Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
11101
From: filipefurtado
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 0:24am
Subject: Re: Re: Assayas/Radiohead/DeLillo/Freedom of Creativity
> >
> > So now one has to listen to pop
albums in order to understand a
> movie? ... I've seen New Rose Hotel
and like it but I don't think it
> should be necessary to have seen a
movie in order to understand
> what's going on in another movie.
Sorry, my last mail was pretty badly
wrote. I was only suggesting that
knowing both makes most of Assayas
narrative options clear (as thery
overlaps with demonlover in many
points), so making the film easier to
follow.
Filipe
> JPC
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo!
Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for
only $14.70
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/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/
11102
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 0:27am
Subject: Re: sheet, then black people invented Cole Porter!
But jazz evolved from the blues, didn't it?
I lean more towards blues myself (though I'm ashamed to admit that,
as with jazz and country, I take a Harold Bloom approach to the blues
canon and stick to the giants, Muddy Waters, Howling Wolf, Robert
Johnson, BB King and whoever's on my Smithsonian anthology)
Kevin
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
> wrote:
> > That's straight up blues song structure, A-A-B-B-A.
> > >
> > Well, I wouldn't call "Miss Otis Regrets" a blues by any
stretch
> of the imagination, but then I must be a purist.
11103
From: filipefurtado
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 0:33am
Subject: Re: Re: Mystic River Question
>
> I don't think that Penn's act of
murder is just on any level and
> there is still something unequal
about the violence here. Robbins
> kills but I don't think it's
equivalent to what Penn does since Penn
> is a more fully conscious and alive
character while Robbins is
> already meant to be the walking dead
but also someone who acts in
> relation to his unconscious, to the
trauma of his molestation in
> childhood. Penn kills like a
character out of tragedy, Robbins like
> a character out of melodrama.
>
Theres also the other key difference
which is the different ways the
carachters reacts to the notion of
killing someone. Robbins is pretty bad
afterwards, for Penn it's nothing.
This is parralled by the way Eastwood
set two different sort of violence in
the climax Penn's killing Robbins and
Penn's daughter boyfriend beating his
brother. One is a well-planned cold
blooded murder, the other is a confuse
emotional reaction done without any
control.
Filipe
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ 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/
11104
From: filipefurtado
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 0:37am
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Sarris' italics
They aren't really that ambiguos
because Sarris says that a great
filmmaker lesser films (non-italics)
are sometimes better than a minor
filmmaker better films (which gewt the
italics).
But I agree that the italics aren't
really much important.
Filipe
> I don't think there is an anomaly
here. If I remember correctly -- and I
> can't check because my copy of
American Ciinema is buried under
> (appropriately enough) a stack of
videotapes in the next room -- the purpose
> of the italics was to draw attention
to titles that were important, not
> necessarily good.
>
> 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: "filipefurtado"
> To: "a_film_by"
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:24 PM
> Subject: Re:[a_film_by] Re: Sarris'
italics
>
>
> > By the way, Sarris italicizes all 3
> of these titles, plus "Fire Down Below",
> > implying he liked all 4 films. But
> his article seems to imply that "The
> Purple
> > Plain" was Parrish's only good film.
> Have always been pleasantly intrigued by
> > this anomaly.
>
> This happens with other entries on the
> book as well, so,metimes a film he
> describe as minor in the text get the
> italics, while some of the ones he
> mentions positively don't get them.
> Zinneman's entry has that the big
> films are his worse, but all of them
> got the italics, the Frankheimer one
> mentions The Manchurian Candidate as
> proof that he isn't a good filmmaker,
> but of course it got the italics and
> so on.
>
> Filipe
>
>
> >
> > Mike Grost
> >
> > "There's just one thing I must know -
> > Should I stay or should I go?"
> > The Clash
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo!
>
> >
> >
> > 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo!
Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for
only $14.70
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/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/
11105
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 0:52am
Subject: Re: Mystic River Question
I agree that Mystic River turns into a muddle, but it appears that I
read the finale quite differently from other people. To me, the final
gesture from the Kevin Bacon character is in no way threatening: it's
just a finger pointing and playfully going "bang" with a little
smile.
Both men have their women on their arms: one has the freshly revealed
Lady Macbeth behind the throne, the other the woman he had literally
BEGGED to speak to him throughout the movie. Both men are now
comfortable and safe with their supporters, and the look they
exchange seems to signal some mutual agreement, a mutual satisfaction
that this embarrassing neighborhood reminder of this unfortunate
childhood incident is now safely buried, so let's just enjoy the
parade and not ask any questions.
Of course, Eastwood keeps everything as ambiguous as possible, but
that's what I saw on the screen.
--Robert Keser
11106
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 0:54am
Subject: Re: sheet, then black people invented Cole Porter!
--- Kevin Lee wrote:
> That's straight up blues song structure, A-A-B-B-A.
> So the question
> is, which oppressed, underserved genius did Porter
> rip that off
> from??? Hmmmmm??????
>
Hutch, of course.
(and if you know who I'm talking about I don't care
how many women you've slept with -- YOU'RE GAY!)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11107
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:07am
Subject: Re: sheet, then black people invented Cole Porter!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> --- Kevin Lee wrote:
...which oppressed, underserved genius did Porter
> > rip that off
> > from??? Hmmmmm??????
> >
>
> Hutch, of course.
>
> (and if you know who I'm talking about I don't care
> how many women you've slept with -- YOU'RE GAY!)
You mean Bobby Short's role model, who sang "Violets for Your Fur"?
--Robert Keser
11108
From: J. Mabe
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:11am
Subject: Re: Spider-Man 2
Is Jonas Mekas' cameo in it?
--- Gabe Klinger wrote:
> Liked this one a lot. I was bored by the first one.
> Critics will likely get over-excited
> about it, but for the time being it's the best
> Hollywood movie of 2004, leagues ahead
> of TROY and HARRY POTTER #3.
>
> Gabe
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11109
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:17am
Subject: Re: sheet, then black people invented Cole Porter!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
>
> You mean Bobby Short's role model, who sang "Violets for Your Fur"?
>
Bobby Short was never so "forward." Or good-looking.
The Hutch I own doesn't include "Violets For Your Furs"
11110
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:29am
Subject: Re: sheet, then black people invented Cole Porter!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
> But jazz evolved from the blues, didn't it?
> Well, sort of and in a manner of speaking but not really. it's so
much more complicated. The spirit of the blues does permeate jazz.
Many of the greatest jazz performances on record are blues. I have
always been puzzled and distressed by those people who write entire
books on the blues without ever mentioning a jazz musician. Charlie
Parker was one of the greatest blues player who ever lived. And could
write an incredibly complex 12-bar melody like "Relaxing at
Camarillo" that's one of the most wonderful blues pieces ever
although lots of people won't even recognize it as a blues. Don't get
me started...
JPC
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
> > wrote:
> > > That's straight up blues song structure, A-A-B-B-A.
> > > >
> > > Well, I wouldn't call "Miss Otis Regrets" a blues by any
> stretch
> > of the imagination, but then I must be a purist.
11111
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:36am
Subject: Re: sheet, then black people invented Cole Porter!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "David Ehrenstein"
wrote:
> >
> Bobby Short was never so "forward." Or good-looking.
>
> The Hutch I own doesn't include "Violets For Your Furs"
Will you buy me violets for MY furs, David? I feel like steppin'
out.
11112
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:53am
Subject: Re: sheet, then black people invented Cole Porter!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "David Ehrenstein"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
wrote:
>
> >
> > You mean Bobby Short's role model, who sang "Violets for Your
Fur"?
> >
> Bobby Short was never so "forward." Or good-looking.
>
> The Hutch I own doesn't include "Violets For Your Furs"
We're talking Leslie "Hutch" Hutchinson, right? Bobby Short said that
when he was first getting started in the biz he used Hutch as his
model for presenting himself as an elegant black performer.
Bricktop's memoirs have a couple of stories about Hutch, like
Hutch and Cole Porter in 1926 opening a new nightclub in Montmartre,
and Tallullah Bankhead giving away her pearls to Hutch's wife when
their baby was born (and then Tallullah's sister wanting them back).
--Robert Keser
11113
From: Nick
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:59am
Subject: Dreyer's MICHAEL (1924)
Dear All,
I'm putting together a largish booklet for a new UK DVD of Dreyer's
MICHAEL (1924) and have realised I know very little about gay/bi themes
in silent cinema (pre-Hays, obviously).
[POSSIBLE SPOILERS]
Dreyer's film is everso subtle in this respect (I haven't read the
Herman Bang novel, can't find an English copy) and after seeing the
film a few times, I'm inclined to wonder whether the "homosexual"
relationship was more of an elderly artist/protégé relationship than
one with sexual tendencies.
Benjamin Christensen's character, the artist Claude Zoret, loses his
ability to capture the essence of his model's visage, but his protégé,
Michael, takes his brush and does it immediately for him. It's almost
as if Zoret knows he's dying and sees his skill transfer, as if by
osmosis, to Michael. I got the impression that Zoret sees himself as a
young man in Michael, hence his interest and fond looks.
I wondered if Dreyer's subtlety had been misrepresented somewhat over
the last few decades (most writing about the film mentions the
homosexual nature of the plot but doesn't expand on it very much at
all).
It's a rarely seen film, and I've spoken to a few listmembers off-list
about this, so sorry to them for repeating myself.
I wondered if anyone here had read the 1902 Bang novel and could
elaborate on the "homosexuality" (or not) of the main character's
thoughts? Herman Bang was apparently a defiant homosexual in extremely
unsympathetic times, but that's about as much as I can decipher about
Bang or the novel.
Apparently Mauritz Stiller filmed Bang's novel in 1916 too (as
VINGARNE), of which only 50 minutes survive, and according to a review,
he skipped over the homosexuality entirely.
Any pointers most welcome,
Thanks!
-Nick Wrigley>-
11114
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:19am
Subject: Re: Re: Mystic River Question
> Also answering the first question
> Bacon can't arrest Penn, because
> there's not even a body so officialy
> there isn't a crime. The mise en scene
> in the last scene suggests that Penn
> is going back to his criminal life, so
> I take Bacon last gesture as sugesting
> that he will try to get Penn for
> something.
>
> Filipe
The more I think about what Filipe mentions here, the more I have to
agree with Peter that "Mystic" is one of the best Eastwood pictures -
even on par with "High Plains Drifter", "Bronco Billy",
and "Unforgiven".
It's such a tragic chain of events for the abandoned friendship
between Bacon & Penn. The ambiguity seems certainly intentional, so
much so that I'd really hate to ruin my own interpretation by
clarifying the actual events in reading the novel by Lelane.
=Aaron
11115
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:06am
Subject: Dinner with Harris (was: Re: Re: Some Call It Loving (WAS: Chat report))
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Noel Vera wrote:
> > Jonathan, I've read your Sight and Sound piece
> > (which is lovely) but never
> > the Voice and Comment pieces. A-hunting I will go.
> > And dinner with James B.
> > Harris??
> >
> > Just fainted,
> >
> > Kevin John
>
> And Pierre Rissient.
>
> Scary looking guy, Rissient. Reminds me of Ernst
> Stavro Blofeld.
>
>
> What's scary about Pierre? The way he dresses? He's a pussycat,
really...
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11116
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:09am
Subject: Re: Spider-Man 2
They used Anthology as an exterior, correct?
No, I don't remember the scene in the film, but I wasn't looking for it either.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
> Is Jonas Mekas' cameo in it?
11117
From: J. Mabe
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:27am
Subject: Re: Re: Spider-Man 2
Yeah. I just remember some Village Voice thing saying
Spiderman was filming there and Mekas had some man on
the street interview for the film. just curious...
--- Gabe Klinger wrote:
> They used Anthology as an exterior, correct?
>
> No, I don't remember the scene in the film, but I
> wasn't looking for it either.
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe"
> wrote:
> > Is Jonas Mekas' cameo in it?
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11118
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:48am
Subject: Re: Re: sheet, then black people invented Cole Porter!
I'll have to call up the shade of Billie Holliday for
that.
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "David Ehrenstein"
>
> wrote:
> > >
> > Bobby Short was never so "forward." Or
> good-looking.
> >
> > The Hutch I own doesn't include "Violets For Your
> Furs"
>
> Will you buy me violets for MY furs, David? I
> feel like steppin'
> out.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11119
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:50am
Subject: Re: Re: sheet, then black people invented Cole Porter!
You got it!
Hutch was kept by a number of swellegant souls in his
heyday. It would make a fabulous movie.
But Irwin Winkler MUST be kept away from it at all
costs.
--- Robert Keser wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "David Ehrenstein"
>
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > You mean Bobby Short's role model, who sang
> "Violets for Your
> Fur"?
> > >
> > Bobby Short was never so "forward." Or
> good-looking.
> >
> > The Hutch I own doesn't include "Violets For Your
> Furs"
>
> We're talking Leslie "Hutch" Hutchinson, right?
> Bobby Short said that
> when he was first getting started in the biz he used
> Hutch as his
> model for presenting himself as an elegant black
> performer.
> Bricktop's memoirs have a couple of stories about
> Hutch, like
> Hutch and Cole Porter in 1926 opening a new
> nightclub in Montmartre,
> and Tallullah Bankhead giving away her pearls to
> Hutch's wife when
> their baby was born (and then Tallullah's sister
> wanting them back).
>
> --Robert Keser
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11120
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:55am
Subject: Re: Dreyer's MICHAEL (1924)
Both films were considered "shockers" in their time,
though the stories they tell are ultra-tasteful.
"Mikael" was released in the U.S. as "Chained" on the
grind circuit.
The young Walter Slezak played the title role and Nora
Gregor (who starred in that Renoir film whose name
escapes meat the moment) played the femme fatale who
lures him away from his "protector."
Dryer himself went "gay all of a sudden" at the time
of "Vampyr." He fell in love with its cinematogrpher,
Rudolph Mate. Later he claimed not to remember making
the film at all. That's what happens when L'amour
overtakes mise en scene.
--- Nick wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I'm putting together a largish booklet for a new UK
> DVD of Dreyer's
> MICHAEL (1924) and have realised I know very little
> about gay/bi themes
> in silent cinema (pre-Hays, obviously).
>
> [POSSIBLE SPOILERS]
>
> Dreyer's film is everso subtle in this respect (I
> haven't read the
> Herman Bang novel, can't find an English copy) and
> after seeing the
> film a few times, I'm inclined to wonder whether the
> "homosexual"
> relationship was more of an elderly artist/protégé
> relationship than
> one with sexual tendencies.
>
> Benjamin Christensen's character, the artist Claude
> Zoret, loses his
> ability to capture the essence of his model's
> visage, but his protégé,
> Michael, takes his brush and does it immediately for
> him. It's almost
> as if Zoret knows he's dying and sees his skill
> transfer, as if by
> osmosis, to Michael. I got the impression that Zoret
> sees himself as a
> young man in Michael, hence his interest and fond
> looks.
>
> I wondered if Dreyer's subtlety had been
> misrepresented somewhat over
> the last few decades (most writing about the film
> mentions the
> homosexual nature of the plot but doesn't expand on
> it very much at
> all).
>
> It's a rarely seen film, and I've spoken to a few
> listmembers off-list
> about this, so sorry to them for repeating myself.
>
> I wondered if anyone here had read the 1902 Bang
> novel and could
> elaborate on the "homosexuality" (or not) of the
> main character's
> thoughts? Herman Bang was apparently a defiant
> homosexual in extremely
> unsympathetic times, but that's about as much as I
> can decipher about
> Bang or the novel.
>
> Apparently Mauritz Stiller filmed Bang's novel in
> 1916 too (as
> VINGARNE), of which only 50 minutes survive, and
> according to a review,
> he skipped over the homosexuality entirely.
>
> Any pointers most welcome,
> Thanks!
>
> -Nick Wrigley>-
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11121
From: Doug Cummings
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:19am
Subject: Re: Dreyer's MICHAEL (1924)
> Dryer himself went "gay all of a sudden" at the time
> of "Vampyr." He fell in love with its cinematogrpher,
> Rudolph Mate. Later he claimed not to remember making
> the film at all. That's what happens when L'amour
> overtakes mise en scene.
Very interesting, David. Didn't he also have a nervous breakdown after
the shooting of "Vampyr"?
Doug
11122
From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:37am
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I personally have little interest in either violence or special
effects. And
> cannot figure out why people give a damn about either.
I know you're referring to the mindless portrayals of violence in the
Hollywood "shoot-em-up & 'splode-stuff" tradition, but the point should
be made that many in this world don't have the privilege to not "give a
damn" about violence -- it's a fact of life. To the extent we're
individually and collectively responsible for the conditions in which
violence proliferates, keeping in mind that every human being has
violent impulses, it seems irresponsible to close one's eyes to what one
might reflexively find offensive or distasteful. One could claim a
disinterest in "gore", but that doesn't make Brakhage's ACT OF SEEING
WITH ONE'S OWN EYES any less affecting or profound. Indeed, the
greatest art frequently transforms notions of "disinterestedness" into
more complex understandings of what it means to be interested and/or
disinterested. Art dealing with violence and violent feelings can be as
valuable as work addressing any other subject matter or feeling.
Regarding "special effects" -- does that include fades, zooms, fisheye
lenses, color tinting in B&W films (or for that matter, B&W itself)?
You seem to have computer-generated effects in mind, but aren't they all
tools in the cinematic toolbox, ways of manipulating light and shadow?
No tool is uninteresting per se, and to reject particular tools in
defense of "realistic" or "naturalistic" cinematography is to miss out
on worlds of great art. Objecting to "special effects" in film is like
objecting to the use of acrylics in painting, plastics in sculpture, or
(to relate this to another discussion thread) the use of synthesizers or
turntables as musical instruments -- a misconception easily refuted upon
exposure to the mind-boggling artistic creativity of DJs and
turntablists, as displayed in a film like Doug Pray's SCRATCH.
"You can't always write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say,
so sometimes you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream."
--Frank Zappa
-Jason
--
Jason Guthartz
jason@r...
--
11123
From: Nick
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:40am
Subject: Re: Dreyer's MICHAEL (1924)
> > Dryer himself went "gay all of a sudden" at the time
> > of "Vampyr." He fell in love with its cinematogrpher,
> > Rudolph Mate. Later he claimed not to remember making
> > the film at all. That's what happens when L'amour
> > overtakes mise en scene.
>
> Very interesting, David. Didn't he also have a nervous breakdown
> after the shooting of "Vampyr"?
What Dreyer did during the rest of the 30s has always intrigued me. My
eyes popped out when I read Eileen Bowser's 1964 MOMA Dreyer catalogue,
which describes what Dreyer did after VAMPYR -
"Dreyer was in England for a short time working with John Grierson and
the documentary movement, and in Africa on an abortive film project,
where he was abandoned by his producer."
-Nick Wrigley>-
11124
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:59am
Subject: Re: Re: Luc Besson Bashing!! (Was: Lucas, Needham, Penn)
> I'm kind of late getting into Radiohead even though I have most of
> their albums (I was out of the country right when they blew up, it's
> funny how two years out can warp the fabrick of one's pop culture
> existence, it's like an early taste of what it must be like to turn
> 40). I like KID A more than anything else they've done -- OK
> COMPUTER may very well be the masterpiece everyone says it is, but I
> find it jarring and dissonant.
But what about "The National Anthem," or the end of "In Limbo," or the
beats on "Idioteque," all on 'Kid A'? A case can be made for each of
the records from 'OK Computer' to 'Hail to the Thief' as being their
best (and don't miss out on the outrageously out-there B-sides from the
"Pyramid Song" single in 2001, either), but I'm probably with you, 'Kid
A' is my own personal favorite. Own personal favorite song, if
hard-pressed... I'd say "Like Spinning Plates." Or maybe "Morning
Bell," or "A Punchup at a Wedding." Or "Everything in Its Right Place."
> It's interesting that you and I are exchanging messages for the first
> time in the wake of the other Kevin's latest "rockism" rant, and I'll
> tell you why. I, like many others, got to know you through the
> Yahoo! Godard group you run,
But I don't run the Godard group! Gloria Monti is the moderator of
that listserv, I'm just a humble subscriber. I started a list called
"Cinemaville" a little over a year ago (or almost exactly a year ago?),
and privately solicited a lot of people who are on this list to join --
but that was before I knew this list existed. It still lives on in
naďve spirit, I think.
As for the Luc Besson bashing, I remember that occurring, and being
amused, but don't remember if I added two cents or not. I've never sat
through a whole Besson film, but someday I'd like to watch all of
'Léon' ('The Professional,' not 'Playing 'In the Company of Men' ')
just to see how a Frenchman directs a 13-year-old Natalie Portman.
> Please bear in mind that this is not meant to be a criticism of the
> Godard board, its constituents or your role in managing it -- it just
> happened to be the locus of a significant event in developing my own
> perspective on the politics of aesthetics, one that I felt compelled
> to share.
By all means, challenge the accepted/received wisdom. I just think one
could make a pretty solid anti-Besson case and not have it be
indicative of a new post-young-Cahiers-turks regressive
closed-mindedness. I'm not that person though, as I can't even
remember a scene from any Besson film. But Jean-Pierre Jeunet, him I
could probably rend more cleanly. (Circling the fly on the windowpane
in 'Jules and Jim' is the first piece of gaucherie that springs to
mind.) He needs a good kicking. But I think he's already gotten a
couple two three hundred by Libération and Les Inrocks alone.
craig.
11125
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:42am
Subject: Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!
I just thought I would send a note of celebration -- right about now,
or half-an-hour from now (or 1-1/2 hours from now, depending on how off
my math is), in Dublin --
It's exactly one hundred years to the day of June 16, 1904 (albeit a
Thursday, then) --
Happy Only Bloomsday-Centennial for All Time!!!!
(8am on 16.6.04, until the early-morning hours of 17.6.04.)
I'm opting out on Frank McCourt in Symphony Space though for my own
incantatory rendition of "Oxen of the Sun," delivered to an audience of
four walls and a window.
craig.
11126
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:03am
Subject: Re: Re: Mystic River Question
> To me, the final
> gesture from the Kevin Bacon character is in no way threatening: it's
> just a finger pointing and playfully going "bang" with a little
> smile.
It just occurred to me that that's the ending of DEATH WISH.
Not meaning to sound cranky, but I don't like Besson, COP, OK COMPUTER,
THE BENDS, MYSTIC RIVER, or DEMONLOVER. Having a bad day, I guess. - Dan
11127
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07am
Subject: Re: experiential cinema/vibrating seats
> * Has anyone seen these? There's a motor of sorts attached to the back of one
> seat in a row (at least on the side where my friends and I were sitting)
> which sends vibrations to everyone's buttcheeks. Silly but fun in a sub-William
> Castle kind of way.
In the 70s, some movies like EARTHQUAKE were advertised as featuring
"Sensurround," which was basically vibrating seats, as I recall. Maybe
the motor dates back to that brief moment in film history. - Dan
11128
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:07am
Subject: Re: Chat report (belated) and Cukor (belated)
> On Cukor: no love for his Wuthering Heights? I know
> Oberon was miscast, but it had its moments, I thought.
Wyler directed this, no? - Dan
11129
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:09am
Subject: Re: Re: Resnais question
> It might interest members to know that an English subtitled AND
> letterboxed version of this film is now available on a Korean DVD
> devoted to Pierre Braunberger's shorts (which also includes such
> rarities as Pialat's "L'amour existe", Rivette's "Le coup de
> berger," Godard's "Charlotte et son Jules," a Doniol-Valcroze short,
> and the very first film of Melville, "24 Heures de la vie d'un
> clown". The name of the DVD is a bit of a misnomer: Their First
> Films. You can order it from Xploitedcinema.com in the U.S.
Wow - thanks for the tipoff. - Dan
11130
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:13am
Subject: Homepage pic
Finally I've changed the picture on our homepage. I've been using my
perogative as group co-founder and "owner" to publicize films I think
are great, though I also try to find ones whose stills are interesting.
I'm going to try to change these every three months. I've also made a
folder in the "Files" section with the three previous pictures, and all
future pics will go there too. I've only been putting up the small
versions, though I have much larger ones; if anyone would prefer to see
larger versions in the files section (say, 1000 pixels wide rather than
500? Or?) please email me off list.
- Fred C.
11131
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:03am
Subject: Re: experiential cinema/vibrating seats
>In the 70s, some movies like EARTHQUAKE were advertised as featuring
>"Sensurround," which was basically vibrating seats, as I recall. Maybe
>the motor dates back to that brief moment in film history. - Dan
Sensurround used cues on the soundtrack to turn on a series of
enormous subwoofers set to send a low tone at a fairly high volume
through the theater. Films in the process also included MIDWAY,
ROLLERCOASTER and a theatrical version of the BATTLESTAR GALACTICA TV
show.
Dan, I ran into your star Strawn at the opening of the exhibit of
Edmund Teske's photos at the Getty here. She said to be sure to say
hello.
Two of Teske's subjects, in striking photos, were a 21 year old
Curtis Harrington, and Kenneth Anger from close to the same period.
--
- Joe Kaufman
11132
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:36am
Subject: Re: Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> I just thought I would send a note of celebration -- right about
now,
> or half-an-hour from now (or 1-1/2 hours from now, depending on how
off
> my math is), in Dublin --
>
> It's exactly one hundred years to the day of June 16, 1904 (albeit
a
> Thursday, then) --
>
> Happy Only Bloomsday-Centennial for All Time!!!!
>
> (8am on 16.6.04, until the early-morning hours of 17.6.04.)
>
> I'm opting out on Frank McCourt in Symphony Space though for my own
> incantatory rendition of "Oxen of the Sun," delivered to an
audience of
> four walls and a window.
>
> craig.
I believe this is the first Joseph Strick reference we've had on the
board.
11133
From:
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:41am
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
I agree with what Jason is saying in his reply: that violence is a legitimate
subject for filmmaking, and that special effects are a legitimate part of
filmmaker's toolkit. The last time I made similar statements in this group, Fred
Camper made similar points! I agree that both Fred and Jason are right, but I
think I'm saying something a bit different (maybe).
Much of today's public is interested in both violence and special effects for
their own sakes. Their enthusiasm for these subjects goes way beyond any
interest I can detect in the films in question.
Take a film like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (Ang Lee). The public
seemed absolutely mesmerized by the endless fight scenes in this film. I thought
they were really boring. I just "don't get it", or understand why many people
like watching movies like this. And the scenes of people flying through the air.
They were technically impressive, state-of-the-art effects. The public
treated this as must-see-cinema. I was only mildly interested.
I have broad tastes in films, and like everything from "Torque" to "At Five
in the Afternoon". My taste is certainly NOT hip. I have always been "out of
it".
I am not opposed to special effects in films. Films have been using effects
since "The Great Train Robbery" (Porter, 1903)! Some effects driven films are
impressive: "Blade Runner", "2001", etc.
Still, the public's concentration on these topics leaves out broad swaths of
filmmaking. Today, a films like "Gladiator" or "The Lord of the Rings" are
treated as "major" by much of the public, and films like "Maid in Manhattan"
(Wayne Wang) or "Relative Values" (Eric Styles) are considered "minor". Reason:
the former are full of action & special effects. The public's concentration on
one small subgenre of cinema (violence-special effect pictures) gives a really
partial look at filmmaking.
Mike Grost
11134
From: Hadrian
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:14am
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
Been out of it for a while so i just wanted to respond to a couple
different posts:
First the "why do youngsters seem more open to obscure music
than obscure films?" question has a particularly easy answer:
it's more social...which is a nice way to say, sex. Chicks dig it.
(or dudes).
And as for hip-hop musicians who are film nerds (of which there
are many), one of the most obvious and prevalent would be the
entire Wu-Tang Clan --there music is steeped in esoteric kung fu
and blaxploitation samples, and the name itself is a
reference...they even have a DVD series.
And, i can't resist plugging the only rapper who so in touch with
his sentimental side, it seems he's gonna break down in tears,
Ghostface. I'm tempted to write out some lyrics for that dude.
As for violence being this:
50 years from now, all these
> films are probably going to look just plain weird to people.
What were Grampa and
> Grandma thinking back in 2002, to like such strange films???
This seems pretty doubtful...violence has always been a staple
of dramaturgy --either proto-Renaissance Brits watching
characters chopping up family members serving them to their
parents in pies (Titus Andronicus), or Greeks enjoying the
spectacle of a Mother running through the streets with her son's
head in a Dionysian frenzy (The Bacchae) violence is definitely of
interest to the audience. I think what makes it seem strange at
all is the distance we are able to have from it in our Modern lives
--i imagine for most of man's existence the possibility of death
was always on hand, it's only now it's hidden away in hospitals
and wars on distant lands....and when it's seen! Think of what
Vietnam did to the American horror movie.
What does every theatre student get taught? Drama is conflict.
Conflict is violence. The bloody violence of the action movie is
just childish, crude drama that's all...as adults we should be
more concerned with subtler violence, violence that relates to our
lives, but movie's with no violence? It might have something
interesting, but it's certainly not very dramatic. And if you don't
unerstand the need for Drama, then ther's a much longer
discussion to be had.
> Years ago, there was a lot of public interest in genre.
Unfortunately, this
> is disappearing from Hollywood film and TV. Look at all the TV
detective shows
> made in the 1980's, compared with today.
> I suspect that Hollywood moguls are not doing enough to
preserve genre. Maybe
> even deliberately destroying it. A great shame!
>
> Mike Grost
11135
From:
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:22am
Subject: Re: MICHAEL (1924)
On gays and silent cinema:
Have never had a chance to see "Different from the Others", the pioneering
gay lib film made by Richard Oswald, the director father of the great Gerd
Oswald.
Have seen reports that Stiller was gay. The only Stiller seen here is a
chopped down version of "Gosta Berling's Saga", and that was a long time ago. There
are varying reprts that director William Desmond Taylor was gay. His "Tom
Sawyer" is excellent, a lyrical drama.
Have never had a chance to see Dreyer's "Michael".
William Haines, a gay man, became one of the biggest stars in late 1920's
Hollywood. His films are full of gay themes. "West Point" (Edward Sedgwick) is
one of the most vivid gay films I have ever seen. Warning: the protagonist of
this film, the arrogant football star played by Haines, is truly an obnoxious
jerk. And worse. Still, this modest film really speaks to the overwhelming
desire of gay people to be accepted by society. There are reportedly a lot of gay
elements and characters in "Brown of Harvard", the film that made Haines a
star, but I have never been able to see this. Did not like Haines' "Tell It To the
Marines" (Hill), a famous film that just seems homphobic to me.
"A Woman of Affairs" (Clarence Brown) preserves the gay subplot of Michael
Arlen's book, with Douglas Fairbanks Jr having a crush on fellow student Johnny
Mack Brown while drinking himslef to death. It is even more depresing than it
sounds, and not an evening of fun! Most of the film is about Greta Garbo.
"Algie the Miner" (1912), a short film often attributed to Alice Guy, is a
comedy about an Eastern queen who goes West and is unexpectedly succesful among
the rough types he meets out there. The film starts out by poking fun at
Algie, but he sure has the Right Stuff! A fascinating curio.
Mike Grost
11136
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:04pm
Subject: Re: Dreyer's MICHAEL (1924)
That was the story. Exactly how discombobulated Dreyer
became is a matter of speculation. "Vampyr" is a very
wild film, but not in the end incoherent. it was
clearly made by someone who knew precisely what he was
doing and why.
--- Doug Cummings wrote:
>
> > Dryer himself went "gay all of a sudden" at the
> time
> > of "Vampyr." He fell in love with its
> cinematogrpher,
> > Rudolph Mate. Later he claimed not to remember
> making
> > the film at all. That's what happens when L'amour
> > overtakes mise en scene.
>
> Very interesting, David. Didn't he also have a
> nervous breakdown after
> the shooting of "Vampyr"?
>
> Doug
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11137
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:18pm
Subject: Re: William Haines -- Re: MICHAEL (1924)
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> On gays and silent cinema:
> Have never had a chance to see "Different from the
> Others", the pioneering
> gay lib film made by Richard Oswald, the director
> father of the great Gerd
> Oswald.
Only a fragment of "Differnt From the others' exists.
It stars the great (and gay) Conrad Veidt. There's an
excerpt in the film "The Celluloid Cliset."
> William Haines, a gay man, became one of the biggest
> stars in late 1920's
> Hollywood. His films are full of gay themes. "West
> Point" (Edward Sedgwick) is
> one of the most vivid gay films I have ever seen.
> Warning: the protagonist of
> this film, the arrogant football star played by
> Haines, is truly an obnoxious
> jerk. And worse. Still, this modest film really
> speaks to the overwhelming
> desire of gay people to be accepted by society.
> There are reportedly a lot of gay
> elements and characters in "Brown of Harvard", the
> film that made Haines a
> star, but I have never been able to see this. Did
> not like Haines' "Tell It To the
> Marines" (Hill), a famous film that just seems
> homphobic to me.
I'd say gay "subtext" more than "themes" and rather
slight at that. "Way Out West" is campy too. A couple
of years back a documentary was made about Haines for
cable TV by Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato. I was in
it briefly and so was Gavin Lambert. Legend would
have it that Haines defied Louis B. Mayer by refusing
to give up his boyfirned for the sake of appearances.
But the truth o the matter is that career had run its
course. He retired from acting and became an
internationally successful interior decorator,making
far more money than he ever could as a movie star.
Ron and Nancy were among his clients.
And David Geffen is a collector of Haines furnishings.
He found a way to reinterpret the "look" of movie
settings in people's actual homes, for a very
glamorous but tasteful effect.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11138
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:19pm
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Hadrian" wrote:
> Drama is conflict.
> Conflict is violence. The bloody violence of the action movie is
> just childish, crude drama that's all...as adults we should be
> more concerned with subtler violence, violence that relates to our
> lives, but movie's with no violence? It might have something
> interesting, but it's certainly not very dramatic.
This doesn't seem supportable to me. For example, Long Day's Journey
Into Night, on both stage and screen, features wall-to-wall conflict
without depicting any physical violence (psychic violence is another
matter). Conflict and drama seem to inform The Devil Is a Woman and
Casablanca and Sunset Boulevard and Madame de... and Pickpocket and
Flowers of Shanghai, but with little if any concentration on
inflicting physical pain. Of course, combat films are another story,
as is film noir (although many of these depict only one instance of
violence, spending most of the time on the consequences, as in Woman
In the Window, for example). In comparison, present-day films seem
out of control regarding violence, relishing each blow with Mel
Gibsonesque enjoyment, opting for dumb literalism (Broken Blossoms
and Shadow of a Doubt are two examples where the threat of violence
gives a much more visceral effect than outright brutality).
--Robert Keser
11139
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:47pm
Subject: What audiences want (Was: Lucas, Needham, Penn)
>> 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.
Well, I guess different groups of people feel different ways about
smoking and spouse-beating. But I feel as if I know what Penn is
talking about. Certain fairly simple, black-and-white issues tend to
accumulate a kind of dull, one-sided force, and function in the place of
ethics. Norman Mailer used to call this "totalitarianism." The rules
probably change from one target audience to another, but Penn's films
are probably aimed at an audience that cares about these things.
> 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."
I've been disagreeing with people all my life about this, so I don't
suppose there's much point in pushing it very hard. But I still don't
believe, in general, that sizable audiences or markets crave things that
they aren't being given, or will take whatever they are given. This has
always seemed to me like the weakest argument of progressive politics.
Probably Brakhage could do a bit better if he were somehow invested with
a fashionable aura. But I believe that if you started with a world
where Brakhage showed in multiplexes, some wiseguy entrepreneur would
sneak a noisy action film/love story/feel-good movie into a little
theater, it would be a huge hit, and in a little while the world as we
know it would be recreated, up to certain small variations in time and
culture. - Dan
11140
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:53pm
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
.
> Still, the public's concentration on these topics leaves out broad
swaths of
> filmmaking. Today, a films like "Gladiator" or "The Lord of the
Rings" are
> treated as "major" by much of the public, and films like "Maid in
Manhattan"
> (Wayne Wang) or "Relative Values" (Eric Styles) are
considered "minor". Reason:
> the former are full of action & special effects. The public's
concentration on
> one small subgenre of cinema (violence-special effect pictures)
gives a really
> partial look at filmmaking.
>
> Mike Grost
But have things changed all that much? Let's take the fabulous
fifties. 8 or 9 of the top grossing films of the decade were huge
spectacles, the two top ones oversize biblical epics -- with much
less violence and special effects than today's blockbusters, granted,
but on the whole the same kind of appeal. In 1952 "The Greatest Show
on Earth" got the Oscar for best film and made far more money than
any other movie that year, while the likes of "Singin' in the
Rain", "Bend of the River", "Monkey Business", "Park Row", "Pat and
Mike" were considered "minor" (if they were considered at all) by
both audiences and most critics.
The public's concentration on the "action/Special effects" genre
can be explained in part by the fact that the vast majority of movie
audiences (the people who actually go to the movies)is made up of
teenagers and very young adult. Lots of older people I know
(including cinephiles!) no longer go the movies...even those who live
in Paris or new York and have so many opportunities.
JPC
11141
From: Doug Cummings
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:42pm
Subject: Re: Dreyer's MICHAEL (1924)
On Jun 16, 2004, at 6:04 AM, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> That was the story. Exactly how discombobulated Dreyer
> became is a matter of speculation. "Vampyr" is a very
> wild film, but not in the end incoherent. it was
> clearly made by someone who knew precisely what he was
> doing and why.
Right, I never imagined that whatever emotional trauma Dreyer went
through affected the film negatively. It's extraordinarily undated and
modern in so many ways. And I'm dying to see Martin Koerber's
restoration one of these days...the Image DVD is so horrendously
cropped and subtitled.
Doug
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11142
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:31pm
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
In comparison, present-day films seem
> out of control regarding violence, relishing each blow with Mel
> Gibsonesque enjoyment, opting for dumb literalism (Broken Blossoms
> and Shadow of a Doubt are two examples where the threat of violence
> gives a much more visceral effect than outright brutality).
>
> --Robert Keser
"Broken Blossoms" is as sadistic as anything from Mel Gibson.
11143
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:31pm
Subject: Dreyer and Mate
David, what is your source for this startling information about
Dreyer falling in love with Mate on the set of VAMPYR? Why on VAMPYR
and not PASSION? Was it just the wicked atmosphere surrounding the
set? And did Mate feel the same way about Dreyer?
We hear about directors or cinemtographers falling in love with their
leading ladies all the time. Is this the first instance (and how
many others could there be?)of a male director falling in love with
his male cinematographer? I'm not sure what, if any, effect this
could ultimately have on the visual style of the film.
11144
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 4:40pm
Subject: Re: Dreyer and Mate
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
> David, what is your source for this startling
> information about
> Dreyer falling in love with Mate on the set of
> VAMPYR?
Drouzhy's Dryer bio.
Why on VAMPYR
> and not PASSION? Was it just the wicked atmosphere
> surrounding the
> set?
Better lighting?
And did Mate feel the same way about Dreyer?
No idea.
>
> We hear about directors or cinemtographers falling
> in love with their
> leading ladies all the time. Is this the first
> instance (and how
> many others could there be?)of a male director
> falling in love with
> his male cinematographer?
Hmm. Next time I run into ballhaus I'll ask him about
Fassbinder.
I'm not sure what, if any,
> effect this
> could ultimately have on the visual style of the
> film.
>
>
The mind boggles!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11145
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:37pm
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> In comparison, present-day films seem
> > out of control regarding violence, relishing each blow with Mel
> > Gibsonesque enjoyment, opting for dumb literalism (Broken
Blossoms
> > and Shadow of a Doubt are two examples where the threat of
violence
> > gives a much more visceral effect than outright brutality).
> >
> > --Robert Keser
>
> "Broken Blossoms" is as sadistic as anything from Mel Gibson.
Well, that's my point: it manages to be plenty sadistic and upfront
about the violence of our fellow human beings. Would it be improved
with Eastmancolor blood and CGI welts surfacing on Lillian Gish's
frail back? Would that make it more real somehow? And do we want or
need this level of reality?
--Robert Keser
11146
From:
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:53pm
Subject: Re: What audiences want (Was: Lucas, Needham, Penn)
In a message dated 6/16/04 8:50:12 AM, sallitt@p... writes:
> But I still don't believe, in general, that sizable audiences or markets
> crave things that they aren't being given, or will take whatever they are
> given. This has always seemed to me like the weakest argument of progressive
> politics.
>
Amen, Brother Dan! Why is this so difficult to understand? And why does
Brakhage, for example, automatically equal progressive politics?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11147
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Mystic River Question
two callous issues not brought up:
-- Tinney's character as a step-mother to the dead girl was
probably never 100% comfortable with the step-daughter
in the house, especially given Penn's attention to her.
-- When Robbins is killed, his removal ends a bad incident
from the early lives of Penn and Bacon, making it easier
for them to finally 'forget' what they both tried to ignore.
When I heard Tinney go on with her 'speech' I had the
impression that her contract was for 10 lines of dialogue
and this was an effort to make up for the oversight in
her previous scenes.
It was hard for me to accept Penn as having any 'power.'
He did not even know whom his daughter was dating in
a small neighborhood. His wife says she has told her
daughters he will protect them... just like he protected
his own daughter?! It was not surprise that he would
revenge the wrong guy.
11148
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:36pm
Subject: Re: experiential cinema/vibrating seats
I happened to be watching THE MOTHER when the earthquate
hit yesterday just at the point where the daughter and son
realize what has been going on ... a real earthshaking event.
Most of the audience were locals who tolerated the seats /
theater moving side ways for about 5-10 seconds, but there
was one earthquake novice who appropriatedly panicked
and starting asking, "Where do we go?" Most just
sat and felt we were unfortunately distracted from an
important scene for a few seconds. I really wanted my
TiVo!
Sometimes you have to just roll with the punches in life.
This is not to minimize earthquakes, but after checking
for overhead and potentially falling items, there isn't really much to do
except stay in your seat.
11149
From: Hadrian
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:49pm
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
Oh, come on. I was clearly was attempting to define physical
brutality as a KIND of violence. My point is partly the Long Days
Journey Into Night is a kung fu movie of the mind! Yes Long
Days Journey Into Night or Who's Afraid of Virginia Woof don't
have actual physical attacks in them. My point was they're
satisfying a similar basic urge to see what happens when
people hurt each other...the results. That's why I said bloody
violence is "childish", because it's the simplst solution, and not
particularly relevant to adult life. Just because someone has a
more complicated, realistic idea of how people hurt each other,
doesn't mean the urge to watch it played out doesn't come from
the same place...
As for the out of contol aspect of today...well, that's could be the
result of a more infantalized, less educated audience. It could
also be lowest common demoninator: what can EVERYONE
understand. I can enjoy (or at least have my attention grabbed)
both Long Day's Journey Into Nihgt and Lord of the Rings, but the
kid who enjoyed Lord of the Rings probably won't join me with
LDJIN. Also, it's just easier--if you made a list of things that perk
up an audience's attention , violence would be at the top (along
with sex). Just add a dash, suddenly people are staring. How
could a commercial producer resist? Lastly, film is so powerful
as a visual medium that it seems logical to me that violence
would be externalized (our great master, Hitchcock, would
defnitely be a violent director).
> matter).
As for your examples
Casablanca: multiple deaths and shootings
Madame De: climactic duel to the death
Sunset Boulevard: Murder of protagainst
I haven't seen Devil Is A Woman. My guess is more on the sex
side. Interesting side note: the relative lack of physical violence
in women's films could be attributed to the fact that little girls are
not as afraid that someone on the schoolyard might hit them in
the face. And if they are hit in the face, they are socially allowed to
run away and cry. A little boy has to defend himself, or he's a
coward. There, in a nutshell, is why boys watch action movies.
I know you made a distinction about the morbid fascination with
pain, but i really don't think that's particularly prevalent in the
more popular films, since you start to lost more people than you
gain at a certain point. Considerin the vast amount of fighting in
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, the emphasis is not placed on
the physical pain. Same could be said for Lord of the Rings, or
most action movies....people may get killed more graphically
today, but it's not like (Tarantino excepted) they're writhing around
on the ground torturously. You could argue that after people have
seen a realistic death once, it's unacceptable to go back to the
"Casablanca" days of clutching your chest and falling to the
ground.
11150
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 7:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
--- Hadrian wrote:
> Oh, come on. I was clearly was attempting to define
> physical
> brutality as a KIND of violence. My point is partly
> the Long Days
> Journey Into Night is a kung fu movie of the mind!
> Yes Long
> Days Journey Into Night or Who's Afraid of Virginia
> Woof don't
> have actual physical attacks in them. My point was
> they're
> satisfying a similar basic urge to see what happens
> when
> people hurt each other...the results. That's why I
> said bloody
> violence is "childish", because it's the simplst
> solution, and not
> particularly relevant to adult life. Just because
> someone has a
> more complicated, realistic idea of how people hurt
> each other,
> doesn't mean the urge to watch it played out doesn't
> come from
> the same place...
>
And sometimes it does. "Heathers" (recently ripped-off
in the far less outrageous "Mean Girls" begins in a
snarky O'Neill/Albee mode then spills off into actual
violence as Christian Slater puts his money where his
mouth is. This eventually repels Winona Ryder, but at
first it fascinated her as they conspire to kill off
several people very much in need of killing.
>
> As for your examples
>
> Casablanca: multiple deaths and shootings
>
> Madame De: climactic duel to the death
>
> Sunset Boulevard: Murder of protagainst
>
> I haven't seen Devil Is A Woman.
There's a duel.
>
> I know you made a distinction about the morbid
> fascination with
> pain, but i really don't think that's particularly
> prevalent in the
> more popular films, since you start to lost more
> people than you
> gain at a certain point. Considerin the vast amount
> of fighting in
> Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, the emphasis is not
> placed on
> the physical pain. Same could be said for Lord of
> the Rings, or
> most action movies....people may get killed more
> graphically
> today, but it's not like (Tarantino excepted)
> they're writhing around
> on the ground torturously. You could argue that
> after people have
> seen a realistic death once, it's unacceptable to go
> back to the
> "Casablanca" days of clutching your chest and
> falling to the
> ground.
>
Maybe.Maybe not.
See also "The dark Side of the Light Fantasitic" in
Motion's "Companion to Sadism and Violence in the
Cinema" -- mostly written by Raymond Durgnat. That
entry deals with musicals.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
11151
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Assayas/DeLillo/Le Besco (was: A/R/D/FofC)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> wrote:
> >
> > Thinking about Radiohead and the movies, I wanted to see what
> others
> > thought about the comment that Olivier Assayas made in the long
> > interview with him in CinemaScope magazine early last summer (when
> the
> > publication put 'demonlover' on the cover, even months before its
> North
> > American release -- very bold indeed).
>
> I REALLY like that interview. I've recommended to the group and do
> again. It is very interesting re: H'wd/indies, etc.
If everyone here were to read this abundantly thoughtful and provocative interview (Cinema Scope spring 2003, Issue 14) -- and they should -- the discussions of it would probably never end.
Based on an admittedly superficial reading, though, I couldn't help noting that Assayas's call for new critical tools to accompany a new cinema seems to rest on a fairly sweeping dismissal of the classical cinema as a kind of archaic monolith:
"I have an extremely ambivalent relationship to classical Hollywood cinema"; "...not my cup of tea...I have zero fetish for that time... I hate the lobby card thing"
Studying classical cinema gives rise to "a simplified notion of cinema"; it represents mere "craftsmanship" and is "a finished, closed art form."
Others might call it a book that's barely been opened!
"The cinema I relate to is a cinema _that is about questioning cinema_".
Weren't Sirk, Ozu, and Hitchcock largely about questioning cinema?
"So many directors have been the writers of their better work, and gradually they've slipped away to being solely directors and have made less interesting movies ... on the other side you have filmmakers who are developing their own vision of the world, and who are trying to progress the way a novelist does. When I'm quoting Fassbinder, Bergman, or Pasolini it's because they are writers."
Finally, then (and somewhat abbreviated above): a categorical (and it's not clear how well-informed) rejection of the concepts of auteurism that brought many of us here in the first place...
11152
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:03pm
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
Hi Hadrian, interesting points:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Hadrian" wrote:
> bloody
> violence is "childish", because it's the simplst solution, and not
> particularly relevant to adult life. Just because someone has a
> more complicated, realistic idea of how people hurt each other,
> doesn't mean the urge to watch it played out doesn't come from
> the same place...
Another way of looking at it would be to say that emotional/physical
violence, when outwardly or inwardly directed, comes from the urge
to solve life's problems by by killing and bruising, kicking and
biting. And surely one can be "in a bad way" after a severe
emotional trauma just as with a physical one.
However, I'm not sure what you're trying to say regarding bloody
violence not being relevant to adult life. Maybe you're
defining "adult life" as that kind of life which doesn't come
equipped with the deliberate urge to cause pain and anguish?
> As for the out of contol aspect of today...well, that's could be
> the result of a more infantalized, less educated audience.
I'm not sure this can easily be proven. My impression is that, by
and large, "people in general" have a weak stomach for violence and
a point past which they don't wish to be taken...the result there
being the way violence (by which I mean: physical trauma, blood
spilled, bones broken, anguish thereof) in mainstream, contemporary
American movies seems to be cleaned up to a great degree, while the
sadistic aspect of watching people being degraded and humiliated and
shit on has probably taken off into the stratosphere. (Allow me to
direct everyone's attention to the curiously-termed "reality TV";
reality = humiliation and degradation for money!)
> the
> kid who enjoyed Lord of the Rings probably won't join me with
> LDJIN.
Nor will the seasoned theater buff join you for LOTR, no?
> My guess is more on the sex
> side. Interesting side note: the relative lack of physical
violence
> in women's films could be attributed to the fact that little girls
are
> not as afraid that someone on the schoolyard might hit them in
> the face. And if they are hit in the face, they are socially
allowed to
> run away and cry. A little boy has to defend himself, or he's a
> coward. There, in a nutshell, is why boys watch action movies.
But aren't you just defining "men's movies" and "women's movies" by
saying that contain violence or don't? No wonder the "nutshell" is
so perfect!
> Considerin the vast amount of fighting in
> Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, the emphasis is not placed on
> the physical pain. Same could be said for Lord of the Rings, or
> most action movies....people may get killed more graphically
> today, but it's not like (Tarantino excepted) they're writhing
around
> on the ground torturously.
I'm not convinced that this is so. It's much more risky to dwell on
pain and anguish, but I still see it in new films and TV shows.
Just to take an example that's been on my mind: a recent episode
of "The Sopranos" saw the death of (SPOILER) Christopher's
girlfriend Adriana, but while her shooting takes place offscreen
(the sound of a gunshot in the woods, from a distance), almost every
one of her preceding scenes in that episode and presumably the two
or three before it have accentuated the lighting, her acting, her
makeup, the music, etc., to show her total breakdown: mental,
emotional, physical, as she rats to the Feds and takes drugs, feels
torn because of her loyalty to Christopher, depression, anxiety, and
so on and so on until her execution in the woods seems like an act
of kindness.
-Jaime
11153
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:35pm
Subject: Re: Dinner with Harris, Cukor corrected, violins
> > And Pierre Rissient.
> >
> > Scary looking guy, Rissient. Reminds me of Ernst
> > Stavro Blofeld.
> >
> >
> > What's scary about Pierre? The way he dresses?
> He's a pussycat,
> really...
Oh, first time I heard his voice: "Mr. Vera, I
presume?" the hairs stood up at the back of my neck.
Then he turned round and tore the hotel staff a new
orofice or two. But after that, yes, he was a
pussycat.
> > On Cukor: no love for his Wuthering Heights? I
> know
> > Oberon was miscast, but it had its moments, I
> thought.
>
> Wyler directed this, no? - Dan
Oops. But I stand by A Star is Born. And parts of Gone
with the Wind--the first half, more or less, no?
> present-day films seem
> out of control regarding violence, relishing each
> blow with Mel
> Gibsonesque enjoyment, opting for dumb literalism
> (Broken Blossoms
> and Shadow of a Doubt are two examples where the
> threat of violence
> gives a much more visceral effect than outright
> brutality).
Agreed, absolutely! Threatened violence is so much
more difficult an effect to achieve, and so much more
effective. Plus, the moore interesting depictions
usually imply that violence, threatened or otherwise,
is a symptom or manifestation of some kind of inner
conflict, some kind of inner suffering.
Gibson doesn't even begin to understand any of this,
of course.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11154
From:
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 5:57pm
Subject: Spoiler etiquette (Was: Public Taste)
In a message dated 6/16/04 4:05:56 PM, j_christley@y... writes:
> a recent episode of "The Sopranos" saw the death of (SPOILER) Christopher's
> girlfriend Adriana
>
Um, HELLO, can we announce our spoiler alerts a tad BEFORE we start babbling,
especially about soap operas?
Thanx,
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11155
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:19pm
Subject: Re: Heathers (was: Hipsters)
> And sometimes it does. "Heathers" (recently ripped-off
> in the far less outrageous "Mean Girls" begins in a
> snarky O'Neill/Albee mode then spills off into actual
> violence as Christian Slater puts his money where his
> mouth is. This eventually repels Winona Ryder, but at
> first it fascinated her as they conspire to kill off
> several people very much in need of killing.
There's actually a very original film from the 1970s called "Massacre
At Central High" (d: Rene Daalder) that inspired most of what comes
from "Heathers" -- almost all of the satire on the high school
cliques comes from this film, as does the "explosive" ending. Even
the Christian Slater-like character (played by Derrel Maury here)
wears a similar overcoat.
-Aaron
11156
From: filipefurtado
Date: Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Assayas/DeLillo/Le Besco (was: A/R/D/FofC)
> Others might call it a book that's
barely been opened!
>
Trur, but it's also true, I think,
that a relative large part of
classical cinema studies is pretty
depresing and not very useful. I think
it was that that he was reacting against.
>
> Finally, then (and somewhat
abbreviated above): a categorical
(and it's not clear how well-informed)
rejection of the concepts of auteurism
that brought many of us here in the
first place...
>
Not really. The french doesn't always
use the word writer like us. Hawks was
seen as a filmmamer that was also a
writer, for example.
Filipe
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo!
Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for
only $14.70
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/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/
11157
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 0:39am
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
It's still the same old story...
Love (=sex)
Glory (=violence)
A struggle for territory that is symbolically displaced into a
struggle over a love object = classical cinema
More and more violence and more and more sex = the solution
to classical cinema's exhaustion. Keep it going by showing us
something - ANYTHING - we haven't seen before! This includes
the wonders of CGI, plunked into stories that are so antiquated
in their classicism that the President of the United States could
understand them.
The ideological purpose of this high-priced dance of death = ?
11158
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:32am
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"More and more violence and more and more sex = the solution
to classical cinema's exhaustion. Keep it going by showing us
something - ANYTHING - we haven't seen before! This includes
the wonders of CGI, plunked into stories that are so antiquated
in their classicism that the President of the United States could
understand them.
"The ideological purpose of this high-priced dance of death = ?"
That's *the* question isn't it? We should also consider all the PG-
13 movies full of non-kiling violence and no explicit sex beyond a
few shots of bikini-clad babes. Some years ago I read a review-essay
in "The Nation" about "the cinema of attraction" (as in theme-park
attraction) that argued that movies had come full circle by returning
to their original nickleodeon side-show roots, but now boosted by CGI
in the same way that ferris wheel and merry-go-round amusement parks
developed into high tech theme-parks. Aren't tv critics describing
the current AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS as "a terrific ride for the
whole family"?
Richard
11159
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:30am
Subject: Sometimes violence isn't just violence.
Murders / Death
Separate from the 'violence' of murders /death that come up often
in scripts murders / death is a way to advance a story / create
turning points.
It is intesting how difficult it is to write a dramatic story
without murder / death; even a family drama is often
anchored around a holiday because of the potency for
'violent' or at least unhappy interactions.
Certainly murder / death occured in the early films, but
often off screen. Of course, things were further limited by the
code and changed again in recent years where everything is shown,
but nothing really advances the story because so much time
is spend it the events, rather than the consequences.
The story telling may have been better with code because of
the creativity it demanded.
11160
From: iangjohnston
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:33am
Subject: Re: Mystic River Question
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
wrote:
> I agree that Mystic River turns into a muddle, but it appears that
I
> read the finale quite differently from other people. To me, the
final
> gesture from the Kevin Bacon character is in no way threatening:
it's
> just a finger pointing and playfully going "bang" with a little
> smile.
> Both men have their women on their arms: one has the freshly
revealed
> Lady Macbeth behind the throne, the other the woman he had
literally
> BEGGED to speak to him throughout the movie. Both men are now
> comfortable and safe with their supporters, and the look they
> exchange seems to signal some mutual agreement, a mutual
satisfaction
> that this embarrassing neighborhood reminder of this unfortunate
> childhood incident is now safely buried, so let's just enjoy the
> parade and not ask any questions.
>
> Of course, Eastwood keeps everything as ambiguous as possible, but
> that's what I saw on the screen.
>
> --Robert Keser
This interpretation is pretty much how I experienced the film, too.
I didn't find any irony in the closing scenes, nor do I think that
Eastwood was consciously trying to be ambiguous; rather it was a bit
of a "muddle" -- hence after reading the rave reviews, I found the
film rather disappointing. (And I think the Iraq parallels are
wishful thinking.) For me, the film endorses Laura Linney's speech:
a willingness on her part to close her eyes to the reality of what
Sean Penn has done for the sake of maintaining the family, and in
order to convince him to deny the moral implications of his actions.
All is justified for the preservation of the family unit/social
order (the parade). The "weak" characters are removed or
marginalised; the two strong males, their partners at their side,
are linked in acquiescing to this "closure" through Bacon's playful
finger gesture.
Ian
11161
From:
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:20am
Subject: Bible braindead 'bout Barabbas
Just saw Fleischer's Barabbas. Much better than I anticipated. Thanx to
whoever hyped it on the list (David, maybe?). Just need a little clarification.
This is a fictionalized account of Barabbas' life insofar as we're to take the
Bible as non-fiction, right? That is, Barabbas exits the Bible right after he
was chosen over Jesus, correct?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11162
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 1:51pm
Subject: Re: Bible braindead 'bout Barabbas
> Just saw Fleischer's Barabbas. Much better than I anticipated. Thanx to
> whoever hyped it on the list (David, maybe?). Just need a little clarification.
> This is a fictionalized account of Barabbas' life insofar as we're to take the
> Bible as non-fiction, right? That is, Barabbas exits the Bible right after he
> was chosen over Jesus, correct?
My understanding is that, other than the Biblical starting point, the
material comes from Lagerkvist's novel, which was well-known at the
time. There's another rather good movie from the same material, Alf
Sjoberg's BARABBAS, made in Sweden in 1953. - Dan
11163
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 2:45pm
Subject: Re: Bible braindead 'bout Barabbas
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
"My understanding is that, other than the Biblical starting point,
the material comes from Lagerkvist's novel, which was well-known at
the time. There's another rather good movie from the same material,
Alf Sjoberg's BARABBAS, made in Sweden in 1953."
And Lagerkvist drew on bibical apocrypha and Josephus's "The Jewish
Wars" for background. There's a considerable amount of legendry
concerning Barabbas and other minor characters from the canonical
gospels, not to mention the 24 non-canonical gospels (one for each
apostle, including Judas, one for each of the Marys,etc.)that arose
in the first and second centuries C.E.
Richard
11164
From: joey lindsey
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 3:58pm
Subject: Demonlover
--
I've been following the music thread and the Demonlover offspring of it with
itnerest - although I never quite caught why anyone thinks Demonlover has any
merit whatsoever. I'm an avid viewer of avant-garde cinema (or whatever the
accepted term is these days), and I'm interested in some of the actors and
subjects in Demonlover (underground societies, personal manipulation,
subcultures, the internet...there's a lot more there but
it's been awhile since I saw it.)
I found the film ponderous, boring, spotty, sexist, and aimless - I tried to
interpret the end as some critique of consumer culture and the loss of human
connection to one's actions (and having something to do with simulacra re:
Baudrillard) - but I couldn't hoodwink myself like that. Then again, I
dislike most films that set you up to like a person only to torture them (see:
Dancer in the Dark).
If someone has the time to enlighten me as to whatever it is I'm missing here
(assuming this isn't entirely a matter of personal taste), I'd much appreciate
it.
thanks
joey lindsey
11165
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 4:30pm
Subject: demonlover defense
I don't know if this'll convince you that the film is actually good
or anything, but J. Hoberman's review for the Village Voice is the
most compelling defense and the closest to a pinpoint-accurate
summary of the film's qualities that I've been able to find.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0338/hoberman2.php
-Jaime
11166
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:08pm
Subject: Re: Mystic River Question
> This interpretation is pretty much how I experienced the film, too.
> I didn't find any irony in the closing scenes, nor do I think that
> Eastwood was consciously trying to be ambiguous; rather it was a
bit
> of a "muddle" -- hence after reading the rave reviews, I found the
> film rather disappointing. (And I think the Iraq parallels are
> wishful thinking.) For me, the film endorses Laura Linney's speech:
> a willingness on her part to close her eyes to the reality of what
> Sean Penn has done for the sake of maintaining the family, and in
> order to convince him to deny the moral implications of his
actions.
> All is justified for the preservation of the family unit/social
> order (the parade). The "weak" characters are removed or
> marginalised; the two strong males, their partners at their side,
> are linked in acquiescing to this "closure" through Bacon's playful
> finger gesture.
>
> Ian
And you don't think that's ironic? Eastwood is a liberal about these
matters - Moullet referred to it as his "liberal demagogic side,"
diparagingly, actually. The film is a critical, ironic version of a
classical genre plot, which you recount accurately in your last
paragraph, just like Unforgiven. No one is supposed to leave the
theatre feeling that they've had closure, that order is restored,
that God's in his heaven and all's right with the world. Bunuel was
fond of quoting Engels about the minimum that art can achieve in a
bourgeois society, as applied to film: to shake up the spectator's
complacent assumption that he lives in the best of all possible
worlds. Mystic River aims at doing that, unambiguously. Whether it
fails or succeeds is a judgement call.
11167
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:40pm
Subject: Re: demonlover defense
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> I don't know if this'll convince you that the film is actually good
> or anything, but J. Hoberman's review for the Village Voice is the
> most compelling defense and the closest to a pinpoint-accurate
> summary of the film's qualities that I've been able to find.
>
> http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0338/hoberman2.php
>
> -Jaime
I don't see how Hoberman's rather condescending article can be
offered as a "compelling defense" of the film. There are more
putdowns in it than actual words of praise. And it's more a vague
paraphrase of the film's plot than a summary of its qualities. But
here I am reviewing the reviewer...
JPC
11168
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: Mystic River Question
--- hotlove666 wrote:
Eastwood is a
> liberal about these
> matters - Moullet referred to it as his "liberal
> demagogic side,"
> diparagingly, actually.
He's quite liberal in a number of ways --casting Satan
(Tim Robbins) in a pivotal role being just one of
them.
I'd say over the years Eastwood has evolved from being
a right-wing Conservative to a Rockefeller Republican.
The film is a critical,
> ironic version of a
> classical genre plot, which you recount accurately
> in your last
> paragraph, just like Unforgiven. No one is supposed
> to leave the
> theatre feeling that they've had closure, that order
> is restored,
> that God's in his heaven and all's right with the
> world.
This has typified Eastwood's work for some time --
outside of his comedies like "Bronco Billy."
Frankly I think it grew out of his feeling that a
totally "resolved" ending is corny. By the time you
get to "unforgiven" things REALLY get interesting on
this score.
Bunuel was
> fond of quoting Engels about the minimum that art
> can achieve in a
> bourgeois society, as applied to film: to shake up
> the spectator's
> complacent assumption that he lives in the best of
> all possible
> worlds. Mystic River aims at doing that,
> unambiguously. Whether it
> fails or succeeds is a judgement call.
>
>
And I don't think it succeeds. Eastwood keeps winking
at a sense of cumulative gradeur that the characters
simply lack.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11169
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:06pm
Subject: Re: demonlover defense
> I don't see how Hoberman's rather condescending article can be
> offered as a "compelling defense" of the film. There are more
> putdowns in it than actual words of praise. And it's more a vague
> paraphrase of the film's plot than a summary of its qualities. But
> here I am reviewing the reviewer...
> JPC
You're right on the first count - I thought he had it on his top ten
of the year but he doesn't, as I look now. Oops! So I guess it's
not much of a defense.
As for vague paraphrasing, well, that's when I like Hoberman best.
-Jaime
11170
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:09pm
Subject: Re: demonlover defense (again)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> > I don't see how Hoberman's rather condescending article can
be
> > offered as a "compelling defense" of the film. There are more
> > putdowns in it than actual words of praise. And it's more a
vague
> > paraphrase of the film's plot than a summary of its qualities.
But
> > here I am reviewing the reviewer...
> > JPC
>
> You're right on the first count - I thought he had it on his top
ten
> of the year but he doesn't, as I look now. Oops! So I guess it's
> not much of a defense.
>
> As for vague paraphrasing, well, that's when I like Hoberman best.
>
> -Jaime
I might not have been looking to hard, but I haven't come across any
review that says "demonlover is awesome because..." or words to that
effect. Like Joey, I'd love to read one!
-Jaime
11171
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:24pm
Subject: demonlover defense
Here's a long defense of the film I wrote on another listserv at the
end of March, in response to someone's contempt for the film.
Hopefully it makes some sense or case for the film.
craig.
=====
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 11:52:00 AM America/New_York
Subject: notes on 'demonlover'
In regard to 'demonlover' -- Amazon has the version which just came out
listed as an "R-rated version" with the "Unrated Director's Cut" due
for like mid-June. Is this just some Amazon snafu, or in fact
real-life stupidity on the part of Lion's Gate?
A few points about Matthew's email (Brook, you might want to hold off
on reading this, although there are no massive plot-spoilers -- and
don't worry, we can have more than one 'demonlover' discussion -- I
think it was the best film I saw last year, and warrants it) --
-"I never became involved or interested in any of the characters --
their decisions, their situations, or their words."
What you're essentially saying is that the movie rubbed you the wrong
way -- the characters are the "human face" of the movie, and you
couldn't connect. This is a perfectly valid reaction. However, I'd
like to re-emphasize the fact that this film is not a "story-driven
piece" -- which is to say that the story is no story at all -- it's a
pretense for an atmosphere of 21st-century "machinations" and the sense
of death-drive dread around the weird non-result incest of corporate
mergers. (In terms of any "human face" there are barely any
"individuals" of any sort within the film at all -- I'll go on more
about this later.) I say non-result incest because there is what I've
always perceived as a kind of doomed sexual'ness and sense of
auto-erousal in the way that corporations operate and transact with
each other, and the progeny of these deals and various comminglings
always comes down to the same thing, just as it does in the film --
lifeless intellectual properties, which have become more the meat of
modern-business than any substantial product whatsoever. The modern
global-capital corporations choose their ventures and effect their
business by "rules of necessity" that are largely imaginary -- "now:
next step: diversify" -- that if ever mapped out on paper like a
list of "plan" would resemble something closer to Fortran than
humanity; corporations,
through their employment of captains who understand perfectly the rules
of this game and how to play correctly, operate on what is largely a
kind of auto-pilot setting.
Whether you "enjoy" it or not, the austere
near-non-existence / effaced quality of Assayas's script, mise en
scčne, and characters is absolutely deliberate and for myself at least
is a very powerful metaphor for the world I've described; in showing us
this group of characters who indeed operate on auto-pilot instead of
exhibiting "all the things which make a character interesting," he puts
a face on the Great Faceless Entities and horrifyingly the faces are
barely ("human") faces -- only abyss. (Even the agency of which Chloë
Sevigny's character is shown toward the end to be in possession is
basically illusory; one and all, these are the sleepwalking heroines of
non-control.) As I see it, this is the most effective way of telling
the global-capital tale; a poetic squelch, a diffused transmission of a
movie, an incredibly sophisticated and absolutely primitive scream
against the present. Assayas chose to enter this world and portray it
by the only way possible -- on its terms -- and being divide-by-zero
terms, yes, he's right, the old ways of telling a story and presenting
narrative break down, and maybe you can't portray -- the best you can do
is convey.
-"According to the interviews found on the DVD, Chloe Sevigny and
Connie Nielson [sic] claimed Assayas had little to no input or opinions
on their performances."
But, Matthew, do you honestly believe this? Do you honestly believe
that CS and CN believe Assayas had no input or opinions on their
performances? That he just showed up and drank coffee and couldn't be
bothered with details or decision-making once on the set of the highly
personal project he fought to initiate? Moreover, had no aesthetic
ideas whatsoever? It seems that at the very least you'd -like- to
believe it, as you had such a strong (is it really "indifferent" after
five lengthy paragraphs of griping?) reaction against the film.
-"...it seems any serious amount of blame upon this specific point
would be giving too much credit to the film's structure and
screenplay..."
As you're not willing to give it any credit, I suppose I'll have to do
my part to try and redeem perceptions of a film that is difficult and
challenging and non-immediate, lest it be forgotten and slump off to
the "forgotten"-bin of movie history. (I'm not the only one who feels
this way thankfully, so it's probably not likely to happen anyway; and
"movie history" meaning here, of course, a completely different history
than the one Ebert and Maltin traverse in their reminiscences. Of
course I realize that my opinions will have no impact on the conception
of "movie history" in any case.) One thing I find disturbing on this
list -- and I'm probably as occasionally guilty of it as anyone else --
is the sense that DVDs have made movies something that can be purchased
or rented and thus "consumed" (or, turned into "comfort food" --
comfort that you can access it at any time, which can foster an
increasing desire to have a "comfort me" attitude to watching films);
even if someone only saw a film once in a theater and never bothered to
re-watch it, that experience of the film would be less a consumption
and more of a memory or dream -- a completely different relationship to
the film in question, and one that matters for this very unique
artform. All one has to do to watch a movie, technically, is take a
seat, make sure one's head is facing the moving colors, and
double-check that
one's ears work; listening to music and looking at paintings lend
themselves to the same "passivity" -- going to a theater, a concert, or
a
museum and experiencing artworks in that active
go-out-and-apply-yourself manner necessarily takes one layer away from
any passivity. My point is that because movies are so easy to watch,
there's often this underlying assumption that if one doesn't respond to
a film on a first viewing, it must be because the film is junk, or the
director must have failed ("What do you think he set out to do?" "I
don't know, but he fuckin' failed."); not because the film could
possibly have anything else to reveal or that it might demand the same
kind of time and consideration that The Novel by page-count and
sentence-to-imagination-conversion warrants. I suppose I'm extra
sensitive to this matter because two of my favorite directors have
historically provoked the following reactions:
(a) Jean-Luc Godard -- He stopped pleasing me on a visceral level with
pop-palettes and his films became too difficult such that I couldn't
even understand the stories. I'm intimidated by the fact that he knows
everything about the cinema, I find his incessant quotations
irresponsible and insincere, and anyone who's unfair to Steven
Spielberg must be a bitter misanthropist. (And besides, it's just,
like, unfair to do that to a person and to create a fictionalized
persona for him. No, not unfair -- reprehensible. Especially when it,
like, blurs the line between "fictionalized" and "semi-fictionalized";
and then there's that smudginess inherent to the concept of a "persona"
anyway. It's all just so unfortunate. I mean, Steven is a nice guy
who never takes any snips against anyone, or at least has the courtesy
not to do so in public.)
(b) Stanley Kubrick -- Everything that's in his films is in his films'
plots.
I don't agree with either of these positions -- in fact I think they're
unequivocally false -- but the fact that I've heard both positions
about 5000 times must mean that there's a strange tendency among some
viewers to feel that movies involve no after-the-fact (sometimes even
during-the-fact) cerebration whatsoever, that what you see is what you
get, and that if you don't see anything, there's nothing there. Except
the stories, and the characters. And they should please.
Of course I'm not implying that this is Matthew McGee's relationship to
cinema at all, nor the relationship to movies of any specific others on
the list -- I wouldn't be so presumptuous even to intuit this; I'm only
stating that his remarks on 'demonlover' have pointed me to think about
this subject once again. I've heard the same complaint over and over
and over about this film so many times that when it was voted the #3
best of the year in the recent Best-of-2003 Village Voice poll, I was
completely puzzled as to who were the ones who actually liked it as
much as I did.
One final point about the film -- besides some of the stuff I wrote
above, and a lot of stuff that I haven't even mentioned, specifically
things about its structure, and some of the weird haunting-moments in
its diegesis (and by "haunting-moments" I don't mean "haunting moments"
-- I mean, strange seemingly inexplicable occurrences and echoes within
the film that point toward some outside Other), I'd like to mention the
fact that 'demonlover' -- I've said it once before I think -- is
remarkable and ground-breaking in its portrayal (yes, here a portrayal,
not a conveying) of actual Real World Intellectual Property. In how it
reins in fragments of other Intellectual Property from outside
franchises -- implicitly setting a DC Comics "property" (Wonder Woman)
against a Marvel Comics "property" (X-Men) -- and I might add with
regard to the latter putting forth an implicit critique of current
Hollywood properties and filmmaking -- and then conflates and
re-presents them in such a way that we can't mistake them for anything
but empty "properties." Take for instance the part where 'Tomb
Raider'/Lara Croft and Eidos Interactive (the game's developer) are
mentioned BY NAME -- this is simply not done in narrative movies -- not
necessarily because it's "impossible" or grounds for libel, but because
it dares to do away with any more story-friendly abstraction to make
its point about intellectual property and copyright such that there can
be no mistake (so long, of course, as the viewer is familiar with these
properties and some of the aspects of what I'm about to name) -- in the
one shot of the "anime-ized Lara bootleg porn comic," specifically in
relation to its discussion of the official Eidos-sanctioned property
and Volf's/Mangatronix's complicity with the appropriation of it for
their own online sex "product," Assayas demonstrates an understanding
of: (a) some of the primary subject-interests and methods of Asian
bootleg commodities (ie, taking Western icons and "remixing" them); (b)
an understanding of what the "actual" Brit-art Lara Croft image is, and
that this manga-ized version is not it, which is to say "not the
official version"; (c) the historical differences between Western and
Asian comic-book art, and how in current times there's liberal
appropriation and cross-pollination between what used to be
more-or-less separate and distinct visual styles; (d) the idea of "fan
art." ------ and how all of these things constitute a grammar that
predicates fluency in "interacting" "correctly" with the modern world
-- and that the very notion of "the modern world" is one that is
-highly- subjective, despite the business-wolves speaking as though
"-this- is what the customers want, -this- is what's 'hot' right now."
What's disturbing is that in this mass subjectivity that's
half-amnesiac and half-believing itself to be objectivity, the world
becomes that much more fragmented and cubby-holed.
Having said that, Matthew's cringing at how the word "manga" is
pronounced betrays the fact that he thinks the businesspeople who are
all "getting so utterly acquainted with their property/product" in the
film would actually have any fucking clue whatsoever how "manga" is
properly pronounced, regardless of the fact that it's supposedly their
stock and trade. "It's just business." (Indeed, the name
"Mangatronix" is a deliberate joke that points to the "blank
slate"-ness and vacuity and interchangability of all their licenses and
commodity; the same with the name "demonlover," which as Assayas has
confirmed in an interview was chosen because it means absolutely
nothing, it's a word that's just like all those other vapid neologisms
or trademarks that fly around as memes in our daily surfing, rendering
themselves meaningless and nonsuggestive at the very instant of their
apprehension.) I also find it pretty interesting that a lot of
attention is devoted, at one point in the film's narrative (which
should be a clue for us as to how this script is actually operating --
at a marked distance from its characters), to how Japanese manga and
anime aren't allowed to show any pubic hair -- and Volf Inc.'s concern
that this might portend getting wrapped up in future wrangles involving
child-pornography charges because perhaps children were used as the
models, as the drawings don't have any pubes. This is completely
ridiculous, of course -- but a point is deliberately being made here
about, first of all, Charles Berling and company's own solipsism and
narcissism; second of all, that covering their own hides forces them to
acknowledge the fact that there are real-world anchors (artist +
flesh-and-blood teen posing somewhere as a model) for the properties
that the corporation would at all other times prefer to
treat/disacknowledge as ephemeral products/properties not created by
any actual people (or rather created by a mass of studio-ants) but that
just 'spring into being.' And third of all, to boot, the absurdity of
Japan's pubic-hair censorship laws which if anything only make the porn
that much more salacious.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11172
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 8:37pm
Subject: Re: demonlover defense (again)
>
> I might not have been looking to hard, but I haven't come across
any
> review that says "demonlover is awesome because..." or words to
that
> effect. Like Joey, I'd love to read one!
>
> -Jaime
You haven't come across any perhaps because "demonlover" is NOT
awesome. I must say it tries hard to be, but it tries much too hard
for what it has to deliver. Camera moves and especially the editing
are impressively flashy but in a totally superficial way (unlike,
say, his "Fin aout, debut septembre" -- which of course was about
ordinary people in everyday life, which "demonlover" isn't,
hopefully...) Still I admire Assayas'willingness to take chances and
do something very different from what he had been doing previously.
You could never tell the same director made "Les Destinees
sentimentales" and "demonlover". Although in the former he was also
demonstrating an ability to make a kind of film his cinema seemed to
be completely alien to.
JPC
11173
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:02pm
Subject: Re: demonlover defense
I haven't seen the film (another chance tom'w...) but have seen numerous defenses of it, it seems to me; here's one from Film Comment: http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/9-10-2003/demonlover.htm
Also, there's a Kent Jones piece in Cinema Scope issue no.11 (Summer 2002); this magazine's contents don't seem to be on line, or can someone correct me on that?
11174
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 9:10pm
Subject: Re: Mystic River Question
>
> Bunuel was
> > fond of quoting Engels about the minimum that art
> > can achieve in a
> > bourgeois society, as applied to film: to shake up
> > the spectator's
> > complacent assumption that he lives in the best of
> > all possible
> > worlds. Mystic River aims at doing that,
> > unambiguously. Whether it
> > fails or succeeds is a judgement call.
> >
> >
> And I don't think it succeeds. Eastwood keeps winking
> at a sense of cumulative gradeur that the characters
> simply lack.
I pretty much agree with this. Near miss.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11175
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: Re: Mystic River Question
> > And I don't think it succeeds. Eastwood keeps winking
> > at a sense of cumulative gradeur that the characters
> > simply lack.
>
> I pretty much agree with this. Near miss.
> >
I must be going crazy, I agree with both Bill and David! As a matter
of fact, I couldn't figure out what it was that bothered me about MR
until I read the above. All-righty!
-Jaime
11176
From:
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:24pm
Subject: "The Big Animal" goes to Chicago
See in the Chicago Reader that "The Big Animal" (Jerzy Stuhr, 2000) is now
playing in the Windy City, at the Music Box. Enjoyed this inventive piece of
Polish surrealism when it played at the Detroit Film Theater. Plus the animal (a
camel) is really cute!
This sort of gentle film is more my speed. Plus I love things that are
strange and bizarre.
Mike Grost
11177
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:34pm
Subject: Re: demonlover defense
Paul Fileri wrote a terrific article on demonlover:
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/09/19/3f6aa1
ab4dee5?in_archive=1
11178
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:42pm
Subject: Re: Mystic River Question
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> He's quite liberal in a number of ways --casting Satan
> (Tim Robbins) in a pivotal role being just one of
> them.
> I'd say over the years Eastwood has evolved from being
> a right-wing Conservative to a Rockefeller Republican.
Eastwood always claimed to be a libertarian not a conservative.
Though I think these days "Rockefeller Republican" seems to be an apt
description. And if he walked into the Republican convention he'd be
by far the hippest guy in the room (especially now since Ray Charles
will no longer be attending).
11179
From:
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:31pm
Subject: Nothing But Trouble (1991)
The Mr. picked this one right out of his ass at the video store last night.
I'd never heard of it myself but what a surprise! It's a virtuoso turn for
writer/director/star Dan Akroyd. Extraordinarily literary script. Hypnotic, dare I
say Ruizian mise-en-scene. Dedicated inhabitations of some creepy, downright
undigestable characters. Chevy Chase and Demi Moore are soulless rich
Manhattanites on their way to Atlantic City with two "Brazillionaires" (including the
delightful Taylor Negron) and, well, let's just say they run into some Old
Dark House, Tourist Trap, etc. style terror. Imagine an attempt to graft some
lighthearted, wacky comedy onto The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and you're halfway
there. Although the film takes place in a village hidden somewhere within
industrial fallout in New Jersey, I think it captures the feel of a big city more
than most films that take place there. It's a portrait that works against the
fim's liberal escape clause which is mainly a look at how big industry rapes
small town land. But ultimately, nothing sticks here. The comedy, for instance,
reminds me more of an oppressive, Barenaked Ladies-esque comedy imperative
rather than anything that flows funnily. It's as if Akroyd anticipated he would
never be taken seriously being serious and wedged in some corny jokes to
maintain some sort of integrity (although much of it might be Chase improvising).
Whatever the case, I found it more terrifying than funny. But finally, this is
what I love about the film, its all-parts-don't-fit quality. I'm a sucker for
such films so if you're not, proceed with extreme caution. Earlier in the week,
I watched Mulligan's Man in the Moon which I liked a great deal. But I
surmised that it was the kind of coming-of-age-in-bucolic-Southern-splendor reverie
that is wedged into the camp story of Lucille on the run in Crazy in Alabama.
And after a while, I kept hankering for the latter film's cognitive
dislocations. It's not the only register a film can take but it's the one I like the
most. And for the record, Maltin (or one of his cronies) gave it BOMB (as with my
beloved Some Call It Loving), calling it "stupefyingly unwatchable." I was
mesmerized from start to finish.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11180
From:
Date: Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:45pm
Subject: Matlin
Even though Maltin Inc. rips on many films I love, I actually find the annual
guides useful for the way they register a sort of (can't think of a better
word for it but) status quo view on cinema. Like the dreaded Medveds, Maltin
(but again, we have to remember that he doesn't write every review) does a great
job of describing films, especially within his truncated word count. He knows
what's going on in Some Call It Loving as much as the Medveds know what's
going on in Last Year at Marienbad. But that is not what is "supposed" to go on in
films and thus they devalue both. So at least, they inform me about what
kinds of forms are valued by large groups of people.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11181
From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 4:27am
Subject: The Brakhage Lectures, Godard, etc
FYI: now available online at UbuWeb:
Stan Brakhage - The Brakhage Lectures (on Melies, Griffith, Dreyer &
Eisenstein)
http://www.ubu.com/historical/brakhage/brakhage.html
I see they've also added an mp3 of a Serge Daney interview of Godard in
French.
http://www.ubu.com/sound/godard.html
you can also virtually flip through a couple of "underground movie flip
books" by Jack Smith & Andy Warhol:
http://www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen3/flipbook.html
(the Warhol one seems not to "move" at all -- ha!)
and having nothing to do with film, but while I'm giving Ubu links, I'll
point out some mp3s of a great Dutch sound poet, Jaap Blonk:
http://www.ubu.com/sound/blonk.html
check out #17, "Ursonate" -- read along to the score as you listen!
-Jason
--
Jason Guthartz
jason@r...
--
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
-- Dom Helder Camara (1909-1999)
11182
From: Hadrian
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:44am
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
> Another way of looking at it would be to say that
emotional/physical
> violence, when outwardly or inwardly directed, comes from the
urge
> to solve life's problems by by killing and bruising, kicking and
Or, perhaps, in better films, life inevitably, and tragically leads to
conflict because, as Renoir put it, "Everyone has their reasons."
>However, I'm not sure what you're trying to say regarding bloody
> violence not being relevant to adult life. Maybe you're
> defining "adult life" as that kind of life which doesn't come
> equipped with the deliberate urge to cause pain and anguish?
No, i just didn't say it very well. I think it's more about the fact that,
in the modern First World, most of us don't have to deal with
physical violence much. There's a great bit on "Passion of
Christ" by Vonnegut being passed around the internet; his take
is that people have always gawked at crucifixions, public
executions, tortures, etc...it's just today they hav to go to the
movies to see 'em.
One of the ideas I really like about "It", Stephen King's most
symbolic and conception horror story (the movie totally botched
it), is that because "It" feeds on our fear by encapsulating them in
some physical form, it can only feed on children...who's fears are
simpler and more primal...the Bogeyman, leeches, etc, whereas
adults fears are too abstract to physicalize: taxes, divorce, a
lonely old age. Too an adult man, dealing with long term
relationships, "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" is a far frightening,
believable, and relevant horror story. That's closer to what i
meant when i said that kind of violence is infantilized.
> I'm not sure this can easily be proven. My impression is that,
by
> and large, "people in general" have a weak stomach for
violence and
> a point past which they don't wish to be taken..
well, you're right. I agree about the weak stomach --though we
are getting more desensitized with each generation . In fact, i
think i said something similar about mainstream films not being
to sadistic in my earlier post, so i guess i contradicted myself .
>
> > the
> > kid who enjoyed Lord of the Rings probably won't join me
with
> > LDJIN. > Nor will the seasoned theater buff join you for
LOTR, no?
Yes, but I watched both...and i think there's more crossover that
way than you think...but i don't have any stats.
>
> But aren't you just defining "men's movies" and "women's
movies" by
> saying that contain violence or don't?
No. I am talking about the "kind" of violence again. "Mean Girls"
vs. "XXX".
I haven't seen the Sopranos episode so i can't say, but i do think
the a_film_by group has a subtler definition of sadistic than the
general public....i'm thinking straight "irreversible", hard to look at
the screen stuff.
11183
From: Hadrian
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:55am
Subject: VIolence, and Decisions.
You know, I was thinking that perhaps the reason my "violence"
opinions sounded a little odd was i'm coming from such a
specific place about how i feel about drama. I have a strong
inclination to think of Drama (capital "D", cause i really mean
storytelling) as strongly related to the human learning instinct.
Basically, it's about memes, and the passing on of information
by showing....If you're not familiar, the short version is: it could
take you 3 weeks to learn how to make a stone axe, but if you
watch another guy do it, you can learn in 3 days. That's the
passing on of a meme, and some people think it's this ability
that was the tipping point in man's evolution to civilization, etc.
Well, what if the most efficient way to pass on a very complicated
idea, like LIFE, was to encapsulate it in a story...your fellow
human enters your brain and shows you what he learned, or
learned from someone else who learned. And what if, rather
than repeat it exactly from his own life, like a six year old telling
his day at school, but he compressed it, edited it, juxtaposed
relevant bits, highlighted themes. Of even better, change the
events to better communicate his idea of life more fully to you?
And if this was so incredibly helpful for creating fast-learning,
social humans, wouldn't humans be evolutionarily inclined to
enjoy receiving this information?
This leads to a certain way of looking at films ability to ARREST
your attention...for example, you can began to talk about key plot
points as always based around DECISIONS. Because that's one
great thing what watching a movie can show us, we get to see
what happens if someone makes a decision, without having to
make that decision ourselves (wow, i guess i don't want to join
the army, i guess i shoul ask that girl to marry me). Imagine a
film where a character makes no decisions...a pretty dull
character.
And the most interesting decisions? The ones that effect our
ability to survive (violence!) and our ability to reproduce (sex).
11184
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 0:36pm
Subject: a talking picture
I'm not equipped to revive the debate about the value of late
Oliveira that was taking place here about two months ago, as I am not
familiar with the middle-period films which a few of you think
constitute his major work in opposition to the supposed doddering of
his late films, all of which I have seen and liked very much. I am
totally uncomfortable with the idea of period categorizing the work
of major artists in terms of value. Noel Burch, for one, used to do
this all the time and it is irritating and historically and
aesthetically problematic, to say the least: No Lang films after
TESTAMENT have any value, all of later Ozu declines into academicism,
etc.
But I saw A TALKING PICTURE last night and I very strongly feel that
it is a great film, certainly the greatest film out now about the
situation we are living in at the moment. Bob mentioned in his post a
while back that when he saw it in Chicago some applauded and a few
people booed afterwards. For what it's worth, when I saw it last
night the audience seemed attentive throughout and very quietly,
solemnly filed out after the film was over. I am still sorting
through the film's achievement, which has me slightly dazed. I wish I
could lead off with a provocative question or topic in relation to
the film. But, for a start, has anyone else in the group who has
seen the film had a similar response?
11185
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 0:59pm
Subject: Re: Matlin
The other difference is that Leonard is a rational
human being -- unlike the Medveds, who are Lectroids
from Planet 10.
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Even though Maltin Inc. rips on many films I love, I
> actually find the annual
> guides useful for the way they register a sort of
> (can't think of a better
> word for it but) status quo view on cinema. Like the
> dreaded Medveds, Maltin
> (but again, we have to remember that he doesn't
> write every review) does a great
> job of describing films, especially within his
> truncated word count. He knows
> what's going on in Some Call It Loving as much as
> the Medveds know what's
> going on in Last Year at Marienbad. But that is not
> what is "supposed" to go on in
> films and thus they devalue both. So at least, they
> inform me about what
> kinds of forms are valued by large groups of people.
>
> Kevin John
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11186
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:22pm
Subject: Maltin (Was: Matlin)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Even though Maltin Inc. rips on many films I love, I actually find
the annual
> guides useful for the way they register a sort of (can't think of a
better
> word for it but) status quo view on cinema.
Maltin and Matlin are two different, unrelated persons!
Leonard has done a lot since 1969 (!) to bring a reasonably educated,
borderline auteurist (he was the first to always mention the
director's name) view of film to the masses. The book's views have
considerably evolved over the decades, and some films that used to
rate two stars or worse now get 3 or 4. By the way I knew Lenny when
he was still a teenager and I called him the Boy Wonder of New
Jersey. We spent many an afternoon doing research at Jim Parish's
Entertainment Inc. in New York in the late sixties when Lenny was
preparing the first edition of the Movie Guide and publishing Film
Fan Monthly among multifarious other activities.
JPC
11187
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 1:29pm
Subject: Re: Maltin (Was: Matlin)
> Leonard has done a lot since 1969 (!) to bring a reasonably educated,
> borderline auteurist (he was the first to always mention the
> director's name) view of film to the masses.
Yes, it was a big deal when that 1975 edition of the Movie Guide
included the director of every movie! Before that there was basically
no way to look up the directors of American films - the index at the
back of THE AMERICAN CINEMA was far less complete. - Dan
11188
From: Robert Keser
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 3:12pm
Subject: Re: a talking picture
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
>.... has anyone else in the group who has
> seen the film had a similar response?
This movie just seems more and more relevant every day! The always
stimulating Theo Panayides has some interesting ideas about A Talking
Picture in his Toronto 2003 report. The entire report is at:
http://leonardo.spidernet.net/Artus/2386/tor03.htm#talk
but it's a massive link, so let's just print part of the
review here:
"Film of the Day: He's a card, that De Oliveira. Don't like him much
when in VALLEY OF ABRAHAM / UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE mode - all those
dull conversations in nondescript interiors - but A TALKING PICTURE
(69) …is something else again. … Emphasis on 'talking',
because the thing never shuts up, told in lengthy orotund orations;
but perhaps you already noticed the title?.
"…the Captain's table where Captain John Malkovich is hosting
three well-known divas from various European countries…is clearly
intended as a comment on the EU, though probably more anti- than
pro- (it's true that language is no longer a barrier, but this only
holds true for the privileged bigwigs at the Captain's table - and
it's doubtless significant that the heroine's Portuguese is not
understood when she finally joins the others). It's also very funny,
in a deadpan way, because Malkovich freely admits that the whole
thing is a game - a creaky symbolic contrivance - and makes
impossibly fawning speeches to each of the ladies with his usual
patent insincerity.
"The twist in the tail brings us right up to the horrors of the
present, and was viewed by some as a statement that the liberal
Western traditions of "Old Europe" lead inexorably to disaster, esp.
given the role played by a chador-clad doll at the climax and some
previous talk of the Arabs' devastation of the library at Alexandria;
certainly, De Oliveira isn't playing by the standard anti-Americanism
of European intellectuals - yet his tone seems to be one of rueful
resignation more than anything, a variation on "Plus ça change".
We've already heard of King Sebastian in Marseille, who made war,
Dubya-like, on those of a "different religion", and we've heard our
heroine talk of fundamentalism and the wars between Europe and Islam;
we've also heard them say you "can't turn back the clock" - but De
Oliveira thinks you can, and that History will always repeat itself,
the European dream not much more than a fanciful game…. it's
really just an aesthete's sophisticated - maybe too sophisticated
- view of History as a cyclical constant, tinged with mistrust for
those young idealists who claim to change it. Seems fair enough,
for a 94-year-old. And it's also very funny, in a deadpan way."
--Robert Keser
11189
From:
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:27am
Subject: Re: Maltin (Was: Matlin)
In a message dated 6/18/04 8:24:08 AM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
> Maltin and Matlin are two different, unrelated persons!
>
Yes, yes, MALTIN not MATLIN. Désolé!!
Kevin John
11190
From: Noel Vera
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:14pm
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion?
> "Broken Blossoms" is as sadistic as anything from
> Mel Gibson.
Using far less effort (and makeup), and to far greater
effect
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
11191
From: mbs808
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:21pm
Subject: Keaton's General
I am looking for a good starting point, a key resource to learn
about Buster Keaton and in particular the making of The General.
Also, I know dvdbeaver's take on this question but do you have other
views? Which DVD should I get? Thanks.
11192
From: Nick
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:39pm
Subject: Re: Keaton's General
> Also, I know dvdbeaver's take on this question but do you have other
> views? Which DVD should I get? Thanks.
I'd wait a couple of months for MK2's remastered hi-def 2 x disc set
(from France).
from mastersofcinema.org:
> The General
> (Keaton, 1927) - 2 x disc set, new HD transfer, with the Joe Hisaishi
> score (as shown at Cannes), including the Iron Mule parody of the Iron
> Horse, The Railrodder (25 min), and a 55 minute Making Of docu,
> restoration demo, etc. - MK2 R2 France
----------
-Nick Wrigley>-
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11193
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:03pm
Subject: Killing an animal for the sake of the movie
Before I begin, I just wanted to say to Craig that I did see your
long post on DEMONLOVER, which I sort of requested (along with
another list-member) but I haven't had the chance to read it yet.
But I'm looking forward to doing so.
I was inspired to bring up this old debate thanks to Ebert's
latest "Movie Answer Man" column, where a reader mentions Lars von
Trier's upcoming film, MANDERLAY: cast member John C. Reilly
objected to a scene in which a donkey is to be killed, for real, for
the sake of the film. He quit the project. I would have done the
same, regardless of my feelings about Von Trier's art or his talent
as a director. Ebert's answer is printed below, in its entirety.
Now, I'm a meat eater and I'm pretty sure some animals had to die so
that I could have several items of clothing and luggage. But I have
an insuperable aversion to seeing even the smallest creature going
through trauma, being beaten, or killed, in movies or out. In films
that I like, such as Antonioni's MYSTERY OF OBERWALD and Sembene's
CAMP DE THIAROYE (and presumably Renoir's RULES OF THE GAME), to
those that I don't like, such as Tolomush Okeyev's THE FIERCE ONE.
There are very few things that cause me to avert my eyes from the
screen, and this is one of them.
I don't consider these two impulses (eating meat but hating to see
animals destroyed or mistreated) contradictory, which is why Ebert's
answer didn't do it for me:
===
Ebert:
"Millions of animals are killed every day so we may eat them, and
yet we're sentimental about individual animals. There's currently
hysteria in Illinois about the killing of horses to supply horsemeat
(which is shipped to France). Most of the opponents of horsemeat
have no trouble with the killing and eating of cows, pigs, chickens,
etc. It seems absurd to get worked up about one species and not
another."
"But your question involves the killing of animals for art, not
food. I feel if you accept the killing of animals at all, then
requiring the animal to be killed for food but not for art is
inconsistent.
"That said, how should we respond to the Korean film "Old Boy,"
which played at Cannes and had a scene where a live octopus was
eaten by one of the characters. In his acceptance speech, the film's
director thanked four octopi who died in the making of the film."
===
The middle paragraph bugs me the most, partly because I can't make
heads or tails of it, and partly because it seems so utterly stupid
and wrong. The contradiction he would like to underline doesn't
exist. I can say that for my own mind, at least, perhaps others
disagree with me and think my conflicting impulses are stupid and
wrong.
Opines?
-Jaime
11194
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:12pm
Subject: Re: Killing an animal for the sake of the movie
Pigs were slaughtered on-screen in Godard's "Weekend"
by professional butchers. They had done this many
times before, and the animals were being killed for
food. Still it was a cheap sensational effect and
quite unnecessary in my view.
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> Before I begin, I just wanted to say to Craig that I
> did see your
> long post on DEMONLOVER, which I sort of requested
> (along with
> another list-member) but I haven't had the chance to
> read it yet.
> But I'm looking forward to doing so.
>
> I was inspired to bring up this old debate thanks to
> Ebert's
> latest "Movie Answer Man" column, where a reader
> mentions Lars von
> Trier's upcoming film, MANDERLAY: cast member John
> C. Reilly
> objected to a scene in which a donkey is to be
> killed, for real, for
> the sake of the film. He quit the project. I would
> have done the
> same, regardless of my feelings about Von Trier's
> art or his talent
> as a director. Ebert's answer is printed below, in
> its entirety.
>
> Now, I'm a meat eater and I'm pretty sure some
> animals had to die so
> that I could have several items of clothing and
> luggage. But I have
> an insuperable aversion to seeing even the smallest
> creature going
> through trauma, being beaten, or killed, in movies
> or out. In films
> that I like, such as Antonioni's MYSTERY OF OBERWALD
> and Sembene's
> CAMP DE THIAROYE (and presumably Renoir's RULES OF
> THE GAME), to
> those that I don't like, such as Tolomush Okeyev's
> THE FIERCE ONE.
> There are very few things that cause me to avert my
> eyes from the
> screen, and this is one of them.
>
> I don't consider these two impulses (eating meat but
> hating to see
> animals destroyed or mistreated) contradictory,
> which is why Ebert's
> answer didn't do it for me:
>
> ===
>
> Ebert:
>
> "Millions of animals are killed every day so we may
> eat them, and
> yet we're sentimental about individual animals.
> There's currently
> hysteria in Illinois about the killing of horses to
> supply horsemeat
> (which is shipped to France). Most of the opponents
> of horsemeat
> have no trouble with the killing and eating of cows,
> pigs, chickens,
> etc. It seems absurd to get worked up about one
> species and not
> another."
>
> "But your question involves the killing of animals
> for art, not
> food. I feel if you accept the killing of animals at
> all, then
> requiring the animal to be killed for food but not
> for art is
> inconsistent.
>
> "That said, how should we respond to the Korean film
> "Old Boy,"
> which played at Cannes and had a scene where a live
> octopus was
> eaten by one of the characters. In his acceptance
> speech, the film's
> director thanked four octopi who died in the making
> of the film."
>
> ===
>
> The middle paragraph bugs me the most, partly
> because I can't make
> heads or tails of it, and partly because it seems so
> utterly stupid
> and wrong. The contradiction he would like to
> underline doesn't
> exist. I can say that for my own mind, at least,
> perhaps others
> disagree with me and think my conflicting impulses
> are stupid and
> wrong.
>
> Opines?
>
> -Jaime
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11195
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:18pm
Subject: Weekend Pig
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Pigs were slaughtered on-screen in Godard's "Weekend"
> by professional butchers. They had done this many
> times before, and the animals were being killed for
> food. Still it was a cheap sensational effect and
> quite unnecessary in my view.
I agree, even though I think WEEKEND is otherwise an unassailable
masterpiece, it's even funnier than, say, KEEP UP YOUR RIGHT or A
WOMAN IS A WOMAN. It also strikes me as deliberate pandering and I
have a hard time making it work with the rest of the film.
-Jaime
11196
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:24pm
Subject: Re: Nothing But Trouble (1991)
I think I saw this - I have some images in my mind. And as I
recall, it's scarier than Texas Chainsaw. Not up there with Quick
Change, but in that the same odd-ballpark. And of course it got
dumped on. Most critics - particularly in LA - are extensions of
industry taste.
The anti-totalizing idea is one that lurks about in Farber's writing
- it goes arm-in-antenna with the termite art idea. See my article
on MF's "My Budd" at Screening the Past (unless it's the other
one...)
11197
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:27pm
Subject: Re: Public Taste: controlled by Promotion? (was: Hipsters)
> One of the ideas I really like about "It", Stephen King's most
> symbolic and conception horror story (the movie totally botched
> it), is that because "It" feeds on our fear by encapsulating them
in
> some physical form, it can only feed on children...who's fears
are
> simpler and more primal...the Bogeyman, leeches, etc,
whereas
> adults fears are too abstract to physicalize: taxes, divorce, a
> lonely old age.
The time layers in IT juxtapose the childhood fears of the clown
with scary adult things later in life, happening to the same
characters.
11198
From:
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:50pm
Subject: Re: Killing an animal for the sake of the movie
But Jamie, you haven't given a counterargument as to why Ebert's statement is
"so utterly stupid and wrong." If indeed you "have an insuperable aversion to
seeing even the smallest creature going
through trauma, being beaten, or killed, in movies or out," WHY is there no
"contradiction...for your own mind" as a meat eater? Is it simply because you
don't go to the slaughterhouse to pick your cut? There, you would see TONS of
creatures killed. This reminds me of the Baby Jessica phenomena where the world
rallies behind one individual trauma but ignores the daily shootings that
happen just around the corner (from many us). It's easier to represent an
individual death than the death of millions (something Lanzmann was clearly up
against with Shoah).
For the record, I'm a meat eater and I share the aversion you mention above.
But I would never have said Ebert's statement is "so utterly stupid and
wrong." I would say I'm living with a contradiction and trying to overcome it.
This also reminds me of my beloved The Hart of London. Immediately after the
first time I saw it, I had a HUGE argument with someone because I called the
footage of the lamb being slaughtered "ambiguous." My friend thought I was
utterly stupid if not downright worthy of opprobrium. What could be ambiguous
about a lamb being slaughtered? It's just wrong! he argued. But the footage was
shot by Chambers himself so I think the shot is saying more than "Look at how
awful this is." Rather, it underlines the contradiction of actually filming such
an act. Chambers implicates himself in the slaughter by allowing it to occur.
Thus, one of the central questions of the film is: How do we convey
inhumanity without perpetuating it? Is cinema even an ideal tool for such, um,
enlightenment?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11199
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:53pm
Subject: Re: Maltin (Was: Matlin)
Besides consistently helping worthy causes - like announcing
the finding of the It's All True footage on his program - Maltin
does surprising things in the book: he gives 4 stars to my friend
Ed Stabile's western Plainsong, which isn't even released yet!
Shades of Kael - except that Plainsong is better than Nashville.
11200
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:56pm
Subject: Re: VIolence, and Decisions.
Re: memes
Jacques Lacan noted that a chimp and a baby react the same to
their image in a mirror - they think it's someone else - until age 6
months, when the baby figures out that it's him-as-other, and
starts doing tricks with it. That lays the groundwork for the ego,
and the kind of learning by imitation you're talking about. But
learning by language - what Lacan calls the Symbolic - comes
later, and if it doesn't, you're shit out of luck development-wise.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact