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.
11501
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:16pm
Subject: Re: BATTLE ROYALE
"Battle Royale" is a great and haunting film. At its base it attacks
the academic inflation of Japan, where kids spend 12+ hours a day in
school (some even go to a after school school) and even with top
grades you are not sure of your future. The irony is, that even though
both kids survive and escape, even beat the program, society wont
recognize their effort.
While the film first and foremost is escapism, and only uses social
critisism as catalyst, it became one of the greatest box office hits
in the history of Japan. People would wait in cues for hours to get
tickets and you could buy Kitano action-man figures. Even McDonald
Japan had LEGO Battle Royale figures in their happy meals. It touched
something deep in the conscience of the Japanese youth.
Around the time of its release, Kitano wrote one of his polemic provo
columns, where he suggest all schools closed. Teachers were teaching
the same things they taught the kids parents, the kids had no respect
for the teachers anymore, to get into a university was only for the
filhty rich or the extremely lucky and so on.
Avoid "Battle Royale 2" like the plague.
Henrik
11502
From: Travis Miles
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:10pm
Subject: Re: Alan Clarke (Was: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films)
There was a "complete as possible" retrospective of Alan Clarke at the
National Film Theater in London in 2002. Pretty much everything was
outstanding, and cumulatively it was probably the most rewarding
retrospective I've managed to view in toto.
Made on video for tv, Stars of the Roller State Disco ranks high in the Alan
Clarke "follow your man" steadicam canon. In the future, job centers, roller
rinks, and youth homes are combined to allow kids to roller skate all day
while waiting to be called up for menial employment. Our hero is a diffident
kid who refuses all options offered to him at the job counter (which is on
the opposite end of the rink from the concession stand), despite his
girlfriend's attempts to get him to conform. What makes it all extraordinary
is that much of the shots were made with the cameraman (Clarke's regular
steadicam guy, I forget his name, but a real hero) on roller skates. The
lengthy last shot of the kid listlessly skating around and around with the
lights and people behind him increasingly blurring is a real jawdropper.
There were many other out-of-the-blue qualitative shockers in that season,
besides those that were obviously more immediately accomplished. Billy the
Kid and the Green Baize Vampire, Penda's Fen, Psy-Warriors, and Linda were
uneven, but tremendous works.
On 6/28/04 11:32 AM, "Dan Sallitt" wrote:
>> Scum, Made in Britain, Christine, Stars of the Roller State Disco (Alan
>> Clarke)
>
> Where did you see that last title, Travis? I'd never even heard of it.
>
> CHRISTINE is amazing, possibly Clarke's best film, despite the fierce
> competition. - Dan
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
11503
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:16pm
Subject: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
And while we're on the s=
> ubject,
> may I ask group members for their favorite teen rebellion films?
>
For me, Paul Wendkos's Because They're Young is second only to Rebel
WIthout A Cause in the teen rebellion sub-genre.
No one's mentioned Allan Moyle's immensely appealing Pump Up The
Volume.
Although it's more of a coming-of-age story than a teen rebellion
film, Michael Dinner's Heaven Help Us is one of the best evocations
of the day-to-day realities of adolesence and, I feel, one of the
loveliest films of the 80s.
Does They Live By Night count as teen rebellion?
11504
From:
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:27pm
Subject: Re: teen films (Desistfilm)
My experience of "Desistfilm" (Stan Brakhage) was entirely different (and could be wrong, wrong, wrong). It seemed to be an exuberent expression of pure joy. The teenage party seemed mild and harmless fun. It mainly seemed like an excuse for Brakhage to do brilliant things with photography and visual style. As skateboarder lingo has it, Brakhage was doing "wheelies", showing all the wonderful things he could do with his camera.
It never occurred to me that the film could be a comment on teen life. Or that it had any social commentary at all. It seemed to be a film about vision.
Fred Camper's comments here were fascinating. They suggest a completely different perspective on the film than had ever occurred to me. One could see why, with my take on "Desistfilm" (a visual masterpiece) that I would never associate it with "Rebel Without a Cause" or "Zero for Conduct" (two films I just don't like).
The rose-colored glasses here on "Desistfilm" are typical of very broad coordinates in film history. In general, I tend to see American experimental films as expressions of joy. They seem bubbling over with ecstatic happiness. There are obvious exceptions ("Anticipation of the Night" is gloomy as all get-out), but most seem like part of a glorious vision.
By contrast, some of the films recommended by many current cinephiles in World Cinema often seem to be deliberately downbeat. I was shaken and depressed for days after seeing "What Time Is It There?", for instance.
By the way, of the films mentioned in the thread so far as "teen rebellion", the only ones I like are "Desistfilm" and "Fireworks". I just do not want to see films about teenagers who were delinquents or jerks. I was not a delinquent; most teenagers today are not delinquents; instead they work hard and often accomplish great things against huge odds. I want to see positive films about accomplished and likeable teenagers.
Mike Grost
11505
From: Nick
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:51pm
Subject: Re: Alan Clarke (Was: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films)
> There was a "complete as possible" retrospective of Alan Clarke at the
> National Film Theater in London in 2002. Pretty much everything was
> outstanding, and cumulatively it was probably the most rewarding
> retrospective I've managed to view in toto.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/showing/nft/featurearchive/clarke/showing_feb.html
http://www.bfi.org.uk/showing/nft/featurearchive/clarke/showing_mar.html
and BLUE UNDERGROUND release a big Clarke DVD boxset in a coupla
months...
-Nick Wrigley>-
> Alan Clarke Collection, The - DVD
>
> "The Greatest British Filmmaker Of His Generation." - The London
> Observer
>
> His films exposed a real world of raw life like no others. His career
> inspired a generation of British actors, writers and directors that
> changed cinema forever. In the years following his untimely death in
> 1990, Director Alan Clarke has remained one of the most influential
> and controversial talents of our time. THE ALAN CLARKE COLLECTION
> brings together his greatest works, most never before seen in America
> until now.
>
> Each film in THE ALAN CLARKE COLLECTION has been fully restored from
> original UK master materials. Extras include interviews and all-new
> commentaries by such celebrated colleagues and proteges as Tim Roth
> (RESERVOIR DOGS), Ray Winstone (SEXY BEAST), Phil Daniels
> (QUADROPHENIA), David Leland (MONA LISA), Margaret Matheson (SID &
> NANCY) and Danny Boyle (TRAINSPOTTING).
>
>
> SCUM (1977) Starring Ray Winstone, Phil Daniels, David Threlfall.
> Written by Roy Minton. Produced by Margaret Matheson. Clarke's graphic
> indictment of British juvenile prisons made for - and subsequently
> banned by - the BBC.
>
> 1977 – 78 min. – Drama – Not Rated – English – Colour – 1.33:1 – 4X3
>
> DVD SPECIAL FEATURES: Audio Commentary with Stars Phil Daniels and
> David Threlfall and Producer Margaret Matheson; Selected Scenes with
> Audio Commentary by Star Ray Winstone
>
>
> SCUM (1979) Starring Ray Winstone, Phil Daniels, Mick Ford. Written
> by Roy Minton. Produced by Clive Parsons and Davina Belling. Clarke
> responded to the banning of SCUM by remaking it as a shocking,
> uncompromising theatrical feature.
>
> 1979 – 96 min. – Drama – Not Rated – English – Colour – 1.66:1 – 16X9
>
> DVD SPECIAL FEATURES: Audio Commentary with Star Ray Winstone;
> Interviews with Producer Clive Parsons & Writer Roy Minton (17 min.);
> Poster & Still Galleries; Theatrical Trailer
>
>
> MADE IN BRITAIN (1982) Starring Tim Roth, Eric Richard, Terry
> Richards. Written by David Leland. Produced by Margaret Matheson. Tim
> Roth in his stunning film debut as a ferocious, teenage skinhead on a
> rampage through Thatcher's grim empire. Music by legendary UK Punk
> band The Exploited.
>
> 1982 – 76 min. – Drama – Not Rated – English – Colour – 1.33:1 – 4X3
>
> DVD SPECIAL FEATURES: Audio Commentary #1 with star Tim Roth; Audio
> Commentary #2 with Writer David Leland and Producer Margaret Matheson;
> Archive Interview with Tim Roth (5 min.); Poster & Still Gallery
>
>
> THE FIRM (1988) Starring Gary Oldman, Lesley Manville, Philip Davis.
> Written by Al Hunter. Produced by David M. Thompson. Gary Oldman gives
> a blistering performance as a middle-class family man who leads a
> violent gang of soccer hooligans.
>
> ELEPHANT (1988) Produced by Danny Boyle. The stark study of eighteen
> separatist killings in Northern Ireland.
>
> 1988 – 70 min./39 min. – Drama – Not Rated – English – Colour –
> 1.33:1 – 4X3
>
> DVD SPECIAL FEATURES: THE FIRM: Still Galleries; ELEPHANT: Audio
> Commentary with Producer Danny Boyle; Memories of Elephant: Interviews
> with Gary Oldman, David Hare & Molly Clarke (5 min.)
>
>
> DIRECTOR: ALAN CLARKE (1991) Directed by Corin Campbell-Hill. In this
> posthumous documentary Clarke's brilliant legacy is explored via
> revealing interviews, rare behind-the-scenes footage and more.
>
> 1991 – 53 min. – Documentary – Not Rated – English – Colour – 1.33:1
> - 4X3
>
> DVD SPECIAL FEATURES: Alan Clarke biography
>
>
> It's retailing for $99.95 on August 31st.
( ripped from www.criterionforum.org )
11506
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:21pm
Subject: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
> No one's mentioned Allan Moyle's immensely appealing Pump Up The
> Volume.
Nor his teenaged runaway film, "Times Square", which I guess could be
considered rebellious. Personally, I only liked the soundtrack.
-Aaron
11507
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
Truly disliked "Times Square" but greatly enjoyed
"Pump Up the Volume."
Moyle is erratically interesting.
--- Aaron Graham wrote:
>
> > No one's mentioned Allan Moyle's immensely
> appealing Pump Up The
> > Volume.
>
> Nor his teenaged runaway film, "Times Square", which
> I guess could be
> considered rebellious. Personally, I only liked the
> soundtrack.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11508
From: Brian Darr
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:46pm
Subject: Re: teen films BATTLE ROYALE
I thought BATTLE ROYALE was okay, but I much preferred another
Japanese teen movie HARMFUL INSECT (Shiota, 2001) that shared some of
the same cast.
There are a lot of teen rebellion movies made in East Asia these days.
UNKNOWN PLEASURES (Jia, 2002), MEMENTO MORI (Kim & Min, 1999),
VISITOR Q (Miike, 2001), ONE TAKE ONLY (Pang, 2001), ALL ABOUT LILLY
CHOU-CHOU (Iwai, 2000), GO (Yukisada, 2000), and MILLENIUM MAMBO (Hou,
2000) are some of the ones I've seen that deal with this theme. Not
all of these are favorites of mine, though.
11509
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 7:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: teen films BATTLE ROYALE
--- Brian Darr wrote:
> There are a lot of teen rebellion movies made in
> East Asia these days.
> UNKNOWN PLEASURES (Jia, 2002), MEMENTO MORI (Kim &
> Min, 1999),
> VISITOR Q (Miike, 2001), ONE TAKE ONLY (Pang, 2001),
> ALL ABOUT LILLY
> CHOU-CHOU (Iwai, 2000), GO (Yukisada, 2000), and
> MILLENIUM MAMBO (Hou,
> 2000) are some of the ones I've seen that deal with
> this theme. Not
> all of these are favorites of mine, though.
>
>
"All About Lily Chou-Chou"is quite good. Itcaptures
the cliquishness of high school -- with deadly
consequences-- exceptionally well.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11510
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:02pm
Subject: Harmful Insect (Was: teen films BATTLE ROYALE)
> I thought BATTLE ROYALE was okay, but I much preferred another
> Japanese teen movie HARMFUL INSECT (Shiota, 2001) that shared some of
> the same cast.
Yeah, I like HARMFUL INSECT too, although I must admit that it took me a
second, very focused viewing to pick up even the simple plot points.
Shiota's a fascinating director, but much less visceral than Mr.
Fukasaku. - Dan
11511
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:19pm
Subject: Re: teen films (Desistfilm)
> My experience of "Desistfilm" (Stan Brakhage) was entirely different (and could be
wrong, wrong, wrong). It seemed to be an exuberent expression of pure joy.
Wow ! ...
> The teenage party seemed mild and harmless fun. It mainly seemed like an excuse
for Brakhage to do brilliant things with photography and visual style. As skateboarder
lingo has it, Brakhage was doing "wheelies", showing all the wonderful things he
could do with his camera.
..but maybe you're seeing where he was going before he got there ?
> It seemed to be a film about vision.
> By contrast, some of the films recommended by many current cinephiles in World
Cinema often seem to be deliberately downbeat. I was shaken and depressed for days
after seeing "What Time Is It There?", for instance.
Well we've had THAT debate, I'll just say I was if anything exhilarated at seeing
the possibilities for cinema "What Time..." seemed to open up... (by contrast
indeed !
> I I was not a delinquent;
This may account for our differences in perspective ;-)
-Sam
11512
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:25pm
Subject: Re: teen films (Desistfilm)
> "Rebel Without a Cause" or "Zero for Conduct" (two films I just don't like).
What is it about "Zero" you don't like ? When I first saw it, I thought
"I wish I'd seen this in High School"
"Rebel Without A Cause" I wrote a poem once about the chicken race scene,
I'll see if I can find it (can't do it from memory).
> ("Anticipation of the Night" is gloomy as all get-out),
I'm curious here, would you say the same thing if you saw it without the
"framing" shots ?
(which personally I feel the film could live without)
-Sam
11513
From:
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:49pm
Subject: Doppelganger
In a message dated 6/28/2004 4:25:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
a_film_by@yahoogroups.com writes:
> Fellow a_film_by
> member Brent Kite tells me that a lot of people say it's superior to
> his previous films because it's so funny (and it's very funny), but
> I don't think that's the case.
I had no I would be quoted on this, but I was poking winsome fun at the Time
Out New York review which claimed Doppelganger was a huge leap forward from
the "supernatural heaviosity" of Kurosawa's earlier films because it includes
humor. My point being that the reviewer didn't demonstrate sufficient
familiarity with the earlier films to make such a heavious statement: Charisma and Eyes
of the Spider in particular have plenty of funny stuff and the whole Shoot
Yourself or Shoot Yourself series is explicitly comic.
Bill, have you considered including Cure in your serial-killer book?
Brent
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11514
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:53pm
Subject: Re: Doppelganger
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, kitebw@a... wrote:
> I had no I would be quoted on this, but I was poking winsome fun
at the Time
> Out New York review which claimed Doppelganger was a huge leap
forward from
> the "supernatural heaviosity" of Kurosawa's earlier films because
it includes
> humor. My point being that the reviewer didn't demonstrate
sufficient
> familiarity with the earlier films to make such a heavious
statement: Charisma and Eyes
> of the Spider in particular have plenty of funny stuff and the
whole Shoot
> Yourself or Shoot Yourself series is explicitly comic.
My apologies for the misquote. I thought you were drawing on your
general sense of Kiyoshi Kurosawa kriticism and some of the
silliness therein. I didn't remember that you were pointing to Time
Out NY in particular.
-Jaime
11515
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:59pm
Subject: Re: Doppelganger
> Bill, have you considered including Cure in your serial-killer book?
>
> Brent
Does the Pope shit in the woods? I just duped it onto a tape which
also holds a dupe of Club Dread, for when I'm ready to "wade in." I
heard snatches of AK's interview - interesting to learn that he's a
Fleischer fan.
11516
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:59pm
Subject: Re: Doppelganger (errata)
I mean KK.
11517
From:
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 5:15pm
Subject: Re: Doppelganger
"interesting to learn that he's a
Fleischer fan."
He's a HUGE Fleischer fan, says the splitscreen in Dopp was primarily
inspired by Boston Strangler. And maybe the credit sequence for Peckinpah's Ballad of
Cable Hogue -- that was one of the clips he chose for a favorite-scene
compilation at an NYU conference a few months back.
Looking forward to reading your thoughts on Cure.
Brent
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11518
From:
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
In a message dated 6/28/04 2:24:56 PM, machinegunmccain@y... writes:
> No one's mentioned Allan Moyle's immensely appealing Pump Up The
> > Volume.
>
Thank you, thank you for mentioning this one. I also have a HUGELY found of
Moyle's Empire Records. It's a terrible film but it needs friends. I'm one.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11519
From:
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:29pm
Subject: Re: Doppelganger
> Does the Pope shit in the woods? I just duped it onto a tape which
> also holds a dupe of Club Dread, for when I'm ready to "wade in."
1.) CLUB DREAD is sort of underrated.
2.) re: Kiyoshi Kurosawa -- his recent BRIGHT FUTURE, while not
exactly a glowing success, is also an interesting recent example of
the youth rebellion genre. It sort of starts off as something else
but then heads in that direction, managing to be simultaneously
horrifying and playful about it.
-Bilge
11520
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:50pm
Subject: Re: Doppelganger
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
> > Does the Pope shit in the woods? I just duped it onto a tape
which
> > also holds a dupe of Club Dread, for when I'm ready to "wade in."
>
> 1.) CLUB DREAD is sort of underrated.
I kind of dug that "chopped-off head POV" camera move from the
opening.
-Aaron
11521
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 0:19am
Subject: Re: teen films
> > > favorite teen rebellion
> > films?...."
As yet apparently unmentioned, REBELS OF THE NEON GOD might easily qualify for a teen rebellion series; and maybe even more so Tsai's excellent television film, YOUNGSTERS, with a seemingly teenage Lee Kang-sheng.
Weren't I VITELLONI supposed to be teenagers (though maybe not really rebellious enough), even though the actors seem to be at least a good fifteen years older?
11522
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 0:28am
Subject: Re: Re: teen films
--- jess_l_amortell wrote:
> Weren't I VITELLONI supposed to be teenagers (though
> maybe not really rebellious enough), even though the
> actors seem to be at least a good fifteen years
> older?
>
>
Doesn't really qualify. They're heading toward
middle-age yet continue to ACT like teenagers.
Same for the guys in "Mean Streets."
And in both instances they're not really rebelling
against anything.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11523
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:05am
Subject: Re: teen films BATTLE ROYALE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Darr"
wrote:
"There are a lot of teen rebellion movies made in East Asia these
days.UNKNOWN PLEASURES (Jia, 2002), MEMENTO MORI (Kim & Min,
1999),VISITOR Q (Miike, 2001), ONE TAKE ONLY (Pang, 2001), ALL ABOUT
LILLY CHOU-CHOU (Iwai, 2000), GO (Yukisada, 2000), and MILLENIUM
MAMBO (Hou,> 2000) are some of the ones I've seen that deal with this
theme. Not all of these are favorites of mine, though."
Of the ones you mention, I've only seen ALL ABOUT LILLY CHOU-CHOU and
like David, I thought it quite good.
From an earlier era in Japan and for comparison with REBEL WITHOUT A
CAUSE is TAIYO NO KISETSU/SEASON OF THE SUN (1956)from a novel by
Ishihara Shintaro who wrote several rebellious teen stories, many of
which were made into movies.
Wakamatsu Koji made a formally radical teen rebellion movie called
YUKE,YUKE NI DO ME NO SHOJO/GO,GO SECOND TIME VIRGIN (1969,)a two
charcater film that takes place on the rooftop of a modern high rise
apartment building and alternates between black & white and color and
has short bursts of montages showing newspaper headlines and manga
panels.
Wakamatsu became a supporter of the Sekigunsha (known in the West as
the Japanese Red Army Faction) during the late 1960s and '70s. When
the American Cinematheque tried to bring him over for their "Outlaw
Masters of Japanese Cinema" series, the Stae Dept. wouldn't grant him
a visa because of his past association with JRAF (this was a few
years before 9/11.)
The late Fukusaku Kenji did get to come for that and later was at the
Cinematheque for the US premere of BATTLE ROYALE. He's the only
Japanese director I've ever met and got to talk to. A nice man and
very intelligent, but in all honesty I found his work very uneven,
including BATTLE ROYALE.
Richard
11524
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:03am
Subject: Re: Hyams (Was: Hyams, Friedkin)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>I actually do think the guy has a directorial personality, or
>used to.
I'm not implying that he is a totally impersonal filmmaker. It's like
if he was a studio director, he would not be in the higher tier but
still of some note.
>I notice from the IMDb that he pretty much wrote his own films until the
mid-80s (maybe the failure of 2010 hurt him), and wrote only one of
them
(NARROW MARGIN) since then.
While Fleischer's film is a gem, there is a sequence in Hyams' remake
that I find quite beautiful- cinematically speaking. There is a scene
where Gene Hackman and Anne Archer are sitting across from each other
in front of the window of the train coach. Hyams shoots most of the
conversation in a long take, with the light coming in and out as the
train moves. The light shifts to almost total darkness to total
illumination, and just watching this play of light that flows across
the Panavision frame with the low-key discussion (as I remember it), is
very pleasurable.
>Here are excerpts from a blurb I wrote on THE STAR CHAMBER when it came out:
I haven't had the chance yet to see "The Star Chamber" in its proper
ratio.
>And on 2010:
The sanctimonious and maudlin aspects of the film, which makes it crash
land, override whatever technical and aesthetic qualities 2010 has.
(Earthbound is a good description.) The ending makes me wonder why
Hyams even bothered.
Hopefully my post has been free of typos. "Fritz Land"!! Oh my!
11525
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:08am
Subject: Re: teen films BATTLE ROYALE
There is a 'mystery cinema' group starting in SD in one of the
media centers. We show up and see whatever DVD has been
selected for the group. Yesterday, it was BR. I appreciate
all the responses sent. Here are some of my thoughts.
I was glad to see the film and will see BR-2. There are many
interesting things going on in BR but I think it loses itself as
it tries to end. I find that happens often in many movies
and I attribute it to not working out the story clearly.
As was mentioned, there is a problem when you have to
kill many people in order to survive... why would you want
to survive after that? The movie might have been helped if
there was a greater end point, even something as trite as
having a position on the board of domination that set up
these games and the board was now at a stand-still
reference good/bad. Hence, one prior good guy and one
prior bad guy (the transfers) volunteered to tilt the outcome.
Survival has a endpoint in influencing future 'games.'
Otherwise, the 'killings' seemed to be consequences of
prior animosities and the 'survival groupings' of previous
attachments. Rather predictable, but hard to follow as
info is dropped after the fact. It was difficult to keep track
of all the characters (and unfortunately, it really didn't seem
to matter because it was all rather predictable).
The dream / teacher-student relationship seemed too
contrived for me, especially when there was no hint of it
in the classroom prior to the field trip. You learn about
the teacher's sexuality via a phone-call (with weak translations)?!
More attention is spent on the orphan boy than on the girl
except for her picking up the knife.
It is a remarkable movie reference cinematography, acting;
the violence was not bothersome because its level was not
gratuitous... the killings were not drawn out. There were
no sexual or pornographic overtones in the killing (except for
the one male being 'shot in the genital area); any of the
killings could have been of a male or female without difference.
{equal opportunity killing}
I remember the language as being essentially mild with no expletives.
11526
From: -*_.+*-
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:19am
Subject: Re: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
LiLiPUT1@a... (Kevin John) wrote:
> Thank you, thank you for mentioning this one. I also have a HUGELY
> found of
> Moyle's Empire Records. It's a terrible film but it needs friends. I'm
> one.
I wonder how much generational differences alter perceptions of films -
I'm 25 now, and in high school (mid-90s) friends and i were near
obsessed with Empire Records. If I were a bit older and encountering it
for the first time, I wonder sometimes if i'd care at all. There are
films that seemed classic when I was younger but now don't hold water -
naturally enough, I guess. There are also, of course, films I admire,
later reject as juvenile, and eventually come back to for different reasons.
I guess I'm wondering if this keeps going on, or if it's a product of
youth...
I hope the above isn't interpreted in any way as belittling or attacking
or even dealing with age in itself - I think I'm more wondering about
maturity.
and Pump Up The Volume is indeed great - especially if you're an
adolescent in suburban Texas with no role models.
thanks
Joey Lindsey
11527
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:46am
Subject: Re: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
--- "-*_.+*-" wrote:
>
> I wonder how much generational differences alter
> perceptions of films -
> I'm 25 now, and in high school (mid-90s) friends and
> i were near
> obsessed with Empire Records. If I were a bit older
> and encountering it
> for the first time, I wonder sometimes if i'd care
> at all. There are
> films that seemed classic when I was younger but now
> don't hold water -
> naturally enough, I guess.
Well that applies to any number of generations across
the board. Sometimes a film "really gets to you"
because of its emotional power coinciding with a
certain level of emotional discovery in one's own
life.
"If. . ." totally gobsmacked me back in 1969. The
feeling that "this is a film made for ME"
predominated. But while that feeling is now a memory,
and has been superceded by other films (most notably
in my case "Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train") my
admiration for "If. . ." hasn't waned. A great film is
a great film.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11528
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 0:56am
Subject: Re: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola
Bilge,
Thanks for your comments about "Peggy Sue Got Married"! I'd honestly be
surprised if it DIDN'T contain some of the formal qualities David and I have been
talking about. As with "Dracula," this discussion has given me reason to
revisit this film again.
I also agree with you about the worthiness of Coppola's "New York Stories"
segment. Anthology films often get a bad rap, but they sure can showcase a
filmmaker's best work on occasion. Maybe it's the rare opportunity (for narrative
filmmakers) to work in a short form which inspires these guys. Joe Dante's
segment of "Twilight Zone: The Movie," the amazing "It's A Good Life," remains
my favorite film of his; George Miller's segment is also very fine, if not
quite among his best work. And "New York Stories" similarly offers us a great
Scorsese film and at least "interesting" films by Coppola and Allen.
Similarly, Allen's short for a 9/11 concert, "Songs from a City I Love," was
a wonderful little piece of work that no one has commented upon, to my
knowledge, except Armond White - who prefers it to nearly every recent Allen feature.
Peter
11529
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:07am
Subject: generational differences alter perceptions of films
When I read this sentence a flood of images filled me with
emotions ... and it dawned on me how precious it is to
keep an open emotional response to the images we
see on the screen.
There is no doubt that certain demographics shared
with film characters influence our perception of films.
I want to ask when GODARD was doing his films in
the seventies, was he equally popular with female
as with male cinephiles? And what about older vs
younger critics?
11530
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:08am
Subject: Re: Hyams, Friedkin (Was: The Carey Treatment)
Thank you to Michael, Dan, and Robert for their comments on Hyams. He sounds
more interesting than I initially suspected and I'm certainly intrigued by
the revelation that he wrote or co-wrote most of his early scripts. I agree
with you, Michael, that it's tempting to seize on Hollywood directors these days
who simply know a few basics about space and rhythm and color and light. In
this context, Hyams probably looks pretty good - even if he wouldn't stand a
chance in the company of a Minnelli, Ford, Bresson, or Tati! I have a very
vague memory of most of the films I've seen by him, but I DO remember the scene
you mention from "Narrow Margin" and I agree with you about its formal beauty.
I'm composing a list of films of his to check out (or re-check out)... it
sounds like the consensus is that "The Star Chamber" and "Narrow Margin" are two
of the better ones. What else?
Bilge will recall that "2010" is generally despised among Kubrick fans. I
sort of fell in lockstep with that view back in the day. Now that I've cooled a
tad towards Kubrick (meaning simply that I don't believe he's the greatest
director ever anymore), I wonder what I'd think of it now.
Peter
11531
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:16am
Subject: Re: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
Bogdanovich is incredibly good with young casts and characters, though I
don't think he's ever made a "teen rebellion" film (in fact, he expressed
annoyance with the values of "Rebel Without A Cause" in an interview from a few years
back.) His mise-en-scene tends to make you see from the specific point of
view of a character or characters; thus his work has the feeling of being very
sympathetic towards young people when they are present in his movies. "The Last
Picture Show" certainly deals with "teen angst," I suppose you could say;
"Mask" is amazing in the way he draws out the "universal" aspects of the story;
the cast of "The Thing Called Love" are probably in their 20s, but it deserves
mention here too. A lovely, beautifully done movie. Some of the best moments
in the recent "The Mystery of Natalie Wood" dealt with Wood's young adulthood.
Peter
11532
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:18am
Subject: Re: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
In a message dated 6/28/04 10:19:49 PM, jlinds@a... writes:
> I also have a HUGELY found of Moyle's Empire Records.
>
That should read: I also am HUGELY fond of Empire Records.
Joey, I'm 34 and loved the film when I first saw it as a twentysomething. But
I've always been proudly in touch with my inner 13-year old girl.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11533
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:29am
Subject: Hyams (Was: Hyams, Friedkin)
> I'm composing a list of films of his to check out (or re-check out)... it
> sounds like the consensus is that "The Star Chamber" and "Narrow Margin" are two
> of the better ones. What else?
In my day, most people would have probably said that BUSTING was Hyams'
best. I'd go with that, if you can find it. Haven't seen his early TV
movies ROLLING MAN and GOODNIGHT MY LOVE, but they were reasonably well
received, I believe.
As for the more "commercial" run of films that started with CAPRICORN
ONE, THE STAR CHAMBER wouldn't necessarily be my pick. CAPRICORN ONE is
probably a little neater. Any of the 1978-83 films, including HANOVER
STREET and OUTLAND, should give you a general idea, though. HANOVER
STREET is an interesting case, in that it's a nostalgic WWII love story
that somehow comes out a lot like every other Hyams action film. - Dan
11534
From: Robert Keser
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:49am
Subject: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "-*_.+*-" wrote:
> There are films that seemed classic when I was younger but now
>don't hold water - naturally enough, I guess. There are also, of
>course, films I admire, later reject as juvenile, and eventually
>come back to for different reasons. I guess I'm wondering if this
>keeps going on, or if it's a product of
> youth...
Seems to me that our subjective appreciation of any film (or book or
painting) is constantly open to change, whether the viewer is 25 or
65. Every time we walk into a theater, we bring with us all the
experiences we have accumulated right up to that moment, plus all the
day-to-day, even minute-to-minute, variables that can influence what
we get out of the film, variables like too much coffee or not enough
sleep or a satisfying meal or money problems or being in love. (In
my case, for example, a very disturbing and depressing experience
happened just before a university film showing of The African Queen,
so now it's impossible for me to enjoy what this film has to
offer because of its association with a literally unforgettable
"outside" experience).
Add to that the set of preconceptions we bring, such as disliking
melodramas, say, or favoring actors with an overbite, or enjoying
long takes (or maybe that guy on a_film _by really liked it, or your
friend totally despised it), not to mention all kinds of cultural
baggage concerning language, accents, ethnicities, values, fashions,
and so on.
In many ways, entering the cinema is an act of boundless optimism
because the results are so unpredictable. That said, years of
experience do seem to help us sort through many of our subjective
reactions, and of course here also lies the attraction and usefulness
of a structure such as the auteur theory because it gives us a
reasonably stable base to help process the experience.
--Robert Keser
11535
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Doppelganger
Bill (or anyone),
I think I may have missed a post or two, but where does Kiyoshi Kurosawa
express admiration for Fleischer's films?
Peter
11536
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:08am
Subject: Re: Hyams (Was: Hyams, Friedkin)
Three feature length burlesques of The Maltese Falcon were made in the
1970's. Goodnight, My Love (October 17, 1972), written and directed by Peter Hyams,
is a well done little private eye movie, partly serious and partly tongue in
cheek. This made for TV film has great fun with the Brigid character, played by
Barbara Bain. It also has a terrific cast in Richard Boone, Michael Dunn, and
Victor Buono. The broad spoof The Black Bird (David Giler, 1975) has a good
performance by Stephane Audran, no less, in the Brigid role, but is otherwise
the weakest of the three films. The Cheap Detective (Robert Moore, 1978),
written by Neil Simon, is a combined spoof of Casablanca and The Maltese Falcon. It
is much funnier than Simon's earlier mystery satire, Murder by Death (1976),
but seems to be much less well known.
Universal Studios in 1985 had a show based on Hyams' "2010". Someone was
selected from the audience, to wear a space suit, and fly around on wires,
recreating the meeting of an astronaut and cosmonaut from that film. Being exactly
5'10", I got chosen from the crowd to play the astronaut. Half an hour later, I
was flying 20 feet in the air on wires, in the space suit, watched by my
buddies far below. I'd wanted to fly like this ever since seeing "Peter Pan" as a
kid!
Mike Grost
11537
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
Anthology films often get a bad rap, but
> they sure can showcase a
> filmmaker's best work on occasion. Maybe it's the
> rare opportunity (for narrative
> filmmakers) to work in a short form which inspires
> these guys. Joe Dante's
> segment of "Twilight Zone: The Movie," the amazing
> "It's A Good Life," remains
> my favorite film of his; George Miller's segment is
> also very fine, if not
> quite among his best work. And "New York Stories"
> similarly offers us a great
> Scorsese film and at least "interesting" films by
> Coppola and Allen.
>
And don't forget Fellini's "Toby Dammit" from "Spirits
of the Dead" ("Histoires Extraordinaires"); a MAJOR work.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11538
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:42pm
Subject: Re: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
> (in fact, he expressed
> annoyance with the values of "Rebel Without A Cause" in an interview from a few
years
> back.)
I don't like "Rebel" for its sociology....
>Some of the best moments
> in the recent "The Mystery of Natalie Wood" dealt with Wood's young adulthood.
> Peter
..but for the mystery of Natalie Wood, the summer, the night, the color....
-Sam
11539
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Doppelganger
"I think I may have missed a post or two, but where does Kiyoshi Kurosawa
express admiration for Fleischer's films?
Peter"
If you do a websearch for interviews, he almost always mentions Siegel, Aldrich, and Fleischer, particularly their films of the late '60s, early '70s. He has some interesting things to say about this "in-between" period of American cinema in the interview included on the Cure DVD as well. I've interviewed him twice and he talked about the Boston Strangler connection in more detail.
Brent
11540
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:38pm
Subject: Mexican Film recommendations
New York's Film Forum is showing a three-week series of Mexican films,
and unlike the Walter Reade, these seem to be selected on the basis of
quality, not sheer quantity. Nevertheless, many of these remain
unknown to me, and I could use some guidance. I've pasted the names,
directors and years of films below, and you can find descriptions at
Film Forum's link, also below. I've eliminated the Bunuels from the
list because they're a known quantity.
Unfortunately, this series comes at the same time that the Walter
Reade is showing Pialat and that BAM has the NYC return of Ozu and
Fassbinder, but one can tilt at cinephiliac windmills (wrong
Hispanophone country, I know, yet...)
Also of note to serial auteurists here, Film Forum will be playing the
whole HEAVEN'S GATE later this summer, and a big Murnau series come fall.
PWC
http://www.filmforum.com/films/cinemexico.html
A WOMAN IN LOVE
Enamorada (1946, Emilio Fernández)
WILDFLOWER
Flor Silvestre (1943, Emilio Fernández)
¡VÁMONOS CON PANCHO VILLA!
(1936, Fernando de Fuentes)
EL COMPADRE MENDOZA
(1933, Fernando de Fuentes)
HELL WITHOUT LIMITS
El lugar sin límites (1977, Arturo Ripstein)
THE CHANGE
El Cambio (1971, Alfredo Joskowicz)
MACARIO
(1959, Roberto Gavaldón)
MARÍA CANDELARIA
(1943, Emilio Fernández)
THE BEGINNING AND THE END
Principio y fin (1993, Arturo Ripstein)
TEPEYAC & THE WAVE
In the silent Tepeyac (1917), a distraught young woman turns to the
Virgin of Guadalupe for strength and solace. In the
Eisenstein-influenced docu-drama The Wave (Redes, 1936, Emilio Gómez
Muriel and Fred Zinnemann), fishermen go on strike against their
exploiters. Shot, produced and supervised by photographer Paul Strand.
Tepeyac: Approx. 60 minutes.
IRON FIST
El Puño de Hierro (1927, Gabriel García Moreno)
CANOA
(1976, Felipe Cazals) I
THE BRICKLAYERS
Los Albañiles (1976, Jorge Fons)
FRIDA
Frida, naturaleza viva (1984, Paul Leduc)
REED: INSURGENT MEXICO
Reed: México Insurgente (1971, Paul Leduc)
AVENTURERA
(1950, Alberto Gout)
ONE FAMILY AMONG MANY
Una familia de tantas (1948, Alejandro Galindo)
THAT'S THE POINT
Ahí está el detalle (1940, Juan Bustillo Oro)
TENDER LITTLE PUMPKINS
Calabacitas tiernas (1949, Gilberto Martínez Solares)
LOVE IN THE TIME OF HYSTERIA
Sólo con tu pareja (1991, Alfonso Cuarón)
DANZÓN
(1991, María Novaro)
11541
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:55pm
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Doppelganger
> If you do a websearch for interviews, he almost always mentions
> Siegel, Aldrich, and Fleischer, particularly their films of the
> late '60s, early '70s.
The last time he was interviewed in Les Inrockuptibles,
he also mentioned Tourneur, who appears to be somewhat
of a closely kept secret in Japan.
Jonathan Takagi
11542
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:51pm
Subject: Re: Mexican Film recommendations
--- Patrick Ciccone wrote:
I reccomend
>
> MACARIO
> (1959, Roberto Gavaldón)
>
> MARÍA CANDELARIA
> (1943, Emilio Fernández)
>
>
> THE BEGINNING AND THE END
> Principio y fin (1993, Arturo Ripstein)
>
> REED: INSURGENT MEXICO
> Reed: México Insurgente (1971, Paul Leduc)
>
and
> LOVE IN THE TIME OF HYSTERIA
> Sólo con tu pareja (1991, Alfonso Cuarón)
>
"Macario" was quite a big deal on the U.S. art hosue
circuit in 1959.Now it's pretty much forgotten.
Gavalon alos directed "The Adventures of Casanova"
starring Arturo de Cordova and Lucille Bremer.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11543
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: teen films (Desistfilm)
Mike Grost:
"My experience of "Desistfilm" (Stan Brakhage) was entirely different
(and could be wrong, wrong, wrong). It seemed to be an exuberent
expression of pure joy. The teenage party seemed mild and harmless fun.
It mainly seemed like an excuse for Brakhage to do brilliant things with
photography and visual style...."
Well, but what *are* those brilliant things, and what actually happens
at the party? The camera careens around as if drunk; a youth examines
his belly button; there is only one girl; the camera seems trapped in
the room that it's in; there's a curious cut from a young man grabbing
the arm of a shirtless man to the grabbed man wearing a shirt, which can
be interpreted as a denial of even gay desire.
None of this means there cannot also be a "joy" component. Even
"Anticipation of the Night," a full understanding of which *must*
include an understanding of the way that almost from its outset it's a
suicide film, is full of almost transcendent lyricism.
It seems to me that you're judging movies by their plot and tone. You
don't like "downbeat," and you're entitled to whatever biases you want
to have. But I think almost by definition any great work of art, even
"Mouchette," even Christopher Maclaine's "The End" (to cite cinema's
other great suicide films), are also exuberant expressions of pure joy
simply by virtue of succeeding as cinema. One fact of suicide is that
the majority of suicides don't leave notes, and the notes that do get
left are often evidences of failures to construct a note ("There must be
something fine for you," or an envelope labeled "to be opened in the
event of my death" that's empty) or of utter hatred ("See you in hell"
to a wife.) The despair of a suicide is such that a real note usually
cannot be written, a film cannot be made.
As Bela Tarr, quoted by Gabe, said when asked of "Werckmeister
Harmonies," "Where is the hope," "The hope is that you see this movie,"
which I take to be more than the cute reply it first seems to be, but an
expression of belief in the redemptive powers of art -- certainly not a
new theme, but an old one.
- Fred C.
11544
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:14pm
Subject: Murnau, Mexican Film recommendations (Was: Mexican Film recommendations)
> Also of note to serial auteurists here, Film Forum will be playing the
> whole HEAVEN'S GATE later this summer, and a big Murnau series come fall.
Murnau right opposite the Toronto Film Festival! Does anyone know if
any lost Murnau films were found in the last 20 years? Except for the
documentary on FOUR DEVILS, this is the same set of films that was
traveling around in the 80s.
http://www.filmforum.com/pdf/ff2_2004SummerCal_final.pdf
> HELL WITHOUT LIMITS
> El lugar sin límites (1977, Arturo Ripstein)
This is one of the better known Ripsteins, though it wasn't one of my
favorites - I felt as if it was working too hard at melodrama.
> MACARIO
> (1959, Roberto Gavaldón)
I saw this years ago and wasn't wild about it, but I can't remember a thing.
Too bad Film Forum isn't showing some of Hermosillo's early work -
except for Bunuel, I don't think he has a peer in Mexico. - Dan
11545
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:22pm
Subject: Re: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (Was: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
Robert Keser:
"Seems to me that our subjective appreciation of any film (or book or
painting) is constantly open to change, whether the viewer is 25 or 65.
Every time we walk into a theater, we bring with us all the experiences
we have accumulated right up to that moment, plus all the day-to-day,
even minute-to-minute, variables that can influence what we get out of
the film....
"Add to that the set of preconceptions we bring, such as disliking
melodramas, say...."
Of course this is true; how can it not be. But I feel the need to chime
in with my standard position, one that will be familiar to some (so you
can skip to the next post now) but that I'm probably going to want to
keep trotting out once or twice a year.
Perhaps I can make it a bit more interesting with an anecdote (assuming
I haven't told this one before!). About twenty years ago, the Film
Center here, in a somewhat overambitious piece of programming, scheduled
four different shows for a Saturday. I wanted to see three of them, and
one was in the middle, so I went to all four. I wish I could remember
exactly what they were, but one was a feminist film with vaguely
avant-garde qualities, another was a program of Russian shorts by
Russian film students, and the third was a Hollywood film of the 1940s.
I can't remember the fourth at all, perhaps because it was the one I
wouldn't have gone to otherwise, but let's say it was an obscure Greek
film, and let's say it was first. So at the Greek film were mostly
Chicago-area Greeks; then they left and in came the young women with
spiky hair accompanied by their girlfriends, then they left and in came
the Russian émigrés, and then they left and in came the balding men in
their 50s and 60s. As far as I could tell no one stayed for two programs
in a row, and I felt very lonely, and thought, "Wow, there is no
audience for cinema as cinema anymore."
I realize that Robert wasn't talking identity politics exactly, but
others have come close.
There's nothing wrong with a lesbian feminist being more interested in a
feminist film than a Greek film no one ever heard of, of course. But I
also think back to the first full year of my own interest in cinema,
when I was 16, and when my discovery of Griffith at the great 1964 MoMA
retrospective was nearly as exciting as my discovery of Brakhage films
that were being shown as they were just completed. The fact that
Brakhage's films spoke more to my ethos than did the style and story of
"Isn't Life Wonderful" or "The Struggle" (to name two of my favorites)
didn't seem all that important.
Now to repeat my "motto." The real miracle of art, and of film as art,
for me, is that it takes you out of yourself almost completely. That's
the transcendent and transpersonal power of camera movement and lighting
and composition when they rise to the level of great writing or music:
they transform the "story" into something more. No one should complain
that they didn't like the characters in a Henry James novel or in a
Mozart opera and therefore they didn't like the work, and the same goes
for cinema. This is why I completely and unambiguously love "The
Pirate," even to the point of being moved to tears on my fourth or fifth
viewing when the final number, itself a tribute to the transformative
and transcendent power of art, begins, even though my "taste" is not
really for musicals at all, and even though according to my own
high-falutin' musical tastes "Be a Clown" is hardly musical art at all.
But a great film makes it so.
None of this means that we can't have "tastes," and "taste" is why I
preferred a mediocre (but I think interesting) soap such as "The Other
Side of Midnight" to the musical "Cabaret." But when cinema becomes
great art, individual tastes are wiped away. Or at least, that's how I
see it.
- Fred Camper
11546
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:59pm
Subject: Re: teen films BATTLE ROYALE
Of course, the mother of all East Asian teen rebellion flicks is
Edward Yang's 240 minute epic A BRIGHTER SUMMER DAY. Now that movie
as Nick Ray written all over it!
K
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Darr"
> wrote:
>
> "There are a lot of teen rebellion movies made in East Asia these
> days.UNKNOWN PLEASURES (Jia, 2002), MEMENTO MORI (Kim & Min,
> 1999),VISITOR Q (Miike, 2001), ONE TAKE ONLY (Pang, 2001), ALL
ABOUT
> LILLY CHOU-CHOU (Iwai, 2000), GO (Yukisada, 2000), and MILLENIUM
> MAMBO (Hou,> 2000) are some of the ones I've seen that deal with
this
> theme. Not all of these are favorites of mine, though."
>
> Of the ones you mention, I've only seen ALL ABOUT LILLY CHOU-CHOU
and
> like David, I thought it quite good.
>
> From an earlier era in Japan and for comparison with REBEL WITHOUT
A
> CAUSE is TAIYO NO KISETSU/SEASON OF THE SUN (1956)from a novel by
> Ishihara Shintaro who wrote several rebellious teen stories, many
of
> which were made into movies.
>
> Wakamatsu Koji made a formally radical teen rebellion movie called
> YUKE,YUKE NI DO ME NO SHOJO/GO,GO SECOND TIME VIRGIN (1969,)a two
> charcater film that takes place on the rooftop of a modern high
rise
> apartment building and alternates between black & white and color
and
> has short bursts of montages showing newspaper headlines and manga
> panels.
>
> Wakamatsu became a supporter of the Sekigunsha (known in the West
as
> the Japanese Red Army Faction) during the late 1960s and '70s.
When
> the American Cinematheque tried to bring him over for their "Outlaw
> Masters of Japanese Cinema" series, the Stae Dept. wouldn't grant
him
> a visa because of his past association with JRAF (this was a few
> years before 9/11.)
>
> The late Fukusaku Kenji did get to come for that and later was at
the
> Cinematheque for the US premere of BATTLE ROYALE. He's the only
> Japanese director I've ever met and got to talk to. A nice man and
> very intelligent, but in all honesty I found his work very uneven,
> including BATTLE ROYALE.
>
> Richard
11547
From: Joshua Rothkopf
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:08pm
Subject: Re: Doppelganger
Brent:
> I had no I would be quoted on this, but I was poking winsome
fun at the Time
> Out New York review which claimed Doppelganger was a huge
leap forward from
> the "supernatural heaviosity" of Kurosawa's earlier films
because it includes
> humor. My point being that the reviewer didn't demonstrate
sufficient
> familiarity with the earlier films to make such a heavious
statement: Charisma and Eyes
> of the Spider in particular have plenty of funny stuff and the
whole Shoot
> Yourself or Shoot Yourself series is explicitly comic.
As the writer of that review, I'll only add that humor is a highly
subjective thing, and what you find a pisser I might find boring as
ass. Personally, I find CHARISMA to be extremely dull. While I've
seen eight Kiyoshi films, many of them thrilling, I would never go
so far as to call any of them as black comedies. This is new
(IMO) for DOPPELGANGER. Perhaps you assume I'm
insufficiently familiar with the director because we disagree.
Anyway, I can deal with fun-poking, so long as it's "winsome" (?)
-joshua
11548
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:14pm
Subject: Re: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (Was: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"The real miracle of art, and of film as art, for me, is that it
takes you out of yourself almost completely...when cinema becomes
great art, individual tastes are wiped away."
Fundamentally I agree with you, but the evaluation of a work of art
varies from person to person. For example, I tell my friend to see
GENROKU CHUSHINGURA because it's a great film, but my friend can't
appreciate the movie because she hasn't trained her eye by seeing a
certain amount of Japanese cinema, and of Mizoguchi's films in
particular. With art, in other words, it is imperative that the
individual retrace for himself the same grounds that others have
already trodden.
The question arises, though, of whether anybody, provided he or she
fosters their critical faculties, will automatically find GENROKU
CHUSHINGURA admirable. It seems unlikely (though I think the movie is
one of the greatest ever made.) The important variable is
sensibility,not art theory. The value I attach to GENROKU
CHUSHINGURA stems neither from any particular theory nor from any
particular view of history, but from the unequivocal evidence of my
own senses: I look, and I find beauty. It is sense and sensibility,
and not, in any direct way, knowledge and reason that are at work
here. And one's sensibilities are subject to many of the
circumstances Robert described, so the ability of a great film to
take you out of yourself, that let's you transcend your individual
tastes depends to a great extent on the open mind or open heart you
have when you first experience the work.
Richard
11549
From: Robert Keser
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Re: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (Was: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> Now to repeat my "motto." The real miracle of art, and of film as
>art, for me, is that it takes you out of yourself almost
>completely. That's the transcendent and transpersonal power of
>camera movement and lighting and composition when they rise to the
>level of great writing or music...
I would amend the motto to "The real miracle of art, and of
film as art, is that it CAN take you out of yourself almost
completely." In fact, I was just speaking to a student who
had been caught up, for the first time, in the exhilarating
montage of The End of St. Petersburg, but he could not let
himself suspend his anti-Soviet political feelings to accept
the film on its own terms. This caused a major interference
in his appreciation of this work. Is this a failing of Pudovkin's
art, because it did not wipe away the student's individual
tastes and values? I don't think so. But it's possible that
the next time he sees it (or a different Pudovkin or Vertov
or Eisenstein), his receptivity will have increased.
Maybe that's what comes with practice and experience and age:
learning how to keep ourselves open and receptive to ALL the
miracles of art. To me, that's certainly one outcome that film
courses should have in mind.
--Robert Keser
11550
From: mizoguchi53
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Mexican Film recommendations
Fernandez is an absolute genius -- don't miss "Inamorada," one of
the great action melodramas of all time, shot in shades of sunny
white by Figueroa. Can't believe Taylor Hackford hasn't remade this
one.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> --- Patrick Ciccone wrote:
>
> I reccomend
>
> >
> > MACARIO
> > (1959, Roberto Gavaldón)
> >
> > MARÍA CANDELARIA
> > (1943, Emilio Fernández)
> >
> >
> > THE BEGINNING AND THE END
> > Principio y fin (1993, Arturo Ripstein)
>
> >
> > REED: INSURGENT MEXICO
> > Reed: México Insurgente (1971, Paul Leduc)
> >
> and
>
> > LOVE IN THE TIME OF HYSTERIA
> > Sólo con tu pareja (1991, Alfonso Cuarón)
> >
>
> "Macario" was quite a big deal on the U.S. art hosue
> circuit in 1959.Now it's pretty much forgotten.
>
> Gavalon alos directed "The Adventures of Casanova"
> starring Arturo de Cordova and Lucille Bremer.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11551
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:42pm
Subject: Re: Doppelganger
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Joshua Rothkopf"
wrote:
> As the writer of that review, I'll only add that humor is a highly
> subjective thing, and what you find a pisser I might find boring
as
> ass. Personally, I find CHARISMA to be extremely dull. While I've
> seen eight Kiyoshi films, many of them thrilling, I would never go
> so far as to call any of them as black comedies. This is new
> (IMO) for DOPPELGANGER. Perhaps you assume I'm
> insufficiently familiar with the director because we disagree.
>
> Anyway, I can deal with fun-poking, so long as it's "winsome" (?)
I'm responsible for Brent's remark (and ensuing correction of my
misinterpretation of same, which prompted your reply) being brought
up in my post, so if anyone has been put "on the spot" it's him, and
my fault for doing so. I guess you can't really pretend that his
statement doesn't exist, but the chain of events all leads back to
the fact that I (a) took a remark he made in a private message, (b)
removed it from its context, and best of all (c) got it wrong.
In short, I'd hate to see my mistake spin out into a feud, even if
it's carried out in this list's characteristically diplomatic
fashion.
-Jaime
11552
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:44pm
Subject: Genroku chuushingura (was: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
>Fundamentally I agree with you, but the evaluation of a work of art
>varies from person to person. For example, I tell my friend to see
>GENROKU CHUSHINGURA because it's a great film, but my friend can't
>appreciate the movie because she hasn't trained her eye by seeing a
>certain amount of Japanese cinema, and of Mizoguchi's films in
>particular. With art, in other words, it is imperative that the
>individual retrace for himself the same grounds that others have
>already trodden.
>
>The question arises, though, of whether anybody, provided he or she
>fosters their critical faculties, will automatically find GENROKU
>CHUSHINGURA admirable. It seems unlikely (though I think the movie is
>one of the greatest ever made.) The important variable is
>sensibility,not art theory. The value I attach to GENROKU
>CHUSHINGURA stems neither from any particular theory nor from any
>particular view of history, but from the unequivocal evidence of my
>own senses: I look, and I find beauty.
I never knew there was such esteem for 'Genroku chuushingura' before I read Fred's best-of-all-time lists (one on Senses of Cinema, and one in the lists held on the Yahoo! servers) and saw the film firmly placed at #1 on both. I was intrigued enough by his Chicago Reader review and now by your appraisal as well to vow to revisit the film (albeit on the very crappy Image Region 1 DVD) some time soon -- but I must admit that the single time I'd watched it, I found it to be grossly nationalistic and incredibly dull. Re: the nationalism, Fred's review had some interesting insight into the propensity (possibly) to recoil from such a tone or thesis (intentional or unintentional) in an artwork -- but as to the dullness, I was surprised myself, being an admirer of Mizoguchi and "the long form film"/serial (although technically 'Genroku chuushingura' is two separate films -- the second was only greenlighted after the success of the first, if I recall), not to mention the more teasing and hypnotic investigations of space. I also now recall I found the ideas espoused about honor and loss of face to be repulsive. In a way that I've never found the same theme as such in other Japanese films.
craig.
11553
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:47pm
Subject: Re: Mexican Film recommendations
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "mizoguchi53" wrote:
> Fernandez is an absolute genius -- don't miss "Inamorada," one of
> the great action melodramas of all time, shot in shades of sunny
> white by Figueroa. Can't believe Taylor Hackford hasn't remade
this
> one.
That's it, the Mexican series is my priority for July. I'd hate to
have one of the films mentioned in other posts conflict with a
Pialat I haven't seen, but them's the breaks.
Hi Dave, welcome to the list - you were, and continue to be,
responsible for getting me to check out a lot of great films. I'm
particularly grateful to you for getting me to see Mikio Naruse's
work whenever they came around. (Which wasn't, and isn't, often.)
-Jaime
11554
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:49pm
Subject: error (Re: Mexican Film recommendations)
> Mikio Naruse's
> work whenever they came around.
My Bushism of the day. Should be "whenever it came around."
-Jaime
11555
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:55pm
Subject: Before Sunset
Was anyone else at the DGA Theatre last night with Linklater, Hawke
and Delpy in attendance? I can't say their Q&A was particularly
enlightening (though it was nice to see how much rapport the three of
them have, which definitely translated to the screen). Afterwards
Delpy accidentally stepped on my foot while navigating through a
throng of admirers. I may never polish that shoe again.
This was my favorite film at the Berlinale, and possibly my favorite
film of the year so far. Though seeing it a second time I initially
got worried. The first half hour or so of flirtatious banter feels
slight and artificial, something like sitcom dialogue. This time I
didn't like how political discussion gets treated like small talk
that needs to be swiftly dispensed with in order to get to the more
touchy feely personal neuroses confessional material, which, the film
seems to argue by way of its structure, is the stuff that really
matters. At times the characters seem to settle into types -- golly
gee American, bitter neurotic Frenchwoman, and it feels like the
movie will stumble into a ditch. Maybe these sour impressions on my
part were informed by my awareness that Armond White was sitting a
few seats away from me, and wasn't looking too amused (in fact each
time the audience laughed at the cutesy patter onscreen, he sank a
little lower in his seat).
And then the same magic I experienced in Berlin that descends on the
film's last act happened again last night. There's this gnawing
feeling of emptiness and mortality in the center of this movie, a
hole that gets bigger and bigger the longer Delpy and Hawke make
their small talk until it practically consumes them. There's nothing
petty or slight about this. It's the freakin' rebirth of Roberto
Rossellini, is what it is, where the contrivances of the cinematic
apparatus melt from the screen, leaving us with two human souls stark
naked and shimmering.
So I'm left trying to resolve my ambivalence over the first half with
my unmitigated rapture over the second. Looking at the grand design
of this movie, I feel that the fakeness and contrivance and
awkwardness of the first half makes sense, as a rather painful
testimonial to the superficiality of casual interactions that one has
to endure every day, but are never really forced to reflect on.
Reflecting on this film, it really is a Bazinian miracle to regard
how one layer after another is removed between these two people as
they prolong their chance encounter, transitioning from stilted
pleasantries and casual interrogations into the realm of
conversational intimacy. Though in Linklater's hands this doesn't
happen in a formulaic, step-by-step process. It just happens. It's
the kind of stuff that can't be taught, it has to be lived and felt.
It's contemporary American filmmaking of the highest order.
Kevin
11556
From: Robert Keser
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:56pm
Subject: Re: Mexican Film recommendations
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ciccone"
>
> A WOMAN IN LOVE
> Enamorada (1946, Emilio Fernández)
This is one of my favorite Mexican films, one that works up a
passion and intensity belied by the "Taming of the Shrew" set-up,
plus there's Figueroa's magnificent cinematography.
>
>
> ¡VÁMONOS CON PANCHO VILLA!
> (1936, Fernando de Fuentes)
A sort of All Quiet on the Western Front of the Mexican revolution,
with small-town buddies joining with Villa and meeting various fates.
It proceeds episode by episode, some comic but increasingly
dramatic, and plays out to an interesting finale.
>
>
> MARÍA CANDELARIA
> (1943, Emilio Fernández)
Very lush, romantic mise-en-scene, with beautifully composed
passages and quasi-mythic framing of the characters. The blessing
of the animals sequence is excitingly handled (Bill sees the
influence of Welles considering the similar sequence in It's All
True).
Fun fact: Emilio Fernandez is the only director who actually shot
a critic!
--Robert Keser
11557
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 5:58pm
Subject: Re: Mexican Film recommendations
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" >
Fun fact: Emilio Fernandez is the only director who actually shot
> a critic!
There's got to be a juicy story behind that, Robert...hint hint...
-Jaime
11558
From: Robert Keser
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:08pm
Subject: Re: Mexican Film recommendations
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" >
> Fun fact: Emilio Fernandez is the only director who actually shot
> > a critic!
>
> There's got to be a juicy story behind that, Robert...hint hint...
>
> -Jaime
I wish I knew the story! It was a footnote or afterthought that I
ran across in one source, but the details remain to be discovered.
For sure the ever combustible Fernandez spent some time in jail for
waving his gun around, but it may have been for some other rap. Does
anyone know?
--Robert Keser
11559
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:10pm
Subject: Re: Mexican Film recommendations
> >
> >
> > MARÍA CANDELARIA
> > (1943, Emilio Fernández)
> Very lush, romantic mise-en-scene, with beautifully composed
> passages and quasi-mythic framing of the characters. The blessing
> of the animals sequence is excitingly handled (Bill sees the
> influence of Welles considering the similar sequence in It's All
> True).
More likely the reverse. I can also recommend Reed: Insurgent Mexico
and Lugar Sin Limites. I just saw Galvadon's touted La Otra. It was
very interesting for me to see right now -- a big-budget Detour w. a
female protagonist -- but not very controlled. Definitely more
perverse than Bunuel, and not in a way I care to endorse. Released
the year he arrived in Mexico, it is the perfect film to see to
understand what was great about LB. For one thing, ideologically, it
is very misogynistic -- and very Mexican, alas.
11560
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (Was: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
I think I'm coming around to your whole philosophy on personal
taste, Fred. It would be completely ludicrous if the scenario of
the changing programs, changing audiences was transplanted into a
museum setting. While it's likely that personal taste and
preference "infects" the way some people see paintings and
sculpture, imagining a rotating program of Spanish paintings from
one period drawing *only* Hispanophiles and Spanish people, and then
a French program, the same result, and an American program, etc.,
puts things in perspective. For the most part it seems that people
who are inclined towards going to art galleries and shows are a lot
more adventurous and open to new things, even things they "don't
like," than moviegoers.
At the turn of the twentieth century, so I've read and been told
many times, people went to see whatever was playing, with very few
(if any) of the dividing and selecting impulses that we're
discussing in this thread. It would be extremely risky to do that
today, I guess.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
11561
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:12pm
Subject: homeroticism, incest, more thoughts on FATHER AND SON
Although I haven't seen Tsai Ming-liang's THE RIVER, I'm aware that
it's highly regarded by a few people - namely Dan Sallitt, who rates
it as the best film of 1997. Father-son incest is
among the last taboos in the world, short of the snuff film: mother-
son incest is the stuff of classical tragedy, father-daughter incest
a frequent topic of movies and TV shows, mother-daughter
incest...um, potentially a good porn video!
On the other hand, two Palme D'Or winners, PADRE PADRONE and BALLAD
OF NARAYAMA, feature humans having or attempting to have sex with
animals...in each film, father-son sex would look extremely out of
place. (Especially in the Taviani bros. movie.)
But fathers and sons? That seems to strike most moviegoers and
critics as "does not compute." What are some thoughts on this?
I've cut and pasted the following from a post I wrote on another
website:
==
I have to wonder if what bothers people about that element, aside
from the suggestion of incest (which is neither confirmed or denied,
except by the director, "outside the text"), is that the palpable
feeling of eroticism is a real bitch to classify. It doesn't seem
like they have sex, or that they ever have, or will.
Or rather, it almost seems like they have or will, but not quite. I
think that's where the weirdness comes from, not simply the idea of
incest.
It seems clear to me that the homoeroticism is inseparable from what
makes the film (to me) great. Whether one likes it or not, you have
to have picked up on the fact that the film emphasizes certain
things about these two guys: that they're extremely beautiful, to
the point that their bodies and the way they carry themselves and
interact with others turns them into walking/talking celebrations of
human/male physicality. This is really, really hard to miss, imo.
Part and parcel with the physicality is that they both have a strong
belief in manliness (hiding their emotions, bravery, aggression).
Getting inside their head is trickier, and I hope a second viewing
will clarify what the army means to the two of them (and why the son
left). A good point of entry for this film is to entertain the
notion that all of that (those themes/images) are like colors on a
palette, and Sokurov (with his not-of-this-earth cinematographer
Alexander Burov) is the painter.
My best guess on how to interpret the film overall is that it's
pretty simple from a "what's it about" perspective. Like Mother and
Son and The Second Circle (and a key moment in Days of Eclipse)
Sokurov builds the cinema around the pain of parent-child
separation - leaving the nest, as it were. There's a dozen or more
images pushing variations on the whole duality thing, my favorite
being the one where Alexei faces away from his father and they both
sort of glide backwards out of the room. No, that's not my favorite,
it's the one where Alexei is seen through his father's x-rays, and
the camera and all the mise-en-scene floats around so that the
father drifts into and out of the frame of his ribcage. Moreso than
most directors Sokurov is aware of the way shot/reverse shot divides
characters, while two-shots and the like push them together. It
means something very specific when two characters share a frame
instead of being divided by a reverse shot. These meanings can be
applied to all films using these basic techniques but it's rare that
any thought goes into any kind of aesthetically-induced meaning.
I find Alexei's interactions with people who aren't his father
fascinating. He doesn't seem to be particularly well-liked, nor does
it seem that he likes many people: his sorta-girlfriend is cheating
on him, Sasha is less of a friend than a puppy waiting to be kicked,
he doesn't seem to be getting along well with the other soldiers.
His final exchange with Sasha on the roof ("Oh, it's so cold!")
reminded me of the Steve Coogan/Alfred Molina segment in COFFEE AND
CIGARETTES, except Alexei pushes his friend away in a far more
subtle (and successful) manner than in the Jarmusch film.
==
-Jaime
11562
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:24pm
Subject: Re: Genroku chuushingura (was: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
Thanks to Jaime for the art world analogy, which I hadn't even thought of.
In the early 70s there was a flowering of women's art shows, and a few
woman-only galleries were founded. This was a healthy response to the
spirit of the times, and there's nothing wrong with an all-woman or
all-Hispanic or all-queer show today either; the point is that such
exhibits are in the minority.
I agree pretty completely with Robert and Richard's comments. I don't
ever want to forget a profound disagreement with a film's ideology; my
only point is that it doesn't ruin the aesthetic effect for me. Indeed,
understanding a great film completely includes feeling its aesthetic
effect. And while I think anyone might "get" "Genroku Chushingura," and
I'd like to think a teenager who knows nothing of Japan might see it and
love it, and we know that some Japanese art experts are likely to hate
it, obviously having a sensibility geared toward the film is going to
help, and a teenager chosen at random is probably more likely to hate it
than a Japanese art expert. My point in using "transpersonal" is that in
fact you can't predict for sure what type of person is going to
appreciate its greatness, other than saying that it should be someone
who is sensitive to film as a visual art; otherwise, it *could* be anyone.
A lot of this has to do with what you look for. If the sexual
attractiveness of actors or if identifying with the characters and/or
the story are your main things, you're not going to be all that
sympathetic to the views I'm expressing. If you look for particular
kinds of things in film -- you like films that are stylistically gentle
and have a warmly humanist view of the characters and some degree of
social conscience -- my remarks won't make a lot of sense either. It
depends on what you want to get from an art work. If you want to have
your buttons pushed and your views and tastes stoked and confirmed,
return to the previous sentence. What I love about art is that it can do
anything, express any sensibility, and help me see and even temporarily
love and perhaps "become" that sensibility, even it's not my own.
My favorite example, and I don't think I've used it here but if I have
once I apologize (anyway now I'll remember), comes from my favorite
poet, Gerard Manley Hopkins. A late nineteenth century British Jesuit
priest, he was more Catholic than the Pope, so to speak -- when he
refers to "the lost" in his poems he means something very specific, that
is, people who are not Catholic. Already he has" lost" me, or would
have, if he wasn't a great poet. His longest poem, the magnificent and
monumental "The Wreck of the Deutschland," based on a true news event,
takes the form of a massive prayer across its 35 stanzas, ending by
hoping that the unfortunate death of five nuns in a shipwreck (and the
nuns seem to be a lot more important to him than the many more
"hopelessly unconfessed of them" who also got killed) might lead to the
conversion of Britain ("More brightening her, rare-dear Britain, as his
reign rolls" -- and one guess as to who "his" refers to, and don't let
that lowercase "h" confuse you). Many many times that last stanza has
brought tears to my eyes as I "pray" the poem, and I too am wishing for
the conversion of Britain. Then it ends and after the glow goes away I
stop and smile at how anyone could believe in such a loony religion,
with its blood drinking and flesh eating rites and other witchery, let
alone want to win converts to it, and this despite the fact that I know
and deeply respect more than one Catholic person. More or less the same
thing happens to me at the end of "Genroku Chushingura." I'm incredibly
moved, I believe in the rightness of what happens at the end, which I
would otherwise morally disapprove of (without wanting to give away the
ending, though the story is a famous one, so if you know the story you
know what I'm referring to), and then a while after the film is over I
think something like, "What the fuck?" (Or, as a friend of mine said
after he first saw it (referencing a line in "El Dorado," in case the
joke is lost on you), "It shouldn't have taken 47 of them."
In fact, the "entertainment" mechanism of film has never worked all that
well for me. I mean, I can be entertained as much as the next person,
but I don't value it all that much; it's not a reason to get me to go to
a movie rather than listen to Bach's Cantata No. 24 for the 24th time
(or, more likely, waste time playing chess on Yahoo). So I came to
cinema not as a movie fan but as a lover of art in all its forms, and I
really don't think that pure "entertainment" -- getting you involved in
the story, lusting after Kim Novak or rooting for the herd to reach the
railhead or hoping Debbie will be found and agree to return home -- is
the same as experiencing art. The art comes in in Hitchcock's, or
Hawks's, or Ford's, imagery. And yeah, it's the interesection of the
imagery with the story and the acting and perhaps even the music (in the
case of Hermann if not Tiomkin) that makes those three films whole
masterpieces, but we know from Brakhage, or at least I do, that you
don't need recognizable pictures to make a great film, but there are
very few great films in my canon that don't have great imagery. I
realize that may place me in the minority, even here.
- Fred C.
(Footnote, not to be too cute about it and for the sake of Web search
engines too: "those three films" = "Vertigo," "Red River," and "The
Searchers")
11563
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:44pm
Subject: Re: Doppelganger
In a message dated 6/29/2004 3:37:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
a_film_by@yahoogroups.com writes:
> As the writer of that review, I'll only add that humor is a highly
> subjective thing, and what you find a pisser I might find boring as
> ass. Personally, I find CHARISMA to be extremely dull. While I've
> seen eight Kiyoshi films, many of them thrilling, I would never go
> so far as to call any of them as black comedies. This is new
> (IMO) for DOPPELGANGER. Perhaps you assume I'm
> insufficiently familiar with the director because we disagree.
>
Perhaps, though I do think the comic elements in Charisma and Eyes of the
Spider are pretty hard to miss, whether or not one thinks them successful.
Anyway, I had no intention of taking pot-shots in a public forum, just a
point I made in passing in an e-mail to Jaime.
I try to keep pretty generally winsome.
Brent
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11564
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:45pm
Subject: Re: homeroticism, incest, more thoughts on FATHER AND SON
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
Father-son incest is
> among the last taboos in the world, short of the
> snuff film: mother-
> son incest is the stuff of classical tragedy,
> father-daughter incest
> a frequent topic of movies and TV shows,
> mother-daughter
> incest...um, potentially a good porn video!
>
Are you familiar with the PaulBowles story"Pages From
Cold Point"? Mark Rappaport optioned it a number of
years back but was unable to get any backing for a
film adaptation. It would make a teriffic -- and TRULY
disturbing -- film, as it's about a guy in his 20s who
seduces his father in order to dominate him and get
his way. And it's told from the father's POV.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11565
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:00pm
Subject: Re: homeroticism, incest, more thoughts on FATHER AND SON
> Or rather, it almost seems like they have or will, but not quite. I
> think that's where the weirdness comes from, not simply the idea of
> incest.
Well, there's eroticism and eroticism: there's the sex-directed kind,
and then there's the diffuse eroticism that psychoanalysis saw
everywhere, and definitely saw in the parent-child relationship.
Sokurov's objections notwithstanding, I doubt many people of any culture
saw the film and didn't think about the sexuality in the father-son
relationship. But the ways in which we act out or repress the diffuse
sexuality in all our relationships do vary a lot from person to person,
culture to culture. I think one just has to accept the film as wanting
to depict this diffuse sexuality rather than a directed sexuality, just
because that's the only way the film makes dramatic sense. Which is not
to deny that the imagery is quite suggestive.
Spoliers for Tsai's THE RIVER coming up....
> But fathers and sons? That seems to strike most moviegoers and
> critics as "does not compute." What are some thoughts on this?
Well, it didn't compute in the Tsai film either. It was accidental
incest, though father and son bore the burden of it rather more lightly
than did Oedipus. - Dan
11566
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:10pm
Subject: Re: homeroticism, incest, more thoughts on FATHER AND SON
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I think one just has to accept the film as wanting
> to depict this diffuse sexuality rather than a directed sexuality,
just
> because that's the only way the film makes dramatic sense.
Thanks for writing that, Dan, it's more or less what I was reaching
for regarding FATHER AND SON specifically. Although there are a
number of other issues in the film I want to think about some more,
the above I feel is like a big circle around what the film "is." Or
its foundation, at least.
-Jaime
11567
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:44pm
Subject: Re: Genroku chuushingura (was: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
"I found it to be grossly nationalistic and incredibly dull. Re: the
nationalism, Fred's review had some interesting insight into the
propensity (possibly) to recoil from such a tone or thesis
(intentional or unintentional) in an artwork --"
The 47 ronin incident was dramatized almost immediately after its
historical occurence. The story was novelized as well as performed in
bunraku and kabuki and has remained popular down to the present day.
During the facist era in Japan (1931-45) the tale was used as
propaganda for loyalty to the Emporer and the necessity for self-
sacrifice. The examplry facist version is the 1939 version by
Yamamoto Kajiro (with second unit direction by Kurosawa Akira.) The
1962 color and 'scope version is typical of the way the story is
traditionally treated (CHUSHINGURA directed by Inagaki Hiroshi, you
can watch it on DVD.) Mizoguchi's version is radically different; he
dosen't invent a back story for Asano's attack on Kira (typically
Asano goes after Kira for having made advances toward his wife), he
leaves out the chambara (swordplay), he grounds the story in the
historical era in which it occurred(his is the only film version that
has Genroku in the title; Genroku refers to a specific historical
period 1688-1703), instead of dwelling on the martial aspects of
samurai life he foregrounds their cultivation of the arts.
"(although technically 'Genroku chuushingura' is two separate films --
the second was only greenlighted after the success of the first, if
I recall)"
According to Hara Kenichiro the co-screenwriter , it was to have been
in three parts with a 6 hour running time, but Mizoguchi decided to
remove all scenes of swordplay including the attack on Kira's mansion
and certain episodes showing samurai valor. Part two was already in
production before part one was released, and both were flops;
apparently the wartime Japanese public wanted the familiar version
and not the austere masterpiece that Mizoguchi produced.
"I also now recall I found the ideas espoused about honor and loss of
face to be repulsive. In a way that I've never found the same theme
as such in other Japanese films."
Contemporary Japanese film critics have debated how successful
Mizoguchi was at subverting the martial value of loyalty unto death,
but they are agreed that he was not in sympathy with bushido in this
film or any other that he made. My belief is that Mizoguchi was
being true the values of the Genroku era, even to the extent of
alluding to nanshoku (homosexual love) in the scene where Oshio, the
leader of the vendetta is offered a page boy to "instruct" the night
before he's to commit seppuku (though the boy turns out to be a girl
in disguise so that she could see her lover, one of the
conspiritors.) The only seppuku Mizoguchi shows is the young
woman's, and herein lies his subversion of bushido slight as it may
be.
For Japanese movies that endorse regressive valus take a look at
AIKOKU/RITUAL OF LOVE AND DEATH, the only film directed by Mishima
Yukio. There's also FOUR DAYS OF SNOW AND BLOOD, a film that
glorifies the Ni Ni Roku incident of 1936 where facist officers
assasinated several civilian members of the government. I'll also
add all of the other versions of the 47 Ronin story I've been able to
see including the one's I mentioned above.
While we can debate the ideological aspects of GENROKU CHUSHINGURA I
don't know what to say about your experience of it as dull. If you
see it again, I hope you get to see it projected on a big screen; it
might make a difference.
Richard
11568
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:48pm
Subject: Re: Before Sunset
It's the freakin' rebirth of Roberto
> Rossellini, is what it is, where the contrivances of the cinematic
> apparatus melt from the screen, leaving us with two human souls
stark
> naked and shimmering.
Based on this passage alone, the film will get my money.
But I'm curious, how do you compare it to the first film? From your
comments here, it seems that you like this one better - were you
indifferent to the first?
-Aaron
11569
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:15pm
Subject: The Simpsons (Genroku chuushingura)
During one of their Japan trips:
"Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this
dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they
made me Ori!"
-Homer Simpson
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> wrote:
>
> "I found it to be grossly nationalistic and incredibly dull. Re: the
> nationalism, Fred's review had some interesting insight into the
> propensity (possibly) to recoil from such a tone or thesis
> (intentional or unintentional) in an artwork --"
>
> The 47 ronin incident was dramatized almost immediately after its
> historical occurence. The story was novelized as well as performed in
> bunraku and kabuki and has remained popular down to the present day.
>
> During the facist era in Japan (1931-45) the tale was used as
> propaganda for loyalty to the Emporer and the necessity for self-
> sacrifice. The examplry facist version is the 1939 version by
> Yamamoto Kajiro (with second unit direction by Kurosawa Akira.) The
> 1962 color and 'scope version is typical of the way the story is
> traditionally treated (CHUSHINGURA directed by Inagaki Hiroshi, you
> can watch it on DVD.) Mizoguchi's version is radically different; he
> dosen't invent a back story for Asano's attack on Kira (typically
> Asano goes after Kira for having made advances toward his wife), he
> leaves out the chambara (swordplay), he grounds the story in the
> historical era in which it occurred(his is the only film version that
> has Genroku in the title; Genroku refers to a specific historical
> period 1688-1703), instead of dwelling on the martial aspects of
> samurai life he foregrounds their cultivation of the arts.
>
> "(although technically 'Genroku chuushingura' is two separate films --
> the second was only greenlighted after the success of the first, if
> I recall)"
>
> According to Hara Kenichiro the co-screenwriter , it was to have been
> in three parts with a 6 hour running time, but Mizoguchi decided to
> remove all scenes of swordplay including the attack on Kira's mansion
> and certain episodes showing samurai valor. Part two was already in
> production before part one was released, and both were flops;
> apparently the wartime Japanese public wanted the familiar version
> and not the austere masterpiece that Mizoguchi produced.
>
> "I also now recall I found the ideas espoused about honor and loss of
> face to be repulsive. In a way that I've never found the same theme
> as such in other Japanese films."
>
> Contemporary Japanese film critics have debated how successful
> Mizoguchi was at subverting the martial value of loyalty unto death,
> but they are agreed that he was not in sympathy with bushido in this
> film or any other that he made. My belief is that Mizoguchi was
> being true the values of the Genroku era, even to the extent of
> alluding to nanshoku (homosexual love) in the scene where Oshio, the
> leader of the vendetta is offered a page boy to "instruct" the night
> before he's to commit seppuku (though the boy turns out to be a girl
> in disguise so that she could see her lover, one of the
> conspiritors.) The only seppuku Mizoguchi shows is the young
> woman's, and herein lies his subversion of bushido slight as it may
> be.
>
> For Japanese movies that endorse regressive valus take a look at
> AIKOKU/RITUAL OF LOVE AND DEATH, the only film directed by Mishima
> Yukio. There's also FOUR DAYS OF SNOW AND BLOOD, a film that
> glorifies the Ni Ni Roku incident of 1936 where facist officers
> assasinated several civilian members of the government. I'll also
> add all of the other versions of the 47 Ronin story I've been able to
> see including the one's I mentioned above.
>
> While we can debate the ideological aspects of GENROKU CHUSHINGURA I
> don't know what to say about your experience of it as dull. If you
> see it again, I hope you get to see it projected on a big screen; it
> might make a difference.
>
> Richard
11570
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:21pm
Subject: Re: Bogdanovich, Hyams, Kyoshi
Bodanovich's Last Picture Show was also an enormous
influence on Lino Brocka's Tinimbang Ka Ngunit Kulang
(You Were Judged But Found Wanting, 1976) which
impressed David Hassan when he saw it in Singapore
sometime 2000 or 2001.
>Bilge will recall that "2010" is generally despised
>among Kubrick fans.
I've cooled towards Kubrick considerably as well, but
even so, 2010 seems like a pallid, conventional
successor to, when all is said and done, possibly
Kubrick's most personal film.
And count me in as a fan of Kurosawa Kyoshi's The
Cure, perhaps my favorite of recent serial
killer/horror movies.
I trust that serial killer book will include mention
of Perfect Blue, by the way?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11571
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:36pm
Subject: Re: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing
I really want to thank Fred Camper for sharing his ideas about Brakhage in
recent posts. I have learned a lot!
Before I joined a_film_by, I never knew anyone who could talk about
experimental movies. Now I'm questioning experts!
I also strongly agree with the recent posts, about the value of cinematic
form in making works of art. This is the beating heart of cinema. And one that is
so easy to overlook.
Mike Grost
11572
From: Brian Darr
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:49pm
Subject: Re: Mexican Film recommendations
I've seen a few of these.
I think Leduc's FRIDA is fabulous. I believe it was voted one of the
top 10 Latin American films of all time in a fairly recent survey of
Latin American critics. (The top five: 1. MEMORIES OF
UNDERDEVELOPMENT [Alea] 2. LOS OLVIDADOS [Buñuel] 3. tie: LUCÍA
[Solás], BLACK GOD, WHITE DEVIL [Rocha] & THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL
[Buñuel])
Two of the Fernández films just missed making this list (MARÍA
CANDELARIA and ENAMORADA- I've seen and very much enjoyed both.)
I'd say TEPEYAC is pretty skippable, except as a curiousity piece.
brian darr
11573
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:05pm
Subject: Hackers (Ian Softley) (was teen films)
"Hackers" (Iain Softley, 1995) was a film I really enjoyed - but to which
have never seen any critical response.
Softley is best known for his Henry James adaptation, "The Wings of the
Dove". This film has provoked more divergent response among auteurists than any
other in memory. Robin Wood wrote a whole book about it (for the BFI), while
Jonathan Rosenbaum denounced "Hackers" as trash in the Chicago Reader.
One of the things that seemed so pleasing about "Hackers" in 1995 was that it
painted such a positive view of young people. Its characters were vastly
talented, not the juvenile delinquents or "Bill and Ted" types one often saw in
contemporary movies.
I am deeply, deeply interested in seeing films about talented people. I love
movies about artists and scientists (such as the computer whizes in "Hackers"
). And my life long fascination with detective stories is rooted in an
interest in detectives, those people who use their brains to solve mysteries.
I am contemplating a long, aesthetic justification of this interest,
exploring its implications. Readers of this post are spared it, temporarily!
Mike Grost
11574
From: Joshua Rothkopf
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:46pm
Subject: Re: Doppelganger
Me, then Brent:
> > While I've
> > seen eight Kiyoshi films, many of them thrilling, I would never
go
> > so far as to call any of them as black comedies. This is new
> > (IMO) for DOPPELGANGER. Perhaps you assume I'm
> > insufficiently familiar with the director because we disagree.
> >
>
> Perhaps, though I do think the comic elements in Charisma
and Eyes of the
> Spider are pretty hard to miss, whether or not one thinks them
successful.
It's not a question of success, Brent. In your own winsome
words, these are "comic elements," and not the whole shebang.
EYES OF THE SPIDER is a grueling rape-revenge fantasy;
CHARISMA is a spacy envirothriller. Neither could be reasonably
called black comedies, unlike DOPPELGANGER, which is, in the
best sense, an evil twin flick, and a fucking hilarious one at that.
Don't worry -- I'm not receiving your comments as pot shots. I just
want to be clear about what we're disputing.
-jr
11575
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:05pm
Subject: Re: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (Was: 80s and 90s Copp...
I certainly agree with Fred that part of what's special about great films is
that the experience is about THEM, and their maker's vision of life, and not
you. When I look at my list of favorite films, I'm frequently amazed by their
diversity. "Viaggio in Italia" next to "Chimes at Midnight," "An American
Romance" next to "Gertrud," "L'Argent" next to "They All Laughed." Looking at my
list from the inside out, I suppose I could say that in a broad sense I'm
drawn to many movies "about" vanishing times or attitudes - "Chimes at Midnight,"
"Stars in My Crown," "The Magnificent Ambersons," and "Darling Lili" all fit
that category in various ways. Each film is a "look back." That's taste, I
suppose - but I wouldn't love those movies if each didn't also have an
incredible and rich cinematic language to express this eternal (and I do think it is
eternal) artistic theme. And it strikes me that each film's cinematic language
is quite different from the other (even among the two Welleses), so again I'm
confronted with diversity rather than conformity.
That being said, I'm also struck by the fact that when one looks at "film as
film" (to borrow the title of V.F. Perkins' book) the differences between
movies seem more superficial. If you put aside matters of plot and character and
deal with movies purely on a visual level, Raoul Walsh and Maya Deren - to
pick two names out of a hat - suddenly don't seem universes apart. They are in
many, many specifics... but they're united by something special, something
unique to this amazing art form, and that's... mise-en-scene.
I have a different but perhaps related spin on Robert's experience of an
event prior to his seeing "The African Queen" forever affecting the way he viewed
the film. There are a handful of screenings I've been to which I remember
afterwards as great moments in life. It's not just that the film is great, but
also that the conditions I'm seeing it in great too: the print is wonderful,
the audience appreciative, and so on. Off the top of my head: Demy's "The Young
Girls of Rochefort" (with Jonathan providing a wonderful, memorable
introduction to it, incidentally); Hawks's "Bringing Up Baby"; Cassavettes's "Love
Streams"; and I could go on. I left the theatre from these movies feeling - to
paraphrase Truffaut on Hitchcock - that not only cinema is enriched by their
existence, but life too.
Fred, this is bizarre: this is the second time in two days that I've read
someone mention the film "The Other Side of Midnight." I just read a piece by
Andrew Britton about it in an old Movie magazine; Britton seems to like the
film, but doesn't discuss its aesthetic qualities much at all. I don't think
Britton even names the director! Maybe it has no aesthetic qualities of note -
and perhaps that's your point...
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11576
From:
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:28am
Subject: Re: Doppelganger
JR wrote:
"It's not a question of success, Brent. In your own winsome
words, these are "comic elements," and not the whole shebang.
EYES OF THE SPIDER is a grueling rape-revenge fantasy;"
No, that's its companion piece SERPENT'S PATH (which also has its comic elements, come to think of it).
"CHARISMA is a spacy envirothriller. Neither could be reasonably
called black comedies, unlike DOPPELGANGER, which is, in the
best sense, an evil twin flick, and a fucking hilarious one at that."
This brings up an interesting question: to what extent genre tags can usefully be applied to KK's films. They obviously play with genres, but quite a lot of them seem to wind up in some sort of no-man's-land of their own creation, where there really is no "whole shebang" term for them. I think these two are good cases in point, and CHARISMA is actually the film DOPPELGANGER reminds me of the most, structurally. As CHARISMA progresses, I would argue, the whole envioronmental theme disappears along with
SPOILER
the tree itself and the film reconfigures its spaces as a gameboard, with the central object pretty much interchangeable. This has pissed some viewers off and one critic said something like it's a slap in the audience's face for taking it seriously. But it seems like a pretty frequent KK strategy and to me an interesting one.
Likewise DOPPELGANGER:
SPOILERS
it begins as a horror film and its transition to comedy is actually pretty surprising, if one approaches the film without advance knowledge. The double motif disappears about 3/5ths of the way through the film, at least on the surface, and the remainder shifts to a very CHARISMA-esque playing field of reversing allegiances and power relations. I've seen it described as a horror film, a psychological thriller, and a comedy, but it seems to me that each of these designations misses something very important about what the film is and what it does.
Having said all this, I do want to apologise. I felt the need to respond to Jaime's post mainly because it could be read as attributing to me an opinion I don't have, but I regret going into detail because the crit community in general seems to easily fill its backbiting quota without any contributions from me.
Brent
11577
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:34am
Subject: Re: Hackers (Ian Softley) (was teen films)
Softley is best known for his Henry James adaptation, "The Wings of
the
> Dove". This film has provoked more divergent response among
auteurists than any
> other in memory. Robin Wood wrote a whole book about it (for the
BFI), while
> Jonathan Rosenbaum denounced "Hackers" as trash in the Chicago
Reader.
Just for the record, what I denounced as trash in the Chicago Reader
was Softley's adaptation of "The Wings of the Dove"--NOT "Hackers,"
which I mainly liked.
Jonathan
11578
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:37am
Subject: Re: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (Was: 80s and 90s Coppola / teen films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> At the turn of the twentieth century, so I've read and been told
> many times, people went to see whatever was playing, with very few
> (if any) of the dividing and selecting impulses that we're
> discussing in this thread. It would be extremely risky to do that
> today, I guess.
>
> -Jaime
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
Risky but maybe fun, and instructive...
At the turn of the twentieth century (which means late eighteen
hundreds and early nineteen hundreds) Film could hardly be considered
an art form, and movie going was an activity akin to going to a
carnival side show. However, the practice of going to see "whatever
was playing" was still going strong in such civilized countries as
France in the forties and fifties -- when I was a child, then a
teenager, then finally a young adult. Most people just went to the
movies, not caring what was playing (there was little else to do).
There was also the interesting phenomenon of the "spectacle
permanent" (continuous performance) in Paris and large cities at
least. You could buy a ticket for the first show at say 2PM and stay
until the very last one at night. Most people would go into the
theatre at any time, right in the middle of the feature, then stay
through the newsreel and shorts and whatever and see the beginning of
the film. Newspapers never mentioned show times in their ads and as
far as I remember movie theatres didn't post show times either. No
one cared. You just walked in whenever you felt like it. In a sense
this was the most perfect movie experience -- not caring about
understanding a plot, just being immersed in the magic of moving
pictures...
Things began to change with television, I think. People transferred
their casualness about movie-going to TV-watching. Going to the
cinema gradually became "classier", like going to the theatre. People
started paying attention to what was playing. And like with most new
experiences, there was a lot gained and a lot lost.
JPC
11579
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:50am
Subject: Re: Before Sunset
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
Afterwards
> Delpy accidentally stepped on my foot while navigating through a
> throng of admirers. I may never polish that shoe again.
>
Kevin
We've had people swearing they'd never wash their cheek again after
some star gave them a kiss and we've had people worshipping the
toilet seat some star sat on, so your foot thing is very much in
tune. I realize the whole star-worshipping thing is sort of tongue-
in-cheek but still... I can't help being a bit bothered by the teen-
age silliness.
(By the way I once held in my hand for a brief moment a tissue
Brigitte Bardot had just used -- don't ask!!! -- but it never ocurred
to me to worship it. Yet I am an auteurist and therefore a
fetishist...)
JPC
JPC
11580
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:15am
Subject: moviegoing sensibilites (was: taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
> Risky but maybe fun, and instructive...
> At the turn of the twentieth century (which means late
eighteen
> hundreds and early nineteen hundreds) Film could hardly be
considered
> an art form, and movie going was an activity akin to going to a
> carnival side show. However, the practice of going to see "whatever
> was playing" was still going strong in such civilized countries as
> France in the forties and fifties -- when I was a child, then a
> teenager, then finally a young adult. Most people just went to the
> movies, not caring what was playing (there was little else to do).
> There was also the interesting phenomenon of the "spectacle
> permanent" (continuous performance) in Paris and large cities at
> least. You could buy a ticket for the first show at say 2PM and
stay
> until the very last one at night. Most people would go into the
> theatre at any time, right in the middle of the feature, then stay
> through the newsreel and shorts and whatever and see the beginning
of
> the film. Newspapers never mentioned show times in their ads and as
> far as I remember movie theatres didn't post show times either. No
> one cared. You just walked in whenever you felt like it. In a
sense
> this was the most perfect movie experience -- not caring about
> understanding a plot, just being immersed in the magic of moving
> pictures...
> Things began to change with television, I think. People transferred
> their casualness about movie-going to TV-watching. Going to the
> cinema gradually became "classier", like going to the theatre.
People
> started paying attention to what was playing. And like with most
new
> experiences, there was a lot gained and a lot lost.
JP, thank you very much for this. You must have recognized that part
of my post as a waving flag for some deeper explanation of the
moviegoing phenomena in different eras, a subject about which I can't
speak with much authority. Thanks for answering!
(The "walking in whenever you felt like it" phenomenon occurred in
America, too - some movies from the 1950s have a couple leaving a
feature with the words, "This is where we came in," BONNIE AND CLYDE
features a mid-movie entrance that must not have seemed strange to
1967 viewers, and - although we're talking about porn films, the
difference doesn't seem too great - there are two examples of
mid-movie entrances in TAXI DRIVER.)
In America, my own moviegoing impulses are strange and change from
week to week depending on circumstances like my cinephilic
decision-making, on my income, on whether I'm exhausted or feeling
"up," and so on. More generally it seems like people who go to movies
make their decisions not dissimilar from the way they choose one
laundry detergent over another, one presidential candidate over
another, one pop singer over another. I'm only being a little cynical
- in fact, more closely than all of these things, I think popular
moviegoing is pushed and pulled by the same forces that govern
bestsellers in literature, and all that that entails regarding
literature's system of tiers: pop successes and trash novels read on
holiday, more serious and "essential" reading, underground classics,
and so on. Contrasted against truly commodity-dominated fields:
detergents, soda, fast food restaurants, elections, etc, the worlds of
film and literature and theater seem to make room for differences,
changes, and the margins of the mainstream. Not a great difference,
mind you - I've no doubt FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (which I haven't seen yet)
dominated the American box office this weekend not due to its strength
as a documentary but because of Michael Moore's talent for seducing
the populace - but a difference nevertheless.
-Jaime
11581
From:
Date: Tue Jun 29, 2004 10:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: Hackers (Ian Softley) (was teen films)
Jonathan Rosenbaum writes:
Just for the record, what I denounced as trash in the Chicago Reader
was Softley's adaptation of "The Wings of the Dove"--NOT "Hackers,"
which I mainly liked.
I apologize for the typo! That is what I meant to write in the first place.
Sorry!
Mike Grost
11582
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:07am
Subject: Re: moviegoing sensibilites (was: taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> (The "walking in whenever you felt like it" phenomenon occurred in
> America, too - some movies from the 1950s have a couple leaving a
> feature with the words, "This is where we came in," BONNIE AND CLYDE
> features a mid-movie entrance that must not have seemed strange to
> 1967 viewers, and - although we're talking about porn films, the
> difference doesn't seem too great - there are two examples of
> mid-movie entrances in TAXI DRIVER.)
>
> -Jaime
There was a very peculiar feeling when you got to the point
where "This is where we came in". A lot of things that had not made
any sense in the movie suddenly did (there was "closure"!!) and it
was both satisfying and disappointing. And there was this uneasiness:
Am I (are we) staying a little bit more (to see how it feels the
second time around)? or leaving immediately? There was the sense that
if you stayed, you might become trapped and see the whole thing
again, even if you didn't particularly enjoy the film. People born
twenty years after me just cannot understand this experience because
they never had it. It may sound like something out of the past (which
it is), something out of Proust to them. But I'm glad you made me
reminisce.
JPC
11583
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:37am
Subject: Re: moviegoing sensibilites (was: taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> There was a very peculiar feeling when you got to the point
> where "This is where we came in". A lot of things that had not made
> any sense in the movie suddenly did (there was "closure"!!) and it
> was both satisfying and disappointing. And there was this uneasiness:
> Am I (are we) staying a little bit more (to see how it feels the
> second time around)? or leaving immediately? There was the sense that
> if you stayed, you might become trapped and see the whole thing
> again, even if you didn't particularly enjoy the film. People born
> twenty years after me just cannot understand this experience because
> they never had it. It may sound like something out of the past (which
> it is), something out of Proust to them. But I'm glad you made me
> reminisce.
The pleasure is mine! However, I would counter the "just cannot
understand" by bringing up the DVD medium again. Moreso than with
videotape, and with the enhances DVD brings to home video, digital
seems to grant cinephiles license to dance their senses across a film,
free of some of the restrictions that accompany "social" filmgoing. I
don't mean to say that people watch films at random the same way as
1950s moviegoers walked into a film that was already in progress - in
fact, the drive to watch the "true" film (proper aspect ratio, good
colors, good sound, etc) seems more of a factor now than when
videotape was the dominant home movie medium. Nevertheless, I think
my peers *can* understand the feelings you named. Especially with the
viewing-and-reviewing-and-reviewing impulses that my friends talk
about. Young cinephiles in America are more likely than they have
been in a long time (if ever) to rewatch films, even those they're not
sure of, that they don't quite like. This gives me hope.
-Jaime
11584
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:59am
Subject: Re: moviegoing sensibilites (was: taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> ---
>
.
>
> The pleasure is mine! However, I would counter the "just cannot
> understand" by bringing up the DVD medium again. Moreso than with
> videotape, and with the enhances DVD brings to home video, digital
> seems to grant cinephiles license to dance their senses across a
film,
> free of some of the restrictions that accompany "social"
filmgoing. I
> don't mean to say that people watch films at random the same way as
> 1950s moviegoers walked into a film that was already in progress -
in
> fact, the drive to watch the "true" film (proper aspect ratio, good
> colors, good sound, etc) seems more of a factor now than when
> videotape was the dominant home movie medium. Nevertheless, I think
> my peers *can* understand the feelings you named. Especially with
the
> viewing-and-reviewing-and-reviewing impulses that my friends talk
> about. Young cinephiles in America are more likely than they have
> been in a long time (if ever) to rewatch films, even those they're
not
> sure of, that they don't quite like. This gives me hope.
>
> -Jaime
Yes of course but the video experience, and especially the DVD
experience, is something utterly different from the old movie-going
experience. With DVD you are in control. Going to the movies your
only control was your ability to stay or leave. And I don't think
anybody deliberately starts watching a film on DVD in the middle, at
least if you're watching it for the first time. Does anybody do that?
I'd be curious to know... Also, the old movie-going experience was
not one of watching and rewatching -- I think for most people
watching a movie a second time was an aberration -- of
course "cinephiles" were different, but opportunities to watch and
rewatch were few (movies came and went rapidly, became obsolete
within months, were withdrawn, became faint memories...), and nothing
like what you can do with DVD.
I'm not at all nostalgic about the "old movie-going experience". I'm
just saying that it was a specific kind of experience that cannot be
recaptured, except in a kind of proustian reminiscing.
JPC
11585
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:25am
Subject: Re: Genroku chuushingura (was: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> In fact, the "entertainment" mechanism of film has never worked all
that
> well for me. I mean, I can be entertained as much as the next
person,
> but I don't value it all that much; it's not a reason to get me to
go to
> a movie rather than listen to Bach's Cantata No. 24 for the 24th
time
> (or, more likely, waste time playing chess on Yahoo). So I came to
> cinema not as a movie fan but as a lover of art in all its forms,
and I
> really don't think that pure "entertainment" -- getting you
involved in
> the story, lusting after Kim Novak or rooting for the herd to reach
the
> railhead or hoping Debbie will be found and agree to return home --
is
> the same as experiencing art. > - Fred C.
>
"A show that is really a show
Sends you off with a wonderful glow
And you say as you're going your way:
'That's entertainment!'"
Fred I don't understand why you put down the concept
of "entertainment." As the song goes, it can be "a great
Shakespearean theme Where a ghost and a prince meet and everyone ends
in mincemeat." Seriously, "entertainment" is what you define it to
be. To me it means art that gives you intense pleasure (and it has
nothing to do with lusting about Kim Novak or anybody else), because
I see giving pleasure as the purpose of art. You listen to Bach's
Cantata 24 for the 24th time because it gives you pleasure. It's that
simple. Distinguishing between "art" and "entertainment" is
arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. Bill Shakespeare and Bill
Bojangles, you know. Sure there's a lot of bad entertainment that has
no art in it. Just as there's a lot of bad art that has no
entertainment in it either.
JPC
11586
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:34am
Subject: whatever / whenever playing
I often go to movies having no idea what they are about* ...
if it is good enough for the KEN (one of our local art houses
which shows but one movie per week), it's good enough
for me.
As late as PSYCHO, people wandered into theaters at all times.
Hence, Hitchcock's admonition that no one would be
admitted after the start. Otherwise you would miss....
*When I saw THE PERFECT STORM, I wondered for some
time if they were going to get out of the storm....
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> wrote:
> >
> > At the turn of the twentieth century, so I've read and been told
> > many times, people went to see whatever was playing, with very few
> > (if any) of the dividing and selecting impulses that we're
> > discussing in this thread. It would be extremely risky to do that
> > today, I guess.
> >
> > -Jaime
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> Risky but maybe fun, and instructive...
> At the turn of the twentieth century (which means late eighteen
> hundreds and early nineteen hundreds) Film could hardly be considered
> an art form, and movie going was an activity akin to going to a
> carnival side show. However, the practice of going to see "whatever
> was playing" was still going strong in such civilized countries as
> France in the forties and fifties -- when I was a child, then a
> teenager, then finally a young adult. Most people just went to the
> movies, not caring what was playing (there was little else to do).
> There was also the interesting phenomenon of the "spectacle
> permanent" (continuous performance) in Paris and large cities at
> least. You could buy a ticket for the first show at say 2PM and stay
> until the very last one at night. Most people would go into the
> theatre at any time, right in the middle of the feature, then stay
> through the newsreel and shorts and whatever and see the beginning of
> the film. Newspapers never mentioned show times in their ads and as
> far as I remember movie theatres didn't post show times either. No
> one cared. You just walked in whenever you felt like it. In a sense
> this was the most perfect movie experience -- not caring about
> understanding a plot, just being immersed in the magic of moving
> pictures...
> Things began to change with television, I think. People transferred
> their casualness about movie-going to TV-watching. Going to the
> cinema gradually became "classier", like going to the theatre. People
> started paying attention to what was playing. And like with most new
> experiences, there was a lot gained and a lot lost.
>
> JPC
11587
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:44am
Subject: re-viewing, and pause and wait
I read someplace where one reviewer/critic commented that
he was watching some films on DVD at home for his
write-ups. He was able to stop and get back to the movie
at another time; he commented that he wondered if he
had to watch the entire movie at one screening in 'real
time' would he have liked it as much.
I use TiVo to 'study' movies I've already have seen. Then,
I sometimes found myself wanting to TiVo a screening
in the theater... that is, stop and absorb, etc. I have come
to let myself just watch the screening. Maybe I was meant
to be confused in the original screening.
I realized soon that in a few weeks, I could get the DVD, or
just stay around and watch the screening again
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley" wrote:
> However, I would counter the "just cannot
> understand" by bringing up the DVD medium again. Moreso than with
> videotape, and with the enhances DVD brings to home video, digital
> seems to grant cinephiles license to dance their senses across a film,
> free of some of the restrictions that accompany "social" filmgoing. I
> don't mean to say that people watch films at random the same way as
> 1950s moviegoers walked into a film that was already in progress - in
> fact, the drive to watch the "true" film (proper aspect ratio, good
> colors, good sound, etc) seems more of a factor now than when
> videotape was the dominant home movie medium. Nevertheless, I think
> my peers *can* understand the feelings you named. Especially with the
> viewing-and-reviewing-and-reviewing impulses that my friends talk
> about. Young cinephiles in America are more likely than they have
> been in a long time (if ever) to rewatch films, even those they're not
> sure of, that they don't quite like. This gives me hope.
>
> -Jaime
11588
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:39am
Subject: Re: moviegoing sensibilites (was: taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley" <
>
> The pleasure is mine! However, I would counter the "just cannot
> understand" by bringing up the DVD medium again. Moreso than with
> videotape, and with the enhances DVD brings to home video, digital
> seems to grant cinephiles license to dance their senses across a
film,
> free of some of the restrictions that accompany "social" filmgoing.
Jaime, you skipped the pre-cursor to DVD, laserdisc- which I am still
a
dedicated user of. I know the importance of seeing a print over an
analog/digital video transfer has been discussed here, but the main
reason I do not see a lot of films in the theaters IS audiences.
Outside of the Pacific Film Archives, I have been driven out of
theaters by all types of disruptive behavior that totally disregards
the rest of the audience. When I went to see Lynch's "The Straight
Story", my friend and I had to move twice during the film because of
people carrying on conversations. The second time we moved, a woman
behind us started talking about all the laundry she had to do! My
friend turned around and asked her polietly to be quiet and she
replied: "I'll try to keep it down." In the past 4 years I cringe
when
anyone sits behind or next to me in a theater. The restored version
of
"Touch of Evil" was almost destroyed for me by this man behind me who
felt compelled to give a running audio commentary, and looked at me
like I had the problem when I asked if he could refrain till after
the
film. With "The Neon Bible", a film I consider to be one of the best
films of the 90's -along with "The Long Day Closes", I unfortunately
was only able to concentrate on it at home because the theater
audience
was vocally hostile to the way Davies explores moments rather than
concentrating on narrative thrust.
The disruptions and peoples' lack of respect are too much for me. I
could go to the earliest or latest showing of a film during the
weekday, but I usually work the 8am to 5pm grind and I can't afford
the
9.75 in the evenings.
Longing to see more illuminated grain,
Michael
11589
From:
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:44am
Subject: The Magic Show and Parade
I realize only a limited number of people here have seen material from Orson
Welles's unfinished film "The Magic Show," but I wonder if anyone has ever
thought about some unexpected (for me) parallels the project has with Jacques
Tati's great "Parade"?
This is a comparison I make in my upcoming piece on "The Magic Show" - "The
Company of Magicians: Orson Welles, Abb Dickson, Scarlet Plush, and Purple
Hokum," to appear in the next Senses of Cinema. While "The Magic Show" has
absolutely none of the involvement between audience and performer that "Parade" does
(a topic which Jonathan has written so well about), both films do possess a
certain, as I put it in my piece, revelry in the act of putting on a good, old
fashioned carnival-like show. Both films also have their makers returning to
their youths late in their careers. Somehow it makes sense to me that one of
the last films Welles was actively shooting and working on was a movie devoted
to his childhood love, magic.
I've always loved "The Magic Show," but thinking about it in this context
gives me, I think, a better handle on it than I've had before.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11590
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:50am
Subject: Re: Re: moviegoing sensibilites (was: taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
--- Michael Worrall wrote:
With "The Neon Bible", a film I consider to be
> one of the best
> films of the 90's -along with "The Long Day Closes",
Me too! I love
href="http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g001/davies.html"
target="_blank">Terence Davies
He's a very special man and a very special talent.
"The House of Mirth" is exquisite.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11591
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:57am
Subject: Hackers
Mike - If you think Jonathan was harsh on HACKERS, you obviously haven't yet
stumbled across what he said about WINGS OF THE DOVE!
I like HACKERS too, although I have yet to revisit it since my initial
viewing. Here is the newspaper review I did of it in 1995 on its release -
in which my love of teen movies is well to the fore!:
***
HACKERS (Iain Softley, UK/USA, 1995)
Long, long ago in the rapidly turned-over history of popular cinema I mean
the mid ¹80s the teen movie genre started entertaining fantasies about the
computer age. Films including Weird Science, My Science Project and Real
Genius, all from the golden year of 1985, gave us the first glimpses of
teenagers in cyberspace: zipping through time and space on both real and
virtual planes in their quest for zany experience.
At least one actor from this period, Fisher Stevens, has been caught in a
vicious time warp. For here he is again in Hackers, eleven years later, as a
computer genius named The Plague no longer siding with teenagers, alas,
but corrupted by the sinister ideology of big business. "There's no right
and wrong", he preaches. "Only fun and boring!"
But The Plague does not have the last word in this movie. The kids are still
alright particularly when they are righteous dudes like Dade (Jonny Lee
Miller from Trainspotting [1995]), Kate (Angelina Jolie) and Cereal (Matthew
Lillard). These teens are modern outlaws, hacking at whim into any
unfortunate institution which is on-line.
Every techno-fantasy that has emerged since computers became popularly
consumed is on show in Hackers. The romance that info-terrorism and its
social subversions will be wielded by noble, beautiful young people; the
dream of the Internet as a new global community; the paranoid, Gothic
nightmare about governments and corporations monitoring and controlling all
technology on the planet; and, last but not least, the feverish hope that
virtual forms of communication and exchange between people will be
indescribably sexy.
Hackers could easily have been a load of techno-bollocks. But the miracle is
that, under the direction of Iain Softley (Backbeat, 1993), it works like a
dream.
And speaking of dreams, viewers of a psychoanalytic bent will be especially
intrigued by the range of eroticised mother-figures in this film and the
related absence of father-figures. The Plague's older lover is bad mother
Margo (rendered as a sluttish bimbo by Lorraine Bracco), while Dade's Mum, a
glamorous symbol of Œ60s rebellion, is played by Alberta Watson hitherto
glimpsed on screen in the throes of mother-son incest in Spanking the Monkey
(1994).
Even young Kate is a strangely mature, knowing, super-sexy siren in the
midst of all her nervy and virginal male comrades. So is this movie the
full-blown, wet-dream fantasy of every nerdish boy ever drawn to a computer
terminal? I suspect so but the fantasy is nonetheless compelling and
beautifully brought to life. Hackers is a slick, funny, exciting, completely
persuasive teen movie for the '90s.
***
Adrian
11592
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:23am
Subject: De-Plorable
Just in from "De-Lovely" or "Cole Porter: The Lifetime
Movie," certainly the strangest bad musical in years
-- and unquestionably the most expensive. "All tech
credits pro" as "Variety" used to say, with top-notch
set design, set-decoration, costumes, props and Kevin
Klein doing their best to prop up a pedestrian
weeper-mit-songs ("Tunes of Endearment") in which the
plus of a gay Cole Porter is cancelled out by the
absence of almost everything else related to Cole
Porter -- like the wit It's as if Irwin Winkler and
scriptwriter Jay Cocks decided that they had "licked"
the story by draining Cole Porter of all his sass and
spirit and replacing them with what "really matters"
-- bathos.
As the film is a stylized fantasy in which Gabriel
(Jonathan Pryce) helps Cole into the hereafter by
having his life with Linda (Ashley Judd channelling
Susan Hayward) staged before his dying eyes. (yes,
"Blow Gabirel Blow" is sung towards the close
It's as if a project that in pre-production began as a
Ken Russell film, saw the great vulgarian fired and
replaced by. . . Charles Marquis Warren.
Easily the most flat-footed tuner since "At Long Last
Love" it's actually bearable because of Kevin Klein.
It's truly amazing to watch thus consumate
porfessional turn chicken shit into chicken salad.
Rancid chicken salad, but chicken salad nontheless.
The musical numbers by a bevvy of "today's name
performers" are mericfully short. Robbie Williams and
Elvis Costello are (no surprise) clueless when it
comes to Porter. But so is (big surprise) Diane Krall.
Alanis Morrisette does a mercifully brief turnas a
Boradway singer. Natalie Cole sings a chorus of
"E'very Time We say Goodbye" passably (but nowhere
near as memorably as Annie Lennox in Derek Jarman's
"Edward II." Sheryl Crowe, however does the oddest
version of "Begin the Beguine" imaginable --
transposed into a minor key and yowled like a dirge.
So who's the audience for this thing? Fag-hags who've
had two years of college -- but never graduated
because they spent far too much time in pursuit of the
gay man of their dreams. "De-Lovely" is a
semi-cautionary tale about what happens if you
actually bag one. Judd's Linda seems worldly-wise at
first, then sulks for reasons that aren't at all
clear. (Hey Lady, you knew he was gay when you married
him. Why are you so put out by his tricking?) But
after Cole's riding accident, and her lung cnacer it's
Medical Drama time with our leads dying "gracefully."
You want death in a musical? Try Ken Russell's "The
Boy Friend." Max Adrian was so close to going that the
wheelchairs in the "It's Never Too Late To Fall in
Love" number weren't really props. He insisted to
Russell that should he pop off during filming they
should go right on regardless. What a trouper! He made
it through to the end before departing "The Best of
All Possible Worlds."
As the end credits roll Cole himself can be heard
singing "You're the Top." When he sings "You're the
pants on a Roxy usher" you know EXACTLY what the film
you've just seen is so woefully lacking.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11593
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:12am
Subject: Re: This Is Where We Came In (was: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing )
When All About Eve opened in New York in 1950, Darryl Zanuck ordered
that no one be admitted once the picture started. This was so
unprecedented that ads for the film had to explain the change of
policy, through a testimonial from "The Men and Women of 20th Century-
Fox." It stated, "When we first saw All ABout EVe, we became aware
that its utter fascination and charm were immeasurably due to the
fact that we were seeing it the only way it should be seen -- from
the beginning." The reaction from people who wanted to amble into
the Roxy any old time they happened to get to the theatre was so
adverse that Zanuck dropped the poliicy when the movie premiered in
L.A.
As Elizabeth noted, Hitchcock employed the same policy with Psycho 10
years later. I can also recall seeing ads from the 40s and 50s
(although I can't remember specifically for which films) with
variations of "no one will be admitted into the theatre during the
last 15 minutes of the movies."
JP, I think the closest approximation of the movie-going experiences
you mentioned from your youth occurs at multiplexes, where countless
times I've been on line and heard a group of people (usually teenage
girls) looking at the list of attractions and trying to agree which
of the 18 movies they should see, with the starting times seemingly
never a factor.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>However, the practice of going to see "whatever
> was playing" was still going strong in such civilized countries as
> France in the forties and fifties -- when I was a child, then a
> teenager, then finally a young adult. Most people just went to the
> movies, not caring what was playing (there was little else to do).
> There was also the interesting phenomenon of the "spectacle
> permanent" (continuous performance) in Paris and large cities at
> least. You could buy a ticket for the first show at say 2PM and
stay
> until the very last one at night. Most people would go into the
> theatre at any time, right in the middle of the feature, then stay
> through the newsreel and shorts and whatever and see the beginning
of
> the film. Newspapers never mentioned show times in their ads and as
> far as I remember movie theatres didn't post show times either. No
> one cared. You just walked in whenever you felt like it. In a
sense
> this was the most perfect movie experience -- not caring about
> understanding a plot, just being immersed in the magic of moving
> pictures...
> Things began to change with television, I think. People transferred
> their casualness about movie-going to TV-watching. Going to the
> cinema gradually became "classier", like going to the theatre.
People
> started paying attention to what was playing. And like with most
new
> experiences, there was a lot gained and a lot lost.
>
> JPC
11594
From:
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:38am
Subject: Re: Hackers (CORRECTION - 2nd try)
Jonathan Rosenbaum writes:
Just for the record, what I denounced as trash in the Chicago Reader
was Softley's adaptation of "The Wings of the Dove"--NOT "Hackers,"
which I mainly liked.
I apologize for the typo! That is what I meant to write in the first place.
Sorry!
Mike Grost
11595
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:07am
Subject: Re: Hackers (Ian Softley) (was teen films)
> One of the things that seemed so pleasing about "Hackers" in 1995
was that it
> painted such a positive view of young people. Its characters were
vastly
> talented, not the juvenile delinquents or "Bill and Ted" types one
often saw in
> contemporary movies.
> I am deeply, deeply interested in seeing films about talented
people. I love
> movies about artists and scientists (such as the computer whizes
in "Hackers"
> ).
Did you like Revenge of the Nerds? My first job at Fox was coming up
with a way to sell it. "Nerd Chic," which went into the Nerd Planner
that we sent to all the press, was picked up by 200 papers. I'm still
proud of that one.
11596
From:
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:44am
Subject: Re: Hackers (Ian Softley) (was teen films)
Adrian Martin's review of "Hackers" is very interesting! It is a vivid
evocation-analysis of the movie and its themes.
Bill Krohn writes:
<< Did you like Revenge of the Nerds? My first job at Fox was coming up
with a way to sell it. "Nerd Chic," which went into the Nerd Planner
that we sent to all the press, was picked up by 200 papers. I'm still
proud of that one.
>>
"Nerd Chic" is a great tag line!
I strongly identified with all the Nerds in that movie. I was definitely a
nerd, and probably still am. Although we did not have the term "nerd" in the
1970's.
Also liked the characters in "Real Genius" (Martha Coolidge, 1985).
Am also a fan of Fisher Stevens, who plays the bad guy in "Hackers". Stevens
is mainly a comedian, and he had a hit with the TV series "Early Edition".
That show had the same fantasy gimmick as Clair's "It Happened Tomorrow" - what
would you do if you saw "tomorrow's newspaper today"?
Mike Grost
11597
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:33pm
Subject: And Furthermore!. . .
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/918/918_ehrenstein.asp
(an addenda to my "De-Lovely" comments)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11598
From: -*_.+*-
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: moviegoing sensibilites (was: taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
Michael Worrall wrote:
>
> Jaime, you skipped the pre-cursor to DVD, laserdisc- which I am still
> a
> dedicated user of.
Are things still released in this format? More Importantly, do you have
the theatrical release of Blade Runner, rumored better than the widely
available 'Director's Cut'?
> I know the importance of seeing a print over an
> analog/digital video transfer has been discussed here, but the main
> reason I do not see a lot of films in the theaters IS audiences.
Many of your complaints about audiences are things that have driven me
crazy in the past - although I myself am guilty of very self aware
vocalizations in movies that warrant it, such as screaming at the top of
my lungs whilst Drew Barrymore was quietly freaking out on the porch at
the start of Scream. Luckily, everyone just laughed when they came down
from the five feet they jumped.
> Outside of the Pacific Film Archives, I have been driven out of
> theaters by all types of disruptive behavior that totally disregards
> the rest of the audience.
This indeed is reprehensible when it's Touch of Evil and not Scream (not
to put them into a hierarchy - just to acknowledge that you're there for
different reasons with ToE - although it would make an excellent
midnight movie with audience participation like Rocky Horror). Over
time, I've developed numbness to people's disruption, and kept mental
notes about theaters with attentive ushers and/or respectful audiences.
I have been known to badger people having cellphone conversations. My
worry there is to not cause a disruption myself, so I've stopped dealing
with it myself and just get a theater employee if it's too bad - if some
jerk ruins my film I'm seeing it again for free if I can.
Which brings me to what some of my friends call, quite un-PC, the
"Ghetto-plex". This is a theater, found both in Chicago and DC and I'm
sure everywhere else, where people laugh out loud, harass the characters
if they're being stupid, yell things like "Don't go up there honey!" and
other such antics (and openly eat fried chicken, among other things).
There are some movies I purposely see in theaters like this, such as
Barbershop and Freddy VS Jason. They were actually mostly respectful to
Barbershop, not a bad movie, but in Freddy VS Jason I wished there were
more talking, as that movie needed all the help it could get (no one
wants Freddy to give a monologue, and if he does it better be written
damn well).
> 9.75 in the evenings.
You should see if any of the theaters you like have a pass - in Chicago,
the Landmark had a deal where you get 5 movies for $35. That's $7 a
movie, better than their usual $9.50.
Joey Lindsey
11599
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:22pm
Subject: Re: Hackers
> I like HACKERS too, although I have yet to revisit it since my initial
> viewing.
Wow - support for Iain Softley on a_film_by. After seeing half of
BACKBEAT and fleeing, I've given his films a wide berth - a clear-cut
case of chicken-sexing, to use Bill's phrase. Do people like any other
of his films beside HACKERS? - Dan
11600
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:40pm
Subject: Re: Before Sunset
I like BEFORE SUNRISE a lot, but this film is definitely on another
level. I was going to re-watch BEFORE SUNRISE last weekend but
wasn't able to. What's wonderful about BEFORE SUNSET is that you
don't even need to have seen or remembered BEFORE SUNRISE to
appreciate it -- in fact, not being familiar with the characters may
actually add an enriching sense of intrigue to one's witnessing their
chance reunion. On the other hand, there are numerous resonances
between the two films, structurally as well as thematically. BEFORE
SUNRISE begins with Jesse seeing Celine for the first time -- what's
amazing about BEFORE SUNSET is that it ends with Jesse ***seeing***
Celine for the first time, again. As such it's a brilliant statement
on what it is to love someone for life.
Actually the film that I'd like to revisit in relation to both these
films is MY DINNER WITH ANDRE, because in that film I was irked by
its bourgeois bohemian view of the world, something that also bothers
me about both BEFORE SUNRISE and BEFORE SNSET. But regardless of
what one things about the milieu Linklater sets for his characters,
he succeeds brilliantly in investing it with genuine human feeling.
Here are some of my original comments from my original Berlinale
article:
"Before Sunrise may have been dismissed by some as an American male
collegiate's European wet dream, and while I agree that both films
amount to a sort of fantasy diptych, their purpose isn't escapist.
These fantasies summon an awareness of what is real vs what may be
possible in one's capacity to interact with another person. I give
Linklater a lot of credit for believing that a magical connection
between two human beings as he depicts is possible, especially
because in Before Sunset he shows why it must be possible. These two
reunite with ten years of personal baggage, and the lines on their
faces tell all one needs to know about what has changed – the
gleaming perpetual idealism of the first movie is replaced with a
wisecracking weariness and a grinding sense of insecurity, obligation
and even mortality. They talk about their jobs, their families, the
loved ones they've lost, and the things they feel they have to do to
keep going. Whereas the talk-talk-talking of the first movie was an
outward expression of youthful exuberance and tireless play with
various pet theories derived from both classroom and bookstore, here
the incessant conversation seems driven by desperation, a fear of
silence. Sometimes they seem like they're trying to impress each
other, presenting a version of themselves based on the topics they
choose to discuss. On the other hand, the talking is a front for
what's really going on between these two people, how much they are
*listening* to each other, actively evaluating out how much the other
has changed, whether they are the person they thought they had been
enchanted by nine years ago and were a hair's width from starting a
new life with them, if only...
And then this process of assessment is no longer trained on the other
person, but on themselves, what choices they have made and where it
has led them to in life. And here I just lost it and broke down. It's
rare that a film so specifically captures a discrete moment of life,
and with such vividness, as if the screen has evaporated and you're
riding shotgun in the taxi listening to two people slouched in the
backseat, trying their hardest to communicate their emotions as
honestly and as clearly to each other as they can, when even they
can't fully fathom the depths of their own despair. What is this
then, but human communication as an act of faith: they throw
everything they have into the belief that the other person
understands them, in the dwindling moments they have before they have
to say goodbye once again.
And then there's the ending. Beautiful, startling, unbelievably
perfect, so natural it's unreal. So fitting for a movie that plays it
moment by moment because it understands that life, for better or
worse, is about being in the moment one is in right now and making
the most of it, now. It's all one really can do."
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
wrote:
> It's the freakin' rebirth of Roberto
> > Rossellini, is what it is, where the contrivances of the
cinematic
> > apparatus melt from the screen, leaving us with two human souls
> stark
> > naked and shimmering.
>
> Based on this passage alone, the film will get my money.
> But I'm curious, how do you compare it to the first film? From your
> comments here, it seems that you like this one better - were you
> indifferent to the first?
>
> -Aaron
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact