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.
8901
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 3:41am
Subject: Re: Re: snow films
I could nominate '*Corpus Callosum,' but instead I'll try for...
'Branca de Neve' (João César Monteiro, 2000)
Let's see whether IMDB commentator "Eumenides-1" agrees! --
=======================
Date: 6 June 2003
Summary: Makes me ashamed of being Portuguese
Portuguese cinema suffers from two things:
1 Either it's trying to compete with Holywood standards, or
2 It tries to be so artistic/crafty/beautiful/intellectual/whatever
pseudothing you can insert here that only a handful of other
intellectuals understand... or at least pretend.
This movie is downright trash, it doesn't show an image for the
duration of the whole movie, and the script is laughable.
And Portuguese wonder why we still haven't got a nomination for the
Oscars.
I'm sure the director/writer didn't bother with what he did... or
didn't do, since he was financed by the government - well, with so many
deficiencies here, i'm ashamed money was spent on this pseudoartistic
piece of trash.
========================
The verdict is in!
On a side-note, to the auspiciously named Ken Eisenstein who posted on
here earlier today: I think we went to college together. We might have
been in a Don Fredericksen class at the same time, or something.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8902
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 8:30am
Subject: Imitation of Life at the Cinematheque
Let me just say, as I have said to David in an offline post, that I
was surprised at how unflashy this one is compared to Written or Mag
Ob or All. After an opening on the beach that looks like documentary
footage, that cluttered apartment they live in is pretty unSirkian,
and it's 40 minutes of film. The country house is the big set, but
apart from some obligatory master shots, it's broken up into
claustrophobic sub-sets, and the expressionism of the lighting is
subtler than in the other color films -- mostly chiaroscuro effects.
Separate topic: I think Annie is uncanny - every now and then she
becomes this big silhouette looming in the foreground that sucks the
air out of the room, or a tiny background figure who pops up like
Jimminy Cricket to wreck Susan Kohner's plans. A friend pointed out
that Annie's funeral is a 21-gun blowout to make up for a lifetime of
sublimation. She's truly sweet, of course, and her death scene rivals
Griffith, but there's a Hitchcock mom under the sweetness: Psycho,
Marnie and The Birds were just around the corner when Sirk made this
film. Tag has pointed out most of this already in his Film Comment
piece on Sirk.
It was moving to see Juanita Moore and Susan Kohner, who are friends,
but the interviewer programmed their responses as he had earlier
tried to program audience response, mistaking the theatre for a
classroom. It did leak through that Sirk was tough on Kohner (his
agent's daughter), and that the scene where Troy Donahue beats her up
was so violent it had to be reshot after the censors saw it. The
first version left Kohner unable to work; Sirk sent her flowers while
she was recovering with a note that she kept: "Yellow roses for your
blue bruises." Moore says he was a pussycat with her.
Moore also says Sirk pushed Turner to do the death-bed scene on a day
when the murder mess was peaking. She couldn't stop crying, she
couldn't do the scene, and her face froze so she had to take three
days off. The film made her a lot of money. She took no salary, but
collected 10 points of the gross - as Susan K. proudly pointed out,
her father was Turner's agent, too. Sandra Dee is very good in the
film, by the way.
It's the most radical fifties film about segregation that I can think
of. Maybe the most radical film ever made on the subject, period. The
scene in the motel where Moore and Kohner have to role-play in front
of the other chorus girl, while absurdly melodramatic, is like an X-
ray of the era. I always start crying when Kohner says, "All my life"
and don't stop till the credits.
8903
From:
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 10:24pm
Subject: Re: British cinema
A couple more notes:
1) "Wicked Lady" (Leslie Arliss, 1945) seemed like a fun melodrama years ago
when I saw it on TV. Think Durgnat might discuss this in his book. Story of a
female highwayman in the 18th Century. The Brits love their highwaymen. Among
other things, they believe that people who steal from the rich have Really
Good Sex (see Raffles, and Cary Grant in "To Catch a Thief").
2) "Monty Python's Flying Circus" (the original TV series) is hard to beat.
Just saw an episode two weeks ago. Those guys were very inventive. 30 years
ago, "everybody" knew all the Python episodes. Not sure if this is still true
today. My mother's favorite was always "Bicycle Repairman" (our hero!).
3) Ditto "Poirot". Favorite episodes: "Wasp's Nest", "The ABC Murders".
4) I saw "Scream of Fear" (Seth Holt) while living at my folks in the 1970's.
They had gone to bed, and I stayed up to watch it on the Late Show. Old
movies always used to be shown on the Late Show! When the heroine of the film
discovers the body, she lets out a piercing scream that can be heard in the next
county. It woke my sleeping Dad up. The following conversation ensued.
Dad (alarmed): "What's that?"
Mom (reassuring): "It's the Scream of Fear. Go back to sleep."
Mike Grost
8904
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 9:40am
Subject: Re: snow films
Craig Keller wrote:
>I could nominate '*Corpus Callosum,'
>
>
Or Hollis Frampton's SNOWBLIND...
-Matt
8905
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 4:44am
Subject: Re: State of Godard
Godard publicly alluded to having cancer when he appeared in Toronto
with For Ever Mozart. And people I know who have visited him in
Rolle have spoken about various signs of his poor health. On the
other hand, one often hears--or has heard--that he plays tennis
daily.
As for the cancellations, I believe these have more to do with his
temperament than his health.
> Does anyone on this list have any insight on whether or not Godard
is
> actually "seriously ill"? Or perhaps those on here who are
friends or
> acquaintances with Kent Jones could send him an email for more
> information on this? JLG has of course canceled public lecture
after
> public lecture, and press-releases soon follow the change of plans
that
> say something to the effect of, "...Mr. Godard won't be able to
attend
> due to ill health," but such cancellations and follow-up
statements
> about ill health have been par for the course since the
early '80s, if
> I'm correct.
>
> craig.
8906
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 1:43pm
Subject: Re: Trafic
> I have seen it, but haven't read it yet. I'm inclined to think
that
> online mags - including ones devoted to reviewing DVDs, like
Cinema
> Scope - are the wave of the future, with the heavy lifting being
done
> in academic publications.
Minor correction: Cinema Scope isn't devoted to DVDs--apart from one
special section of one issue and my regular column.
On Trafic, you're absolutely right--Raymond is only one of what was
four voices and is now three. But I would hasten to add that the
particular emphasis given to James Agee, Manny Farber, and now (with
my help) Donald Phelps--another literary emphasis, in my opinion--
comes from Patrice and not Raymond. And the diary/letter form, which
you handled so beautifully in Senses of Cinema with Svlvia, and
which also came in part from Serge, is literary too.
8907
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 7:47am
Subject: Re: the hand (and the lips) of the auteur
Wasn't
> it the one-eyed Walsh who used to direct by looking away from the
> camera and listening to the scene rather than watching it, a method
> which I think Welles approved of when he heard about it?
>
Pagnol sayt in the sound trailer with headphones - that's how he
directed. He wasn't on the set much.
8908
From:
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 1:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: snow films
Two underrated films by '70s auteurs which seem to fit the bill:
Phil Kaufman's "The White Dawn"
Robert Altman's "Quintet"
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8909
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 6:39pm
Subject: Re: British cinema
> 2) "Monty Python's Flying Circus" (the original TV series) is hard
to beat.
> Just saw an episode two weeks ago. Those guys were very inventive.
30 years
> ago, "everybody" knew all the Python episodes. Not sure if this is
still true
> today. My mother's favorite was always "Bicycle Repairman" (our
hero!).
I saw my first Python episode when I was home visiting MY mother for
some school holiday. The episode with the UFO that turns Brits into
Scots came on PBS. No announcement, we had no idea what we were
watching. Result: total hysteria, topped, of course, by the tennis
duel between the former British champ turned Scot (hence unable to
play tennis anymore) and the Machiavellian blanc mange from space,
who had deployed the evil ray in order to win Wimbeldon.
8910
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 1:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: snow films
--- Robert Keser wrote:
> Yes, contrast could be very effective, such as
> filling the snow
> screen with something ethereal, like Cocteau's Le
> Baron fantôme.
>
> --Robert Keser
>
Or Adolphas Mekas' great, sadly neglected "Hallelujah
the Hills" The image of Peter Beard running naked
through the now has stayed with me forever.
And for more than one reason, I might add.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
8911
From:
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 7:18pm
Subject: Re: snow films
More:
On Dangerous Ground (Nicholas Ray)
Murder is My Beat (Edgar G. Ulmer)
The Wizard of Oz (Victor Fleming)
and a couple of novels:
The Rim of the Pit (Hake Talbot)
The Left Hand of Darkness (Ursula K. LeGuin)
Mike Grost
8912
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 2:58pm
Subject: Re: the hand (and the lips) of the auteur
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
>
> To shift to another part of the body, has anyone
> looked at Maureen
> O'Hara's autobiography? She claims to have come
> across John Ford
> engaged in a passionate lip-lock with one of the
> biggest male stars
> in Hollywood history. Is David up on all of this?
>
>
Yep.
Page 190-191
The actor Ford was smooching is not identified
(Jeffrey Hunter? Woody Strode?) however he later asks
O'Hara if she knew Ford was gay. She says it's news to
her.
It's an "Esther Williams/Jeff Chandler" moment.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
8913
From:
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 8:52am
Subject: Re: snow films
The Gold Rush (Chaplin)
The Heroes of Telemark (Anthony Mann)
The Idiot (Kurosawa)
Bye Bye, Brazil (Carlos Diegues)
Leopard in the Snow (Gerry O'Hara)
Mike Grost
8914
From: Robert Keser
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 2:38pm
Subject: Re: A change of pace from The Guardian
It's fascinating that these Arctic filmgoers want to
see thrillers on their snow screen: Kiss Me Deadly on ice?
The BBC News seems to be specializing in a kind of
anthropology of cinemagoing. Here
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3389067.stm )
is another amazing story about a pushcart cinema in Calcutta
that uses a 107-year old projector and films made up of "found"
bits and pieces pasted together. Wherever people are, they seem
to want cinema!
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
> There are some photos of the drive-in online:
>
> http://www.saami-easterfestival.org/film_index_2004.htm
>
> http://www.samiradio.org/norsk/article15917.html
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3603665.stm
>
>
> Paul
8915
From: apmartin90
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 3:09am
Subject: re: snow films
Anyone yet mentioned Tow Tykwer's pre-RUN LOLA RUN
snow-ful thriller, WINTERSLEEPERS? One of the ultimate snow
films, I would venture.
Adrian
8916
From: natskoli
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 5:29pm
Subject: Re: Trafic
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
>
> > I have seen it, but haven't read it yet. I'm inclined to think
> that
> > online mags - including ones devoted to reviewing DVDs, like
> Cinema
> > Scope - are the wave of the future, with the heavy lifting being
> done
> > in academic publications.
>
> Minor correction: Cinema Scope isn't devoted to DVDs--apart from
one
> special section of one issue and my regular column.
And it isn't an online mag.
Brent
8917
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 6:42pm
Subject: Re: Trafic
>
> Minor correction: Cinema Scope isn't devoted to DVDs--apart from
one
> special section of one issue and my regular column.
>
> On Trafic, you're absolutely right--Raymond is only one of what was
> four voices and is now three. But I would hasten to add that the
> particular emphasis given to James Agee, Manny Farber, and now
(with
> my help) Donald Phelps--another literary emphasis, in my opinion--
> comes from Patrice and not Raymond.
Patrice is the Unknown Soldier at Trafic. He is also the Brakhage nut
on the board.
8918
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 8, 2004 10:38pm
Subject: Re: Imitation of Life at the Cinematheque
--- hotlove666 wrote:
I always start crying when Kohner
> says, "All my life"
> and don't stop till the credits.
>
>
Well of course. The ending is one of the most sublime
in the history of the cinema.
The other truly radical thing is when Lana realizes
that Annie has had a whole life outside of her. White
Privilege is so Absolute that it can't recognize black
existence as anything other than an appendage to
itself. Turner's problems with Sandra Dee are a
slightly heightened version of typical white
middle-class mother-daughter struggles. Anne and Sarah
Jane are a whole other ball park.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
8919
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:31am
Subject: Re: Trafic
Cinema Scope isn't devoted to DVDs--apart from
> one
> > special section of one issue and my regular column.
>
> And it isn't an online mag.
>
> Brent
I got that part - syntactic ambiguity. And there's the rub. I spent
$30 the last two days Xeroxing single articles from film magazines at
UCLA for a project, but it might as well have been just for fun --
there were off-topic articles from Critical Inquiry (neat new
issue!), Vertigo and other recent pubs, too. If I'd bought the actual
issues, it would've cost me $400, and I probably wouyldn't have read
much more of them than I am now. Moral: Unless you can afford a
subscription, Xerox! I only read the LA Times when I find a copy that
someone tossed.
I haven't mentioned Cienaste in my recent hymn of praise to academic
publications because I'm not sure it qualifies - it also covers new
films. But it's a good mix, and a good magazine. In my trek through
the last 30 years of Cineaste I've found some solid, thoughtful
articles about my topic -- better on the whole than the equivalent
from fondly remembered Sight and Sound, for example, which I've also
been gathering. And I finally found where the bound copies of Positif
are kept -- two flights down from where most of the mags are. (An
obvious conspiracy.) There's good stuff there, too.
The real trick is to cover current films while reflectong deeply on
past and present, and I just think that job, once done magnificently
by American Film, Movie, Film Comment and Sight and Sound, has now
devolved to myriad publications divided pretty sharply between
scholarship and fluff, with thinking critics here and there
attempting to knit it all together while struggling to keep up with
the glut.
Film Comment, bless it, is trying, but between their severe madate
from the Board, their aspirations to matter and their phobia about
content, even good taste dwon't carry that far. I can get good taste
reading Jonathan, the Cahiers and a_film_by.
It's a natural evolution. When those magazines ruled, there was no
such thing as film studies, and daily reviewers were pretty naive.
Now it's all balkanized, with most of the best thinking being done
off in the groves, and daily reviewers occupying a strange
depopulated no man's land that was once lively and crowded.
Having Rotten Tomatoes is a very interesting innovation -- you can
actually see what pundits big and small are saying about films all in
a batch, and as you know if you've ever surfed it, it's a weird patch
of water.
The other big innovation is online criticism, which ranges from great
to much worse than the average alternative press reviewer. I think a
few magazines will arise from the babble that do double duty
reviewing and reflecting -- in fact, some already have. In the
meantime, there's this site.
8920
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:43am
Subject: Re: Imitation of Life at the Cinematheque
Actually I think the cluttered apartment is pretty Sirkian. Have you
have seen "No Room for the Groom." And some of the camera angles used in
it are Sirkian too. As for the country house, the effect of the picture
windows is absolutely key, and connects with the picture windows at the
end of "Magnificent Obsession" and "All That Heaven Allows."
The tiny figures of Annie that you note, which are quite great, such as
her appearance at the "Moulin Rouge" in the background, also have a
Sirkian genealogy: consider the tiny figure of Ron Kirby (the Hudson
character) in the background of the Christmas-tree selling scene of "All
That Heaven Allows." These moments toy with the ambiguity of the human
presence: the figures are incredibly powerful, ghosts in a way, at once
despite and because of being vanishingly small. They connect with the
different but similarly powerful image of "Mr. Source of Infinite Power"
in the operation room scene of "Magnificent Obsession." Background
details whether animate or inanimate have a way of asserting power over
the foreground in Sirk: witness the emergence of the flyer's coffin in
"The Tarnished Angels."
As for the "I can't stop crying till the final credits" moment, I agree
with you, but would place mine a little bit earlier. The real
devastation begins in the scene just before the "all my life" line, with
Sirk's amazing use of mirrors to give Sara Jane's searing "I'm someone
else" their fully awful meaning, setting up the way she whispers her
final loving words to her mother without actually speaking them.
In its greatest scenes, such as everything from this point to the end,
the film is as great as any Sirk made, but I think it's more uneven than
"The Tarnished Angels" or "Written on the Wind" or "A Time to Love and a
Time to Die."
- Fred C.
8921
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 1:00pm
Subject: hawks and gesture
General question for the group:
Is anyone aware of any writing (French or English) which deals with
the function of gesture in Hawks in an extended manner? I am aware
of much of the standard literature on Hawks which so often does refer
to the importance of gesture and performance in his films: Manny
Farber, Robin Wood, John Belton, Rivette, Douchet, etc. But has
there been anything recent, or older and more obscure, which attempts
either a more sustained form of close analysis in relation to gesture
or which attempts to more broadly historically/culturally
contextualize gesture and performance style in his films, perhaps
comparing him to other contemporaneous Hollywood filmmakers in this
regard (Sternberg, Walsh, Wellman)? I know Farber does some of this.
But has there been anything else or anything since?
I don't know the Gerald Mast or Leland Poague (sp?) books on Hawks,
which I'm trying to track down now. Has anyone here read them?
8922
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 1:35pm
Subject: Production design
Most of the government hearings that I have seen had a
green or blue cloth draping the tables, not the red that
was quite apparent in yesterday's 9-11 hearing.
Does anyone remember a red draping in other situations?
I wonder who makes that decision. Who is the auteur?
I wonder what was used in the HUAC hearings, obviously in b/w.
8923
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 4:26pm
Subject: Re: snow films
For the record, it seems that Canadians also do this, and even lay claim to it: "What could be more Canadian than spending an evening sipping hot chocolate outside while watching Canadian movies on a screen made of snow?" http://www.nsi-canada.ca/news/2004/media022604.html
8924
From:
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 3:02pm
Subject: Richard Lester
A late reply to Bill K. - I am indeed a great fan of the American-born,
frequently British-based Richard Lester. I'm not actually the biggest fan of what
I think of as his most archetypically "British" movies, the ones from the
'60s. I do like "A Hard Day's Night" and "The Bed-Sitting Room" a lot, but have
always been just a little bit cool towards "The Knack," "Help!," and "How I Won
the War." "Petulia" is a great film, but it's set in San Francisco, alas.
So it's more or less in the '70s (and into the early '80s) that Lester really
gets going for me. The "Musketeers" movies are wonderfully rendered period
pieces which don't hesitate to emphasize the grit and grime of their settings;
Lester is always interested in the reality behind the myth, something also
evident in his masterpiece, "Robin and Marian," and the delightful "Butch and
Sundance." "Juggernaut" is astonishingly tight, compact moviemaking. "Cuba" is
a doomed romance and so is, actually, his great "Superman II" - Dave Kehr's
capsule review of the latter says it all. Lester also honed his slapstick
comedy skills in the '70s movies, culminating with the perfectly executed "The
Ritz." But in just about every one of his films contains at least one or two
beautifully realized sight gags.
What I think of as the trademark Lester visual approach in these late films
is the intercutting of a static master shot with looser close-ups from the same
angle; Lester often cuts to the close-ups right on a specific line or action
so they serve rather like visual punchlines. His earlier work is more
visually chaotic and not as satisfying to me. After the terrific "Superman III," he
found himself unable to get his own projects off the ground and the two or
three movies he made after it are not good. It's a sad story, though Lester
seems content in retirement.
Anyway, returning to the topic of British-born directors, I'll echo some
others and say that I really, really like Alexander Mackendrick and Powell and
Pressburger. More recently, I'm convinced there's something going on in about
half of Tony Scott's films.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8925
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 7:40pm
Subject: Re: Re: snow films
"Women in Love" (Oliver Reed's death)
"The Red Tent"
"Help!" (the "Ticket to Ride" number)
"Way Down East"
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> The Gold Rush (Chaplin)
> The Heroes of Telemark (Anthony Mann)
> The Idiot (Kurosawa)
> Bye Bye, Brazil (Carlos Diegues)
> Leopard in the Snow (Gerry O'Hara)
>
> Mike Grost
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
8926
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:27pm
Subject: Re: Imitation of Life at the Cinematheque
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Actually I think the cluttered apartment is pretty Sirkian. Have
you
> have seen "No Room for the Groom."
Not in 30 years, but I know what you mean. I should have said the
scenes weren't "Sirkian," meaning that they aren't big with picture
windows and colored lighting. But I didn't mean that as a critique -
the sceens in the apartment evoke the kameraspiel tradition, with
which Sirk was affiliated.
It's interesting that you cite three non-Hunter films as your
favorites. It became apparent at the screening Wednesday that Hunter
played an important role in the ones he produced - for example, with
respect to casting. I recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it Hollis
Alpert's profile of Hunter, which is reprinted in a collection of
articles by Alpert. Hunter devised a formula - women's pictures,
recycled stories from the Universal vaults, big female stars on the
downgrade, shooting everything on soundstages - which were inspired
by the profit motive brilliantly channelled, but meshed well with
Sirk's talents and vision. Of course there was also usually Hudson,
who was the top boxofice star in the country.
Maybe I like Imitation of Life best of the Hunters in part because it
isn't as "Sirkian" (=Hunterian) as the others.
Another tidbit: Kohner's dad represented, Sirk, Turner and Metty, and
eventually Moore. He was a force in these pictures, too.
8927
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 8:30pm
Subject: Re: hawks and gesture
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> General question for the group:
>
> Is anyone aware of any writing (French or English) which deals with
> the function of gesture in Hawks in an extended manner?
Try La politique des acteurs by Moullet. He deals a lot with gesture,
and it may come up re: Hawks in particular at some point, because all
of Moullet's "four aces" worked with Hawks except Jimmy ("The Hand
Man") Stewart.
8928
From:
Date: Fri Apr 9, 2004 10:06pm
Subject: Re: British cinema
MSU library has three full shelves of books on the history of British Cinema. These include long studies of the silent period (one called "Young and Innocent?") a book "Wales and Cinema", and surveys by Roy Armes and others.
It will probably be much harder the find the movies discussed in these books, that to find the books themselves.
Mike Grost
8929
From: L C
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 4:09pm
Subject: Snow films:some canadian movies
La Guerre des tuques ( Dog who stopped the war)by André Melançon, Atanarjuat by Zacharias Kunuk,The Last Winter,by Aaron Kim Johnston ,Kamouraska (the long version) by Claude Jutra. In a snow fim festival, a film like Murnau's Tabu would be an interesting change of pace.Luc
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail
Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis grâce à Yahoo! Messenger !
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8930
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 5:02pm
Subject: Re: British cinema
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> MSU library has three full shelves of books on the history of
> British Cinema.
My library has a lot of books on British film, including YOUNG AND
INNOCENT. Unfortunately, it looks like I'll have to let the subject
slip by the wayside as an independent study (for credit, anyway).
Christine Gledhill is going to be visiting next spring and is
scheduled to teach a course on British cinema. Which means
institutional discouragement for me to do an independent study on a
subject that will more or less be covered the next semester. Anyone
have any thoughts on Gledhill?
--Zach
8931
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 10:45pm
Subject: Re: hawks and gesture
The Jean Gili monograph "Howard Hawks" for the Cinéma d'aujourd'hui
collection, edited by french publisher Seghers, was quite an insightful
reading - though I don't remember well if it's particularly strong
gesture-wise (the section Les Comédiens has some good points on this,
though).
Accounts on Hawks by Agel, Comolli, Jean-Pierre Melville, Langlois, Rivette,
and testimonies by Louise Brooks, Ginger Rogers, Douglas Fairbans, Marcel
Dalio, Lee Garmes, Hal B. Wallis, etc.
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
To:
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:00 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] hawks and gesture
> General question for the group:
>
> Is anyone aware of any writing (French or English) which deals with
> the function of gesture in Hawks in an extended manner? I am aware
> of much of the standard literature on Hawks which so often does refer
> to the importance of gesture and performance in his films: Manny
> Farber, Robin Wood, John Belton, Rivette, Douchet, etc. But has
> there been anything recent, or older and more obscure, which attempts
> either a more sustained form of close analysis in relation to gesture
> or which attempts to more broadly historically/culturally
> contextualize gesture and performance style in his films, perhaps
> comparing him to other contemporaneous Hollywood filmmakers in this
> regard (Sternberg, Walsh, Wellman)? I know Farber does some of this.
> But has there been anything else or anything since?
>
> I don't know the Gerald Mast or Leland Poague (sp?) books on Hawks,
> which I'm trying to track down now. Has anyone here read them?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
8932
From: Andy Rector
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 1:16am
Subject: Re: hawks and gesture
I don't know any articles, but my favourite gestures, extended beyond
necessary limits, are those of the monkey in MONKEY BUSINESS. Perhaps
a comparison or a montage of the gestures of this monkey against, say,
those of Bogart in BIG SLEEP would yield something, seriously.
Best,
andy
8933
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 8:52pm
Subject: Re: The Passion of the Christ, Brisseau
Has anyone besides David, me and M. C. seen this film? I'm curious to
know other reactions.
Also, what did people think of the Brisseaus in NY (and elsewhere,
since Secret Things is in distribution)? I won't be crushed if
everyone loved them despite my jeremiads - I'd like to hear!
8934
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 9:31pm
Subject: the passion of brisseau
> Also, what did people think of the Brisseaus in NY (and elsewhere,
> since Secret Things is in distribution)? I won't be crushed if
> everyone loved them despite my jeremiads - I'd like to hear!
Bill, I saw them over a year ago in Rotterdam, and while I think he can be =
a portentous
loudmouth in person, Brisseau brings something from his experience with pub=
lic
schools in the early films that I think is very real and sincere. Lisa Here=
dia gives a
great performance as a lonely public worker in his first, LA VIE COMME ÇA, =
and I saw
DE BRUIT ET DE FUREUR, which I know you dislike, as part live-action The Si=
mpsons,
and part latter-day Bresson. WHITE WEDDING is the only one I don't like so =
much;
both CÉLINE and LES SAVATES DU BON DIEU are masterful.
With CHOSES SECRETES, I think he's expressing some pretty simple ideas in a=
n
extremely convoluted way. Sometimes for its 2 1/2 hour runtime, I enjoyed t=
he ride.
The end is great. A little after Rotterdam I talked to the distributor here=
in States who
picked it up. She said, "Yeah, we just thought it was so cool and sexy..." =
Sexy? Sure.
But I can imagine it confusing more people than, you know, turning them on.=
..
Brisseau is hard at work on his new feature, produced by Paolo Branco.
Gabe
8935
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: Re: The Passion of the Christ, Brisseau
Initially, the film seemed too dark (it was evening in the garden)
and I
was concerned about the beginning. Later the light / color became
better.
The scrourging scene has been discussed as too long, but I think it
is so for this reason:
Jesus is to be scrourged as punishment.
Mary his mother is watching and she realizes they are not
just punishing Jesus, they are going to beat him to death. Mary
leaves the scene, and scene changes.
Return to the scrouging.
Roman higher-up soldier arrives and seeing the condition of
Jesus, tells the soldiers they were only suppose to punish him, not
kill him.
Scourging stops and Jesus is taken back to Pilate who feels Jesus
has had enough ... but lets the crowd decide.
I think this part of the story telling is lost in all of the
scourging, but at least it explains some of the scene.
The morphing of the tempting characters seemed out of place, but
given that, I think the soldiers tauntings (which were not
subtitled) should have included phrases in all the languages
of the world...diffusing whatever about who is responsible for
the death of Jesus.
I thought Mary was the most remarkable actress in the movie;
Jesus was a hard role to play as his responses to his circumstances
seem un-human. He endures the pain, and outlasts the toll
such trauma would put on his body.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Has anyone besides David, me and M. C. seen this film? I'm curious
to
> know other reactions.
>
> Also, what did people think of the Brisseaus in NY (and elsewhere,
> since Secret Things is in distribution)? I won't be crushed if
> everyone loved them despite my jeremiads - I'd like to hear!
8936
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 11:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Passion of the Christ, Brisseau
--- Elizabeth Anne Nolan wrote:
>
> The scrourging scene has been discussed as too long,
> but I think it
> is so for this reason:
> Jesus is to be scrourged as punishment.
A spectacle Mel takes great delight in.
>
> The morphing of the tempting characters seemed out
> of place,
Not at all. Hysteria over gender identity is mainstay
of religious and political reationaries.
but
> given that, I think the soldiers tauntings (which
> were not
> subtitled) should have included phrases in all the
> languages
> of the world...diffusing whatever about who is
> responsible for
> the death of Jesus.
>
"The Jews" in every language of the world.
> I thought Mary was the most remarkable actress in
> the movie;
> Jesus was a hard role to play as his responses to
> his circumstances
> seem un-human. He endures the pain, and outlasts
> the toll
> such trauma would put on his body.
>
Because in Mel's view he's not human at all. And
strictly speaking the life of Christ is the life
history of a man who became a zombie.
No wonder "Dawn of the Dead" remake did so well in the
wake of "NASCAR Jesus."
I trust you're aware of the fact that this film is NOT
based on the "New Testament" but the hysterical
ravings and "visions" of a bi-polar anti-semitic nun
named Anne-Marie Emmerich.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
8937
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 0:06am
Subject: Re: the passion of brisseau
I haven't seen CHOSES SECRETES yet, but I liked
Jeremy Heilman's description of it as equal parts
DEMONLOVER and GENTLEMEN PREFER BLONDES.
You can read it here:
http://www.moviemartyr.com/2002/secretthings.htm
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> > Also, what did people think of the Brisseaus in NY (and
elsewhere,
> > since Secret Things is in distribution)? I won't be crushed if
> > everyone loved them despite my jeremiads - I'd like to hear!
>
>
> With CHOSES SECRETES, I think he's expressing some pretty simple
ideas in a=
> n
> extremely convoluted way. Sometimes for its 2 1/2 hour runtime, I
enjoyed t=
> he ride.
> The end is great. A little after Rotterdam I talked to the
distributor here=
> in States who
> picked it up. She said, "Yeah, we just thought it was so cool and
sexy..." =
> Sexy? Sure.
> But I can imagine it confusing more people than, you know, turning
them on.=
>
> Gabe
8938
From:
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:10pm
Subject: Bogdanovich's Sopranos episode
I just watched the latest "Sopranos" episode, "Sentimental Education,"
directed by Peter Bogdanovich. I haven't been following this season (or last) of
the series too closely, so I didn't get all of the plot points and character
relations. But I was able to appreciate the episode on a formal level. It's
very Bogdanovich in its look - there's a striking example of montage in the
opening sequence where Steve Buscemi's character trips outside. Later on, there's
some memorable cross-cutting between Tony Soprano standing in a doorway in
darkness and his wife in the kitchen. Cross-cutting is, indeed, fundamental to
Bogdanovich's cinema; sometimes his scenes have the feeling of "stopping in
time" as he gives us silent close-up shots of his characters looking and
reacting.
All in all, a first-class episode. I can't compare it to the standard of the
rest of this season, but I'd be surprised if it isn't one of the best in
terms of movie-ness.
Peter
8939
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:14am
Subject: Re: The Passion of the Christ
My take on THE PASSION is that (pardon me for those who've already
heard me say it) it's basically the Rodney King video starring Jesus,
shot in super slo-mo. I found the film bad at really all levels, and
worse, not even remotely religious. The whole profoundness of the Word
being made Flesh (as detailed in Augustine's Confessions and I'm sure
many great religious works) is just the word made bloody, pulverized meat.
Of course my big surprise with THE PASSION came later, when I
discovered (through Mike Kuchar's lengthy quotation in a recent video)
that the comparisons to super hardcore gay S/M in the press weren't at
all hyperbolic. The stuff in the Kuchar video was the closest match to
THE PASSION I've seen, though Gibson doesn't include the penis
electrocution, though I'm sure he would have claimed it's in the
Gospels if he had.
Patrick
8940
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 2:29am
Subject: Re: The Passion of the Christ, Brisseau
Yes, but Gibson would have written / filmed it this way regardless...
The Passion of the Christ according to Mel Gibson.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> I trust you're aware of the fact that this film is NOT
> based on the "New Testament" but the hysterical
> ravings and "visions" of a bi-polar anti-semitic nun
> named Anne-Marie Emmerich.
8941
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:17am
Subject: Re: Re: The Passion of the Christ
You've described it perfectly: Rodney King + Gay S&M.
--- Patrick Ciccone wrote:
> My take on THE PASSION is that (pardon me for those
> who've already
> heard me say it) it's basically the Rodney King
> video starring Jesus,
> shot in super slo-mo. I found the film bad at really
> all levels, and
> worse, not even remotely religious. The whole
> profoundness of the Word
> being made Flesh (as detailed in Augustine's
> Confessions and I'm sure
> many great religious works) is just the word made
> bloody, pulverized meat.
>
> Of course my big surprise with THE PASSION came
> later, when I
> discovered (through Mike Kuchar's lengthy quotation
> in a recent video)
> that the comparisons to super hardcore gay S/M in
> the press weren't at
> all hyperbolic. The stuff in the Kuchar video was
> the closest match to
> THE PASSION I've seen, though Gibson doesn't include
> the penis
> electrocution, though I'm sure he would have claimed
> it's in the
> Gospels if he had.
>
> Patrick
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
8942
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:42am
Subject: Brisseau, O'Haver
> Also, what did people think of the Brisseaus in NY (and elsewhere,
> since Secret Things is in distribution)? I won't be crushed if
> everyone loved them despite my jeremiads - I'd like to hear!
I caught only a few, but I'm not sold on the guy. SECRET THINGS kind of
reminded me of a deMille film in its open prurience and its
what-you-see-is-what-you-get visual style. I didn't know what to make
of its rather odd romanticism about the forces of evil, and I'm not
convinced that Brisseau is smarter than the film sounds. UN JEU BRUTAL
was more interesting: something about the way it looked was kind of
compelling. But again, it's lurid and romanticized, and seemed kind of
soft-headed. I saw SOUND AND FURY years ago, and didn't care for it,
but can't remember why.
Caught the second half of ELLA ENCHANTED tonight (after fleeing THE GIRL
NEXT DOOR), and am interested enough to see the first half. Unlike
Brisseau, O'Haver seems to know that his subject matter is kind of dorky
- at the very least, he has a nice light touch, even with effect-laden
sequences. - Dan
8943
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 4:21pm
Subject: Re: The Passion of the Christ, Brisseau
I was going to write an essay for sensesofcinema tentatively
titled "Thirteen Ways of Looking at THE PASSION" but I missed the
deadline. But here's a link to my most salient thoughts on the movie:
http://us.imdb.com/board/bd0000010/thread/6730905?d=6859927#6859927
As a bonus here's my wife's take which is more focused on scriptural
accuracy and the socio-religous aspects of the film (she's a seminary
graduate). She's more or less in line with David and George's angle:
http://us.imdb.com/board/bd0000010/thread/6730905
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Has anyone besides David, me and M. C. seen this film? I'm curious
to
> know other reactions.
>
> Also, what did people think of the Brisseaus in NY (and elsewhere,
> since Secret Things is in distribution)? I won't be crushed if
> everyone loved them despite my jeremiads - I'd like to hear!
8944
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 5:00pm
Subject: Re: The Passion
Thanks Kevin. Patrick, what Kuchar video? Is it specifically aimed at
The Passion?
8945
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 5:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Passion of the Christ, Brisseau
From Kevin Lee's IMDB posting: "(I think this is the
Jesus movie Scorsese in his deepest groin of hearts
was dying to make before he decided to go the highbrow
route with the Kazanzakis novel)."
I think not. That's not how he views the story at all.
And as for extremes of violence consider the climax of
"Casino."
--- Kevin Lee wrote:
8946
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 5:38pm
Subject: Re: The Passion
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Thanks Kevin. Patrick, what Kuchar video? Is it specifically aimed at
> The Passion?
It's not aimed at THE PASSION--I can't remember the title, but Kuchar
showed it at the Millenium Film Workshop's open screening a couple
weeks, which he was projecting. The first two-thirds it is male
beefcake (starting with a Calvin Klein model on the giant painted ad
across from the Gaseteria on Houston St.); then it abruptly shifts
into the S/M stuff. Kuchar does funny stuff like heart dissolves with
video FX software.
I wonder if the core evangelical (as well as Catholic) audience would
think if they knew THE PASSION was actually part of the homosexual
agenda!
PWC
8947
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 5:59pm
Subject: Passion Parodies
I haven't seen the Kuchar video and I haven't seen the Gibson film.
But there was an episode of SOUTH PARK last week in which the boys
see the movie. Cartman is devoted to the film and has seen it
repeatedly, eventually heading up a Mel Gibson fan club and neo-Nazi
group that goes on an anti-Semitic march through the town. Kyle, the
Jewish kid, is overwhelmed with emotion and guilt over the film, much
to the horror of his parents. Stan and Kenny see the film together
and Stan is horrified although in a different way from his
friends: "Dude, this movie sucks ass." (or words to that effect)
Stan and Kenny go to Hollywood to get their money back from Mel
Gibson personally but Gibson (a cartoon body with a photo of Gibson's
head stuck on top of it) turns out to be a total wacko, his home
filled with sado-masochistic equipment, who refuses to refund the
boys their money.
8948
From:
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 6:00pm
Subject: Re: The Passion
There are some strange aspects to the marketing and box office of "The
Passion". Articles often attribute the box office success of the film to promotion
by church groups. Actually, Christian organzations (both Evangelical and
Catholic) have been making films for decades, usually to very small box office
returns. Billy Graham has a whole film production company, for example, that has
made many feature length fictional films. All of these films tend to be mainly
promoted through church oreganizations. They are rarely reviewed by regular
reviewers (eg Time, Newsweek, NY Times, etc) Rarely have any made more than tiny
dents in the box office. This is the main reason that Hollywood studios did
not want to fund the Gibson film - the last big religious box office smash was
"The Greatest Story Ever Told" (George Stevens, 1965).
Currently an Evangelical group has finished a literal film version of the
Gospel of St. John, with Christopher Plummer as narrator. It is reverent, literal
treatment of the Gospel narrative. If it makes more that a small box office
showing, I'll be astonished.
There is clearly something very different about "The Passion", something that
is causing it to be a record-breaking box office film.
When moviegoers are interviewed in newspapers, to the last man and woman,
they all say the same thing. They are there because "The Passion" is a religious
experience.
BUT: statistics show that these same moviegoers have been staying away in
droves, from the Christian films made over the last thirty years. If they have
been looking for a religious experience at the movies, they just started to look
last Ash Wednesday.
When I recommend Bresson's "Diary of a Country Priest" to non-cinephile
acquaintances, they usually look at me as if I were crazy. "Why would I want to see
that?" they tend to say.
I do not have any rigorous explanation for "The Passion"'s box office
success. Or why it has apparently caused more enthusiasm among many clergymen than
any other of the hundreds of religious films made.
One would think that its anti-Semitism, lack of fidelity to the Bible, and
extreme gore would give religious people pause.
Mike Grost
8949
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Apr 12, 2004 10:22pm
Subject: Re: The Passion
> Actually, Christian organzations (both Evangelical and
> Catholic) have been making films for decades, usually to very small
> box office returns. Billy Graham has a whole film production company,
> for example, that has made many feature length fictional films. All
> of these films tend to be mainly promoted through church
> oreganizations. They are rarely reviewed by regular reviewers (eg
> Time, Newsweek, NY Times, etc) Rarely have any made more than tiny
> dents in the box office.
The most recent, well-known examples of this include THE OMEGA CODE
and CARMAN: THE CHAMPION, but I took a summer course at NYU on the
disaster film, and the instructor, J. Hoberman, introduced us to one
of the most successful (but paradoxically, one of the least-known)
evangelical films, A THIEF IN THE NIGHT (1972), a low-budget, literal,
B-movie-ish account of the end of the world, LEFT BEHIND-style. (We
only saw an excerpt, fortunately.) Through repeated rentals by church
groups over the thirty years since it was made, Hoberman said that the
film has grossed many millions of dollars - but it isn't listed in
"USA All-Time Box Office Grosses" because it didn't make money the
normal way, i.e. in theaters or at Blockbuster.
A THIEF IN THE NIGHT
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0149695/combined
In the age of straight-to-video movies, a movie like THIEF is likely
to find viewers through different channels. In fact, a
made-for-video, uh, film called APOCALYPSE: CAUGHT IN THE EYE OF THE
STORM was made in 1998 (undoubtedly inspired by the success of the
LEFT BEHIND novel and sequels; the film adaptation of which came
later). Hoberman also screened an excerpt from APOCALYPSE, which
looked to be just as terrible as THIEF, but in a late-1990s shitty
straight-to-video style, rather than an early-1970s shitty B-movie style.
Video websites that sell these two movies, like Amazon.com, will
likely link to more tapes and DVDs of movies in the same vein.
-Jaime
8950
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 0:45am
Subject: A few dispassionate points on The Passion
1. Given the profoundly masochistic nature of the Christian faith,
there is nothing surprising about seeing a connection between the
treatment inflicted to Christ (in Gibson's film, inter alia) and
sexual sado-masochistic practices. The sado-masochism may or may not
be Gibson's, but it comes with the territory.
2. I went to the trouble of re-reading all four Gospels concerning
the Passion. Most everything in the film is a quotation and/or
development of material in those texts -- at least the synoptic ones
(John is much soberer, says nothing of the scourging etc...) Of
course Gibson emphasizes the torture beyong reason (and "good taste",
if you will) but it's all there to be tapped for cinematic value.
So why is everybody screaming "betrayal of the Bible"? As though,
moreover, the Gospels where anything more than fantasized pseudo-
history and propaganda in the first place.
3. As the only member of this group (apparently), and among film
cognoscenti (assuming I qualify as one) who did NOT hate the film, I
am rather saddened (although not entirely surprised) by the fact that
absolutely no one has been discussing it as a film (movie), as a
visual experience, everybody concentrating on claims of anti-
semiticism, excessive violence and unfaithfullness to the Book -- all
largely irrelevant.
4. To me the film is certainly not a religious experience (I am
an agnostic, if anything) but I can't blame anybody who experiences
it as one (varieties of religious experience...) and I don't see how
it proves anything against -- or for -- the film.
5. I might not have bothered to see the movie except that I was
asked to review it (and then it transpired that I was supposed to
hate it, so I didn't review it after all). But I'm glad I did see it;
it was a worthwhile cinematic experience. And I am glad I didn't have
to write about it and bend over backward trying to convince readers
that I am not anti-semitic (or a Sado-Masochist).
JPC
8951
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 1:19am
Subject: Re: The Passion
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
"Currently an Evangelical group has finished a literal film version
of the Gospel of St. John, with Christopher Plummer as narrator. It
is reverent, literal treatment of the Gospel narrative. If it makes
more that a small box office showing, I'll be astonished."
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN opened and closed in Los Angeles earlier
this year. It had a three hour plus running time. This same
organization intends to film the other three gospels in the same
manner. I didn't see the movie but read an article in the LA Times
about it and the plans for the other gospel movies. Evidently the
producers planned limited theatrical releases in various domestic and
international venues before sending it to video where they expect to
earn most of their money in the Christian entertainment market.
"I do not have any rigorous explanation for "The Passion"'s box
office success. Or why it has apparently caused more enthusiasm among
many clergymen than any other of the hundreds of religious films
made. One would think that its anti-Semitism, lack of fidelity to the
Bible, and extreme gore would give religious people pause."
According to a friend of mine who works in film marketing at Disney
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is regarded as the most successful
marketing phenomenon since THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, so exam the
marketing of the movie starting with the "leaked" screenplay of a
year ago, and then the "study packets" (or press kits) sent to church
organizations, the special screenings for clergy to answer charges of
inaccuracy and Jew hatred, and free media coverage of the ensuing
controversy. Maybe people would go to see DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST
if it was sold as relentlessly as THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.
As to the movie itself, it reminded me of a Hammer movie called CAMP
ON BLOOD ISLAND with Michael Ripper in yellow face as a sadistic
Japanese guard who whips and tortures British prisoners to death.
The masochism already mentioned by many other people in this group
also relates to certain Hammer movies in which male characters are
tortured in movies like PIRATES OF BLOOD RIVER, or the scene in
BRIDES OF DRACULA where Peter Cushing applies a hot iron to his
throat to cleanse the vampire bite.
The scenes involving Satan were by far the weakest in the movie,
especially the last shot of Satan in a hell-pit shrieking as her wig
blows off (Bill noted that this shot follows one of Caiaphas
lamenting the damage to the Temple.) Had it not been so successful
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST would probably be relegated to the
category of "incredibly strange films," a grind-house curiosity.
Richard
8952
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:54am
Subject: Re: The Passion
Comparisons to church-networked straight-to-videos have limited
validity. This is a Hollywood movie in terms of the means deployed,
although the $25 million is very low for Hollywood these days. (Not
because of unions, as the bosses would have it, but because of
salaries in the tens of millions collected not only by stars but by
producers, as numerous as locusts on big films. End of digression.) I
assume there was also a considerable budget add-on for prints (2500)
and advertising, which those nameless preaching-to-the-converted
films also couldn't begin to command.
But you can multiply the bang of whatever the ad budget was by 50
because of the publicity factor. The Passion is a classic "event
sell." Event selling demands controversy and content, both of which
this has. Coppola could event-sell Apocalypse Now because it was
about something; the same approach failed w. One from the Heart,
because it wasn't. Millions of pens must spill oceans of ink to make
an event. That happened here, inspiring The Jewish Journal, on their
joke cover pre-Purim, to show Gibson holding an Oscar and thanking
the ADL.
After that comes what grabs people in the audience watching it. A big
topic, and the most important. Obviouly it's the violence combined
with the religious message. More analysis needed there. No critic
expected this degree of success after seeing it, as far as I know.
Ideological bottom line: Richard confirms that Gibson intercuts
Caiphas and Satan lamenting at the end. That simply can't be an
innocent cut. I'm amazed that, given that cut, the film's anti-
Semitism is even in question. Jew-Satan, Satan-Jew. We know how film
language works, at least on that simple level.
Then come the esthetic questions. The 40 minutes I saw weren't bad
filmmaking; they were somewhat clumsy filmmaking redeemed by three
boldly imaginative ideas: the Bert I. Gordon teardrop, the high-angle
shot of Her Satanic Majesty in Hell, and the Resurrection. I wonder
if any of Gibson's director friends consulted on this one. He could
have talked to some smart ones: Miller, Shamalyan, Weir. On the other
hand, if the three ideas I mentioned are his, he has some flair for
the artform - and he's anti-Semitic.
There is an added ideological twist: Michael Moore told an indie film
group in North Carolina last week that Gibson pulled out of financing
Fahrenheit 9/11 because of a call from the White House. That doesn't
make The Passion good, bad or indiferent, but it does mean that it
was caught in a bigger scheme of things even before it came out. The
outcry about anti-Semitism was just getting rolling when Gibson
pulled out of the Moore documentary, which he had agreed to produce.
The timing could be completely coincidental, although it didn't seem
that way to me at the time, before there was good reason to think
that the e-mail campaign was, basically, right, which it was. I
assumed that yet another boring Jesus film was being jumped on by a
lot of hotheads and/or dittoheads -- something the Republicans
certainly know how to exploit. But as I said, the timing could be
simply explained by the fact that the protests started not long after
the Time Magazine making-of story appeared. It all happened at the
same time: the Oscars, where Moore was booed; the announcement of
F9/11 with Gibson producing; the Time story; the flood of e-mails in
response to it; and the call from the White House -- all within a
span of maybe four weeks.
Of course we know that Gibson is a conspiracy theorist - in fact,
that point and his sponsorship of F9/11 were mentioned in the "Dear
Friend" e-mail I got advocating a boycott of The Passion on April 4,
2003. (Moore, however, has said repeatedly that he isn't pushing a
conspiracy theory in F9/11.) Anyone know how I can get in touch with
Michael Moore? I'd like some clarification about what happened, and
when.
8953
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:12am
Subject: Re: The Passion
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Comparisons to church-networked straight-to-videos have limited
> validity. This is a Hollywood movie in terms of the means deployed,
> although the $25 million is very low for Hollywood these days.
Agreed, but it seems like the way grass-roots Christianity made the
film a sky-high success overlaps the grass-roots-Christian style of
distribution that makes some smaller films (like THE OMEGA CODE) into
hits.
The comparison may be limited, but I think it's extremely interesting
that there was (and there still remains) this whole "alternative"
cinema based purely on religion and religious institutions, rather
than celebrity drawing power, special effects, Oscar prestige, or even
conventional distribution.
-Jaime
8954
From:
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 3:38pm
Subject: Agnès Varda
Agnès Varda: Notes on some films.
Sans toit ni loi / Vagabond (1985) is a fiction film, about a woman who wanders tramp-like through the South of France. The film has ties to other Varda works. The film recalls Cléo de 5 à 7: both are films about a woman in crisis, who wanders through an area of France (Paris in Cléo de 5 à 7, the countryside around Nîmes here), while contemplating the problems in her life. Both films are full of shots of mirrors, which tend to be far more cloudy and less reflective in this later work. The film also looks forward to The Gleaners and I, in its documentary like look at life and agriculture in the countryside. Varda is deeply interested in the science and engineering involved with agriculture and food production in both films. The scientist character here, Prof. Landrier, is one of the most realistic and detailed looks at a scientist in recent fictional films.
Varda has links to Neorealism. Like the Neorealists, she often shows the lives of non-wealthy people, including their work activities. She also includes much about science, technology and industry, also like the Neorealists. While the people in Varda's film are financially of modest means, they tend not to be "typical" or "ordinary". Instead, their positions in society, jobs, and personal technical skills tend to be highly individualized.
Sans toit ni loi also recalls Robert Bresson's Au Hasard, Balthazar (1966). Both films are structured around a central character; both protagonists keep encountering a series of other people in the backgrounds on the films, whose developing stories we also follow. Both films are set in the French countryside, and offer a great diversity of different kinds of country life and activities. Both films focus relentlessly on human corruption, failings and cruelty, offering a dark picture of tragedy due to dreadful human weaknesses and moral failings. Varda's work is more systematically feminist than Bresson's, although Bresson has his feminist moments, too. Bresson's donkey hero is more purely innocent than Varda's human wanderer, who has a full share of faults of her own. Sans toit ni loi / Vagabond has shots of goats, just as Bresson's film was full of sheep and the donkey. The goats here, and the farmers who raise them, form an image of decency in Varda's film that is an alternative to the corruption around them.
Like The Gleaners and I, this film is full of shots of fields. Varda gets compositional mileage out of the rows of plants in the fields, which often stretch in straight lines through the frame. The plants themselves are prominently featured, especially grape vines (Vitis) and plane trees (Plantanus). The care of these two plants forms a major part of the plot of the film. While The Gleaners and I takes place in a lush harvest season, and features bright colors, this film is set in winter. Varda adjusts her palette to concentrate on hues that have a lot of white mixed in with them. This gives a consistently white, pale and winter like aspect to the color harmonies of this film. As usual with Varda, the colors are planned out to the smallest detail. The Gleaners and I also focuses on food plants, plants that are of positive benefit to humanity. By contrast, much of Sans toit ni loi / Vagabond looks at grapes and wine making. The heroine and most of the people she meets are obsessed with smoking, wine, alcohol and drugs. As the goat farmer she meets warns, the road people here are on a terrible downward spiral leading to alcoholism. This is a look at a very dark industry, that of wine production, and Varda shows alcohol's hellish consequences for humanity. The wine festival that concludes the film leads directly to the heroine's death. It has a nightmarish quality. The telephone booth attack at the wine festival here recalls the attack on Tippi Hendren in the phone booth in Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds (1963). Varda's finale is one of cinema's most terrifying scenes.
Both films include looks at fungi, treated as an image of sinister decay. In Sans toit ni loi / Vagabond, this is the fungus that attacks the plane trees; in The Gleaners and I, it is the dry rot that is attacking Varda's house.
Varda is full of interest in the local buildings here, especially those associated with agriculture.
Composition
The film shows Varda's interest in walls. These walls tend to be brilliantly colored, colors which greatly contribute to the color schemes of the shots as a whole. The walls also tend to be textured. Outdoor walls can be full of ribbing, or topped with ornamentation. One can feel their rich surface texture. Indoor walls tend to be covered here with elaborate wall papers, also contributing color, form and texture to the shots. Sternberg and his disciple Mizoguchi also frequently employed rich wall patterns in their films, but unlike Varda, they only rarely had a chance to work in color. Varda often shoots walls straight on, so that the wall is parallel to the plane of the shot. This film is full of lateral tracking shots along the walls, which tend to move from right to left here. Varda also includes pans that resemble lateral tracks - she is quite willing to settle for a simpler-to-set-up panning shot, if it keeps almost parallel to a wall, and resembles a lateral track.
Varda's compositions often contrast triangles, with strong verticals and horizontals. The triangles are lying flat on their longest side, with diagonal lines rising up to a peak above. The first shot of the film has some triangular mounds in it. Throughout the film, such triangles are formed by roofs of buildings in the background of shots; by staircases leading on diagonal lines down from buildings; by the sloping front ends of vans and cars; by triangularly stacked mountains of white sacks; by a triangularly shaped bench at the bus terminal; and by other structures as well. Such triangles and their diagonal lines are almost always contrasted in the frame by a series of strong verticals and horizontals. Often times, the triangles are in one region of the frame, the verticals and horizontals in another. There is even a triangle combined with a circle on the back of a man's leather jacket.
Some complex shots in the film have a recursive quality. When we see a long shot of the heroine standing on a bridge, there are a series of vertical/straight line combinations, each nested inside the other. The outermost one consists of the bridge and a pole on the left of the screen. Within this, in the lower right corner of the screen, is a nested series of power lines. Each one is framed within the bigger one wrapped around it. They are all nested within each other list a series of Russian dolls. Such a recursive effect is dazzling on the screen. The lower left corner has a series of contrasting triangles, created by buildings. These form a visually fascinating contrast, creating a balance on the screen between two kinds of visual shapes.
Another recursively composed shot: the view of the elderly Lydie, through a series of doors. The shot is full of furniture with spiraling borders: a most unusual and complex shape. The dark spirals in the wood are near green door frames. One combination of green door frame with wooden spirals close inside in turn contains another green door frame with wooden spirals within it. The effect is complex and dazzling: green, spiral, space, green, spiral, space, Lydie.
Even when the frame is not recursively composed, Varda likes to include repeated structures and objects within the frame. If there is one arched hut in the vine field, there will be at least two. It there is one hill or tree in a shot, there might be a second one. The opening shot contrast a big tree with a little tree beside it. Such a change of scale is frequently seen in Varda's repeating structures and objects. They tend to be of all different sizes. This is different from Robert Mulligan, a director who also likes repeating architectural elements; Mulligan's all tend to be of the same size. The repeating patterns in Varda's wallpapers also add to this effect. Frequently there are just not two or three repeating objects in a frame; there might be dozens, which Varda has grouped into some interesting geometric pattern.
Costumes
Sans toit ni loi / Vagabond (1985) was shot in the middle of the 1980's era of MTV, punk-inspired fashion. Like Richard Tuggle's Out of Bounds (1986), it forms a record of the fashions that were popular among young people of the era. Both films have a glamorous but slightly menacing man in black leather pants. Varda also includes the Mohawk-inspired hair styles for men, and painted leather jackets. This side of the film is especially featured in the bus terminal sequence. The boyfriend at the chateau also wears the skinny tie and brightly colored sports jacket that were big at the time. Cléo de 5 à 7 was full of the female fashions of the era, including a trip to a hat shop. Here it is the spectacular men's clothes of the 80's that get center stage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Les Glaneurs et la glaneuse (The Gleaners and I)
The Gleaners and I shows Varda's personal sense of color. Scenes show the bright, brilliant colors that are today called neon. Varda is unafraid to mix several bright colors. The vibrating color harmonies that are produced can be spectacular. The other filmmaker that one associates with neon colors is Storm De Hirsch: see, for example, her Peyote Queen (1965). Like Varda, De Hirsch was an independent woman filmmaker who pursued a non-standard vision through her works.
Varda often constructs her scenes through strong vertical lines. Such lines are found outdoors in fences, building and trucks. These lines tend to bound regions of glowing color. At the base of the image tend to be horizontal regions, parts of the ground, grass and sidewalks.
In principle, everyone knows about farms. In practice, most modern people in industrialized countries have little first hand experience with farms. Varda takes her camera to many actual farming locations. It is fascinating to see what a potato or cabbage farm actually looks like - it is subtly different from what one might expect. The commercial oyster beds Varda displays are also visually fascinating. Recently, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer went to the Land of Lakes dairy processing facility in Central California for a report (2001). The huge plant looked utterly unlike anything I might have imagined, and the report is a mini-classic at showing a world we have never seen. One also recalls Lawrence G. Blochman's Recipe for Homicide (1952), a mystery novel with a background of industrial food processing. This is a whole invisible world. Varda is on to something different and important here.
Varda is into her echoing effects. A striking shot has Varda as a gleaner on the left, imitating Jules Breton's painting of a gleaner on the right. Varda is smaller than the painting, so the familiar change of scale in Varda's repeating objects is present. The two rectangles of the painting and the rug in front of which Varda stands make interestingly arranged rectangles on the screen. A wrought iron raining below adds a third rectangle to the composition.
The people interviewed by Varda tend to wear clothes that match the backgrounds. If someone is in a field full of yellow, they wear a bright yellow sweatshirt. The two men after the potato harvest who talk about the return of gleaning wear blue clothes, matching the blue trucks behind them. The man in front of the gray silos wears a gray sweater. Not only does its color match, but its texture recalls the ribbed silos behind him. The silos have conical roofs, that recall Varda's love of triangles. These triangles are contrasted Varda-style with the horizontal line running between the silos, and their vertical sides. And of course their are two solos: Varda loves repeating structures.
Varda is fascinated by the brilliant red potato sorting machinery. This is full of repeating lines. The potatoes pour through. The Gleaners and I is full of motion. It celebrates life, and is more dynamic than the frozen winter footage of Sans toit ni loi / Vagabond. When the first truck dumps the potatoes, we see a composition that includes both the rectangles of the truck, and three matching trapezoids: the mound of potatoes below the truck, a trapezoidal structure on the top of the truck, and a car in the upper right corner. The three trapezoids, the strong rectangles formed by the rest of the truck, and motion of the potatoes form a striking composition. Once again, Varda shoots dead on, building up a 2D image out of strong geometric regions, creatively arranged.
The fields full of potatoes also make striking compositions. The potatoes are some of Varda's "repeating objects". Here they occur in great quantities, by the hundreds. Varda likes to make images of such objects arranged into complex patterns.
8955
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:31pm
Subject: Trafic: a success!
Today I talked to the NYU librarian in charge of all fine arts
materials, Pamela Bloom, and my 20-second pitch for a Trafic
subscription worked splendidly. It may take several months to get
approved by the committee, but she thinks there's practically no
chance the subscription (plus the buying of all back issues to '91)
would be turned down. I have a film-enthusiast contact at Yale's
library, and have asked him to see if he can do the same thing
(assuming they don't have Trafic either).
--Zach
8956
From: Hadrian
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:32pm
Subject: Re: The Passion
Ahh...."Thief in the Night". I have seen this film, and it was easily
the best of the "Christploitation" films I looked in that strange
viewing phase. It's 16mm, and shot on location in Des Moines,
Idaho, I think. Very ambitious low-budget affair, with lots of
different set-up and community theatre actors. It looks like an
early Romero film (it's even a post-apocalypse tale). As an
exploitation film i's pretty effective, and boasts a theme song by
some Christian hippies, "The Fishmarket Combo", that's pretty
haunting. They harmonize over a throbbing organ, about the
revelation. (lyrics about "children trampled on the floor", and "Are
You Ready?").
It's the beginning of a Quadrology, but the other 3 are pretty
weak, though bigger budget. Typical.
Oddly, I can confirm it's populaity by the repeated recognition of
friends who had Christian upbringings. Often, as I described the
film, they would suddenly light up with recognition: I saw that in
summer camp!
Another memorable Christian independent production I saw was
a film called "Ordinary Guy", which had a corpse vaulting out of a
grave to heaven --an effect they got by dropping a dummy from a
plane, and then runnig the film backwards.
But easily the wildest Christian exploitation films I've seen were
the ones by the Ormonds, a husband and wife team who started
their career making the most psychotronic of drive-in flicks (in
fact the single longest entty in Michael Weldon's Psychotronic
Film Guide, is devoted to their "Exotic Ones"), but somehow
transitioned to harnessing their skills for God. I know there's
supposed to be a bunch of them, but the only one I've found was
"The Grim Reaper". Easily as insane as Gibson's film, but
sweeter, and thankfully less popular.
8957
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 6:42pm
Subject: Re: Trafic: a success!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
> Today I talked to the NYU librarian in charge of all fine arts
> materials, Pamela Bloom, and my 20-second pitch for a Trafic
> subscription worked splendidly. It may take several months to get
> approved by the committee, but she thinks there's practically no
> chance the subscription (plus the buying of all back issues to '91)
> would be turned down. I have a film-enthusiast contact at Yale's
> library, and have asked him to see if he can do the same thing
> (assuming they don't have Trafic either).
>
> --Zach
That's wonderful, Zach. I hopey our example will inspire others.
8958
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 7:33pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trafic: a success!/Wiseman - "Welfare"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
> wrote:
> Today I talked to the NYU librarian in charge of all fine arts
> materials, Pamela Bloom, and my 20-second pitch for a Trafic
> subscription worked splendidly. It may take several months to get
> approved by the committee, but she thinks there's practically no
> chance the subscription (plus the buying of all back issues to '91)
> would be turned down. I have a film-enthusiast contact at Yale's
> library, and have asked him to see if he can do the same thing
> (assuming they don't have Trafic either).
That's surprising that they don't carry the magazine. Over
here at UC Irvine and San Diego they've subscribed for years.
Aren't some of the issues (especially #1 and #2) out of print
though?
Speaking of New York, does anyone know anything about this
opera adaptation of Wiseman's "Welfare" going on at the Walter
Reade? I'm very curious.
8959
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:09pm
Subject: Re: Trafic: a success!/Wiseman - "Welfare"
>Does anyone know anything about this
> opera adaptation of Wiseman's "Welfare" going on at the
Walter
> Reade? I'm very curious.
Hardly surprising - Kent Jones, who programs that theatre,
considers Wiseman to be America's greatest filmmaker.
Sounds like fun!
8960
From: Paul Fileri
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:28pm
Subject: Re: Trafic: a success!
Zach, then Bill:
> > Today I talked to the NYU librarian in charge of all fine arts
> > materials, Pamela Bloom, and my 20-second pitch for a Trafic
> > subscription worked splendidly. It may take several months to get
> > approved by the committee, but she thinks there's practically no
> > chance the subscription (plus the buying of all back issues to '91)
> > would be turned down.
>
> That's wonderful, Zach. I hopey our example will inspire others.
It has. Inspired by Zach's valiant salesmanship, I will see about
Columbia's library, since they do not carry it.
- Paul
8961
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:30pm
Subject: la truite
I just finished watching, for the first time in about two decades,
Losey's extraordinary film LA TRUITE, now on DVD. In the limited
amount of literature on Losey I have I was surprised to discover how
badly the film was received on its initial release, both here and in
France, contempt coming not only from the expected sources (Canby,
Kael) but also from Sarris and CAHIERS. Does anyone know if POSITIF
was more favorably disposed towards the film or did they follow suit
as well? Did Ciment review it? Also, has any interesting writing and
reappraisal been done on the film since its release? (I know Deleuze
was a fan of the film and there are interesting passing references to
it in The Movement-Image.)
8962
From: Andy Rector
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 10:32pm
Subject: belated description of Gehr's latest
On March 15th several recent works by Gehr were shown at the RedCat
theater in Los Angeles. I apologize up front for the scrapiness of my
notes.
The Collector:
old photographs, shot with a digital camera, edited with differing,
but not shocking, rhythms. The time period and location of the
photographs is not clear, one guesses they're early 20th century. The
compositions and situations of the photographs vary: sometimes street
scenes, sometimes decentered tourist-like shots, sometimes portraits,
sometimes blurred accidental close ups, sometimes mundane corners,
mostly outdoor shots. A clear theme or narrative is avoided. Silent,
then about a quarter of the way through, only the sound of a train is
heard for the remainder, making, it seems, one stop and then
continuing. There is a poiniance to it, though it lacks nostalgia. It
is half remembered as sentimental, however. The other half, a study of
space detached from theme, order. The period and the train sounds do
bring longing into the picture, that is, if one indulges in the
cliches of the period. It is not a work meant to dispell anything. It
is honest work. The collector is Gehr, photographs collected from
photo fairs. I'm not sure of the date of the video, possibly 2003.
Passage:
I'm not sure of the date on this 16mm film either, though I scrawled
2003. Gehr explained however that the footage was shot at a friends
urging in 1999, I believe, in Berlin, the former East Berlin, upon his
overwhelming personal reaction to the place . Intercut left to right,
right to left tracking shots from an elevated train looking down onto
a small street, over buildings, back and forth, again with only train
sounds. There is a brief static shot of the rainy street amongst all
the velocity of the opposing directions of the tracking shots. Another
static shot, somewhat like a reverse shot, of the train quickly
passing from a stop, staccato squares with the light behind the
windows. A certain dynamism of old all about the film. There is
memory, shots are repeated. A cornering, not quite a wash.
Glider:
A glide over distorted, refracted images of the sea, the shore, and
the hills and establishments around it, soaring above in a birds eye
view.
A Lucretian film. It begins with the water which looks at the same
time like a puddle and an ocean. Then a wider shot soaring over the
beach, and a costal highway with tiny cars seen. It all looks like a
model set-- an effect partly due to the stringy, uneven glide. In
movement it's like Mephisto and Faust's cloak-ride over the model of a
European landscape in Murnau's Faust, only it's real! Because of the
warped refraction of the image, the ocean seems to lap over onto
itself like never before seen, an omnidirectional flow. At one point
in the glide the camera seems to clasp to the top/side of a building
and track perfectly parallel with it, looking down towards the ground.
An edge of the world type of image later when it unclasps moving out
over the shore, upside down, to the side, out in the middle of the
ocean... a giant wave... the horizon... a mixed up whirlpool, all at
the same time. I don't want to reveal how Ernie achieved this
refraction, so that anyone reading this can be as fascinated as I was,
Ernie explaining his achievment AFTER the screening.
Throughout one knows this is truely taped, a true phenomena, i.e. not
electronically manipulated (aside from the device for capturing the
light), not programmed...in fact IMPOSSIBLE TO PROGRAM. Were it not
true, it would be reprehensible. Why? Truely videotaped, even the
refracted bent light of a landscape is still light, infinately more
various, beyond anything someone could possibly program or modulate. A
phenomenal video, perhaps the first phenomenal digital video. To
paraphrase Berenice Reynaud: if the ocean is there and Ernie Gehr is
not there to film it, does a wave crash?
Yours,
andy
8963
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:23pm
Subject: Re: la truite
> I just finished watching, for the first time in about two decades,
> Losey's extraordinary film LA TRUITE, now on DVD. In the limited
> amount of literature on Losey I have I was surprised to discover how
> badly the film was received on its initial release, both here and in
> France, contempt coming not only from the expected sources (Canby,
> Kael) but also from Sarris and CAHIERS.
People dis LA TRUITE to this day. I loved it, and wrote a rave review
in the LA Reader when it came out, but haven't seen it since. - Dan
8964
From: programming
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:30pm
Subject: Re: belated description of Gehr's latest
Andy,
Did he show "The Morse Code Operator (or The Monkey Wrench)," which was
listed on the Redcat website, or was "Glider" substituted for that?
Patrick Friel
On 4/13/04 5:32 PM, "Andy Rector" wrote:
> On March 15th several recent works by Gehr were shown at the RedCat
> theater in Los Angeles. I apologize up front for the scrapiness of my
> notes.
>
> The Collector:
> old photographs, shot with a digital camera, edited with differing,
> but not shocking, rhythms. The time period and location of the
> photographs is not clear, one guesses they're early 20th century. The
> compositions and situations of the photographs vary: sometimes street
> scenes, sometimes decentered tourist-like shots, sometimes portraits,
> sometimes blurred accidental close ups, sometimes mundane corners,
> mostly outdoor shots. A clear theme or narrative is avoided. Silent,
> then about a quarter of the way through, only the sound of a train is
> heard for the remainder, making, it seems, one stop and then
> continuing. There is a poiniance to it, though it lacks nostalgia. It
> is half remembered as sentimental, however. The other half, a study of
> space detached from theme, order. The period and the train sounds do
> bring longing into the picture, that is, if one indulges in the
> cliches of the period. It is not a work meant to dispell anything. It
> is honest work. The collector is Gehr, photographs collected from
> photo fairs. I'm not sure of the date of the video, possibly 2003.
>
> Passage:
> I'm not sure of the date on this 16mm film either, though I scrawled
> 2003. Gehr explained however that the footage was shot at a friends
> urging in 1999, I believe, in Berlin, the former East Berlin, upon his
> overwhelming personal reaction to the place . Intercut left to right,
> right to left tracking shots from an elevated train looking down onto
> a small street, over buildings, back and forth, again with only train
> sounds. There is a brief static shot of the rainy street amongst all
> the velocity of the opposing directions of the tracking shots. Another
> static shot, somewhat like a reverse shot, of the train quickly
> passing from a stop, staccato squares with the light behind the
> windows. A certain dynamism of old all about the film. There is
> memory, shots are repeated. A cornering, not quite a wash.
>
> Glider:
> A glide over distorted, refracted images of the sea, the shore, and
> the hills and establishments around it, soaring above in a birds eye
> view.
>
> A Lucretian film. It begins with the water which looks at the same
> time like a puddle and an ocean. Then a wider shot soaring over the
> beach, and a costal highway with tiny cars seen. It all looks like a
> model set-- an effect partly due to the stringy, uneven glide. In
> movement it's like Mephisto and Faust's cloak-ride over the model of a
> European landscape in Murnau's Faust, only it's real! Because of the
> warped refraction of the image, the ocean seems to lap over onto
> itself like never before seen, an omnidirectional flow. At one point
> in the glide the camera seems to clasp to the top/side of a building
> and track perfectly parallel with it, looking down towards the ground.
> An edge of the world type of image later when it unclasps moving out
> over the shore, upside down, to the side, out in the middle of the
> ocean... a giant wave... the horizon... a mixed up whirlpool, all at
> the same time. I don't want to reveal how Ernie achieved this
> refraction, so that anyone reading this can be as fascinated as I was,
> Ernie explaining his achievment AFTER the screening.
>
> Throughout one knows this is truely taped, a true phenomena, i.e. not
> electronically manipulated (aside from the device for capturing the
> light), not programmed...in fact IMPOSSIBLE TO PROGRAM. Were it not
> true, it would be reprehensible. Why? Truely videotaped, even the
> refracted bent light of a landscape is still light, infinately more
> various, beyond anything someone could possibly program or modulate. A
> phenomenal video, perhaps the first phenomenal digital video. To
> paraphrase Berenice Reynaud: if the ocean is there and Ernie Gehr is
> not there to film it, does a wave crash?
>
>
> Yours,
> andy
>
8965
From:
Date: Tue Apr 13, 2004 8:03pm
Subject: Re: Trafic: a success!
Have the folks at Trafic ever conisdered putting back issues on the web? Then
everybody in the world could read them, 24 hours a day.
Mike Grost
8966
From: Andy Rector
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 0:10am
Subject: Re: belated description of Gehr's latest
Unfortunately MORSE CODE OPERATOR wasn't shown, and I'm not sure why.
I think Ernie said there was something wrong with the tape.
I forgot to mention, Ernie's Rear Window was shown. A beautiful
continuation of the the "ghost image" that Farber spoke of over 30
years ago. It is a moulding of light, sometimes like maskings,
diagnols, bursts of color, warm and cold light, prism-like blurs (Gehr
filmed with and without the lens on), sudden blueish clarity of
clothes on clotheslines, wind. Silent. 16mm.
Best,
andy
8967
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:54am
Subject: Re: la truite
I find it a very mixed bag. To start with, when Losey
first concieved the project he planned for Brigitte
Bardot to star. Well Isabelle Huppert is no Brigitte
Bardot. This is a supposed to be a girl whose mere
presence in a room sends all sorts of people into a
tizzy. Had it been Miou-Miou it would have worked.
Still it's a lovely piece of direction, Alexis Smith
does an amazing guest star turn, and Jeanne Moreau
gets to deliver one of my all-time favorite lines:
"Heterosexual, homosexual -- people are either sexual
or they're not!"
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> People dis LA TRUITE to this day. I loved it, and
> wrote a rave review
> in the LA Reader when it came out, but haven't seen
> it since. - Dan
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
8968
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:58am
Subject: Re: Trafic: a success!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Have the folks at Trafic ever conisdered putting back issues on
the web? Then
> everybody in the world could read them, 24 hours a day.
>
> Mike Grost
From what I know of the operations of P.O.L., the publisher that
puts the magazine out, this is very unlikely to happen. The magazine
operates as a labor of love for the three (formerly four) editors.
Only the managing editor gets paid any salary, and the amount of
work that everyone puts into the magazine is already so great that
they simply wouldn't have the time or means to place part of the
contents online. This is a service allotted only to P.O.L.'s books,
excerpts of which are typically run on their web site (pol-
editeur.com, if my memory is correct).
Jonathan
8969
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:26am
Subject: Re: la truite
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> I just finished watching, for the first time in about two decades,
> Losey's extraordinary film LA TRUITE, now on DVD. In the limited
> amount of literature on Losey I have I was surprised to discover
how
> badly the film was received on its initial release, both here and
in
> France, contempt coming not only from the expected sources (Canby,
> Kael) but also from Sarris and CAHIERS.
Actually, Toubiana was kinder in Cahiers than Daney in Liberation -
SD totally panned it, while ST blamed Roger Vailland's novel, which
he thought had aged badly, for what he didn't like and praised JL's
mise en scene in the bowling scene and the scenes in Japan. (He
writes that the Japanese sequences replaced Hollywood in the book,
and speculates what it would have been like for Losey to go back and
use Hollywood as a backdrop. That would've been cool!) You should
find a good review in Positif, where Ciment was a defender of Losey,
as was Louis Seguin, who had liked The Go-Between, for example. The
last films by Losey that got raves in CdC were Secret Ceremony and
Monsieur Klein.
8970
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:05am
Subject: Holt/Corbucci Alert
However specious his stated reasons for picking them, Quentin
Tarantino is showing a rare Seth Holt (Danger Route) and two Sergio
Corbuccis (Navajo Joe, The Professional Gun) on Trio this week.
I wonder if Joseph K - to be referred to hereafter as Seldom Seen -
has discovered any Holt gems in the Danger Man DVDs he ordered a few
months back.
8971
From:
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:39am
Subject: Re: Holt/Corbucci Alert
> However specious his stated reasons for picking them, Quentin
> Tarantino is showing a rare Seth Holt (Danger Route) and two
Sergio
> Corbuccis (Navajo Joe, The Professional Gun) on Trio this week.
>
>
Don't know about the Holt, but I'd highly recommend the Corbuccis.
Spaghetti Western directors who aren't named Sergio Leone generally
tend to wallow in obscurity these days, but if any of them were to
gain some posthumous fame, Corbucci would be at the top of my list.
VAMOS A MATAR COMPANEROS!, and THE GREAT SILENCE are two of the best
examples of the genre (and the latter even features Jean-Louis
Trintignant as a gunfighter!)
8972
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:59am
Subject: Sans toit ni loi
> The actual title is "Sans toit ni loi" (a pun like most of her
> titles).
What's the pun? - Dan
8973
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:00am
Subject: Re: Holt/Corbucci Alert
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
> > However specious his stated reasons for picking them, Quentin
> > Tarantino is showing a rare Seth Holt (Danger Route) and two
> Sergio
> > Corbuccis (Navajo Joe, The Professional Gun) on Trio this week.
I'd also like to recommend "A Professional Gun" aka: "Il Mercenario";
it's my favorite non-Leone spaghetti western, with a very surreal
Mexican stand-off involving Jack Palance, Franco Nero and Tony
Musante - of which I wouldn't divulge details here.
Some other great non-Leone spaghetti western directors are Damiano
Damiani ("A Bullet for the General" is his best work) and Enzo G
Castellari (who is an incredibly nice guy, by the way - he also
made "Inglorious Bastards".)
Incidentally, Tarantino uses a cut from both "Navajo Joe" and "Il
Mercenario" in "Kill Bill, Vol 2"...
-Aaron
8974
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:01am
Subject: Kill Bill 2
From Peter Travers's review of KB in Rolling Stone: Uma Thurman
doesn't get nailed to a cross in Kill Bill Vol. 2, but
writer-director Quentin Tarantino runs her battered character,
called the Bride, through a gauntlet that is gory enough to make
Mel Gibson flinch.
I post this comment because it was my exact sentiment...there's
even an obligatory 'crucifixion' image.
KB2 is remarkable; sustaining tension through all that
Tarantino dialogue is no easy feat.
8975
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:28am
Subject: Re: Re: Holt/Corbucci Alert
The downside to these is that TRIO has commercials and I'd be surprised (but
pleased, of course) if they are letterboxed.
g
Our talk of justice is empty until the
largest battleship has foundered on the
forehead of a drowned man.
--Paul Celan
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 1:39 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Holt/Corbucci Alert
> > However specious his stated reasons for picking them, Quentin
> > Tarantino is showing a rare Seth Holt (Danger Route) and two
> Sergio
> > Corbuccis (Navajo Joe, The Professional Gun) on Trio this week.
> >
> >
>
> Don't know about the Holt, but I'd highly recommend the Corbuccis.
> Spaghetti Western directors who aren't named Sergio Leone generally
> tend to wallow in obscurity these days, but if any of them were to
> gain some posthumous fame, Corbucci would be at the top of my list.
> VAMOS A MATAR COMPANEROS!, and THE GREAT SILENCE are two of the best
> examples of the genre (and the latter even features Jean-Louis
> Trintignant as a gunfighter!)
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
8976
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:58am
Subject: Re: Holt/Corbucci Alert
>I wonder if Joseph K - to be referred to hereafter as Seldom Seen -
>has discovered any Holt gems in the Danger Man DVDs he ordered a few
>months back.
Awaiting a rare evening at home. Maybe a visit by you, Bill, would
encourage me to actually sit and watch them.
--
- Joe Kaufman
8977
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:24pm
Subject: Re: Sans toit ni loi
> > The actual title is "Sans toit ni loi" (a pun like most of her
> > titles).
>
> What's the pun? - Dan
There is no pun -- but it does rhyme. 'Without Roof or Rule.'
cmk.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8978
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:11pm
Subject: new Wal-Mart DVD player edits movies FOR YOU
In the tradition of the term "full-frame," the loveliest irony in this
situation is the name ClearPlay, which is the least appropriate brand
name since, when the software does it duty, it can only cause
pollution, confusion, and static.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=598&ncid=790&e=10&u=/nm/20040413/film_nm/film_walmart_dc
I also like how one of the exempt movies is THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST,
because there's a movie that contains an unbelievable amount of
violence but...it really makes ya think about stuff, don't it?
-Jaime
8979
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:25pm
Subject: Re: A few dispassionate points on The Passion
> 3. As the only member of this group (apparently), and among film
> cognoscenti (assuming I qualify as one) who did NOT hate the film, I
> am rather saddened (although not entirely surprised) by the fact that
> absolutely no one has been discussing it as a film (movie), as a
> visual experience, everybody concentrating on claims of anti-
> semiticism, excessive violence and unfaithfullness to the Book -- all
> largely irrelevant.
People have largely been discussing the film's (and Mel Gibson's)
relationship with the text, a subject that isn't irrelevant in the
least. Perhaps we tend to go off on a tangent at times, but that's okay.
JP, what do you have to say about the film as a visual experience?
Personally, I found it rather boring "as cinema," no subtlety at all
in the images, no artfulness that I was able to appreciate - my
favorite image being of the woman who holds the Shroud of Turin as if
she was doing a product placement. That shot is pretty much
representative of Gibson's directorial style: make sure the people in
the audience get every last little hint, because they're stupid.
I just recently re-watched a Hollywood classic called THE YEARLING,
directed by Clarence Brown. It's not too good and I remember it being
really great (sad to say). One thing that struck me was when Jody has
to shoot the deer, the camera really lingers on his abject horror and
despair, and all of his tears and saliva are brilliantly lit, and the
moment is every bit as pornographic as the violence in THE PASSION.
The difference, of course, is that the deer is off-camera during most
of the scene.
-Jaime
8980
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:28pm
Subject: Re: Sans toit ni loi
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> > > The actual title is "Sans toit ni loi" (a pun like most of her
> > > titles).
> >
> > What's the pun? - Dan
>
> There is no pun -- but it does rhyme. 'Without Roof or Rule.'
>
> cmk.
>
Actually, it is a wordplay - "Sans foi ni loi" is a proverbial
expression in French - maybe a motto on someone's coat of arms? -
meaning "Without faith or law," or roughly: "totally untamed by
society, and believing in nothing" like Bonnaire in the film. Varda
substituted "toit" (=roof) for "foi" since the character is
homeless. "Without Roof or Rule" is a good translation.
Varda does have other punning titles, and of course her husband's
song lyrics are chock full of wordplay in French.
8981
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 3:29pm
Subject: Re: Sans toit ni loi
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> > > The actual title is "Sans toit ni loi" (a pun like most of her
> > > titles).
> >
> > What's the pun? - Dan
>
> There is no pun -- but it does rhyme. 'Without Roof or Rule.'
>
> cmk.
>
Actually, it is a wordplay - "Sans foi ni loi" is a proverbial
expression in French - maybe a motto on someone's coat of arms? -
meaning "Without faith or law," or roughly: "totally untamed by
society, and believing in nothing" like Bonnaire in the film. Varda
substituted "toit" (=roof) for "foi" since the character is
homeless. "Without Roof or Rule" is a good translation.
Varda does have other punning titles, and of course her husband's
song lyrics are chock full of wordplay in French.
8982
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sans toit ni loi
> Actually, it is a wordplay - "Sans foi ni loi" is a proverbial
> expression in French - maybe a motto on someone's coat of arms? -
> meaning "Without faith or law," or roughly: "totally untamed by
> society, and believing in nothing" like Bonnaire in the film.
I wasn't familiar with this phrase -- thanks for pointing it out, Bill!
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8983
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:09pm
Subject: RE: Re: Trafic: a success!
> This is a service allotted only to P.O.L.'s books,
> excerpts of which are typically run on their web site (pol-
> editeur.com, if my memory is correct).
It's actually www.pol-editeur.fr, very close! :)
Does anyone know what happened to "La Lettre du Cinéma"?
Their graphic design was horrendous, but they had some
great content. I treasure the *long* interview with
Biette that they spread out over three issues. P.O.L.
seems to have finally taken down their section after
having left it up for a few years.
Jonathan Takagi
8984
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:41pm
Subject: Re: Trafic: a success!/Wiseman - "Welfare"
> >Does anyone know anything about this
> > opera adaptation of Wiseman's "Welfare" going on at the
> Walter
> > Reade? I'm very curious.
>
> Hardly surprising - Kent Jones, who programs that theatre,
> considers Wiseman to be America's greatest filmmaker.
> Sounds like fun!
There's a notice at the box office that this May event has been canceled, actually. (Apparently it would have been a preview of something the Brooklyn Opera Company is doing.)
There's also an opera based on LOST HIGHWAY making the rounds...
8985
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:01pm
Subject: Re: The Passion
I'm glad you shared your experience in that disaster movie class,
Jaime, and I find it very interesting that you guys spent time on
Christian movies as inclusive of that genre. In fact, one of my
proposed "Thirteen Ways of Looking at THE PASSION" was "THE PASSION
as disaster movie" (along with "THE PASSION as horror movie", "THE
PASSION as a model independent film" and "THE PASSION as
pornography", etc.). But now I think someone like you would be more
qualified to go into this particular line of inquiry.
Still, my whole point in wanting to write the article was because it
had gotten to a point where the discussion on the film had become
unhelpfully narrow and self-contented, whether pro or con. I share
Mike's curiosity as to what exactly contributed to the "perfect
storm" phenomenon that is sweeping THE PASSION into a sure spot in
the all-time box office top ten and I want to see writing that
aspires to elucidating this divine mystery.
Kevin
8986
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:22pm
Subject: Re: A few dispassionate points on The Passion
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> 2. I went to the trouble of re-reading all four Gospels
concerning
> the Passion. Most everything in the film is a quotation and/or
> development of material in those texts -- at least the synoptic
ones
> (John is much soberer, says nothing of the scourging etc...) Of
> course Gibson emphasizes the torture beyong reason (and "good
taste",
> if you will) but it's all there to be tapped for cinematic value.
> So why is everybody screaming "betrayal of the Bible"? As though,
> moreover, the Gospels where anything more than fantasized pseudo-
> history and propaganda in the first place.
Bingo. This is something I've thought about myself, helped along by
my becoming acquainted with the writings of Slavoj Zizek. Zizek is
very useful reading in reflecting on the politics of language and the
language of politics -- and it's worth thinking about how much of the
Gibson-bashing and its implied message to Christian culture at large
is not dissimilar to how the Bush Administration separates the
Islamic world into the "happy, complicit peace-loving Muslim people"
and the "radical, hate-filed fundamentalist evil-doers" -- it's a
power play that attempts to subjugate the Other by disabling its most
potentially potent and dangerous element by using a patronizing
linguistic bait-and-switch. Of course, they have their reasons for
doing so, but it only underscores how much of all this hullaballoo is
a matter of politics.
Still, jp, if the Gospels weren't "anything more than fantasized
pseudo-history and propaganda in the first place" I doubt that we'd
be talking about it 2000 years later...
> 3. As the only member of this group (apparently), and among film
> cognoscenti (assuming I qualify as one) who did NOT hate the film,
I
> am rather saddened (although not entirely surprised) by the fact
that
> absolutely no one has been discussing it as a film (movie), as a
> visual experience, everybody concentrating on claims of anti-
> semiticism, excessive violence and unfaithfullness to the Book --
all
> largely irrelevant.
Sigh. Didn't you see the link I provided to my thread? As of now
it's on my top ten list of 2004 (though 2004 is far from over). I
think it makes a whopper of a double feature with DOGVILLE.
> 4. To me the film is certainly not a religious experience (I am
> an agnostic, if anything) but I can't blame anybody who experiences
> it as one (varieties of religious experience...) and I don't see
how
> it proves anything against -- or for -- the film.
Well, insofar that a "religious experience" can embody pornography,
horror and mortal fear, I would disagree. I think it puts the lusty,
bloodthirsty pagan aspect of Christianity squarely back in focus,
which is rather refreshing. I mean we can't always be as high-minded
as Pasolini...
> 5. I might not have bothered to see the movie except that I was
> asked to review it (and then it transpired that I was supposed to
> hate it, so I didn't review it after all). But I'm glad I did see
it;
> it was a worthwhile cinematic experience. And I am glad I didn't
have
> to write about it and bend over backward trying to convince readers
> that I am not anti-semitic (or a Sado-Masochist).
>
I think you SHOULD DEFINITELY write about it, and not have to answer
to anyone except your own instincts and sense of curiosity. That's
the only way we can expect to get anywhere...
Kevin
8987
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:41pm
Subject: Re: The Passion
Thanks Bill for making that point, that this isn't your run-of-the-
mill Christ movie meant for the straight-to-Sunday-fellowship
market.
> After that comes what grabs people in the audience watching it. A
big
> topic, and the most important. Obviouly it's the violence combined
> with the religious message. More analysis needed there. No critic
> expected this degree of success after seeing it, as far as I know.
I think a big part of it has to do with expectations, the "event-
selling" you were talking about -- if an audience is primed to
receive something a certain way, that lays the groundwork. I think
there were a goodly number of people who were primed to loathe the
film due to the anti-Semitism charges. I know I was.
> Ideological bottom line: Richard confirms that Gibson intercuts
> Caiphas and Satan lamenting at the end. That simply can't be an
> innocent cut. I'm amazed that, given that cut, the film's anti-
> Semitism is even in question. Jew-Satan, Satan-Jew. We know how
film
> language works, at least on that simple level.
But here's the thing -- the Jew-Satan, Satan-Jew associating assuming
that a viewer is already associating Jew-Caiphas, Caiphas-Jew. And
with a number of people I've talked to, this simply isn't the case.
A lot of people just see it in broad generic terms of "he's a bad
man", which they maintain can be someone from anywhere. Caiphas was
Jewish, well he had to be something, they say, but evil is evil.
Whether they're fooling themselves is a matter of debate. But in a
way it validates the point Jonathan Rosenbaum made in his capsule,
something to the effect of the anti-semitism and homophobia in THE
PASSION pale in comparison to the utterly revolting vision of
inhumanity and misanthropy that pervades throughout the film. It's a
very inhuman film, all right, but then that vision of inhumanity
becomes a matter of interpretation in itself (as it is with Kubrick,
or much further down the totem pole, Lina Wertmuller).
NOW, I'm not saying that Gibson isn't INTENDING to convey an anti-
Semitic message through his film (and given some of the things he's
said on record I wouldn't doubt it) but this is not the same as
saying that this is what a good chunk of the audience of this movie
is taking from it. So we've either got millions of anti-Semitics in
denial or there's something else going on that casts a shadow over
the anti-Semitism issue and perhaps deserves as much attention. So I
guess for me the question is not, "why aren't people seeing black?"
but "How they are seeing white?"
I hope you do get in touch with Moore -- reading that account you
provided, it sounded like something Moore would have come up with!
Kevin
8988
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:48pm
Subject: Re: A few dispassionate points on The Passion
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> I just recently re-watched a Hollywood classic called THE YEARLING,
> directed by Clarence Brown. It's not too good and I remember it
being
> really great (sad to say).
As Billy Crystal used to say on SNL, "I hate it when that happens."
I just had that experience myself last weekend watching HANNAH AND
HER SISTERS on PBS, a film I remembered at 12 as being great, funny,
touching and wise in the ways of love and the meaning of life. But
this time it struck me as Woody doing his middlebrow wise-ass schtick
with Caine and von Sydow as sock puppets.
But it still wasn't as bad as the previous weekend's revisitation
letdown, THE EXORCIST (which makes THE PASSION look like GOSPEL OF
ST. MATTHEW)
Kevin
8989
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 9:56pm
Subject: Re: A few dispassionate points on The Passion
>
> But it still wasn't as bad as the previous weekend's revisitation
> letdown, THE EXORCIST (which makes THE PASSION look
like GOSPEL OF
> ST. MATTHEW)
>
> Kevin
I still like The Exorcist; I never liked Hannah and her Sisters.
8990
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:55pm
Subject: Re: A few dispassionate points on The Passion
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
.
>
> JP, what do you have to say about the film as a visual experience?
>
> Personally, I found it rather boring "as cinema," no subtlety at all
> in the images, no artfulness that I was able to appreciate - my
> favorite image being of the woman who holds the Shroud of Turin as
if
> she was doing a product placement. >
How do you know it was the Shroud of Turin? And isn't the Shroud
of Turin a "product"? And how do you decide how the woman should hold
the shroud?
I wasn't bored one minute watching that awful, vulgar (and anti-
semitic) film. I must be a truly awful, vulgar (and anti-semitic)
person.
JPC
8991
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:10pm
Subject: Re: A few dispassionate points on The Passion
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
.
>
> Sigh. Didn't you see the link I provided to my thread? As of now
> it's on my top ten list of 2004 (though 2004 is far from over). I
> think it makes a whopper of a double feature with DOGVILLE.
>
Sorry I missed that! I'll look it up!. But you must admit that the
overwhelming majority of writing about Passion is not about the movie
as a movie but about mostly extraneous stuff.
JPC
> > >
> I think you SHOULD DEFINITELY write about it, and not have to
answer
> to anyone except your own instincts and sense of curiosity. That's
> the only way we can expect to get anywhere...
>
Sure. But the editor was convinced that the movie is the harbinger of
a new Holocaust (and he's not even jewish!) so it had to be
condemned.
JPC
> Kevin
8992
From:
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:39pm
Subject: Revisiting films, Allen, Friedkin
I'm 21 and that's young enough, I guess, where I still sometimes have the
experience of revisiting a film I liked or love when I was younger and not liking
or loving it so much when I see it again. I rack it up to the simple fact
that my aesthetic sensibilities are still being formed. But I'm glad to say
that it doesn't happen too often. More likely is that I re-see a film I was cool
towards initially and find things to value in it now. I tried out Vidor's
"Our Daily Bread" when I was 15, didn't much care for it, was probably looking
for the wrong things in it. I re-saw it about six months ago after reading a
post on this group by Jaime and was stunned at how wrong my initial judgment
was; "Our Daily Bread" is now one of my very favorite films and the stunning
ditch-digging montage at the end one of my very favorite moments in cinema.
Regarding the two specific films Kevin mentions, I was never particularly
nuts about "Hannah and Her Sisters." It's not without its charms, but it's minor
Allen next to "Manhattan," "Stardust Memories," or "Anything Else." "The
Exorcist," however, is major Friedkin, in my opinion. It struck me recently that
many of the descriptions typically applied to Kubrick's work - cold,
misanthropic, relentlessly dark - actually DO apply with a measure of validity to
Friedkin. I mean this in a good way, of course, as I'm a great fan of his films.
He's fascinated by the point at which 'the good guy' and 'the bad guy' become
indistinguishable; as I think Dan (a great Friedkin scholar) has written, he
doesn't seem interested at all in having any character come out in a positive
light. When Friedkin tries to go light (as he does in the comedy "Deal of the
Century," which I recently saw), the results are his only disappointing
films.
It's hard to pin down the exact qualities of Friedkin's mise-en-scene, but
some aspects of it are prominent use of real locations, whose geography is
carefully laid out for us by Friedkin (ie, the aboveground car chase in "French
Connection"; the US Embassy in "Rules of Engagement"; the various chases in "The
Hunted"); a tendency to go with 'over-the-top' or disturbing images meant to
unsettle the audience at key points; and, in his horror films "The Exorcist"
and "The Guardian," a penchant for dream sequences - something seemingly at odds
with his self-described 'documentary' aesthetic, but I think his filming
style is better described as blunt and forceful as opposed to 'documentary' anyway.
Peter
8993
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:39pm
Subject: Re: A few dispassionate points on The Passion
> How do you know it was the Shroud of Turin? And isn't the Shroud
> of Turin a "product"? And how do you decide how the woman should hold
> the shroud?
> I wasn't bored one minute watching that awful, vulgar (and anti-
> semitic) film. I must be a truly awful, vulgar (and anti-semitic)
> person.
> JPC
Huh? Go easy, man, I'm not going to hurt you.
I just looked this thing up and realized I'm talking about the Veil of
Veronica, which is different altogether from the Shroud. This is what
I get for never going to church. So, apologies for my misinterpretation.
Now, that said, I'm not saying anything about how Gibson should or
shouldn't have made his film. I'm just registering how it is that I
read his images. You asked for a discussion of the film's visual
style, so that's what I'm giving you. On the other hand, I'm still
waiting for *you* to talk about the film "as a visual experience,"
which I was under the impression was pretty important to you.
Since I didn't like the film, it's hard for me to come up with
anything really intelligent to say about it, but since you seem to be
on the "pro" side, maybe you do.
-Jaime
8994
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:57pm
Subject: Re: Trafic: a success!/Wiseman - "Welfare"
> There's a notice at the box office that this May event has been
canceled, actually. (Apparently it would have been a preview of
something the Brooklyn Opera Company is doing.)
>
> There's also an opera based on LOST HIGHWAY making the rounds...
Are you sure that isn't the Hank Williams thing?
-Jaime
8995
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 0:58am
Subject: Re: Re: Trafic: a success!/Wiseman - "Welfare"
>
> > There's also an opera based on LOST HIGHWAY making the rounds...
>
> Are you sure that isn't the Hank Williams thing?
There's a piece in the latest Film Comment about this, although as far
as it making the rounds, it seems that it's only being performed in
Germany at the present time -- and looks faintly retarded, at that.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8996
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:44am
Subject: Auteurs and Editors
Dear friends -
Peter's insightful comments about a recent TV episode directed by
Bogdanovich got me thinking hard about auteurs and editing. To start with my
doubt: I sometimes pause when reading critics (myself included) who directly
attribute 'great cuts' (or bad cuts, for that matter!) to directors. Almost
nowhere in the general run of film criticism is the work of actual film
editors ever acknowledged, recognised, or analysed - except in celebrity
cases like Thelma Schoonmaker. I guess that's partly because - and this does
not forgive the laziness of any of us! - we 'see' the labour of
cinematography (and imagine a person or a crew behind the camera) far more
readily than we 'see' the labour of editing and automatically attribute it
to anyone but the director.
Of course, we know various directors who - at least judging by the glimpses
they give us of themselves at work - edit their own films: Godard, Welles.
There are those who actually take the editing credit on screen: Rodriguez,
Sayles, Russ Meyer. Virtually every avant-garde filmmaker probably
physically edits his or her own work.
Then there are directors who, even if they are not physically present in the
editing room at every moment, SEEM to have tight control over the editing
plans: Lang, Hitchcock, Leone, De Palma.
But here is where my doubt creeps back. I am suspicious of claims that, for
instance, 'John Ford left only one way for the editor to cut the scene' -
because anyone who has ever actually done any film or video editing knows
that, even in the most minimalist case, there is NEVER only one way to cut a
scene! Somebody made the decisive, frame-by-frame cutting and timing and
rhythmic decisions, and I suspect it wasn't always Ford.
There is a class of directors who have very close creative relations with an
editor - often cases where the director 'takes a break from the material'
after shooting, and the editor does a kind of 'first draft' - but this can
be a lot more than an 'assembly edit' (again, there are a thousand ways to
edit even the most tightly scripted or storyboarded film, and a million more
ways to edit loosely scripted films, like Wong Kar-wai's) - it can be an
incredibly determining moment in the artistic shaping of the film. This is
how Malick works with Billy Weber, how Ruiz works with Valeria Sarmiento,
perhaps how Straub works with Huillet, judging from Pedro Costa's
documentary!
The we get to the most ambiguous cases in my mind: tightly compartmentalised
and industrial production set-ups, like Classical Hollywood, and television.
Whenever I see a TV episode directed by someone like McBride, Bogdanovich or
Tarantino, I wonder how close they were able to get - if at all - to the
tightly 'formularised' editing of those programs. Classical Hollywood surely
has many comparable, highly ambiguous examples. For example, what influence
did Raoul Walsh have on the editing of his films? Or Tourneur? Or Preston
Sturges? Or Lubitsch? Or a hundred other greats ...
I would be interested to hear the opinions of other group members on this
perplexing - and to me, rather important - issue.
Adrian
8997
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:41am
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
Thank you Adrian, for opening the door to a topic, which I feel
auteurists ignore with fear.
I have on previous occassions said, that a film is created in the
editing room and I still stand by that comment. While preproduction
still is one of the cornerstones, a films rythm and flow, regardless
of preproduction, is put together by the editor in the editing room,
with or without the director.
One of my favorite exampels on how valuable an editor is, is David
Lynch's "Blue Velvet", which Lynch had lost control over and
according to Dunham was hours on hours without a red thread. Thanks
to Dunham's editing, he put together scenes and structured them into
what we today know as "Blue Velvet". However this story is almost
singular. This is not how it normally works.
When learning editing, the first thing you are taught is: Always get
the director out of the editing room, as he is an interupting
element. A director will slow the editing process down to a crawl,
never satisfied, always demanding. Why? Most of all distrust, then
little if any knowledge about editing. However real life is
different and some directors trust their editors completely and stay
away, others can't help to be involved.
Adrian mentioned Ford, the same with Hitchcock, who to the
frustation of Selznick did only a few takes, as he thereby only left
one road for the editor to go. But then again, Hitchcock gave Bass
carte-blance to create the shower sequence from "Psycho" - still
today the most complex edited sequence.
There really is no general rule for the relationship between an
editor or the director. Some sit second chair, others edit
themselves and others only show up to see how things are going
along: except one - never interupt the editor.
Adrian writes:
"We 'see' the labour of cinematography (and imagine a person or a
crew behind the camera) far more readily than we 'see' the labour of
editing and automatically attribute it to anyone but the director."
That is very true. While the work of the DoP is visible to everyone,
even the most untrained eye, the work of the editor is "invisible",
thus ignored and overlooked. While it is common for filmbooks to use
phrases as "Long Shot", "Close Up", "Tracking Shot", "Composition"
and the most overused term of all "Mise-en-Scene", few, if any, use
phrases as "Non Diegetic Insert", "Parallel Syntagmic Cut"
or "Mindscreening". While a cinematic technique as "Inverting"
instantly will ring bells, and associate with Ophüls, Kubrick and
Scorsese, I doubt any even react if mentioning "Cause and Effect".
Why it is so, I cant say for sure, but I suspect a, as Adrian also
notes, certain laziness amongst viewers. Most cinematography is
selfexplainatory, most editing has to be explained. Editing is
technical, Cinematography is "not". Look at the introduction scenes
of Michael and Kate in "Godfather": while so simple in framing - its
a simple Medium Shot - few think about, that it was shot at night
and only thanks to the wizardry of Willis and his lightning crew,
the scenes looks as shot not only by day, but also at the same light
as the day scenes. So this, perhaps one of the most simple shots in
the film, was in fact the most complex and perhaps the best shot
Willis ever made. So when a director says, I want a eye height
medium shot of the talking, it is not just placing the camera. The
same goes for editing.
Another reason may be that few have little if any respect for the
editor: they don't dazzle us the same was a DoP does. In fact, I
believe that many still believe that a "good" director "cuts in cam"
and that the editor is some automatron who just assembels the pieces.
It doesnt matter who cut a film, as it always will be the vision of
the auteur that is visible. While some editors have a signature
style - for instance Sarah Flack (the best editor today) - they all
have the same skills and they talk intimately with the director
about how to cut his film. While he may be in the room, even sit
second chair, or only show up for corrections, doesnt matter. The
editor knows what to do, if the director does his job right and if
the DoP, the lightning crew and the Sound engeneers does theres
aswell.
Henrik
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> Dear friends -
>
> Peter's insightful comments about a recent TV episode directed by
> Bogdanovich got me thinking hard about auteurs and editing. To
start with my
> doubt: I sometimes pause when reading critics (myself included)
who directly
> attribute 'great cuts' (or bad cuts, for that matter!) to
directors. Almost
> nowhere in the general run of film criticism is the work of actual
film
> editors ever acknowledged, recognised, or analysed - except in
celebrity
> cases like Thelma Schoonmaker. I guess that's partly because - and
this does
> not forgive the laziness of any of us! - we 'see' the labour of
> cinematography (and imagine a person or a crew behind the camera)
far more
> readily than we 'see' the labour of editing and automatically
attribute it
> to anyone but the director.
>
> Of course, we know various directors who - at least judging by the
glimpses
> they give us of themselves at work - edit their own films: Godard,
Welles.
> There are those who actually take the editing credit on screen:
Rodriguez,
> Sayles, Russ Meyer. Virtually every avant-garde filmmaker probably
> physically edits his or her own work.
>
> Then there are directors who, even if they are not physically
present in the
> editing room at every moment, SEEM to have tight control over the
editing
> plans: Lang, Hitchcock, Leone, De Palma.
>
> But here is where my doubt creeps back. I am suspicious of claims
that, for
> instance, 'John Ford left only one way for the editor to cut the
scene' -
> because anyone who has ever actually done any film or video
editing knows
> that, even in the most minimalist case, there is NEVER only one
way to cut a
> scene! Somebody made the decisive, frame-by-frame cutting and
timing and
> rhythmic decisions, and I suspect it wasn't always Ford.
>
> There is a class of directors who have very close creative
relations with an
> editor - often cases where the director 'takes a break from the
material'
> after shooting, and the editor does a kind of 'first draft' - but
this can
> be a lot more than an 'assembly edit' (again, there are a thousand
ways to
> edit even the most tightly scripted or storyboarded film, and a
million more
> ways to edit loosely scripted films, like Wong Kar-wai's) - it can
be an
> incredibly determining moment in the artistic shaping of the film.
This is
> how Malick works with Billy Weber, how Ruiz works with Valeria
Sarmiento,
> perhaps how Straub works with Huillet, judging from Pedro Costa's
> documentary!
>
> The we get to the most ambiguous cases in my mind: tightly
compartmentalised
> and industrial production set-ups, like Classical Hollywood, and
television.
> Whenever I see a TV episode directed by someone like McBride,
Bogdanovich or
> Tarantino, I wonder how close they were able to get - if at all -
to the
> tightly 'formularised' editing of those programs. Classical
Hollywood surely
> has many comparable, highly ambiguous examples. For example, what
influence
> did Raoul Walsh have on the editing of his films? Or Tourneur? Or
Preston
> Sturges? Or Lubitsch? Or a hundred other greats ...
>
> I would be interested to hear the opinions of other group members
on this
> perplexing - and to me, rather important - issue.
>
> Adrian
8998
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:36am
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
> Thank you Adrian, for opening the door to a topic, which I feel
> auteurists ignore with fear.
Yeah, you're an expert on what other people fear.
-Jaime
8999
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 10:53am
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
Thought-provoking and insightful post as usual, Adrian - speaking for
myself, and probably simplifying it far too much, but I've grown weary
of attributing different artistic decisions one way or another. I
wouldn't know where to begin doing it, or what good it'd do anyone,
and anyway I'd probably be wrong 80% of the time at least.
But the people who've taught me the most about auteurism aren't really
interested in the name (or blame) game, but rather (a) having as full
an experience with a film as possible and trying to come to terms with
what we see and hear, and (b) trying to figure out how one film, or
parts of one film, interact with other films, or parts of other
films, and what we can do with these interactions, etc. As Peter
Wollen and many other smart auteurist commentators have put across,
time and time again, one of the best entry points into this kind of
cinematic "cartography" is to follow the path of a director. If
someone wants to do that with editors, or costume designers, or stars,
hey, great. Knock thyself out.
What I'm *not* interested in is trying to apologize for aspects of
auteurism that I don't believe in, that I don't think are important,
and are b.s. most of the time, anyway. Why the same misunderstandings
keep getting perpetuated by the same people, and why these same people
refuse to hear anything except their own head traffic, is beyond me.
> The we get to the most ambiguous cases in my mind: tightly
> compartmentalised and industrial production set-ups, like Classical
> Hollywood, and television. Whenever I see a TV episode directed by
> someone like McBride, Bogdanovich or Tarantino, I wonder how close
> they were able to get - if at all - to the tightly 'formularised'
> editing of those programs. Classical Hollywood surely has many
> comparable, highly ambiguous examples. For example, what influence
> did Raoul Walsh have on the editing of his films? Or Tourneur? Or
> Preston Sturges? Or Lubitsch? Or a hundred other greats ...
I'm not familiar enough with Walter Hill to say whether the editing of
the DEADWOOD pilot episode is "Hill-esque," or, for that matter,
whether the editing in UNDISPUTED or THE WARRIORS is Hill-esque. But
I remember quite a few moments in the Tarantino-directed episode of
E.R. that seemed "Tarantino-esque" in its pop culture references (like
the girl who needed the Beatles song to help her through contractions,
and a scene stolen from ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE) and staging
(the gang violence that erupts in the operating room is very
disconcerting). However, and I could very easily be wrong about this,
the cutting was strictly the standard E.R. hectic-day-at-the-hospital
style, slowing down for the talky, "story" scenes, etc.
-Jaime
9000
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 0:19pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
King Vidor once expressed amazement that the Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences gave out an award for editing. His
position was that it was impossible for the viewer to know if a film
was well edited or not without also knowing what shape the original
footage was in. As far as Vidor was concerned, an editor may be
getting an award for something that was little more than a routine
assembling of footage that had been pre-conceived by the director.
Adrian mentioned T. Schoonmaker as one of the rare celebrity editors,
which indeed she is now, but the Oscar she got for RAGING BULL
depressed her since she felt that all she did was edit the film
according to Scorsese's instructions (although he gives her a great
deal of freedom now, apparently). Since she only works for him, it's
virtually impossible to tell if there's a Schoonamker style or not.
Dede Allen, though, is an editor people used to talk about as someone
who had her own distinctive way of cutting films. Haven't the
editors of THE GODFATHER claimed that, if one has a sharp eye, one
can detect two different editing styles on the film? Post-production
on the film was rushed and so the first part of the film was cut by
William Reynolds (I think) and Peter Zinner cut the second half -- or
maybe the other way 'round. Anyway, this attitude of Vidor's may be
typical of directors who came up during the silent period when they
were more likely to be present in the editing room and the editor was
more of a routine cutter with a less overtly creative role. I don't
know.
In leafing through Todd McCarthy's bio of Hawks, it was interesting
to read McCarthy's claims that Hawks had little interest in pre-
production and, aside from general instructions, left the cutting up
to his editors. Given Hawks's improvisational methods, it was
unlikely that he would "cut in the camera." And yet so much writing
on Hawks has discussed the close ties between editing, gesture and
movement in his work. Of course these ties may simply have their
basis in a type of refining of the continuity system that was taking
place during this period, a refinement which both Hawks and his
editors thoroughly understood. Hawks may have realized that, even if
one does not storyboard or cut in the camera, there are still a
limited number of ways one can cut a film if it is shot in a certain
method. If the film is clearly actor and gesture-centered, then the
editor has little choice but to cut in such a way that these
movements are being followed. I was looking at GENTLEMEN PREFER
BLONDES again last night and was amazed at the paltry number of
camera set-ups per sequence. For all its garishness, the film is
also rather austere in terms of framing and cutting.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact