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.
9101
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 11:18pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences AMORES PERROS
What's that dialog from WEEKEND ?
"....they're fictional characters"
"Then why are they crying ?"
do I have this quote right ?
-Sam
9102
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 11:45pm
Subject: Re: Pierre Sauvage (was: Lost Wood silent unearthed in the Netherlands)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> > 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.
My interest in Sam Wood is minimal. he was one of the least visual
and most wooden (pun intended) of the so-called top directors.
Whatever is of any cinematic interest in his movies seems to be due
to William Cameron Menzies, the production designer on half a dozen
of his forties films. However my knowledge of his silent output is
very limited.
I haven't communicated with Pierre Sauvage in ages and he has more
than once in the past told me that he didn't like writing about films
(it became very clear when we started collaborating on "American
Directors"). I don't think he still considers himself a cinephile.
Last time we talked his e-mail was, plainly, sauvage@s...
And, Mr K., if you dropped the annoying mannerism of calling
me "M. C." people wouldn't have to ask "who is M. C.?"
JPC
9103
From:
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:46pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences
Some thoughts:
On the Beautiful and the Sublime
This is fascinating. Will have to read more up on this. Never heard of the
"sublime" being rooted in fear.
I read "The Prelude" a long time ago. Remember most the scene above Mount
Snowdon with the clouds stretched out below.
Stravinsky and Schoenberg
I've loved both of these since being a teenager. Their music seems purely
joyous to me. This could just be me. I like to sing along with 12 tone music, and
have been known to sing Schoenberg in the shower... My teenage years in the
60's were the height of 12 tone music's prestige, and all this just seems
natural to me. In the 1960's I believed or at least hoped that the whole world
would go atonal by the year 2000, and 12 tone music would be mainstream. I also
hoped there would be no more wars! By the way, I like Stravinsky's late 12 tone
music the best of all of this great composer's works.
On painters of horror (Bosch) and angst (Munch)
I'd forgotten about all of these guys. Few people have ever described them as
joyous. They are certainly a real part of Fine Art. But artists like them
form a very small percentage of painting's history. Especially compared to all
the "disturbing" novelists. Confession: I can't stand Bosch and have never been
able to like Munch.
On Freud
I'm a bit concerned about Freudian "explanations" for liking or not liking
action films or horror. My post suggested this was a matter of "perception". The
speculation was that some people's mental senses let them "see" artistic
aspects of either "positive" or "negative" art experiences. I compared this with
color vision or hearing music. Bees can see ultra-violet; humans can't. Cats
and dogs can hear ultra-sonic sounds; humans can't.
In humans, the ability to "percieve" and "enjoy" kinds of art experience
might be in-born or genetic. It also might be cultural; something that is learned
or cultivated. One person might have cultivated a taste for action cinema;
another for horror. And these might be linked with broad categories of
"positivity" or "negativity". This is a way-out thought, perhaps.
What I did NOT imply is that this was a moral issue. Or that people with one
or the other were psychologically healthy or unsound. That seems awfully
personal...
Mike Grost
9104
From:
Date: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:52pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences AMORES PE...
Well, I broke my own Good Resolution and descended to negative criticism
about "Amores Perros". This never works! My apologies to everybody.
"Amores Perros" is a much celebrated film that was on countless 10 best
lists. People have a right to enjoy it and admire it, without cold water being
thrown on it. It has certainly impressed a large quantity of very intelligent
people.
Mike Grost
9105
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 0:09am
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences AMORES PE...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> 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.
Speaking of Really Bad Trips I would like to bring up two films I
watched in the past six months and which were by far the
most "disturbing" I ever saw: Haneke's "Funny Games" and
Noe's "Irreversible". Both are harrowing, repulsive, unbearable,
thoroughly objectionable on various grounds, AND at the same time
totally gripping and fascinating, each in its own peculiar way. I'm
still trying to sort out the kind of emotions I felt watching them,
and what kind of "esthetic" experience they were to me, and they
could be to others. I wish Bill wrote something here about the Noe
(we discussed it briefly some time ago). These films are much more
upsetting than Amores Perros, which bothered me much less. They
challenge you to reject them yet make it hard, even impossible for
you to do it honestly. Any one cares to comment?
JPC
9106
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 0:23am
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences AMORES PE...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Well, I broke my own Good Resolution and descended to negative
criticism
> about "Amores Perros". This never works! My apologies to everybody.
> "Amores Perros" is a much celebrated film that was on countless 10
best
> lists. People have a right to enjoy it and admire it, without cold
water being
> thrown on it. It has certainly impressed a large quantity of very
intelligent
> people.
>
> Mike Grost
"Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness."
Why would you have to apologize for saying you didn't like a movie
and stating why?
Cold water is sometimes useful, sometimes necessary. I liked the film
myself but I can accept many objections to it as valid.
"negative" criticism is neither superior nor inferior to "positive"
criticism. It doesn't matter which it is as long as it makes you
think.
JPC
9107
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 1:04am
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Some thoughts:
>
> I like to sing along with 12 tone music, and
> have been known to sing Schoenberg in the shower... My teenage
years in the
> 60's were the height of 12 tone music's prestige, and all this just
seems
> natural to me. In the 1960's I believed or at least hoped that the
whole world
> would go atonal by the year 2000, and 12 tone music would be
mainstream. I also
> hoped there would be no more wars!
I went through the same thing although I never really did sing in
the shower. When I was a child I thought like a child...
I thought Hodeir's 12-tone adaptation to jazz was great, though
(still like it.)
9108
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 1:31am
Subject: Re: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences
Zach Campbell wrote:
> 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).
Or a sadistic streak, which is probably the same thing on some deep-down
level.
MG4273@a... wrote:
> What I did NOT imply is that this was a moral issue. Or that people
with one
> or the other were psychologically healthy or unsound. That seems awfully
> personal...
Well, for what it's worth, my idea wasn't to label any group as
psychologically unsound, or to put a moral spin on the issue. I was
actually trying to tar everyone with the same brush.
Describing people in terms of brain chemistry isn't necessarily
imcompatible with describing them psychologically. You could see these
as two different ways of looking at the same problem. - Dan
9109
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 1:30am
Subject: Irreversible
I agree with Jean-Pierre that it's a pretty unpleasant experience,
one I also felt had something bogus about it. I said here at the time
that Irreversible was just the sort of "operation" that the Cahiers
would have spent pages debunking in the old days. But Irreversible -
as far as I know - hasn't caught on enough to be worth that kind of
close attention, whereas The Passion - if one is against it -
obviously has. If something like the Lou Sin Group for Ideological
Intervention existed today, they would be devoting a fair amount of
time to The Passion if they were against it, which I assume they
would be.
Lost in Translation is an arthouse smash that did provoke a few
debunking gestures, but they were gestures which I recall didn't go
very far. Obviously I don't agree with them anyway, but that's the
kind of film you generally bear down on: one that is widely admired,
one whose success seems not only bogus but somehow pernicious, even
symptomatic of some larger ill. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a
mass film that would be due for that treatment if one saw it as
really bad news, but the funny thing about that one, whether
you're "pro" or "con," is that it doesn't generate any emotion or
lasting effect whatsoever -- it's the classic Chinese diner
experience. I can't imagine anyone getting up the energy to write
more than a page on it one way or the other.
So what does that leave? Matrix 1 (not the later episodes,* when
everyone was increasingly bored), The Passion and... I can't really
think of a questionable arthouse film lately that has had the kind of
high-profile impact that got my erstwhile comrades up in arms in the
old days, a la The Night Porter. That in itself tells you something
about what has happened to films made for that audience segment. But
it also seems to be true lately of films made for the mass audience.
As some old Kaelist might say, movies don't seem to MATTER like they
used to.
I will admit to a certain intellectual curiosity about Irreversible,
though. I'd like to figure out how it works, and what ideological
effects it's producing.
*What's it with Monica Belucci? If you count her later Matrix role,
she's in all three of the questionable "operations" in this post!
That's got to be a symptom of something...
9110
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:14am
Subject: Re: Irreversible
I had an idea what IRREVERSIBLE was about before I saw it. The
'unending' rape scene endures throughout the film; such an
experience is not reversible, ever.
Afterwards I wondered what the experience of the film would have been
like if the content were different. I would have liked to have seen
the film structure imposed on a less violent context, perhaps a day in
an amusement park where an accident occurs. I thought the camera
work interesting and wanted to see it in a more colorful and
bright light.
9111
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:20am
Subject: Re: Irreversible
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I agree with Jean-Pierre that it's a pretty unpleasant experience,
> one I also felt had something bogus about it. I said here at the
time
> that Irreversible was just the sort of "operation" that the Cahiers
> would have spent pages debunking in the old days.
Problem is, you can debunk it till the cows come home, but it won't
go away. And no one did bother to debunk it, not seriously; or to
defend it for that matter. And what that really means is that, as you
say, movies no longer MATTER, the way they used to.
But Irreversible -
> as far as I know - hasn't caught on enough to be worth that kind of
> close attention, whereas The Passion - if one is against it -
> obviously has. If something like the Lou Sin Group for Ideological
> Intervention existed today, they would be devoting a fair amount of
> time to The Passion if they were against it, which I assume they
> would be.
I wonder why, though. What's to debate ideologically in that film?
Would the Lou Sin group have gone into some theological discussion of
it(especially at the mindboggling low level most discussions of the
film have been)?
>
> Lost in Translation is an arthouse smash that did provoke a few
> debunking gestures, but they were gestures which I recall didn't go
> very far. Obviously I don't agree with them anyway, but that's the
> kind of film you generally bear down on: one that is widely
admired,
> one whose success seems not only bogus but somehow pernicious, even
> symptomatic of some larger ill.
But Lost in Translation is a very nice and totally harmless little
movie that it would be a total waste of time to "debunk" although you
could the way people used to debunk "Brief Encounter." What's the
point? Except for those people who complain that there is no "plot"
in it.
>
> I will admit to a certain intellectual curiosity about
Irreversible,
> though. I'd like to figure out how it works, and what ideological
> effects it's producing.
>
That's a worthwhile project. And what about the Haneke?
9112
From: Andy Rector
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:59am
Subject: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
> >Bill: Lost in Translation is an arthouse smash that did provoke a
few
> > debunking gestures, but they were gestures which I recall didn't
go
> > very far. Obviously I don't agree with them anyway, but that's
the
> > kind of film you generally bear down on: one that is widely
> admired,
> > one whose success seems not only bogus but somehow pernicious,
even
> > symptomatic of some larger ill.
>
>
>jpc: But Lost in Translation is a very nice and totally harmless
little
> movie that it would be a total waste of time to "debunk" although
you
> could the way people used to debunk "Brief Encounter." What's the
> point? Except for those people who complain that there is no "plot"
> in it.
A nice little multimillion dollar affair, a hateful little thing.
L.I.T. gets most of it's affects at the expense of others, a wonderous
but incomprehending look around, with malice towards understanding.
Remember the post "lack of originality in contemporary filmmakers",
how about lack of commitment, or lack of humanity (to ignore blatant
problems is to contribute your best to them-- your quirkiest best
even, might not keep you from being immolated, and guarantees the
immolation of others. Any American filmmaker who makes a film in Japan
and doesn't mention Hiroshima should be summarily questioned on every
front.
Yours,
andy
PS- Debunking? It never bunkt in my view. Like Yi-Yi, it's horribly
conventional, advantageous and infectious malaise, very likeable to be
sure. (Sorry for the stick-and-move! Got to bounce like a bad check)
9113
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:36am
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences AMORES PE...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"Speaking of Really Bad Trips I would like to bring up two films I
watched in the past six months and which were by far the
most "disturbing" I ever saw: Haneke's "Funny Games" and
Noe's "Irreversible". Both are harrowing, repulsive, unbearable,
thoroughly objectionable on various grounds, AND at the same time
totally gripping and fascinating, each in its own peculiar way. I'm
still trying to sort out the kind of emotions I felt watching them,
and what kind of "esthetic" experience they were to me, and they
could be to others."
I haven't seen the Haneke film, but I had a similar response to
IRREVERSIBLE. Contrary to popular revenge stories, revenge here was
not justified and not emotionally satisfying. The penultimate shot
reminded me of Michael Snow's THE CENTRAL REGION and the last shot
was like a Tony Conrad flicker movie. So were these horrible events
then just a tiny ripple in the cosmic ocean? Or just an illusion of
light and shadow?
Another movie extremely difficult movie to watch is THE ACT OF SEEING
WITH ONE'S ON EYES. I saw it at the Museum of Modern Art with the
other two parts of the so-called Pittsburgh Triology. Brakhage was
present, and even so about 80% of the audience walked out (the
theatre was full at the start.) For those who may be unfamiliar with
THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S ON EYES it's a film about several
autopsies conducted in the Pittsburgh City Morgue, about 40 minutes
long, color and silent. Needless to say, it was not shot like a
medical instruction film. According to Brakhage he shot the the movie
over the course of 5 days and picked this subject because it was a
civil institution that frightened him. My reaction was a combination
of revulsion and awe. My then-girlfriend wept at the conclusion(it
was not a date movie.) Afterward, Brakhage said that by the end of
shooting he came to regrad the corpses as "footprints of life." That
made sense then when I was twenty something, but 30 years later I'm
not sure I could assimilate the experience so easily.
Richard
9114
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:40am
Subject: Jan Svankmajer's LITTLE OTIK
I read somewhere about someone discussing the ROMEO and JULIET film,
implying he was an expert and rueing he could never again see it as a
first time viewer.
Some friends ask me if all my movie watching interferes with my
enjoymentof movies and I say "No, the more you know, the more you
enjoy."
Interesting to me is how I can enter into the world on the screen and
really experience (holding back on using the word enjoy) the
characters and their story.
Just watched LITTLE OTIK on dvd; a black humor tale, but delightfully
entertaining if you just let the story flow as characters caught in a
story of their making.
9115
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:43am
Subject: Re: Irreversible
J-P Coursodon wrote: >What's to debate ideologically in that film
[Passion]?
> Would the Lou Sin group have gone into some theological discussion
of
> it(especially at the mindboggling low level most discussions of the
> film have been)?
There was nothing in particular to debate in the last 40 minutes -
all I've seen - except the Caiphas/Satan juxtaposition, which
certainly strikes me as anti-Semitic. It's indicative of the low
level of discussion that people don't talk about details like that -
if a film matters, its details should matter. There's a larger
problem, however. That hypothetical Lou Sin Group discussion wouldn't
have been theological (they were all atheists!) -- it would have been
ideological. But we can't even come up with the terms of an
ideological debate today!
I was talking to a friend who has been following the "socialism"
thread about this: The words "communism" and "liberalism" have been
banished from public discourse by being stigmatized, and with them
the fairly definite ideas they stood for. The word "conservative" has
been appropriated by the group that has taken over the Republican
party, who are fascists, but again, we can't say so -- we can't use
the word. And the people who used to be called conservatives no
longer even have a name! They're still around, but the word has been
taken over by people who are for massive deficits, suspending the
Bill of Rights, dictatorial rule by an alliance of government and
industry, and perpetual war to keep the whole irrational system
chugging along. All political discussions are to be conducted in
practical terms, and are to be about just one thing - how does a
country that is already armed to the teeth like no country in history
has ever been protect its citizens from getting blown up? It's insane!
So how can one expect film critics to have a coherent ideological
discussion of anything? The language and concepts aren't there
anymore. The U.S. has become politically aphasic. In a sense, that's
part of the Irreversible-effect, too, and perhaps (although I'd have
to see the whole thing) of the Passion-effect: using trauma to short-
circuit political discourse.
> But Lost in Translation is a very nice and totally harmless little
> movie that it would be a total waste of time to "debunk" although
you
> could the way people used to debunk "Brief Encounter." What's the
> point? Except for those people who complain that there is no "plot"
> in it.
As I said, the examples of debunking I saw didn't go very far. But I
disagree that Lost in Translation is too insignificant to be
debunked. For one thing, when people react that way to a film, it's
more than just a nice little film, and love stories can have
ideological implications--particularly one that suspends sex and
evokes some kind of higher meaning for the relationship, which is a
function of the characters' alienation from a milieu that represents
the present phase of capitalism in very specific ways, also worth
discussing. However, in the case of Lost in Translation I would be
more inclined to champion it as a healthy alternative to the dominant
cinema than to debunk it.
> >
> > I will admit to a certain intellectual curiosity about
> Irreversible,
> > though. I'd like to figure out how it works, and what ideological
> > effects it's producing.
> >
> That's a worthwhile project. And what about the Haneke?
Haven't seen it. Haven't seen anything by Haneke. I've been remiss.
9116
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:46am
Subject: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
Any American filmmaker who makes a film in Japan
> and doesn't mention Hiroshima should be summarily questioned on
every
> front.
>
At last! An idea!
9117
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:53am
Subject: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:
>
>
Any American filmmaker who makes a film in Japan
> and doesn't mention Hiroshima should be summarily questioned on
every
> front.
With all due respect, the above remark is one of the most
ridiculous I have ever read on this or any other Line.
> ,JPC
>
>
>
9118
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:25am
Subject: Re: Irreversible
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> J-P Coursodon wrote: >What's to debate ideologically in that film
> [Passion]?
> > Would the Lou Sin group have gone into some theological
discussion
> of
> > it(especially at the mindboggling low level most discussions of
the
> > film have been)?
>
> There was nothing in particular to debate in the last 40 minutes -
> all I've seen - except the Caiphas/Satan juxtaposition, which
> certainly strikes me as anti-Semitic. It's indicative of the low
> level of discussion that people don't talk about details like that -
> if a film matters, its details should matter. There's a larger
> problem, however. That hypothetical Lou Sin Group discussion
wouldn't
> have been theological (they were all atheists!) -- it would have
been
> ideological. But we can't even come up with the terms of an
> ideological debate today!
Of course they were atheists! So what kind of ideological discussion
could they have had? Restating that religion is the opium of the
people?
>
>
> As I said, the examples of debunking I saw didn't go very far. But
I
> disagree that Lost in Translation is too insignificant to be
> debunked.
I didn't say it's insignificant. I said it's "harmless". It's the
worst kind of political correctness to try to debunk the film because
it looks at a foreign/alien culture in
a "superficial" "incomprehending" way. That's the American way
anyway. But the look is not gratuitous. The two main characters react
pretty much like most everybody would including you and I probably --
but excluding high-minded moralists who somehow will pull out
Hiroshima out of some ideological hat to convince us that the film is
dangerous for your mind.
For one thing, when people react that way to a film, it's
> more than just a nice little film, and love stories can have
> ideological implications--particularly one that suspends sex and
> evokes some kind of higher meaning for the relationship, which is a
> function of the characters' alienation from a milieu that
represents
> the present phase of capitalism in very specific ways, also worth
> discussing.
Yes but the milieu doesn't "represent" the present phase of
capitalism any more than any other milieu those characters are likely
to find themselves in (i.e. in the USA or most anywhere else). You
can find yourself alienated in the L.A. Hilton (one of them) just as
well, even if you speak the language.
And there is no "invocation" of higher meaning. Just a statement
that "sex" is not always necessary to make a connection with another
human being. Is that so objectionable?
However, in the case of Lost in Translation I would be
> more inclined to champion it as a healthy alternative to the
dominant
> cinema than to debunk it.
9119
From: Andy Rector
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:49am
Subject: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
If, for you, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is NOT one of the
most nefarious deeds in the history of mankind (summarily ignored by
those guilty of the crime) then I could understand how someone would
want to ridicule my comment. Why bring it up? This "idea" of
obligation doesn't come from nowhere, it (and sentiments like it) used
to be common currency amongst many (see Loin du Vietnam). The reason
it no longer holds weight, I don't know. My only inclination is that
to owe a debt to the understanding of this deed would mean to owe a
debt to so many others, France to Haiti for instance, or North America
to Afghanistan, which means much work!
As a foreigner on the soil of Japan, one cannot at least deny the
requirement of empathy with the people that populate your film,
outside of movie stars, i.e. for it to be a good film, for it to be an
exception to the rule (if there is empathy, someone must point to it
for me). I simply cannot conscious the hailing of a film ABOUT
Americans who barely tolerate the place they've invaded, in more ways
than one, without any inquiry into this position. Is the question
unsound? it is entirely possible: I've either not been in the world
long enough to grow weary of such work, or I've not been in the world
long enough to understand why the work isn't important.
Yours,
andy
9120
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:05am
Subject: Re: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
I couldn't agree with you more, Jean-Pierre.
I'm amazed at the way this little film bothers certain
people.
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> Any American filmmaker who makes a film in Japan
> > and doesn't mention Hiroshima should be summarily
> questioned on
> every
> > front.
>
>
> With all due respect, the above remark is
> one of the most
> ridiculous I have ever read on this or any other
> Line.
> > ,JPC
> >
> >
> >
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9121
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
A VERY BAD idea.
An "idea" promulgated in bad faith.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Any American filmmaker who makes a film in Japan
> > and doesn't mention Hiroshima should be summarily
> questioned on
> every
> > front.
> >
> At last! An idea!
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9122
From: Andy Rector
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:08am
Subject: Re: Irreversible
> I didn't say it's insignificant. I said it's "harmless". It's the
> worst kind of political correctness to try to debunk the film because
> it looks at a foreign/alien culture in
> a "superficial" "incomprehending" way. That's the American way
> anyway. But the look is not gratuitous. The two main characters react
> pretty much like most everybody would including you and I probably
There goes JPC again, makin' assumtions. The gangs all here.
Precisely why one has to bring out morality. Your word is "harmless",
and all I retort is "HARMFUL", and very significant. $107 million
dollars, domestic and international.
If the film makes a tiny step in the representation of a sexless
relationship, it is nothing, in my view, next to the shameless
reinforcement of the 'american way' (especially considering all the
young filmmakers who now look up to Coppola). The american way must
die before it kills more, domestic and international.
It would be like lauding the use of pop music in film through
Apocalypse Now! over condemning the burning of forests also in the
film. But many do that too.
Many are tourists in that particular industrial colonial complex, and
they have no problem with it...
Cordially Yours,
andy
9123
From:
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 1:09am
Subject: Re: Irreversible
Bill, I'm not sure it's a question of Irreversible catching on enough or Lost
in Translation catching on more than enough. For me, neither film warrants a
full-scale debunking even though I'm not particularly fond of either. But I
suppose it all depends on what you mean by saying that the debunking gestures
provoked by Lost in Translation "didn't go very far." Do you mean very far into
the film or very far into some sort of zeitgeist, into some sort of widespread
cultural impact?
I like Lost in Translation but was put off by its orientalism and
heteronormativity. Nothing to get bent out of shape about. But certainly nothing for a
top ten list either. So I wouldn't see the need to rip the film apart frame by
frame, to dive very far into it with a debunking gesture. But I have read
criticism in which debunking gestures do "bear down on" the film, as you say. I
read a review in The Toronto Star, for one, that articulated Coppola's
orientalist gestures very assiduously. Did the review go very far? Again, you'd have to
decide that. But I think it pretty unmistakably beared down on the film at the
very least. Did the review discuss the film as "one whose success seems not
only bogus but somehow pernicious, even symptomatic of some larger ill?"
Certainly but orientalism and heteronormativity have such a long, often elusive
presence in cinema that they're both as transhistorical and "natural" as sprocket
holes, pernicious ideologies that hardly seem symptomatic of 2003
specifically. (On the heteronormative tip, see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, this
year's Lost in Translation to my eyes.)
As for Irreversible, yes, it's full of shit. But immediately afterwards, we
watched The Lizzie McGuire Movie (spoilers ahead and I just KNOW y'all are
dying to see it). When we find out that Paolo is really pond scum, I started to
reflect back on all the scenes preceding the discovery. What would all those
sunny travelogue montages of Italy in the first half of the film have felt like
with the knowledge of Paolo's wrongdoings already in our heads? And it just got
me to thinking about the necessity of all the imagery in Irreversible. Does
the reverse order of the scenes justify the mayhem? Could we not have learned
something about time or love or fate or cinema if the film traded a ten-minute
rape scene for a comparatively mild revelation of an Italian pop star's
indecency?
In light of all this, I'd simply ask what the discourse surrounding The Night
Porter contained that those around Lost in Translation (at least) and
Irreversible didn't. Did the criticism dive deeper into the film or did the criticism
have a widespread impact on the culture at large? Or something else? That
review in the Star was "up in arms" enough for me.
<
to.>>
Ah that. You hear the same thing in popular music criticism. Bill, you should
read Robert Christgau's introduction to his 90s Consumer Guide Book
(Christgau's Consumer Guide: Albums of the '90s). He calls the complaint The Mattering
(David Duchovny should star in a film version) and tries to direct the
disappointment of the complainers towards a more productive angle.
But as an exercise, let's get a group of a_film_byers together to break into
random houses and take all the DVDs and videos and CDs and books and the tv
and the radio and whanot. We could even be nice about it and relegate our
pilfering to only those artifacts produced after whatever year after 1969 we deem
The Mattering to be in crisis. Next we'd have to shut down theatres of all
stripes in our case study town. And then we could start to see how movies, etc.
matter.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9124
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:44am
Subject: Re: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
> I've either not been in the world
> long enough to grow weary of such work, or I've not been in the world
> long enough to understand why the work isn't important.
So your point is that when all is said and done, you think 'Lost in
Translation' is neither wearisome nor insignificant? Of course you do,
but I wonder if perhaps the "Americans are invading Japan and shitting
all over it"-angle might not be a tad wearisome in and of itself. Are
we so touchy about multi-culturalism (pan-nationalism?) now that even
the slightest bemusement that a stranger finds with a "strange land" is
cause for all-out alarm and a jeremiad on historical amnesia? Or is it
simply the old adage at play again, the one about Americans being
inherently pigs (or is that Anita Ekbergs?) -- I don't see how a story
about a man in the throes of midlife crisis ("ptooie! BOURGEOIS MIDLIFE
CRISIS!!") adrift in a foreign, rather madcap land (with certain
'bourgeois' absurdities in mind, Japan is perhaps the maddest-cap place
in the world) could cause real offense, but apparently it does and has;
I've never seen the reams of discussion for any film in my young'ish
life that 'Lost in Translation' has spawned. I agree with J.-P.C. in
finding the Hiroshima statement utterly ridiculous, and wouldn't even
expect to hear such bald provocation muttered by Godard on a bad hair
day in 1970. At some point I expect to make at least one perfectly
valid and artful film in Japan that has nothing to do with atomic
holocaust, but I'm not holding my breath for those of naturally
censorious conscience to embrace it for a second.
On the subject of Michael Haneke, I find 'Funny Games' to be completely
clichéd trash, and more obvious provocation -- clichéd in the
originality of its ideas about violence, spectatorship, society, etc.
-- nothing we haven't heard/read/seen a hundred times before, except
here with a louder ("more galvanizing") soundtrack, metric-quarts of
blood, and a gimmicky execution (the address-the-spectator /
rewind-the-tape premise). Frankly, the film says more to me about the
exhibitionism of the artist than society's consumption of violent
spectacle. I think of films like this as "bad meta" -- like Kathy
Acker or Peter Greenaway, as compared to the "good meta" of Pynchon,
DeLillo, or Rivette. (And how I hate the term "meta" anyway!!! I'm a
very hypocrite in my usage.) But those are just my tastes. I'll also
add that I think 'Code Unknown' and 'The Piano Teacher' ('La Pianiste')
are absolutely first-rate, and I really look forward to seeing 'Time of
the Wolf.'
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9126
From: Andy Rector
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:11am
Subject: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
David, and so forth-
has the question, political or moral, ever been put to Sophia C. in
interviews? If so where can I find them. All those I've read are in
openmouthed awe.
Some extremely interesting opinions here! Everything is so cavalier,
I'm curious. Bill's shoulder-shrugging even at his own concisely put
suspicion ("one whose success seems not
only bogus but somehow pernicious, even symptomatic of some larger
ill?"), the claim that orientalism is nothing to get worked up over:
do you know what's going on in the world today!?
Of course "bad faith" (period) is good way to stop the conversation,
and I have nothing but mostly respect for someone like David, but I
hope I'm able to test my faith soon.
I tried to qualify my feeling for the film and the responsibility of
artists.
Does L.I.T. warrant a thorough de-bunking, probably not, but I think
too many start from the wrong place. If even a half-assed analyzation
was carried out, most of the starting points of the CdC pieces on
Night Porter would be sound...to deny this would be foolish. Please
don't look back at those days and their aspirations (and achievements)
with a nostalgic by-gone style attitude, you ruin it for those of us
reading it for the first time, who actually believe in it.
Craig-
Stranger in a strange land stories are beautiful. But they usually end
up or strive for some connection with people, strangers in particular.
If the representation smells like pig, it's pig. I'm no multicultural
mullah, and I didn't say that any film in Japan by an American should
be ABOUT Hiroshima. I cannot believe that I am moved to bring up the
film that should be seen as an alternative to L.I.T., made by a
Frenchman in Japan...I won't even utter the title, if you're in here
you should have remembered and compared.
You may not hear Godard say it, but looking at the films you'd see +
hear a reference to Vietnam in at least 10 films of his in and around
1970...and if you (and you might not) respect Godard's evident
feelings of guilt about the Holocaust as a Frenchman (in Histoire(S),
etc.) then you can understand my guilt as a North American about
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc....
I hope you make that film in Japan and it is good. Who's censorious?
the world is your playground and that is the case.
Yours,
andy
9127
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:15am
Subject: Re: Irreversible
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > I agree with Jean-Pierre that it's a pretty unpleasant
experience,
> > one I also felt had something bogus about it. I said here at the
> time
> > that Irreversible was just the sort of "operation" that the
Cahiers
> > would have spent pages debunking in the old days.
>
> Problem is, you can debunk it till the cows come home, but it
won't
> go away. And no one did bother to debunk it, not seriously; or to
> defend it for that matter. And what that really means is that, as
you
> say, movies no longer MATTER, the way they used to.
I actually "debunked" it to pieces, not only showing
that "Irreversible" was nothing but hot air without any substance,
but also showed with what mechanism Noë tricked us.
But I was out too late. While it began as a counterattack on all
those hailing it as a masterpiece, it was lost in time, until I was
asked why I hadn't written it into article form. I showed it to some
people, hereamongst Bill, who were very forthcoming about it, but I
had missed the bus: The film was already out on DVD and no one with
intelligence really cared for it anymore.
It is so true, that you can debunk it until the cows come home,
because everyone has an opinion and it counts as much as serious
deconstruction in the world of critisism. Those who are against it,
pick their "bible", those who support it, pick theirs. Then the next
new batch of films and DVDs comes along, and what once was the hot
potato drifts into oblivion and we have a new winner. Films truly
doesnt matter the way they used to: Today controversy and shock
value is far more important than quality of the film.
Henrik
9128
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:22am
Subject: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> A VERY BAD idea.
>
> An "idea" promulgated in bad faith.
And yet it's the first thing anyone has said about the film in all
the time since it opened that makes me think about it in a new way!
All that ink, and not a single idea! Cultural aphasia, cultural
amnesia.
There are two issues - the portrayal of the Japanese characters, and
Hiroshima in the off-space. The former struck me as just harmless
cartooning; now that it has been put it in relationship to the
latter, I have to think about the film, see it again, maybe advance a
little in my own criticism -- which is what every new issue of the
Cahiers used to do for me with respect to lots of films. Thanks, Andy.
The alternative: To conclude that this little film "about nothing"
that came out of nowhere to make over $100 million isn't worth
thinking about. I could buy that if it were X-Men United, the
audience for which was a foregone conclusion, but when a little film
rises up to become a cultural phenomenon, you have to give it some
thought. (I assume that would be true of My Big, Fat Greek Wedding,
too, but I couldn't bring myself to see it.)
If everyone is bored with harmless LIT, how about my ghost of an idea
about Irreversible?
9129
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:24am
Subject: Re: Irreversible
> It is so true, that you can debunk it until the cows come home,
> because everyone has an opinion and it counts as much as serious
> deconstruction in the world of critisism. Those who are against it,
> pick their "bible", those who support it, pick theirs. Then the
next new batch of films and DVDs comes along, and what once was the
hot potato drifts into oblivion and we have a new winner. Films truly
doesnt matter the way they used to: Today controversy and shock
value is far more important than quality of the film.
>
> Henrik
Amen, brother. You have just described a problem bigger than any
particular film.
9130
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:38am
Subject: Re: Irreversible
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> I like Lost in Translation but was put off by its orientalism and
> heteronormativity. Nothing to get bent out of shape about. But
certainly nothing for a
> top ten list either. So I wouldn't see the need to rip the film
apart frame by
> frame, to dive very far into it with a debunking gesture. But I
have read
> criticism in which debunking gestures do "bear down on" the film,
as you say. I
> read a review in The Toronto Star, for one, that articulated
Coppola's
> orientalist gestures very assiduously. Did the review go very far?
Again, you'd have to
> decide that.
I'd have to read it first. I was thinking of a couple of critics who
took the "what's the big deal?" line. I'll read the review you're
talking about.
I don't understand the last part of your post. The only recent output
that is just taking up space to no purpose is most current film
criticism, not the current films we all admit are important. In case
you misunderstood me drastically, I'm not such a fan of 60s and 70s
cinema that the 80s and 90s and 00s are dross to me. A lot of the
most lauded cinema of that earlier period was pretentious, jejune
drek, and I thought so at the time. As for the music, some of it was
great, and some of it was just the drugs we were taking.
9131
From:
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:56am
Subject: Re: Re: Irreversible
<< I don't understand the last part of your post. The only recent output that
is just taking up space to no purpose is most current film criticism, not the
current films we all admit are important.>>
So when you say that "movies don't seem to MATTER like they used to," you
mean that they don't seem to matter to like they used to film critics, not in
general, right?
<
cinema that the 80s and 90s and 00s are dross to me.>>
I do understand that. But you're clearly a fan of, say, 70s criticism and the
criticism of the 00s, at least, is dross to you. And so, I'd ask again for a
more explicit explanation of what the criticism of The Night Porter had going
on for it that Lost in Translation doesn't?
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9132
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:56am
Subject: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
> There are two issues - the portrayal of the Japanese characters, and
> Hiroshima in the off-space. The former struck me as just harmless
> cartooning; now that it has been put it in relationship to the
> latter, I have to think about the film, see it again, maybe advance a
> little in my own criticism --
There are some interestingly ambivalent comments on LIT ("It does not occur to Bob and Charlotte to learn a word or two of Japanese, but they have the audacity to make fun of the Japanese for their inability to distinguish R's and L's...") at
http://www.dyske.com/default.asp?view_id=788
9133
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:50am
Subject: Re: Irreversible
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> << I don't understand the last part of your post. The only recent
output that
> is just taking up space to no purpose is most current film
criticism, not the
> current films we all admit are important.>>
>
> So when you say that "movies don't seem to MATTER like they used
to," you
> mean that they don't seem to matter to like they used to film
critics, not in
> general, right?
And probably in general, too. It's part of a vicious circle composed
of critics, publicists, advertising, distribution paterns, ancillary
markets AND most films. There are films that SHOULD matter, but they
can't because of this new ecology--Henrik put his finger squarely on
the problem.
>
> <
60s and 70s
> cinema that the 80s and 90s and 00s are dross to me.>>
>
> I do understand that. But you're clearly a fan of, say, 70s
criticism and the
> criticism of the 00s, at least, is dross to you. And so, I'd ask
again for a
> more explicit explanation of what the criticism of The Night Porter
had going
> on for it that Lost in Translation doesn't?
> Kevin
Thought. Analysis. Ideas my grandmother couldn't have thought of.
Theory, to be sure. And a political discourse connected to a larger
political discourse that can be heard outside of the ghetto of
academia. The lead article the Cahiers published on The Night Porter
was by Michel Foucault. It developed the idea of the "mode retro" -
encompassing a number of films made at the time, including very good
ones like India Song, and a silly ad for some product called Gold
Tea - and related that complex of ideas to what was happening in
French society right then. But this wasn't a phenomenon limited to
Paris intellectuals. The New Yorker published a scathing debunking of
Seven Beauties by Bruno Bettelheim during the same period.
That's all gone, except for academic enclaves where it is still
rarely done well and can't possibly have the impact of the two
articles I'm talking about when they appeared, because only a handful
of professionals will read them. It's not just the fault of critics;
it's these times - refer back to my complaint about aphasia. What
TERMS do we even have to talk about what we want and don't want for
America?
Does that mean that books like No Logo or Super-Imperialism or Toxic
Sludge Is Good for You and films like The Corporation don't exist? Of
course not! But they are utterly marginalized by a society where
political thought in any medium that reaches even a modest number of
people is strictly verboten - what we're finally hearing coming out
of the 9/11 commission and books like Against All Enemies is the
result of a turf war between the White House and the CIA, so don't
hold your breath for it to produce any illumination, anymore than did
Watergate, brought to us by the same institutions. The very terms of
any possible debate have been rendered suspect by years and years and
years of well-financed right-wing propaganda.
If you're sick of hearing my jeremiads about film criticism in the
70s, pick up ANY ISSUE of Film Comment when Richard Corliss was
editing it; ANY ISSUE of Movie; ANY ISSUE of the Cahiers from 1966
through 1980, and I think you'll see what I'm talking about.
9134
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:35am
Subject: And another thing...
What about Dogville? Some of us must have seen it. I've heard
elsewhere what Andy thinks about von Triers, and would like to hear
specifically what he thinks of this film, but what about everyone
else? The last time I saw Pascal Kane, in 1999, he was bitching about
the Cahiers review of Dancer in the Dark. "Here's a film that says
straight out that the US has become a fascist country, and the jerk
who reviewed it in the Cahiers used it as a topic to do little
stylistic pirouettes around. Merde!" Dogville appears to be in the
same vein. It's been out here for at least two weeks, and it has
been, to put it mildly, a non-event. Deservedly? Wrongly? Anyone?
9135
From: Andy Rector
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:38am
Subject: Re: Find a Translation
--Daney in Critical Function (CdC #248 1974)--
(...)
"In other words: each class possesses its own style of ideological
struggle, its own wy of putting across its view of the world, its
(positive) ideas. Positive: that is to say, effective, easy to adopt
and to put into practice. Bourgeois propoganda doesn't take the same
form as revolutionary propoganda, any more than bourgeois
infromation, criticism, or art.
"In short, we must destroy the idea that positivity is a limited
concept or one left over from the past. It is not true that on one
hand you have the 'system' (art or commerce, art and commerce) and on
the other 'militant' films (politics without either art or commerce).
Positivity is not the exception but the rule. ALL FILMS ARE MILITANT
FILMS.
"A film is always positive for someone:
"A class puts across its positive ideas, its 'natural' conception of
the world. That means it puts its ideas into action (and in the case
of the cinema into images) in such a way that they can be not only
read and recognized but adopted and transformed into something else,
into a material force, for instance. "
The above capitalized phrase should be thought of, the concept
of 'naturalism', in the definition it took on in these CdC years, is
most important, and most applicable to LIT (and unfortunately
applicable to most films today) i.e. the naturalization of certain
ways of seeing the world, ("yes that's how it is, people are really
like that") namely the bourgeois one (and lest we forget "the typical
is always created in contrast to something"). Past posts have already
born out the evidence of LITs success in this area.
best to all,
andy
9136
From:
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:19am
Subject: Re: Re: Irreversible
"That's all gone, except for academic enclaves where it is still rarely done
well and can't possibly have the impact of the two articles I'm talking about
when they appeared, because only a handful
of professionals will read them."
So, Bill, are you prepared to tell Fred Camper and Jean-Pierre Coursodon and
David Ehrenstein and Adrian Martin and Jonathan Rosenbaum, etc. none of whom
are in academic enclaves as far as I know but all of whom are on this list,
that thought, analysis, ideas your grandmother couldn't have thought of, theory,
and a political discourse connected to a larger political discourse that can
be heard outside of the ghetto of academia are all gone from their writing?
And I ask in all innocence: what precise impact did those two articles have?
Kevin
9137
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:13am
Subject: Re: And another thing (Dogville)
I not only had it as my #1 best film of last year, I also consider
it the best film by LvT to date. It is a piece of art, that shows
both maturity (in terms of his motifs) and a genial defiance towards
anything conventional. As I wrote in a review:
"With typical disrespect for rules, yet always faithful to his codex
that a film should annoy like a stone in the shoe, Lars von Trier
appears to mock the very institution and art he is considered a
master of. But that is what we expect of him, that is what makes him
so unique, that is why we hate and love him."
I am currently preparing a piece on "Dogville", which only has been
delayed because of Peter Aalbæk still hasnt send me the 2 hour
version, which I need for comparison, and then afterwards an
interview with Peter.
"Dogville" as such as anti american is very controversial. There
really isn't anything anti-american in the narrative or its
presentation at all; But the end credits are perhaps one of the
most "in your face" critics I have seen. The notion about anti
americanism has alot to do with the notion, that the Americans see
themselves as masters of the universe and anyone not sharing that
point of view must be anti american; At least in my opinion.
While a central motif can be interpretated as: Give me your poor and
we will exploit them, and via that reading a clear anti american
statement is given, the explotation of weaker individuals is
international, even present in Europa, even in quiet little Denmark.
It is a human trait: Nietzsche, Emerson and Shaw not only wrote
about it, they saw it as "natural" (In lack of another word). Im not
proposing to read Transcendentialism into "Dogville", as the core
motif virtually is "Give the Devil the little finger and he will
take your arm", but LvT delivers it with enough solidity, that one
can reflect upon it.
If "Dogville" had been made in German, especially during the 70s, it
would without any doubt had been interpretated as a reflection upon
the Third Reich. In todays geopolitical climate, the interpretation
leans towards anti americansism. If it is so, I can't say for sure.
Be that as it may, "Dogville" is a great film.
Henrik
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> What about Dogville? Some of us must have seen it. I've heard
> elsewhere what Andy thinks about von Triers, and would like to
hear
> specifically what he thinks of this film, but what about everyone
> else? The last time I saw Pascal Kane, in 1999, he was bitching
about
> the Cahiers review of Dancer in the Dark. "Here's a film that says
> straight out that the US has become a fascist country, and the
jerk
> who reviewed it in the Cahiers used it as a topic to do little
> stylistic pirouettes around. Merde!" Dogville appears to be in the
> same vein. It's been out here for at least two weeks, and it has
> been, to put it mildly, a non-event. Deservedly? Wrongly? Anyone?
9138
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:29am
Subject: Re: Irreversible
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> "That's all gone, except for academic enclaves where it is still
rarely done
> well and can't possibly have the impact of the two articles I'm
talking about
> when they appeared, because only a handful
> of professionals will read them."
>
> So, Bill, are you prepared to tell Fred Camper and Jean-Pierre
Coursodon and
> David Ehrenstein and Adrian Martin and Jonathan Rosenbaum, etc.
none of whom
> are in academic enclaves as far as I know but all of whom are on
this list,
> that thought, analysis, ideas your grandmother couldn't have
thought of, theory,
> and a political discourse connected to a larger political discourse
that can
> be heard outside of the ghetto of academia are all gone from their
writing?
>
> And I ask in all innocence: what precise impact did those two
articles have?
>
> Kevin
Of course not - they're all in this group!
I can't answer your second question. Frankly, it's a little silly.
9139
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:33am
Subject: Re: Dogville
Thanks, Henrik -- did anyone else see it? By the way, I like it,
too, but I'm waiting to see it on a big screen to really assess it. I
think Von Triers' recent films need that. Like A Night at the Opera.
9140
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 1:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: Irreversible
--- hotlove666 wrote:
The lead article the Cahiers published on
> The Night Porter
> was by Michel Foucault. It developed the idea of the
> "mode retro" -
> encompassing a number of films made at the time,
> including very good
> ones like India Song, and a silly ad for some
> product called Gold
> Tea - and related that complex of ideas to what was
> happening in
> French society right then.
So glad you brought up one of my favorite dead people.
But this wasn't a
> phenomenon limited to
> Paris intellectuals. The New Yorker published a
> scathing debunking of
> Seven Beauties by Bruno Bettelheim during the same
> period.
>
> That's all gone, except for academic enclaves where
> it is still
> rarely done well and can't possibly have the impact
> of the two
> articles I'm talking about when they appeared,
> because only a handful
> of professionals will read them.
Well I'm still slogging away at it -- with a rather
large article that's appearing in the "L.A. Weekly"
this week about unnamed sourcing in journalism --
replete with pop culture parallels. It's not
impossible to write about what's actually going on --
just more difficult.
It's not just the
> fault of critics;
> it's these times - refer back to my complaint about
> aphasia. What
> TERMS do we even have to talk about what we want and
> don't want for
> America?
>
The terms haven't changed. Their use is infrequent.
> Does that mean that books like No Logo or
> Super-Imperialism or Toxic
> Sludge Is Good for You and films like The
> Corporation don't exist? Of
> course not! But they are utterly marginalized by a
> society where
> political thought in any medium that reaches even a
> modest number of
> people is strictly verboten - what we're finally
> hearing coming out
> of the 9/11 commission and books like Against All
> Enemies is the
> result of a turf war between the White House and the
> CIA, so don't
> hold your breath for it to produce any illumination,
> anymore than did
> Watergate, brought to us by the same institutions.
You're forgetting the much-maligned (and not always
without reason) Michael Moore, the spectacular success
of the heretofore only marginally interesting Al
Franken, and the power of the Blogistan to unseat
Trent Lott.
> The very terms of
> any possible debate have been rendered suspect by
> years and years and
> years of well-financed right-wing propaganda.
>
Sing Out Louise! But again -- see above.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9141
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:29pm
Subject: Re: And another thing...
> What about Dogville? Some of us must have seen it. I've heard
> elsewhere what Andy thinks about von Triers, and would like to hear
> specifically what he thinks of this film, but what about everyone
> else? The last time I saw Pascal Kane, in 1999, he was bitching about
> the Cahiers review of Dancer in the Dark. "Here's a film that says
> straight out that the US has become a fascist country, and the jerk
> who reviewed it in the Cahiers used it as a topic to do little
> stylistic pirouettes around. Merde!" Dogville appears to be in the
> same vein. It's been out here for at least two weeks, and it has
> been, to put it mildly, a non-event. Deservedly? Wrongly? Anyone?
It's been a big event on the other movie board I hang out on - but then,
so was IRREVERSIBLE. Maybe it's just a matter of where you're standing
that makes these films seem to matter or not.
I disliked DOGVILLE - I guess dislike here means "loathing tempered by
fascination and maybe even a little admiration." DANCER IN THE DARK got
the same loathing from me, without the fascination/admiration.
I guess it's a matter of how you perceive von Trier's relationship to
the audience. He comes across to me as someone who almost dares the
audience to reject the mounting absurdity of his storytelling: he piles
one intentional contrivance upon another, and the only purpose of the
contrivance is to make life more astonishingly uncomfortable for his
heroines and the audiences who identify with them. I don't see him as
all as someone who is interested in human behavior (which would include
political behavior), even by way of allegory: he seems to me primarily
about storytelling and audience alignment. His sadism toward the
audience is singularly unrestrained, and pushes my buttons.
Still, there's something memorable about the way that vast soundstage is
explored as if it were a universe of its own. And von Trier does seem
to be interested in playing with shifting conventions of realism -
before him, I don't think the undoctored sound cut was much a part of
fiction film vocabulary. - Dan
9142
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:39pm
Subject: Re: Dogville
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Thanks, Henrik -- did anyone else see it? By the way, I like it,
> too, but I'm waiting to see it on a big screen to really assess it. I
> think Von Triers' recent films need that. Like A Night at the Opera.
For what it's worth, I snuck in to the second half thinking I'd sample ten minutes, found myself "hating it" but mesmerized (Breaking the Waves, actually the only other v. T. I've seen, I did not find mesmerizing: a John Hurt narration might have helped) and ended up sitting there "bearing witness" till the bitter end. (Didn't even recognize James Caan -- he's changed some since his Hawks days.) Possibly I'll catch the first half on the *small* screen at some point and try to put it together -- I *obviously* can't assess it at this point -- but yes, I was surprised at its absence from a "bad trip films" thread since the experience could hardly be more oppressive, ideologically at any rate, if lacking the last extremes of physical provocation.
Speaking of provocation, did anyone else see Armond White's (NY Press) review of Son Frere, which he called a "masterpiece" worthy of sharing the same sentence with The Passion of the Christ (!)
... "[Chereau's] body consciousness leads to spiritual consciousness. It's a great coincidence that His Brother syncs with the genuine power of The Passion of the Christ through Chereau's fearlessness about the human vessel, his conviction about the soul within."
9143
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:49pm
Subject: RE: And another thing...
> Dogville appears to be in the
> same vein. It's been out here for at least two weeks, and it has
> been, to put it mildly, a non-event. Deservedly? Wrongly? Anyone?
It seems to me as if all the fuss and hubbub has blown
over due to the extended period between its debut everywhere
else in the world and its delayed appearance here. It's like
the dance music world - DJ's get their advance copies, create
a rabid fervor for a song, then when the commercial release
actually arrives, nobody cares anymore. This climate has
probably been aggravated by the increased availability of
films on DVD from other regions.
Jonathan Takagi
9144
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:55pm
Subject: Re: Need help with Hiroshi Shimizu films
As a postscript to this thread from last month -- there's a long article on Shimizu's '30s silents at http://www.midnighteye.com/features/hiroshi_shimizu.shtml (Saw this posted on the Yahoo Ozu forum.) The five films discussed are on Shochiku Home Video, but I think (it's not quite clear) that must mean tape, not DVD?
9145
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:01pm
Subject: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
> You may not hear Godard say it, but looking at the films you'd see +
> hear a reference to Vietnam in at least 10 films of his in and around
> 1970...and if you (and you might not) respect Godard's evident
> feelings of guilt about the Holocaust as a Frenchman (in Histoire(S),
> etc.) then you can understand my guilt as a North American about
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc....
I have a longer response I want to post, but can I point out that you
would never know, from a Godard film, that Vietnam was previously
a French colony, that France fought a war as brutal albeit on a smaller
scale as the American war, and that the American war had direct origins
in American policy in support of the French war of attempted
re-colonization.
(I'll also note that as much as I love "Pierrot" the scene where Anna Karina
attempts an evocation of the war proves that Godard seems to have
*no clue* as to what a Vietnamese woman even looks like).
-Sam
9146
From: Doug Cummings
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:09pm
Subject: RE: And another thing...
>It seems to me as if all the fuss and hubbub has blown
>over due to the extended period between its debut everywhere
>else in the world and its delayed appearance here. It's like
>the dance music world - DJ's get their advance copies, create
>a rabid fervor for a song, then when the commercial release
>actually arrives, nobody cares anymore. This climate has
>probably been aggravated by the increased availability of
>films on DVD from other regions.
Just what distributors fear! :)
I totally agree, Jonathan. The film opened recently here and I can't
bring myself to go watch it in light of all the other new releases
and one-day screenings. I feel like all of my friends and the
magazines I read have already seen and discussed it. Maybe I'll get
to it some day...
Incidentally, I was pleased to see that the newest edition of the
Time Out Film Guide has a plug for multi-region DVD players and a
pretty decent list of key titles from various countries.
Doug
9147
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:23pm
Subject: Haneke and McNaughton (following Craig's post on Translation & Irreversible)
I only realized completely what bothers me so much in Haneke films by seeing
John McNaughton's Henry Portrait Of A Serial Killer. The McNaughton film -
and all of his career following that film - knows that it can't display what
it does without being trashy and in some moments self-ironic. It says: "For
showing this I'll have to go dumb". And it ends up being artful for the
ambiguities of it. As for Haneke, he really thinks he's making wagnerian
art, showing mental & pshysical violence to show the shortcomings of human
nature for rationality and doing evil as a common denominator to all us
human beings blah-blah blah. The ridiculous thing is not about their
ideology of violence-beats-it-all, but the way they seem to ascend to new
hieghts by denouncing it (cf. also von trier, noe). That's the whole bogus
point about it (but maybe there are more, and I'm willing to know).
A quick one: the whole musical dichotomy "Zorn's Naked City/Mozart-Handel"
of FUNNY GAMES completely shows the idiotic things Haneke has to say about
the trouble in the world. The either/or ideology simply doesn't apply.
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Keller"
To:
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
On the subject of Michael Haneke, I find 'Funny Games' to be completely
clichéd trash, and more obvious provocation -- clichéd in the
originality of its ideas about violence, spectatorship, society, etc.
-- nothing we haven't heard/read/seen a hundred times before, except
here with a louder ("more galvanizing") soundtrack, metric-quarts of
blood, and a gimmicky execution (the address-the-spectator /
rewind-the-tape premise). Frankly, the film says more to me about the
exhibitionism of the artist than society's consumption of violent
spectacle. I think of films like this as "bad meta" -- like Kathy
Acker or Peter Greenaway, as compared to the "good meta" of Pynchon,
DeLillo, or Rivette. (And how I hate the term "meta" anyway!!! I'm a
very hypocrite in my usage.) But those are just my tastes. I'll also
add that I think 'Code Unknown' and 'The Piano Teacher' ('La Pianiste')
are absolutely first-rate, and I really look forward to seeing 'Time of
the Wolf.'
9148
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:37pm
Subject: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
What struck me about LIT was its popularity as I felt it was
"ennui personified." Its success might be that audiences
identify with the feeling... but how did they get the energy up to
go to the theater to see it? I wonder if most viewers were couples or
singles. It is the sort of movie that might make a couple feel
uncomfortable watching it.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:
> Some extremely interesting opinions here! Everything is so cavalier,
> I'm curious. Bill's shoulder-shrugging even at his own concisely put
> suspicion ("one whose success seems not
> only bogus but somehow pernicious, even symptomatic of some larger
> ill?"), the claim that orientalism is nothing to get worked up over:
> do you know what's going on in the world today!?
9149
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:55pm
Subject: Re: Re: Dogville
www.contracampo.com.br/58/dogville2.htm
in portuguese
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 7:33 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Dogville
> Thanks, Henrik -- did anyone else see it? By the way, I like it,
> too, but I'm waiting to see it on a big screen to really assess it. I
> think Von Triers' recent films need that. Like A Night at the Opera.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
9150
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
> I have a longer response I want to post, but can I point out that you
> would never know, from a Godard film, that Vietnam was previously
> a French colony, that France fought a war as brutal albeit on a smaller
> scale as the American war, and that the American war had direct origins
> in American policy in support of the French war of attempted
> re-colonization.
You might have some idea if you rewatched 'Masculine Feminine.'
> (I'll also note that as much as I love "Pierrot" the scene where Anna
> Karina
> attempts an evocation of the war proves that Godard seems to have
> *no clue* as to what a Vietnamese woman even looks like).
You're kidding here, right? Belmondo and Karina are putting on a
staging of stereotypes that they think the American sailors will enjoy.
("I like that! That's -damn- good!")
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9151
From: Sam Adams
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:56pm
Subject: Re: Dogville/LiT/Movies that Matter
Dogville has been open in Philadelphia for a week and a half and I have yet to hear from a non-critic who's seen it, although it did open contemporaneously with the Philadelphia Film Festival, so I imagine people are just waiting until the festival is over. Lost in Translation, by contrast, played for something like six months, including at least three weeks *after* the DVD release, which is unheard of.
LiT would be an insignificant, "harmless" movie, albeit one I still disliked, if it weren't for all the critical and popular acclaim heaped on it. I don't as a rule find second-guessing other critics all that interesting, but I think when a movie so sheerly unambitious and uninventive makes so many top-ten lists and polls, it's worth pointing out exactly how perverted the values of a lot of so-called film lovers have become. Here's a movie that not only depicts but reinforces American insularity, and essentially posits a juvenile, presexual, commitment-free "affair" as preferable to either main character's real-life relationship -- as essentially hollow and escapist as the Kill Bills (the positive reviews for which also make me despair.) I think bringing in Hiroshima would have been an unmitigated disaster, but I think at least a shot or two acknowledging a reality outside the protagonists' points of view (a la Y Tu Mama Tambien) would have improved matters drastically. I've spent less than a week in Tokyo in my entire life, and I basically found the movie's view of the city conformed exactly to mine -- which is to say it offers nothing you can't experience in your first few days. Imagine a double bill with Sans Soleil and you'll see what I mean.
As for Dogville, I'm hard-pressed to find anything of interest in the movie at all. The staging might be unusual for a contemporary film, but it's hardly revolutionary, and Trier's one-note view of humanity would be laughable if it weren't so insufferable. (Similar reaction to Haneke's far superior Time of the Wolf, which at least has Hupper and Olivier Gourmet.) To me the anti-Americanism is a non-issue; it's the anti-humanism I find so appalling. Chalk outline buildings are one thing; chalk outline people are quite another.
It's hard to pinpoint what might qualify a given film as one that "matters" -- box office success? critical acclaim? some intangible "influence" on other filmmakers? -- but Dogville, the Kill Bills and LiT are movies that, to me at least, are worth arguing against, if only because all three promote a film culture that is insular and emotionally sterile, and acclaim for them reinforces that ideal.
Perhaps it's just the idea of going back to paying attention to such self-promoting blowhards as QT and Trier after several weeks of watching wonderful films that don't stand a chance in hell of getting the attention they deserve. Don't miss S21, Bright Leaves, Uniform, Deep Breath, When Ruoma Was 17, Wheel of Time, A Tale of Two Sisters or Come and Go should they come your way.
Sam
9152
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
Interesting question. My initial response was to be:
I am currently shooting a film partially taking place in Viet Nam
(where I was filming a month ago), am I therefore obligated to
make a direct reference to My Lai Massacre, or the Christmas
bombing of Hanoi ?
In truth, and in the case of how my film operates, I would not want to
refer so directly to the My Lai events unless I went to Son My and
filmed there, perhaps because I feel that Viet Nam, as a historical entity,
is subject to countless counterfeit representations, or guys playing
Army films shot in Thailand, California, etc
For me the legacy of war and Vietnam landscape are not so
inseperable. I must acknowledge this, but that is also my own
imperative, and also some kind of given *as an American*
OTOH, direct re-representation, as opposed to reference is problematic
as well; it would seem to be to border on the obscene perhaps to go
to Vietnam and restage the war ! So, even when the reference is not
there, the referent is, even as a ghost. But at the same time, while the
issues occaisoned by the war (maybe I should say "wars") linger, and even
onform political life in the country, the Vietnamese are not living the
war, they're living the life in the present - "it's a country not a war" etc...
which is its own struggle.
I mean there is a truth to this, so I think one must be thoughtfull, then,
to impose My Lai so to speak without really engaging what My Lai
means and without - by whatever means - *seeing* it in some way
(cf "you saw nothing in Hiroshima" - a phrase that went through my
head more than once when I was in Vietnam).
Another question I would ask is, do Japanese *need* Sophia Coppola to
refer to Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?
-Sam Wells
9153
From: filipefurtado
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Irreversible
Well Bill, I think it all depends on
where you stands.I think Kevin has a
point when he asked about the effects
of Cahiers article on The Night
Porter, After all, Caviani's film is
still pretty much a certified classic
(Criterion released a DVD of it far
before they release Night and Fog).
Cahiers debunk may have a strong
impact in some circles, but it
certainly didn't effect the mainstream
much. This sort of criticism is still
done, if it has a strong effect
depends much from yours cinephile's
circles. Charles Taylor torn Dogville
into pieces at Salon, David Walsh did
the same to Mystic River, Jonathan
Rosenbaum does that very often (The
Player and Saving Private Ryan to get
two 90's critical favorites), Armond
White tries to do that half a dozen
times a year (but he always make me
wish I liked the movie more). The
thing is there's many midia events
that feels overhyped that really
didn't get anybody much passionated
about (American Beauty, The Lord of
the Rings films). Here in Brazil some
recent arthouse releases did generate
a lot of discussion (Dogville,
Irreversible, The Barbarian Invasions,
Bowling for Columbine, I wrote a very
negative review of the Denys Arcand's
film and I wish I had done the same
about Moore's).AndCity of God generate
so many discussions here that the
ombdusman from trhe country's biggest
paper actually wroting a collum asking
why everybody was spenting so much
time talking about a mere movie.
Know, a problem that I do notice is
the overall bad effect of the complete
divorce between critics with interest
in world cinema and most of the
mainstream media, as it being creating
so much unanimity between the greats
of the film festival circuit that the
level of possible rich debate around
them seems very low.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
9154
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:56pm
Subject: Re: Find a Translation (was Irreversible)
> You might have some idea if you rewatched 'Masculine Feminine.'
OK I need to do that.
> You're kidding here, right? Belmondo and Karina are putting on a
> staging of stereotypes that they think the American sailors will enjoy.
> ("I like that! That's -damn- good!")
Yeah I guess. Still Karina's "Chinese" getup is... well inadvertantly -
I dunno maybe I'm overeading "because I can"
Still, I find some denial in French responses to the American War at the time
(Chris Marker in particular excepted).
-Sam
9155
From:
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: Irreversible
In a message dated 4/19/04 5:33:21 AM, hotlove666@y... writes:
> Of course not - they're all in this group!
>
Ok, let's pick someone who's not (I think) - J. Hoberman. Are all those
things you mentioned gone from his writing? Does his writing have no impact?
But I think that some subsequent posts are starting to bear down on the
specifics of cultural production/consumption in the Aughties. Jonathan Takagi
mentioned digital technology and its ability to "speed up" time (a DVD of Dogville
has been available for rent in Toronto for many weeks before its premieres in
North America) and Doug's comment about "all the other new releases and
one-day screening" implicitly acknowledges the way in which digital technology
elicits a glut of expression. But Dan Sallitt's post I think gets at why this state
of affairs is no reason to automatically mourn. At the very least, we should
be cognizant of where exactly we're standing before pronouncing on The
Mattering.
Ruy Gardnier's review of Dogville is at:
http://www.contracampo.com.br/criticas/dogville2.htm
I'm trudging my way through one of those terrible Google translations right
now.
And Filipe, thanx for your excellent post which listed many specifics. We now
have some objects to work with for a comparison. What was the impact of
Foucault on The Night Porter and Bettelheim on Seven Beauties compared to the
impact of Taylor on Dogville, Walsh and Rosenbaum on Mystic River, White on (fill
in the blank)?
And I'm sure many of us were totally clueless as to the debate City of God
engendered in Brazil. Thanx again!!
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9156
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: Dogville
--- Jess Amortell wrote:
>
> Speaking of provocation, did anyone else see Armond
> White's (NY Press) review of Son Frere, which he
> called a "masterpiece" worthy of sharing the same
> sentence with The Passion of the Christ (!)
>
> ... "[Chereau's] body consciousness leads to
> spiritual consciousness. It's a great coincidence
> that His Brother syncs with the genuine power of The
> Passion of the Christ through Chereau's fearlessness
> about the human vessel, his conviction about the
> soul within."
Yes I did. While I don't agree with him at all about
"NASCAR Jesus" he's quite right about the importance
of the Chereau. Though I don't think the filmmaker has
any interest in the "soul."
White also takes the opportunity to dis Tarantino in
that review.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9157
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:13pm
Subject: Re: Irreversible
Kevin, I measure impact by who was reached - The New Yorker reaches a
lot of opinion-makers; the CdC at that time fewer, but still
important ones - including many filmmakers. The point isn't to stop
bad or pernicious films from being seen, which criticism can't do
unless it's a majority of voices (usually worthless); it's to
understand them. If you don't do that, criticism is REALLY an
epiphenomenon. And I think that most of what I read these days which
wants to be political criticism of film is stale and kneejerk. If it
stimulates YOU, dig in, because there's a lot more where that came
from!
I don't read J. Hoberman's column, but The Dream Life is one of the
very few things I've seen in any language lately that is putting
forward new ideas about film and how to write about it. See my review
in Cineaste for my reasoning. I should warn you, though: the book is
about the "60s."
Sam: thanks for the thoughtful post. What Andy's infuriating (to
everyone but me) question about LIT and Hiroshima did was make me
think about how Hiroshima - and Vietnam, and Apocalypse Now - might
be present in the film by their absence. Understanding.
Interpretation. Ideas. So rare.
9158
From: L C
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:28pm
Subject: Re Watkins and Communism
I think a serie about communism in films should include LA COMMUNE (PARIS 1871) the 345 min tvmovie by Peter Watkins for its complex look at the beginning of the movement, The Paris Commune.
Luc
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail : votre e-mail personnel et gratuit qui vous suit partout !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail
Dialoguez en direct avec vos amis grâce à Yahoo! Messenger !
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9159
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:43pm
Subject: Re: Irreversible
the
> impact of Taylor on Dogville, Walsh and Rosenbaum on Mystic River,
White on (fill
> in the blank)?
I don't know Walsh's rveiewing. I do remember Jonathan's review of
Mystic River because he brought brought up (as did Andy Klein) the
parallel to Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't remember Taylor on
Dogville, and there's a reason for that. Reviews (like/don't like)
can't have an impact, and won't be remembered, if they don't contain
ideas. Ideas have impact, not opinions.
And sooner or later old ideas run out of gas, even if what they're
about is still important: orientalism, say, or heteronormativity.
Then we need new ideas about these things (not just new words,
because those two concepts date from the 60s), and about things we
HAVEN'T thought of before.
I keep circling back to LIT because I believe - wrongly, perhaps -
that it contains a challenge to think a little bit out of the box,
either to nail it or defend it. Maybe there are movies that I'm
missing because I see so little that do that better, but it isn't
enough to lament that they aren't under discussion unless the
lamenter discusses them in a way that illuminates them.
It's useful, I suppose - God knows I've spent enough time trying to
champion George Bataille's Story of the Eye here, and before that a
long line of films that didn't get seen, and I'll keep trying. But
just saying that attention must be paid is a waste of time if the
person reading the review doesn't get at least one idea from it. Then
maybe he/she will go looking for the film!
9160
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:52pm
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
Orientalism is an old word, of course, but I think you're using it to
with a newish meaning - Said wasn't writing about western ideas about
Japan, as I recall. Are you using it to mean more than just racial
stereotyping? The crux for me would be the scene with the prostitute,
which I kind of like - she's feeding Bob her ideas of what the
imperialist's fantasies are, and they aren't working, to say the
least. Actually, there's quite a bit about Japanese-American
relations in the film if you take time for the details, isn't there?
9161
From: Michael Brooke
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:06pm
Subject: Re: Positive and Negative Film and Art experiences AMORES PERROS
>
> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 16:20:13 -0000
> From: "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
>
> 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.
>
>
British censorship laws are almost always open to negotiation by clever
lawyers (the primary obscenity legislation, the 1959 Obscene
Publications Act, includes numerous get-out clauses regarding artistic
merit and requires that the allegedly obscene work must have a tendency
"as a whole" to "deprave and corrupt", which in practice makes it
extremely hard to secure a successful obscenity prosecution of anything
with genuine merit), but there are two notable exceptions: works
containing unsimulated animal cruelty and sexual activity involving
children.
Here, artistic merit does not provide a legal defence and precious
little else does either, and so in order to get passed by the British
Board of Film Classification (advisable for a theatrical release,
legally essential for video) a film's producer must prove to the
satisfaction of the BBFC's lawyers that the relevant legislation (the
1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act and the 1978 Protection of
Children Act) haven't been infringed.
AMORES PERROS was passed uncut, which in itself suggests that the
dogfights weren't genuine - but in this particular case the BBFC issued
a press statement saying that the contentious footage hadn't been so
much examined as scoured frame-by-frame by BBFC examiners in the
company of the film's producers and a representative of leading British
animal-cruelty charity the RSPCA. The producers were able to provide
satisfactory explanations as to how every effect was achieved without
resorting to cruelty, and were able to back this up with video evidence
to the BBFC and RSPCA's satisfaction.
Of course, the fact that the footage was definitely faked doesn't stop
it from being a film I'd hesitate to recommend to dog lovers!
Michael
9162
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:48pm
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"Orientalism is an old word, of course, but I think you're using it
to with a newish meaning - Said wasn't writing about western ideas
about Japan, as I recall."
In "Orientalism" Said illustrated what he meant by orientalism with
examples from the Middle East and later in "Culture and Imperialism"
he extended it to other Asian societies, particularly India (he
refers in passing to China and Japan.) The point is, orientalism is
a way of examing the Western appropriation of non-Western cultures
for ideological purposes, and other people writing about Japan and
the rest of East Asia have made use of Said's paradigm with necessary
adjustments. Also, a word coined in 1977 dosen't seem old to me as
as words go.
As to LOST IN TRANSLATION, I don't recall much being said about the
class content of the movie. The characters stay in a $600.00 a night
hotel in Shinjuku, and Charlotte's Japanese friends seem to come from
wealthy or priveleged backgrounds judging by the kind of bars and
nightclubs they go to. What Coppola shows is the way priveleged
foriegners on a short term visit experience Japan (among other things
of course.)
Richard
9163
From:
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: Reversible Erratum
I'm not sure who you're directing the orientalism question to, Bill, but I'll
give it a shot since I threw out the word.
I was using the term in accordance with Said. Indeed, Said wasn't focusing on
Japan in his book Orientalism although he mentions it a few times. But I
think that's besides the point. What he was attempting was an inventory of the
ways in which Western discourse has construed the Islamic Orient as other and the
power imbalances in the one-way character of such discourse. But he never
made the suggestion that his analysis couldn't be appiled to Western ideas about
Japan or other non-Western countries.
So yes, I was using it to mean more than just racial stereotyping.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9164
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:11pm
Subject: Re: Dogville/LiT/Movies that Matter
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Sam Adams wrote:
Lost in Translation, by contrast, played for something like six
months, including at least three weeks *after* the DVD release, which
is unheard of.
>
And of course all the high-minded arbiters of moral correctness
are harping on the commercial success of the film as a sure sign that
it must be despicable, right?
> LiT would be an insignificant, "harmless" movie, albeit one I still
disliked, if it weren't for all the critical and popular acclaim
heaped on it.
In other words, if an insignificant, harmless movie becomes
successful, it thereby also becomes significant and harmful!
I don't as a rule find second-guessing other critics all that
interesting, but I think when a movie so sheerly unambitious and
uninventive makes so many top-ten lists and polls, it's worth
pointing out exactly how perverted the values of a lot of so-called
film lovers have become. Here's a movie that not only depicts but
reinforces American insularity
It satirises it. How does it "reinforce" it? Is it going to
discourage millions of Americans from visitng Japan? Also please note
that the American characters are satirized too. And although they're
supposed to speak the same language, they barely understand each other
, and essentially posits a juvenile, presexual, commitment-
free "affair" as preferable to either main character's real-life
relationship --
How is it "juvenile" (except that the woman is very young -- not
a crime)? How is it an "affair" (even between quotes)? When does the
film say or imply that it's "preferable" to their "real-life"
relationships? (and even if it did, where the harm?) And why is the
relationship less "real-life" than their respective
marriages? (But don't worry: both marriages are saved in the end. No
Amour fou there...)
So much moralizing!
I've spent less than a week in Tokyo in my entire life, and I
basically found the movie's view of the city conformed exactly to
mine -- which is to say it offers nothing you can't experience in
your first few days.
But that is the very point of the film. They are there for a few
days.They are aliens."Everything is different." So you're blaming
the film for reflecting your own experience of Tokyo? Strange...
Imagine a double bill with Sans Soleil and you'll see what I mean.
Let's double-bill it with Hiroshima mon amour, by all means.
> JPC
>
> Sam
9165
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:25pm
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> >
> As to LOST IN TRANSLATION, I don't recall much being said about the
> class content of the movie. The characters stay in a $600.00 a
night
> hotel in Shinjuku, and Charlotte's Japanese friends seem to come
from
> wealthy or priveleged backgrounds judging by the kind of bars and
> nightclubs they go to. What Coppola shows is the way priveleged
> foriegners on a short term visit experience Japan (among other
things
> of course.)
>
> Do un-privileged foreigners have any opportunity to experience
Japan in any way? Of course the characters are "privileged", so what?
Murray is being paid two millions bucks for a commercial and a few
photographs of him promoting some booze. The girl's husband obviously
makes a lot of money photographing whatever he photographs (a job
Coppola did herself). Expenses paid etc... And people with money know
and meet mostly other people with money. Does affluence make them
less real? Maybe the film is "bad" because it doesn't deal with
class struggle...
9166
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:36pm
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
>
> As to LOST IN TRANSLATION, I don't recall much being said about the
> class content of the movie.
Jonathan, in his Best of the Year article, referred to it as a "rich
girl's view of Tokyo" but didn't go beyond that description, which
struck me as more ad hominem than enlightening. Maybe he said more in
his initial review.
9167
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:48pm
Subject: Re: LiT (was Irreversible)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> What Andy's infuriating (to
> everyone but me) question about LIT and Hiroshima did was make me
> think about how Hiroshima - and Vietnam, and Apocalypse Now - might
> be present in the film by their absence.
Actually, wasn't the ex-"action hero" Bob Harris character originally supposed to have been based on (and in some accounts, I think, even slated to be played by) real-life billboard liquor-ad celebrity Harrison Ford -- an on- and off-screen pilot who specifically played a World War II pilot in at least one role (and was notably immersed in onscreen Orientalism elsewhere)...
9168
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:49pm
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
Thanks for all the comments. Here's what I think, before renting the
DVD on May 1 and reseeing it to make use of all this enriching
discussion: This is a film where a lot is left out -- it is ABOUT
that. Class, sex, Hiroshima, orientalism, gayness, you name it - it's
all left out in a way I find original, love it or hate it. Another
way to put it - and forgive me for recurring to my literary
background again - is that it is a film equivalent of the kind of
self-conscious construct Blake created in his Songs of Innocence, or
The Book of Thel, or The Crystal Cabinet. (Other versions of the
Book of Thel archetype are Tennyson's The Lady of Shallott and
Shelley's The Witch of Atlas.)
"Innocence," as Michael says at the end of Lady from
Shanghai. "That's an awful big word." But I don't think in this case
that it equates to stupidity (although this kind of work is easy to
feel superior to, as are the Songs of Innocence for that
matter: "Little Lamb who made thee/ Can'st thou tell who made
thee?"). In other words, to be totally explicit, I think Coppola was
completely aware of everything she was leaving out. That's the
structure of the film. That's what I still want to understand better
-- along with the ideological effects that has. And the fact that the
film worked so well with audiences IS one of the reasons it matters,
but not necessarily an argument against it. The Awful Truth "worked"
too - that's not an argument against McCarey.
9169
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:28pm
Subject: Sadism: von Trier, Haneke, Noe, Hitchcock
This talk of von Trier, Haneke, and Noe makes one think about
differences and similarities. With regard to the kind of cruelty on
display in their films, von Trier and Haneke seem to have more in common
than Noe does with either of them. The actual on-screen violence in Noe
is much more graphic and disturbing than anything the other two
directors are likely to dish out, for one thing. von Trier and Haneke
seem to reserve most of their cruelty for the viewer: they use
identification to force the viewer into a suffering mode that is pushed
further than most directors would do. Noe, though he is more bloody
than the other two, seems to allow the viewer a wider range of response
to the on-screen horror. Sadism is on display in all three cases, but
expended in different directions and with different results.
Sadism goes with film direction like ham goes with eggs - certainly it's
hard to function as a director without some unbound sadism in your
personality. To my mind, one must go further than identifying sadistic
traits (which is like shooting fish in a barrel) - one must talk about
the form that sadism takes and the effect that it has.
Hitchcock is a director who has been frequently tagged as sadistic, and
I believe his critical reputation took quite a hit as a result in the
80s and 90s (largely because of allegations about his personal life).
I've always loved Hitchcock, though the marks of a sadistic personality
are evident in his films. How is the sadism expressed? Before I gave
up my cable TV subscription last month, I had an extraordinary
experience watching 15 random minutes of the 1956 version of THE MAN WHO
KNEW TOO MUCH - specifically, the extended scene in which Stewart tries
to break the news of their son's kidnapping to Day. Conceptually, this
scene is amazing. Like so many Hitchcock set pieces, it's conceived in
terms of a problem and a solution. The problem which Hitchcock poses
himself (and us): someone has to visit unbearable pain on a loved one.
The goal: make it as easy as possible. Hitchcock characteristically
makes the rules of the game clear to the audience, thereby promoting
identification and taking us along on the problem-solving quest.
Stewart takes great care to postpone the news until he has convinced his
wife to take a sedative, and seen it start to take effect. To this end
he bullies, wheedles, procrastinates, and does any number of unpleasant
things - though Hitchcock keeps us aware at all times of why he is doing
them. The goal is achieved: the narrative pleasure this success gives
the audience, however, is more than balanced by our terror at Day's
reaction, which is still quite violent despite the sedative. No easy
victory.
A) No one without a personal stake in sadism would conceive such a
scene, or such a movie - they'd skip over the revelation, or find a
whole different movie to make.
B) Given the innate sadism (on some level) that drives Hitchcock to make
such a movie, he then builds a suspense mechanism around a mission of
mercy, and a successful one to boot.
Personally, I think this is incredibly cool and artistically valid.
Having sadism in his personality, Hitch puts us through it - but there's
something to be said for being put through it. Life puts us through it
as well. What's important is that there's more than sadism here:
there's a purposeful desire to confront and reckon with the sadistic
impulse, to turn it to merciful ends.
(When I was in grad school in the late 70s, this scene was condemned
almost universally for its paternalistic nature: the wife's
vulnerability justifies the husband's role as caretaker and authority
figure. No denying it, though Day's emotional fragility is part of the
concept of this film, and not simply an assumption. I guess each person
has to decide whether he or she can deal with this.)
- Dan
9170
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:43pm
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"Do un-privileged foreigners have any opportunity to experience
Japan in any way?"
Yes. Teshigahara Hiroshi made a film about a US deserter during the
Vietnam war wandering around Tokyo called SUMMER SOLDIER. There are
a lot of young people from Australia and New Zealand who came to
Japan to teach English because of the poor employment outlook in
their home countries, and there are many Middle Easterners working in
Japan too for similar reasons. Not to mention the South Esat Asian
women working in the sex industry. All of these people have
disparate experiences of Japan. There's a vast literature on the
subject, both fictional and non-fictional.
"Of course the characters are "privileged", so what? Murray is being
paid two millions bucks for a commercial and a few photographs of him
promoting some booze. The girl's husband obviously makes a lot of
money photographing whatever he photographs (a job Coppola did
herself). Expenses paid etc... And people with money know and meet
mostly other people with money. Does affluence make them less real?
Maybe the film is "bad" because it doesn't deal with class
struggle..."
My remarks were meant to be descriptive, not normative. My apologies
for any confusion. LOST IN TRANSLATION was interesting to me because
previous Western movies set in Japan have not shown this kind of high
life. Other criticism here suggested that the movie should have
addressed US imperialism, the atomic bombings, etc., but that's
asking too much. My point is that the characters were convincing
given that they didn't want to go to Japan and were only going to be
there for a few weeks. This is how people of that class in those
circumstances behave like it or not, and Coppola showed insight in
presenting their lives. To me her achievement becomes clearer when
the class content is taken into account.
Richard
9171
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 0:19am
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Thanks for all the comments. Here's what I think, before renting
the
> DVD on May 1 and reseeing it to make use of all this enriching
> discussion:
You don't have to wait until May 1st. I rented it a week ago. Just
as good the second time around.
9172
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 0:59am
Subject: Re: Sadism: von Trier, Haneke, Noe, Hitchcock
Given the innate sadism (on some level) that drives Hitchcock to make
> such a movie, he then builds a suspense mechanism around a mission
of mercy, and a successful one to boot.
>
What's important is that there's more than sadism here:
> there's a purposeful desire to confront and reckon with the
sadistic impulse, to turn it to merciful ends.
Dan, I think I know the germ of the scene. When Hitchcock and Angus
MacPhail were working out the plot, they kept trying to find a way
the husband could use his profession (which wasn't medicine to start
with) in the course of dealing with the kidnapping. In the first
MWKTM, Edna Best uses her skeet-shooting skills at the end to save
her daughter, just as Day uses her singing to locate her son at the
end of the remake. I forget if Leslie Banks even had a profession,
but there was some equivalent gimmick AH and MacPhail were trying to
duplicate. I also believe it was John Michael Hayes who came up with
the solution - the sedative.
I think your analysis of the finished product is very interesting.
(BTW, Hitchcock's CONSCIOUS reasons for what he did in a given scene
are almost always incredibly uninteresting!) If you don't mind, I'd
like to know, in the context of what you have said, how you feel/felt
about making Honeymoon, one of the most masterful pieces of bloodless
sadism ever put on film.
9173
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:02am
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
A question, for someone who knows: I don't believe Ozu every alludes
to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. True or false? More generally,
does Ozu leave any things out of his films which we know he was aware
of leaving out? Was that one of them, or was it so left out that we
can't tell?
9174
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Sadism
> If you don't mind, I'd
> like to know, in the context of what you have said, how you feel/felt
> about making Honeymoon, one of the most masterful pieces of bloodless
> sadism ever put on film.
I certainly wasn't exempting myself!
I was wrestling with the idea of making a movie about the anachronism of
a marriage without pre-marital sex. The extra element that made the
movie come together in my mind was the nightmare honeymoon that spiraled
out of control, which came from a real-life experience in a different
context. When I thought of fusing those two ideas, my immediate
reaction was, "No! I can't make that movie! I don't want to make that
movie!" I knew deep down that I was onto something, but I was upset. A
day later, I was reconciled to making the film. Is it sadism or
masochism? Both, I guess. I felt as if I was putting myself through
it, but then I guess I was dragging the audience along. - Dan
9175
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:37am
Subject: Re: Re: Reversible Erratum
He doesn't mention the bomb, but he does allude to the
war. In his last film, known in english as "An Autmun
Afternoon" (the proper Japanese title is "The Taste of
Autumn Mackerel"), the old businessmen discuss at one
point what their lives might have been like had Japan
won the war. There's also a scene in a bar where a
former sailor sings a patriotic song.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> A question, for someone who knows: I don't believe
> Ozu every alludes
> to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. True or false?
> More generally,
> does Ozu leave any things out of his films which we
> know he was aware
> of leaving out? Was that one of them, or was it so
> left out that we
> can't tell?
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9176
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:44am
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> He doesn't mention the bomb, but he does allude to the
> war. In his last film, known in english as "An Autmun
> Afternoon" (the proper Japanese title is "The Taste of
> Autumn Mackerel"), the old businessmen discuss at one
> point what their lives might have been like had Japan
> won the war. There's also a scene in a bar where a
> former sailor sings a patriotic song.
> And then they all get drunk out of their mind... But how could Ozu
ever mention or even allude to the atomic bombing(s)? He would no
longer be Ozu.
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
> >
> > A question, for someone who knows: I don't believe
> > Ozu every alludes
> > to the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. True or false?
> > More generally,
> > does Ozu leave any things out of his films which we
> > know he was aware
> > of leaving out? Was that one of them, or was it so
> > left out that we
> > can't tell?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
> http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9177
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:27am
Subject: Re: Sadism
I felt as if I was putting myself through
> it, but then I guess I was dragging the audience along. - Dan
The result is very strong.
I'm sure Hitchcock felt the same way filming The Wrong Man, his most
painful film.
9178
From: Robert Keser
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:35am
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
No one seems to be taking into account that Lost In Translation was
popular because it is as much a comedy as a quasi-romance.
Some elements of the comedy arise out of the narrative (the shooting
of the whisky ad, for example), others seem tangential (such as
the "lip my stockings" improv scene), and a few others play like
freestanding slapstick (Bill Murray losing control of his exercise
machine). However, much of the comedy deals in broad caricatures,
with the blonde bimbo starlet (suspiciously like Cameron Diaz?)
as broadly drawn as the antic platinum blond Japanese TV host. Not
all the characters are created with equal weight.
To me, Sofia Coppola's achievement here (and I'm not saying
it's a major achievement) was balancing the tone between the
revue-level comedy and the bittersweet quasi-romance. The On the Town
in Tokyo sequences seemed to help negotiate the difference
as they showed the two leads sharing common encounters but without
making any specific plot commitments. (Incidentally, if Kiyoshi
Kurosawa made a film in LA, would we expect him to put in a reference
to Pearl Harbor?)
As for Irreversible, I'm pro-Noé. The film not only reverses
the bankrupt cliché of action movies (happy family, murder,
revenge), making the viewer question how valid could revenge
be when the wave of rage seeks such horrific brutality. What
would be sadistic is to play the events of the story in chronological
order, starting with joy and ending in bashed skulls (Face/Off is
merely one good example of that structure). Throughout Irreversible
I felt that I had to keep adjusting my judgments about the
characters, including the woman, as each jump backward in
time revealed some hitherto unsuspected motivation for this
or that choice or action until the ultimate revelation made the
final scene almost unbearably poignant. What seemed original
was how Noé made the viewer consciously aware of this process
of continual judging. (Speaking of judging, the
most baffling element is why Noé identifies the rapist as gay. Is
there some "hidden" problem of gay men raping women?)
His first film, Seul contre tous/I Stand Alone, also puts the
audience's judgments to the test in an original (and often
mordantly funny) way. The stream of vituperation, expressed
in a zero-bullshit idiom by the unevolved protagonist, is clearly the
raving of a lunatic yet much of what he says is true (or convincing,
at any rate). The violence in this film seems much harder to justify,
though, except insofar as it reveals the latent brutality of this
sexist, immigrant-bashingmale. It was Steve Erickson, I think,
who said that Noé's basic theme is testosterone poisoning.
As for Haneke, I've seen all of his films *except* Funny Games,
so I can't comment.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> TThis is a film where a lot is left out -- it is ABOUT
> that...In other words, to be totally explicit, I think Coppola was
> completely aware of everything she was leaving out. That's the
> structure of the film. That's what I still want to understand
better
> -- along with the ideological effects that has. And the fact that
the
> film worked so well with audiences IS one of the reasons it
matters,
> but not necessarily an argument against it. The Awful Truth
"worked"
> too - that's not an argument against McCarey.
9179
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:43am
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
David:
> > He doesn't mention the bomb, but he does allude to the
> > war.
JPC: How could Ozu
> ever mention or even allude to the atomic bombing(s)? He would no
> longer be Ozu.
>
I know the scene well. So not mentioning the bomb is part of what
makes Ozu Ozu? Hemingway talked about the "leave-out" as important to
his short stories. Generally he seems to mean plot that is omitted,
like the fact that Nick is shell-shocked in "Big Two-Hearted River."
The "leave-out" is important in certain filmmakers, too - notably
Ozu, I would say. And since Andy brought up the bomb, I thought of
that as precisely something I couldn't imagine having a place in an
Ozu film. But why? And what else does Ozu leave out?
I ask because - not just a propos of LIT - political criticism oftens
talks about what's left out as a kind of cover-up. Jonathan's
audience-response-oriented observations about what's left out of
Woody Allen films is another example. (There's an unforgettable
moment on the old Best of Sellers record where the doddering MP's
speech is interrupted by a man crying: "W'ot about the
workers?" "What about the workers indeed, sir!" the MP retorts,
unable to think of anything.) When is it a cover-up, and when is it
the "leave-out"?
A common-sense answer to such charges is that X is left out because
it's not important -- Sofia Coppola isn't making a film about that,
Woody Allen isn't making films about that, Michael Cimino is showing
the American side of Vietnam and doesn't have to include the point of
view of the North, etc. But common sense has its limits here, I
think. And so does the cover-up thesis as a blanket explanation. And
while I have proposed 2 categories of explanation for an omitted
element, maybe there are really 40!
But to stick to the part of the thread we're on, W'ot about Ozu? Is
the leave-out part of his esthetic?
9180
From:
Date: Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:46pm
Subject: Preminger trailers
Just saw the In Harm's Way DVD. It contains three trailers and a Making Of
featurette. Preminger is featured very prominently in all four, often in a
humorous way a la the Hitchcock trailers. This is the second Preminger-drenched
trailer I've seen (Golden Arm being the other). Does anyone know if he regularly
appeared in the trailers for his films?
Also, it'd be a fascinating study to trace at what point in Hollywood history
the director becomes a selling point in trailers...and when he (for the most
part) disappears again (don't recall seeing any directors in trailers for
80s/90s Hollywood films...are there any?).
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9181
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:56am
Subject: Re: Preminger trailers
(don't recall seeing any directors in trailers for
> 80s/90s Hollywood films...are there any?).
I recall David Cronenberg in the theatrical trailer for "Existenz".
My favorite is the famous "What's Up, Doc?" trailer featuring Peter
Bogdanovich...
-Aaron
9182
From:
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:18am
Subject: Re: Preminger trailers
>Does anyone know if he regularly
> appeared in the trailers for his films?
Since Preminger was also something of an actor, it seems to make
more sense for him to appear in his trailers than for some others, I
guess.
>
> Also, it'd be a fascinating study to trace at what point in
Hollywood history
> the director becomes a selling point in trailers...and when he
(for the most
> part) disappears again (don't recall seeing any directors in
trailers for
> 80s/90s Hollywood films...are there any?).
>
I don't know how appropriate they are to your question, but Woody
Allen and Spike Lee are, of course, readily apparent selling points
who appear in the trailers for their films. Granted, they aren't
addressing the camera as themselves a la Hitchcock (at least as far
as I know) but their presence is usually seen as benignly
directorial, and they're always playing variations on their pop
cultural personae in the trailers. (Though Allen was tellingly
absent from the ANYTHING ELSE trailer, even though he actually has a
major part in the film.) And then there's Quentin Tarantino, of
course, whose voice was prominently featured in the JACKIE BROWN
trailer.
Also, I found it interesting that an unidentified Clint Eastwood
narrated the trailer for MYSTIC RIVER, almost as if to mask the fact
that he wasn't actually in the film. (Indeed, his tough guy
intonations almost made the film sound like it was going to be
another Dirty Harry thriller.)
-Bilge
9183
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:43am
Subject: Re: What Ozu Left Out & Why (Was Reversible Erratum)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"The "leave-out" is important in certain filmmakers, too - notably
Ozu, I would say. And since Andy brought up the bomb, I thought of
that as precisely something I couldn't imagine having a place in an
Ozu film. But why? And what else does Ozu leave out?"
During the US Occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952 all Japanese
films were vetted by the Civil Information and Education Section
(CIE.) Among forbidden topics were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki and any scenes showing the Occupation Forces (i.e.,US
soldiers.) So while RECORD OF A TENEMENT GENTLEMAN shows the after
effects of the war and alludes to MIAs and POWs (there were about 1
million in the Soviet Union, and of that number 600,000 died in
captivity; the last group of survivors were released in 1956) it
dosen't show any of the Occupation except for some English-language
street signs. The same is true of many other films made during this
period.
In TOKYO STORY the Mother (Higashiyama Chieko) and Noriko (Hara
Setsuko) her daughter-in-law talk about her MIA husband, and in one
scene the radio program "Missing Persons" is playing in the
background. This program stated in 1946 to inform concerned
relatives about POWs and MIAs; its last broadcast was in 1962. The
Grandfather in LATE SUMMER talks about his MIA son from time to time,
and "Missing Persons" is playing in the background in a scene in A
HEN IN THE WIND. Ozu frequently refered to the war theroughout the
late '40s until 1959 with off-hand remarks by secondary characters,
the presence of a war widow, or with snatches from "Missing Persons"
coming from a radio. But I don't think he ever alluded to the atomic
bombings.
The Japanese government discouraged any public discourse about the
atomic bombings until the Fukuryu Maru incident of 1954 when a 100
ton Japanese fishing boat of that name was caught on the periphery of
a US H-bomb test. The US denied information about the blast to
Japanese doctors and generally bungled relations with the usually
obsequious conservative government. The immediate death of one of
the crew members (others died over a period of a few years after
exposure to the bomb)and the discovery that the national fishing
catch was contaminated (and remained so for about theree months)gave
rise to a popular anti-nuclear movement and allowed studios to make
movies about the bomb starting with CHILDREN OF THE ATOM BOMB and
GOJIRA (with directly alludes to the Fukuryu Maru) both 1954, and
RECORD OF A LIVING BEING in 1955. The whole topic of the A-bombs is
covered in a book called "Hibakusha Cinema," hibakusha being the name
given to the A-bomb survivors (it literally means "sun-exploded-
person.")
Richard
9184
From:
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:59am
Subject: Re: Dogville/LiT/Movies that Matter
Evidence that satire is where you find it. I don't see a single
moment in the film that acknowledges a viewpoint outside the
protagonists' own, which I think would be an essential requirement
for any kind of satire. I don't even think you can question that
we're supposed to empathize with them -- what other choices do we
have? Her cipher of a husband? The cheap caricature of an American
movie star? "Charlie Brown," whose real name doesn't seem to be an
issue? Murray and Johansson's self-absorption is slightly daffy and
amusing, but there's no real criticism of (or alternative to) their
attitudes. I think you're giving the film far too much credit for
"satirizing" a perspective it merely reflects. There's a fascinating
film yet to be made on the endlessly complex and weird relationship
of the Japanese towards American culture, which LiT doesn't come
within a mile of addressing.
As for the "high-minded arbiters of moral correctness" (which I guess
means me) "harping on the film," what I was trying to say (which
doesn't seem all that objectionable, really) is that bad movies that
no one pays attention to are generally not worth the trouble of
attacking at length. The United States of Leland is an appalling
piece of trash, but I'm reasonably sure that within a week or two of
its release, it will sink into the swamp and never be heard from
again, which is exactly what it deserves.
And when (and this is a serious question) did "moralizing" get such a
bad rap? I thought being incited to take a moral position was sort of
the point. I'd much rather argue with someone whose morals disagree
with mine that someone who pretends that it's all a morass and no one
knows anything (a fine position until you have to act). I think the
movie's creation of a zipless relationship between Murray and
Johansson, while each of them ignores what seem to be caring (if not
omniscient) spouses, is, and I'll say it again, juvenile, prizing
momentary "connection" over the difficult ups and downs that make up
a real (i.e. not Hollywood) relationship. (Give me ETERNAL SUNSHINE
any day, and more than once.) I don't agree that both marriages are
"saved in the end." They both go back to their spouses for the
immediate future, but I don't get any sense that either marriage has
much of a future -- not least because the spouses we've spent time
with are so selfish and immature that no one in their right mind
would stay married to them for long. (I'm particularly appalled by
the treatment of Murray's character's wife, whose desperate
remodelling seems like a prototypical cry for attention, yet is
treated as essentially pathetic and grasping, the fact that she's
voiced by Coppola notwithstanding.) I don't see any sign in the movie
(or, for that matter, in any of the many inarticulate interviews
Coppola has given) that we're supposed to find the characters as
dislikable as they actually are. I suppose if I did, I'd see the
movie quite differently. I can, however, guarantee that the vast
majority of people who've come away from the movie see no such extra
layer of self-awareness. To them, it's a "love story", pure and
simple. Or not so pure.
Sam A.
9185
From:
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:14am
Subject: Re: What Ozu Left Out & Why (Was Reversible Erratum)
Just saw "A Hen in the Wind" (1948) tonight, as part of the touring Ozu
retrospective. Did not understand at all about the "Missing Persons" broadcast or
the whole MIA history, and thanks very much to Richard Modiano for the
information!
The whole plot centers around a woman's struggle to survive, while her
husband is MIA and waiting to be repatriated to Japan. The relationship that
develops when the husband does come back is pretty repellent, and sinks the film. But
up to that point, the work is fascinating, and very well directed on a level
of visual style.
Many of the transition shots center around a pair of huge circular structures
in Tokyo - perhaps water towers. They are very geometric and photogenic.
The year before, Anthony Mann included similar large circular & scaffolded
stuctures at the start of his "T-Men" (1947). These LA structures show up
repeatedly in film noir, including "Armored Car Robbery" (Richard Fleischer) and
"Kansas City Confidential" (Phil Karlson), if memory serves. I am not sure what
they are in real life - have never seen them discussed or identified in print
articles. The LA structures are a virtual symbol of film noir. Ozu's are so
close visually, that one suspects he saw Mann's film, and wanted to include
something similar in his current work.
There are also echoes in "A Hen in the Wind" of another film noir, "Kiss of
Death" (Henry Hathaway, 1947). In that film, Victor Mature's absense in prison
puts intolerable strain on his wife's effort to survive financially and raise
their kid - just like the wife and child in "A Hen in the Wind". And the
notorious staircase scene in "Kiss of Death" finds echoes here too.
We know from interviews that Kurosawa's film noir "Stray Dog" was inspired
by Jules Dassin's "The Naked City". One suspects that Ozu, who loved American
movies, was having similar influences here.
Mike Grost
9186
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 9:01am
Subject: JJ and VG face to face
Dear friends - Do any 'A Film By'-ers have a copy of the recent
INROCKUPTIBLES which promised a 'face to face' interview between Jim
Jarmusch and Vincent Gallo?? (Both had films released in France recently.)
If so, any gems worth relating ???
curious Adrian
9187
From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 10:03am
Subject: RE: JJ and VG face to face
>From: Adrian Martin
>Dear friends - Do any 'A Film By'-ers have a copy of the recent
>INROCKUPTIBLES which promised a 'face to face' interview between Jim
>Jarmusch and Vincent Gallo?? (Both had films released in France recently.)
>If so, any gems worth relating ???
>
>curious Adrian
>
This was published two weeks ago, but not as a confrontation, although they
were both on the cover. They were interviewed separately and were each asked
a question about each other, and Claire Denis was asked about both of them.
VG's interview is filled with his usual rants and questionable
statements--they wouldn't qualify as "gems," IMO. I have yet to see THE
BROWN BUNNY. Gallo has re-edited it since Cannes: it is 30 minutes shorter.
As for COFFEE AND CIGARETTES, I was pretty familiar with the first 3 shorts
and was pleased to discover the 8 others. Some are clearly better than
others, my favorite being "Cousins?" with Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan.
- Samuel
_________________________________________________________________
Bloquez les fenêtres pop-up, c'est gratuit !
http://toolbar.msn.fr?DI=1039&XAPID=2057&SU=&HL=Bloquez+les+fenêtres+pop-up,+c'est+gratuit+!
9188
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 10:08am
Subject: Re: What Ozu Left Out & Why (Was Reversible Erratum)
Richard,
That's fascinating. So it wasn't Oriental reserve - they were being
censored to avoid criticism of the US in films for incinerating all
those non-combatants. No wonder Godzilla came leaping out when the
lid came off!
9189
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: Reversible Erratum
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> My remarks were meant to be descriptive, not
> normative. My apologies
> for any confusion. LOST IN TRANSLATION was
> interesting to me because
> previous Western movies set in Japan have not shown
> this kind of high
> life. Other criticism here suggested that the movie
> should have
> addressed US imperialism, the atomic bombings, etc.,
> but that's
> asking too much. My point is that the characters
> were convincing
> given that they didn't want to go to Japan and were
> only going to be
> there for a few weeks. This is how people of that
> class in those
> circumstances behave like it or not, and Coppola
> showed insight in
> presenting their lives. To me her achievement
> becomes clearer when
> the class content is taken into account.
>
> Richard
>
And class content is NEVER taken into acount in this
culture. It's the most (here it comes) Politically
Incorrect thing you can possibly do. Jonathan
Rosenbaum has consistently attacked Woody Allen for
his films about privileged upper class New Yorkers --
not merely for themseleves but as a result of the
pig-headed insistence on so many ciritcs (especially
those working for the New York Times) on ignorging
this fact and treating Allen's films as if they
constituted some Grand Universal Sattement about New
York living. The best films about New York
--"Shadows," "The Cool World," "Guns of the Trees,"
"The Little Fugitive" -- rarely deal with the
privileged classes.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9190
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:38pm
Subject: Re: Preminger trailers
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Just saw the In Harm's Way DVD. It contains three trailers and a
Making Of
> featurette. Preminger is featured very prominently in all four,
often in a
> humorous way a la the Hitchcock trailers. This is the second
Preminger-drenched
> trailer I've seen (Golden Arm being the other). Does anyone know if
he regularly
> appeared in the trailers for his films?
He's very prominent in the trailers for ANATOMY OF A MURDER, ADVISE
AND CONSENT and THE CARDINAL. The trailers I've seen for BONJOUR
TRISTESSE and EXODUS, though, barely acknowledge him and sell the
film instead. But, of course, there were most likely different
trailers and ad campaigns for all of these films, some of which may
have emphasized Preminger and some of which didn't. Not only was he
a celebrity figure by the 1950s and '60s, regularly turning up on
television, as well as being his own producer, he also owned the
rights to some of his own films and most likely had strong input into
how they were advertised.
9191
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 2:48pm
Subject: PS FILM NOIR screenings (director) guest speaker
Palm Springs Film Noir 3-6June2004 recommendations?
THE NAKED KISS, KANSAS CITY CONFIDENTIAL
CITY THAT NEVER SLEEPS have been discussed in the past.
Thursday
Caged (Cromwell) Ray Bradbury
Friday
Gunman in the Streets (Tuttle)
Kansas City Confidential (Karlson) Coleen Gray
Ruthless (Ulmer)
Rogue Cop (Rowland) Anne Francis
Saturday
Street of Chance (Hivey)
City that Never Sleeps (Auer) Mala Powers
Two of a Kind (Levin) Terry Moore
Hickey & Boggs (Culp) Robert Culp
Sunday
The Strange Mr. Gregory (Rosen)
Lonley Place (Ackerman)
Nightmare (Shane) Kevin McCarthy
So Dark the Night (Lewis)
The Naked Kiss (Fuller) Michael Dante
9192
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:01pm
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> >
> This is how people of that
> > class in those
> > circumstances behave like it or not, and Coppola
> > showed insight in
> > presenting their lives. To me her achievement
> > becomes clearer when
> > the class content is taken into account.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> And class content is NEVER taken into acount in this
> culture. It's the most (here it comes) Politically
> Incorrect thing you can possibly do. Jonathan
> Rosenbaum has consistently attacked Woody Allen for
> his films about privileged upper class New Yorkers --
> not merely for themseleves but as a result of the
> pig-headed insistence on so many ciritcs (especially
> those working for the New York Times) on ignorging
> this fact and treating Allen's films as if they
> constituted some Grand Universal Sattement about New
> York living. The best films about New York
> --"Shadows," "The Cool World," "Guns of the Trees,"
> "The Little Fugitive" -- rarely deal with the
> privileged classes.
>
> Bill K.
With all due respect, whether a movie is good, bad or indifferent
has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of social "class" it deals
with. What makes "Shadows" or "The Cool World" great is certainly not
the fact that they do NOT deal with the "priveleged classes." Woody
Allen's films are not and were not intended as "Grand Universal
Statements" about "New York" (an impossibility in my opinion --
what's New York? I lived there for 30 years and I still don't know;
no movie is ever going to tell me). Allen has always been perfectly
aware of the fact that a large portion of the NYC population does not
belong to the privileged classes. He just makes (made) films about
the kind of people he knows, or knows best. "Write about what you
know" they used to advise would-be writers. Is that so wrong? I've
always thought the kind of attack launched by Jonathan against
Allen's films on such grounds was and is unfair and irrelevant. (I
think we had a discussion on this topic here a few months ago). And
it sounds pretty much the same as the kind of putdown of Lost in
Translation I've been reading here;it always boils down to: he/she
should have made a different film, the film I wanted to see, not what
she/he made, which is not what I'm interested in seeing. Therefore
the film is bad.
By the way, do we put down Shakespeare's or Racine's plays because
most of their characters are (highly) "privileged" people? And why
always the assumption that "privileged" people are somehow
less '"real", less "human", less worthy of interest than the rest of
the underprivileged world?
> JPC
> __________________________________
h
9193
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:04pm
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
> Michael Cimino is showing
> the American side of Vietnam and doesn't have to include the point of
> view of the North, etc.
It's not the same thing. Cimino (and to an extent FF Coppola) want the
kudos for engaging a history, but they don't want to know what that
history is. (In any case, there are many many points of view which were in
opposition to the "American" (& WHICH Americans ?) that are not the
same as the "view" of the North).
David E>>
>>and treating Allen's films as if they
constituted some Grand Universal Sattement about New
York living.
Well that's it re American/Hollywood "Vietnam" films.
But maybe I should get off this topic, I have clear bias !
-Sam Wells
9194
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:05pm
Subject: Class content (broad generalizations)
It seems that many of the conventional Hollywood movies are
about people with fantastic jobs (that they never go to or have
just retired from at age 30) that pay for the luxurious
surroundings they live in, cars they drive.... Seldom does an
independent movie have these settings (maybe because the
film-makers have neither access nor familiarity with such?)
One of the most basic stories of America is 'upward mobility' which is
often presented as 'nouveau riche' nonsense. WALL STREET is a
successful combination of the Hollywood high life context being
subverted by the working class values.
Certainly the use of 'externally powerful' people opens a lot of story
telling lines, but the best stories may be those that deal with the
'internal traits' of more ordinary characters.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> And class content is NEVER taken into acount in this
> culture. It's the most (here it comes) Politically
> Incorrect thing you can possibly do. Jonathan
> Rosenbaum has consistently attacked Woody Allen for
> his films about privileged upper class New Yorkers --
> not merely for themseleves but as a result of the
> pig-headed insistence on so many ciritcs (especially
> those working for the New York Times) on ignorging
> this fact and treating Allen's films as if they
> constituted some Grand Universal Sattement about New
> York living. The best films about New York
> --"Shadows," "The Cool World," "Guns of the Trees,"
> "The Little Fugitive" -- rarely deal with the
> privileged classes.
9195
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:14pm
Subject: directors selling their movies
One of the joys of seeing movies at Film Forum is that they're one of
the few places, other than Turner Classic Movies and DVDs, where you
can see original movie trailers.
Very recently they had their Welles series, and they showed the
CITIZEN KANE trailer, famously modeled after the opening sequence of
Sacha Guitry's STORY OF A CHEAT. Welles cunningly exploits the
audience's familiarity with his voice, which they'd been hearing on
the radio for quite some time already. Even more clever is the way
he doesn't appear in the trailer *except* as a voice - all the while
introducing other familiar radio actors from his Mercury group - this
builds into the film itself, as Welles doesn't really "appear" until
the story is well underway. (Except for in newsreels, buried under
makeup.)
Welles also spoke or appeared in trailers for THE MAGNIFICENT
AMBERSONS and F FOR FAKE (which is a short film unto itself, and an
odd one, at that).
During the Lubitsch series, Film Forum showed the trailer for THE
SHOP AROUND THE CORNER, which is "hosted" by Frank Morgan in
character as Mr. Matuschek. Lubitsch appears at the end as himself.
On TCM you can see not only original trailers but somewhat longer,
newsreel-ish "behind the scenes" pieces that sell the film by talking
to different production people involved, like Selznick or whoever. I
remember a one-reeler like this for THE BISHOP'S WIFE, where
they "spontaneously" catch Cary Grant, Loretta Young, and David Niven
as they head off the lot, arm in arm, and the newsreel voice is
like, "Hey, it's the stars of the new movie THE BISHOP'S WIFE,
wouldn't you like to tell the audience a little bit about the film,"
etc. That's just one example, though, there used to be all kinds
of "realistic" movie trailers like that. I guess they had a little
more leeway back then, since when you went to see a film in the '40s
and '50s, things didn't have to be flying at you at superspeed, in
Dolby Digital surround sound and whatnot.
-Jaime
9196
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:28pm
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum
> And class content is NEVER taken into acount in this
> culture. It's the most (here it comes) Politically
> Incorrect thing you can possibly do. Jonathan
> Rosenbaum has consistently attacked Woody Allen for
> his films about privileged upper class New Yorkers --
> not merely for themseleves but as a result of the
> pig-headed insistence on so many ciritcs (especially
> those working for the New York Times) on ignorging
> this fact and treating Allen's films as if they
> constituted some Grand Universal Sattement about New
> York living. The best films about New York
> --"Shadows," "The Cool World," "Guns of the Trees,"
> "The Little Fugitive" -- rarely deal with the
> privileged classes.
That's the wrong approach - the idea that the privileged classes are
inherently bad, or that films about them are inartistic or unworthy
compared to the other films you mention. Making aesthetic judgments
based on content rather than a film's approach to the content (which
is a good enough reason to rail against Woody Allen, but also a much
more responsible one).
I've always had the impression that, whether he says so or not,
Rosenbaum and other critics (such as myself, although I'm still
picking up on these things) are made uncomfortable by films that
complacently, obliviously build upon, and condone, the
insensitivities of one class towards another (without making some
effort to account for this glossing-over). Thus we have
oversimplified notions of the poor and lower middle class based on
the thinking of middle- and upper-class filmmakers and scriptwriters
(think about homeless people that rarely appear on SEINFELD or
FRIENDS, and how, if they appear, they're only used for jokes about
the homeless). But these are just trends - strong ones, worthy of
deconstructing and criticizing, but not cause enough to say, flat-
out, that a movie about the rich or upper-middle class is, as a rule,
not going to be as good as one about the working class.
David, do you consider yourself as part of an economic class?
-Jaime
9197
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:32pm
Subject: Re: Reversible Erratum (correction)
> Making aesthetic judgments
> based on content rather than a film's approach to the content
(which
> is a good enough reason to rail against Woody Allen, but also a
much
> more responsible one).
Oops, didn't finish this sentence. Meant to say, making these kinds
of judgments seems pretty misguided, at least to me. There are
other, stronger, more credible ways of dealing with these issues that
have nothing to do with the kind of broadsword dismissal that David
seems to be calling for.
-Jaime
9198
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:38pm
Subject: Trailers, then and now
I sense that trailers from old movies presented info / scenes in the
same chronological order they appear in the film. There is an
intrinsic interest in the story as told in the film. The story
carries the film as told cinematically.
Today's trailers seem to present the info / scenes in 'contrived'
order to heighten interest in a story that might have no intrinsic
strength. After seeing today's trailers, there may be less interest
in seeing the movie as many of the 'big scenes' are given away.
I wonder if scenes never appearing in the movie are sometimes
presented in trailers. I think that would be an interesting change.
Show some visual information in a trailer but then only refer to the
information verbally.
In the script of REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, there is an opening scene
with the gang harassing / assaulting a man. It is not shown in the
movie although JIM maybe following the action as the mechanical
toy monkey (Jim plays with) was being carried by the assault victim.
The gang's assault is referred to several times in the movie, even
with the use of 'no one chickened out.'
I sometimes use my little flashlight and read something while the
trailer plays. Often the theater is near empty, but occasionally
someone asks me to put the light out...as if I came to the theater to
read the newspaper!
9199
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:46pm
Subject: RE: JJ and VG face to face
--- Samuel Bréan wrote:
> VG's interview is filled with his usual rants and
> questionable
> statements--they wouldn't qualify as "gems," IMO.
Does he go into his rage at "Elephant" getting the
Palme D'Or? And editor friend of mine at another
publication talked with gallo recently about a
possible interview and said Gallo was going off on
Gus, saying that he saw him with Jury President
Patrice Chereau and that Gus' win was a coup by the
Gay Mafia.
> As for COFFEE AND CIGARETTES, I was pretty familiar
> with the first 3 shorts
> and was pleased to discover the 8 others. Some are
> clearly better than
> others, my favorite being "Cousins?" with Alfred
> Molina and Steve Coogan.
>
That one's quite brillaint, but I'm crazy about the
Cate Blanchett "Patty Duke Show" tour de force,and the
lovely Taylor Mead finale.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9200
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Apr 20, 2004 3:52pm
Subject: Re: Trailers, then and now
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
> I sense that trailers from old movies presented info / scenes in the
> same chronological order they appear in the film. There is an
> intrinsic interest in the story as told in the film. The story
> carries the film as told cinematically.
Not sure about chronologically, but older trailers tend to show
scenes that are truncated enough to fit into the trailer, but not so
much that the audience doesn't get an idea as to what the scene
itself is about. There's a kind of "inner build" to different parts
of the older trailers that, as a result, makes the whole trailer seem
a little slack.
> Today's trailers seem to present the info / scenes in 'contrived'
> order to heighten interest in a story that might have no intrinsic
> strength. After seeing today's trailers, there may be less interest
> in seeing the movie as many of the 'big scenes' are given away.
That's not always the case, there are bad ones and good ones. What's
interesting is that the filmmakers are rarely the people who actually
make the trailer, it's usually handled by the marketing or whatever
department, and what's funny is that there are these cliches that
become really big for about a three- to six-month period, and then
there's another cliche, and another, etc. Like for example, the end-
of-trailer "kicker" that comes after everything, the credits and all,
usually involving a piece of wood flying at the screen, or somebody
getting hit by a car, etc., usually accompanied by some phony-
sounding "WHOOMPH" and/or a zoom effect. Speaking of zooms, there's
a lot of wacky zooming-in and out and color changes going on,
speeding up and slo-mo, etc. To capitalize on this, somebody made a
funny, "contemporary" trailer for Kurosawa's YOJIMBO, which you can
download here:
http://www.maximument.com/yojimbo.html
> I wonder if scenes never appearing in the movie are sometimes
> presented in trailers.
That happens a lot, but usually it's because a scene is cut out well
after the trailer is in theaters.
-Jaime
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact