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.
9701
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 1:06am
Subject: Re: Elaine May
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> >
> 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.
>
This is a fascinating and amazing piece of information. Makes
one reconsider the whole concept of "improvisation".
JPC
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9702
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 1:12am
Subject: Re: Elaine May
Weaving this in with Cassavetes again, I remember that I had some
pretty complacent ideas about improvisation before reading Rosenbaum's
essay on JC in "Placing Movies." Now I'd like to learn more.
How well does Carney cover JC's improvisation methods? And do they
relate to May's at all (as regards MIKEY AND NICKEY; there probably
isn't much improv in her other three films)?
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > 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.
> >
> This is a fascinating and amazing piece of information. Makes
> one reconsider the whole concept of "improvisation".
> JPC
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9703
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 3:13am
Subject: Takeshi Kitano?
I don't love Kitano's (Takeshi's?) films but I find that they're often
fascinating, exciting, and there's definitely a developing thematic
unity that I'm still working on trying to explain. His latest,
ZATÔICHI, is actually pretty sloppy, uneven, badly edited in places,
and almost a total failure. But on the other hand it's also a lovely
piece of work, exhilarating, a gripping action film, a wonderful
comedy, and a comment on sexual/disability/age/mental identity that
seems to say, in short, "mix it up!" Kitano draws the viewer in with
boilerplate vengeance plots and kick-ass action sequences but sneaks
in (without much in the way of subtlety) a utopian message that
embraces everybody: the blind, the idiotic, the poor and oppressed,
the transgender. And one of his essential filmmaking moves is to
insert art and color between the sequences of cool violence:
Narrative with non-narrative, Art against Action. This is best
represented by the final, strange crosscutting between the last fight
sequences in ZATÔICHI (narrative) and a possibly extra-filmic
spectacle of dancing and singing (non-narrative). His utopian ideal
may be naive, even problematic as filmmaking, but it's got an
infectious earnest quality that's very moving.
-Jaime
9704
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 4:15am
Subject: Re: Re: Elaine May
--- Aaron Graham wrote:
>
> 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
>
I tend to doubt it. "Mikey and Nicky" is based on an
actual incident that happened to someone in Elaine
May's family. It was something that she had been
thinking about a long time before it was eventually
made with Cassavetes and Falk.
The dialogue about their friend Izzy who lost all his
hair in childhood refers of course to Mike Nichols.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9705
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 4:17am
Subject: We went to Marriage...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> 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."
That's a fun line. Reminds be of the line from Dinner at Eight:
Kitty: I was reading a book the other day.
Carlotta: Reading a book??
Kitty: Yes. It's all about civilization or something. A nutty kind of a book. Do you know that
the guy says that machinery is going to take the place of every profession?
Carlotta: Oh, my dear. That's something you need never worry about.
9706
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 4:50am
Subject: Re: We went to Marriage...
--- Elizabeth Anne Nolan wrote:
>
> That's a fun line. Reminds be of the line from
> Dinner at Eight:
>
> Kitty: I was reading a book the other day.
> Carlotta: Reading a book??
> Kitty: Yes. It's all about civilization or
> something. A nutty kind of a book. Do you know that
> the guy says that machinery is going to take the
> place of every profession?
> Carlotta: Oh, my dear. That's something you need
> never worry about.
>
I treasure that exchange too. Especially for the
full-body double-take Marie Dressler does after
Harlow's first line.
As for Carol matthau to say "they don't make 'em like
that any more" isn't enought. They never did. She was
a singular sensation.
And her performance in "Mikey and Nicky" is one of the
film's highlights.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9707
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 1:27pm
Subject: Re: We went to Marriage...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Elizabeth Anne Nolan wrote:
>
> >
> > That's a fun line. Reminds be of the line from
> > Dinner at Eight:
> >
> > Kitty: I was reading a book the other day.
> > Carlotta: Reading a book??
> > Kitty: Yes. It's all about civilization or
> > something. A nutty kind of a book. Do you know that
> > the guy says that machinery is going to take the
> > place of every profession?
> > Carlotta: Oh, my dear. That's something you need
> > never worry about.
> >
>
> I treasure that exchange too. Especially for the
> full-body double-take Marie Dressler does after
> Harlow's first line.
>
> >
>
> Is it really treasurable? It's a pretty lame joke -- actually
two jokes (making the two-fold point that a sexy blonde reading a
book is a ludicrous proposition, and that her "profession" can only
be "whore"). And Dressler's double take has all the subtlety of the
early Mack Sennett school of acting. But it's the most famous
exchange in the whole movie -- and I'm a bit tired of seeing the clip
rerun again and again on TV. Just like I'm tired of the famous "You
know how to whistle" Bacall line from "To Have and Have Not". I guess
I'm just a grouch.
JPC
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9708
From:
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 0:22pm
Subject: Cassavetes, Walsh, Garnett
Let me just second several people here who have called Cassavetes' "Love
Streams" the director's masterpiece. I too think it is. I'll never forget the
time I saw the full cut in 35mm at the Wexner Center at Ohio State (on a double
bill with Jim Jarmusch's "Night on Earth"); as he never quite had before when
I'd seen his other films on tape, Cassavetes came alive for me. He seemed to
bring everything that was good or great in his work together in one film.
I have mixed feelings about the "Shadows" controversy. A balance needs to be
struck between his family's wishes and the very real need for his film work
to be preserved, although I'm skeptical that such a balance can be achieved
because there's already so much bad blood between Rowlands and Carney. I can
understand why Rowlands wouldn't like Carney, and her desire to remain true to
Cassavetes' wishes, but I'm not sure how the release of an earlier "Shadows"
would damage Cassavetes' artistic reputation more than, say, the posthumous
filming of old Cassavetes screenplays (which has happened and which Jonathan has
written quite perceptively about.)
On another topic entirely: I was reading up on Raoul Walsh the other day and
came across what I believe to be his final screen credit: as co-screenwriter
on a late Tay Garnett picture called "The Delta Factor." This was released in
1970 and was Garnett's third from final film. Has anybody seen this? I'm
intrigued not only by Walsh's screenwriting credit (it is exactly his third such
credit since 1936!), but I've also rather liked the early Tay Garnett films
I've seen. Unfortunately, the film doesn't appear to be available on video, so
I don't know what I would do if someone recommended it as a wonderful, amazing
late period masterpiece.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9709
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 5:16pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes, Walsh, Garnett
I'm not sure how the release of an earlier "Shadows"
> would damage Cassavetes' artistic reputation more than, say, the
posthumous
> filming of old Cassavetes screenplays
I think it's stretching things to suggest that She's So Lovely hurt
Cassavetes' reputation, whether one likes the film or not. I kind of
liked it myself. It shows what Seymour Cassell calls JC's romantic
side, which didn't get expressed much in the ones he got to make
himself. I'd love to see the screenplays that are sitting around -
per Seymour, he was wildly prolific. His last, Woman of Mystery,
which only made it to the play stage (briefly seen here), would have
made as strong a movie as Love Streams, and a very different one -
it's about a bag lady.
Christa gave me Rowlands' address and suggested I write her, but I
have limited info on the Shadows business. If someone who has more
wants to fill me in, I'd be happy to do so.
> On another topic entirely: I was reading up on Raoul Walsh the
other day and
> came across what I believe to be his final screen credit: as co-
screenwriter
> on a late Tay Garnett picture called "The Delta Factor."
I have it. I'll dig it out and make you a copy -- it's a prime
example of what Greg Ford calls "Tay Garnett's senile period." I'm
surprised to hear Walsh cowrote it! Could that be a glitch?
Garnett is a very good neglected director. Her Man, One Way Passage,
Trade Winds (which I'll try to include, Peter), Seven Sinners, Stand-
In, Wild Harvest, Cause for Alarm... I'm citing almost at random.
There are a lot of really good films in the list. Someone should do a
retro - it would be an eye-opener, and also quite entertaining.
9710
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 5:55pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes, Walsh, Garnett
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> On another topic entirely: I was reading up on Raoul Walsh the
other day and
> came across what I believe to be his final screen credit: as co-
screenwriter
> on a late Tay Garnett picture called "The Delta Factor." This was
released in
> 1970 and was Garnett's third from final film. Has anybody seen
this? I'm
> intrigued not only by Walsh's screenwriting credit (it is exactly
his third such
> credit since 1936!), but I've also rather liked the early Tay
Garnett films
> I've seen. Unfortunately, the film doesn't appear to be available
on video, so
> I don't know what I would do if someone recommended it as a
wonderful, amazing
> late period masterpiece.
>
> Peter
>
Where did you find that Walsh credit, Peter? Never heard of it or saw
it listed anywhere, including the AFI Catalog. If his writing
contribution is genuine it must have been uncredited... I have not
seen The Delta Factor but Tavernier in our book called it "mediocre,"
adding: "aside from a few small delicate touches. The stress is on
charm rather than violence and even the action scenes are devoid of
the sadism typical of Mickey Spillane." Yes it was "A Mickey Spillane
Production", independently produced by Spillane and Robert Fellows,
who died a few days before shooting started ( " 'The Delta Factor'
should have been buried with Bob," Garnett is quoted as saying.)
Garnett also had a serious car accident during location shooting in
Puerto Rico.
JPC
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9711
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 6:18pm
Subject: The Delta Factor
> On another topic entirely: I was reading up on Raoul Walsh the other day and
> came across what I believe to be his final screen credit: as co-screenwriter
> on a late Tay Garnett picture called "The Delta Factor." This was released in
> 1970 and was Garnett's third from final film. Has anybody seen this? I'm
> intrigued not only by Walsh's screenwriting credit (it is exactly his third such
> credit since 1936!), but I've also rather liked the early Tay Garnett films
> I've seen. Unfortunately, the film doesn't appear to be available on video, so
> I don't know what I would do if someone recommended it as a wonderful, amazing
> late period masterpiece.
I saw it a while back, and my memory is that it wasn't impressive at
all. - Dan
9712
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 7:01pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes, Walsh, Garnett
>
> Christa gave me Rowlands' address and suggested I write her, but I
> have limited info on the Shadows business. If someone who has more
> wants to fill me in, I'd be happy to do so.
According to Kent Jones, whom I saw last month in Buenos Aires,
Criterion is planning to release the earlier version of Shadows as
well as the earlier version of Faces that Carney also found as part
of its Cassavetes box set. I'm not entirely sure this will happen;
there are two Sinatra records heard in the original Shadows that
might cost a fortune, so, as with Charles Burnett's Killer of Sheep,
which was supposed to come out on DVD, maybe that problem hasn't
been dealt with or even considered yet.
But maybe I can shed a little light on the Carney-Rowlands dispute.
My own suspicion, based on a lengthy conversation with Carney in
Rotterdam, is that he might be exaggerating when he claims Rowlands
wants to destroy the film. He's said this about more than one person
associated with the film (and, for the record, according to Carney,
Rowlands is actually an extra in Shadows, appearing briefly in the
nightclub sequence), and I suspect he may be apt to translate their
desire to be rid of Carney with a desire to get rid of the film. But
I've also heard from many sources, every time I inquire about the
possibility of Rowlands publishing JC's play "A Woman of Mystery,"
that she simply isn't interested.
My own, fairly recent suggestion to RC was that he make lots of dubs
of his video of the original Shadows and send these off to various
people, including Jonas, which probably wouldn't be illegal and
would ensure that the film would survive at least in that form. He
said he was considering something like that, but I'm not at all sure
if he meant it: his investment in some sort of proprietary role is
so great, in part because of his fanatical search for the original
version, that he probably couldn't bear it. (I know that Rotterdam
was originally planning to show the video three times, until Carney
insisted that they limit the screenings to two and they therefore
canceled the press show.). Bear in mind that, last Christmas, he
wrote on the Masters of Cinema web site that the only reason why the
original Shadows wasn't already out on DVD was the greediness of
film companies. I emailed him that I'm sure there were plenty of
companies who'd be happy to release it, and he promptly went back
and revised his text for Masters of Cinema into something a bit more
plausible..Assuming that he's by now had to relinquish the 16mm
print but is still showing a video to his classes, I doubt that
he'll have to relinquish the video as well.
I personally consider the original Shadows a wonderful history
lesson, above all else, as I mentioned in my piece in the Spring
issue of the Cinema Scope. I do hope that others will be able to see
it as well.
Bill, I hope you'll be able to present at least some of the silent
longer cut of The Paradine Case in Bologna. I'll be there myself.
Jonathan
9713
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 7:09pm
Subject: Godard's 'Notre musique'
Albert Rosenfield just posted this link on the Godard listserv -- an
outline of the film, and the first images (click "Photos"):
http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefilm_gen_cfilm=51311.html
craig.
9714
From:
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 4:19pm
Subject: Garnett
JPC,
I have seen the Walsh credit on a few online sources:
http://www.thrillingdetective.com/trivia/spillane.html (Scroll down)
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=115880
And I just checked the IMDB and they are listing him as co-screenwriter too.
They don't put "uncredited" next to his name, which I find they do on a
fairly consistent basis when it's called for.
I'm certainly interested in seeing it - not just for Walsh, but I tend to be
automatically curious about what a director does late in his or her career.
The IMDB indicates that Garnett managed to direct two more pictures after this,
but they all have co-directors.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9715
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 8:23pm
Subject: Thought on auteurism
For the last couple of months, I have been reexaminating the films
of various directors. It more or less began as a reviewing
of "Topaz" by Hitchcock, because Bill persuaded me to revisit it,
and then one thing lead to another and soon I had been watching most
of his films.
While I still will reserve my objections towards "Topaz", the notion
of it being amongst (and by some: the) best film by Hitchcock from
an auteurist point of view spawned the thought:
What if the best work of a director (from a auteurist point of view)
is weak and flawed (from a narrative / "film" point of view)?
and
What if the best film from a director (in terms of story, plot
structure, direction, narrative - and so forth) isn't one of the
films that a central to him as an auteur?
Take Hitchcock: We have a body of work, which generally is
considered his best films (Rebecca, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by
Northwst), yet films like "The Wrong Man" and now "Topaz" are being
examined by auteurists.
What is most important? Auteur theory or Narrative theory? What
comes first? The narrative composition (its structure, the text, the
signs) or the auteurist coding (embedding of motifs, meaning)? Has
auteurism torn itself apart from narrative theory, and if so, what
purpose does auteurism, and in extension of that: narrative theory,
serve anymore?
I know it's short, but as on previous occasions, its a strain of
thought and Im not sure of its validity.
Henrik
9716
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 8:36pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
>
> What if the best film from a director (in terms of story, plot
> structure, direction, narrative - and so forth) isn't one of the
> films that a central to him as an auteur?
>
> Take Hitchcock: We have a body of work, which generally is
> considered his best films (Rebecca, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by
> Northwst), yet films like "The Wrong Man" and now "Topaz" are
being
> examined by auteurists.
Personally, I'm shocked that you could link "The Wrong Man" together
with "Topaz". I regard the former as not only one of Hitchcock's
greatest films, but one of the greatest American films,
period. "Topaz" is my opinion closer to something like Hawks' "Red
Line 7000": fascinating, revealing, but surely not major.
9717
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 8:42pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> What if the best work of a director (from a auteurist point of
view)
> is weak and flawed (from a narrative / "film" point of view)?
>
> and
>
> What if the best film from a director (in terms of story, plot
> structure, direction, narrative - and so forth) isn't one of the
> films that a central to him as an auteur?
>
> Take Hitchcock: We have a body of work, which generally is
> considered his best films (Rebecca, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by
> Northwst), yet films like "The Wrong Man" and now "Topaz" are being
> examined by auteurists.
>
> Henrik
I don't see why "The Wrong Man" couldn't be considered one of his
best films, from both "points of view" -- assuming the distinction
has any validity. If it does, perhaps the concept of "best' should be
redefined.
JPC
9718
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 10:23pm
Subject: Re: Garnett
>
> I'm certainly interested in seeing it - not just for Walsh, but I
tend to be
> automatically curious about what a director does late in his or her
career.
> The IMDB indicates that Garnett managed to direct two more pictures
after this,
> but they all have co-directors.
>
> Peter
>
I think one of those would be Challenge To Be Free, which I also have
if you want to see it. Greg Ford says that film (a fourwall con job
aimed at rural and family audiences in the 70s) represents Garnett
going back to SOS Iceberg, the film where he used a Leni Riefenstahl
Arctic epic as raw material for his own film. In Challenge he shot
scenes w. Mike Mazurski to be intercut w. nature footage by someone
else. It's an interesting continuity with that early work and, in
general, with Garnett's very interesting sense of figure/ground
relationships, which Greg attributes to his love of Chaplin. A film
where that is visible but kept within classic parameters is his
brilliant Postman Always Rings Twice. One where it isn't is Trade
Winds, which was written to be shot against rear-projection footage
Garnett and Mate filmed during a trip around the South Seas, and
contains very few, if any, scenes that aren't played against process.
For that reason, and because he seems to have had fun improvising
with MM, Challenge To Be Free is fairly enteratining, and a hell of a
lot more interesting as filmmaking than The Delta Factor, whose
flacid eccentricity is its chief claim to fame.
9719
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 10:36pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
>
> While I still will reserve my objections towards "Topaz", the
notion
> of it being amongst (and by some: the) best film by Hitchcock from
> an auteurist point of view spawned the thought:
>
> What if the best work of a director (from a auteurist point of
view)
> is weak and flawed (from a narrative / "film" point of view)?
>
> and
>
> What if the best film from a director (in terms of story, plot
> structure, direction, narrative - and so forth) isn't one of the
> films that a central to him as an auteur?
>
> Take Hitchcock: We have a body of work, which generally is
> considered his best films (Rebecca, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by
> Northwst), yet films like "The Wrong Man" and now "Topaz" are being
> examined by auteurists.
>
> What is most important? Auteur theory or Narrative theory? What
> comes first? The narrative composition (its structure, the text,
the
> signs) or the auteurist coding (embedding of motifs, meaning)? Has
> auteurism torn itself apart from narrative theory, and if so, what
> purpose does auteurism, and in extension of that: narrative theory,
> serve anymore?
>
> I know it's short, but as on previous occasions, its a strain of
> thought and Im not sure of its validity.
>
> Henrik
The only narrative theory I know is deconstructive and critical. Do
you mean the kind taught in screenwriting courses?
No one has ever said Topaz is the best of Hitchcock. I think it's an
excellent film, though - more successful when you see his cut than
Torn Curtain. It's not even personal in the sense of belonging to the
main thread of his work: it's a reaction to and a protest against
Wasserman's desire to make a film from a bad bestseller in order to
get "another North By Northwest" out of Hitchcock. In that sense,
it's almost excessively personal, in the sense
of "autobiographical": "Be cold, do your job" is what everyone was
telling AH to do after he flamed out over 'Tippi' Hedren while making
Marnie (insight courtesy of Ronnie Scheib), so he made a film about a
character who does just that. If you think of it that way, and factor
in the extremely corrosive view of the CIA and Cold War politics, as
well as the great but subtle, modern visual beauty of so much of it
(Copenhagen, Cuba, Harlem), you may come around to liking it.
There are few directors to whom your dichotomy applies less. Wrong
Man is an act of sadism against the audience, but Rear Window and Man
Who Knew Too Much and Psycho and North By Northwest are great
Hitchcocks and great crowd-pleasers, which lesser directors still
study to see how it's done. Vertigo is in the highly personal, less
successful category, but that's normal - who would argue that My Fair
Lady is Cukor's best film because it made a fortune and won 8 Oscars?
It's auteurists who recognize the more experimental, personal work
and help the filmmaker keep doing it. Hitchcock told Trruffaut (in an
exchange that didn't amke it into the book) that he made critic-proof
entertainments because the critics hadn't done their job by
challenging the more adventurous work. Maybe we'd have Mary Rose if
American critics had been a little quicker to "get" Vertigo and
Marnie, now recognized as challenging but beautiful classics.
9720
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 10:44pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism: Erratum
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
Hitchcock told Trruffaut (in an
> exchange that didn't amke it into the book) that he made critic-
proof
> entertainments because the critics hadn't done their job by
CHALLENGING the more adventurous work. Maybe we'd have Mary Rose if
> American critics had been a little quicker to "get" Vertigo and
> Marnie, now recognized as challenging but beautiful classics.
I meant "championing."
Topaz can't be judged in its present form, Jonathan. Properly
restored - another thing I hoped to do for Bologna, if only
digitally, but funding fell thru - it's as good as Red Line 7000,
which I love. Seeing Red Line in a suburban New Haven theatre in 1965
made me a film buff. That wouldn't be true for anyone whose first
exposure to high Americana was the studio cut of Topaz.
On the other hand, Peter, The Delta Factor is the exception that
proves the rule when it comes to late films by great directors. It's
awful. But interesting, I suppose...
9721
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Wrong
> Man is an act of sadism against the audience,
Really? Could you elaborate?
9722
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 11:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thought on auteurism
Actually there are several Hitchcock films that could
be cited as such -- particularly "Psycho," "Frenzy"
and "Shadow of a Doubt." By comparasion I think he
lets the audience off relatively easy with "The Wrong
Man."
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wrong
> > Man is an act of sadism against the audience,
>
> Really? Could you elaborate?
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9723
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 11:34pm
Subject: Re: Topaz
I actually think Hitchcock achievment
with Topaz is easilly to get when
you've seen it side by side with
others more serious spy films of the
60's like Furie's The Ipcress File or
Ritt's The Spy who Came in From the
Cold. All those films were trying to
deal seriously with moral aspects of
spionage. The makers always ended
botching them because they were to
busy trying to do anti-Bond films in
the first place. While Hitchcock in
Topaz (and less succefully Torn
Curtain) did manage to do that and
avoid the Bond connection. That don't
means Topaz ranks with Hitchcock's
best films, it's flawed for sure.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
9724
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 11:50pm
Subject: Yousry Nasrallah
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
>I'd like to know more about GATE OF THE SUN, screening out of the
>competition. It's the longest film film in Cannes at 4 hours and 38
>minutes, and I've been hearing about the director, Yousri
>Nasrallah, for some time
The movie is certainly to be seen. Former assistant of Youssef
Chahine, Yousry Nasrallah quick appeared as more than a talented
disciple. If "Mercedes" was quite rightly praised, his '95
documentary "On Boys, Girls and the Veil" is also remarkable.
Dealing with an eternal and simple (?) subject (women and men, how
does it work), this honest film is constantly moving, through a true
attention to his characters, their hope and their distress.
9725
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 11:51pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Actually there are several Hitchcock films that could
> be cited as such -- particularly "Psycho," "Frenzy"
> and "Shadow of a Doubt." By comparasion I think he
> lets the audience off relatively easy with "The Wrong
> Man."
>
With all due respect, David, I was not asking you, I was asking him.
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wrong
> > > Man is an act of sadism against the audience,
> >
> > Really? Could you elaborate?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9726
From:
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 7:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thought on auteurism: Erratum
Bill Krohn wrote:
>On the other hand, Peter, The Delta Factor is the exception that
>proves the rule when it comes to late films by great directors. It's
>awful. But interesting, I suppose...
But you say "Challenge To Be Free" is better? I would have thought that the
Garnett-Walsh collaboration (1) would have produced something halfway
worthwhile, though one can't rely on such formulas...
I can think of other late films by great directors which don't work at all.
Vidor's "Solomon and Sheba" is maybe his worst film, although, of course, it
hardly qualifies as his last: the extraordinary "Truth and Illusion" and
"Metaphor" came later and a half-dozen fascinating-sounding aborted projects. I
also think that "Rio Lobo" is a step down from the brilliance of Hawks' '60s
films, although I am very fond of it indeed. But there are enough capital-A
Amazing works made in the late periods of great directors (many of which we've
discussed here on a_film_by over the past almost-12 months) that I'm surprised
when a director's work declines; it feels like the exception to the rule. So I
always go about investigating the latter stages of a major filmmaker's career
hoping (and half-expecting) that he or she went out like Cukor or Edwards or
Rossellini did.
I love "The Wrong Man" and I think "Topaz" is very good as well. If
anything, late Hitch is so rich that "Topaz" only suffers in comparison to "The Birds"
or "Marnie" or "Family Plot" (the latter two are my favorite Hitchcock films,
period). I don't think it's quite up to that level, although I've never seen
it shown in its original version. The best I can do is watch the film on
DVD, stop before the final scene, access the deleted scenes menu and watch the
appropriate ending there. Not the ideal way to watch the picture. But how
'bout that setpiece in the ceramics place!
Peter
(1) Of course, we don't know if it's an actual "collaboration." Maybe Walsh
wrote a script, was slated to direct at one stage, got kicked off, Garnett
came in, etc. - there are all sorts of possible scenarios which could result in
his co-screenplay credit, obviously.
9727
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 11:54pm
Subject: Manoel de Oliveira
"What I like in cinema: a saturation of magnificent signs bathed in
the light of their absence of explanation" (I believe that those
words, told to Godard, are somewhere in his Histoire(s)).
If Oliveira may appear as the guardian of Portuguese artistic
refinement - contrary to Reis or Monteiro, to name only the
greatest - the splendour of this heritage doesn't end in an antique
chamber... but in an echo festival where each detail participates in
an intimate ceremony between past and present. It is not only
beautiful; it dos make sense.
I won't fight against anybody arguing that "a Caça" is the best film
he made (it's a fabulous film indeed) but, for the past 20 years,
there are quite a few titles that made my day: Mon Cas, O Diao do
Desespero, Inquietude, Viagem ao Principio do Mundo, Palavra e
Utopia...
As for acting (Dan's comment), it may be necessary to introduce a
distinction between the Portuguese productions and the French ones,
since I'm not sure Oliveira is totally comfortable with French
actors (see "The Letter"). But my admiration for Diogo Doria has no
bounds; his work with Oliveira (most of the movies since Francisca)
is probably one of the greatest collaboration between an actor and a
director. Sitting at his desk and writing a letter to the dead
beloved one at the end of the central piece of "Inquietude", he
gives me the thrill… And these "regards-camera" (English?) are
killing me (that's no gimmick)...
An advice from Oliveira to Marie-Christine Barrault: "No, keep your
emotion; the audience has to be moved. Don't lose control of
yourself, or you'll cheat the audience".
9728
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 0:17am
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism: Erratum
Checking through some of my books, I find nothing about The Delta
Factor, but the volume in The Hollywood Professionals series that
treats Walsh DOES note that he "is known to have been involved
with" San Antonio, Stallion Road, and The Enforcer. More
bizarrely, it says that Walsh worked as second unit director for
Robert Wise's inert Helen of Troy (there's a window of time between
Saskatchewan and Battle Cry where it's conceivable he could
have done it), and "some sources also credit Walsh as assisting
in the production of Come September (1961, Robert Mulligan)".
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
Maybe Walsh
> wrote a script, was slated to direct at one stage, got kicked off,
Garnett
> came in, etc. - there are all sorts of possible scenarios which
could result in
> his co-screenplay credit, obviously.
9729
From:
Date: Sun May 9, 2004 8:27pm
Subject: Walsh
Robert Keser wrote:
>and "some sources also credit Walsh as assisting
>in the production of Come September (1961, Robert Mulligan)".
All very interesting, Bob. Now "Come September" was produced by Raoul Walsh
Enterprises. (According to IMDB, at least, it's the only film RWE produced.)
So that would clearly lend credence to Walsh's involvement in the Mulligan
film. I don't remember any particular Walshian flavor to the film, but I
haven't seen it in a while and wasn't necessarily looking for that.
What I wonder is if he voluntarily retired after (the remarkable) "A Distant
Trumpet" or if he was indeed trying to get directing work in the subsequent
years? I know he published a novel in France in the '70s which, maddeningly,
has never been translated to English. Not unlike Cimino...
Peter
9730
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 0:40am
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Wrong
> > Man is an act of sadism against the audience,
>
> Really? Could you elaborate?
You're forced to identify with anny Balestrero every second of the
picture. He doesn't start off as an ad exec or a Life photographer,
either. He's working poor. Then he's picked up, interrogated, booked
and thrown in a cell; then he goes thru the agony of trying to find
the witnesses, and watching his cut-rate lawyer screw up in court;
then when his prayers are answered and he's free he finds out that
his wife may be permanently insane. The only part of the film that
isn't from Manny's POV is AH's intro and the closing shot of them in
Florida - taken by a local newsreel company using extras, following
AH's cabled directions - so distant you can't see the faces. The rest
of the time, it's sheer torture. And great cinema, of course.
9731
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 0:43am
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism: Erratum
> (1) Of course, we don't know if it's an actual "collaboration."
Maybe Walsh
> wrote a script, was slated to direct at one stage, got kicked off,
Garnett
> came in, etc. - there are all sorts of possible scenarios which
could result in
> his co-screenplay credit, obviously.
I'm still gasping at the news that Walsh had anything to do with it!
It's not even one of his genres. And imdb.com....
9732
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 0:44am
Subject: Re: Manoel de Oliveira
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
> "What I like in cinema: a saturation of magnificent signs bathed in
> the light of their absence of explanation" (I believe that those
> words, told to Godard, are somewhere in his Histoire(s)).
Is that Mourlet again? Jean-Pierre?
9733
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 0:47am
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism: Erratum
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> Checking through some of my books, I find nothing about The Delta
> Factor, but the volume in The Hollywood Professionals series that
> treats Walsh DOES note that he "is known to have been involved
> with" San Antonio, Stallion Road, and The Enforcer.
He directed The Enforcer, credited to Bretain Windust. Biette
considered it the only Walsh film not made by a "cineaste." (See much
earlier discussion of terms.) As pure mise-en-scene, though, it's not
a lapse at all.
9734
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 0:48am
Subject: Re: Walsh
I know he published a novel in France in the '70s which, maddeningly,
> has never been translated to English. Not unlike Cimino...
>
> Peter
Written in English, never published in that language. Was it Rissient
who did the translation, Jean-Pierre?
9735
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 0:50am
Subject: Re: Walsh
Walsh's connection to Come September was a surprise to me, Peter, but
that's one I've never seen, so I can't venture an opinion.
As for Walsh's retirement, he was 77 years old when A Distant Trumpet
was released and (according to Katz) nearly blind in his
"good" eye. That doesn't mean that he wasn't considering projects to
direct (or write), but the outlook for getting hired was probably
pretty dim at that point (Billy Wilder basically couldn't work after
he hit 75).
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
Now "Come September" was produced by
Raoul Walsh
> Enterprises. (According to IMDB, at least, it's the only film RWE
produced.)
> So that would clearly lend credence to Walsh's involvement in the
Mulligan
> film. I don't remember any particular Walshian flavor to the film,
but I
> haven't seen it in a while and wasn't necessarily looking for that.
>
> What I wonder is if he voluntarily retired after (the remarkable)
"A Distant
> Trumpet" or if he was indeed trying to get directing work in the
subsequent
> years? I know he published a novel in France in the '70s which,
maddeningly,
> has never been translated to English. Not unlike Cimino...
>
> Peter
9736
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:00am
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Wrong
> > > Man is an act of sadism against the audience,
> >
> > Really? Could you elaborate?
>
> You're forced to identify with anny Balestrero every second of the
> picture. He doesn't start off as an ad exec or a Life photographer,
> either. He's working poor. Then he's picked up, interrogated,
booked
> and thrown in a cell; then he goes thru the agony of trying to find
> the witnesses, and watching his cut-rate lawyer screw up in court;
> then when his prayers are answered and he's free he finds out that
> his wife may be permanently insane. The only part of the film that
> isn't from Manny's POV is AH's intro and the closing shot of them
in
> Florida - taken by a local newsreel company using extras, following
> AH's cabled directions - so distant you can't see the faces. The
rest
> of the time, it's sheer torture. And great cinema, of course.
So it's great cinema, we agree. What was your original point?
I'm confused.
9737
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:01am
Subject: Re: Walsh
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> Walsh's connection to Come September was a surprise to me, Peter,
but
> that's one I've never seen, so I can't venture an opinion.
Neither have I, but I'd love to know the bg. The files should be at
USC.
Peter's scratching around for a Walsh MIA film. There was a 30-minute
tv episode he directed in the 50s - haven't seen it. The print is
owned by the same collector who owns the Leo McCarey 30-minuters that
screened at Amiens a few years ago - Tom and Jerry and another one
with a radio star. Both very interesting, and I think from the same
anthology series. Tom and Jerry in particular is a must for McCarey
(or Cavell) completists. Maybe the Walsh is up on imdb.com.
9738
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:01am
Subject: Re: Manoel de Oliveira
It sounds like... but I don't know if Oliveira is familiar with
Mourlet's work (? great minds think alike...) Has anybody read this
Oliveira/Godard dialogue? published in Liberation for Val Abraham
and Hélas pour moi (I don't)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
> wrote:
> > "What I like in cinema: a saturation of magnificent signs bathed
in
> > the light of their absence of explanation" (I believe that those
> > words, told to Godard, are somewhere in his Histoire(s)).
>
> Is that Mourlet again? Jean-Pierre?
9739
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:43am
Subject: Re: Walsh
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
wrote:
> > Walsh's connection to Come September was a surprise to me, Peter,
> but
> > that's one I've never seen, so I can't venture an opinion.
>
> Neither have I, but I'd love to know the bg. The files should be at
> USC.
Lollobrigida should know and she's still around. Of course, Cukor
said that she was supposed to do Lady L, "but she was too stupid.
She doesn't know anything and is a very ignorant woman". She wasn't
so ignorant as to marry a Jean Le Pen supporter, though. Fun Fact:
I once watched Lollobrigida being arrested in the Kuwait airport for
arriving in the country without a visa. She was smart enough not to
act the diva and ended up orchestrating the whole thing into a big
friendly press conference and photo op.
>
> Peter's scratching around for a Walsh MIA film. There was a
30-minute
> tv episode he directed in the 50s - haven't seen it.
With some 40 silents and fully 70 talkies to Walsh's official credit,
it's hard enough to be a Walsh completist without adding TV work! I
just want to see Esther and the King projected properly on the big
screen.
--Robert Keser
9740
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:54am
Subject: La Lollo
> Lollobrigida should know and she's still around. Of course, Cukor
> said that she was supposed to do Lady L, "but she was too stupid.
> She doesn't know anything and is a very ignorant woman".
Vidor said that she was easy to work with on SOLOMON AND SHEBA when the
gentlemanly Tyrone Power was the lead; but, after Power died and was
replaced by the difficult Yul Brynner, Lollobrigida started throwing her
weight around as well. - Dan
9741
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 3:17am
Subject: Re: Walsh
> I once watched Lollobrigida being arrested in the Kuwait airport
for
> arriving in the country without a visa. She was smart enough not to
> act the diva and ended up orchestrating the whole thing into a big
> friendly press conference and photo op.
I had the thrill of sitting next to her during the world premiere of
Welles' Portrait of Gina at Venice. The next morning the owner
(finder) of the print told me her lawyer had already sent him a
letter enjoining him from distributing it.
9742
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 4:59am
Subject: NYTimes critics any recommendations
Renata Adler
Eugene Archer
D. J. R. Bruckner
Tom Buckley
Vincent Canby
B. R. Crisler
Bosley Crowther
Richard Eder
Walter Goodman
Roger Greenspun
Mordaunt Hall
Donal J. Henahan
Caryn James
Stanley Kauffman
John T. McManus
Janet Maslin
Frank S. Nugent
Thomas M. Pryor
Nora Sayre
Harold C. Schonberg
Andre Sennwald
Michael Stern
Theodore Strauss
Howard Thompson
A. H. Weiler
9743
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 5:12am
Subject: Re: NYTimes critics any recommendations
Eugene Archer was a great writer. He also played a
small but pivotal role in "La Collectionneuse"
Roger Greenspun was a friend back in the day. A very
fine critic -- even when I disagreed with him. Canby
was on the whole OK. Crowther was on the whole a jerk.
Renata Adler was -- and is -- unspeakable.
--- Elizabeth Anne Nolan wrote:
> Renata Adler
> Eugene Archer
> D. J. R. Bruckner
> Tom Buckley
> Vincent Canby
> B. R. Crisler
> Bosley Crowther
> Richard Eder
> Walter Goodman
> Roger Greenspun
> Mordaunt Hall
> Donal J. Henahan
> Caryn James
> Stanley Kauffman
> John T. McManus
> Janet Maslin
> Frank S. Nugent
> Thomas M. Pryor
> Nora Sayre
> Harold C. Schonberg
> Andre Sennwald
> Michael Stern
> Theodore Strauss
> Howard Thompson
> A. H. Weiler
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9744
From:
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:37am
Subject: Marie Dressler Museum
Speaking of Marie Dressler, the Mr. and I got to see the Marie Dressler
Museum in Cobourg, Ontario last month. Just a room in the Cobourg Tourist Bureau or
something like that. "Godforsaken" is the best word to describe it. If anyone
is VERY interested, I wrote a long meditation on it in my livejournal that I
can post here.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9745
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 5:56am
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
>
> So it's great cinema, we agree. What was your original point?
> I'm confused.
Henrik was dichotomizing films auteurists like and films audiences
like (hope I'm not distorting), accurately citing Wrong Man as one of
the former. I said simply that it is for my money one of the most
sadistic films against the audience ever. Monkey Shines, which is
very Hitchcockian, imposes similar sufering. One could say, I guess,
that Fernando Rey's frustrations in That Obscure Object of Desire are
shared by the audience, but the style is so distanced it's not
comparable.
An interesting question: What other films torture the audience
deliberately?
9746
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 8:10am
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> >
> > So it's great cinema, we agree. What was your original
point?
> > I'm confused.
>
> Henrik was dichotomizing films auteurists like and films audiences
> like (hope I'm not distorting), accurately citing Wrong Man as one
of
> the former.
The questions was:
What if the best film from a director (in terms of story, plot
structure, direction, narrative - and so forth) isn't one of the
films that a central to him as an auteur?
...and as JP noted: "...perhaps the concept of "best should be
redefined.", which perhaps is the greatest weakness of the question.
Another weakness would be what analytic approach one takes: Bill
mentioned deconstruction (and its mutated forms), but there also is
structuralism (and post structuralism, both more suited
for "regular" film), there is specific semiotic notions, as those by
Genette (tense, hypertextuality) and something as basic as script
construction.
Perhaps it was also too daring and risky to use "The Wrong
Man" / "Topaz" vs. the body of Hithcock's work, but all things being
equal, when one sits and studies the body of any director, one film
may or will stand out as extraordinary in its construction, in its
presentation, yet isn't the film one would chose as a showcase for
the directors auteurism.
I find it very clear when approaching Breillat: Her best film would
be "Sex is comedy", as it is so easy to approach, is so fluent in
construction and still faithful to her ideas, but the films I would
pick any day as the central film to demonstrate her auteurism is
either "Romance X" or "Anatomie de l'enfer", as they are everything
she is about, but very hard for an audience to follow and
understand. Here I find the dichotomy clear and easy.
When I approach a director, I usually watch the body of his work to
get an overall picture. Already here notes upon auteurism should
emerge. Then I deconstruct his work, but always with the production
history and the "maturing" of the director in mind, never from a
auteurist approach. Only at the end, I look at the pieces again and
find the distilled pieces. Doing so, it does happend, that I see one
as his "best" work as director (as production) and one to represent
him as "auteur".
Maybe this duality just exists. Maybe there is nothing at all. But I
just can't help being intregued by the thought.
Henrik
9747
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 8:20am
Subject: The Wrath of Carney
I agree with Jonathan - the best thing Carney could do right now with
SHADOWS, in the face of legal threats and whatnot (but always remember: we
are only getting Carney's re-telling of all this), would be to make 100
video copies of his master video immediately (it's this video he has
screened in public, by the way: he has the sole print in a vault somewhere -
there's no negative), and send these videos off to 100 Cassavetes
fans/scholars/researchers. (Actually, he could start with the A FILM BY
mailing list - that would be OK by me.) But Jonathan, has he even given a
copy to YOU? I suspect not, otherwise you would have already started the
public dissemination service!!
Carney is, as Jonathan rather delicately puts it, 'proprietorial' about
Cassavetes and the JC legacy. The problem is, to put it more bluntly, that
he is simply unwilling (so it seems to me) to share ANYTHING with any other
Cassavetes researcher. Even people on civil terms with him have told me that
the slightest query - like 'what is the name of the mysterious guy who plays
the urologist in the scene added to the later version of CHINESE BOOKIE?' -
receives the standard evasion/obfuscation from him: 'oh, I have that info in
my files, when I have a moment I will look for it ...' - then nothing.
Let's be clear about the stakes and their magnitude. Carney found (according
to him, and this 'backstory' remains strategically vague, as Hoberman and
others have said) this early SHADOWS, and he unearthed another version of
FACES (that one he doesn't own, thank god). But, over the course of years,
he has also (I am surmising) gathered all kinds of Cassavetes-related
material, some from quite a few people who are no longer alive. At an
earlier, sunnier time in relations between Prof Carney and the Cassavetes
family, I assume he got stuff from Rowlands, Ruban, etc as well. So let's
say, for arguments sake, he has: all kinds of videos, all kinds of scripts
and draft scripts, unproduced scripts, unpublished notes, all kinds of
photos and documentation, TV episodes, videos of various rough cuts of the
films, letters and material from JC's collaborators, documentary footage ...
it must be a massive stash by now. Is anyone aware of him, outside of his
hallowed Bostonian classroom, sharing ANY of this with ANYBODY ??? And it's
not like, finally, he even really writes about this stuff: he has never
pursued, beyond summary vague indications, the kind of careful 'genetic'
study of a film's evolution that Bill K has specialised in since HITCHCOCK
AT WORK. And, more on the critical plane, he continues pumping out his
standard smokescreens: since his woolly 'path of the artist' rhetoric
forbids him from seeing anything worthwhile in 'Hollywood' films TOO LATE
BLUES or GLORIA - and since he wasn't part of the rediscovery of the
television A PAIR OF BOOTS - these works do not figure in his
Cassavetes-system, by now the subject of half a dozen often near-identical
Carney books (with more on the way!).
Carney's grotesquely narcissistic website has just taken an
uglier-than-usual turn: his wrath against Rowlands knows no bounds, so he's
printing strange fan-letters that compare Gena to George W. Bush, and he's
deriding her for not knowing the difference between Amos Vogel and Jonas
Mekas (I think we can forgive her, forty five years down the track, for not
feeling compelled to rehearse that distinction over breakfast every day).
Meanwhile, he bleats on about surreptitiously 'saving the film for the
future, for John', with the help his lawyer. Making those 100 videos and
saving it for ALL OF US would be a better and more immediately productive
move!!
Adrian
9748
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 5:00am
Subject: NYTimes critics any recommendations
Without playing favorites, any comments about critics who offer the most
insights into cinema would be appreciated:
Renata Adler
Eugene Archer
D. J. R. Bruckner
Tom Buckley
Vincent Canby
B. R. Crisler
Bosley Crowther
Richard Eder
Walter Goodman
Roger Greenspun
Mordaunt Hall
Donal J. Henahan
Caryn James
Stanley Kauffman
John T. McManus
Janet Maslin
Frank S. Nugent
Thomas M. Pryor
Nora Sayre
Harold C. Schonberg
Andre Sennwald
Michael Stern
Theodore Strauss
Howard Thompson
A. H. Weiler
9749
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 9:15am
Subject: Auteurs and their 'key' works
Henrik - Here's another variation on the interesting questions you raise
about the quality of an auteur's works.
I tend to subscribe to the view that the work of many great filmmakers turns
around a 'secret centre' - the thing their work is mostly deeply 'about' is
precisely the thing that cannot be said, represented or depicted directly.
Thus, what comes to animate a director's best work (within this idea) is the
energy and invention needed to constantly displace, transform, sublimate,
etc that 'secret centre'. (I wrote about Blake Edwards and some other
filmmakers in this way in my 1994 book PHANTASMS.)
Scorsese is, I believe, the clearest example. Let's say - I'm simplifying
this, classroom-style, for the sake of explaining it quickly - that many of
Scorsese's films have 'underneath' them a reigious, 'Passion of the Christ'
template. When that 'Christ' is Jake La Motta and that 'Passion' is a 20th
century mess of boxing matches, failed marriages and celebrity-ego
disasters, Scorsese is at this best, his most intense. But when he actually
goes right to that 'secret centre' and touches it, makes it evident, depicts
it - as in LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST - he makes (in my view) one of his
evidently weakest films.
For this reason - to take up a perverse logic - I think it is sometimes a
blessing that some filmmakers do not get to make their 'dream film', the one
that's been in their heads for 30 or 50 years or whatever - since that may
mean never having the disenchanting face-to-face encounter with the 'secret
centre'. I'm sure there is a Lacanian logic in that somewhere ...
Adrian
9750
From: Hadrian
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 9:44am
Subject: Audience Torture and the Vigilante Film
> An interesting question: What other films torture the audience
> deliberately?
While I can easily think of a lot films built on the There's a Long
Way Down structural principle, I can't really be sure the films are
intending to torture an audience, or just elicit sympathy.
Meaning: where do tearjerkers fit in --think of Umbrellas of
Cherbourg, and Demy's planning of how many "hankies" he was
gonna have. Weepies and melodramas can be described as
films that conscientiously manipulate the audience into sadness
(but is that really torture). Since people clearly like this, it seems
like a lot of hairs could be split defining this as different than
torturing an audience. Is there esquisit torture?
There are films where i think the director is purposefully trying to
grate on the audience, in an overall attempt to demoralize (as art
of course). Off-hand, Gaspar Noe, French neo-nihilism in
general, Christoph Schlingenshieff is purposefully off-putting,
occasionally the cruel comedy of Alex Cox (Highway Patrolman),
and god knows how many horror films --unless you believe that
your pornagraphically supposed to be identifying with the killer.
In fact, lots of horror directors (Hitchcock?) like to brutalize their
audiences. I see streaks in De Palma and even David Fincher
(Seven ends on as big a fuck-you as I've seen).
This relates to a genre I've been considering a lot (sort of
roughing out ideas for an essay to describe the section on my
wesbiste), Vigilante Films, and their subgenre, the
Rape-Revenge film. They're at least halfway relevant to Bill's
question because a common characteristic is to split the film in
halves, first taking a character that the audience identifies and
extensively torturing him (and thus the audience) in order to build
enough justification for second half, some whole and total
revenge, full of vicarious righteousness.
Examples:
Mad Max
Vigilante
First Blood
Death Wish
Billy Jack
Rape-Revenge:
I Spit On Your Grave
Ms. 45 (in both these first 2 the filmmakers are so sadistic as
to have the character let go, and then raped AGAIN)
Last House on the Left (not a perfect example, but basically it's
a rape-revenge movie).
Dogville --I would say a key to understanding this film is it's
reworking, and commentary on, an almost uniquely American
genre.
9751
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:15pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism/Torture
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> >
> > So it's great cinema, we agree. What was your original
point?
> > I'm confused.
>
> Henrik was dichotomizing films auteurists like and films audiences
> like (hope I'm not distorting), accurately citing Wrong Man as one
of
> the former. I said simply that it is for my money one of the most
> sadistic films against the audience ever. Monkey Shines, which is
> very Hitchcockian, imposes similar sufering. One could say, I
guess,
> that Fernando Rey's frustrations in That Obscure Object of Desire
are
> shared by the audience, but the style is so distanced it's not
> comparable.
>
> An interesting question: What other films torture the audience
> deliberately?
My problem is that I don't feel "tortured" by the movie. If you
describe emotions such as sadness, compassion, anguish, uneasiness,
despair etc generated by a film as "torture" imposed by the filmmaker
on the audience, then countless films will fit the definition -- both
films that please audiences and films that don't. What about all the
classic tearjerkers (many of them very successful commercially) where
a woman is made to suffer throughout the movie?
However, deliberate torture of the audience does exist in some
films. Haneke's "Funny Games" and Noe's "Irreversible" are very
sadistic that way, both to the characters and to the spectator.
JPC
9752
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:37pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
.
>
> The questions was:
>
> What if the best film from a director (in terms of story, plot
> structure, direction, narrative - and so forth) isn't one of the
> films that a central to him as an auteur?
>
> ...and as JP noted: "...perhaps the concept of "best should be
> redefined.", which perhaps is the greatest weakness of the question.
>
> Another weakness would be what analytic approach one takes: Bill
> mentioned deconstruction (and its mutated forms), but there also is
> structuralism (and post structuralism, both more suited
> for "regular" film), there is specific semiotic notions, as those
by
> Genette (tense, hypertextuality) and something as basic as script
> construction.
>
> Perhaps it was also too daring and risky to use "The Wrong
> Man" / "Topaz" vs. the body of Hithcock's work, but all things
being
> equal, when one sits and studies the body of any director, one film
> may or will stand out as extraordinary in its construction, in its
> presentation, yet isn't the film one would chose as a showcase for
> the directors auteurism.
>
"auteurism" is a critical approach of cinema. You can't speak of a
director's auteurism. Maybe the word you need is "auteurship" here.
> I find it very clear when approaching Breillat: Her best film would
> be "Sex is comedy", as it is so easy to approach, is so fluent in
> construction and still faithful to her ideas, but the films I would
> pick any day as the central film to demonstrate her auteurism is
> either "Romance X" or "Anatomie de l'enfer", as they are everything
> she is about, but very hard for an audience to follow and
> understand. Here I find the dichotomy clear and easy.
I don't think "Romance" is difficult to follow and understand.
What leads you to think it is so for "an audience"? I have seen films
that are great commercial hits and that I find very difficult to
follow and understand... What is an audience anyway? Are we putting
ourselves "above" the audience because we are "auteurists" and so
knowledgeable about film? You and I are part of the audience, we are
the audience, for better or worse. I haven't seen "Sex is comedy" but
why would it be her best film because it is "easy to approach"? The
dichotomy is not at all clear and easy to me. "Romance' is in my
opinion the best of the Breillat films I have seen and I don't see
why a reasonably mature and intelligent audience couldn't agree, even
if most of the audience are not auteurists.
But then, rating films as "best" according to this or that
criterium or standard may not be all that fruitful. Which brings me
back to my initial remark that the concept of "best" should re-
evaluated and redefined
JPC
9753
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 1:46pm
Subject: Re: Audience Torture and the Vigilante Film
> This relates to a genre I've been considering a lot (sort of
> roughing out ideas for an essay to describe the section on my
> wesbiste), Vigilante Films, and their subgenre, the
> Rape-Revenge film. They're at least halfway relevant to Bill's
> question because a common characteristic is to split the film in
> halves, first taking a character that the audience identifies and
> extensively torturing him (and thus the audience) in order to build
> enough justification for second half, some whole and total
> revenge, full of vicarious righteousness.
>
>
> Examples:
>
> Mad Max
> Vigilante
> First Blood
> Death Wish
> Billy Jack
Another vigilante/revenge film that I would add is "Rolling Thunder".
The lead character gets his arm taken off, his family is murdered and
his revenge at the end is left meaningless because he's been so
stricken with post-vietnam depression.
As recorded in William Goldman's "Adventures In The Screen Trade",
the audience was so tortured by that they actually got out of their
seats and tried to physically harm studio personell during the
screening!
I'll certainly be looking forward to that essay on this type of film!
-Aaron
9754
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 3:15pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
> But then, rating films as "best" according to this or that
> criterium or standard may not be all that fruitful.
I TOTALLY DISAGREE!
Which brings me
> back to my initial remark that the concept of "best" should re-
> evaluated and redefined
So you disagree too?
Now that I have your attention, JP:
1) Who translated Walsh's novel into French?
2) Is "a saturation of magnificent signs bathed in the light of their
absence of explanation" a quote from Michel Mourlet?
9755
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 3:18pm
Subject: Re: The Wrath of Carney
If it matters, everything I've heard about Carney, including things
not posted here, makes me believe he is a thoroughly rotten example
of homo academicus, so I won't be writing to Gena Rowlands about any
of this. She's capable of tending to her own knitting.
9756
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 3:18pm
Subject: Thoughts on auteurism, Breillat
> The questions was:
>
> What if the best film from a director (in terms of story, plot
> structure, direction, narrative - and so forth) isn't one of the
> films that a central to him as an auteur?
I think this happens fairly often. I can cope with it, because I don't
put a high premium on the interrelatedness of a director's films, at
least as a standard of value. But once in a while it can be troubling.
People are complicated. Each time a director collides with a project,
something new happens. I don't think auteurism is damaged by the fact
that some directors need an unusual external circumstance to do their
best work.
> I find it very clear when approaching Breillat: Her best film would
> be "Sex is comedy", as it is so easy to approach, is so fluent in
> construction and still faithful to her ideas, but the films I would
> pick any day as the central film to demonstrate her auteurism is
> either "Romance X" or "Anatomie de l'enfer", as they are everything
> she is about, but very hard for an audience to follow and
> understand. Here I find the dichotomy clear and easy.
Wow, I hope you're right about SEX AND COMEDY, which I still haven't seen.
I actually don't find ROMANCE completely typical of Breillat. She seems
driven in that film, more than usual, to give the audience entry to the
film through the female point of view. (As contrast, think of the
evenly-matched wars in PARFAIT AMOUR! or 36 FILLETTE.) Breillat tends
to distribute sympathy evenly through her films, even when the
characters are hurtful (actually, they always are); I think she also
does so in ROMANCE, but the effect of her point-of-view shift is that
it's harder for the audience to tell that she has sympathy for the
boyfriend in that film, and that she doesn't endorse all the
girlfriend's statements. (My conviction about Breillat's real
sympathies comes partly from patterns that I detect in her whole body of
work! And from interviews. Coming in cold, it's easy to see the
boyfriend as a bad guy, and the girlfriend's commentary as the
director's.) I think it's a slight mistake on her part.
- Dan
9757
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 3:45pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes critics any recommendations
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
> Frank S. Nugent
is of special interest because he moved from Columbia journalism
school to the NYT to Hollywood, where he wrote a dozen scripts for
John Ford, including The Searchers, plus Preminger's Angel Face and
Walsh's The Tall Men.
> Andre Sennwald
was active from the 1930s, and when I was poring through NYT
reviews from that period, Sennwald's pieces kept striking me as
surprisingly perceptive. For one thing, he went against the grain of
contemporary opinion to champion The Devil Is a Woman as "the
best product of the Sternberg-Dietrich alliance" and "one of the most
sophisticated films ever produced in America", recommending it
for its "cruel and mocking assault upon the romantic sex motif which
Hollywood has been gravely celebrating all these years".
Sennwald had his eyes open!
--Robert Keser
9758
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 3:49pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes critics any recommendations
>
> > Andre Sennwald
> was active from the 1930s, and when I was poring through NYT
> reviews from that period, Sennwald's pieces kept striking me as
> surprisingly perceptive. For one thing, he went against the grain of
> contemporary opinion to champion The Devil Is a Woman as "the
> best product of the Sternberg-Dietrich alliance" and "one of the
most
> sophisticated films ever produced in America", recommending it
> for its "cruel and mocking assault upon the romantic sex motif which
> Hollywood has been gravely celebrating all these years".
> Sennwald had his eyes open!
>
> --Robert Keser
Sounds like a tip worth following up, Robert.
9759
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 3:58pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> > But then, rating films as "best" according to this or that
> > criterium or standard may not be all that fruitful.
>
> I TOTALLY DISAGREE!
>
Why? How? Does it really make any sense to say: "Such and such is
So-and-So's best film"?
>
Which brings me
> > back to my initial remark that the concept of "best" should re-
> > evaluated and redefined
>
> So you disagree too?
No. I'd just like to know what is meant by "best".
>
> Now that I have your attention, JP:
>
> 1) Who translated Walsh's novel into French?
> 2) Is "a saturation of magnificent signs bathed in the light of
their
> absence of explanation" a quote from Michel Mourlet?
1) I didn't even know it was translated into French!
2) Mourlet writing in English? Or is that a translation? I have
no idea. Would that be about Lang? Bill, you know more about those
early Cahiers guys than I do!
9760
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 4:04pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
You're lettin' me down, JP.
Well, Wittgenstein would say it doesn't make sense to say that Shoot
the Piano Player is Truffaut's best film, but the sentence has
meaning, and few would disgree with it. It's just harder to pick with
most directors.
9761
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 4:13pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes critics any recommendations
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> >
> > > Andre Sennwald
> > was active from the 1930s, and when I was poring through NYT
> > reviews from that period, Sennwald's pieces kept striking me as
> > surprisingly perceptive. For one thing, he went against the grain
of
> > contemporary opinion to champion The Devil Is a Woman as "the
> > best product of the Sternberg-Dietrich alliance" and "one of the
> most
> > sophisticated films ever produced in America", recommending it
> > for its "cruel and mocking assault upon the romantic sex motif
which
> > Hollywood has been gravely celebrating all these years".
> > Sennwald had his eyes open!
> >
> > --Robert Keser
>
> Sounds like a tip worth following up, Robert.
Compare this with Mordaunt Hall's pedestrian (and almost meaningless)
review of Shanghai Express: "It is as though the audience
were taking the ride with the passengers and experiencing some of
their nerve-wracking experiences...There is a sense of movement
of the train while it is going, with undertones and the occasional
sound of the shrill whistle. Mr. Sternberg keeps his camera
continually darting hither and thither, but never without lending the
eye time to rest upon a scene, which gives his story a chance to
progress". And he got paid for writing this stuff! Lacking any ideas,
Hall also liked to report the random reactions of the audience
(more interesting than his meandering writing).
However, Sennwald might well be worth studying. I'll take another
look at his pieces.
--Robert Keser
9762
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 4:31pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> You're lettin' me down, JP.
>
> Well, Wittgenstein would say it doesn't make sense to say that
Shoot
> the Piano Player is Truffaut's best film, but the sentence has
> meaning, and few would disgree with it. It's just harder to pick
with
> most directors.
I'm all with Wittgenstein. I don't think "Tirez sur le pianiste"
is Truffaut's best film. I can think of at least half a dozen I think
are better. (two of my favorites are "Deux anglaises et le continent"
and "Baisers voles" --that's Truffaut's Singin' in the Rain). But
then, again, and to repeat myself, what does "best" mean? And of
course I'm not a real auteurist, I've just been faking it all along.
JPC
9763
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 4:55pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
> 2) Is "a saturation of magnificent signs bathed in the light of their
> absence of explanation" a quote from Michel Mourlet?
Per the great god Google, it's de Oliveira, quoted in For Ever Mozart (?)
http://www.stimultania.org/archives/rien.php
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/14/godard_mozart.html
9764
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 5:19pm
Subject: RE: Re: Thought on auteurism
> You're forced to identify with anny Balestrero every second of the
> picture.
If this is what you mean by an act of sadism against
the audience, I would also mention Noe's "I Stand Alone".
The relentless internal monologue forces audience identification
with the sexist, racist, violent child molester butcher.
I thought the movie was despicable and felt disgusting (and
disgusted) afterward. I'm not sure I would have felt any
different even if it was named "France".
Jonathan Takagi
9765
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 5:38pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes critics any recommendations
I'll especially check NUGENT's as I am interested in screenwriting.
Sennwald sounds interesting
Unfortuantely Sennwald's THE DEVIL IS A WOMAN review is not
listed, nor SHANGHAI EXPRESS (always good to learn from 'bad'
stuff).
I thought I had found a good resource; perhaps reviews are being
added daily.
I find many film commentators merely reviewers, rather than
critics.
I don't know if it is a premiere site, but you might
check
http://movies.nytimes.com/ref/movies/reviews/#critic
it lets you get the reviews of Past Critics:
these are the one's available for NUGENT
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
Alexander Nevsky (1938)
The Baker's Wife (1938)
Bringing up Baby (1938)
Camille (1936)
Captains Courageous (1937)
The Citadel (1938)
Dark Victory (1939)
Destry Rides Again (1939)
Dodsworth (1936)
Fury (1936)
Gone With the Wind (1939)
The Good Earth (1937)
Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939)
Grand Illusion (1937)
The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
The Great Ziegfeld (1936)
His Girl Friday (1940)
The Lady Vanishes (1938)
The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
Lost Horizon (1937)
Love Affair (1939)
Made for Each Other (1939)
Make Way for Tomorrow (1937)
Mayerling (1936)
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936)
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
My Man Godfrey (1936)
Ninotchka (1939)
Of Mice and Men (1939)
Only Angels Have Wings (1939)
Pinocchio (1940)
Pygmalion (1938)
Rebecca (1940)
Regain (1937)
Romeo and Juliet (1936)
The Shop Around the Corner (1940)
A Slight Case of Murder (1938)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Stage Door (1937)
Stagecoach (1939)
A Star is Born (1937)
The Story of Louis Pasteur (1936)
Swing Time (1936)
These Three (1936)
They Won't Forget (1937)
Three Comrades (1938)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
The Women (1939)
Wuthering Heights (1939)
You Only Live Once (1937)
Young Mr. Lincoln (1939)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan" wrote:
> Without playing favorites, any comments about critics who offer the most
> insights into cinema would be appreciated:
>
> Renata Adler
> Eugene Archer
> D. J. R. Bruckner
> Tom Buckley
> Vincent Canby
> B. R. Crisler
> Bosley Crowther
> Richard Eder
> Walter Goodman
> Roger Greenspun
> Mordaunt Hall
> Donal J. Henahan
> Caryn James
> Stanley Kauffman
> John T. McManus
> Janet Maslin
> Frank S. Nugent
> Thomas M. Pryor
> Nora Sayre
> Harold C. Schonberg
> Andre Sennwald
> Michael Stern
> Theodore Strauss
> Howard Thompson
> A. H. Weiler
9766
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 5:40pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes critics any recommendations
And he got paid for writing this stuff!
> --Robert Keser
Here are a couple of lines from a review of Van Helsing by someone
who's getting paid as we speak. Since we're the Nice Website, I won't
mention his name:
"It's all cliffhangers, with no down time in between. Whereas the
giddy pleasure of Sommers' Mummy pictures derived from their
throwaway banter between their neurotic, unlikely heroes....Jackman's
leaden performance [is] lacking in the goofball grandeur that Brendan
Fraser gave to the Mummy movies"... etc.
Giddy fun? Goodfball grandeur? I slept thru both the Mummy pictures
and thought this was marginally better, but I'm really talking about
the writing (and the analytic comment at the beginning: What oft was
thought but ne'er so boringly expressed, since quoting Pope is
fashionable these days). When did phrases like that become standard
issue for film critics? This one is respected in some quarters, by
the way.
9767
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 5:44pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
I don't think "Tirez sur le pianiste"
> is Truffaut's best film. I can think of at least half a dozen I
think
> are better. (two of my favorites are "Deux anglaises et le
continent"
> and "Baisers voles" --that's Truffaut's Singin' in the Rain). But
> then, again, and to repeat myself, what does "best" mean? And of
> course I'm not a real auteurist, I've just been faking it all along.
>
> JPC
Baisers voles, which I saw part of again recently, is lovely, but not
as good as the Promethean, never-equalled Shoot, and Deux anglaises,
while fashionable, is overrated. Leaud is awful in it, for one thing.
And I don't have the impresssion that we are using meaningless terms
in this conversation, although we can both always say better (DEFINE
BETTER!) what we mean. If comparisons make the comment, for example,
Shoot is Truffaut's They Live By Night and Under Capricorn "put
together" (Singin' in the Rain).
9768
From: filipefurtado
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 5:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: Manoel de Oliveira
> Has anybody read this
Oliveira/Godard dialogue? published in Liberation for Val Abraham
> and Hélas pour moi (I don't)
I've read it. It's pretty good and
very funny (whoever read it without
knowing much about the two may
conclude that Oliveira has half
Godard's age...). It's online in
portuguese in Contracampo#53.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
9769
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 6:04pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jess Amortell"
wrote:
> > 2) Is "a saturation of magnificent signs bathed in the light of
their
> > absence of explanation" a quote from Michel Mourlet?
>
>
> Per the great god Google, it's de Oliveira, quoted in For Ever
Mozart (?)
>
> http://www.stimultania.org/archives/rien.php
>
> http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/14/godard_mozart.html
Sure sounds like something I read in La Mise-en-scene Considered as a
Language, but google.fr was no help. It wouldn't be the first time
Godard has misattributed a Mourlet quote. He did that with one of the
most famous ones - about cinema as a world accorded to our desire -
when he attributed it to Bazin, whereas it was the exact opposite of
what Bazin believed.
I did stumble across a recent quote from MM on the Net: "Soon the
importance of a book will be measured by the silence that surrounds
it."
9770
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 6:05pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Takagi"
wrote:
>
> > You're forced to identify with anny Balestrero every second of
the
> > picture.
>
> If this is what you mean by an act of sadism against
> the audience, I would also mention Noe's "I Stand Alone".
> The relentless internal monologue forces audience identification
> with the sexist, racist, violent child molester butcher.
> I thought the movie was despicable and felt disgusting (and
> disgusted) afterward. I'm not sure I would have felt any
> different even if it was named "France".
>
> Jonathan Takagi
Of the Bunuels, El comes closest to this.
9771
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 6:24pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and their 'key' works
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> I tend to subscribe to the view that the work of many great
>filmmakers turns around a 'secret centre' - the thing their work is
>mostly deeply 'about' is precisely the thing that cannot be said,
>represented or depicted directly. Thus, what comes to animate a
>director's best work (within this idea) is the energy and invention
>needed to constantly displace, transform, sublimate, etc
>that 'secret centre'.
>I'm sure there is a Lacanian logic in that somewhere ...
There might, in fact, be a Lacanian logic to this, Adrian. Do you
know Zizek's essay on THE WRONG MAN? He makes arguments there which
have some relationship to what you are saying. Zizek's examples are,
in addition to the Hitchcock, Le Carre's A PERFECT SPY, Ballard's
EMPIRE OF THE SUN, and Scott's BLACK RAIN, works in which elements
of fantasy, displacement, etc. in terms of that "secret centre" you
are describing, and which positively animate the work of these
artists elsewhere, are in these works treated directly and, to
Zizek's way of thinking, less successfully. I'm sitting in my
office now without the book in hand so I'm not sure if I'm getting
Zizek right here. I would be interested in reading what you have to
say on the matter in PHANTASMS, though -- a book which I have so far
been unable to locate, at least at an affordable price.
9772
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 6:54pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I don't think "Tirez sur le pianiste"
> > is Truffaut's best film. I can think of at least half a dozen I
> think
> > are better. (two of my favorites are "Deux anglaises et le
> continent"
> > and "Baisers voles" --that's Truffaut's Singin' in the Rain). But
> > then, again, and to repeat myself, what does "best" mean? And of
> > course I'm not a real auteurist, I've just been faking it all
along.
> >
> > JPC
>
> Baisers voles, which I saw part of again recently, is lovely, but
not
> as good as the Promethean, never-equalled Shoot, and Deux
anglaises,
> while fashionable, is overrated. Leaud is awful in it, for one
thing.
>
> And I don't have the impresssion that we are using meaningless
terms
> in this conversation, although we can both always say better
(DEFINE
> BETTER!) what we mean. If comparisons make the comment, for
example,
> Shoot is Truffaut's They Live By Night and Under Capricorn "put
> together" (Singin' in the Rain).
"Promethean"? "fashionable"? Meaning what? "overrated" By whom? I
do think they are meaningless terms because they are entirely
subjective. There is no way you can "prove" that Shoot is THE best
Truffaut film -- except to people who already think it is. And I can
think of very few directors (and even fewer major ones) of whom I can
say, "this is his/her best film" (which of course merely comes to
saying "This is the one I like best").
If Leaud is awful in Deux anglaises, then he is awful in most of
his films.
They Live by Night and Under Capricorn go together like Calv and
Coolidge.
JPC
9773
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 7:04pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Takagi"
> wrote:
> >
> .
> >
> > If this is what you mean by an act of sadism against
> > the audience, I would also mention Noe's "I Stand Alone".
> > The relentless internal monologue forces audience identification
> > with the sexist, racist, violent child molester butcher.
> > I thought the movie was despicable and felt disgusting (and
> > disgusted) afterward. I'm not sure I would have felt any
> > different even if it was named "France".
> >
> > Jonathan Takagi
>
> Of the Bunuels, El comes closest to this.
Why is the movie despicable? because the character is despicable?
Surely not. Because it forces audience identification? One is
never "forced" to "identify". If you feel 'disgusting" (and not just
disgusted) that would suggest that you related to the character's
feelings at some level. Because after all you're a human being like
him. "Nothing human is foreign to me."
I don't think El comes that close to what Jonathan described.
JPC
9774
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 7:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thought on auteurism
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> "Promethean"? "fashionable"? Meaning what?
> "overrated" By whom? I
> do think they are meaningless terms because they are
> entirely
> subjective. There is no way you can "prove" that
> Shoot is THE best
> Truffaut film -- except to people who already think
> it is. And I can
> think of very few directors (and even fewer major
> ones) of whom I can
> say, "this is his/her best film" (which of course
> merely comes to
> saying "This is the one I like best").
Getting in on this a bit late, what happened to "Jules
and Jim"? This was the Truffaut that knocked me for a
look when I first saw it back in 1962, and it remains
THE key work for me. I love "Shoot the Piano Player."
And I also love its sequel,"La Sirene du Mississipi"
-- though I wouldn't make a "Best" argument for it.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9775
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 7:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs and their 'key' works
I have several volumes of Lacan that I'm quite willing
to part with for a reasonable fee!
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
>
> wrote:
> > I tend to subscribe to the view that the work of
> many great
> >filmmakers turns around a 'secret centre' - the
> thing their work is
> >mostly deeply 'about' is precisely the thing that
> cannot be said,
> >represented or depicted directly. Thus, what comes
> to animate a
> >director's best work (within this idea) is the
> energy and invention
> >needed to constantly displace, transform,
> sublimate, etc
> >that 'secret centre'.
>
> >I'm sure there is a Lacanian logic in that
> somewhere ...
>
> There might, in fact, be a Lacanian logic to this,
> Adrian. Do you
> know Zizek's essay on THE WRONG MAN? He makes
> arguments there which
> have some relationship to what you are saying.
> Zizek's examples are,
> in addition to the Hitchcock, Le Carre's A PERFECT
> SPY, Ballard's
> EMPIRE OF THE SUN, and Scott's BLACK RAIN, works in
> which elements
> of fantasy, displacement, etc. in terms of that
> "secret centre" you
> are describing, and which positively animate the
> work of these
> artists elsewhere, are in these works treated
> directly and, to
> Zizek's way of thinking, less successfully. I'm
> sitting in my
> office now without the book in hand so I'm not sure
> if I'm getting
> Zizek right here. I would be interested in reading
> what you have to
> say on the matter in PHANTASMS, though -- a book
> which I have so far
> been unable to locate, at least at an affordable
> price.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9776
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 7:22pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes critics any recommendations
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
> I'll especially check NUGENT's as I am interested in screenwriting.
> Sennwald sounds interesting
> Unfortuantely Sennwald's THE DEVIL IS A WOMAN review is not
> listed, nor SHANGHAI EXPRESS (always good to learn from 'bad'
> stuff).
You've got that right!
>
> I don't know if it is a premiere site, but you might
> check
> http://movies.nytimes.com/ref/movies/reviews/#critic
> it lets you get the reviews of Past Critics:
Thanks, this is very useful: it has a dozen reviews by Sennwald
(which makes a dozen more than were available online a year ago).
Last year Richard Armstrong (at the BFI) was planning a history of
film criticism (and I think Gerald Peary had a similar but separate
project). This seems to be a good time for such a reflexive
undertaking.
--Robert Keser
9777
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 7:27pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes critics any recommendations
To be fair, he's written some good things too, although The Mummy
impressed me mostly as a visual mess that may endure as a landmark
of early CGI-abuse.
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> And he got paid for writing this stuff!
> > --Robert Keser
>
> Here are a couple of lines from a review of Van Helsing by someone
> who's getting paid as we speak. Since we're the Nice Website, I
won't
> mention his name:
>
> "It's all cliffhangers, with no down time in between. Whereas the
> giddy pleasure of Sommers' Mummy pictures derived from their
> throwaway banter between their neurotic, unlikely
heroes....Jackman's
> leaden performance [is] lacking in the goofball grandeur that
Brendan
> Fraser gave to the Mummy movies"... etc.
>
> Giddy fun? Goodfball grandeur? I slept thru both the Mummy
pictures
> and thought this was marginally better, but I'm really talking
about
> the writing (and the analytic comment at the beginning: What oft
was
> thought but ne'er so boringly expressed, since quoting Pope is
> fashionable these days). When did phrases like that become
standard
> issue for film critics? This one is respected in some quarters, by
> the way.
9778
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 7:27pm
Subject: RE: Re: Thought on auteurism
> Why is the movie despicable? because the character is despicable?
> Surely not. Because it forces audience identification? One is
> never "forced" to "identify". If you feel 'disgusting" (and not just
> disgusted) that would suggest that you related to the character's
> feelings at some level. Because after all you're a human being like
> him. "Nothing human is foreign to me."
I guess the movie dares you to engage it, in which
lies the novelty. You could simply try to remain a
spectator, but the unstoppable monologue is almost
impossible to tune out.
There's a local murder case in which the 12 year old victim's
brother and friends (two of them were actually my students for a
while) were accused, and eventually admitted. They say
that they were forced to admit their guilt by the exhausting
tactics of the police interrogators.
Jonathan Takagi
9779
From: rastignac5
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 7:35pm
Subject: Re: Thought on auteurism - Truffaut
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Getting in on this a bit late, what happened to "Jules
> and Jim"? This was the Truffaut that knocked me for a
> look when I first saw it back in 1962, and it remains
> THE key work for me.
>
"Jules and Jim" is great, but I consider it too atypical of
Truffaut's oeuvre to be considered his key work. The stylistic
flourishes, the front seat nature is given, the exploration of male
bonding: none of his other films really focus on these elements.
Even the character of Catherine was much more Moreau's creation than
Truffaut's.
-Jerry
9780
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 7:51pm
Subject: Re: NYTimes critics any recommendations
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
>
>
>
> Last year Richard Armstrong (at the BFI) was planning a history of
> film criticism (and I think Gerald Peary had a similar but separate
> project). This seems to be a good time for such a reflexive
> undertaking.
>
> --Robert Keser
Some of you may be aware that there is in existence a book on the
History of film criticism in France: "La Critique de cinema en
France -- Histoire Anthologie Dictionnaire"" edited by Michel
Ciment and Jacques Zimmer + Claude Gauteur and Dominique Rabourdin.
with contributions by about 30 people. Ramsay, Paris, 1997. The
History section is about 130 pages long and has a different author
for each period (origins to 1930: Beylie; '30s to Occupation
years:Ph. d'Hughes; 1944-1958: J.P. Jeancolas; 1959-1996: Zimmer).
The Dictionary section has entries on 312 French film critics, past
and present. Critics evaluated by critics! The contributors came from
various venues including Cahiers du Cinema and Positif. Quite a
unique kind of book!
JPC
9781
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 7:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thought on auteurism - Truffaut
> "Jules and Jim" is great, but I consider it too atypical of
> Truffaut's oeuvre to be considered his key work. The stylistic
> flourishes, the front seat nature is given, the exploration of male
> bonding: none of his other films really focus on these elements.
> Even the character of Catherine was much more Moreau's creation than
> Truffaut's.
Wow, that's interesting: I would have said that JULES is where Truffaut
discovers the style that we think of as is. In fact, he seems to
discover it a ways into the film: the beginning of the movie shows signs
of Godard influence that Truffaut would eventually discard. - Dan
9782
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 8:05pm
Subject: Avance sur recettes
Is there anyone on the list that could describe to me
exactly how the "Avance sur recettes" system works in
France? Who is it that is giving the money? The CNC?
Who are the people responsible for judging whether or
not a movie is worthy of receiving funds? Are these
funds eventually repaid?
I've read so much about it that I feel I should learn
more about how it actually works. It seems like it's
as methodical and predictable as how movies are rated
by the MPAA, where someone could go in with only the
faintest idea of what a project will be and receive
money, but others are rejected seemingly without reason.
Jonathan Takagi
9783
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 8:58pm
Subject: Walsh/lourcelles & Oliveira/Mourlet
Bill,
> 1) Who translated Walsh's novel into French?
Jacques Lourcelles, one of the most ardent admirer of Walsh's work
('72 La Colère des Justes)
> 2) Is "a saturation of magnificent signs bathed in the light of
their absence of explanation" a quote from Michel Mourlet?
From de Oliveira to Godard, as published in Liberation (Sept
93) "C'est d'ailleurs ce que j'aime en général au cinéma, une
saturation de signes magnifiques qui baignent dans la lumière de
leur absence d'explication"
"Absence of explanation" and "signes mangnifiques" are
eminently "mourletiennes" expressions. The closest stuff that may be
found in "La mise en scène comme langage" being: "(...) dépouiller
le spectateur de toute distante consciente pour le précipiter dans
un état d'hypnose soutenu par une incantation de gestes, de regards,
d'infimes mouvements du visage et du corps, d'inflexions vocales, au
sein d'un univers d'objets étincelants, blessants ou magnifiques, où
l'on se perd pour se retrouver élargi, lucide et apaisé".
Maxime
9784
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 9:33pm
Subject: Re: Avance sur recettes
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Takagi"
> Who is it that is giving the money? The CNC?
> Who are the people responsible for judging whether or
> not a movie is worthy of receiving funds?
The "avance sur recettes" is financed by TV channels (I guess) and
by a tax on theaters' tickets (for sure). The decision is made by a
25/30 members commission whose president is currently Frederic
Mitterrand (I guess). Members include professionals of movies
industry (directors, actors, ...) Two distinct colleges, one for
first films and one for others, examine projects presented either by
their authors, or by the producers. They read, discuss, and judge...
Another procedure makes it possible for the producers to obtain an
advance after the shooting. When the commercial results allow it,
this advance has to be refunded, in theory.
> Are these funds eventually repaid?
Rarely I believe....
Huge scandal in 2002 when Rivette, Ruiz and others were rejected..
9785
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 9:48pm
Subject: Re: Avance sur recettes
I may add that Paul Vecchiali and Agnes Varda never received
anything from the CNC. Shame on them. (Of course, I presume that
Varda didn't have much scenario to show before les Glaneurs...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Takagi"
> > Who is it that is giving the money? The CNC?
> > Who are the people responsible for judging whether or
> > not a movie is worthy of receiving funds?
>
> The "avance sur recettes" is financed by TV channels (I guess) and
> by a tax on theaters' tickets (for sure). The decision is made by
a
> 25/30 members commission whose president is currently Frederic
> Mitterrand (I guess). Members include professionals of movies
> industry (directors, actors, ...) Two distinct colleges, one for
> first films and one for others, examine projects presented either
by
> their authors, or by the producers. They read, discuss, and
judge...
> Another procedure makes it possible for the producers to obtain an
> advance after the shooting. When the commercial results allow it,
> this advance has to be refunded, in theory.
>
> > Are these funds eventually repaid?
> Rarely I believe....
>
> Huge scandal in 2002 when Rivette, Ruiz and others were rejected..
9786
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 10:00pm
Subject: RE: Re: Manoel de Oliveira
> Has anybody read this
> Oliveira/Godard dialogue? published in Liberation for Val Abraham
> and Hélas pour moi (I don't)
It's also in "Godard par Godard", Volume 2, if I
remember correctly.
Jonathan Takagi
9787
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: RE: Re: Avance sur recettes
> I may add that Paul Vecchiali and Agnes Varda never received
> anything from the CNC. Shame on them. (Of course, I presume that
> Varda didn't have much scenario to show before les Glaneurs...)
So the CNC is the organization that in charge of the "Avance
sur recettes" then?
And on a Vecchiali-related note, have any of the earlier
Diagonale films ever been released on video anywhere?
Jonathan Takagi
9788
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 10:11pm
Subject: RE: Re: Avance sur recettes
Do you know how much money is usually awarded?
> Huge scandal in 2002 when Rivette, Ruiz and others were rejected..
Are their delierations/decisions private? Is the process
considered "fair", or are there certain powerful people
that can sway the committee's decisions?
Jonathan Takagi
9789
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 10:53pm
Subject: Re: Avance sur recettes & Vecchiali
> Do you know how much money is usually awarded?
In 2002, 50 avances pre-production for a total of M€ 17.
Some of the 2002 avances: Doillon (Raja), Brisseau (Choses
secrètes), Resnais, Assays (Demon lover, post-production)
> Are their deliberations/decisions private? Is the process
> considered "fair", or are there certain powerful people
> that can sway the committee's decisions?
The decisions are public of course; the deliberations are private.
I've never been invited, but I think we may believe that the process
is "fair", as free of evil influences. It doesn't mean that the
system is fair or efficient. Since the decisions are eminently
subjective, everyone may believe that they are totally wrong. For
past years, the debate was between "small" and "big" productions.
>So the CNC is the organization that in charge of the "Avance
> sur recettes" then?
The CNC manages the French State support fund to movies industry,
including several aids, automatic or not (including l'avance)
>And on a Vecchiali-related note, have any of the earlier
>Diagonale films ever been released on video anywhere?
Some were released, but now untraceable.
I can copy you CORPS A COEURS on DVD+RW PAL, if you can take it.
9790
From:
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 7:34pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs and their 'key' works
Excellent post, Adrian. I wonder, though, if we shy away from those films
that go "right to that 'secret centre'" as a justification for if not a
preservation of our labor as critics, the idea being that we uncover those secrets for
an audience who, at the very least, might not be familiar with the director's
oeuvre. If a film like Last Temptation, in your estimation, requires no such
uncovering, where does that leave us as critics? What is our role at that
point? Can we justify our jobs?
As a populist (and a critic), I wonder about the soundness of this approach.
I recall watching Jurassic Park eons ago with a friend. There's a scene where
it's clear that Sam Neill is starting to treat the children in the film as his
own family (I forget what exactly happens - he takes their hands and helps
them over something or other, perhaps). I said "See! This is what this film's
about. It's an indictment of living single. It's about the supposed necessity of
integrating into the nuclear family." He responded with "That's not what the
movie is 'about,' Kevin." And he sassily emphasized that "about" which is why
I placed it in quotes. Now mind you, you couldn't exactly lump this guy in
with some sort of clueless mass. He was a Spielberg freak and a director of a
relatively major mid-90s film, the name of which I won't mention. He spoke very
eloquently and perceptively about the shot-reverse shot exchange (on a stage, I
believe) between De Niro and Lewis in Scorsese's Cape Fear. Nevertheless, he
seemed unmoved by my ideological critique in favor of an "on the surface"
appreciation of craft.
So, on one hand, I do find the excavation of secret centers (or even just
secrets) a worthy critical endeavor. On the other, I think too subterranean a
focus can distort how films are perceived which I also think is worthy of
critical attention.
And I also wonder how deep these secret centers are. Surely, we've all been
accused of reading too deep into a film at some point in our lives. But is an
auteurist merely someone who has skimmed a lot surfaces?
If not, then we should ask how these secret centers work. Are the dinosaurs
and CGI and promotional tie-ins in Jurassic Park there to help the family
ideology go down or do they overwhelm (and thus short circuit) the ideology? Is the
religious thrust of Raging Bull so deeply submerged that it can only impact
the non-surface skimming auteurist?
Whatever the case, it's clear that the struggle to determine what a film is
"about" is intimately bound up with question of legitimacy and thus capital. Do
we have the right to make these claims and thus profit (however sadly) from
them? This is why I think it's important to address this matter.
And Joe, please post that Zizek reference! Sounds intriguing.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9791
From: J. Mabe
Date: Tue May 11, 2004 1:28am
Subject: Nuit et Brouillard
I was thinking about trying to show this film when I
get back to school in a few months, but I’m stuck
trying to figure out what kind of film could be played
with it in a program. I supposed I could do a
screening of just this film... If the school’s library
had another Resnais print (it doesn’t) this would be
much simpler. Nuit et Brouillard just seems to resist
putting it with any other sort of film, and the being
limited by the school’s 16mm collection doesn’t help.
It doesn’t feel right to lump it into a program of
other short films. Some films like Reel 2 of Dog Star
Man (we have just reel 2, go figure), Menilmontant, or
Blood of the Beasts would fit time-wise as a double
bill, but I just can’t imagine an appropriate film to
show along side. Has anyone seen Nuit et Brouillard
together on a program with films that weren’t about
the Shoah or also by Resnais?
Just curious...
Josh Mabe
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9792
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue May 11, 2004 1:31am
Subject: Re: Auteurs and their 'key' works
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> Whatever the case, it's clear that the struggle to determine what a
film is
> "about" is intimately bound up with question of legitimacy and thus
capital. Do
> we have the right to make these claims and thus profit (however
sadly) from
> them? This is why I think it's important to address this matter.
>
> And Joe, please post that Zizek reference! Sounds intriguing.
>
> Kevin
>
> I apologize for deleting most of this fascinating post, but I
just wanted to comment on the matter of what a film is "about". I
have always thought that a film is about whatever the viewer thinks
it is about -- which amounts to saying that it's not "about" anything
(quote marks absolutely essential) -- no matter what the "auteur"
him/herself might say. I don't think I ever used the phrase "the
film is about..." in my entire life and if I did I apologize for it
too -- it was just weakness and laziness... A film, any work of art,
is about what it is, and that's it...(we're not talking about it's
subject matter, of course).
But what does it mean, anyway, this thing about legitimacy and
capital? I really would like some clarification of that last
paragraph. It made absolutely no sense to me, but it must make sense
since you think it is so important.
JPC
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9793
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue May 11, 2004 1:34am
Subject: Re: Nuit et Brouillard
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
> I was thinking about trying to show this film when I
> get back to school in a few months, but I'm stuck
> trying to figure out what kind of film could be played
> with it in a program. I supposed I could do a
> screening of just this film... If the school's library
> had another Resnais print (it doesn't) this would be
> much simpler. Nuit et Brouillard just seems to resist
> putting it with any other sort of film, and the being
> limited by the school's 16mm collection doesn't help.
> It doesn't feel right to lump it into a program of
> other short films. Some films like Reel 2 of Dog Star
> Man (we have just reel 2, go figure), Menilmontant, or
> Blood of the Beasts would fit time-wise as a double
> bill, but I just can't imagine an appropriate film to
> show along side. Has anyone seen Nuit et Brouillard
> together on a program with films that weren't about
> the Shoah or also by Resnais?
>
> Just curious...
> Josh Mabe
>
>
> Why not show it with Hiroshima mon amour if you can get a print?
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9794
From:
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 9:55pm
Subject: Re: Nuit et Brouillard
Excellent question, Josh. The only thing I can think of is Lanzmann's
Sobibor, 14 Octobre 1943, 16 heures which I've never even seen. It's 95 minutes and
wouldn't seem all that taxing time-wise with the 32-minute Nuit et Brouillard.
But I imagine finding a print of it wouldn't be all that easy.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9795
From: J. Mabe
Date: Tue May 11, 2004 2:04am
Subject: Re: Nuit et Brouillard
Sobibor is available through New Yorker. But getting
money out of the school is tough, so I'm just going to
mine the 16mm collection on campus. Thanks for the
suggestion though.
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Excellent question, Josh. The only thing I can think
> of is Lanzmann's
> Sobibor, 14 Octobre 1943, 16 heures which I've never
> even seen. It's 95 minutes and
> wouldn't seem all that taxing time-wise with the
> 32-minute Nuit et Brouillard.
> But I imagine finding a print of it wouldn't be all
> that easy.
>
> Kevin
>
>
> [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
9796
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue May 11, 2004 2:14am
Subject: Re: Nuit et Brouillard
I'd reccomend showing it with "La Jetee."
--- "J. Mabe" wrote:
> Sobibor is available through New Yorker. But
> getting
> money out of the school is tough, so I'm just going
> to
> mine the 16mm collection on campus. Thanks for the
> suggestion though.
>
>
> --- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> > Excellent question, Josh. The only thing I can
> think
> > of is Lanzmann's
> > Sobibor, 14 Octobre 1943, 16 heures which I've
> never
> > even seen. It's 95 minutes and
> > wouldn't seem all that taxing time-wise with the
> > 32-minute Nuit et Brouillard.
> > But I imagine finding a print of it wouldn't be
> all
> > that easy.
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> > [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
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
9797
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue May 11, 2004 2:19am
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs and their 'key' works
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> But what does it mean, anyway, this thing about
> legitimacy and
> capital? I really would like some clarification of
> that last
> paragraph. It made absolutely no sense to me, but it
> must make sense
> since you think it is so important.
>
To my way of thinking a film si "about" everything
that's in it -- including the structuring absences.
"Seven Women" is about missionaries in China.
It's also about John Ford making his last movie,
Patricia Neal's stroke, Anne Bancroft's phenomenal
acting skill and resourcefulness, racism, rape,
sacrifice, the non-existence of God, Elmer Bernstein's
awe-inspiring professionalism, Panavision, and Sue
Lyon.
I'm sure I've left a lot out.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
9798
From:
Date: Mon May 10, 2004 10:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs and their 'key' works
In a message dated 5/10/04 8:53:03 PM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
> A film, any work of art, is about what it is, and that's it...(we're not
> talking about it's subject matter, of course). But what does it mean, anyway,
> this thing about legitimacy and capital? I really would like some
> clarification of that last paragraph. It made absolutely no sense to me, but it must make
> sense since you think it is so important.
>
Meaning that if films or any works of art are about what they are and that's
it, what purpose does the critic serve? And if the critic serves no purpose
and spends their time reading too deeply, then why should they get paid to do
that?
And if a film is truly about what it is and that's it, then how would you
respond if I said that Minority Report was not about some futuristic device
called Pre Crime but was really about a birthing myth? Or that Sirk's Imitation of
Life was not about how well Lora et al treated Sarah Jane but, in fact, how
poorly they treated Sarah Jane? Or that Tequila Sunrise was not about drug
dealing but really about a repulsion with women? Or that Francis Veber's The Closet
was not about homosexuality but rather heterosexuality? Or take out the
warring terms like "really" and "rather." What if you read a review I wrote of
Minority Report where I never mentioned Pre Crime and wrote about amniotic fluids
and pregnancy? Would I have written about what Minority Report was truly
about? Would I have written about what Minority Report is and that's it?
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
9799
From: Jerry Johnson
Date: Tue May 11, 2004 2:39am
Subject: Re: Nuit et Brouillard
Program it with other social documentaries by famous auteurs, like
Bunuel's "Land Without Bread" and Lindsay Anderson's "Everyday Except
Christmas."
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
> I was thinking about trying to show this film when I
> get back to school in a few months, but I'm stuck
> trying to figure out what kind of film could be played
> with it in a program.
9800
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue May 11, 2004 3:13am
Subject: Re: Auteurs and their 'key' works
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
>
> To my way of thinking a film si "about" everything
> that's in it -- including the structuring absences.
>
> "Seven Women" is about missionaries in China.
>
> It's also about John Ford making his last movie,
> Patricia Neal's stroke, Anne Bancroft's phenomenal
> acting skill and resourcefulness, racism, rape,
> sacrifice, the non-existence of God, Elmer Bernstein's
> awe-inspiring professionalism, Panavision, and Sue
> Lyon.
>
> I'm sure I've left a lot out.
>
> Sure. In other words, it's not "about" anything in particular.
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact