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.
9601
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:42am
Subject: Re: PECKINGPAH's STRAW DOGS
>
> The character who plays the town idiot is seen with the
> child tease... how old is she? Who knows, but in the mind of the
> townsmen, the idiot is a child molester (murderer also).
>
>
> The last scene has Dustin riding off to who knows where
>
> Idiot
> I don't know the way home
> Dustin
> Neither do I
>
> Obviously, the adult Susan George does not interest
> Dustin.
>
> Has anyone read anything about this?
Well riding off into the sunset with another guy, or a horse, or
anything but a woman, is basic western stuff (Straw Dogs is a
western), and Hoffman was protecting the guy, not abusing him. But
Hoffman likes his wife being a littel girl because he's a kinky
intellectual, and he also can infantilize her by being smarter so as
to feel like a man. That's metaphorical child abuse, if you like; the
idiot is more like Dustin's (cough) Inner Child -- an appropriate
choice, given the actor.
9602
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:56am
Subject: Re: Preston Sturges - Sullivan's Travels - opinions sought
>
> Again, I think people will laugh at whatever is presented as
> funny when in need of a laugh. Remember this is 1930's ...
> just seeing a cartoon would be an exceptional experience,
> especially for a prisoner.
>
> I like Preston Sturges for the 'cornyness' of his lovable
> characters. MIRACLE at MORGAN's CREEK is totally unbelievable
> but funny. Preston Sturges seems to be a high-brow humor
> often in a working class setting but not at the expense of the
> working class.
He also wanted to be Shakespearean, which led him (and occasionally
misled him) to put corny slapstick in all his masterpieces. So I
don't think he looked down at Mickey Mouse - he probably wished he'd
invented him!
Being the contested chew-toy of Art (Mom) and Commerce (Dad) growing
up would have prepared Sturges either to give the poor audience cake
(Ants in Their Plants) or spinach (O Brother, Where Art Thou), if he
deemed that good for them. But realizing that THIS is his audience --
and becoming one of them, laughing along -- is a humiliation for
Sturges's alter ego, class-wise, one that Sturges took great pleasure
in concocting for him.
Truffaut actaully included Andre Bazin's writings on Sturges in a
posthumous collection called The Cinema of Cruelty, along with
Bunuel, Dreyer, von Stroheim and a couple of other sadists.
9603
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 4:28am
Subject: Re: PECKINGPAH's STRAW DOGS
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> >
> > The character who plays the town idiot is seen with the
> > child tease... how old is she? Who knows, but in the mind of the
> > townsmen, the idiot is a child molester (murderer also).
> >
> >
> > The last scene has Dustin riding off to who knows where
> >
> > Idiot
> > I don't know the way home
> > Dustin
> > Neither do I
> >
> > Obviously, the adult Susan George does not interest
> > Dustin.
> >
> > Has anyone read anything about this?
>
> Well riding off into the sunset with another guy, or a horse, or
> anything but a woman, is basic western stuff (Straw Dogs is a
> western), and Hoffman was protecting the guy, not abusing him.
I thought their riding off together was an indication of
shared interest in young girls, not that Hoffman was
abusing him. They both like young girls because
they can control them and adult women would not be
interested in them.
> But Hoffman likes his wife being a littel girl because he's a kinky
> intellectual, and he also can infantilize her by being smarter so as
> to feel like a man. That's metaphorical child abuse, if you like; the
> idiot is more like Dustin's (cough) Inner Child -- an appropriate
> choice, given the actor.
9604
From: filipefurtado
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 5:04am
Subject: Re: PECKINGPAH's STRAW DOGS
> I saw something not mentioned in any readings:
>
> The relationship between Susan George and Dustin Hoffman is
> established, though rocky. In one scene, he comments about
> her acting like a 16 year old, then keeps lower his interest level
> to 14, 12 year old... maybe even younger.
Interesting. Susan George had played
the lead ina Lolita-style film a
couple of years before Straw Dogs,
something Peckinpah was probably aware of.
Filipe
>
>
> The character who plays the town idiot is seen with the
> child tease... how old is she? Who knows, but in the mind of the
> townsmen, the idiot is a child molester (murderer also).
>
>
> The last scene has Dustin riding off to who knows where
>
> Idiot
> I don't know the way home
> Dustin
> Neither do I
>
> Obviously, the adult Susan George does not interest
> Dustin.
>
> Has anyone read anything about this?
>
>
> There might be violence all around us, but perhaps the
> greatest violence is the hidden violence happening to
> children.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
9605
From:
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 1:17am
Subject: Stevens' Separate But Equal
We're fortunate to have a lot of wonderful scholars of tele-auteurs on this
group. So a question: I wonder if anyone has seen George Stevens Jr.'s sole
non-documentary directorial credit, "Separate But Equal," with Sidney Poitier?
It aired on television (can't find out which network) in 1991. I ran across a
DVD of it the other day and my interest was piqued... is it any good?
PS: Wonderful posts on de Oliveira, Ruy and Gabe.
PSS: Looking at IMDB, it appears Stevens Jr. did in fact direct a few "Alfred
Hitchcock Presents" episodes...
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9606
From: Raymond P.
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:55am
Subject: Resources on Aki Kaurismaki?
Could anyone recommend some good sites on Aki Kaurismaki's ouvre, apart from Siunattu
teknologia? I especially need some material for his earlier films and shorts, such as:
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
SHADOWS IN PARADISE
ROCKY VI
THRU THE WIRE
THOSE WERE THE DAYS
THESE BOOTS
LENINGRAD COWBOYS MEET MOSES
Thanks!
Raymond
9607
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 7:38am
Subject: Sargent on HOBO, Mazursky on Showtime
Joseph Sargent directed Something Made by the Lord, airing on HBO -
looks like another one of his odd couple scenarios. Did anyone see
Coast to Coast (Mazursky) on Showtime in early April? Was it that
awful?
9608
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 7:41am
Subject: Re: PECKINGPAH's STRAW DOGS
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
> I know much has been written about the violence of STRAW DOGS.
>
> I saw something not mentioned in any readings:
>
> The relationship between Susan George and Dustin Hoffman is
> established, though rocky. In one scene, he comments about
> her acting like a 16 year old, then keeps lower his interest level
> to 14, 12 year old... maybe even younger.
>
>
> The character who plays the town idiot is seen with the
> child tease... how old is she? Who knows, but in the mind of the
> townsmen, the idiot is a child molester (murderer also).
>
>
> The last scene has Dustin riding off to who knows where
>
> Idiot
> I don't know the way home
> Dustin
> Neither do I
>
> Obviously, the adult Susan George does not interest
> Dustin.
>
> Has anyone read anything about this?
>
>
> There might be violence all around us, but perhaps the
> greatest violence is the hidden violence happening to
> children.
It is not so much that David no longer is interested in Amy, it is
more that they have defeated by their inner demons to such a degree,
that they have given up their relationship.
Both David and Amy are cowards, insecure in their relationship;
hiding it thru games: Amy reverts into childhood and plays child
games (and also projects a far greater security of and about her
sexuality) and David does his math.
Their games and their camouflage is ok as long as its not
confronted, which happends when they return to Amy's hometown: There
her overtly sexuality and her games eventually cause her to be
raped.
Few realise that Amy actually attempts to tell David that something
happend and that Amy gets one hell of a wake-up call: Here is the
conversation that follows the rape:
A "Why dont you open the closet, we dont have anymore cats"
D "Im firing Vennet and Scutt tomorrow"
A "Hurray for you, Tiger... Whatfore?"
D "Because they suckered it to me on the morse today"
A "They also served us sitting home and wait"
D "What?"
A "Nothing. If you had said something to them ages ago about the
cat, nothing of this ever would have happend -"
D "- Easy -"
A "- None of it -"
D "Easy, easy. I was gonna say something until you pulled that
childish stunt of yours"
A "David, I didnt"
D "Im not finished. You pushed me and you dont do any good by
pushing me"
A "I didnt"
D "When are you ever gonna learn about growin up"
A "Im trying to"
D "Well, you are a little late"
A "Youre a coward. Im a coward. Plain and simple. I dont blame you
for hiding in your study. While I never wanted to hide there with
you... I cant anymore"
At this point, Amy and David no longer are a couple. They have been
exposed, their games have been exploited. The key to it all is the
last sentence by Amy: "I cant anymore". What she means is, that she
can't (hide) anymore: that she has been exposed, that her games and
sexual security no longer is a shield.
This is totally breakdown and deconstruction of human relationship.
Not only are the characters taking rhetorically, in the scene that
follows, where Summer fires the men, he afterwards goes out in the
field and stands totally isolated and alone, and even as Amy later
comes down and tries to talk to him, he utters no word. Summer is at
this point a man defeated by his own demons, and has also, as Amy,
now realised his cowardism, and his lack of control of Amy.
David has to control his enviroment, that is his nature. If he no
longer can control Amy, then she no longer serves a point. The other
way around, Amy needs to be controlled, but on her premises.
I consider this the point of no return for the character of David.
This is why he stays and defends his house. He needs to prove that
he is able to control something. It is not about Amy or the house or
Niles for that matter: It is about coming to terms with him own
demons.
Henrik
9609
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:39pm
Subject: Re: Stevens' Separate But Equal
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> We're fortunate to have a lot of wonderful scholars of tele-auteurs
on this
> group. So a question: I wonder if anyone has seen George Stevens
Jr.'s sole
> non-documentary directorial credit, "Separate But Equal," with
Sidney Poitier?
I have--I was forced to watch it in high school in government class,
and don't remember it too well, but it seemed mainstream liberal
schlock and pretty much bereft of style.* I didn't know Stevens Jr.
was even in the running for auteur-status--bad genes in the auteurist
family tree.
Peter, time to hit the foreign-language section of the video store!
Patrick
*PS. Now that we've celebrating the 50th anniversary of Brown, I think
this film's big problem was that it treated integration as a problem
solved with the Supreme Court decision. Of course, this was not the
case--my high school (in Charlottesville, VA) was built one year
before Brown but only desegregated somewhere around 1968.
9610
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:17pm
Subject: Re: PECKINGPAH's STRAW DOGS
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow" wrote:
> David has to control his enviroment, that is his nature. If he no
> longer can control Amy, then she no longer serves a point. The other
> way around, Amy needs to be controlled, but on her premises.
>
> I consider this the point of no return for the character of David.
> This is why he stays and defends his house. He needs to prove that
> he is able to control something. It is not about Amy or the house or
> Niles for that matter: It is about coming to terms with him own
> demons.
>
> Henrik
I appreciate your explanation; clearly DAVID needs to control ...
and who is easier to control than a child, or someone who asks like
a child.
9611
From:
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 1:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Stevens' Separate But Equal
Thanks for the feedback, Patrick. The one other review I found on the Web
called the film essentially "styleless" too. I was a curious about it because
the subject matter interests me and I didn't entirely trust the one review I
found on the Web; I wasn't sure that the guy's "auteur" radar was online and
looking for the right things. I'm always a little curious about "one-offs" who
make a single feature and then hang it up, too.
I know I must seem positively obsessed with classical Hollywood cinema most
of the time (and I am), but I really do see a lot of great foreign language
films all the time! Recently: Rossellini's "The Messiah" (masterful); Chabrol's
"The Flower of Evil" (very good); Doillon's "Raja" (so close to being the best
film I've seen so far this century!); and Losey's "La Truite" (my favorite
Losey to date.)
Cheers,
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9612
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:17pm
Subject: Imitation of Life
Lucy Fisher's volume on Sirk's Imitation of Life in the Rutgers
Series of "Films in Print" (the best film book series ever, IMO)
reveals a surprising model for Annie (Delilah) in Fannie Hurst's
novel: Zora Neale Hurston. Hurst employed Hurston after she was one
of the judges in a writing contest that ZNH won - she hired her first
as a secretary, so she wouldn't have to be a maid, which hadn't
worked out (pride), then, when the secretary duties didn't work out
(awful handwriting, ADD), as her personal assistant/chauffeur. They
often compared notes on what they were writing as they tooled around,
and encountered prejudice when they travelled together in certain
parts of the country. Hurston loved Imitation of Life (the book -- no
indication whether she ever saw the films).
9613
From:
Date: Tue May 4, 2004 7:25pm
Subject: Re: Stevens' Separate But Equal
Have never seen this! Sidney Poitier is supposed to be excellent in it.
Whether it has any directorial value is another question! It certainly describes an
important event.
Mike Grost
9614
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 2:25pm
Subject: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG
WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax
division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that
harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and
Miramax said Tuesday.
The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis —
including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's
actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
===
Rest of the article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?hp
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9615
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 5:18pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
> By JIM RUTENBERG
>
> WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking
its Miramax
> division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore
that
> harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney
and
> Miramax said Tuesday.
>
> The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent
Saudis —
> including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr.
Bush's
> actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
> ===
"The temperature at which freedom burns."
Instant publicity. Tarantino will give it a Golden Palm - the
competition this year is stuff like Shrek 2! - and it'll be a wild ride
after that.
>
> Rest of the article at:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?hp
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9616
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 5:33pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
It's interesting that "Walt Disney is blocking Miramax" -- this gives
Harvey the option of taking the heroic stand on behalf of Moore if he
thinks it will help the film, not to mention counter his famous
reputation as independent cinema's #1 suppressor. On the other hand,
if the heat gets to be too much he can just say his bosses pulled the
plug and he could do nothing about it.
Building on your sentiments, Bill, if Tarantino gives Moore the Palme
d'Or, it may be due to professional envy, in terms of who did a
better job making a marketing tool out of the slings and arrows
suffered them by the Industry. Tarantino was able to take Harvey
Weinstein's insistence on bisecting KILL BILL and play it for the
sympathetic outrage of his minions, portraying himself as the "artist
who was forced to compromise" and generating hype as to what
the "definitive" version of KILL BILL would look like (there is much
speculation that scenes were rearranged so that Vols 1 and 2 would
achieve cohesiveness as distinct works). Of course this means more
ways to package and distribute and cash in; I'm sure Harvey doesn't
mind being painted as a bad guy if it means his films get more
publicity and profit out of it.
But as of now neither of them come close to Mel Gibson in winning
2004's "Master Manipulator of Media Controversy" award.
Kevin
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> wrote:
> > Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
> > By JIM RUTENBERG
> >
> > WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking
> its Miramax
> > division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore
> that
> > harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney
> and
> > Miramax said Tuesday.
> >
> > The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent
> Saudis —
> > including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr.
> Bush's
> > actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
> > ===
>
> "The temperature at which freedom burns."
>
> Instant publicity. Tarantino will give it a Golden Palm - the
> competition this year is stuff like Shrek 2! - and it'll be a wild
ride
> after that.
> >
> > Rest of the article at:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?hp
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9617
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:14pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
Kevin,
Mel Gibson pulled out of financing Farhenheit 9/11 this time last
year because of a call from the White House - that's when
Miramax jumped in with bridge financing. Now that Gibson is
making anti-Bush noises re: Iraq and stands to pocket $700
million from The Passion, I wouldn't be surprised to see him ride
to the rescue in true Mad Max style and distribute via the same
folks who put out his film. I'm sure that's what Moore would like
to see.
Tarantino is deeply in Harvey Weinstein's debt. He'll advocate
whatever Weinstein really wants to do. The other jury members
this year (it's a strange year all around) are Kathleen Turner,
Charlize Theron, Peter van Baghe (!), one other actress and one
other person who I believe is male -- but Tarantino should be
able to twist them around his little finger. (Theron is a star now,
but she'd obviously like to be in a Tarantino film -- so would
Turner, for that matter -- and actresses on juries tend to kowtow
to the Jury prez if it's a director they want to work with.)
Thierry Fremaux has put together what is being touted in Variety
as a US-friendly lineup to cleanse the stench of last year's
"anti-American" Palm d'Or for Elephant, and the much-publicized
atttacks of Todd McCarthy and Roger Ebert on the American
section in the festival. So he has been obliged, unfortunately, to
take the crumbs from H'wd's table: Shrek 2 in competition (!) and
Troy out of it. Ladykillers in competition is a big favor to
someone - no other explanation is possible. They're also
screening the director's cut of Bad Santa! I understand from the
experts that the Asian genre films which have suddenly turned
up in competition aren't particularly well chosen. And I'd bet this
isn't Olivier Assayas's year yet.
So it'll be Moore versus the Asian art contingent, and Tarantino
will have his thumb on the scale.
The truth is that the Palme d'Or doesn't matter all that much.
What would create a PR tsunami here would be Gibson getting
involved again. But there's almost certainly going to be a PR
tsunami anyway, one that could also finish Michael Eisner's
tenure at Disney -- or Michael Eisner. The poor man does not
have a sound cardiovascular system.
9618
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
--- hotlove666 wrote:
The other
> jury members
> this year (it's a strange year all around) are
> Kathleen Turner,
> Charlize Theron, Peter van Baghe (!), one other
> actress and one
> other person who I believe is male -- but Tarantino
> should be
> able to twist them around his little finger.
The other acress is Tilda Swinton -- who I'm sure
Tarantino will want to cast in his next project.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9619
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:37pm
Subject: RE: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
> but Tarantino should be
> able to twist them around his little finger.
Is it true that the jury president gets to pick a couple
of the jury members? Back when Cronenberg had his year of
triumph, I assumed that he had picked James Spader and
Holly Hunter and used them to influence the outcome (though
he denies this).
> So it'll be Moore versus the Asian art contingent, and Tarantino
> will have his thumb on the scale.
No chance for the Jaoui or Kusturica?
Jonathan Takagi
9620
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:47pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
>
> No chance for the Jaoui or Kusturica?
>
> Jonathan Takagi
There are other prizes. If I were QT I'd want a multicultural
contrarian prize lineup to back a Moore Palme -- assuming a
Palme is what Weinstein wants. Janoui is adorable, but not
exactly contrarian. Who knows?
And as I said, who cares? Eisner has already performed the
same inestimable service for Moore that Rupert Murdoch
performed for Al Franken.
9621
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 7:07pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> >
> > No chance for the Jaoui or Kusturica?
> >
> > Jonathan Takagi
>
> There are other prizes. If I were QT I'd want a multicultural
> contrarian prize lineup to back a Moore Palme -- assuming a
> Palme is what Weinstein wants. Janoui is adorable, but not
> exactly contrarian. Who knows?
I thought Weinstein was pro Bush.
But otherwise I agree with you Bill, QT will do exactly what Harvey
wants and then everyone will suck up to Harvey even more.
Who was the idiot who got QT on the jury anyway? Aren't there any
standards left?
Henrik
9622
From: Raymond P.
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 7:18pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I understand from the
> experts that the Asian genre films which have suddenly turned
> up in competition aren't particularly well chosen. And I'd bet this
> isn't Olivier Assayas's year yet.
Ugh...which "experts" are these? And what do you mean that Asian
films "suddenly" are up in competition? Need I remind that Kore-Eda,
Wong, Hong and Weerasethakul are all previous Cannes veterans (though
Hong and Weerasethakul were in other sections previously)?
And I can tell you right now - "Nobody Knows" by Hirokazu Kore-Eda
and "Tropical Malady" by Jo Weerasethakul are two very strong entries
this year. How do I know? Because I know film programmers who have
seen them. Their comment on "Nobody Knows" is one word: masterpiece -
the best Kore-Eda film yet.
Don't underestimate Assayas either. "Clean" gets extra buzz just from
having his ex-wife star in it.
9623
From: Doug Cummings
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 7:34pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
>I thought Weinstein was pro Bush.
Yes, let's remember we're talking about the man who refused to
release "The Quiet American" for over a year after 9/11 and who was
publicly quoted as saying the "national mood" wasn't right for it.
Doug
9624
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 7:46pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
> I thought Weinstein was pro Bush.
>
Not to my knowledge, but I have no specific knowledge on that
one - I just assumed he was a limousine liberal. Certainly
Eisner is. This may all get distorted in trans-Atlantic
transmission, because they are regularly described by political
film critics and journalists as establishment figures - which is
not at all the same thing as being pro-Bush, or even Republican.
In fact, it's the establishment - the CIA, the Pentagon, the Federal
Reserve - who are ganging up on Bush now behind the scenes
to get him out before he does more damage. Kerry is the
establishment's candidate - Dean was taken out because he'd
be too dangerous. One of the things paving Kerry's way is a
spate of tell-all books about what a cluck Bush is by
establishment types like Joseph Wilson, whose Politics of Truth
just appeared on Friday.
And 20th Century Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch, is tearing Bush
a new asshole re: global warming by making and releasing The
Day After Tomorrow on May 28, and actually showing the first 10
minutes of the movie for free on the Fox network before American
Idol next Wednesday. (Al Gore and moveon.org are having a
giant rally down the street from the premier to cash in on
awareness.) It's enough to make you wonder if Eisner and
Murdoch are both in on the stable-cleansing, which promises to
be as drastic as the CIA-driven Watergate affair. (Woodward, the
Company's man in All the President's Men, has turned his coat
again in his new book, which discreetly but firmly limns a bunch
of out-of-control jugheads committing the worst mistake in
American history by invading the wrong country.)
In any event, the majority of Hollywood is Democratic - they give
zillions to the party, and that very much includes Michael Eisner.
Whatever minority patriotic support remained in H'wd for Bush in
the early days of Iraq (the scattered boos during Moore's Oscar
speech last year) is gone: no one booed when Errol Morris said
basically the same things this year. Left, right and center, no one
in H'wd loves a flop - and everyone loves a winner (Gibson).
Speaking of winners, I was so amused when the jury lineup was
first announced because I saw that Peter von Bagh - who always
heads his e-mails "from deepest Siberia" - was going to be
spending two weeks in sunny Cannes sequestered with three
sex bombs - two blondes and a redhead. Now he gets to be part
of a front page international political controversy, too. He'll never
go home!
9625
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 7:49pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
> Who was the idiot who got QT on the jury anyway? Aren't there any
> standards left?
It's likely that he's got a better sense of film history than most of
the previous presidents. He may come off as a loon during interviews
and DVD supplements but a human being is made of many complex parts.
Most human beings.
-Jaime
9626
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 7:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
Weinstein was a big contributor to Clinton and again to Gore.
g
Our talk of justice is empty until the
largest battleship has foundered on the
forehead of a drowned man.
--Paul Celan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Sylow"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 3:07 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > No chance for the Jaoui or Kusturica?
> > >
> > > Jonathan Takagi
> >
> > There are other prizes. If I were QT I'd want a multicultural
> > contrarian prize lineup to back a Moore Palme -- assuming a
> > Palme is what Weinstein wants. Janoui is adorable, but not
> > exactly contrarian. Who knows?
>
>
> I thought Weinstein was pro Bush.
>
> But otherwise I agree with you Bill, QT will do exactly what Harvey
> wants and then everyone will suck up to Harvey even more.
>
> Who was the idiot who got QT on the jury anyway? Aren't there any
> standards left?
>
> Henrik
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
9627
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 7:59pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
Moore won't win the Palm. Relax...
My bet is on the Kore-eda -- like Grimes, I've heard great things about it.=
LA NIÑA
SANTA is too slight, and advance buzz on Assayas' script is baaaaad. A priz=
e for the
Salles seems like a no-brainer, especially for Gael, since he's getting att=
ention from
the Almodovar, too.
Who is Hans Weingartner?
I'd like to know more about GATE OF THE SUN, screening out of the competiti=
on. It's
the longest film film in Cannes at 4 hours and 38 minutes, and I've been h=
earing
about thedirector, Yousri Nasrallah, for some time, though his films only p=
lay at
specialized festivals like Locarno.
There's also a Godard installation in the Palais that's gonna be hard to mi=
ss for
anyone going...
Gabe
9628
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 9:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
> and advance buzz on Assayas' script is baaaaad.
Well, as Assayas hasn't made a bad film to date, I'm supposing advance
buzz can kiss my ass. "Advance buzz," after all, declared 'demonlover'
a pile of shit, and when all was seen and done, it turned out to be
(for me) the best film of 2002 (that I saw in 2003).
craig.
9629
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> Who was the idiot who got QT on the jury anyway? Aren't there any
> standards left?
>
> Henrik
What standards?! There has never been any rhyme nor reason to
Cannes jury composition; why should it start now? Anyway I guess QT
is as "qualified" as most of the others.
Let's also note that they even included an obscure auteurist
critic, which should be cause for rejoicing rather than sarcasm.
JPC
9630
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 10:33pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
-
> Let's also note that they even included an obscure auteurist
> critic, which should be cause for rejoicing rather than sarcasm.
>
> JPC
I wasn't being sarcastic. Peter is a friend of mine. I was being
jealous! (Read my last post.) Swinton, Turner, Theron -- aren't
you? And I obviously don't consider Tarantino to be an idiotic
choice. I'd say Henrik was being provocatively hyperbolic.
If what David tells me about Tilda Swinton is true, she's the wild
card. She might conclude that F911 is garbage and refuse to
vote for it --Tarantino be damned. Her family apparently makes
Mackintosh raincoats.
That's how one woman on the jury at Venice kept The Virgin of
the Assassins from getting anything, when Forman and Chabrol
wanted to give it the Golden Lion -- she just said, "over my dead
body!"
Unfortunately. I think it's Barbet Schroeder's best film.
9631
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 11:16pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> -
> > Let's also note that they even included an obscure auteurist
> > critic, which should be cause for rejoicing rather than sarcasm.
> >
> > JPC
>
> I wasn't being sarcastic. Peter is a friend of mine. I was being
> jealous! (Read my last post.) Swinton, Turner, Theron -- aren't
> you? And I obviously don't consider Tarantino to be an idiotic
> choice. I'd say Henrik was being provocatively hyperbolic.
>
I'm not jealous! My idea of hell (or at least purgatory) is
to be on the jury at a film festival. Three "sex bombs" would make it
even worse. I guess they should have invited you instead of Peter,
but you're probably not obscure enough.
> If what David tells me about Tilda Swinton is true, she's the wild
> card. She might conclude that F911 is garbage and refuse to
> vote for it --Tarantino be damned. Her family apparently makes
> Mackintosh raincoats.
>
That's definitely suspicious... Maybe QT could bribe her the way
Rossellini reportedly did one member of the jury (with some expensive
jewelry!) the year Padre padrone got the Palme d'or.
>
That's how one woman on the jury at Venice kept The Virgin of
> the Assassins from getting anything, when Forman and Chabrol
> wanted to give it the Golden Lion -- she just said, "over my dead
> body!"
>
> Unfortunately. I think it's Barbet Schroeder's best film.
It's at least one of his better ones; but what was the
competition at Cannes that year? Too lazy to check...
9632
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed May 5, 2004 11:37pm
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
> > and advance buzz on Assayas' script is baaaaad.
>
> Well, as Assayas hasn't made a bad film to date, I'm supposing advance
> buzz can kiss my ass.
Yes. Agreed.
Also, what is the point of Henrik's provocative hyperbole?
Not just today, but on any other day. Please, somebody tell me...
Gabe
9633
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:18am
Subject: Re: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
--- hotlove666 wrote:
Her family
> apparently makes
> Mackintosh raincoats.
It's Gus Van Sant's family that made the Mackintosh
raincoat. Tilda's family is among the very oldest in
the British Isles -- way, way above that Windsor
trash. Being the film buff he is, Tarantino is
doubtless familiar with her work and I'm sure he'll
waste no time in wooing her into doing something "Way
Beyond Uma" for him.
Whether she'll want to go along is another matter.
Cannes juries can indeed be odd/ Usually they're the
land of Extreme Compromise, with prizes going to films
that no one on the jury really liked that much but
felt they "ought" to give an award to because of
various reasons -- most of them nationalistic.
Last year the jury, headed by Chereau, broke with
tradition and gave Gus TWO awards. Everyone was
outraged. The unspeakable Vincent Gallo claimed it was
a gay Mafia coup.
But personally I blame Meg Ryan.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9634
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:51am
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
>
> It's Gus Van Sant's family that made the Mackintosh
> raincoat. Tilda's family is among the very oldest in
> the British Isles -- way, way above that Windsor
> trash.
I always get these millionaires mixed up.
9635
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:54am
Subject: Swinton & Tarantino
David: "I'm sure Tarantino would want Tilda Swinton for his next film".
That would be the slated Tarantino remake of Derek Jarman's BLUE.
Which goes into production straight after Tarantino arranges through Miramax
the multiplex release of the 'Brakhage Collection' (with live commentary by
Fred to fill up the silences) and Oliveira's latest, 'History of Portugal,
Vol. 1'.
9636
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 7:16am
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
>
> That's how one woman on the jury at Venice kept The Virgin of
> > the Assassins from getting anything, when Forman and Chabrol
> > wanted to give it the Golden Lion -- she just said, "over my dead
> > body!"
> >
> > Unfortunately. I think it's Barbet Schroeder's best film.
>
> It's at least one of his better ones; but what was the
> competition at Cannes that year? Too lazy to check...
It was Venice, actually, and the winner was The Circle, another
excellent film. It would have been a tough decision for any
jury...but the decision wasn't really theirs to make. They wanted La
virgen, the holdout decided it, and Barbet got bupkis -- or they'd
still be there. Maybe Swinton will hold out for Almodovar this year.
It can work!
I love being on juries, JP - it's almost the only way I'll go to a
festival now. They take you around, feed you, decide what films you
see and keep you away from the wheeler-dealers -- instead, you meet
new and interesting people with whom you share the disinterested
fulfillment of a task (except for the actress, who wants to make
friends with the director).
I have only seen one festival director tell one jury what he'd like
for them to pick, but I'm sure it happens. I heard about it happening
at another festival where I was a guest. Truly shocking...
9637
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 8:28am
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> Also, what is the point of Henrik's provocative hyperbole?
My point was to show, how Cannes, in my opinion, this year sat aside
certain criteria of standards by appointing QT as Jury foreman. Now,
as I understand Cannes, the Jury is a selection of film people, who
has contributed significantly to cinema. Looking at the presidents
of the last ten years...
Moreau, Eastwood, Coppola, Adjani, Scorsese, Cronenberg, Besson,
Ullman, Lynch and Chéreau
...these are in a quiet different league than QT. Admitted, he won
the Palme d'Or in 94, but considering his career today, he looks
more like a one hit wonder. Going back five more years...
Malle, Depardieu, Polanski, Bertolucci, Wenders
...QT more and more stands out as a curious choice, as the high
school kid who was allowed to become towelboy for a day at a pro
football match. Why? That is speculative. It could be that someone
wanted to control the jury Weinstein style, it could be that someone
thought that QT's obscure taste in film would bring fresh blood to
the festival, it could be that Weinstein wanted to make sure, that
the films he bought would win a price; I don't know. But to me,
appointing QT as president is like giving a life time achievement
award to Pauly Shore instead of to, lets just say, Michael Caine.
Henrik
9638
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 8:43am
Subject: QT at Cannes
After combing through
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> [more and more of the same]
So, your point is that Tarantino is an odd choice because you don't
like his films and he has "obscure" tastes?
-Jaime
9639
From:
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:40am
Subject: Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
I've never even been to a film festival, let alone been asked to sit on a
jury!
Clearly, I'm not living my life right.
Recent films seen here:
"The Police Force of New York City" (no director credited, 1910, 10 minutes)
Obviouly staged documentary, showing various kinds of police squads in 1910
New York. Lots of fun. We see an early squad of motorcycle cops. They use "high
speed motorcycles" according to the title - they must be going at least 20
miles an hour! The big finale shows that recent innovation - the canine squad.
Various cops parade out with police dogs, followed by training scenes. All the
squads have the same, fairly cornball dress uniforms. We are a long way from
special outfits for bike cops, mounted patrolmen, etc. This is the earliest
"biker movie" I've seen.
Partie de campagne / A Day in the Country (Jean Renoir, 1936, 37 minutes).
Really disturbing look at sex way back when. Both lyrical and nightmarish.
Day-trippers from Paris to the countryside were a big deal back then - they also
show up in Simenon's mystery novels.
Drôle de drame (Marcel Carné, 1937). Ingenious farce, richly plotted, and
with the good acting found in the best Tradition of Quality French films. Sweet
and recommended. Does Carné have any sort of auteurist reputation? I always
enjoy his films. He has a good eye for architecture, especially a Lang-like
fondness for staircases.
Bon Voyage (Jean-Paul Rappeneau, 2003) Thriller, but with a farce structure.
Characters are always running around, having complex interactions with each
other, etc. A lot of fun, and recommended if it shows up in a theater near you.
The setting, France on the eve of the Nazi invasion, recalls Rappeneau's
earlier "Horseman on the Roof", with great crowds of milling people running through
the shots.
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ... and Spring (Kim Ki-duk, 2003). Slow moving
drama full of striking symbolism, and some pretty imagery. This is the sort of
mixed bag that leaves one perplexed. It is original, sometimes very skilled,
and an educational experience. But it also trivializes men's bad behavior to
women, and suffers from relentless grimness. Probably most cinephiles will want
to see this... but don't expect perfection or even a succesful film.
Goodbye, Lenin! (Wolfgang Becker, 2003). Slow moving satire on the fall of
the Berlin Wall. Pretty ho-hum. A huge hit in Germany.
Mike Grost
9640
From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 1:16pm
Subject: Kim Ki-duk Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --
This is very close if not exactly how I felt about THE ISLE. Interesting, this IS
on my list to see.
-Sam
> Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ... and Spring (Kim Ki-duk, 2003). Slow moving
> drama full of striking symbolism, and some pretty imagery. This is the sort of
> mixed bag that leaves one perplexed. It is original, sometimes very skilled,
> and an educational experience. But it also trivializes men's bad behavior to
> women, and suffers from relentless grimness. Probably most cinephiles will want
> to see this...
9641
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 3:48pm
Subject: Kim Ki-duk
My thoughts on S,S,F,W...&S consist of two words: cultural
pornography.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> This is very close if not exactly how I felt about THE ISLE.
Interesting, this IS
> on my list to see.
>
> -Sam
>
> > Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ... and Spring (Kim Ki-duk, 2003).
Slow moving
> > drama full of striking symbolism, and some pretty imagery. This
is the sort of
> > mixed bag that leaves one perplexed. It is original, sometimes
very skilled,
> > and an educational experience. But it also trivializes men's bad
behavior to
> > women, and suffers from relentless grimness. Probably most
cinephiles will want
> > to see this...
9642
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:11pm
Subject: Great Moments in Film Reviewing
An ad just appeared in an Australian newspaper, splashed with a quote from a
local film reviewer:
"There have been one or two films about memory, but not like ETERNAL
SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND".
Ahem ... ONE OR TWO films about memory, ever ????????
In the immortal words of Robert Hughes: "Many art critics seem to believe,
quite sincerely, that Western art began with Warhol. The others only behave
as if it did."
Adrian
9643
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:13pm
Subject: Kim Ki-duk
I've seen both THE ISLE, and SSFWS. The ISLE has got to
have some of the most beautiful horrific scenes, with
the dynamic frenzy seen in something like BONNIE and
CLYDE.
'Cultural pornography' is an interesting comment and
accurate, though in the service of art. For me, the sex on the
rocks scene incomprehensible as a 'cure,' though apparently
it worked, for both, at least temporarily.
Contemporary films seem to need to do two things:
Get the sex scenes in. As much as I wanted to like
ABOUT ADAM, the repeated sex servings diluted the
mystery and the condiments were not tasteful.
Get multi-color displays in. People in movies are forced
to wear scarfs that no one (except me, a sometimes
harlequin flair gets going) would possibly wear. There
always are parties and celebrations... anything to get
color on the screen.
I did like the muted colors of the painted calligraphy
etched into the boards.
9644
From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:38pm
Subject: Re: Kim Ki-duk
> 'Cultural pornography' is an interesting comment and
> accurate, though in the service of art.
It may be accurate, but I'm not sure what it is.
Can either of you explain further ?
-Sam
9645
From: iangjohnston
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 6:50pm
Subject: Kim Ki-Duk (Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ... and Spring (Kim Ki-duk, 2003).
Slow moving
> drama full of striking symbolism, and some pretty imagery. This is
the sort of
> mixed bag that leaves one perplexed. It is original, sometimes
very skilled,
> and an educational experience. But it also trivializes men's bad
behavior to
> women, and suffers from relentless grimness. Probably most
cinephiles will want
> to see this... but don't expect perfection or even a succesful
film.
> Mike Grost
I'm no expert, but I suspect the film trivialises Buddhism as well.
I'm not sure that it's that original, but it's very aesthetically
pleasing if all a bit obvious in the end. But then I could never
understand why anyone could find anything more than passing interest
(ignoring the meretricious aspects) in THE ISLE.
Ian
9646
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 7:12pm
Subject: Re: Kim Ki-duk
I just meant to say that I agree with his assessment that the
sexual scenes could be described as pornographic; yet
beautiful in a way, just as the horror of THE ISLE is
beautiful.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> > 'Cultural pornography' is an interesting comment and
> > accurate, though in the service of art.
>
> It may be accurate, but I'm not sure what it is.
> Can either of you explain further ?
>
> -Sam
9647
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 7:38pm
Subject: Re: Kim Ki-duk
ER, re: color - I wear dark prescription glasses in films because
my regular ones are broken. Occasionally I'll take them off to see
if I'm getting the colors right. When I was watching Van Helsing it
didn't matter - Daviau shot it blue all the way. That has so often
been a camera style - very dark, or monochrome - that
cameramen may be reacting against it now w. lots of color
accents. But it still subsists as a style - obviously used in this
case because of the b&w roots.
9648
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 9:11pm
Subject: Kim Ki-Duk (SSFWS)
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter ... and Spring (Kim Ki-duk, 2003).
> Slow moving
> > drama full of striking symbolism, and some pretty imagery. This
is
> the sort of
> > mixed bag that leaves one perplexed. It is original, sometimes
> very skilled,
> > and an educational experience. But it also trivializes men's bad
> behavior to
> > women, and suffers from relentless grimness. Probably most
> cinephiles will want
> > to see this... but don't expect perfection or even a succesful
> film.
> > Mike Grost
>
How can it trivialize men's bad behavoir to women, when only a small
part of the film hints at it via the newspaper insert telling us
that he killed his wife?
Admitted Kim uses violence towards women as a motif and while I
havn't fully deciphered it yet, it seems to be a catalyst for Kim's
central theme: Guilt.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "iangjohnston" wrote:
> I'm no expert, but I suspect the film trivialises Buddhism as
well.
> I'm not sure that it's that original, but it's very aesthetically
> pleasing if all a bit obvious in the end. But then I could never
> understand why anyone could find anything more than passing
interest
> (ignoring the meretricious aspects) in THE ISLE.
> Ian
(continued from above)
Nor does he trivialise Buddhism. Kim, who is a catholic, uses
Buddhism, aswell as the seasons (and the entire circularity of
rebirth) to show how a man's guilt is with him from early childhood
and eventually will be until his death.
The key to SSFWS is in "Spring" where the child without thinking
about it kills the animals, which leads to establishing the guilt
literaly by the stone. The stone is brought back in "Winter" when
the boy returns as an aged man: Here is carries it because he killed
his wife (Prison didn't mean anything, he still has to suffer the
guilt, hence the stone).
Needless to say, I am a huge admirer of Kim, who I consider one of
the most interesting Asien directors of today. His central themes
are crime and punishment and guilt; And yes, he is violent towards
women in his films, but examine why the violence is there and what
it leads to, rather than just isolate and thus condemn it.
Henrik
9649
From:
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 5:21pm
Subject: Re: Kim Ki-Duk (Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --)
In a message dated 5/6/04 1:53:36 PM, nzt@m... writes:
> I suspect the film trivialises Buddhism as well. I'm not sure that it's
> that original, but it's very aesthetically pleasing if all a bit obvious in the
> end.
>
As with Mike Grost, I was actually quite perplexed by it. If it was so
obvious to you, Ian, can you explain the last part of the film? (Not a snotty
question; I'm seriously wondering.)
My take on it all is that the film doesn't so much trivialize "men's bad
behavior to women" as deem bad behavior as somehow inherent in (some? all?) men,
an affliction (predisposition?) that traps mankind (as opposed to womankind) in
an inescapable cycle. Hence the film's title (...And Spring). And hence the
boy's mistreatment of the turtle at the very end. Well, I took it as a
mistreatment to mirror the earlier mistreatment of the fish, frog and snake. Any
different takes? And I know next to nothing about Buddhism. Which goddess (?) was
overlooking (shamefully, I took it) the valley at the very end?
If indeed the film is an indictment of mankind or even of just one man, it's
rather weak in that regard, especially because the trajectory is Oedipal and
largely centered on the disappearance/murder of a woman. But there were other
payoffs - the loopy mysticism (is telekinesis a Buddhist trait?), the smoky
visuals, the calm, committed interaction with animals and surroundings. Yes, it
was slow but extremely engaging. I saw it on one hour of sleep and didn't once
doze off.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9650
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 10:29pm
Subject: Kim Ki-Duk (Re: Censored: From Today's NYTimes --)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
"My take on it all is that the film doesn't so much trivialize "men's
bad behavior to women" as deem bad behavior as somehow inherent in
(some? all?) men, an affliction (predisposition?) that traps mankind
(as opposed to womankind) in an inescapable cycle. Hence the film's
title (...And Spring). And hence the boy's mistreatment of the
turtle at the very end. Well, I took it as a mistreatment to mirror
the earlier mistreatment of the fish, frog and snake. Any different
takes? And I know next to nothing about Buddhism. Which goddess (?)
was overlooking (shamefully, I took it) the valley at the very end?"
Though I haven't seen the movie I can address the Buddhist questions.
The "goddess" was probably Kuan Yin, a bodhisattva who's name
means "to hear the cries of the world." This bodhisattava
(enlightenment being) is an archetype of compassion. Since Henryk
tells us that Kim is a Catholic and speaks of guilt, and from what
you've said above, it seems to me that Kim is putting his own
theistic spin on Buddhism. Guilt just doesn't figure in Buddhism.
The nearest Buddhist equivalent would be the concept of karma, and
karma is simply deeds. Good deeds lead to good results in the
present (or a future) lifetime and bad deeds lead to bad results in
the present (or a future) lifetime. And gender doesn't make a
(metaphysical)difference since one has lived as a man in one
lifetime, a woman in another lifetime. Nor is there any diety that
judges and punishes. The idea that bad behavior is inherent in
humankind from the beginning sounds like the Christian idea of
orginal sin to me;according to Buddhism, all beings are buddhas but
haven't realized thier true natures, and this leads to suffering for
themselves and others until they wake up (buddha means awake,) i.e.,
realize enlightenment. But, until I see the movie, these remarks are
only tentative.
Richard
9651
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 10:44pm
Subject: Kim Ki-Duk on religion
This is what he told an interviewer (Michel Ciment for POSITIF) in
Berlin last month: "I think all religions are fundamentally the
same.Their differences result from the culture and the region where
they developed, but they share the same values.When I was young I was
a Christian and wanted to become a minister. Today belonging to a
church seems of little importance to me, given the common principles.
I could just as well be Jewish or Buddhist."
9652
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 10:56pm
Subject: Re: Kim Ki-Duk (SSFWS)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> Admitted Kim uses violence towards women as a motif and while I
> havn't fully deciphered it yet, it seems to be a catalyst for Kim's
> central theme: Guilt.
>
> Henrik
Don't women take a spectacular revenge on men in "The Isle" with
its quite guiltless, impassive female protagonist going about her
business with Buster keaton-like concentration?
JPC
9653
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 11:07pm
Subject: Re: Kim Ki-Duk (SSFWS)
> Don't women take a spectacular revenge on men in "The
Isle" with
> its quite guiltless, impassive female protagonist going about
her
> business with Buster keaton-like concentration?
> JPC
Chabrol, asked what he thought of THE ISLE, jerked an invisible
line, pulling his the corner of his mouth sideways and causing
his eyes to pop out more than usual: "I've got you - I've got you
with my big HOOK!"
9654
From: bill krohn
Date: Thu May 6, 2004 11:25pm
Subject: Fwd: Re: Preston Sturges - Sullivan's Travels - opinions sought
--- jiankevin wrote:
> Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 17:18:24 -0000
> From: "jiankevin"
> To: "hotlove666"
> Subject: Re: Preston Sturges - Sullivan's Travels -
> opinions sought
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
>
> wrote:
> > Check out Stanley Cavell's discussion of The Lady
> Eve in
> > Pursuits of Happiness. Without having read it in a
> long time, I'm
> > sure he philosophizes about the implausible accent
> till the cows
> > come home and probably makes it stick...about half
> the time. I've
> > always assumed that Nouvelle Vague was Godard's
> remake of
> > Lady Eve. Probably not.
>
> Marian Keane (who wrote a study on Cavell) does the
> Criterion dvd
> commentary for LADY EVE and refers to Cavell
> frequently. And I'd say
> it sticks about half the time (if I'd accepted the
> other half I'd
> probably have to break into a chorus of "Anything
> Goes")
>
> > As for Sullivan's Travels, few more divided
> artists ever walked the
> > earth than Preston Sturges - his mother hung out
> with Isadora
> > Duncan and his father was a businessman with no
> interest in
> > culture whatsoever.
>
> re: Preston's mom and Isadora, your choice of phrase
> is interesting
> given that Duncan died of strangulation when a long
> scarf Sturges'
> mother gave her got caught in the wheel of a car.
>
> The only thing I can't justify in Sullivan's
> > Travels is the last line, "the whole cockeyed
> caravan." That's a
> > vile phrase no matter how you cut it.
>
> Yeah, but what about the lines that precede it:
> "There's a lot to be
> said for making people laugh. Did you know that
> that's all some
> people have?" Going back to my earlier point, does
> "some people"
> refer to the great unwashed, or to entertainers such
> as
> Sullivan/Sturges? I think there's a strong
> possibility that Sturges
> is implicating himself with that line, that he's
> part of
> this "cockeyed caravan," so that I read that line as
> one expressing
> more bewilderment at the mysteries of society than
> disdain at its
> base depravity. This kind of tense engagement and
> self-implication is
> much more than what you'd get from a snooty,
> nihilistic judge of
> humanity like Woody Allen.
>
> > can you recall any significant
> > debates where you found yourself arguing that what
> might look
> > like a flaw in a film (usually in terms of its
> "craft") may
> actually be
> > an artistic virtue that cuts straight to the heart
> of what the film
> is
> > about?
> >
> > Hundreds of them.
>
> Uh, name one? (aw shucks, I do I really look that
> wet behind the
> ears?)
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9655
From: Raymond P.
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 2:50am
Subject: Re: Kim Ki-duk
You are much nicer than me. This is what I said before (yes, I was pissed off):
This film is a FRAUD - a bunch of mudraking faux-mystical stuff interspersed with
ludicrous over-acting. It starts off with the dullest of all conventions - the cute kid that
make you go "Awwwww". Compared to "Why Has Bodhi Dharma Left for the East?", which
is a REAL movie of Buddhist philosophy, this film is obviously done by a person with no
real knowledge of buddhism at all. Instead, we have a monk who does martial arts
(CLICHE!), has the power to rotate the entire moving house (??), a lame lesson about how
lust inextricably lead to murder (huh?) and overdone art direction which makes the whole
seem so damn "exotic", when reality dictates that monks live modestly, and not with
ornate ponds and expensive carp fishes. Lastly, the film is thought-provoking only in the
"Complete Idiot's Guide to Zen Morality" sense. If you buy into this crap, then you've been
suckered by Kim's overarching need to feel as if he is somehow an important filmmaker -
he's not.
I also have several choice comments on Samaritan Girl, which I won't go into now.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee" wrote:
> My thoughts on S,S,F,W...&S consist of two words: cultural
> pornography.
9656
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 4:25am
Subject: Cassavetes
Oh, joyous day!
From the official Criterion website:
Criterion is preparing a boxed set of five films by legendary
American independent John Cassavetes. In addition to new high-
definition transfers of Shadows, Faces, A Woman Under the Influence,
The Killing of a Chinese Bookie and Opening Night, the set will
include Charles Kiselyak's award-winning 200 minute documentary, A
Constant Forge, along with exclusive new interviews with Cassavetes
collaborators Gena Rowlands, Peter Falk, Ben Gazzara, Seymour Cassel,
Lelia Goldoni, and others. The set is slated for fall release. Watch
this space for more details.
9657
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 4:47am
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
I'm sorry that "Love Streams" isn't included. I think
it's Cassavetes' masterpeice.
--- Aaron Graham wrote:
> Oh, joyous day!
>
> From the official Criterion website:
>
> Criterion is preparing a boxed set of five films by
> legendary
> American independent John Cassavetes. In addition to
> new high-
> definition transfers of Shadows, Faces, A Woman
> Under the Influence,
> The Killing of a Chinese Bookie and Opening Night,
> the set will
> include Charles Kiselyak's award-winning 200 minute
> documentary, A
> Constant Forge, along with exclusive new interviews
> with Cassavetes
> collaborators Gena Rowlands, Peter Falk, Ben
> Gazzara, Seymour Cassel,
> Lelia Goldoni, and others. The set is slated for
> fall release. Watch
> this space for more details.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9658
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 5:56am
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I'm sorry that "Love Streams" isn't included. I think
> it's Cassavetes' masterpeice.
I happen to agree. I'd certainly prefer it over "Opening Night".
Of course, I'd also love for "Husbands" to be included (complete with
their disruptive talk show appearances to promote the film), but I
guess that was released by Columbia so there's no chance of that.
Longshot question: does anyone know if the music from "Love Streams"
(by Bo Harwood) was ever released in any format? I don't believe so,
but I've never been 100 percent sure.
-Aaron
9659
From: Andy Rector
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 6:00am
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
Love Streams should've been the first thing, it's been unavailable for
years. Even so, the prospect of seeing Killing of... in a nice
transfer is lovely.
George Kouvaros' new book on Cassavetes WHERE DOES IT HAPPEN? seems
an exciting bit of non-Carney scholarship. Any book in english with
references to Nicole Brenez gets my attention, especially in the C.
arena. Does anyone know if there are any forthcoming translations of
Brenez's work?
Yours,
andy
9660
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 1:45pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I'm sorry that "Love Streams" isn't included. I think
> it's Cassavetes' masterpeice.
>
>
> Me too!
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9661
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 1:50pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> > I'm sorry that "Love Streams" isn't included. I think
> > it's Cassavetes' masterpeice.
>
>
> I happen to agree. I'd certainly prefer it over "Opening Night".
> Of course, I'd also love for "Husbands" to be included (complete
with
> their disruptive talk show appearances to promote the film), but I
> guess that was released by Columbia so there's no chance of that.
>
Maybe Columbia (or whoever owns Columbia and/or the rights) will
see the light some day and release it on DVD. It's JC's other
masterpiece.
JPC
> Longshot question: does anyone know if the music from "Love
Streams"
> (by Bo Harwood) was ever released in any format? I don't believe
so,
> but I've never been 100 percent sure.
>
> -Aaron
9662
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 1:57pm
Subject: Brigitte Bardot is alive and full of bile
Okay, I guess I'm out of the loop: this story gave me two shocks at
once: (1) that Bardot is still alive, if not exactly aging with a
Deneuve/Huppert grace and (2) she's a repulsive human being.
Tears, New Race-Hate Trial for France's Bardot
Thu May 6, 2:57 PM ET
PARIS (Reuters) - Brigitte Bardot, the French former film goddess
turned animal-rights activist, broke down in tears Thursday when she
left a Paris courtroom after testifying at her latest trial on
charges of inciting racial hatred.
Bardot, 69, previously convicted of similar offences, is on trial
over her book "A Scream in the Silence," an outspoken attack on gays,
immigrants and the jobless which shocked France.
Bardot, in her 1960s heyday the epitome of French feminine beauty,
told Thursday's hearing that France was going through a period of
decadence and said she opposed inter-racial marriage.
"I was born in 1934, at that time inter-racial marriage wasn't
approved of," she said.
Of her prose style, Bardot said, "I'm not Balzac," a reference to the
19th century French literary great. That drew a wry, "The court had
noticed," from the presiding judge.
In her book, the former film idol attacks homosexuals as "fairground
freaks," condemns the presence of women in government and denounces
the "scandal of unemployment benefit." She also criticized
the "Islamization of France" -- which has a five million strong
Muslim minority -- and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of
Islam."
The book, published last year, dismayed a country whose national
football team was held up as a model of the nation's ethnic
integration following its 1998 World Cup victory.
The passages prompted anti-racism groups to launch legal proceedings
against the former star, who turned her back on cinema after 46 films
to concentrate on animal welfare.
Bardot denies the charges, saying her book did not target Islam or
people from North Africa.
No stranger to controversy, she was fined $3,250 in January 1998 for
inciting racial hatred in comments about civilian massacres in
Algeria. Four months earlier, a court fined her for saying France was
being overrun by sheep-slaughtering Muslims.
9663
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 2:24pm
Subject: Re: Brigitte Bardot is alive and full of bile
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> Okay, I guess I'm out of the loop: this story gave me two shocks
at
> once: (1) that Bardot is still alive, if not exactly aging with a
> Deneuve/Huppert grace and (2) she's a repulsive human being.
>
Being just one year younger than Bardot I take exception to your
apparent astonishment at the fact that a 69-year-old person is still
alive.
Given the nature of her film persona and of her "talents" -- if any -
- it is understandable that she vanished from the screen in early
middle-age rather than try to play grandmother roles.
Let's remember, though, that beside being a "sex symbol' of a
magnitude comparable to Monroe, she was also the darling of early
auteurists -- with both Cahiers du Cinema people and Positif people
agreeing just for once in their drooling worship of her assets.
As for her being a "repulsive human being" I would rather say that
she is (always has been) a less than bright woman (and certainly an
awful actress) whose sex appeal was the only claim to any kind of
recognition. Having lost it she became bitter and embraced all the
prejudices of less than bright people -- racism and general
intolerance, inevitably. Her feelings are shared by a fair amount of
the French population, alas.
JPC
> Tears, New Race-Hate Trial for France's Bardot
> Thu May 6, 2:57 PM ET
>
> PARIS (Reuters) - Brigitte Bardot, the French former film goddess
> turned animal-rights activist, broke down in tears Thursday when
she
> left a Paris courtroom after testifying at her latest trial on
> charges of inciting racial hatred.
>
> Bardot, 69, previously convicted of similar offences, is on trial
> over her book "A Scream in the Silence," an outspoken attack on
gays,
> immigrants and the jobless which shocked France.
>
> Bardot, in her 1960s heyday the epitome of French feminine beauty,
> told Thursday's hearing that France was going through a period of
> decadence and said she opposed inter-racial marriage.
>
> "I was born in 1934, at that time inter-racial marriage wasn't
> approved of," she said.
>
> Of her prose style, Bardot said, "I'm not Balzac," a reference to
the
> 19th century French literary great. That drew a wry, "The court had
> noticed," from the presiding judge.
>
> In her book, the former film idol attacks homosexuals
as "fairground
> freaks," condemns the presence of women in government and denounces
> the "scandal of unemployment benefit." She also criticized
> the "Islamization of France" -- which has a five million strong
> Muslim minority -- and the "underground and dangerous infiltration
of
> Islam."
>
> The book, published last year, dismayed a country whose national
> football team was held up as a model of the nation's ethnic
> integration following its 1998 World Cup victory.
>
> The passages prompted anti-racism groups to launch legal
proceedings
> against the former star, who turned her back on cinema after 46
films
> to concentrate on animal welfare.
>
> Bardot denies the charges, saying her book did not target Islam or
> people from North Africa.
>
> No stranger to controversy, she was fined $3,250 in January 1998
for
> inciting racial hatred in comments about civilian massacres in
> Algeria. Four months earlier, a court fined her for saying France
was
> being overrun by sheep-slaughtering Muslims.
9664
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 2:32pm
Subject: Cassavetes
Regarding the Criterion box, the reason (or a primary reason) why those particular films are the ones included -- as opposed to, say, 'Husbands,' 'Love Streams,' etc. -- is because Criterion acquired the rights from Pioneer for those five films, which were the only the company held and had released on DVD with awful transfers, pan-and-scan when applicable. Criterion could still conceivably obtain the rights at a later time to some of Cassavetes's other films. Looking forward to rewatching the excellent 3-hour+ documentary 'A Constant Forge,' also included in the boxset.
And hoping that 'The Killing of a Chinese Bookie' is the long version (which, if Gena holds the rights, could quite possibly be the case -- she's very involved in the boxset's formulation); fingers crossed...
craig.
9665
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 2:51pm
Subject: Re: Brigitte Bardot is alive and full of bile
> Being just one year younger than Bardot I take exception to
your
> apparent astonishment at the fact that a 69-year-old person is
still
> alive.
That's not what I said. I thought she'd passed away, when in fact
she left the movies. I don't do very well following screen icons.
> As for her being a "repulsive human being" I would rather say
> that
> she is (always has been) a less than bright woman (and certainly an
> awful actress) whose sex appeal was the only claim to any kind of
> recognition.
I would rather say what I said.
-Jaime
9666
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 3:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Brigitte Bardot is alive and full of bile
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Let's remember, though, that beside being a "sex
> symbol' of a
> magnitude comparable to Monroe, she was also the
> darling of early
> auteurists -- with both Cahiers du Cinema people and
> Positif people
> agreeing just for once in their drooling worship of
> her assets.
>
Simone de Beauvoir was a big fan as well.
So much for mother of feminism. . .
> As for her being a "repulsive human being" I would
> rather say that
> she is (always has been) a less than bright woman
> (and certainly an
> awful actress) whose sex appeal was the only claim
> to any kind of
> recognition.
And that's quite sad. I've enjoyd her performances in
films other than the sublime masterpiece that is "Le
Mepris" and was greatly amused by her "Bonnie and
Clyde" duet with Serge Gainsbourg.
Having lost it she became bitter and
> embraced all the
> prejudices of less than bright people -- racism and
> general
> intolerance, inevitably. Her feelings are shared by
> a fair amount of
> the French population, alas.
> JPC
Alas.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9667
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 3:09pm
Subject: Re: Brigitte Bardot is alive and full of bile
> Okay, I guess I'm out of the loop: this story gave me two shocks at
> once: (1) that Bardot is still alive, if not exactly aging with a
> Deneuve/Huppert grace and (2) she's a repulsive human being.
What surprised me here was that Bardot could be prosecuted (more than
once) for this. What's the mechanism that protects free speech in
France? If I'm not mistaken, she'd need to pose a more imminent threat
of violence to be taken to court for this in the US, even in the current
post-9/11 diminished-First-Amendment climate. - Dan
9668
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 3:17pm
Subject: Re: Brigitte Bardot is alive and full of bile
>
> What surprised me here was that Bardot could be prosecuted (more
than
> once) for this. What's the mechanism that protects free speech in
> France? If I'm not mistaken, she'd need to pose a more imminent
threat
> of violence to be taken to court for this in the US, even in the
current
> post-9/11 diminished-First-Amendment climate. - Dan
Same thing for inciting anti-Semitism in Germany. The First Amendment
was a purely American invention until our certifiably insane Attorney
General (backed by a majority of Americans) decided it's a luxury we
can do without.
There's a feminist scenario hidden in all this somewhere - she wasn't
a prisoner like Linda Lovelace, but she was the Linda Lovelace of her
day in the public eye, and it seems to have marked her
psychologically. Hey, at least she wants a fair shake for bunny
rabbits.
9669
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 3:21pm
Subject: Re: Brigitte Bardot is alive and full of bile
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Okay, I guess I'm out of the loop: this story gave me two shocks
at
> > once: (1) that Bardot is still alive, if not exactly aging with
a
> > Deneuve/Huppert grace and (2) she's a repulsive human being.
>
> What surprised me here was that Bardot could be prosecuted (more
than
> once) for this. What's the mechanism that protects free speech in
> France? If I'm not mistaken, she'd need to pose a more imminent
threat
> of violence to be taken to court for this in the US, even in the
current
> post-9/11 diminished-First-Amendment climate. - Dan
JP could probably enlighten us, but someone told me on the other
board that France has a more broad and complicated justice system
than Americans are accustomed to, and that these aren't criminal
charges as we know them.
-Jaime
9670
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 4:00pm
Subject: Deneuve on Bardot
Several years ago, Deneuve weighed in with her own opinion of Bardot
after Bardot had been publicly attacking her. (I forget why Bardot
was mouthing off about Deneuve.) Deneuve described how sad and
pathetic this entire spectacle of Bardot's decline has been. "She's
like a sauce that's turned," said Deneuve. "She loves animals but
loving animals is very easy."
9671
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 4:14pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> Regarding the Criterion box, the reason (or a primary reason) why
those particular films are the ones included -- as opposed to,
say, 'Husbands,' 'Love Streams,' etc. -- is because Criterion
acquired the rights from Pioneer for those five films -
So the only other film not to be released in this set is "Minnie And
Moscowitz", which was also released by Pioneer on dvd (with
commentary by Rowlands and Seymour Cassel, no less).
I find that a bit odd because like you said it seems to contain all
of the former Pioneer releases. Maybe Criterion deemed that too much
of a comedy for the set? - though I'd argue that you really
need "Minnie and Moscowitz" to fully enjoy Val Avery's performance
in "Faces".
-Aaron
9672
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 5:25pm
Subject: Re: Deneuve on Bardot
"She's
> like a sauce that's turned," said Deneuve. "She loves animals
but
> loving animals is very easy."
Well said. At the same time, animals are dumb creatures whose
beauty and innocence are no defense against predatory Man.
9673
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 5:27pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
>
> So the only other film not to be released in this set is "Minnie
And
> Moscowitz"
Not to be pedantic, but Four Star has A pair of Boots, a 30-minute
masterpiece JC direcetd for The Lloyd Bridges Theatre. There is
othe rtv work, but this is the only thing I've seen that compares to
the features. Add it to your lobbying list, and maybe someone eill
add it as an extra. It belongs w. Woman, which French novelist
Pierre Rottenberg said - without knowing Boots - is about people
who are refighting the Civil war.
9674
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 5:43pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
> is about people
> who are refighting the Civil war.
You lost me there.
-Jaime
9675
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 6:38pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> > is about people
> > who are refighting the Civil war.
>
> You lost me there.
>
> -Jaime
He lost ME when I read the essay in 1977 - then in the 90s I saw
A Pair of Boots and understood. It's about a one-night truce after
a bloody battle of the Civil War between the survivors on both
sides. They need to rest, so for one night they can be at peace,
talking to each other, trading, acting like civilized people. Then a
Confederate solidier who has no boots tries to steal a pair from
a sleeping Union soldier, and bloody fighting breaks out again.
It's the same basic rhythm of war-truce-war that structures the
relationship between Rowlands and Falk, repeated over the
length of a feature. Rottenberg believed that they are literally
refighting the Civil War, which had seeped into the American soil
and that the still unresolved conflict between two completely
different cultures and sets of values is expressing itself in the
Rowlands-Falk couple, analogous to the rural South and the
urban North.
Actually, the analogy which Rottenberg was astute enough pick
up on - while a real American archetype - was transmitted in a
less mystical way: Cassavetes was unconsciously
remembering a Pair of Boots, the finest work he ever did for tv.
The micro-interactions of peace and war in APOB are created
with the same organic sense of human relations that makes the
features such wonders, even though the protagonists are two
groups, and even though the whole thing is happening on a fake
hillside with plastic shrubbery in an early 60s tv studio. This is
the one film Cassavetes made "inside the system" that didn't get
adulterated, and it allows us to dream about what might have
been if the system had been flexible enough to accomodate his
unconventional vision. It was made during the lead-up to Faces -
John Marley plays the commander of the Union troops, and
Seymour Cassell is barely glimpsed as a foot-soldier.
Doug Brodoff, then at Four Star, showed me APOB and another
Cassavetes episode of the Lloyd Bridges Theatre in 1994, and I
showed APOB to Marco Mueller, who premiered it on the giant
screen in the Pizza Grande for an audience of 7000 Europeans.
Godard saw it when Freddy Buache was screening films from
the Festival for him at the Swiss Cinematheque and wanted
Gaumont to pair it with Germany 90 when it was shown
theatrically, but Four Star started acting like dicks and he ended
up pairing his film with Chahine's Destiny instead. MOMA wanted
it for preservation, and Four Star wouldn't give it to them. Doug
had left in the meantime and is now living in Paris - I'm sure he
took a Beta SP with him when he left. He gives an account of his
days at Four Star in the last issue of the magazine of the Paris
Cinematheque.
9676
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 8:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cassavetes
>So the only other film not to be released in this set is "Minnie And
>Moscowitz", which was also released by Pioneer on dvd (with
>commentary by Rowlands and Seymour Cassel, no less).
>I find that a bit odd because like you said it seems to contain all
>of the former Pioneer releases. Maybe Criterion deemed that too much
>of a comedy for the set? - though I'd argue that you really
>need "Minnie and Moscowitz" to fully enjoy Val Avery's performance
>in "Faces".
Actually, 'Minnie and Moscowitz' is out from Universal. Take a look at the graphic on the Amazon page:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6305759332/qid=1083960255/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2__i2_xgl74/104-0987125-4651116?v=glance&s=dvd
In addition to 'Husbands,' I'd also like to see a Criterion 'Gloria' -- although one seems to be out now, but from what publisher...?
best,
craig.
9677
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 9:43pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
> Actually, 'Minnie and Moscowitz' is out from Universal. Take a
look at the graphic on the Amazon page:
Yeah, I ended up putting on the disc today while working and noticed
that it is actually Anchor Bay entertainment that released it.
Ah well, I'd still of liked it to be included in the set!
-Aaron
9678
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Fri May 7, 2004 10:22pm
Subject: Catherine Deneuve "diaries"
After seeing the Deneuve quote today, I started
wondering if anyone on the list has read her book
of journal entries written while filming (called
"À l'ombre de moi-même"). Any thoughts?
Jonathan Takagi
9679
From: Andy Rector
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 5:39am
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
This is immense!! Thank you Bill.
For the idea and the film!
9680
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 2:49pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
> in the 90s I saw
> A Pair of Boots and understood. It's about a one-night truce after
> a bloody battle of the Civil War between the survivors on both
> sides. They need to rest, so for one night they can be at peace,
> talking to each other, trading, acting like civilized people. Then a
> Confederate solidier who has no boots tries to steal a pair from
> a sleeping Union soldier, and bloody fighting breaks out again.
Sounds a bit like the short-lived Zeb/reb rapprochement in Ford's "Civil War" episode in HTWWW -- evidently the same year (1962)! (Or most likely a leitmotiv of Civil War stories? -- the personal truce betrayed)
9681
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 3:39pm
Subject: Elaine May
There's a rather nice piece about her in the "San
Francisco Chronicle"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/08/DDGJD6GOVA1.DTL
Curiously it refers to "Mikey and Nicky" as being
"unfinished." Does anybody know why? I think it's one
of the most "finished" films ever made and her
greatest achievement. Mike Nichols is her most famous
collaboator, but Cassavetes was her most accomplished one.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9682
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 5:47pm
Subject: Rowlands vs. Carney
Has anyone taken a look at Ray Carney's website detailing his
difficulties with Gena Rowlands over this first cut of SHADOWS as
well as over the alternate Library of Congress print of FACES?
According to Carney, when he phoned Rowlands to tell her about his
discovery of this first cut of SHADOWS she claimed to have been
unaware of such a version, even though its history has been well
documented. And of course not only have she and Al Ruban now hired
attorneys to prevent the film from being screened she has also
expressed a desire to have this print of SHADOWS handed over to her
for the purposes of destruction.
It is entirely possible that Rowlands has forgotten what took place
over 40 years ago in relation to SHADOWS, especially as she was not
involved in the production of the film. But it may also be possible
that she has other motives here, from firmly believing that the cuts
of SHADOWS and FACES in distribution at the moment are the only ones
which Cassavetes himself would want to have shown, to a possible
antipathy she has towards Carney, the self-proclaimed world's leading
expert on Cassavetes. (Carney was originally supposed to do the audio
commentary for Criterion but she requested that they not have him do
it.) She may not want to destroy the film at all but simply detach
it from Carney.
I find it curious that, to my knowledge at least, there has been no
significant outcry over Rowlands's actions here, either from other
filmmakers (although probably many of them would agree with her in
not wanting early cuts of their own films to be unearthed and
screened)to film scholars, horrified at the possibility that such a
film could be destroyed by the heirs of an estate, either through
ignorance over the work's importance or through ulterior motives.
And has Carney so isolated himself from the rest of the world of film
scholarship that there is a reluctance to get involved in the
situation since that would place people on Carney's side, whose own
website speaks for itself in terms of his attitdues? (There is a yet-
to-be-finished page on this site attacking two members of this group,
Jonathan and Adrian, for what Carney presumably regards as their
temerity in criticizing his work on Cassavetes.)
If nothing else, someone needs to convince Rowlands and Ruban that,
at the very least, these alternate versions of Cassavetes's films
should be preserved by the archives for the purposes of scholarly
research. They are no doubt invaluable records of how Cassavetes
shaped his films in the editing room, a sometimes never-ending
process which often led to these multiple versions which keep turning
up in unexpected places.
9683
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: Rowlands vs. Carney
Quite frankly I don't trust anything that Carney says.
He seems to think he "owns" Cassavetes -- and Capra
too.
As Cassavetes recut his film into the "Shadows" we
know today it would be highly deliterious to have this
ealrier cut put into circulation as some sort of
"truer" version. And I say this knowing that Jonas
Mekas is on record as preferring this first cut of
"Shadows" to the released one.
It would be nice if it were made available for
scholarly study -- and this other cut of "Faces" as
well. But I really don't think it's in the interest of
Cassavetes' legacy to have a version of the film he
came to disapprove of be put out there.
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
> Has anyone taken a look at Ray Carney's website
> detailing his
> difficulties with Gena Rowlands over this first cut
> of SHADOWS as
> well as over the alternate Library of Congress print
> of FACES?
> According to Carney, when he phoned Rowlands to tell
> her about his
> discovery of this first cut of SHADOWS she claimed
> to have been
> unaware of such a version, even though its history
> has been well
> documented. And of course not only have she and Al
> Ruban now hired
> attorneys to prevent the film from being screened
> she has also
> expressed a desire to have this print of SHADOWS
> handed over to her
> for the purposes of destruction.
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9684
From: Doug Cummings
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 6:29pm
Subject: Re: Rowlands vs. Carney
>It is entirely possible that Rowlands has forgotten what took place
>over 40 years ago in relation to SHADOWS, especially as she was not
>involved in the production of the film. But it may also be possible
>that she has other motives here, from firmly believing that the cuts
>of SHADOWS and FACES in distribution at the moment are the only ones
>which Cassavetes himself would want to have shown, to a possible
>antipathy she has towards Carney, the self-proclaimed world's leading
>expert on Cassavetes. (Carney was originally supposed to do the audio
>commentary for Criterion but she requested that they not have him do
>it.) She may not want to destroy the film at all but simply detach
>it from Carney.
Joe, I think this is a distinct possibility and I would be very
interested in hearing what others think. Carney has a pretty vicious
tongue toward specific people and I'm sure it doesn't help
matters--in Rowlands' eyes at least--that he's so closely connected
with the newly-surfaced cut.
Carney, in fact, just posted this on his site. I guess this is what
you were referring to? -Doug
******
From: Peter Becker
President of Criterion Video
The Criterion Collection
Subject: Bad news
Dear Ray,
I'm sorry to have to tell you that we won't be including your
commentary or essay in the Cassavetes box. Gena Rowlands feels that
you have violated her rights and failed to respect John Cassavetes'
wishes, and she has informed us that under the circumstances, she
will not participate in or approve the release with you as a part of
it. Cassavetes entrusted his legacy to Gena, so for us, her word is
final. I wish it hadn't come to this.
Sincerely,
Peter
9685
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes
> Sounds a bit like the short-lived Zeb/reb rapprochement in
Ford's "Civil War" episode in HTWWW -- evidently the same year
(1962)! (Or most likely a leitmotiv of Civil War stories? -- the
personal truce betrayed)\\
Very much so, although Ford's The Civil War (described by Straub
as "the most objective film ever made") has a Brechtian blackboard
style, whereas JC puts you in the thick of things. Doug researched
the history for an article we cosigned in CdC in late '94 - the
writer was a Civil war buff who wasn't, I believe, based in LA.
Anyone who wants to know more about A Pair of Boots or other Four
Star gems can contact Doug in Paris at brodoff@h....
9686
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 6:45pm
Subject: Re: Rowlands vs. Carney
> If nothing else, someone needs to convince Rowlands and Ruban that,
> at the very least, these alternate versions of Cassavetes's films
> should be preserved by the archives for the purposes of scholarly
> research. They are no doubt invaluable records of how Cassavetes
> shaped his films in the editing room, a sometimes never-ending
> process which often led to these multiple versions which keep
turning
> up in unexpected places.
I forwarded Joe's whole e-mail to Christa Fuller, who is Rowlands'
neighbor and good friend. It's up to her if she wants to be involved.
Re: Carney - What goes around comes around. He's a bad guy.
Re: versions - They are of course of vital importance to preserve,
and there'll be a lot more of them around now that we're in the age
of Avid. I bought a roughcut of Moulin Rouge (headed "The London
Cut") at a used record store last year. It was on a cassette bearing
the label of the music video division of Bande a part
(Tarantino/Bender), and it was labelled as "Mr. Pink's" copy - an
internal reference system I presume they base on the code names in
Reservoir Dogs. It's of very poor quality visually, but it is a
completely different cut which was presumably lent to someone who was
making a music video for the release.
Selznick actually preserved a silent fine-grain of his next-to-last
cut of Paradine Case which I hope to show in Bologna - it
demonstrates with graphic simplicity what filmmakers know from
endless horrible experiences: how a producer can fuck up your film.
Selznick had also saved Hitchcock's 3-hour rough cut, but it was
destroyed in a flood in Austin in the 80s.
9687
From: L C
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 6:50pm
Subject: Re: Bardot, Le Pen and haine raciale
Mrs Bardot has already been condemned for these kinds of crime. Free speech is restricted in France in this case, the law is given at this site http://www.pointdecontact.net/loi.html I quote "
La haine raciale et l'apologie des crimes
de la Diffamation et de l'Injure.
Article 32 de la loi du 29 juillet 1881
(Modifié par Ordonnance 2000-916 2000-09-19 art. 3 JORF 22 septembre 2000 en vigueur le 1er janvier 2002)
La diffamation commise envers les particuliers par l'un des moyens énoncés en l'article 23 sera punie d'une amende de 12.000 euros.
La diffamation commise par les mêmes moyens envers une personne ou un groupe de personnes à raison de leur origine ou de leur appartenance ou de leur non-appartenance à une ethnie, une nation, une race ou une religion déterminée sera punie d'un an d'emprisonnement et de 45.000 euros d'amende ou de l'une de ces deux peines seulement.
9688
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 6:52pm
Subject: Re: Elaine May
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> There's a rather nice piece about her in the "San
> Francisco Chronicle"
>
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
f=/c/a/2004/05/08/DDGJD6GOVA1.DTL
>
> Curiously it refers to "Mikey and Nicky" as being
> "unfinished." Does anybody know why? I think it's one
> of the most "finished" films ever made and her
> greatest achievement. Mike Nichols is her most famous
> collaboator, but Cassavetes was her most accomplished one.
>
>
>
> Agreed. Of course it's by no means unfinished, but this may
have something to do with the disagreements about the editing that
resulted in at least two different versions. In 1986 May introduced
her version at MOMA (I was there) in which Mikey's treachery is
revealed only toward the end, after he has played the good guy trying
to help his friend throughout the film. In a longer version released
by Paramount and which I have seen only on TV, there is a scene early
in the film where Mikey phones a mafia killer to tell him where Nicky
is hiding. Clearly this was one of the many scenes May finally
decided not to use, but which found its way in the released version
(or at least in the TV release -- I didn't see the released version
theatrically).
MIkey and Nicky is an extraordinary movie, and the closest thing
to a Cassavetes film ever made by someone who is not Cassavetes. Most
of the footage (of which she filmed an enormous amount) consists in
semi-improvised, or totally improvised, scenes between Cassavetes and
Falk. My favorite May anecdote comes from a member of the crew.
During a take in exteriors the two actors walk down a street then
part company and disappear each in a different direction. May says
nothing and the camera goes on rolling. Minutes pass. Nothing
happens. Finally the DP says "cut!". May blows up: "I'm the director!
I'm the one who says 'Cut'!" -- " But the actors are gone..." And May
replies, "Yes, but they might come back." This is pure Cassavetes...
JPC
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9689
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 6:58pm
Subject: Re: Bardot, Le Pen and haine raciale
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, L C wrote:
> Mrs Bardot has already been condemned for these kinds of crime.
Free speech is restricted in France in this case, the law is given at
this site http://www.pointdecontact.net/loi.html I quote "
Luc
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks a lot, Luc, for giving us the text of the law.
Are you a new member? If so, welcome!
JPC
9690
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 7:04pm
Subject: De cierta manera / One Way or Another
Just watched a video of this startlingly good film by Sara Gomez
Yera (completed in, I gather, post-production by Tomas Gutierrez
Alea) from the '70s. I see that Fred Camper wrote a rave capsule on
it for the Chicago Reader; does anyone else know and perhaps love
this movie, notable for many reasons, including being the first
Cuban film directed by a woman?
--Zach
9691
From: Chris Fujiwara
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 7:33pm
Subject: Re: Elaine May
As JPC says, the misconception that Mikey and Nicky was "unfinished"
probably comes from the fact that Paramount took the film away from
May (as they had done earlier in the case of A New Leaf) before she
had finished cutting it. Her subsequent recut can certainly be
regarded as authoritative.
The shot of Falk making the phone call is in the Warner Home Video
release of the film, but not (as I recall) in the 35mm prints I've
seen. I haven't seen the more recent Anchor Bay video release.
Carol Matthau's autobiography, Among the Porcupines, contains a very
interesting account of the making of the film. According to Matthau
(who played, so brilliantly, under a different name, Cassavetes'
abused girlfriend), May's script was a masterpiece, but rather than
shoot it, she encouraged Cassavetes and Falk to improvise the whole
film.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> > There's a rather nice piece about her in the "San
> > Francisco Chronicle"
> >
> > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
> f=/c/a/2004/05/08/DDGJD6GOVA1.DTL
> >
> > Curiously it refers to "Mikey and Nicky" as being
> > "unfinished." Does anybody know why? I think it's one
> > of the most "finished" films ever made and her
> > greatest achievement. Mike Nichols is her most famous
> > collaboator, but Cassavetes was her most accomplished one.
> >
> >
> >
> > Agreed. Of course it's by no means unfinished, but this may
> have something to do with the disagreements about the editing that
> resulted in at least two different versions. In 1986 May introduced
> her version at MOMA (I was there) in which Mikey's treachery is
> revealed only toward the end, after he has played the good guy
trying
> to help his friend throughout the film. In a longer version
released
> by Paramount and which I have seen only on TV, there is a scene
early
> in the film where Mikey phones a mafia killer to tell him where
Nicky
> is hiding. Clearly this was one of the many scenes May finally
> decided not to use, but which found its way in the released version
> (or at least in the TV release -- I didn't see the released version
> theatrically).
>
> MIkey and Nicky is an extraordinary movie, and the closest thing
> to a Cassavetes film ever made by someone who is not Cassavetes.
Most
> of the footage (of which she filmed an enormous amount) consists in
> semi-improvised, or totally improvised, scenes between Cassavetes
and
> Falk. My favorite May anecdote comes from a member of the crew.
> During a take in exteriors the two actors walk down a street then
> part company and disappear each in a different direction. May says
> nothing and the camera goes on rolling. Minutes pass. Nothing
> happens. Finally the DP says "cut!". May blows up: "I'm the
director!
> I'm the one who says 'Cut'!" -- " But the actors are gone..." And
May
> replies, "Yes, but they might come back." This is pure Cassavetes...
>
> JPC
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9692
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 9:53pm
Subject: Re: Rowlands vs. Carney
> It is entirely possible that Rowlands has forgotten what took place
> over 40 years ago in relation to SHADOWS, especially as she was not
> involved in the production of the film. But it may also be possible
> that she has other motives here, from firmly believing that the
cuts
> of SHADOWS and FACES in distribution at the moment are the only
ones
> which Cassavetes himself would want to have shown, to a possible
> antipathy she has towards Carney, the self-proclaimed world's
leading
> expert on Cassavetes...
I'd like to think the latter here. That being said, if Rowlands
prefers this cut of SHADOWS to be destroyed than it should really be
up to her. She was married to him for over thirty years and is the
logical choice to assume what Cassavetes would have wanted.
It seems that the memory of JC and his films has been re-written
according to Mr. Carney's agenda and has been under his control for
quite some time - owning the www.cassavetes.com url & claiming to be
the "world's expert" on his films, for example.
Of course, this is coming from a student who got into JC's films in
the mid-1990s when the only literature availible seems to have Mr
Carney's imprint all over it so forgive me if there are other
definitive writings on his films that I'm not aware of.
-Aaron
9693
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 10:04pm
Subject: Re: Elaine May
> Carol Matthau's autobiography, Among the Porcupines, contains a
very
> interesting account of the making of the film. According to Matthau
> (who played, so brilliantly, under a different name, Cassavetes'
> abused girlfriend), May's script was a masterpiece, but rather than
> shoot it, she encouraged Cassavetes and Falk to improvise the whole
> film.
That would be a fascinating script to seek out to see the differences!
Personally, I think the loose, improvised structure really helped the
all-in-one-night setting. It feels more unpredictable and creates
more tension the way it is. I think if it had followed a script
faithfully to the letter, much of this would have been lost.
In regards to the scene in which Peter Falk telephones the mafia,
this always seemed out of place to me - a surefire sign that it was
re-edited against May's wishes. I'd be curious to find out what
version was released by Anchor Bay...
-Aaron
9694
From:
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 6:56pm
Subject: Re: Rowlands vs. Carney
In a message dated 5/8/04 2:00:16 PM, cellar47@y... writes:
> It would be nice if it were made available for scholarly study -- and this
> other cut of "Faces" as
> well. But I really don't think it's in the interest of Cassavetes' legacy to
> have a version of the film he
> came to disapprove of be put out there.
>
But what purpose would that scholarly study serve if no one else could see it
apart from other scholars, if that? And how would we define "scholar" here? A
writer for LA Weekly or tenured faculty at UCLA or...? And what are the
precise coordinates of "out there?" Our inability to address these questions can
only fuel Right attacks on funding (however paltry and infrequent that may be)
any study of popular culture. It's for this reason, as well as many, many
others, that I vehemently oppose any form of access denial.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9695
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 11:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Elaine May
--- Aaron Graham wrote:
>
> That would be a fascinating script to seek out to
> see the differences!
> Personally, I think the loose, improvised structure
> really helped the
> all-in-one-night setting. It feels more
> unpredictable and creates
> more tension the way it is. I think if it had
> followed a script
> faithfully to the letter, much of this would have
> been lost.
>
>
I have a copy of the shooting script. All of the
dialogue in it is in the finished film. Consequently
whatever improvisations there were regarded physical
bits of business.
Carol Grace was the maiden name of Carol Grace Saroyan
Saroyan Matthau.
She was the inspiration for Holly Golightly. Her
closest pals were Gloria Vanderbilt and Oona O'Neill.
I had the great pleasure of interviewing her once for
a piece on Chaplin. I asked her "So you met Gloria and
Oona in College?" and She said "Oh no dear. We didn't
go to College. We went to Marriage."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9696
From:
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 7:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Elaine May
I have the Anchor Bay Cassavetes video box set which has Mickey and Nicky in
it. As far as I could tell, it does not include the Falk telephone call scene.
Is May's script for Mickey and Nicky available anywhere? Has anyone read it?
Nice to hear others agree that Love Streams is Cassavetes best and M&N is
May's.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9697
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 11:27pm
Subject: Re: Rowlands vs. Carney
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> But what purpose would that scholarly study serve if
> no one else could see it
> apart from other scholars, if that? And how would we
> define "scholar" here? A
> writer for LA Weekly or tenured faculty at UCLA
> or...? And what are the
> precise coordinates of "out there?" Our inability to
> address these questions can
> only fuel Right attacks on funding (however paltry
> and infrequent that may be)
> any study of popular culture. It's for this reason,
> as well as many, many
> others, that I vehemently oppose any form of access
> denial.
>
>
Hey, hey -- back up. Hold the phone. I'm not talking
about "denial." I believe that if, for example, the
UCLA film archives or MOMA had this print available it
would be fine. But remember, this is NOT the "Shadows"
that Cassavetes intended. We have that one, and have
had it for decades. It would be horrendous to put
Cassavetes in post mortem competition with himself.
I'd like to see this version myself. However I would
do so knowing this was NOT "Shadows" as Cassavetes
intended.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9698
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 11:32pm
Subject: Re: Elaine May
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> I have the Anchor Bay Cassavetes video box set which has Mickey and
Nicky in
> it. As far as I could tell, it does not include the Falk telephone
call scene.
>
> Is May's script for Mickey and Nicky available anywhere? Has anyone
read it?
I see that it's availible here:
http://www.13idol.com/store/scriptsfeature.html
for a price of 15.00 US.
-Aaron
9699
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 11:39pm
Subject: Re: Elaine May
> I have a copy of the shooting script. All of the
> dialogue in it is in the finished film. Consequently
> whatever improvisations there were regarded physical
> bits of business.
David (or any other member that might know):
Was the screenplay written with Cassavetes & Falk in mind as the two
leads? Imagine how it would have been played if Lemmon and Matthau
had starred, or even Alan Arkin and James Caan.
-Aaron
9700
From:
Date: Sat May 8, 2004 7:41pm
Subject: Re: Rowlands vs. Carney
But is Carney or anyone suggesting we replace Cassavetes' version with this
Mekas-pumped one? I have full faith in a Cassavetes audience that they would
know exactly what they were watching were it identified as such.
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