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.
9301
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:55am
Subject: Re: Oliveira
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> Unfair it is then. Or maybe we have very different tastes towards
Oliveira,
> even if we tend to agree on Bunuel greats (Nazarin, Illusion viaja
en
> tranvia, etc. I have two texts on community, religion and desire in
his
> mexican films, I'll send them to you (in ptgs) together with the
Cela
> s'Appelle tape).
Please do! But I'm supposed to turn in the Bunuel MS. pretty soon.
> Have no trouble with artifficialism in his films, in fact, love it;
and yes,
> it's clearly intentional (how would you place Pedro Abrunhosa's
shoes in the
> Princesse de Clèves novel?).
They're all I remember.
Look, De Oliveira does exactly what he feels like, and Paolo lets
him. That can be great fun, intermittently. But to me, God's honest
truth, there are the films based on the work of the other Branco, and
there's all the rest, which I would want, to varying degrees, to see
or resee for sure. But I'm not convinced they'll last. Everything
I've seen by Cordeiro and Reis, or by Monteiro, is essential and will
last, IMO.
De Oliveira is a fascinating guy, and I always race to see his new
one (when I can), but he's no Bunuel, even though Bunuel is one of
the people who influenced him at one point, and probably still does.
He's a chameleon: Rossellini, Dreyer, Bunuel, Straub-Huillet,
Bresson...I wouldn't be surprised if he DID remake Stagecoach at some
point, because he also loves Ford!
But now that we've all said what we like or don't like about the
recent films (by the way, Le Couvent sucks -- for this I had to put
up with Malkovich??), just what is it that you get from De Oliveira
that is De Oliveira? I once thought the heart of his cinema was in
the Camelo Branco films, but now I'm not 100% there IS a heart.
Maybe De Oliveira is a brilliant metteur-en-scene whose vision is
whatever artifact he has decided to adapt, a kind of anti-John
Huston; Huston has no sgtyle and only adapts works (except for Annie,
obviously) that express HIS personality. De Oliveira puts his
considerable art at the service of whoever he likes - I don't expect
to see a better adaptation of Claudel's great play-poem any time
soon, that's for sure - and expresses himself in the gag-films and
personal essays. But compare that to Straub-Huillet's way of adapting
other people, and De Oliveira comes of as a kind of one-man Portugese
Tradition of Quality in comparison.
Don't get me wrong -- I love the guy. But he's been oversold!
9302
From: cjsuttree
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:15am
Subject: Re: Wong
Adrian Martin wrote:
>But: there are a few issues here. Firstly,
>I believe that a director is not
>only 'what's in his films', but also what
>is MADE of his films in all kinds
>of diverse contexts -
>Wong [is often identified as]
>the fashionable po-mo guy who made CHUNGKING EXPRESS and FALLEN
ANGELS - which
>are, I would think, his LEAST politically/socially/historically
tinged films
Adrian, in a sense I agree with you. As someone who has admired
Wong since _As Tears Go By_ in 1989, I'm certainly not
happy with him being pigeonholed into the _Chungking Express_
rut. I also think _Chungking_ is the slightest of his work -
after all, it is made in a few weeks, and the "lyrical" voiceover
seems very forced at times. I have problems with _Fallen Angels_,
but it *is* Wong's most overtly anti-capitalistic work; it depicts
the mute trying and failing to "do businesss."
I suppose Tarantino did help make Wong famous in the U.S.,
so one can't complain too much. And Wong has muddied
the water by cashing in on this _Chungking Express_
poster-boy image to finance his ridiculous expensive feature films,
as you said.
>I still cannot yet bring myself to
>regard WKW as much of a political filmmaker - even though I have read
many
>eulogies from the cultural-studies wing along that line (including a
recent
>intriguing book on HAPPY TOGETHER from a HK Uni Press).
I don't think of Wong as a political filmaker either. I thought
I mentioned that but I must have deleted the point. I think of him
as Hemingway rather Steinbeck - minus the macho posturing. Not
everyone in Hong Kong likes or agrees with him, but in my view
that doesn't prevent him from being the (almost expatriate?)
chronicler of our own "lost generation."
>The reason I described (some of ) Wong's films as having a
>'melancholy high' - and I do believe that is what many of his fans
love his
>films for - is precisely because they play to what Gilberto Perez
once
>described as a somewhat fashionable 'sentimental homelessness' that
>permeates one of the cultural sensibilities of our time
Is Hemingway a "political author"? He is not exactly in vogue
these days. His most famous novel that depicted card carrying
Communist Party members was also the one rejected by
Spanish resistance fighers (and embraced by John McCain!).
Maybe it is more relevant to ask: if Hemingway were writing
today, would his novels have been dismissed as something that
indulged in "fashionable sentimental homelessness"? Or would
astute critics have discerned that there was a legitimate reason
for his melancholy and his lack of emotional anchor? In Wong's
defense -- I think a people who has neither a common heritage nor
a say in their future is certainly entitled to some melancholy.
Clara Law is in Australia now, so her feelings about being
uprooted is probably authentic, although I haven't seen her films
in ages. I am less comfortable with Stanley Kwan's sentimental
nostalgia. He seems to think that Old Hong Kong is far more
exotic and interesting and worth talking about than its present.
(Although I like _Rouge_ and _Actress_ very much.) And
I am not at all comfortable with Tsui Hark's sentimental embrace
of (his idea of) Chinese folklore and such shenanigan. Tsui's
view certainly seems fashionable these days, at least among
some critics, but I feel that it is a far less accurate portrait
of the Hong Kong I knew than the one Wong Kar-Wai depicts.
This is getting really long but I should add that a long
and distinguished literary tradition is associated with
sentimental melancholy and homeless sentiments - and not just
in the West. For example, essays and travelogues written by
highly literate wanderers - most of them cashiered, exiled,
disillusioned ex-officials - have become a staple of Chinese
literature textbooks. (That is to say, even I have read them,
and I'm no expert there.) They are certainly more relevant
than books and essays which extol loyalty to the Emperor and
allegiance to the Nation - especially because we have neither
emperor nor nation to be loyal to.
>IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, one of his weakest films in my
>view, plays to this kind of 'mood' in a big way.
I personally think that _In the Mood_ is Wong's second best film,
but that's for another time I guess!
>Like Tsai
>Ming-liang - whose work I value more than Wong's but who I also think
is an
>essentially apolitical artist! - it's in this queerness that the
'radical'
>element lies. But as to where and how political radicality sits on
any other
>level of the work, I need more convincing!
I don't know how political/radical Wong is (or is required to be).
What I tried to say is that his work speaks to me (and more than
a few people I know) in a very deeply felt
way. I think his films are quintessential "Hong Kong" cinema;
they are (unlike too many HK films) unmistakably about the experience
of having lived in a certain time and place. Because of that, when
some critics claim that (for example) _In the Mood for Love_ has
nothing
to do with/has nothing to say about Hong Kong (and you've no doubt
read claims along those lines too), it bothers the hell out
of me.
This is probably (and mercifully) my last message on this topic for
a while ...
9303
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:17am
Subject: re: Wong
Thanks, cj (still trying to figure out your first name!), for your generous
and thought-provoking response. That was great what you pointed out about
the anti-capitalism of FALLEN ANGELS. And your further celebration of Wong's
portrait of the HK experience is invaluable. And I think we are in agreement
that, finally, basing the discussion around 'is Wong a political filmmaker
or not?' kinda puts the brain-matter to work in the wrong place somewhat!
And I too am looking forward to his new, futuristic film !! The mind
boggles.
Adrian
9304
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:53pm
Subject: Re: Wong, Tsai
-> Wong is for many of his fans - and I'm not speaking
> here of the especially knowledgeable HK cinema students or aficionados - the
> fashionable po-mo guy who made CHUNGKING EXPRESS and FALLEN ANGELS -
Why he took a change of direction with IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE ?
(he as much as said so, no ?)
> Like Tsai
> Ming-liang - whose work I value more than Wong's but who I also think is an
> essentially apolitical artist! -
I promise to not turn this in to Vietnam or East Asian Studies forum, but,
FWIW cf previous discussions here on Tsai) *every* Vietnamese person
involved in any way with film, video, theater, arts etc I met when I was
there asked me if I'd seen WHAT TIME IS IT THERE ? and other Tsai Ming-liang
films. You tell me if this is "political" or not, but clearly it speaks to
*something* that is intersecting the political in a deep way.
-Sam
9305
From: Raymond P.
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:30pm
Subject: Re: Wong...and Fruit chan (a portrait of the Hong Kong experience)
Funnily, I used to think that Wong is quintessentially Hong Kong....until I moved to Hong
Kong myself. One of the most underrated directors in world cinema is definitely Fruit
Chan, whose dark, razor-like incisions of Hong Kong's social problems are mixed with
pathos and subtle comedy. No one portrays Hong Kong as grittily as Chan - the
polyglot multicultural concrete jungles are his signature.
"Made in Hong Kong" and "Durian Durian" are two of the finest recent cinema to come out
of the territory. Even his latest experiment, the unwieldy but refreshing "Public Toilet", is
an observant stream-of-consciousness that tackles the issue of identity for many who live
in this transient megalopolis.
One could argue that Ann Hui's earlier works are much more socially conscious, and that
would be true. But she tends to be overly earnest in her need for an answer at times,
making her films somewhat pat and nicely wrapped in a bow. This is especially true for her
last overtly political film, "Ordinary Heroes". However, I have a tremendous respect for Ann
as a director and as a person.
Wong himself never really strives to be political per se. His films invariably touch upon key
events in history, but they are treated as signposts of the past instead of substantial topics
to really delve into. And there is nothing wrong with that. I have friends who spend way
too much time trying to find hidden meanings in every scene of Wong's films, and I frankly
find it to be a bit futile. While I really like Wong, his works don't lend themselves to
meticulous intellectual studies. He is not Bela Tarr or Godard. To be fair, "Ashes of Time"
is probably his deepest film, and I find myself coming back to this epic to find something
that I did not realize in my last viewing. It is too bad that it also remains his most
unavailable work, mostly due to rubbish DVD releases that completely mangle the
sumptuous visuals. Anyways, it is a bit of a shame that he did not choose to follow the
path of "Ashes of Time" to create even deeper works.
That being said, I love Chungking Express exactly because it is souffle-light in every way.
But I seem to contradict myself all the time...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Thanks, cj (still trying to figure out your first name!), for your generous
> and thought-provoking response. That was great what you pointed out about
> the anti-capitalism of FALLEN ANGELS. And your further celebration of Wong's
> portrait of the HK experience is invaluable. And I think we are in agreement
> that, finally, basing the discussion around 'is Wong a political filmmaker
> or not?' kinda puts the brain-matter to work in the wrong place somewhat!
>
> And I too am looking forward to his new, futuristic film !! The mind
> boggles.
>
> Adrian
9306
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:41pm
Subject: Re: Wong...and Fruit chan (a portrait of the Hong Kong experience)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Raymond P."
wrote:
> Funnily, I used to think that Wong is quintessentially Hong
Kong....until I moved to Hong
> Kong myself. One of the most underrated directors in world
cinema is definitely Fruit
> Chan, whose dark, razor-like incisions of Hong Kong's social
problems are mixed with
> pathos and subtle comedy.
I've never been to HK, but Durian Durian is a great film and Fruit
Chan is a great filmmaker.
I love both Ashes of Time and Chunking Express, which I think of
as complementary works, like The Shooting and Ride in the
Whirlwind, or 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her and Made in USA.
Or perhaps more appropriately, like Hammett and The State of
Things, since my understanding is that low-budget Chunking
Express was made while waiting to complete big-budget Ashes
of Time.
Now if only Hammett were the film Wenders originally made,
with the great Brian Keith in the role that devolved, in every sense
of the word, to Peter Boyle when Coppola asked Keith to reshoot
his entire part with a new script and Keith told him to jump in a
lake. THAT Hammett probably was as good as Ashes of Time...
9307
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Wong...and Fruit chan (a portrait of the Hong Kong experience)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Now if only Hammett were the film Wenders originally
> made,
> with the great Brian Keith in the role that
> devolved, in every sense
> of the word, to Peter Boyle when Coppola asked Keith
> to reshoot
> his entire part with a new script and Keith told him
> to jump in a
> lake. THAT Hammett probably was as good as Ashes of
> Time...
>
"Hammett"is indeed one of the starngest projects every
concieved and executed. I quite like the completed and
released film but long to know what was going on
between Coppola and Wenders in its reshaping. When I
was in Paris in '87 "Cahiers" threw a party and their
were video monitors on which clips of the first
version of "Hammett" (with Ronee Blakeley in a key
role) were playing. What happened to this cut of the
film? Was it completed? Is it available in any form?
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9308
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:08pm
Subject: RE: Re: Oliveira
> Look, De Oliveira does exactly what he feels like, and Paolo lets
> him.
According to the long interview with Biette in "La Lettre du
Cinéma", all of the directors with whom Paulo Branco works
are subject to his preferences, even Oliveira. Which is a
bit of a shame, since there are some interesting projects
Biette described to which Branco simply said, "No". Did
anyone on the list see his theatrical production "Blue Beard"?
Jonathan Takagi
9309
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:18pm
Subject: Hammett (was Wong-kar Wai)
david wrote: When I
> was in Paris in '87 "Cahiers" threw a party and their
> were video monitors on which clips of the first
> version of "Hammett" (with Ronee Blakeley in a key
> role) were playing. What happened to this cut of the
> film? Was it completed? Is it available in any form?
I wonder, too. Electronic cinema was already in place at
Zoetrope - that's what tempted Coppola into reinventing the
wheel on Hammett in the first place - and I assume that both 35
and video of everything exists, already edited. (They edited as
they shot with that system, having previsualized everything on
video before putting film in the camera.) The trick would be to
convince Coppola to second-guess himself.
Maybe the "remake" is better, but here's the thing; the film hinges
on the Wendersian relationship between Hammett (Frederick
Forrest) and his old boss, the model for the Continental Op.
SPOILER COMING
That relationship would've been much stronger with Brian Keith
playing the old boss, as he did in Hammett 1, particularly when it
turns out that the character has become corrupt and is the bad
guy. As a friend observed at the time, Brian Keith was ideal for
the part because he was a fallen angel himself: a very
charismatic actor who never had the career he deserved
because of liquor and temperament.
Anyway, Coppola decided he wasn't happy with the script AFTER
they shot it, and Keith wasn't available to play the part in the new
script, so Peter Boyle was substituted - a character actor with a
face like a rat and a limited range who always plays hoods and
tough guys. And that wrecked the movie, even if the script was
improved...which may not even have been the case. So there is
probably a better movie sitting in the vaults. Wenders should buy
it - he has more money than Coppola! - and put it out.
9310
From:
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Re: Wong...and Fruit chan (a portrait of the Hong Kong experience)
Wong's pictures are full of wonderful visual style. Have learned a lot from the discussion in everybody's posts!
Have never had a chance to see anything by Fruit Chan ("Durian Durian").
There are pictures of Durian flowers and fruit at:
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/carr/bombac.htm
They are down the middle of the page, under their scientific name "Durio zibethinus".
Click on the thumbnails for full size pictures.
Lots of other great plant pictures here too, including balsa wood,the ultra-light wood used in model airplanes, movie props, etc.
DNA tests sugges that Durians are not quite as closely related to the other plants on the page as first thought. They are more first cousins.
Mike Grost
9311
From: filipefurtado
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 7:54pm
Subject: Re: Oliveira
Well, let me disagree here with both
Fred and Bill. I think Oliveira’s
career is remarkable consistent and I
do think it’s very easy to identify
his films as his (with the possible
exception of Aniki-Bobó, but In the
other hand, Douro, Faina Fluvial was
already very easy to spot). While his
obsessions (History and art, with
mortality also showing up in some late
films) remains pretty much the same,
he is always experimenting something
as the man seems unable to do the same
thing twice in row (though I do think
we can put his films in a few groups,
The Uncertainty Principle, for
example, is very clearly an extension
of The Letter). Last December, we did
a Julio Bressane retrospective, in the
day that he show up to talk with the
audience someone asked him what he
thought of Word and Utopia (Bressane
had directed a biography of priest
Antonio Vieira a decada before
Oliveira’s) complaining that the film
had to much Vieira and to little
cinema. An angered Bressane answered
that was the opposite, if Oliveira’s
film had a flaw was that it had to
little of Vieira, “if someone want to
learn something about Vieira it must
seen my film, now, if they want to see
a great film than Oliveira’s is
better”. The implication being that
Oliveira has taken from Vieira only
what he wants (and Bressane has a long
obsession with Vieira, so he knows
what he was talking). The same goes to
most Oliveira adaptations. He tries to
be faithful to his sources plot but he
uses them to his own. The Letter may
tell pretty much the same story as The
Princess of Cleves, but it’s useless
to ask about it’s fidelity towards the
material. Oliveira, didn’t serves
Lafayette, he cannibalizes her. It
makes no sense to complain about the
film’s artificiality (it’s like argue
against Bresson or Straub because they
don’t use method acting…), as the fim
is about it’s artificiality (or as a
friend well puts the 300 years of
history between Laffayatte’s book and
Oliveira’s movie). The film action is
supposed to feel like it’s taking
place at both the 17th and the 20th
century, there’s no interest here of
updating the material like there is in
Kubrick’s equally artificial Eyes Wide
Shut (my favorite Kubrick film, I must
add), Leonor Silveira’s nun, for
example, is from a janseist order!
Pedro Ambrunosa’s casting is a case in
point, not only he is a contemporary
person playing himself in 17th century
intrigue, but he is also a pop singer
whose eclecticism is very much of
today (his repertory goes from
romantic ballads to hard rock to rap).
And there’s also the films powerful
and lively mise en scene, all those
incomplete looks, all those spaces
between things, how one shot leads so
easily to the next. And the man keep
making great films (A Talking Picture
may have the best recent use of silent
cinema aesthetics outside of Garrell).
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
9312
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Oliveira
I didn't see Biette's Bluebeard, but it was published in 2 parts in
Trafic. I didn't know that he had done a theatre production. I
wonder if any of the De Oliveiras i don't like we're Paolo Branco's
idea. La lettre is a classic producer's project.
By the way, there's an obvious auteur theme in MdO's big
features: ill-fated love, virginity, non-consumation. But that's so
obvious that it would be easy for someone else to say, "Let's
Princesse de Cleves next..."
The best writing on early Oliveira and middle Oliveira is by daney
and is in POL vol. 1; the best I've read on late Oliveira is Biette
(who discovered him) in Trafic, but I haven't looked in POL vol. 2
to see what Serge did on the later, funnier ones.
The fantastic texts of Francisca and Ill-Fated Loves inspired De
Oliveira to invent a new FORM for them. Look at those films -
they're on the same level as Straub-Huillet's adaptations. La
lettre, Val d'Abraham et al are just prestige adaptations using the
stock rhetoric of modern filmmaking.
9313
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:42pm
Subject: Re: Wong
And I think we are in agreement
> that, finally, basing the discussion around 'is Wong a political
filmmaker
> or not?' kinda puts the brain-matter to work in the wrong place
somewhat!
I think it's not a question of "is Wong a political filmmaker or
not?" but rather "is it worth looking at Wong in a political
context?" For me the answer is a resounding yes, but that goes
across the board with every filmmaker, from Manoel de Oliveira to
Michael Bay.
9314
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:35am
Subject: Re: Wong, Tsai
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> > I promise to not turn this in to Vietnam or East Asian Studies
forum, but,
> FWIW cf previous discussions here on Tsai) *every* Vietnamese
person
> involved in any way with film, video, theater, arts etc I met when
I was
> there asked me if I'd seen WHAT TIME IS IT THERE ? and other Tsai
Ming-liang
> films. You tell me if this is "political" or not, but clearly it
speaks to
> *something* that is intersecting the political in a deep way.
>
> -Sam
All my life I have been told that "everything is political" -- a
statement that has to be held true since it cannot be either proved
or disproved. So the very unpolitical nature of Tsai must be found to
be in some way "political" (whatever that means, and in my old age
I'm still trying to find out). Whether political or not (and I or
anybody else can argue for or against with equal persuasion)I would
like you to tell us what all those people thought about the film (and
other Tsai films)and perhaps clarify what the "something" is. (I like
Tsai's films and particularly WHAT TIME although I am perfectly aware
of the fact that they can be considered (and even dismissed) as
gimmicky (like Oliveira's films).
JPC
9315
From: iangjohnston
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:33pm
Subject: Re: Oliveira
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Takagi"
wrote:
>
> > Look, De Oliveira does exactly what he feels like, and Paolo lets
> > him.
>
> According to the long interview with Biette in "La Lettre du
> Cinéma", all of the directors with whom Paulo Branco works
> are subject to his preferences, even Oliveira. Which is a
> bit of a shame, since there are some interesting projects
> Biette described to which Branco simply said, "No". Did
> anyone on the list see his theatrical production "Blue Beard"?
>
> Jonathan Takagi
Pretty much his prerogative, if he's fronting up with the money. Nor
is he the only producer-of-auteurs to do so: Marim Kamitz (MK2), in
spite of producing almost every Chabrol film since the mid-eighties,
didn't like the idea of LE CRI DE HIBOU and turned it down.
Ironically it's actually a better film than the three MK2
productions that preceded it (POULET AU VINAIGRE, INSPECTEUR
LAVARDIN, MASQUES).
9316
From: iangjohnston
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:57pm
Subject: Re: Wong...and Fruit chan (a portrait of the Hong Kong experience)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Raymond P." wrote:
> Funnily, I used to think that Wong is quintessentially Hong
Kong....until I moved to Hong
> Kong myself. One of the most underrated directors in world cinema
is definitely Fruit
> Chan, whose dark, razor-like incisions of Hong Kong's social
problems are mixed with
> pathos and subtle comedy. No one portrays Hong Kong as grittily as
Chan - the
> polyglot multicultural concrete jungles are his signature.
>
> "Made in Hong Kong" and "Durian Durian" are two of the finest
recent cinema to come out
> of the territory. Even his latest experiment, the unwieldy but
refreshing "Public Toilet", is
> an observant stream-of-consciousness that tackles the issue of
identity for many who live
> in this transient megalopolis.
>
> One could argue that Ann Hui's earlier works are much more
socially conscious, and that
> would be true. But she tends to be overly earnest in her need for
an answer at times,
> making her films somewhat pat and nicely wrapped in a bow. This is
especially true for her
> last overtly political film, "Ordinary Heroes". However, I have a
tremendous respect for Ann
> as a director and as a person.
>
> Wong himself never really strives to be political per se. His
films invariably touch upon key
> events in history, but they are treated as signposts of the past
instead of substantial topics
> to really delve into. And there is nothing wrong with that. I have
friends who spend way
> too much time trying to find hidden meanings in every scene of
Wong's films, and I frankly
> find it to be a bit futile. While I really like Wong, his works
don't lend themselves to
> meticulous intellectual studies. He is not Bela Tarr or Godard. To
be fair, "Ashes of Time"
> is probably his deepest film, and I find myself coming back to
this epic to find something
> that I did not realize in my last viewing. It is too bad that it
also remains his most
> unavailable work, mostly due to rubbish DVD releases that
completely mangle the
> sumptuous visuals. Anyways, it is a bit of a shame that he did not
choose to follow the
> path of "Ashes of Time" to create even deeper works.
>
> That being said, I love Chungking Express exactly because it is
souffle-light in every way.
> But I seem to contradict myself all the time...
>
Raymond's right to pinpoint Fruit Chan as the one director to go for
if you're seeking a reflection of contemporary HK society and
culture. But his work -- and individual films -- can be uneven, and
Wong seems to me clearly the greater filmmaker. (And in my personal
pantheon, Tsai rates even higher.) DURIAN DURIAN is a good film that
I'd thoroughly recommend (especially in the way it seems to enter
into a dialogue with the best of today's Mainland Chinese films) but
it was spoiled for me by a very personal reaction: I thought the
Cantopop theme song (written, if I remember right, by Chan himself)
and, as I recall, laid at least a couple of times over the action,
was simply awful. There's never any problem with the music in Wong's
films...
It's interesting that no one seems to enthuse for Wong's film as a
whole: if Raymond's Wong is ASHES OF TIME, and Tarantino's is
presumably CHUNGKING EXPRESS (which for me is to Wong what BANDE A
PART is to Godard) and FALLEN ANGELS, my Wong is HAPPY TOGETHER and
IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE.
Raymond: Does your respect for Ann Hui as a director extend to
VISIBLE SECRET? I found this impossible to sit through...
9317
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:26pm
Subject: a quick word from Buenos Aires
LOS MUERTOS by Lisandro Alonso press screened this morning, and all who stood in
the lobby after seemed to say (in mostly silent gestures) that this was the film of the
festival. Alonso has made a beautiful companion to his LA LIBERTAD, which was
shown in 2001 at festivals. This one is on its way to the Director's Fortnight and
almost certainly Toronto. It's a must-see, but adjust your expectations accordingly if
you did not like Alonso's first, still the best Argentine film of most recent times,
though a very quotable experimental film director was overheard saying (on Los
Muertos) "too much action".
In general a great festival and a great time. The Buenos Aires film festival still thrives
despite major budget cuts in the previous years. There's a lot to say about an event
that assigns an "angel" (or agent) to each of its guests to help the navigate the
festival.
Gabe
9318
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:46pm
Subject: Re: Oliveira
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Don't get me wrong -- I love the guy. But he's been oversold!
I don't understand. To whom?
-Jaime
9319
From:
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:50pm
Subject: TEST POST DELETE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9320
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: Oliveira
Thanks to Felipe and Bill for responses on de Oliveira. In writing that
he has "less of a signature style than most auteurs," I didn't mean to
suggest that I thought his oeuvre was inconsistent or that his films
couldn't be identified as de Oliveira films, just that he does shift
stylistically. Since making that post, I've been wondering if there is a
stylistic-thematic unity to his work, and it strikes me that in most of
it (and I've not seen many of the recent ones), there's a theme of
illusion, that is, that the depicted world is depicted as an artificial
construction, the image itself is present as an artifice and that
artifice is connected to the protagonists' dreams, fantasies, or failed
aspirations. There's a meta-dimension here; without being as obvious
about it as some modernist artists, de Oliveira makes image-making, in
the broadest sense of the term, his true subject, or one of them.
Mostly off-topic travel note: I post this from Xian, China, one of the
most amazing cities I've seen, with spectacular ancient (if recently
restored) city walls, a museum the Shaanxi History Museum) with a
history of Chinese art full of sublime works, the spectacularly austere
"Little Goose Pagoda," and the nearby tomb of the first Qin emperor, the
subject of Chin Kiage's great "The Emperor and the Assassin." The whole
tomb structure supposedly required decades of work by 700,000 to 800,000
laborers, who one gathers were not necessarily afforded decent working
conditions or full workplace benefits. This is the tomb with the
thousands of buried terracotta warriors, a couple of km from the burial
mound itself, and which are still only partially unearthed. The soldiers
aren't necessarily the greatest of Chinese sculptures (there are many
greater ones in the museum), though they're very good, but it's the
overall concept of burying so many, aligned in numerous rows, that's
kind of astounding. Viewing this enormous array, I thought, "I should
have liked to have been an emperor in China then, when men had the
power, and the freedom..."
- Fred C.
9321
From: Andy Rector
Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:40pm
Subject: Re: a quick word from Buenos Aires
Thank you for your update, Gabe. I was rather startled by La
Libertad, a favourite from 2001 (a great year for cinema). It is too
neglected by critics (as far as I can ascertain) and those of us who
want to speak up for it should start putting pen to paper (a note for
myself). Is it available on tape or DVD?
Would love to hear more on Los Muertos. What is it's premise?
Yours,
andy
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> LOS MUERTOS by Lisandro Alonso press screened this morning, and all
who stood in
> the lobby after seemed to say (in mostly silent gestures) that this
was the film of the
> festival. Alonso has made a beautiful companion to his LA LIBERTAD,
which was
> shown in 2001 at festivals. This one is on its way to the
Director's Fortnight and
> almost certainly Toronto. It's a must-see, but adjust your
expectations accordingly if
> you did not like Alonso's first, still the best Argentine film of
most recent times,
> though a very quotable experimental film director was overheard
saying (on Los
> Muertos) "too much action".
>
> In general a great festival and a great time. The Buenos Aires film
festival still thrives
> despite major budget cuts in the previous years. There's a lot to
say about an event
> that assigns an "angel" (or agent) to each of its guests to help
the navigate the
> festival.
>
> Gabe
9322
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:22am
Subject: Re: Japan HIROSHIMA; USA ?
I recently re-viewed THE GODFATHER and it is interesting to note
that it takes place in AUGUST, 1945, presumably post Hiroshima
bombing as Michael is returning from the war. There is no reference
to Hiroshima even though it must have been paramount in
people's minds.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
> If Coppola 'was suppose to pay homage' to Hiroshima in LIT,
> what ought foreign film-makers cite in films about the USA?
>
>
> I am familiar with ACKERMAN's SUD.
9323
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:38am
Subject: BLIND SHAFT
Hi Fred,
Save and happy travels to you.
I saw BLIND SHAFT today, the film about the murderous
miners. I've you seen it or heard anything about it; reviews
say it is banned in China.
Elizabeth
I don't know much world history, but I imagine that decent working
conditions / full workplace benefits are relatively recent. Indeed,
most people were "self-employed" until the factory age, unless
conscripted as military or otherwise.
When I observe major labor intensive achievements (like
The Pyramids, Great Wall, Terra Cotta soldiers) I think the
assignments were given to keep men physically exhausted...
to keep fighting at a minimum and reproduction in check.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Mostly off-topic travel note: I post this from Xian, China, one of the
> most amazing cities I've seen, with spectacular ancient (if recently
> restored) city walls, a museum the Shaanxi History Museum) with a
> history of Chinese art full of sublime works, the spectacularly austere
> "Little Goose Pagoda," and the nearby tomb of the first Qin emperor, the
> subject of Chin Kiage's great "The Emperor and the Assassin." The whole
> tomb structure supposedly required decades of work by 700,000 to 800,000
> laborers, who one gathers were not necessarily afforded decent working
> conditions or full workplace benefits. This is the tomb with the
> thousands of buried terracotta warriors, a couple of km from the burial
> mound itself, and which are still only partially unearthed. The soldiers
> aren't necessarily the greatest of Chinese sculptures (there are many
> greater ones in the museum), though they're very good, but it's the
> overall concept of burying so many, aligned in numerous rows, that's
> kind of astounding. Viewing this enormous array, I thought, "I should
> have liked to have been an emperor in China then, when men had the
> power, and the freedom..."
>
> - Fred C.
9324
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:38am
Subject: Re: Oliveira
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> > Don't get me wrong -- I love the guy. But he's been oversold!
>
> I don't understand. To whom?
>
> -Jaime
Not to a Hollywood audience, certainly. In fact, after being blessed
with Filmex and the Ken Wlaschin edition of AFI Fest, which always
showed De O's latest, Hollywood no longer gets festival screenings of
his films at all. (The new AFI Fest is run by people from Slamdance,
as I understand it.) Which is why I haven't seen Porto, Silent Movie
or Uncertainty Principle. I only saw Inquietude and Voyage to the
Beginning of the World by renting them and renting a VCR I could hook
up in my hotel room on a trip to France, for example -- so it's not
like I haven't tried to keep up.
But just as certainly, if I'm right about his achievement, he's been
oversold to our group, where my doubts about the recent work seem to
have found no echo apart from Jean-Pierre, who actually started this
thread. This is one of those cases here my love of an auteur -- based
essentially on one film he made in the 70s and one in the early 80s --
has not, over time, kept me from finding his films of the 90s and the
present uneven, and sometimes frankly disappointing. But while the
idea that De Oliveira is like, say, Rohmer or Bunuel or even
Kiarostami seems questionable to me, that's how people who love him
seem to see him -- an unbroken string of films varying from good to
great, with no stinkers. I just don't agree.
I think I've said enough on this, so let me reiterate that I always
get a kick out of him, and I certainly don't blame him for making hay
while the sun shines after a career that was highly precarious before
his two masterpieces put him on the map and secured him regular
financing and distribution. No number of minor, superficial or even
boring films can detract from the greatness of Ill-Fated Loves and
Francisca. I just wish it were as easy to see them -- and Benilde and
a few other early works -- as it is to see Le Couvent and Voyage to
the Beginning of the World.
Incidentally, for whatever it's worth, I checked POL 2, and Serge
Daney, one of de De O's earliest and most ardent defenders, wrote an
important article on Francisca,* visited the set of Satin Slipper and
then stopped reviewing his work altogether in Liberation until he
died (not even mentioning Cannibals, Mon Cas, Divine Comedy or No,
the Vain Glory of Command). Of course Cahiers and Positif have kept
beating the drums with no decrease in the noise level, but without
shedding much light on the work. And here in the States, to judge by
the videocassette boxes, he has many well-placed, articulate
advocates, including Dave Kehr. I believe James Naremore is writing a
book about him.
Which is great, but a_film_by is among other things a place for
questioning and testing received opinion, even when it is the opinion
of the top-drawer film cognoscenti, isn't it?
*Fred, as far as the "it's just an image" aspect of Oliveira goes, I
think it's related to something Serge brought out in the Francisca
article, which is certainly found throughout De O's work, too -- the
symbolism of the hymen.
9325
From:
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:20pm
Subject: Re: BLIND SHAFT
Blind Shaft was shown here recently at the Detroit Institute of the Arts. It is a terrifying portrait of the lower depths of commerce in mainland China. It is not an evening of fun - it is was too grim and depressing. Still, it was an educational experience, looking at the rotten conditions of how millions of Chinese live and work.
Blind Shaft got a rave review from Andrew Sarris recently (in the NY Observer). He liked the thriller aspects of the film - it can be classified as "neo-noir". I was less enthralled with this, finding it more frightening and sinister than fun.
Mike Grost
9326
From:
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:32pm
Subject: Re: Chabrol (was Oliveira)
Ian G. Johnston writes:
> Marim Kamitz (MK2), in spite of producing almost every Chabrol film since the mid-eighties, didn't like the idea of LE CRI DE HIBOU and turned it down.
> Ironically it's actually a better film than the three MK2
> productions that preceded it (POULET AU VINAIGRE, INSPECTEUR
> LAVARDIN, MASQUES).
My reaction was just the opposite. Thought MASQUES was a well made susepnse tale that was a lot of fun, but found LE CRI DE HIBOU to be dark and depressing. It is not without Chabrolian virtues, but it is just so grim...
Both films echo elements of La Rupture (1970), one of Chabrol's most complex and complexly plotted films. MASQUES has the elaborate household whose denizens form a rich mix. LE CRI DE HIBOU has the persecution plot, in which malevolent, fairly well to do people conspire to ruin the life of the innocent protagonist. By the way, such sinister psychopaths are now a depressing staple of modern hackwork suspense best-sellers. Suspense novelists Patricia Highsmith (The Cry of the Owl, 1962) and Charlotte Armstrong (The Balloon Man, 1968) were writing about them a long time ago. Chabrol used them as his sources for LE CRI DE HIBOU and La Rupture respectively.
Mike Grost
9327
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:58pm
Subject: Re: BLIND SHAFT
Elizabeth Anne Nolan wrote:
>....I don't know much world history, but I imagine that decent working
>conditions / full workplace benefits are relatively recent.....
>
>--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
>>.... supposedly required decades of work by 700,000 to 800,000
>>laborers, who one gathers were not necessarily afforded decent working
>>conditions or full workplace benefits....
>>
My comment was meant as a wry joke. Of course they had horrible working
conditions; supposedly the workers were forcibly conscripted laborers.
The same is true of the Great Wall (and much of the work on it was done
under the same emperor).
- Fred C.
9328
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:26pm
Subject: Re: Wong, Tsai
What they thought ? Well this came up in the context of talking about many
things, including the situation of the arts in Vietnam. Honestly, perhaps it
seemed so intuitive to me that I did not specifically ask "why Tsai ?" ....the
problem here is that I although I could just state some theory of my own, that
wouldn't really answer your question in a way that addresses the implications
of what I said, so I'll have to do some interpretations and will think about
this, I don't want to misrepresent.
-Sam
9329
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: Oliveira
> But just as certainly, if I'm right about his achievement, he's been
> oversold to our group, where my doubts about the recent work seem to
> have found no echo apart from Jean-Pierre, who actually started this
> thread.
I'm afraid I've never been able to appreciate any of his work. Seems to
me he's interested in underlining the performative aspect of acting and
cinematography, to the point where performance becomes opaque and no
longer serves the function of storytelling. But I never understand what
he gets by this. I guess I'm more of a Gordon Douglas kind of guy. - Dan
9330
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 4:01pm
Subject: Suwa
> You have to watch something
> like the extraordinary H-STORY to get the tortuous flip-side of this whole
> sensibility.
Adrian - have you seen Suwa's other work? H-STORY didn't completely
work for me, despite Suwa's amazing eye; but I think M/OTHER is a
masterpiece, one of the ten or so best films of the 90s. It's sort of
the film I always wanted from Rivette but never completely got. Wish I
could see 2/DUO. - Dan
9331
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 4:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: So Dark the Night
>>>>The faked accents and general
>>lugubrious tone sort of paralyzed the movie, to my mind - there's a
>>certain kind of leadenness that Hollywood reserves for dramas set
> in European countries. - Dan
>
> That even happens in his westerns after a while, although the
> sculpturesque visual qualities still hold my interest. It's as if he
> congealed after the two knockouts - became the opposite of the
> dynamic, l'amour-fou-kinda-guy who made Gun Crazy.
Could it be that Lewis, like a lot of other commercial directors of
talent, instinctively knew that he needed to use different style
elements for different genres, and it worked better with some genres
than others? Actually, my somewhat dim memory of THE HALLIDAY BRAND is
that it was reasonably light on its feet; and I don't dislike 7TH
CAVALRY or THE LAWLESS STREET, despite that waxworks quality to which
you refer. But I get the feeling that Lewis didn't feel empowered to
use quite as dynamic a style with the Western, possibly because it's a
period genre.
My pick for best little-known Lewis film is RETREAT, HELL! - Dan
9332
From: jtakagi@e...
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:27pm
Subject: RE: Re: Oliveira
I did the same thing, but isn't "La Maison cinema et le monde 2"
only a document of the years 1981 - 1985? If so, his coverage of
Oliveira doesn't seem necessarily lax. I remember him mentioning
one of his films in "L'Exercice a ete profitable, Monsieur", but
I guess it wouldn't be in any official, published edition. I
don't think it was anywhere near as positive as "Francisca" either.
Jonathan Takagi
Original Message:
-----------------
Incidentally, for whatever it's worth, I checked POL 2, and Serge
Daney, one of de De O's earliest and most ardent defenders, wrote an
important article on Francisca,* visited the set of Satin Slipper and
then stopped reviewing his work altogether in Liberation until he
died (not even mentioning Cannibals, Mon Cas, Divine Comedy or No,
the Vain Glory of Command).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
9333
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:30pm
Subject: Re: BLIND SHAFT
Agreed...I was just trying to get in my comment about 'keeping men
busy' being one of the motivators for many great projects, ala the
HOOVER DAM and TVA in this country.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Elizabeth Anne Nolan wrote:
> >....I don't know much world history, but I imagine that decent working
> >conditions / full workplace benefits are relatively recent.....
> >--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> >>.... supposedly required decades of work by 700,000 to 800,000
> >>laborers, who one gathers were not necessarily afforded decent working
> >>conditions or full workplace benefits....
> My comment was meant as a wry joke. Of course they had horrible working
> conditions; supposedly the workers were forcibly conscripted laborers.
> The same is true of the Great Wall (and much of the work on it was done
> under the same emperor).
> - Fred C.
9334
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:32pm
Subject: Re: Oliveira
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jtakagi@e..." wrote:
> I did the same thing, but isn't "La Maison cinema et le monde 2"
> only a document of the years 1981 - 1985?
Aha!
9335
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:36pm
Subject: Re: Chabrol (was Oliveira)
Thought MASQUES was a well made susepnse tale that was a lot of fun,
but found LE CRI DE HIBOU to be dark and depressing. It is not
without Chabrolian virtues, but it is just so grim...
> Both films echo elements of La Rupture (1970), one of Chabrol's
most complex and complexly plotted films. MASQUES has the elaborate
household whose denizens form a rich mix. LE CRI DE HIBOU has the
persecution plot, in which malevolent, fairly well to do people
conspire to ruin the life of the innocent protagonist. By the way,
such sinister psychopaths are now a depressing staple of modern
hackwork suspense best-sellers. Suspense novelists Patricia Highsmith
(The Cry of the Owl, 1962) and Charlotte Armstrong (The Balloon Man,
1968) were writing about them a long time ago. Chabrol used them as
his sources for LE CRI DE HIBOU and La Rupture respectively.
>
> Mike Grost
I remember liking CRI (and MASQUES), but that was before I started
finding ALL Chabrol just too depressing to watch! Too bad, because
he's obviously a master.
I'll follow up on your Highsmith/Armstrong tips when it's Serial
Killer time for me later this year. But is Balloon Man - which I know
only from La Rupture - about a psycho, except incidentally?
9336
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:43pm
Subject: Re: So Dark the Night
>
> My pick for best little-known Lewis film is RETREAT, HELL! - Dan
I agree - I also have nice albeit ancient memories of Desperate
Search. He made tons of B westerns, and I have no idea what they look
like.
Esoterica: I saw an Old Dark House low-budgeter that he created the
title sequence for, involving window shades going up and down, that
was worth the price of admission.
9337
From: L C
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 7:23pm
Subject: José Giovanni dies
French crime novels and film director José Giovanni dies. A criminal condemmed to death and later pardonned, he wrote Le TROU which became the great Jacques Becker's movie. As a director , I especially liked his "Dernier domicile connu" with Lino Ventura for its tautness. He worked lately with Bertrand Tavernier on an adaptation of his book on his father "Il avait dans le coeur des jardins introuvables" ( great title= He had in his heart undiscovered gardens). 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]
9338
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:29pm
Subject: Re: So Dark the Night
My favorite Joseph H. Lewis is the rarely seen but remarkably intense
The Undercover Man, which is directed quite stylishly. It was
apparently the first film to tell how the IRS (undercover men) were
able to finally bust Al Capone, but Harry Cohn forbade any mention
of the real mobster's name, or even mention of the Chicago
setting.
Lewis started out as Irving Thalberg's office boy!
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> >
> > My pick for best little-known Lewis film is RETREAT, HELL! - Dan
>
> I agree - I also have nice albeit ancient memories of Desperate
> Search. He made tons of B westerns, and I have no idea what they
look
> like.
>
> Esoterica: I saw an Old Dark House low-budgeter that he created the
> title sequence for, involving window shades going up and down, that
> was worth the price of admission.
9339
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:39pm
Subject: J.H. Lewis
Has anybody seen "Secrets of a Co-ed" in which Lewis said he used a
ten-minute boom shot (in a courtroom scene, I think)-- something
quite unheard of at the time. He also strapped a camera to a riding
cameraman to film a polo game in "The Spy Ring." This I got from his
interview with Bogdanovich in Cinema (Fall '71). A really weird item
is "The Mad Doctor of Market Street" in which in countless scenes
Lionel Atwill is seen walking toward the camera with a chloroform-
soaked piece of material that ends up covering the entire screen. In
one scene he revives a dead woman with a shot of adrenaline...
9340
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:52pm
Subject: Re: So Dark the Night
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> My favorite Joseph H. Lewis is the rarely seen but remarkably
intense
> The Undercover Man, which is directed quite stylishly. It was
> apparently the first film to tell how the IRS (undercover men) were
> able to finally bust Al Capone, but Harry Cohn forbade any mention
> of the real mobster's name, or even mention of the Chicago
> setting.
>
> Lewis started out as Irving Thalberg's office boy!
>
> --Robert Keser
> To me the best Lewis by far is "The Big Combo", one of the
greatest "noir" films ever made. it was released almost
simultaneously with "Kiss Me Deadly" (just about the greatest movie
ever made IMHO) and was greeted at the time with the same total
indifference, or contempt, by American critics.
JPC
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > >
> > > My pick for best little-known Lewis film is RETREAT, HELL! - Dan
> >
> > I agree - I also have nice albeit ancient memories of Desperate
> > Search. He made tons of B westerns, and I have no idea what they
> look
> > like.
> >
> > Esoterica: I saw an Old Dark House low-budgeter that he created
the
> > title sequence for, involving window shades going up and down,
that
> > was worth the price of admission.
9341
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:06pm
Subject: Re: Chabrol (was Oliveira)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
I remember liking CRI (and MASQUES), but that was before I started
> finding ALL Chabrol just too depressing to watch! Too bad, because
> he's obviously a master.
>
I'm not sure it's so obvious (a "petit maitre" perhaps?) In the
past few months I have watched again a number of his old films (such
as "La femme infidele"and "Le Boucher") and found them superficial
and simplistic, quite dated really. And more recent ones are not
really all that exciting. I still like very early ones ("Les bonnes
femmes" esp.) although his first effort, "Le Beau Serge" is
unbearably bad (I felt the same when it came out and everyone raved
about it -- just the way i felt and still feel about Vadim's "Et Dieu
crea la femme"). His Vichy docu is real good, though. And he is so
prolific I have missed quite a few...
JPC
By the way it's "Le Cri du hibou" (not "de hibou")
9342
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 0:40am
Subject: Re: Re: Chabrol (was Oliveira)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
In the
> past few months I have watched again a number of his
> old films (such
> as "La femme infidele"and "Le Boucher") and found
> them superficial
> and simplistic, quite dated really.
The fact that"La Femme Infidele" was so recently (and
uninterestingly) remade speaks to it datedness. I
still like "Le Boucher" quite a bit.
And more recent
> ones are not
> really all that exciting.
I think "La Ceremonie" is one of his very best. Right
up there with "Les Bonnes Femmes" and "Marie-Chantal
Contre Le Dr. Kha."
I still like very early
> ones ("Les bonnes
> femmes" esp.) although his first effort, "Le Beau
> Serge" is
> unbearably bad (I felt the same when it came out and
> everyone raved
> about it -- just the way i felt and still feel about
> Vadim's "Et Dieu
> crea la femme"). His Vichy docu is real good,
> though. And he is so
> prolific I have missed quite a few...
I've never seen "Le Godelureaux" and long to as the
stills look great, and it's clearly Brialy at his most
effete.
> By the way it's "Le Cri du hibou" (not "de hibou")
>
>
I liked this one too, especially because it was high
time that Chabrol did a Highsmith.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9343
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 0:43am
Subject: Re: Re: So Dark the Night
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > To me the best Lewis by far is "The Big Combo",
> one of the
> greatest "noir" films ever made. it was released
> almost
> simultaneously with "Kiss Me Deadly" (just about the
> greatest movie
> ever made IMHO) and was greeted at the time with the
> same total
> indifference, or contempt, by American critics.
I agree. I have it on DVD and it's truly amazing. Not
just the great cinematography by Jean Wallace's
performance. And that's not to mention my favorite
movie gay couple: Lee van Cleef and Earl Holliman.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9344
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:03am
Subject: Re: So Dark the Night
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> > > To me the best Lewis by far is "The Big Combo",
> > one of the
> > greatest "noir" films ever made. it was released
> > almost
> > simultaneously with "Kiss Me Deadly" (just about the
> > greatest movie
> > ever made IMHO) and was greeted at the time with the
> > same total
> > indifference, or contempt, by American critics.
>
> I agree. I have it on DVD and it's truly amazing. Not
> just the great cinematography by Jean Wallace's
> performance. And that's not to mention my favorite
> movie gay couple: Lee van Cleef and Earl Holliman.
>
>
> Yeah well, enough already with the gay stuff, David!
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
> http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9345
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:11am
Subject: Re: Re: So Dark the Night
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > Yeah well, enough already with the gay stuff,
> David!
> >
Hey, I calls 'em as I sees 'em!
Richard Conte is particularly great in "The Big Combo"
too. A cool, business-suited ganglord was a new thing
then. And it's still fresh today.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9346
From: Raymond P.
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:51am
Subject: Re: Wong...and Fruit chan (a portrait of the Hong Kong experience)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "iangjohnston" wrote:
> Raymond's right to pinpoint Fruit Chan as the one director to go for
> if you're seeking a reflection of contemporary HK society and
> culture. But his work -- and individual films -- can be uneven, and
> Wong seems to me clearly the greater filmmaker. (And in my personal
> pantheon, Tsai rates even higher.) DURIAN DURIAN is a good film that
> I'd thoroughly recommend (especially in the way it seems to enter
> into a dialogue with the best of today's Mainland Chinese films) but
> it was spoiled for me by a very personal reaction: I thought the
> Cantopop theme song (written, if I remember right, by Chan himself)
> and, as I recall, laid at least a couple of times over the action,
> was simply awful. There's never any problem with the music in Wong's
> films...
>
> Raymond: Does your respect for Ann Hui as a director extend to
> VISIBLE SECRET? I found this impossible to sit through...
I agree - I rate Tsai Ming-Liang higher than Wong on Chan as well. But the best Fruit Chan
film is definitely MADE IN HONG KONG, which is a fantastic anti-gangster film that takes
away all the so-called glamour of the whole genre, replacing it with social concerns and
pathos.
In terms of Ann Hui, what I meant is that I respect her professionalism as a director. Plus,
she is an incredibly nice person. But frankly, I'm not too fond of many of her films, VISIBLE
SECRET included.
9347
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:26am
Subject: Medved Should Reread the 10 Commandments (Was:So Dark the Night)
> > > To me the best Lewis by far is "The Big Combo",
> > one of the
> > greatest "noir" films ever made.
> I agree. I have it on DVD and it's truly amazing. Not
> just the great cinematography by Jean Wallace's
> performance. And that's not to mention my favorite
> movie gay couple: Lee van Cleef and Earl Holliman.
How about the CIA guys played by Gig Young and Robert Webber in Bring
Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia?
That's my favorite Peckinpah, so naturally Michael Medved put it in
his Golden Turkeys book. Andy Klein devoted his whole column in City
Beat this week to demonstrating mathematically that Medved lied in a
recent Wall Street Journal jeremiad about H'wd and family values when
he claimed there was a drastic fall-off in movie attendance after the
ratings system came in. Just plain lied. I guess it's the thing to do
this year if you're a neocon.
9348
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:38am
Subject: Re: J.H. Lewis
I agree with JPC about Lewis and "The Big Combo" (while disagreeing
about Chabrol), except that I don't think it's incredibly greater than
some of his other bests, just the best, though one shouldn't mention its
two gay characters without mentioning the cunnilingus scene, which
presumably got by everyone at the time. Its greatest scene, though, the
final scene in the fogged-in airport. is an equivalent to the archetypal
Lewis scene that appears in at least three other films and one TV show,
characters lost in a swamp, and is a great use of John Alton's
considerable and distinct talents as a cinematographer: very little
light, space rendered as mystery. Lewis's theme, indeed, or one of them,
is spatial dislocation or "lost-ness."
About obscure Lewises, his first, "Courage of the West," is pretty good,
with a self-cosnciously virtuoso camera. It's very much a first film in
the sense you get of a young director luxuriating in his discovery of
cinema, if not exactly on the "Citizen Kane" level, to put it mildly.
Some of the later early westerns are not as good. More early
obscurities: Joseph H. Lewis directed at least three Bowery Boys
pictures, which I've seen only on TV; I remember them mostly as not very
good (and one has a pretty stupid racist moment involving a black boy
who "sure do love" watermelon), but at least two have terrific boxing
scenes, with characteristically intense Lewis close ups.
A great later one that no one has mentioned yet is "Cry of the Hunted,"
one of the lost in the swamp films.
- Fred C.
9349
From: filipefurtado
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:46am
Subject: Re: J.H. Lewis
I agree about The Big Combo being
Lewis best(as for Chabrol, the man is
great if uneven), but I also want to
mention Terror in Texas Town which is
truly great.
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
9350
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:01am
Subject: Daney and Oliveira
Bill: in Daney's last public appearance before his death in 1992 - a TRAFIC
event at Jeu de Paume printed in CAHIERS - he stated categorically that a
cinephile must walk on "one Ruiz leg and one Oliveira leg". Praise surely
does not come any higher than this !!!!!!
Me, I am proud to walk on both these legs: I have seen only a fraction of
Oliveira's output, but VALLEY OF ABRAHAM totally bowled me over, and I'M
GOING HOME and PORTO OF MY CHILDHOOD are just wonderful. I have yet to see
an uninteresting Oliveira film!! Watching THE CONVENT at an art cinema where
the ageing mink coat-wearing crowd went absolutely insane and treated it
like an original screening of L'AGE d'OR - I mean they threw things at the
screen, scratched the seats, yelled abuse, even defaced the posters in the
lobby! - kinda warmed me to its very odd charm. This is what happens when
you don't give the Deneuve-Malkovich fans what they expect !!!!!!
Amusing aside: when I made the standard remark in the local press about how
Oliveira was surely the "oldest working master" in cinema, an irate reader
wrote in to point out that Leni Reifenstahl, at the age of 100, had just
made an underwater short !!!
Adrian
9351
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 0:57pm
Subject: Re: more J Lewis (not Jerry)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
wrote:
> I agree about The Big Combo being
> Lewis best(as for Chabrol, the man is
> great if uneven), but I also want to
> mention Terror in Texas Town which is
> truly great.
I like that one a lot, boy it's strange! THE HALLIDAY BRAND is
another late-model Lewis, it's not great but it's fascinating and has
many great moments, and Joseph Cotten and Ward Bond are excellent.
Here are some things I wrote about Lewis in an e-mail conversation
some months back:
"My third Joseph H. Lewis movie is {...} TERROR IN A TEXAS TOWN...
It's a really unusual version of a banal western plot, it may even be
more abstract than THE BIG COMBO. Lewis has a really oddball way of
defining a scene's physical space, it's hard to describe from just one
viewing but it has a lot to do with his use of unusually long takes
(sometimes for a minute or more; a take in a classical Hollywood movie
is usually considered "long" when it lasts for 10-20 seconds or more),
and his unique framing. Often he'll set one or two actors, or groups
of actors, in different parts of the frame (say, one upstage and one
downstage), and the scene will play like that, without resorting to
cutting back and forth. This creates a terrific sense of unease,
because sometimes the actor in the background will come forward and
he'll have a really threatening presence.
"There are other things, too - Dave Kehr described TERROR as an
example of 'an auteur at the end of his tether,' and there's certainly
a pervasive feeling of something, maybe desparation, in the movie.
There also happens to be a carefree, experimental quality to it, as if
Lewis has taken a box of parts marked 'basic film grammar,' shook it
up, and poured it into the well-worn mold of Western Plot #3B: Evil
Hired Gun Versus Noble Outsider. But this haphazard experimentation
produces wonderful things that can't all be written off as 'accidental.'
{...}
"De Toth's compositions always seem both planned but effortlessly
precise. JH Lewis compositions may seem "arty" at times - you'll see
a bit of this in TERROR and THE HALLIDAY BRAND - but in addition to
their theatricality (even I spoke of "upstage" and "downstage" in his
films; these elements aren't emphasized in AdT's work, that I could
perceive) there's a restlessness, a filmmaker's agitation behind the
camera and in the cutting room, that's tough to place. But this
restlessness results in occasional magnificence. Lewis' instincts
must have been such that whatever 'end of his tether' stuff was
affecting him at the time, he could not 'fuck up' un-beautifully.
{...}
-Jaime
9352
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:03pm
Subject: Re: Medved Should Reread the 10 Commandments (Was:So Dark the Night)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> How about the CIA guys played by Gig Young and
> Robert Webber in Bring
> Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia?
>
> That's my favorite Peckinpah, so naturally Michael
> Medved put it in
> his Golden Turkeys book.
Such a barique movie. I remember a number of years
back in New York being on a bus with a group of high
schoolkids. Tey were carrying on the way kids do
--loud and rather jovial -- and suddenly the
conversaiton turned to movies. The usual big titles of
the day were mentioned when all of a sudden one of the
kids yelled out that the greatest thing he'd ever seen
was "Bring me the Head of Alfredo garcia" -- and all
the other kids agreed.
Andy Klein devoted his
> whole column in City
> Beat this week to demonstrating mathematically that
> Medved lied in a
> recent Wall Street Journal jeremiad about H'wd and
> family values when
> he claimed there was a drastic fall-off in movie
> attendance after the
> ratings system came in. Just plain lied. I guess
> it's the thing to do
> this year if you're a neocon.
>
>
>
Andy's a friend, and I was never prouder of him than
when I read this column.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9353
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:00pm
Subject: Re: Medved Should Reread the 10 Commandments (Was:So Dark the Night)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
> How about the CIA guys played by Gig Young and Robert Webber in
Bring
> Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia?
>
> That's my favorite Peckinpah, so naturally Michael Medved put it in
> his Golden Turkeys book.
Alfredo Garcia is my favorite Peckinpah too. One of the great
fairy tales of modern cinema. Most critics blasted it when it came
out and I'm not sure its reputation is very high even now, medved or
not.
JPC
9354
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:31pm
Subject: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
I've been off-and-on with Siegel: liked THE LINEUP and TWO MULES FOR
SISTER SARA, didn't like DIRTY HARRY or PRIVATE HELL 36. However,
I've been noticing a fascination with identity in Siegel's films, how
characters are often ambiguously defined by labels like "good" and
"evil," sacred and profane, how these labels can be confused, mixed
up, switched in a second. In THE LINEUP there are two crooks, one an
effete, book-smart gentleman thief who can also be brutal and
tough-talking, the other a psychotic, ape-like creature who is first
seen trying to improve his vocabulary, and each of his acts of
brutality arises from the disruption of a "civilized" setting: a rich
man's home, a men's sauna, a woman's apartment, and an indoor
recreation center. In PRIVATE HELL 36, two cops, both sworn to uphold
the law, but they're dragged into the mire because one of them decides
to steal money from a crime scene (in a sense, and similar to THE
LINEUP, they act as two separate parts of a whole character - Jack is
total conscience, Cal is total id). Then, of course, the
doppelgänger matched pair of Harry and Scorpio in DIRTY HARRY, and
the surprise identity shift towards the end of TWO MULES FOR SISTER
SARA.
I'm growing to like Karlson more and more. Even when he's bad (BEN)
he's good. I still haven't seen a few of the majors, like THE PHENIX
CITY STORY and 99 RIVER STREET, but KANSAS CITY CONFIDENTIAL is a
true-blue classic, and I just watched HORNET'S NEST the other day, a
very good, "late period" Rock Hudson vehicle about a bunch of Italian
war orphans who join forces with an isolated American soldier in order
to defeat a Nazi occupying force. Part of what makes HORNET'S NEST
effective and exciting is the way Karlson keeps the audience uneasy
and uncertain about how to respond to the protagonists: Turner's cool
efficiency as a killer is countered by the way each fallen Nazi is an
up-close-and-personal affair. Turner displays neither pleasure nor
cool indifference in his killing, it's like chopping wood for him, and
all he can think about is blowing up the dam. I think this makes
Karlson a strange director compared to a lot of his contemporary
counterparts: I can't imagine he would ever make a movie in which the
badass hero walks away from an exploding building/car/etc, in slo-mo,
wearing sunglasses. (I'm still waiting for some bright young director
to take that shot and complicate it somehow, but no.) On the other
hand, the young Aldo reflects the development of the killer impulse in
a young boy, one who acts at times like a rabid dog. Aldo is an ideal
"youth fascist," he only fights the Nazis in order to revenge his
family, he hasn't got a mind that can handle anything more political
than "first, you've got to pay!" When these two personalities
finally, truly regard each other in the film's final scene, it's an
epiphany, and it's wrenching.
I wasn't sure what I was getting into during the first twenty or so
minutes - whether this would be closer to STRIPES than PLAY DIRTY, or
closer to THE BAD NEWS BEARS than to LORD OF THE FLIES. As it turns
out, this is one angry, unsentimental war picture, an anomaly in that
it incriminates its protagonists even more than its ostensible villain
(a single Nazi commandant, surrounded by incompetent and visionless
senior officers). The almost feral youth leader Aldo mows down his
little buddy Carlo in what might have been an accident but is
unmistakably wild-eyed bloodlust...and unless I missed something, Rock
rapes the female doctor for attempting to give their position away!
This is a movie in which, while the characters may not be brilliant
(the fact that Rock wears his noisy dog tags throughout the whole
movie is just wrong) but they're always thinking, and very little is
spelled out unnecessarily. Karlson's movies - a bit like Max Ophuls'
- are about characters who are caught in the net of their
private/public obsessions, who frequently make split-second decisions
that they're forced to deal with for a long time to come. At the end
of HORNET'S NEST, in spite of some overstated acting, some strange
casting, and some even stranger scenes (such as the one in which Rock
supervises a bunch of scrawny teenage boys, swimming around in their
underwear), each of the male leads (Aldo, Captain Turner, Captain Von
Hecht), if just for a moment, gains a new perspective on the preceding
events.
-Jaime
9355
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:55pm
Subject: Re: Oliveira
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > > Don't get me wrong -- I love the guy. But he's been oversold!
> >
> > I don't understand. To whom?
> >
> > -Jaime
>
> Not to a Hollywood audience, certainly. In fact, after being blessed
> with Filmex and the Ken Wlaschin edition of AFI Fest, which always
> showed De O's latest, Hollywood no longer gets festival screenings of
> his films at all. (The new AFI Fest is run by people from Slamdance,
> as I understand it.) Which is why I haven't seen Porto, Silent Movie
> or Uncertainty Principle.
Speaking of "oversold," I notice that two of the three screenings of A Talking Picture at Tribeca Film Festival next week (I guess NYFF passed on this one?) are Sold Out -- or "Door Sales," as they call it, more encouragingly.
> No number of minor, superficial or even
> boring films can detract from the greatness of Ill-Fated Loves and
> Francisca. I just wish it were as easy to see them -- and Benilde and
> a few other early works -- as it is to see Le Couvent and Voyage to
> the Beginning of the World.
I've seen very little de O. (including, I think, none of anyone's stated favorites, unfortunately) and several of these seemed like endurance tests, but (O)porto (which turned up for just a day or so at BAM here), by contrast, is an hour of cinema so stunningly sublime that it made me want to work backwards from there. I also liked Going Home (although this, of course, does have Malkovich). So I couldn't help wondering if we're past a perhaps unwieldy Middle Period and well into a lapidary Late Films paradigm here (even though that might not quite account for Uncertainty Principle)...
9356
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:16pm
Subject: Re: Medved Should Reread the 10 Commandments (Was:So Dark the Night)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"Andy Klein devoted his whole column in City Beat this week to
demonstrating mathematically that Medved lied in a recent Wall
Street Journal jeremiad about H'wd and family values when he claimed
there was a drastic fall-off in movie attendance after the ratings
system came in. Just plain lied. I guess it's the thing to do
this year if you're a neocon."
Not just a liar but he took payola too. About 10 years ago he took
money from studios to promote their movies when he had a short-lived
tv movie review. When he got called out about in the press he
said "Everyone does it."
Richard
9357
From:
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:20am
Subject: Re: am i a popist? (was: po-mo translation)
Adrian, sorry for the vitriol dripping from my last post (and the lateness of
my reply). It's just a subject close to my heart (and my thesis topic).
Just to clarify a few of my own points. I think that difficulty of living in
the present is a postmodern phenomenon and should be unreluctantly labeled as
such (in fact, we should have rallied behind it). I actively embrace the term.
Also, I'm not sure how explicit the politics of populism were in Spin (or
anywhere else, for that matter). They were certainly less explicit than the AIDS
column. But they were perpetually railing against claims of purity and of all
culture being simply better before a certain period in history (and, at least
implicitly, the cultural and financial capital gained from making such
claims). As someone bombarded with such claims on a regular basis (often because of
the social groups I move through), this is explicit enough for me. Thanx for
the great post that allowed me to pin this all down.
And Ruy, great post! I frequently refer to myself as a popist despite my love
of Jack Chambers and Michael Snow (O Canada!). And now I know why Flowers of
Shanghai is my favorite Hsiao-hisen.
Pop!
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9358
From:
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:23am
Subject: Re: Re: Medved Should Reread the 10 Commandments (Was:So Dark the Night)
Most of the films I've seen from that 50 Worst Films book are actually pretty
good if not great (amen on Bring Me The Head, y'all). But he did get one
right - The Ambushers.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9359
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:19pm
Subject: Re: Oliveira
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jess Amortell"
wrote:
> ...(O)porto (which turned up for just a day or so at BAM
here), by contrast, is an hour of cinema so stunningly sublime that
it made me want to work backwards from there....
I would not hesitate to put A Talking Picture in the "sublime"
category (in spite of Malkovich, and I also disliked The Letter). Of
course not everyone would agree. When I saw it at the Chicago Film
Festival, half the audience applauded enthusiastically at the end
while maybe ten percent booed.
My reviews of A Talking Picture and Benilde (plus Goodbye Dragon
Inn, Time of the Wolf, Les Égarés, and others) are at Bright
Lights:
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/42/chifest2003.htm
--Robert Keser
9360
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:46pm
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> I've been off-and-on with Siegel: >
> I'm growing to like Karlson more and more.
Thanks, Jaime - I'll definitely track down HORNET'S NEST. I assume
you've seen the classics of both directors, but if not, FRAMED is a
kind of antithetical sequel to WALKING TALK which I like even more,
and THE KILLERS has another great Siegel odd couple, Lee Marvin and
Clu Gulager. Late Siegel can be a problem, but I just rewatched
TELEFON, and it looks pretty good in retrospect! The Return of the
Pods. And the scene in the bar is grade A Siegel cutting.
9361
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: Daney and Oliveira
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Bill: in Daney's last public appearance before his death in 1992 -
a TRAFIC
> event at Jeu de Paume printed in CAHIERS - he stated categorically
that a
> cinephile must walk on "one Ruiz leg and one Oliveira leg". Praise
surely
> does not come any higher than this !!!!!!
Well, I did say "for what it's worth." I still think it's interesting
that Serge never actually reviewed Satin Slipper - certainly a major
effort by De Oliveira - after being on the set and all, except for a
one-line pro forma plug. De Oliveira and Ruiz were Serge's good
friends, and I don't look to him to dissect their turkeys, most of
which were yet to come when he died -- Ruiz has had a few lately,
too, as is almost inevitable when you're that productive. (That
doesn't detract at all from Time Regained, which is very beautiful.)
As we all noticed when the Welles rarities were screening, quality
didn't necessarily translate to quality there, either. I want to see
the three unfinished features finished properly (which of course
doesn't mean the same thing re: Quixote as it does re: Other Side),
and Merchant of Venice recovered in toto, along with whatever there
is of the London Moby Dick and basta! Although, as with Ruiz and De
Oliveira, I'll always turn out for anything that turns up.
But being a completist does not mean jettisoning your standards.
I can't help but notice that it's common among the "Oliveira
unconditionals" to cite this or that bizarre or unconventional detail
or casting choice that De Oliveira "got away with" in a film --
that's what I meant when I said Paolo gives him his head -- but is
that really enough to make the film good? Lovers of Jerry or even
Joseph Lewis do the same, but there's usually more going on than that
in their work. That said, something like the mind-blowing punchline
to The Cannibals is certainly enough to make the film enjoyable once,
which is of course more than you can say for most films these days.
I really like De O's early films, which I could see many times. I
should mention Past and Present as well as Benilde - my favorite
before Ill Fated Loves (I'll check out what you wrote, Robert)- and
Aniki-Bobo, which Fred has cited. I'm still looking forward to seeing
early O Caca and Acto de Primavera one of these days, as well as
recent Porto, which everyone seems to love.
My hat's off to him for "seizing the day," but sometimes it's good
for a director to take a little break between films...
9362
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
--- hotlove666 wrote:
THE KILLERS has another great Siegel odd couple,
> Lee Marvin and
> Clu Gulager.
And that's not all, it has Ronald Reagan in his very
last (and to my mind greatest) performance as a
viscious mobster who in one scene smacks Angie
Dickinson upside the head.
The main plot which has Marvin and Gulager (a good
actor who should have had a better career) trying to
find out why a hit cooperated with them looks forward
to the ganngster-as-existential-anti-hero that Marvin
portrayed in the matchless "Point Blank."
They would make a great double feature.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
9363
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:43pm
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
> The main plot which has Marvin and Gulager (a good
> actor who should have had a better career) trying to
> find out why a hit cooperated with them looks forward
> to the ganngster-as-existential-anti-hero that Marvin
> portrayed in the matchless "Point Blank."
>
> They would make a great double feature.
I miss Lee Marvin. Richard tells me that the expanded Big Red One is
definitely his best performance.
9364
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:13pm
Subject: Re: Daney and Oliveira
Bill:
> Acto de Primavera one of these days
Boy, now THAT'S an odd one. MDO beats Pasolini to the punch with this
"docu-gospel" by recording an outdoor-theater performance of the
passion which in turn becomes the film itself, and then some. I
wouldn't exactly say it's good, but it's definitely one of a kind.
And I'm trying to decide if there's anything to be made of the vague
resemblance between the end of ACTO and the end of SIMON OF THE DESERT.
-Jaime
9365
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:23pm
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
> The main plot which has Marvin and Gulager (a good
> actor who should have had a better career) trying to
> find out why a hit cooperated with them looks forward
> to the ganngster-as-existential-anti-hero that Marvin
> portrayed in the matchless "Point Blank."
I didn't like THE KILLERS at all, and I've grown to dislike Siodmak's
version a little, too - Siegel's version seemed like it was just a lot
of pointless brutality, the two killers didn't seem that distinct from
one another (except, uh, one's Lee Marvin and the other isn't),
although it's "well-made."
And I felt Gulager was terrible in THE KILLERS, too! But different
strokes, etc.
Was Gulager the older medical attendant in RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD?
Everybody was good in that movie.
-Jaime
9366
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:41pm
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel...THE KILLERS
And after Ronald Reagan smacks Angie Dickinson,
John Cassevetes throws a right into the jaw of Reagan,
flooring him, even though Reagan has at least 50 lbs
on Cassevetes.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
> THE KILLERS has another great Siegel odd couple,
> > Lee Marvin and
> > Clu Gulager.
>
> And that's not all, it has Ronald Reagan in his very
> last (and to my mind greatest) performance as a
> viscious mobster who in one scene smacks Angie
> Dickinson upside the head.
>
> The main plot which has Marvin and Gulager (a good
> actor who should have had a better career) trying to
> find out why a hit cooperated with them looks forward
> to the ganngster-as-existential-anti-hero that Marvin
> portrayed in the matchless "Point Blank."
>
> They would make a great double feature.
9367
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:55pm
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
>
> I didn't like THE KILLERS at all, and I've grown to dislike
Siodmak's
> version a little, too
> And I felt Gulager was terrible in THE KILLERS, too! But different
> strokes, etc.
>
> Was Gulager the older medical attendant in RETURN OF THE LIVING
DEAD?
> Everybody was good in that movie.
Well, the Hemingway story defines "the leaveout" - we're never told
why the Swede doesn't run. God knows the Siegel movie fills in the
blanks with lots of violence. The performance to beat in that one is
Reagan, but I love the hoods, especially Marvin - "Lady, I just don't
have the time."
Gulager plays the owner of the mortuary in RETURN - he is very funny
in it with lines like "Shit! Shit! Goddam!" UCLA had a reunion
screening recently and he showed up - as intelligent as you'd expect
from his performances.
The strange thing is that the use of masters in RETURN was partly
dictated by the budget, but it obviously was great for the
performances, and O'Bannon took the unusual step of videotaping
rehearsals with a primitive little video camera so he could show the
actors what they were doing and give them a chance to adjust it.
Gulager said everyone thought O'Bannon was crazy, but after seeing
the film again at UCLA he realized he was a genius.
Dan O'Bannon is a master who has been sidelined way too long. I
understand that ALIEN VS. PREDATOR contains chunks of his script for
ALIEN that got left out of the movie - he's lodging a complaint
through the WGA to get paid.
9368
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:19pm
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
> Was Gulager the older medical attendant in RETURN OF THE LIVING
DEAD?
Indeed he was. Also very memorable was his short role in "Last
Picture Show" as Abilene.
Looking at his filmography, I've noticed that he directed a film
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216670/).
Has anyone seen it? By the sounds of the user comments, it sounds
like a winner.
-Aaron
9369
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:36pm
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
wrote:
>
> > Was Gulager the older medical attendant in RETURN OF THE LIVING
> DEAD?
>
> Indeed he was. Also very memorable was his short role in "Last
> Picture Show" as Abilene.
> Looking at his filmography, I've noticed that he directed a film
> (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0216670/).
> Has anyone seen it? By the sounds of the user comments, it sounds
> like a winner.
>
> -Aaron
9370
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:38pm
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
very memorable was his short role in "Last
> Picture Show" as Abilene.
Ignore previous send.
Abilene leaves a bigger impression in PICTURE SHOW now that his scene
with Jacy on the pool table has been put back by tinkerin' Peter.
9371
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:52pm
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
"...it has Ronald Reagan in his very last (and to my mind greatest)
performance as a viscious mobster who in one scene smacks Angie
Dickinson upside the head."
There's a still of that scene that was made into a poster which I saw
at a bookstore in Berkeley in 1969 with the caption
Ronald "Bloodbath" Reagan, an allusion to his infamous remark, "If
there's gonna be a bloodbath, let's get it over with" which he made
in response to a state legislator who questioned the wisdom of
sending in the National Guard to clear People's Park (indeed, James
Rector the projectionist at the Telegraph Repretory Cinema was shot
to death by a sheriff's deputy while standing on the roof of the
theatre during the riot.)
As to the violence of THE KILLERS, I remember that it was advertised
as "too tough for television" because it had been made as a tv movie
movie of the week and was vetoed by the network (I think it was ABC.)
Richard
9372
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:04am
Subject: Re: Re: Chabrol
> I think "La Ceremonie" is one of his very best. Right
> up there with "Les Bonnes Femmes" and "Marie-Chantal
> Contre Le Dr. Kha."
No one batted an eye at that - is MARIE-CHANTAL really good? I recently
saw THE ROUTE TO CORINTH and was surprised at how much better it was
than I expected. Its big problem - that the action story doesn't really
resonate with the personal story - seems almost quaint these days, now
that so much post-Hong Kong action cinema openly aspires to the status
of rollercoaster ride. In fact, CORINTH looked like a really well-made
antecedent to today's action movies.
> I've never seen "Le Godelureaux" and long to as the
> stills look great, and it's clearly Brialy at his most
> effete.
Yeah, I've never seen this either. Is it scarce everywhere, or just in
the USA?
Sorry to hear so much skepticism about the amazing M. Chabrol, who I
consider one of the greatest of directors. His batting average isn't
especially good, but he's hard to beat as a home run hitter. - Dan
9373
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:10am
Subject: Re: J.H. Lewis
> More early
> obscurities: Joseph H. Lewis directed at least three Bowery Boys
> pictures, which I've seen only on TV; I remember them mostly as not very
> good (and one has a pretty stupid racist moment involving a black boy
> who "sure do love" watermelon), but at least two have terrific boxing
> scenes, with characteristically intense Lewis close ups.
One of those Bowery Boys films is more ambitious than the others - I'm
pretty sure it's THAT GANG OF MINE. Lewis puts the camera on a dolly
about two feet off the ground and tracks around the Bowery Boys as if
they were Shakespearian figures - and this was a year before CITIZEN
KANE. The story was taken pretty seriously, as I recall. - Dan
9374
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:42am
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
> I just watched HORNET'S NEST the other day, a
> very good, "late period" Rock Hudson vehicle
At last, another HORNET'S NEST fan! I don't believe this film has any
reputation at all - am I wrong about that?
> Siegel's version (of THE KILLERS) seemed like it was just a lot
> of pointless brutality
One point to it is that the brutality comes from our identification
figures. The story even has the classic inquiry structure that is so
effective in promoting identification, and the inquirers are the
killers. That adds some complexity right there.
DIRTY HARRY is a less clear-cut case, in that nothing distances us from
Harry the way the brutality distances us from the hit men. One can
probably enjoy the film as a pro-vigilante piece if one is so inclined.
But I think some of the same perspective can be found here: Harry is
an uncomfortable guy to be around, and Siegel shies away from the
torture he metes out. Rick Thompson once described the film as
analogous to a 50s Japanese monster movie, in which our monster is sent
out to battle the bad monster. I think that Harry isn't quite that
devoid of appeal, but there's something of that mythology at work. - Dan
9375
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:48am
Subject: Re: Re: Chabrol
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> No one batted an eye at that - is MARIE-CHANTAL
> really good?
I think it'steriffic. Easily the most sophisticated of
Chabrol's Lang-influenced films.
(wating to hear an "Amen" form jean-Pierre)
I recently
> saw THE ROUTE TO CORINTH and was surprised at how
> much better it was
> than I expected. Its big problem - that the action
> story doesn't really
> resonate with the personal story - seems almost
> quaint these days, now
> that so much post-Hong Kong action cinema openly
> aspires to the status
> of rollercoaster ride. In fact, CORINTH looked like
> a really well-made
> antecedent to today's action movies.
>
Quite so. Tarantino's underdone two-tiered cream puff
looks pretty pathetic alongside the "purely
commercial" work of Chabrol's "Le Tigre" period.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9376
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:30am
Subject: Chabrol and the moral issue
> I recently
>>saw THE ROUTE TO CORINTH and was surprised at how
>>much better it was
>>than I expected. Its big problem - that the action
>>story doesn't really
>>resonate with the personal story - seems almost
>>quaint these days, now
>>that so much post-Hong Kong action cinema openly
>>aspires to the status
>>of rollercoaster ride. In fact, CORINTH looked like
>>a really well-made
>>antecedent to today's action movies.
>
> Quite so. Tarantino's underdone two-tiered cream puff
> looks pretty pathetic alongside the "purely
> commercial" work of Chabrol's "Le Tigre" period.
This is very interesting, because Chabrol's wilderness period was pretty
widely dismissed by auteurists when the films came out, and history
hasn't yet reversed this opinion. The charge against the movies was
that they were flip and cynical, or at least shallow, in their inability
or unwillingness to make the action an expression of deeper concerns. I
sort of still feel this way, being a bit of a fuddy-duddy; but even I
was forced to experience the film differently after 20 or so years of
the modern action cinema. Fans of contemporary action couldn't level
the same charges against CORINTH that auteurists did - those charges
aren't part of the current critical vocabulary.
Does this simply mean that it's time to reappraise these films? Or does
this point to the obsolescence of auteurism? To what extent is
auteurist taste grounded in a set of philosophical concerns that are no
longer current? I've often felt that way when talking with groups of
non-auteurist film buffs. - Dan
9377
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:17am
Subject: Re: Chabrol
> Quite so. Tarantino's underdone two-tiered cream puff
> looks pretty pathetic alongside the "purely
> commercial" work of Chabrol's "Le Tigre" period.
"That's a bold statement."
-Vincent Vega, PULP FICTION
9378
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:32am
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
> One point to it is that the brutality comes from our identification
> figures. The story even has the classic inquiry structure that is so
> effective in promoting identification, and the inquirers are the
> killers. That adds some complexity right there.
I guess. I was pretty aware of the "inquiry structure" (and would
have to be, after seeing the Siodmak version) but the mystery at the
core of Hemingway's story never had much drawing power for me. Even
Tarkovsky's student film version (which is pretty neat) seems to
settle on a clear-cut answer: the Swede let himself get killed 'cuz
he'd given up on life. And he gave up on life because the dame that
he loved gave up on him, etc. (Of course, Tarkovsky's film doesn't
have much plot, but it resembles the Siodmak version enough to be
considered a close approximation of Siodmak/Veiller's take on the
Hemingway story.) (Which I haven't read, perhaps I should, etc.)
> Rick Thompson once described the film as
> analogous to a 50s Japanese monster movie, in which our monster is
> sent out to battle the bad monster. I think that Harry isn't quite
> that devoid of appeal, but there's something of that mythology at
> work.
I get the impression that people "in the know" come away from DIRTY
HARRY with Thompson's view. This is corroborated somewhat by Carloss
James Chamberlin's wonderful piece on MYSTIC RIVER in the last issue
of "Senses of Cinema," in which he refers to Pauline Kael's "dumbass
review" and how a director like Siegel must surely have "gotten the
joke" and conveyed it to any thinking audience member; after all, he
was the "old lefty" who made BODY SNATCHERS, and that "today the movie
plays like a satire, something that can't be remotely claimed about
DEATH WISH or BILLY JACK."
Personally, I enjoyed being in the position of "getting" DIRTY HARRY
but at the same time I didn't feel like I was really working very
hard, and if I can't work hard, I like to enjoy myself, at least, and
I didn't find much pleasure in the film, either. I wish I could give
a more sophisticated explanation, but there it is.
-Jaime
9379
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:55am
Subject: Re: Hornet's Nest
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> At last, another HORNET'S NEST fan! I don't believe this film has
any
> reputation at all - am I wrong about that?
Can't say. I haven't heard anybody talk about it, and I only recorded
it from Turner Classic Movies because Karlson's name was on it. One
can only imagine that it slipped through the cracks due to its many
mongrel attributes: it's a latter day, "image makeover" Rock vehicle,
an Italian-American co-production, a Vietnam-era war picture that
could at least be mistaken for (and resented as being) a classic "rah
rah" WWII film of olde. And as I mentioned before, for about the
first twenty minutes, I wasn't sure if what I was watching was going
to be very bad or just so-so, and I know for certain that very few
people have or would have very much goodwill towards a movie that
starts off just *looking* like it could be bad.
-Jaime
9380
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:39am
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
K."
>
> Personally, I enjoyed being in the position of "getting" DIRTY HARRY
> but at the same time I didn't feel like I was really working very
> hard, and if I can't work hard, I like to enjoy myself, at least,
and
> I didn't find much pleasure in the film, either. I wish I could
give
> a more sophisticated explanation, but there it is.
>
> -Jaime
DIRTY HARRY is one of my favorite Siegels - it's stunning on a big
screen. (I can still remember Marty Rubin's screening of it at the
Hartford in the 70s). I have always considered CHARLEY VARRICK to be
a commentary on HARRY: Varrick is Siegel, the Jewish trickster, who
pits the crazy kid (played again by Andy Robinson) and the killer
cowboy (Joe Don Baker: great!) against each other and drives off with
the loot, leaving a signature consumed by flames. (For better or for
worse, late Siegel was made possible by the blockbuster success of
DIRTY HARRY.) Siegel's Hegelian (or Siegelian) way of positing
himself as the "master of the contradiction" wouldn't cut any mustard
with Chairman Mao, but it's pretty good for a H'wd action director!
9381
From: filipefurtado
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:56am
Subject: Re: Re: Chabrol
I’ll try to approach Chabrol sort of
chronologically as the man is too full
of high and lows and I have miss key
periods. From his early period (58-63)
I’v eseen nearly everything (but not
Les Grtandioux) and had an impression
of a very strong filmmaker, I’m
especially fond of Les Bonnes Femmes
(whicxh is probably his best I guess).
He seems to already have great control
of mise en scene even when his
material isn’t first rate (as in Le
Beau Serge, a very good film hurt by a
very obvious and schematic script).
Then I lost both his much malign
mid-60’s and his much applauded late
60’s films. The next up for me is
Wedding in Blood and then trouble
begins. I’ve seen around half the
films he made between this and Poulet
et Vinagre (85) and I think only few
of them (the two that frames this
improvised middle period and The
Hatter’s Ghost) are any good. Maybe he
was unlucky in the projects (or I was
unlucky and missed the better ones),
but as wholes these films seem to come
alive only in occasional scenes, most
of the time a cynical surface of a
craftsman who knows he is far better
than his material seems to be at the
core of them (just check Dirty Hands
or even worse The Blood of Others).
The nadir probably is his film on left
terrorism Nada (75, don’t know how
it’s called in english) which menages
to be both an awful political and
explotation film (but it does has a
very strong performance by Maurice
Garrel, I guess Chabrol has always
some sort of compensation). I’ve seen
everything from The Story of Women on
(Flower of Evil hasn’t show up here
yet) and thing got a lot better. Some
films from the 88-91 doesn´t work,
but after Betty he seems to be in a
roll, I do think everything (except
from the fun but very flawed Rien ne
va Plus) is great or near great. The
Cerimony is very obviously the
masterpiece here, but let me single
out Au Cour du Mensonge and Merci pour
le Chocolat which I think are just
great. Chabrol has remarked that
Chocolat was intended to be a minor
film (isn’t funny when a filmmaker
says he deliberate decide to make a
minor work?) and I see what he means.
These films aren’t very easy to defend
exactly because there’s nothing much
going on on them, they’re very quiet
films where Chabrol seems very happy
to only revisit his own old universe
(call them self-conscious Chabrolesque
in a way none of his previous films
are). But the few things that happens,
the digressions, the strong moments of
the actors (get to love Dutronc in the
last scenes of Chocolat), Chabrol’s
strong assured direction more than
makes for it. There’s a lovely very
funny review of it in Contracampo
where the writer says it’s great film
than start to circle around it without
never explain it – there’s a whole
completly unexplained paragraph on
Rancho Notorious -, them when he
finally seems to do it he gives a
description of the last scene and
ends, the review (which was titled
Beautiful Things to joke with
Chabrol’s review of Rear Window) sort
of encapsulates the whole thing in
spite of – or because – it barely
seems to be trying.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
9382
From: filipefurtado
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:07am
Subject: Re: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel
I love Dirty Harry. Siegel is great
even tough he stumbles on occasion
(The Gun Runnersais really very bad).
My favorite is probably Madigan, maybe
not his best but the one that have a
big impact on me. I saw it a little
after moving to São Paulo and it put
me on a three month diet of old
american crime films (usually two per
day) somewhere in the middle of it
(around the day I saw Hawks' Scarface)
I decide to drop journalism and try to
get into Cinema (so I guess Siegel and
his final shoot out havesomething to
do with it).
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
9383
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 0:52pm
Subject: Chabrol (from script to screen)
I second Filipe on a liking for THE HEART OF THE LIE, which I think is truly
the underrated gem of 'late Chabrol'. Normally I am not an enormous fan of
his work: sometimes his direction can be as patchy and sloppy (and probably
as hurried or careless) as Woody Allen's!! I have written an essay on Fritz
Lang's HOUSE BY THE RIVER (forthcoming in this or the next century in the
MOVIE book of Fritz) where I mention HEART OF THE LIE as a subterranean
'remake' of elements of the Lang film.
Moreover, I had a curious and instructive experience with this Chabrol film.
I had occasion to read the script, which had been passed on to me for a
professional opinion, before it was shot. On the page it was flat, dreary,
boring - I figured it would be a mediocre Chabrol film. But when I saw the
finished thing - which stuck exactly to the words and actions in the script
- wow! It was, in the words of a wise man, 'a lesson in mise en scene all
the way': the framings, the rhythms, the staging not only gave it pace,
atmosphere, and so on, but an incredible 'inner life', a sense of poetic
mystery. Ever since then, I make it a policy to always give every new Claude
C. movie a chance!!!
I would be interested to hear if other list members have had that nicely
disconcerting script-to-screen experience: reading a script, imagining not
much of a movie, and then being surprised at what the director actually
achieved in bringing it to life. Two other examples of this in my
experience: Lynch's THE STRAIGHT STORY and James Gray's THE YARDS. (What's
Gray up to these days? That film had a lot of merit.)
Adrian
9384
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:22pm
Subject: Re: Chabrol and the moral issue
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Does this simply mean that it's time to reappraise
> these films?
Reappraisal is long overdue -- and not "simply."
Or does
> this point to the obsolescence of auteurism? To
> what extent is
> auteurist taste grounded in a set of philosophical
> concerns that are no
> longer current?
That's a complex question. It pivots on how far you
want to take auteurism. From an auteurist perspective
the films of this period are perfectly inline with any
number of Chbrol's interests, particularly pertaining
to Lang. But "Que la Bete Meure' is considered
"respectable" and "Marie Chantal Contre Le Dr. Kha"
isn't. This has to do with attitudes towards pop
culture that have radically changed over the past 35
years.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
9385
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:58pm
Subject: Re: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel...THE KILLERS
> And after Ronald Reagan smacks Angie Dickinson,
> John Cassevetes throws a right into the jaw of Reagan,
> flooring him, even though Reagan has at least 50 lbs
> on Cassevetes.
Angie Dickinson throws a right into the jaw of Reagan,
and Cassevetes files the lead for tommorow's First Edition.
(the Sam Fuller version of The Killers)
9386
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:01pm
Subject: Re: Chabrol (from script to screen)
>
> I would be interested to hear if other list members have had that
nicely
> disconcerting script-to-screen experience: reading a script,
imagining not
> much of a movie, and then being surprised at what the director
actually
> achieved in bringing it to life.
Edward Scissorhands - there didn't appear to be a movie there. Then
the result blew me away. I also saw the reader's report: "If this
were going to be directed by anyone but Tim Burton, I'd say don't
even consider it."
9387
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:07pm
Subject: Big Red One (was: Phil Karlson and Don Siegel...THE KILLERS)
> Angie Dickinson throws a right into the jaw of Reagan,
> and Cassevetes files the lead for tommorow's First Edition.
>
> (the Sam Fuller version of The Killers)
I talked to Christa Fuller, who just saw the not-quite-finished three-
hour BIG RED ONE, and she says it's great. She was blown away by
Marvin's performance. "It's the best WWII movie ever made, which is
what Sam wanted it to be."
9388
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:15pm
Subject: Douchet Interview
Just came across this brief, interesting 1998 interview with Jean
Douchet(in French), primarily discussing homosexuality (and sexuality
in general) in terms of the New Wave directors:
http://www.tetu.com/archives/1998-12/3/
9389
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:40pm
Subject: Re: Douchet Interview
Wow! That's quite a find, Joe.
Douchet's take sexual naivete of the NV directors is
one I share. I always thought Godard and Truffaut got
into filmmaking primarily to meet girls - and THEN
became artists.
But I'm amazed by Douchet declaring --
À part Téchiné, il y a Chéreau, mais «Ceux qui
m’aiment prendront le train» n’est pas complètement
satisfaisant. C’est à moitié raté, surtout à cause du
rythme. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi Chéreau n’arrive
pas à trouver le bon rythme. C’est le rythme qui
décide qu’un film devient une œuvre d’art.
That's the very beating heart of Chereau! The "rythme"
of "Ceux Qui M'aiment" is central to its greatness. I
can't for the life of me see how he missed it.
This is especially fascinating in light of the fact
that he "gets" the homoeroticism in Bresson. That's a
next to taboo subject. But talk about "the elephant in
the bedroom"!
On a very personal note "A Man Escaped" was of crucial
importance to me when I was coming out.
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
> Just came across this brief, interesting 1998
> interview with Jean
> Douchet(in French), primarily discussing
> homosexuality (and sexuality
> in general) in terms of the New Wave directors:
>
> http://www.tetu.com/archives/1998-12/3/
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9390
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Chabrol
Dan Sallitt wrote:
>No one batted an eye at that - is MARIE-CHANTAL really good?
>
Seen only on TV, decades ago, I liked it a lot, and still remember its
wildly playful editing. Chabrol treats the story here as near-camp, but
if I remember it right there's a great cut to an overhead shot, as in
from an airplane, during a car ride. The related "Le Tigre se parfume à
la dynamite <http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0061095/>" isn't as good;
Chabrol's attitude toward his material is indicated there by a scene in
which he acts a cameo, hilariously overplaying his role as a fish
surgeon by acting like a movie director.
Marie-Chantal I would watch again on video or DVD, if anyone knows a
source. But I doubt it's one of the greatest ones: "Le Scandale" (aka
"The Champagne Murders"), now that's a great one.
- Fred C.
9391
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:02pm
Subject: Re: Chabrol
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> >
> > No one batted an eye at that - is MARIE-CHANTAL
> > really good?
>
> I think it'steriffic. Easily the most sophisticated of
> Chabrol's Lang-influenced films.
>
> (wating to hear an "Amen" form jean-Pierre)
>
Alas, that's another Chabrol I haven't seen.
I don't know if you know that in the early sixties there were
lots of jokes circulating in France about a female character called
Marie-Chantal (a then popular first name among the bourgeoisie) who
was upper-middle-class, filthy rich, snottily pretentious and
snobbish and disdainful of everything plebeian. Does that describe
Chabrol's Marie-Chantal (who played the part by the way?)
9392
From:
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:20pm
Subject: Re: Douchet Interview
Pardon my ignorance and/or shaky French but was Douchet saying that Bresson
was closeted?
Also, I was surpised to see the words "pédés" and "homos" being used. In
Québec, I understand the word of choice is "tapettes" rather than "pédés" since
the latter derives from ""pédéraste." But here, I assume it simply means "gays"
rather than "fags" wich would explain why it's being used in this rather Out
or Genre-like magazine (unless I'm getting that wrong too). Can anyone explain
the affective use of those words in France?
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9393
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: Chabrol
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Alas, that's another Chabrol I haven't seen.
> I don't know if you know that in the early
> sixties there were
> lots of jokes circulating in France about a female
> character called
> Marie-Chantal (a then popular first name among the
> bourgeoisie) who
> was upper-middle-class, filthy rich, snottily
> pretentious and
> snobbish and disdainful of everything plebeian. Does
> that describe
> Chabrol's Marie-Chantal (who played the part by the
> way?)
>
>
No it doesn't. The part was played by Marie LaForet.
Chabrol's Marie-Chantal was more like a lively young
woman forced by circumstance into a "Modesty
Blaise"-like adventure. Stephane Audran and Akim
Tamiroff played the villains.
Obviously Chabrol thought of this as a "minor" film,
but it;s pulled off with such panache that I think he
seriously underrates it. As "pop culture" has morphed
into the "high/low culture" of Tarantino, this period
of Chabrol cries out for further analysis.
As does "Modesty Blaise."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9394
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Chabrol
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> >
> >
> No it doesn't. The part was played by Marie LaForet.
> Chabrol's Marie-Chantal was more like a lively young
> woman forced by circumstance into a "Modesty
> Blaise"-like adventure. Stephane Audran and Akim
> Tamiroff played the villains.
>
Sounds exciting! Audran must make a great campy villain.
> Obviously Chabrol thought of this as a "minor" film,
> but it;s pulled off with such panache that I think he
> seriously underrates it. As "pop culture" has morphed
> into the "high/low culture" of Tarantino, this period
> of Chabrol cries out for further analysis.
>
> As does "Modesty Blaise."
>
> You're probably right. I hated "Modesty Blaise" at the time.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9395
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:45pm
Subject: Re: Douchet Interview
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance and/or shaky French but was Douchet saying that
Bresson
> was closeted?
>
YES!
>
Also, I was surpised to see the words "pédés" and "homos" being
used. In
> Québec, I understand the word of choice is "tapettes" rather
than "pédés" since
> the latter derives from ""pédéraste." But here, I assume it simply
means "gays"
> rather than "fags" wich would explain why it's being used in this
rather Out
> or Genre-like magazine (unless I'm getting that wrong too). Can
anyone explain
> the affective use of those words in France?
>
> Kevin
>
Kevin, "tapette" is old-fashioned in France although it was still
used occasionally in the 40s and 50s. For some reason it sounded less
derogatory than other terms, such as the more widespread "pede"
(sorry i don't have accents on this Line!) Yes, this one simply
means "homosexual" (with no connotation of pedophilia despite the
derivation) but it is or at least was at the time (ie the fifties and
sixties) always used pejoratively. Because homophobia was rampant in
France and there was no such thing as "gay pride"! I think Douchet
uses the word just because it's handy and he doesn't have to be
politically correct.
As a good example of homophobia among French intellectuals and
particularly cinephile film critics at the time you just have to look
at the original POSITIF group, especially Ado Kyrou, who hated
homosexuals just about as much as he hated priests. (if you said you
liked Audrey Hepburn he would immediately brand you a "pede"). I
think there was one lone homosexual in the group at the time, and a
VERY closetted one! Just like Douchet at Cahiers. Myself I met almost
everybody who wrote about film at the time and never would have
imagined that any of them might be gay. And indeed very very few were.
> JPC
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9396
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Chabrol
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> > You're probably right. I hated "Modesty Blaise"
> at the time.
> >
Well I've always loved it. And for auteurist reasons
as much as camp ones. This was a "comic strip movie"
seen as a "strictly commercial" proposition that came
Losey's way after the success of "The Servant." But
all the prime Losey themes are there -- particularly
the "invasion" by an "outsider" of a guarded enclave.
There's an Elizabeth Frink sculpture much like the one
in "(These Are) the Damned" on Gabriel's terrace. And
his entire Richard MacDonald-designed island is
reconfigured for his bizarre Tennessee Willaims
adaptation "Boom!" made two years later.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9397
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:54pm
Subject: Re: Chabrol
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > >
> > > You're probably right. I hated "Modesty Blaise"
> > at the time.
> > >
> Well I've always loved it. And for auteurist reasons
> as much as camp ones. This was a "comic strip movie"
> seen as a "strictly commercial" proposition that came
> Losey's way after the success of "The Servant." But
> all the prime Losey themes are there -- particularly
> the "invasion" by an "outsider" of a guarded enclave.
>
> There's an Elizabeth Frink sculpture much like the one
> in "(These Are) the Damned" on Gabriel's terrace. And
> his entire Richard MacDonald-designed island is
> reconfigured for his bizarre Tennessee Willaims
> adaptation "Boom!" made two years later.
>
>
> No doubt it's a very personal movie -- all the Losey obsessions are
there. it's possibly the most SM-oriented film in the career of a
director who kept returning to masochism as a major theme (Gypsy, The
Servant, Eva, even Accident, Boom! and The Go-Between). I wrote
somewhere that the film "is one SM fantasy after another..."
JPC
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9398
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: Chabrol
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > No doubt it's a very personal movie -- all the
> Losey obsessions are
> there. it's possibly the most SM-oriented film in
> the career of a
> director who kept returning to masochism as a major
> theme (Gypsy, The
> Servant, Eva, even Accident, Boom! and The
> Go-Between). I wrote
> somewhere that the film "is one SM fantasy after
> another..."
> JPC
I'd give that honor to "Eve." Jeanne Moreau whipping
Stanley Baker with a riding crop that's just been
delivered to her in a florist's box (as if it were a
bunch of long-stemmed roses) takes the proverbial
cake.
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> >
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9399
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 7:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Douchet Interview
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> As a good example of homophobia among French
> intellectuals and
> particularly cinephile film critics at the time you
> just have to look
> at the original POSITIF group, especially Ado Kyrou,
> who hated
> homosexuals just about as much as he hated priests.
> (if you said you
> liked Audrey Hepburn he would immediately brand you
> a "pede").
ROTFALMAO!!!!
I
> think there was one lone homosexual in the group at
> the time, and a
> VERY closetted one!
Roger Tailleur.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9400
From:
Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 4:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Douchet Interview
In a message dated 4/27/04 1:48:14 PM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
> Because homophobia was rampant in France and there was no such thing as
> "gay pride"! I think Douchet uses the word just because it's handy and he
> doesn't have to be politically correct.
>
But the article was published in 1998 and the interviewer uses those words as
well. Over here, it would be like someone interviewing, oh, Gus Van Sant for
Out magazine and saying, e.g. "So were any of the boys in Elephant fags?"
"Yes, several of them were faggots." I'd be pretty shocked to read that. So in
France, can you use "pédés" to mean an innocuous general term like "gays" or "gay
men" or were both Douchet and the interviewer being extremely colloquial?
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact