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.
11601
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: Genroku chuushingura (was: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
jpcoursodon wrote:
>-
> 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.....
>
I don't think it productive to get into an argument over how we use
words. You're free to use "entertainment" as you like. Here's my point,
and I think it's something that separates me from most film lovers and
probably from many members of this group. I think that enjoying the plot
of an utterly artless movie -- I mean, I enjoyed E. T. well enough, I
wanted the creature's call to "home" to succeed,, but sorry, I think
it's otherwise pretty empty -- is a *very* different experience from
being moved aesthetically from the interesection of imagery, movement,
plot, acting, and music, in, to take a film most of us will agree on,
"Vertigo." I don't see good direction as something which embellishes a
plot with "touches" which make it more enjoyable, but rather as a vision
that transforms everything. Identification with characters or engagement
in storytelling alone just feels very different to me from my experience
of a flat-out visually great masterpiece.
- Fred Camper
11602
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:49pm
Subject: Re: Before Sunset
Don't take me too seriously, JP. I had new shoes on and I don't get
paid enough to enshrine any of my clothing for any reason (unless it
is the outfit I will wear when I win the lottery).
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- 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
11603
From: Nick
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: moviegoing sensibilites (was: taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
> but the main reason I do not see a lot of films in the theaters IS
> audiences.
My local "multiperplex" (here in England) serves sausages & onions and
other things now. I couldn't believe it when people came in with
stinking fastfood trays of this and proceeded to eat like the pigs in
SPIRITED AWAY. I haven't been back for over a year.
I'd also like to ban popcorn from cinemas (shock, horror!)
> The disruptions and peoples' lack of respect are too much for me.
Me too. The only times that I have enjoyed multiperplex films is on the
first day of screening at 10am. EYES WIDE SHUT, MAGNOLIA, etc --- only
myself in there.
-Nick Wrigley>-
11604
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:53pm
Subject: senses and sensibilities (and taste)
So many great posts to catch up with, I'm a bit overwhelmed.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "-*_.+*-" wrote:
> 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've got that, it was released through the Criterion Collection when
they were doing laserdiscs. Other than the presence of Harrison
Ford's narration, the changes are very subtle, and it's difficult to
keep track of what's different unless I view both versions close
together (which I haven't done yet). The deciding factor as to
which one is better will depend on whether Ford's narration - done
in the style of a world-weary yet slightly cheerful film noir
private eye - impresses you as "good camp" or "bad camp." Because
it's quite silly.
But no, there is no more laserdisc production, that I know of.
Unless I'm mistaken, Japan held out the longest; in the US, LDs for
films as recent as BRINGING OUT THE DEAD were being pressed in 1999
and 2000.
Some LDs are not only rare but valued by collectors. I have the
yanked-from-circulation Criterion editions of three James Bond
films: GOLDFINGER, DR. NO, and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. The 007
rights-holders weren't too happy with some remarks made on the audio
commentary and forced them to stop all production, recall any copies
from the video stores and such, and to release commentary-less
versions of the three movies.
I also have the Criterion of several Welles films, and they're quite
a treat: OTHELLO is packed to the breaking point with supplements,
presents the movie in its "pre-restored" version (before Beatrice
went and screwed around with it); both that LD, CONFIDENTIAL REPORT,
and F FOR FAKE include excellent essays by Jonathan Rosenbaum...who
*also* wrote the essay for Tati's PARADE, a surprising Criterion
release if there ever was one. Also THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and
CITIZEN KANE (their very first laserdisc).
And, of course, the excellence of David E.'s essays for several
Criterion LDs (including BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA) is well-known!
The laserdisc format is *still* the only way to see a great many
movies in the correct CinemaScope aspect ratio: THE INNOCENTS,
SEVEN WOMEN, HOME FROM THE HILL, LAND OF THE PHARAOHS, EL CID, THE
FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, just to name a few, are otherwise only
available in pan & scan tapes.
> 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).
As long as we're being un-PC, my least favorite kind of moviegoers
haunt the arthouses and Museum of Modern Art screenings. Senior
citizens with at least two of the loudest, crinkly plastic bags
imaginable; bringing their lunch and chewing their food with their
mouths open (a stupid habit that should be punishable by expulsion);
explaining the plot to whoever they came with, etc.
But then, I'm very easily irritated at the movies...so many bad
habits people have, argh!
-Jaime
11605
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:55pm
Subject: misleading subject line, explanation
I meant to respond to the whole taste/great art discussion, but
instead got caught up in laserdiscs and irritating film audiences.
Sorry for the confusion.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
11606
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:21pm
Subject: Softley, Softley
Well, Sam, as Mike indicated (and Jonathan confirmed), Softley's THE WINGS
OF THE DOVE really divides people. I like this movie also - partly because I
admire its screenwriter, Hossein Amini, greatly. Here are a few bits from a
long review of the film I did on its release (I have left out a lengthy
digression on the debate over cinematic adaptations of classic novels!):
***
THE WINGS OF THE DOVE
Iain Softley's vigorous rendition of Henry James's The Wings of the Dove is
immediately striking for its no-frills concentration on a central,
triangular dilemma. It is as if the thick veneer of costume drama detail and
the measured, ostentatious style that usually accompanies it have been
swiftly stripped away all the better to observe Kate (Helena Bonham
Carter), Merton (Linus Roache) and Millie (Alison Elliot) locked in their
deathly dance of deceit, misunderstanding and unspoken longing.
(...)
Softley and talented screenwriter Hossein Amini have produced a bold
distillation of James's novel condensing it, modernising it slightly,
sometimes making explicit what in the book is only implicit (such as an
emotionally shattering sex scene at the film's denouement). The movie is
brisk, deliberately jagged, alternating confidently between cryptic
suggestiveness and confronting drama. The acting (Carter is especially
impressive) eschews any stuffy, self-conscious, period-drama mannerisms.
This praise, however warranted, still straitjackets the film within the
contract of a basic fidelity to the original novel. Perhaps what is more
intriguing and powerful in Softley's creative response to the novel is his
acknowledgement of the cultural history that followed on from James - in
particular, popular Hollywood genres such as melodrama and the film noir.
Like Dickens, James was a crucial precursor to cinema: his rendering of
psychological intrigue and the complexities of point-of-view has nourished
filmmakers from Alfred Hitchcock to Marguerite Duras.
So this movie is notable not only for its rendering of the spirit of James,
but also for the way it layers the original story within a superbly evoked
set of references. The dark, decadent labyrinth of streets recalls
disquieting thrillers from The Third Man (1949) to The Comfort of Strangers
(1990); the brooding, ambiguous perversities of action and motive align the
film with such modern screen masters of characterisation as Andre Téchiné.
The presence of such an intertext does not cheapen or weaken the adaptation;
rather, it boosts the freshness, immediacy and resonance of the tale
qualities conspicuously missing from Jane Campion's version of The Portrait
of a Lady (1996). Softley's take on his material is surprising and
compelling - and, perhaps miraculously, it has the power and persuasiveness
to appeal to literary purists and cinema lovers alike.
***
Adrian
11607
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:24pm
Subject: Art/Entertainment/Guilty Pleasure (Was: Genroku chuushingura (was: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing))
> I don't think it productive to get into an argument over how we use
> words. You're free to use "entertainment" as you like. Here's my point,
> and I think it's something that separates me from most film lovers and
> probably from many members of this group. I think that enjoying the plot
> of an utterly artless movie -- I mean, I enjoyed E. T. well enough, I
> wanted the creature's call to "home" to succeed,, but sorry, I think
> it's otherwise pretty empty -- is a *very* different experience from
> being moved aesthetically from the interesection of imagery, movement,
> plot, acting, and music, in, to take a film most of us will agree on,
> "Vertigo."
I basically share Fred's attitude here, having been influenced early on
by the Robin Wood big-game-hunter "it's art or it's nothing" approach.
I'm not sure I believe today that there's any good reason for this
attitude, but then again that means there's no good reason for me to
reform either. Of course, one can craft one's personal aesthetic so
that the concept of art covers a lot of ground.
I used to say, like Fred, that I wasn't much interested in
entertainment. But the difficulty of defining "entertainment" in a
non-circular way now gives me pause: I can't find any objective element
of film style that corresponds to "entertainment and not art."
Fred's argument above could almost be summarized as "I don't allow
myself guilty pleasures" instead of "I don't care about entertainment."
Fred seems basically to be saying he got some kind of pleasure from E.
T. phoning home, but that he doesn't value that pleasure much, and that
he doesn't want to put that pleasure in the "art" category. I relate
completely. Quite often I sit in the theater, loathing some plot
manipulation, but still wanting it to complete according to plan, to
relieve me of whatever tension the filmmakers have created in me. Once
the problem is resolved, I feel a relief somewhere, but I dislike the
movie just as much one way or another, and I enter the whole experience
on the film's ledger of vices. Basically I'm affirming to myself that
there are pleasures I don't endorse, or pleasures I don't categorize as
art pleasures. (A good example of the latter is pornography. I like
arousal just as much as the next person, but I rarely chalk it up to a
film's credit. Somehow I developed a concept of art that has
boundaries, so that every pleasure doesn't get to be an art pleasure.
In the case of arousal, I think, "This is the same good feeling I'd have
if this were happening in real life." Whereas my idea of art involves
some distancing, some interplay of "seeming real" and "not being real.")
Again, I can no longer proselytize in favor of this approach to art.
But it's too late for me to change, and there's no special reason for me
to. - Dan
11608
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:24pm
Subject: Re: senses and sensibilities (and taste)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> The laserdisc format is *still* the only way to see a great many
> movies in the correct CinemaScope aspect ratio: THE INNOCENTS,
> SEVEN WOMEN, HOME FROM THE HILL, LAND OF THE PHARAOHS, EL CID, THE
> FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, just to name a few, are otherwise only
> available in pan & scan tapes.
>
> TCM has shown several of those in the proper aspect ratio, so
all you had to do was to tape them. Of course the laser disc is
higher quality.
JPC
>
> As long as we're being un-PC, my least favorite kind of moviegoers
> haunt the arthouses and Museum of Modern Art screenings. Senior
> citizens with at least two of the loudest, crinkly plastic bags
> imaginable; bringing their lunch and chewing their food with their
> mouths open (a stupid habit that should be punishable by
expulsion);
> explaining the plot to whoever they came with, etc.
>
> But then, I'm very easily irritated at the movies...so many bad
> habits people have, argh!
>
> -Jaime
Jaime I agree completely about the obnoxiousness of MOMA
audiences, especially some senior citizens (although I no longer live
in New York). My most vivid memory, though, is not of a noisy person
but of a smelly one. It was in the seventies or early eighties and
this grimy guy who obviously never washed always sat in the third row
which happened to be my row of choice. Even a few seats away from him
you could still smell the stench. And he was there all the time and
it went on for years... What an ordeal.
JPC
11609
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:27pm
Subject: Hyams list for Peter / Hackers/LDs/Davies
Yes, there are a lot of posts to respond to.
Peter, here is a small lists of Hyams films that have impressed me with
their techinical/compositional aspects. (Yes, 2010 is one of limited
degree.) "Timecop" was the first film to turn me on to Hyams, I saw it
projected in a theater and rather enjoyed it. I like Jean-Claude Van
Damme's screem persona (I hear he is quite unpleasent in real life) and
I thought the second film he did with Tsui Hark,"Knock Off", was
extraordianry. But I digress...
Sudden Death (1995)
Timecop (1994)
Narrow Margin (1990)
2010 (1984)
Outland (1981)
Hanover Street (1979)
As for "Hackers", I remember that the box art for the tape of the film
had a quote/blurb by Rosenbaum on the back, which is why I rented it.
However the transfer was pan and scan so I shut it off.
And Jamie, I get a little wounded when people jump from VHS to DVD
without a mention of my beloved format --I also had Beta during the
80's-- so pardon me for my assumption.
David, I will check out your link today. For me, Davies is
unquestionably one of the major filmmakers working today. (Add Tsui
Hark also.)
Michael
11610
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:39pm
Subject: Re: senses and sensibilities (and taste)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> > TCM has shown several of those in the proper aspect ratio, so
> all you had to do was to tape them. Of course the laser disc is
> higher quality.
Way ahead of you, JP! I had TCM for a while and Zach can attest
that I became a tape-aholic when we were roommates at NYU. But I
can't afford it at the moment.
Still, I try not to watch 'Scope films on tape if I can help it.
Even recorded
> Jaime I agree completely about the obnoxiousness of MOMA
> audiences, especially some senior citizens (although I no longer
live
> in New York). My most vivid memory, though, is not of a noisy
person
> but of a smelly one. It was in the seventies or early eighties and
> this grimy guy who obviously never washed always sat in the third
row
> which happened to be my row of choice. Even a few seats away from
him
> you could still smell the stench. And he was there all the time
and
> it went on for years... What an ordeal.
That does indeed sound horrible. You can't realistically ask
someone, "please stink less," the way you can ask them to stop
talking!
-Jaime
11611
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:47pm
Subject: Re: Hyams list for Peter / Hackers/LDs/Davies
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Worrall"
> And Jamie, I get a little wounded when people jump from VHS to DVD
> without a mention of my beloved format --I also had Beta during
the
> 80's-- so pardon me for my assumption.
No pardoning necessary! As much as I like the format (to tell the
whole truth, I only got into LDs *after* getting quite a large DVD
collection going), it is, alas, "dead."
Or perhaps it has been sublimated - except for the rarities (like
the Criterion laserdisc for ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS, good lord!),
they're now extremely affordable on eBay and even in a few video
stores. There's an unofficial market that's going fairly strong.
Still, it was a more than reasonable assumption to make: I'm the
only person I know, in the offline world, who collects them. It
tends to weird people out when they see my collection (which is
quite modest), and my friend Maria teases me endlessly on the rare
occasion that we watch a film on laser. (DR. STRANGELOVE: "You
have to *turn it over*?!")
-Jaime
11612
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:24pm
Subject: Re: Genroku chuushingura (was: Taste and subjectivity in film viewing)
> 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.
The irony here, I suppose it goes without saying, is that these are films, and filmmakers, that were once largely relegated (by others) to the realm of "pure entertainment," rather than "art."
While I trust Fred with these distinctions (and I wish he were inclined to make them about more of the current cinema), it's easy to remember how deceptive, in general, they can also prove to be.
11613
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Re: senses and sensibilities (and taste)
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> I've got that, it was released through the Criterion
> Collection when
> they were doing laserdiscs. Other than the presence
> of Harrison
> Ford's narration, the changes are very subtle, and
> it's difficult to
> keep track of what's different unless I view both
> versions close
> together (which I haven't done yet).
The originally released version (which is the
Criterion laserdisc) is a bit more violent than the
"Director's cut." There's no suggestion that Deckard
may be a replicant himself - which the "Director's
cut" hints at quite broadly.
Plus there are a few differentmusic cues. "If I Didn't
Care" by the Ink Spots is played during the scene
where rchel saves Deckard from Leon. It's not in the
"directors cut."
And of course there's that stupid happy ending.
The deciding
> factor as to
> which one is better will depend on whether Ford's
> narration - done
> in the style of a world-weary yet slightly cheerful
> film noir
> private eye - impresses you as "good camp" or "bad
> camp." Because
> it's quite silly.
>
And worse still, redundant.
> But no, there is no more laserdisc production, that
> I know of.
The last I know of is "Performance." As there aren't
any plans for a DVD at present, I treasure this laser
above all.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11614
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:40pm
Subject: back to Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (was Genroku chuushingura)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
>
> The irony here, I suppose it goes without saying, is that these
are films, and filmmakers, that were once largely relegated (by
others) to the realm of "pure entertainment," rather than "art."
> While I trust Fred with these distinctions (and I wish he were
inclined to make them about more of the current cinema), it's easy
to remember how deceptive, in general, they can also prove to be.
Without any illusions that I'll be joined by a legion of fellow
Spielberg supporters, I have to wonder whether Ford and Hitchcock
were scoffed at in the same manner as Spielberg is disregarded by
the cinephilic elite...and let's not forget the "overrated" young
filmmakers like PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, etc.
Would you agree, then, to resist attributing these decisions (in the
most grotesquely broad terms: "that is art, that is not") we make
to "personal taste," but keeping the "personal" angle intact? This
doesn't mesh with Fred's "being taken almost completely outside
onself" idea, which I'm still pondering. But who is to speak for
the world which exists outside of our individual selves? Who are we
when we go to that place? I can attest to having had earth-
shattering collisions with great cinematic art, but I'm still
struggling with the idea that I was very nearly not Jaime when they
occurred. But perhaps I'm still misinterpreting.
-Jaime
11615
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:06pm
Subject: spoilers for BLADE RUNNER and BRAZIL
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> And of course there's that stupid happy ending.
I'm at work now so I can't check, but isn't Gaff's (Edward James
Olmos) final line in both versions? It's pretty damning, so that
any happy ending would be complicated by the dead solid fact that
her fate would be the same no matter what. I believe BRAZIL's
ending appropriates some images and ideas from BLADE RUNNER's, and
modifies them.
Something occurred to me when I last saw the film (director's cut, a
few weeks ago). BLADE RUNNER is really about Roy, not Deckard.
Deckard isn't just a "damaged goods" kind of hero who eventually
wins in the end - no, he's almost completely stupid and bumbling,
and he survives mostly through blind luck, help from others, and
Roy's complicated reaction to his hunter (a mixture of generosity
and contempt). In this way he represents the limitations of humans
in the movie's universe - the idea that he's a replicant himself
alters this representation but doesn't invalidate it.
Roy's story, on the other hand, I now find incredibly moving and
complex, and he's rewarded with several moments of grace, grandeur,
and dignity. It took a personal choice on my part to notice the
film's real emphasis, and I wonder if anybody here shared my
epiphany?
-Jaime
11616
From:
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 2:20pm
Subject: Welles interviews
I felt the group might be interested in two Welles-related interviews I
recently conducted; they went online today as part of Issue 9 of The Film Journal.
"Remembering Welles: A Conversation With Norman Lloyd"
http://thefilmjournal.com/issue9/lloyd.html
"Making Magic With Orson Welles: A Conversation With Mike Caveney"
http://thefilmjournal.com/issue9/magic.html
Cheers,
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11617
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: back to Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (was Genroku chuushingura)
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
>Without any illusions that I'll be joined by a legion of fellow
>Spielberg supporters, I have to wonder whether Ford and Hitchcock
>were scoffed at in the same manner as Spielberg is disregarded by
>the cinephilic elite...
>
I think the idea that Ford and Hitchcock were "serious" cinema artists
was *more* scoffed at in 1964, when I first became aware of them, than
is the idea that Spielberg is to be taken seriously today. The fact that
he *is* taken seriously by many more than one member of an extremely
elite and high-quality international auteurist group, namely this one,
is evidence. In 1964, Sarris and "the French" were basically laughed at
by almost every American over the age of 25 who claimed interest in
"cinema art." It was rare that the French's "weird" tastes were even
mentioned, but when they were, we heard all sorts of theories propounded
to account for those tastes other than that the films might be great
(because Hitchcock in the like were "known" to be garbage): post-war
French American-ophilia as a result of their liberation by U.S. troops,
or the fact that the French auteurists didn't understand the dialogue
when seeing unsubtitled prints at the Cinematheque Francaise meant that
they didn't hear how stupid these films really were.
The fact that an artist is generally scoffed at has very little
long-term predictive value as to whether he or she will be regarded as
great or not in 50 or 100 years.
I suppose my "there are no rules" theory has to allow for the
possibility that a film whose style seems totally dedicated to
manipulating the audience on an "entertainment" level could still be
great -- perhaps by making such manipulation into an interesting system
in itself? -- but I've never felt such manipulations in themselves as
anything more than button pushing, and their effects just don't have
much of anything to do with my experience of Cantata No. 24 (to stay
with a current fave), whereas films as diverse as "Dog Star Man" and
"Shock Corridor" do (sorry, Stan, I realize I've set you spinning in
your grave again).
I keep insisting on Bach partly because of awareness that "music" for
many young people today means rock and pop almost entirely. I like a lot
of rock and pop, but I've never found anything that rises to anything
like the level of complexity of the greatest works of the Western
classical tradition -- or, for that matter, what little (and it's *very*
little) I've heard of classical Chinese, Japanese, and Indian music
either. I didn't have time to participate in earlier pop music threads
and I fear I'm running out of time for the next few days too, but I'd
like to suggest in all sincerity that while I could be completely wrong
about Spielberg and The Talking Heads (to pick a band I like a lot more
than Spielberg) not rising to Bach's level, I'd urge the experience of
Bach, on anyone willing. Take a great recording of "The Well-Tempered
Clavier" (Verlet is my favorite; Koopman is great; Ralph Kirkpatrick if
you can find and play the old vinyl is great too), and listen to one
prelude and fugue 5 or 10 times, including many times in a row, until
you can really hear what's happening in it --and listen, obviously, with
complete attention, without doing anything else. Then move on to the
next one, and the next. Then return to the first again.
Those "cinephilia letters" recently published in "Movie Mutations"
contain an interesting passage by Kent Jones (I found it quoted at
http://www.erratamag.com/commentary/archives/2004_03.html but the whole
letter may be on the 'Net too) about the effect of driving and looking
at landscape while listening to rock. I know this effect; I've driven on
long trips doing it. It's interesting. But I wouldn't want to take it as
a paradigm for film viewing, and it's not clear to me that Jones is, but
I think others do. A great film does much more than convey a mood: it
has an inner structure worthy of a Bach fugue (OK, try John Coltrane's
"Ascension" if you prefer jazz), and divining that requires a particular
kind of intense attention. Listening to rock is the wrong way to develop
such attention, in my view, while listening to Bach (or, if you insist
on 20th Century music, then try Ives, Schoenberg, Webern, Nancarrow,
Messaien, LaMonte Young) is the "right" way. Experiencing any work of
art isn't just a question of sensibility, as someone correctly mentioned
earlier; it also depends on the kind of attention you give it.
- Fred C.
11618
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:33pm
Subject: Re: spoilers for BLADE RUNNER and BRAZIL
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> I'm at work now so I can't check, but isn't Gaff's
> (Edward James
> Olmos) final line in both versions?
No.
It's pretty
> damning, so that
> any happy ending would be complicated by the dead
> solid fact that
> her fate would be the same no matter what.
In the original version Deckard's final narration
declares that Rachel has no expiration date.
I
> believe BRAZIL's
> ending appropriates some images and ideas from BLADE
> RUNNER's, and
> modifies them.
>
Really? Hadn't occurred to me.
> Something occurred to me when I last saw the film
> (director's cut, a
> few weeks ago). BLADE RUNNER is really about Roy,
> not Deckard.
> Deckard isn't just a "damaged goods" kind of hero
> who eventually
> wins in the end - no, he's almost completely stupid
> and bumbling,
> and he survives mostly through blind luck, help from
> others, and
> Roy's complicated reaction to his hunter (a mixture
> of generosity
> and contempt). In this way he represents the
> limitations of humans
> in the movie's universe - the idea that he's a
> replicant himself
> alters this representation but doesn't invalidate
> it.
>
> Roy's story, on the other hand, I now find
> incredibly moving and
> complex, and he's rewarded with several moments of
> grace, grandeur,
> and dignity. It took a personal choice on my part
> to notice the
> film's real emphasis, and I wonder if anybody here
> shared my
> epiphany?
>
I think you're on to something. The most curious thing
in the film is that Roy saves Deckard's life at the
precise moment when it would be easiest to let him
die.
But Roy is the one who's dying and his death is quite
moving.
I think of his as the film's protagonist in the way
that Quinlan is "Touch of Evil's" protagonist. In fact
there's a lot of Vargas vs. Quinlan in Deckard vs.
Roy.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11619
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:11pm
Subject: Re: spoilers for BLADE RUNNER and BRAZIL
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> In the original version Deckard's final narration
> declares that Rachel has no expiration date.
Dang.
>
> I
> > believe BRAZIL's
> > ending appropriates some images and ideas from BLADE
> > RUNNER's, and
> > modifies them.
> >
> Really? Hadn't occurred to me.
BRAZIL has the "happy ending that's not." But my comparison doesn't
work, now, unless one combines the two cuts of BLADE RUNNER. Or
maybe there is a relationship - in the director's cut, it ends with
the protagonists' desperate, fleeting little bit of happiness. You
could say the same thing happens with Sam Lowry.
> I think of his as the film's protagonist in the way
> that Quinlan is "Touch of Evil's" protagonist. In fact
> there's a lot of Vargas vs. Quinlan in Deckard vs.
> Roy.
That makes sense. And Jonathan Rosenbaum's discussion of Leith vs.
Brand in BITTER VICTORY was on my mind when I wrote my post - that's
actually a closer analogy, I think.
-Jaime
11620
From: Dave Garrett
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:45pm
Subject: Re: Hyams list for Peter / Hackers/LDs/Davies
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley" wrote:
> Still, it was a more than reasonable assumption to make: I'm the
> only person I know, in the offline world, who collects them. It
> tends to weird people out when they see my collection (which is
> quite modest), and my friend Maria teases me endlessly on the rare
> occasion that we watch a film on laser. (DR. STRANGELOVE: "You
> have to *turn it over*?!")
I know two other people offline who have fairly substantial LD
collections, but other than that I rarely encounter folks who
even know what they are. More than a few times I've had people
come to my house, and upon spying the racks filled with 12"
discs in my living room, comment that it's nice to see someone
still enamored of vinyl LPs. A moment of befuddlement invariably
follows when I explain that they're not LPs; "Like DVDs, but
bigger" is usually met with immediate understanding and a bit
of further curiosity.
Dave
11621
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:49pm
Subject: Re: back to Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (was Genroku chuushingura)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> The fact that an artist is generally scoffed at has very little
> long-term predictive value as to whether he or she will be
regarded as
> great or not in 50 or 100 years.
It takes energy to scoff. We're not scoffing at Gary Winick or Raja
Gosnell! This energy carries no guarantees of future value, sure,
but it indicates that there might be something there for some of us
to go out of our ways to deny!
> I suppose my "there are no rules" theory has to allow for the
> possibility that a film whose style seems totally dedicated to
> manipulating the audience on an "entertainment" level could still
be
> great
The use of "seems" seems to have given auteurists a lot of mileage
over the last forty years; films that seemed to be trash, empty
melodrama, comedic fluff, etc., are later "revealed" to be great
masterpieces.
-Jaime
11622
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:37pm
Subject: Re: back to Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (was Genroku chuushingura)
Fred Camper wrote:
> I suppose my "there are no rules" theory has to allow for the
> possibility that a film whose style seems totally dedicated to
> manipulating the audience on an "entertainment" level could still be
> great -- perhaps by making such manipulation into an interesting system
> in itself? -- but I've never felt such manipulations in themselves as
> anything more than button pushing
This is exactly how I feel about DePalma, who is quite often praised
and elevated by cineastes and autuerists. I pretty much agree with
what Fred is saying --though I "entertain" the thought that Hyams is/
was a reasonably good craftsman and I am active in writing on and
defending "disreputal" cinema. The filmmakers who showed me that film
can be a transcendental experience are: Fritz Lang (at the age of 11
when I first saw "M"), DW Griffith, Eisenstein, Maya Deren and John
Boorman. (A director I understand Fred is not big on, but I think we
all have "personal" experiences with filmmakers. Boorman's films
changed my senses and my life.)
For me, Ford and Hitchcock are very complicated filmmakers and like the
best, they can be very dialectical- qualities I do not see in
Spielberg, who tends to reduce everything with his gummy moralizing.
i I like a lot
> of rock and pop, but I've never found anything that rises to anything
> like the level of complexity of the greatest works of the Western
> classical tradition -- or, for that matter, what little (and it's *very*
> little) I've heard of classical Chinese, Japanese, and Indian music
> either.
I am a die hard early 80's wave-o, but if I had to choose give me
Mahler's 2nd.
11623
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:50pm
Subject: Re: LDs
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Garrett" wrote:
>
> I know two other people offline who have fairly substantial LD
> collections, but other than that I rarely encounter folks who
> even know what they are. More than a few times I've had people
> come to my house, and upon spying the racks filled with 12"
> discs in my living room, comment that it's nice to see someone
> still enamored of vinyl LPs. A moment of befuddlement invariably
> follows when I explain that they're not LPs; "Like DVDs, but
> bigger" is usually met with immediate understanding and a bit
> of further curiosity.
There were some laserdisc releases in Japan in 2001, one of them was
"The Phantom Menace." My disc collection has fluctuated with my
financial situations, sometimes I had to sell a few to eat, but with
people dropping discs in exchange for DVDs, their garbage has become my
treasures. I got the Criterion CAV LD of Coppola's "Dracula", which
includes an edited version of David's excellent essay on the back, for
13.00. The original list price was 125.00, something I could never
afford, and boy did I want it when it was first released because it is
one of my favorite discs and I think, despite some lapses into
incoherence, it's a great film. A love letter to silent cinema that
cloaks me in its rapturous gaze.
You can score some great discs for low prices here in SF, you just have
to know where to look.
11624
From:
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:05pm
Subject: Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste)
Ah, an opportunity to vent about one of the worst screenings of my
life! I drove up from Philadelphia to MoMA several years ago to see
MILLER'S CROSSING (still one of my favorite movies, and one I'd never
seen on the big screen). Not only did the projectionist show close to
an hour of the film wildly of frame (perhaps as much as 6-8 feet), my
complaints about which were met with a look of incomprehension and
general lassitude by the usher, but two -- count' em -- screaming
matches broke out in the middle of the screening, about what I
haven't the faintest idea. Try watching a period piece with
microphones and modern lighting visible at the top of the frame, not
to mention that cutting off any of Gabriel Byrne's face ought to be a
crime.
A close second: the revival of LE SAMOURAI several years ago, where
each of the film's prolonged silences was treated by the
father-daughter (I hope) couple behind me as an opportunity for inane
musing. It was all I could do not to turn around and shout "NO! She
does NOT look like Jacqueline Bisset!"
On those rare occasions when I end up paying for a mainstream movie,
I'm both aggravated and saddened by what the moviegoing experience
has become for the vast majority of Americans. The multiplex which
serves Philadelphia (often referred to by a variant on the un-PC term
mentioned earlier) regularly shows movies out of focus, with the
lights left on, etc. and when you emerge from the theater to
complain, there's nothing but an empty wasteland, void of any
employees. The one time I did catch one (to explain that 20 minutes
into the feature would be a good time to turn off the house lights),
she responded with a phrase I still treasure: "I'll tell the
projectionist if I see him." No wonder people would rather rent DVDs.
Don't get me started on the abomination that is stadium seating,
Sam
>
> Jaime I agree completely about the obnoxiousness of MOMA
>audiences, especially some senior citizens (although I no longer live
>in New York). My most vivid memory, though, is not of a noisy person
>but of a smelly one. It was in the seventies or early eighties and
>this grimy guy who obviously never washed always sat in the third row
>which happened to be my row of choice. Even a few seats away from him
>you could still smell the stench. And he was there all the time and
>it went on for years... What an ordeal.
>
> JPC
11625
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:27pm
Subject: Re: back to Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (was Genroku chuushingura)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> It takes energy to scoff. We're not scoffing at Gary Winick or
Raja
> Gosnell! This energy carries no guarantees of future value, sure,
> but it indicates that there might be something there for some of us
> to go out of our ways to deny!
>
I've never seen a Gary Winick or Raja Gosnell picture, but I am sure
there mmust be seemingly intelligent people out there who have
declared them cinematic masters -- particularly Gosnell's Scooby-Doo
films for a post-modern sensibility.
11626
From:
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:46pm
Subject: Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste)
>
> Don't get me started on the abomination that is stadium seating,
>
Okay. I'll bite. What the heck is wrong with stadium seating?
-Bilge
11627
From: Dave Kehr
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:22pm
Subject: Young America?
Does anyone know if Borzage's "Young America" exists? There are a
couple of interesting looking lobby cards from it on Ebay -- looks
like an early jd film -- more alienated youth from the depression.
Dave Kehr
11628
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 0:34am
Subject: Re: Young America?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Kehr" wrote:
> Does anyone know if Borzage's "Young America" exists? There are a
> couple of interesting looking lobby cards from it on Ebay -- looks
> like an early jd film -- more alienated youth from the depression.
>
> Dave Kehr
I met a guy on eBay who traffics in just about every rare Borzage you
could dream about - he sold me a halfway-decent tape of BAD GIRL.
He's such a Borzage-ophile that he even has a listing of films that FB
*acted* in, a biography in Spanish, a bunch of lobby memorabilia and
the like.
Unfortunately, looking at his list of wares, he doesn't carry YOUNG
AMERICA (nor any film called WE HUMANS, which the IMDb says is the UK
title). I can put you in touch with him if you like, perhaps he knows
for sure what the story is with that particular film. Let me know.
-Jaime
11629
From:
Date: Wed Jun 30, 2004 9:02pm
Subject: Re: back to Taste and subjectivity in film viewing (was Genro...
Damien Bona writes:
<< I've never seen a Gary Winick or Raja Gosnell picture, but I am sure
there must be seemingly intelligent people out there who have
declared them cinematic masters -- particularly Gosnell's Scooby-Doo
films for a post-modern sensibility. >>
"Never Been Kissed" (Raja Gosnell, 1999) is a pleasant little romantic
comedy. Have never seen Scooby-Doo films - or the original TV series.
I've read Charles Jencks' "What is PostModernism" (which mainly deals with
architecture and painting) and I STILL don't understand what post-modernism is.
The book is fun to read though, if you like architecture.
Mike (still stuck in Modernism) Grost
11630
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 1:26am
Subject: Re: Young America?
> Does anyone know if Borzage's "Young America" exists? There are a
> couple of interesting looking lobby cards from it on Ebay -- looks
> like an early jd film -- more alienated youth from the depression.
I've seen it - it's not bad at all. There's a print at UCLA. - Dan
11631
From: Dave Kehr
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 2:32am
Subject: Re: Young America?
Thanks, that would be great. There are a few others from that
period that I've never caught up with.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Kehr" wrote:
> > Does anyone know if Borzage's "Young America" exists? There are
a
> > couple of interesting looking lobby cards from it on Ebay --
looks
> > like an early jd film -- more alienated youth from the
depression.
> >
> > Dave Kehr
>
> I met a guy on eBay who traffics in just about every rare Borzage
you
> could dream about - he sold me a halfway-decent tape of BAD GIRL.
> He's such a Borzage-ophile that he even has a listing of films
that FB
> *acted* in, a biography in Spanish, a bunch of lobby memorabilia
and
> the like.
>
> Unfortunately, looking at his list of wares, he doesn't carry YOUNG
> AMERICA (nor any film called WE HUMANS, which the IMDb says is the
UK
> title). I can put you in touch with him if you like, perhaps he
knows
> for sure what the story is with that particular film. Let me know.
>
> -Jaime
11632
From: J. Mabe
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 3:48am
Subject: Re: Re: LD and Meixcan Films
I can find a bin of LDs in almost all the little used
record stores around town. My collection is almost
non-existent now, but I still look every time for an
LD of Bad Lieutenant, which is probably the only way I
could ever see it in proper ratio and with the excised
Schooly D song.
There has been a scene stuck in my head for the past
few weeks and I cannot place what film it is from,
though I am fairly certain it is from a Mexican film.
It is a long shot that starts on the entire village
surrounding a little television set in the middle of
town. On the TV they announce the Olympics will be
held in such-and-such city (Mexico City?). The whole
town cheers and the camera pans over to some children
running over to light some fireworks. Does anyone
know this film? It’s driving me nuts.
Josh
--- Michael Worrall wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Garrett"
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I know two other people offline who have fairly
> substantial LD
> > collections, but other than that I rarely
> encounter folks who
> > even know what they are. More than a few times
> I've had people
> > come to my house, and upon spying the racks filled
> with 12"
> > discs in my living room, comment that it's nice to
> see someone
> > still enamored of vinyl LPs. A moment of
> befuddlement invariably
> > follows when I explain that they're not LPs; "Like
> DVDs, but
> > bigger" is usually met with immediate
> understanding and a bit
> > of further curiosity.
>
> There were some laserdisc releases in Japan in 2001,
> one of them was
> "The Phantom Menace." My disc collection has
> fluctuated with my
> financial situations, sometimes I had to sell a few
> to eat, but with
> people dropping discs in exchange for DVDs, their
> garbage has become my
> treasures. I got the Criterion CAV LD of Coppola's
> "Dracula", which
> includes an edited version of David's excellent
> essay on the back, for
> 13.00. The original list price was 125.00,
> something I could never
> afford, and boy did I want it when it was first
> released because it is
> one of my favorite discs and I think, despite some
> lapses into
> incoherence, it's a great film. A love letter to
> silent cinema that
> cloaks me in its rapturous gaze.
>
> You can score some great discs for low prices here
> in SF, you just have
> to know where to look.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11633
From: J. Mabe
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 3:59am
Subject: Re: Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste)
--- ebiri@a... wrote:
> >
> > Don't get me started on the abomination that is
> stadium seating,
> >
>
>
> Okay. I'll bite. What the heck is wrong with stadium
> seating?
>
> -Bilge
Everything. I will wait to see most Hollywood product
until it plays at the crappy $1.50 second-run theater
that was built in the 70s but at least doesn't have
stadium seating. I hate looking directly at or, even
worse, down at the screen.
Josh
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11634
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 4:15am
Subject: Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
> I hate looking directly at...the screen.
Why?
-Jaime
11635
From: J. Mabe
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 4:43am
Subject: Re: Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste)
Yeah, I guess I didn’t write that very clearly.
sorry. I meant I hate stadium seating where in order
the be far enough back in the theater to see the whole
screen, you have to be seated about level with the
middle of the screen. I guess I just like the old
style of theater with the slow slope where I can have
enough distance to see the whole screen.
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe"
> wrote:
>
> > I hate looking directly at...the screen.
>
> Why?
>
> -Jaime
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
11636
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 5:00am
Subject: Re: LD and Meixcan Films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
> I can find a bin of LDs in almost all the little used
> record stores around town. My collection is almost
> non-existent now, but I still look every time for an
> LD of Bad Lieutenant, which is probably the only way I
> could ever see it in proper ratio and with the excised
> Schooly D song.
>
Where do you live? I usually go to Aomeba, because the buyer for LDs
has sobered up and has realized that most people are not going to pay
30.00 for a Criterion LD nowadays. Most of the titles that were 19.99
or 24.99 are now about 9.99. There are some small record stores that
stock a few LDs, but their prices are a bit much.
For Hong Kong/Asian films, I go to a place in South San Francisco that
has been selling them for 5.00 each. As for the "Bad Lieutenant", I
have seen it around here. Would you like me to pick it up for you?
I'd be happy to.
Michael
11637
From:
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:03am
Subject: Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste)
> I meant I hate stadium seating where in order
> the be far enough back in the theater to see the whole
> screen, you have to be seated about level with the
> middle of the screen.
Funnily enough, this is more a problem with older theatres with
stadium seating than newer ones, which tend to extend further out
towards the back of the auditorium. (I bet worries about insurance
have something to do with it -- the kind of extreme slope you're
describing can actually be sort of dangerous. I'm convinced I'm
going to plummet down an Imax auditorium one day.)
Seriously, I think the spread of stadium seating as a standard is
one of the few *good* things about the multiplexization of America.
Sight lines used to be a huge problem for me. (I'm of average height
but I like to slouch in my chair.) It sounds like you've just got
one of the bad eggs.
-Bilge
11638
From: Brian Darr
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:21am
Subject: Re: Mexican Film
Any chance it's not a Mexican film at all, but a Chinese one? The
scene as you describe it sounds awfully similar the one where the 2008
Beijing games are announced in Jia Zhang-Ke's UNKNOWN PLEASURES.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
> There has been a scene stuck in my head for the past
> few weeks and I cannot place what film it is from,
> though I am fairly certain it is from a Mexican film.
> It is a long shot that starts on the entire village
> surrounding a little television set in the middle of
> town. On the TV they announce the Olympics will be
> held in such-and-such city (Mexico City?). The whole
> town cheers and the camera pans over to some children
> running over to light some fireworks. Does anyone
> know this film? It's driving me nuts.
11639
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:28am
Subject: Fw: (no subject)
My friend Ira Hozinsky reports that the Peckinpah series, "The Westerner,"
is going to be shown on The Westerns Channel. Very good news indeed.
See below.
G
Our talk of justice is empty until the
largest battleship has foundered on the
forehead of a drowned man.
--Paul Celan
----- Original Message -----
I'm delighted to report that the Westerns Channel has acquired the rights to Sam Peckinpah's 13-episode TV series, "The Westerner." The entire series was shown at Lincoln Center several years ago as part of a Peckinpah retrospective, and it is certainly among his most satisfying accomplishments.
Here's the press release:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=238613&TICK=NCOR&STORY=/www/story/06-16-2004/0002194708&EDATE=Jun+16,+2004
Ira
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11640
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:37am
Subject: Fw: For Ever Godard
Don't know if any of you saw this announcement on other lists but it should
be of interest.
g
Our talk of justice is empty until the
largest battleship has foundered on the
forehead of a drowned man.
--Paul Celan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Witt"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 6:42 PM
Subject: For Ever Godard
> FOR EVER GODARD - book, season, events, masterclasses
>
> We are pleased to announce publication of FOR EVER GODARD, a substantial
> new interdisciplinary reassessment of the work of Jean-Luc Godard. This
> book seeks to do critical justice to the full sweep of Godard's artistic
> interests and preoccupations. It includes 22 lavishly illustrated chapters
> written by key critics from around the world, a photo essay by Philippe
> Dubois, a full visual filmography, and a preface by Raymond Bellour. Other
> contributors include Nicole Brenez, Christa Blumlinger, Vicki Callahan,
> Monica Dall'Asta, Vinzenz Hediger, Junji Hori, Laurent Jullier, Adrian
> Martin, James Quandt, Jacques Ranciere, and Trond Lundemo. FOR EVER GODARD
> is edited by Michael Temple, James S Williams, and Michael Witt. For full
> details, see:
>
> http://www.forevergodard.com
>
> To coincide with publication of this book, the Cine Lumiere at the
> Institut francais in London is staging a major season of screenings and
> special events throughout July. These include a retrospective of films,
> masterclasses by legendary cinematographer Raoul Coutard and composer
> Antoine Duhamel, and a number of introduced screenings by speakers
> including Chris Darke, Mike Figgis, Catherine Grant, Roland-Francois Lack,
> Colin MacCabe, and Douglas Morrey. The launch of the For Ever Godard book
> on Friday 2 July at 7.15pm will be followed by Raoul Coutard's
> masterclass. For full details, see:
>
> http://www.institut-francais.org.uk/general/actu.php
>
> Ciné Lumière
> Institut français
> 17 Queensberry Place
> London SW7 2DT
> UK
> www.institut-francais.org.uk
>
> RESERVATIONS: 020-7073-1350
>
>
> ***************************************************************
> Please find below the press release from the Ciné Lumière:
>
>
> FOR EVER GODARD
>
> 2 - 29 July at the Ciné Lumière
>
> Film Retrospective - Special Events - Book Launch - Masterclasses
>
> Film Retrospective: 2 - 29 July
>
> There have been many unique talents in the history of cinema, but few can
> compare with the highly individual genius that is Jean-Luc Godard. He has
> been making films for almost half of cinema's own lifetime, and it was
> clear from the start - with his dazzling debut feature, BREATHLESS, that
> he was taking film into the future even as he was honouring its past.
>
> As a new book addressing the multiple aspects of Godard's cinema is
> launched - FOR EVER GODARD (Black Dog Publishing) - we re-examine some of
> his key works in the company of filmmakers, critics, academics and
> Godard's own collaborators - Raoul Coutard and Antoine Duhamel - to
> discover how one of cinema's most notorious 'enfants terribles' has
> evolved into an elder statesman without ever losing his talent for
> invention and his taste for exuberant provocation.
>
> Our season features films from every period of Godard's mercurial career,
> and looks forward to the forthcoming release of his latest work, NOTRE
> MUSIQUE. Godard is blessed with a musical eye and a visual ear, and sound
> plays a vital role in his work: he is a determinedly audio-visual artist
> whose films bear comparison with works by the great modern composers.
> Constantly pushing the boundaries of cinema, Godard does not always
> succeed, but his failures make some others' successes appear pallid and
> empty. His films are playful, challenging, engaging, demanding,
> entertaining and illuminating, but never boring. He has been an
> inspiration for generations of international filmmakers, so much so that
> his famous 1958 declaration («the cinema is Nicholas Ray») might now be
> rewritten: for many true lovers of film, the cinema is Jean-Luc Godard.
>
> Special Events: 2 - 16 July
>
> Fri 2 July: LAUNCH EVENING
> 7.15pm FOR EVER GODARD - Book Launch
> 7.30pm Masterclass with Raoul Coutard, Godard's cinematographer
> 8.30pm First Name: Carmen
>
> Sat 3 July
> 7.30pm Masterclass with Michael Witt, co-editor of For Ever Godard
> 8.30pm JLG/JLG - intr. by Michael Witt
>
> Tue 6 July
> 8.00pm Le Petit Soldat - intr. by Roland-François Lack, contributor to
> For Ever Godard
>
> Wed 7 July
> 8.00pm King Lear - intr. by Douglas Morrey, University of Newcastle
>
> Thu 8 July
> 8.00pm Eloge de l'amour - intr. by Colin MacCabe, author of a
> biography of Godard
>
> Fri 9 July%0
> 8.00pm Weekend - intr. by Mike Figgis, film director
>
> Tue 13 July
> 8.00pm Slow Motion - intr. by Catherine Grant, contributor to For Ever
> Godard
>
> Thu 15 July
> 8.00pm Alphaville - intr. by Chris Darke, author of the forthcoming
> book ALPHAVILLE
>
> Fri 16 July
> 7.30pm Masterclass with Antoine Duhamel, Godard's Composer
> 8.30pm Pierrot le fou - intr. by Antoine Duhamel
>
>
> FOR EVER GODARD - Book Launch: Fri 2 July
>
> FOR EVER GODARD is a collective work (Black Dog Publishing), edited by
> Michael Temple, James S Williams and Michael Witt, proposing a critical
> reassessment and redefinition of Godard's entire corpus and its key role
> within contemporary culture. With 22 lavishly illustrated chapters, as
> well as a photo essay and a visual filmography, For Ever Godard aims to do
> critical justice to the full sweep of Godard's artistic interests and
> preoccupations. The volume presents material by scholars and practitioners
> from film and media studies, art history, musicology, philosophy and
> aesthetics. As an important marker of current methodologies, research and
> practice across these different disciplinary areas, For Ever Godard is an
> invaluable resource and of major importance to current discourses and
> debates on cinema and visual culture. For information on the book FOR EVER
> GODARD, please see http://www.forevergodard.com
>
> The publisher, Black Dog Publishing, can be please contacted at
> press@b...
>
> Masterclass with Raoul Coutard: Fri 2 July
>
> One of the world's greatest cinematographers, Raoul Coutard was a key
> figure in the French New Wave and one of Jean-Luc Godard's most important
> collaborators. Coutard shot 17 films for Godard - among them, Breathless,
> Alphaville, Le Mépris, Pierrot le fou and Weekend - but he was also behind
> the camera on many other major films including Jacques Demy's Lola,
> Truffaut's Jules et Jim and Costa-Gavras's political thriller Z. Still
> working in his eightieth year, Raoul Coutard will join us to discuss his
> filming experience with Godard during a collaboration that spanned 25
> years and produced some of cinema's finest masterpieces.
>
> Jean-Luc Godard, Multi-Media Artist - Masterclass with Michael Witt: Sat 3
> July
>
> One of the most remarkable aspects of Jean-Luc Godard's work is its sheer
> diversity. Over the course of his career, he has produced books, videos,
> audio CDs, written criticism, graphic collages, poems, and, of course,
> directed films. 'Everything is cinema', as he is fond of saying. In this
> richly illustrated talk, Michael Witt, co-editor of For Ever Godard,
> reconsiders Godard as a multi-media artist in the manner of Jean Cocteau
> rather than a feature film director in the lineage of Hitchcock or Hawks.
>
> Masterclass with Antoine Duhamel: Fri 16 July
>
> Antoine Duhamel is one of French cinema's busiest composers, and most
> recently provided the score for one of this summer's surprise hits, Since
> Otar Left. Over the past forty years, Duhamel has written music for more
> than 70 films by directors as diverse as Truffaut, Tavernier, Patrice
> Leconte, and - of course - Jean-Luc Godard. Duhamel's first major score
> was for Godard's Pierrot le fou, and they renewed their collaboration for
> Weekend. We are delighted to welcome Antoine Duhamel who will show
> extracts from these two major films and discuss the importance of music in
> the cinema of Jean-Luc Godard.
>
> FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: www.institut-francais.org.uk
>
> RESERVATIONS: 020 7073 1350
>
> Ciné Lumière at the Institut français
> 17 Queensberry Place
> London SW7 2DT
> T. 020 7073 1350
> www.institut-francais.org.uk
>
>
11641
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 7:25am
Subject: Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
> Yeah, I guess I didn't write that very clearly.
> sorry. I meant I hate stadium seating where in order
> the be far enough back in the theater to see the whole
> screen, you have to be seated about level with the
> middle of the screen. I guess I just like the old
> style of theater with the slow slope where I can have
> enough distance to see the whole screen.
The rules for being able to watch the whole screen have always been
the same, as our eyes havn't developed that much over the last century.
The formula for "correct" and optimal seating for watcing a film is:
Optimal distance from screen = (1,5 * diagonal width of screen)
In most cinema's, thats Row # (2/3 * number of rows).
As seats are placed in pairs, the optimal is either of the two center
seats.
If you really want to go to extremes, check your hearing to determine
how your hearing is on each ear and then adjust yourself accordingly.
If left ear is 20% lower than right ear, you chose the left center
seat to balance the channels.
Henrik
11642
From:
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 7:31am
Subject: Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste)
>
> The formula for "correct" and optimal seating for watcing a film
is:
>
> Optimal distance from screen = (1,5 * diagonal width of screen)
>
> In most cinema's, thats Row # (2/3 * number of rows).
>
Wasn't there an easier way to say two-thirds of the way back?
-Bilge
11643
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 1:04pm
Subject: Re: Welles interviews
Thanks for such fascinating interviews, Peter. l'm still pondering
Norman Lloyd's remark about Chaplin having brought us the immigrant--
a profound piece of encapsulation, I think.
Jonathan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I felt the group might be interested in two Welles-related
interviews I
> recently conducted; they went online today as part of Issue 9 of
The Film Journal.
>
> "Remembering Welles: A Conversation With Norman Lloyd"
> http://thefilmjournal.com/issue9/lloyd.html
>
> "Making Magic With Orson Welles: A Conversation With Mike Caveney"
> http://thefilmjournal.com/issue9/magic.html
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11644
From: J. Mabe
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 1:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Mexican Film
That's it exactly. The scene has been playing in my
head for weeks... but in my head everyone was Mexican.
Thanks.
--- Brian Darr wrote:
>
> Any chance it's not a Mexican film at all, but a
> Chinese one? The
> scene as you describe it sounds awfully similar the
> one where the 2008
> Beijing games are announced in Jia Zhang-Ke's
> UNKNOWN PLEASURES.
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe"
> wrote:
>
> > There has been a scene stuck in my head for the
> past
> > few weeks and I cannot place what film it is from,
> > though I am fairly certain it is from a Mexican
> film.
> > It is a long shot that starts on the entire
> village
> > surrounding a little television set in the middle
> of
> > town. On the TV they announce the Olympics will
> be
> > held in such-and-such city (Mexico City?). The
> whole
> > town cheers and the camera pans over to some
> children
> > running over to light some fireworks. Does anyone
> > know this film? It's driving me nuts.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11645
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 2:23pm
Subject: brilliant FAHRENHEIT review
Vern isn't the most polite film critic on the planet, but I think
he's some kind of genius and I don't expect anyone to write a
stronger review of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 than he has:
http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern/ReviewsF.html#f-911
Here's a link to his home page:
http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern/
-Jaime
11646
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 3:52pm
Subject: Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
I've just seen it and I really dont know where to begin, but I
wouldn't begin with that review. Its horrible, nothing but bad
language to sound smart. He should get out more than imposing his
views on readers with comments as, "I'll tell you why, you fucking
retards."
To watch "Fahrenheit 9/11" is as watching your parents have sex:
Everyone knows it happends, but you rather not think about it, let
alone see it.
Moore is surprisingly sober, has tons of background material and uses
it freely. Much is fact, but much is also pure speculations based upon
rather curious coincidences, like the entire Florida sequence. But it
really doesn't matter if he just raises his finger or puts his finger
down, what matters is, that he is showing us the big picture, and
either Moore is the greatest fantasist in history, able to bend
reality to match his purpose solely, or he is on to something. I am
inclined to belive the latter.
Now people only need to see "Control Room".
Henrik
11647
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 4:08pm
Subject: Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> I've just seen it and I really dont know where to begin, but I
> wouldn't begin with that review. Its horrible, nothing but bad
> language to sound smart. He should get out more than imposing his
> views on readers with comments as, "I'll tell you why, you fucking
> retards."
Are you talking about the film or the review I posted? Because I
don't recall anywhere in the review where he calls the reader a
fucking retard. Did you just skim it?
> To watch "Fahrenheit 9/11" is as watching your parents have sex:
> Everyone knows it happends, but you rather not think about it, let
> alone see it.
I'm not sure what this means.
-Jaime
11648
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 4:13pm
Subject: Sitting habits (was:Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste))
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
.
>
> The formula for "correct" and optimal seating for watcing a film is:
>
> Optimal distance from screen = (1,5 * diagonal width of screen)
>
> In most cinema's, thats Row # (2/3 * number of rows).
>
> As seats are placed in pairs, the optimal is either of the two
center
> seats.
>
Henrik
Good advice, as reasonable as wearing sensible shoes. However the
practice among cinephiles of my generation was (and still is to a
certain extent)to sit as close to the screen as possible in order to
be immersed in the movie. This would set cinephiles apart from the
crowd of "ordinary" moviegoers who favored sitting far away from the
screen. Only young children liked to gather in the first few rows --
so that cinephilic practice seemed to recapture a childlike sense of
wonder in the moviegoing experience. Past the age of 16 youngsters
retreated to the back rows -- and if you had a girlfriend, the very
last row was the location of choice. I remember attending a thursday
matinee in a neighborhood cinema in Paris, a show mostly for kids
(school was off on thursdays in those days in France). I was with two
friends, like me 19 or 20 years old. The movie was an old serial, "G-
Men Against the Black Dragon" or something like that. We sat in the
second row amongst the kiddies, and one of them was glancing at us in
puzzlement. He was sitting in the first row just in front of me.
Finally he turned around toward me and said, nicely and
politely: "Les grands, c'est au fond." ("The grownups sit in the
back.") (actually "les grands" in child talk means anybody a few
years older than you are).
Among extreme sitting behavior in the USA I can't forget a New York
film buff friend who not only always sat in the first row no matter
how large the screen, but would sit on the floor right below the
screen whenever possible. This was how he saw "Heaven's Gate" at the
very first public screening in New York, while I more conservatively
sat in the fifth or six row. The next day I returned to see the film
again, sensing that it would be soon withdrawn after the disastrous
premiere the previous evening, and my friend was there too, sitting
on the floor. After the show we agreed that a lot of the objections
raised by most critics especially relating to "obscurities" could be
dismissed after a second viewing. I decided to write a long defense
of the film, which was published the next month in "Cinema 80"
in France. But I digress...
11649
From: programming
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 4:27pm
Subject: Re: Sitting habits (was:Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste))
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
> wrote:
> .
>>
>> The formula for "correct" and optimal seating for watcing a film is:
>>
>> Optimal distance from screen = (1,5 * diagonal width of screen)
>>
>> In most cinema's, thats Row # (2/3 * number of rows).
>>
>> As seats are placed in pairs, the optimal is either of the two
> center
>> seats.
>>
> Henrik
Actually, as I learned from a friend's father when I was in high school,
that the best place to sit is in the far back left hand corner of the
theater because films are shot from the back left side.
Patrick F.
11650
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 4:38pm
Subject: Sitting habits
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, programming
wrote:
>
>
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
> > wrote:
> > .
> >>
> >> The formula for "correct" and optimal seating for watcing a
film is:
> >>
> >> Optimal distance from screen = (1,5 * diagonal width of screen)
> >>
> >> In most cinema's, thats Row # (2/3 * number of rows).
> >>
> >> As seats are placed in pairs, the optimal is either of the two
> > center
> >> seats.
> >>
> > Henrik
>
>
> Actually, as I learned from a friend's father when I was in high
school,
> that the best place to sit is in the far back left hand corner of
the
> theater because films are shot from the back left side.
The best place to sit in the theater, if it's a film you're seeing
again for the sake of critical reassessment, and you don't have good
memories of the previous viewing, is right on the edge of the
aisle. The greater the caution, the farther back you should sit, to
expedite a hasty exit, should it become necessary to bolt.
The best place to sit if you talk to yourself out loud, chew popcorn
with your mouth open (grown men and women who don't require diapers
do this!!), slurp your coffee, is atop the nearest flagpole.
-Jaime
11651
From:
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 4:43pm
Subject: Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
Jaime:
>
> Are you talking about the film or the review I posted? Because I
> don't recall anywhere in the review where he calls the reader a
> fucking retard. Did you just skim it?
>
Jaime, I think you're posting a Vern review in the wrong group.
Without a proper introduction to the conceptual art project that is
Outlaw Vern's Reviews of the Art of the Films of the Cinema, noone
will understand what's going on.
Also, I believe Vern uses the expression "fucking retards" to refer
to the Right. To wit:
"By the way, you will notice a catch phrase being used alot lately
by the right wing: if you are a reasonable american concerned about
what these criminals are doing to our country, then you are part
of "the blame America first crowd." This phrase even made it into a
Disney press release for some "pro-American" documentary being
advertised as an antidote to "Michael Moore's blame America first
documentary Fahrenheit 9-11." I'm sorry, I like that fucking mouse
with the red pants as much as anybody. I love the pirate ride and
the splash mountain and everything. But I wouldn't take that kind of
bullshit even if it came from animatronic Abe Lincoln himself. This
is a movie defending American ideals from those who are happy to
wipe their asses with them. And I'm sorry, if you consider that to
be "anti-American", then you are a fucking retard. I know, I know, I
promised to stop using that word. But I conferred with various
retarded people and they all agreed yes, please Vern, call these
people retards, because that's what they are."
[Please note, for all those skimming these posts, I am only
*quoting* that review. Those aren't my words.]
-Bilge
11652
From:
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 0:57pm
Subject: Re: brilliant FAHRENHEIT review
Can someone give a brief description of Outlaw Vern's concept? As rants, I
suppose the reviews are furious enough. But as film criticism, they're terrible.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11653
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 5:01pm
Subject: Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
> Jaime, I think you're posting a Vern review in the wrong group.
> Without a proper introduction to the conceptual art project that
is
> Outlaw Vern's Reviews of the Art of the Films of the Cinema, noone
> will understand what's going on.
It's true that Vern's work may not be the best fit for this group,
but I just felt that the review deserves to be read. Rough edges
(that I presume are intentional) aside, he's very thorough and
cogent in articulating what *should* be on the mind of everyone who
gives a rat's ass about what's going on with the administration, the
war(s), and everything else. In short, Vern cuts through all the
bullshit and I think we need that.
-Jaime
11654
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 5:03pm
Subject: Re: brilliant FAHRENHEIT review
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Can someone give a brief description of Outlaw Vern's concept? As
rants, I
> suppose the reviews are furious enough. But as film criticism,
they're terrible.
You should read his poetry!
-Jaime
11655
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 5:19pm
Subject: Heaven's Gate (was Sitting habits )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
After the show we agreed that a lot of the objections
> raised by most critics especially relating to "obscurities" could be
> dismissed after a second viewing. I decided to write a long defense
> of the film, which was published the next month in "Cinema 80"
> in France. But I digress...
JP - I had screwed up on my typing last time and referred to you as JC,
sorry- would that defense be available in English? I unfortuantely do
not read or speak French and I would very much like to know what you
wrote.
The PFA is having a series on Westerns here, but I do not know if they
are showing Heaven's Gate. There is/was a screening in NYC which makes
me want to pack up my bags and move just for that reason.
Michael
11656
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 5:28pm
Subject: Re: Sitting habits (was:Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste))
> Among extreme sitting behavior in the USA I can't forget a New York
> film buff friend who not only always sat in the first row no matter
> how large the screen
There's a film buff in NYC named Bob Kalish who usually sits first-row
center - is that your friend? - Dan
11657
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 5:35pm
Subject: Sitting habits (was:Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste))
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> There's a film buff in NYC named Bob Kalish who usually sits first-
row
> center - is that your friend? - Dan
Bob Kalish: if I have the right guy, he promised me tapes of Andre
de Toth's five Hungarian features, and promptly forgot about it.
Later I was made to understand that he'll only give out tapes for
trades, that he doesn't want anything he's seen already or has
already, and that he's seen and has everything.
I don't wish to badmouth him, but needless to say I was pretty
disappointed.
I met him at the MoMA screening of that "General Electric Theater"
episode that Nick Ray directed. (It stars Thomas Gomez and Joseph
Cotten and it's quite good.)
-Jaime
11658
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:07pm
Subject: Fwd: "Hallelujah, I'm a Bum" (1933)
Note: forwarded message attached.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11659
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate (was Sitting habits )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Worrall"
wrote:
...
>
> JP - I had screwed up on my typing last time and referred to you as
JC,
> sorry- would that defense be available in English? I unfortuantely
do
> not read or speak French and I would very much like to know what
you
> wrote.
>
>
> Michael
Unfortunately not. No one wanted to read a defense of Heaven's
Gate in the US at the time, and it didn't even occur to me to
approach any of the American film mags. The piece was the first
published on the film in France (a couple of months before its
release there) and I think it made a bit of a splash (Todd McCarthy
even mentioned it in "Variety"!) I believe that at the time I was the
only person writing about the film who bothered to see it twice. What
prompted me to write the piece was the superficiality and outright
meanness of the American critics. I titled it, a bit
pompously, "Elegy for a Stillborn Masterpiece".
JPC
11660
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Sitting habits (was:Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste))
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Among extreme sitting behavior in the USA I can't forget a New
York
> > film buff friend who not only always sat in the first row no
matter
> > how large the screen
>
> There's a film buff in NYC named Bob Kalish who usually sits first-
row
> center - is that your friend? - Dan
YES! It's Bob indeed! He no longer sits on the floor? If you see him
say hello from me. I think he should join our group, but I lost
contact with him when I moved from New York.
JPC
11661
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:29pm
Subject: I was beginning to wonder if this forum was a No Fahrenheit 9-11 Zone
In any case thanks for linking that essay. Reading the first
paragraph of it, I don't know if it's brilliant, but it has chutzpah.
Personally I've gotten the most out of Stuart Klawans' review in The
Nation:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040712&s=klawans
Which isn't surprising since he and Jonathan Rosenbaum (author of my
second favorite F 9-11 article) were the ones who made me change my
reaction to BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE from one of abject disgust (of the
Tracking Shot in Kapo variety) to guarded appreciation (such that one
could even argue for FAHRENHEIT 9-11 in a way that both critiques and
reinforces Serge Daney).
I thought Armond White's objection to F 9-11 was quite provocative,
that is until I saw the movie, and then it came off like a bunch of
hot air. Critics like him and Christopher Hitchens in Slate try to
come off as conscientious objectors to Moore's over-the-top tactics,
but they end up sounding just as grandstanding and self-serving.
I'm in the midst of a massive debate about this movie on another
thread -- when it dies down I might sew together the highlights of my
thoughts into a salient post over here.
11662
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:32pm
Subject: Sitting habits (was:Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste))
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> > There's a film buff in NYC named Bob Kalish who usually sits
first-
> row
> > center - is that your friend? - Dan
>
> Bob Kalish: if I have the right guy, he promised me tapes of Andre
> de Toth's five Hungarian features, and promptly forgot about it.
> Later I was made to understand that he'll only give out tapes for
> trades, that he doesn't want anything he's seen already or has
> already, and that he's seen and has everything.
>
> I don't wish to badmouth him, but needless to say I was pretty
> disappointed.
>
> I met him at the MoMA screening of that "General Electric Theater"
> episode that Nick Ray directed. (It stars Thomas Gomez and Joseph
> Cotten and it's quite good.)
>
> -Jaime
Hey Jaime it's really a small world! I mention anonymously a friend
who used to sit first row in New York and both you and Dan come up
with his name!
I'm not surprised he has seen everything and has everything. He
used to tape everything tapeable (commercials and all)and I don't
know anybody who was present at more screenings. At the time he gave
me tapes without asking for anything in exchange (I still have them,
but they're pretty murky). But people change.
Do you have his e-mail by any chance? I'd like to say hello.
JPC
11663
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:33pm
Subject: Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
Never heard of this Vern guy, but he sounds like a libertarian
version of Jimmy Kimmel. Me likes.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
> Jaime, I think you're posting a Vern review in the wrong group.
> Without a proper introduction to the conceptual art project that is
> Outlaw Vern's Reviews of the Art of the Films of the Cinema, noone
> will understand what's going on.
Hey, I thought "the art of the Films of the Cinema" was coined by
Jeff Vorndam aka vornporn. Hate it when someone bites off someone
else's coolness (though Jeff is still tres cool).
11664
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:34pm
Subject: Re: Sitting habits (was:Re: sense and sensibilities (and taste))
> YES! It's Bob indeed! He no longer sits on the floor? If you see him
> say hello from me. I think he should join our group, but I lost
> contact with him when I moved from New York.
I've never seen him sit on the floor, but then I'm usually a few rows
further back, and don't watch his movements carefully.... I know him
slightly - I'll pass along your greetings when I see him. - Dan
11665
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:43pm
Subject: Re: I was beginning to wonder if this forum was a No Fahrenheit 9-11 Zone
Thanks for the Klawans review, Kevin -- Stewart is a very good film
critic, and I too rarely get to read him. I fear CdC will probably
trounce F911.
11666
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:49pm
Subject: Halfway through the cinematic wonders of 2004...
A year when the top-grossing American film so far is in a foreign
language with subtitles, and a documentary breaks box office records
and outgrosses all other documentaries on its opening weekend, it's
safe to say that this is not your typical year in movies. And we're
just halfway through! In any case, I don't know about you, but so far
I've had a wonderful experience with many new films I've seen in
2004, enough to take a moment to note them before I am further
overwhelmed by the rest of the year. Here are my favorites (non-2004
IMDb release dates noted):
Before Sunset (Richard Linklater)
Vibrator (2002, Hiroki Ryuichi)
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry)
South of the Clouds (Zhu Wen)
Take Care of My Cat (2001, Jeong Jae-Eun)
My Architect (2003, Nathaniel Kahn)
Fahrenheit 9-11 (Michael Moore)
Goodbye Lenin! (2003, Wolfgang Becker)
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002, Park Chan-wook)
15 (2003, Royston Tan)
The Passion of the Christ (the apostle Mel)
The Return (2003, Andrei Zvyaginstev)
The Twilight Samurai (2003, Yoji Yamada)
11667
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 6:56pm
Subject: 2004 list-in-progress and for JP
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
> A year when the top-grossing American film so far is in a foreign
> language with subtitles, and a documentary breaks box office
records
SHRED 2, Kev.
My favorites, some of which I've written about on a_film_by:
1 KILL BILL, VOL. 2 (Quentin Tarantino)
2 ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (Michael Gondry)
3 FATHER AND SON (Alexander Sokurov)
4 ZATÔICHI (Takeshi Kitano)
5 DOPPELGÄNGER (Kiyoshi Kurosawa)
6 PLAYING 'IN THE COMPANY OF MEN' (Arnaud Desplechin)
7 MEAN GIRLS (Mark S. Waters)
8 SPARTAN (David Mamet)
9 GUEST ROOM (Skander Halim)
10 THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS (Lars von Trier and Jørgen Leth)
11 BRIGHT FUTURE (Kiyoshi Kurosawa)
Some of these are "technically" 2003 or '02 films but to make my
life easier I don't become a stickler for correct dating until the
list is at least two or three years old.
JP, if Dan is unable to get you in touch with Bob, you might also
ask Jack Angstreich, whose e-mail address is listed in the a_film_by
member directory. I can't say whether or not he knows Bob better
than Dan, but he was present at the "de Toth tapes incident."
-Jaime
11668
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 7:02pm
Subject: Re: I was beginning to wonder if this forum was a No Fahrenheit 9-11 Zone
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Thanks for the Klawans review, Kevin -- Stewart is a very good film
> critic, and I too rarely get to read him. I fear CdC will probably
> trounce F911.
Do you think it's that they are taken the cue given by JL GODard's
comments during Cannes?
Among the many things that bugged me about Armond White's essay
(linked here for your reference:
http://www.nypress.com/17/25/film/ArmondWhite.cfm) is his referencing
Godard to declaim Moore: "Moore doesn't distinguish between text and
image. He doesn't know what he's doing." If I've learned anything
from watching JLG's films, it's that text often IS image and vice
versa. I think if there's an objection to make about Moore's film,
it's not about image vs. text, but context.
It's become fashionable among certain self-consciously conscientious
liberals to trounce Moore's film and its liberal supporters on
certain moral, aesthetic or political grounds. I think they have
legitimate reservations that are worth making, but I can't help but
think that they are being as reactionary as they accuse Moore of
being.
11669
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 7:10pm
Subject: A Cartoon Ogre beat Jesus Christ?? You gotta be kidding me!!!
Mel pounded Caviezel into a bloody pulp and hung him on a cross!!!
What more could the public want??? Puss in Boots???
Anyway, I knew I was missing something, thanks for pointing out:
> 10 THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS (Lars von Trier and Jørgen Leth)
possibly von Trier's best film, or at least one that sheds a
brilliant new light on his entire career. I'm tempted to put this at
#1. It's interesting that so many of my favorite films (BEFORE
SUNSET, THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS, MY ARCHITECT, FAHRENHEIT, GOODBYE
LENIN, THE PASSION) have to do with revisiting, revising, or
revitalizing the past. Julie Delpy has a great quote in BEFORE
SUNSET that goes something like, "I love memories, I just hate the
past."
11670
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 7:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: I was beginning to wonder if this forum was a No Fahrenheit 9-11 Zone
--- Kevin Lee wrote:
> Do you think it's that they are taken the cue given
> by JL GODard's
> comments during Cannes?
>
> Among the many things that bugged me about Armond
> White's essay
> (linked here for your reference:
> http://www.nypress.com/17/25/film/ArmondWhite.cfm)
> is his referencing
> Godard to declaim Moore: "Moore doesn't distinguish
> between text and
> image. He doesn't know what he's doing." If I've
> learned anything
> from watching JLG's films, it's that text often IS
> image and vice
> versa. I think if there's an objection to make
> about Moore's film,
> it's not about image vs. text, but context.
Godar'dpissed because Moore has what used to be his
audience -- and MORE!
>
> It's become fashionable among certain
> self-consciously conscientious
> liberals to trounce Moore's film and its liberal
> supporters on
> certain moral, aesthetic or political grounds. I
> think they have
> legitimate reservations that are worth making, but I
> can't help but
> think that they are being as reactionary as they
> accuse Moore of
> being.
>
>
These creatures aren't liberals.
They're Hitchensites.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11671
From:
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 7:51pm
Subject: Re: Sitting habits
Ah, one of my favorite and nerdiest topics. I prefer the row in which
your range of vision most closely approximates the screen -- i.e.,
you can take in the entire image without turning your head (not true
in the front row) but can seen nothing else. Of course, the distance
increases with widening aspect ratio, though it's paradoxically
highest for 1:33 movies, since the creator didn't see fit to stack
our eyes one on top of the other.
As for stadium seating -- maybe all right when the screen is
positioned correctly. But looking down on the screen -- and the folks
below text-messaging their friends, checking their watches, etc. --
is just plain wrong. To paraphrase one of JLG's less insane aphorisms
is, we look down on television, but we look up at a movie screen.
Stadium seating reduces cinema to the level of a very large TV. I
find it surprising how many people have bought into the notion that
the people who designed movies theaters had their heads up their
asses for 90 years, and only now -- huzzah! -- have we discovered how
we should have been watching all along. Which, apparently, is in a
shoebox.
Sam
11672
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 8:03pm
Subject: now I remember what I wanted to tell you David
During the trailers before my screening of F911, this one preview
came on and it was amazing -- so rich in imagery, set design, and
then the famous music -- it was the screen version of Andrew Lloyd
Webber's PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. Now I'm not even a fan of this
musical, but this trailer was so sumptuous it made my mouth water!
But then, at the very end came the dreaded words:
A FILM BY JOEL SCHUMACHER
And I couldn't help but exclaim "Oh, God!". And in doing so I
triggered a wave of laughter throughout the packed audience! I didn't
realize that Schumacher had that much of a reputation!
11673
From:
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 8:10pm
Subject: Re: F9/11
I was extremely disappointed in how few American critics challenged
the terms Moore set for the movie's "success": if it scores points
off Bush, it's worthwhile, end of story. It's idiotic to claim (as
Vern the ranting looney does) that everyone who raises criticisms of
the movie is a rabid right-winger. While Armond White's politics make
no more sense than Christopher Hitchens', he raised valid points
about the film that virtually no other review did, such as that the
supposedly infamous My Pet Goat moment makes Bush a more, not a less
sympathetic character. I couldn't dislike the Shrub more, but as you
watch the anguish in his eyes, I think you inevitably flash back to
your own reaction to Sept. 11, and essentially superimpose the two:
you're empathizing with George W Bush. (Given that I spent a couple
of hours periodically calling home from Toronto to make sure my cat
was all right, perhaps I'm just loath to criticize others' reactions
on that day as illogical.) It may be the first time I've ever thought
of Bush as a human being.
To my eyes, Moore pulls his real punches: F9/11 hints at a much
broader criqitue of the American class system than the movie is
ultimately willing to engage, because that would be to admit that GWB
is only a symptom of the problem, and not its root. Of course, that
wouldn't make much of a "Bush-out" argument, so Moore downplays the
class-war stuff, presumably because he thinks it won't play in the
sticks.
I'm pretty close to paraphrasing my own review, so I'll just post a
link if anyone wants to read more. And by the way, can anyone tell me
what "the difference between text and image" is?
http://citypaper.net/articles/2004-06-24/movies.shtml
Sam
11674
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 8:17pm
Subject: Re: F9/11
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
> supposedly infamous My Pet Goat moment makes Bush a more, not a
less
> sympathetic character. I couldn't dislike the Shrub more, but as
you
> watch the anguish in his eyes, I think you inevitably flash back
to
> your own reaction to Sept. 11, and essentially superimpose the
two:
> you're empathizing with George W Bush. (Given that I spent a
couple
> of hours periodically calling home from Toronto to make sure my
cat
> was all right, perhaps I'm just loath to criticize others'
reactions
> on that day as illogical.) It may be the first time I've ever
thought
> of Bush as a human being.
That's extremely interesting, Sam, thanks for that.
> To my eyes, Moore pulls his real punches: F9/11 hints at a much
> broader criqitue of the American class system than the movie is
> ultimately willing to engage, because that would be to admit that
GWB
> is only a symptom of the problem, and not its root.
But are those his real punches, or yours? There's a way to
articulate "the b.s. of the American class system" in such a way
that it's recognizable to the greatest number of people in the
audience, and I think this is Moore's bread and butter:
popularizing a thing or tapping into pre-existing popular notions.
(Probably more the latter.) He doesn't strike me as the Howard Zinn
type, if that's what you're getting at.
-Jaime
11675
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 8:35pm
Subject: Re: now I remember what I wanted to tell you David
Ah yes "The Mark of Quality."
--- Kevin Lee wrote:
> During the trailers before my screening of F911,
> this one preview
> came on and it was amazing -- so rich in imagery,
> set design, and
> then the famous music -- it was the screen version
> of Andrew Lloyd
> Webber's PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. Now I'm not even a
> fan of this
> musical, but this trailer was so sumptuous it made
> my mouth water!
> But then, at the very end came the dreaded words:
>
> A FILM BY JOEL SCHUMACHER
>
> And I couldn't help but exclaim "Oh, God!". And in
> doing so I
> triggered a wave of laughter throughout the packed
> audience! I didn't
> realize that Schumacher had that much of a
> reputation!
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11676
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 8:32pm
Subject: Re: Sitting habits
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
> looking down on the screen -- and the folks
> below text-messaging their friends, checking their watches, etc. --
> is just plain wrong. To paraphrase one of JLG's less insane aphorisms
> is, we look down on television, but we look up at a movie screen.
But it used to be common for movie theaters to have steep balconies -- often larger than the orchestra section. This generally involved looking down at the screen, more or less, no? New York's Gramercy is (or was?) one surviving example.
11677
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 8:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: F9/11
--- samadams@e... wrote:
While Armond
> White's politics make
> no more sense than Christopher Hitchens', he raised
> valid points
> about the film that virtually no other review did,
> such as that the
> supposedly infamous My Pet Goat moment makes Bush a
> more, not a less
> sympathetic character.
Why?
HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND ALL HE
DOES IS SIT THERE LIKE A FUCKING FOOL!!!
I couldn't dislike the Shrub
> more, but as you
> watch the anguish in his eyes, I think you
> inevitably flash back to
> your own reaction to Sept. 11, and essentially
> superimpose the two:
> you're empathizing with George W Bush. (Given that I
> spent a couple
> of hours periodically calling home from Toronto to
> make sure my cat
> was all right, perhaps I'm just loath to criticize
> others' reactions
> on that day as illogical.)
Bush doesn't give a shot about you or your cat. Hell,
he doesn't give a shit about his own fucking family!
He doesn't have to "turn into Russel Crowe" as more
than one moron has suggested. Say goodbeye to the kids
and get to work DAMN IT!!!
It may be the first time
> I've ever thought
> of Bush as a human being.
>
Well he's not. He's a Letroid from Planet 10. Isn't
that obvious?
> To my eyes, Moore pulls his real punches: F9/11
> hints at a much
> broader criqitue of the American class system than
> the movie is
> ultimately willing to engage, because that would be
> to admit that GWB
> is only a symptom of the problem, and not its root.
> Of course, that
> wouldn't make much of a "Bush-out" argument, so
> Moore downplays the
> class-war stuff, presumably because he thinks it
> won't play in the
> sticks.
>
No it's because it's only one film. Why run all over
the map?
Had he done what you're suggesting you'd attack him
for lack of clarity.
Admit it: you can't stand the fact that you've been
hoodwinkewd. You don't want to believe just how
CRIMINAL America has become under BushCo.
We now know what it was like to live under Third
Reich.
And now you're going to go all Nicholas Kristoff on me
-- right Sam?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11678
From:
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 4:48pm
Subject: Re: Fwd: "Hallelujah, I'm a Bum" (1933)
In a message dated 7/1/04 1:28:03 PM, cellar47@y... writes:
> Note: forwarded message attached.
>
It wasn't attached.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11679
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 9:12pm
Subject: Re: F9/11
It's always good to hear from you Sam.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
> I was extremely disappointed in how few American critics challenged
> the terms Moore set for the movie's "success": if it scores points
> off Bush, it's worthwhile, end of story. It's idiotic to claim (as
> Vern the ranting looney does) that everyone who raises criticisms
of
> the movie is a rabid right-winger.
Actually the most heated disagreements I've had about this film are
with liberals who think the film is an egregious misrepresentation of
the facts and a reactionary call to arms pandering to liberal guilt
trip cliches about the exploited underclass. Let me know if you'd
like to see these discussions (they're not pretty).
While Armond White's politics make
> no more sense than Christopher Hitchens', he raised valid points
> about the film that virtually no other review did, such as that the
> supposedly infamous My Pet Goat moment makes Bush a more, not a
less
> sympathetic character.
I had White's description in my mind as I watched the sequence, and
at most I'd have to say it's a blank expression that can be
interpreted in any direction, anguish, stupor, ignorance, composed
reflection, whatever. On the one hand, I can see how he could be too
stunned to really react other than stick to the script, and I could
even sympathize with that kind of reaction as you and Armond are
saying. On the other hand, for crying out loud, you're the freaking
President of the United States, you should know how to take a time
out and get your people on the phone to find out what the hell's
going on. If you want to be considerate to the kindergarteners all
you have to say is "Excuse me for a moment". But this is all
interpretation, which Moore has a right to do every bit as much as
anyone else.
It may be the first time I've ever thought
> of Bush as a human being.
My first time was upon hearing that anecdote about how he crashed his
car on the front lawn of his dad's house and challenged Sr. to a mano-
a-mano. Who could blame him?
> To my eyes, Moore pulls his real punches: F9/11 hints at a much
> broader criqitue of the American class system than the movie is
> ultimately willing to engage, because that would be to admit that
GWB
> is only a symptom of the problem, and not its root. Of course, that
> wouldn't make much of a "Bush-out" argument, so Moore downplays the
> class-war stuff, presumably because he thinks it won't play in the
> sticks.
Funny, in that the people I've been arguing with say that Moore makes
too much of the class issue -- to them the invasion of Iraq wasn't
about profiteering or exploiting the underclass, but in establishing
a starting point for an outmoded Cold War democracy agenda to spread
across the Middle East. Now THAT, criticizing a pro-democracy
campaign, is something that won't play in Peoria.
There are an infinite number of ways to "improve" upon Moore's
narrative so that it might better reflect each person's view of
what's accurate and fair. The mind reels from possibilities. And
for me that's the real point. I guess my umbrella conclusion (one
articulated by Klawans and Rosenbaum) is that this cinematic act of
reckless overstimulation is valuable in and of itself -- for me
getting Bush out of office isn't the real value of this film so much
as it's deeply entrenched and deeply trenchant engagement with the
world, far more engaged than any other new film I can think of.
I'll read your review now and post further if I have additional
responses. Thanks for sharing it
Kevin
11680
From:
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 5:12pm
Subject: Re: now I remember what I wanted to tell you David
In a message dated 7/1/04 3:04:22 PM, alsolikelife@y... writes:
> it was the screen version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.
>
> A FILM BY JOEL SCHUMACHER
>
You WERE in bed having a bad dream, right, Kevin? Then you woke up and, whew,
it WAS indeed a nightmare? Right? Yes? Please?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11681
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 9:22pm
Subject: Re: F9/11
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
>
> > supposedly infamous My Pet Goat moment makes Bush a more, not a
> less
> > sympathetic character. I couldn't dislike the Shrub more, but as
> you
> > watch the anguish in his eyes, I think you inevitably flash back
> to
> > your own reaction to Sept. 11, and essentially superimpose the
> two:
> > you're empathizing with George W Bush. (Given that I spent a
> couple
> > of hours periodically calling home from Toronto to make sure my
> cat
> > was all right, perhaps I'm just loath to criticize others'
> reactions
> > on that day as illogical.) It may be the first time I've ever
> thought
> > of Bush as a human being.
>
> That's extremely interesting, Sam, thanks for that.
>
Maybe the issue here is the film's demonizing of Bush, as if he
wasn't allowed for a minute to be a human being. It's worth noting
that Moore is doing to Bush what Bush did to Saddam Hussein -- making
him an all-purpose villain. You know, this issue was raised in
Rosenbaum's critique of THE FOG OF WAR: "if [Errol] Morris made a
movie about the relative culpability of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney in
the miscalculations of the Iraq war, it might not be all that helpful
either." I'd say it would be EXTREMELY helpful, as I pull my hair
out trying to figure out just what these idiots are up to, and how
they would come off under the intense gaze of Morris' Interrotron.
(Morris and Moore are both very skillful at letting people talk until
they hang themselves by their own rope -- it's kind of devious
actually, and calls into questions the ethics of documentary
interviewing technique).
11682
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 9:31pm
Subject: Re: Fwd: "Hallelujah, I'm a Bum" (1933)
Sorry, I'll have to find that link again. It was a
piece about the film that appeared in -- of all places
-- the Daily News. For no particular reason.
It wasn'ta hit and Jolson himself didn't like it
--probably beaucse it wasn't a hit. But he's truly
teriffic in it and the Rodger & Hart score is sublime.
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 7/1/04 1:28:03 PM,
> cellar47@y... writes:
>
>
> > Note: forwarded message attached.
> >
>
> It wasn't attached.
>
> Kevin John
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11683
From:
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 5:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: F9/11
I agree with David 100% on this one. The Shrub gets paid, what, like $400,000
a year (I thought it was half that) to get off his ass and respond to such a
situation immediately. That's his job. I had no sympathy for him at all. I was
pissed (not at Moore, natch) because I thought he DID get off his ass
immediately.
And, yes, it's only one film. The avalanche of info is near impossible to
absorb on one screening and you want MORE? How many films have this much to say
to begin with?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
11684
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 9:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: F9/11
--- Kevin Lee wrote:
.
> >
> Maybe the issue here is the film's demonizing of
> Bush, as if he
> wasn't allowed for a minute to be a human being.
He's had three and a half years to prove himself a
human being -- and he's failed.
> It's worth noting
> that Moore is doing to Bush what Bush did to Saddam
> Hussein -- making
> him an all-purpose villain.
Will you stop with the "mainstream" boilerplate that
"he's just as bad as Limbaugh"!
He's FAR too kind to Bush, IMO.
You know, this issue
> was raised in
> Rosenbaum's critique of THE FOG OF WAR: "if [Errol]
> Morris made a
> movie about the relative culpability of Bush,
> Rumsfeld, and Cheney in
> the miscalculations of the Iraq war, it might not be
> all that helpful
> either." I'd say it would be EXTREMELY helpful, as
> I pull my hair
> out trying to figure out just what these idiots are
> up to, and how
> they would come off under the intense gaze of
> Morris' Interrotron.
> (Morris and Moore are both very skillful at letting
> people talk until
> they hang themselves by their own rope -- it's kind
> of devious
> actually, and calls into questions the ethics of
> documentary
> interviewing technique).
>
Morris' "interrogation technique" has its limits.
Severe limits. He lets McNamarra sit there and lie
about the Gulf of Tonkin.
Why?
Would it have been "unfair" of him to point out to
McNamarra that he's A FUCKING LIAR?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11685
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 9:40pm
Subject: Re: brilliant FAHRENHEIT review
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> Vern isn't the most polite film critic on the planet, but I think
> he's some kind of genius and I don't expect anyone to write a
> stronger review of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 than he has:
> Jaime
Although I tend to agree with most of what he says, I wouldn't
exactly call his piece a review of FAHRENHEIT 9/11. What it is is a
long diatribe by a Bush-hating leftist. He makes lots of good points
but keeps veering away from the film to rant and vent about the evil
Bush administration. Also, I don't think his constant use of four
letter words (I stopped counting "fuck"s and "fucking"s after the
sixth or seventh) and other profanities much helps his thesis.
Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.
JPC
11686
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 10:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: brilliant FAHRENHEIT review
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> Although I tend to agree with most of what he
> says, I wouldn't
> exactly call his piece a review of FAHRENHEIT 9/11.
> What it is is a
> long diatribe by a Bush-hating leftist. He makes
> lots of good points
> but keeps veering away from the film to rant and
> vent about the evil
> Bush administration.
Because the film has inspired him. It's just like
wanting to become a ballerina after seeing "The Red
Shoes."
Just a tad easier on the toes.
Also, I don't think his
> constant use of four
> letter words (I stopped counting "fuck"s and
> "fucking"s after the
> sixth or seventh) and other profanities much helps
> his thesis.
> Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.
>
Perhaps.
When it comes to Bush, "fuck" is such an inadequate
word.
(My contemptuous anger is limitless.)
Especially as Cheney has hijacked it.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11687
From: Noel Vera
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 10:39pm
Subject: Re: Sitting habits
I know someone who loves sitting in the front
row--David Bordwell. Every Hong Kong film festival
you'll see him in the same spot, around fifteen
minutes early, staring at the screen as if willing it
to turn on. He's nice enough and he'll talk
extensively during the walks to and fro screenings,
but when he sits down in the theater there's only him
and the movie screen.
Which is how it should be, I suppose.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
11688
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 10:40pm
Subject: inspired to experiment!! (was Re: F9/11)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
> I had White's description in my mind as I watched the sequence, and
> at most I'd have to say it's a blank expression that can be
> interpreted in any direction, anguish, stupor, ignorance, composed
> reflection, whatever.
Kevin, I hope you and the other list-members enjoy this little photo
essay I just put together in honor of your observation:
http://www.filmwritten.org/experiment.htm
The Kuleshov experiment!
-Jaime
11689
From:
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 7:22pm
Subject: Re: Sitting habits (Balcony, DFT, Godzilla)
The Detroit Film Theater has a balcony. This is the giant, 1,150 seat movie
palace style auditorium at the Detroit Institute of Arts (our giant art
museum). It was built at the DIA in 1927, at the same time that real movie places
were built. I love sitting in the balcony. It makes me feel like a kid again -
the long-gone Michigan Theater in Lansing had a balcony, too.
A new season of the DFT will start in a few weeks, with the original Godzilla
- 40 minutes longer than the standard US version.
Godzilla - Uncut! Uncensored! Undubbed!
(trailer slogan)
Mike Grost
11690
From:
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 7:38pm
Subject: The Return (Andrey Zvyagintsev)
The Return (Andrey Zvyagintsev, 2003) left me with mixed feelings. Much of it
is well directed, with moody, poetic landscape sequences in the Tarkovsky
tradition.
SPOLIER coming!
But the way the film is structured as a mystery story, without a solution, is
really annoying. Like Twin Peaks, this really makes you work, keeping track
of all sorts of apparent "clues". Then there is no solution, and you are left
hanging! It is a real schuck.
Neither "L'Avventura" nor "Picnic at Hanging Rock" explain their mysteries
either, but both spend much more time on their characters' responses to the
tragedy. They are not filled with fake clues and dangling plot threads.
Mike Grost
11691
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 11:44pm
Subject: perhaps they were
As my memory / cognition get betterm, I can pretty much block out most
talking in movies at this point by just concentrating on the movie.
(probably a skill from blocking out crying babies when trying to do
something in the ER)
A few years back at a crowded film festival screening, one lady talked
the entire movie, vocalizing what was happening, what was going to
happen, etc. It was a mediocre movie, neither it or the comments were
of much consequence. Afterwards, I asked the woman if she realized she
commented through out the movie. She sort of nodded yes, and said
something like she didn't care what I thought. I replied something
like "I was wondering whether you are aware of your commenting or
whether you are merely rude. Now I know you are merely rude!" She
left in a huff... apparently she cared about something!
The most annoying movie-goer for me used to be the 40-70 year old
female who "oohed, ohed, aahed, ahed, or whatever through out the
movie." I wanted to turn to such women and tell them to go home and
have an orgasm. Then I thought, perhaps they were (having an orgasm)!
One of my favorite expressions from medical school days: It is very
hard to know what goes on in the hearts and minds of other people,
(especially when they are watching a movie in the theater -- my recent
addendum to the saying, especially as I am now
reading VICKY LEBEAU's Psychoanalysis and cinema, The play of the
shadows. Anyone familiar with this book or her work.
11692
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 11:45pm
Subject: One Plus One
Later in the month, BAMCinematek is screening Godard's 'One Plus One'
-- in their program calendar, they list it next to the parenthesized
title, "(Sympathy for the Devil)." Does anyone know whether this means
it's just going to be a print of the bowdlerized film 'Sympathy for the
Devil,' or in fact will be Godard's cut, 'One Plus One'?
Also, Elliott Stein will be introducing the restored version of John
Ford's 'Gideon of Scotland Yard' in its American premiere later in the
month.
(An Assayas-curated series about films-with-inspiring-soundtracks
follows in August, called "I Can Hear the Guitar...")
craig.
11693
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 11:47pm
Subject: Re: The Return (Andrey Zvyagintsev)
>
> But the way the film is structured as a mystery story, without a
> solution, is
> really annoying. Like Twin Peaks, this really makes you work, keeping
> track
> of all sorts of apparent "clues". Then there is no solution, and you
> are left
> hanging! It is a real schuck.
I had no idea 'The Return' was structured as a mystery story when I was
watching it -- and didn't notice any clues as such either.
I thought the film was a minor masterpiece.
craig.
11694
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Fri Jul 2, 2004 0:00am
Subject: Re: F9/11 secret service
My understanding is that the only person the POTUS needs to
follow orders from (other than the people) is the secret service.
I imagine that there is a whole 'training protocol' that is
indoctrinated into the presidential candidates when they first
get acquainted with the secret service, and one that is fully
exercised when actually in office.
I suspect Bush was appropriately waiting for that protocol
to be set up by the secret service.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
> I think you inevitably flash back to
> your own reaction to Sept. 11, and essentially superimpose the two:
> you're empathizing with George W Bush. (Given that I spent a couple
> of hours periodically calling home from Toronto to make sure my cat
> was all right, perhaps I'm just loath to criticize others' reactions
> on that day as illogical.) It may be the first time I've ever thought
> of Bush as a human being.
> Sam
11695
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jul 2, 2004 0:08am
Subject: Re: One Plus One
Outside of the title the only difference between the
two cuts is that in "Sympathy for the Devil" the song
plays through to the end and the credits are run over
a freeze frame of the last shot -- Anne Wiazemsky
covered in fake blood lifted aloft on the "Sam Mighty"
crane.
Incidentally producer Eleni Collard originally
contracted Godard to make a film supporting legalized
abortion. There's nothing about abortion in the film
Godard made.
See also Godard's "King Lear" by Norman Mailer.
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> Later in the month, BAMCinematek is screening
> Godard's 'One Plus One'
> -- in their program calendar, they list it next to
> the parenthesized
> title, "(Sympathy for the Devil)." Does anyone know
> whether this means
> it's just going to be a print of the bowdlerized
> film 'Sympathy for the
> Devil,' or in fact will be Godard's cut, 'One Plus
> One'?
>
> Also, Elliott Stein will be introducing the restored
> version of John
> Ford's 'Gideon of Scotland Yard' in its American
> premiere later in the
> month.
>
> (An Assayas-curated series about
> films-with-inspiring-soundtracks
> follows in August, called "I Can Hear the
> Guitar...")
>
> craig.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11696
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jul 2, 2004 0:09am
Subject: Re: Re: F9/11 secret service
--- Elizabeth Anne Nolan wrote:
> My understanding is that the only person the POTUS
> needs to
> follow orders from (other than the people) is the
> secret service.
> I imagine that there is a whole 'training protocol'
> that is
> indoctrinated into the presidential candidates when
> they first
> get acquainted with the secret service, and one that
> is fully
> exercised when actually in office.
> I suspect Bush was appropriately waiting for that
> protocol
> to be set up by the secret service.
>
>
Oh really? Then he shows a deference to the secret
service not shared by his daughters!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
11697
From: Damien Bona
Date: Fri Jul 2, 2004 0:18am
Subject: Re: brilliant FAHRENHEIT review
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
Also, I don't think his constant use of four
> letter words (I stopped counting "fuck"s and "fucking"s after the
> sixth or seventh) and other profanities much helps his thesis.
> Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.
Not old-fashioned, just a gentleman of the old school. I stopped
reading the guy's essay after the fourth paragraph because if someone
is so puerile that he can't express himself without resorting to a
constant barrage of "fuck"s and "assholes," then I have no interest
in what he has to say. High-school level eloquence.
11698
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jul 2, 2004 1:44am
Subject: Decline of the American Empire (was: Re: brilliant FAHRENHEIT review
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> Also, I don't think his constant use of four
> > letter words (I stopped counting "fuck"s and "fucking"s after the
> > sixth or seventh) and other profanities much helps his thesis.
> > Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.
>
>
> Not old-fashioned, just a gentleman of the old school. I stopped
> reading the guy's essay after the fourth paragraph because if
someone
> is so puerile that he can't express himself without resorting to a
> constant barrage of "fuck"s and "assholes," then I have no interest
> in what he has to say. High-school level eloquence.
Thanks, I was beginning to think I was alone ("I'll walk alone,
because to tell you the truth I am lonely...") I feel this constant
spewing of obscenities by everybody who thinks it's cool is part of
a general crumbling down of this society's standards and it fits in
with themes that have been discussed on this Line recently like the
incredibly rude and vulgar behavior of movie audiences, the
incredibly sloppy way people dress and act and generally present
themselves, the incredibly low tastes in music and I could go on and
on. But I won't. Maybe someone would up and tell me: "If you don't
like it here go back where you come from." (I've been considering it,
actually).
JPC
11699
From:
Date: Fri Jul 2, 2004 1:49am
Subject: Decline of the American Empire (was: Re: brilliant FAHRENHEIT review
JPC:
> >
> >
> > Not old-fashioned, just a gentleman of the old school. I
stopped
> > reading the guy's essay after the fourth paragraph because if
> someone
> > is so puerile that he can't express himself without resorting to
a
> > constant barrage of "fuck"s and "assholes," then I have no
interest
> > in what he has to say. High-school level eloquence.
>
> Thanks, I was beginning to think I was alone ("I'll walk alone,
> because to tell you the truth I am lonely...")
>
I guess this is the part where we point out that Outlaw Vern is not
a real person.
-Bilge
11700
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Jul 2, 2004 1:55am
Subject: Decline of the American Empire (was: Re: brilliant FAHRENHEIT review
It's perfectly fine for you guys to be put off by the f-words. While
I don't agree with your conclusions in the least (and I'd point out
that plenty of young people like more "correct" music like classical
music and jazz and avoid cursing), for me to call certain list-members
reactionary and fuddy-duddies for whatever reasons would just be an
unhelpful and destructive response to the way it's implied from your
perspective that my tastes are low, my crude language indicates a poor
grasp of worthy ideas (which may be true regardless), and that I'm
further pushing our (by which I mean, your) civilization to the brink
of collapse. I'd rather let you have your digs and break the circle
of generational hostility instead of perpetuating it. So come on, old
guys and gals, take your best shot. I'll happily play the role of
martyr for a few f-words and the crappy pop music that I don't even
listen to.
Oh and...
You think you're lonely? Welcome to the crowd.
"I am alone but I am not lonely."
Robert De Niro, HEAT (1995)
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> > wrote:
> > Also, I don't think his constant use of four
> > > letter words (I stopped counting "fuck"s and "fucking"s after the
> > > sixth or seventh) and other profanities much helps his thesis.
> > > Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.
> >
> >
> > Not old-fashioned, just a gentleman of the old school. I stopped
> > reading the guy's essay after the fourth paragraph because if
> someone
> > is so puerile that he can't express himself without resorting to a
> > constant barrage of "fuck"s and "assholes," then I have no interest
> > in what he has to say. High-school level eloquence.
>
> Thanks, I was beginning to think I was alone ("I'll walk alone,
> because to tell you the truth I am lonely...") I feel this constant
> spewing of obscenities by everybody who thinks it's cool is part of
> a general crumbling down of this society's standards and it fits in
> with themes that have been discussed on this Line recently like the
> incredibly rude and vulgar behavior of movie audiences, the
> incredibly sloppy way people dress and act and generally present
> themselves, the incredibly low tastes in music and I could go on and
> on. But I won't. Maybe someone would up and tell me: "If you don't
> like it here go back where you come from." (I've been considering it,
> actually).
>
> JPC
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact