Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
7901
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:39pm
Subject: La Petite Lise
> It couldn't be much worse than the one in Gremillon's great LA PETITE
> LISE from 1930, to take something seen recently -- a caricature that
> arguably went way beyond "typing," although presumably generic to its
> period (though obviously not present in every French film of the
> period) (and probably no worse than the likes of S. Fetchit at the
> time). This Gremillon seemed directly comparable to Barnet's OKRAINA
> in its still startling sound design, by the way; I wondered if its
> disturbing "Fagin" stereotype might have helped account for its
> absence from BAM's retro last year.
I felt that the pawnbroker character was a bit more formidable and
dignified than some racial stereotypes (like Fetchit, for instance).
The sound in LE PETITE LISE is startling partly because it's all mixed
so high: whether out of experimentalism or naivete, the filmmakers threw
every little bit of background noise right at us. It created a weird mood.
A very worthwhile film on the whole, I thought. - Dan
7902
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:55pm
Subject: Re: Guru Dutt & others/ Bollywood recommendations? Programme
oh did I get my P-AH's mixed up? I was talking about PAKEEZAH the
whole time. PYAASA is not post-modern... though it is self-
referential...
7903
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:28pm
Subject: Natalie Wood by Peter Bogdanovich
I'm told its Monday night on ABC, I assume at 8.
7904
From:
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 5:33pm
Subject: Re: Natalie Wood by Peter Bogdanovich
Bill Krohn wrote:
>I'm told its Monday night on ABC, I assume at 8.
That's right, Monday on ABC at 8:00 PM EST.
Like nearly all of Bogdanovich's recent work for TV, it's not to be missed.
Peter
7905
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:10pm
Subject: Re: racism and "typing" (was: Mel Gibson)
> This Gremillon seemed directly comparable to Barnet's OKRAINA in
> its still startling sound design, by the way; I wondered if its
> disturbing "Fagin" stereotype might have helped account for its
> absence from BAM's retro last year.
OKRAINA? I thought it did play in the Barnet retro. I missed it,
but I'm sure it was shown, and if not, it'll be on the schedule when
the Barnet series returns to New York, at Anthology Film Archives.
-Jaime
7906
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:25pm
Subject: Re: racism and "typing" (was: Mel Gibson)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley" wrote:
> > This Gremillon seemed directly comparable to Barnet's OKRAINA in
> > its still startling sound design, by the way; I wondered if its
> > disturbing "Fagin" stereotype might have helped account for its
> > absence from BAM's retro last year.
>
> OKRAINA? I thought it did play in the Barnet retro.
It did -- I meant that Gremillon's LA PETITE LISE was missing from BAM's Gremillon retro. (Maybe that was two years ago?)
7907
From: Travis Miles
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: racism and "typing" (was: Mel Gibson)
OKRAINA did indeed show at BAM, and will play Anthology 3/25 and 3/28.
On 2/27/04 6:10 PM, "Jaime N. Christley" wrote:
>> > This Gremillon seemed directly comparable to Barnet's OKRAINA in
>> > its still startling sound design, by the way; I wondered if its
>> > disturbing "Fagin" stereotype might have helped account for its
>> > absence from BAM's retro last year.
>
> OKRAINA? I thought it did play in the Barnet retro. I missed it,
> but I'm sure it was shown, and if not, it'll be on the schedule when
> the Barnet series returns to New York, at Anthology Film Archives.
>
> -Jaime
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7908
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:34pm
Subject: Re: Cold Mountain & Mizoguchi's Social Philosophy
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "alsolikelife"
wrote:
"I dig his concept of history though: your ancestors suffered,
therefore you better get your shit together, work hard and be nice to
others! I've always thought of Spielberg as Kurosawa's disciple, but
this social philosophy is kind of Mizoguchian in a way..."
I thought that the story of COLD MOUNTAIN was reminiscent of a
Mizoguchi scenario though the realization was very inadequate.
Kurosawa thought Mizoguchi didn't show samurai convincingly, though
Mizo was from a samurai background. He rebelled against the samurai
virtues and was anti-authoritarian in his poltics though a dictaitor
on his movie sets.
It seems to me difficult to come up with a social philiosophy that
can be attributed to Mizoguchi based on his writings, biographies or
his films. At certain times in his life he was a dandy, a socialist
(his younger brother was a memeber of the proto-type of the Japan
Communist Party), a dutiful propagandist for the facist government
(though the fact that his brother was under arrest at the time and
threatended with death is probably a mitigating circumstance), and
after his brother's death a subtly anti-government filmmaker; a proto-
feminist (his older sister had been sold into high class prostitution
by his hated father; she later married Count Matsudaira and
financially supported her brother), a brothel patron and philandering
husband, and in 1951 he converted to Buddhism and regreted his whore-
mongering, later making a movie said to be instrumental in out-lawing
licensed prostitution. To some extent these contradictions in his
personal life are reflected in his films, but I don't think you can
establish a one-to-one correalation between his life and his art,
much less articulate a coherent social philosophy.
Richard
7909
From:
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 6:38pm
Subject: TV Bogdanovich
Looking forward to the Natalie Wood film.
If members get a chance to see B's "To Sir With Love 2", they should grab at
it.
Compelling, humane drama, completely absorbing.
Mike Grost
7910
From:
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 7:10pm
Subject: Re: TV Bogdanovich
MIke Grost wrote:
>If members get a chance to see B's "To Sir With Love 2", they should grab
>at
>it.
>Compelling, humane drama, completely absorbing.
A big second to this one, Mike. In my upcoming essay on Bogdanovich's cinema
for Senses of Cinema's "Great Directors" series, I discuss "To Sir, with Love
2" at length. It completely outclasses the first film and, really, doesn't
have much to do with the first film beyond a nicely realized opening nod (with
some amazing dissolves which overlap images from the first film onto images in
the second). Poitier is exceptionally good and Bogdanovich's mise-en-scene
is in typically strong form, with lots of examples of his signature "first
person" technique (scenes shot and cut in such a way so that they appear to be
seen from a particular character's perspective).
For me, the other "can't miss" film from Bogdanovich's TV work is a short
film he made for Showtime's "Picture Windows" series, "Song of Songs." It's
available on DVD. I know that Bill Krohn is a big fan of his "Naked City: A
Killer Christmas."
Peter
7911
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 0:15am
Subject: Rohmer/TV works/Auteur/Ticket's price
Complete retrospective of Rohmer's work at the French Cinémathèque,
including his TV production, and notably the "télévision scolaire"
series: Don Quichotte, Entretien avec Mallarmé, Entretiens sur
Pascal, Victor Hugo... I never had the opportunity to see those
films. Anybody has seen them?
Love these complete retros, not only for the rarities, but mainly
for this opportunity to see the films in connection with each others.
If you read a little French, there is an interview of Rohmer at
http://www.cinemathequefrancaise.com/.
Below a translated excerpt about "the auteur":
« You raise the issue of the auteur's definition. At the time of
the "politique des auteurs", Truffaut said, slightly peremptorily,
that "l'auteur, c'est le metteur en scène". It is more or less true
in France, but in the United States, it is more contestable, since
the producer and the writer have much importance there. There are
some words I do not like. I refuse for example the
word "réalisateur", rather intended for television. At the time, I
preferred "metteur en scène". Today I would challenge it a little
because there is a risk of confusion with the metteur en scène of
theatre. For somebody who conceives interesting "mises en scène" and
affirms his personality with films whose subjects are distant from
each other, I would not use the term of auteur. On the other hand,
if he is able to take subjects a little everywhere and to
appropriate them, I agree to use this term. As for me, I am an
auteur in the narrow sense of the word since, except for La Marquise
d'O, and perhaps L'Anglaise et le Duc, which are memories that I
myself restructured, I am the writer of all my films. »
Slightly OT, the Cinémathèque raises the regular ticket's price up
to 5 euros. The common price in most theaters is now 9 (more that
USD 10). Rather high, no? What's yours?
7912
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 0:21am
Subject: Cinematheque tickets
Ours cost $9. And we don't get to see Rohmer interviewing
Mallarme!!!!
7913
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 0:26am
Subject: RE: Rohmer/TV works/Auteur/Ticket's price
> Complete retrospective of Rohmer's work at the French Cinémathèque,
> including his TV production, and notably the "télévision scolaire"
> series: Don Quichotte, Entretien avec Mallarmé, Entretiens sur
> Pascal, Victor Hugo... I never had the opportunity to see those
> films. Anybody has seen them?
Some of these are on the recent DVD releases. I know for
a fact that "Entretien sur Pascal" is on the Moral Tales
box. The upcoming one, "Les Inclassables", has some other
rarities.
Jonathan Takagi
7914
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 11:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cold Mountain & Mizoguchi's Social Philosophy
Mizoguchain wouldn't have shown Nicole's vision (the episode in the well)
that way, dumbest way possible. But Minghella seems to always prefer very
clear and readable images to more ambiguous, blurred and poetic imagery...
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Modiano"
To:
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 8:34 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Cold Mountain & Mizoguchi's Social Philosophy
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "alsolikelife"
> wrote:
>
> "I dig his concept of history though: your ancestors suffered,
> therefore you better get your shit together, work hard and be nice to
> others! I've always thought of Spielberg as Kurosawa's disciple, but
> this social philosophy is kind of Mizoguchian in a way..."
>
> I thought that the story of COLD MOUNTAIN was reminiscent of a
> Mizoguchi scenario though the realization was very inadequate.
>
7915
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 0:55am
Subject: '19 Pest in Florenz, Lang
Written by Lang and directed Otto Rippert according to most
filmographies. IMDB credits Lang as co-director. What's true?
7916
From:
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 7:59pm
Subject: Young and Innocent (Alfred Hitchcock)
Young and Innocent
The Grand Hotel sequence of Young and Innocent (1937) is one of Hitchcock's
delightful set pieces. It has ties to many other Hitchcock films. The drummer
recalls the cymbal player in The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934): both are
percussion players on stage with an orchestra, both are parts of major suspense
sequences. The festive, well dressed guests who throng the Grand Hotel recall the
resort patrons at the start of The Man Who Knew Too Much. The stage scenes here
also recall Mr. Memory in The 39 Steps (1935).
The famous overhead traveling shot picks up rectilinear patterns on the
ballroom floor, made up of tables and the arrangements of dancers. It anticipates
the overhead geometric abstractions of the cemetery scene in Family Plot. It
also anticipates the many shots of the grounds and opposite building and its
windows in Rear Window.
The sequence is full of splendid camera movements. Most of these are
synchronized to music - if the thriller genre had not existed, Hitchcock could still
have had a great career creating music videos! The band leader / singer
disappears from the great crane shot at the precise moment his vocal solo ends, and
the instrumental music takes over. Earlier, the "Drummer Man" song starts near
the beginning of the fascinating tracking shot where the heroine and Will move
behind the pillars. The music seems to emerge out of the tracking shot
somehow. It is hardly noticeable at first, seeming to be just atmospheric music, but
eventually it plays a key role in the plot.
Many of the camera movements here have a strong forward propulsion. One sees
similar forward tracking shots earlier in Murnau, and later in such Otto
Preminger movies as Fallen Angel (1945) and the opening of In Harm's Way (1965).
The big crane shot shows us the lobby, from both sides of the row of pillars.
This produces a striking geometric effect. There is something very
interesting about seeing the camera move over the top of this row of pillars. It
anticipates the hotel lobby to come at the start of Torn Curtain, which also features
a row of pillars. In both films, the registration desk and its clerks are
prominent. Both hotels are extremely lavish; they are at the opposite end of the
spectrum from the tacky Bates Motel in Psycho. Still, the reception desk clerk
in Psycho, Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), plays the biggest role yet of any
such character in Hitchcock.
Many shots peer through windows, leading from the lobby into the ballroom.
These anticipate the window shots in Rear Window. The windows here tend to have
elaborate pane effects, with sloping lines and a diagonal central pane.
Hitchcock uses these for his compositions, as he later will use the sloping lines of
the studio window in Rear Window.
There is a second, retreating crane shot, moving back from the musicians to
give an overall view of the ballroom. Both here, and in the earlier forward
crane shot, we often see the musicians on stage from a considerable distance.
These shots remind one of the figures seen through windows in Rear Window: they
are small figures seen in long shot, yet tremendously vivid in their pantomimed
activities.
Themes
The band leader here is a caricature that works on many levels. Like most
real-life band leaders of his era, he is a well dressed pretty boy who keeps
smiling at the audience and oozing charm. Away from the audience, he is a stern
taskmaster to his players, and a really odious tyrant. Hitchcock here
satirically looks behind the image that band leaders projected - many had reputations in
show business of being penny-pinching jerks. He anticipates in a comic but
vivid way the horrors of work shown in such films as The Wrong Man and Psycho,
where work is dehumanizing and relentlessly grim. He creates great sympathy for
the villain, who is a player in the band. Such themes also occurred in
Hitchcock's TV series. Perhaps the best of all of the TV shows directed by Hitchcock
is Breakdown, in which a similar tyrannical boss is put through an ordeal
that forces him to become human. In Breakdown, there is a direct attack on the
code of macho behavior for men. On a more comic note, perhaps the funniest
introduction to any Hitchcock TV show opens with Hitchcock seated in a director's
chair on a film set. He is unaware that the camera is turning - he has his back
to it - and he is chewing out his crew, just like the band leader here. He is
just dreadful, and says things in classic mean boss mode. Then he notices
that the camera is turning and that the audience at home can see him. He becomes
all phony smiles, and says that the audience can see that he and his crew are
just one big happy family. I will not spoil what comes next...
Linked to the work aspects are the class ideas. Helping the heroine is a
Cockney who is now dressed in a parody of upper class clothes. He is hounded by
the police, simply for being a lower class man who is stepping over the line
into an upper class preserve. Although these scenes are played for comedy, they
have real satirical bite. The familiar Hitchcock theme of "fear of the police"
is now linked to the enforcement of the British class system.
Some shots are set in the alley outside the Grand Hotel's kitchen. We see
crates of food arriving and being unpacked. These anticipate Hitchcock's dream
project, one built around a day in which raw foodstuffs arrives in a city and
are processed. They also anticipate the restaurant kitchen scene in To Catch a
Thief. The whole sequence shows many aspects of the running of a hotel, with
desk clerks, waiters, cooks, musicians and so on all having continuing roles.
This whole vast machine of operating a hotel runs in the background of the
sequence. It is not really noticeable till a repeated viewing, but it helps give
the sequence its immense complexity. Earlier scenes in the film are also
meal-set: the family scenes in the heroine's home, the pub in which the characters
first learn about old Will.
Young and Innocent and Rear Window are full of vivid religious ideas. In
Young and Innocent, it is only when the heroine insists on helping the sick man
that the mystery is solved. Her act of concern for a fellow human being changes
everything. Similarly, in Rear Window Thelma Ritter and Grace Kelly are
genuinely concerned with helping their neighbors, whereas James Stewart only wants
to watch them. Their intervention brings a genuinely religious dimension to
these films.
Young and Innocent also has a dog, like Rear Window, once again associated
with a woman who cares about people. The early shot of the blinds being raised
in the police interrogation room anticipate the opening credits of the later
film.
The mill in the countryside here anticipates the later windmill in Foreign
Correspondent. Both also recall the mill in Dreyer's Vampyr (1931).
The heroine's difficulties with her bourgeois family here anticipate Shadow
of a Doubt. In both films, the heroine has a cozy family, but wants to break
away and lead a more exciting life. But she ultimately gets more than she has
bargained for.
7917
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 0:59am
Subject: Re: Cinematheque tickets
Yearly ticket at 35 euros and free admittance for all screenings at
Pompidou! You may cry...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Ours cost $9. And we don't get to see Rohmer interviewing
> Mallarme!!!!
7918
From:
Date: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: racism and "typing" (was: Mel Gibson)
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
>Orson Welles' image of Shakespeare's Shylock might be taken as a
>grotesque Jewish stereotype, but then again, that play contains the
>most powerful anti-anti-Semitism speech imaginable. (Hard to tell
>where it's used to more heartbreaking effect: Lubitsch's TO BE OR NOT
>TO BE or in Welles' sans makeup performance, which can be seen in
>ONE-MAN BAND.)
If I remember correctly, portions of the "Hath not a Jew eyes" speech are
also used to heartbreaking effect in Polanski's great "The Pianist." I think the
character of the brother reads it in the scene right before the family boards
the trains.
I haven't seen Welles' performance of the piece on Dean Martin, but I have
seen the other two: the clip from his film of "Merchant of Venice" and his
filmed reading of it, in trenchcoat in France. It's a toss-up for me; both are
very, very moving interpretations. And I'd argue for the trenchcoat monologue as
an actual piece of cinema; the early morning light behind Welles' shoulders
is staggering to look at and heightens the emotion.
Peter
7919
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 4:43am
Subject: Re: Rohmer/TV works/Auteur/Ticket's price
> Slightly OT, the Cinémathèque raises the regular ticket's price up
> to 5 euros. The common price in most theaters is now 9 (more that
> USD 10). Rather high, no? What's yours?
In New York, first-run films are now $10.25.
I don't think Rohmer's TV work has ever come to the US - I envy you. - Dan
7920
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 4:51am
Subject: Re: Young and Innocent
Mike, that's one of the best pieces of Hitchcock criticism I've read.
7921
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:14am
Subject: Re: Racism and "typing"/Welles screenings in NY
Peter, I hope you get to see Merchant, or what there is of it, on a
big screen some day. The various takes at sunset look good on tv
because they're simple graphically, but there's no comparison. The
whole series of Shylocks put together by Stefan has a nice cumulative
impact. There's even a sound-only excerpt from the Everybody's
Shakespeare, over a shot of one of Welles' set drawings.
New Yorkers, don't miss the Film and Theatre and the Welles the
Narrator segments of Stefan Droessler's travelling show. The former
has the Shylock montage and the lovely Moby Dick recitatif; the
latter has the 35mm Fountain of Youth and the best selection of
unadulterated Quixote scenes ever shown anywhere as far as I know.
The Unfinished Works need no touting, but here goes anyway: more
Other Side than I ever saw anywhere except in a clunky assemblage of
duped sequences from the workprint that was screened for backers
in '97, but here they are all in good condition, and well put
together (except that the screening room sequence lacks the punchline
that brought the AFI audsience to their feet back in the day: "He's
done it before!"); a reel of The Deep plus a new-to-me ten-minute
trailer that contains a good bit of reel one in b&w, mixed and
everything, as I recall; and the best parts of The Dreamers.
I assume Oja will be there for the Other Side of the Wind screening.
If so, will someone please direct the q and a to the MAKING of the
film, rather than to its non-completion? It was real guerilla
filmmaking, and there are lots of good stories that unfortunately
were not solicited when she appeared in LA, because everyone was
focused on a depressing topic she can't really talk about anyway.
They shot on the MGM lot without permission; Welles created lights
called "miraculos" attached to hand-held booms like you use for
microphones, so they could light a scene, shoot it fast and get out
before the authorities showed up, etc. etc.
7922
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:28am
Subject: Re: Racism and "typing"
Here's someone who saw Promised Land. Thanks and a tip of the Hotlove
Hat to Fred Camper for sending it:
Promised Land
From the Chicago Reader
Turn-of-the-century Lodz supplies the backdrop for this epic critique
of industrialization by Andrzej Wajda (Man of Iron, Danton),
recipient of lifetime achievement awards from the Venice film
festival and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. A near-
operatic account of three young men--one German, one Polish, one
Jewish--whose partnership in a mill leads to ruin, this 1974 film
presents an uncompromising vision of industrial society tumbling into
an abyss of violence, decadence, and cruelty. The story unfolds like
a more cynical version of The Treasure of the Sierra Madre: instead
of moving from rationality to gold-thirsty insanity, the three
prospectors devolve from unpleasant greediness to utter
despicability, making their tragic fate seem more like a long-overdue
comeuppance. Wajda's humanitarian impulses are compromised somewhat
by his Shylockian Jews and insatiable, bosom-heaving women; the
film's sweeping vision and brilliant structure only make these
shortcomings more glaring. Nominated for an Academy Award; with
Daniel Olbrychski and Andrzej Seweryn. 180 min. (Adam Langer)
I forgot about the Oscar nomination. You can rent it now, I believe,
if only in bootleg.
7923
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:59am
Subject: Promised Land
> I forgot about the Oscar nomination. You can rent it now, I believe,
> if only in bootleg.
Amazon.com lists a DVD version, widescreen. It's from a company
called Vanguard, which released the pan & scan ABRAHAM'S VALLEY,
without subtitles. One characteristic that may raise the eyebrow:
the cover says not just "Director's Cut" but "Director's Cut!"
But anyway, DVD.
-Jaime
7924
From:
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 2:33am
Subject: Re: Re: Raja (Jacques Doillon, 2003/4)
Ruy,
Please explain e-Mule. Is it available for Macs? It sounds divine!!
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7925
From:
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 8:59am
Subject: Re: Young and Innocent
One thing to add: the sea gulls near the beginning on the beach with the
body, and the discussion about the rooks at the dining table, both point forward
to "The Birds". There are lots of bird scenes running throughout Hitchcock, all
of which gain retroactively in meaning from the later film.
In general, have been rediscovering British Hitchcock here. The recent
availability of the British "Man Who Knew Too Much" has proven to be an unexpected
delight - it is far more complex than my 30 year old memories suggested.
Thanks to Bill Krohn for the great compliment on the "Young and Innocent"
article!
Mike Grost
7926
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:25pm
Subject: eMule
www.emule-project.net
if you download the client (freeware), it works as those music download
clients such as Soulseek or the early Napster. You connect to a server and
then you're free to ride... It is unfortunately not advisable for the ones
with a dial-up connection, since downloading films is very heavy (700MB or
1.4GB, for films with more than 110min). but if your computer is always
online and you have a good internet account, then all the wonders of movie
peer-to-peer sharing & getting (MPAA might call it stealth, piracy,
pedophilia, murder, mass genocide...) will be available to you.
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Re: Raja (Jacques Doillon, 2003/4)
> Ruy,
>
> Please explain e-Mule. Is it available for Macs? It sounds divine!!
>
> Kevin
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
7927
From:
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 4:11pm
Subject: Re: eMule
Sadly, it's not available for Macs, at least at that site.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7928
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 10:47pm
Subject: The Spirit of Charles Lindbergh (Welles, 1984): who's Bill?
Welles dedicated his final completed film, THE SPIRIT OF CHARLES
LINDBERGH (1984) to a friend - "This is for you, Bill." Stefan
Droessler mentioned the friend's full name prior to the screening, but
I've forgotten.
It's a great "little" film. A single three-minute take of Welles
talking to his friend, and relating an entry from Lindbergh's diary,
written before his landing in Paris. It's a pure, and purely
emotional, gesture, Welles' least elaborate film by far, but a major
work, in my opinion.
As the slate is brought down, Welles is saying to someone (Oja, I
would assume) to his left, "Don't cry, baby."
Other Welles last night: I'm sorry to say I didn't love PORTRAIT OF
GINA, although I like it. FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH, which I'm seeing again
tonight, is my favorite of Welles' TV work. The SKETCHBOOK episodes,
which are included with each batch of "unknown Welles" works here at
Film Forum, are always a delight. LONDON is hit-and-miss, mostly hit.
A shame that the sound for FOUR CLUBMEN is missing, Welles'
impersonations are wonderful (and so is Jonathan Lynn, as the
100-year-old butler who falls over).
The F FOR FAKE TRAILER has never been a favorite of mine, but it's
been completely reconstructed by the Munich team, and it looks
gorgeous: lovely color and the sound is razor-sharp. It got more
laughs than the I LOVE LUCY episode (which featured OW as guest star,
doing his magic and a bit of Shakespeare).
I must confess my feelings are mixed regarding VIENNA and THE MAGIC
SHOW (another Munich construction), but they've got their moments, and
you can't deny that Welles is in his element.
-Jaime
7929
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:30pm
Subject: 24fps update
Hi all, just wanted to let everyone here know that Gabe and I have
put up the first half of our new update at 24fps, and several
a_film_by members have pieces in this update (now and forthcoming).
At the moment, Gabe's got 1700 words on the Farrelly Brothers,
Robert Keser has 6500 (!) on Seijun Suzuki, and I've got about 800
words in the first steps towards an appreciation of the newest work
from a_film_by's own Dan Sallitt. I hope you'll take a look at the
articles and keep an eye out for the second part of the update,
which we'll get up as soon as we can. Thanks.
www.24fpsmagazine.com
--Zach
7930
From: A R Ervolino
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:58pm
Subject: RE: 24fps update
I wanted to write up an article on Bertolucci, specifically looking at
the Dreamers, and show his progression as a film maker. I took a class
on Bertolucci and have one article written a few years ago on his usage
of time in his films if anyone would know a place I could possibly get
those posted?
-----Original Message-----
From: Zach Campbell [mailto:rashomon82@y...]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 6:30 PM
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] 24fps update
Hi all, just wanted to let everyone here know that Gabe and I have
put up the first half of our new update at 24fps, and several
a_film_by members have pieces in this update (now and forthcoming).
At the moment, Gabe's got 1700 words on the Farrelly Brothers,
Robert Keser has 6500 (!) on Seijun Suzuki, and I've got about 800
words in the first steps towards an appreciation of the newest work
from a_film_by's own Dan Sallitt. I hope you'll take a look at the
articles and keep an eye out for the second part of the update,
which we'll get up as soon as we can. Thanks.
www.24fpsmagazine.com
--Zach
_____
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]
7931
From:
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 7:00pm
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Charles Lindbergh (Welles, 1984): who's Bill?
Jaime,
The friend to whom Welles dedicated the wonderful "The Spirit of Charles
Lindbergh" is Bill Cronshaw. I believe he was a production manager for Welles for
a while; I know he worked on "The Merchant of Venice."
I'm thrilled to hear from someone else who considers it a major work!
(Actually, you're the second person to say so in two days: yesterday on another film
list, Paul Fileri weighed in with his own enthusiastic thoughts on the film.)
It's very slight and I would guess that Welles never intended it to be shown
publicly (although it was shot in 35mm!) But that doesn't matter one bit.
It is so eloquent; the words of Welles and Lindbergh so beautiful and moving;
and the camera style so direct, so understated, so powerful in its simplicity
(the color is in the naturalistic mode of "Filming 'Othello'") that it becomes
great.
The filmed readings Welles made late in his career are a continuing source of
astonishment for me. It deepens my conviction that virtually anything can be
"cinematic" in the hands of a great genius like Welles; the Welles filmed
readings are "filmed readings," but they're also works of cinema and often major
works. What I've seen of "Moby Dick" is astonishing to look at, not just to
listen to. And we just talked about his Shylock monologue, performed in
trenchcoat, outdoors in the early morning.
Jaime, for some reason I always assumed that Welles was saying, "Don't cry,
baby," to his black poodle, Kiki! Practically every person I speak to who knew
Welles during the '80s has stories to tell about Kiki, who would dine with
Welles at Ma Maison and bite at the waiter's sleeves.
I agree with you about the "Four Clubmen" sequence in "London"; in many ways,
it's the most visually astonishing segment in the whole piece, which makes up
for the lack of soundtrack. (Whereas the other segments might suffer more
without sound.) I think "Vienna" is one of the few minor Welles films I've
seen; I think it has its supporters, but I'm not particularly one of them. "The
Magic Show," of course, lacks the form and shape Welles would have given it had
he lived to complete it; but the individual segments - particularly the Gypsy
Thread trick, mentioned here recently by Bill - are often quite thrilling.
Peter
7932
From: Paul Fileri
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 0:47am
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Charles Lindbergh (Welles, 1984)
Peter:
I'm thrilled to hear from someone else who considers it a major work!
> (Actually, you're the second person to say so in two days: yesterday
on another film
> list, Paul Fileri weighed in with his own enthusiastic thoughts on
the film.)
> The filmed readings Welles made late in his career are a continuing
source of
> astonishment for me. It deepens my conviction that virtually
anything can be
> "cinematic" in the hands of a great genius like Welles; the Welles
filmed
> readings are "filmed readings," but they're also works of cinema and
often major
> works.
I don't know, Peter. I loved getting a chance to see THE SPIRIT, but
that seems hyperbolic. In the scheme of things, it's minor. How do
you guys (Jaime, too, that is) see it as a major work? Yes, it's very
moving, and this derives from Welles's unguarded emotion as he manages
to maintain his composure and from his softly spoken reading
performance. (In retrospect, Lindbergh's words are not in themselves
extraordinaryly eloquent.) The lighting, the color, the composition
aren't particularly distinguished or noteworthy at all; they're
servicable and appropriate. And it's not a "cinematic" work in the way
an essentialist would think about it. Quite the opposite. And that
doesn't take anything away from it. In the end, the experience of
seeing the short is more akin to coming upon a tender note in a
writer's collected volume of letters than it is to locating a new major
work.
Paul
7933
From:
Date: Sat Feb 28, 2004 8:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Spirit of Charles Lindbergh (Welles, 1984)
Paul,
I guess there are degrees of "major"ness when it comes to a director like
Welles. We sort of touched on this recently when Fred commented that while
Hawks' "Air Force" may not be among the very best Hawks, it's still quite great and
there's no need to apologize for it or denigrate it in order to prop up Hawks
films which are more important. Is "The Spirit of Charles Lindbergh" as
great as "Chimes at Midnight" or "The Magnificent Ambersons" or (my favorite of
the unseen Welles films) "The Dreamers"? Of course not. But it's still
remarkable.
I think seeing "The Spirit of Charles Lindbergh" is analogous, as you
suggest, to finding a particularly moving letter in a collection of letters by a
great writer. And its qualities at first glance appear to rest in the words
Welles speaks and his heartfelt reading. But Welles chose to deliver this letter
in the medium of cinema and it works as cinema for me. The static camera,
Welles framed in medium shot, adds to the power and intensity of the words he s
peaks. I wonder if there are other films belonging to this "genre" of filmed
letters - that is, filmmakers using their chosen medium to deliver messages to
friends/family/etc.
I did admit that it's "slight." Is there a contradiction between calling a
film "slight" while also maintaining that it's a "major work"? I guess it
depends on what you mean by each word. When I called the film "slight," I was
referring to its, for lack of a better term, "production values," its "ambition,"
perhaps, and its length (4 minutes.) But the force of its emotion and
Welles' quiet willingness to set aside his trademark stylization in deference to the
sentiments being expressed do ultimately render it a "major work" for me.
When I wrote earlier of how Welles' filmed readings function as works of
genuine cinema, I was referring mostly to the Shylock trenchcoat monologue and
what I've seen of "Moby Dick" - both of which contain some of the most arresting
examples of color photography in the cinema. "Lindbergh" is clearly nowhere
in the same ballpark in terms of stylization, but that doesn't mean it's not
just as great per se.
I'll be curious for what Jaime has to say on this.
Peter
7934
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:12am
Subject: Re: Welles screenings
I haven't seen the Lindbergh reading, which I gather is in the new
One Man Band, but I agree with Jaime about his estimates of what's
been chronicled here so far. It's all fascinating and unmissable, but
personally I was depressed by seeing Welles on the Lucy Show, and no
one I know is wild about The Magic Show. (Since I was up to my neck
in Bazin when I finally saw that part of the series, I was rather
astonished that NOT ONE TRICK, starting in '43, was shown all-in-one,
and that even the thread trick involved an obvious subterfuge with
the hand going out of frame. On a theoretical level I find that quite
interesting!) After what I had heard about OW in Vienna, I was let
down by it, too. The subtext of all these bits and pieces is his
repeated attempt to break through on American television, as the
medium was taking off in another direction. The heartbreaker is
Fountain of Youth, still to come in NY: imagine 23 of those!
I didn't see the Places and People segment, but I have seen most of
what's in it, and Portrait of Gina sucks - even Welles thought so.
That's presumably why he left it behind when he checked out of the
Ritz in Paris, where it sat in the Lost and Found department for 20
years! It shows how hard it is to do essay films in his style, which
is Guitry's. He perfected the form in Fountain of Youth, with the
resources of Desilu behind him (even though it only cost $48,000) and
couldn't make it work in Italy without them, where as usual in the
low-budget work he had to resort to editing, or in this case OVER-
editing, to realize his conception. (Fountain of Youth makes dazzling
use of long takes, although it doesn't feel like it.) But the
subjects he talks to de Sica and Lollabrigida about, and the things
he says about them, are actually very autobiographical (the thematic
correlative of how he keeps stepping on their lines) - it's
interesting in that respect, and as an attempt at what he finally
achieved sublimity with in Filming Othello, which isn't being shown,
unfortunately, for "legal [psychobitch] reasons."
The one essay film that's still missing, from the same period, is
about the Dumas brothers.
7935
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:00am
Subject: Re: The Spirit of Charles Lindbergh (Welles, 1984)
> In the end, the experience of
> seeing the short is more akin to coming upon a tender note in a
> writer's collected volume of letters than it is to locating a new
major
> work.
I get the idea that this question has less to do with the work in
question than an ongoing struggle with "other people's ideas" of
what's major and minor. Peter must already know that the frequently
unorthodox station stops in his auteurist love affair can seem strange
to bystanders, but rather than react with skepticism as many do, I
prefer to reflect on my own "ability to love" art and film and try to
think of ways to make that love as strong and as open as Peter's.
Now then. As to my own assessment.
Welles' sunset rendition of the Shylock monologue isn't a major work,
in my view, neither is his Falstaff performance for TV, nor his
Shylock monologue for the "Dean Martin Show," although all of the
above are championship-level pieces of acting. (No apologies for
hyperbole, but they rank among the finest Shakespeare performances
I've seen.)
Neither is LINDBERGH on the same plane as AMBERSONS and the others.
Formally, it's nothing. (Although quite handsome, GG was a dream d.p.
under Welles' guidance.) I consider it a major work for other
reasons: major in the life and history of Welles, rather than the
history of film. Considering what's being shown in LINDBERGH may lead
one to conclude that the film is a sincere trifle. Considering what
is captured, what Welles is filming, is something else - as someone
said of ANATAHAN, Welles is photographing pure emotion, a gesture
directed inward (to himself) and outward in two directions (to Bill
and to those he [Welles] loves). Doing something like "photographing
pure emotion" (which sounds like something out of a science fiction
novel, except not quite) is no small matter, and few filmmakers can do
it without fussing around and fucking it up.
It may be that I'm not qualified to say what's a major work and what
isn't. But this is the last film Welles started and finished before
he died - it's what he left for the world, and surely he was aware
that he wasn't going to be around for another fifty years.
It isn't just the fact of his imminent death (which he could not have
known, except for a vague feeling) that gives LINDBERGH its value but
what the film means in relation to his life and death. His last word:
consider how the last word of an argument can define all that's come
before it - but this time on a cosmic scale. It's a gesture of love,
without arrogance, without fooling around, without sentimentality. It
may sound silly for me to say so, but in a thousand or so years from
now, I think that, in the field of Welles scholarship and worship,
that this film - not CITIZEN KANE or CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT (although
maybe that) or TOUCH OF EVIL - should be considered his Shroud of
Turin. So that's my semi-Bazinian response for you.
- Jaime
7936
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:37am
Subject: Re: Welles screenings
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wroteseen most of
> what's in it, and Portrait of Gina sucks - even Welles thought so.
Bill, I disagree--I think this is a wonderful film, carrying the nutso
editing of ARKADIN to a new level, with the ultra-psychotic use of the
music from THE THIRD MAN. The editing is fantastic, and very weird; I
think the THE MAGIC SHOW could actually have been a great film if the
editing had been done by Welles in the same manner.
However, I think the London and Vienna segments of of Orson's Bag are
really bad--no visual style, really, and very spotty humor.
I guess what I find sad about some of these later
experiments/unfinished works is the physical state of Welles
himself--he has an undeniable gravitas in his large, bearded mode, but
it seems awful in a way, especially in these programs, when the
younger Welles is occasionally intercut. Maybe this is just scared
youth (22) speaking, but I can't believe I'm alone thinking this.
Patrick
7937
From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:15am
Subject: Kon Ichikawa + Newcomer
Hi to you all,
This is my first post and I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Samuel,
I'm 27 and I live in Paris. I'm a translator: I subtitle programs (movies,
TV shows, etc) for cable TV or DVD, from English (mainly) and German into
French. I've been doing this for a year and half now.
I also moved to Paris at that time, a marvelous place to see movies, I think
no one will contradict me on this! I've looked at quite a number of the
preceding posts and it seems like French members are few. (Salut, Maxime!)
Like many of you I guess, I would be hard pressed to sum up shortly my
tastes in cinema; so, paradoxically, I'm going to kick off a topic about a
director whose work I don't know yet, except from what I've read about it.
There's a Kon Ichikawa season here at the Maison de la Culture du Japon in
March, with 19 of his films. Some of his most famous titles will be shown:
"Harp of Burma" (1956), "Enjo / Conflagration" (1958), "Odd Obsession"
(1959), "An Actor's Revenge" (1963),
Here are the other ones:
- Sanshiro of Ginza / Ginza sanshirô (1950)
- Pu-san (1953)
- Kokoro (1955)
- Nihonbashi (1956)
- Shohei no heya / Punishment Room (1956)
- Man.in densha / A Full-Up Train (1957)
- Otôto (1960)
- Kuroi jûnin no onna / Ten Dark Women (1961)
- Watashi wa nisai / I Am Two (1962)
- Taiheiyô hitoribochi / Alone on the Pacific (1963)
- Donkonjô monogatari: zeni no odori / Money Talks (1964)
- Wagahai wa neko de aru / I Am a Cat (1975)
- Ohan (1984)
- Eiga joyû / Actress (1987)
- Doraheita (2000)
http://www.mcjp.asso.fr/pjanv2004/cine/kon_ichikawa.html# (in French)
Could anyone please give me some advice on these films, especially the
lesser known ones?
Thanks!
Samuel.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail : un compte GRATUIT qui vous suit partout et tout le temps !
http://g.msn.fr/FR1000/9493
7938
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:47pm
Subject: Re: Kon Ichikawa + Newcomer
--- Samuel Bréan wrote:
> (in French)
>
> Could anyone please give me some advice on these
> films, especially the
> lesser known ones?
>
> Thanks!
> Samuel.
>
Greetings, Samuel!
My best advice, especially as seeing that you're 27,
is to see as many of these films as you can. Ichikawa
is a very great director. Not as celebrated in the
West as Kurosawa, Ozu, Mizoguchi or Oshima, but far
and away worthy of intense, extended study. "An
Actor's Revenge" and "Tokyo Olympiad" are the
Ichikawa's that I know best, but they're all worthwhile.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7939
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:34pm
Subject: Re: Welles screenings in NY
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> New Yorkers, don't miss the Film and Theatre and the Welles the
> Narrator segments of Stefan Droessler's travelling show. The former
> has the Shylock montage and the lovely Moby Dick recitatif; the
> latter has the 35mm Fountain of Youth and the best selection of
> unadulterated Quixote scenes ever shown anywhere as far as I know.
This is confusing -- The Dreamers, not Quixote, was in the Storyteller program at Film Forum last night (contrary to their online schedule), so presumably Quixote will be in the Theatre program this afternoon?
7940
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Kon Ichikawa + Newcomer
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Bréan
wrote:
"There's a Kon Ichikawa season here at the Maison de la Culture du
Japon in March, with 19 of his films...
Could anyone please give me some advice on these films, especially
the lesser known ones?"
I second David; see as many as you can. If you can't see them all
then don't miss AN ACTOR'S REVENGE his best color movie.
Several of his films are adaptations of modern classic novels and it
would be intertesting to view these pictures as made over the course
of his career: KOKORO is from the Meiji-era Natsume Soseki novel
(it's Soseki's face on the 1000 yen note)and is quite good. KAGI is
from the Tanizaki novel and shows Ichikawa's mastery of 'scope in
confined spaces. ENJO is based on "Kinkakuji" by Mishima Yukio and
is the best adaptation of a Mishima novel bar none. WATASHI WA NISAI
is filmed from the point of view of a two year old, and related to it
is WAGAHAI WA NEKO DE ARU another Natsume Soseki adaptaion in which
the story is told from a cat's point of view.
EIGA NO JOYU is the weakest movie on the list; it's a bio-pic about
Tanaka Kinuya who acted in films for Mizoguchi (she was the love of
his life according to some sources) and Ozu, and became Japan's first
woman director. Ichikawa follows her career up to 1952. DOREHEITA
was made when Ichikawa was 81 and is a kind of Samurai DESTRY RIDES
AGAIN. The screenplay was co-written by Ichikawa, Kurosawa and
Kobayashi Masaki in the 1960s and originally intended to be co-
directed by the three of them. It's not great but it's pretty good
for a comedy-action movie directed by an octogenerian.
Richard
Richard
7941
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Welles screenings in NY
> This is confusing -- The Dreamers, not Quixote, was in the Storyteller program at Film Forum last night (contrary to their online schedule), so presumably Quixote will be in the Theatre program this afternoon?
Er, I meant "in the Unfinished program this afternoon"
7942
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 5:18pm
Subject: Re: Welles Screenings in NY
If DREAMERS was moved to Storyteller and QUIXOTE to Unfinished, SD
must not be showing OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND in the Unfinished section
in NY. Let me know if he repeats the "farewell" from DREAMERS at the
end of Unfinished, which is where it should go. If the program is
truncated by eliminating OTHER SIDE, I'm sure he'll make up for it by
showing goodies we missed in LA.
7943
From: iangjohnston
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:14pm
Subject: Re: '19 Pest in Florenz, Lang
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
> Written by Lang and directed Otto Rippert according to most
> filmographies. IMDB credits Lang as co-director. What's true?
Patrick McGilligan ('Fritz Lang: The Nature of the Beast') makes no
mention of Lang co-directing this, only crediting him for the
screenplay. Likewise the massive 'Fritz Lang. His Life and Work.
Photographs and Documents'. IMDB is always the least reliable
source...
7944
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:19pm
Subject: What Film Critics Are For
Still haven't seen the movie myself, but a Daily News article by
Jamie Bernard, who has called The Passion of the Christ "the most
virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films
of World War II" in her pre-opening review, made some very good
general points about the usefulness of informed film analysis as a
corrective to the way filmgoers see movies in her follow-up piece
yesterday. It's a nice rebuttal of the "consumer reporting" theory of
criticism: espousing the pov of the audience to tell them if they'll
like a movie or not, as opposed to adding the perspective of a
specialist, which some reviewers would consider elitist and dangerous.
Meanwhile, French theatre chains have refused to book TPOTC, saying
they want to wait and see if it triggers anti-Semitic reactions in
other countries before risking "fanning the flames":
Saturday, February 28th, 2004
In 18 years as a professional movie critic, I've never gotten the
response that I had this week to my one-star review of "The Passion of
the Christ."
I knew the reaction would be hostile - movie critics routinely get
hate mail, even one time for a review of "Bambi."
But, as they would say in an action movie of the kind Mel Gibson
formerly made, this time, it's personal.
My review ran a day before Gibson's controversial movie opened.
Most of the hundreds of people who wrote in didn't wait to see the
movie for themselves before giving me a piece of their mind.
They assumed the movie must be good, either because they believed
Gibson's hype or because they confused the value of the movie with the
importance of the subject, the last 12 hours of Christ's life.
Many of these E-mails were nasty and unprintable.
Some attacked me personally, dismissing my looks and assuming that if
I didn't like the movie, I must be Jewish, thus betraying their own
prejudices.
Just as religious leaders of all stripes have feared, the movie has
become a lightning rod for the anti-Semitic undercurrent that runs
through society - many of the letters I received dragged out old
canards about Jews running Hollywood, the media, and having too much
money.
A few of them referred to my weight, because I've been chronicling my
effort to shed pounds in another section of the newspaper. "Eat a
donut!" read the printable part of one missive.
Other critics who reviewed "The Passion" received similar hate mail,
although Gene Seymour of Newsday told me he has yet to be called
a "ho."
We traded tales of the worst responses, also noting the surreal nature
of our jobs, wherein we followed up "The Passion of the Christ" with a
screening of "Dirty Dancing 2."
There were also many polite, thoughtful responses.
This feedback provided a clear indication that "The Passion" is
attracting two kinds of ticket-buyers — true Christians who look to
the movie as a spiritual experience, and nut cases who need little
excuse to spill their bile.
What interests me as a movie critic is the profusion of people who do
not understand or care how to evaluate a movie.
They don't see how film images are juxtaposed to create a desired
emotion, that what is left out of a screenplay can be as important as
what is kept in, and how constantly and subliminally manipulative a
medium this is. They cannot see through filmmaking's beautiful
deceptions.
There is a famous Magritte painting of a smoker's pipe, under which
are the words (in French): This is not a pipe. In other words, the
representation of an object should not be confused with the object
itself.
Many people mistake a movie for the actual subject, and likewise
mistake movie reviews for comments on historical events.
According to this twisted logic, if I take issue with Gibson as a
filmmaker, then I must be anti-Christian. If anything, I am anti-bad
filmmaking.
My main objection to "The Passion" is that Gibson has used the tools
athis disposal to disguise sadism as piety. My tools, meanwhile, are
words.
But it takes more words than there is commonly room for in a newspaper
to encompass all the fine print. Otherwise, I would have cited Soviet
theories of montage to explain how Gibson turned that despicable
historical figure Pontius Pilate into a sympathetic character and the
Jews into an undifferentiated, bloodthirsty mob.
Due to space limitations, film reviews are like compressed files. Not
all readers are able to "unstuff" them.
What really hurt this week is the realization that we don't all speak
acommon language, even when we seem to use the same words.
Jamie Bernard
7945
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:28pm
Subject: Roy Cohn/Jack Smith
Loved the above-referenced film for the superb performance of the
actor-director of the stage play (sorry, I don't remember his name)
as both characters, and the brilliant writing. He commissioned Gary
Indiana to write Cohn's monologue, and apparently cut down one of
Smith's very long theatre pieces to complete the diptych. Jill
Godmillow intercuts the performances and does a few other crafty
things that make it an excellent piece of filmed theatre and a film
in its own right. Produced by Good Machine, who are apparenty soon
going into production on Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain, an adaptation
of a story about a cowboy love affair co-written by Larry McMurtry,
which I believe was originally commissioned by Gus Van Sant.
7946
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:49pm
Subject: Re: Roy Cohn/Jack Smith
The actor you're thinking of is Ron Vawter. Here's
what the IMDBsays:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0891381/
But forget about "heart attack." He died of AIDS. He
was dying of AIDS when he put the show together. I saw
him do it live here at the Taper Two. Quite a treat.
He evoked Jack quite expertly.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7947
From: Dave Garrett
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:57pm
Subject: Re: Kon Ichikawa + Newcomer
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Bréan wrote:
> There's a Kon Ichikawa season here at the Maison de la Culture du Japon i=
n
> March, with 19 of his films. Some of his most famous titles will be shown=
:
> "Harp of Burma" (1956), "Enjo / Conflagration" (1958), "Odd Obsession"
> (1959), "An Actor's Revenge" (1963),
>
> Here are the other ones:
>
> - Sanshiro of Ginza / Ginza sanshirô (1950)
> - Pu-san (1953)
> - Kokoro (1955)
> - Nihonbashi (1956)
> - Shohei no heya / Punishment Room (1956)
> - Man.in densha / A Full-Up Train (1957)
> - Otôto (1960)
> - Kuroi jûnin no onna / Ten Dark Women (1961)
> - Watashi wa nisai / I Am Two (1962)
> - Taiheiyô hitoribochi / Alone on the Pacific (1963)
> - Donkonjô monogatari: zeni no odori / Money Talks (1964)
> - Wagahai wa neko de aru / I Am a Cat (1975)
> - Ohan (1984)
> - Eiga joyû / Actress (1987)
> - Doraheita (2000)
> http://www.mcjp.asso.fr/pjanv2004/cine/kon_ichikawa.html# (in French)
>
> Could anyone please give me some advice on these films, especially the
> lesser known ones?
Presumably these will be the new prints that were struck for the
Cinematheque Ontario's travelling retrospective of several years ago.
I'd have to second the previously-offered advice to see as many of
them as you can, but in the event that that's not possible, aside from
the better-known works you mentioned, I'd recommend TEN DARK
WOMEN, which is a simply gorgeous use of the B&W 'Scope frame,
and NIHONBASHI, a color period piece focusing on the lives of geisha.
It's hard to go wrong with Ichikawa. I've yet to see a film by him that
wasn't of at least some interest.
Dave
7948
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:19pm
Subject: Re: Kon Ichikawa + Newcomer
Let me second everyone else about the incredibly prolific Ichikawa:
it's hard to pick one favorite, but his black comedies are quite
bitingly acerbic, including A Billionaire (with its spoof of movie
mania and the postwar economic "miracle", including a woman
who is
building an atom bomb in her attic), A Full-Up Train (with its
beleaguered salaryman hero whose parents accuse each other of being
psychotic), and Ten Black Women (with its scathing satire of
infidelity). The hilarious deployment of mirrors and spying and
perversity in Kagi (The Key, or Odd Obsession) seems like a
brilliant culmination of this Kubrick-like strain.
Don't miss the memorably zany (and imaginatively filmed) Alone On
the Pacific, or the surprisingly transcendent ending of I Am Two, or
the intense relationship drama of Ototo, or the positively stunning
b/w `Scope compositions of Enjo.
The only one that seems a misfire to me is the would-be yakuza noir
of Money Talks. The Harp of Burma is undeniably moving but in a very
heart-on-your-sleeve way (one wag calls it "The Burp of Harma").
(Too bad they're not offering Matatabi/The Wanderers, his
historical
adventure of dim-bulb teenage Samurai wannabes who press on through
really shocking poverty).
--Robert Keser
> It's hard to go wrong with Ichikawa. I've yet to see a film by him
that
> wasn't of at least some interest.
>
> Dave
7949
From: George Robinson
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 6:59pm
Subject: Looking for info on an alleged Hope-Crosby project
Anybody know anything about an alleged Hope-Crosby project from the early
'40s called "Altar Bound?"
g
People say that life is the thing, but I prefer reading.
-- Logan Pearsall Smith
7950
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:22pm
Subject: Frankie and Johnny Are Married
Saw this in Santa Monica at American Film Market and know Bill K
mentioned he might see it.
The audience liked it, as did I. I think it is especially interesting to
people in the industry or in the know about some particular
personalities... Paddy Manikin, Les Mooves, David Kelly to name a
few.
Other screenings I've enjoyed
THE 24TH DAY
ONE PERFECT DAY
7951
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 10:25pm
Subject: Frankie and Johnny Are Married
Saw this in Santa Monica at American Film Market and know Bill K
mentioned he might see it. It screens again on MONDAY, 3pm, AMC.
The audience liked it, as did I. I think it is especially interesting to
people in the industry or in the know about some particular
personalities... Paddy Manikin, Les Mooves, David Kelly to name a
few.
Other screenings I've enjoyed:
THE 24TH DAY
ONE PERFECT DAY
SILMIDO
FOREVER
LEARNING TO LIE
7952
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 0:02am
Subject: Re: Frankie and Johnny Are Married//OT
Sorry to do this Off Topic post but my email will not send ...
Bill, my cellphone is 619-519-0889
I'm at my hotel for the evening, watching the Oscars
hotel 310-450-5766, room #104.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan" wrote:
> Saw this in Santa Monica at American Film Market and know Bill K
> mentioned he might see it.
>
> The audience liked it, as did I. I think it is especially interesting to
> people in the industry or in the know about some particular
> personalities... Paddy Manikin, Les Mooves, David Kelly to name a
> few.
>
> Other screenings I've enjoyed
> THE 24TH DAY
> ONE PERFECT DAY
7953
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 1:37am
Subject: Re: Welles Screenings in NY
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> If DREAMERS was moved to Storyteller and QUIXOTE to Unfinished, SD
> must not be showing OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND in the Unfinished
section
> in NY. Let me know if he repeats the "farewell" from DREAMERS at
the
> end of Unfinished, which is where it should go. If the program is
> truncated by eliminating OTHER SIDE, I'm sure he'll make up for it
by
> showing goodies we missed in LA.
I'm about to see the much-reviled Christ movie, after all the talk,
but a few words following today's screenings.
I wish I could remember everything that Droessler said prior to the
Storytellers section. But I'm given to understand that THE
DREAMERS is as complete as we can possibly hope. That is: any
further work would go towards creating a new film with a different
author's hand, rather than the favored method, where the
reconstructions and constructions are aimed towards getting the work
to a
form that's as close to Welles' intentions as records, interviews,
and informed speculations can ascertain.
That's just a guess - it could also be that the Unfinished program
was too long to begin with.
So what we see of THE DREAMERS is what we get. I think it's a lovely
film, the color is as extraordinary as Peter has promised us, even on
the series' format - Digibeta. I don't quite understand what it's
about (shamefully I have yet to read Peter's long article) but it's a
memorable piece of work.
I'd rather see a "finished" OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND than anything else
this year or next. I guess not everyone had the same
reaction, but I was blown away by what I saw. Two of the sequences -
sex in the car (and the conclusion of that set piece), and the
bizarre outdoors scene when the young actor walks out of the picture
- are just outstanding.
Dan Sallitt told me he felt the OSOTW footage was a blunder, the
compositions were shallow compared to Welles' earlier work. I'd
like to talk about that when I have time. I think the brilliance of
Welles' radically experimental editing/photographing style in WIND is
relatable to his lifelong love of magic tricks and sleight of hand
(as it has always been: the KANE/AMBERSONS depth-of-field shots,
and other bits of "side-arm snookery"), and...well, if I can't
convert Dan, maybe I can at least put on an interesting show pleading
my
case.
One last thing - all six SKETCHBOOK episodes are accounted for. It
was thought by some that the first episode was lost or
misplaced.
7954
From:
Date: Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Welles Screenings in NY
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
>But I'm given to understand that THE
>DREAMERS is as complete as we can possibly hope.
When I saw the Munich assembly of "The Dreamers" last year, it included all
of the extant material (minus retakes) - the garden fragment, which was fully
edited and finished by Welles; a long indoor scene which is essentially a
variant on the garden fragment, but which was never finished by Welles; some tests
shots of Oja beside a fountain and some test shots of Oja wrapped in bandages
(her character, Pellegrina, loses her voice in a fire); and the series of B&W
shots of Welles as Marcus. For a long time, Oja wanted to complete the film
herself and she planned on integrating this footage. (Indeed, Gary Graver
speculated to me that the main reason that Welles made those B&W shots of himself
as Marcus was so that Oja would have them for her film; for the rest of "The
Dreamers," a double of Welles could suffice because Marcus is literally a
shadowy presence throughout the rest of the script.)
I'm thrilled to hear that you like "The Dreamers" so much, Jaime. I think
the garden fragment needs to be separated from the rest of it - and I did
emphasize it in my piece - due to its complete nature. The rest of the material is
genuinely fragmentary (although Droessler did a very good job of making his
assembly flow as a narrative), whereas the garden fragment is like a perfect
little jewel, as perfect in its way as "Chimes at Midnight."
I also love what I've seen of "The Other Side of the Wind." I've only seen
three scenes, the three presented in "One Man Band." Dan is on the right track
in the sense that it's not supposed to look like a Welles film at all; as
Bill has pointed out, it's thematically related to "F for Fake" and the way that
film deals with issues of authorship. Welles proudly said to Bill that
there's not a single "Welles shot" in "Other Side."
Peter
7955
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 6:15am
Subject: Re: Re: Welles Screenings in NY
> Dan Sallitt told me he felt the OSOTW footage was a blunder, the
> compositions were shallow compared to Welles' earlier work.
I don't think I put it that strongly, Jaime - I think I said that I
don't understand what Welles was trying to do with THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
WIND.
There's usually a tension in Welles' work between the editing (which is
sometimes choppy and fast) and the evocations of depth and detail in the
shots themselves. The shots in THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND mostly lack
depth, and many of them don't seem to be carefully composed. So all I
really perceive is the very fast, fragmenting editing, not the thing
being fragmented.
In some of the scenes, editing seems to be serving the function of
elongating the scene by repetition. I just don't see what's being
gained. Maybe the entire work would make more sense to me. - Dan
7956
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 6:19am
Subject: Re: Welles screenings in NY
So Other Side footage WAS screened in NY. How much?
Other Side can be finished; Dreamers is just fragments, one of which,
the scene in the garden, I consider to be major Welles.
Deep focus is not much used in Welles' color work. There are some
deep distorted shots in Immortal Story ('64), but the compositions in
what I've seen of Merchant of Venice (was it shown?) mark a new
beginning in 1969, and everything from there on in, as far as I can
recollect, is very different,
Also, it's not just a conceit that the rushes in Other Side
(including the edited sequence in the car, and the sequence with the
bed that shouldn't be edited but is), which parody Antonioni, are
supposed to be by Jake Hanaford. And while the other footage may
accidentally look Wellesian (the shots of Foster and the Evansoid in
the screening room, say), it's supposed to have been shot by an army
of AFI students with many types of cameras. No shot in the film
is "by" Welles - even more than in F for Fake - and consequently
there are no real "Welles shots."
As for The Dreamers, it appears from the garden fragment that he was
working on a new color style that could incorporate chiaroscuro
effects. With dazzling results. The distance between Immortal Story
and the garden fragment is great.
Color was a huge battle for Welles, but he won it, IMO. Probably
there is more of a leap from black and white to color in his work
than in anyone else's, but he was always more experimental than
anyone else, so in a way that's to be expected. The little we have of
color Carnaval footage shot for It's All True looks postcard-y, and
that's what he was trying to get away from in the 60s and 70s and
early 80s.
7957
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 8:28am
Subject: Re: Welles Screenings in NY
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Dan Sallitt told me he felt the OSOTW footage was a blunder, the
> > compositions were shallow compared to Welles' earlier work.
>
> I don't think I put it that strongly, Jaime - I think I said that I
> don't understand what Welles was trying to do with THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE
> WIND.
I'm sorry that I missed you saying that. I tried to quote you as
exactly as I could remember. I'm very embarrassed for my error.
The repetition in the editing made me squirm, at times, and I wondered
whether Welles would have gone back to tighten scenes up, or left them
as they are. Easy enough to do when choppy editing is your aim, hard
when you're dealing with a long take.
(Interestingly, it's the film-within-a-film that's heavy with
repetition. The "proper" OSOTW scenes are pretty fat-free if I recall.)
Welles' compositions, insofar as single frames are concerned, in films
like F FOR FAKE and THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, are rarely a match for
the classic stuff in CITIZEN KANE and AMBERSONS, etc. But there's
real brilliance, I feel, in the accidental wonders found in an edited
scene like the "car sex" sequence and the last one (the "nude lovers
on a wire bed frame in the middle of nowhere" scene, I guess); magic
in the effect created by two strips of film placed one against the
other, and three, and so forth. (Mind you, there's plenty of
single-static-shot greatness around in WIND: the strobe effect over
Oja's writhing body, the spilling beads on the pavement, the empty
house into which she flees - something out of Tarkovsky, some single
frames as John Dale chases Oja) ("Just the slates cut off." -Norman
Foster) It's hard to make this sound special without further study -
it's just montage, after all, except that I can't think of another
director who can get these effects as Welles got them, as fast and as
smoothly, like a jazz riff.
I hope more will occur to me. I'm tired. Must get some sleep. The
Jesus movie is dogshit on fire, by the way, as expected.
7958
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 8:34am
Subject: Re: Welles screenings in NY
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> So Other Side footage WAS screened in NY. How much?
I wish I'd made a note. About thirty minutes, I guess. Maybe as
little as twenty:
- Huston and Bogdanovich and a car loaded with film crew
- Huston at his party (the cameras, Strasberg, Bogdanovich)
- Norman Foster flustering over the rushes
- the car sex scene and the conclusion: escape into a house
- blowing out the candles
- Mazursky, Jaglom, Hopper pontificate
- strange sex scene, "it's stuck," scissors, beads, John Dale walks
off the picture
(I think that's all of them.)
In the FILMING 'THE TRIAL' q&a, Welles mentions that depth of field is
decreased by shooting with color.
-Jaime
7959
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 6:26pm
Subject: Re: Welles screenings in NY/Tati
Based on something Stefan told me and Joseph K., I thought he
might not show Other Side in NY.
BTW, Stefan doesn't just do Welles. He screened at Joseph K's
mini-Cinematheque on Beechwood a fascinating tape of
examples showing how Tati reedited all his films, not just Play
Time. There are three versions of Jour de Fete, four of Les
vacances de M. Hulot, two of Mon Oncle and four of Play Time.
1. Jour de Fete, shot in color and b&w and finished in b&w in
1947, was recut by Tati in '62, with new footage added (a painter)
in preparation for a color version. That version ended up being in
b&w with color accents. The color version released after his
death follows neither of his cuts; it's a compromise between '47
and '62, with some additional new editing decisions made by
other people for no clear reason.
2. Les vacances was shown at Cannes in one version; released
in France in the festival version and a first cut-down (lopping off
the beghinning and end - sequences on the train); recut in '62 by
Tati to make it faster, with the music mixed louder - for "modern
audience" taste; and recut again in '78, when he was broke, but
somehow found the money to shoot a continuation of the scene
with the collapsible boat that parodies Jaws!
3. There was a French version of Mon Oncle and an international
version which he edited 3 months later - cut down by 10 minutes.
Stefan has had sequences from these printed on two screens
side by side for comparison.
4. He used the same technique to show us scenes from an even
longer version of Play Time than the one shown in LA a few
weeks ago, which is not yet the 152-minute director's cut - if such
a term has any meaning with Tati. Contrary to what I thought, the
progressive cuts made in this film by Tati were not lifting out
whole scenes; they were internal cuts to shorten scenes, of the
kind he had done in his earlier films.
From what Joe and I saw, there is no question that the earliest
version of each film is the best. The softer music mix and more
leisurely pace in Vacances are preferable to the version I've
seen, which is the '62, where the music in particular has always
irritated me. Stefan is still trying to track down the festival cut,
where other tourists returning on the train would examine their
photographs, and we'd see that Hulot is in all of them, always
half cut out by the frame. But the print he has of the first release
version is a treasure. And the revelations about the dubious
authenticity (and relative unfunniness) of the color Jour de Fete
were a real eye-opener for me.
Am I getting it right, Joseph K?
7960
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 7:39pm
Subject: Droessler
In addition to his work on Tati and Welles films, Stefan Droessler is
making good use of his New York visit to present LOLA MONTES at Film
Forum, for one showing only.
-Jaime
7961
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 8:02pm
Subject: Re: Droessler: Ophuls/Tati
The MONTES restoration is controversial because Marcel is
being a dick about it, but from seeing just the last shot - and
hearing it - at Joseph K's last year, this is Ophuls' version,
whatever repentirs may have assailed him later. Not only is the
reverse tracking shot not cut (dissolved) into; it's mixed so you
can hear what the people are saying, and they're talking about
money - the last word you hear is "dollars." Whereas in the
version Marcel says is definitive, all you hear is the hurdy-gurdy.
It's the same problem with the Tati estate: You can no longer see
the first release versions of Jour de Fete and Les vacances de
M. Hulot, and they won't be turning up as DVD bonuses any time
soon, either.
7962
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 8:30pm
Subject: Boffo Biz for Crucifixion Flick
Newmarket's Mel Gibson-helmed religious phenom rung up an
estimated $117.5 million since unspooling Monday, $76.3
million of it over the weekend.
Elsewhere, however, the weekend's B.O. results were much
more earthbound.
Sony romancer "50 First Dates" was runner-up on the frame with
$12.6 million, while Paramount suspenser "Twisted" bowed in
third with a modest $9.1 million.
And pity poor "Dirty Dancing Havana Nights," whose scheduling
hell opposite Gibson's crucifixion drama resulted in a sinful bow
of just $5.9 million in fifth place. When originally slotted, there
was no way Lions Gate could have known what a difficult rival
"Passion" would prove to be for the much-hyped musical, an
update of 1987's original "DD" distrib acquired along with Artisan
Entertainment.
Then, once the "Passion" tide began to rise, there was some
hope it might lift all B.O. boats. Instead, the weekend's other
openers were simply swamped.
"The people have spoken," said Bruce Davey, topper at Gibson's
Icon Prods. "It's what they want."
7963
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 8:38pm
Subject: Re: Boffo Biz for Crucifixion Flick
Coming soon: "The Passion of the Frodo."
Crucified Hobbits -- it's got everything.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Newmarket's Mel Gibson-helmed religious phenom rung
> up an
> estimated $117.5 million since unspooling Monday,
> $76.3
> million of it over the weekend.
>
> Elsewhere, however, the weekend's B.O. results were
> much
> more earthbound.
>
> Sony romancer "50 First Dates" was runner-up on the
> frame with
> $12.6 million, while Paramount suspenser "Twisted"
> bowed in
> third with a modest $9.1 million.
>
> And pity poor "Dirty Dancing Havana Nights," whose
> scheduling
> hell opposite Gibson's crucifixion drama resulted in
> a sinful bow
> of just $5.9 million in fifth place. When originally
> slotted, there
> was no way Lions Gate could have known what a
> difficult rival
> "Passion" would prove to be for the much-hyped
> musical, an
> update of 1987's original "DD" distrib acquired
> along with Artisan
> Entertainment.
>
> Then, once the "Passion" tide began to rise, there
> was some
> hope it might lift all B.O. boats. Instead, the
> weekend's other
> openers were simply swamped.
>
> "The people have spoken," said Bruce Davey, topper
> at Gibson's
> Icon Prods. "It's what they want."
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7964
From: Frederick M. Veith
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 9:20pm
Subject: Zizek weighs in, sort of
On The Passion:
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=632_0_4_0_C
Fred.
7965
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 9:26pm
Subject: Re: Zizek weighs in, sort of
"Sort of"? Not at all.He doesn't review the film, he
reviews those who would object to it. He reviews our
"secular" culture and (surprise!) finds it wanting.
Big hairy deal.
--- "Frederick M. Veith"
wrote:
> On The Passion:
>
>
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=632_0_4_0_C
>
> Fred.
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7966
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 1, 2004 4:10pm
Subject: Re: Welles Screenings in NY
hotlove666 wrote:
> Deep focus is not much used in Welles' color work. There are some
> deep distorted shots in Immortal Story ('64), but the compositions in
> what I've seen of Merchant of Venice (was it shown?) mark a new
> beginning in 1969, and everything from there on in, as far as I can
> recollect, is very different,
But even the footage from THE DEEP (which I enjoyed) pays a lot of
attention to foreground-background opposition, and sometimes uses
background to create a spatial continuity between otherwise disparate
shots.
> Also, it's not just a conceit that the rushes in Other Side
> (including the edited sequence in the car, and the sequence with the
> bed that shouldn't be edited but is), which parody Antonioni, are
> supposed to be by Jake Hanaford. And while the other footage may
> accidentally look Wellesian (the shots of Foster and the Evansoid in
> the screening room, say), it's supposed to have been shot by an army
> of AFI students with many types of cameras. No shot in the film
> is "by" Welles - even more than in F for Fake - and consequently
> there are no real "Welles shots."
I just wonder what's up with this. If we just saw brief clips of
Hannaford's work, it would make sense that Welles was using the clips to
characterize Hannaford. But those scenes are lengthy, and certainly way
lengthier than plot dictates. It may be a mistake to see Hannaford's
footage as belonging to Welles, but I don't think that Welles was merely
imitating or parodying. Is Hannaford a filter through which Welles was
showing a particular side of himself? Maybe seeing the film as a whole
would answer the question. I don't feel a convincing dialectic between
Welles' footage and Hannaford's on the basis of what I've seen.
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
> I'm sorry that I missed you saying that. I tried to quote you as
> exactly as I could remember. I'm very embarrassed for my error.
No problem.
> (Interestingly, it's the film-within-a-film that's heavy with
> repetition. The "proper" OSOTW scenes are pretty fat-free if I
> recall.)
Yeah. Whereas normally it would be the opposite: if Welles wanted to
distance himself from Hannaford's style, you'd think he'd keep it short
and simple. - Dan
- Dan
7967
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 5:37am
Subject: Re: Welles Screenings in NY
> But even the footage from THE DEEP (which I enjoyed) pays a lot of
> attention to foreground-background opposition, and sometimes uses
> background to create a spatial continuity between otherwise disparate
> shots.
This may be a long shot, but
CITIZEN KANE:THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND::THE STRANGER:THE DEEP
I get more mileage out of Welles' experimentation, although I think I
would enjoy a complete DEEP as much as I (now) like THE STRANGER. My
only real problem with the WIND footage is that I can't get enough of
it. That's a dorky answer but the truth.
> Is Hannaford a filter through which Welles was
> showing a particular side of himself? Maybe seeing the film as a whole
> would answer the question. I don't feel a convincing dialectic between
> Welles' footage and Hannaford's on the basis of what I've seen.
A lot of questions will be answered, if the film is ever as complete
as LOLA MONTES was tonight.
Hannaford is Welles' only fictional filmmaker - he's otherwise dealt
with Shakespearean heroes, tycoons, rich kids, adventurers, and so on.
The closest match to Hannaford before WIND is Charles Clay, who also
orchestrates a sex scene, leading to unforeseen consequences. It's a
different kind of mask this time, one that lets him "fake" his own new
aesthetic - but it isn't fake, it's just signed with a different name
(Hannaford) that we all see through (as really being Welles). This
within-a-film nom de plumeism gives Welles a chance to fuck around
with the medium in ways that may not have occurred to him in his
earlier films, but had probably been in development since OTHELLO,
possibly earlier.
(I have this theory that Welles' fragmented style is a brilliantly
pragmatic response to seeing film after film get mangled by
know-nothing producers. Of course that's probably a stretch, but it's
a nice thought.)
Anyway, I'd give almost anything to be a fly on the wall when Welles
decided that Oja's bead necklace should get stuck in Bob Random's
crotch, and that some bizarre set of castration/ejaculation symbols
should develop from that image.
-Jaime
7968
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 5:33pm
Subject: LOLA MONTEZ literature
I passed on the LOLA MONTEZ monograph last night's screening of the
utterly stupendous print from the Munich Filmmuseum's restoration,
and was wondering if anyone has recommendations for good articles
about the film (any version) around? It seems like it would be a
monstrously difficult film to write on--like writing on a crystal in
kaleidoscope.
Patrick
7969
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 6:15pm
Subject: Re: LOLA MONTEZ
Tag Gallagher wrote a good piece on Ophuls for Senses of
Cinema, and the Cahiers Auteurs series book on Ophuls by
someone named Guerin is good. Sarris's entry on Ophuls in
American Cinema is always a good place to start. The "crystal"
metaphor is developed at length by Deleuze in L'Image-Temps.
Apart from that, there's not too much, and nothing that I know of
on LM specifically, although I'm sure there are articles
somewhere. I'll look at Stefan's monograph to see what he lists
in the bibliography.
7970
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 6:36pm
Subject: Re: LOLA MONTEZ literature
The BFI's "Ophuls" monograph, edited by Paul Willemen
and published back in 1978 has "For and Archaeology of
Lola Montes" by Masao Yamaguchi. It's pretty good, but
critical writing on the film overall is weak. Sarris
proclaimed it the greatest film ever made back in 1963
and has spent the better part of his life in taking it
back. This is unfortunate as "Lola Montes" is a
perfectly good candidate for Greatest Film Ever Made.
It's easily the biggest. Far more visually avst that
even "2001."
The crux of critical reseveations on the film revolve
around Martine Carroll and the inability of so many
critics to find her as interesting as Danielle
Darrieux. They are, needless to say, overlooking the
fact that Lola is not a character with whom we're
obliged to become involved but an object to
contemplate. We're not given anything in the way of
psycholical "insight" into her because that's not the
way the film works. it's not a narrative but a series
of TRANSITIONS. Lola and everything around her is in
constant motion. In fact for the most part Lola stays
still and everything else moves. The only character
we're really engaged with in anything resembling a
conventional spectator/character relationship is
Ustinov's ringmaster. Never forget that his first
words are "Et Maintenant --" In other words we enter
"Lola Montes" in media res. And we leave it after a
curtain has been deliberately pulled over our
faces,denying us further access to what we have
learned is an empty signifier. No surprise then that
the last word of the film, revealed in the newly
restored version, is "money."
As I believe I've said before, "Lola Montes" is about
media spectacle. Never forget that Ophuls inspirations
for the film were Judy Garland, Edith Piaf and Zsa Zsa
Gabor. But not their art -- only their fame.
Consequently it doesn't look back on the rest of
Ophuls but forward to the likes of "The King of
Comedy" and the aforementioned "2001." (HAL is in fact
a cross between the ringmaster and Lola)
--- Patrick Ciccone wrote:
> I passed on the LOLA MONTEZ monograph last night's
> screening of the
> utterly stupendous print from the Munich
> Filmmuseum's restoration,
> and was wondering if anyone has recommendations for
> good articles
> about the film (any version) around? It seems like
> it would be a
> monstrously difficult film to write on--like writing
> on a crystal in
> kaleidoscope.
>
> Patrick
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
7971
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:32pm
Subject: Re: Welles screenings in NY
Dan, I'm sure this will sound sophistic, but the fact that The Deep
contains foreground/background compositions just means
Welles was working with what he had - he was shooting in bright
sunlight, which makes possible what Bazin called "natural"
depth of field without the strong lights and, in some cases,
special effects that were needed to create the very theatrical
deep-focus compositions of Kane, often enhanced by deforming
lenses. "Natural" depth-of-field continued to occur in exterior
sequences even after the switch to panchromatic stock, and has
little to do with the "deep focus" revolution Welles (and Renoir)
made.
Actually, I think he was working on the idea of depth in the film,
but vertical depth - there were supposed to be a number of
underwater shots, and he also introduced dream sequences
when he did the reshoots in California.
In Merchant of Venice, on the other hand, even though they were
shooting in exteriors, he had the buildings, which inspired him to
create flat compositions through which Shylock moves like a
black beetle, and the other color films all go in that direction.
Even the formal experimentation in The Deep, I believe, is mostly
about color, which we can't really see now. There's actually an
"action painting" scene where they prepare to burn the sinking
boat by dousing it with multicolored paints.
As for the color footage in Other Side of the Wind, it is no more a
device for characterizing Hanaford than the various types of
shots taken by the students are a device for characterizing them.
Nor is it being critiqued or set against the other types of shots,
where the old Welles style does occasionally pop up, as in the
screening room, although never with the distorting lens. The film
wasn't made to make fun of that style. Welles told me that
Hanaford's style "is a perfectly good style - it's just not mine."
Rather, as Jaime says, the whole film is a formal experiment
with heterogenous imagery, including sequences in the
Hanaford style, which refers to Antonioni just as the plot of the
film-within-a-film refers to that of Zabriskie Point, released two
years earlier. The fact that one type of sequence is supposedly
the work of an aging director making an arty 60s film, while the
rest is patched together from footage shot by locust-like students
at his birthday party, is certainly more than just a pretext for
formal experimentation - the fictitious provenance of the images
is part of the film's meaning.
But IMO notions like criticism and parody and
characterization-through-style are not going to be helpful when
we see the finished film, as I know we will one day. I used to
have a script which I gave away without reading, but I know from
reading other late Welles scripts - the one from Big Brass Ring
is out in book form - that characters and character relationships
in these scripts (except for Cradle Will Rock) are complex and
ambiguous and enigmatic in the extreme. The relationships in
Mercedes, his last script, a 4- or 5-character piece with lots of
dialogue, make Harold Pinter look like Charley's Aunt in
comparison!
That's by way of saying that Welles came up with a new way to
make a film in Other Side, which is not going to look like anything
we've ever seen, including Touch of Evil, even after 30 years of
MTV, and it won't be simple on any level - it will be a
mind-blowing experience, and we'll be arguing about what it
means for some time to come.
BTW, there's a second version of the screening room sequence
that's not so long and repetitive, and has a punbcline. I think you
can see it on the AFI Tribute laserdisc.
7972
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:33pm
Subject: The Mystery of Natalie Wood
Did anyone see it? It has more directors in it than a John Landis
film.
7973
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:40pm
Subject: Re: The Mystery of Natalie Wood
I saw part of it and was greatly annoyed -- as I am
with almost all biopics of this ilk. The lead looked
like Natalie Wood but didn't act like her at all. The
film portrayed her as a victim of Hollywood and its
men. But Natalie Wood was NOT a victim. She was a very
intelligent and resourceful woman -- a very complex
one. That's well beyond the ken of a biopic like this
one.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Did anyone see it? It has more directors in it than
> a John Landis
> film.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
7974
From:
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 3:50pm
Subject: Re: The Mystery of Natalie Wood
Whatever flaws the script may possess, I thought the filmmaking was pretty
impeccable and overall I was quite moved by the piece. In particular, I thought
it was very bold of Bogdanovich to present the death scene from Wood's POV
for much of its duration; very tough to watch. But it's characteristic of
Bogdanovich's style to present so much of the film from her perspective. The only
"God's eye" shot in the film, I think, is after Wood has died.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7975
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 9:07pm
Subject: Re: The Mystery of Natalie Wood
I liked it, too, and I didn't think she was shown as a passive
character. Of course, at 2 hours the film is mainly a reflection on
mortality: Life sure goes by fast! Maybe we'll see the 3-hr cut
someday. But I also find the drowning hard to watch, and I did
find the rest of it a pleasure to watch because of Peter's mise en
scene and his work with the actors, including the girl who played
Wood. Minor Bogdanovich, but good. Peter's own expertise as a
mimic shows through in the prformances of supporting actors
playing Beatty et al. And while I agree about the biopic genre -
thankless as ever - there have been a few good ones: Sidney
Furie's Gable and Lombard was handsome, John Carpenter's
Elvis was emotional, and William Graham's diptych of Howard
Hughes and Jim Jones was pretty good, too. But it's true that tv
biopic never dares enough on the script level - the kid glove
treatment of Walken and Wagner at the end was not extended to
long-gone William Randolph Hearst in The Cat's Meow, for
example.
7976
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 9:41pm
Subject: Re: LOLA MONTEZ literature
> I passed on the LOLA MONTEZ monograph last night's screening of the
> utterly stupendous print from the Munich Filmmuseum's restoration,
> and was wondering if anyone has recommendations for good articles
> about the film (any version) around? It seems like it would be a
> monstrously difficult film to write on--like writing on a crystal in
> kaleidoscope.
I've been looking myself. The short articles by Truffaut (collected in
THE FILMS IN MY LIFE) and Sarris (collected in THE PRIMAL SCREEN) are
both worthwhile; some of Truffaut's best observations on the film appear
in his piece on Ophuls' death, collected in the same volume.
I wonder if anyone has thought of a piece connecting LOLA MONTEZ to
Brecht and to Ophuls' own KOMEDIE OM GELD? LOLA is a multimedia story,
with the circus storytelling (which is both a heightened and a debased
form of discourse) picking up where the straight cinema storytelling
leaves off, and vice versa. Sometime I'd like to take notes during this
film and try to count the many different techniques Ophuls uses to
switch us back and forth between heightened and mundane modes.
Part of the film's stealth lies in the way that the circus is a vehicle
for criticism of venality and vulgarity, and yet is also the means for
Ophuls to kick the drama to greater levels of abstraction. (It's
beautiful how Ophuls is able to throw away those moments where Lola
chats with the performers playing her younger selves.)
I liked the film much more with this viewing than ever before, but I
still wonder whether it was a good idea to abandon the circus-cinema
dialectic for so long during the Bavaria sequence. Fortunately, we have
Anton Walbrook, one of the cinema's most appealing actors, to entertain
us during this section. But I still felt the loss of the film's usual
fluidity when Ophuls simply cuts back to the circus climax after Bavaria
is over.
I'm definitely of the opinion that Martine Carol is an inadequate
actress. To a surprising extent it doesn't matter here, but once in a
while her pantomiming of emotion is distracting. She's good at
feistiness, but the feisty interludes are necessarily brief (though
crucial - it's important that Lola is freer than other people for a while).
Interestingly, the script (which is amazingly good - Ophuls the writer
is underrated) shows us Lola's deprived childhood, and her freedom of
expression as an adult, but doesn't make much of a connection between
the two. One can legitimately wonder what effect Lola' childhood had on
her adult personality.
One of the most fascinating and puzzling aspects of the film is the
classic narrative pattern that points toward... (SPOILERS COMING!)
...Lola's impending doom. All the stops are pulled out to show that
something bad is about to happen when Lola takes that ultimate jump, and
then it doesn't happen. Somehow this sort of works for me - certainly
the little exchange between Ustinov and Carol after the jump ("Life goes
on") is one of the most moving things in the film - but it's hard to say
why. It's as if the suspense wasn't a false alarm, as if Lola really
does die in that jump in the film's logic.
"He confided to me that he had systematically put into the plot of LOLA
MONTEZ everything that had troubled or disturbed him in the newspapers
for the preceding three months: Hollywood divorces, Judy Garland's
suicide attempt, Rita Hayworth's adventure, American three-ring
circuses, the advent of CinemaScope and Cinerama, the overemphasis on
publicity, the exaggerations of modern life." - Truffaut, 1957. So the
very shape of the screen is both being criticized and exalted.... - Dan
7977
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:16pm
Subject: Re: LOLA MONTEZ literature
>Dan's SPOILERS COMING! comments on the end of the film...
Dan, what you were saying reminded me of an intriguing sentence in
Kehr's VERTIGO capsule from the Chicago Reader: "The famous motif of
the fall is presented in horizontal rather than vertical space, so
that it becomes not a satanic fall from grace, but a modernist fall
into the image, into the artwork--a total absorption of the creator
by his creation, which in the end is shown as synonymous with
death." In LOLA MONTEZ, the fall into the horizontal space of the
screen (which is what the replacement cloth "net" becomes in the
penultimate shot, Lola's POV) leads immediately to the purgatory of
the cage and the audience touching her, and ultimately to the other
screen, the curtain closing at the end. It's one of the great jump
cuts in cinema, from the fall then to Lola in her cage and the track
backward, especially now that the shot is complete. Instead of being
synonmous with death, it's a weird form of near-grace, though very
sad: "eternal people live and go on living" to use Sokurov's words
from RUSSIAN ARK. It's shocking that the English version starts with
the final shot (as Droessler presented in his fascinating
introduction) but in some ways it's would not be inappropriate if the
film were to remain intact. That is, LOLA MONTEZ could work as a
loop, where VERTIGO could not.
I haven't seen many of Ophuls' films, but are there any more POVs
from falling people? We have the very beautiful POV of Simone Simon's
unsuccessful suicide attempt in LE PLAISIR in addition to LOLA
MONTEZ. That fall is non-fatal as well, giving us that Godardian
mainstay of a final line: "Le bonheur n'est pas gai."
PWC
7978
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:17pm
Subject: Re: LOLA MONTEZ literature
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I liked the film much more with this viewing than
> ever before, but I
> still wonder whether it was a good idea to abandon
> the circus-cinema
> dialectic for so long during the Bavaria sequence.
> Fortunately, we have
> Anton Walbrook, one of the cinema's most appealing
> actors, to entertain
> us during this section. But I still felt the loss
> of the film's usual
> fluidity when Ophuls simply cuts back to the circus
> climax after Bavaria
> is over.
Not for me, because Walbrook and Werner largely take
over Ustinov's function in this section of the film.
This is especially true of the sequence where Lola's
portrait is beig painted,
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
7979
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:21pm
Subject: Re: LOLA MONTEZ Literature
And let me just repeat, since it has come up again, that the
falling pov shots in Le Plaisir and Lola are imitated in Clockwork
Orange, when Alex goes out the window. In Le Plaisir and
Clockwork the shot is filmed by an unmanned Eyemo, no?
7980
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:29pm
Subject: Falling POV
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> And let me just repeat, since it has come up again, that the
> falling pov shots in Le Plaisir and Lola are imitated in Clockwork
> Orange, when Alex goes out the window. In Le Plaisir and
> Clockwork the shot is filmed by an unmanned Eyemo, no?
In the Kubrick yes, but I remember the shot right in the LE PLAISIR
the camera runs up the loft steps of the studio apartment, then goes
out the window, then falls out the window, then through a glass
plate. I don't think there's a hidden cut there, but maybe, since I
have no idea how you'd film it otherwise.
Patrick
7981
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: LOLA MONTEZ literature
> I haven't seen many of Ophuls' films, but are there any more POVs
> from falling people?
There's something close to it near the beginning of LA SIGNORA DI TUTTI:
a POV shot of an ether mask descending on the heroine on the operating
table. - Dan
7982
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:45pm
Subject: Funny CBC report regarding movie piracy
This should be particularly gratifying to US list-members who still go
to the multiplex. It has nothing to do with Welles or Kubrick or
Ophuls, but it's still funny (and pointed).
http://www.cbc.ca/MRL/clips/mondayreport/piracy.rm
-Jaime
7983
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 1:06am
Subject: Re: LOLA MONTEZ literature
The whole BFI Ophuls issue, with two pieces on Lola Montes,
is online at:
http://www.mip.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cine_doc_detai
l.pl/cine_img?20240?20240?1
This is just a scan of the issue, so be prepared for some eyestrain,
but at least it's there.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> The BFI's "Ophuls" monograph, edited by Paul Willemen
> and published back in 1978 has "For and Archaeology of
> Lola Montes" by Masao Yamaguchi. It's pretty good...
7984
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 1:08am
Subject: Re: Re: LOLA MONTEZ literature
Speaking of Marcel Ophüls and his "sanctioned" version of 'Lola Montez'
(or as Marcel will maintain, 'Lola Montès') -- I spoke with Drößler in
the lobby following last night's show -- finally able to get in a
question after some idiot lured him into a fifteen-minute tit-for-tat
debate over what the first film with a magnetic soundtrack was,
followed by which film was the first with true four-channel "surround"
-- and asked him whether we'd see wider screenings of Film-Museum's
restoration, followed by a (much-rumored) Criterion DVD release -- and
he told me "never" on both accounts -- "so long as Marcel Ophüls is
still alive." While some of you might have known about MO (but -what-
modus operandum exactly?!)'s stick-in-the-mud'ness, I had been pretty
unaware that there were effectively two Beatrice Welles's in the world.
craig.
7985
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 1:34am
Subject: Re: Re: LOLA MONTEZ literature
My tongue is hanging out for information about this
new version. What changes from the one we know did you
note? What of plans for future screenings?
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> Speaking of Marcel Ophüls and his "sanctioned"
> version of 'Lola Montez'
> (or as Marcel will maintain, 'Lola Montès') -- I
> spoke with Drößler in
> the lobby following last night's show -- finally
> able to get in a
> question after some idiot lured him into a
> fifteen-minute tit-for-tat
> debate over what the first film with a magnetic
> soundtrack was,
> followed by which film was the first with true
> four-channel "surround"
> -- and asked him whether we'd see wider screenings
> of Film-Museum's
> restoration, followed by a (much-rumored) Criterion
> DVD release -- and
> he told me "never" on both accounts -- "so long as
> Marcel Ophüls is
> still alive." While some of you might have known
> about MO (but -what-
> modus operandum exactly?!)'s stick-in-the-mud'ness,
> I had been pretty
> unaware that there were effectively two Beatrice
> Welles's in the world.
>
> craig.
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
7987
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 1:43am
Subject: Re: The Mystery of Natalie Wood
I was very impressed by the direction by Bogdanovich, even though I'm
sure there were many factual errors scriptwise.
In fact, the last half hour was some of the best filmmaking I've seen
all year and that would include what I've seen at the multiplexes and
revival houses. It was tough, lean and compelling.
Anyone agree that the depiction of Marilyn Monroe was self-reflective
of Dorothy Stratten?
7988
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 5:00am
Subject: Re: Re: LOLA MONTEZ literature
Craig:
> Speaking of Marcel Ophüls and his "sanctioned" version of 'Lola Montez'
> (or as Marcel will maintain, 'Lola Montès')
If I've got it right, the French version was called LOLA MONTES and the
German LOLA MONTEZ. French, German and English versions were made
simultaneously (i.e., three negatives), and both the French and German
versions were released. It doesn't seem as if one can claim that either
the French or the German version is the true version. The restoration
used the German version, because the best print available to work from
was German.
David:
> My tongue is hanging out for information about this
> new version. What changes from the one we know did you
> note? What of plans for future screenings?
Don't know about the future screenings. This new version is 116 minutes
(five or six minutes longer than the version we usually see), and
apparently includes everything from the premiere version (which Ophuls
had complete artistic control of) except for one word of dialogue that
is lost. Some differences between this version and the one we're
familiar with:
1) The final reverse track is no longer shortened by that fast fade: it
now proceeds from Lola to the circus gates.
2) The sound in the restored version is rather different. I think it's
safe to say that there's more background chatter, giving the soundtrack
a denser, more ambient quality. All the original version apparently
were intended to be multilingual to a large extent, and the restoration
combines dialogue in French, German and English that had to be taken
from the different versions.
For instance, the sound in that last reverse track is much less
dominated by the music, and much more filled with murmuring and cries of
"One dollar."
The more ambient sound track really does make a big difference, and for
the better, I think - the heavier music track on the familiar version
makes the film seem a bit more sentimental, and this version is
correspondingly chillier and more somber.
3) I can't remember any scenes that were restored in their entirety, but
there are some sections of scenes that are restored. For instance,
there's a new bit in the scene in the coach with Liszt, where Lola walks
over to Lizst's piano and corrects a note that he's playing, telling
Lizst that she'll be unable to dance to the music otherwise. I'm pretty
sure that the scene in which Lola's entourage arrives in Bavaria is also
longer - the section that I think is new involves Lola switching rooms
several times because of money considerations.
4) We are familiar with the French version, and the German version is
subtly different. For instance, the opening track through the circus
with Ustinov follows a slightly different path and has a different
rhythm. The circus performer who plays the dancing instructor no longer
makes those little grunts that serve him instead of speech: in this
version, he is silent.
5) It's possible that the color timing of the restored version is
different. The archivists determined from interviews that Ophuls wanted
the shipboard scene near the beginning of the film to be rather dark,
for instance.
-----
That's all I can think of - anyone else? - Dan
7989
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 8:10am
Subject: Re: LOLA MONTEZ Literature
Make that 3 Beatrice Welleses, if I understand correctly what Stefan
told Joseph K. and me about the Tati situation: At this point it is
not possible to see the original release versions of Jour de fete and
Vacances de Monsieur Hulot, even though prints exist. I'd like to
think this is just a misunderstanding, as the Tati family is
apparently quite nice, whereas Marcel Ophuls is an unpleasant
blowhard, and we all know what Beatrice is. Nevertheless, it's
important in this era of digital distribution that the rights-holders
understand: disputes to the contrary notwithstanding, alternate
versions prepared by the filmmaker him/herself should be available
for purchase, rental and public screening. Period.
7990
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 8:21am
Subject: Re: The Mystery of Natalie Wood
I liked the last part best, too - it's the only part that was uncut,
unless I miss my guess, because her death was the hook for the
network to sell the movie (even though they didn't). Not to compare
great things to small, but this modest (and chopped up) little tv-er
is a distant descendant of the much-discussed Lola Monte(s/z). I'm
sure Peter B. sees Dorothy Stratten in Natalie W. as well as Marilyn
M. He might even see a little of himself.
7991
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 8:44am
Subject: Re: Welles screenings in NY/Tati
>From what Joe and I saw, there is no question that the earliest
>version of each film is the best. The softer music mix and more
>leisurely pace in Vacances are preferable to the version I've
>seen, which is the '62, where the music in particular has always
>irritated me. Stefan is still trying to track down the festival cut,
>where other tourists returning on the train would examine their
>photographs, and we'd see that Hulot is in all of them, always
>half cut out by the frame. But the print he has of the first release
>version is a treasure. And the revelations about the dubious
>authenticity (and relative unfunniness) of the color Jour de Fete
>were a real eye-opener for me.
>
>Am I getting it right, Joseph K?
Sorry Bill, I was a couple of days behind on my list mail. Yes, I
think you got all the pertinent facts right. It certainly was
enlightening to see the different versions, and in almost every case
the original was the best. (Though, BTW, was the gag with the priest
in the garden in the early edit of LES VACANCES?)
Stefan said the tape we watched was for a lecture he gives on Tati,
so it's possible that other list members will have a chance to see
the hour and 45 min. of comparisons that Stefan put together.
--
- Joe Kaufman
7992
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 11:34am
Subject: Ophuls reading
Dear friends - By far the best thing I have ever read on LOLA MONTES is the
free-ranging group discussion by the editors of UK's famous MOVIE magazine
transcribed in their special Ophuls issue (around 1982, as I recall). The
comments by Victor (V.F.) Perkins and Andrew Britton are particularly
suggestive and illuminating. (The Martine Carol problem gets an airing there
too, with some pro-Martine remarks that are a little like David's.)
These fine MOVIE Brits (as opposed to movie brats!) aren't always mentioned
when the list members here start swapping the names of their favourite
(predominantly) American and French critics!!! But in that whole
Minnelli-Ophuls-Sirk-Ray-melodrama-mise-en-scene nexus, their work is pretty
damn important.
Adrian
7993
From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 10:48am
Subject: RE: Ophuls reading
I'm not familiar with "Lola Montès," but I can mention several recent
articles about it in French:
- Jean-Pierre Berthomé, "Lola inconnue. Une version ignorée de 'Lola
Montès' ", in "Positif" # 495, mai 2002 (about the German version, if I
remember it right);
- Jean-Pierre Berthomé, "Un caprice qui ne finirait pas… : la genèse de
'Lola Montès' ";
- Gaylyn Studlar, "La construction de la femme fatale : les multiples
scénarios masochistes de Lola Montès' ";
- Susan White, " 'Lola Montès' et le cinéma des attractions."
These three articles are to be found in a massive special issue of the
journal "1895" on Max Ophuls (# 34/35, octobre 2001), published by
l'Association Française de Recherche sur l'Histoire du Cinéma.
http://www.sosi.cnrs.fr/AFRHC/pub_frameset-e.htm (in English)
http://www.sosi.cnrs.fr/AFRHC/pub_numero34.htm (Table of contents of the
Ophuls issue)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger http://g.msn.fr/FR1001/866 : dialoguez en direct et
gratuitement avec vos amis !
7994
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 2:22pm
Subject: Re: Ophuls reading
I agree it's pretty damned important -- yet for me
wanting. "Lola Montes" is a problem for them in a way
that "Madame de" clearly isn't.
Frankly I think the oinly way to deal with it is to
divorce it from the rest of Ophuls.
--- Adrian Martin wrote:
(The Martine Carol
> problem gets an airing there
> too, with some pro-Martine remarks that are a little
> like David's.)
>
>
> Adrian
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
7995
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 3:10pm
Subject: Re: LOLA MONTEZ Literature
There's a good "performance history" at the end of Tag Gallagher's article at http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/02/22/ophuls.html . I wish Droessler's chart of the various editions, projected onscreen on Monday, were available online. I'm hoping Film Forum has copies of the book left; it seems it's only $5 (didn't even have that much on me the other night). One question: The "Braunberger" '68 edition, said to be Marcel's preference, is presumably what was shown at the NYFF's (dazzling) second LOLA MONTES screening, but then what was shown at the first NYFF in '63? It wasn't any "chronological" shorter edition. For example, Phillip Lopate's student review of the '63 festival (reprinted in his film book) refers to it as "the complete, restored version" and describes it as an "extremely watchable two-and-a-half-hour movie." That account of its running time, which seems to exceed anything mentioned by Droessler, was presumably hyperbolic, and yet I see "140 minutes" given as the original running time on various websites, including the New York Times -- could that have originated as a typo for "110"?
Droessler's simultaneous projections of passages from the French and German versions startlingly pointed up how much they differed. I can't seem to remember: did he explain exactly why we're not hearing Ustinov in English in the circus -- did he say the English negative is lost? Hearing Ustinov and Martine Carol speaking German seemed to bring out certain links to LULU/PANDORA'S BOX, which also has a circus metaphor (the opera begins with the Animal Trainer's ringmaster-like spiel).
Droessler's account of the change from magnetic to optical sound in Scope, and the consequent narrowing of the image (and cropping of prints of earlier films), which he dated to BUS STOP ('56), might explain why Scope prints on screens are often cropped at the left; if so, I've been wrong to blame this on projectionists. Were we, then, actually seeing the full 2:55 of LOLA MONTEZ at Film Forum?
7996
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 3:18pm
Subject: Re: Re: LOLA MONTEZ Literature
> Droessler's account of the change from magnetic to optical sound in
> Scope, and the consequent narrowing of the image (and cropping of
> prints of earlier films), which he dated to BUS STOP ('56), might
> explain why Scope prints on screens are often cropped at the left; if
> so, I've been wrong to blame this on projectionists. Were we, then,
> actually seeing the full 2:55 of LOLA MONTEZ at Film Forum?
I believe we were -- and if you noticed, the image spilled over (by an
amount that looked more-or-less like the difference in width between
2.55 and 2.35) onto the curtains to the left of the screen.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7997
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 3:47pm
Subject: Re: LOLA MONTEZ Literature
> Droessler's simultaneous projections of passages from the French
and German versions startlingly pointed up how much they differed. I
can't seem to remember: did he explain exactly why we're not hearing
Ustinov in English in the circus -- did he say the English negative
is lost? Hearing Ustinov and Martine Carol speaking German seemed to
bring out certain links to LULU/PANDORA'S BOX, which also has a
circus metaphor (the opera begins with the Animal Trainer's
ringmaster-like spiel).
I thought he said that depending on the language of the edition
(English, French, German), that language was spoken exclusively (or
nearly so) during the circus scenes.
PWC
7998
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 4:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: LOLA MONTEZ Literature
The running times for the 1963 and 1968 New York Film
Festival screenings were 110 minutes.
Took out my laserdisc last night and looked at it
again. STILL ahead if its time!
--- Jess Amortell wrote:
The
> "Braunberger" '68 edition, said to be Marcel's
> preference, is presumably what was shown at the
> NYFF's (dazzling) second LOLA MONTES screening, but
> then what was shown at the first NYFF in '63?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
7999
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 5:54pm
Subject: Re: Lola Montez Literature
Am I the only person who has seen The Loves of Lola Montes
here? I was in the habit of sitting up late in my college's tv room
with a guy named Ted George, drinking Ouzo, and up it came -
chronological, panned and scanned, and frighteningly brief (sort
of like the ABC version of The Mystery of Natalie Wood). I believe I
had already seen the 1962 NYFF showing at this point. NYers of
that era: Was there anything about it in ON FILM? THE
THOUSAND EYES?
8000
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 6:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: Lola Montez Literature
> Am I the only person who has seen The Loves of Lola Montes
> here?
Is this a remake of Ophüls's version? Or do you mean 'The Sins of Lola
Montes' / 'The Fall of Lola Montes'?
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact