Posts from the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact

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.

10901

From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 3:32pm
Subject: Re: Bitter Victory (Was: Bitter Victor)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > those parts are wooden, and so are Roman (who previously
> > sank every scene she was in in Strangers on a Train) and Jurgens,
> >obvious villain, bad actor).

> I think Roman's acting is indeed too blatant,

Her performance seems very conventionally conceived but not
ineffective in Hollywood terms. Do we know who was Ray's first choice
for the role?

>but what I like best
>about the film is the actually the Jurgens character. Ray manages
to
>convey a childlike, uncertain quality in the man, which I find
>moving: he seems so pitiable pretending even to be an adult, much
>less a military commander. And his eyes show awareness: they're a
>child's eyes.

Yes, I think the subliminal tension of the film, beneath the overt
conflict between the two men, lies in how Jurgens' eyes can't
hide the character's fear and vulnerability while he makes an
outward show of decisive action and gruffly orders the soldiers
about. On the other hand, Jurgens perhaps plays that note too
often, and sometimes seems to be thinking "I'll just widen my
eyes and stare here since I can't think of what else to do".
One gets the feeling of a not especially resourceful actor
stranded on his own, working in a foreign language, and playing
a Boer at that!

--Robert Keser
10902

From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 3:54pm
Subject: Fw:Cinema Museum Moscow in Danger

This is from the Frameworks list, on which several of you are regulars.
Thought I'd pass it along for your interest.
George Robinson

Our talk of justice is empty until the
largest battleship has foundered on the
forehead of a drowned man.
--Paul Celan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcel Schwierin"
To:
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 8:05 AM
Subject: [JunkMail] Cinema Museum Moscow in Danger

> Dear FrameWorkers,
>
> this museum is a unique place of cinematic history, his director Naum
> Klejman an outstanding cinema expert and always helpful for any kind of
> requests. To my knowledge, this fight against the museum is going on since
> nearly 10 years, but now it seems that the museum is finally in real
> danger. The people of the museum try to make some public pressure on
> russian officials.
>
> The text of the petition (quoted below):
> http://help.museikino.ru/upholdmain.asp#eng
>
> To sign the petition: http://help.museikino.ru/upholdhelp.asp
>
> Marcel Schwierin
> ----------------
> cinovid ::: database for experimental film and video art
> (formerly known as oVid) ::: http://www.cinovid.org
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> begin of quoted text <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> The existence of the unique Russian State Cinema Museum is threatened
again.
> If the shares of the joint-stock company "Kinocenter", in which the
> Union of Filmmakers of Russia holds 32%, are sold to one of the
> leaseholders - to the entertainment complex "Arlekino", - then in summer
> of this same year the building of Kinocenter (Film Center) on Presnya
> street may become absolute property of the new holders. This will allow
> them to raise a question (for commercial use of premises) of clearing
> out the cinema archives and cinemas, which were built by the Union of
> Filmmakers of the USSR specially for Cinema Museum and which the Union
> of Filmmakers of Russia assured will be kept as Cinema Museum property
> until Museum will get its own separate building.
> We wholeheartedly protest the attempts to end the work of Cinema Museum,
> which stores priceless materials and traditions of the Russian cinema.
> The storage of unique cinema materials 'till better times" will only
> lead towards inaccessibility of the archives and towards the destruction
> of the e-catalogue, carefully created by UNESCO guidelines.
> Even a temporary halt to the work of Russian Cinema Museum, to the
> playing of cinematic classics and the best of contemporary cinema is
> absolutely inappropriate. Not only will the numerous Museum's agreements
> with the embassies and cinematic libraries of different countries have
> to be dishonoured, but a Russian citizen's right to access cultural
> treasures of humanity will be violated.
> We call upon the federal Russian government and the municipal Moscow
> administration; upon the Cultural Committee of Russian Parliament; upon
> the Culture Ministry of the Russian Federation, of which Cinema Museum
> is a part - we call upon these organizations to interfere immediately
> and help resolve this critical issue, to prevent the destruction of the
> Cinema Museum and to decide on a separate building for it."
>
>
10903

From: Doug Cummings
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: Resnais/No Resnais or PAL sur la Bouche (was: Son of "Product Placement")

On Jun 11, 2004, at 11:21 PM, Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:

>
> >
> > In reading mastersofcinema/robert-bresson.com's reviews of New
> Yorker's apparently flawed DVDs of A Man Escaped and Lancelot du Lac
> (they are transfers from PAL video, not film sources), I was
> reminded anew of the startling likelihood that *ALL* PAL DVDs
> (because of the discrepancy between 24fps and PAL's 25fps frame-
> rate) run 4 percent fast -- not just when converted to NTSC (as I'd
> been letting myself believe), but when played on PAL systems in PAL
> regions, also.
> to order...
>
> I swear, Mehrnaz and I watched bits of both the Bressons on my
> tristandard monitor with my multistandard DVD player and we could
> see no ghosting whatsoever--and we looked very hard. And I haven't
> see ghosting on the American Chaplin DVDs either...

Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with your monitor or your DVD
player, but the image that has been encoded on the disc itself. When
you watch a normal PAL disc, a multiregion DVD player will convert the
the image to NTSC and it will look fine. But when certain North
American companies choose to release titles in NTSC, they sometimes
purchase the rights to PAL tapes and effectively dub their NTSC
versions. So when folks purchase the NTSC version that has been
transferred from a PAL version rather than getting its own unique
transfer from an original source, there is ghosting, which can be
especially observed when viewing the DVDs frame-by-frame. For
PAL-to-NTSC transfers, the individual film frames often do not exist,
because the process digitally blends them together, creating this
ghosty, in-between netherworld of video frames blurred between film
frames. The original film frames are lost.

Granted, it's a purist's critique, and unless you're viewing
PAL-to-NTSC DVDs on a computer or an expensive progressive scan
monitor, you're probably not likely to notice it while the video is
playing. (Although single frames are obviously a problem.) For these
more advanced displays, the faster the pan, the higher the contrast,
the stronger a line, the more apparent this ghosting effect is. I just
popped my "A Man Escaped" DVD into my laptop and viewed Orsini's escape
in the courtyard scene, and there is definite, subtle ghosting all
around the bright areas of Fontaine's moving figure, for example.

As to the 4% speedup, again, it's a purist's critique. Some people
claim they can't tell any difference (although this is often people who
are not intimately familiar with the original film/video sources) but
it is 4% faster and a semitone higher in pitch. It was immediately
noticeable to me on the "A Man Escaped " DVD, and the first remark by
my girlfriend, who knows nothing about PAL speedup, was, "They changed
Fontaine's voice!" To both of us, the tempo and pitch change was very
noticeable...but then we've watch "A Man Escaped" probably a couple
times a year for several years.

After Trond and I posted our initial review of the New Yorker DVDs, we
added a sound comparison article that allows the reader to actually
compare sound samples between the New Yorker VHS and PAL-sourced DVD,
and the results clarified my initial feeling that the sound was "off."
I actually didn't think 4% would be very noticeable, but it does have a
significant effect:

http://www.robert-bresson.com/Words/On_PALspeedup.html

It's always hard to know how to review things like this. On the one
hand, the flaws are fairly subtle to the average viewer on a regular
video monitor, and of course, we'd like to promote Bresson distribution
any chance we get. But on the other hand, we'd all like definitive
video transfers that come as close to the original film as possible.
The Criterion "Diary of a Country Priest" is positively luminous, even
on video. But then, they did their own NTSC high-definition transfer
from a 35mm Studio Canal film print, not a PAL master.

Since almost all multiregion DVD players do PAL-to-NTSC conversions
themselves and NTSC companies are using PAL videos for sourcing, there
simply isn't any reason to purchase the NTSC discs with encoded
ghosting--just get the original PAL DVD.

Doug

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
10904

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:17pm
Subject: Re: Bitter Victory (Was: Bitter Victor)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:

> Her performance seems very conventionally conceived but not
> ineffective in Hollywood terms. Do we know who was Ray's first choice
> for the role?

Moira Shearer. Roman was chosen by producer Paul Graetz. Shearer was
described by Ray (via Gavin Lambert's recollection) as "very
innocent-looking and very English" whereas Roman was neither.

More complications (this is all from the Eisenchitz, incidentally):
Curd Jürgens (and Raymond Pellegrin) was cast right away, but not as
Brand. He was to be a Nazi. Richard Burton was cast as Brand, and as
for Leith, when first choice Montgomery Clift chose to act in THE
YOUNG LIONS, Ray wanted Paul Newman instead. Then Jürgens had a pair
of hits (...AND GOD CREATED WOMAN and MICHEL STROGOFF) at the end of
1956, possibly leading Graetz to give him the Brand role, and Burton
became Leith.

-Jaime
10905

From: Doug Cummings
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:40pm
Subject: Re: Re: PAL speedup

> So what does one do when the European DVD provides a notably better
> visual in other respects than the American, as in the Apu trilogy?
> The better mastering allows more resonance (Eisenstein's cinematic
> fourth dimension, perhaps) to come through, while the speed-up throws
> it off in another way.

Indeed, that's a good question. It's true that video is not film and
compromises have to be made on some level if we're going to watch the
films on video at all. Our only official position at Masters of Cinema
is to always buy film-sourced DVDs whenever possible, which means
buying PAL DVDs instead of PAL-to-NTSC DVDs whenever they exist.

For the Bressons, it appears that MK2 is preparing a bunch of his work
(including the OOP VHS titles, "Les Anges du peche" and "Four Nights of
a Dreamer"!), which Artificial Eye will obtain the rights to and
subtitle in English. (This is our prediction based on what we've been
told and past precedents between these two companies.) In this case,
the original PAL versions of the New Yorker DVDs have not been released
yet. We're not sure how New Yorker was able to release their versions
first, particularly since their DVDs were delayed six months, and they
haven't responded to our requests for info. But if you can wait, I'd
wait until the MK2/AE discs are released, which will still have the 4%
speedup, but won't have the ghosting--and might have supplementary
material as well.

Nouveaux Pictures in the UK is also preparing "Au hasard Balthazar" and
"Mouchette," but since Criterion is most likely doing the same via
Rialto Pictures, you'd be better off getting the NTSC versions, which
won't have the 4% speedup. But of course, supplements could complicate
this decision. :)

Doug

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
10906

From:
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Resnais/No Resnais or PAL sur la Bouche (was: Son of "Product Placement")

In a message dated 6/12/04 11:23:35 AM, dpc@c... writes:

> there simply isn't any reason to purchase the NTSC discs with encoded
> ghosting--just get the original PAL DVD.
>
No reason except price.

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
10907

From: Doug Cummings
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Resnais/No Resnais or PAL sur la Bouche (was: Son of "Product Placement")

> > there simply isn't any reason to purchase the NTSC discs with encoded
> > ghosting--just get the original PAL DVD.
>
>No reason except price.

And what's shipping price when we're talking about Bresson?
(Further, US companies that release PAL-to-NTSC discs such as New
Yorker, Kino, Wellspring, etc., still charge hefty prices for their
discs, like $30 a pop.) If you store up your european DVD orders, you
can reduce shipping costs per disc quite a bit.

The fact is, many of our Masters of Cinema readers live in Europe,
where the tables are turned. I'm sure there are many european
cinephiles with multiregion players who considered ordering the New
Yorker releases the moment they hit US stores, but given the poor
quality of the discs, paying for them plus shipping would be foolish
when one could simply wait for the (original!) MK2/AE versions.

Doug
10908

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:34pm
Subject: Re: Bitter Victor (Was:Son of "Product Placement")

I'm also trying to argue that
> it's been misread--or read too simply--because of the crazy
casting,
> which yields an overdetermined hero and overdetermined villain. In
> fact--to cite Lambert again--both express different sides of Ray's
> personality and both are skewered by the film. Try reading Jurgens
> as the hero and Burton as the villain and you may start to see what
> I mean. I think this is the Ray film that best dissects macho
vanity
> because it's ultimately an autocritique--and because I also think
it
> winds up morally equating bravery and cowardice on some level.

Well that'll certainly be different. But it is still Burton and
Jurgens - superhero and supervillain - playing the parts, so the
ambiguity has to come from the visuals, right? Are you thinking of
something like, say, The Caine Mutiny, where we find out after the
fact that we were wrong to identify with the mutineers? As I recall,
Altman sold that better than Dmytryk in his tv version.

I'll definitely read what BE says about that scene in the bar - I
remember it well, and with a fair amount of pain. And I look forward
to your article. Did you see a longer version, like Robert?
10909

From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Bitter Victory (Was: Bitter Victor)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:

> > Her performance seems very conventionally conceived but not
> > ineffective in Hollywood terms. Do we know who was Ray's first
choice
> > for the role?
>
> Moira Shearer. Roman was chosen by producer Paul Graetz. Shearer
>was described by Ray (via Gavin Lambert's recollection) as "very
> innocent-looking and very English" whereas Roman was neither.
>
> More complications (this is all from the Eisenchitz, incidentally):
> Curd Jürgens (and Raymond Pellegrin) was cast right away, but
not as
> Brand. He was to be a Nazi. Richard Burton was cast as Brand, and
>as for Leith, when first choice Montgomery Clift chose to act in THE
> YOUNG LIONS, Ray wanted Paul Newman instead. Then Jürgens had a
>pair of hits (...AND GOD CREATED WOMAN and MICHEL STROGOFF) at the
>end of 1956, possibly leading Graetz to give him the Brand role, and
>Burton became Leith.

As if the crowds flocked to And God Created Woman in order to see
Jurgens!

Thanks for this background information, Jaime. Moira Shearer would
certainly bring a completely different dynamic to the relationships
in the film, and Burton as Brand would also make sense (although as
Leith he has a kind of feverish quality that seems appropriate to me).

Ruth Roman didn't have many chances at the expansive tough broad
roles that were probably her true niche, except for one quite
effective stab at Lady Macbeth in the grimy and almost-never-revived
Joe MacBeth, just prior to Bitter Victory. (I once saw her on stage
playing Gittel in Two For the Seesaw, and she was very good).

--Robert Keser
10910

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:59pm
Subject: Re: Bitter Victory (Was: Bitter Victor)

> Ruth Roman didn't have many chances at the expansive tough broad
> roles that were probably her true niche, except for one quite
> effective stab at Lady Macbeth in the grimy and almost-never-
revived
> Joe MacBeth, just prior to Bitter Victory. (I once saw her on stage
> playing Gittel in Two For the Seesaw, and she was very good).
>
> --Robert Keser

She was an Irish-American Bostonian from, basically, the wrong side
of the tracks, and they kept casting her as a patrician. Her accent
literally comes and goes in Strangers on a Train.
10911

From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 9:43pm
Subject: Re: Bitter Victor (Was:Son of "Product Placement")

> Well that'll certainly be different. But it is still Burton and
> Jurgens - superhero and supervillain - playing the parts, so the
> ambiguity has to come from the visuals, right?

Also the dialogue and plot. The final scene is crucial. My point is
that one has to read the film somewhat against the grain of the
casting to realize that Burton's character is just as vain and
foolish and even more dishonest about his feelings than Jurgens is.
Take the scene when Jurgens is the first to drink from a well that
may be poisoned; Burton says he's only trying to make up for his
earlier cowardice--implying, of course, that nothing Jurgens does
can ever be possibly right, that every courageous act will
necessarily be tainted....The basic point is made by Lambert in BE's
book: the two characters are BOTH Ray. From this I would extrapolate
that both men are neurotic macho poseurs who use war as an excuse
for acting out infantile fantasies.

> I'll definitely read what BE says about that scene in the bar.

I was referring to Godard's review, not BE's book.

Did you see a longer version, like Robert?

We were at the same screening--set up by me for my Reader piece.
It's the full version, which is actually the only version I've ever
seen--having missed the truncated U.K. and U.S. release versions,
which I understand lacked the final scene (with Jurgens and the
dummies). Without that scene, the film makes no sense at all. It's
very much like the conclusion of WIND ACROSS THE EVERGLADES: two
deadly antagonists become morally and cosmically equivalent.
10912

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Bitter Victor (Was:Son of "Product Placement")

I've ever
> seen--having missed the truncated U.K. and U.S. release versions,
> which I understand lacked the final scene (with Jurgens and the
> dummies).
I guess I never have either, then. Now that you mention it, I do find
Burton irritating, in the same way Ray could be when he was putting
on airs. And Dan's comments about Jurgens are true - he's like a
cocker spaniel who's always getting his tail stepped on. Sounds like
an interesting revionist piece.
10913

From:
Date: Sat Jun 12, 2004 7:45pm
Subject: Re: Ruth Roman (Was: Bitter Victory)

Ruth Roman was highly effective in "Lightning Strikes Twice" (King Vidor,
1951). This is a combination whodunit & love story, with a lot of dynamic
performances. It is fairly low budget, but it has stylistic features in common with
"Duel in the Sun", including a Southwestern setting.

Mike Grost
10914

From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:03am
Subject: Re: Bitter Victory (Was:Son of "Product Placement")

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:

> Did you see a longer version, like Robert?
>
> We were at the same screening--set up by me for my Reader piece.

I didn't realize that you had set it up: thanks! What a great
pleasure to see the full Scope impact and the inky blacks of
Kelber's lighting.

> It's the full version, which is actually the only version I've ever
> seen--having missed the truncated U.K. and U.S. release versions,
> which I understand lacked the final scene (with Jurgens and the
> dummies). Without that scene, the film makes no sense at all.

The last bit (implying that medals are for dummies!) seems organic to
the entire film. Cutting THAT, of all things, seems inconceivable to
me.

--Robert Keser
10915

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:40am
Subject: Re: Re: Bitter Victory

> It's the full version, which is actually the only version I've ever
> seen--having missed the truncated U.K. and U.S. release versions,
> which I understand lacked the final scene (with Jurgens and the
> dummies). Without that scene, the film makes no sense at all.

I've seen the shortened version several times, and it always ended with
Jurgens and the dummy.

Unfortunately, I don't think the film supports the interpretation of
Burton being no more admirable than Jurgens. There are lots of movie
cues to make Burton the hero, albeit an alienated one: the Arab sidekick
who adores him and hates Jurgens, the commentary of the chorus of
soldiers. And the film's best sequence ("I kill the living and I save
the dead") creates, in my opinion, total empathy for Burton's dilemma
and total understanding of his tortured actions. My problems with the
Burton character create dissonance for me, instead of suggesting an
alternate interpretation. - Dan
10916

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:04am
Subject: Re: Yvonne Rainer

> The KEY one, and I think this is especially true for auteurists who love
> melodrama as opposed to deconstructivists for whom Godard is a bit
> old-fashioned, is "Film About a Woman Who...."

> The floating titles and text and fragmented images all create something
> quite moving, I think, and "getting" this film is a key to seeing the
> deeply emotional subtexts of films like "The Man Who Loved Women." The
> emotional subtext is clearer in "Journeys From Berlin/1971," my other
> favorite.

I've now seen FILM ABOUT A WOMAN WHO... and JOURNEYS FROM BERLIN - had a
bigger response to the former, but was interested in both. The Rainer
series is underway: would Fred, David, or any other Rainer fans like to
prioritize the rest of her work, as I won't be able to catch everything?
Thanks in advance. - Dan
10917

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:12am
Subject: Re: the temple walls at Angkor Wat

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "iangjohnston" wrote:

> > > Am I correct in taking this final sequence to
> > > suggest that, following
> > > the intertitle which tells us '63 Hong Kong was an
> > > era that's over and
> > > gone forever, Tony Leung's time spent abroad on
> > > behalf of his newspaper
> > > has clued him in to the oncoming socio-political
> > > turmoils vis-?vis the
> > > formation and soon-to-be uprisings of the Khmer
> > > Rouge -- and that what
> > > we once would have taken as the whispering of his
> > > "secrets" about his
> > > time with Maggie Cheung, are now very
> > > possibly/probably "secrets" of a
> > > different nature entirely? Pre-Khmer Cambodia, and
> > > most definitely
> > > Maggie (now single with child) relegated to the
> > > past?
> > >
> > I think that's stretching things a bit.
>
> Particularly as Wong shot scenes of Tony Leung coincidentally
> running into Maggie Cheung at Angkor Wat. The focus is definitely on
> the "couple", rather than taking in a new political/historical
> perspective.
>
> Ian

My impression was that the footage of De Gaulle was mainly a
reminder that there's a world outside, intruding on the
couple's idyllic private world. I also thought it might have
been a reminder of mutability and impermanence: the Khmer empire
fell centuries ago; the French empire fell more recently; if
empires fall, what chance does a love affair have?

However, according to this interview, Wong Kar-wai seemed to
be thinking of colonialist arrogance:

Q: Your other films, they haven't been black and white or show that
"this is what happened," or "this is how this person feels" in the end.

Wong: Normally, I think for me, the ending, because the film is about
a period that has been lost, and I think we have to show the end of
the chapters and not only what happens to these two persons and also
about other things that are happening in that period.

We go through all this history and events happening in Cambodia in
1966. The biggest thing is De Gaulle visiting Cambodia, and what he
said in Cambodia is outrageous, it is extremely colonial. Nobody will
take that now, so I think that belongs to that part of history. And
for me it's not an open ending...it's a very positive ending because
people said it's a sad story, but to me it's not so sad because I
don't think [the characters] would be very happy if they left
together. For me I think the two characters in the film actually have
become more independent and more complete and they can do something
that they like.

Like [Tony's character], he becomes a journalist, and he works outside
Hong Kong and he does something that he thinks is very important to
him. And also for Maggie, she lives by herself with her kid, and she
has a job, and I think these are very positive things, and they might
meet each other but that is another story.

http://studiola.asianconnections.com/interviews/wong.karwai/in.the.mood.for.love/

Stephane Bouquet's review in Cahiers du Cinema pointed out that
the demolished wall at Angkor where Chow Mo-wan "deposits his
memory" was part of an ancient library. The library was destroyed
long ago, and thousands of books were lost. Hence the ruins are
a place where memories disappear. Bouquet wrote: "Tony will entrust
his secret to the lost cemetery of meaning."

Bouquet wrote that the film "monumentalizes the moment, it
drapes it in the grandeur of statues, it deposits it in
front of eternity... There is the feeling of a vacuum in Wong
(the source of the deep nostalgia of his films) and the certainty
that this vacuum must and can be filled, overcome, by appearances...
The world (like the child) makes a violent intrusion:
displacements and removals multiply, politics itself is suddenly
present with the intrusion of General de Gaulle in Kampuchea --
obvious symbol of a colonization of the space of the film by the
outside, by commonplace forces, the army of reality and
disillusions. This mythical world is definitively finished...
This is the story of Lucifer: one moment of mental disobedience
to God and there is the fall; men can always redeem themselves.
But what do the angels do when they are deposed? ... It's
appropriate that Tony and Maggie do not want to know. This
is why the do not build a relationship as a couple, they
live their time together like a thousand autonomous pulsations,
independent, not connected, not belonging to matter and its
existence, not belonging in the chain of causalities. This, in
spite of appearances, is not a Hollywood film, this
is not a capitalist film of accumulation (marriage and re-marriage,
production of feelings and why not children). This is a film of
volatile expenditure, of exaggeration of luxury."

Paul
10918

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:30am
Subject: Re: the temple walls at Angkor Wat

More comments from Wong Kar-wai.

Tony Rayns: Why did you go to Cambodia for the coda?

Wong Kar-Wai: It was partly an accident. We needed something to make a
visual contrast with the rest of the film. It's a bit like scoring
chamber music; we needed some counter-balance, something about nature,
something about history. We were shooting in Bangkok at the time and
so we looked at all the city's temples or wats, but we couldn't find
anything that was strong enough for our purposes. Our Thai production
manager was the one who suggested Angkor Wat. I thought he was crazy,
but he assured us it wasn't as difficult as we imagined. We could
spare only five days because we were due back in Hong Kong for
post-production and Cannes was looming. Thanks to our production
manager's connections, we got permission to shoot from the Cambodian
government within 48 hours. We shot over the Cambodian new year. We
were supposed to film for only one day, but we ended up spending three
days there. And when I found out that de Gaulle had visited Cambodia
that year, I wanted that in the film too. De Gaulle is part of the
colonial history that's about to fade away.

TR: During the editing I saw a scene with Mrs Chan (Maggie Cheung) in
Angkor Wat: Chow sees something of her face in a Japanese tour guide
and later imagines a conversation with her. But it's not in the final cut.

WKW: The reason we originally planned a one-day shoot was that we
needed only one scene - the scene now in the film. But Maggie didn't
want to miss the chance to see Angkor; she even volunteered to come
along as the stills photographer. And then, since she was there, we
thought we might as well do something with her. We might yet find a
use for that footage. I'm thinking of putting some of our unused
rushes on our website.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/2000_08/eiff_wongkarwai.html
10919

From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:39am
Subject: Re: Yvonne Rainer

Dan asks for Rainer's films in order of preference:

My personal order of preference (pasting in titles from IMDB):

Film About a Woman Who... (1974)
Journeys From Berlin/1971 (1980)
Lives of Performers (1972)
Man Who Envied Women, The (1985)
Kristina Talking Pictures (1976)
MURDER and murder (1996)

I like all of these to some degree except for MURDER & murder. As I said
before, I'd like to hear a defense of this. And though this wouldn't
usually kill a film for me, the "romantic" scene in which one woman
fingers another seems utterly ridiculous. The avant-garde has never been
very good at convincing "narrative" long takes meant to convey emotion,

There's one that I've not seen, Privilege (1990). Some of her other
partisans are somewhat mixed on it.

- Fred C.
10920

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:55am
Subject: Re: Yvonne Rainer

Don't miss "Lives of Performers" or "Privilege"

--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > The KEY one, and I think this is especially true
> for auteurists who love
> > melodrama as opposed to deconstructivists for whom
> Godard is a bit
> > old-fashioned, is "Film About a Woman Who...."
>
> > The floating titles and text and fragmented images
> all create something
> > quite moving, I think, and "getting" this film is
> a key to seeing the
> > deeply emotional subtexts of films like "The Man
> Who Loved Women." The
> > emotional subtext is clearer in "Journeys From
> Berlin/1971," my other
> > favorite.
>
> I've now seen FILM ABOUT A WOMAN WHO... and JOURNEYS
> FROM BERLIN - had a
> bigger response to the former, but was interested in
> both. The Rainer
> series is underway: would Fred, David, or any other
> Rainer fans like to
> prioritize the rest of her work, as I won't be able
> to catch everything?
> Thanks in advance. - Dan
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
10921

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 4:04am
Subject: Sylvia Scarlett

Boy, talk about a film waiting for its time to come! SYLVIA SCARLETT
may have flopped when it came out, but now it looks like a daring essay
on gender, performance, and gender as performance. And even Pauline
Kael could identify it as a Cukor film on the basis of a few randomly
chosen minutes: I don't think Cukor's direction has ever been as
assertive and abstract. Nor as effective - I think it might be his best
film. - Dan
10922

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 4:32am
Subject: Re: Sylvia Scarlett

Well I wouldn't go quite THAT far, but it's an early
triumph. "Sylvia Scarlett" has a narrative looseness
and concentration on character over plot that looks
forward to Paul Morrissey -- who became a great friend
to Cukor in his later years.

It also testifies to the kind of free and easy
"daring" 30's Hollywood allowed itself. Its failure
really put the frighteners into Cukor and it would be
years before he came close to anything resembling its
casual anarchy. I think there are touches of "Sylvia
Scarlett" to be found in "Les Girls" and "Heller in
Pink Tights," but the original is a joy unto itself.

Cukor always spoke of Cary Grant "finding himself"
with thgis film. But the thing is it's Grant at his
MOST Cockney. He never played a character like this
again, save for "None But the Lonely Heart" -- which
as a drama rather than a romantic comedy. I think what
Gant discovered here wasna ability to be at ease
before the camera. This isn't the Grant of "Blonde
Venus" or "She Done Him Wrong."

And it goes without saying that this is Hepburn at her
most Sapphic.
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Boy, talk about a film waiting for its time to come!
> SYLVIA SCARLETT
> may have flopped when it came out, but now it looks
> like a daring essay
> on gender, performance, and gender as performance.
> And even Pauline
> Kael could identify it as a Cukor film on the basis
> of a few randomly
> chosen minutes: I don't think Cukor's direction has
> ever been as
> assertive and abstract. Nor as effective - I think
> it might be his best
> film. - Dan
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
10923

From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:11am
Subject: Re: Bitter Victory

>
> Unfortunately, I don't think the film supports the interpretation
of
> Burton being no more admirable than Jurgens. There are lots of
movie
> cues to make Burton the hero, albeit an alienated one: the Arab
sidekick
> who adores him and hates Jurgens, the commentary of the chorus of
> soldiers. And the film's best sequence ("I kill the living and I
save
> the dead") creates, in my opinion, total empathy for Burton's
dilemma
> and total understanding of his tortured actions. My problems with
the
> Burton character create dissonance for me, instead of suggesting
an
> alternate interpretation. - Dan

Maybe a better way of putting it is that the better I get to know
the film, the more I wind up feeling empathy for Jurgens as well as
Burton. They're really the same person (as Lambert suggested to
Eisenschitz)--Jekyll and Hyde.

Thanks for correcting my error about the 82-minute U.S. release
version. BE reports, however, that the 90-minute UK version IS
missing the ending.
10924

From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:14am
Subject: Re: Yvonne Rainer

> There's one that I've not seen, Privilege (1990). Some of her
other
> partisans are somewhat mixed on it.
>
> - Fred C.

I consider it the major turning point in her work--the point at
which she became seriously political. Though I also agree with you
that the earlier stuff may be better, at least in other respects.
10925

From:
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 4:02am
Subject: Re: Sylvia Scarlett

Dan, I agree that it's his best film. But I'm not sure how representative it
is of his work, despite some elements popping up in later films. It IS out
there!

I also dig It Should Happen To You, Gaslight, the underrated Her Cardboard
Lover and, of course, the Crawfords: The Women (although I flip flop on it every
year or so), A Woman's Face, Susan and God (well, the first half-hour,
really). Even No More Ladies is swallowable as far as 30s Crawfords go.

David, what do you think his best is?

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
10926

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 1:00pm
Subject: Re: Sylvia Scarlett

I think "A Star is Born" is his best. It's a very rich
and complex piece of work that I find myself going
back to over and over again -- and not because of
Garland. It's a genuinely dramatic musical in a style
whose like is seldom seen in the movies and only
occasionally on stage.

--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Dan, I agree that it's his best film. But I'm not
> sure how representative it
> is of his work, despite some elements popping up in
> later films. It IS out
> there!
>
> I also dig It Should Happen To You, Gaslight, the
> underrated Her Cardboard
> Lover and, of course, the Crawfords: The Women
> (although I flip flop on it every
> year or so), A Woman's Face, Susan and God (well,
> the first half-hour,
> really). Even No More Ladies is swallowable as far
> as 30s Crawfords go.
>
> David, what do you think his best is?
>
> Kevin John
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
10927

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:01pm
Subject: Re: Sylvia Scarlett

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I think "A Star is Born" is his best. It's a very rich
> and complex piece of work that I find myself going
> back to over and over again -- and not because of
> Garland. It's a genuinely dramatic musical in a style
> whose like is seldom seen in the movies and only
> occasionally on stage.
>
> I agree, and I think it would have been an even greater film
without the disastrous cuts that were made after the premiere -- the
footage of which, with a couple of exceptions (the 2 songs), is lost
forever except for the stock shots Ronald Haver salvaged from
Warner's stock footage library and inserted in the restored version
(along with some retrieved dialogue tracks) -- making it fascinating
as a document but unwatchable as a movie.

I remember that in France the cuts were even more drastic. The
film jumped directly from the end of the "Man That Got Away"
sequence to the scene of Garland in the makeup room in front of the
mirror. Very jarring. I think the French print was about 10 minutes
shorter than the "short" version of 154 minutes.

JPC
10928

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:40pm
Subject: Food for thought?

Just read this, from Anthony Lane in the current issue of The New
Yorker: "Is it possible to see so much in a film that you end up not
seeing the film?" Is this a trite question, an irrelevant one, or
serious food for thought? Do analysis, interpretation etc pushed too
far (but what's too far?)destroy the pleasure of the text? Lane makes
the point that Bergman should be experienced sensually rather than
intellectually (his piece is about the Bergman retro at Film Forum in
New York). He's right of course -- all films should be experienced
and enjoyed sensually. To what extent does intellectual analysis (of
which there is plenty going on in this very place)affect the pleasure
that triggered and justified the analysis in the first place? I have
often felt that, writing "in depth" (assuming it is depth at all!)
about a film I was losing touch with the reality of the film, of the
physical/sensual experience of watching/receiving/enjoying (as
opposed to "reading") the film. And of course it is much easier to
intellectualize than to communicate a sensual experience.

JPC
10929

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:51pm
Subject: Re: Food for thought?

--- jpcoursodon wrote:
I have
> often felt that, writing "in depth" (assuming it is
> depth at all!)
> about a film I was losing touch with the reality of
> the film, of the
> physical/sensual experience of
> watching/receiving/enjoying (as
> opposed to "reading") the film. And of course it is
> much easier to
> intellectualize than to communicate a sensual
> experience.
>
But isn't that implying there's something non-sensual
about intellectual life? I don't find that to be true.
Can one "over-intellectualize" a film? I don't think
so. What's really behind that notion is a critic going
way off the deep end with an idea and leaving the work
he started out with by the wayside. I think that's
certainly the case with much of 70's-era film
"analysis" -- Lacan, Althusser and goodness knows who
else being dragged in to talk about "The Pirate." But
the act of anlyzing can take many forms. I spent close
to a year writing an article about "Those Who Love Me
Can Take the Train" as every nanosecond of the film
fascinated me. Thanks to DVD video I was able to take
it apart and put it back together over and over again.
At a certain point, however, I stopped to watch it
through without pausing. And that's the state of film
experience that must always be kept at the back of
one's mind.>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
10930

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:02pm
Subject: Re: Food for thought?

Jean-Pierre:

> I have
> often felt that, writing "in depth" (assuming it is depth at all!)
> about a film I was losing touch with the reality of the film, of the
> physical/sensual experience of watching/receiving/enjoying (as
> opposed to "reading") the film. And of course it is much easier to
> intellectualize than to communicate a sensual experience.

This is a huge danger. I don't think an intellectual approach to art is
intrinsically damaging, but it's the easiest thing in the world to go
off the tracks and start serving one's own argument instead of the art
itself. If it were easy, everyone would do it!

David:

> But isn't that implying there's something non-sensual
> about intellectual life? I don't find that to be true.

Very true. What are we all doing here other than wallowing in the
sensuality of the life of the intellect? Again, that pleasure poses a
big danger to our thinking, because it so easily turns into an end in
itself. - Dan
10931

From:
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:52am
Subject: Re: Food for thought?

In a message dated 6/13/04 9:43:04 AM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:

> And of course it is much easier to intellectualize than to communicate a
> sensual experience.
>
Don't we intellectualize IN ORDER to communicate a sensual experience (among
other things)?

Also, writing "in depth" about film doesn't have to center around a
particular film or even an oeuvre. For instance, the other day I was reading about
govt. funding of film and the so-called Parallel Cinema in India. And I was just
looking at that lovely coffee table book on Adrian that came out a few years
back. Definitely (and kinda sadly) smashed some preconceptions I had about him.
On and on...

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
10932

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 4:35pm
Subject: Re: Food for thought?

To what extent does intellectual analysis (of
> which there is plenty going on in this very place)affect the
pleasure
> that triggered and justified the analysis in the first place?

Not at all - quite the contrary. I read Sylvie Pierre's Freudian
interpretation of I Clowns before seeing it and almost died laughing
when I did. And the reviled CdC piece on Young Mister Lincoln has
never affected the pleasure that film gives me -- or for that matter,
Pascal Kane's companion piece on Sylvia Scarlett, now under
discussion. In particular, having the unconscious meanings spelled
out in advance made the Fellini funnier. I think you can get burnt
out on a film or films by working intensively on them just because
you are constantly reseeing, thinking about, reading about - that's
not the same thing.

Maybe I'm unusual in this respect, but I have repeatedly said here
that what we enjoy in a film is the play of meanings embodied in
forms - we "consume connotation" without even realizing it, along
with the formal means deployed to produce and control the flow of
connotations: HOW the film means, rather than what it means for its
own sake, detached from form. How the film MEANS, rather than visual
beauty for its own sake, detached from meaning. Because criticism,
when it's good, helps us understand both better, it augments our
pleasure in watching the film.

I'd be happy to discuss/argue this position with anyone who's
interested when I come online to chat at 7 Eastern Time.
10933

From: iangjohnston
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 5:06pm
Subject: Re: the temple walls at Angkor Wat

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> TR: During the editing I saw a scene with Mrs Chan (Maggie Cheung)
in
> Angkor Wat: Chow sees something of her face in a Japanese tour
guide
> and later imagines a conversation with her. But it's not in the
final cut.
>
> WKW: The reason we originally planned a one-day shoot was that we
> needed only one scene - the scene now in the film. But Maggie
didn't
> want to miss the chance to see Angkor; she even volunteered to come
> along as the stills photographer. And then, since she was there, we
> thought we might as well do something with her. We might yet find a
> use for that footage. I'm thinking of putting some of our unused
> rushes on our website.
>

This footage with Maggie Cheung can be seen in the Alternative
Ending on the DVD.

Ian
10934

From:
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:55pm
Subject: Re: Sylvia Scarlett

I think "Sylvia Scarlett" is great, as are "A Star is Born," "It Should
Happen To You," "Gaslight," and most of the others named by Kevin, but my very
favorite Cukor is "Holiday." "The Marrying Kind" and "Wild Is the Wind" I'd also
place at the summit of Cukor's body of work - last October, I wrote a little
bit about his use of space in the amazing Decoration Day sequence in "The
Marrying Kind" on a_film_by. It's one of those sequences which makes you realize
what great direction is all about.

But I think almost every Cukor is good to great (though I've missed a few,
like "The Blue Bird"), right up to his very last.

Peter

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
10935

From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 0:27am
Subject: Pas sur la Toile

Well, my feeble home computer crashes everytime I try to connect for
the anniversary chat (and I can't access my work computer), so
everybody has my best wishes instead of my comments! Does everyone
know that the Atlas du cinéma issue of CdC points to a_film_by
(and Rouge and Senses of Cinema)as examples of the new
international community of cinephiles? Also, today is the
anniversary of the Potemkin mutiny as well!

--Robert Keser
10936

From:
Date: Sun Jun 13, 2004 8:55pm
Subject: Re: Pas sur la Toile

I too am unable to make it for the chat - but congratulations (and Thank
You!) to everyone at a_film_by.

Mike Grost
10937

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 1:11am
Subject: Re: Pas sur la Toile

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I too am unable to make it for the chat - but congratulations (and
Thank
> You!) to everyone at a_film_by.
>
> Mike Grost

Same problem (or similar one) here. When I try to log on to "Chat"
I get an offer to install some security device, and when I click
on "No", the second time, everything goes dead. Maybe there's
something I'm not doing right. Happy anniversary anyway.

JPC
10938

From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:34am
Subject: Re: Chat report (WAS: Re: Pas sur la Toile)

There were definitely problems; most of us got booted off by Yahoo more
than once, so the people who couldn't log on may have been victims of
Yahoo too. But actually, the chat was great, perhaps a dozen
participants at a time, and just now just before I had to leave someone
mentioned Robert's post about the Cahiers mention, so that was nice to hear.

Peter and I will do a post soon about the possibility of choosing
regular times for a group chat, perhaps monthly bi monthly or something
like that, and solicit inupt.

As someone who is not all that current with as many new films as I
should be I found it convenient to occasionally open imdb to check
titles I didn't know as others mentioned them.

- Fred C.
10939

From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Pas sur la Toile

you were supposed to say yes, JP. it was only a mini-yahoo-program (or kinda
plugin) for the chat page to run.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jpcoursodon"
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 10:11 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Pas sur la Toile

> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > I too am unable to make it for the chat - but congratulations (and
> Thank
> > You!) to everyone at a_film_by.
> >
> > Mike Grost
>
>
> Same problem (or similar one) here. When I try to log on to "Chat"
> I get an offer to install some security device, and when I click
> on "No", the second time, everything goes dead. Maybe there's
> something I'm not doing right. Happy anniversary anyway.
>
> JPC
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
10940

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:19am
Subject: Re: Pas sur la Toile

>
> Same problem (or similar one) here. When I try to log on
to "Chat"
> I get an offer to install some security device, and when I click
> on "No", the second time, everything goes dead. Maybe there's
> something I'm not doing right. Happy anniversary anyway.
>

You need to click "Yes" to install the device. Otherwise they won't
let you on.
10941

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:20am
Subject: Chat report (WAS: Re: Pas sur la Toile)

>
> As someone who is not all that current with as many new films as I
> should be I found it convenient to occasionally open imdb to check
> titles I didn't know as others mentioned them.
>
> - Fred C.

I know the current ones, but when the chat started off with Kevin
talking about a James B. Harris film I never heard of, I dived for my
Maltin.
10942

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 1:19pm
Subject: Re: Pas sur la Toile

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> >
> > Same problem (or similar one) here. When I try to log on
> to "Chat"
> > I get an offer to install some security device, and when I click
> > on "No", the second time, everything goes dead. Maybe there's
> > something I'm not doing right. Happy anniversary anyway.
> >
>
> You need to click "Yes" to install the device. Otherwise they won't
> let you on.

Thanks! Next time I'll know!
10943

From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 2:34pm
Subject: SMOKE SCREENS

A few paragraphs about product placement from the WSJ

Tobacco Makers Want Cigarettes Cut From Films
By VANESSA O'CONNELL
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 14, 2004; Page B1

In Paramount Pictures' recent film "Twisted," Samuel L. Jackson portrays a =
police
commissioner who, at one dramatic moment, lights up a Marlboro cigarette.

Marlboro maker Philip Morris USA didn't request the plug, but it would seem=
to be a
welcome publicity windfall, particularly now that cigarettes can no longer =
be advertised on
billboards, television or through product placements.

Instead, Philip Morris owner Altria Group Inc. is asking the studio behind =
"Twisted" to go
back to the editing room -- to take the Marlboros out.

"We believe the motion-picture industry should voluntarily refrain from por=
traying or
referring to cigarette brands or brand imagery in movies," wrote Philip Mor=
ris Senior Vice
President Howard Willard III in a May 20 letter to Viacom Inc.'s Paramount.=
Philip Morris
asked the studio to remove Marlboros from all versions of "Twisted" license=
d for future
broadcast, including the forthcoming DVD, set for release Aug. 31.
10944

From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 2:47pm
Subject: IMDB and www.filmsite.org

In the REVIEWS section of IMDB, the is sometimes a link:
Greatest Films - comprehensive analysis of classic US films

This will connect you to a several page scene by scene
review / analysis of the movie. It is a terrific study aid /
memory tool.

The entire FILMSITE.ORG is terrific; look into it.

http://www.filmsite.org/dest.html will take you to
the review for DESTRY RIDES AGAIN.

Elizabeth

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> > As someone who is not all that current with as many new films as I
> > should be I found it convenient to occasionally open imdb to check
> > titles I didn't know as others mentioned them.
> > - Fred C.
> I know the current ones, but when the chat started off with Kevin
> talking about a James B. Harris film I never heard of, I dived for my
> Maltin.
10945

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:25pm
Subject: Re: SMOKE SCREENS

> Philip Morris
> asked the studio to remove Marlboros from all versions of "Twisted"
license=
> d for future
> broadcast, including the forthcoming DVD, set for release Aug. 31.

Why? Because SPOILER -------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------he's the bad guy?
10946

From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:29pm
Subject: RE: Re: SMOKE SCREENS

> > Philip Morris
> > asked the studio to remove Marlboros from all versions of "Twisted"
> license=
> > d for future
> > broadcast, including the forthcoming DVD, set for release Aug. 31.
>
> Why?

The story in the newspaper says that it's due to pressure
from the state of California regarding glamorization of
smoking in the movies. It also says that the studio refused
to make any alterations.

Jonathan Takagi
10947

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:46pm
Subject: Re: SMOKE SCREENS

>
> The story in the newspaper says that it's due to pressure
> from the state of California regarding glamorization of
> smoking in the movies. It also says that the studio refused
> to make any alterations.
>
> Jonathan Takagi

Sean Penn was angry about this when I interviewed him. Pardon me for
including a long quote, but it would be hard to understand if you
don't have the context:

The problem is the actors and the directors who are rich, who do shit
to please the studio system. If a struggling young actor with two
kids wants to do Superman 28, I understand that completely – you've
got to make a living. But when these guys who are rich are out there
just saying "I'll blow you for $20 million"....
The studio system is really the movie star system, and the
superstar directors – jackoffs like Dick Donner. I'll tell you where
my wrath comes from: It's twofold: Lethal Weapon. You open with a
girl at the top of the Capitol Records Building, a young girl fucked
out of her head on cocaine. She goes to the ledge and jumps off and
kills herself. This is really serious stuff. This happens all the
fucking time: A lot of people are right on the fucking edge, teenage
girls, boys, whatever. They think they've got no hope, they get
fucked up on drugs, they get depressed, they kill themselves. This
shit goes on. But in two minutes it's like "Who's on First?"
Now "Who's on First" makes sense as a movie, and jumping out the
window makes sense. But jumping out the window to legitimize a
fucking slapstick comedy? Something about this bothered me a lot for
a long time.
Then they made a documentary recently about smoking in
movies, and whether it encourages kids to smoke.
Q: I almost started again watching your three movies back to back,
but when I got to The Pledge I saw it was a symptom of psychosis and
the urge left me.
A: This discussion is purely a censorship issue to me – should
studios put pressure on their filmmakers not to have their characters
smoke. Coming up with statistics: "Most people don't smoke anymore,
and yet this lead person in your movie is smoking?" Well you know
why? He's a Red Cross doctor in the Sudan, and he's got no other
outlet all day long, and thank God he can have that one cigarette at
the end of the fucking day! Or he's a cop who's dealing with death
every day, and they are smoking, I know those guys. We're not making
a movie about the fucking real estate broker down the street who's
got a nice family, because there's no fucking drama in his house, he
bores me to tears, he can live a good long life, and good for him!
But we make movies generally about people who are more conflicted.
Hence: drama. Hence: smoking, drugs, sex, whatever the thing is.
Meanwhile, in the documentary it's "I don't allow smoking and
drugs in my pictures. But it's ok if it's a saloon in Maverick –
you're being authentic to the times in Maverick." It's bad to show
young kids smoking, but it's good to show a young girl jumping off
the top of the Capitol Records Building. Good, Dick! You fucking
asshole! You should get a copy of this anti-smoking documentary,
because one after another you have chumps like Jason Patric...Of
course he's in it! It's the only part he could get, a documentary
about censorship!
Q: I think about him every time I fast forward past the August King
trailer on my tape of The Crossing Guard.
A: The studio system if it has a problem, it's twofold: It's artists
being whores, and it's everybody being politically correct. When Gary
Oldman goes off and makes Nil by Mouth – I'm sorry, but I think those
two people love each other at the end, after he beat her to a pulp!
Sorry, I don't think he should be in jail for the rest of his life
instead. I'm glad that they're together, I hope it doesn't happen
again. But you can't do this with the studios. They don't understand
anything outside their walls, and the actors don't either. The whole
successful wing of the screen Actors Guild should be put on a
Greyhound bus to see the world they live in. It drives me nuts!
10948

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 4:51pm
Subject: Re: IMDB and www.filmsite.org

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
> In the REVIEWS section of IMDB, the is sometimes a link:
> Greatest Films - comprehensive analysis of classic US films
>
>
> http://www.filmsite.org/dest.html will take you to
> the review for DESTRY RIDES AGAIN.
>
> Elizabeth
>
Ladies and gentlemen, film has assumed its place next to literature
as a subject of serious study: these are the first Monarch Outlines
of movies...something I guess Magill's has been doing for years, but
not to this extent. Thanks for the tip, ER - very interesting. Film
teachers: be aware. Starving non-teaching colleagues: more work for
us!
10949

From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: SMOKE SCREENS

> You should get a copy of this anti-smoking documentary,
>because one after another you have chumps like Jason Patric...Of
>course he's in it! It's the only part he could get, a documentary
>about censorship!
>Q: I think about him every time I fast forward past the August King
>trailer on my tape of The Crossing Guard.

But besides being a chump for appearing in an anti-smoking documentary, what else do I need to know about Jason Patric that I don't in order to embrace the

"Jason Patric is a chump" meme? Did he blow a producer / is he a Republican? My Jason Patric aptitude begins and ends with: "I liked his performance in

'Narc'," and, "His father was Jason Miller, Scranton-area fixture and affable/constant pub fixture before collapsing to the floor at Tink's over drinks and

dinner three years ago."

Although I couldn't make last night's chat, I'd like to say I'm all for a regular, maybe biweekly virtual get-together..

craig.
10950

From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:27pm
Subject: OT Doctor suggests refusing care to lawyers

Among its whereases, the resolution suggests that "if trial attorneys
were given the opportunity to experience the access problems
caused by the professional liability crisis, then perhaps they would
be willing to help change the system."

Doctor suggests refusing care to lawyers
Proposal to AMA aimed at solving malpractice crisis
By John Heys, Staff Writer
A South Carolina surgeon wants the American Medical
Association to tell doctors they can refuse to treat trial
lawyers in nonemergency cases.

Dr. J. Chris Hawk, an AMA delegate from Charleston, S.C.,
recently introduced a resolution arguing efforts to reform
the medical malpractice system have stalled. Hawk instead
offers a different, more confrontational approach.

According to his proposal, the AMA should tell doctors they
can ethically refuse to care for plaintiffs' attorneys and their
spouses except in emergency cases or when required by law.

"If trial attorneys were given the opportunity to experience
the access problems caused by the professional liability crisis,
then perhaps they would be willing to help change the system,"
the resolution reads.
10951

From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:38pm
Subject: Paramount's product re-placement -- Meryl Streep's Hillary Problem

Interesting article. I was commenting about the
problem with REMAKES (see Rosenbaum's THE LADYKILLERS)
and wondered how effective MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE
would be given that there are females in prominent
political positions today rather than behind the scenes.

Meryl Streep's Hillary Problem

Paramount Pictures is worried that Meryl Streep's edgy, chilling
performance as a U.S. Senator in The Manchurian Candidate,
which opens at the end of next month, is too close to the real
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a pal inside the studio tells me.

As a result, studio honchos have asked director Jonathan Demme
to make little recuts and trims here and there to remove some of
the more Hillaryesque gestures and expressions in the flick.

"Meryl is brilliantly scary and evil," my Paramount buddy says,
who's seen the film through several rough assemblages and
later cuts. "But she clearly seems like she's playing Senator
Hillary, not just any woman senator. It's also something test
audiences have commented about."

http://aflyonthewall.journalspace.com/?entryid=48
10952

From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: IMDB and www.filmsite.org

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan" wrote:
>
> The entire FILMSITE.ORG is terrific; look into it.

It's heartening to find these ringing words on their "Greatest Directors" page:

"The premise of honoring these film directors is based upon the debatable auteur theory -- the idea that the director is the primary 'author' or voice of a

movie, and through a director's film, we see one person's way of viewing the world -- one that has the potential to change the way we see the world. This

theory also holds that the how of a film (mise en scene, literally meaning 'putting in the scene') is something under the director's control. Elements or

features of mise en scene [...] are more important than the what or subject of the film."

"Debatable"?? Is anyone there actually debating it?

The plot darkens, however: "Unfortunately, some of these directors have been pushed aside to make way for more recent works..." Which may be why we find,

e.g., Tim Burton and James Cameron sharing the first "Directors" page with Borzage, Capra and Chaplin.
10953

From:
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:01pm
Subject: Re: Chat report (WAS: Re: Pas sur la Toile)

In a message dated 6/14/04 1:27:05 AM, hotlove666@y... writes:

> I know the current ones, but when the chat started off with Kevin talking
> about a James B. Harris film I never heard of, I dived for my Maltin.
>
I assumed you were quoting Maltin off the top of your head. I'm surprised
that Some Call It Loving isn't better known much less loved on this list.

But I had imdb up too to look up the greatly named (and deliciously cute)
Andrew Repasky McElhinney.

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
10954

From:
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 3:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: SMOKE SCREENS

Pardon my extreme naivete but how did Sean Penn win his Oscar with that
attitude? Doesn't Hollywood groom more submissive and moldable types for the
statue?

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
10955

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:10pm
Subject: Re: SMOKE SCREENS

> But besides being a chump for appearing in an anti-smoking
documentary, what else do I need to know about Jason Patric
that I don't in order to embrace the "Jason Patric is a chump"
meme?

He was great in After Dark, My Sweet, by Penn's friend James
Foley, with whom he made At Close range. Then he mad a
series of bad choices, including the legendarily bad "payday" film
Speed 2, Sleepers etc. He hadn't made Narc yet when I talked to
Penn, although I could've brought up Rush, which wasn't bad
either.

Of course you could emit the same meme re: James Foley, but
Penn is more inclined to cut him slack because they were close
friends - At Close Range was a total collaboration, Penn lived in
Foley's house for a year while they set it up - and because, as
he's all too aware, Foley has had personal problems related but
not limited to cocaine use. I guess a destructive million-dolar
habit is kind of like having a wife and kids to feed...

I enjoyed Penn's out-of-the-blue attack on Patric for being in the
smoking commercial (and the larger attack on Donner for being
in it too, and for the opening of Lethal 3) because I like it when a
filmmaker gets a bug up his ass about something (and
someone) liberal H'wd considers harmless: Bogdanovich's
jihad against Hefner, or George Lucas attacking Smoky and the
Bandit because "young kids will see it and think it's cool to drink
beer and drive fast." But then, I like Godard's bizarre raps too.
10956

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:19pm
Subject: Re: IMDB and www.filmsite.org

> "Debatable"?? Is anyone there actually debating it?

It is rarely debated - just dismissed out of herd instinct. I don't
mind having Cameron and Burton on the list, though.
10957

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:22pm
Subject: Chat report (WAS: Re: Pas sur la Toile)

> But I had imdb up too to look up the greatly named (and
deliciously cute)
> Andrew Repasky McElhinney.
>
> Kevin John

I think Andy had Hurrell (sp?) shoot that. Actually, he's been
doing a reverse Orson Welles: In Magdalen, where he plays an
important role, he looks like he weighs about 200 pounds.
10958

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:25pm
Subject: Re: SMOKE SCREENS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Pardon my extreme naivete but how did Sean Penn win his
Oscar with that
> attitude? Doesn't Hollywood groom more submissive and
moldable types for the
> statue?
>
> Kevin John
Actors vote for actors. But he still hasn't gotten his fourth film as
a director off the ground. I gather his new role is playing the guy
who planned to hijack a plane and fly it into a building back in the
70s. He was going to play it before 9/11, and by God, he did it. I
think it was at Cannes.
10959

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:36pm
Subject: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

> George Lucas attacking Smoky and the
> Bandit because "young kids will see it and think it's cool to drink
> beer and drive fast."

I don't think Lucas has yet made a film as good as SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT.

I like it that Penn cared about that girl at the beginning of LETHAL
WEAPON, but I think he's barking up the wrong tree with his
anti-Hollywoodisms. If you put all the execs and successful actors in
town on that Greyhound bus, and they came back and made the kind of
films Penn wants made, people probably won't pay to see them. The
branding of spouse-beating and smoking as social ills instead of
complicated behavior goes way beyond the entertainment industry. - Dan
10960

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

If you put all the execs and successful actors in
> town on that Greyhound bus, and they came back and made
the kind of
> films Penn wants made, people probably won't pay to see
them. The
> branding of spouse-beating and smoking as social ills instead
of
> complicated behavior goes way beyond the entertainment
industry. - Dan

Well, we don't know - it's never been tried. But I was amused to
note the similarity to Sullivan's Travels.
10961

From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:57pm
Subject: Re: Chat report (WAS: Re: Pas sur la Toile)

and those were the films I grew curious about after the chat yesterday...
they were not and never will be released here in any format... although I
asked a friend of mine that works in FESTIVAL DO RIO to bring Story Of The
Eye... I was already curious of McElhinney, in fact.

----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Chat report (WAS: Re: Pas sur la Toile)

>
> In a message dated 6/14/04 1:27:05 AM, hotlove666@y... writes:
>
>
> > I know the current ones, but when the chat started off with Kevin
talking
> > about a James B. Harris film I never heard of, I dived for my Maltin.
> >
> I assumed you were quoting Maltin off the top of your head. I'm surprised
> that Some Call It Loving isn't better known much less loved on this list.
>
> But I had imdb up too to look up the greatly named (and deliciously cute)
> Andrew Repasky McElhinney.
>
> Kevin John
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
10962

From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:10pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

>If you put all the execs and successful actors in
>town on that Greyhound bus, and they came back and made the kind of
>films Penn wants made, people probably won't pay to see them. The
>branding of spouse-beating and smoking as social ills instead of
>complicated behavior goes way beyond the entertainment industry. - Dan

But what group is publicly branding the depiction of smoking onscreen as a "social ill" (as opposed to complicated behavior) other than a lobby? I find the

end-agenda of most lobbies don't correspond with what any swath that could be reasonably called "the general public" give a flying shit about.

Also, I don't think "people probably won't pay to see" films on spouse-beating and smoking. The youngest generation (the largest part of attendees for the

glitzy, vacuous, stupid majority of Hollywood films) are by and large absolute nihilists, who wolf up the same kind of depictions when they're put forth on

machismo-and-mammon ueber-alles mainstream hip-hop albums, and who make stupid entertainments like the new 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' remake #1 at the

box-office. Spouse-beating is another word for "action!" -- all the better, for my tastes, if it's Sam Fuller calling the shots.

At the same time, I believe that people will go to see whatever is... not necessarily marketed to them... -- but presented as a norm. Maybe my 'nihilists'

wouldn't seem like nihilists at all to me if Entertainment Tonight, E.T. on MTV (I understand that Maria Menounos cannot help being -very hot-), Access

Hollywood, Entertainment Weekly, Premiere, Us Weekly, etc., presented Stan Brakhage films with the same kind of superficial but mega-permeated coverage --

because I'm certain the Brakhage films would still end up doing "significant box-office" with my little hellions making up a significant portion of the

audience because it's "what's apparently in."

It's -all- about creating a cultural discourse where what's "complicated," "sophisticated," or "different" is presented as a norm. This will never happen.

But if it did, everyone's notions of what people will pay to see would, I suspect, be turned upside-down.

Side-Note to My Younger List-Compatriots: Isn't it a trip how hipsters of the 20-something/30-something generation, who pride themselves in (or if not so

pejoratively "pride," take a legitimate interest in) being whole-hearted enthusiasts of all kinds of avant-rock, avant-electronica, atonal/angular esoterica

or whatever can't get it up (or get them out) for the same level of sophistication for aesthetic "challenge"/"non-norm" when it comes to cinema? You'll have

a conversation with someone about the latest Warp Records release or whatever's the most interesting-sounding super-obscure thing reviewed on Pitchfork that

day or in Wire magazine that month, and then look at their video collection and it's all 'Pirates of the Caribbean,' 'Pitch Black,' and 'Pi.' Why is this?

craig.
10963

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

> If you put all the execs and successful actors in
>>town on that Greyhound bus, and they came back and made
> the kind of
>>films Penn wants made, people probably won't pay to see
> them.
>
> Well, we don't know - it's never been tried.

I dunno, I think it's tried all the time. Weird films often make their
way into little theaters, sometimes even from Hollywood. Whenever they
strike a chord, Hollywood makes an effort to duplicate the effect. I
don't find Hollywood set in its ways: it copies itself for safety's
sake, but it knows that that doesn't always work, and it's desperate to
follow up any clues that could lead to big money. - Dan
10964

From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:28pm
Subject: Filmsite.org

I can tell you one thing that IMDB does better right away.
When you go to IMDB there is one annoying popup ad; when I went to
filmsite.org
there were three immediately, before the page had finished loading.

George Robinson

Our talk of justice is empty until the
largest battleship has foundered on the
forehead of a drowned man.
--Paul Celan
10965

From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:34pm
Subject: Re: Filmsite.org

>I can tell you one thing that IMDB does better right away.
>When you go to IMDB there is one annoying popup ad; when I went to
>filmsite.org
>there were three immediately, before the page had finished loading.

When you use a Macintosh instead of a PC, and surf with Apple's Safari browser instead of IE, well, you don't get pop-up windows...

craig.
10966

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:37pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

--- Craig Keller wrote:

> Side-Note to My Younger List-Compatriots: Isn't it a
> trip how hipsters of the 20-something/30-something
> generation, who pride themselves in (or if not so
> pejoratively "pride," take a legitimate interest in)
> being whole-hearted enthusiasts of all kinds of
> avant-rock, avant-electronica, atonal/angular
> esoterica or whatever can't get it up (or get them
> out) for the same level of sophistication for
> aesthetic "challenge"/"non-norm" when it comes to
> cinema? You'll have a conversation with someone
> about the latest Warp Records release or whatever's
> the most interesting-sounding super-obscure thing
> reviewed on Pitchfork that day or in Wire magazine
> that month, and then look at their video collection
> and it's all 'Pirates of the Caribbean,' 'Pitch
> Black,' and 'Pi.' Why is this?
>
>

"Damned kids -- GET OFF MY LAWN!!!" has long been my
battle cry, Craig. Sarcasm helps. Ask them if you can
borrow their copy of "Gertrud," and when they look
confused say something George Sanders-ish.
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
10967

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:38pm
Subject: Chat report (WAS: Re: Pas sur la Toile)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> and those were the films I grew curious about after the chat
yesterday...
> they were not and never will be released here in any format...
although I
> asked a friend of mine that works in FESTIVAL DO RIO to bring
Story Of The
> Eye... I was already curious of McElhinney, in fact.

Not for all tastes. Shot digitally, hardcore pornography with a
shock cutaway to the Zapruder footage. But it would certainly be
interesting to turn Andy loose in Rio!
10968

From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:41pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

That, Craig, is a great question ! I have asked myself this one many times.
I'm tuning in for the replies..

-Sam

> Side-Note to My Younger List-Compatriots: Isn't it a trip how hipsters of the 20-
something/30-something generation, who pride themselves in (or if not so
pejoratively "pride," take a legitimate interest in) being whole-hearted enthusiasts of
all kinds of avant-rock, avant-electronica, atonal/angular esoterica or whatever can't
get it up (or get them out) for the same level of sophistication for aesthetic
"challenge"/"non-norm" when it comes to cinema? You'll have a conversation with
someone about the latest Warp Records release or whatever's the most interesting-
sounding super-obscure thing reviewed on Pitchfork that day or in Wire magazine
that month, and then look at their video collection and it's all 'Pirates of the
Caribbean,' 'Pitch Black,' and 'Pi.' Why is this?
>
> craig.
10969

From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:43pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

>"Damned kids -- GET OFF MY LAWN!!!" has long been my
>battle cry, Craig. Sarcasm helps. Ask them if you can
>borrow their copy of "Gertrud," and when they look
>confused say something George Sanders-ish.

But David, I'm 26 -- will this still work?

cmk.
10970

From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:56pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
>
> >"Damned kids -- GET OFF MY LAWN!!!" has long been my
> >battle cry, Craig. Sarcasm helps. Ask them if you can
> >borrow their copy of "Gertrud," and when they look
> >confused say something George Sanders-ish.
>
> But David, I'm 26 -- will this still work?
>
Whatever they do, just say "You're too short for that gesture".

--Robert Keser
10971

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:58pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

Actually that makes it even more effective.

--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
>
> >"Damned kids -- GET OFF MY LAWN!!!" has long been
> my
> >battle cry, Craig. Sarcasm helps. Ask them if you
> can
> >borrow their copy of "Gertrud," and when they look
> >confused say something George Sanders-ish.
>
> But David, I'm 26 -- will this still work?
>
> cmk.
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
10972

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:02pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

> "Damned kids -- GET OFF MY LAWN!!!" has long been my
> battle cry, Craig. Sarcasm helps. Ask them if you can
> borrow their copy of "Gertrud," and when they look
> confused say something George Sanders-ish.

That sounds so incredibly vicious and unconscionable! You just like
to go around DESTROYING LIVES like that?!

-Jaime
10973

From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:23pm
Subject: Re: Filmsite.org

Sure. And you are going to replace my computer for me?
g

Our talk of justice is empty until the
largest battleship has foundered on the
forehead of a drowned man.
--Paul Celan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Keller"
To:
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Filmsite.org

>
>
> >I can tell you one thing that IMDB does better right away.
> >When you go to IMDB there is one annoying popup ad; when I went to
> >filmsite.org
> >there were three immediately, before the page had finished loading.
>
> When you use a Macintosh instead of a PC, and surf with Apple's Safari
browser instead of IE, well, you don't get pop-up windows...
>
> craig.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
10974

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:34pm
Subject: Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein Scribe Beheaded

Robert C. Lees had been a victim of the blacklist. In his 90s, he
was beheaded today in Beverly Hills by a drifter.
10975

From: Aaron Graham
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:35pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

> > Side-Note to My Younger List-Compatriots: Isn't it a trip how
hipsters of the 20-
> something/30-something generation, who pride themselves in (or if
not so
> pejoratively "pride," take a legitimate interest in) being whole-
hearted enthusiasts of
> all kinds of avant-rock, avant-electronica, atonal/angular
esoterica or whatever can't
> get it up (or get them out) for the same level of sophistication
for aesthetic
> "challenge"/"non-norm" when it comes to cinema? You'll have a
conversation with
> someone about the latest Warp Records release or whatever's the
most interesting-
> sounding super-obscure thing reviewed on Pitchfork that day or in
Wire magazine
> that month, and then look at their video collection and it's
all 'Pirates of the
> Caribbean,' 'Pitch Black,' and 'Pi.' Why is this?
> >
> > craig.

I don't really have any reason to why this is. I rarely trust
anything musically produced within the last 20 years. I'm eagerly
awaiting any answers to why this is...it's a strange phenomenon.

-Aaron
10976

From:
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 5:40pm
Subject: Re: SMOKE SCREENS

Some years ago, the investigative TV show "60 Minutes" did an expose about
actors smoking in movies. It turns out that many famous Hollywood stars have big
contracts from the tobacco industry, stating that they will smoke in their
movies. 60 Minutes named many of these stars. 60 minutes has lawyers for libel
suits, I don't, so I will not name the stars here. These stars are known to
every multiplex moviegoer in the US.
Whenever I see anyone smoking in the movies, I assume it is a paid product
placement from the tobacco industry.
A couple of other points. People seem to seem to smoke much more in the
movies than in real life. Surveys show that widespread tobacco use in the US is
largely now a lower class phenomenon; middle class people have largely quit. In
movies, cops, reporters all smoke constantly. They are probably paid to do this
by the tobacco industry.
Smoking is the leading cause of death in the United States. 400, 000 people
per year were dying from smoking at its peak, some years ago. It is the US'
single biggest domestic social problem. The Republican Party is deeply in debt to
tobacco money.
Whenever I see anyone smoke it in movie, it is a deep turn-off!
I do not like product placements in films at all. But placements for
computers or clothes seem trivial compared to the harm done by smoking.

Mike Grost
10977

From: Aaron Graham
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:41pm
Subject: Re: Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein Scribe Beheaded

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Robert C. Lees had been a victim of the blacklist. In his 90s, he
> was beheaded today in Beverly Hills by a drifter.

That's sick and twisted! Browsing through imdb, I see he also co-
wrote the occasionally funny Martin & Lewis vehicle "Jumping Jacks".

What an incredibly bizarre story...

-Aaron
10979

From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 9:44pm
Subject: Re: Filmsite.org

>Sure. And you are going to replace my computer for me?
>g

No, but when the time comes to buy a new computer... go Apple! There's nothing a PC can do that a Mac can't, except play the latest PC games, and run Kazaa

and eMule. (But there's lots that a Mac can do, and so elegantly and simply, that a PC can't...)

'Tarnation' at Cannes was edited all on iMovie too (built-in editing tool on all Macs, much less hardcore than Final Cut Pro, but instantly simple to use,

and free!) -- can't wait to see what this looks like.

I'm curious whether some of the older members on the list perceived the cultural surge in garage-based Apple II tinkering and hacking in the '70s as a new

kind of stick-it-to-the-man (IBM and the maniframe-computer paradigm) liberating (even countercultural) activity, or whether it was taken more as the woeful

sign that a new age of techno-solipsism was upon us...

cmk.
10980

From: programming
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:05pm
Subject: Purple Plain - to go or not to go

Hi All,

It's 5pm Chicago time now. Can anyone make a compelling formalist case for
why I should go see The Purple Plain (1954, Robert Parrish) tonight in the
next hour?

Am tempted to skip it unless someone thinks it's an anomalous masterpiece in
Parrish's career. I've only seen Casino Royale maybe 20 years ago, so I've
got no context (although he did have a bit part in All Quiet on the Western
Front, which I saw yesterday).

Patrick F.
Chicago
10981

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: Chat report (WAS: Re: Pas sur la Toile)

> . I'm surprised
> > that Some Call It Loving isn't better known much less loved on
this list.
>
> >
> >

I'm not sure whether the above is from Bill or Kevin.
Anyway, "Some Call it Loving" is known and loved by at least one more
person on this List -- myself. We (Tavernier and I) praised it highly
in our book. Unfortunately I haven't seen this very strange, even
unique, effort in a very long time.

JPC
10982

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:14pm
Subject: Re: SMOKE SCREENS

-
> Whenever I see anyone smoke it in movie, it is a deep turn-off!
> I do not like product placements in films at all. But placements
for
> computers or clothes seem trivial compared to the harm done
by smoking.
>
> Mike Grost

Well-said, Mike. If you want to tell me a few names offline, I'd be
curious to hear them.
10983

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:17pm
Subject: Re: Purple Plain - to go or not to go

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, programming
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> It's 5pm Chicago time now. Can anyone make a compelling
formalist case for
> why I should go see The Purple Plain (1954, Robert Parrish)
tonight in the
> next hour?

Andrew Sarris calls it the great exception to a mundane career. I
watched it on tv and wasn't convinced, but a) that was tv and b) it
was defin\itely strange. Sounds like a once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity to see what Sarris was talking about.
10984

From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:19pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

> > You'll have a
> conversation with
> > someone about the latest Warp Records release or whatever's the
> most interesting-
> > sounding super-obscure thing reviewed on Pitchfork that day or in
> Wire magazine
> > that month, and then look at their video collection and it's
> all 'Pirates of the
> > Caribbean,' 'Pitch Black,' and 'Pi.' Why is this?

I don't know anything about Pitchfork or Wire -- they sound pretty hip -- but do they have equivalents in the film press? Wasn't the whole music thing

(however fragmented, or whatever, at present) always rooted in the counterculture? But I don't think the counterculture, so venturesome in other respects,

ever really "got" film (a Jerry Garcia championing a Saragossa Manuscript, for example, notwithstanding)...
10985

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:22pm
Subject: Re: Purple Plain - to go or not to go

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, programming
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> It's 5pm Chicago time now. Can anyone make a compelling formalist
case for
> why I should go see The Purple Plain (1954, Robert Parrish) tonight
in the
> next hour?
>
> Am tempted to skip it unless someone thinks it's an anomalous
masterpiece in
> Parrish's career. I've only seen Casino Royale maybe 20 years ago,
so I've
> got no context (although he did have a bit part in All Quiet on the
Western
> Front, which I saw yesterday).
>
> Patrick F.
> Chicago

You must absolutely drop everything and rush to see "The Purple
Plain". Very few "war movies" equal its intelligence and sensitivity,
its sense of visual and aural sensations. Parrish's other masterpiece
is his great western "The Wonderful Country" which has one of
Mitchum's best performances ever in the role of a man straddling two
cultures and comfortable in neither. very sad and very beautiful.
JPC
10986

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:37pm
Subject: Re: SMOKE SCREENS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
. People seem to seem to smoke much more in the
> movies than in real life. Surveys show that widespread tobacco use
in the US is
> largely now a lower class phenomenon; middle class people have
largely quit. In
> movies, cops, reporters all smoke constantly. They are probably
paid to do this
> by the tobacco industry.
.
> Whenever I see anyone smoke it in movie, it is a deep turn-off!

> Mike Grost

Then you must be turned off by most old Hollywood movies, because
everybody smoked constantly in them. At the time it had nothing to do
with product placement, since brand names were carefully concealed
(we had a discussion about this here recently). I take it it was a
reflection of a real-life widespread habit. I can't remember any old
movie where someone was offered a cigarette (and people were
constantly offering and being offered one)and refused. On the other
hand actors freely advertised cigarettes in magazines and billboards.
Reagan in the fifties pushed Chesterfields, if I remember
correctly...If cops and reporters still smoke in modern movies maybe
it's because they're still considered "lower class".

JPC
10987

From: jtakagi@e...
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:41pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

There's no cool fashion trends associated with going to the movies,
and you can't show off your ironic t-shirt or trucker hat when it's
dark.

It's funny though, you would think there would be more of a
crossover. Vincent Gallo's album came out on Warp, but at the
same time, Jim O'Rourke was "musical director" (and appeared in)
"School of Rock" (which I enjoyed). Smog had a song in Carax's
"Pola X", and Will Oldham had one in Bonello's "Quelque chose
d'organique" (Bonello, of "Le Pornographe" and "Tiresia" fame).
Actually, I kind of think Carax had a hand in the resurgence of
interest in Scott Walker, just as Laetitia Masson's "En avoir
(ou pas)" helped me "discover" my favorite Nick Drake song.

Les Inrockuptibles is probably the magazine that best combines
film and music coverage, even if I find their music choices to
be a little too condescending/hipster-ish and lacking in originality.
Thierry Jousse used to write on music there, but I'm referring more
to their "rock" side.

Original Message:
-----------------
You'll have a conversation with someone about the latest Warp Records
release or whatever's the most interesting-sounding super-obscure thing
reviewed on Pitchfork that day or in Wire magazine that month, and then
look at their video collection and it's all 'Pirates of the Caribbean,'
'Pitch Black,' and 'Pi.' Why is this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
10988

From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:43pm
Subject: Re: Filmsite.org

Actually, all joking aside, when I finish the book I'm writing and get the
second of three installments on the advance I'm planning to buy a
professional quality video camera, an Apple and Final Cut Pro. But I won't
use the computer on-line; the whole point is to have one computer for video
and film work that can't possibly get infected with a virus.
g

Our talk of justice is empty until the
largest battleship has foundered on the
forehead of a drowned man.
--Paul Celan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Keller"
To:
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Filmsite.org

>
>
> >Sure. And you are going to replace my computer for me?
> >g
>
> No, but when the time comes to buy a new computer... go Apple! There's
nothing a PC can do that a Mac can't, except play the latest PC games, and
run Kazaa and eMule. (But there's lots that a Mac can do, and so elegantly
and simply, that a PC can't...)
>
> 'Tarnation' at Cannes was edited all on iMovie too (built-in editing tool
on all Macs, much less hardcore than Final Cut Pro, but instantly simple to
use, and free!) -- can't wait to see what this looks like.
>
> I'm curious whether some of the older members on the list perceived the
cultural surge in garage-based Apple II tinkering and hacking in the '70s as
a new kind of stick-it-to-the-man (IBM and the maniframe-computer paradigm)
liberating (even countercultural) activity, or whether it was taken more as
the woeful sign that a new age of techno-solipsism was upon us...
>
> cmk.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
10989

From: jtakagi@e...
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:46pm
Subject: RE: [QUAR]Re: Filmsite.org

One of the mac's selling points is its immunity to viruses,
due to its hearty operating system, but also its relatively
low profile as a target for hackers.

Original Message:
-----------------

Actually, all joking aside, when I finish the book I'm writing and get the
second of three installments on the advance I'm planning to buy a
professional quality video camera, an Apple and Final Cut Pro. But I won't
use the computer on-line; the whole point is to have one computer for video
and film work that can't possibly get infected with a virus.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
10990

From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: Purple Plain - to go or not to go

I think it's a lovely, surprisingly deeply felt film with a shockingly good
performance by Peck; on the other hand, I' haven't seen it in 20 years. I
also think that The Wonderful Country is sadly underrated and disproves
Sarris's statement about The Purple Plain being a one-off. And that's a film
I have re-seen more recently and that holds up quite nicely.

g

Our talk of justice is empty until the
largest battleship has foundered on the
forehead of a drowned man.
--Paul Celan

----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 6:17 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Purple Plain - to go or not to go

> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, programming
> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > It's 5pm Chicago time now. Can anyone make a compelling
> formalist case for
> > why I should go see The Purple Plain (1954, Robert Parrish)
> tonight in the
> > next hour?
>
> Andrew Sarris calls it the great exception to a mundane career. I
> watched it on tv and wasn't convinced, but a) that was tv and b) it
> was defin\itely strange. Sounds like a once-in-a-lifetime
> opportunity to see what Sarris was talking about.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
10991

From:
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 5:54pm
Subject: Re: SMOKE SCREENS + Oxygen

PS - While you see glamorous people smoking constantly in films, you rarely
see the medical consequences of smoking, such as lung disease.
The only oxygen machines I recall in a film was in the fine "Mrs.
Winterbourne" (Richard Benjamin), where we see Shirly MacLaine's character coping with
oxygen tubes, etc, just so she can breathe.
A prophecy about the living hell on Earth that awaits most smokers!

Mike Grost
(who is opposed to tobacco, alohol and illegal drugs, and who has never used
any of them)
10992

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

Vincent Gallo's album came out on Warp

When I talked to him in 1996 it was going to be on Sony. I
thought it never came out!
>
> Les Inrockuptibles is probably the magazine that best
combines
> film and music coverage

Olivier Assayas's brother Mischka is, or was, a regular
contribuotor. Olivier is of course very music-savvy. In some ways
my favorite Assayas is still Desordre, about kids who pull a heist
to fund their group. One of Olivier's big discoveries as a critic
was Rude Boy - he did a long piece about it, heralding it as the
film-phare of a British New Wave.
10993

From:
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:07pm
Subject: Some Call It Loving (WAS: Chat report)

J-P -

That was me who mentioned Some Call It Loving. It's my all-time fave film. I
gush about here:
http://neumu.net/continuity_error/2002/2002-00007_continuity.shtml

Cheap video copies can be had at Ebay.

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
10994

From:
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: SMOKE SCREENS

In a message dated 6/14/04 4:44:16 PM, MG4273@a... writes:

> 60 minutes has lawyers for libel suits, I don't, so I will not name the
> stars here.
>
Have any posters to any list ever been sued for libel? (Serious question)

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
10995

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:08pm
Subject: Re: Filmsite.org

George, what's your book about?
10996

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:14pm
Subject: Ed Wood Died for Your Sins

http://www.edwood.org/

He WOULD be the first director to have his own religion!
10997

From: filipefurtado
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:19pm
Subject: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

> Side-Note to My Younger
List-Compatriots: Isn't it a trip how
hipsters of the
20-something/30-something generation,
who pride themselves in (or if not so
pejoratively "pride," take a
legitimate interest in) being
whole-hearted enthusiasts of all kinds
of avant-rock, avant-electronica,
atonal/angular esoterica or whatever
can't get it up (or get them out) for
the same level of sophistication for
aesthetic "challenge"/"non-norm" when
it comes to cinema? You'll have a
conversation with someone about the
latest Warp Records release or
whatever's the most
interesting-sounding super-obscure
thing reviewed on Pitchfork that day
or in Wire magazine that month, and
then look at their video collection
and it's all 'Pirates of the
Caribbean,' 'Pitch Black,' and 'Pi.'
Why is this?
>

Well, people has different reactions
to different art forms. I mention José
Lino Grunewald the other day. He used
to write on films and music and he was
well-known as film critic always ready
to champion the most extreme
experiments on film form that manage
to find brazilian distrubtion, at the
same time his writing on samba was
very conservative, he attacked any
attempt to modernize it. The same guy,
two complete different set of values
for different art forms.

Filipe

> craig.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo!
Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads.
Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for
free!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/b5IolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
>
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

__________________________________________________________________________
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br/
10998

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:21pm
Subject: Re: Filmsite.org

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson" wrote:
> Actually, all joking aside, when I finish the book I'm writing and
get the
> second of three installments on the advance I'm planning to buy a
> professional quality video camera, an Apple and Final Cut Pro. But I
won't
> use the computer on-line; the whole point is to have one computer
for video
> and film work that can't possibly get infected with a virus.

That's probably an excellent idea, and would explain why all the
university digital editing suites I've seen (I say that like I've been
around the world, huh) have been stand-alone, not hooked up to the
internet or any LAN set-up.

Of course, the reason for me to keep the "movie" computer away from
the internet is so I can keep myself from surfing when I'm supposed to
be cutting. Not like I'll ever have that stuff, but a guy can dream,
right?

-Jaime
10999

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:23pm
Subject: Re: Filmsite.org

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson" wrote:
> Sure. And you are going to replace my computer for me?
> g
>

You could also download browsers like Mozilla (http://mozilla.org)
or Netscape 7. They have built-in pop-up blockers. In addition you
may prefer them as browsers.

You can also download ad blockers, such as ZoneAlarm Pro
(http://zonelabs.com) or Popup Zero (http://zonelabs.com)http://www.pcssafe.com/)
or NoAds (http://www.southbaypc.com/). Also, download spyware
detectors, such as Spybot (http://www.safer-networking.org/) or
Ad-Aware (http://www.lavasoftusa.com/).

Paul

> >
> > When you use a Macintosh instead of a PC, and surf with Apple's Safari
> browser instead of IE, well, you don't get pop-up windows...
> >
> > craig.
> >
11000

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Lucas, Needham, Penn (Was: SMOKE SCREENS)

Yep.

--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> > "Damned kids -- GET OFF MY LAWN!!!" has long been
> my
> > battle cry, Craig. Sarcasm helps. Ask them if you
> can
> > borrow their copy of "Gertrud," and when they look
> > confused say something George Sanders-ish.
>
> That sounds so incredibly vicious and
> unconscionable! You just like
> to go around DESTROYING LIVES like that?!
>
> -Jaime
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/

a_film_by Main Page

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact