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.
9001
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 0:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs and Editors
I think one of the fallacies auteurists fall into in their defensive
mode is insisting that for an element of a film to reflect on the
director's themes, it must have been "created" by the director. In other
words, if I say that a cut in a Fritz Lang film is incredibly great and
connects with Lang's larger themes, and someone discovers that the
editor made the cut with no input from Lang, then some would say I was
wrong to see and discuss this cut in terms of Lang's style and themes. I
believe, by contrast, that I would be not wrong to do so.
Brakhage has a little known film called "Gift." It's not one of his
greatest works, but it's very good, and its imagery and rhythms are that
of a Brakhage film. But it's entirely a found object. Brakhage didn't do
anything to it at all, except make prints. He found it and thought the
decay patterns represented his aesthetic, so he signed and released it.
Similarly, there's John Cage's "chance music," at least some of which
really sounds like Cage. And Duchamp did not sculpt his "ready-mades."
These are extreme cases, but there are many related examples. Filmmakers
incorporate things that happen by chance during the shooting, for
example. Sumi ink painters don't control every shape on the page
exactly. Lots of artists work with the texture of their paper, even
though they didn't "decide" on where each hill and valley in the paper
would go.
What a great director does is produce, by some mysterious process,
imagery that materializes his vision, imagery that's both beautiful and
meaningful. A really bad edit can wreck such imagery (Fuller's "Shark"
would be one example), but especially in Hollywood films there are
editing conventions that directors expect will be observed. A director
provides an overall framework and way of seeing, and within that
framework a cut could function powerfully even if the director didn't
decide on it. The real test is in the subjective reaction of a viewer
who has carefully honed his perception and knows the director's work
well, not in tracing who did what. Sirk may not have decided exactly
where to intercut those torsos of dancers at "the party next door" in
"The Tarnished Angels," but the intercutting is devastatingly powerful
in a specifically Sirkian sense anyway, and beautifully foreshadows an
intrusion to come.
I'm not saying that editors or cinematographers don't have their own
styles visible across many films, and I'm not objecting to production
research. My only point is that just because a director didn't make a
specific decision, that doesn't mean that the effect of the element that
someone else decided on cannot become incorporated into the beauty and
meaning of the film when seen in terms of the director's oeuvre. Of
course, it's also true that not every decision in a film, not every cut
for example, is meaningful and beautiful.
About Hawks, I thought he told Bogdanovich that he worked on the editing
of all his films from the beginning. Who's right here? I've always
thought the editing in Hawks films was amazing, for the way it danced
with the body rhythms of the performers. But maybe the editing is pretty
standard Hollywood assemblage, and Hawks created imagery (camera
placement, actor movements, et cetera) that would combine with standard
Hollywood assemblage to produce the desired effect.
- Fred C.
9002
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Passion
--- Kevin Lee wrote:
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.
I'd say we have a good several hundred thousand.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
9003
From: asitdid
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:35pm
Subject: Re: The Passion
hi. i was introduced to this group by gabe klinger a few weeks ago,
and although have been reading most messages, haven't yet posted
anything. (i work in australia as a film critic.) i have been
following discussions concerning 'the passion' and can't keep quiet
any longer. in australia the film is doing big business, and i saw
it on a monday 12pm session, which usually means an empty cinema,
but i had a half-full cinema, and old women where there and sobbing
all through the carrying of the cross sequence....
regarding this statement:
> 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).
there is so much discussion of the supposed violence of the film,
but for all the hype it wasn't that violent ... the so-called nine-
minute flagellation scene had so many cutaways, that any power it
might have had was dimished... there was no sense of the pain, and
the amount of 'gore' and 'violence' seen was minimal, compared with
many films made today... plus, the b/w characterisation of the
soldiers, (and in fact the b/w characterisation of everyone from
jesus up), stopped any sense of real people feeling real pain from
being conveyed... an "inhuman film" might possibly be, and then it
is still debatable, something like 'salo' or possibly 'irreversible'
could be put in that category.
saul.
9004
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs and Editors
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
> 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.
Well I don't know about "depressed." She was just
expressing her appreciation. Marty's an editor too.
They did "Woodstock" together, for crying out loud --
talk about editing!
I was in the room with them for two days on "Cape
Fear" and saw them work. (It's one of the chapters of
my book,"The Scorsese Picture") Time and time again
Marty would do something, take a look at it, and
decide it was awful. Then Thelma would correct it. I,
quite frankly, couldn't tell the difference. Only THEY
knew what they were looking for.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
9005
From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:43pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
> About Hawks, I thought he told Bogdanovich that he worked on the
editing of all his films from the beginning. Who's right here? I've
always thought the editing in Hawks films was amazing, for the way it
> danced with the body rhythms of the performers. But maybe the
editing is pretty standard Hollywood assemblage, and Hawks created
imagery (camera placement, actor movements, et cetera) that would
> combine with standard Hollywood assemblage to produce the desired
effect.
As it happens, I was watching some Hawks films last week with a
friend who works as a TV editor, and he commented that the editing in
HIS GIRL FRIDAY seemed a little haphazard to him, with some jarring
near-jump-cuts. I could see what he meant -- on the surface it looks
like the rhythm of the film, established by gesture and dialogue, is
almost independent of the rhythm of the montage, which serves the
actors rather than making a strong statement in itself. But Hawks is
so elusive it's hard to say for sure. I wonder who decided to omit
all exterior establishing shots?
RIO BRAVO, which we watched later, seemed to both of us a more
obviously "edited" film -- both in the stretches of "pure cinema"
like when Wayne and Dean Martin are patrolling the street at night,
and in terms of how character relationships are conveyed. It's
interesting that Robin Wood in his RIO BRAVO monograph speculates
about an unspoken gay flirtation between the Martin and Ricky Nelson
characters; if this has any basis at all it's because of some quite
specific editing choices (e.g. in the musical interlude) which create
the impression of an exchange of looks.
JTW
9006
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:46pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
Adrian:
> Almost nowhere in the general run of film criticism is the work of
> actual film editors ever acknowledged, recognised, or analysed -
This is true. I know I'll pay more attention to editors and to give
more consideration to their contributions in the future.
Speaking within the limits of Hollywood, I think Fred is right that
there are certain conventions that directors could rely upon (and
upon which I suspect editors would pride themselves on reaching,
particularly if they got stuck with tons of all-over footage). And
I do think that certain styles lent themselves to certain editing
patterns, even assuming the director had no interest in the editing
room, which was not always the case of course.
In general I think that good editing, as both craft and art, will
reflect by its tempo the framed rhythm of the action and mise-en-
scene.
How much control did von Sternberg have? He was a powerful director
for a period of time, did he get (or choose) to extend this power
into editing much? His films often have editing that matches up
well with the nature of his shots and what occurs in those shots.
I've been thinking about Robert Aldrich lately. When I saw THE
ANGRY HILLS last summer, I amused myself in passages (because I
didn't think it was top-notch Aldrich) by letting my eyes follow the
immediate focal points of each shot. There would be long stretches
of fast cutting, and you could see this quite entertaining pinball
pattern in the precise spots where your eyes would gravitate at the
beginning of each shot. Such energetic editing fits Aldrich, at
least early Aldrich, quite well. The film is put together very
impressively and engagingly. Does anyone know anything about the
production aspects of THE ANGRY HILLS? I vaguely recall hearing
something about it being a troubled production, but I could be way
off.
A Hollywood example doesn't come to mind right away, but I can think
of a meaningful example of when editing seems to go against the in-
frame rhythm of the action. In CLAIRE'S KNEE, when Jerome first
touches the titular joint, the scene is quiet and slow (like much of
the action), but all of the sudden the film cuts away rather
explosively at the moment of contact. Do we credit Rohmer or
Decugis?
Can anyone think of any tour-de-force editing passages in narrative
films (in the same way we call certain Sirk sequences tour-de-force)
that exist "purely" as editing, that is, which don't have a
narrative or visual foundation but which exist purely as the work of
either director or editor putting cutting into motion for effect?
There's Soviet montage, sure, but what else?
--Zach
9007
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:37pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
> How much control did von Sternberg have? He was a powerful director
> for a period of time, did he get (or choose) to extend this power
> into editing much? His films often have editing that matches up
> well with the nature of his shots and what occurs in those shots.
This has absolutely nothing to do with your questions, but I watched
JACKIE BROWN this morning (what a wonderful movie) and I noticed that
Tarantino (i.e. Sally Menke) used a number of Sternberg-esque edits
throughout the movie. I'm talking specifically about the handful of
in-and-out dissolves in DISHONORED. And there's a Lynchian dissolve
during one of the scenes with De Niro and Fonda - David Lynch is one
of the only other directors I can think of who will dissolve to a
reverse shot (or simply to a shot that runs continuously with the rest
of a sequence), when the rest of the scene is cut straight.
-Jaime
9008
From:
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:13am
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
First of all, thanks to Adrian for his most interesting and provocative post.
Essentially I agree with Fred's comments on this issue. I think that it is,
in fact, a validation of auteurism that it's possible that the director
didn't 'create' a certain component of a film and yet that component still feels of
a piece with the overall vision being expressed. In other words, it points
to the resiliency of auteurism, the way a great director's vision manages to
bubble to the surface even when there are many active collaborators and even
when there's been massive recutting.
This is a subject that needs good, solid research because I'd be fascinated
to know which directors were most involved in post-production and which were
least involved; if nothing else, it'd be highly instructive to learn that the
"Cukorness" of a George Cukor film came through in spite of him not having
significant control over editing. (I use Cukor as a random example; I don't recall
ever reading about the editing of his films.)
In the case of Bogdanovich, he does 'cut in the camera.' As far as I
understand, he literally only shoots a scene one way and then fits it together like a
jigsaw puzzle. Now it's true that even here it would be theoretically
possible, for someone determined enough, to re-edit Bogdanovich's scenes. But there
are, I imagine, quite fewer possibilities than there are in, say, an Altman
film, where he has two, three cameras running and shooting at the same time,
thus producing an enormous amount of film for producers to tinker with.
As to Adrian's secondary point about film critics attributing great editing
to directors, my immediate reply would be that some directors' editing style
has remained constant through decades of films - and through many different
editors. To use Bogdanovich as an example again, he's worked with quite a few
different editors and yet I could identify the classic Bogdanovich editing in
"Sopranos" the second I saw it; it's clear to me that he's exerting an enormous
influence over the process, down to frames even. Compare the cross-cutting
between Bottoms and Shepherd in "Picture Show" and Chaplin and Davies in "The
Cat's Meow" - extraordinary in their similarity. Of course, we know that on at
least "Picture Show" Bogdanovich >was< the editor; he didn't want to take
credit because he felt "Directed, Co-Written, and Edited by..." was just too much.
Peter
9009
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:28pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
It seems to me the mise-en-scene as presented on the film is a
primary form of editing. Camera movement in long takes another.
Perhaps any involvement in the actual cutting of film might be
thought as secondary editing.
Of course, primary / secondary is not meant to suggest any greater
value of one over the other.
And where would you put CGI changes... intermediate?
9010
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:44pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
"How much control did von Sternberg have? He was a powerful director
for a period of time, did he get (or choose) to extend this power
into editing much? His films often have editing that matches up
well with the nature of his shots and what occurs in those shots."
In THE EPIC THAT NEVER WAS, the documentary about the aborted I
CLAUDIUS, the editor of I CLAUDIUS describes Sternberg as "a good
cutter" and that she was left with only one way to put his footage
together. According to his autobiography, Sternberg had editing
experience when he was working in New Jersey and of course he edited
his first and last films himself. For his RKO films he had little
control over the editing, and for JET PILOT he told Ezra Goodman who
inerviewed him while the picture was in production that "At this
point, they want to see if I can make an actor walk across the set."
Richard
9011
From: Robert Keser
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:02pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
James Curtis's bio of James Whale has a specific example of
director/editor relations during the classical studio period in
Hollywood. Working with Clarence Kolster (editor of Frankenstein
and The Old Dark House), "Whale was used to giving Clarence
Kolster reams of notes". When he started to work with Ted Kent
(editor of The Invisible Man and Bride of Frankenstein), Whale
"was distrustful of a new editor and wanted a meeting first.
'Whale had taken the script and outlined exactly what he wanted,'
Kent remembered. 'Medium shot, couple of close-ups, two-shot,
medium shot' everything was laid out so he himself was sure to
be covered for continuity'...Soon, Whale stopped trying to give
him notes, instead meeting with him once a week in a studio
projection room to look everything over and make his comments
...Whale would habitually bounce a crossed leg and keep it moving
as long as he liked what he was seeing on the screen. When the
leg stopped bouncing, Kent knew Whale had seen something he
didn't like" [pp.187, 193-4].
Of course, Whale was one-of-a-kind in several ways, so it's probablynot valid to
generalize from his practices (For one thing, he had read Pudovkin onediting).
Also, Nicholas Ray's "I Was Interrupted" has a chapter specificallydevoted to his
reflections on cutting [pp.40-42], which talks about how comic strips influenced his editing.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
>
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.
>
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 ...
9012
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:46pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
Robert:
> Also, Nicholas Ray's "I Was Interrupted" has a chapter
> specificallydevoted to his reflections on cutting [pp.40-42],
> which talks about how comic strips influenced his editing.
During the Nick Ray retro in NYC last year, I felt like there was an
editing technique that sprung from Ray's shooting style -- he likes
to compartmentalize space rather than glide through it. (I'm
thinking especially of BORN TO BE BAD and WIND ACROSS THE
EVERGLADES; I might have notes sitting around somewhere.) Usually
in comic strips the 'cut' between panels either remains in the same
space or in a completely different space. We don't usually get
characters walking through doors or across widely different
interiors. A matter-of-fact cutting style works really well with
Ray's mise-en-scene.
--Zach
9013
From: filipefurtado
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs and Editors
> A Hollywood example doesn't come to
mind right away, but I can think
> of a meaningful example of when
editing seems to go against the in-
> frame rhythm of the action. In
CLAIRE'S KNEE, when Jerome first
> touches the titular joint, the scene
is quiet and slow (like much of
> the action), but all of the sudden
the film cuts away rather
> explosively at the moment of
contact. Do we credit Rohmer or
> Decugis?
I agree with Fred and Peter. Now let
me tell a well known story here.
There's a sequence in Nelson Pereira
dos Santos second film Rio Zona Norte
where the film's protagonist a poor
samba composer (played by the great
Grande Othelo) tries to sell one of
his compositions to a popular singer
Angela Maria (playing herself). She
likes it and starts to sing. Pereira
dos Santos always tell that the editor
had put the material together in such
way that when she starts to sing the
film didn't cuts from her. When the
filmmaker saw the material he
complained that it was all wrong and
that he should have cut to the
reaction shot of Otelo after she
starts to sing. The editor justified
his option by saying that Maria was a
well known guest start and the
audience would like to see her
singing. The guy ended cuting to Otelo
as Santos wished and this cut to
Otelo's reaction to her singing is one
of the films high points (I know a guy
who would say that it's one of
brazilian cinema high points). Knowing
that the scene was edited that way
because of the filmmaker's
interference doesn't make the cut more
or less powerful (it would still be
one of the greatest things about the
film had the editor had the idea in
the first place). So I think it's more
important to undestrand how this fast
cut broking the films's patern works
in its behalf than knowing who is
responsible for it.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
9014
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs and Editors
Henrik Sylow wrote:
> 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.
It's very common for craftspeople to take this kind of attitude toward
the filmmaking process: we're the ones who know what we're doing, the
director doesn't, and he or she would be wise to let us do our jobs
without interference. Unfortunately, when the craftspeople truly get
their way, the result is usually a mediocre film!
I would not be an auteurist if I didn't believe that craft tends toward
mediocrity, due to some quirk of human nature. If the director were
merely a unifying influence, then a film without a strong director would
often be a fascinating mixture of powerful, expressive elements in
collision with each other. Which doesn't sound so bad to me. And once
in a while you even see something like this. But, in practice, a film
without a strong director usually seems pulled by gravity toward a
well-worn standard of inexpressiveness, even if (or maybe especially if)
each of the craftspeople is expert. The director can be more than just
a unifying influence: he or she can be the foreign element that can
nudge films out of the soulless groove that they seem magnetically drawn to.
This is not to say that a director should micromanage, or even manage,
every element of a film. That's a question of personal style. Good
directors often seem to be doing nothing - how these people manage to
impose a vision is mysterious. I don't know whether it's really true
that Naruse never gave a word of direction to Hideko Takamine over the
course of nearly twenty films, but you couldn't convince me that he
didn't direct her somehow.
jaketwilson wrote:
> As it happens, I was watching some Hawks films last week with a
> friend who works as a TV editor, and he commented that the editing in
> HIS GIRL FRIDAY seemed a little haphazard to him, with some jarring
> near-jump-cuts. I could see what he meant -- on the surface it looks
> like the rhythm of the film, established by gesture and dialogue, is
> almost independent of the rhythm of the montage, which serves the
> actors rather than making a strong statement in itself. But Hawks is
> so elusive it's hard to say for sure.
I think Hawks is the greatest of all directors, but his visual choices
don't seem that impeccable to me: there are often cuts in his films that
seem to serve only the purpose of assembling bits of the best performances.
Zach Campbell wrote:
> How much control did von Sternberg have? He was a powerful director
> for a period of time, did he get (or choose) to extend this power
> into editing much? His films often have editing that matches up
> well with the nature of his shots and what occurs in those shots.
In THE EPIC THAT NEVER WAS, we hear that Sternberg was assembling the
film as he shot it. I believe Sternberg worked with an editor on
evenings and days off.
My guess is that, to the extent he was able to work at all, von
Sternberg often managed to obtain a fair amount of control over the
process. Some of the instances when he lost control are recorded, with
bitterness, in his autobiography - he wasn't the sort of person to
accept interference as a way of life.
- Dan
9015
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs and Editors
Zach Campbell wrote:
> A Hollywood example doesn't come to mind right away, but I can think
> of a meaningful example of when editing seems to go against the in-
> frame rhythm of the action. In CLAIRE'S KNEE, when Jerome first
> touches the titular joint, the scene is quiet and slow (like much of
> the action), but all of the sudden the film cuts away rather
> explosively at the moment of contact. Do we credit Rohmer or
> Decugis?
Rohmer, whose sexual politics aren't very modern, once said in an
interview that he could not imagine working with a male editor, because
the intrinsic passivity of the editor' role vis a vis the director's
made him choose women for that role. I can't remember exactly whether
he believed that women were better suited for the job, or whether he was
merely more comfortable working with women editors. - Dan
9016
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs and Editors
Zach Campbell wrote:
> Can anyone think of any tour-de-force editing passages in narrative
> films (in the same way we call certain Sirk sequences tour-de-force)
> that exist "purely" as editing, that is, which don't have a
> narrative or visual foundation but which exist purely as the work of
> either director or editor putting cutting into motion for effect?
> There's Soviet montage, sure, but what else?
There's the beginning of MURIEL. And the end of L'ECLISSE. And all
those transition sections in Ozu? Is this the sort of thing you had in
mind? - Dan
9017
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:26pm
Subject: Fuck Yahoo!
I labored long and hard over two posts - one on Friedkin, one on
editing - which were sent last night and have apparently disappeared
into the maw of Yahoo. If this short test post doesn't get posted, I
will know I have a problem.
9018
From:
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:44pm
Subject: Sidney J. Furie
Any Sidney J. Furie fans out there?
In an effort to make my Netflix queue more democratic, I've started to
include crappy action flicks that I think my husband may like, especially after I
made him sit through the disappointing Demonlover (which was extra disappointing
for him since he thought I rented My Demon Lover). So we recently saw
Detention starring Dolph Lundgren. I got excited when I recognized Furie's name as
the director. Then I remembered that the only times I came across his name were
in Sarris' The American Cinema, which dismissed his pre-1970 career, and a
sassy review of Iron Eagle by J. Hoberman (sheesh - there was an Iron Eagle
IV?!?). And maybe here?
Anyhoo, Detention was pretty much a waste of time. There was a Bosnia angle
that Furie or whoever could have exploited towards a more substantial end. But
like so many action flicks, it left little to chew on. Did I miss something
particularly Furian about it?
Or maybe I should be asking about action flicks in general. I always get down
on myself for writing off certain sectors of popular culture but action
flicks turn my stomach. I had such a violent reaction to Gone in 60 Seconds (the
remake with Nicholas Cage - I hope to live an extremely fulfilling life without
having seen the original), for instance, that I've been seeking to understand
my repulsion ever since. Does anyone know of any good writing on the action
flick?
Vrrrroooommmm,
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9019
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:01pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
> There's the beginning of MURIEL. And the end of L'ECLISSE. And
> all those transition sections in Ozu? Is this the sort of thing
> you had in mind? - Dan
Have not yet seen MURIEL (this Tuesday it'll be remedied, though!).
I believe the ending of L'ECCLISSE did come to mind after I thought
about it for a while yesterday. Ozu didn't, but he should
have: "his" editing (like any other part of his films) is too
superlative to go unnoticed.
I think of "visible" editing sequences that serve the narrative
function of compressing space (weird example, but the trip to town
in WET HOT AMERICAN SUMMER came up in a conversation of mine
recently) or to amplify the pre-established, or presumed, tone of a
scene (the shower scene in PSYCHO). But it's harder to think of
examples of virtuosic, or simply admirably visible, editing is not
spurred into existence by something else.
Ozu is a really good example, though.
--Zach
9020
From: Andy Rector
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: Fuck Yahoo!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> I labored long and hard over two posts - one on Friedkin, one on
> editing - which were sent last night and have apparently disappeared
> into the maw of Yahoo. If this short test post doesn't get posted, I
> will know I have a problem.
Same thing happened to me, damn it!
9021
From: Andy Rector
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:28pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
Indeed it is an important inquiry and the non-chalance about the issue
is odd. I don't purport to have any real answers. I would, however,
like to add questions.
Rossellini- how on earth do we account for the non-chalance here?
We've seen Welles at the editing table, we know the depth of his
knowledge of what cuts can do (good and bad) from the memos, we've
heard about his precise instructions on the cutting of Ambersons to be
carried out in his absence. Then there is Godard's comment on the
fact that Welles remains, even when his films are cut by someone else,
Lady From Shanghai, but proven wrong as a rule by Stefan Droessler's
presentation of the unfinished and in some cases unedited material.
The material edited by Welles was by far the strongest. Precisely my
feeling from seeing all the "unknown" Welles was that Welles' films
are all in the cuts (well, most of all)--even the Falstaff segment
from the Dean Martin show, shot in one continuous take like they do on
TV, seems to have a Wellsian montage and abruptness, obviously
premeditated.
As for the other hundred greats, and if we're speaking of classical
Hollywood films, I begin to think, how much does it matter? The
overall impression in interviews with directors (and I admit ignorance
to research beyond this) is that editing is mildly overseen for the
most part, only guided, and then scrutinized for the finer points, the
pivotal cuts. The result, for quite a few filmmakers, was enormous
enough.
It is too difficult to generalize, for while the question remains what
Fritz Lang was physically doing in the cutting room, there is no
question as to his influence on the editing, one of the most
consistantly impressive of the Hollywood directors. The crucial lap
dissolves, reaction shots, inserts, sound bridges...
Nicholas Ray is another matter. Reading Eisenschitz's book on Ray, the
thing that baffles me is that Ray was apparently rather disconnected
from the editing of Bitter Victory. The legend about John Ford always
seemed flippant to me, but there IS a structural and decoupage-based
control that CAN be exerted purely in the shooting (which no doubt
Ford exercised), this seemingly was not the case with Ray on Bitter
Victory, which had a wild shooting. And yet the cutting is so crucial,
done with such "fantastic brio". Furthermore, I saw a version of
Bitter Victory with the ending slightly altered, when the documents
are burning and the men are being saved, and the several evident trims
effected it immensely, to it's detriment. Which cuts were Ray's? I
don't know. The better version draws out the scene, intercuts the
burning/rescue with Burton's face several times, and because of
something so minute that I can't even remember what it was (possibly
in the duration of the burning documents, with Curd Jurgen's fumbling
around with them) this version was much more crushing and indignant.
And then again there is Wind Across the Everglades and Savage
Innocents, which have some of strangest inserts I've ever seen. The
question of inserts, in this classical Hollywood vein, seems
important.
To sum up, we agree that great achievements have been made and by
certain individuals, but now we wonder whether the credit we ascribed
to certain individuals actually belongs to another individual. I say
with great caution that many directors (like Lubitsch, etc.) seemed
to have maintained themselves and their art through this guiding and
fine-tuning, again and again, over film after film... but the point is
not lost, we MUST investigate.
There were (and still are) industrial standards (the ones that
agitated Renoir so much) which people like Straub and Huillet counter
in various ways, all interconnected:
"...(in a direct sound film) when the frame is empty, when the
character leaves the shot, you can't cut because you continue to hear,
off camera, the sound of receding footsteps. In a dubbed film, you
wait only for the last piece of the foot to leave the range of the
camera to cut".
And what about Resnais? Every world cinema book points out his unique
working relationship with Duras and Robbe-Grillet. But what was his
relationship to the editing table, which must be crucial in Resnais?
I hope somebody here illuminates the problem of editing in the
exceptional television films, the question of subservience to the
grid, or using the grid. Charles Burnett is said to have taken on a
simpler editing style for Nightjohn, but how much of that do we
ascribe to a compromise with the Disney film grid, regardless of the
films quality? Burnett certainly made his most interesting films when
the film was in his hand at the editing table, by neccessity.
And...all the same, the placement of the clips in Warming by the
Devil's Fire (his contribution to the PBS/Scorsese Blues series, where
he didn't have the film in his hands the same way he did in Killer of
Sheep) is positively Burnettian, they "hang in the visual air" and are
essential to the film in their placement and editing (see great
article by Bruce Jackson:
http://www.counterpunch.org/jackson10112003.html).
The question is far from simple....
Yours,
andy
9022
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie
>>Any Furie fans out there?
I'm a fan of Furie's "The Boys In Company C" (R Lee Ermey as pre-
"Full Metal Jacket" drill sergeant), "The Appaloosa", "Little Fauss
and Big Halsy", and "Hit!" (the blaxploitation remake of "Get
Carter".) The rest of his filmography (apart from "Lady Sings The
Blues" which I'm not a fan of) doesn't seem to be that interesting,
although i'm certain there's some pictures of his that could deserve
a second look. I'm sure Furie's a talented craftsman to be kept in
the game this long.
9023
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:32pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
> 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
I believe you're right about this. I recall an interview with
Tarantino in which he mentioned that he wanted to "fit in" with the
other directors of "E.R" and not stand out.
-Aaron
9024
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:43pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> This is a subject that needs good, solid research because I'd be
>fascinated to know which directors were most involved in post-
>production and which were least involved; if nothing else, it'd be
>highly instructive to learn that the "Cukorness" of a George Cukor
>film came through in spite of him not having significant control
>over editing. (I use Cukor as a random example; I don't recall
> ever reading about the editing of his films.)
THE CHAPMAN REPORT was a famously re-cut film which Cukor felt
was "ruined" by the tampering. There was post-production tampering
as well on a number of his other films including ZAZA, TWO-FACED
WOMAN, A LIFE OF HER OWN, THE ACTRESS, A STAR IS BORN, BHOWANI
JUNCTION, and HELLER IN PINK TIGHTS. While I don't doubt that
Cukor's original versions were more interesting, enough of
their "Cukorness" survives to make them major works. Cukor's an
interesting case in that montage is most often secondary to mise-en-
scene and Cukor's objections to the re-cutting most often had to do
with the elimination of sequences rather than studios or producers
altering the ways in which individual sequences were edited --
although he did dislike the way that Zanuck cut the interview
sequences in CHAPMAN.
>
> In the case of Bogdanovich, he does 'cut in the camera.' As far
>as I understand, he literally only shoots a scene one way and then
>fits it together like a jigsaw puzzle.
You may know this already Peter but Annie Potts publicly complained,
at the time she was doing interviews for TEXASVILLE, of how
difficult it was to work with Bogdanovich because of his cutting-in-
the-camera methods which she felt made it impossible for her and the
other actors to develop any kind of rhythm while doing the scenes.
Minnelli, by the way, would be an example of one Hollywood director
who essentially belongs in the category of cut-in-the-camera
cineastes. His frequent editor, Adrienne Fazan, said that it was
extremely dull for her to cut his films since there was almost
nothing for her to do but snip off the beginnings and ends of shots
and assemble them in the proper order. Even so, he usually sat in
with her because he was very particular about the placement and
timing of his dissolves.
>Now it's true that even here it would be theoretically
> possible, for someone determined enough, to re-edit Bogdanovich's
>scenes. But there are, I imagine, quite fewer possibilities than
>there are in, say, an Altman film, where he has two, three cameras
>running and shooting at the same time, thus producing an enormous
>amount of film for producers to tinker with.
I remember Altman being upset by NASHVILLE not getting an Oscar
nomination for film editing even though he got one for direction.
He said that NASHVILLE was more edited than directed.
>
> As to Adrian's secondary point about film critics attributing
>great editing to directors, my immediate reply would be that some
>directors' editing style has remained constant through decades of
>films - and through many different editors. To use Bogdanovich as
>an example again, he's worked with quite a few different editors
>and yet I could identify the classic Bogdanovich editing in
> "Sopranos" the second I saw it; it's clear to me that he's
>exerting an enormous influence over the process, down to frames
>even.
It's entirely possible, given his long history as an actor on the
show, that he was allowed into the editing room. (Maybe you could
ask him sometime.) Terrific episode, by the way. I watched it twice
although I'd need your help for spotting the Bogdanovich touches.
9025
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:10pm
Subject: Bogdanovich to direct tv film about Pete Rose
I'm sure Peter will get a kick out of this, if he doesn't know
already:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?
type=filmNews&storyID=4800963§ion=news
-Aaron
9026
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:37pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
Zach Campbell wrote:
> Can anyone think of any tour-de-force editing passages in narrative
> films (in the same way we call certain Sirk sequences tour-de-force)
> that exist "purely" as editing, that is, which don't have a
> narrative or visual foundation but which exist purely as the work of
> either director or editor putting cutting into motion for effect?
> There's Soviet montage, sure, but what else?
Hmm...I haven't quite decided how answerable the question is (it's a bit
like asking whether literature has produced any great examples of
syntactic formulas in no way affected by the words that populate them),
but it is a provocative one...
In Bertrand Blier's LES VALSEUSES, a film whose breathtaking editing can
hardly be done justice by the expression "tour de force" (or
"breathtaking," for that matter), the cuts often seem to motivate the
action, rather than the other way around. Take the moment where
Depardieu and Dewaere throw Miou-Miou into the river, for instance, or
Depardieu's exchange with the retail store manager.
Had you not restricted your query to narrative film, the first name to
come to mind would of course be Peter Kubelka (as well as Abigail Child,
who seems to be his only successor). Probably why you made the
restriction. But the trouble with this is that even in the case of
ARNULF RAINER, arguably an example of editing in its "purest" form, the
"content" of each shot is in _some_ sort of dialogue with the editing.
The whiteness and blackness in themselves make a rather significant
contribution to the film's rhythm--they are nothing less than the atoms
out of which it is built.
-Matt
9027
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 0:31am
Subject: Re: Fuck Yahoo!
Two suggestions:
1. Write you Yahoo! help. I've often gotten replies that look like a
computer read them and was replying, but if you keep trying sometimes
you reach a human being.
2. Write your posts in a word processing program and save them. This
insures you won't lose them if your computer crashes while writing (keep
saving as you write) or if they disappear. It's easy to copy and paste
them into the message window, especially if you learn the keyboard
commands for select all, copy, and paste, and get used to using them.
- Fred C.
hotlove666 wrote:
>I labored long and hard over two posts - one on Friedkin, one on
>editing - which were sent last night and have apparently disappeared
>into the maw of Yahoo. If this short test post doesn't get posted, I
>will know I have a problem.
>
>
>
9028
From:
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:42pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie
Kevin writes:
I had such a violent reaction to Gone in 60 Seconds (the remake with Nicholas
Cage - I hope to live an extremely fulfilling life without having seen the
original), for instance, that I've been seeking to understand my repulsion ever
since. Does anyone know of any good writing on the action flick?
Have never seen "Gone in 60 Seconds".
I love action movies. There are some very brief notes on a slew of them on my
web site at:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/action.htm
Action movies are designed to give viewers pleasure. Car chases, daring
stunts, exciting leaps off roofs, mototcycle stunts, etc, are supposed to be
enjoyable to watch. So are the melodramatic plots, extravagent costumes, location
filming and scenery. To be an action film fan, you probably have to "like" this
sort of stuff. I do, but realize that many people do not. If you are not
enjoying and being "really pleased" by what you are watching in an action film, you
are probably out of sync with it, or the genre.
Mike Grost
Who once wrote a silly, shaggy dog, mystery story about a motorcycle stunt
ride that leads to unexpected events:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/feuil.htm
(30)
9029
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:09am
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
"Zach Campbell" wrote:
> I think of "visible" editing sequences that serve the narrative
> function of compressing space (weird example, but the trip to town
> in WET HOT AMERICAN SUMMER came up in a conversation of mine
> recently) or to amplify the pre-established, or presumed, tone of a
> scene (the shower scene in PSYCHO). But it's harder to think of
> examples of virtuosic, or simply admirably visible, editing is not
> spurred into existence by something else.
Almost by definition it's hard to think of editing in narrative films
that doesn't serve a narrative purpose -- I agree with Henrik that
one of the key principles of editing is establishing relations of
cause-and-effect, along with proximity and likeness (metonymy and
metaphor?).
The credit sequence of THE GETAWAY (original version) which I watched
recently, is a fairly virtuosic piece of editing that's not really
necessary in narrative terms, but it does set up metaphors --
prisoners=trapped animals, law=factory system -- which help establish
our sympathies for the criminal heroes.
Even if the "virtuosity" is often pretty shallow, credits are
obviously a key site for non-narrative display in narrative films. So
are musical numbers -- some of those in Lester's Beatles films, and
maybe sequences elsewhere in his work, present themselves as close to
abstract exercises in editing-for-its-own-sake.
JTW
9030
From:
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:24pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
In the early 1980's it became fashionable to put music video like sequences
into movies. These were dialogueless sequences, often full of dance like motion
that is both synchonized and cut to the music.
Two examples that come to mind:
"The Boys are Back in Town" from "48HRS" (Walter Hill)
"The Zampa Overture" from "Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen"
(Clive Donner).
The latter is especially lengthy and inventive.
Some music videos were very creative. I have no idea who directed "Street of
Dreams", based on a Rainbow song, but it is a wonderful fusion of narrative
and montage. The editing in "Twilight Zone" (Peter Maas) and "Take on Me" (Steve
Barron) is also well done. "Twilight Zone" shows the influence of Bunuel.
Julien Temple is perhaps a bit more oriented to camera movement than editing,
but "Poison Arrow" definitely has its moments.
Mike Grost
"I'm falling down a spiral, destination unknown..."
9031
From:
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:35pm
Subject: Re: Sans toit ni loi
Thanks for the information on this title! Did not realise it was a play on a
famous phrase before.
A year ago listened to a Canadian radio (CBC) show called "The
Transcontinental", which recreates music and life in old pre-1945 Europe. Metaphor: a train
journey across Europe. It's like journeying into the mind of Lubitsch... This
show ran for years on Canadian radio, on Sunday afternoons. Never missed it.
Off the air now. It brought up and explained a phrase that appears in a Varda
film.
Cléo de 5 à 7 (1961). The title here is a bit naughty. In turn of the century
France, sophisticated Parisians who were carrying on torrid affairs would
make, appointments with each other from five to seven PM, to pursue their
romance. Such trysts were so standard that they became known as "cinq à sept"s, from
the French words for "5 to 7". Unfortunately, poor Cléo here is not getting
anything like this. Her time is being spent sweating out the results of her
medical tests, not finding romance.
Cléo de 5 à 7 is one of my favorite Varda films.
Mike Grost
9032
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:12am
Subject: Re: Fuck Yahoo!
> 2. Write your posts in a word processing program and save them.
You don't even have to go that far. I've made a habit of copying my
long posts to the clipboard before submitting them. If they don't
show up, I'll know something went wrong and at least I'll have
something to hang onto.
-Jaime
9033
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:43am
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
"But it's harder to think of examples of virtuosic, or simply
admirably visible, editing is not spurred into existence by something
else."
Though it's not exactly apposite to your query, the sequence of
pickpocketing in the train staion from PICKPOCKET is extended beyond
any simple narrative requirement; I think it's equivalent to the
shower sequence from PSYCHO.
Richard
9034
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:51am
Subject: Re: Auteurs and Editors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
> wrote:
> "But it's harder to think of examples of virtuosic, or simply
> admirably visible, editing is not spurred into existence by something
> else."
>
> Though it's not exactly apposite to your query, the sequence of
> pickpocketing in the train staion from PICKPOCKET is extended beyond
> any simple narrative requirement; I think it's equivalent to the
> shower sequence from PSYCHO.
>
> Richard
Then you would have to throw in the opening, closing, and jousting
scenes in LANCELOT DU LAC as well as the opening and closing scenes of
AU HASARD BALTHAZAR.
Bruce Conner's editing of found footage is terrifically exciting. And
with Chris Marker, where does one begin?
I suppose what we're talking about is situations where the editing is
the spectacle, rather than images and camera movement. Of *course* an
edit can't exist in a vacuum.
-Jaime
9035
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:46am
Subject: Re: Fuck Yahoo!
>
> > 2. Write your posts in a word processing program and save them.
>
> You don't even have to go that far. I've made a habit of copying my
> long posts to the clipboard before submitting them. If they don't
> show up, I'll know something went wrong and at least I'll have
> something to hang onto.
>
> -Jaime
Thanks, Fred and Jaime. I do know how to use the Edit commands --
this is just my first encounter with an Internet service that loses
the mail! I'll see if I can reconstruct what I said before the thread
plays out.
9036
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:04am
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Kevin writes:
>
> I had such a violent reaction to Gone in 60 Seconds (the remake
with Nicholas
> Cage - I hope to live an extremely fulfilling life without having
seen the
> original), for instance, that I've been seeking to understand my
repulsion ever
> since.
My stepson, who normally doesn't like "old films," loved the original
Gone in 60 Seconds, which I bought used for him at Amoeba, and was
very disappointed with the new one, which he had been eager to see
because of the trailer. This marked the beginning of the end of a
period when he was an undiscriminating consumer of current action
fare, as he had once been, 24 hours a day, of cartoons. The original
has a good reputation; the remake has none -- I think it also bombed.
Jan de Bont, who made Speed, argues that the action film is a genre
that only "the total filmmaker," to use Jerry Lewis's phrase, can do
well, because the director has to be able to control all creative
departments, whereas most American film school graduates just now how
to write a script that sells and direct actors -- someone else (often
a cameraman like de Bont in his cameraman days) has to handle the
visuals.
He pointed out, too, that in Europe, when he and Verhoeven were
making the films that became their ticket to LA, the director might
easily find himself painting a set, or handling a second camera,
because that's the essence of low-budget filmmaking. Hence the
amazing preponderance of immigrants doing action films - New
Zealanders, Aussies, British, Hong Kongers, Dutch, French, Canadian.
The most prominent American action specialists, Lucas, Carpenter,
Friedkin and Spielberg, were in the minority (outnumbered, for
example, by stuntmen-turned-director or editors-turned-director who
were often tools for action producers like Joel Silver) until fairly
recently, when the boxoffice triumph of the genre inspired film
students to start learning more about their craft. There has also
been a huge influx of videoclip and advertising directors, of which
Michael Bay is the poster child.
So paradoxically it's a medium for complete filmmakers, but most of
them never develop a signature or a thematics or a style or a
personality worth talking about, and spend their time working with
childish or even offensive material. I think that in some ways the
action film has replaced the western as the other pole of Hollywood
filmmaking from love stories, but it hasn't assumed the enormous
responsibilities that go with succeeding to the throne of the most
cinematic of all genres.
I'll save this post in case Yahoo loses it!
9037
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:50am
Subject: more auteurs and editors
Dear friends - Thanks to everyone who has responded thus far to the 'auteurs
and editors' thread I introduced. Much food for thought there. Essentially,
I think I agree with Jaime that what finally matters is our response to the
film as a whole object - not something whose 'artistic decisions' we carve
up and a allot to specific individuals (if even we could do such a thing). I
also agree with Fred's highly persuasive argument about how a director's
sensibility and form can shape/influence a movie even if they are physically
not doing every cut. Fred and Joe both mentioned the 'classical conventions'
of the Hollywood style and how the style of a Hawks or Ford (or P. Sturges
or many others) would likely blend in with them - perhaps with specific
'tweaking' or inflections. A Bordwellian (if not Bordwell himself!) might
pipe up here with a claim that the 'Hollywood group style' is in fact more
determining and pervasive than 'individual styles', and that some of us
overrate how many really distinctive 'personal styles' (of Walsh, Dwan, etc)
there can be within such a convention-bound system: but, for myself, I
always like to be persuaded by a good piece of critical writing that indeed
even some directors within highly codified production situations could form
their own 'syntax' (Sternberg, Lang, etc). David - thanks for the reminder
about the chapter on editing in your Scorsese book, I will immediately
re-read it for on-the-ground insights!
I do think we need to be careful as critics not to get too 'mystical' - or
misty-eyed - about certain concepts of direction that are a long way from
how films actually get made. (I know not every critic is interested - or
needs to be interested - in how films are made, but I am.) Big example:
several of us have mentioned legends like Minnelli, or today someone like
Bogdanovich, 'cutting in the camera'. This sounds like a seductive idea:
Minnelli doing his preconceived shot 1, shot 2, shot 3, behaving as a true
auteur should!!! But 'cutting in the camera' is, in many cases, technically
IMPOSSIBLE. Let's take the example of a cut-away - Filipe gave us a great
example from Nelson Pereira dos Santos - where you want the reaction shot of
actor B during actor A's sustained speech, or song, or dance, or whatever.
You CANNOT cut that in the camera, it can ONLY be done in editing - and
that's where the art and craft of editing begin (just where to cut-away, for
how many seconds/frames, whether to 'double-cut' as Cassavetes used to say
of a technique that irked him, etc etc). Also, please remember that shooting
a movie also has something to do with a little thing called SOUND and sound
recording! The reason editors earn their money a lot of the time is that
they have to figure out how to make two consecutive shots flow when the
'sound ambience' from take to take is not matching! Again, no one can grade
and modulate sound ambience 'in the camera' or on the spot. It's a
post-production challenge.
One of my favourite descriptions of film style is Brian Henderson's 1971
essay 'The Long Take' (it's in his A CRITIQUE OF FILM THEORY), which
analyses bits from Murnau, American Ophuls, Welles, etc, and poses a
category called the 'intrasequence cut' - something mid-way between (or
articulating the relationship of) mise en scene and montage. Elizabeth
pointed to this: mise en scene is already a 'cutting plan', at least
potentially (and sometimes very rigorously), or as people including Noel
Bruch and Jonathan R have reminded us, there's 'decoupage' or scene-blocking
as that step between mise en scene and montage. For my part, I'd still like
to see the work on how all was developed between directors, editors - and
also set designers, sound designers, etc! So much to do ...
Adrian
9038
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:58am
Subject: one more thing ...
I forgot to add in my last posting a story about a time I sat in with a
famous Australian editor for days and watched him edit a short film. He took
a scene that wasn't working and then, completely taking apart and re-putting
back together the pattern of shot/reverse shots, gestures and looks between
the diverse characters in the space, he CREATED A COMPLETELY NEW SCENE - I
mean he created action that wasn't originally meant to be there! So in this
sense the editor constructed a scene that was not written, was not directed,
in fact was not even acted on the set!!!! It was incredibly ingenious and
virtuosic, but I got the impression it was the kind of thing this guy did
day in, day out ... perhaps such radical 'rewritings' in editing of scenes
didn't happen in Ford or Hawks movies - I'm sure they happen in Wong Kar-Wai
or Godard - but we don't know!
The moral of this story (at least for me) is: all film critics should spend
some time on a film set, and in an editing room!
Adrian
9039
From: Andy Rector
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:50am
Subject: Re: one more thing ...
Forgive me for repeatedly bringing up Straub/Huillet but we oughtn't
forget their highly unorthodox construction and dissemination of
multiple versions of their films. Different takes, and/or re-arranged
scenes. We might learn from this practice, against finality, for
malleability. I've not seen Costa's documentary on the Straubs but I
imagine that in it one would find a completely different mode of
thought than the one we've been using, coming from the filmmakers who
commit this unheard of aesthetic "sin", adding question to our
question.
But the Straubs use of re-arranged scenes doesn't have the same
purpose as the short film editor's re-arranged scenes you mentioned
Adrian. That is a whole different way of making films, of editing
films. As is Kiarostami's cunning in editing his conversation
(off-screen) with the characters (on-screen) with other characters
responses (intercut). As is Godard's editing practice, the specifics
of which we don't know, where he says in Meetin' WA "you have a second
chance" (whereas Allen complains that for him its a heavy chore, like
a blasting away of unwanted elements, nothing could be further from
Godard's avowed approach to the editing).
I remember reading somewhere that one common practice is for the
editor to cut together several versions of a scene for the director to
choose from, the director then fine tuning his/her choice. This sounds
close to what your short film editor was accustomed to doing, however,
if we know anything, it's that there is no one way (luckily for
cinema), as hard as some try...
Yours,
andy
9040
From: apmartin90
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:54am
Subject: Straub/Huillet edits
Thanks Andy, for your very thought-provoking post. Yes, Straub and Huillet =
are a
completely fascinating case in the history of film editing - and Costa's do=
co (a highly
unconventional doco) is the best 'essay' on film editing I have ever encoun=
tered. You
are taken right into the frame-by-frame grain of their editing decisions, a=
nd the
rationales behind them - sound editing as well as picture editing (they han=
dle both, of
course). The whole 'multiple version' thing they have pioneered - unusual f=
or a team
whose aesthetic has always rested on the 'only one angle possible' approach=
to mise
en scene - is extremely intriguing; I haven't actually had an opportunity t=
o compare
any two versions of the same piece. Costa explained to the audience who saw=
his film
in Rotterdam '02 that S & H partly survive on doing 'masterclasses' at vari=
ous film
schools: and at each masterclass they re-edit one of their films! (It is on=
e such class
we see documented in the film: but Costa never lets on that there are stude=
nts on the
other side of the room watching!)
There is great stuff in the Costa about bodily gesture; how S & H's editing=
seeks to
preserve the 'shape' of an actor's bodily gesture from the moment of its in=
ception to
its complete playing-out. And the same thing for verbal enunciations: where=
a word, a
syllable, a sound begins, when it is over. When they re-edit, I'm not sure =
if they set up
a different relation to such gestures and enunciations!
By the way, I second Gabe's recommendation from some time back of Hélène
Raymond's writing (in French) on Straub& Huillet (including their latest), =
which can be
found on the Net - top stuff.
Adrian
9041
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 0:02pm
Subject: But editors make film...
Few has adressed editors and editing at all. By a quick run thru,
the only one really adressing an modern editing element was Jaime
with the Lynchian dissolve, which even if its post 1950, is a
directorial signature and not so much an editing element.
I read about Hawks, Minnelli, Ford, Hitchcock, Welles, Murnau. In
short: Old guys, before Structuralism, before Le Grand
Syntagmatique, before Nouvelle Vague, before Avant Garde, before
Dynamic Crosscutting of the 70s, before Montages of the 70s,
before...
With all respect to the old masters, but editing back then was quiet
primitive and simplistic. It basically was 8 rules (as devised by
Metz) and a few personal touches (as Ophüls breaking the 180). Even
today, the vast majority of editing is so simple, that while it
still takes alot of skill to edit a film "the right way" and to make
it look wow, the editor really cant do more than just his/hers job.
Many years ago I talked with Frank Urioste. He was telling us about
editing and brough along with him, his laterst "film": The Hitcher.
He showed us the rough cut and the final cut of a scene. The scene,
as some of you may recall, is when Howell is surprised by Hauer at
the gas station. In the script, story board and rough cut, Howell is
surprised and runs away as the gas station explodes. End. Editing
the scene, Urioste was unable to create the tension the scene needed
so he took the DoP, they shot 1 scene (an insert in slow motion of a
hand flipping a lighted match into the gasoline) and he inserted the
new shot. Voila, the scene worked.
Urioste is a great action and suspence editor, which means, that
that is what he edits. He has a natural eye for tension and has the
ability to put that on film.
Another great editor, perhaps one of greatest, Anne Coates, who
began as an assistant on "The Red Shoes, who edited "Lawrence of
Arabia" and has 5 oscar nominations in her bag, also has a
signature, in form of how she can make a shot make love to the
audience. In "Unfaithful" she took the liberty of making an
analeptic sequence, where Lane sits in the train remembering the
love making with Martinez. As Lyne shot the scenes without ever
considering them to be connected, Coates here creates a pure
Kuleshovian moment and distills Lane's adultry. It really is such a
beautiful scene.
Here, again, the editor created something the director didn't think
of and supported the directors vision. Far more so here than in
the "Hitcher" example, the editor is responsible for the strenght of
a film.
In "The Limey", Sarah Flack created several elliptic structures and
the Soderbergh would pick the one he wanted. Does that make the
film, the final images, less his?
And lets endwise talk old school: Dede Allen in "Bonnie and Clyde"
(especially the final shoot-out) and the avant-garde montages by
Berman in "Point Blank". Does their work make these films less the
directors?
It is naive to believe that the director is some multitasker, who
knows both cinematography and editing. He knows the basics, just as
well as a cinematographer knows the basics of editing. David gave a
good example when describing the working relationship between
Shoolmaker and Scorsese: He had the idea, she made it look good and
right.
It is equally naive to dismiss the editing process, because it is
the most important part of making a film. It is here the story and
its discours is made, it is here elements are emphasized.
This is why, in my opinion, some Auteurists avoid talking about
editing. They fear it, as it potentionally can undermine the entire
theory. I may be wrong here, but I also believe, that the
recognition of both writers and influences elsewherefrom is the
reason for the French auteurisism, as Bill preaches it.
It is important to acknowledge the work of the editor. No
professional editor will do one for the book, as no DoP does one for
the book. They are dedicated to the director and the film, and if
the director has a personal vision, then these two crafts will do
theres to bring it forward.
Henrik
9042
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 0:30pm
Subject: Re: But editors make film...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> Few has adressed editors and editing at all. By a quick run thru,
I suggest you take a slower run-through.
> It is important to acknowledge the work of the editor.
You aren't pointing out anything we don't know.
This issue has been addressed in a variety of illuminating ways by
group subscribers.
You are not an expert at what these cowering auteurists are and are
not willing to talk about.
Thank you.
-Jaime
9043
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 0:33pm
Subject: by the way
"But editors make film..."
No, filmmakers make film. That's why they call them filmmakers. An
editor who isn't a filmmaker is an artisan. He receives instructions
and delivers the product. An editor who is a filmmaker (like, say,
the Coen brothers, or Brakhage, or Bruce COnner) is an artist, he
shapes the material to fit his/her vision.
An editor needs sharp instincts and quick reflexes. But he/she does
not need a vision.
-Jaime
9044
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:10pm
Subject: socialism on film
Over the past year I've seen a handful of films that, either
intentionally or unintentionally, presents a sympathetic of socialism
and socialist communities on film. Perhaps the greatest American film
about the subject (I'm tempted to say "and therefore the most tragic")
is Cimino's HEAVEN'S GATE. Its powerful (if less so) British
counterpart is Kevin Brownlow and Andrew Mollo's WINSTANLEY. And back
to the US, John Carpenter's THEY LIVE. But there's a touch of
commune-ism and collectivism to be found in the Robin Hood films, as
well as, echoing the Robin Hood not a little, Mel Gibson's BRAVEHEART.
May I have some more unforgettable examples?
-Jaime
9045
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:14pm
Subject: Re: more auteurs and editors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
>A Bordwellian (if not Bordwell himself!) might pipe up here with a
>claim that the 'Hollywood group style' is in fact more determining
>and pervasive than 'individual styles', and that some of us
> overrate how many really distinctive 'personal styles' (of Walsh,
>Dwan, etc) there can be within such a convention-bound system.
There's an interesting piece by Bordwell that was published in FILM
QUARTERLY, Spring 2002 issue, about the "intensified continuity"
style of contemporary Hollywood, a style dominated by rapid cutting
(naturally)and frequent use of close-ups in which the face
increasingly becomes the central bearer of meaning. I won't bore you
all with more summations of the essay's argument but it is, to my
knowledge, the first sustained academic attempt to define a type of
system for how these mainstream Hollywood films are edited.
>several of us have mentioned legends like Minnelli, or today someone
>like Bogdanovich, 'cutting in the camera'. This sounds like a
>seductive idea: Minnelli doing his preconceived shot 1, shot 2, shot
>3, behaving as a true auteur should!!! But 'cutting in the camera'
>is, in many cases, technically IMPOSSIBLE.
Agreed, which is why I originally put the term in quotation marks.
I've been waiting for someone to challenge the term itself and I
doubt whether Minnelli or Ford ever used such language even if
they've been credited for shooting in this manner. For example,
Minnelli's editor, Fazan, never used the term. She just said that
Minnelli was very "stingy" in terms of the amount of footage he gave
her and that he didn't do conventional coverage, giving her massive
amounts of material in terms of master shots, close-ups, over-the-
shoulders, etc. She described Margaret Booth, her boss at MGM,
anxiously looking over her shoulder as Fazan would assemble a
Minnelli sequence, and saying things like "Cut to a close-up, cut to
a close-up." Fazan would invariably have to say that she didn't have
anything to cut to. But there are still a multitude of subtleties
involved in assembling even the simplest of sequences unless it is
all one take and even here (let's stay with Minnelli for a moment)
the transition into and out of the sequence is still key, hence his
need to be in the editing room and precisely time the dissolve from
one sequence to another: Take a look at the dissolves in HOME FROM
THE HILL, for example, which so often are not mere transitions but
often symbolically link characters and actions.
Even something as "mundane" as a shot/reverse shot sequence can be,
in the hands of a skilled editor and attentive director, filled with
nuances as in something like the parlor sequence in PSYCHO or
the "horse racing" sequence between Bacall and Bogart in THE BIG
SLEEP. I wonder, then, if Bogdanovich abandoned or modified his
cutting in the camera (that term again!) technique on THE SOPRANOS
and if he's been loosening up a bit in general since he's been
working on TV. A show like SOPRANOS is so dialogue, shot/reverse
shot based that I just don't know that he could shoot in such a
rigorous, pre-conceived manner even if he wanted to and even if the
actors would be willing to go along with him -- which I doubt.
One final correction on an earlier post of mine. David was skeptical
of my use of the word "depressed" to describe Thelma Schoonmaker's
response to getting the Oscar for RAGING BULL and not Scorsese. I
looked in the second volume of Michael Powell's autobiography and he
writes that she was "outraged" at winning: "I didn't deserve it and
you know I didn't deserve it. Marty should have gotten the Oscar, not
me."
9046
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:19pm
Subject: Re: one more thing ...
> he CREATED A COMPLETELY NEW SCENE - I
> mean he created action that wasn't originally meant to be there!
Happens every day.
-Sam Wells
9047
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:23pm
Subject: Re: one more thing ...
> I remember reading somewhere that one common practice is for the
> editor to cut together several versions of a scene for the director to
> choose from, the director then fine tuning his/her choice.
This has become much more pervasive I think, with the use of
non-linear computer editing systems (Avid, Final Cut Pro etc)
-Sam
9048
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:42pm
Subject: Re: more auteurs and editors
> One final correction on an earlier post of mine. David was skeptical
> of my use of the word "depressed" to describe Thelma Schoonmaker's
> response to getting the Oscar for RAGING BULL and not Scorsese.
I remember watching the Academy Awards that year, and saying to my
friends "if Thelma Schoonmaker doesn't win I'll never watch the Oscars
again"
But unfortunately.......... ;-)
-Sam
So whose Idea was it I wonder, for the brutally perverse cut from the drum
solo to Jake LaMotta punching some guys head in the same rythm ?
9049
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sans toit ni loi
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> Cléo de 5 à 7 is one of my favorite Varda films.
>
It's one pfmy favorite films, period. It also relates
to the "editing for its own sake" question in that
it's both a one-person character sudy AND a
documentary about Paris. Varda cuts very freely
between her heroine and the world around her -- but
not in a melodramatic way that accentuate her plight.
What we see as Cleo goes around Paris, particularly in
a sequence in which she's travelling by cab, is what
almsot anyone would see on a typical day. Consequently
the editing pulls us into the story and out of it at
will.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
9050
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 3:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: more auteurs and editors
>>But 'cutting in the camera'
>>is, in many cases, technically IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> Agreed, which is why I originally put the term in quotation marks.
> I've been waiting for someone to challenge the term itself and I
> doubt whether Minnelli or Ford ever used such language even if
> they've been credited for shooting in this manner.
As far as I know, "cutting in the camera" refers to filmmaking where the
only editing comes from turning the camera off, setting up the next
shot, and turning it on again. In other words, no editing room.
Obviously this isn't done much in commercial cinema.
It's much more plausible for a controlling director to shoot without
coverage, so that (in an extreme case) each line of dialogue is covered
in only one shot. The editor (and, more to the point, the producer)
isn't without options in such a case (it's amazing how much work and
trickery can be involved simply in making two shots that are meant to
fit together actually fit together: there are continuity issues and
sound issues, in addition to the occasional need to recover from an
aesthetic miscalculation), but changing an un-covered film in any
meaningful way requires radical rethinking.
I used to shoot without coverage - not because anyone wanted to recut my
films, but because I was of the "only one place to put the camera"
school. Now I do a modified version of this: I don't cover a scene from
multiple angles, but I'll let the camera run through both halves of a
shot/reverse-shot conversation, for instance. The visual plan of the
movie is still pretty fixed, but there is room to change the cutting
continuity in the editing room (to get a better performance, for instance).
Standard coverage is to play a scene out from multiple angles: master
shot, over-the-shoulder shots, closeups, and anything else that might
help. Maximum editing room control (for the editor and producer as well
as the director), fewest decisions to make on the set, when time is at a
premium.
-------------
Auteurism is part of a historical debate on the subject of editing. The
earliest films tended to shoot scenes in single, distant shots, in an
imitation of theater. As a reaction, a great many cinema aesthetes
eventually seemed to feel the need to elevate the one aspect of cinema
that other art forms had no equivalent for: editing. Soviet film theory
was probably the theoretical apex of this way of thinking, which I would
venture to say was dominant among film aesthetes in the thirties and
forties. Bazin, and the politique that followed in its wake, provided
an antithesis to this way of thinking: Bazin tried to restore importance
to qualities of the image itself.
(One interesting consequence of this is that auteurists have a natural
predisposition to appreciate the long-take master-shot aesthetic of
early filmmakers, like Feuillade, who hadn't completely assimilated the
lessons of Griffith. One can argue that the way Feuillade used master
shots really doesn't have a lot in common with the modernist return to
the integrity of time and space.)
Here's an amusing quote from Paul Morrissey on editing: "I don't want to
get into editing. I'm not interested in it. Editing is editing. It's
all right. I have nothing against it. You get good effects from it.
You want to cut to people in bathtubs, great. It works. Editing is a
discipline that should be subservient to something else. It usually is."
- Dan
9051
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 5:24pm
Subject: Re: more auteurs and editors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >>But 'cutting in the camera'
> >>is, in many cases, technically IMPOSSIBLE.
> >
> > Agreed, which is why I originally put the term in quotation
marks.
> > I've been waiting for someone to challenge the term itself and I
> > doubt whether Minnelli or Ford ever used such language even if
> > they've been credited for shooting in this manner.
>
> As far as I know, "cutting in the camera" refers to filmmaking
where the
> only editing comes from turning the camera off, setting up the
next
> shot, and turning it on again. In other words, no editing room.
> Obviously this isn't done much in commercial cinema.
To "Cut with the Camera" refers to the directors control over the
images.
As Dan says, the normal procedure of a shoot in the studio days was
to make a "master shot" (a longshot), then having a series of "cover
shots" (medium shots) and several inserts (medium close up or close
up). This procedure was to secure (1) speed of shooting (2)
continuity in editing and (3) ability for the editor to create
whatever the director and/or producer wanted.
When a director "cut with the camera" he only shot the shots needed
to the continuity. It took longer preproduction, as each shot
towards the entire continuity had to be story boarded, it required
more attention during shooting (continuity errors had to be
avoided), but it made the editing proces shorter, as the editor only
had to assemble the shots. The cutting was no longer done in the
editing room, it was done with the camera.
9052
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: more auteurs and editors
> When a director "cut with the camera" he only shot the shots needed
> to the continuity. It took longer preproduction, as each shot
> towards the entire continuity had to be story boarded, it required
> more attention during shooting (continuity errors had to be
> avoided), but it made the editing proces shorter, as the editor only
> had to assemble the shots. The cutting was no longer done in the
> editing room, it was done with the camera.
Leaving the terminology aside for a second: this process also makes the
shooting process shorter by reducing the number of setups. This is
actually very important on low-budget features, where you usually have
to find some way of reducing the shooting time just to keep the unpaid
and ill-paid cast and crew from rebelling before you wrap. Some
productions save set time by trying to do very few takes of each shot;
some contrive unusual lighting schemes so that they don't have to move
lights much between setups. Not shooting coverage is my preferred time
saver.
There's a loose rule that an ultra-low-budget film should try to wrap
after three weeks of shooting, in consideration for the strain on the
cast and crew. This means 18 shooting days at most, following the
established convention of one day off per week. Another rule of
shooting, looser and more variable than the first, is that normal
shooting speed is ten setups a day. So, if you do the math for a
hypothetical shoot that is bound by all these rules, you have time for
180 setups for your feature. That's not enough by normal standards!
You need some kind of angle. - Dan
9053
From:
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sidney J. Furie
Bill, your post on action flix came through loud and clear.
"I think that in some ways the action film has replaced the western as the
other pole of Hollywood
filmmaking from love stories, but it hasn't assumed the enormous
responsibilities that go with succeeding to the throne of the most cinematic of all
genres."
If indeed that's the case, then we have to ask ourselves what those
responsibilities are. We could easily enumerate the myths and anxieties the western
fueled (or fuels, I would say, but that's another subject). But what drives the
action flick? In many cases, as Mike pointed out, cars. So clearly, the action
flick is fueling some sort of fantasy of motion. But what is particularly
static or sticky in contemporary American society that it's responding to?
You mentioned Speed, Bill, which reminded me that I don't loathe action flix
across the board. It unquestionably moved me...down - the top of the theatre
seat was well above my head for most of that movie and I'm 6/2". And I don't
think the intensity I felt was due solely to the random choice of bus held
hostage, the fact that you or I could have been on it. As someone who takes the
bus sporadically, and loathes it more than the action flick, it was
exhilarating to see one ignore all the stops and maintain a speed of 55 mph (for a
brilliant essay on public transportation, see Sikivu Hutchinson's great chapter
"Waiting for the Bus" in Imagining Transit: Race, Gender, and Transportation
Politics in Los Angeles). And we might want to reflect on how much the car has
succumbed to McLuhan's notion of reversal in relation to technology. Increasingly,
cars don't do what they're supposed to do (i.e., go), even in the 'burbs. So
it might be important to focus on places in action flicks - where exactly can
one be gone in 60 seconds? Certainly not in Schaumburg, a Northwest suburb of
Chicago.
Then again, I recently had the chance to revisit Speed and it didn't hit me
as hard. That might have something to do with the fact I've made the drive
between Milwaukee and Montréal (30 hours round trip) several times over the past
two years. Those drives are action flick enough for me what with the fear of
waking up in a ditch or dealing with Nazi immigration officials and border
troopers or seeing terrifying twister-like patterns in the worst rain imaginable
or veering away from debris falling off the truck a few miles ahead or praying
those deer on the side of the road stay right where they are or stopping
every so often to scrape the snow that's become caked onto the headlights or
wondering why there are such mind-fuckingly bad drivers on that dreary stretch
between Toronto and Montréal. Add to this the fact that the car was frequently
stuffed to the back of our necks with personal items and two cats and suddenly
the "need" for haunted houses, roller coasters and action flicks dissipates. It
reminds me of that old joke about amusement parks: "What was the scariest
ride?" "The ride there." The world simply becomes a scarier place for some people
as they grow older making action flicks (and perhaps we should throw in
slasher flicks) either boring or unbearable.
But can we conceptualize action flicks only in relation to an (at least
theoretically) temporary condition of youth? Do slasher flicks only palm off of an
adolescent disgust with the body? And does anyone want to put in a good word
for heavy metal?
Thoughts appreciated.
Kevin
Milwaukee, Montréal and, soon, Austin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9054
From:
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs and Editors
Joe McElhaney wrote:
>Cukor's objections to the re-cutting most often had to do
>with the elimination of sequences rather than studios or producers
>altering the ways in which individual sequences were edited
I find this is also the case with Bogdanovich. At the end of my upcoming
piece on him, I include an itemization of all of the various versions of
Bogdanovich films; and in every case when a film has been altered by the studio, it's
individual sequences which have been cut out. They've not tampered with the
internal editing of the sequences which remain. (Examples: the 8 minutes
Universal took out of "Mask" or the one scene he was pressured to remove from
"Nickelodeon.")
That's interesting that Annie Potts complained about his 'cutting in the
camera' methods. Certainly not every actor is crazy about them, but - on the
other hand - she has at least one big, impressive, beautifully delivered monologue
in that film which is covered entirely in one long take. I make a lot of
Bogdanovich's montage (which I find to be absolutely consistent in its style from
his first film to his most recent), but he's also an incredible director of
long takes. "Noises Off..." is the furthest he ever went with that style.
I'd say that only "The Sopranos" is 'looser' for him than his usual work -
and, as I say, even it contains a couple of sequences which I think I could
identify as his work even if I didn't know who directed the episode. But the
other TV stuff is shot and edited just like his features and contain the signature
Bogdanovich visual moves I come to expect. I get the sense that, if
anything, he's having to do even more pre-planning because his TV schedules are so
brief.
To Adrian, all it means, I think, when someone like Bogdanovich 'cuts in the
camera' is that he designs his shots to go in a very specific order. He
doesn't shoot coverage; he says the editing is like piecing together a jigsaw
puzzle in many instances. It's not a fool-proof method in terms of avoiding studio
recutting; as you say, someone could leave out a stray reaction shot or
whatever. But in researching my piece, I was astounded at how carefully he often
planned for the final edit: I describe at length the wonderful scene in "They
All Laughed" where John Ritter proposes to Dorothy Stratten, set to a country
western tune. Bogdanovich shot the scene so that the duration of each shot
would perfectly match a certain section of lyrics in the tune!
Peter
9055
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:59pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie
>
> If indeed that's the case, then we have to ask ourselves what those
> responsibilities are. We could easily enumerate the myths and
anxieties the western
> fueled (or fuels, I would say, but that's another subject). But
what drives the
> action flick? In many cases, as Mike pointed out, cars. So clearly,
the action
> flick is fueling some sort of fantasy of motion. But what is
particularly
> static or sticky in contemporary American society that it's
responding to?
Well, you suggest one answer: traffic. I spend almost two hours a day
in heavy commuter trafic between Hollywood and Culver City, and every
trip I see a number of people driving recklessly, presumably out of
sheer frustration. They're mostly male and all teen-to-young-adult --
the action film demographic. All of the streets where I live have
deteriorated to the point where the potholes are as big as manholes
thanks to Prop. 13 and the drain on the infrastructure from state and
national graft. So on that level, things aren't moving at all.
If you fantasize twisters on your drives, you might want to scrunch
down behind something and watch Jan's follow-up to Speed, Twister,
which is also very nice. After that he totally lost it. Fortunately
Austin is not in Tornado Alley (my part of Texas was). I understand
from friends who are still there that the population has boomed, so
traffic should be almost as bad as LA -- but there are still pockets
where the 60s have never gone away.
9056
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:07pm
Subject: Re: one more thing ...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> > I remember reading somewhere that one common practice is for the
> > editor to cut together several versions of a scene for the
director to
> > choose from, the director then fine tuning his/her choice.
Still waiting for my post on editing to reappear from the Devil's
Triangle (maybe I should write to Terry Semel...), here's an
anecdote. I was editing part of a documentary on Roswell on a free
Avid my friend Ed Stabile - a great filmmaker who earns his living in
post - had procured for us for a week in 1997, when we had to vacate
because Sam Raimi was arriving that night on a red-eye back from
shooting A Simple Plan. He needed two Avid rooms because he had hired
two editors, each of whom would make his own roughcut of the film and
screen it for Raimi in a matter of days after geting back. The Avid
has radically changed filmmaking.
9057
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:10pm
Subject: Re: more auteurs and editors
> As far as I know, "cutting in the camera" refers to filmmaking
where the
> only editing comes from turning the camera off, setting up the next
> shot, and turning it on again. In other words, no editing room.
> Obviously this isn't done much in commercial cinema.
John Dorr did it once, in Sudz All Does It All, a full-length feature
he shot with a surveillance camera.
Now ...I don't cover a scene from
> multiple angles, but I'll let the camera run through both halves of
a
> shot/reverse-shot conversation, for instance. The visual plan of
the
> movie is still pretty fixed, but there is room to change the
cutting
> continuity in the editing room (to get a better performance, for
instance).
That's what Hitchcock did.
9058
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:13pm
Subject: Re: more auteurs and editors
> When a director "cut with the camera" he only shot the shots needed
> to the continuity. It took longer preproduction, as each shot
> towards the entire continuity had to be story boarded, it required
> more attention during shooting (continuity errors had to be
> avoided), but it made the editing proces shorter, as the editor
only
> had to assemble the shots. The cutting was no longer done in the
> editing room, it was done with the camera.
After I debunked the idea that Hitchcock did this I was talking to
Jacques Doillon's gf, who is an editor, and she told me that the only
director she knows who does it is Rappeneau. All she does for him,
just about, is take off the ends and make the splice.
Women editors eem to be much more common in France than here. Why?
9059
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: more auteurs and editors
--- samfilms2003 wrote:
> So whose Idea was it I wonder, for the brutally
> perverse cut from the drum
> solo to Jake LaMotta punching some guys head in the
> same rythm ?
>
>
Marty.
Pure, unadulterated Marty.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
9060
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:37pm
Subject: Re: socialism on film
Jaime:
> But there's a touch of commune-ism and collectivism to be found in
> the Robin Hood films, as well as, echoing the Robin Hood not a
> little, Mel Gibson's BRAVEHEART.
A communal ethos has existed for millenia (e.g., Acts in the Bible),
so in that sense we could come up with any number of titles. I
guess for 'socialism on film' I'd look for not simply examples of
escaping from the world to form one's own, or even from defending
one's own realm from the encroaching imperialist, but of
foregrounding and attacking the trajectory of minoritarian power as
it seeks to either appease-and-silence or subjugate-and-suppress the
populace.
> May I have some more unforgettable examples?
Less than an hour ago I watched a shitty pan-and-scan VHS of Ken
Russell's THE DEVILS, which David E. is not far from the truth in
calling "the greatest political film ever made, bar none." One of
the many salient points it makes is in showing the true cloaking
power that religion has over sociopolitical events and designs, on
macro and micro scales. (Think back of Marvin Harris on the witch-
hunts!) Arthur Miller weeps to make something as interesting.
By the way, Jerzy Kawalerowicz's MOTHER JOAN OF THE ANGELS (which I
missed, like the other films, in the recent JK retro) is a telling
of the same historical event as in THE DEVILS, no? How does it
match up, everyone?
--Zach
9061
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: more auteurs and editors
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
>
> Agreed, which is why I originally put the term in
> quotation marks.
> I've been waiting for someone to challenge the term
> itself and I
> doubt whether Minnelli or Ford ever used such
> language even if
> they've been credited for shooting in this manner.
> For example,
> Minnelli's editor, Fazan, never used the term. She
> just said that
> Minnelli was very "stingy" in terms of the amount of
> footage he gave
> her and that he didn't do conventional coverage,
> giving her massive
> amounts of material in terms of master shots,
> close-ups, over-the-
> shoulders, etc.
Right. That's why there would be no term for it.
Directors like Ford and Minnelli knew how to get what
they wanted by refusing to give editors options of
going any other way with the material.
She described Margaret Booth, her
> boss at MGM,
> anxiously looking over her shoulder as Fazan would
> assemble a
> Minnelli sequence, and saying things like "Cut to a
> close-up, cut to
> a close-up." Fazan would invariably have to say
> that she didn't have
> anything to cut to.
Booth got her revenge when she hacked up "Two Weeks in
Antoerh Town." But again Minneli was soscrupulous that
even in un-ideal form the film is purely his.
> Even something as "mundane" as a shot/reverse shot
> sequence can be,
> in the hands of a skilled editor and attentive
> director, filled with
> nuances as in something like the parlor sequence in
> PSYCHO or
> the "horse racing" sequence between Bacall and
> Bogart in THE BIG
> SLEEP.
The parlor sequence in "Psycho" is the template for
ALL of Eric Rohmer. Look at "Psycho" and "Ma Nuit Chez
Maud" back to back (a neat double bill, BTW) and
you'll see what I mean.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
9062
From:
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:17pm
Subject: Re: socialism on film
Zach writes:
By the way, Jerzy Kawalerowicz's MOTHER JOAN OF THE ANGELS (which I missed,
like the other films, in the recent JK retro) is a telling of the same
historical event as in THE DEVILS, no? How does it match up, everyone?
This film seemed fairly bland, dull and "realistic" to me, when seen c1970.
(I originally typed 1070, but I'm not THAT old!) It could not be a greater
contrast in tone to the Russell, which Lets It All Hang Out.
"Ishi: The Last of His Tribe" (Robert Ellis Miller, 1978) is a major look at
the true story of a surviving Native American (from California). It too is a
remarkable, and little known film. It flashes back to Ishi's small community.
Mike Grost
9063
From:
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:28pm
Subject: Saturday on TCM
All times EST:
2 AM Le Petit soldat (Jean-Luc Godard)
8 AM Kansas City Confidential (Phil Karlson)
2 PM The Birds (Alfred Hitchcock)
6 PM The Searchers (John Ford)
Just read Daphne Du Maurier's original short story "The Birds". Very moody
and creepy.
Also saw "Siegfried" (Fritz Lang, 1924), in which the hero understands the
speech of birds, just like Gardner Fox's Hawkman character in the 1940's. Maybe
Hitch was watching...
Mike Grost
In a 1963 Peanuts, Snoopy kicks a bunch of birds off of his doghouse. "I
haven't trusted them since I saw the movie" he thinks.
9064
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 10:42pm
Subject: Schrader's 'Exorcist' --
I just read this on the entertainment news on IMDB --
Veteran director Paul Schrader is furious his axed prequel to 1973
horror classic The Exorcist will be released on DVD at the same time as
its replacement - because he wants it to receive a theatrical release.
American Gigolo film-maker Schrader - who also scripted Taxi Driver and
Raging Bull - had completed shooting his version of Exorcist: The
Beginning when studio Morgan Creek insisted it needed more gore.
Schrader, who saw the story as a "character-driven period drama", was
sacked and replaced by Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master
director Renny Harlin to give it a more bloody look. Harlin then
started shooting the $54 million prequel from scratch. But an upset
Schrader says, "I'm very proud of my film, and I think it deserves to
be seen." Exorcist: The Beginning is due to be released in cinemas
later this year with the DVD release date as yet announced.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9065
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:11pm
Subject: Re: Saturday on TCM
> 8 AM Kansas City Confidential (Phil Karlson)
Nobody needs reminding about the Ford or the Hitchcock (haven't seen
the Godard), but this is one class A crime picture.
Brent (of this list) watched it and declared that from then on, "Kevin
Spacey is the poor man's John Payne." Might be overstating the
resemblance but it's there around the eyes.
Anyway, excellent film. Karlson did another very good noir that year,
SCANDAL SHEET, but in my opinion it doesn't compare.
-Jaime
9066
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:21pm
Subject: Re: Saturday on TCM
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> > 8 AM Kansas City Confidential (Phil Karlson)
Karlson also did the remarkable "The Phenix City Story", and two
decades later - "Walking Tall". Which, surprisinly, is quite an
entertaining little picture. The well-edited, busting-up-the-bar
scene always seemed so out of place - until I found out Karlson's old
school history in the noir.
-Aaron
9067
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:46am
Subject: Re: Re: socialism on film
> By the way, Jerzy Kawalerowicz's MOTHER JOAN OF THE ANGELS (which I
> missed, like the other films, in the recent JK retro) is a telling
> of the same historical event as in THE DEVILS, no? How does it
> match up, everyone?
I'm afraid I'm more in the "run screaming from the theater" demographic
when it comes to THE DEVILS, but I do think JOAN is a powerful film,
almost in spite of itself. (I get the feeling that Kawalerowicz doesn't
really trust the image, and feels the need to layer metaphor on top of
it - and yet in JOAN the image is so potent that it seems to win out.) - Dan
9068
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:46am
Subject: Re: Schrader's 'Exorcist' --
replaced by Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master
> director Renny Harlin to give it a more bloody look
Odd to see Renny Harlin described that way. BTW, on the previously
raised subject of action films (NB: Harlin is Scandinavian), his
Cliffhanger is a good action film, although with Stallone involved
you have to wonder if he helped; the same situation applied in RH's
not-too-bad Driven. Independent of Stallone, however, he didn't do
terribly with The Long Kiss Goodbye, which contains a subtle
denunciation of the RFK assassination coverup -- on a license plate!
But of course Paul Schrader is the man who made Hardcore (remember
George C. Scott's hippy wig?), so how dare they etc blah blah blah.
9069
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:50am
Subject: Re: more auteurs and editors
>
> The parlor sequence in "Psycho" is the template for
> ALL of Eric Rohmer. Look at "Psycho" and "Ma Nuit Chez
> Maud" back to back (a neat double bill, BTW) and
> you'll see what I mean.
A great comparison. Actually, Hitchcock is full of Rohmereian scenes.
He denounced films that were photographs of people talking, but
that's because his dialogue scenes are always photographs of people
thinking--one of the keys to his cinema, and one of the things Rohmer
definitely learned from him.
9070
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:24am
Subject: Re: socialism on film
This is a pretty broad topic. Can you be a little more specific?
Off the top of my head, I'd certainly say, Loach's Land and Freedom and
Carla's Song.
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: "Jaime N. Christley"
To:
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 9:10 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] socialism on film
> Over the past year I've seen a handful of films that, either
> intentionally or unintentionally, presents a sympathetic of socialism
> and socialist communities on film. Perhaps the greatest American film
> about the subject (I'm tempted to say "and therefore the most tragic")
> is Cimino's HEAVEN'S GATE. Its powerful (if less so) British
> counterpart is Kevin Brownlow and Andrew Mollo's WINSTANLEY. And back
> to the US, John Carpenter's THEY LIVE. But there's a touch of
> commune-ism and collectivism to be found in the Robin Hood films, as
> well as, echoing the Robin Hood not a little, Mel Gibson's BRAVEHEART.
>
> May I have some more unforgettable examples?
>
> -Jaime
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
9071
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:06am
Subject: Kawalerowicz
I was quite pleasantly surprised when I saw a bunch of his films at the
Walter Reade this winter. He's one of those "arthouse" directors I avoided
like the plague when I was first imbibing the heady air of auteurism. (Or as
one of my mentors in college once wrote, "I wouldn't trade one frame of a
John Ford film for the entire works of Ingmar Bergman." I don't know how the
guy who wrote that would feel today, but I would gladly trade every frame of
"Flesh" or "Four Men and a Prayer" for a handful of magic beans.)
So imagine my surprise when I finally saw a half-dozen of his films and
liked most of them quite a bit. As for "Mother Joan" I think it anticipates
Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" in many ways, except that Kawalerowicz doesn't
believe in redemption. He does some absolutely riveting tricks with point of
view and it's a great-looking film. I was impressed.
George (Ah the sins of my youth -- not those sins, the film ones!) Robinson
Our talk of justice is empty until the
largest battleship has foundered on the
forehead of a drowned man.
--Paul Celan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zach Campbell"
To:
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 4:37 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: socialism on film
> Jaime:
> > But there's a touch of commune-ism and collectivism to be found in
> > the Robin Hood films, as well as, echoing the Robin Hood not a
> > little, Mel Gibson's BRAVEHEART.
>
> A communal ethos has existed for millenia (e.g., Acts in the Bible),
> so in that sense we could come up with any number of titles. I
> guess for 'socialism on film' I'd look for not simply examples of
> escaping from the world to form one's own, or even from defending
> one's own realm from the encroaching imperialist, but of
> foregrounding and attacking the trajectory of minoritarian power as
> it seeks to either appease-and-silence or subjugate-and-suppress the
> populace.
>
> > May I have some more unforgettable examples?
>
> Less than an hour ago I watched a shitty pan-and-scan VHS of Ken
> Russell's THE DEVILS, which David E. is not far from the truth in
> calling "the greatest political film ever made, bar none." One of
> the many salient points it makes is in showing the true cloaking
> power that religion has over sociopolitical events and designs, on
> macro and micro scales. (Think back of Marvin Harris on the witch-
> hunts!) Arthur Miller weeps to make something as interesting.
>
> By the way, Jerzy Kawalerowicz's MOTHER JOAN OF THE ANGELS (which I
> missed, like the other films, in the recent JK retro) is a telling
> of the same historical event as in THE DEVILS, no? How does it
> match up, everyone?
>
> --Zach
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
9072
From: magaroulian
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:37am
Subject: Hitchcock's SPELLBOUND; also JAMAICA INN
Hi friends. Just to say (1) there's currently an elaborate analysis of SPELLBOUND, including especially the 'Freudian' stuff of the
dream-sequence, in the "Editor's Day" feature of the Hitchcock Scholars/'MacGuffin' website (entries for April 5-16), whose relevant
URL is
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html
and (2) the News section on the same page mentions an upcoming screening on the UK Sky Cinema channel of JAMAICA INN, that
may be more complete than usual.
- Ken Mogg (Ed., 'The MacGuffin').
9073
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:50am
Subject: Re: socialism on film
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley" w=
rote:
> Over the past year I've seen a handful of films that, either
> intentionally or unintentionally, presents a sympathetic of socialism
> and socialist communities on film. Perhaps the greatest American film
> about the subject (I'm tempted to say "and therefore the most tragic")
> is Cimino's HEAVEN'S GATE. Its powerful (if less so) British
> counterpart is Kevin Brownlow and Andrew Mollo's WINSTANLEY. And back
> to the US, John Carpenter's THEY LIVE. But there's a touch of
> commune-ism and collectivism to be found in the Robin Hood films, as
> well as, echoing the Robin Hood not a little, Mel Gibson's BRAVEHEART.
>
> May I have some more unforgettable examples?
>
> -Jaime
You can't go far wrong with mid-1930s Renoir, though my absolute favourite =
is LE CRIME
DE MONSIEUR LANGE, in which the formerly downtrodden employees of an evil R=
obert
Maxwell-like publisher form a co-operative after he mysteriously disappears=
. Unlike most
explicitly socialist films, what distinguishes this one is its sense of fun=
- most other films
stress the "necessity" of collective labour, but this just makes it look li=
ke a much happier
and more motivated workplace.
Obviously, just about anything by Eisenstein and his contemporaries amply q=
ualifies, along
with much of the rest of the output of mainstream Soviet cinema. I particu=
larly
recommend the enthralling documentary EAST SIDE STORY, which describes the =
hitherto
hidden history of the socialist musical, a genre more or less invented by S=
talin when he
realised that song-and-dance numbers could be a great vehicle for propagand=
a. There
really was a Soviet musical called TRACTOR DRIVERS! I also caught a Marxis=
t Western from
Uzbekistan a few years ago called THE SEVENTH BULLET (d. Ali Khamraev, 1972=
), which
would be well worth reviving today given that the protagonist is faced with=
a choice
between Marx and Islam.
Ken Loach has already been mentioned, though there are quite a few other av=
owedly
socialist British film-makers. Alan Clarke is a notable example - although=
few if any of his
films are especially didactic, he was constantly concerned with presenting =
the working
classes in an unusually sympathetic (albeit brutally honest) light. Lindsa=
y Anderson
preferred grotesque satire of the powers that be, while Humphrey Jennings i=
s probably
British cinema's definitive socialist documentarist (he was also active in =
the Mass
Observation movement before turning to film). There were quite a few socia=
list film
collectives active from the 1970s onwards, notably Amber Films and Cinema A=
ction, and
Roland Joffé's late-1970s TV work shows his socialist leanings (especially =
'United
Kingdom'), though on the whole this hasn't been reflected in his features.
A more surprising nomination as a socialist director is Anthony Asquith, wh=
ose
background - the son of a Liberal Prime Minister - and apparent fondness fo=
r stuffed-shirt
literary adaptations would appear to rule him out on principle. Yet he was=
one of the most
tireless behind-the-scenes champions of workers' rights in the film industr=
y, and close
analysis of some of his films reveals a distinctly subversive streak (I'm t=
hinking of the
scene in FANNY BY GASLIGHT in which Stewart Granger promises his mother tha=
t in a
hundred years' time, class distinctions would be abolished).
I could come up with loads more examples, and I probably will later today. =
Most of the
British examples I cited are covered in more depth at http://www.screenonli=
ne.org.uk
Michael
9074
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:37pm
Subject: Re: socialism on film
>
> > Over the past year I've seen a handful of films that, either
> > intentionally or unintentionally, presents a sympathetic of
socialism
> > and socialist communities on film.
I wish Thom Andersen's Red Hollywood weren't kept out of circulation
by the huge cost of film extracts. He shows bits from a number of
films written by Communists and made - often at the lower end of the
budget spectrum - by Hollywood companies before the blacklist.
They're mostly unknown films, and they are all informed by the
Party's ideology. Arguably, so are Cy Enfield's films. I assume you
know about Salt of the Earth.
Edgar G. Ulmer's Ruthless is about the rise and fall of an evil
capitalist. Untypically, it ends with the line "He wasn't a man. He
was a way of life." Same thing at the end of The Singing
Blacksmith: "Workers create the wealth of the world." The Naked Dawn,
one of Ulmer's best, was written by a Communist, Julian Zimet, under
a pseudonym, and based on a Gorki short story. I'd say Ulmer flirted
with Communism, but having already been blacklisted for love, he was
reluctant to be re-blacklisted for politics and stayed away from it.
Of course, you can see lots of communism in Eisenstein, Vertov and
their comrades in Russia. I assume that communism is the ideology of
the films of the 5th and 6th generation of mainland Chinese
filmmakers, much in favor here, and I'd recommend as good examples
that I've seen Platform (if you can find it) and Happy Times.
All films by Jean-Marie Straub and Daniel Huillet are communist, but
particularly the more recent ones. They can't be seen here. La
Cecilia by Jean-Louis Comolli is about a socialist commune; The Red
Shadow, also by Comolli, is about communism. I think the latter was
distributed here on tape. Godard made a number of communist films
with Jean-Pierre Gorin after May '68, and before May he made La
Chinoise, which is about a utopian Maoist community in Paris.
Godard's post-Mao films haven't really renounced those beliefs, IMO,
particularly Numero deux, Comment ca va, Sauve qui peut, Soigne ta
droite, Passion (my favorite) and For Ever Mozart, all available here
on tape.
An interesting example of a communist script twisted into a liberal
film is Sodom and Gomorrah, scripted by blacklistee Hugo Butler.
Screening the Past should have my article on how the twisting
happened archived - there certainly are traces of Butler's ideas in
the finished product. Butler is an especially gifted example of
Communist screenwriting. For samples, check out Tashlin's The First
Time (if you can find it), Renoir's The Southerner, Bunuel's Robinson
Crusoe (rare) and The Young One (rentable).
Which brings up my favorite communist filmmaker, Bunuel. Run, don't
walk, to rent his at-last-available Mexican masterpieces Illusion
Travels by Streetcar(a communist utopian comedy), Subida al cielo, El
bruto, The Exterminating Angel, El, The Criminal Life of Archibaldo
de la Cruz (notice that there is work going on in the background of
many scenes of this bourgeois tale), and Nazarin; his French
masterpieces, L'age d'or, La mort en ce jardin, Diary of a
Chambermaid, Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and Phantom of Liberty
particularly; and his Spanish masterpieces, Land Without Bread,
Viridiana and Tristana.
Demy was probably a communist at heart, but his most communist film,
A Room in Town, is unavailable here. Peau d'Ane is a brilliant fable
of the origin of our economic system. The last shot of Umbrellas of
Cherbourg has a huge sign that reads Cherbourgeois (cher bourgeois).
Varda's Lions Love is an amazing utopia, if you can find it; if not,
check out Vagabond and The Gleaners and I.
9075
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:05pm
Subject: Re: socialism on film
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Brooke"
wrote:
"Unlike most explicitly socialist films,what distinguishes this one
[LE CRIME DE MONSIEUR LANGE] is its sense of fun- most other films
stress the "necessity" of collective labour, but this just makes it
look like a much happier and more motivated workplace."
For that reason LE CRIME DE MONSIEUR LANGE always eemed to me an
anarchist film. There was no vanguard party, no cadres, just direct
workers' control and spontaneous democracy. OUR DAILEY BREAD also
seems more anarchist than Marxist or Marxist-Lenninist. It's
intertesting to note that Marx called anarchism uptopian socialism as
opposed to scientific socialism, and Bakunin called anarchism
libtertarian socialsim in contrast to authoritarian socialsism.
Incidently, I recall that Sirk wanted to make a film about Bakunin's
last days in exlie in Switzerland.
Michael, your other examples sound very intriguing. When I was in
Japan several years ago I went to some screenings given by a Maoist
club and saw SOCIALISM COMES TO TIBET a 1962 film about Chinese
cadres instructing backward Tibetans in the ways of socialism. A
villinous landlord with the help of an evil Buddhist monk try to
preserve feudalism but are finally thwarted. An idealistic cadre has
a chaste romance with a Tibetan girl. I also saw another movie from
1958 (I forget the title at the moment) about pesants struggling to
form a commune as part of the Great Leap Forward. The movies only
had Japanese sub-titles (I can read Japanese but not that fast) but
the overall storylines were fairly clear. The first movie was of
interest because of location photography but was otherwise
undistinguished (it was shot in black and white.) The Great Leap
Forward movie had some interesting details of rural life that were
extraneous to the narrative (at least as far as I could tell)but was
also pretty much by the numbers.
Richard
9076
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:40pm
Subject: Re: Re: socialism on film
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Edgar G. Ulmer's Ruthless is about the rise and fall
> of an evil
> capitalist. Untypically, it ends with the line "He
> wasn't a man. He
> was a way of life."
It was written by Alvah Bessie -- one of the first
scriptwriters called before HUAC. because he defied
them his name was taken off "Ruthless" and wasn't
restored until a year and a half ago.
The marvelous Eddie Cantor musical "Roman Scandals"
has a quasi-socialist underpinning to it's modern
premise (Eddie's living in a shantytown of unemployed
workers and dreams of going back to ancient Rome) and
in "Hallelujah I'm a Bum" Harry Langdon plays a
socialist tramp called "Egghead."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢ http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9077
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 0:41am
Subject: Cahiers - April issue contents
In case any are interested, here are the contents of the April 2004
issue (No. 589) of the Cahiers, which I got in the mail a few days ago
--
COVER:
'The Brown Bunny,' 'Shara': Gallo et Kawase -- modernes solitaires
The accompanying image is a still (long-shot of motorcycle, center of
frame, pulling away from camera on fully austere desert plain) from
Gallo's 'The Brown Bunny.'
Editorial: "Régressions" by Frodon, on 'Route 181' and 'The Passion of
the Christ.'
-"Courrier" (Reader Letters): The pull-out letter castigates Cdc for
not going far enough in their praise of 'Triple Agent' to declare it a
masterpiece; another reader elegantly pulls apart Gibson's 'Passion.'
-"La Lettre" by Alain Bergala: "A Cécile F., qui se présente à son
premier casting" ("Ma chère petite nièce unique et préférée, J'ai bien
reçu ton SOS. Mais ne panique pas: dans le cinéma on n'arrête jamais
de passer des examens!" etc.) One part that particularly interested
me: "Tu te souviens de la fois où je t'ai montré en DVD la scène de
'Eyes Wide Shut' entre Nicole Kidman et Tom Cruise où ils se parlent
dans la chambre tout en fumant un joint. C'est une scène très lente,
dont on aurait pu penser à la lecture du scénario qu'elle allait être
ennuyeuse. Kubrick, en travaillant sa mise en scène avec ses acteurs,
en fait une grande scène du cinéma, qui tient autant sur les rythmes
des acteurs que sur le texte. Je suis sûr que cela a été plus
difficile à filmer, pour lui, que le vaisseau spatial de '2001.' "
-"Modernes solitudes" -- Special Section on 'The Brown Bunny' and
'Shara'
Introductory piece by Burdeau.
Review of 'The Brown Bunny' ("Macadam à une voie")
Analysis of 'The Brown Bunny' ("Autofilm pour le temps présent")
"A l'horizon des film déserts" by Frodon -- on 'The Brown Bunny,'
'Twentynine Palms,' and 'Gerry'
Review of 'Shara' ("Capitale fantôme")
"A la recherche de convergences entre 'Shara' et 'The Brown Bunny': Au
son, la tristesse"
Naomi Kawase interview: "J'ai décidé de jouer la veille du tournage"
Reviews:
"Zone Chine" -- 'All Tomorrow's Parties' by Yu Lik-wai
"Au bout des histoires" -- 'Les Sucriers de Colleville' by Ariane
Doublet
"L'Algérie par ses femmes" -- 'Viva Laldgérie' by Nadir Moknèche
"Langue fourchue" -- 'The Passion of the Christ' by Mel Gibson
"Marges silencieuses" -- 'Wild Side' by Sébastian Lifshitz
Short Reviews
Hommage to Jean Rouch -- "Mort au Niger, le 19 février, Jean Rouch a
marqué d'une empreinte joyeuse, complexe et infiniment féconde la
modernité du cinéma."
"Jean Rouch, esprit de cinéma" by Cyril Béghin
"Jean Rouch, 1917-2004" by Charlotte Garson
"Le partisan du désordre créatif" by Yann Lardeau
"Exploration aux frontières" -- on the Némo festival
"Le contre-attaque de l'argentique" -- on the new "3-perf" stock that
economizes film by +25% (less space between frames).
"Découverte: Fred Walton, le quatrième as"
"Avant-garde et ligne de front" -- on the Diagonale festival in Graz
"Le temps de Chantal Akerman" -- on the Pompidou complete retrospective
of her oeuvre and the publication of her book 'Autoportrait'
"Un manifeste de l'ACID: 'Libérons les écrans' " -- on the decrease in
the number of screens in France, the threat to independent filmmakers,
and the petition signed by filmmakers, writers, etc....
"Le tour du monde en 80 sons" -- on the new MK2 release of CDs
containing music from films of different continents/regions
News
Shoot-News: Eugène Green's next film will be called 'Le Pont des arts';
Gus Van Sant's getting ready to shoot his new film produced by HBO
(once again), 'Last Days,' a "grunge-scene musical set in the early
1990s" starring my cinematic bane, Michael Pitt; after 'Che,' Terrence
Malick will move on to yet another new film, 'The New World,' set in
the 18th century, about the relationship between John Smith (played by
Colin Farrell -- oh yes) and the American Indians; after 'The Terminal'
Spielberg will start shooting 'The War of the Worlds' with Tom Cruise,
then the fourth Indiana Jones film; Hideo Nakata is about to start
shooting his first Hollywood film -- 'The Ring 2,' which won't be a
remake of the Japanese 'Ring'-sequel, but a follow-up to the American
version of the film.
On French TV: a big Rita Hayworth blow-out on CineCinema Classic.
DVD Releases: 'Hiroshima mon amour' and 'Muriel, le temps d'un retour'
by Resnais, from Arte Video. On the discs: a Resnais interview
conducted by Toubiana, and, on the 'Hiroshima' disc: the short films
'Toute la mémoire du monde' (1956), 'Guernica' (1950), and 'Les statues
meurent aussi' (1953, co-directed with Chris Marker). On the 'Muriel'
disc: 'Le Chant du Styrène' (1958), 'Gauguin' (1951), and 'Van Gogh'
(1948).
Also released this month in France: 'Les Enfants terribles' by
Melville/Cocteau (with 'Villa Santo Sospir,' also available in the
Criterion Orpheus Trilogy box); 'Wanda' by Barbara Loden; 'Cluny Brown'
by Ernst Lubitsch ('Unfaithfully Yours' by Sturges and 'I Was a Male
War Bride' by Hawks are also out in the same series); 'Ciao! Manhattan'
by Weisman/Palmer; 'Picnic at Hanging Rock' by Peter Weir; 'Warm Water
Under a Red Bridge' by Shôhei Imamura; 'Russian Ark' by Aleksandr
Sokurov; 'The Quiet American' by Philip Noyce.
"Le Lecteur de DVD: L'Egypte et sa Pologne" by Jean Douchet: on Jerzy
Kawalerowicz's 'Pharaoh.'
Essays:
"Le cinéma français existe-t-il?" by Arnaud Desplechin ("Destinataire
de la lettre d'Alain Bergala dans les Cahiers no. 588, le cinéaste
prolonge le débat")
"Changer tout sans rien changer" by Laurence Giavarini ("A propos de
'Buongiorno, notte' de Marco Bellocchio et 'S21' de Rithy Panh")
"Les infortunes de la pureté" by Jean-Michel Frodon ("Cinéma et jeux
video")
"L'opéra rap de Tony Montana" by Gilles Grand ("A l'écoute du
'Scarface' de Brian De Palma, édité en DVD")
"Manny Farber, l'impatient" by Cyril Béghin ("A l'occasion de la
parution en français d' 'Espace négatif,' rencontre avec le grand
critique américain")
"Politique des images, politique des mots" by Arnaud Macé ("éléments
pour une histoire des discours critiques")
Dictionnaire (dé)raisonné: F comme folie, by Francis Marmande
Le cinéma retrouvé: Sergio Leone (on the occasion of the release of the
uncut 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly' on DVD)
"Sergio Leone ou le sens du vide" by Emmanuel Burdeau
"Déconstruction du western" by Eugenio Renzi
"Comment ça s'écrit Leone" by François Bégaudeau -- shot analysis from
'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly'
"La dialectique peut-elle réchauffer les spaghettis?" by Jean-Pierre
Rehm
"Pour quelques minutes de plus" by Julien Welter -- on the scenes
reintegrated to the new DVD
And the Conseil des dix -- the highest ranking film this month is
Straub/Huillet's 'Une visite au Louvre,' -- other high rankers (four
and three star winners) include 'S21' by Rithy Panh, 'Gerry' by Gus Van
Sant, 'Shara' by Naomi Kawase, 'Triple Agent' by Eric Rohmer, and 'The
Brown Bunny' by Vincent Gallo.
craig.
9078
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:26am
Subject: Lost (Sam) Wood silent unearthed in the Netherlands
Should be of interest at least to M. C.:
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A copy of Rudolph Valentino's silent
film"Beyond the Rocks" has been found in the Netherlands, becoming
the only known existing print of the 1922 classic, the Amsterdam Film
Museum said Saturday.
The film is "basically complete and basically undamaged," said Film
Museum historian Jan van den Brink.
"Beyond the Rocks," directed by Sam Wood, was the only film in which
Valentino starred opposite another silent era legend, Gloria Swanson.
9079
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:26am
Subject: Re: Cahiers - April issue contents
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> In case any are interested, here are the contents of the April 2004
> issue (No. 589) of the Cahiers, which I got in the mail a few days
ago
> --
Unless I missed it, no "ten best films of the year" lists were
printed in Cahiers this year. The lists had appeared each January or
February since 1982. Have the editors explained why the top ten
lists are gone?
Paul
9080
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:44am
Subject: Re: Re: Cahiers - April issue contents
>
> Unless I missed it, no "ten best films of the year" lists were
> printed in Cahiers this year. The lists had appeared each January or
> February since 1982. Have the editors explained why the top ten
> lists are gone?
There was a note in either the January or February issue explaining
that because the editorial staff has been in such a state of flux --
indeed, many of the people who constituted the board during the 2003
review year having since departed by the time October, November,
December rolled around -- there would be no "ten best" for 2003.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9081
From:
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:11am
Subject: Re: Lost (Sam) Wood silent unearthed in the Netherlands
A still of "Beyond the Rocks" is much reprinted in film history books. It
shows Valentino in white tie and tails, embracing Gloria Swanson. Parker Tyler
has a commentary on it in "Three Faces of Film". Have long wanted to see the
movie - had not realized it was considered lost.
"Camille" (Ray C. Smallwood) with Valentino is a film classic. The first half
of "The Conquering Power" (Rex Ingram) with Valentino is also pretty good,
till the film descends into stereotypes in its second half. It is not as rich as
"Scaramouche", though, which is still my favorite Ingram. Found "Mare
Nostrum" (Ingram) to be a gloomy disappointment, although it certainly influenced
"Dishonored" (Sternberg).
Who is M.C.?
Mike Grost
9082
From:
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:39am
Subject: The Clay Bird (Tareque Masud)
Matir Moina / The Clay Bird (Tareque Masud, 2002) is a well-done movie. It is
a more or less autobiographical film, recreating the director's childhood
years in 1960's Bangladesh.
The film offers a sustained critique of both religious intolerance and
Communism. It suggests that "isms" are crippling ideologies that ruin people's lives.
This is a film to watch for, as it gradually circulates its way through the
vagaries of distribution.
Mike Grost
9083
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 11:41am
Subject: Pierre Sauvage (was: Lost Wood silent unearthed in the Netherlands)
> Who is M.C.?
>
> Mike Grost
Our own Monsieur Coursodon. He mostly-wrote/edited a brilliant
encyclopedia of American directors containing an entry on Sam Wood by
Pierre Sauvage, who also directed a documentary about a heroic
village that saved Jews during WWII called, I believe, Triumph of the
Spirit. Pierre is married to the Log Lady from Twin Peaks, as I
recall. He and she would be good additions to our group if M. C. is
in touch with him.
9084
From:
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 11:01am
Subject: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences
More thoughts on positive and negative responses to movies, triggered by the
Action Films thread.
Lovers of Classical music and fine art painting tend to stress the positive
side of their aesthetic experience. They talk about how beautiful the music or
paintings are, how much joy it brings into their lives.
By contrast, critics of the novel often stress how unpleasant a book is,
while praising it: "Crime and Punishment is one of the most disturbing, unsettling
experiences in world literature!"
One sees both approaches in film study.
Auteurists and/or lovers of experimental films tend to focus on the positive
sides of film viewing. "Shanghai Express is a work of extraordinary beauty and
joy". "Samadhi is one of the most beautiful experiences one can have in
cinema".
By contrast, many cinephiles often use the language of pain while praising
current serious film dramas: "The River is one of the most upsetting films I
have ever seen". "Yi Yi is a gut wrenching experience that left me shook up for
days".
There is a similar dichotomy concerning commercial genres.
Action films and music videos are seen in exclusively positive terms by their
fans. They are valued only when they provide fun, joy and bliss to their
viewers. People talk about how much they enjoyed "The Fast and the Furious" or
"Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man".
Horror films are often seen in negative terms. "I was more terrified by this
film than anything seen in years". "Truly upsetting imagery".
As a viwer of all kinds of art, my brain seems hard-wired to respond strongly
to positive experiences. I love classical music, painting, auteurist films,
experimental films, action films and musicals and music videos of all kinds,
both classical and pop.
By contrast, I seem incapable of appeciating the "negative experiences" that
so many critics and viewers value. I am not a big fan of most literary novels
(except ones filled with beautiful poetic prose - Melville, Hawthorne, the
Brontes), do not like gloomy dramas of everyday life admired by many cinephiles,
and have never had the slightest ability to respond to post 1970 horror films.
My brain does not "understand" why anyone would want to see something
"horrifying". It is like the mental equivalent of being "tone deaf" to horror films.
I am not trying to raise my personal responses to the level of an aesthetic,
or suggest they are the final word on different kinds of films. But it does
seem to be something going on with my brain, that seems worthwhile thinking
about, perhaps.
Mike Grost
9085
From:
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:51pm
Subject: Re: socialist films
Can you (or anyone else) say any more about Une Chambre en Ville? I
was fascinated by the snatches of it in Varda's The World of Jacques
Demy? Is it available anywhere -- and/or worth seeking out? Any
musical with a labor strike in it seems worth a look.
Sam
At 12:06 PM +0000 4/18/04, hotelove666@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>Demy was probably a communist at heart, but his most communist film,
>A Room in Town, is unavailable here. Peau d'Ane is a brilliant fable
>of the origin of our economic system. The last shot of Umbrellas of
>Cherbourg has a huge sign that reads Cherbourgeois (cher bourgeois).
>Varda's Lions Love is an amazing utopia, if you can find it; if not,
>check out Vagabond and The Gleaners and I.
9086
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:08pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences
> By contrast, I seem incapable of appeciating the "negative experiences" that
> so many critics and viewers value. I am not a big fan of most literary novels
> (except ones filled with beautiful poetic prose - Melville, Hawthorne, the
> Brontes), do not like gloomy dramas of everyday life admired by many cinephiles,
> and have never had the slightest ability to respond to post 1970 horror films.
> My brain does not "understand" why anyone would want to see something
> "horrifying". It is like the mental equivalent of being "tone deaf" to horror films.
> I am not trying to raise my personal responses to the level of an aesthetic,
> or suggest they are the final word on different kinds of films. But it does
> seem to be something going on with my brain, that seems worthwhile thinking
> about, perhaps.
Yes, it definitely is worth thinking about. I do enjoy the "negative
experiences" that you talk about, but they are transformed in my mind
into something pleasurable. It always sounds odd to me when friends
say, "I'm not in the mood for a depressing film tonight" - if the
experience is depressing, why would one ever be in the mood for it?
It's possible to be in a head space where depressing films aren't
necessarily depressing.
How this works is up for debate. You can make an argument from
aesthetics, but I'm increasingly suspicious of such arguments in my old
age. This argument would go something like: an aesthetic experience
incorporates the understanding that the events in the fiction aren't
real, and therefore leaves the experiencer free to react to detail,
mood, texture, overtones, whatever. So tragedy might be exhilarating in
fiction, though it would be painful in life.
If you buy this, then you would probably explain people's differing
reactions by how "live" the issues are in their psychology. For
instance, someone who loves tragedy might not be able to "aestheticize"
a Holocaust movie if his or her parents died in the Holocaust. More
subterranean psychological currents might govern whether a viewer enjoys
horror movies or finds them unpleasant. In general, this theory
postulates that people aesthetize when they can, and have a raw reaction
when the art experience evokes something unsettled in them.
I now find this theory too pretty, and too flattering to the person who
is able to aesthetize. The second part of the theory - that
psychological issues can get in the way of aesthetizing - seems more
plausible than the first, and it seems possible to extend it into a more
general, psychology-based theory, something like what Freud proposed.
According to this new theory, if we like a depressing film, it's because
some unconscious part of us is drawn to the negative elements. Ditto
horror or any other negative experience. Aesthetics are built on top of
these more atavistic elements.
According to this Freudian model, a film experience that repels us would
be something like a bad dream: an unconscious part of us wants the bad
thing to happen, another part is afraid of that feeling and creates a
violent aversion to counterbalance the attraction.
In real life, I shy away from graphic descriptions of physical violence,
but for some reason I love to ruminate endlessly on death, aging,
disappointment, etc. And, lo and behold, my film tastes are similar: I
have trouble with the horror genre, especially when it fulfills its
primal mandate and scares us too thoroughly or effectively; but my idea
of fun is sitting through a triple-bill of grim movies about the human
condition. We all have different profiles in this regard.
Interestingly, your list of favorite "literary" novels implicitly
includes WUTHERING HEIGHTS, one of my all-time favorite books. But it's
a rather dark vision of human nature - I'm surprised it doesn't bother
you in that regard.
(Something about me, perhaps, but WUTHERING HEIGHTS has always struck me
as incredibly superior to JANE EYRE, to the point that I would never
have reckoned Charlotte a major author if a consensus hadn't informed me
otherwise.)
- Dan
9087
From:
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 0:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sidney J. Furie
> Fortunately Austin is not in Tornado Alley (my part of Texas was). I
> understand from friends who are still there that the population has boomed, so
> traffic should be almost as bad as LA -- but there are still pockets where the
> 60s have never gone away.
>
I'll take the traffic james in that case.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9088
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:20pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences AMORES PERROS
I saw AMORES PERROS at a film festival and recommended it to our
local film club but it was immediately declined because of the 'dog
fights.' I heard a comment like "people who have dogs won't want
to see it."
I was glad to see Amores Perros get the critical acclaim it did as
besides the 'dog fights' issue, there was an undercurrent that the
film-makers did not protect the dogs in the film.
9089
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:56pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Interestingly, your list of favorite "literary"
> novels implicitly
> includes WUTHERING HEIGHTS, one of my all-time
> favorite books. But it's
> a rather dark vision of human nature - I'm surprised
> it doesn't bother
> you in that regard.
>
> (Something about me, perhaps, but WUTHERING HEIGHTS
> has always struck me
> as incredibly superior to JANE EYRE, to the point
> that I would never
> have reckoned Charlotte a major author if a
> consensus hadn't informed me
> otherwise.)
>
> - Dan
>
Dan have you seen Jacques Rivette's version of
"Wuthering heights"? It's on DVD and it's quite
teriffic, I think. Lucas Belvaux (now a director as
well as an actor) is Heathcliff -- called "Roc" in
this version.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
9090
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:00pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences
> Dan have you seen Jacques Rivette's version of
> "Wuthering heights"? It's on DVD and it's quite
> teriffic, I think. Lucas Belvaux (now a director as
> well as an actor) is Heathcliff -- called "Roc" in
> this version.
No, I haven't seen it yet. I was quite surprised to spot it on DVD. - Dan
9091
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences AMORES PERROS
> I was glad to see Amores Perros get the critical acclaim it did as
> besides the 'dog fights' issue, there was an undercurrent that the
> film-makers did not protect the dogs in the film.
People's first reaction to this kind of thing is that they are afraid
the dogs weren't protected, but my sense is that they don't even like to
think about dogs being hurt, regardless of whether the real-life dogs
are okay. Ditto children. But it's fine to hurt fictional people,
especially if they're extras with whom we have no identification.
Interesting to speculate why "it's just a movie" when people egt hurt,
but not for dogs and children.
If you ask people about this, you get the same answer every time: "The
children/dogs are innocent." It's implied that the innocent-bystander
adult isn't innocent. - Dan
9092
From:
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:05pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences AMORES PE...
I walked out of "Amores Perros" in the middle. It wasn't the dogs. It was the
middle section in which the woman is apparently about to get mutilated that
really upset me. I also walked out of "The English Patient" when they
threatened to cut off Willem Dafoe's thumb. He was screaming "I don't want you to do
this to me." I was thinking "I don't blame you buddy! And I don't want to watch
this, either." So I got up and left the theater. Still have no idea how either
film ended. Thought they were really Bad Trips, upsetting experiences I would
not wish on any film viewer. So it is not the animals, it was the grown-up
humans that got to me.
Clearly, this is not an "aesthetic judgment". It is an emotional "gut
reaction". Both my subconscious and my conscious mind really revolt at such stuff!
On a happier note, I think Bronte's "Wuthering Heights" is magnificent. Also
love her Complete Poems. She is the Victorian poet known best here - also love
Tennyson, Rossetti, and W.S Gilbert in this era. I've loved much tragedy in
my life, and did not want to come across as some Pollyanna, only interested in
the cheerful. Perhaps I'm responding to Bronte's extraordinary command of the
English language.
I've been avoiding the numerous film versions of Wuthering Heights - did not
want to "overlay" my memories of the book with any adaptation images. This is
unfair to Bunuel, Rivette and even Wyler.
"Jane Eyre" is the core novel in my life - the one which defines what it
means to be human.
Mike Grost
9093
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences AMORES PERROS
>
> People's first reaction to this kind of thing is that they are afraid
> the dogs weren't protected, but my sense is that they don't even like to
> think about dogs being hurt, regardless of whether the real-life dogs
> are okay.
One of the best brazilian fils from
the 90's is a short called Juvenilia
(directed by Paulo Sacramento whose
foirst full-feauture The Prisioner of
the Iron Bars is playing in some
fesativals ands is reportedly great).
It's made only of still photographs of
a buch of teenagers attacking, killing
and destroying the body of a dog
(Sacramento didn't kill the dog, he
bought the body of a dead one to use
in the film). It's very upsetting and
the audience always seems to react
furiously toward the film. I always
got the impression that if the film
feautured a human in the place of the
dog, people would take it without much
complain.
Ditto children. But it's fine to hurt fictional people,
> especially if they're extras with whom we have no identification.
> Interesting to speculate why "it's just a movie" when people egt hurt,
> but not for dogs and children.
>
> If you ask people about this, you get the same answer every time: "The
> children/dogs are innocent." It's implied that the innocent-bystander
> adult isn't innocent. - Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
9094
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:44pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
>
> By contrast, many cinephiles often use the language of pain while praising
> current serious film dramas: "The River is one of the most upsetting films I
> have ever seen". "Yi Yi is a gut wrenching experience that left me shook up for
> days".
That's a funny response to Yi Yi; I can imagine being bored by it (as I'm afraid I was at my first viewing) or, in a more accommodating frame of mind, captivated by its narrative and cinematic energies. As for The River, sure; but is the material of Bigger Than Life, for example, so much less "disturbing"?
Anyway, I suspect the problem with the "dichotomy" is that those who enjoy such "negative" experiences, as you call them, would probably consider them "positive" -- important sensitivities have been awakened, whether or not these are strictly aesthetic ones.
I haven't seen Amores Perros, but the agonies of Willem Dafoe and his thumb would seem to represent filmmaking at an altogether more meretricious level...?
9095
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:48pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences
>
> Interestingly, your list of favorite "literary" novels implicitly
> includes WUTHERING HEIGHTS, one of my all-time favorite books. But
it's
> a rather dark vision of human nature - I'm surprised it doesn't
bother
> you in that regard.
>
> (Something about me, perhaps, but WUTHERING HEIGHTS has always
struck me
> as incredibly superior to JANE EYRE, to the point that I would
never
> have reckoned Charlotte a major author if a consensus hadn't
informed me
> otherwise.)
>
> - Dan
Mike and Dan - See Bunuel's Wuthering Heights if you ever have a
chance. It's better than it's reputation, although everyone has
always loved the ending.
The locus classicus for discussions of pleasure and unpleasure in art
is the 18th and 19th century discussion of the beautiful and the
sublime. Burke said the beautiful is based on feelings of pleasure,
the sublime on feelings of fear, which become pleasurable in art.
Kant laid the basis for Romantic championing of the sublime over the
beautiful by arguing that sublime images evoke the idea of infinity,
and therefore of the infinity within us, since even the Himalayas
aren't adequate to the concept of inifinity. The episode of crossing
the Alps in The Prelude makes the same point, and ends in one of the
most wonderful passages in all of English poetry.
The term is usually applied to landscape imagery, but throughout
Wordsworth's Lyrical Ballads and the childhood episodes of The
Prelude, sensations of terror related to drowned bodies, hanged men
and creepy things a child senses without seeing when alone in Nature
are harbingers of the Imagination's growing strength in young
Wordsworth. Joe Dante told me he felt that way about a ruined house
near his summer camp that reminded him of the human family's last
refuge in Robot Monster.
Wuthering Heights stands apart from the writings of Charlotte because
it is a balls-out Gnostic work, and arguably the idea of the infinity
within is Gnostic, too. It certainly is a work devoted to the pursuit
of sublimity, not beauty, no matter how beautiful the writing is. The
name of the farm, "Wuthering Heights," is a two-word evocation of the
sublime.
9096
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:29pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences
I am conscious that good and bad things happen in the
world all the time and don't think of a film as any more than a
momentary employment of specific things to tell a particular
story. Even a documentary is probably telling a story I've already
heard. I am not all knowing, just cognizant of good and bad.
As a young person, movies offered me much information about the
world (and still do), but now I'm more interested in 'how the story
is told,' rather than 'what the story is.'
I have not yet seen the 9-11 movie by the different film-makers
but it is a perfect example of a dismal event, probably told in a
variety of artistic ways.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Yes, it definitely is worth thinking about. I do enjoy the
"negative
> experiences" that you talk about, but they are transformed in my
mind
> into something pleasurable. It always sounds odd to me when
friends
> say, "I'm not in the mood for a depressing film tonight" - if the
> experience is depressing, why would one ever be in the mood for it?
> It's possible to be in a head space where depressing films aren't
> necessarily depressing.
9097
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: socialist films
--- samadams@e... wrote:
> Can you (or anyone else) say any more about Une
> Chambre en Ville? I
> was fascinated by the snatches of it in Varda's The
> World of Jacques
> Demy? Is it available anywhere -- and/or worth
> seeking out? Any
> musical with a labor strike in it seems worth a
> look.
>
> Sam
>
It's a great, great film. Right in the first rank of
Demy's work. Arguably his best in fact. Michel
Colombier did the score because Demy and Legrand had a
falling out --because Jacques was "coming out." But
they buried the hatchet and worked together again. The
score is much in the Legrand style, but not exactly an
imitation. It's really quite good, and I wish
Colombier would do more. He's chiefly an arrnager of
other people's work -- especially in the pop/rock
field.
The story is based on actual events that Demy knew of,
and uses Nantes as a "set" in a way that's different
from "Lola" -- even though much of the action takes
place in the same arcade. Rather than melancholy the
mood is definitely tragic. Characters die right before
our eyes in mid-aria.
I have a two record set of the complete soundtrack
that I bought in Paris in the 80's.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9098
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:38pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences
Mike Grost:
> Lovers of Classical music and fine art painting tend to stress the
> positive side of their aesthetic experience. They talk about how
> beautiful the music or paintings are, how much joy it brings into
> their lives.
This is a major generalization, though. What is 'Classical' music?
Does Stravinsky count? Schoenberg? Not exactly happy-go-lucky
fellows, those. What is 'fine art painting'? Do Picasso, Schiele,
and Munch (or even Caravaggio, Bosch, and Grunewald) do much to
bring joy and beauty into onlookers' lives?
> My brain does not "understand" why anyone would want to see
> something "horrifying".
Dan and others have covered this fairly well. People generally have
a masochistic streak of some sort, which is why a lot of us enjoy
certain thrills (horror films, roller coasters, extreme sports).
This particular sort pleasure might be physiologically-based: we
like the adrenaline rush. And as far as bleak, depressive,
suffering art, we might well take from it things that end up as a
certain kind of beauty or affirmation. Or rather, I think it might
be safest not to assume that beauty and certainty are our hardwired
predispositions.
--Zach
9099
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:33pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences AMORES PERROS
You are right about the 'extras' don't matter sentiment. Look at all
the collateral damage done in Gangster movies.
People's sentiments about movies do not bother me, even if they imply
a sanctimonious being... I know there are few saints among us.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I was glad to see Amores Perros get the critical acclaim it did as
> > besides the 'dog fights' issue, there was an undercurrent that
the
> > film-makers did not protect the dogs in the film.
>
> People's first reaction to this kind of thing is that they are
afraid
> the dogs weren't protected, but my sense is that they don't even
like to
> think about dogs being hurt, regardless of whether the real-life
dogs
> are okay. Ditto children. But it's fine to hurt fictional people,
> especially if they're extras with whom we have no identification.
> Interesting to speculate why "it's just a movie" when people egt
hurt,
> but not for dogs and children.
>
> If you ask people about this, you get the same answer every time:
"The
> children/dogs are innocent." It's implied that the
innocent-bystander
> adult isn't innocent. - Dan
9100
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:53pm
Subject: Film Noir at Palm Springs 3-6JUN2004
http://www.palmspringsfilmnoir.com/
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact