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.
12401
From:
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:41am
Subject: Re: Van Sant Psycho (was auteur remake auteur)
Very interesting observations about the two versions of Psycho, by Noel Vera!
The color in Van Sant's remake is fascinating. It is a mixture of blue and
red-orange, with an occasional bit of cool lime green thrown in. This is a color
scheme with a long history. It appears in such 1950's films as "A Star is
Born" (Cukor, 1954) and William Castle's Western "Masterson of Kansas" of the
same year. Later Vincente Minnelli used it in "The Reluctant Debutante" (1958)
and "Some Came Running" (1959).
Contemporary filmmakers who employ it regularly include Pedro Almodóvar and
Gus Van Sant. Their films are symphonies contructed out of the two colors. I
went to see Van Sant's "Psycho" twice, the second time just to watch the colors
unfold on screen. One can also see a variation on this color design in
"Trainspotting" (Danny Boyle).
The other notable aspect of the remake is the "orientation reversal". Norman
Bates is played by a gay man in Hitchcock, and his victim Janet Leigh is a
straight woman; in Van Sant's remake, we have a straight Norman Bates and a gay
woman as victim. This reverses a long and extremely dubious tradition in
Hitchcock, in locating the abnormal in the gay - see "Rope" or "Saboteur", for
example.
I tried to get co-workers to go see Van Sant's "Psycho" in 1998, when it came
out. They were adamant that they Did Not Want to See It. I have no idea why!
Perhaps the ad campaign was too succesful. It painted the remake as the
ultimate and most scary horror film, and maybe people thought the film would put
them through some sort of trauma. Actually, it was just a fascinating drama. In
any case, it proves once again the truth of Billy Wilder's dictum, "If the
public doesn't want to see a film, nothing can stop them".
Mike Grost
12402
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:21am
Subject: Re: The Greatest Films Never Made
> Another great unmade film is Tashlin's plan to turn
> Alexander King's "May This House Be Safe From Tigers"
> into a vehicle for Tony Randall.
Yeah, I read the script extract in the Tashlin book, then found a
copy of the original memoir. Nobody's idea of obvious film material -
except maybe Tashlin's! Would love to read the whole script somehow.
There's a FANTASTIC thriller outline by Frances Marion reproduced in
Eisner's Murnau book. You can imagine the whole thing - a fatalistic
noir in the style of SUNRISE, revolving around the hero's attempts to
free himself from a set of handcuffs.
Part of me kind of wishes Ken Russell had gotten to make his
Beethoven film too. His composer movies are not my favourites, but
that subject would have been really interesting...
12403
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:27am
Subject: Re: The Greatest Films Never Made (Bresson?)
That is so incredibly evocative - it's ALMOST better than having a
finished film.
Since there are published authors among us, may I suggest a book of
100 unmade films? I think such a work would be commercial,
fascinating, and melancholy.
12404
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:40am
Subject: Re: Preminger The Sadist (Was: auteur remake auteur)
> > I've always been struck by, despite all the reports of Preminger
> > being a complete monster on the set, how many actors returned to
> work with him again, incluing Henry Fonda, Peter Lawford, David
> Niven, Franchot Tone, Patrick O'Neal and Burgess Meredith who made
6 pictures with the director.
Niven worked with Wyler twice, and hated it both times. His attitude
was always "I'm a terrible actor, so if anyone offers me a film I'm
just delighted to be asked." Modest chap.
Most directors who are bullies pick one or two hipping boys and
remorselessly torture them, leaving the rest of the cast and crew
safe unless they fuck up. Most of those not persecuted are willing to
work with the director again if the film turns out well.
>
> Has there been a major director whose reputation has suffered more,
> due to a combination of his real-life personality and celebrity
> status, than Preminger's?
I think the German/Austrian bullies suffered more than the likes of
Ford, who could certainly be a bastard, due to a bit of xenophobia
remaining from the world wars. I remember that episode of Young
Indiana Jones where Stroheim is a heavy and Ford is a good guy,
purely because of ethnic and commercial differences.
But Lang's rep as filmmaker was not so greatly dented by his well
known difficultness, and Wilder and Wyler were almost unblemished,
despite driving actors to despair. Either Preminger's nastiness was
genuinely monumental, or it combined with his fondness for self-
promotion to create the impression of a whip-weilding showman,
overhsadowing his considerable skills.
> Instead, more talk gets generated and more ink gets spilled over
how
> he was mean to Marilyn Monroe or Jean Simmons
Again, Wilder was mean to MM and Wyler to JS, but the bad behavious
remains a mere footnote to the work. Mankiewicz and Huston were both
unpleasant to Monty Clift but it doesn't invalidate their
achievements.
>But I wonder if the talk of his personality at the
> EXPENSE of the work will ever stop?
It's FUn talking about his (awful) personality. I wonder if there's
genuinely a dislike for his films among us - I think they're often
magnificent - rather than them being masked by his reputation?
Maybe a Preminger poll is called for?
12405
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:46am
Subject: Re: Preminger The Sadist (Was: auteur remake auteur)
> There are countless stories of sadistic behavior by directors. How
> many Jean Renoir types are there among filmmakers?
I think even jean's reputation may be earned partly by his very
appealing appearance and manner in interviews. He would reputedly
yell at crewmembers if they spoke to the actors.
Film directors need to have a certain amount of steel in them, and
it's often the case that pressure from above is passed on to the cast
and crew in the form of abuse.
Directors who seem at least reasonably nice on set: Lubitsch, Sirk,
Haynes, Lester, Keaton.
Preston Sturges seems to have kept his bad temper for his private
life, running his sets like big parties.
I've never heard anything bad about Siodmak or Bunuel (apart from LB
killing animals early in his career).
12406
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:49am
Subject: Re: Preminger The Sadist (Was: auteur remake auteur)
> Here's what John Wayne said about Sternberg: "I was scared shitless
> of him." I don't think he was joking.
Yeah, but John Wayne was a pussy. Mitchum told Jo where to go.
Of course, Sternberg's I CLAUDIUS kinda qualifies as a great unmade
film, as well as the peace film he was working on before his nervous
collapse.
12407
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:53am
Subject: Re: Farrow (Was: auteur remake auteur)
> special dollies and cranes built for him and he reportedly had
> devised a take that ran over 10 minutes for CALIFORNIA, requiring a
> special magazine. Actually there is no ten-minute take in the
> released film (perhaps a result of editing)
Sounds interesting - I'd like to see it. It should be possible to
psot if cutaways have been inserted into a longer takes, unless it's
been done as thoroughly as the opening of LADY FROM SHANGHAI, for
instance.
Must see NICK BEAL.
12408
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 0:55pm
Subject: Re: Farrow (Was: auteur remake auteur)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
> > special dollies and cranes built for him and he reportedly had
> > devised a take that ran over 10 minutes for CALIFORNIA, requiring
a
> > special magazine. Actually there is no ten-minute take in the
> > released film (perhaps a result of editing)
>
> Sounds interesting - I'd like to see it. It should be possible to
> psot if cutaways have been inserted into a longer takes, unless
it's
> been done as thoroughly as the opening of LADY FROM SHANGHAI, for
> instance.
>
> Must see NICK BEAL.
The two continuous takes from CALIFORNIA I mentioned are self-
contained and come to a logical end -- there doesn't seem to be any
stuff removed. They run respectively for 4 minutes 25 and 4 minutes
30, quite an unusual length at the time... and they're very busy with
action and camera moves. However CALIFORNIA is not very good, but
NICK BEAL is great. JPC
12409
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: Farrow (Was: auteur remake auteur)
> The two continuous takes from CALIFORNIA I mentioned are self-
> contained and come to a logical end -- there doesn't seem to be any
> stuff removed. They run respectively for 4 minutes 25 and 4 minutes
> 30, quite an unusual length at the time... and they're very busy with
> action and camera moves. However CALIFORNIA is not very good, but
> NICK BEAL is great. JPC
I actually kind of like CALIFORNIA, though I wouldn't want to pump up
its rep too much. Contrariwise, THE BIG CLOCK and ALIAS NICK BEAL have
their limitations and problems, I'd say. To me, FIVE CAME BACK and even
YOU CAME ALONG might compete with them as Farrow's best.
I remember most of Farrow's tracks in CALIFORNIA and elsewhere as being
lateral tracks, following long sideways movements. Is that your memory
too, Jean-Pierre, or does he mix it up more than that? - Dan
12410
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Preminger The Sadist (Was: auteur remake auteur)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
"Either Preminger's nastiness was genuinely monumental, or it
combined with his fondness for self- promotion to create the
impression of a whip-weilding showman, overhsadowing his considerable
skills."
The question is, how did Preminger get this nasty reputation? The
earliest anti-Preminger remarks I've come across date from 1961 and
come from the publicist Ezra Goodman and have to do with Preminger's
self-promotion. Next Leon Uris objects to Preminger characterizing
his novel "Exodus" as chauvinistic and implying that his film version
is better than Uris's novel (which is true.) On the other hand, his
1962 interview with the "Movie" editors was friendly and informative
and showed his liberal-progressive politics, so among cinephiles of
that era his reputation was good. But each time a Preminger movie
opened it was accompanied by some snide anti-Otto squib in one of the
Hollywood gossip columns. Then I recall seeing him on tv debating
William F. Buckley on "Firing Line" circa 1968 and he seemed cool and
collected and gentlemanly (the topic was movie censorship.) Most
recently there was Kirk Douglas's harsh description of Otto in his
autobiography.
My hypothesis is that a director gets charcterized as a sweetheart or
a sadist at some point in his or her career(whether the evidence
bears out the characterization or not)and then a complex of anecdotes
and folklore get built up to support the caricacture. Sometimes it's
challenged: at the time of the release of the "restored" VERTIGO
Kenneth Turan wrote an appreciation article for the LA Times and
casually mentioned Hitchcock's sadistic treatment of Kim Novak by
making her do take after take of jumping into the bay, wherupon
Joseph McBride answered in a letter and cited the daily production
log showing that only 3 takes were done.
"Mankiewicz and Huston were both unpleasant to Monty Clift but it
doesn't invalidate their achievements."
Then there's the story of Huston baiting 60 year old Clark Gable into
chasing and roping the mustangs on THE MISFITS in 110 degree heat
(and Gable's fatal coronary shortly thereafter.) Is it true or just
more folklore?
"It's FUn talking about his (awful) personality. I wonder if there's
genuinely a dislike for his films among us - I think they're often
magnificent - rather than them being masked by his reputation?
"Maybe a Preminger poll is called for?"
Preminger made several great movies and many excellent ones. As to
his awful personality, maybe he was genuinely awful when at work on
the set and completely different when not working. I'm looking
forward to reading Chris Fujiwara's Preminger biography; maybe it
will answer some of these questions.
Richard
12411
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:00pm
Subject: Bob Clark?
To my shame (or not) I've only a few faded memories of A CHRISTMAS
STORY. But his filmography on the Internet Movie Database is
something to behold. Clark's uneven - to say the least - career
spans PORKY'S (and its first sequel), MURDER BY DECREE, DEATHDREAM,
CHILDREN SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS, an episode of
Spielberg's "Amazing Stories," BLACK CHRISTMAS, as well as Judd
Nelson vehicles (FROM THE HIP), one of Jack Lemmon's Oscar
nominations (TRIBUTE), the only known film to star Dolly Parton and
Sylvester Stallone (RHINESTONE), as well as two BABY GENIUSES films
(the second will be released in the US in September.
Bob Clark! Discuss!
-Jaime
12412
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Bob Clark?
> Bob Clark! Discuss!
I haven't followed his entire career, but I think he's a talented guy.
DEATHDREAM is by far my favorite of his films (I haven't seen BLACK
CHRISTMAS), but he managed to show some personality even in the thick of
Hollywood - perhaps not enough to make his films good, but enough to
make them interesting. PORKY'S, A CHRISTMAS STORY, and RHINESTONE are
rowdy, a little reflexive, and easy to watch. On the negative side, he
didn't always have good judgment about how much energy and how much
sadism was too much. If I'd started with TRIBUTE, PORKY'S II, or TURK
182, I might not have gone any further. - Dan
12413
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:39pm
Subject: Re: Farrow (Was: auteur remake auteur)
If you die without having seen California, your life will have in no
way been diminished. It's a big-budget Paramount western with a
completely juvenile script that seemed as if it were written for a
crummy little B movie. Farrow's long tracking shots are distinctive,
but they don't serve any particular purpose. The one interesting
aspect of the film are some tableau-like, folk music numbers which
are very odd indeed.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
> > special dollies and cranes built for him and he reportedly had
> > devised a take that ran over 10 minutes for CALIFORNIA, requiring
a
> > special magazine. Actually there is no ten-minute take in the
> > released film (perhaps a result of editing)
>
> Sounds interesting - I'd like to see it.
12414
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:42pm
Subject: Re: Bob Clark? NOW and FOREVER
NOW and FOREVER starts with a 'movie scene' within
the movie that creates the wrong atmosphere for the
rest of the movie.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> he didn't always have good judgment about how much energy and how much
> sadism was too much. If I'd started with TRIBUTE, PORKY'S II, or TURK
> 182, I might not have gone any further. - Dan
12415
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 5:51pm
Subject: Re: Preminger The Sadist (Was: auteur remake auteur)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> The question is, how did Preminger get this nasty reputation? The
> earliest anti-Preminger remarks I've come across date from 1961 and
> come from the publicist Ezra Goodman and have to do with
>Preminger's self-promotion.
I can remember as a kid in the 60s hearing from my parents what a
horrible human being Otto Preminger was -- and this despite the fact
that Laura was my Dad's favorite movie.
Over the years, I've come to conclude that this persona was one that
he purposefully cultivated and relished -- and one he added to by
even playing a villain, Mr. Freeze, on the Batman series.
As for how he may heave treated actors and crew members, well
whatever it took for Premingfer to create such great films as Fallen
Angel, Daisy Kenyon, Angel Face and The Human Factor (for starters),
it was worth it.
In addition to those already mentioned, some actors who seem to have
been loved by their casts and crews include Mitchell Leisen, Blake
Edwards and Robert Aldrich.
12416
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:45pm
Subject: Re: Preminger The Sadist (Was: auteur remake auteur)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
"Over the years, I've come to conclude that this persona was one that
he purposefully cultivated and relished -- and one he added to by
even playing a villain, Mr. Freeze, on the Batman series."
It's certainly possible. I had forgotten about Mr. Freeze. He cast
himself as a Nazi in the play and film of MARGIN FOR ERROR (1943) and
played Nazis in THE PIED PIPER (1942,) THEY GOT ME COVERED (1943) and
STALAG 17 (1953.) I probably first heard of Otto Preminger from the
early 1960s national tv broadcast of STALAG 17, and no doubt many
people associated him with that role.
Richard
12417
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:01pm
Subject: Re: 1000 Eyes (was: One Sunday Afternoon/ An Affair to Remember vs. Love Affair)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> > wrote:
> > > I was at that one too -- but I was probably out in the hall
getting
> > > stoned w. John Hughes while you guys weren't talking to each
other.
> > > >
>
> You probably had to turn on out in the hall because someone else
(possibly me) was locked in the bathroom turning on there. Seriously
(while I basically felt it was probably no more deserving of any
special acknowledgment than, say, "coffee, brandy or cigars") I've
always wondered if anyone has written coherently about its effects
(although I've always suspected it worked differently for different
people) on appreciation of the arts, and film in particular. And
here I don't mean "head" films, but films in general, and
particularly the kind shown at the Thousand Eyes.
The two things were one for my group -- John, Susie, Ronnie and
Derek. The same phenomenon did not exist at all in France. John and I
asked Moullet, who surprised us by saying he never smoked
for "technical reasons." I stopped long ago, but I can report (with
mixed feelings) that my stepson is now doing exactly what I did at
his age. At least I'm supplying the movies, so maybe we'll get a good
cameraman or director out of it when he's seen everything and decides
he's had enough of the other.
Incidentally, black and white and old movies have played no role
whatsoever in his education, by his choice. The day he discovers pre-
70s cinema, I'll know he has gotten some really good shit. Actually,
it will probably have to happen in a theatre. I took him to see The
Spirit of St. Louis at the Cinematheque and he loved it. The big
screen is still the ultimate high.
12418
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:09pm
Subject: Re: One Sunday Afternoon (was: An Affair to Remember vs. Love Affair)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Fujiwara"
wrote:
> I haven't seen One Sunday Afternoon in a long time and remember it
> only vaguely, but it seems clear that any attempt to come to terms
> with the film would have to account for the presence of Dennis
> Morgan - an actor who, I think, never elevated anything he was in
He's pretty much the key to One Sunday Afternoon, although the
overall form is adjusted to accomodate and reflect his disabilities,
which become the subject of the film. He was ok in Walsh's Cheyenne,
as I recall, but certainly not great.
12419
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:20pm
Subject: Re: Bob Clark?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Bob Clark! Discuss!
We already did. A search will turn up an earlier thread. I like Clark
myself -- Greg Ford was a fan, too, as I recall. But Monsieur Fred is
not a fan. As I noted in the thread, certainly one of the greatest
movies never made was Clark's adaptation of Henry Miller's The Rosy
Crucifixion, with a script by Norman Mailer.
12420
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:12pm
Subject: Re: Dennis Morgan (was One Sunday Afternoon)
>
> > And he and Jack Carson (another very underrated
> > performer) made a
> > wonderful team.
> >
> Jack Carson is a profoundly important screen actor.
> His performances in "Mildred Pierce" and "A Star is
> Born" should be studied far more closely than anything
> Brando ever did.
Please add Curtiz's Roughly Speaking to that list. And his Hugo
Barnstead in Strawberry Blonde is not exactly chopped liver.
12421
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:43pm
Subject: Re: Preminger The Sadist (Was: auteur remake auteur)
> "Over the years, I've come to conclude that this persona was one that
> he purposefully cultivated and relished -- and one he added to by
> even playing a villain, Mr. Freeze, on the Batman series."
>
> It's certainly possible. I had forgotten about Mr. Freeze. He cast
> himself as a Nazi in the play and film of MARGIN FOR ERROR (1943) and
> played Nazis in THE PIED PIPER (1942,) THEY GOT ME COVERED (1943) and
> STALAG 17 (1953.) I probably first heard of Otto Preminger from the
> early 1960s national tv broadcast of STALAG 17, and no doubt many
> people associated him with that role.
The odd thing is that he was a fixture on talk shows (at least by the '70s), where he came across as obstreperous but hardly a Nazi, and his persona there (however difficult to reconcile with the glories of his films) must have become at least as widely known as the roles he played.
12422
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:59pm
Subject: Re: Farrow (Was: auteur remake auteur)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I remember most of Farrow's tracks in CALIFORNIA and elsewhere as
being
> lateral tracks, following long sideways movements. Is that your
memory
> too, Jean-Pierre, or does he mix it up more than that? - Dan
He does mix it up. In one scene Milland is followed laterally as
he gives some kids a variety of tasks, then gives advice to a man who
is fixing a wheel, then goes on to reprimand Stanwyck for wasting
water to wash her hair, then continues on to Barry Fitzgerald with
whom he has a conversation about planting vines in California; THEN
they both walk away followed by a track forward until they are met by
a third man with whom they have a long talk about the length of the
trip... Quite amazing! There's another, complicated one-take scene in
a saloon where Stanwyck sings and moves from table to table while
Milland meet a man and sit at a table where they are joined by a
third, then a fourth, and a fight between Milland and the third man
starts...
JPC
12424
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 11:34pm
Subject: Re: auteur remake auteur
My apologies, I press the sent button too early. Can
that post be deleted?
Thanks Mike, interesting stuff about Psycho's color
scheme. Hitchcock also used vivid red and greens in Vertigo.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
12425
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:28am
Subject: Gossip and auteurism
Is there a thin line between auteurism and gossip? Or a thick line?
Or no line at all? I feel a bit uneasy about all this recent stuff
about Preminger's personal behavior. I am not saying this is totally
devoid of interest or merit, but shouldn't we be discussing other
things here?
Of course someone could object that when I -- for example -- exchange
Cole Porter lyrics with David on this Line, I am just equally
frivolous. I don't know how to counter that. Except that it's done in
fun and I don't see any fun about rehashing how nasty OP was or was
not both on and off the set.
JPC
12426
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:41am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> Is there a thin line between auteurism and gossip? Or a thick line?
> Or no line at all? I feel a bit uneasy about all this recent stuff
> about Preminger's personal behavior. I am not saying this is totally
> devoid of interest or merit, but shouldn't we be discussing other
> things here?
>
> Of course someone could object that when I -- for example -- exchange
> Cole Porter lyrics with David on this Line, I am just equally
> frivolous. I don't know how to counter that. Except that it's done in
> fun and I don't see any fun about rehashing how nasty OP was or was
> not both on and off the set.
As you might have noticed, David E.'s gossip-heavy posts irked me in
the beginning, but I've softened quite a bit, now I enjoy them even if
I don't necessarily understand some of his one-liners.
So the gossip is great. I don't have a problem with it at all.
The thing is, though, if some of the older cinephiles and auteurists
here could make an extra effort to connect every other juicy tidbit
back to the actual films themselves, that would be a great help to the
younger folks (like myself) who are often still trying to come to
terms with, say, the significance of Preminger's (whole, not just
brutish) personality as it relates to the character development and
contours and framing and music in DAISY KENYON, ANATOMY OF A MURDER,
LAURA, SKIDOO, and so on.
Two things you older guys and gals have on us youngsters: (1) you
were around when most of this stuff happened, or you talked to
somebody who was around (like one of my production teachers, whose
husband delighted in telling people that he'd once had dinner
with...*Raoul Walsh*!!), and (2) you were around when a lot of these
films opened, or had their big retrospective, or you used to go to
some theater that was "the spot" back in your time but has since
closed, etc.
I'm not attacking nostalgia. I'm only saying it sometimes makes me
feel a bit like there's a party going on and I'm in the corner, just
sort of watching. Would help if those of us who were born after
1970-5 were given a reason to join in the fun.
-Jaime
12427
From:
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:43pm
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
Am not big on goissip either. Would second JPC's recent post, expressing
doubt over the value of gossip.
Mike Grost
12428
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:06am
Subject: auteur remakes and what not
Speaking of remakes, Jonathan Demme's THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE is
hooooorrible !!!!!!
Of all exercises in exercising auteur admiration, this is one of the worst, most
pointless, most forgettable -- but leaving that aside, I feel very ambivalent about the
way Demme casts regulars like Ted Levine and Charles Napier (and countless,
countless others) to deliver one or two (totally pointless) lines, so they are, I presume,
paid a salary per SAG rules... is this not shameless? Well, the whole thing has the
feeling of one huge soulless effort to achieve a paycheck, this is just one of the
smaller details where it seeps through.
Not the first, surely, but this is a slightly longwinded way of saying I've lost what
already little admiration I had for Demme.
Gabe
12429
From:
Date: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:05pm
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
Jaime writes:
"you were around when most of this stuff happened, or you talked to somebody
who was around"
I was there when Alice Guy made the first fiction film, "The Cabbage Fairy",
in 1896. And later on, when she raised Louis Feuillade from a pup.
Just joking! (I was born in 1953...)
Actually I think both JPC and Jaime are in agreement: thinking about the
mystery of Preminger's visual style is the most fascinating thing of all.
Mike Grost
12430
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:57am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> >
> I'm not attacking nostalgia. I'm only saying it sometimes makes me
> feel a bit like there's a party going on and I'm in the corner, just
> sort of watching. Would help if those of us who were born after
> 1970-5 were given a reason to join in the fun.
>
> -Jaime
The party's not going on, Jaime -- the parade's gone by. Have your
on party. You're young, you can wallow in nostalgia 30 years from
now. Just allow the old-timers to reminisce. I think a lot of us do
make an effort to connect our memories to something that may make
sense to the new-comers. Maybe not enough. But I for one is not here
to teach.
JPC
12431
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:02am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"Is there a thin line between auteurism and gossip? Or a thick line?
Or no line at all? I feel a bit uneasy about all this recent stuff
about Preminger's personal behavior. I am not saying this is totally
devoid of interest or merit, but shouldn't we be discussing other
things here?"
As one who's contributed to the Preminger personal behavior thread I
take your point. Robin Wood is fond of quoting D. H.
Lawrence: "Never trust the artist, trust the tale," but these days
the personality of the artist rightly or wrongly has become something
of an index of the artist's work. Knowing that Elia Kazan was an
informer seems to have complicated people's response to his films,
for example. Was director X a racist? Homophobic? Sexist? A facist?
A communist? An anarchist? A nice person or a mean person? Does
knowledge of director X's personal behavior enrich one's appreciation
of a given work? Does it diminish it?
The creator or creators of the cathederals of Rhiems and Notre Dame
are unknown but this dosen't keep one from appreciating those
buildings as works of great beauty. On the other hand very little was
known about the personalities of Phideas and Praxeteles, and 19th
century art historians felt compelled to extrapolate peronalities for
them from their works. This concern with personality seems to come
from 19th century Western aesthetics, and I suppose in its popular
form becomes an interest in gossip about the artist's personal
life. "Poor Mark Twain, he makes people laugh but he's really such a
sad man, he's bankrupt you know, and then his daughter died."
Anyway, for a cinephile it's hard not to know anything about a
filmmaker these days before seeing the movie, and in my view this
knowledge subtly or overtly colors one's response to the film, so
maybe that's why auterists take an excessive interest in the personal
behavior of directors.
Richard
12432
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:36am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism (Premintger & Mizoguchi)
jpcoursodon wrote:
>Is there a thin line between auteurism and gossip? ....
>
It's a characteristic of gossip that it makes the teller feel superior
by diminishing the subject. I know very few people, especially not
people over 30, who have *never* gotten any pleasure from gossip. I know
when I arrived at NYU Cinema Studies in my early 20s I was appalled at
the time my fellow students spent gossiping about, say, the alleged
sexual proclivities of faculty members. Now I'm a sucker for gossip,
though not particularly proud of it.
In the case of Preminger, or any director of interest, I'd argue that
almost any information about his life is potentially of interest, if one
is interested in the biographies of artists. One has to keep in mind
that great artists can be nasty people, and their nastiness as people
has nothing to do with their greatness as artists. One of my favorite
painters, Georges de la Tour, supposedly once threw an old woman down a
flight of stairs. So, how much does isolated snippets of gossip
illuminate? Not much, when it comes to the films. And not all that much,
when heard in isolation, when it comes to the person either. As Tanya so
wisely says at the end of "Touch of Evil," "What does it matter what you
say about people." What matters most, as someone else commented, are the
films. On the other hand if gossip reminds us that Preminger was full of
contradictions, sometimes nasty and sometimes nice, then it reminds us
that he was as human as most of us.
One piece of gossip I think is *really* interesting: In scriptwriter
Yoda Yoshikata's reminiscences of Mizoguchi (published in Cahiers in the
60s), he mentions that Mizoguchi's wife went insane in the 1940s. I
heard somewhat reliably decades ago that the information Yoda also
reported but did not want printed was that Mizoguchi's interest in
Japanese prostitutes was not merely a humanist's or academic one, to put
it delicately; that he was a big patron; that his wife went insane due
to syphilis; that he believed he was the one who had transmitted it to
her; that he felt guilty about it. (Can anyone verify or deny this?)
I don't think this illuminates his films a whole lot, but it *does*
remind us that filmmakers often have motives less pure than it might
seem, and that Miso-san just might have been looking at those women he
portrays so sympathetically with less than totally pure eye. It's
important to me to remember that artists are as messy and flawed as the
rest of us, if not more so.
Auteurism for me is not a form of hero-worship or celebrity fascination
but a modus operandi for looking at films. It reminds me that seeing
Preminger films through the filter of other Preminger films is far more
useful aesthetically than seeing Preminger's Lana Turner films through
the filter of other Lana Turner films. Others will doubtless disagree.
Fred Camper
12433
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:51am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> Is there a thin line between auteurism and gossip? Or a thick line?
> Or no line at all? I feel a bit uneasy about all this recent stuff
> about Preminger's personal behavior. I am not saying this is
totally
> devoid of interest or merit, but shouldn't we be discussing other
> things here?
Well. there's gossip and then there's gossip. It's not as if anyone
was discussing Paulette Goddard's giving Anatole Litvak a blow job
under the table at Ciro's (or was it at The Mocambo, or The Brown
Derby?)
In any case, I think that discussing Preminger's -- or any
director's -- real life personality serves a valuable purpose because
it helps us understand what up there on the screen reflects the
artist behind it, and to what degree. After all, didn't Sarris posit
that the whole point of the auteur theory was to recognize a
director's personality in his films?
I for one find it fascinating to try to harmonize Preminger's
nastiness on the set with his overwhelmingly fair treatnment of his
on-screen characters. Similarly, I'm still dealing with reconciling
my beloved Leo McCarey's movies with his involvement in the far-right
Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. One
can't have a full understanding of this filmmaker without an
understanding of his politics, which are essentially 180 degrees away
from my own. The MPAPAI's statement of purpose said, "We resent the
growing impression that this industry is made of, and dominated by,
Communists, radicals, and crackpots." Yet, one might have thought
the McCarey of Bells and St. Mary's and Good Sam would have embraced
the crackpots.
John Ford: 30s liberal, 50s conservative -- it helps to know.
Douglas Sirk: Marxist -- it helps to know.
Billy Wilder: Lost his family in Nazi concentration camps -- it
helps to know.
Well, you catch the drift.
12434
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 4:00am
Subject: Re: Re: Gossip and auteurism
> After all, didn't Sarris posit
> that the whole point of the auteur theory was to recognize a
> director's personality in his films?
But I think Sarris's position was that any connection between a
director's real-life and directorial personalities was beyond his power
to perceive. (He elaborates this position in his introduction to the
Preston Sturges interview in INTERVIEWS WITH FILM DIRECTORS.) I've come
to believe that the unbridgeability of this gap is an important key to
the mystery of film direction. - Dan
12435
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 4:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Gossip and auteurism
Damien Bona wrote:
>Douglas Sirk: Marxist -- it helps to know.
>
>
Really? What's the evidence?
I certainly don't think he was a Marxist the one time I met him, in 1979.
It *is* interesting to learn, a propos of "A Time to Love and a Time to
Die," that Sirk's only child, a son who was "very beautiful" and a child
actor and who he lost to his Nazi first wife when he divorced her, was
killed on the Russian front.
Back to Preminger: He plays that very nasty Nazi in "Margin for Error"
with, as I saw it, a touch of self-parody.
Fred Camper
12436
From: Chris Fujiwara
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 4:17am
Subject: gossip, auteurism, production history
Focusing on the negative aspects of Preminger's personality almost
always works to denigrate his achievement as a filmmaker, but since
the subject has come up.... On many, maybe most of his films,
Preminger gave some actors and crew members a bad time. This was his
well-known SOP at least as early as In the Meantime Darling in 1944.
Preminger's temper and dictatorialism on sets were constant themes of
the copious press coverage that his films received from the 1950s on -
probably mentioned in hundreds of articles.
There is no simple explanation for why Preminger behaved the way he
did. He probably believed that keeping a tense atmosphere on the set
caused people to work faster and more accurately. I believe that you
can see the tension reflected in the films - in some of the
performances and the camera movements. Yelling was his way of letting
off steam, and he had a lot of steam to let off (the pressure on him
as both director and independent producer - personally responsible
for cost overruns - of these often elaborate productions must have
been enormous). His more outrageous behavior must have been, at least
to some extent, a calculated attempt to create and maintain an
indelible image for himself among film professionals and the public.
(It was either Stroheim or Sternberg, or both, who said something to
the effect of, If you want people to remember you, act like a
monster.) Sometimes (this is my hypothesis, I don't know if he ever
said this) he was trying to get a certain performance effect from
people who were not highly skilled actors technically, like Seberg or
Tryon, and he thought keeping them on edge or making them feel
persecuted was the best way to achieve that. And I think that he was
not always as in control of himself as he thought he was.
But it should be remembered that Preminger wasn't always a monster on
the set, that he was often kind, generous, and charming, that he had
different ways of directing different actors. Some people who worked
for him hated him or were afraid of him, but more respected him, I
think, and many liked him. People who knew him in social situations
typically speak of him as witty and gracious.
Jaime asks if anecdotes can be used as interpretive tools; I question
whether in most cases that is possible or desirable. If we read that
Walsh, after shouting "Action" on a shot of Joel McCrea running away
from the camera in Colorado Territory, went to his car and drove off
the location without calling cut, leaving McCrea wondering how long
he would have to keep running into the wilderness - this is an
amusing story and tells us something about Walsh's personality, but
it's hard to see how it will help deepen our understanding of
Colorado Territory. It just means Walsh was satisfied with the take
and thought it would be fun to play a joke on McCrea.
The specific anecdotes about Preminger that were mentioned - that for
some reason he seems to have angled for the job of finishing That
Lady in Ermine (and by the way, the fact that he refused credit ought
also to be mentioned), that he wanted Mitchum to slap Jean Simmons -
might be interesting, and are of value to a biographer, but I don't
think they can take us very far into the films themselves.
If more generally we want to try to read parallels between the kind
of person we believe Walsh or Preminger to have been, and the general
personality of their work, that is easy enough to do, and anecdotes
can help do it. Same thing for Ford, Renoir, Lang, Fuller, Jacques
Tourneur.... But I don't think this is a profound and important
critical task, though it can be fun.
I'm not even sure that production history - this is a question on
which I've done some agonizing - can help us all that much when it
comes to interpretation. In some cases, it can, directly, but in a
limited way, like knowing that Nicholas Ray did not direct key scenes
in 55 Days at Peking will probably discourage us from certain kinds
of "auteurist" interpretations of that film. But knowing why certain
scenes in The Savage Innocents were shot on location and others were
shot in the studio, while it may be anecdotally interesting, seems of
no value to interpretation; it's obvious from looking at them which
scenes were done in the studio, and any criticism of the film must
take account of the discrepancies in lighting and decor as internal
features and explain how they work in the film. That is, if we think
The Savage Innocents is a masterpiece, we have to find a way to
explain why this is so despite the accidents that seem to have forced
Ray against his will to work in the studio.
Production history can help us know what a director consciously
considered important enough to fight for, how the director worked,
how a project evolved through successive script drafts, and knowing
these things can give us valuable clues as to how to interpret the
film. But the interpretation must still be independent of our
knowledge of the production history, since the film exists on its own
primarily as something other than the product of its circumstances
(even those circumstances that were under the direct control of its
author).
I would certainly welcome opinions on this from group members because
I have a hard time knowing how to think about it.
12437
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 4:57am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
> I for one find it fascinating to try to harmonize Preminger's
> nastiness on the set with his overwhelmingly fair treatnment of
his
> on-screen characters.
I spent a few hours watching Preminger shoot a sequence of Rosebud
in Paris and then joined his lunch party (which also consisted of
Jacques Lourcelles, who'd already written an interesting book on
Preminger at that point). What I noticed was that Preminger behaved
like the tyrant he was supposed to be while directing actors and
barking orders at an assistant director (Bernard Cohn of Positif),
but was extremely cordial and hospitable to people who were relative
strangers (including me). His way of teasing Lourcelles about his
thinning hair seemed like a softer version of the sadism he
previously showed towards a particular actor he was directing and
Cohn, and I think a lot of it had to do with what he was picking up
from the people he was bullying. Traces of masochism, perhaps--or
such was my impression at the time. It was certainly theatrical, and
seemed intended for the benefit of visistors such as
myself: "Reserve six places for lunch," he barked at one assistant,
and when the latter came back to report that restaurants in that
working-class neighborhood didn't take reservations, he responded by
yelling, "You're fired!"
12438
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:20am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> Damien Bona wrote:
>
> >Douglas Sirk: Marxist -- it helps to know.
> >
> >
> Really? What's the evidence?
>
I'm relying on what my melodrama film professor in college said. The
L.A.-based critic Henry Sheehan has also spoken of Sirk's Marxism.
Ephraim Katz's Film Encyclopedia simply refers to Sirk's politics
as "leftist."
12439
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:32am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism (Premintger & Mizoguchi)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"One piece of gossip I think is *really* interesting: In scriptwriter
Yoda Yoshikata's reminiscences of Mizoguchi (published in Cahiers in
the 60s), he mentions that Mizoguchi's wife went insane in the 1940s.
I heard somewhat reliably decades ago that the information Yoda also
reported but did not want printed was that Mizoguchi's interest in
Japanese prostitutes was not merely a humanist's or academic one, to
put it delicately; that he was a big patron; that his wife went
insane due to syphilis; that he believed he was the one who had
transmitted it to her; that he felt guilty about it. (Can anyone
verify or deny this?)"
Mizoguchi's wife suffered a mental breakdown in 1941 about 4 weeks
after he started shooting GENROKU CHUSHINGURA. Shindo Keneto (who
worked on GENROKU CHSHINGURA as an assitant set designer) interviewd
Yoda (and several other friends and associates) for his 1976
biography, and Yoda told him that at first Mizoguchi wondered if he
was responsible because he may have transmitted syphilis to her until
a doctor told him that it couldn't be transmitted without infecting
the host too; Mizoguchi did not have syphilis. He did feel guilty
because he thought his philandering contributed to his wife's
breakdown, and he knew that she had a history of mental instability
when he married her.
In his 20s he had a mistress who was a taiyu (expensive call girl)
who in a fit of anger stabbed him in the back. This incident made
the papers and resulted in his suspension from Nikkatsu the studio
where he was employed at the time. In those days prostitution was
legal and going to a brothel was very much like going to a hostess
bar today. Mizoguchi and his friends (including Yoda) spent a lot of
time at brothels because (at that time) they were considered elegant
places to socialize. No doubt Mizo and his buddies went there for
the action too.
Also relevant to his treatment of prostitutes was the fact that
Mizo's older sister had been sold by their father into high class
prostitution. Although he hated his father for doing that, he
accepted money from Susumu to go to art school and took whatever
handouts she gave him. She was redeemed by Count Matsudaira who she
later married, and Mizo remained grateful to her all his life.
Mizo's younger brother was a communist who was arrested in the sweep
of 1934; those who were willing to recant were let go. Mizo's
brother refused and was imprisoned. He was executed in 1944. Not
even the well-connected Count Matsudaira could save him.
From the start of his marriage he had numerous affairs with geisha
and call girls and actresses that continued until his formal
conversion to Buddhism in 1950 or'51. After that he settled down
with one mistress. His wife remained in a mental institution until
her death in the 1970s. He also had a long-term crush on Tanaka
Kinuya.
After his conversion to Budhism (and apparently before as well)
Mizoguchi felt remorse for all his womanizing. His "academic"
interest in prostituion was for research for YORU NO ONNATACHI/WOMEN
OF THE NIGHT since the story dealt with post-war street walkers, then
a new phenomenon. The popularity of AKASEN CHITAI/STREET OF SHAME was
said to have tilted the Diet in favor outlawing liscensed
prostitution which was little more than a kind of indentured
servitude. During his painful death by cancer Mizoguchi paid many
times over for whatver wrongs he'd ever done. He knew his time was
up and wrote a jisei (death poem.) I saw it written in his own hand
at the Kyoto City Museum. I'll post his death poem after I find my
copy of it.
Richard
12440
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:59am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
I believe that if one judges an artist on his/her personal life
and/or politics then you may be headed towards a dead-end in
which you are doomed in regards to understanding or
appreciating the artist's work.
In my early twenties I developed a huge blind spot with
Rossellini- of all directors- because of the homophobia I
perceived in "Open City" and "Germany, Year Zero" (ex: Nazis
and fascists are deranged homosexuals/child molesters.) Tom
Gunning told me about Rossellini responding to an interviewer's
observation/challenge that many directors still made films in the
"classical style" with the remark: "yes, and there are still
homosexuals." This statement has tainted my opinions of
Rossellini for years and kept me away from his other films. I
have stated before that bad politics does not always make bad
art, but Rossellini's comment cut really deep. Obviously, I am the
one losing out in the long run.
I could list favorite directors who have said questionable things
or behaved badly, but if that was a or THE criterion to judge their
works, there would be scant few auteurs on my list.
Michael Worrall
12441
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:01am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
I believe that if one judges an artist on his/her personal life
and/or politics then you may be headed towards a dead-end in
which you are doomed in regards to understanding or
appreciating the artist's work.
In my early twenties I developed a huge blind spot with
Rossellini- of all directors- because of the homophobia I
perceived in "Open City" and "Germany, Year Zero" (ex: Nazis
and fascists are deranged homosexuals/child molesters.) Tom
Gunning told me about Rossellini responding to an interviewer's
observation/challenge that many directors still made films in the
"classical style" with the remark: "yes, and there are still
homosexuals." This statement has tainted my opinions of
Rossellini for years and kept me away from his other films. I
have stated before that bad politics does not always make bad
art, but Rossellini's comment cut really deep. Obviously, I am the
one losing out in the long run.
I could list favorite directors who have said questionable things
or behaved badly, but if that was a or THE criterion to judge their
works, there would be scant few auteurs on my list.
Michael Worrall
12442
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:08am
Subject: Re: Re: Gossip and auteurism (Premintger & Mizoguchi)
Richard, thanks immensely for the information on Mizoguchi, including
correcting the syphilis story. I did know about the stabbing, and am
looking forward very much to the death poem.
Fred Camper
12443
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:14am
Subject: Re: Re: Gossip and auteurism (Sirk and Marxism)
Damien Bona wrote:
>--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
>>Damien Bona wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Douglas Sirk: Marxist -- it helps to know.
>>>
Well, I'm willing to stand corrected, but I don't think so. "Leftist" is
not the same as "Marxist," and while Sirk's American films certainly
show an awareness of American bourgeois culture and its obsession with
material things, that doesn't by itself prove that he was Marxist. In
one of his interviews he referred to someone as having a mind that was
"unsharpened by any encounter with Marxism, whether accepted or
rejected," and that kind of distanced perspective -- that Marxism is
something one should encounter, and perhaps not even decide between
accepting or rejecting -- strikes me as more his attitude. He may have
called himself Marxist in the 20s or 30s but I doubt he considered
himself one after he came to the U.S. And by the time I met him he
actually seemed rather right wing, though I supposed one shouldn't judge
an 80-year-old's politics too severely.
Fred Camper
12444
From:
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:27am
Subject: Re: auteur remakes and what not
Gabe Klinger wrote:
>Not the first, surely, but this is a slightly longwinded way of saying
>I've lost what
>already little admiration I had for Demme.
I haven't seen the film yet, but this is disappointing to hear, Gabe. For
what it's worth, I really liked Demme's previous film, also a remake, "The Truth
About Charlie," though my admiration for him is mainly based on two 80s films
he hasn't yet been able to top, in my view: "Who Am I This Time?" and
"Something Wild."
I wonder if the commercial failure of the freewheeling "Truth About Charlie"
resulted in Demme playing it safe and soulless with "Manchurian"?
Peter
12445
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:48am
Subject: Re: auteur remakes and what not
Peter, if you really want to admire Demme, check out his 70s films,
especially Caged Heat, Crazy Mama and Handle With Care, and 1980's
Melvin and Howard -- damn he was exhilarating back then. When I
think back on those days, it's hard to believe that I haven't even
bothered with any of his pictures for years . . .
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> For what it's worth, I really liked Demme's previous film, also a
>remake, "The Truth
> About Charlie," though my admiration for him is mainly based on two
80s films
> he hasn't yet been able to top, in my view: "Who Am I This Time?"
> and "Something Wild."
12446
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:54am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> But I think Sarris's position was that any connection between a
> director's real-life and directorial personalities was beyond his
power
> to perceive. (He elaborates this position in his introduction to
the
> Preston Sturges interview in INTERVIEWS WITH FILM DIRECTORS.) I've
come
> to believe that the unbridgeability of this gap is an important key
to
> the mystery of film direction. - Dan
I'm not saying that there's a direct correlation between personality
and what's on the screen. And ultimately it's only the latter that
truly matters, But the films weren't created in a vacuum, and the
more we know of the filmmaker -- and the production history -- the
more tools we have with which to analyze the films.
12447
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:01am
Subject: Re: auteur remakes and what not
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> Peter, if you really want to admire Demme, check out his 70s films,
> especially Caged Heat, Crazy Mama and Handle With Care, and 1980's
> Melvin and Howard -- damn he was exhilarating back then. When I
> think back on those days, it's hard to believe that I haven't even
> bothered with any of his pictures for years . . .
I haven't yet seen later Demme works such as "Beloved" or "The Truth
About Charlie" so I'll reserve judgement on those films at a future
date.
All of the films you mentioned, Damien, are what I consider to be
Demme at his prime -- up until "Who Am I this Time?". After that
television production, it's been somewhat hit or miss. Of course,
"Swing Shift" is almost written off & disowned at this point. Perhaps
now that Bogdanovich is getting a chance to rework his "Mask", Demme
would be able to reassemble this movie he envisioned.
I'll see his "Manchurian Candidate" if only for Roger Corman's cameo
as the President of the United States (is Demme upping the ante on
Dante's "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" Corman cameo?!)
-Aaron
12448
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:10am
Subject: Re: auteur remakes and what not
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
wrote:
> I'll see his "Manchurian Candidate" if only for Roger Corman's
cameo
> as the President of the United States (is Demme upping the ante on
> Dante's "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" Corman cameo?!)
>
> -Aaron
Nice to see that Corman's political career has progressed -- in
Godfather 2 he was a senator.
12449
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:53am
Subject: Re: Re: auteur remakes and what not
Hey, I'd vote for him before the current occupant of the White House.
I think we all know that Corman's politics are fairly progressive.
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: "Damien Bona"
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 3:10 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: auteur remakes and what not
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
> wrote:
>
> > I'll see his "Manchurian Candidate" if only for Roger Corman's
> cameo
> > as the President of the United States (is Demme upping the ante on
> > Dante's "Looney Tunes: Back in Action" Corman cameo?!)
> >
> > -Aaron
>
> Nice to see that Corman's political career has progressed -- in
> Godfather 2 he was a senator.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
12450
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:41am
Subject: Re: auteur remakes and what not
Since when is Demme an auteur?
I will admit, that there is a faint signature in terms of a
protagonist who takes on "a role" to fit into society and then
outgrows it and becomes an independent being. But to me, Demme has
never persuited this motif in an auteurist manner. It has more been a
choice of character or story, or is it just our non causal
synchronisity that finds it?
More so, did Demme ask to direct this?
To me, "Manchurian Candidate" is a meal ticket or a pay check and
Demme is a mere craftsman; At least today he is, as he had something
about him before he sold out with "Phillidelphia"
Henrik
12451
From:
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:32am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
Production histories and director interviews are both valuable looks into a
director's creative thought processes.
Obviously, both are partial looks, and not the "whole story". Still, both are
genuinely worth while. They are constructive enterprises. They can help give
insight into the most important thing - what appears on screen.
Gossip about personal lives is another matter. It rarely seems relevant to
anything a director is doing creatively. It also cheapens us as human beings.
Mike Grost
12452
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:01am
Subject: Re: gossip, auteurism, production history
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Fujiwara"
wrote:
Studying production history is almost a necessity wherever possible,
but it's not about knowing what was shot where. It's about following
the many small choices that are mise en scene and understanding them.
Because of the bureaucratic nature of the industry, it is possible to
do this in enormous detail. The best way to understand it is just to
do it -- that's how I learned.
I'm less sure about biography. Bunuel was very, very jealous --
that's why he said he put more of himself into El than into any other
film. I don't know if that really affects how I read El, or his
attitude toward Francisco -- that's in the film. But I think it does
help understand something about the shape of his career -- why there
is a before-El and an after-El. Daney and Tesson have written about
this.
Ultimately it's a matter of one's personality. Northrop Frye used to
say that there are two kinds of critics: those who get everything
from the Public Records Ofice, and those, like him, who don't know
how to FIND the Public Records Ofice.
He is (was?) a great critic, and his version of not getting it from
the documents was at one point radical and challenging -- because in
literary criticism, which used to be called philology, digging into
the paper archives was considered an essential part of the job, for a
teacher and for a writer. I studied with Harold Bloom, who was a Frye
critic when I first knew him, and it took me a long time to come
around to the idea that documents could teach me anything about any
artform -- I found out about it while I was writing my thesis.
These days the importance of theory has decimated research, but
people like the Representation writers keep flying the flag, however
ineptly. As far as film goes, in my first conversation with Dudley
Andrew he told me that having students read script reports was the
wave of the future. I haven't seen much evidence that it's happening
yet, but I obviously agree that it should. Biography is of course
much more of a common activity, for good and bad reasons, which
produce good and bad biographies.
Personally, I don't see how you can be passionate about a filmmaker
and not want to a) see all her/his films and b) know as much as
possible about the context from which they sprang. Eventually this
becomes a narrative in your head, and the films start to speak to you
in a different way.
12453
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:04am
Subject: Re: Preminger The Sadist (Was: auteur remake auteur)
"I am always very nice to Otto, because I still have family in
Germany." - Billy Wilder.
Wilder also wrote an afterword to an unauthorized Preminger biography
in which he claimed that Otto was really a surgically altered Martin
Bormann. So Preminger's reputation, humorously, was known to his
colleagues.
An article I read on the making of LAURA showed that Otto was hated
and feared even then - the cast almost universally loathed him, and
blamed him for Mamoulian's removal. Vincent Price was the only cast
member who liked Otto's changes. (Maybe Clifton Webb was OK with him
too - Otto got him the part).
Like Sternberg, Otto could certainly be charming and warm in social
situations. Or not.
12454
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:27am
Subject: Re: gossip, auteurism, production history
I think that's beautifully expressed and find very little to disagree
with. A few thoughts:
> Focusing on the negative aspects of Preminger's personality almost
> always works to denigrate his achievement as a filmmaker,
Certainly won't MY intention - I enjoy stories about filmmakers
behaving badly (I'm one myself; it keeps me from getting too
arrogant). I was kind of shocked to hear about Michael Powell's acts
of sadism, though. But I think in the end it helped me understand his
films a bit more.
It's like the Walsh story - it may not help us understand that scene,
or that film, but if it tells us something about Walsh it may help us
understand his oeuvre as a whole. I like to be able to tell, as Hawks
said, "who the devil made it", and knowledge of the director's
personality can give added pleasure. If one sees in a Walsh film some
incident of humour, roughness, or wickedness reminiscent of that
story, one will smile both at the incident and at the way it connects
to the director's personality. Added enjoyment is given, which has to
be a plus.
Of course, anecdotes aren't necessarily reliable, and one's
interpretation of them has to be policed, especially when engaged in
serious writing on the subject. Knowing that Preminger could be mean
to actors could cause one to take a harsh view of the incident where
he set fire to Jean Seberg - but that incident HAS to have been an
accident, there's no way a director would want to incinerate his star
(before finishing the film).
(This also applies to Lang and Helm in METROPOLIS)
But the fact that Preminger used the footage in the movie DOES fit
with what we know of his personality, and is therefore more
illuminating.
> (It was either Stroheim or Sternberg, or both, who said something
to
> the effect of, If you want people to remember you, act like a
> monster.)
Sternberg. "If they hate you, at least they remember you." Said while
deciding to grow a moustache to look more "repulsive".
>But knowing why certain
> scenes in The Savage Innocents were shot on location and others
were
> shot in the studio, while it may be anecdotally interesting, seems
of
> no value to interpretation;
I'm not sure; isn't it i8mportant to know that Ray was forced by
necessity to this inconsistent approach, rather than choosing to do
it himself, as some kind of stylistic flourish that didn't work? If
we assume that the director shot this way out of laziness, or in the
attempt to create some kind of Brechtian effect, we'd be far from the
mark and likely to misread the film and/or underestimate Ray's
ambition.
12455
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:30am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
I dunno how many of us were around when LAURA came out and saw it and
wrote about it...most of my anecdotes have come from reading.
But it's not at all a bad idea to try to connect anecdotes to the
filmmaker's work, something I'm going to try to do where possible.
12456
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:40am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
>I think a lot of it had to do with what he was picking up
> from the people he was bullying. Traces of masochism, perhaps--or
> such was my impression at the time.
For sadist, read bully. And what a bully is looking for is not
necessarily masochism, just weakness, the ability to be bullied.
Christopher Challis said that when he stood up to Michael Powell's
first attempt to intimidate him, Powell gave him a look, then backed
off. He never attempted to bully his cameraman again. But his
treatment of May Hallatt in BLACK NARCISSUS was relentlessly brutal,
because she allowed it. The assistant directors would have to try to
pick up the pieces each time Powell destroyed her.
But I'd resist the temptation to speculate that the victims of
bullying in some way enjoy the experience. They can assume the role
of the submissive, but I don't think it's out of enjoyment.
Knowledge of Powell's cruelty certainly informs my viewing of his
films now, but doesn't mar them. It's easy to see from his work how
his personality contained both the sadist and the gentleman poet.
12457
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 0:13pm
Subject: Re: Farrow (Was: auteur remake auteur)
> The one interesting
> aspect of the film are some tableau-like, folk music numbers which
> are very odd indeed.
Awk shucks, now you got me all interested in seeing it.
12458
From:
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:07pm
Subject: Re: remakes and whatnot/gossip folks
Oy vey. Like Tim Burton's, Demme's films have become so bad that it
makes me afraid to go back and rewatch his earlier movies. (I think
I've decided perhaps I never liked Burton as much as I thought I
did.) Had the same, unpleasant, experience while watching a lovely
print of Woody Allen's LOVE AND DEATH recently, where the
loathsomeness of his recent movies/persona was difficult to overcome
even watching a 30-year-old film, mainly because you can see it
coming at least as far back as MANHATTAN. The total wondrousness of
Keaton's performance pulled it out for me.
That ties into the personal characteristics/gossip thread, insofar as
I wonder this: are there movies where you have to fight against what
you know about the director in order to preserve your liking for
them? An obvious example might be ON THE WATERFRONT, which is vastly
improved by suppressing your knowledge of its makers' HUAC-related
activities. (I remember seeing it as a young'un and thinking, "That's
the most Communist movie I've ever seen," probably because I'd never
seen an explicitly pro-union movie, and I grew up in Reagan country.)
How about it: Whose movies are most in need of rescuing from their
creator and/or his/her later work?
Sam
>
> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:06:45 -0000
> From: "Gabe Klinger"
>Subject: auteur remakes and what not
>
>Speaking of remakes, Jonathan Demme's THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE is
>hooooorrible !!!!!!
>
>Of all exercises in exercising auteur admiration, this is one of the
>worst, most
>pointless, most forgettable -- but leaving that aside, I feel very
>ambivalent about the
>way Demme casts regulars like Ted Levine and Charles Napier (and countless,
>countless others) to deliver one or two (totally pointless) lines,
>so they are, I presume,
>paid a salary per SAG rules... is this not shameless? Well, the
>whole thing has the
>feeling of one huge soulless effort to achieve a paycheck, this is
>just one of the
>smaller details where it seeps through.
>
>Not the first, surely, but this is a slightly longwinded way of
>saying I've lost what
>already little admiration I had for Demme.
>
>Gabe
12459
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:17pm
Subject: Re: Rossellini's Homophobia (Was: Gossip and auteurism)
--- Michael Worrall
Tom
> Gunning told me about Rossellini responding to an
> interviewer's
> observation/challenge that many directors still made
> films in the
> "classical style" with the remark: "yes, and there
> are still
> homosexuals." This statement has tainted my
> opinions of
> Rossellini for years and kept me away from his other
> films. I
> have stated before that bad politics does not always
> make bad
> art, but Rossellini's comment cut really deep.
> Obviously, I am the
> one losing out in the long run.
>
Not really. Self-respect is more important than Art.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
12460
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:19pm
Subject: Manchurian actors
How is Liev Schreiber in this film? I always enjoy him, even in bad
movies like THE SUM OF ALL FEARS.
Boy, do I have some posts to catch up on!
Or, as Churchill might have said: Boy, do I have some posts up on
with which I must catch!
-Jaime
12461
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 1:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Gossip and auteurism
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> As you might have noticed, David E.'s gossip-heavy
> posts irked me in
> the beginning, but I've softened quite a bit, now I
> enjoy them even if
> I don't necessarily understand some of his
> one-liners.
Well I'm glad to hear you'reless-irked.
I don't consider whatever "gossip" I pass along here
to be "vital insights," just information of potential
interest. Getting to know filmmkaers like Gus Van Sant
and Todd Haynes has been a joy.But I've no doubt that
someone who never laid eyes on them could come up with
a critical insight into their works of unsurpassable
depth.
Incidentally re Todd lastweek he spoke at "Outfest" in
a public interview session where Don Roos posed
questions and fielded others from the audience. I do
wish they had recorded it because Todd is so funny and
lievely.I'me usre everyone who was there got a lot of
insight into his working methods just because of his
ingratiating manner and lightning-fast wit.
Knowing that Mizogughi frequented prostitutes only
tells us so much - but no more. Likewise Godard--
another long-acknowleged ladies-of-the-evening fan.
Both "Street of Shame" and "Vivre sa Vie" deal with
prostitution. But only the truly unimaginative would
claim they are"about" prostitution and nothing else.
They're about a lot of things-- to the degree that
knowing Mizoguchi and Godard frequented prostitutes
tells us little.
Or maybe even nothing at all.
>
> So the gossip is great. I don't have a problem with
> it at all.
>
> The thing is, though, if some of the older
> cinephiles and auteurists
> here could make an extra effort to connect every
> other juicy tidbit
> back to the actual films themselves, that would be a
> great help to the
> younger folks (like myself) who are often still
> trying to come to
> terms with, say, the significance of Preminger's
> (whole, not just
> brutish) personality as it relates to the character
> development and
> contours and framing and music in DAISY KENYON,
> ANATOMY OF A MURDER,
> LAURA, SKIDOO, and so on.
>
> Two things you older guys and gals have on us
> youngsters: (1) you
> were around when most of this stuff happened, or you
> talked to
> somebody who was around (like one of my production
> teachers, whose
> husband delighted in telling people that he'd once
> had dinner
> with...*Raoul Walsh*!!), and (2) you were around
> when a lot of these
> films opened, or had their big retrospective, or you
> used to go to
> some theater that was "the spot" back in your time
> but has since
> closed, etc.
>
> I'm not attacking nostalgia. I'm only saying it
> sometimes makes me
> feel a bit like there's a party going on and I'm in
> the corner, just
> sort of watching. Would help if those of us who
> were born after
> 1970-5 were given a reason to join in the fun.
>
> -Jaime
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
12462
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: remakes and whatnot/gossip folks
> I wonder this: are there movies where you have to fight against what
> you know about the director in order to preserve your liking for
> them? An obvious example might be ON THE WATERFRONT, which is vastly
> improved by suppressing your knowledge of its makers' HUAC-related
> activities. (I remember seeing it as a young'un and thinking, "That's
> the most Communist movie I've ever seen," probably because I'd never
> seen an explicitly pro-union movie, and I grew up in Reagan country.)
Maybe this ground was covered last year while I was off at Toronto, but:
I've always wished that the left would reserve less of its animus for
people like Kazan, who cracked under pressure of an intensity that's
hard to imagine, and more for the people who applied the pressure.
(Speaking of witch-hunting, I just saw the most remarkable movie
depiction of mob violence ever, in a 1975 Mexican film called CANOA by
Felipe Cazals.)
I guess I still cling a bit to the Wood/Lawrence position about the
teller and the tale, and am unwilling to apply everything I know when I
evaluate a film. For instance, I loved reading Bill Krohn's piece on
the production history of CRUISING, and felt as if I learned a lot from
it about the process of making a film - I wish a document like that
existed for every movie. But I want to be very careful before I take
that information and make it part of my aesthetic analysis of the work
that emerged. Careful, because production history, or any other
background information, invariably suggests an aesthetic orientation to
a work, and that suggestion takes on a power because it is made of
historical facts. (Note how often biographers of filmmakers seem to
develop problems with the movies after learning too much about the
filmmakers' foibles, carelessness, limitations.) Whereas there is
something ineffable and elusive about the act of film direction - you
almost need to have your mind clear of preconceptions to catch the
vibrations. And the vibrations you catch don't always jibe with
anything you hear about the film or the people who made it. - Dan
12463
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:29pm
Subject: Re: remakes and whatnot/gossip folks
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> (Speaking of witch-hunting, I just saw the most remarkable movie
> depiction of mob violence ever, in a 1975 Mexican film called
CANOA by
> Felipe Cazals.)
Oh, well, thankfully it only played for one day only and I'll
probably never ever get a chance to see it again. Thanks Film Forum
and the rep community at large. [sigh]
-Jaime
12464
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:36pm
Subject: Canoa (Was: remakes and whatnot/gossip folks)
>>(Speaking of witch-hunting, I just saw the most remarkable movie
>>depiction of mob violence ever, in a 1975 Mexican film called
>
> CANOA by
>
>>Felipe Cazals.)
>
>
> Oh, well, thankfully it only played for one day only and I'll
> probably never ever get a chance to see it again. Thanks Film Forum
> and the rep community at large. [sigh]
Looks as if it's available on DVD in the US. - Dan
12465
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:42pm
Subject: Re: Canoa (Was: remakes and whatnot/gossip folks)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >>(Speaking of witch-hunting, I just saw the most remarkable movie
> >>depiction of mob violence ever, in a 1975 Mexican film called
> >
> > CANOA by
> >
> >>Felipe Cazals.)
> >
> >
> > Oh, well, thankfully it only played for one day only and I'll
> > probably never ever get a chance to see it again. Thanks Film
Forum
> > and the rep community at large. [sigh]
>
> Looks as if it's available on DVD in the US. - Dan
Dammit, I wanna stay mad!
Thanks, I didn't even think to look. Onto my Netflix queue it goes!
-Jaime
12466
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: Canoa (Was: remakes and whatnot/gossip folks)
>>>>(Speaking of witch-hunting, I just saw the most remarkable movie
>>>>depiction of mob violence ever, in a 1975 Mexican film called
>>>CANOA by
>>>>Felipe Cazals.)
>>>
>>>Oh, well, thankfully it only played for one day only and I'll
>>>probably never ever get a chance to see it again. Thanks Film
> Forum
>>>and the rep community at large. [sigh]
>>
>>Looks as if it's available on DVD in the US. - Dan
>
> Dammit, I wanna stay mad!
>
> Thanks, I didn't even think to look. Onto my Netflix queue it goes!
If you don't care for the first half, stick around for the second half
anyway. - Dan
12467
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:26pm
Subject: Re: Re: Gossip and auteurism
I find all this pretty interesting, and I think the opposing sides in
the "debate" are both right: Information on a director *can* provide
vital insights into the work, depending on the information and the
receiver of the information, and it's also possible to arrive at the
deepest of understandings of the work, as David suggests, without any
such information.
Gossip has another value to me, besides insight into the work. A great
film is to me an almost inhuman structure, like a miraculously great
piece of architecture; how is it that Walsh turned this ordinary story
into such a beautiful meditation on the weight of landscape, for example?
I was wondering this as I went to the opening night of the Walsh
retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art several decades ago. Walsh,
aged and nearly blind, was there. The auditorium was full, or nearly
so. He came out on stage waving his cowboy hat and proceeded to tell a
series of very bad, very tasteless, and totally un-insightful dirty
jokes about the making of his films. The only one I remember, presumably
because it was the best, was about a shoot that required a bunch of
women to jump from a burning boat into the water. Lacking enough female
extras, someone suggested dressing up males in skirts. This was done,
but their skirts were blown up in the air as they jumped, revealing
their male-ness and ruining the shot. "Someone said they should be
hung," Walsh concluded, "and they certainly were." I can't remember if
this story is in his autobiography, but I recall that it has some
similar ones. The mood in the auditorium was one of embarrassment.
Whether this incident does or does not illuminate the rough bawdiness of
his films can be debated. But illuminates something else: that those
works of art that seem so perfect spring from human beings with all the
pettiness, all the stupidities, all the imperfections, all the messy
motives, shared by most of us. Whether or not it illuminates the work,
it does illuminate the historical person who made it. It may have left a
slightly sour taste at the time, but it provides the important
information that Walsh himself may have been thinking, at least
consciously, less about space and more about dick jokes while making his
films. And indeed, though I know more than one professor who tells
*great* dirty jokes, I think that in general artists tend to me more
like "this," that is more "messy," more about living life to the fullest
in all its varieties, than the people who study them.
Another thread in this line of thinking for me began on my first trip to
Italy, in 1986. I spent as much time as I could looking at great art. I
was deeply moved by the amazing Fra Angelicos, both frescoes and
altarpieces, at San Marco in Florence, and spent the better part of a
day there. There were many depictions of the Virgin in the altarpieces,
her face incredibly, preternaturally, suffused with light and oddly
"pure." Was I way off base to find that purity a little sexy? I don't
know what Fra Angelico had in his heart as he painted them, but I later
read of how another "Fra," Filippo Lippi, having persuaded the good
nuns in Prato to let him use a beautiful young novice as a model,
proceeded, finding her not unwilling, to run off with her. They became a
couple, and one result was their son, the painter Filippino Lippi. It
was quite a few years before he could return to Florence. This confirmed
for me that at least one painter of the Virgin from Fra Angelico's
milieu was having impure thoughts while producing his masterpieces.
Fred Camper
12468
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:56pm
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
>
>> Is there a thin line between auteurism and gossip? Or a thick line?
>> Or no line at all? I feel a bit uneasy about all this recent stuff
>> about Preminger's personal behavior. I am not saying this is
>> totally devoid of interest or merit, but shouldn't we be discussing
>> other
>> things here?
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Damien Bona"
>
> Well. there's gossip and then there's gossip. It's not as if anyone
> was discussing Paulette Goddard's giving Anatole Litvak a blow job
> under the table at Ciro's (or was it at The Mocambo, or The Brown
> Derby?)
It's interesting to consider what should be deemed gossip... perhaps
personal behaviors of a once / rare occurrence whose significance
might be given a pass if the circumstances (under the influence of
whatever) were known.
If a behavior is so common an activity for a person (however uncommon
for others), is it gossip?
Regardless of the behavior, is it gossip because it is known only
to a small number of people and then breaks out to the public?
And what difference does it make?
> John Ford: 30s liberal, 50s conservative -- it helps to know.
> Douglas Sirk: Marxist -- it helps to know.
> Billy Wilder: Lost his family in Nazi concentration camps -- it
> helps to know.
These are the things I like to know as I learn about cinema. Why?
Some insight, but I think individual personality trumps most.
Few of us have the fortitude to implement our beliefs in all
we do.
I suspect many film makers lost family in concentration camps
but they do not all make films like Billy Wilder films.
12469
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 3:32pm
Subject: Re: gossip, auteurism, production history
It might be interesting if the directors of the past had gotten to do DVD commentaries (instead of leaving imperfect recollections in interviews given many years after the fact). What would a Preminger commentary track be like? When today's filmmakers point out things they'd obviously like you to see, they're often things I missed on first viewing (I always like to think I'd have caught them on a larger screen, but perhaps not).
When I watched Christopher Munch's Sleepy Time Gal, I had the curious feeling that scenes were often cut off just as they were becoming interesting (not necessarily a criticism, of course). And watching it again with the commentary track (Munch and Jacqueline Bisset in conversation, with plenty of nuance between the lines) seemed to offer an (unintended) confirmation of this when Munch, impressed by Bisset's death scene, wondered just how much more she might have done with it if he hadn't, as he recalled, called "Cut." For what it's worth.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Fujiwara" wrote:
>
> Jaime asks if anecdotes can be used as interpretive tools; I question
> whether in most cases that is possible or desirable. If we read that
> Walsh, after shouting "Action" on a shot of Joel McCrea running away
> from the camera in Colorado Territory, went to his car and drove off
> the location without calling cut, leaving McCrea wondering how long
> he would have to keep running into the wilderness - this is an
> amusing story and tells us something about Walsh's personality, but
> it's hard to see how it will help deepen our understanding of
> Colorado Territory. It just means Walsh was satisfied with the take
> and thought it would be fun to play a joke on McCrea.
12470
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 4:10pm
Subject: watching movies under the influence (was: 1000 eyes)
"I've always wondered if anyone has written coherently about its effects
(although I've always suspected it worked differently for different
people) on appreciation of the arts, and film in particular. And
here I don't mean "head" films, but films in general, and
particularly the kind shown at the Thousand Eyes."
I watched only two films in the influence of jamaican stuff. "Georgia" on
video and one I whose name skips me now, in a theater (american independent,
some small prize at Sundance, i.e., crappy all the way). Two strong personal
experiences but hardly cinematic ones. Gets me into a very introspective
mood, which was somewhat important at a time. But, also for concerts, they
ruin the experience - you feel strong but can't recall much later, as you
skip a lot of details that are important to hold in your memory. So I
stopped having it before watching a movie or attending a concert, only to
realize some years later that it didn't interest me anymore, on any account.
Have watched a lot of films drunk. Doesn't make any difference, unless the
film is boring. In that case, I feel more sleepier (and sometimes fall
asleep). Aside from that, just like watching sober.
ruy
12471
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 4:27pm
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Damien Bona"
> >
> > Well. there's gossip and then there's gossip. It's not as if
anyone
> > was discussing Paulette Goddard's giving Anatole Litvak a blow job
> > under the table at Ciro's (or was it at The Mocambo, or The Brown
> > Derby?)
>
That's a juicy, mouth-watering piece of gossip, though...
> > John Ford: 30s liberal, 50s conservative -- it helps to know.
> > Douglas Sirk: Marxist -- it helps to know.
> > Billy Wilder: Lost his family in Nazi concentration camps -- it
> > helps to know.
>
Maybe but how does it help, exactly?
12472
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 4:30pm
Subject: Re: watching movies under the influence (was: 1000 eyes)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
> Have watched a lot of films drunk. Doesn't make any difference,
unless the
> film is boring. In that case, I feel more sleepier (and sometimes
fall
> asleep). Aside from that, just like watching sober.
If I ever get straight-out smashed for a film viewing, I discount
the viewing entirely and watch the film again.
But if I'm, you know, a little mellow from a few glasses of wine or
mixed drinks, I get one effect or another: either I enjoy a film a
lot more (which happened yesterday with Blake Edwards' SUNSET, what
a nice film - not great but a real pleasure) or I become waaay too
critical. I'd had a few drinks when I watched FUNNY GAMES and
became far more annoyed with Haneke's slick-as-shit sadism than I
would ever have become, perfectly sober.
(However, I didn't need any substances to become similarly irritated
at TIME OF THE WOLF...although unlike GAMES that's a film with a
curious staying power. For me anyway. Dunno if I'd watch it again,
but there it is.)
-Jaime
12473
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Mizoguchi's Death Poem & Interview
Before I get to the jisei a little more about the stabbing incident.
Mizoguchi was 27 at the time and was three days into shooting SHINING
IN THE RED SUNSET when Ichijo his mistress stabbed him. He was
replaced by Saegusa Genjiro. Ichijo was a yatona not a taiyu as I
incorrectly stated earlier.
When looking for the death poem I came across this transcript of a
radio interview Mizoguchi gave on 2/11/50:
Interviewer: Your films are very often about women...
Mizo: Yes, but at first it was not my idea. Director Murata Minoru
who died 10 years ago was almost a brother to me, and his films were
about the world of men. We couldn't both treat the same subject.
The company [Nikkatsu] gave me the women's side, and it was
commercially wise. Then, as often happens, I came to like the idea.
Int: I read a newspaper article you wrote after making OSAKA ELEGY
and SISTERS OF GION both masterpieces in my opinion-
Mizo: No, no-
Int: You felt you had a greater understanding of human nature...
Mizo: Well, youth seems to be a time of action, uh, making good films
is not directed by reason but by an inner passion. I had gained a
deeper understanding of human beings, although even now I may not
truly understand them. That is how I feel.
***
Mizoguchi died at Kyoto Municipal Hospital in the early morning of
August 24, 1956. He was visited the night before by his friend the
screenwriter Narusawa Masahige who told him that OSAKA MONOGATARI
would be his greatest film (the screenplay was complete and the set
designs had met with Mizoguchi's approval.) By way of answering
Mizoguchi handed him a sheet of writing paper with the following poem
written in black ballpoint:
I feel the chill of autumn already
Even so, I want to work with all of you again
He then held Narusawa's hand and looked as if he had something else
to say but didn't speak.
Richard
12474
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:31pm
Subject: NY: no Shimizu
The Village Voice article on the Asian-American International Film Festival (some of it taking place at a new theater called "Imaginasian") implies that Hiroshi Shimizu films of the '30s will, anomalously, be shown:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0428/ng.php
However, the festival's website lists the "Hiroshi Shimizu retrospective," without further explanation, as cancelled.
http://66.40.251.133/content.asp?cid=235
12475
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:10pm
Subject: Re: remakes and whatnot/gossip folks
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I wonder this: are there movies where you have to fight against
what
> > you know about the director in order to preserve your liking for
> > them?
My answer would be an emphatic "NO". I have never understood how
some information about an artist's personal life, behavior etc...
could possibly influence one's response to his work. The appreciation
of a work of art -- a film, a painting, a piece of music, a poem,
whatever -- is totally distinct from the artist-as-a-person. A work
of art is a product, an artifact, a text if you will, and most of all
a pleasure-producing machine which, once finished and released to the
consumers, bears no real relationship to the manufacturer. Would you
stop liking your automobile because you heard that the designer was a
racist or beat his wife? Nothing I have ever heard or read about film
directors ever affected my response to their films. How could it? My
consumer's pleasure is independant of the filmmaker's biography.
Hating Kazan'd films because the man was an "informer" -- to take the
obvious example Dan mentioned -- seems totally nonsensical to me.
What counts is whether you like them or not not knowing anything
about his personal life. If you do, then i can't see how the
knowledge can change your response. Pleasure is pleasure.
>
That said, I completely agree with Bill about the importance of
production history, and with Dan about the limits of that importance.
JPC
12476
From:
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:08pm
Subject: Re: watching movies under the influence (was: 1000 eyes)
Half of the list thinks that eating popcorn while watching films is a
Betrayal of Cinema.
The other half likes to use liquor and drugs!
My own take:
I have never used alcohol, tobacco or drugs, and never will.
But I do like to eat low-fat popcorn with my movies!
I also like apples, grapefruit, carrots, adzuki beans and fruit smoothies.
Glad to settle this burning issue in aesthetics.
Mike Grost
12477
From:
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:10pm
Subject: Re: Mizoguchi's Death Poem & Interview
All of this information on Mizoguchi has been fascinating.
Thank you!
Mike Grost
PS - A Geisha / Gion Festival Music is a favorite Mizoguchi. But rarely see
it discussed.
12478
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 10:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: watching movies under the influence (was: 1000 eyes)
I'm on both halves. I don't drink IN theaters, and I hate the noise of
tincans being opened. I consider it to be a major disrespect. I think anyone
has the right to do whatever one wants as long as he/she doesn't bother
other people. It does not offend me if someone sitting next to me is drugged
to death as long as he/she doesn't bother me. But the noise of popcorn
and/or fruits being eaten is pretty disrespectful of the rest of the
audience, *if it makes a sound*. But I won't shoosh unless it keeps going on
and on.
But the right to dope oneself is sacred. Like every sperm, according to the
Monty Python.
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 7:08 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: watching movies under the influence (was: 1000
eyes)
> Half of the list thinks that eating popcorn while watching films is a
> Betrayal of Cinema.
> The other half likes to use liquor and drugs!
>
> My own take:
> I have never used alcohol, tobacco or drugs, and never will.
> But I do like to eat low-fat popcorn with my movies!
> I also like apples, grapefruit, carrots, adzuki beans and fruit smoothies.
> Glad to settle this burning issue in aesthetics.
>
> Mike Grost
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
12479
From:
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:33pm
Subject: Meeting Raoul Walsh (was: Gossip and auteurism)
I had the great joy of meeting Raoul Walsh. This was in 1972, when he came to
our campus film society for a weekend. He talked after screenings of his
films. And he spent an afternoon talking with four of us film loving students.
This was in a dormitory lounge.
He was a person of enormous enthusiasm. He clearly loved both his work, and
life itself.
Some memories stand out:
I happened to ask him out of the blue whether he knew Frank Borzage when he
worked at Fox in the early 1930's. He lit up like a Fourth of July display. He
was plainly touched that we remembered his old friend. We told him how much we
loved Borzage's work. This seemed important to him.
Walsh disclaimed that there was any romance in his films. He claimed there
was only action. But he was plainly pleased when we contradicted him, and
praised the romantic scenes in "They Died With Their Boots On". I suspect Walsh was
a secret sentimentalist.
Walsh also did his D. W. Griffith impression for us. He opened his mouth, and
out came Griffith's voice. Talk about connection to the beginning of cinema!
Walsh in person reminded me of Manny Farber's description of his films:
"If hardware stores sold a paint called "Gusto", Raoul Walsh would be their
biggest customer."
Mike Grost
12480
From:
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:29pm
Subject: Bahman Ghobadi
Recently saw two features by Bahman Ghobadi: "A Time For Drunken Horses"
(2000) and "Marooned in Iraq" (2002). Ghobadi is Kurdish, and is based in Iran.
Both films are full of good storytelling and imagery. There is also a good
interview with Ghobadi on the DVD of "Marooned in Iraq".
Has anyone on the list seen these? They are well worth watching.
MIke Grost
12481
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 0:29am
Subject: Re: Mizoguchi's Death Poem & Interview
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
"A Geisha / Gion Festival Music is a favorite Mizoguchi. But rarely
see it discussed."
I think it's neglected because it's mistakenly believed to be a
remake of GION NO SHIMAI/SISTERS OF GION, and the latter movie is
generally considered superior to the former. Taken on its own terms
GION BAYASHI is of great interest because of the docu-drama approach
to showing the apprentice geisha's training, the location shots of
traditional areas of Kyoto and above all the visual pattern
connecting dark and cramped interiors with sunny but equally confined
exteriors, the visual correalative of the geishas' limited opptions.
Mike, if you haven't seen it, you should take a look at UWASA NO
ONNA/THE WOMAN OF THE RUMOUR another contemporary Kyoto story that
takes place in the Shimabara geisha quarters which is geographically
opposite of Gion on the other side of the Kamo River. I think that
movie can be seen as a companion piece to GION BAYASHI.
Finally, one more bit of gossip. In a Japanese book
called "Personalities of Japanese Film History" the author tells a
story about Mizoguchi showing Sternberg the geisha quarters in 1936,
and maybe that's when Sternberg became fascinated with Asian women;
in his retirement he spent his time painting nudes of Asian women.
Richard
12482
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 0:37am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
...but gossip is as valuable as production history, if not more, if
its related to the production history. Says I.
I can understand Mike when he says that gossips impoverishes us, but
often gossip allows us to understand a motif, an relationship or
otherwise affecting a production, and if so, gossip becomes an
integrated part of production history.
We can call them by any other name - anecdotes, memoires - but, well
perhaps not Mike, at least I love gossip; and much of it helps
understand the mind behind the person.
Henrik
12483
From:
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 8:45pm
Subject: Re: Meeting Raoul Walsh (was: Gossip and auteurism)
Mike,
That's a wonderful story about meeting Walsh. Thanks so much for telling it.
In my opinion, your portrait of him corresponds with what we see of him in
the Walsh episode of Schickel's "The Men Who Made the Movies." We even see him
interacting with some students in the latter half of the documentary.
A point Bogdanovich has made which relates to some of Fred's remarks:
Bogdanovich believes that one of the reasons the golden age of Hollywood cinema was a
golden age was due to the fact that many of the directors didn't grow up
wanting to be movie directors. They "lived life to the fullest," to use Fred's
phrase; Walsh, who had an incredibly storied life (some of it true, some it
undoubtedly fictitious), certainly did. And look at the works of art he, and
others like him, produced. An essay could be written (and probably has been)
about the influence of Preminger's legal background on his films.
I'm sure we can think of counterexamples, but it's worth remembering that
Welles felt filmmakers should discover moviemaking (and I'm paraphrasing here,
from a 1982 BBC interview) "innocently, as though Griffith or Renoir or whomever
never existed."
An interesting discussion. And a thank you to Richard for the fascinating
and moving information about Mizoguchi.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
12484
From: Noel Vera
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 0:58am
Subject: Re: watching movies under the influence (was: 1000 eyes)
> Half of the list thinks that eating popcorn while
> watching films is a
> Betrayal of Cinema.
> The other half likes to use liquor and drugs!
Ah, I always finish my snacks before the movie begins,
unless it's some Hollywood biggie, in which case I
stretch it out as long as I can.
Also tried eating balut in the theater. That's boiled
duck egg, with day-old chick fetus inside. Delicious
sprinkled with rock salt.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
12485
From: Noel Vera
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:13am
Subject: Re: auteur remakes and what not
> Since when is Demme an auteur?
I'd say around the time of Citizen's Band and Melvin
and Howard, he had a gift for depicting small-time
America with oddball humor and not a little poetry. I
do agree, his latest films haven't been inspiring.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
12486
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:29am
Subject: Re: remakes and whatnot/gossip folks
(Note how often biographers of filmmakers seem to
> develop problems with the movies after learning too much about the
> filmmakers' foibles, carelessness, limitations.)
Spoto got Suspicion right in his book on Hitchcock's films, then did
a 180 on it after talking to the writer. That is the result of
deciding to go after Hitchcock, of course, but also of 1)ignorance of
how films are made, 2) reliance on one-source testimony and 3) lack
of imagination or sheer analytical ability for assessing the
evidence.
In that case Spoto the critic definitely got it right on the first
pass, while Spoto the biographer screwed it up on the second pass.
But that's because Spoto is a terrible biographer! A good one would
have questioned what he was told, dug deeper into the files (which
were ALL available when Spoto wrote) and deepened and/or challenged
his own conclusions based on findings.
Keeping your mind clear CAN mean leaving the door wide open to
imagining the very things that can and should be established from
facts -- for example, how the film was made. Imagination is great,
but it won't take the place of solid research and four square meals a
day, and it is in the nature of imagination to want to do just that.
Bacon distinguished the bee from the spider: The bee gathers pollen
to make honey; the spider spins its web out of its own entrails. Bees
got us to the Moon. Spiders took us into Iraq. "Don't confuse me with
the facts" is the motto of the current administration, whether on
WMDs in Iraq or global warming or the effect of tax cuts.
To take a less OT example, if you met a filmmaker about whom you had
definite opinions -- "he's obviously stupid," say -- and found out
that the opposite was true, would you look back at the films to see
if you misread them, assume that some mysterious alchemy had taken
place transmuting the director's obvious intelligence into stupidity
on the screen, invent a theory of different kinds of intelligence or
appeal to an existing one, say that it was of no importance, because
only the work counts...
I have always found that when I met directors, they were like their
films, and up to them, in the sense that their personalities were as
fascinating, complex, big, whatever, as their work. The two where
that wasn't the case - Phil Kaufman and James Foley - have since
disappointed me as directors, not once but several times.
12487
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:34am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
Fred - Browning wrote a poem called Fra Filippo Lippi - a dramatic
monologue. The ones he wrote on artists -- musicians as well as
painters -- might be of interest to you.
I was there too, and I was embarrassed too. But read the fragmentary
monologue by Walsh in Who the Devil Made It, and you'll see the man
who made the movies and stumbled through that evening of dirty jokes
inaugurating one of the best retrospectives in MOMA history. None of
us is necessarily at his/her best in situations like that.
12488
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:48am
Subject: Re: Gossip and auteurism
Here's a piece of Bunuel gossip I got from a book by Max Aub that I
had to learn Spanish to read: Bunuel always hated Libertad Lamarque,
the somewhat long in the tooth (but very good!) Argentine diva who
starred in Gran Casino, his first Mexican film. Why? Because his
producer, Oscar Dancigers, obliged him to watch one of her Argentine
melodramas, and it made him cry. He was furious with himself
afterward -- "How could I cry over such an absurd, maudlin, grotesque
scene?" -- and never forgave the actress.
When I read that I immediately understood 1) why he didn't like the
novel Belle de Jour ("sentimental, melodramatic, dated") when the
Hakims gave it to him and b) why the film has two endings -- Carriere
says Bunuel was so moved by the "miracle" that when he talked about
shooting it, tears came to his eyes.
My meretricious mentor Harold Bloom used to say that whereas the New
Critics (early advocates of a position I hear some taking here)
debunked the biographical fallacy, the intentional fallacy and the
affective fallacy in literary criticism, the meaning of poetry was
one-half the biographical fallacy, one-half the intentional fallacy
and one-half the affective fallacy. That's three halves, of course,
but he never seemed to mind details like that.
12489
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:55am
Subject: Re: watching movies under the influence (was: 1000 eyes)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Noel Vera wrote:
> > Half of the list thinks that eating popcorn while
> > watching films is a
> > Betrayal of Cinema.
> > The other half likes to use liquor and drugs!
>
> Ah, I always finish my snacks before the movie begins,
> unless it's some Hollywood biggie, in which case I
> stretch it out as long as I can.
When The Sorrow and the Pity played in LA many years ago, my friend
Alan Holleb and his friend Bill Norton took a sixpack when they went
to see it. I am told, and can well understand, that the "pssshhh"
sound of cans being popped open during the screening was for many
patrons a crime on par with those described in the film. So tacky.
12490
From:
Date: Thu Jul 15, 2004 10:58pm
Subject: Sunset (Was: watching movies under the influence (was: 1000 eyes)
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
>(which happened yesterday with Blake Edwards' SUNSET, what
>a nice film - not great but a real pleasure)
Jaime, I'm glad to hear you liked "Sunset." I'm closer to thinking it's
great film rather than just a real pleasure, though it's undeniably enjoyable on
the level of a fascinating story told with wit and excitement. And there's
certainly very real enjoyment to be found in watching Edwards' staging and his
basic control of the medium. But it's more than that. From my perspective,
even more than "That's Life!" or "Skin Deep" (admittedly both great), it feels
like the summing-up film from Edwards. There's a Vincent Canby review from the
time of the film's release where he says that some people will "seek (and
find) all sorts of keys to the true nature of the Edwards oeuvre, including
Darling Lili, his classic Pink Panther films, 10, S.O.B. and Victor/ Victoria." And
he then goes onto say how he's not one of those people, and how horrible the
film is. But Canby gets the first part right, at least. Perhaps Damien or
Jake, both of whom are also big "Sunset" fans, can talk a bit more about this.
Damien, is there really a director's cut of the film out there?
Bill, the Walsh interview in "Who the Devil Made It" is one of the best in
the book. The stories of Walsh's youth - especially his apprenticeship with
some "doctor" in Mexico (?) - are often sidesplitting; it's like "reading" a
Walsh movie, that interview.
Peter
12491
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:43am
Subject: Re: Re: remakes and whatnot/gossip folks
> Spoto got Suspicion right in his book on Hitchcock's films, then did
> a 180 on it after talking to the writer. That is the result of
> deciding to go after Hitchcock, of course, but also of 1)ignorance of
> how films are made, 2) reliance on one-source testimony and 3) lack
> of imagination or sheer analytical ability for assessing the
> evidence.
Spoto also, famously, reversed himself on MARNIE in his book THE DARK
SIDE OF GENIUS, after research lead him to believe that Hitch simply
lost interest in the film.
Most biographers are more subtle about this than Spoto, but you see it
all the time. I was just reading Ronald Hayman on Fassbinder, and he
too seemed to be affected by his knowledge that Fassbinder practically
abandoned his films in post-production in his haste to move on.
> But that's because Spoto is a terrible biographer! A good one would
> have questioned what he was told, dug deeper into the files (which
> were ALL available when Spoto wrote) and deepened and/or challenged
> his own conclusions based on findings.
I'd say that good judgment also requires a certain sophistication about
what it means to direct a movie. It's a very odd form of creation,
after all: everyone else on the set has something visible or audible to
contribute to the film, and all the director does is influence the
others. We grow up with a very different mythology of the Artist.
> Keeping your mind clear CAN mean leaving the door wide open to
> imagining the very things that can and should be established from
> facts -- for example, how the film was made. Imagination is great,
> but it won't take the place of solid research and four square meals a
> day, and it is in the nature of imagination to want to do just that.
Ha - I got that movie reference. Of course, history and facts should
never be ignored, and certain questions can be settled by them
absolutely. And of course it's not out of the question to go back to a
film after learning what really happened behind the scenes, and then
revise one's opinion - we're continually revising our opinions under any
circumstances. But I just think that we should be very cautious about
that process, because the weight of facts can easily lead us in the
wrong direction.
> To take a less OT example, if you met a filmmaker about whom you had
> definite opinions -- "he's obviously stupid," say -- and found out
> that the opposite was true, would you look back at the films to see
> if you misread them, assume that some mysterious alchemy had taken
> place transmuting the director's obvious intelligence into stupidity
> on the screen, invent a theory of different kinds of intelligence or
> appeal to an existing one, say that it was of no importance, because
> only the work counts...
Well, any and all of the above. I recall saying something like that
about Cimino, and of course I took your word for it that he is in fact a
smart guy. In this particular case, as you point out, there's the
complicating problem of defining intelligence, which is such a
multifarious concept that a person can easily be smart in five different
ways and dumb in five others.
Again, I think it's always worthwhile to go back to films to see if we
misread them - any excuse towards that end is good enough. I'm
currently trying to motivate myself to see the 4-hour HEAVEN'S GATE when
it comes to Film Forum later this summer, despite my excruciating ordeal
with the shorter version. But I think the "mysterious alchemy" you talk
about is the most common thing in the world. Intelligence doesn't
really count for much in life: it doesn't make us right about things, it
doesn't make us successful, it does very little once you're out of
school. Good thinking is, in my opinion, largely a matter of deploying
your emotions properly, keeping them out of the way at the right times
and marshaling them at the right times. Most people have the basic
mental horsepower needed to accomplish most tasks in life. - Dan
12492
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:47am
Subject: Holleb and Norton (Was: watching movies under the influence)
> When The Sorrow and the Pity played in LA many years ago, my friend
> Alan Holleb and his friend Bill Norton took a sixpack when they went
> to see it.
Is that B. W. L. Norton? If so, those are two directors that I've
always thought were talented. CISCO PIKE is an impressive little movie,
and I think there's something good going on in CANDY STRIPE NURSES as
well. Why didn't Holleb make more films? - Dan
12493
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:48am
Subject: Re: Sunset (Was: watching movies under the influence (was: 1000 eyes)
I meant to write a little more on SUNSET.
Thanks a lot, Leonard Maltin, for once again almost keeping me from
experiencing a great cinematic pleasure! Boy, when someone said his
book was only good for running times and cinematographic formats, they
weren't just whistlin' Dixie.
(Maltin's so-called guide gave SUNSET one and a half stars, just a
rung below the abyss.)
There's something to be said about "classical style" and the way
certain old-time auteurs upheld the - modified for technological
allowances - style when they continued to make films into the 1980s
and even the 1990s. Since I had little to do while watching the
German-dubbed MADONNA AND THE DRAGON except "to see" Samuel Fuller's
framing and lighting, this was very, very apparent for Fuller. I
probably wouldn't have been so aware of it watching DEAD PIGEON ON
BEETHOVEN STREET, STREET OF NO RETURN and WHITE DOG, all of which are
available in the language I already speak, English.
Point being, the pleasures to be had with "late Edwards" (so far as I
know) have a lot to do with the grace and beauty with which Edwards
made use of "classical Hollywood style," whereas with Fuller one of
the viewer's pleasures was the scrappiness, the
make-do-with-what-we-have charm that still made room for classical
H'wood lighting and framing when it suited him. Two very different
filmmakers, two enormous virtues.
Very quickly, what I found immediately appealing about SUNSET was the
fact that he dispensed with the presumed convention of the buddy
movie: the phony confrontation between two like-minded individuals
who will eventually become friends. Tom Mix and Wyatt Earp make
friends right off the bat in a way that seemed - dare I say it? -
Hawksian, although I can't quite recall a Hawks "buddy film" in which
this happened, because in all of Hawks' films of "buddies" there's
either initial hostility/suspicion or the protags draw upon a long,
mutual history.
In the case of Mix and Earp, Edwards shows immediate affection for the
Real West and the Movie West, and the unbeatable combination is pitted
against all the phonies and Real crooks of Hollywood and LA.
Malcolm McDowell's villain is cardboard and uninteresting. The
mystery is expendable. But I'll entertain the notion that it's a
great film, more than just a simple pleasure.
Anyways, I like it better than SUNSET BLVD (blasphemy!) but not as
much as SUNRISE. Still haven't seen BEFORE SUNSET, which I guess is a
prequel to the Edwards film.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Jaime N. Christley wrote:
>
> >(which happened yesterday with Blake Edwards' SUNSET, what
> >a nice film - not great but a real pleasure)
>
> Jaime, I'm glad to hear you liked "Sunset." I'm closer to thinking
it's
> great film rather than just a real pleasure, though it's undeniably
enjoyable on
> the level of a fascinating story told with wit and excitement. And
there's
> certainly very real enjoyment to be found in watching Edwards'
staging and his
> basic control of the medium. But it's more than that. From my
perspective,
> even more than "That's Life!" or "Skin Deep" (admittedly both
great), it feels
> like the summing-up film from Edwards. There's a Vincent Canby
review from the
> time of the film's release where he says that some people will "seek
(and
> find) all sorts of keys to the true nature of the Edwards oeuvre,
including
> Darling Lili, his classic Pink Panther films, 10, S.O.B. and Victor/
Victoria." And
> he then goes onto say how he's not one of those people, and how
horrible the
> film is. But Canby gets the first part right, at least. Perhaps
Damien or
> Jake, both of whom are also big "Sunset" fans, can talk a bit more
about this.
>
> Damien, is there really a director's cut of the film out there?
>
> Bill, the Walsh interview in "Who the Devil Made It" is one of the
best in
> the book. The stories of Walsh's youth - especially his
apprenticeship with
> some "doctor" in Mexico (?) - are often sidesplitting; it's like
"reading" a
> Walsh movie, that interview.
>
> Peter
12494
From: Noel Vera
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:50am
Subject: Ebolusyon (Evolution)
Anyone in New York might want to check out the film "Ebolusyon" by
Lav Diaz, showing at the Asian American International Film Festival
(schedule in this link, scroll down to middle of page):
http://66.40.251.133/content.asp?cid=239
Took ten long years to make and is 8 hours long, and even then it's
still a rough draft (the final 10 1/2 hour version was lost when an
editing computer crashed a few days ago), but worth seeing, I think.
I've seen his 5-hour long "Batang West Side" (West Side Avenue) and
that was pretty much one of the better Filipino films I've seen in
years.
12495
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 0:32am
Subject: Re: Rossellini's Homophobia (Was: Gossip and auteurism)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> --- Michael Worrall
> Tom
> > Gunning told me about Rossellini responding to an
> > interviewer's
> > observation/challenge that many directors still made
> > films in the
> > "classical style" with the remark: "yes, and there
> > are still
> > homosexuals." This statement has tainted my
> > opinions of
> > Rossellini for years and kept me away from his other
> > films. I
> > have stated before that bad politics does not always
> > make bad
> > art, but Rossellini's comment cut really deep.
> > Obviously, I am the
> > one losing out in the long run.
Tag Gallagher takes exception to claims that Rossellini was
homophobic. Gallagher makes his case largely in response to Ingrid
Bergman's autobiography in which she writes about Rossellini's
extreme anxiety about homosexuality and which came to a head after RR
was supposed to direct Bergman in the Paris production of Tea and
Sympathy. RR agreed to direct the play without having read it and
was horrified to discover the subject matter after having signed on.
(The play was eventually directed by someone else.) Gallagher claims
that it was not the homosexual content of the play which disgusted RR
but rather the play's "conventional, teasing maudlinity" (Gallagher's
words, not RR's). According to Gallagher, RR "had many gay friends
and enjoyed visiting gay hang-outs" although none of these friends
are named. Gallagher does concede that homosexuality "denotes
depravity" in Open City, Germany, Year Zero, and Augustine of Hippo
but points out that the same subject is "not viewed unfavorably" in
Age of the Medici. I've never seen the last two films so I can't
comment. Gallagher's reading of RR's motives allows one to breathe a
little easier in relation to RR on this matter of homophobia but I'm
not entirely convinced. Bergman, for example, writes in relation to
Tea and Sympathy that for RR, "It wasn't the writing or the writer;
he just hated the general theme." I get the feeling here that
Gallagher is trying to polish off some of RR's rough edges, making
him a politically correct (or at least palatable) figure for today.
But for that period in Italy, RR was not really all that inconsistent
in his attitudes towards homosexuality and the feminine which many
men shared, regardless of their politics in other areas.
One thing Gallagher does refer to is something RR wrote for Bergman
as a kind of response to Tea and Sympathy, a story (never filmed, of
course) called Isa's Decision. This has been reproduced in one of
the Bergala books on Rossellini although I've never read it.
Gallagher attempts to make a case for its superiority over Tea and
Sympathy but his description alone does not make a convincing case
for its ideological superiority over T&S. Like T&S, it deals with a
woman who attempts to "save" a man from his homosexuality through
seduction although in this case the man is the woman's ex-husband,
who is now living with another man. Obviously I would have to read
this story or treatment (which was dictated to Truffaut, who had his
own anxieties about homosexuality, so what a team we've got here on
this one!) before making any attempt at evaluation. But all this
redemption sounds quite terrifying.
At any rate, has anyone in the group read this treatment of RR's?
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
12496
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:55am
Subject: NYC films (Was: Ebolusyon)
> Anyone in New York might want to check out the film "Ebolusyon" by
> Lav Diaz, showing at the Asian American International Film Festival
> (schedule in this link, scroll down to middle of page):
Oh, no - a recommendation for an 8-hour film! Thanks a lot, Noel.
A nice surprise in the Walter Reade's upcoming Nunnally Johnson tribute:
Stahl's excellent HOLY MATRIMONY on August 25 and 26. - Dan
12497
From: Noel Vera
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:03am
Subject: Re: NYC films (Was: Ebolusyon, an 8 hour film)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Anyone in New York might want to check out the film "Ebolusyon"
by
> > Lav Diaz, showing at the Asian American International Film
Festival
> > (schedule in this link, scroll down to middle of page):
>
> Oh, no - a recommendation for an 8-hour film! Thanks a lot, Noel.
>
Hey--Satantango, The Human Condition. I think it's worth a try...
12498
From:
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 0:18am
Subject: Re: Re: Sunset (Was: watching movies under the influence (was: 1000 eyes)
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
>There's something to be said about "classical style" and the way
>certain old-time auteurs upheld the - modified for technological
>allowances - style when they continued to make films into the 1980s
>and even the 1990s.
Absolutely. I make something like this point in my upcoming Senses of Cinema
piece on Peter Bogdanovich. Granted, he's not an old-time auteur at all
(born 17 years after Edwards), but he started out working in what could loosely be
called the classical film grammar and he's stuck to it through all these
years. His recent tele-films are done in the same style as any of his other
movies, and it's a very enjoyable thing to watch. I remember smiling when I first
saw his "To Sir, with Love II" and saw how he managed to work in all his
signature aesthetic touches. He's unbelievably consistent, right down to his
recent "Sopranos" episode.
Another example of what we're talking about, this time from someone of
Edwards' own generation, is Robert Mulligan. The difference, of course, is that
Edwards gave us upwards of 10 movies or tele-films in the 80s, whereas Mulligan
only managed two (the flawed "Kiss Me Goodbye" and the great "Clara's Heart" -
both are recognizably Mulligan-esque, though); it's amazing how prolific
Edwards was so relatively late in his career and during a time in film history when
so few directors made films that looked like his.
>Point being, the pleasures to be had with "late Edwards" (so far as I
>know) have a lot to do with the grace and beauty with which Edwards
>made use of "classical Hollywood style," whereas with Fuller one of
>the viewer's pleasures was the scrappiness, the
>make-do-with-what-we-have charm that still made room for classical
>H'wood lighting and framing when it suited him.
Very well said, Jaime. I'm also tempted to group late, late Welles in the
"scrappiness, the make-do-with-what-we-have charm that still made room for
classical H'wood lighting and framing when it suited him" category.
I agree with your Hawks comparison, by the way.
Great to see "Sunset" being discussed!
Peter
12499
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:10am
Subject: Food and movies
why is there such a tradition of eating food (or candy or ice cream
or...whatever) while watching movies? I realize it goes way back, and
eating popcorn is indispensable to most moviegoers, at least in this
(USA) country. But has anybody studied why? I mean, you don't feel
compelled to eat stuff when you go to the theater, to a museum, to a
concert, or when you read a book... I understand that the movies
being a popular entertainment, the eating of popcorn (pop!) indicates
that you are not in the realm of high culture. However, some people
here (and we are all highly intellectual beings, no matter how hard
we might claim not to be) seem to be addicted to the popcorn thing,
or some other type of oral consumption. This has always been
incomprehensible to me. Let's not have instant phony psychoanalytical
explanations. I'd really like to know why people do it.
JPC
12500
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:44am
Subject: Re: Food and movies
> why is there such a tradition of eating food (or candy or ice cream
> or...whatever) while watching movies? I realize it goes way back, and
> eating popcorn is indispensable to most moviegoers, at least in this
> (USA) country. But has anybody studied why? I mean, you don't feel
> compelled to eat stuff when you go to the theater, to a museum, to a
> concert, or when you read a book... I understand that the movies
> being a popular entertainment, the eating of popcorn (pop!) indicates
> that you are not in the realm of high culture. However, some people
> here (and we are all highly intellectual beings, no matter how hard
> we might claim not to be) seem to be addicted to the popcorn thing,
> or some other type of oral consumption. This has always been
> incomprehensible to me. Let's not have instant phony psychoanalytical
> explanations. I'd really like to know why people do it.
I eat popcorn mostly to stay awake. I chew it a kernel at a time, to
maximize its revivatory powers. The other reason I eat popcorn is
because I sometimes don't leave time in my schedule for a real meal:
popcorn is probably the healthiest thing at most concession stands, and
it fills your stomach with air so that you're not hungry for a while.
Lately, though, I've become a little worried that I'm disturbing people,
though I try to eat quietly. I think I bothered some friends by eating
popcorn during AU HASARD BALTHAZAR.... - Dan
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact