Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:23pm
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues (addendum)
I just realized this post makes it sound like I'm giving Dan a
lecture on filmmaking. That would be a pretty silly thing for me to
do. Just comparing notes, sorta thing.
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
>
>
> > When you say "without masking," do you mean 1.33:1? If so, that
> would
> > mean that you'd have to refrain from using the top and bottom of
> the
> > screen, so that a 1.85:1 projection wouldn't cut off the tops
and
> > bottoms of things. This will probably mean that your 1.33:1
> > compositions will be more spacious on top and bottom. It's hard
> to
> > compose for two ratios at once, and no fun, to my mind.
>
> Composing for 1.33 and 1.85 would simply mean getting a 1.85
ground
> glass (or making some doo-dad that would do the same thing) and
> keeping C-stands and track and mics out of the entire frame (1.85
> and 1.33 alike). Whatever effect you were going for with 1.85
would
> be dissipated in an open-matte presentation, but them's the breaks.
>
> You're right that composing an "artful" shot for both ratios at
the
> same time is hard. You're essentially making two subtly different
> films at the same time.
>
> -Jaime
13402
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues (correction)
> Composing for 1.33 and 1.85 would simply mean getting a 1.85 ground
> glass (or making some doo-dad that would do the same thing) and
> keeping C-stands and track and mics out of the entire frame (1.85
> and 1.33 alike). Whatever effect you were going for with 1.85 would
> be dissipated in an open-matte presentation, but them's the breaks.
>
> You're right that composing an "artful" shot for both ratios at the
> same time is hard. You're essentially making two subtly different
> films at the same time.
To me, this is no fun. It's not as if you have equal freedom to make
each film - basically, you put your effort into one film, and try to
make the other one borderline acceptable.
I think filmmakers should either a) take the realities of exhibition
into account and pick a standard ratio, so they can make a movie that
will be shown in something like the form that they envisioned; or b)
pick an unorthodox ratio and be prepared to fight for it, lose screening
opportunities because of it, etc. Of course, if big money is involved,
these decisions are often made for the filmmaker. - Dan
13403
From:
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Young One help (Was: Bunuel 1 and 2)
I did get it and will read it on my way down to Chicago in a few minutes.
You're the most! Thanx! Gawd, I wish I was on a list like this pertaining to
popular music.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
13404
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 7:40pm
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Worrall"
>
> There's also Cinerama -- would this be a novelty ratio?-- and the
> very bogus SuperScope which takes the 1:37 image and cuts off the
> top and bottom when reprinted for anamorphic.
It's interesting to compare Truffaut's very different reaction toward
CinemaScope and Cinerama.
----
Had he been among us that morning, our late friend Jean Georges Auriol
would have been the most enthusiastic, he who always sat in the first
row of the stalls saying, "at the movies, you really have to be
dazzled."
This is a wonderful remark, totally vindicated by CinemaScope. The
more people there are in movie theaters, the more we need to get
closer to the screen, in order to make up for the odious critical
objectivity of habit, which makes us blasé and consequently bad
spectators.
So now, this closer relation--which some still denied themselves--
comes to us on its own, annihilating the arbitrary boundaries of the
screen and replacing them with the quasi-ideal ones of panoramic
vision.
Journalists of the popular press made a serious error, and it is not
necessary to look elsewhere for the causes of this deception, in
focusing publicity for CinemaScope on an effect of "relief" [the
so-called 3-D effect], nonexistent in reality, and of little
interest.
With the coming of the wide screen, cinema is reinventing the
bas-relief of its own terms; an essential method in sculpture, it
gives "depth" priority over "relief"; as we have experienced in recent
films with polaroid glasses, it goes after farfetched objectives,
which can only offer us a naively monstrous and totally unrealistic
vision of the world. The thesis of André Bazin, according to which
"the screen is a mask" (the same for J. P. Sartre: "To speak is to
pass over words in silence") still counts for CinemaScope; cinema
remains a window opened to the world, but hasn't modern architecture
done away with the vertical window in favor of the picture window, the
oblong bay window (cf. skyscrapers; le Corbusier; Rope, etc. . . .)?
We may be reminded here that cinema is an art of sight, that our
natural vision is panoramic and that our two eyes are placed one next
to the other and not one above the other; our eyes form a horizontal
field together and are of no use to each other in vertical vision.
All the problems that come up when we think about CinemaScope --
whether the close-up will survive and how effective camera movements
can be -- both vanish and are solved when we confront the fait
accompli. The close-ups of Victor Mature in The Robe are absolutely
convincing; the soft-focus on the faces reminds one of Hitchcock's
Notorious; a long scene with Lauren Bacall assures us of the
persistence of the American shot and of its heightened interest.
Every work is more or less the story of a man who is walking and there
will be plenty of walking on CinemaScope screens.
It is pleasant to think about the films we like and to note that the
elongated apartment of Rope, the cars of Europa 51, and the movements
of The Golden Coach would gain in fascination.
It is certain, and the presented excerpts prove so, that the first
films in CinemaScope will be very mediocre. How could the most
brilliant directors of actors, and the most inventive directors of
mise-en-scène, improvise the smallest original detail on a set
where,
having at their disposal all the money in Hollywood, you can't expose
thirty feet of film without having twelve gentlemen in top hats each
giving advice and refiguring the budget?
We will have to wait until shooting a film in CinemaScope becomes as
natural as shooting an Academy-ratio film in black and white, and
until directors enjoy equal freedom. It needs also to be admitted
that, if CinemaScope is a commercial REVOLUTION, it is also an
aesthetic EVOLUTION. If we agree that the achievement of perfection in
the cinema depends on improved realism, then CinemaScope represents
one step in that process, the most important one since talkies.
We are entering the era of wide vision. We will return to cinema, and
we "will really be dazzled."
(Review of _The Robe_, "On Being Dazzled," Cahiers du Cinema, July
1953, in Wheeler Winston Dixon, Early Film Criticism of F. Truffaut)
Cinerama Holiday ("Bad Circus and Low Propaganda")
Cinerama is ineradicable now, for it is not only a cinema show,
but it also attracts tourists; the country cousin coming to Paris
goes to the Empire after visiting the Folies-Bergères and
Ingrid Bergman in Tea and Sympathy.
The first Cinerama film attempted to make a demonstration, rather
unconvincingly, of the "possibilities" of this method: one could hope
that the second program would show an improvement, but alas! We have
to face our disappointment again this time. We now know that Cinerama
has nothing to say and says it badly, in spite of Claude Dauphin's
beautiful voice.
On the contrary to what has been asserted, Cinerama Holiday doesn't
tell a story; the double honeymoon of a Swiss couple in America and an
American couple in Europe is just an excuse to show, a bit less
arbitrarily, the same things as in the first show. Everything is
sacrificed to effect, by the very force of circumstances, since
Cinerama is unable to show an "acted" sequence.
Camera men miss no opportunity to track in without cause, the camera
being perched on a sleigh, a plane, a scooter, or wooden horses.
Sometimes, the people we see on the screen are preplanned "walkons,"
and we are shocked to witness a fabricated scene allegedly "taken from
life." When, on the contrary, the camera moves among the crowd, it is
unpleasant to meet the pedestrians' eye in the lens, all the more so
because we see them abused by assistants, whom we imagine dealing out
one dollar bills.
The mise-en-scène is pitiable, the editing unskillful, the picture
often out of focus. The three screens are no better linked up than
before, but the cameramen have been given instructions about this so
that houses' angles and trees are casually superimposed on the edges
of the central screen.
The most irritating in all this is the tone and the content of the
show, the systematic flattery of the "dear audience," the extremist
demagogy, the intensive publicity, and the propaganda.
Cinerama, for want of being able to hide its limits, is condemned to
use itself as a subject forever; it is annoying to hear for two hours:
"Dear audience, thanks to Cinerama, you're going to fly over this or
that." Or else: "It's in Cinerama's company, dear friends, that you
are going to go for a walk in Dache. . . ." And finally: "America not
only sets the pace, but also . . . ," etc.
When we listen to friends coming back from a trip to the United
States, we are shocked to hear their remarks, offensive to a country
that we judge through good movies and good novels: Cinerama--
and this might be its only virtue--is precisely the same as a trip to
the U.S.A., since we leave the theater feeling fiercely anti-American.
Cinerama Holiday can be one of the answers to Raymond Cartier's
interesting question: "Why are Americans hated?"
The sequence about France is so extravagant that, during the
projection reserved for the press, the organizers turned the sound off
so that nobody could hear the sentences exchanged between the American
couple and a French mother whose children are fighting in the war!
If you like cinema, you must refrain from going to see Cinerama and
with the money you'll thus save, you can afford three or four
beautiful Hollywood or other films. If you really want to "be
dazzled," you can also go and see, more profitably, Abel Gance's
Magirama in Studio 28.
(Review of "Cinerama Holiday," Arts, Jan. 23-29, 1957, in W.W. Dixon,
Early Film
Criticism of F. Truffaut)
13405
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Worrall"
>
> >
> > There's also Cinerama -- would this be a novelty ratio?-- and the
> > very bogus SuperScope which takes the 1:37 image and cuts off the
> > top and bottom when reprinted for anamorphic.
>
> It's interesting to compare Truffaut's very different reaction
toward
> CinemaScope and Cinerama.
Bresson briefly mentioned Cinerama when he was interviewed by Godard
and Delahye. However, the widescreen format is probably besides the
point to Bresson's concerns. I also noticed that the film they're
putting down -- _The Great Race_ is maybe worth defending...
Paul
---
Bresson: ...[C]inema is falling. And it is such a fall! Yesterday,
I went into the Cinerama. For you know that one has
access to it from the Studiorama [note: the Studiorama projection room
communicated with the Empire Cinerama Theatre]. And often I go to
sit in the balcony, where there is no one, and when one sees
that immense screen, that covers everything, that makes an
effect! ... And the trains . .. that start from one end and come
back on you! It is magnificent, that invention! People start from
your right pocket and return to your left pocket. Then, when it
is a train that returns to you! . . . That is marvelous!
Yesterday, then, in the balcony (and there were a pair of lovers
who moreover were absolutely not looking at the film) [The Great Race,
dir. Blake Edwards], yesterday I saw that cinema and it stupefied me.
GODARD-The same thing happened to me, four days ago, at the
Studiorama. I went to the washroom, which is at the level of the
balcony of the Cinerama. and I sat down in the balcony. And it is
true: one enters a theater . . . I saw some images from the film:
crazy characters who were jumping around. It is there that one sees
that cinema is not the same thing as cinematography.
BRESSON-Absolutely! Well, that is the cinema, now.
DELAHAYE - Can you say, exactly, what impression you had at that
moment?
BRESSON - A horrible impression! The impression of the absolute of
the false, the false being seized by a miraculous apparatus, and
again reinforced. For there one has a deliberate reinforcement of
the false to make it enter well into the head of the spectator.
And when they have that in their heads, I guarantee to you that it
is difficult to get it out of them!
http://66.108.51.239/Godard_Bresson/godard-delahye_bresson.htm
13406
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:09pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper
>
> I do have a good collection of R. Crumb's "Weirdo" comics.
>
> Fred Camper
Speaking of Crumb, he did a pretty funny strip on the Cannes Film
Festival in the June 7 NEW YORKER (and another one a few months back
about his and his wife Aline's life in a small French village.)
JPC
13407
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:20pm
Subject: Re: Santiago Alvarez in Los Angeles
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
> 79 Primaveras by Santiago Alvarez, his film on Ho Chi Minh, will be
> playing on Friday August 6th, 8pm, at the Track 16 Gallery
And after you have seen the official Castro regime filmmaker's masterpiece, head over
to www.johnkerry.com for official Kerry regime filmmaker Steven Spielberg's A
REMARKABLE PROMISE, a truly remarkable propaganda film!
13408
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:32pm
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
> Bresson briefly mentioned Cinerama when he was interviewed by Godard
> and Delahye. However, the widescreen format is probably besides the
> point to Bresson's concerns. I also noticed that the film they're
> putting down -- _The Great Race_ is maybe worth defending...
>
> Paul
>
> ---I am confused! "The Great Race" was not made in Cinerama but in
Vistavision. What was it doing on the Cinerama screen??
>
JPC
13409
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
> wrote:
> > Bresson briefly mentioned Cinerama when he was interviewed by
Godard
> > and Delahye. However, the widescreen format is probably besides
the
> > point to Bresson's concerns. I also noticed that the film they're
> > putting down -- _The Great Race_ is maybe worth defending...
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ---I am confused! "The Great Race" was not made in Cinerama but
in
> Vistavision. What was it doing on the Cinerama screen??
Perhaps he was talking about a Paris cinema called "the Cinerama,"
either as a name or a nickname?
-Jaime
13410
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:09pm
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues (correction)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> When you say "without masking," do you mean 1.33:1? If so, that
would
> mean that you'd have to refrain from using the top and bottom of
the
> screen, so that a 1.85:1 projection wouldn't cut off the tops and
> bottoms of things. This will probably mean that your 1.33:1
> compositions will be more spacious on top and bottom.
Yes, I am talking about shooting it in 1:33, which would actually be
my preferred ratio for the video/film. I am aware of the problems
with composition that I would face, and while 1:78 is a great
suggestion, I do not think there are any assurances that it would be
letterboxed on video. (Not all films released on tape make it to DVD
and even some DVDs are not letterboxed. Artistan home video has
tons of titles in scan and pan only.) I do agree with you that at
some point a decision needs to be made in terms of framing and to
stick with it.
Michael Worrall
13411
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:30pm
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
>
> > wrote:
> > > Bresson briefly mentioned Cinerama when he was interviewed by
> Godard
> > > and Delahye. However, the widescreen format is probably besides
> the
> > > point to Bresson's concerns. I also noticed that the film
they're
> > > putting down -- _The Great Race_ is maybe worth defending...
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > ---I am confused! "The Great Race" was not made in Cinerama but
> in
> > Vistavision. What was it doing on the Cinerama screen??
>
> Perhaps he was talking about a Paris cinema called "the Cinerama,"
> either as a name or a nickname?
>
> -Jaime
The Paris cinema called CINERAMA was built for the specific purpose
of showing films made in the CINERAMA format: "This is Cinerama"
(which Truffaut discussed in his article)and other such travelogues,
then much later "How the West Was Won". Later on I guess it showed
ordinary wide screen films such as The Great Race, but then Bresson's
remarks are in no way a criticism of Cinerama, just of an oversize
screen (which may or may not have shown The Great Race in the proper
aspect ratio).
I was in Paris when Cinerama was launched but dispised it by
principle and never went (it was too expensive anyway and I preferred
to spend my few francs on worthier Hollywood movies).
JPC
13412
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:55pm
Subject: Re: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues (correction)
> Yes, I am talking about shooting it in 1:33, which would actually be
> my preferred ratio for the video/film. I am aware of the problems
> with composition that I would face, and while 1:78 is a great
> suggestion
It's only a suggestion if you like the look of it.
> I do not think there are any assurances that it would be
> letterboxed on video. (Not all films released on tape make it to DVD
> and even some DVDs are not letterboxed. Artistan home video has
> tons of titles in scan and pan only.)
I didn't know that. I don't rent enough, and never had to deal with any
form of video distribution.
> I do agree with you that at
> some point a decision needs to be made in terms of framing and to
> stick with it.
It's just a shame to shoot in 1.33:1 if you can't use the top and bottom
of the frame. - Dan
13413
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 9:57pm
Subject: Re: Pierre Schoendoerffer.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003"
>
> >
> > Of course, Coutard was a combat cameraman during the
> "French War"
>
> Very important to the impact of the film.
>
> > Coutard also directed a film in Vietnam, unseen by me "Hoa
> Binh" which
> > I remember got a lot of flack from the Left.
>
> I barely remember it, but being by Coutard, it was gorgeous.
So Jacques Perrin was a "red." I know little about him except for
seeing his occasional appearances in French films such as Catherine
Deneuve's "dream lover" in THE YOUNG GIRLS OF ROCHEFORT. More needs
to be researched on the films mentioned so far. Perhaps both Perrin
and Schondoerffer had military experience which may have defused the
different political positions they held?
Anyway, these films and the historical period are certainly "subjects
for further research" as they say. The theme from S's film is used on
the official Web Site for the memorial Dien Bien Phu Web Site very
evocatively.
By way of an interesting aside, THE LOST COMMAND (1965) was based on
a novel by journalist Jean Larteguay originally titled "Les
Centurions". It is a very interesting examination into the mindset of
these veterans from Indo-China and later Algeria. The Mark Robson
film version does not do the novel justice. But in one section, it
does mention that the returning P.O.W's from Indo-China were spat on
by anti-war elements in the 1950s. Is this another of those "legend
into facts" elements documented by Jerry Lembke in his SPITTING
IMAGES BOOK dealing with returning Vietnam veterans or based on fact?
It makes me more anxious to see A CAPTAIN'S HONOR whenever it
resurfaces.
13414
From:
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 6:50pm
Subject: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues)
We had a Cinerama theater in Detroit in the early 1960's. Our family used to
drive all the way to Detroit from our home town Lansing (70 miles), just to
see movies in the format! I remember seeing "How the West Was Won" there as a
kid. Loved Truffaut's comments about "country cousins" coming to the big city,
and rushing off to see Cinerama. Paging Claude Chabrol!
TCM sometimes shows these movies in letterbox. The 3 screens that make up
Cinerama are not perfectly joined; one can see edges between them. If childhood
memory serves, it was the same imperfect way in the theater. Cinerama is MUCH
wider than Scope. It seemed quite spectacular seen on the big screen. I
remember a buffalo stampede... Some people thought it was the Future of Cinema, but
it was just a flash in the pan. Today, the excitement is over IMAX, which is
now everywhere in the US. Even a smallish town like Lansing has its own IMAX
theater. Years ago, enjoyed a 3D film in IMAX. It showed giant animated models of
molecules, zooming through space. Something completely different.
I loved "Polyester" (John Waters). It opens with a spoof of the early film
"This is Cinerama" - only Waters is promoting Odorama. So everyone from John
Waters to Robert Bresson has spoofed Cinerama. These are certainly two filmmakers
who do not naturally come to mind at the same time.
Even better: The stupendous "The Great Race" (Blake Edwards).
Mike Grost
13415
From:
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 6:56pm
Subject: Re: OT: Pinhead's Progress (was Weirdos)
I have never read any R. Crumb.
But I do love the surrealistic "Zippy the Pinhead" by Crumb's friend Bill
Griffith - my favorite contemporary comic strip.
The strip keeps one posted about Griffith's proposed film version of the
strip, "Zippy Vision". We all know who Zippy wants to play himself on the big
screen. One strip showed Zippy alerting a Hollywood agent about casting:
"Tell Tom Cruise to start bulking up!"
Mike Grost
13416
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> The Paris cinema called CINERAMA was built for the specific purpose
> of showing films made in the CINERAMA format: "This is Cinerama"
> (which Truffaut discussed in his article)and other such travelogues,
> then much later "How the West Was Won". Later on I guess it showed
> ordinary wide screen films such as The Great Race, but then Bresson's
> remarks are in no way a criticism of Cinerama, just of an oversize
> screen (which may or may not have shown The Great Race in the proper
> aspect ratio).
Well, there's cases where you have the right kind of projector but the
wrong kind of room. A theater owner could install a rickety old 16mm
projector in an IMAX theater and the film would look like hell. I'm
not saying this is what happened with Bresson (although one now
imagines he saw his beloved GOLDFINGER moment at the same theater) but
if he saw THE GREAT RACE under optimum conditions he might have still
disliked it, but not felt cause to bring it up in print.
A while ago Fred told me on a_film_by (I can't find the post) that the
emphasis on "big" when people say "see it on the big screen" is
missing the point, that (extrapolating now) it's not the size of the
image but the texture, the density, the multitude of issues relating
to proper projection...but still, given Bresson's reaction to THE
GREAT RACE I have to wonder whether size still "doesn't matter" but
nevertheless the size of the screen/sound system in relation to the
viewer's eyes/ears does something to a film experience that we must
account for.
Not that the film deserves any comparison to a Blake Edwards movie,
but I saw the first LORD OF THE RINGS movie the first time in an IMAX
theater. It had not been blown up, as it was commonly done in the
days of 70mm. It was an ordinary 35mm struggling to cross the vast
auditorium of an IMAX venue. It looked like hell.
-Jaime
13417
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:05pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
"Pity. I would have loved to ask Conrad Hall about the aspect ratio
on FAT CITY."
If Hall's camera operator for FAT CITY is still around he would
probably know. I think Hall started as a camera operator himself.
Also, some cinematographers work more closely with their gaffers than
their operators, so it's possible that the gaffer could be a source
of information as well.
Richard
13418
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 0:17am
Subject: Re: OT: Pinhead's Progress (was Weirdos)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I have never read any R. Crumb.
> But I do love the surrealistic "Zippy the Pinhead" by Crumb's
friend Bill
> Griffith - my favorite contemporary comic strip.
> The strip keeps one posted about Griffith's proposed film version
of the
> strip, "Zippy Vision". We all know who Zippy wants to play himself
on the big
> screen. One strip showed Zippy alerting a Hollywood agent about
casting:
> "Tell Tom Cruise to start bulking up!"
>
> Mike Grost
It's the only mainstream contemporary strip worth reading. I used
to read it everyday when I lived in Boston where The Boston Globe
wouldn't drop it despite many readers' irate protests. It sure isn't
Garfield! Once Griffith ran a five-part strip explaining "How to read
Zippy"...
He often refers to movies. In one Sunday color strip I have kept
Zippy is in Paris up the towers of Notre Dame and adressing a
gargoyle: "It must be wacky to be a gargoyle." Gargoyle answers: "I'm
sorry, we do no have the concept of 'wacky' in France." -
Zippy: "So... the Jerry Lewis thing is finally over?" In another,
Griffy explains to Zippy that animated cartoons are drawings, not
real people. Zippy is incredulous ("They all live in Toon-Town;
haven't you seen Roger Rabbit?") The last panel is truly surreal:
Zippy and Griffith are seen from the back as tiny hand-puppets in a
tube-less TV watched by the real Z and G. "We've come a long way
since Punch and Judy, Zip..." --"Which one is Hannah and which one is
Barbera?").
I miss Zippy. But putting him in a movie won't work, just as
putting Krazy Kat in movies failed miserably. Let's not betray what's
left of anything relatively pure and nice.
JPC
13419
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 0:45am
Subject: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues)
The negative tenor of the discussion about Cinerama is really
disconcerting to me. The process, to my mind, was a perfectly valid
attempt to explore the boundaries of the screen's visual, kinetic,
and visceral impact. John Ford was willing to give it a try, after
all.
People who are interested in the history, science and lore of
Cinerama should watch for David Strohmaier's excellent feature-length
doc, "Cinerama Adventure". You can read about it (with attendant
links) in my piece at:
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/42/cinerama.htm
--Robert Keser
13420
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:30am
Subject: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames
Everyone is familiar with the door and cave frames in
Ford's THE SEARCHERS.
I am watching JUDGE PRIEST today. There is a scene
where Priest visits his wife's grave and either a monument
or hedge serves as a frame to take out about 1/3 of the
screen. I'm surprised that no one mentioned Ford's
framing technique when talking about changing the
ratios of screen images while filming (Dan's wish) as it
seems that is what Ford is doing.
The previous shot is also interesting because it
begins with a large tree trunk on the left side of the
screen and Priest at the grave of his wife fills the screen
to the right; eventually the tree serves to split the screen so that
Priest in on the right and Gillis walking toward another grave is
on the other half of the screen on the left. Gradually, with a
tracking shot, the left sided scene with Gillis fills the scene and
again the ratio aspect of the Gillis scene is changed from about
1/2 with a vertical emphasis on the screen to a full horizontal image.
Interesting.
Judge Priest 1934
The Searchers 1956
13421
From:
Date: Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:58pm
Subject: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio...
I was not trying to be negative about Cinerama. Just waxing a bit nostalgic
about seeing it as a kid. It truly gave rise to "spectacular" effects, as
Robert Keser suggests.
Mike Grost
13422
From:
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 0:32am
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames
Very perceptive and interesting comments, Elizabeth. Coincidentally, I too
saw "Judge Priest" for the first time today; I imagine we were watching the
same television broadcast (taped in my case.) I think it's a very great film,
but I almost feel as though I need to see Ford's unofficial remake, "The Sun
Shines Bright," before passing final judgment; I've heard for many years that
it's greater than "Judge Priest," and one of the true Ford masterpieces.
Peter
13423
From:
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 0:37am
Subject: The Village
Curious to know if anyone here has seen the new Shyamalan film yet? Despite
the negative press, I've heard from a number of trusted cinephile friends that
it's a great film.
I know we have some Shyamalan fans here; Bill's on record as being an
"Unbreakable" fan, and the Contracampo critics (Filipe, Ruy, et al) also seem to be
fans, if Top 10 lists are anything to go by. I'm not quite on board yet, but I
plan to revisit his previous work after I see "The Village."
Peter
13424
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:06am
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames (The Sun Shines Bright)
ptonguette@a... wrote:
> ....I think it's a very great film,
>but I almost feel as though I need to see Ford's unofficial remake, "The Sun Shines Bright....
>
Ah, yes, "The Sun Shines Bright." One of my five favorite Fords, which
are, in order, "Seven Women," "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence," "The
Sun Shines Bright," "How Green Was My Valley," and "The Searchers."
The Sun Shines Bright:Judge Priest::The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence:Rio
Grande.
It's perhaps Ford's first true "late" film, full of incredible distance,
sadness, longing, regret. The style is very self-conscious, and almost
baroque. Its crisp black and white and amazing detail make it a poor
candidate for viewing on video. The last shot is incredible, almost
unbelievable, surely the greatest Ford last shot.
One problem with getting it shown is that there are scenes that, even if
played for humor, many will find racist ("I already got you out of one
lynching. If you play "Marchin' Through Georgia, I'll join the
lynching") In any case, any film that reveals a nostalgia for the
ante-bellum south is obviously politically questionable. But people in
our group likely know by now that I don't rate the aesthetic merit or
aesthetic pleasure of a film according to whether I agree with its
social positions.
Certainly Ford's framing can be very self-conscious, images composed and
blocked with great care. In addition to the shots Elizabeth mentions,
consider the wedding veil / minister / graveyard juxtaposition in "How
Green Was My Valley."
Fred Camper
13425
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:25am
Subject: Re: The Village
> Curious to know if anyone here has seen the new Shyamalan film yet?
> Despite the negative press, I've heard from a number of trusted
> cinephile friends that it's a great film.
A friend saw William Hurt being interviewed about THE VILLAGE, and when
asked what his favourite suspense movie was, he replied "ORDET -
because you desperately want
something to happen, but you don't know what is going to happen."
All the other actors apparently chose THE EXORCIST, HALLOWEEN or FRIDAY
THE 13th.
Surprising to hear someone mention Dreyer in that context.
-Nick Wrigley>-
( www.carldreyer.com )
13426
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:29am
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames
I read about THE SUN SHINES BRIGHT. It is amazing that a
film that Ford considered one of his greatest is not yet
available on DVD. I saw somewhere that a 100 minute
director's cut is available on vhs so hopefully a dvd will
soon follow. I wonder who is in charge of his estate as
I saw he had one son, one daughter and one grandson.
TCM / Warner's is always looking for DVD suggestions...
if we knew who had the rights, perhaps we can start a
DVD campaign.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Very perceptive and interesting comments, Elizabeth. Coincidentally, I too
> saw "Judge Priest" for the first time today; I imagine we were watching the
> same television broadcast (taped in my case.) I think it's a very great film,
> but I almost feel as though I need to see Ford's unofficial remake, "The Sun
> Shines Bright," before passing final judgment; I've heard for many years that
> it's greater than "Judge Priest," and one of the true Ford masterpieces.
>
> Peter
13427
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 7:24am
Subject: Re: Hurt on the Village, Late Summer Films
Isn't Sandrine Bonnaire Hurt's significant autre? I doubt if they
rented Cabin Fever.
Three interesting films opening this weekend, as always at the end of
the summer glut: The Village, She Hate Me, The Manchurian Candidate.
The latter has been a split decision down the line, with our own Gabe
and Andy Klein calling it steaming heap and the NY Time's Frank Rich
declaring it the most political film ever released during a
Presidential campaign. But I doubt if Rich caught They Live, released
on the eve of the election that gave Bush the First his first term.
If it's THAT political...
13428
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:03am
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues (correction)
> Yes, I am talking about shooting it in 1:33, which would actually
be my preferred ratio for the video/film.
Hi!
It certainly sounds like you should shoot the film that way, since
it's your preference and it will make the film easier for TV and
video. (I think you could probably insist on a letterboxed DVD - any
distributor sufficiently interested would surely be happy to allow
this, as it's very common, if not quite industry standard yet).
Bear in mind that the film will not come out for a year or so, so
expect DVD to be even more dominant in the marketplace by then.
It's also worth bearing in mind though, that film festivals are a
valuable way of gettign your film seen, reviewed, and possible bought
for distribution. If you blow up the central strip of a 1:1.33
composition there will be a loss of image quality when the film is
projected, whereas a DV shot anamorphically (which isn't at all more
expensive) will hold up much better for projection.
It's definitely a vexed question. If you liked the idea of a wider
image I'd definitely suggest you go for it, on the basis that it's
better for cinema and festivals, fine for DVD and in terms of TV, a
low-budget (I'm assuming - sorry if I'm wrong) DV film might be most
likely to sell to an independant film channel or other highbrow
institution which mightn't mind showing letterboxed films.
But if you prefer the old academy ration then shooting that way would
certainly seem the artistically preferable choice!
My first short to have TV money had to be composed for three formats -
cinema 1:1.85, widescreen TV 1.1:66 and standard TV. In practice this
meant that essential information had to fit the 1.1:33 frame, but we
had to make sure the additional width was used also. My favourite
example of this was a TV set in the edge of frame, showing an image
which we had cleared for use in cinema screenings, but which we
didn't have the TV and video rights for. So we framed it so it was
only visible in 1.1:85!
13429
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 10:08am
Subject: Re: Hulk Smash! (was Mix and Match)
> Not only that, but there's a brief shot that looks to have been
> stretched to something like 4:1. Contained within the overall
1.85:1
> frame, of course.
Am i right in thinking you dug the film? I think you're the only one
I know who did, but I'm thinking I'll have to see it, just for the
unusual technique.
If *I* was making THE HULK I'd have the frame get bigger as Banner
does! Wonder if Ang Lee does that?
"You wouldn't like me when I'm Ang Lee."
13430
From:
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 6:41am
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues (corre...
My intuitive feeling, not based on any hard evidence, is that up through 1965
or so, filmmakers always had a clear, single aspect ratio in mind when they
made each film.
If Minnelli or Ray or Leone made a film in Scope, by golly, it was designed
for Scope!
If Hawks or Ford made a film in Academy, they composed it for Academy.
The current horror of filmmakers having to make films to be shown in all
sorts of ratios did not arise. I cannot think of anything more destructive to
"creative visual style" than all this second guessing about ratios.
I would strongly echo Dan Sallitt's advice. Pick a ratio before shooting a
film. Design and compose everything for that ratio. Go home... Your film will be
much better!
Mike Grost
13431
From:
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 6:57am
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames
Very interesting posts!
If memory serves, Tag Gallagher's recent article on Ford in "Senses of
Cinema" has some frame enlargements from different Ford movies, showing such
cave-like effects. They date right back to Ford's early silent movies.
An even earlier silent director, Maurice Tourneur, also specialized in such
cave-like framings. (Maurice is the father of another great director, Jacques
Tourneur.) They run throughout Tourneur's films. Tourneur, like Ford after him,
is a "Pictorialist" filmmaker: one whose images are noted for their rich
pictorial beauty and sense of atmosphere. It is possible that Tourneur was a
direct influence on Ford.
These framings came out of a silent film culture that frquently masked part
of the image. Both the masks and the cave-like framings clearly stem from a
common artistic impulse. It is unclear at this late date whether such framings
were largely confined to M. Tourneur and Ford, or whether they were common coin
in the early silent era. Subjects for further research...
There are illustrations of Tourneur's imagery in William K. Everson's book on
silent film.
Mike Grost
PS I'm a Peter Greenaway fan too! Had forgotten about his experimental
framings in "Prospero's Books"!
"The Draughtsman's Contract" is my favorite.
13432
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:58am
Subject: Shyamalan; Hulk; Criterion gets all up in your grill
Peter, you can count me among the Shyamalan fans. SIGNS dissipated a
bit when I watched it a second time (with the folks - mom's sweet on
ol' Mel), but that didn't happen with THE SIXTH SENSE or UNBREAKABLE.
SENSE has some really great scenes. And there's Haley Joel
Osment...I know some viewers are programmed to hate all child actors
but he's a phenomenon, or at least he was one, in that film and A.I.
(Haven't seen him in a film since he started pubin'.)
David, yes, I'm probably the world's lonely HULK fan. Ang Lee does
some amazing things with split-screen. I tried to write an essay for
Jake (Senses of Cinema) in which I drew parallels with SWEET
SWEETBACK'S BAADASSSSS SONG. Didn't happen.
The Criterion Collection is releasing Robert Altman's two most overtly
political films: the TANNER '88 series and SECRET HONOR. Around the
same time is a release that continues their tradition endorsing recent
and not-dead filmmakers: a list that has included Quentin Tarantino,
David Fincher, Michael Bay, Danny Boyle, Wong Kar-wai, Lars von Trier,
David Gordon Green, Lynne Ramsay, Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater,
Steven Soderbergh, and Kevin Smith. Joining this group (which we may
characterize as "mixed") now is Catherine Breillat, with FAT GIRL.
-Jaime
13433
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 1:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Hurt on the Village, Late Summer Films
--- hotlove666
> Isn't Sandrine Bonnaire Hurt's significant autre? I
> doubt if they
> rented Cabin Fever.
>
That was a number of years back. They're not together
anymore.
Hurt's choice of "Ordet" reminds me of one of my
favorite ORIGINAL Second City routines, "Blind Date,"
in which a well-meaning sister (the great Barbara
Harris) tries to get her introverted brother (the
legendary Severn Darden) to go out with a girlfriend
of hers and take her to the movies. The movie he wants
to see? "Ordet."
"It's about a man who thinks he's Christ, but he's not
-- he's crazy."
So she says
"That sounds depressing. Why not take her to see
something light and gay like 'Spartacus'?"
"Light and gay? It end with thousands of crucifixions
up and down the Appian Way!"
"Yes but it's in Technicolor and Cinemascope."
"Cinemascope doesn't make the crucifixions any gayer
-- it just makes them wider!"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13434
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 3:23pm
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues (corre...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
"My intuitive feeling, not based on any hard evidence, is that up
through 1965 or so, filmmakers always had a clear, single aspect
ratio in mind when they made each film. If Minnelli or Ray or Leone
made a film in Scope, by golly, it was designed for Scope! If Hawks
or Ford made a film in Academy, they composed it for Academy."
I may not be remembering this accurately, but I think 1964 was the
year the "made for tv movie" was introduced, and Siegal's THE KILLERS
was one of the first tv movies. The network vetoed it because it was
too violent so it was released theatrically instead. Buzz Kulik's
SERGEANT RYKER was also a tv movie that was finally released
theatrically too. What aspect ratios were these movies shot in given
that their intended venue was television? So your intuition about
1965 might be right if we factor in the inuaguration of the made for
tv movie beginning in '64 or '65 and it's effect on how theatrically
released movies would henceforth be formatted. Anyway, it's a
subject for further research.
Richard
13435
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 3:55pm
Subject: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues (corre...
> My intuitive feeling, not based on any hard evidence, is that up through 1965
> or so, filmmakers always had a clear, single aspect ratio in mind when they
> made each film.
There's some information about the filming and exhibition of George Sidney's KISS ME, KATE (1953) at http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s789kate.html :
''From Box Office magazine of May, 1953 (paraphrasing): It was filmed with MGM's own 3D camera rig at a negative aspect ratio of 1.37; however, it would be available for playdates in 3D at full Academy ratio and could be matted for 2D "flat" playdates at any of three aspect ratios - 1.66, 1.75, or 1.85. So, the negative would be fully exposed and the theatres would soft-matte it to whichever ratio they preferred.
Here's a direct quote from George Sidney, the director: "My cameraman Charlie Rosher and I had to compose every shot three different ways at the same time. What would be good for one width would not be good for another. It was tricky, but we got around it by building more tops on sets, more floor and more sets in forced perspective to enhance the depth. The wider the screen, you see, the narrower; we had to compensate for those cut-off tops and bottoms. Same with the lighting: we used many more side lights than usual to relieve and bring out persons and objects at different distances from the camera. Even if you see Kate flat, you'll notice that it seems to have more depth than the ordinary movie." - Interview from the L.A. Times, November 8, 1953''
13436
From:
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 3:59pm
Subject: Re: Hurt on the Village, Late Summer Films
The new Manchurian is paranoid, but not paranoid enough: the genius
of the original was its subterranean alliance between Communists and
anti-Communists, the idea that the central political battle of the
past two decades was a ruse dreamed up by external forces, and that
the Am. public had basically been played like a bow fiddle. (The
equivalent would be, I guess, that Bush really did "knock down the
towers," or that Gore conspired in rigging the 2000 election.) Saying
that corporations really run the world isn't speculation; it's fact.
I would like very much if someone would remind Jonathan Demme that
high style is not his forte: the brainwashing sequence in the new
film is an over-the-top joke, with a henna-painted woman in Arab
dress carrying a dripping brain through an overlit emergency room. I
felt the movie might be on to something early on, but that sequence,
delivered in an undigested chunk about 20 minutes in, pretty much
sank the movie for me. Always nice to see Robyn Hitchcock (the star
of Demme's underappreciated STOREFRONT HITCHCOCK, which I forgot to
mention last time), and even better to see the psychedelic songman
playing a character whose last name is "Tokar."
THE VILLAGE I found more interesting than most, though Shyamalan's
tin ear makes you wish they still used dialogue writers in Hwood.
Some silly stuff in it, but I think it's conceptually ingenious, esp
the way Shyamalan gets himself out of the corner he's painted himself
in with his blatant 9-11 allegory. (i.e. if the creatures in the
woods are as evil as they think they are, isn't their isolationism
justified? and if they're not, does that mean they have nothing to
worry about?) The negative reviews seem to be mostly motivated by
disappointment of reviewers who sussed out the ending ahead of time.
(I rarely try since I'd rather not spoil the ending for myself, but
in this case I was actively guessing and still missed every time.) I
don't think it's as targeted a political statement as some seem to
think -- i.e. I don't buy the idea that the village is "the red
states" -- especially since as much as it criticizes the culture of
fear, it's also sympathetic to it (watch for Shyamalan's cameo).
In the minority on SHE HATE ME in that I find its sprawling nature
intriguing rather than sloppy, though its two stories -- payback for
corporate whistleblowers, and knocking up lesbians for cash -- don't
really connect at base. (Lee says the connection is the corruption of
lucre, but it doesn't play out like that.) Lee's a bit like Ollie
Stone in that I don't wholly like any of his movies, but I feel
compelled to keep watching.
Always fun to talk about the new stuff,
Sam
>
> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 07:24:17 -0000
> From: "hotlove666"
>Subject: Re: Hurt on the Village, Late Summer Films
>
>Three interesting films opening this weekend, as always at the end of
>the summer glut: The Village, She Hate Me, The Manchurian Candidate.
>The latter has been a split decision down the line, with our own Gabe
>and Andy Klein calling it steaming heap and the NY Time's Frank Rich
>declaring it the most political film ever released during a
>Presidential campaign. But I doubt if Rich caught They Live, released
>on the eve of the election that gave Bush the First his first term.
>If it's THAT political...
>
13437
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 4:03pm
Subject: Re: Hurt on the Village, Late Summer Films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
> (The
> equivalent would be, I guess, that Bush really did "knock down the
> towers," or that Gore conspired in rigging the 2000 election.)
So FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is a more appropriate follow-up to the original
MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE?
-Jaime
13438
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 4:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues (corre...
> ''From Box Office magazine of May, 1953 (paraphrasing): It was filmed
> with MGM's own 3D camera rig at a negative aspect ratio of 1.37;
> however, it would be available for playdates in 3D at full Academy
> ratio and could be matted for 2D "flat" playdates at any of three
> aspect ratios - 1.66, 1.75, or 1.85. So, the negative would be fully
> exposed and the theatres would soft-matte it to whichever ratio they
> preferred.
>
> Here's a direct quote from George Sidney, the director: "My cameraman
> Charlie Rosher and I had to compose every shot three different ways
> at the same time. What would be good for one width would not be good
> for another. It was tricky, but we got around it by building more
> tops on sets, more floor and more sets in forced perspective to
> enhance the depth. The wider the screen, you see, the narrower; we
> had to compensate for those cut-off tops and bottoms. Same with the
> lighting: we used many more side lights than usual to relieve and
> bring out persons and objects at different distances from the camera.
> Even if you see Kate flat, you'll notice that it seems to have more
> depth than the ordinary movie." - Interview from the L.A. Times,
> November 8, 1953''
This report kind of confirms my thought (maybe other filmmakers here
could weigh in) that, when you compose for more than one ratio, you're
really composing for the narrowest ratio, and basically just trying to
keep the mike boom out of the wider ratios. (Though I liked David C.'s
comment about using the frame to solve a TV rights problem.) Note that
all Sidney's concern about depth is basically concern for a 1.85:1 film.
Sounds to me as if the 1.33:1 film he made will have a lot of forced
perspective that he wouldn't have found necessary on an old-fashioned
1.33:1 mission. - Dan
13439
From: joey lindsey
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 4:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
> Is anybody up for this, for real? I'd be more than pleased to get
> together with some fellow New Yorker(s) to pound Manhattan pavement,
If you need someone who's physically in DC for some reason, I'll help
however I can.
joey Lindsey
13440
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:08pm
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames (The Sun Shines Bright)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper
> One problem with getting it shown is that there are scenes that,
even if
> played for humor, many will find racist
Ford is beyond today's concept of "racist" -- those who think he
is a racist can't be helped, I'm afraid. Should political correctness
ban "The Sun Shines Bright"? Some want to ban Mark Twain...
In "SUN" the much-maligned Stepin Fetchit -- a true genius --
plays the same part as in JUDGE PRIEST (even the character's name is
the same)and plays it exactly as twenty years earlier -- a sign of
Ford's reluctance to "update" his dream past.
JPC
> Certainly Ford's framing can be very self-conscious, images
composed and
> blocked with great care. In addition to the shots Elizabeth
mentions,
> consider the wedding veil / minister / graveyard juxtaposition
in "How
> Green Was My Valley."
>
> Fred Camper
and almost every shot in THE FUGITIVE...
13441
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project
I really can't take on anything more in terms of time, but let me
suggest a modus operandi that might work for this.
1. Someone posts to the group a list of key cinematographers and camera
operators who worked on Hollywood films in the decade following 1954,
together with the films they worked on. Others add to it until we have a
good list. I'd suggest at minimum trying to find these two people for
agreed-upon masterpieces.
2. People "claim" individuals that they want to contact. I think the
American Cinematographers Union might help with cinematographer contact;
whatever union camera operators are in could help with that.
3. With a tape recorder plugged into the phone (an adapter that will do
this is a cheap item at Radio Shack) those involved start calling. The
key questions, which I will rely on others here to refine, are:
What aspect ratio(s) were the images being composed for? What aspect
ratio(s) did the viewfinder show; was there a TV safe-action screen
inscribed? Was there one format that was given primary emphasis? (For
example, maybe they composed mostly for 1.85 but tried to keep faces
within the TV safe-action area.) And, to what extent, if any, did the
director look through the viewfinder. and what was his attitude toward
composing for which aspect ratio?
Most of the key crew members from this period are dead. I'm not sure
that we'll be able to find many. Perhaps the project won't really work
out. But it certainly won't work out if we wait.
If people are interested, perhaps the document above can be refined and
added to and subtracted from by those who would like to do the actual
work, with input from people here, until a final procedure is agreed on.
If a couple of people want to split this, you might be able to produce a
publishable article if enough people can be found. For an aspiring film
professor, having co-authored such an article but be of use.
Fred Camper
13442
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project (correction)
Fred Camper wrote:
> For an aspiring film
>professor, having co-authored such an article but be of use.
>
>
>
Sorry, should be "might be of use," as in, "might be of use in your
future career.
Fred Camper
13443
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:24pm
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames (The Sun Shines Bright)
I agree with you about the video problem, Fred. But you should know
that the commercial video of the film released a few years ago by
Republic is the original director's cut, ten minutes longer than the
version released, which can't be acccessed nowadays any other way.
I recently completed a very long essay about the film for the
Viennale catalog--much of it an inquiry into what the film meant
ideologically when it came out in Alabama in 1953, which is when I
first saw it, and involving lengthy comparisons to films ranging from
PLAYTIME and GERTRUD to PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET and STARS IN MY CROWN.
(In October, at the Viennale they're doing a complete Straub-Huillet
retrospective plus about 25 Ford films selected by Straub.)
Jonathan
from a NYC cybercafe
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper
> ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> > ....I think it's a very great film,
> >but I almost feel as though I need to see Ford's unofficial
remake, "The Sun Shines Bright....
> >
> Ah, yes, "The Sun Shines Bright." One of my five favorite Fords,
which
> are, in order, "Seven Women," "The Man Who Shot Liberty
Valence," "The
> Sun Shines Bright," "How Green Was My Valley," and "The Searchers."
>
> The Sun Shines Bright:Judge Priest::The Man Who Shot Liberty
Valence:Rio
> Grande.
>
> It's perhaps Ford's first true "late" film, full of incredible
distance,
> sadness, longing, regret. The style is very self-conscious, and
almost
> baroque. Its crisp black and white and amazing detail make it a
poor
> candidate for viewing on video. The last shot is incredible, almost
> unbelievable, surely the greatest Ford last shot.
>
> One problem with getting it shown is that there are scenes that,
even if
> played for humor, many will find racist ("I already got you out of
one
> lynching. If you play "Marchin' Through Georgia, I'll join the
> lynching") In any case, any film that reveals a nostalgia for the
> ante-bellum south is obviously politically questionable. But people
in
> our group likely know by now that I don't rate the aesthetic merit
or
> aesthetic pleasure of a film according to whether I agree with its
> social positions.
>
> Certainly Ford's framing can be very self-conscious, images
composed and
> blocked with great care. In addition to the shots Elizabeth
mentions,
> consider the wedding veil / minister / graveyard juxtaposition
in "How
> Green Was My Valley."
>
> Fred Camper
13444
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 5:41pm
Subject: Re: Hulk Smash! (was Mix and Match)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
> > Not only that, but there's a brief shot that looks to have been
> > stretched to something like 4:1. Contained within the overall
> 1.85:1
> > frame, of course.
>
> Am i right in thinking you dug the film? I think you're the only
one
> I know who did, but I'm thinking I'll have to see it, just for the
> unusual technique.
>
> If *I* was making THE HULK I'd have the frame get bigger as Banner
> does! Wonder if Ang Lee does that?
>
> "You wouldn't like me when I'm Ang Lee."
I loved The Hulk. Everything Ang Lee has done he has done well, and
he brings an interesting sensibility to his diverse projects -- not
many big budget H'wd directors revere Ozu. I obviously look forward
to Brokeback Mountain with keen anticipation.
13445
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 6:10pm
Subject: Tanner '88
> The Criterion Collection is releasing Robert Altman's two most overtly
> political films: the TANNER '88 series and SECRET HONOR.
I'm intrigued by this line at the end of the 'Tanner '88' description
on Criterion's site:
"The Criterion Collection is proud to present 'Tanner '88' in its
entirety, from New Hampshire to the convention... and beyond."
It could just refer to the events in the film beyond the convention --
or, perhaps, they're going to be including (but just haven't announced
it yet in the details of the release) the new episodes of the 'Tanner
'88' follow-up airing in October, at the same time as the DVD
release...? I'm intrigued either way.
Incidentally, Altman has been shooting the follow-up in New York --
there's a piece in the newest New Yorker (August 2nd issue, with the
black and white "at the shrink's" cover) in the Talk of the Town
section on the follow-up. The premise is that Cynthia Nixon of 'Sex
and the City' fame (Michael Murphy's / Jack Tanner's daughter from the
original) is making a documentary about her father's latest campaign,
with a crew present to do a "making of" her documentary. The New
Yorker piece details a part where Robert Redford shows up to tell
Nixon's character not to let the disastrous test-screening of her "doc"
get to her. Two quotes from the article worth sharing:
-"Getting a crowd to act natural is hard work, and Altman, who was
suffering from a sore throat, made playful, irascible comments: 'I hate
this fucking job. I should be on the beach sleeping and smoking
grass.' "
-"Altman was relaxing with a cup of tea, and he reminded Redford of a
television show that they had worked on together some forty years ago.
Redford replied, 'I can't remember yesterday, but I remember when I met
you then, and you said, "I just saw the movie that has changed my
life." '
"Altman smiled and said, 'What was that?'
" 'It was 'La Dolce Vita.' ' At the memory of Fellini, Altman looked
thoughtful. Redford continued, ' '8-1/2' is better.'
" 'Well, 'La Dolce Vita' was my virgin experience,' Altman said.
Redford laughed and left to get dressed."
I'm very excited to finally see 'Secret Honor' as well -- Philip Baker
Hall is a powerhouse of an actor. (It's also the film in which he
first came to P. T. Anderson's attention, leading him to cast him in
'Sydney'/'Hard Eight' et al.)
craig.
13446
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 6:13pm
Subject: Re: Tanner '88
> The premise is that Cynthia Nixon of 'Sex
> and the City' fame (Michael Murphy's / Jack Tanner's daughter from the
> original) is making a documentary about her father's latest campaign,
> with a crew present to do a "making of" her documentary.
Just to clarify (as lots of people in 'Tanner' play themselves),
Cynthia Nixon is not playing Cynthia Nixon of 'Sex and the City' fame
here -- she's playing Alex Tanner, Jack Tanner's daughter, reprising
her role from the original mini-series.
cmk.
13447
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Hurt on the Village, Late Summer Films
> Three interesting films opening this weekend, as always at the end of
> the summer glut: The Village, She Hate Me, The Manchurian Candidate.
Make that four: HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE filled me with glee,
though it is pretty immature, and reeks of committee thinking and script finessing
whereas DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR? seemed kind of awkward as the run-of-the-mill
comedy it was advertised as and still integral to what the writers probably had in
mind. As a result HAROLD AND KUMAR has more punches, more belly laughs, but
that's the first time around; I'm not sure it will be as funny the 3rd or 4th time. Still
there is a stoned cheetah, a bag of weed with arms that gets its own extended dream
sequence (probably the funniest scene in the movie), a lot of dorky Asian guys, sexual
anxiety/wish-fulfilment a la PORKY'S, two English girls who try to out-shit each other,
blah blah blah. And a lot of common insights that are presented in enjoyable ways,
such as the delight one takes in sitting down for a well-earned meal of junkfood with
a friend.... Yeah, this one's for stoners.
13448
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames (The Sun Shines Bright)
Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
>....I recently completed a very long essay about the film for the
>Viennale catalog....
>
Jonathan,
Do you know if the essay will be printed in English as well as German? I
can see from the Viennale Web site that past catalogues can be ordered.
(http://www.viennale.at/english/publikationen/)
Thanks to you and Elizabeth for information on the long version of "The
Sun Shines Bright." I will look into this.
Fred Camper
13449
From: Travis Miles
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 8:19pm
Subject: Re: Santiago Alvarez in New York
Anthology Film Archives is collaborating with Third World Newsreel to
present (Aug. 20-22) three programs of Newsreel (and associated) films,
including two by Alvarez: 79 Springtimes of Ho Chi Minh, and Hanoi, Tuesday
the 13th.
Sorry for the plug,
Travis
On 7/30/04 2:43 PM, "Andy Rector"
> 79 Primaveras by Santiago Alvarez, his film on Ho Chi Minh, will be
> playing on Friday August 6th, 8pm, at the Track 16 Gallery, Bergamont
> Station (2525 Michigan Ave. C-1, Santa Monica).
> A seat must be reserved by calling 310-264-4678
>
> It is showing as part of a glorious tribute to Cuban poster art.
>
> yours,
> andy
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
13450
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:43pm
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames (The Sun Shines Bright)
> Thanks to you and Elizabeth for information on the long version of "The =
> Sun Shines Bright." I will look into this.
To avert some confusion, let it be noted that the tape says "approx. 92 min=
utes" but actually contains 100. (Unless the cover was corrected at some po=
int? -- I don't know. My copy has a 1990 copyright date for the package des=
ign.) The additions are largely detailed in McBride's biography. There doe=
sn't, however, seem to be "a scene in which Priest chats to portraits of the=
dead," previously mentioned in Tag Gallagher's book as one of "Republic's p=
rerelease excisions" -- which made me wonder if there is (or was) yet more.
13451
From:
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 6:35pm
Subject: Re: Judge Priest (was Ford's door- cave- tree-frames)
It has been decades since I've seen "The Sun Shines Bright". But viewings on
TV of "Judge Priest" (1934) and "Salute" (1929) have been much more recent -
two John Ford films with black actor Stepin Fetchit in supporting roles. I
thought Fetchit's performance in both films were deeply offensive racist
stereotypes, depicting black people as having the IQ of fleas. Listening to Fetchit's
characters mumbling moronically to themselves is a cringe inducing experience.
It is interesting to compare the characters in the film of "Judge Priest",
with those of the original prose stories. Irwin S. Cobb was a mainstream writer,
both of humorous tales, and stories of traditional life in Kentucky. Many of
these starred his series character, Judge Priest. One of the last books in the
series was "Judge Priest Turns Detective" (1937), which contains two
novellas. The first was known as “The Widow Arrives” (1936) when it was published in
The American Magazine. When it was reprinted by Ellery Queen, he changed its
title to “The Darkest Closet”, based on a phrase from Cobb’s story, and while
not authentic, this is a much better title.
The Judge’s black servant, Jeff Poindexter, is pressed into service by the
Judge as a detective in the first novella. Poindexter’s detective work in “The
Darkest Closet” is outstanding. He is not treated any differently from the
white investigators of the period, and Cobb’s portrait here is one of the least
stereotyped of any white author of his era. Cobb treats black characters as
being of high intelligence. Going from Cobb's brainy, gutsy version of Jeff
Poindexter to the Ford-Fetchit version is a shocking experience.
I think it is most acurate to see Ford as a man who promoted racist
stereotypes in the late 1920's and early 1930's, but who repented under the influence
of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's, and made major anti-racist classics
such as "The Searchers" and "Sergeant Rutledge".
Mike Grost
13452
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:17pm
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames (The Sun Shines Bright)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
. There doe=
> sn't, however, seem to be "a scene in which Priest chats to
portraits of the=
> dead," previously mentioned in Tag Gallagher's book as one
of "Republic's p=
> rerelease excisions" -- which made me wonder if there is (or was)
yet more.
I never saw the Republic re-release but the scene was indeed in
the original Fox release which I did see. Priest talks to the
photograph of his dead wife and children, then leaves the house with
a folding chair and walks to the churchyard where they are buried and
continues his chat to them there. Very sentimental yet not maudlin
scene, which of course will be reworked as a leitmotiv in SHE WORE A
YELLOW RIBBON.
JPC
13453
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:21pm
Subject: Re: Judge Priest (was Ford's door- cave- tree-frames)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> It has been decades since I've seen "The Sun Shines Bright". But
viewings on
> TV of "Judge Priest" (1934) and "Salute" (1929) have been much more
recent -
> two John Ford films with black actor Stepin Fetchit in supporting
roles. I
> thought Fetchit's performance in both films were deeply offensive
racist
> stereotypes, depicting black people as having the IQ of fleas.
Listening to Fetchit's
> characters mumbling moronically to themselves is a cringe inducing
experience.
> It is interesting to compare the characters in the film of "Judge
Priest",
> with those of the original prose stories. Irwin S. Cobb was a
mainstream writer,
> both of humorous tales, and stories of traditional life in
Kentucky. Many of
> these starred his series character, Judge Priest. One of the last
books in the
> series was "Judge Priest Turns Detective" (1937), which contains
two
> novellas. The first was known as "The Widow Arrives" (1936) when it
was published in
> The American Magazine. When it was reprinted by Ellery Queen, he
changed its
> title to "The Darkest Closet", based on a phrase from Cobb's story,
and while
> not authentic, this is a much better title.
> The Judge's black servant, Jeff Poindexter, is pressed into service
by the
> Judge as a detective in the first novella. Poindexter's detective
work in "The
> Darkest Closet" is outstanding. He is not treated any differently
from the
> white investigators of the period, and Cobb's portrait here is one
of the least
> stereotyped of any white author of his era. Cobb treats black
characters as
> being of high intelligence. Going from Cobb's brainy, gutsy version
of Jeff
> Poindexter to the Ford-Fetchit version is a shocking experience.
> I think it is most acurate to see Ford as a man who promoted racist
> stereotypes in the late 1920's and early 1930's, but who repented
under the influence
> of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's, and made major anti-
racist classics
> such as "The Searchers" and "Sergeant Rutledge".
>
> Mike Grost
Several years ago I once had a graduate African-American student in
my class from Chicago who stated she liked Stepin Fetchit because of
his performance abilities. It is so difficult to be precise about
these issues but I read somewhere that Fetchit deliberately parodied
the racist steroetypes of blacks in a manner to make them as absurd
as possible. Whether this was recognized by the black community is
another matter of course. Jesse Jackson and his contemporaries would
argue against this.
However, McBride's recent biography on Ford presents the director as
a much more complex man. He made a young John Wayne share
accomodation with Fetchit and later was really courteous towards
Althea Gibson when filming THE HORSE SOLDIERS (1959). The latter does
fit into the change via Civil Rights position but we must also
remember that Ford was also a part of a racially vilified community
who also used parody role-playing against the enemy. A great shame
that Ford was not able to make the "noble" Jimmy Stewart share
accomodation with Woody Strode during the filming of THE MAN WHO SHOT
LIBERTY VALANCE. We must also remember the Irish mimicry concerning
racial sterotypes in vaudeville performances often subverting the
racist imagery they faced in daily life.
I'll conclude on an musing footnote. In THE NAKED TRUTH (1956), Peter
Sellars masquerades as a 100% Irishman in an Eire bar trying to get
explosives to blow up talk-show host Dennis Price. When he moves
towards a customer mentioning "the movement," the man hits him and
comments, "He's English, all right!"
Tony Williams
13454
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Judge Priest (was Ford's door- cave- tree-frames)
--- peckinpah20012000
>
> Several years ago I once had a graduate
> African-American student in
> my class from Chicago who stated she liked Stepin
> Fetchit because of
> his performance abilities. It is so difficult to be
> precise about
> these issues but I read somewhere that Fetchit
> deliberately parodied
> the racist steroetypes of blacks in a manner to make
> them as absurd
> as possible. Whether this was recognized by the
> black community is
> another matter of course. Jesse Jackson and his
> contemporaries would
> argue against this.
>
> However, McBride's recent biography on Ford presents
> the director as
> a much more complex man.
Steppin Fetchit was a much more complex man than John
Ford. One of his last screen appearances was in
William Klein's "Cassius Le Grand" where he's part of
the young Cassius Clay's circle and Clay -- whose
refusal to kowtow to The Man made him the most
controversial and exciting figure in America BEFORE he
became Muhhamed Ali -- seeks out Steppin Fetchit's
wisdom and advice.
I'm trying to find it, but there's an essay I have
around here somewhere in which Taylor mead declares
that Steppin' Fetchit (to whom HE was compared) was in
point of fact a Black Revolutionary.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13455
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:36pm
Subject: Re: Judge Priest (was Ford's door- cave- tree-frames)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> It has been decades since I've seen "The Sun Shines Bright". But
viewings on
> TV of "Judge Priest" (1934) and "Salute" (1929) have been much more
recent -
> two John Ford films with black actor Stepin Fetchit in supporting
roles. I
> thought Fetchit's performance in both films were deeply offensive
racist
> stereotypes, depicting black people as having the IQ of fleas.
Listening to Fetchit's
> characters mumbling moronically to themselves is a cringe inducing
experience.
Mike, this is the knee-jerk, politically correct response (which
Fred pointed out when he remarked that "SUN" was difficult to show
today)and it's too bad that you can't get beyond your certainly
respectable cringing. Both "Judge Priest" and the remake are
thoroughly anti-racist films (to a degree that is amazing for the
former in 1935). Fetchit is an absolutely brilliant actor whose use
of language, dialect, syntax borders on surrealist poetry and is
constantly amazing as well as hilarious. I have never felt his
portrayal was condescending or demenaning -- sure, the character is a
black stereotype, but Stepin transcends the stereotype so brilliantly
that he leaves it far behind and forgotten. Should every black on
screen be like Poitier?... You might as well find Jerry Lewis's
character (whom he referred to as "the idiot")offensive and racist as
depicting Jewish people as morons. JPC
13456
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jul 31, 2004 11:54pm
Subject: Re: Judge Priest (was Ford's door- cave- tree-frames)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- peckinpah20012000
> >
> > Several years ago I once had a graduate
> > African-American student in
> > my class from Chicago who stated she liked Stepin
> > Fetchit because of
> > his performance abilities. It is so difficult to be
> > precise about
> > these issues but I read somewhere that Fetchit
> > deliberately parodied
> > the racist steroetypes of blacks in a manner to make
> > them as absurd
> > as possible. Whether this was recognized by the
> > black community is
> > another matter of course. Jesse Jackson and his
> > contemporaries would
> > argue against this.
Well, Fetchit was mostly active in pre-Jesse Jackson times. I
suspect that ordinary black audiences (as opposed to militants) were
more enclined to laugh with Fetchit than to feel offended, because he
did push the stereotype to such an absurd extreme -- a caricature of
a caricature. In that sense you might see him as a revolutionary (I
read the article David mentioned and was very impressed by it).
JPC
> >
> >
>
> I'm trying to find it, but there's an essay I have
> around here somewhere in which Taylor mead declares
> that Steppin' Fetchit (to whom HE was compared) was in
> point of fact a Black Revolutionary.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13457
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 0:07am
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames (The Sun Shines Bright)
According to the McBride book, the longer version was released
overseas when the film came out. But today, Alex Horwath at the
Austrian Film Archives is trying to find that version on film for
the Viennale and so far hasn't been having any luck--so I've been
suggesting that I bring my own video copy just so people there can
see it in some form.
Another, even more elusive "European" version I've been trying to
track down for years is an early print of The Lady From Shanghai
that has some alternate takes and possibly some different editing as
well--apparently an earlier studio cut that was sent abroad. Jim
Naremore once saw it in Hamburg--he booked it for a course he was
doing there without realizing what it was.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
> wrote:
> . There doe=
> > sn't, however, seem to be "a scene in which Priest chats to
> portraits of the=
> > dead," previously mentioned in Tag Gallagher's book as one
> of "Republic's p=
> > rerelease excisions" -- which made me wonder if there is (or
was)
> yet more.
>
> I never saw the Republic re-release but the scene was indeed in
> the original Fox release which I did see. Priest talks to the
> photograph of his dead wife and children, then leaves the house
with
> a folding chair and walks to the churchyard where they are buried
and
> continues his chat to them there. Very sentimental yet not maudlin
> scene, which of course will be reworked as a leitmotiv in SHE WORE
A
> YELLOW RIBBON.
> JPC
13458
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 1:24am
Subject: Re: Tanner '88
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> > The Criterion Collection is releasing Robert Altman's two most
overtly
> > political films: the TANNER '88 series and SECRET HONOR.
>
> I'm intrigued by this line at the end of the 'Tanner '88'
description
> on Criterion's site:
>
> "The Criterion Collection is proud to present 'Tanner '88' in its
> entirety, from New Hampshire to the convention... and beyond."
>
> It could just refer to the events in the film beyond the
convention --
> or, perhaps, they're going to be including (but just haven't
announced
> it yet in the details of the release) the new episodes of
the 'Tanner
> '88' follow-up airing in October, at the same time as the DVD
> release...? I'm intrigued either way.
>
> Incidentally, Altman has been shooting the follow-up in New York --
craig.
This is great news. I love "Tanner '88" and think it has been
neglected or underrated just because it was a TV series. I
interviewed Altman while he was shooting the last episodes and wrote
a long article about the series at the time (all published in
POSITIF). It's very exciting that he is doint a sequel, in the middle
of a presidential campaign. It's SO Altman...
JPC
13459
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 2:16am
Subject: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
> The negative tenor of the discussion about Cinerama is really
> disconcerting to me. The process, to my mind, was a perfectly valid
> attempt to explore the boundaries of the screen's visual, kinetic,
> and visceral impact. John Ford was willing to give it a try, after
> all.
Even though I've been posting articles denouncing widescreen formats,
I don't want to endorse those points of view. In fact I've never had
the chance to see Cinerama, and I'd be curious to find out what
good directors and cinematographers could do with a format like IMAX.
What else could be blamed for the current "expressive poverty of
the image" -- assuming the charge is even true? Television seems
a likely culprit. People used to blame the end of the silent
cinema -- and it is true that many of the great "painters"
among directors began their careers in the silents. And maybe people
trust images less than they use to...
Paul
13460
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 7:32am
Subject: Stepin Fetchit sincerest form of flattery
I'd have to go through the film again, but I think Judge Priest
spends most of his free time with Stepin; he likes him probably
more than anyone else in the film, perhaps other than his
nephew and niece-in-law to be.
I sense that the Judge regards Stepin as having the same
common sense that he has, clever and humane.
Additionally, Judge trusts Stepin with the delivery of the most
important JUSTICE letter to the Senator
Finally, the Judge gives Stepin an opportunity to 'earn'
the raccoon skin coat and vest... rather than have him be
a thief.
And if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...
Judge imitates Stepin in the shot-gun wedding scene.
Is Stepin any more of a stereotype than the Judge's
sister?
> Well, Fetchit was mostly active in pre-Jesse Jackson times. I
> suspect that ordinary black audiences (as opposed to militants) were
> more enclined to laugh with Fetchit than to feel offended, because he
> did push the stereotype to such an absurd extreme -- a caricature of
> a caricature. In that sense you might see him as a revolutionary (I
> read the article David mentioned and was very impressed by it).
>
> JPC
13461
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 7:56am
Subject: Kill Bill 2, Day After Tomorrow, Favorite Fords
I finally saw Kill Bill 2 and Day After Tomorrow at the Vine on H'wd
Blvd. for $7. Of course the projector lamp was no stronger than a
hospital night-light, but still...
Loved KB2 - what's not to like? A new take on that classical
chestnut, the director tribute to an actress -- one you don't see
much anymore when directors are more prone to pay tribute to their
investors. One fight in the whole film, the rest dialogue scenes -
kinda daring I thought. And what dialogue! ("Wakey wakey - eggs and
bakey!") Michael Parks and Gordon Liu are just delightful. Tarantino
no longer has to prove himself: he's a world-class filmmaker, more
here where he sticks closer to frontality than in the razzle of KB1,
but still...
I'd love to see them straight through with an intermission, which is
obviously the structure he intended. Then again, I'd also love to see
a version of Gangs of New York that hasn't been doctored with a meat
grinder!
The Day After Tomorrow: I could hardly majke it out half the time
because of the lamp problem, but it's an excellent disaster film,
never better than when it's using miniatures and floodable
soundstages, although the digital twisters at the beginning are quite
fetching. I'm a sucker for the genre, what can I say? And it's good
to see Dennis Quaid looking craggy instead of orange, like he was in
Far from Heaven. Put that sunlamp away!
My five favorite Fords: Doctor Bull, Three Godfathers, Fort Apache,
Wagonmaster, Donovan's Reef. Kinda hard to pick with all those
masterpieces. Three Waynes, too -- aw, what the hell!
13462
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 11:17am
Subject: Re: Shyamalan; Hulk; Criterion gets all up in your grill
> David, yes, I'm probably the world's lonely HULK fan. Ang Lee does
> some amazing things with split-screen. I tried to write an essay
for
> Jake (Senses of Cinema) in which I drew parallels with SWEET
> SWEETBACK'S BAADASSSSS SONG. Didn't happen.
I remmeber suggesting you incorporate Peebles' WATERMELON MAN, as the
colour-changing theme seemed to chime nicely with HULK.
I'll rent the sucker and see what I think.
Excited about SECRET HONOR. It doesn't quite make it as a film, but
as a piece of filmed theatre it's very very good. I remember hating
the music, which seemed to be there to offer a breather from the
talk, but just drags the thing down. But great script and performance
and nice oddball conspiracy theory.
13463
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 2:08pm
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames (The Sun Shines Bright)
> > . There doe=
> > > sn't, however, seem to be "a scene in which Priest chats to
> > portraits of the=
> > > dead," previously mentioned in Tag Gallagher's book as one
> > of "Republic's p=
> > > rerelease excisions" -- which made me wonder if there is (or
> was)
> > yet more.
> >
> > I never saw the Republic re-release but the scene was indeed in
> > the original Fox release which I did see. Priest talks to the
> > photograph of his dead wife and children, then leaves the house
> with
> > a folding chair and walks to the churchyard where they are buried
> and
> > continues his chat to them there. Very sentimental yet not maudlin
> > scene, which of course will be reworked as a leitmotiv in SHE WORE
> A
> > YELLOW RIBBON.
> > JPC
But you're talking about JUDGE PRIEST, right? (Rogers at cemetery, "Fox," p=
recursor of SHE WORE..), not SUN SHINES BRIGHT? (In my attempt to type "Rep=
ublic's pre-release excisions," the word "prerelease" got chopped up and loo=
ked like "rerelease," misleadingly...)
13464
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 3:14pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project
What is the goal here, is it to give a general history of post-silent aspect
ratios and framing therein, or to focus on specific films ?
The logical first contact would be the American Society of Cinematographers.
It was in George Turner's History column in The American Cinematographer
that I read the "Night of the Hunter" comment re shooting for 1.37).
His writing is quite thorough on this stuff. He also edited an ASC publication
on Special Effects cinematography; this is an area where - considering the
reqirements of optical work - aspect ratios & framing are absolutely critical.
I don't know how often he writes that History section now, I don't read the
mage every month (who has time ?) but he does seem to be the ASC's historian,
may be others. Anyway, chances are 99 out 100 the DP of the American films
you're talking about was - or if still living, is, an ASC member. (In fact John
Alton is about the only exception I can think of).
U.S. Union DP's and operators are in IATSE Local 600 International
Cinematographer's Guild, but I think the ASC would be the logical place to start.
http://www.theasc.com/
-Sam Wells
13465
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 4:16pm
Subject: Re: Stepin Fetchit sincerest form of flattery
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan
> I'd have to go through the film again, but I think Judge Priest
> spends most of his free time with Stepin; he likes him probably
> more than anyone else in the film, perhaps other than his
> nephew and niece-in-law to be.
>
> You could add that they go fishing together! And in the
opening scene in the court room (where the judge reads the funnies
while the prosecutor waxes eloquent about a stolen chicken)Priest and
Jim (the accused) discuss fish bait. Which suddenly reminds me of the
scene in ANATOMY OF A MURDER where the defense attorney (Stewart)
ingratiates himself with the judge by discussing fish lures...
JPC
13466
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 4:25pm
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames (The Sun Shines Bright)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
>
> But you're talking about JUDGE PRIEST, right? (Rogers at
cemetery, "Fox," p=
> recursor of SHE WORE..), not SUN SHINES BRIGHT? (In my attempt to
type "Rep=
> ublic's pre-release excisions," the word "prerelease" got chopped
up and loo=
> ked like "rerelease," misleadingly...)
Thanks for the clarification. It was confusing indeed...
13467
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 4:36pm
Subject: Re: Judge Priest (was Ford's door- cave- tree-frames)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"Fetchit is an absolutely brilliant actor whose use
of language, dialect, syntax borders on surrealist poetry and is
constantly amazing as well as hilarious. I have never felt his
portrayal was condescending or demenaning -- sure, the character is a
black stereotype, but Stepin transcends the stereotype so brilliantly
that he leaves it far behind and forgotten."
I think this is true, particularly about Stepin Fethcit/Linclon
Perry's performane in SALUTE (1929.) Virtually all the white actors
in this early sound movie speak in an over-articulated stilted
manner, and in this context Perry's performance elevates the movie
into the sublime for the reasons you describe above.
Richard
13468
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 4:47pm
Subject: Re: Kill Bill 2, Day After Tomorrow, Favorite Fords
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I finally saw Kill Bill 2 and Day After Tomorrow at the Vine on
H'wd
> Blvd. for $7. Of course the projector lamp was no stronger than a
> hospital night-light, but still...
>
> Loved KB2 - what's not to like? A new take on that classical
> chestnut, the director tribute to an actress -- one you don't see
> much anymore when directors are more prone to pay tribute to their
> investors. One fight in the whole film, the rest dialogue scenes -
> kinda daring I thought. And what dialogue! ("Wakey wakey - eggs and
> bakey!") Michael Parks and Gordon Liu are just delightful.
Tarantino
> no longer has to prove himself: he's a world-class filmmaker, more
> here where he sticks closer to frontality than in the razzle of
KB1,
> but still...
>
> I'd love to see them straight through with an intermission, which
is
> obviously the structure he intended. Then again, I'd also love to
see
> a version of Gangs of New York that hasn't been doctored with a
meat
> grinder!
>
> The Day After Tomorrow: I could hardly majke it out half the time
> because of the lamp problem, but it's an excellent disaster film,
> never better than when it's using miniatures and floodable
> soundstages, although the digital twisters at the beginning are
quite
> fetching. I'm a sucker for the genre, what can I say? And it's good
> to see Dennis Quaid looking craggy instead of orange, like he was
in
> Far from Heaven. Put that sunlamp away!
>
> My five favorite Fords: Doctor Bull, Three Godfathers, Fort Apache,
> Wagonmaster, Donovan's Reef. Kinda hard to pick with all those
> masterpieces. Three Waynes, too -- aw, what the hell!
I have not seen KILL BILL 2 since I missed it on theatrical release
but will definitely catch it on DVD. However, for those who are
interested ANIME Films have released the 1973 LADY SNOWBLOOD, one of
the key sources for KB1. It is a really interesting film set in the
first few decades of the Meiji Restoration period giving the revenge
a social and historical nuance not in Tarantino's version. It also
went into a sequel which, hopefully, the company will release. The
film also contains the "avenging child" theme but here she is much
older than her counterpart in the later version who will one day
avenge her mother's death when she is old enough to confront the
Bride.
Tony Williams
13469
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 4:56pm
Subject: Re: Re: Tanner '88
The Sundance Channel showed "Tanner '88" in its entirety and I was quite impressed. A friend of mine pointed out that a politician in "Fahrenheit 9/11" looked quite a bit like Michael Murphy. I've pushed "K Street"
already when discussions arose regarding good television, and it's an impressive work on its own, which owes a great deal to "Tanner '88". Both are perfect companion pieces.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 01:24:25 -0000
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Tanner '88
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> > The Criterion Collection is releasing Robert Altman's two most
overtly
> > political films: the TANNER '88 series and SECRET HONOR.
>
> I'm intrigued by this line at the end of the 'Tanner '88'
description
> on Criterion's site:
>
> "The Criterion Collection is proud to present 'Tanner '88' in its
> entirety, from New Hampshire to the convention... and beyond."
>
> It could just refer to the events in the film beyond the
convention --
> or, perhaps, they're going to be including (but just haven't
announced
> it yet in the details of the release) the new episodes of
the 'Tanner
> '88' follow-up airing in October, at the same time as the DVD
> release...? I'm intrigued either way.
>
> Incidentally, Altman has been shooting the follow-up in New York --
craig.
This is great news. I love "Tanner '88" and think it has been
neglected or underrated just because it was a TV series. I
interviewed Altman while he was shooting the last episodes and wrote
a long article about the series at the time (all published in
POSITIF). It's very exciting that he is doint a sequel, in the middle
of a presidential campaign. It's SO Altman...
JPC
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
13470
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 4:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kill Bill 2, Day After Tomorrow, Favorite Fords
> However, for those who are
> interested ANIME Films have released the 1973 LADY SNOWBLOOD, one of
> the key sources for KB1. It is a really interesting film set in the
> first few decades of the Meiji Restoration period giving the revenge
> a social and historical nuance not in Tarantino's version. It also
> went into a sequel which, hopefully, the company will release.
They've both been released -- 'Lady Snowblood' and 'Lady Snowblood:
Love Song of Vengeance.'
cmk.
13471
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 5:30pm
Subject: Re: K Street (was: Tanner '88)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lieberman"
> The Sundance Channel showed "Tanner '88" in its entirety and I was
quite impressed. A friend of mine pointed out that a politician in
"Fahrenheit 9/11" looked quite a bit like Michael Murphy. I've pushed
"K Street"
> already when discussions arose regarding good television, and it's
an impressive work on its own, which owes a great deal to "Tanner
'88". Both are perfect companion pieces.
Michael, I've watched the first disc of "K Street" and it's a very
impressive piece of work that may renew my wavering faith in Mr.
Soderbergh (of course, such a renewal may require me to avoid OCEAN'S
TWELVE). I wouldn't exactly say I was blown away by it but it's
exquisitely well thought out, natural feeling (James and Mary are
lovely as "themselves") and Soderbergh's welcome corruption of the
Dogme manifesto - surely it isn't a shot in the dark to make that
connection, a mid-point between TRAFFIC and FESTEN - is appealing on a
coule of levels.
I look forward to the second (and final) disc.
-Jaime
13472
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 5:33pm
Subject: Re: Kill Bill 2, Day After Tomorrow, Favorite Fords
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> > However, for those who are
> > interested ANIME Films have released the 1973 LADY SNOWBLOOD, one
of
> > the key sources for KB1. It is a really interesting film set in
the
> > first few decades of the Meiji Restoration period giving the
revenge
> > a social and historical nuance not in Tarantino's version. It also
> > went into a sequel which, hopefully, the company will release.
>
> They've both been released -- 'Lady Snowblood' and 'Lady Snowblood:
> Love Song of Vengeance.'
>
> cmk.
Dear Craig,
Thank you. I've just checked amazon.com and you're right. Now I will
have to prevail on my local DVD store to obtain the sequel.
Tony Williams
13473
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 5:33pm
Subject: Re: Hulk versus Van Peebles; Day After Tomorrow
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
> I remmeber suggesting you incorporate Peebles' WATERMELON MAN, as the
> colour-changing theme seemed to chime nicely with HULK.
Ah yes, I remember. Watched WATERMELON MAN, thought it had some good
moments. J. Hoberman wrote some great stuff about Van Peebles in his
latest book.
I enjoyed the interaction of the special effects with the city-scapes
in THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW - it seemed that, unlike a lot of
blockbuster disaster movies, there was some creative thought put into
the film's visuals - but thought it pretty silly overall. Still a
hundred times less painful than TROY.
-Jaime
13474
From:
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 1:47pm
Subject: The Young One help/Favorite Fords
Bill,
Finally read your Young One email. Thanx again! I now see what you mean by
class trumping race. I confess I totally did not get that the second time
around. I never saw any class solidarity on Miller's part and thus his turnaround
seemed trite, arbitrary, even syrupy. But it's an intriguing enough idea that
I'm going to keep trying. And learning that Claudio Brook was Mexican is even
more surprising than learning the film was shot in Mexico.
Doctor Bull? I'm embarrassed to admit I've never even heard of that one. I'll
get on it, though. Maltin Inc. had this to say about it: "Stereotyped
characters are perfect foils for Rogers' common-sense pronouncements." Makes me kinda
leery in light of recent discussion re: Fetchit.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
13475
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 6:41pm
Subject: why I think THE CORPORATION is better than FAHRENHEIT 9/11
My dearest friend is - feel like I'm at an AA meeting, upon the podium
- a conservative. She's voting Bush. She goes to Republican hate
ral-...er, Republican get-togethers. I think she's even volunteered
to work at the RNC. Don't ask me how we get along; in political
matters we're like Darth Vader and Obi-Wan Kenobi.
After FAHRENHEIT 9/11, which pulled off the seemingly impossible feat
of making George W. Bush (and the rest of the Halliburton regime) even
more vomit-inducing than ever before, there was what you might call a
bit of polite, quiet tension between the two of us. I'd just seen a
"get Bush out or face the consequences of an emerging police state"
propaganda film and she was essentially the Bad Guy, and neither one
of us wanted to be angry with the other.
But it wasn't the stifling of strong emotions that makes FAHRENHEIT -
a good, accomplished, witty docu-polemic done with an unusual lack of
bombast for Michael Moore - a lesser film than the one by Mark Achbar
and Jennifer Abbott. Rather, it was the silence that the Moore film
engendered between two reasonably intelligent and socially conscious
(in our own way) people.
After seeing THE CORPORATION at Film Forum we were truly able to
communicate. From our conversation I was able to outline a few
parallels between the Moore and the Achbar/Abbott documentaries:
- placing the blame: FAHRENHEIT casts a net over the Republican
administrations 1980-present, minimizing or subduing the complicity of
Democratic administrations; THE CORPORATION doesn't foreground
specific administrations but casts a much wider net around various
world governments and legislative bodies and their complicity with our
current model of destructive, devouring capitalism;
- the idea that documentaries are "documents" of a period:
FAHRENHEIT's place in history will ultimately be decided with the
November elections, but looking over five hundred, six hundred, a
thousand years in the development of what is now "the dominant
institution of our time" (the corporation), the Achbar/Abbott film
looks for deeper roots to the same problems that each of Moore's films
attacks, and finds them; in a hundred years a viewer will look back on
FAHRENHEIT and say "Wow, so that's what happened 1980-2000." And
he'll look upon THE CORPORATION and think, "Wow, so that's what
happened with human civilization."
- Intelligent people who hold basic survival and health, a healthy
planet, and a non-dehumanized way of life among their values can
embrace this film, regardless of political spectrum; THE CORPORATION
may take a few anti-conservative potshots but its thesis transcends
party politics and even the struggle between capitalists and
socialists.......in a way that's kind of tricky. If we can have an
international commerce that (a) doesn't create horrible living
conditions for people and (b) ceases its destruction of the biosphere,
that would be pretty great, wouldn't it? THE CORPORATION believes we
can, and makes me believe it too (concretely, not just as a theory),
and that's quite an accomplishment.
-Jaime
13476
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 7:32pm
Subject: Re: The Young One help/Favorite Fords
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Doctor Bull? I'm embarrassed to admit I've never even heard of that
one. I'll
> get on it, though. Maltin Inc. had this to say about
it: "Stereotyped
> characters are perfect foils for Rogers' common-sense
pronouncements." Makes me kinda
> leery in light of recent discussion re: Fetchit.
>
> Kevin John
Dr. Bull is set in a New England state -- Maine, I believe -- and the
stereotypes are Yankee Puritans. The film is considerably less
stylized, at first glance, than Sun Shines Bright, which I obviously
like a lot too, but I have always preferred it. I know the Straubs
were bowled over when they finally saw it at the Cinematheque a
number of years ago.
The only substitution in my list re: Fred's list that can be accused
of being a mindless impulse is that of Donovan's Reef for 7 Women. I
have respectable reasons for the others, but in that case the
word "favorite" was taken quite literally. Needless to say I also
like 7 Women a lot.
Still on The Young One: The Durgnat chapter is one of the best and
most heartfelt in his Bunuel book.
13477
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 8:04pm
Subject: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
>
> Even though I've been posting articles denouncing widescreen
>formats, I don't want to endorse those points of view. In fact I've
> never had the chance to see Cinerama, and I'd be curious to find
>out what good directors and cinematographers could do with a format
like IMAX.
To me, Cinerama was a great experiment involving equal components of
engineering, extra-Hollywood production and exhibition (reserved
seats, no popcorn or candy for sale!), and innovative marketing
(similar to Passion of the Christ). Its attempt to employ the full
range of peripheral vision seems demonstrably experimental to me,
even if the content was largely confined to touristic novelty
(although some of the daredevil aerial stunts recall the
exhilarating spectacle of the Wings-Dawn Patrol-Air Mail period, and
were shot by some of the same personnel).
It's true, of course, that Cinerama never produced a Pickpocket
or Vertigo, but is the process itself to blame? Personally, I feel
that the point worth discussing here is how each aspect ratio might
be uniquely appropriate to a specific subject matter or treatment.
For example, in Bigger Than Life, doesn't Cinemascope provide a
striking compression and enclosure that expresses visually the
entrapment of the family members (and the corner in which the
cortisone has trapped the protagonist)? The story doesn't need a
"roof"! If we lifted Gabe's "roof" off In Harm's Way, say,
wouldn't
the academy ratio with its greater symmetry tend to poeticize the
image, making it look more like They Were Expendable? For that
matter, isn't it conceivable that some subject would be best
served
by Cinerama, even with its three panels and its seams showing?
>
> What else could be blamed for the current "expressive poverty of
> the image" -- assuming the charge is even true? Television seems
> a likely culprit.
For a course I taught recently, I looked through hours of TV
episodes from the mid to late 1950s, especially "I Led Three
Lives" and its imitators. Unsurprisingly, these all were flatly
lit,
with little attempt at composing in depth, and full of two-shots of
people talking at one another, all cut at a brisk pace with little
to no attention to establishing any atmosphere. After days of this,
when I took a look at De Toth's Man On a String, a feature from
roughly the same period (1961), the increase in visual
sophistication was almost overwhelming.
I don't see much TV, but my impression is that contemporary
dramatic shows employ very workmanlike mise-en-scene, aiming at
seamless continuity and self-effacing direction, with perhaps an
over-reliance on Steadicam. Any "enrichment" of the image seems to
involve decor more than directorial choices in storytelling. The
episode of "The Sopranos" that Bogdanovich directed
(mentioned
earlier by Peter) seemed startling in that it dared to open on a
close-up rather a scene-setting long shot (or so I recall).
Incidentally, the wisecrack I always remember about widescreen is
that it reproduces the shape of a dollar bill.
--Robert Keser
13478
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 8:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues)
--- Robert Keser
> It's true, of course, that Cinerama never produced a
> Pickpocket
> or Vertigo,
No but it did produce "2001: A Space Odyssey." When I
saw it back in 1968 I thought it was going to be the
beginning of something new and exciting -- not a
harbinger of "Ice Station Zebra."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13479
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 8:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues)
So what is the aspect ratio of Cinerama?
cmk.
13480
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 9:58pm
Subject: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
"So what is the aspect ratio of Cinerama?"
Robert and David are talking about two different types of Cinerma.
The first Cinerama of travelogs and regukar features like THE
WONDERFUL WORLD OF THE BROTHERS GRIMM (1962) and HOW THE WEST WAS WON
(1963)were shot with three cameras and projected with three
projectors. Robert is refering to this Cinerama, known as three
panel Cinerama. It was resurrected a few years ago for a screening
of HOW THE WEST WAS WON in Los Angeles at the Cinerama Dome Theatre
in Hollywood (now the Arclight.) The aspect ratio for three panel
was 2.72 x 1.
Starting with IT'S A MAD,MAD,MAD,MAD WORLD (1963) three panel was
replaced by Ultra Panavision 70 aka Super Cinerama, and 2001: A SPACE
ODYSSEY was filmed in Super Panavision 70 and screened at Cinerama
theatres in Super Cinerama. This is a single screen process. The
aspect ratio was 2.35 x 1. David is talking about this version of
Cinerama. It was much less expensive than the three panel system and
did away with the overlapping edges (only Ford tried to cope with the
edges in his episode of HOW THE WEST WAS WON by disguising them with
tree trunks, pillars, etc.) When three panel Cinerama movies were re-
released to Cinerama theatres they were screened in Super Panavision
70. For general release they were screened in regular Panavision
with image loss to the sides.
Here in Los Angeles the Stanley Warner Theatre on Hollywood Blvd. was
re-fitted for Cinerama and was the official Cinerama Theatre for LA.
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY played here (the theatre had been re-fitted
again for Super Cinerama.) In 1963 the Pacific Theatre chain built
the Cinerama Dome on Sunset Blvd. near Vine a few blocks away. It
opened in time for the premere of IT'S A MAD,MAD,MAD,MAD WORLD. The
Dome was to be the first of 60 similiar theatres Pacific intended to
build through out North America. Only one other Dome was built (in
Seattle I think.) I went to both theatres when I was growing up here
in LA, and when I went to Japan I discovered that they had no
Cinerama theatre there (or if there was one it was gone by then.)
I jotted down this information from old issues of "Box Office" so I
think it's rfairly reliable.
Richard
13481
From: Christoph Huber
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: Re: Lady Snowblood 2
> Dear Craig,
>
> Thank you. I've just checked amazon.com and you're right. Now I will
> have to prevail on my local DVD store to obtain the sequel.
>
> Tony Williams
Do not expect too much, though; "Lady Snowblood 2" is nowhere near as
striking as the first part; it has a handful good set-pieces and Meiko
Kaji's intensity holds it all together, but it lacks the primal heft
of the original and the stylistic bonanzas don't feel as fresh and
inventive. Probably the most interesting thing about is how it expands
on the predecessor's political allegory.
Christoph Huber
13482
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 10:23pm
Subject: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
In 1963 the Pacific Theatre chain built
> the Cinerama Dome on Sunset Blvd. near Vine a few blocks away. It
> opened in time for the premere of IT'S A MAD,MAD,MAD,MAD WORLD. The
> Dome was to be the first of 60 similiar theatres Pacific intended to
> build through out North America. Only one other Dome was built (in
> Seattle I think.)
This is reminds of a theater in Colorado Springs, CO where I grew up.
It was also a dome theater --it was unlike any other theater in the
town or area and seeing any film there was unforgettable-- and now that
I think about it, every film I saw there was either SuperPanavision or
'Scope. It was called the United Artists 150, or the "dome" as we
called it. A few years back I did a search for it online and it
appears it is no longer in operation. (The space is probably now a
parking lot, or as all my favorite drive-ins in CO became: condos.)
Regardless, thanks for the wonderful awakening of that theater Richard.
Michael Worrall
13483
From:
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 7:18pm
Subject: Re: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
I haven't seen anybody else post this yet, so I will. Welles talked briefly
to Bill about aspect ratios in their 1982 interview. Welles says,
"...[t]here's only one reasonable dimension for a movie and that's Academy aperture."
I certainly can't imagine a Welles movie in 'Scope, but I also couldn't have
foresaw how strong he was with color in the Technicolor fragments from "It's
All True"; "The Immortal Story"; and the color fragments from "The Dreamers,"
among others.
On the other side of the fence are guys like Edwards, Fleischer, and
Preminger. Edwards speaks on the commentary track to "The Pink Panther" about how
much he loves the "proscenium" aspect of 'Scope. Fleischer has said that he took
to 'Scope like a fish to water, or words to that effect. And although
Preminger notes in his interview with Bogdanovich that not many painters have chosen
the dimensions of 'Scope, he still likes it a lot; he talks about how it fits
in with his all-in-one approach, saying that one notices cuts in 'Scope more.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
13484
From:
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 7:26pm
Subject: Re: Ford's door- cave- tree-frames (The Sun Shines Bright)
Thanks to the group for fascinating discussions of "Judge Priest" and "The
Sun Shines Bright." I will probably try to locate a video tape of the latter,
though I believe Fred and Jonathan when they say it's terribly diminished by
video. And I do love your story, Fred, about how you stopped watching "How
Green Was My Valley" on TV because you realized fairly early on that it was one of
the greatest Fords - and you didn't want to see it that way, on television,
for your first viewing.
I was recently re-reading Joseph McBride's Ford biography. How many among
our 140+ members have seen Ford's "Chesty," his last credit as director? From
McBride's description, it sounds maybe a little bit like the essay films
Welles, Vidor, and Boetticher were making in their last years; it certainly sounds
much more Fordian than "Vietnam, Vietnam," which we discussed many months ago
with the overwhelming consensus of our members being that it's worthless and,
to boot, un-Fordian. I've never been able to locate copies of either.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
13485
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 1:16am
Subject: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> wrote:
>
> "So what is the aspect ratio of Cinerama?"
>
>
> Robert and David are talking about two different types of Cinerma.
> Richard
Very helpful info. That would explain why Bresson spoke of THE
GREAT RACE as "Cinerama".
13486
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 1:27am
Subject: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I certainly can't imagine a Welles movie in 'Scope,
Of course you can't and we can't. But If we hadn't ever seen a
Ford film or Cukor film in Scope, we couldn't have imagined it
either. Welles would have been great in Scope. As for Preminger
saying that few painters have used the dimensions of Scope, how many
painters in the entire history of painting have used the Academy
format -- a 1:33 or 1:37 format? There is not one painting in ten
thousand in a size approximating that. There are many more Scope-like
paintings.
JPC
>
>
> Peter
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
13487
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 1:36am
Subject: Re: The Young One help/Favorite Fords
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> Doctor Bull? I'm embarrassed to admit I've never even heard of that
one. I'll
> get on it, though. Maltin Inc. had this to say about
it: "Stereotyped
> characters are perfect foils for Rogers' common-sense
pronouncements." Makes me kinda
> leery in light of recent discussion re: Fetchit.
>
> Kevin John
>
>
> Doctor Bull is a great Ford, and forget about Maltin Inc. (if you
believe that kind of stuff, you're likely to miss everything that is
great about movies -- Ford movies at least.) I haven't seen it in
decades and therefore won't put it among my five favorite Fords, but
I have at least two favorites I share with Bill (Three Godfathers and
Wagon Master). So this guy Bill must be on to something.
JPC
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
13488
From:
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 10:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
Jean-Pierre Coursodon wrote:
>Of course you can't and we can't. But If we hadn't ever seen a
>Ford film or Cukor film in Scope, we couldn't have imagined it
>either. Welles would have been great in Scope.
Undoubtedly. That's why I brought up the issue of color. As Bill put it to
me when I interviewed him about "The Dreamers," a Welles film is a
black-and-white film... until he made "The Immortal Story," "The Deep," "The Other Side
of the Wind," "The Dreamers," etc., etc. So it's entirely possible, and
probably very likely, that he would have done well with 'Scope had he ever worked in
the format (or, more likely, been somehow forced into working in the format.)
I agree with what you write about Preminger. I was simply trying to be fair
to what he said in the interview, that while he was clearly in support of
'Scope, it wasn't without some qualifications (however misguided).
Peter
13489
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 3:01am
Subject: Re: Re: K Street (was: Tanner '88)
Jaime,
To be perfectly honest, it took me a few months to realize how much I loved "K Street," and especially (what would be) the final episodes, which are exquisitly robust and airy and even suspenseful, even loving toward
not only the cast, but the entire EVENT of creating something, collaborating. I look forward to your thoughts on the remaining five episodes.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaime N. Christley"
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:30:01 -0000
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: K Street (was: Tanner '88)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lieberman"
> The Sundance Channel showed "Tanner '88" in its entirety and I was
quite impressed. A friend of mine pointed out that a politician in
"Fahrenheit 9/11" looked quite a bit like Michael Murphy. I've pushed
"K Street"
> already when discussions arose regarding good television, and it's
an impressive work on its own, which owes a great deal to "Tanner
'88". Both are perfect companion pieces.
Michael, I've watched the first disc of "K Street" and it's a very
impressive piece of work that may renew my wavering faith in Mr.
Soderbergh (of course, such a renewal may require me to avoid OCEAN'S
TWELVE). I wouldn't exactly say I was blown away by it but it's
exquisitely well thought out, natural feeling (James and Mary are
lovely as "themselves") and Soderbergh's welcome corruption of the
Dogme manifesto - surely it isn't a shot in the dark to make that
connection, a mid-point between TRAFFIC and FESTEN - is appealing on a
coule of levels.
I look forward to the second (and final) disc.
-Jaime
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
13490
From:
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 1:07am
Subject: Re: Re: OT: Pinhead's Progress (was Weirdos)
Jean-Pierre Coursodon wrote:
>It's the only mainstream contemporary strip worth reading.
This may be the only time when I can type the words, "Like Sam Fuller," so
here goes. Like Sam Fuller, my first aspiration was to be a cartoonist. The
Fuller cartoons I've seen are much, much better than mine ever were, but
nevertheless it was my first love. I've enjoyed the discussion of strips here over
the past weeks. "Peanuts" was an early favorite, and I still love it. Winsor
McKay. Art Spiegelman. Garry Trudeau. Later I progressed to Herblock and
the amazing Jules Feiffer, whose "Tantrum" is particularly great. I'm also a
big fan of Feiffer's novels and plays.
At some point my love for film took over the part of my brain which was
previously devoted to comic strips; it's no longer an all-consuming passion, but I
still take out the books I have of these guys' work from time to time.
Peter
13491
From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 5:14am
Subject: I, Robot
Since a few people here are familiar with science
fiction, thought I'd post a link to my article here:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/450
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13492
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 6:32am
Subject: Jules Feiffer
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Jean-Pierre Coursodon wrote:
>
I'm also a
> big fan of Feiffer's novels and plays.
> Peter
Have you seen Carnal Knowledge? I started rewatching it recently, and
Feifer's script is good. One of Nichols' best films.
13493
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 6:42am
Subject: Re: I, Robot
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Noel Vera
> Since a few people here are familiar with science
> fiction, thought I'd post a link to my article here:
>
> http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/450
Superb article, Noel. Your defense of Will Smith is probably more
accurate than my overreaction against him, heavily influenced by
seeing the film with a fest director who hadn't been able to get it
for his festival: Sour Grapes City. Apparently the Smithifying of the
movie worked -- it has cracked $100 million. And your comment about
Proyas' use of the multiplicity of robot images created by CGI --
making an advantage of what was a drawback in Lord of the Rings -- is
certainly true. (So is your characterization of Asimov's writing,
alas.) Let's hope this compromised success buys Proyas some much-
needed clout. I don't see him going the way of Jan de Bont -- he'll
use the success to do something personal.
13494
From:
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 3:17am
Subject: Re: Jules Feiffer
Bill Krohn wrote:
>Have you seen Carnal Knowledge?
Yes, I think it's great... and with a great use of 'Scope!
I started rewatching it recently, and
>Feifer's script is good. One of Nichols' best films.
I'd say it's his best, along with the very underrated "Catch-22" and "The
Fortune." For a few years in the early-to-mid 70s, Nichols had seemingly
graduated from the flashier aspects of his earlier films to a very well organized,
sophisticated widescreen visual style (though I don't know that I'd defend his
other film from this period, "Day of the Dolphin"). After he took that break
following the commercial disaster that was "The Fortune," he came back a
different filmmaker, a pretty much unrecognizable one. He may have gained
respectability, but give me the all-in-ones of "Carnal" and "The Fortune" to the
incredibly conventional stuff he's been doing over the past two decades.
Anyway, back to Feiffer. Other Feiffer scripts that I like a lot: "Little
Murders" (Arkin); "Popeye" (Altman); and "I Want to Go Home" (Resnais). I LOVE
his detective novel, "Ackroyd," which you ought to read, Mike, if you haven't
already.
Peter
13495
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 10:41am
Subject: Re: Jules Feiffer
TANTRUM!
Feiffer's graphic novel in which every page is a stunning single-
panel cartoon.
He tells a profound, moving story through satire (middle-aged man
turns himself into a three-year-old in a fit of pique), no mean feat.
One of the finest things available between covers.
13496
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 1:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
--- jpcoursodon
Welles would have been great in Scope.
I trust you've seen that greatest of all challenges to
auteur theory "Casino Royale," J-P. It's fairly
obvious that Welles directed the sequences involving
magic tricks -- and the film is in Panavision (ie.
scope)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13497
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 1:34pm
Subject: Re: Mike Nichols
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> I'd say it's his best, along with the very
> underrated "Catch-22" and "The
> Fortune."
A Very Big Yes on the latter, and a No for the former.
Overdone and undercooked at the same time. It opened
in New York on the same day as "MASH" and "Myra
Breckinridge." I saw all three and liked the Nichols
the least. It was as if he never began his career with
the Compass theater.
For a few years in the early-to-mid 70s,
> Nichols had seemingly
> graduated from the flashier aspects of his earlier
> films to a very well organized,
> sophisticated widescreen visual style (though I
> don't know that I'd defend his
> other film from this period, "Day of the Dolphin").
and I wouldn't.
> After he took that break
> following the commercial disaster that was "The
> Fortune," he came back a
> different filmmaker, a pretty much unrecognizable
> one. He may have gained
> respectability, but give me the all-in-ones of
> "Carnal" and "The Fortune" to the
> incredibly conventional stuff he's been doing over
> the past two decades.
>
For the mostpart. Nichols is nothing is not cautious.
This has resulted in the successful but lifeless
"Working Girl" and "The Bird Cage" But "Postcards From
the Edge" is teriffic. Obviously the script and his
leading ladies (including the great Mary Wickes) kept
Nichols from dragging his ass.
And "Primary Colors" is not without interest.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
13498
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 2:03pm
Subject: Mike Nichols
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I'd say it's his best, along with the very underrated "Catch-22"
and "The
> Fortune." For a few years in the early-to-mid 70s, Nichols had
seemingly
> graduated from the flashier aspects of his earlier films to a very
well organized,
> sophisticated widescreen visual style (though I don't know that
I'd defend his
> other film from this period, "Day of the Dolphin"). After he took
that break
> following the commercial disaster that was "The Fortune," he came
back a
> different filmmaker, a pretty much unrecognizable one. He may
have gained
> respectability, but give me the all-in-ones of "Carnal" and "The
Fortune" to the
> incredibly conventional stuff he's been doing over the past two
decades.
I like three Nichols films a lot: VIRGINIA WOOLF, THE GRADUATE, and
CATCH-22, which is as worthy of the book as any film could have
been, and pretty funny/disturbing at that.
Haven't seen THE FORTUNE - I see it was shot in 2.35 and isn't on
DVD.
Checked out a copy of CARNAL KNOWLEDGE from the library. Froze up
after about fifteen minutes, had to return it. The optimist in me
believes that after that point, the arch, theatrical dialogue and
mannered delivery ceased and a good film took its place. I'll find
out one of these days, I guess.
PRIMARY COLORS is pretty cool but I wouldn't call it major. Most
valuable for going a long way in figuring out what made Bill
Clinton "Bill Clinton."
-Jaime
13499
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 2:28pm
Subject: Re: I, Robot
Thanks for posting; I know Asimov's name but haven't read any
sci-fiction; your comments on Spooner's characterization
seem on the mark.
I thought the cityscape in I, ROBOT, looked like a poor computer
rendering, not crisp and clean and shiny the way I might has
expected an image from 2035 to look (assuming the world
survives). I think a robot filled world of 2035 would look like a
Robert Estes painting: clean, crisp, but melocholic.
The cgi images of the cityscape included graffiti, which
made no sense to me in that you would think with all those
robots around, one would be assigned to clean graffiti.
Someone had to intentionally add that graffiti (and that person
failed to understand the content of the story} ... a robot
world in which simple tasks would be done by robots.
The streets looked clean making the graffiti even more
out of place. (Additionally, don't you think by 2035 we
would have a chemical solution to graffiti. I've seen products
that coat the paint with a chemical that then has another
chemical hosed onto and it removes at gaffiti in a simple
washing).
Further, I found the use of a badge in the wallet in the
his pocket as the requirement for identification rather
unimaginable. The car with its auto-steering was interesting
but one of the few applications of computer chip technology.
I, ROBOT did not seem to have have any technological
applications beyond the human size robots... it's like the
minute and ubiquitous computer applications never made
it to 2035... perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by the
look of the movie.
(I think it is a sweet potato pie; yesterday
for the first time I had sweet potato chips in place of the
plain potato chips; probably healthy with less salt.)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Noel Vera
> Since a few people here are familiar with science
> fiction, thought I'd post a link to my article here:
>
> http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/450
13500
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 2:39pm
Subject: Willy Kurant
Kurant shot MASCULIN-FEMININ for Godard, two of Welles's first color
films (IMMORTAL STORY and what we've seen of THE DEEP), LES
CREATURES for Varda, UNDER THE SUN OF SATAN for Pialat.
He also shot POOTIE TANG, THE BABYSITTER'S CLUB, WHITE MAN'S BURDEN,
and TUFF TURF. (To imply nothing regarding quality: two of those
films have been praised on a_film_by.)
What other cinematographer has had a more diverse career?
-Jaime
Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact