRICK, a film I would
> otherwise not have seen
> except I was dying of curiosity to see what the deal
> with LMM, and he
> wouldn't lend me *that*, apparently wanting me to
> start at the
> beginning of Jim Fall's development as an auteur.
> (No sarcasm there -
> sight unseen, anything could happen.)
>
> -Jaime
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7722

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:09am
Subject: Re: De Vito as director

I'm very impressed by "Death to Smoochy."

And Kenneth Anger (of all people) agrees with me.
DeVito is up ("The War of the Roses") and down
("Hoffa") as a director, but always worth a look.

--- Adrian Martin wrote:
> A passing query after having idly watched DUPLEX on
> a plane: Does anyone on
> this list have regard for the films of Danny De Vito
> as a director? I was
> very impressed by WAR OF THE ROSES in its day, but a
> decade later it seems
> completely forgotten. Virtually all of De Vito's
> films have intrigued me on
> a first (and so far only) viewing, and I prefer his
> work to that of, say,
> the Coen brothers, but I have never taken my
> interest any further. Any other
> opinions?
>
> Adrian
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7723

From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:21am
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow (to Peter)

Peter wrote:

> Maybe we get the purest kind of auteur in Richard Fleischer: when I
watch his films, I always come away with the sense that this is a guy
who is devoting most of his energy on the set to figuring out the
> most visually compelling way to stage a scene. This is an
intentional provocation, as I know many here feel that a director
must also work on the screenplays of his or her films to be
> considered an auteur, but think about it!

I'm not one who believes that auteurs need to be screenwriters –-
though I suspect that most of the guys who get name-checked on
a_film_by did a lot more than just shoot whatever they were handed.

I guess my response to your provocation depends on what you mean
by "visually compelling". Are you talking about Fleischer's ingenuity
in finding cinematic ways to put the story across, or about a kind of
visual exploration that happens independently of the narrative or at
most uses it as an alibi? And if you do cut out dramatic involvement,
what criteria do you use to argue that one way of staging a scene is
more visually compelling than another? I realise the same issues
arise when trying to distinguish between, say, good and bad music,
but that's a vexed question too.

JTW
7724

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:25am
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

> Add 1) Boom and 180s
> You dont need more than one boom...

I dunno, all this stuff about having a skilled boom operator sounds
great in theory, but it kills you if you want to punch things up and
have "Hawksian" line readings, just a little faster, a real snap to
the dialogue. But then, Hawks was no enemy of s/rs or two-shots, so...

> You need a producer.

I was going to get one, it didn't work out. True that it would have
saved me bundles of time, but on the other hand doing all this stuff
myself gave me a slight "hero" aspect that offset whatever
incompetence I exhibited on the set. When all is said and done
hopefully people will remember that I got them amazing pasta and gave
them a kick-ass wrap party, not when I snapped on my AC when he said
that RUSSIAN ARK "sucked."

If that makes sense.

-Jaime
7725

From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:43am
Subject: Re: De Vito as director

Adrian wrote:
> Does anyone on this list have regard for the films of Danny De
> Vito as a director?

I have some affection for the two that I've seen. DEATH TO SMOOCHY
isn't necessarily a successful film, but it's got some interesting
things in it. I think it largely succumbs to its appeals to
topicality (most notably the Barney craze which was well-past when
the film opened, but also, for instance, the wheatgrass-healthnut
craze). Yet De Vito goes in some interesting directions, and
SMOOCHY is forever etched in my memory for having one of the
funniest lines in recent years: "Sorry if I smell like piss--you
know how it is." My friends at the movie made fun of me for
laughing so loud and so long over that one.

MATILDA is a different case, a minor but very appealing film with a
nice, mildly coherent visual style and some precisely pitched acting
turns. As far as adaptations of beloved children's books go, it
puts that wretched Harry Potter to shame (just as Roald Dahl puts
J.K. Rowling to shame). He's not on the top of my list, but I'd
like to pay more attention to De Vito's work in the future.

--Zach
7726

From:
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 0:44am
Subject: Re: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow (to Peter)

Jake Wilson wrote:

>I'm not one who believes that auteurs need to be screenwriters â€“-
>though I suspect that most of the guys who get name-checked on
>a_film_by did a lot more than just shoot whatever they were handed.

Oh, definitely. I was probably getting a little overly effusive in my praise
of Mr. Fleischer last evening.

I think that everyone should be doing the kind of production research that
Bill has done with Hitchcock and others to find out the answers to these
questions. It is sometimes a little startling when one sees a screenplay credit from
an old pro like Raoul Walsh - as one does on his late "Marines, Let's Go!" -
but it probably shouldn't be startling. I haven't done the research myself,
but I don't doubt for a second that Walsh had a hand in his scripts, even if he
was rarely credited.

>Are you talking about Fleischer's ingenuity
>in finding cinematic ways to put the story across, or about a kind of
>visual exploration that happens independently of the narrative or at
>most uses it as an alibi?

The thing I get out of the best Fleischer films is a sense that this is a guy
who just excels at creating compelling, distinctive spaces and that he does
this independent of the stories he's telling or the quality of the projects
themselves; I very rarely get the sense that the director in a Fleischer film is
asleep at the visual controls, even if the script and acting can sometimes
leave something (or a lot) to be desired. I have this sense that Fleischer is
kind of off in his own universe on a lot of projects. I don't know if I'm onto
something or completely off-track, as I've read so little really good critical
writing on Fleischer to know whether others share my observations on this.

Actually, I mention Walsh above... this all kind of reminds me of something
Fred said to me awhile back about Walsh, that Fred felt the spaces in Walsh
didn't necessarily have much to do with the stories of his films at all. Fred,
if I'm mis-paraphrasing you, please feel free to correct me! I certainly
remember Walsh's landscapes before I remember anything else about his cinema.

More later, hopefully...

Peter
7727

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:52am
Subject: Re: De Vito as Director

I'm a fan. After The Ratings Game, a first-rate tv movie about tv in
which he costarred with his wife Rhea Perlman, he made a very
impressive feature debut with his anamorphosis of Strangers on a
Train, Throw Momma from the Train, and followed it with the even more
impressive War of the Roses, starring his best friend Michael
Douglas. (Weird statistic: that film outgrossed Jedi on its opening
weekend in Germany.) I watched him fail with Hoffa, a film I'd love
to resee because of the way he managed to integrate his anamorphic
style into the telling of a straight political biopic with a fairly
daring topic. After that he stopped directing for a long time, and I
regret to say I missed the comeback: Matilda, Smoochy and Duplex are
right up there on my shoulda-seen/gotta-see list, particularly after
hearing Zach and David recommend them. I'm still waiting for his
remake of La Chienne, and his live action Wind and the Willows, which
were announced but never put into production, not to mention his film
about the murder of the last Pope, which was only whispered about.
Jersey Films, his production company, has been very successful, and I
assume that and his hugely successful acting career have taken up
most of his time. He is a loyal friend of Harold Michelson, one of
Hitchcock's close collaborators, and made a moving speech when he
presented Harold the Lifetime Achievement Award for Production Design
at the 2002 Movie Awards - Harold speaks very highly of his visual
taste and skills.
7728

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:25am
Subject: Re: Any Filmmakers on the List?

Thanks for the 'of course,' Jaime. I was spoiled on my first outing
by having Welles' cameraman and Pialat's sound man, who could not
only do all the stuff you're talking about, but whipped up a system
built to my specifications so I could have simultrans while doing the
Brazilian interviews. When you have money and a good crew - all the
job of the producer, who also handles travel, food etc. - you can
accomplish just about anything you think of, unless you decide you
want some kind of wild special effect.

However, the fact that so much was at stake meant that it was a non-
stop battle from Day One, and the skills I had learned by helping my
girlfriend steer her RFK documentary through the white water between
1975 and 1983 enabled me to see the thing through without dying and
with just one concession in the editing room. That early "war"
experience had been my only film school, apart from seeing films, and
I still think it's the most important part of the job, even though
it's rarely found on the curriculum. I still take Zoloft because of
the things that went on on It's All True, however.

My second experience was a music video co-directed with my wife, the
star, which took 9 months to edit off and on with the help of my
saintly IAT editor, and pretty much destroyed the marriage. I still
wake up screaming from that one, but the video, which was never
circulated or shown, turned out pretty good.

After that in 1997 I shot a documentary with lighting cameraman from
Survivor, a friend who had a one-chip camera and is always up for
adventure. Another friend who is a great filmmaker and works a lot in
in post got me an Avid for a week on the cuff, and we cut a 20-minute
demo. The total budget was around $50, but a) it's still unfinished
and b) my personal life took up the slack in the soul-crushing-
struggle-for-survival department even as I sat in the editing room
having a good experience on the film. Actually, indirectly, the film
ENABLED me to survive, so it was a good tradeoff - I still hope to
finish it when the daily grind lets up a bit.

Steve Miner - "Everybody tries to ruin your movie."
7729

From: Aaron Graham
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:26am
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

A bit late getting into the game on this topic, but oh well:

I've made several shorts on DV and one on 16mm (certainly superior )
and have run the gamut on all things productions-wise - from holding
the boom, to assisting camerawork - of course, all on minor
independents and shorts.

Ultimately, I'd like to direct, but in the past year or so I've been
actively pursuing studying cinematography. I find it to be much more
rewarding, although perhaps picking up directing again while gaining
experience in the DP field would no doubt benefit the other.

To mr Ebiri: your film sounds most appealing. Here's hoping I'll get
a chance to view it someday.
7730

From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:10am
Subject: Re: De Vito as Director

Re the remake of La Chienne: did he plan to play the lead himself?

JTW
7731

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo

--- Dan Sallitt wrote:

>
> Gabe: I dunno, usually a little bit of a film tells
> the tale for me. 30
> seconds into THE ROAD TO PERDITION and MONSTERS
> BALL, I leaned over to
> my companions and said, "I think we're in trouble."
> I don't deny that
> there are exceptions; but usually I feel as if the
> qualities of a film
> are present even in very small excerpts.
>
> - Dan
>
>
And you're quite right to fell that way. I've had the
same sense any number of times, I'm sorry to say.
There is on the whole very little that's really good
in cinema. The bulk is either indifferently made or
ghastly.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7732

From: Michael Brooke
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:46am
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham" wrote:
> A bit late getting into the game on this topic, but oh well:
>
> I've made several shorts on DV and one on 16mm (certainly superior )
> and have run the gamut on all things productions-wise - from holding
> the boom, to assisting camerawork - of course, all on minor
> independents and shorts.

I've made several amateur shorts on Super 8, VHS and DV, a couple of which I still quite
like but which I have no intention of showing anyone other than extremely close friends,
and I was co-producer on a low-budget 35mm feature called 'Paradise Grove', which
played a few festivals last year and which might get some kind of distribution in the not
too distant future (though I suspect we're talking strictly small screen).

I'm infinitely happier in my present desk-and-Steenbeck job at the British Film Institute,
though - the sheer physical slog and monumental tedium of even relatively small-scale
film-making just doesn't suit my temperament.

Michael
7733

From:
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:37am
Subject: The Passion of the Christ

So I did manage to get into that semi-illicit screening of The Passion of the
Christ and it was certainly a chore to sit through. I think the main problem
is lack of a perspective, a hook. In short, why was this film made?
Supposedly, the aim was a heightened realism (i.e. strict adherence to the bible). But
apart from a bloodier Christ, how different was this version of the story from
so many others that came before it? The same gaps remain (namely, what did
Jesus do for the first thirty years of his life?) and Mel safely ends the film at
the resurrection. So you're subjected to an intensely focused reminder of
just how gruesomely Jesus died for your sins, an effect exacerbated by slasher
flick timing (the garden scenes lifted jolts from Friday the 13th), Gladiator
cinematography (where the camera catches quick, jerky movements with clarity)
and random slow motion (the title should have been The Frenzy of the Visible, to
borrow Linda Williams' phrase). I know this will seem obvious to some people
here but it was as painful as sitting through church. Scratch that - it was
chruch. Mel would undoubtedly view this as a success. But I was reminded of
Jonathan Rosenbaum's capsule review of The Grey Zone where he wonders about the
usefulness of the film's feel-bad tactics. Had Mel included more than just scant
reminders of the teachings of Jesus, he could have hung the feel-badisms off
something useful. As it stands, I hardly felt like atoning for my sins upon
leaving the theatre which appears to be the film's raison d'etre.

And speaking of the teachings of Jesus, I find the press nazis' tactics for
"promoting" this film quite incommensurate with Christ's philosophy. At the
official press screening in a few hours, anyone who writes for an online
publication will be denied admittance into the screening (even though the film opens
nationwide two days later).

I'll leave the film's anti-semitism for someone else to debate since I
confess ignorance to much of the New Testament. But did we anticipate homophobic?
King Herod is an eye-lined, decadent queen (he even as a "boy" - check the
credits) straight outta Satyricon. Again, I don't know how he is represented in the
bible but I thought I'd mention it nonetheless.

Kevin

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7734

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:21pm
Subject: Re: The Passion of the Christ

Why the film was made is quite clear. For the same
reason "Jud Suss" was made.

I haven't been invited to a press screening. Rather
unusual considering the fact that among other things I
belong to a major critics organization.

I suspect it had something to do with my last name.

--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7735

From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:57pm
Subject: Last line of PICKPOCKET

Does anyone know the exact line (in French, not subs, which have a
somewhat inaccurate translation) of what Michel says to Jeanne at the
end of Bresson's PICKPOCKET. I don't have a reference handy--thanks!

Patrick
7736

From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:03pm
Subject: Daney reading guide

I'm a little behind the Daney curve here and want to catch up. I own
LA RAMPE and the POL/Traffic writings volume I (up to 1981) and have
read bits and pieces, but am somewhat at a loss of where to start,
especially because I haven't seen many of the films Daney is writing
about. Recommended pieces from these volumes? I should get Vol. II
as well, so recs from that edition would be appreciated as well.

Patrick
7737

From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:10pm
Subject: Ambersons changes

Sorry for the rash of postings after silence (lots of work) but one
more request, as I am seeing AMBERSONS tonight with some non-
cinephile friends and want to make sure I'm right when I tell them
about the changes to the film: I know the ending was not shot by
Welles, but what other scenes are wholely or partially not shot with
him? The final film is missing around 35 minutes of footage, right? I
assume the shooting script gives a very good hint of what is gone--
can anyone (briefly) refresh my memory of what's there.

I've read the very good V.F. Perkins monograph on the film, but I
don't have it in front of me, and I can't quite recall everything he
said.

Sorry for the deluge,
Patrick

PS: Has anyone read the Booth Tarkington novel? Much of the very
great narration of the film is from the book, though modified, right?
I know the opening lines are.
7738

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:29pm
Subject: Re: Ambersons changes

Robert Carringer's "The Making of The Magnificent
Ambersons" deal with the changes and additions in
considerable detail, as does "This is Orson Welles."

I've read the novel and I encourage every sentient
being to read the novel. It is one of the very
greatest works of American literature.

--- Patrick Ciccone wrote:

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7739

From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:27pm
Subject: Re: The Passion of the Christ

LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:

> In short, why was this film made?
>
Like David, I've not seen the film, but making his comment more
explicit, while there are only a few lines in the gospels that support
blaming present-day Jews for the crucifixion (one of them, in Matthew,
allegedly spoken by Jews), historically Jews *have* been blamed for the
crucifixion. Making the torments of Christ seem particularly horrible
could feed into the anti-Semitic bigotry already present among some
Christians, and which has a very long history (it wasn't until Vatican
II that the Roman Catholic Church removed a reference to "perfidious
Jews" from its Good Friday liturgy), especially if the universal love
message ascribed to Christ in the four gospels is deleted in favor of
more scourging. It isn't so much the gospels themselves that are
important here as a knowledge of the long history of the argument that
present-day Jews are to blame for the crucifixion. In medieval Europe
Good Friday was not a safe day to be a Jew, for example. What the bigots
never explain is how Christianity would have happened at all without the
crucifixion and the resurrection.

I know Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, who I like to call
"words of Christ" Christians, because they focus on the gospel reports
of what Christ is supposed to have said. You take just that stuff, you
have a pretty good religion.

- Fred
7740

From: Doug Cummings
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:49pm
Subject: Re: Last line of PICKPOCKET

"O Jeanne, pour aller jusqu'à'toi, quel drôle de chemin il m'a fallu prendre!"

Doug

7741

From: Doug Cummings
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 4:55pm
Subject: Re: The Passion of the Christ

Thanks for the context, Fred, that's really helpful. You know, I
can't stop thinking about Dreyer's long-planned and ultimately
unproduced Jesus film and how he repeatedly emphasized his desire to
present something that would *improve* Jewish-Christian relations.
Once again, the guy was 60 years (or more) ahead of his time.

Doug

7742

From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:15pm
Subject: OT: Christian persecution of Jews

Fred wrote:
> In medieval Europe Good Friday was not a safe day to be a Jew, for
> example. What the bigots never explain is how Christianity would
> have happened at all without the crucifixion and the resurrection.

Another contradiction: in medieval times, when Jewish populations
were persecuted and isolated into their own communities, there was
also a *theoretical* ban on harming Jews. They had to be saved for
the Last Judgment or some such, to be converted. Medieval theology
saw the Jews as the superceded faithful who needed to be prodded
into Christianity.

I know I've cited this before to people, but I don't think I've done
so on this list: the anthropologist Marvin Harris argued that the
captured Jesus Christ, being one of many Jewish messianic figures in
Palestine at the time (and not the most powerful or dangerous, it
seems), was shown to the Jewish population by Pilate. Their
response--"Crucify him!"--was simply the sentiment of a people who
had seen or heard of multiple "messiahs" at this point, captured and
killed. Jesus was one of several defeated saviors, not an
aberration the Jews rejected out of spite and shortsightedness.

--Zach
7743

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:40pm
Subject: Re: DeVito as Director

Jake, I assume he would've played the Michel Simon role.
Female plagiarism was already a topic in Throw Momma From
The Train, actually, where Billy Crystal's ex- commits it.
7744

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:09pm
Subject: Re: The Passion

Haven't seen it.

For the record, no account of Christ's life in the Christian Bible is
written by a contemporary; all date from after the destruction of
the second Temple in Jerusaalem by the Romans, when
Judaism was obliged to reinvent itself after the loss of the central
site of ritual sacrifice and celebration. The predecessors of
today's Orthodox wrote the Talmud, which made every Jewish
home a temple, rendering possible the Diaspora. The Christian
sect could originally have been a response to the same events,
taking as its pretext the life of a Pharisee who had studied with
the Essene sect and suffered crucifixion at the hands of the
Romans, embellishing it considerably in the process. Or not.
The problem is, none of these accounts is contemporary; all are
greatly influenced by events that happened after the undoubtedly
good man's death. There's an interesting book, The Book of Q,
which attempts to reconstruct the actual sayings of Christ, but it
is as speculative as anything else we have.

Fundamentalist Christianity, like fundamentalist Judaism, is a
joke. The Muslims, being latecomers, probably have more
grounds for positing a sacred text that can be read literally, but of
course they have been for centuries split into two warring camps
which are again preparing to go at it hammer and tongs in Iraq
after our removal of the secular government that kept them from
taking up arms.

Am I paranoid, or was Braveheart, which I walked out of after 30
minutes, already a fascist film? i gather that Melvin is a
recovering alcoholic, like Baby Bush. I'm all for AA, but these
folks do tend to be a mite rigid.
7745

From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Passion (now way OT: Bush and AA)

hotlove666 wrote:

>...i gather that Melvin is a recovering alcoholic, like Baby Bush. I'm all for AA, but these folks do tend to be a mite rigid....
>
>
I've read in more than one place that recovered alcoholics who, like
Bush, stopped on their own without going through the recovery process
are known to share, for the most part, certain characteristic. They're
easy to anger, rather impulsive, and have a tendency to invade other
countries in violation of the UN charter....

About "fundamentalist Christianity" being a joke, I've always wondered
how these folks explain the obvious contradictions within the Bible,
such as the different facts about the crucifixion in different gospels?
If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then that constitute pretty
good evidence that God is fallible. Well, don't answer, I guess, since
this is way OT, or if there's an expert here on fundamentalist
Christianity give us one good answer.

- Fred
7746

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:27pm
Subject: Re: Daney Reading Guide

POL's volume I is the best introduction. Read it straight through if
you have time - there isn't that much early stuff before you get to
the 1969-72 period, which is the real meat. When you do get to
that period, you'll have to do what I did as it was appearing: read
Derrida, Lacan, Barthes and Foucault. My introduction to the
pamphlet I did for the Semaine des Cahiers at the Bleecker in
1977 is a good overview/interpretation of that material. It's called
"The Tinkerers," and Steve Erickson has posted at his site. Don't
miss the article on Rio Lobo, Sur Salador, L'ecran du fantasme,
Amphibestesis (sp?), L'hors-champ de l'auteur (co-written with
Oudart, on Death in Venice), The Visitors, Peau d'Ane and The
Pied Piper, and The Go-Between.

If that doesn't turn you off, the book Cinejournal contains a good
selection of the Libe years, and Le salaire du zappeur contains
all the writing on the Gulf War -- but that's all in the second POL
volume, which I am just starting to read from cover to cover
myself. The Uranus pan is the one that caused the flap. The ditto
of L'Amant is also a must.

The long interview with Serge Toubiana in Perseverance is very
interesting, as is the interview I did with Serge D. in 1977, also
posted at Steve's site and reprinted in French at the start of
POL's Vol I. The brief Trafic period is not collected yet as far as I
know - I guess it'll be in POL vol. 3 - but it's good, although I find it
a tad obscure in places.
7747

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:35pm
Subject: Re: Amberson's cuts

I'm actually not much of a Welles scholar, apart from the
unfinished work, but I believe that the last half hour is
increasingly mutilated: Georgy's comeuppance was worse, and
Eugene doesn't adopt him after the accident, but I forget what
eventually does happen to him. At the end Eugene and Fanny
meet in her shabby boarding house and talk about the old days
et al in a long scene with the vaudevillians The Two Black Crows
playing on the phonograph in the background. Then as I recall,
when Eugene leaves a pullback shows that the boarding house
is the old Amberson mansion. That ending, which they snuck on
the lot and shot the interior shots for on Christmas Eve, is
referenced at the end of The Last Picture Show in the pullback
from Cloris Leachman and Timothy Bottoms listening to the
radio. Pardon me if I have details wrong on this - there are lots of
people who have studied Ambersons more closely than I, except
for an afternoon I spent reading the production reports at UCLA
out of curiosity - hence the little scoop about the ending being
shot on Christmas eve, which isn't in Carringer as far as I know.
7748

From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:30pm
Subject: RE: Re: Daney Reading Guide

> The brief Trafic period is not collected yet as far as I
> know - I guess it'll be in POL vol. 3 - but it's good, although I find it
> a tad obscure in places.

Do you know why POL priced the books so high? I know that
they're pretty thick, but volume 2 had a surprisingly high
price. I must have picked it up and put it back on the shelf
at least four or five times before actually buying it.

Jonathan Takagi
7749

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

> Actually, a good boom operator should be able to go back and forth
> between characters in an unbroken shot with minimal effects on your
> sound. It's done all the time, and it requires a bit of patience and
> practice.

But how many low-budget movies have good boom operators? My boom
operators have always been kids with no experience whom the sound
person trains on the set. Did your sound guy Andre do his own
booming?

> problems caused by mike sounds can often be fixed in sound editing.
> The trick there is to get a lot of wild track, and several takes of
> the actors giving their lines, sans camera. (You can even record
> this last part in a space with less ambient sound, like a walk-in
> closet, as long as it doesn't alter the quality of the voices too
> much.)

It's amazing what you can fix in sound editing, but I feel as if I
often lose the quality of sound I want when I'm fixing. There were
scenes in my movies that had a nice off-mike sound that I liked, but
I had to replace it with cleaner sound with no character because I
didn't pay enough attention to the sound mixer, who assumed that I
would be cutting in each character's sound separately.

> > 3) A tracking shot still means rails.

Cars are great dollies, if you can get them into the apartment. - Dan
7750

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:56pm
Subject: Re: Rivette on Kapo

>...mais si nous avons toujours détesté, par exemple,
Poudovkine, de
>Sica, Wyler, Lizzani. et les anciens combattants de l'Idhec,
>c'est parce que l'aboutissement logique de ce formalisme
>s'appelle Pontecorvo.

Rivette's statement above reminded me of, and might be put in
context by, these words from Jean Douchet (Cahiers, Jan. 1991).

Tant pis pour le cinéma de la tradition de la Qualité
française. Deux exemples : en 1948, lorsque le tournage de
La Fleur de l'âge de Marcel Carné est interrompu, c'est
pour moi la catastrophe des catastrophes. En 1949, La Marie
du port n'éveille plus que sarcasmes. J'avais vu en 1944,
Le Corbeau, quatre ou cinq fois en deux mois. A mes yeux,
le chef-d'oeuvre absolu. J'adore Quai de orfèvres en 1947,
me montre réticent au Manon en 1949, et en 1950
j'écris pour La Gazette du Cinéma une critique incendiaire,
qui ne paraîtra pas, sur Miquette et sa mère. Il ne m'est
plus possible d'aimer Clouzot, et Miquette m'apparaît
exagérement comme l'abjection des abjections.

Cette évolution rapide eut pour cause, me semble-t-il, deux
raisons. L'une, objective, de connaissance. Les ciné-clubs,
les revues et surtout la Cinémathèque de l'avenue de Messine,
dès 1948, montrent les sources des films que j'avais admirés
et, à tout prendre, mieux valaient Murnau, F. Lang ou les
Russes que leur ersatz, Carné, Clément, Clouzot. Les uns
avaient créé la forme, les autres exploitaient son formalisme,
et surtout manifestaient trop leur emprunt (leur caractère
emprunté). Alors qu'il était impossible à l'époque de saisir
l'influence digérée, francisée, personnalisée de Hawks sur
Grémillon ou de Sternberg sur Bresson.

L'autre, plus subjective, de prise de conscience. Lévénement
de cette décennie qui me bouleversa le plus fut la révélation,
en 1945, des camps de concentration et du génocide juif.
Cela marqua durablement ma sensibilité. Le mensonge dont nous
sortions, avec son mensonge a incarné que fut Pétain - une
famille pétainiste ! - incitait plus qu'au réel, directement
à la vérité (« La photographie est la vérité et le
cinéma... » Godard, Le Petit soldat 1961). Ça devenait une
question de morale (« Le travelling est affaire de morale »
Godard) et de regard (« Fonction du regard », Rivette,
Gazette du Cinéma, 1950). Le mensonge charbonneux du cinéma
français de cette époque n'y résista pas. Le monde n'était
pas moche, triste et veule comme il le prétendait. Il avait
la dureté du diamant, l'éclat impitoyable des Dames du
bois de Boulogne. Il était résistant.
7751

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:49pm
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow (to Peter)

> I guess my response to your provocation depends on what you mean
> by "visually compelling". Are you talking about Fleischer's
ingenuity
> in finding cinematic ways to put the story across, or about a kind
of
> visual exploration that happens independently of the narrative or at
> most uses it as an alibi? And if you do cut out dramatic
involvement,
> what criteria do you use to argue that one way of staging a scene is
> more visually compelling than another?

I don't think that Fleischer's shots are intended to have no
connection to the narrative, but I do think he often prefers to
resist the pull of the drama and keep the camera a little bit free
and distant at key moments. In the 50s, at least, he also seemed
interested in using natural sound to reinforce the sense of an
ambient viewpoint that is not exclusively focused on the events of
the plot, allowing other elements to intrude a bit. - Dan
7752

From:
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:09pm
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?

Dan Sallitt wrote, in response to me:

> > Actually, a good boom operator should be able to go back and
forth
> > between characters in an unbroken shot with minimal effects on
your
> > sound. It's done all the time, and it requires a bit of patience
and
> > practice.
>
> But how many low-budget movies have good boom operators? My boom
> operators have always been kids with no experience whom the sound
> person trains on the set. Did your sound guy Andre do his own
> booming?
>

Well, I was certainly spoiled on this account, since Andre not only
often did his own booming, but he shipped his own assistant from
France, who did most of the booming. So I had two booms going, much
of the time. (Allow me to note here that France has the greatest
sound-men in the world.) But actually, before Erwan (the assistant)
arrived, we had to do two days of shooting, and for that, Andre did
in fact train this young PA who had never worked on a film before to
operate the boom. We ended up with a lot of shots where the boom
slid into frame, but the sound was clean and quite good. As long as
we were able to catch the boom in the shot while we were shooting,
and therefore knew to do another take, we were okay.

Of course, all this becomes a lot more difficult when one wants to
do elaborate Bazinian long takes. But that's why I always tell young
novice filmmakers to avoid going too far in that direction. After
all, the first sentence Faulkner ever wrote was not a run-on, and
Picasso's first picture was not Cubist.

>
> It's amazing what you can fix in sound editing, but I feel as if I
> often lose the quality of sound I want when I'm fixing. There
were
> scenes in my movies that had a nice off-mike sound that I liked,
but
> I had to replace it with cleaner sound with no character because I
> didn't pay enough attention to the sound mixer, who assumed that I
> would be cutting in each character's sound separately.
>

It happens to the best of us. Really, the sound guy is as major a
player on the film as the cinematographer. But for some reason,
filmmakers pay a lot more attention to what the cinematographer is
doing than what the sound guy is doing. I got lucky (again) on my
set because our sound guy was such an experienced professional, and
a veteran of some really big films, that everybody naturally
deferred to him. The usual disputes you get between sound and camera
(which on other sets can even become physically violent) never
really occured on our set.

But for the record, Dan, I thought your film had excellent sound.

Re: Tracking shots. One day I want to publish a book that's just
pages and pages of pictures and designs of makeshift apparati cheap
filmmakers have used to create tracking shots. There's a virtual
universe of brilliant (and occasionally crack-pot) engineering ideas
out there, designed solely for the purpose of moving a camera.

-Bilge
7753

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:15pm
Subject: Re: Daney recommendations

Trafic itself is overpriced - young people in France have told me
they can't afford it. I can't either. Since I stopped receiving it in the
mail I just go in and Xerox a couple of articles per issue at UCLA!
But La maison du cinema et le monde vols 1 and 2 are good
buys.
7754

From:
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:18pm
Subject: Re: The Passion

hotlove666:
>>
> Am I paranoid, or was Braveheart, which I walked out of after 30
> minutes, already a fascist film?

You missed the best parts. The way to enjoy BRAVEHEART is to walk in
after 30 minutes, then leave before the final 30 minutes. Somewhere
in there is a 100 minute masterpiece yearning for its freeee-ddoooom.

As for fascism, no, I don't think BRAVEHEART is a fascist film.
Except for actual Leni Riefenstahl docs, I hesitate to call any
films fascist . To quote George Orwell, "The word 'Fascism has now
no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not
desirable'." By that reckoning, hell, SHOWGIRLS is more fascist than
BRAVEHEART.

-Bilge
7755

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Passion

--- ebiri@a... wrote:
To quote George Orwell, "The word
> 'Fascism has now
> no meaning except in so far as it signifies
> 'something not
> desirable'." By that reckoning, hell, SHOWGIRLS is
> more fascist than
> BRAVEHEART.
>
I wouldn't go around quoting George Orwell on
anything.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7756

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:26pm
Subject: Re: Rivette on Kapo

That's a great Douchet quote. I wonder if Godard is citing it in
Histoire(s) du cinema 3a when he shows the death-bed scene
in Dames, with the line "Je resiste," as the only example of a
French film that did. As I recall, that episode, which includes the
wonderful music video for "Ma lengua italiana" (sp?), ends with a
shot of a crow.

We've all had the experience of underrating someone we
overrated when we encounter their source. This is one of the
thingsmy demented mentor Harold Bloom is talking about in The
Anxiety of Influence.
7757

From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:35pm
Subject: Godard/DAMES (was Rivette:Kapo)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> That's a great Douchet quote. I wonder if Godard is citing it in
> Histoire(s) du cinema 3a when he shows the death-bed scene
> in Dames, with the line "Je resiste," as the only example of a

Not to nitpick, but since I've just requested exact French dialogue
for another Bresson film, the penultimate line of DAMES is "Je lutte."

Patrick
7758

From: Frederick M. Veith
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:52pm
Subject: Re: Daney reading guide

One of the best pieces which has appeared in English is from La Rampe:
"The Organ and the Vacuum Cleaner" (on The Devil Probably). Kind of a
backwards recommendation as you're looking to read Daney in French, but I
get the impression that not many people are aware that this piece has been
translated. The translation is in Literary Debates: Texts and Contexts
(Postwar French Thought, Volume II), edited by Denis Hollier and Jeffrey
Mehlman.

Fred.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Patrick Ciccone wrote:
7759

From:
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:07pm
Subject: Re: The Passion

> I wouldn't go around quoting George Orwell on
> anything.
>

Your loss.
7760

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:29pm
Subject: Re: OT: Christian persecution of Jews

> seems), was shown to the Jewish population by Pilate. Their
> response--"Crucify him!"--was simply the sentiment of a people who
> had seen or heard of multiple "messiahs" at this point, captured and
> killed. Jesus was one of several defeated saviors, not an
> aberration the Jews rejected out of spite and shortsightedness.

Just adding something from the same Harris book (which is as good as
you told me), people in the crowd had reason to believe that Pilate
might be tricking them into incriminating themselves, so that if they
cried out for him to be freed, there might be a Roman guard behind
them, disguised in peasant's garb, truncheon in hand. (I think I have
that right.)

-Jaime
7761

From: Doug Cummings
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Passion (now way OT: Bush and AA)

>About "fundamentalist Christianity" being a joke, I've always wondered
>how these folks explain the obvious contradictions within the Bible,
>such as the different facts about the crucifixion in different gospels?

Fundamentalists usually don't explain anything, much less
contradictions, but more reasonable Christians suggest there is only
one gospel and four different interpretations ("according to")
written at different times for different audiences. Variations are a
given.

>If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then that constitute pretty
>good evidence that God is fallible. Well, don't answer, I guess, since
>this is way OT, or if there's an expert here on fundamentalist
>Christianity give us one good answer.

FWIW, I believe there's a distinction between "infallible" (without
human weakness) and "inerrant" (without error) in light of the texts'
purpose (religious instruction). The problem is that fundamentalists
claim the scriptures are authoritative on all human matters (science,
history, psychology, culture, whatever) while other Christians
caution against applying the scriptures in ways they weren't intended.

(I knew there was a reason I was a film major and a religious studies minor!)

Doug
7762

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 8:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Passion

Not at all. He was a creep who has become a cliche.

Chaplin was a great man. FUCK ORWELL!

--- ebiri@a... wrote:
> > I wouldn't go around quoting George Orwell on
> > anything.
> >
>
> Your loss.
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7763

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:04pm
Subject: Re: Daney reading guide

I have a translation of "The Organ and the Vacuum
Cleaner" that was published in "Little Caesar" #10
--Dennis Cooper's poetry magazine (now alas defunct)
Dennis was (and still is) crazy about "Le Diable
Probablement" and its beautiful star Antoine Monnier
-- Matisse's grandson.

--- "Frederick M. Veith"
wrote:
> One of the best pieces which has appeared in English
> is from La Rampe:
> "The Organ and the Vacuum Cleaner" (on The Devil
> Probably). Kind of a
> backwards recommendation as you're looking to read
> Daney in French, but I
> get the impression that not many people are aware
> that this piece has been
> translated. The translation is in Literary Debates:
> Texts and Contexts
> (Postwar French Thought, Volume II), edited by Denis
> Hollier and Jeffrey
> Mehlman.
>
> Fred.
>
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Patrick Ciccone wrote:
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7764

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:23pm
Subject: Re: Godadrd/DAMES (was: The Tracking Shot in Kapo)

Actually, I was referring to Dames at Sea. Isn't that in 3a? Or
maybe it was 4c...
7765

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:23pm
Subject: Re: Godadrd/DAMES (was: The Tracking Shot in Kapo)

Actually, I was referring to Dames at Sea. Isn't that in 3a? Or
maybe it was 4c...
7766

From:
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:37pm
Subject: Orwell, Chaplin, etc.

> Not at all. He was a creep who has become a cliche.
>
> Chaplin was a great man. FUCK ORWELL!
>

Chaplin was a great man, I agree. So were Michael Redgrave, JB
Priestley, and John Anderson (the British jorunalist, not the
Newsday movie critic), who also wound up on Orwell's secret "list".
But I'm not going to take something stupid he did near the end of
his life and use it to blanket condemn the career of one of the
finest essayists the English language has ever seen, and probably
will ever see.

-Bilge
7767

From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:36pm
Subject: Re: Godadrd/DAMES (was: The Tracking Shot in Kapo)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Actually, I was referring to Dames at Sea. Isn't that in 3a? Or
> maybe it was 4c...

I'm not sure now--I know Godard cites the "Je lutte" line somewhere--
I have the tapes on me, but no VCR at the moment--assistance!

Patrick
7768

From: Frederick M. Veith
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:17pm
Subject: Re: Daney reading guide

Curious (though hardly surprising given his aesthetic). When did that
appear?

I should also report something I just discovered today. In a volume
that came out last year called Rites of realism: essays on corporeal
cinema, edited by Ivone Margulies there's a translation of Daney's "The
Screen of Fantasy (Bazin and Animals)" as well as Bazin's "Death Every
Afternoon" (for the first time?).

Fred.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David Ehrenstein wrote:

> I have a translation of "The Organ and the Vacuum
> Cleaner" that was published in "Little Caesar" #10
> --Dennis Cooper's poetry magazine (now alas defunct)
> Dennis was (and still is) crazy about "Le Diable
> Probablement" and its beautiful star Antoine Monnier
> -- Matisse's grandson.
7769

From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:21pm
Subject: Re: The Passion of the Christ (VERY LONG)

Actually, I don't think so. I wasn't invited either but I called and asked
and they were happy to have me come, and I represent Jewish Week, of which I
made no secret.
As for my reaction, here's my review, which will run in Friday's paper. I
should have said something about the blatant and gratuitous homophobia. I'll
call my editor and try to get a 'graph added:
It should come as no surprise that the story of Jesus Christ has been filmed
frequently. Fully a third of the world's population are Christians of some
denomination, and the story itself is powerfully compelling. Naturally, any
filmmaker with a modicum of belief wants to offer his version.

As a result, every generation gets a Jesus that reflects its values and
concerns, as well as those of the filmmaker. Cecil B. DeMille's 1927 "King
of Kings" is equal parts silent melodrama and DeMillian decadence, his own
special blend of corn-fed. The 1961 remake by Nicholas Ray treats Jesus as
an troubled adolescent out of his earlier "Rebel Without a Cause," while
George Stevens's "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965) is a last gasp of the
hard-ticket roadshow extravaganza a la "Around the World in 80 Days." Pier
Paolo Pasolini's 1966 "The Gospel According to Matthew" is a late '60s
Marxist-pacifist parable with a strong homoerotic undercurrent, while Martin
Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" (1988) is a compendium of
post-modern neuroses, filtered through the lens of Scorsese and Paul
Schrader's guilt-obsessions. Perhaps the best of these films is Roberto
Rossellini's magnificent "The Messiah," made in 1973 but largely unshown in
this country because its materialist reading of the Gospels, devoid of the
supernatural, didn't meet the agenda of the producers; it is a demanding
film of rigorous intelligence, one that would move even an ardent
non-believer.

Now comes Mel Gibson's much-discussed "The Passion of the Christ," which
opened Wednesday, February 25 after months of heavy media manipulation by
both the filmmaker and his supporters and the detractors that he has baited
into unwittingly helping him sell tickets (and t-shirts, coffee mugs and
crucifixion-nail pendants).

"The Passion" is unique among film depictions of Jesus in two significant
ways. First, it is the only film of the story that focuses almost entirely
on the last twelve hours of Jesus's life, to the exclusion of almost all the
familiar elements - no raising of Lazarus, no wedding at Cana, only a brief
glimpse of the incident of the woman taken in adultery, just the barest
fragment of the Sermon on the Mount. In this respect, it largely reduces the
Passion to another example of contemporary victimology, with Jesus the
recipient of what gradually comes to resemble a two-hour-long beating.

Second, Gibson's film really seems to draw on several different decades of
cultural history for its version of the Passion Play: the treatment of the
enemies of Jesus, both Jewish and Roman is pure gaslight melodrama minus the
handlebar mustaches; the surprisingly cheap-looking gore effects and hokey
shock moments are equal parts 1870s Grand Guignol and low-budget '60s horror
movie; and the theology which, despite Gibson's protestations to the
contrary and his apparent absolution by some Jewish leaders, is an appalling
blend of medieval blood libel and Father Coughlin.

Most of all, though, "The Passion of the Christ" is dull, dull, dull.

Gibson has given the film the stolid rhythms of a horror movie,
a deathly slow creep from shock moment to shock moment. There is almost no
variation in pacing whether we are watching Jesus addressing his disciples
at the Last Supper or seeing him being scourged nearly to death by sneering
Roman soldiers. Gibson is much too reliant on the thunderous and equally
undifferentiated soundtrack (with a deafening score by John Debney) and a
promiscuous use of slow-motion, particularly in the final stages of Jesus's
road to Calvary. We get slow-motion when Judas is tossed his bag of silver,
slow-motion when the Romans invade Gethsemane to arrest Jesus, slow-motion
every time Jesus falls, slow-motion for almost every drop of blood spilt
(and there are a lot of them). Gibson's overuse of the devise has two
results, aestheticizing the violence rather than increasing our sense of
pain suffered, and anesthesizing us to events by sheer repetition. Rather
feeling Jesus's pain, we are dulled by it.

Gibson's other innovation, the use of Aramaic and so-called
street Latin on the soundtrack, is equally counterproductive. First, it
renders virtually all the performances null - there is little on earth less
impressive than watching an actor reciting lines learned phonetically.
Second, it distances us from the emotions and their meaning but adding a
filter, so to speak, to our experience of them, further amplifying the
nullity of the acting.

On the other hand, the Aramaic-Latin soundtrack does allow
Gibson to do one thing that he supposedly had said he wouldn't do, to retain
the line spoken by Caiphas, the infamous blood libel, "His blood be on us
and on our children." With that line of dialogue, found only in Matthew,
Jews have been condemned as Christ-killers for two millennia, with results
that are only too well-known to the readers of this newspaper. The line is
still in the film, still spoken by Caiphas, albeit in long shot; only the
subtitle has been removed.

Which is perfectly in keeping with a film in which Jews and
Romans are depicted almost exclusively as depraved, slavering villains at
best, henchman or dupes of Satan at worst. This is, as many feared, a
Passion Play that looks backward to a time before Vatican II, before the
Shoah. The blood-drenched Jesus mutters to Pilate, "It is he who delivered
me to you that has the greater sin," just before he is condemned; we have
already seen Caiphas pay Judas his 30 pieces of silver, seen Caiphas, the
elders of the Temple and Jewish militiamen drag Jesus to the procurator. The
meaning of this line of dialogue cannot be mistaken.

This shouldn't come as a great surprise to the film's audience.
Forget Gibson's father and his vicious rantings. Forget the way that Gibson
has cynically manipulated the press. Just look at the film itself, an
utterly ahistorical work without the slightest interest in the culture of
the period, the politics of the Roman occupation, or the divisions in the
Jewish community. Gibson has striven to get the mechanics of crucifixion
right - the film is a veritable "Popular Mechanics" guide - but can't be
bothered to show where Jesus fits in among the many other would-be prophets
to whom Pilate briefly alludes.

But, of course, such an approach, while more historically
accurate and undoubtedly more intriguingly nuanced than Gibson's "The
Passion of the Christ," would serve his agenda no better than his similarly
feeble efforts to respond to the fears of Jews around the country who had
hoped he wouldn't rake up the embers of old hatreds.

We're just lucky that he did so with such a damp rake.

George Robinson
7770

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:46pm
Subject: Re: Orwell, Chaplin, etc.

Fine.

I'm quite happy to do it myself.

I'm SICK TO FUCKING DEATH of Orwell's secular
sainthood as promulgated by the repellent likes of
Christopher Hithens

--- ebiri@a... wrote:
> > Not at all. He was a creep who has become a
> cliche.
> >
> > Chaplin was a great man. FUCK ORWELL!
> >
>
> Chaplin was a great man, I agree. So were Michael
> Redgrave, JB
> Priestley, and John Anderson (the British
> jorunalist, not the
> Newsday movie critic), who also wound up on Orwell's
> secret "list".
> But I'm not going to take something stupid he did
> near the end of
> his life and use it to blanket condemn the career of
> one of the
> finest essayists the English language has ever seen,
> and probably
> will ever see.
>
> -Bilge
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7771

From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:48pm
Subject: Fleischer criticism

Peter Tonguette wrote:

> The thing I get out of the best Fleischer films is a sense that
this is a guy who just excels at creating compelling, distinctive
spaces and that he does this independent of the stories he's telling
or the quality of the projects themselves; I very rarely get the >
> sense that the director in a Fleischer film is asleep at the visual
controls, even if the script and acting can sometimes leave something
(or a lot) to be desired. I have this sense that Fleischer is kind
of off in his own universe on a lot of projects. I don't know if I'm
onto something or completely off-track, as I've read so little really
good critical writing on Fleischer to know whether others share my
>observations on this.

I need to see more Fleischer films. I'll check out some of your
recommendations and get back to you.

In the meantime, if you haven't read it, you might be interested in
Quentin Turnour's Senses of Cinema article on THE BOSTON STRANGLER:

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/10/cteq/boston.html

JTW
7772

From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:46pm
Subject: Addendum to Passion review

I was able to add a couple of sentences about the utterly gratuitous and
vicious gay-bashing in the Herod scene, which I take to be a Gibson
trademark (and most amusing in someone so obsessed with the tortured male
body).
g

People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading.
-- Logan Pearsall Smith
7773

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:02pm
Subject: Re: Godard/DAMES

Patrick, I was just funnin' about Dames at Sea, to cover my
embarrassment at my idiotic mistake about the correct line. "Je
lutte" it is, and it definitely appears in 3a, my favorite section of
Histoire(s) du cinema.
7774

From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:04pm
Subject: (OT) Re: Orwell, Chaplin, etc.

On fascism, I agree with Gilbert Adair: "A word can also be corrupted
by those who refuse to use it."

Orwell: a complex, tortured guy, and not necessarily a good influence
on the journalists who try to emulate him. But 1984 remains a
masterpiece.

JTW
7775

From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 0:33am
Subject: Altman's The Company & Chance

Just come frome the theater. As an unnecessary follow-up to
the "chance issue"... I was amused by this comment by McDowell,
after the nice storm dance scene : "Did you order the orage?"
7776

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 1:02am
Subject: Re: Godard/DAMES

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Patrick, I was just funnin' about Dames at Sea, to cover my
> embarrassment at my idiotic mistake about the correct line. "Je
> lutte" it is, and it definitely appears in 3a, my favorite section
of
> Histoire(s) du cinema.

Bill, that made me laugh, because I first thought DAMES referred
to the WB musical!... I LOVED "Dames at Sea" and saw the original
production (at Cafe Cino in the Village -- was it 1966?)at least
three times. "We need some frilly skirts to boost our morale/Some
dams at sea!" Wonderful songs ("Where Is That Rainbow?" -- It's been
raining/ Raining in my heart...) Wish i had a tape of it.
7777

From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:26am
Subject: Re: Duh Passion

OT, but not really...

An interview Mel Gibson gave to Playboy,
> July 1995 (Vol. 42 ; No. 7
> ; Pg. 51). Some excerpts:
>
> PLAYBOY: What does he [Hutton Gibson] have to do
> with the Alliance for
> Catholic Tradition, which one magazine called "an
> extreme conservative Catholic
> splinter group"?
>
> GIBSON: He started it. Some people say it's extreme,
> but it emphasizes what
> the institution was and where it's going. Everything
> he was taught to believe
> was taken from him in the Sixties with this renewal
> Vatican Council. The whole
> institution became unrecognizable to him, so he
> writes about it.
>
> .........
>
> PLAYBOY: Do you believe in Darwin's theory of
> evolution or that God created
> man in his image?
>
> GIBSON: The latter.
>
> PLAYBOY: So you can't accept that we descended from
> monkeys and apes?
>
> GIBSON: No, I think it's bullshit. If it isn't, why
> are they still around?
> How come apes aren't people yet? It's a nice theory,
> but I can't swallow it.
> There's a big credibility gap. The carbon dating
> thing that tells you how long
> something's been around, how accurate is that,
> really? I've got one of Darwin's
> books at home and some of that stuff is pretty damn
> funny. Some of his stuff
> is true, like that the giraffe has a long neck so it
> can reach the leaves. But
> I just don't think you can swallow the whole piece.
>
> PLAYBOY: We take it that you're not particularly
> broad-minded when it comes
> to issues such as celibacy, abortion, birth control
> --
>
> GIBSON: People always focus on stuff like that.
> Those aren't issues. Those
> are unquestionable. You don't even argue those
> points.
>
> PLAYBOY: You don't?
>
> GIBSON: No.
>
> PLAYBOY: What about allowing women to be priests?
>
> GIBSON: No.
>
> PLAYBOY: Why not?
>
> GIBSON: I'll get kicked around for saying it, but
> men and women are just
> different. They're not equal. The same way that you
> and I are not equal.
>
> PLAYBOY: That's true. You have more money.
>
> GIBSON: You might be more intelligent, or you might
> have a bigger dick.
> Whatever it is, nobody's equal. And men and women
> are not equal. I have tremendous
> respect for women. I love them. I don't know why
> they want to step down. Women
> in my family are the center of things. An good
> things emanate from them. The
> guys usually mess up.
>
> PLAYBOY: That's quite a generalization.
>
> GIBSON: Women are just different. Their
> sensibilities are different.
>
> PLAYBOY: Any examples?
>
> GIBSON: I had a female business partner once. Didn't
> work.
>
> PLAYBOY: Why not?
>
> GIBSON: She was a cunt.
>
> PLAYBOY: And the feminists dare to put you down!
>
> GIBSON: Feminists don't like me, and I don't like
> them. I don't get their
> point. I don't know why feminists have it out for
> me, but that's their problem,
> not mine.
>
> .................
>
> PLAYBOY: How do you feel about Bill Clinton?
>
> GIBSON: He's a low-level opportunist. Somebody's
> telling him what to do.
>
> PLAYBOY: Who?
>
> GIBSON: The guy who's in charge isn't going to be
> the front man, ever. If I
> were going to be calling the shots I wouldn't make
> an appearance. Would you?
> You'd end up losing your head. It happens all the
> time. All those monarchs.
> Ifhe's the leader, he's getting shafted. What's
> keeping him in there? Why would
> you stay for that kind of abuse? Except that he has
> to stay for some reason. He
> was meant to be the president 30 years ago, if you
> ask me.
>
> PLAYBOY: He was just 18 then.
>
> GIBSON: Somebody knew then that he would be
> president now.
>
> PLAYBOY: You really believe that?
>
> GIBSON: I really believe that. He was a Rhodes
> scholar, right? Just like Bob
> Hawke. Do you know what a Rhodes scholar is? Cecil
> Rhodes established the
> Rhodes scholarship for those young men and women who
> want to strive for a new
> world order. Have you heard that before? George
> Bush? CIA? Really, it's Marxism,
> but it just doesn't want to call itself that. Karl
> had the right idea, but he
> was too forward about saying what it was. Get power
> but don't admit to it. Do
> it by stealth. There's a whole trend of Rhodes
> scholars who will be politicians
> around the world.
>
> PLAYBOY: This certainly sounds like a paranoid sense
> of world history. You
> must be quite an assassination buff.
>
> GIBSON: Oh, fuck. A lot of those guys pulled a
> boner. There's something to do
> with the Federal Reserve that Lincoln did, Kennedy
> did and Reagan tried. I
> can't remember what it was, my dad told me about it.
> Everyone who did this
> particular thing that would have fixed the economy
> got undone. Anyway, I'll end up
> dead if I keep talking shit.
7778

From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:00am
Subject: Re: Re: Duh Passion (amazing!)

Amazing, and frightening, that there are citizens like him running
around loose. He talks like a moron. It's one thing to hold whacko
beliefs, and another to get your facts completely wrong. Evolution
certainly doesn't require that the animal that "evolves" also goes
extinct, only that the successful mutant thrives. Rhodes intended his
scholarship only for men; it took a court order to change it. There was
no Federal Reserve in Lincoln's time. And the idea that Cecil Rhodes as
Marxist places Gibson considerably to the right of the John Birch
Society, which famously accused Eisenhower of being a conscious agent of
the "communist conspiracy."

- Fred

hotlove666 wrote:

>OT, but not really...
>
>An interview Mel Gibson gave to Playboy
>
>
7779

From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:29am
Subject: Palm Springs International FIlm Festival viewings

I'm off to Santa Monica for the American Film Market screenings
tomorrow.
Thought I would at least mention some of the films I liked at the
Palm Springs International FIlm Festival this past January. I would
see these again.
DISTANT
GREEN TEA
EVIL
INFERNAL AFFAIRS
GOOD BYE DRAGON INN
THE RECKONING
MAMEY
CRIMSON GOLD
ARO TOLBUKHIN
SINCE OTAR LEFT
GOODBYE LENIN
SPRING, SUMMER, FALL, WINTER, AND SPRING

I saw about 60 movies and many fall between this list and the
following which I would not see again.
Yes Nurse, No Nurse, 9 SOULS, Jester Till

I hope to meet up with Bill Krohn in Santa Monica and anyone else
who might be at screenings.
Elizabeth
7780

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:44am
Subject: OT Gibson and the Apes (and jarringly back on-topic with Tarantino)

> > GIBSON: No, I think it's bullshit. If it isn't, why
> > are they still around?
> > How come apes aren't people yet? It's a nice theory,
> > but I can't swallow it.
> > There's a big credibility gap. The carbon dating
> > thing that tells you how long
> > something's been around, how accurate is that,
> > really? I've got one of Darwin's
> > books at home and some of that stuff is pretty damn
> > funny. Some of his stuff
> > is true, like that the giraffe has a long neck so it
> > can reach the leaves. But
> > I just don't think you can swallow the whole piece.

Good grief. I shouldn't be bothered to explain this to a group that
undoubtedly already knows (or is, at the very least, not buying MG's
self-inflicted poppycock), but the thing with the apes is that we
aren't descended from the apes we see on Discovery and at the zoo, or
in Clint Eastwood movies. That's a different bunch of DNA altogether.
The species from which man descended is - and this *should* be
obvious to anyone who gives it a moment's thought - NOT AROUND
ANYMORE. They either died out or...drum roll please...BECAME HUMANS.

Um, on-topic, on-topic, on-topic, right.

So I rewatched PULP FICTION yesterday. I thought it was going to be
weaker, less funny, less vibrant, but the fact of the matter is, it's
still really great. There are a few problems (Tarantino telling
Keitel where to spray the water, mumbling, "uh, uh," as he points;
Jackson's line, "I'm gettin' a little pissed here"; poor sound mixing
- or that could just be the DVD), but it's still a champion. What
caught me by surprise is that the last scene in the film made me cry,
honest to god. Yolanda's desperation is no longer funny ("I gotta go
pee. I wanna go home."), it's wrenching. Jackson's speech to
Pumpkin/Ringo is gripping and also very moving, for different reasons.

It's a "shallow masterpiece" in the best sense of the word.

-Jaime
7781

From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 6:19am
Subject: Re: Jarringly Back on Topic with Tarantino

Still great, The Samuel L. Jackson Sound Board:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/sjackson.html
7782

From:
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:27am
Subject: Mel Gibson

Mel Gibson's ideas are utterly wrong.
BUT
Part of the big problem with such radical right wing extremists is that they
are rewarded by modern society for their beliefs. It is hard to think of an
example of anyone who has ever gotten into trouble for being "too" right wing.
In Gibson's case, he was crowned by Hollywood after making Braveheart. This
is a film I've never seen, but purportedly it is full of anti-gay stereotypes
(not to mention tons of pro-war propoganda). Did this cause him trouble? No!
Instead, he was showered by Oscar recognition. Mel Gibson received honors that
were never extended to the likes of Fritz Lang, Alfred Hitchcock, or other
people we auteurists think of as great filmmakers. In the eyes of much of the
world, Gibson has been certified as a more important filmmaker than Lang or
Rossellini!
It is important to remember that Gibson is not a marginalized filmmaker.
Instead, he is a man who has been certified by his Hollywood peers as one of the
top ten or so filmmakers in the world.
Why is that?
In general, pro-war filmmaking has been a major industry in Hollywood since
Braveheart opened the dam. These films are treated with deadly seriousness by
much of the right-wing public.
Often times, I am afraid we are on a death trip.
We need films that celebrate life and peace.
Mike Grost
7783

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:26am
Subject: Re: Mel Gibson

> Braveheart. This is a film I've never seen, but purportedly it is
> full of anti-gay stereotypes (not to mention tons of pro-war
> propoganda). Did this cause him trouble? No!

I'm of the unpopular (in a place like this) opinion that BRAVEHEART is
a good movie, and it can be argued that its message is
pro-armed-insurrection rather than, say, pro-genocide or
pro-colonial-oppression. The two gay characters are minor, indeed
offensive, although I'd suspect it was just ham-handed stupidity (and
homophobia = stupidity) on Gibson's part rather than a calculated gesture.

You might like the film, Mike, in spite of its problems. And even if
you see it as pro-war, I don't agree that it was the first of its kind
in that regard, or even a peak after a period of "low pro-war
Hollywood sentiment."

-Jaime
7784

From:
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:17am
Subject: Re: Mel Gibson

Today, everybody knows exactly what they are doing, when it comes to the
portrayal of minority groups on the screen.
If a filmmaker like Julian Schnabel makes a non-stereotyped portrait of gay
people in "Before Night Falls" (2000), it is because he is clearly sympathetic
to equal rights for homosexuals. (And "Before Night Falls" is one of the best
contemporary films.)
If Mel Gibson includes negative stereotypes of gays in "Braveheart" and "The
Passion of the Christ", it is because he hates homosexuals, and wants to see
them discriminated against by society.
I find it hard to believe in 2004 that anyone making films does not know
EXACTLY waht they stand for, in their treatment of minority groups.
As far as war goes, I remember Shelley's point: Violence used to defend
"noble" causes is even more insidious than violence used for obviously bad ones.
This is even more true today, with the terrifying weapons that exist, than in
the 1820's when Shelley pointed this out.
We desperately need pro-peace movies.
Mike Grost
7785

From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 2:21pm
Subject: Passion continued

For what it's worth, the review that I posted yesterday just underwent a
rewrite in which I fleshed out my objections to the film's ideology. I'll
post the URL when it goes online Thursday.

Incidentally, I'm fascinated by reviewers like Richard Corliss who can say
that, because the film depicts one "good" Jew it isn't anti-Semitic. Himmler
gave a speech justifying the "final solution" in which he talked about how
everyone in the Nazi party had a "good" Jew who he felt shouldn't be
persecuted but that they would have to put that feeling aside and remember
the Jews' evil.

George (I'm an evil Jew) Robinson

People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading.
-- Logan Pearsall Smith
7786

From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:31pm
Subject: Re: Mel Gibson

Note that he was showered with Oscars AFTER he gave that loony
interview to Playboy. I guess the Academy members don't read the
interviews...
7787

From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:34pm
Subject: Re: Passion Continued

The official position of Variety on the anti-Semitism issue:

[T]he Jewish temple leaders, led by high priest Caiphas (as the name
is atypically spelled here), are unmistakably the architects of
Jesus' doom, as they are in the gospels, and are accordingly
portrayed in an unflattering light. But to say that this makes the
film itself anti-Semitic seems off-base and incorrect.

nb - I still haven't seen it myself. I'm just reporting what I read
in the papers.
7788

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:51pm
Subject: Re: Mel Gibson

I wouldn't want to go on defending Gibson, since the Playboy interview
makes it clear that the elevator doesn't go all the way to the top...
nor would I wish to make the gay stereotypes in BRAVEHEART seem less
than totally stupid and unnecessary. Just wish to maintain that I
found it a powerful piece of movie storytelling, with gripping battle
scenes and a message that can't be called pro-war, at least not in the
same sense that the Dubya administration is pro-war.

-Jaime

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Today, everybody knows exactly what they are doing, when it comes to
the
> portrayal of minority groups on the screen.
> If a filmmaker like Julian Schnabel makes a non-stereotyped portrait
of gay
> people in "Before Night Falls" (2000), it is because he is clearly
sympathetic
> to equal rights for homosexuals. (And "Before Night Falls" is one of
the best
> contemporary films.)
> If Mel Gibson includes negative stereotypes of gays in "Braveheart"
and "The
> Passion of the Christ", it is because he hates homosexuals, and
wants to see
> them discriminated against by society.
> I find it hard to believe in 2004 that anyone making films does not
know
> EXACTLY waht they stand for, in their treatment of minority groups.
> As far as war goes, I remember Shelley's point: Violence used to defend
> "noble" causes is even more insidious than violence used for
obviously bad ones.
> This is even more true today, with the terrifying weapons that
exist, than in
> the 1820's when Shelley pointed this out.
> We desperately need pro-peace movies.
> Mike Grost
7789

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Passion Continued

"Variety" is a relentless defender of the status quo
and protector of those in power.

--- hotlove666 wrote:
> The official position of Variety on the
> anti-Semitism issue:
>
> [T]he Jewish temple leaders, led by high priest
> Caiphas (as the name
> is atypically spelled here), are unmistakably the
> architects of
> Jesus' doom, as they are in the gospels, and are
> accordingly
> portrayed in an unflattering light. But to say that
> this makes the
> film itself anti-Semitic seems off-base and
> incorrect.
>
> nb - I still haven't seen it myself. I'm just
> reporting what I read
> in the papers.
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7790

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:11pm
Subject: Re: Passion Continued

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> "Variety" is a relentless defender of the status quo
> and protector of those in power.

And they have that annoying language of abbreviations and shorthand -
it's like reading an expensive layout of Instant Messages written by
LORD OF THE RINGS groupies.

-Jaime
7791

From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:01pm
Subject: Re: The Passion Revisited

Minority report:

"It's a very great film. It's the only religious film I've seen with the
exception of 'The Gospel According to Matthew' by Pasolini that
really seems to deal directly with what happened instead of with
all kinds of sentimental, cleaned up, postcard versions of it." --
Roger Ebert, on "Ebert & Roeper"

Roeper agreed.
7792

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:13pm
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I'm sorry -- it was the wrong scene. Here is the correct link:
> >
> > http://www.panix.com/~pcg/kapo-track.html
>
> This is pretty cool. Anyone have any other rare clips in QuickTime
> format? Some of the missing AMBERSONS footage, maybe?

I have a few files. You could try getting them from my computer,
but the download will be very slow, if it works at all.
(Breer's LMNO)
http://68.173.37.135/breer-lmno.mpg
(LMNO again, lower encoding quality, smaller file)
http://68.173.37.135/breer-lmno-small.mpg
(Godard's commercials for Closed Jeans)
http://68.173.37.135/Godard-Jeans.mpg
(Straub/Huilet's En Rachachant -- the audio is out-of-sync)
http://68.173.37.135/en-rachachant.mpg

I think your analysis of the Kapo scenes is very insightful.
I'm curious about what people think of The Battle of Algiers...

Paul
7793

From:
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:02pm
Subject: Re: The Passion Revisited

hotlove666:

> Minority report:
>
> "It's a very great film. It's the only religious film I've seen
with the
> exception of 'The Gospel According to Matthew' by Pasolini that
> really seems to deal directly with what happened instead of with
> all kinds of sentimental, cleaned up, postcard versions of it."

I'm surprised to hear him say this. Not because he seems to like the
film (which plenty of perfectly intelligent people seem to) but
because I can't imagine anyone in his right mind considering THE
LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST a "sentimental, cleaned up, postcard
version" of the Christ story. (A glance through his archive shows
that Ebert gave the Scorsese film 4 stars -- does this guy ever read
his own reviews?)

-Bilge
7794

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Passion Revisited

From a pair of Kapos.

--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Minority report:
>
> "It's a very great film. It's the only religious
> film I've seen with the
> exception of 'The Gospel According to Matthew' by
> Pasolini that
> really seems to deal directly with what happened
> instead of with
> all kinds of sentimental, cleaned up, postcard
> versions of it." --
> Roger Ebert, on "Ebert & Roeper"
>
> Roeper agreed.
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7795

From:
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:27pm
Subject: Re: Passion

Two things.
First, I want to express appreciation to everyone for their thoughtful discussion of the issues. I respect all the divergent point of views here. And support the right of everyone to express different opinions. My ideas might not always be the same as everyone else's (how could they be) but I respect everyone's views. Thank you!
Second: There is a long discussion of films on the Passion at the Journal of Religion and Film. See:
http://www.unomaha.edu/~wwwjrf/2004Symposium/Symposium.htm

I have only read some of these. The article by Adele Reinhartz, "Passion-ate Moments in the Jesus Film Genre", seems especially oriented to our group's film concerns.
She does not mention "Barrabas" (Richard Fleischer), "The Life of Jesus" (Alice Guy, 1906) or "Perceval le Gallois" (Eric Rohmer), which concludes with an account of Christ's Passion.

Mike Grost
7796

From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Passion Revisited

Roger would know. He was there trying to pick up Mary Magdalene.
g

People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading.
-- Logan Pearsall Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 2:01 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: The Passion Revisited

> Minority report:
>
> "It's a very great film. It's the only religious film I've seen with the
> exception of 'The Gospel According to Matthew' by Pasolini that
> really seems to deal directly with what happened instead of with
> all kinds of sentimental, cleaned up, postcard versions of it." --
> Roger Ebert, on "Ebert & Roeper"
>
> Roeper agreed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
7797

From: Travis Miles
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:12pm
Subject: Re: Six good JCs

de Oliveira¹s O Acto de Primavera, the Passion as Svankmajerian pantomime
Warhol¹s Imitation of Christ, with Nico as Mary Magdalene, sort of
Garrel¹s La lit de la vierge, with Clementi as the most beautiful Jesus ever
Jancso¹s Season of Monsters, featuring Bela Tarr as Jesus in a white suit
Herzog¹s Bells from the Deep, featuring teenage Russian who thinks he¹s
really Jesus
Bunuel¹s L¹Age d¹Or, featuring ³depraved Jesus²

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7798

From: Andy Rector
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:26pm
Subject: Re: Godard/DAMES (was: The Tracking Shot in Kapo)

Just in a book store I was reading Sadoul's FRENCH CINEMA, and about
DAMES...(Bresson). Sadoul's comments are rather oppossed to Godard's
50 years on in regarding it as a film in and around the occupation,
though he delineates it as a film made during occupation and opening
the day of liberation. I believe he called it 19th century, rather
disconnected, a willed abtraction all over, even clumsy in it's
aesthetic details (of course engagment isn't required for Sadoul to
call a film great, in the next paragraph he praises CHILDREN OF
PARADISE as perfection. What surprises me is how much of a strain it
is for him to acknowledge even a little accomplishment in the
Bresson). That the last line carried no weight for this communist
critic at this time gives Godard's montage yet another historical
dimension, or maybe in the view of some, fraudulence. Sadoul's later
entry in his Dictionary of Films says that DAMES... "precisely
reflects the year it was produced" and although he doesn't mention
the occupation here, he wants to agree with Bazin and mention too
that the films reputation is gaining. One must be cunning, says
Godard and Daney, their views still seem new-fashioned.

Best,
andy
7799

From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:49pm
Subject: Re: Six good JCs

How about Arcand's Jesus of Montreal?
g

People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading.
-- Logan Pearsall Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Travis Miles"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Six good JCs

de Oliveira¹s O Acto de Primavera, the Passion as Svankmajerian pantomime
Warhol¹s Imitation of Christ, with Nico as Mary Magdalene, sort of
Garrel¹s La lit de la vierge, with Clementi as the most beautiful Jesus ever
Jancso¹s Season of Monsters, featuring Bela Tarr as Jesus in a white suit
Herzog¹s Bells from the Deep, featuring teenage Russian who thinks he¹s
really Jesus
Bunuel¹s L¹Age d¹Or, featuring ³depraved Jesus²

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo! Groups Links
7800

From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:50pm
Subject: Re: Six good JCs

And for all you baseball fans of a certain age . . . Jesus Alou of the San
Francisco Giants.
g

People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading.
-- Logan Pearsall Smith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Travis Miles"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Six good JCs

de Oliveira¹s O Acto de Primavera, the Passion as Svankmajerian pantomime
Warhol¹s Imitation of Christ, with Nico as Mary Magdalene, sort of
Garrel¹s La lit de la vierge, with Clementi as the most beautiful Jesus ever
Jancso¹s Season of Monsters, featuring Bela Tarr as Jesus in a white suit
Herzog¹s Bells from the Deep, featuring teenage Russian who thinks he¹s
really Jesus
Bunuel¹s L¹Age d¹Or, featuring ³depraved Jesus²

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

a_film_by Main Page

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact