Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
13501
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 2:38pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project
p.s. You ARE shooting at a shape-shifting target ;-)
-Sam
13502
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 3:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project
samfilms2003 wrote:
>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 ?
>
>
Both, I think. A general history would be useful, but it would also be
nice to know "how" to show certain masterpieces. I'm very suspicious of
masking late 1950s films to 1.85:1; making tests on 35mm prints of
"Written on the Wind" and "Wind Across the Everglades" prior to showing
them, it seemed to me that 1.66:1 looked far more correct, and that's
how we showed them. The restored "Touch of Evil" also looked wrong to me
at 1.85:1, and again I thought 1.66 might have been better. But it would
be nice to know what the makers were thinking about. I wish this were
1977 and Russell Metty were still alive!
Someone else has recommended the American Society of Cinemtographers
too, and it sounds like an interview with George Turner is the place to
start. I just have no more time at all for the next few weeks, but I
hope others pursue this.
Fred Camper
13503
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 3:37pm
Subject: Re: Mike Nichols
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
David -- You skipped over Angels in America. As I stated months ago,
I was let down by Nichols' handling of the play, which I had seen on
stage at the Taper. SFX aside, I was put off by his handling of gay
characters, including Pryor Walter. What did you think?
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com
13504
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 3:41pm
Subject: Re: I, Robot
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
Interesting observations about the anachronistic city around the
robots. This isn't a defense, but Dark City was a total jumble of
periods, for good reason in that case: It was a creation of aliens.
(Dark City is a Gnostic film preceding Matrix by a few years, and
much better.) There's no excuse for it here, but I'd be curious to
ghear what Proyas has to say about the overall design. He's no dummy.
Big fan of Edward Gorey, by the way.
13505
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 3:42pm
Subject: Re: Willy Kurant
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> 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
And LE DEPART for Skolimowski.
13506
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 3:44pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
d it sounds like an interview with George Turner is the place to
> start. I just have no more time at all for the next few weeks, but
I
> hope others pursue this.
>
> Fred Camper
Unfortunately, I believe George passed away next year. But I've been
wrong about these things before - hope I am this time!
13507
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 3:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Mike Nichols
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> wrote:
> >
> David -- You skipped over Angels in America. As I
> stated months ago,
> I was let down by Nichols' handling of the play,
> which I had seen on
> stage at the Taper. SFX aside, I was put off by his
> handling of gay
> characters, including Pryor Walter. What did you
> think?
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
As I don't get cable I haven't seen it as yet. What
put you off about his handling of the gay characters?
Tony Kushner was happy with the whole thing.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13508
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 4:04pm
Subject: Re: Mike Nichols
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> > >
> > > __________________________________
>
> As I don't get cable I haven't seen it as yet. What
> put you off about his handling of the gay characters?
> Tony Kushner was happy with the whole thing.
I would think so! Too B'way for me. I have tapes Marvin made for me
if you'd like to see it.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13509
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 4:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Mike Nichols
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> I would think so! Too B'way for me. I have tapes
> Marvin made for me
> if you'd like to see it.
> >
> >
> >
Thanks for the offer, but I expect I'll be getting the
DVD before the year's out.
(OT -- Any word from Taschen)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13510
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 4:55pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> it would also be
> nice to know "how" to show certain masterpieces. I'm very suspicious of
> masking late 1950s films to 1.85:1; making tests on 35mm prints of
> "Written on the Wind" and "Wind Across the Everglades" prior to showing
> them, it seemed to me that 1.66:1 looked far more correct, and that's
> how we showed them. The restored "Touch of Evil" also looked wrong to me
> at 1.85:1, and again I thought 1.66 might have been better. But it would
> be nice to know what the makers were thinking about. I wish this were
> 1977 and Russell Metty were still alive!
Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree, but is it known how Criterion decided to present its two Sirks at 1.77, for example? (Even that masking, while not disastrous, seemed a bit extreme, though not in terms of any specific images I can point to.) Is it just a compromise between 1.66 and 1.85, or a nod to the 16:9 (hdtv) market or both? Or would they have had some factual basis for it? Since I rented or borrowed these, I don't think I saw the insert sheets mentioned in the following material from their FAQ. (Note the guarantee!)
''Are all Criterion DVDs presented in their original theatrical aspect ratio?
Every Criterion DVD features an "About the transfer" section in the DVD insert. Here you will find the aspect ratio of the film listed along with information about the picture and sound elements from which it was transferred. We endeavor to present every film in its original aspect ratio (i.e., the ratio of height to width of the image), unless the filmmaker expressly requests a slightly different framing. What that means is that the Criterion bar is your guarantee that you're getting the complete picture as the filmmaker intended.''
(Apologies for any dislocated hyphens in the above, apparently triggered by obscure codes in quoted material!)
13511
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project
>Both, I think. A general history would be useful, but it would also be
>nice to know "how" to show certain masterpieces. I'm very suspicious of
>masking late 1950s films to 1.85:1; making tests on 35mm prints of
>"Written on the Wind" and "Wind Across the Everglades" prior to showing
>them, it seemed to me that 1.66:1 looked far more correct, and that's
>how we showed them. The restored "Touch of Evil" also looked wrong to me
>at 1.85:1, and again I thought 1.66 might have been better. But it would
>be nice to know what the makers were thinking about. I wish this were
>1977 and Russell Metty were still alive!
>
> Someone else has recommended the American Society of Cinemtographers
>too, and it sounds like an interview with George Turner is the place to
>start. I just have no more time at all for the next few weeks, but I
>hope others pursue this.
>
>Fred Camper
Though 1.66 wasn't the official ratio in the US, 1950s films do seem
much more comfortable shown that way. I wouldn't hesitate to bend
history in this instance and go with 1.66.
Bill is correct that George Turner passed on. He was a great guy, a
fount of knowledge as they say.
--
- Joe Kaufman
13512
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 6:09pm
Subject: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
> wrote:
>
> 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).
That seems more like the theater (reserved seats, no popcorn)...
I recall that some New York City theaters tried reserved seating
a few years ago, but -- at least, this is how I remember
it -- it was unpopular, since people were were often assigned
bad seats, with poor sight lines, dirty seats, noisy neighbors.
> 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?
>
I definitely could be wrong, but Cinerama (or IMAX) might be an
ideal format for "canned theater." Something like the experience
of live theater could be recreated.
Paul
13513
From:
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 6:37pm
Subject: Re: Jules Feiffer
Not much to add except another Hosanna for the wonderful Tantrum
(reissued by Fantagraphics some years past). The OOP collections of
Feiffer's strip are well, well worth seeking out, particularly The
Unexpurgated Memoirs of Bernard Mergendeiler (my copy of which was a
casualty of my last move, unless it's in a box I haven't unpacked
yet). It's a good year to be a classic comics fan, with Fanta's Krazy
Kat reissues starting up again, the start of the Peanuts project, and
the first 3 volumes of a 5 volume+ collection of early Winsor McCay
(nice reproduction, though an annoying lack of annotation).
Obligatory film content: Milestone's DVD of McCay's animated films is
well worth a look. McCay is doubly delightful without dialogue, which
it has to be said was never his strong suit.
Help, murder! I never should have eaten that fried cheese,
Sam
>
>cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
>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.
13514
From:
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 6:59pm
Subject: Re: Jules Feiffer, Patrice Leconte. Winsor McCay
Thanks to Peter and Sam for the fascinating info on Jules Feiffer. I know very little about his work, except for seeing stray panels in the Village Voice years ago. Would love to see his Resnais collaboration!
Patrice Leconte started out as a cartoonist, according to the following interview:
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/iw/20040730/109120560000.html
"Intimate Strangers" plays in Detroit in 3 days.
I love Winsor McCay, too, and have been enjoying his animated films in recent years. Recently saw "The Centaurs". I grew up on the print versions of "Dreams of a Rarebit Fiend" and "Little Nemo in Slumberland".
Mike Grost
In a message dated 8/2/2004 2:37:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, samadams@e... writes:
>Not much to add except another Hosanna for the wonderful Tantrum
>(reissued by Fantagraphics some years past). The OOP collections of
>Feiffer's strip are well, well worth seeking out, particularly The
>Unexpurgated Memoirs of Bernard Mergendeiler (my copy of which was a
>casualty of my last move, unless it's in a box I haven't unpacked
>yet). It's a good year to be a classic comics fan, with Fanta's Krazy
>Kat reissues starting up again, the start of the Peanuts project, and
>the first 3 volumes of a 5 volume+ collection of early Winsor McCay
>(nice reproduction, though an annoying lack of annotation).
>Obligatory film content: Milestone's DVD of McCay's animated films is
>well worth a look. McCay is doubly delightful without dialogue, which
>it has to be said was never his strong suit.
>
>Help, murder! I never should have eaten that fried cheese,
>
>Sam
>
>>
>>cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
>>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.
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
13515
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 7:17pm
Subject: Re: Jules Feiffer, Patrice Leconte. Winsor McCay
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Thanks to Peter and Sam for the fascinating info on Jules
Feiffer. I know very little about his work, except for seeing stray
panels in the Village Voice years ago. Would love to see his
Resnais collaboration!
> Patrice Leconte started out as a cartoonist, according to the
following interview:
>
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/iw/20040730/109120560000.html
>
> "Intimate Strangers" plays in Detroit in 3 days.
>
> I love Winsor McCay, too, and have been enjoying his animated
films in recent years. Recently saw "The Centaurs". I grew up on
the print versions of "Dreams of a Rarebit Fiend" and "Little
Nemo in Slumberland".
>
> Mike Grost
>
> In a message dated 8/2/2004 2:37:56 PM Eastern Daylight
Time, samadams@e... writes:
>
> >Not much to add except another Hosanna for the wonderful
Tantrum
> >(reissued by Fantagraphics some years past). The OOP
collections of
> >Feiffer's strip are well, well worth seeking out, particularly The
> >Unexpurgated Memoirs of Bernard Mergendeiler (my copy of
which was a
> >casualty of my last move, unless it's in a box I haven't
unpacked
> >yet). It's a good year to be a classic comics fan, with Fanta's
Krazy
> >Kat reissues starting up again, the start of the Peanuts
project, and
> >the first 3 volumes of a 5 volume+ collection of early Winsor
McCay
> >(nice reproduction, though an annoying lack of annotation).
> >Obligatory film content: Milestone's DVD of McCay's animated
films is
> >well worth a look. McCay is doubly delightful without dialogue,
which
> >it has to be said was never his strong suit.
> >
> >Help, murder! I never should have eaten that fried cheese,
> >
> >Sam
> >
> >>
> >>cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
13516
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 7:17pm
Subject: Re: Jules Feiffer, Patrice Leconte. Winsor McCay
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Thanks to Peter and Sam for the fascinating info on Jules
Feiffer. I know very little about his work, except for seeing stray
panels in the Village Voice years ago. Would love to see his
Resnais collaboration!
> Patrice Leconte started out as a cartoonist, according to the
following interview:
>
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/iw/20040730/109120560000.html
>
> "Intimate Strangers" plays in Detroit in 3 days.
>
> I love Winsor McCay, too, and have been enjoying his animated
films in recent years. Recently saw "The Centaurs". I grew up on
the print versions of "Dreams of a Rarebit Fiend" and "Little
Nemo in Slumberland".
>
> Mike Grost
>
> In a message dated 8/2/2004 2:37:56 PM Eastern Daylight
Time, samadams@e... writes:
>
> >Not much to add except another Hosanna for the wonderful
Tantrum
> >(reissued by Fantagraphics some years past). The OOP
collections of
> >Feiffer's strip are well, well worth seeking out, particularly The
> >Unexpurgated Memoirs of Bernard Mergendeiler (my copy of
which was a
> >casualty of my last move, unless it's in a box I haven't
unpacked
> >yet). It's a good year to be a classic comics fan, with Fanta's
Krazy
> >Kat reissues starting up again, the start of the Peanuts
project, and
> >the first 3 volumes of a 5 volume+ collection of early Winsor
McCay
> >(nice reproduction, though an annoying lack of annotation).
> >Obligatory film content: Milestone's DVD of McCay's animated
films is
> >well worth a look. McCay is doubly delightful without dialogue,
which
> >it has to be said was never his strong suit.
> >
> >Help, murder! I never should have eaten that fried cheese,
> >
> >Sam
> >
> >>
> >>cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
13517
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 7:17pm
Subject: Re: Jules Feiffer, Patrice Leconte. Winsor McCay
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Thanks to Peter and Sam for the fascinating info on Jules
Feiffer. I know very little about his work, except for seeing stray
panels in the Village Voice years ago. Would love to see his
Resnais collaboration!
> Patrice Leconte started out as a cartoonist, according to the
following interview:
>
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/iw/20040730/109120560000.html
>
> "Intimate Strangers" plays in Detroit in 3 days.
>
> I love Winsor McCay, too, and have been enjoying his animated
films in recent years. Recently saw "The Centaurs". I grew up on
the print versions of "Dreams of a Rarebit Fiend" and "Little
Nemo in Slumberland".
>
> Mike Grost
>
> In a message dated 8/2/2004 2:37:56 PM Eastern Daylight
Time, samadams@e... writes:
>
> >Not much to add except another Hosanna for the wonderful
Tantrum
> >(reissued by Fantagraphics some years past). The OOP
collections of
> >Feiffer's strip are well, well worth seeking out, particularly The
> >Unexpurgated Memoirs of Bernard Mergendeiler (my copy of
which was a
> >casualty of my last move, unless it's in a box I haven't
unpacked
> >yet). It's a good year to be a classic comics fan, with Fanta's
Krazy
> >Kat reissues starting up again, the start of the Peanuts
project, and
> >the first 3 volumes of a 5 volume+ collection of early Winsor
McCay
> >(nice reproduction, though an annoying lack of annotation).
> >Obligatory film content: Milestone's DVD of McCay's animated
films is
> >well worth a look. McCay is doubly delightful without dialogue,
which
> >it has to be said was never his strong suit.
> >
> >Help, murder! I never should have eaten that fried cheese,
> >
> >Sam
> >
> >>
> >>cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
13518
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 7:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project
>>I'm very suspicious of
>>masking late 1950s films to 1.85:1; making tests on 35mm prints of
>>"Written on the Wind" and "Wind Across the Everglades" prior to showing
>>them, it seemed to me that 1.66:1 looked far more correct, and that's
>>how we showed them. The restored "Touch of Evil" also looked wrong to me
>>at 1.85:1, and again I thought 1.66 might have been better. But it would
>>be nice to know what the makers were thinking about.
> Though 1.66 wasn't the official ratio in the US, 1950s films do seem
> much more comfortable shown that way. I wouldn't hesitate to bend
> history in this instance and go with 1.66.
Is there any chance, though, that the directors or cinematographers had
1.66:1 in mind? - Dan
13519
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 8:20pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project
>Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree, but is it known how Criterion
>decided to present its two Sirks at 1.77, for example? (Even that
>masking, while not disastrous, seemed a bit extreme, though not in
>terms of any specific images I can point to.) Is it just a
>compromise between 1.66 and 1.85, or a nod to the 16:9 (hdtv) market
>or both?
Certainly a nod to the 16x9 ratio, which comes out to about 1.77:1.
--
- Joe Kaufman
13520
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 7:20pm
Subject: Resend: Jules Feiffer, Patrice Leconte. Winsor McCay
Mike - There are two versions of I Want to Go Home. It's hard to
find either, but if you can, see the English-language one, not the
French
13521
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 8:59pm
Subject: Re: Cinerama (was Same Film, Different Ratios and other ratio issues)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>That seems more like the theater (reserved seats, no popcorn)...
>I recall that some New York City theaters tried reserved seating
>a few years ago, but -- at least, this is how I remember
>it -- it was unpopular, since people were were often assigned
>bad seats, with poor sight lines, dirty seats, noisy neighbors.
With no studio sponsorship or attachments, the Cinerama execs were
able to reinvent exhibition by renting their theatres directly, at a
time when four-walling was practiced only for exploitation films.
Starting as a single theatre operation in NYC alone, and only very
gradually expanding to other cities, they were able to take
exceptional care in choosing theatres that ensured optimal
sightlines. The reserved seat ethos -- along with formal attire for
all theatre personnel, spotless cleanliness, and snackfood
prohibition -- encouraged the audience to approach the films as
event programming rather than disposable drive-in fare (so,
presumably the noisy neighbor problem was minimized).
What's still amazing is that all this care paid off handsomely at
the box office: the original "This Is Cinerama" was the
number one hit of 1952 and all the subsequent films were in the top
ten of their years. When Cinerama sold out to MGM, the studio
switched to the 70mm "faux" Cinerama but tried to maintain
the same
theatre-like ambience with diminishing effect.
>I definitely could be wrong, but Cinerama (or IMAX) might be an
>ideal format for "canned theater." Something like the experience
>of live theater could be recreated.
I'm not aware that IMAX has been used to record theatrical
performances, but that does seem appropriate to the height and
illusion of depth that the process offers. It seems to me that the
beautifully shot dance sequences in The Company would look terrific
in IMAX (especially, if the ho-hum storyline got ditched).
Two or three years ago, IMAX did a short feature in 3-D to
demonstrate the possibilities of the process, including a roller
coaster ride that aped the famous opening of "This Is
Cinerama". The 3-D presentation, which involved wearing a kind of
helmet fitted with headphones, was memorable as an exciting audio-
visual experience (but it gave me a splitting headache that I also
remember to this day!)
--Robert Keser
13522
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 9:59pm
Subject: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> 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)
>
> Many years ago Welles did those Paul Masson wine commercials. When
they appeared in England, TIME OUT wrote an amusing capsule review
equating Welles's performance with those of his accomplished works
such as CITIZEN KANE.
But in view of his delight in magic, could we also see these
commercials as his particular magic show or F FOR FAKE in persuading
unwary consumers to participate in something which was not as good as
the real thing? I speak to those who began with cheap wine and safely
graduated on to better vintages.
Tony Williams
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13523
From:
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 6:48pm
Subject: Re: Resend: Jules Feiffer, Patrice Leconte. Winsor McCay
Bill Krohn wrote:
>Mike - There are two versions of I Want to Go Home. It's hard to
>find either, but if you can, see the English-language one, not the
>French
The English-language version is available on tape from Video Search of Miami.
The quality is not that good, of course, but I don't know where else one can
see the film. As I've posted before, I'm a big, big fan of it.
Of course, I agree with everybody's comments about Feiffer's masterful
"Tantrum." Fantagraphics began issuing a "Jules Feiffer Collection" about ten years
ago, but for reasons unclear to me they never got beyond Volume 3. (Does
anyone else know?) Nevertheless, those three volumes have many treasures,
including the earliest "Sick, Sick, Sick" strips and "Munro."
The film version of "Little Murders" ought to be better known. I'm not sure
that Alan Arkin's skillful direction of actors and Gordon Willis' typically
interesting, dark images quite move the film beyond the category of "filmed
play," but I haven't re-seen it in many years. Feiffer's excellent play "Grown
Ups" was done for PBS (I think) a number of years later.
Peter
13524
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 10:59pm
Subject: Re: Resend: Jules Feiffer, Patrice Leconte. Winsor McCay
>
> The film version of "Little Murders" ought to be better known.
I'm not sure
> that Alan Arkin's skillful direction of actors and Gordon Willis'
typically
> interesting, dark images quite move the film beyond the
category of "filmed
> play," but I haven't re-seen it in many years. Feiffer's excellent
play "Grown
> Ups" was done for PBS (I think) a number of years later.
>
> Peter
I never saw it. Historical note: Godard was going to direct it at
one point.
13525
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 0:46am
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project
jess_l_amortell wrote:
> ....Since I rented or borrowed these, I don't think I saw the insert sheets mentioned in the following material from their FAQ....
>
From the little liner-notes folder in my copy of the "Written on the
Wind" Criterion DVD:
"Written on the Wind" is presented in the aspect ratio of 1.77:1." And
that's *all* it says about the aspect ratio.
You'd be missing the tops and bottoms of what you'd see in 1.66.
I've worked for Criterion and hope to again and was highly impressed
with the great care they put into "by Brakhage." But I think we can say
almost for sure that no films of the 50s would have been shown in
1.77:1. 1.85, perhaps; 1.66, perhaps, wider, perhaps, 1.33, perhaps. Oh,
wait, maybe some theater had a funny shaped screen or set the masks
wrong. But I don't think 1.77:1 aperture plates were ever manufactured.
I'll just repeat that for "Written on the Wind" and "All That Heaven
Allows," they looked OK to me at 1.66:1 and wrong at 1.85:1.
We may find, though, that theaters at the time tended to show films in
different aspect ratios. This is true to some extent today, right, as
many theaters show 'Scope at around 2:1.
[Fred concludes with another of his rants about watching films on video
which you are welcome to skip if you're getting sick of them.]:
I got this and a few other DVDs I selected a a kind of free bonus
payment for my work for Criterion. I tried looking at it and "All That
Heaven Allows" and couldn't watch more than 10 minutes of each. It's not
that the transfers were awful; it's that I know the films so well from
16mm and 35mm IB prints that I couldn't imagine why I'd want to see them
on video, unless it's to check a fact or review the editing order or
something. The incredible metallic power of Sirk's colors in "Written on
the Wind" was just gone, gone, gone.
Fred Camper
13526
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 0:54am
Subject: Our group archive (please read)
I've been gradually exploring ways to put our group's archives on the
Web in a more accessible form.
I'm in the process of creating a giant text file of all our messages to
date. This will have members' email addresses deleted, and perhaps
include some Yahoo text garbage related to ads and menus that I miss
deleting, but will otherwise have the texts of all our posts to date
excerpt for a few that have been deleted for good reasons. It will be
very large, probably a bit over 20 MB, but will be available for anyone
to download. Once you have it on your hard drive you should, if you have
a reasonably recent computer, be able open it in a word processing
program and do a simple text search for a particular word or name, which
ought to be a lot easier than using the Yahoo! groups search function.
Once this is done I'll post an update file of new posts and update it
regularly. It turns out that doing this doesn't take as much time as I
would have thought.
Additionally, I have a plan to post our archive on my own Web site in
smaller chunks, perhaps 250 messages at a time. The purpose of doing
this is to encourage search engines to index all our posts, which to my
surprise doesn't seem to be happening. Again, the email addresses will
be deleted from these files. Then the next time someone does a google
search for
Murnau Hawks Hellman Curtiz Biette
maybe they'll get Bill Krohn's post 6488 rather than no hits, as at present.
In all these files there will be a note to the effect that the copyright
to each post remains with the person writing it, and that reproducing it
requires that person's permission. Additionally, I'll insert a clause
into our Statement of Purpose eventually to the effect that while the
copyright of posts remains with the writers, posters agree that their
posts may be put on the Web in ways other than the Yahoo! Groups site,
as long as their permission is asked (which is what I'm doing here) and
copyright is acknowledged. After this archive that I'm planning is up,
the Statement of Purpose will include the statement that members agree
to including their posts in this archive and to its being updated. I'm
guessing this won't be a problem for anyone since our posts are already
on the Web for anyone to read, which was a part of the group's concept
from the beginning.
A test file showing how the first 250 posts will look, but with no
attempt made to delete the Yahoo! stuff, can be found at
http://www.fredcamper.com/T/000250.txt
If anyone in our group has any questions about this or objections to it,
please email me directly, unless you feel the urgent need to discuss it
in the group. It will likely be ten days or more before I'm ready to
post it.
Fred Camper
13527
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 1:03am
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project
>Is there any chance, though, that the directors or cinematographers had
>1.66:1 in mind? - Dan
Nowadays AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER lists the aspect ratio in their
feature articles, and whether it's Super 35 or not. For a brief
while in 1954, VARIETY listed the aspect ratio in their reviews, and
1.66 appears, albeit rarely.
This is definitely a subject for further research among surviving
directors and d.p's. From my point of view, I agree with Fred that
1.66 simply looks better, more comfortable, less cramped, for most
non-scope films of that era.
--
- Joe Kaufman
13528
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 1:17am
Subject: Re: Our group archive (please read)
Everything about the text archive sounds good, Fred. The Web archive
is also a great idea -- interested parties will be able to enter get
returns on whole strings as opposed to just single key words. Although
the priority with which Google presents pages in returned results is
based on the number of times any one page (in this case, a single post)
has been linked to. There are various devious ways to increase the
"priority" of a page, just so that it wouldn't appear as the 22nd
result -- which, admittedly, is much less likely to happen if someone
enters a long string, as opposed to a keyword -- but I'm no expert on
what those ways are.
I was also wondering if group members wanted to have another real-time
chat some time soon. I wasn't able to attend the first one, but it
seems long enough ago now that a second one might be welcome.
craig.
13529
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 1:19am
Subject: Re: Resend: Jules Feiffer, Patrice Leconte. Winsor McCay
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> >
> > The film version of "Little Murders" ought to be better known.
> I'm not sure
> > that Alan Arkin's skillful direction of actors and Gordon Willis'
> typically
> > interesting, dark images quite move the film beyond the
> category of "filmed
> > play," but I haven't re-seen it in many years. Feiffer's
excellent
> play "Grown
> > Ups" was done for PBS (I think) a number of years later.
> >
> > Peter
>
> I never saw it. Historical note: Godard was going to direct it at
> one point.
Peter, "many years" for you means only a very few years! I saw it
when it came out, or shortly thereafter, and I was bewildered,
nonplussed and words to that effect but found it extremely
interesting. Never saw it again and had actually forgotten about its
very existence. It probably would have been even more interesting
directed by JLG, but of course it was not something that was even
remotely likely to happen.
JPC
13530
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 1:47am
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project (1.77:1)
> But I think we can say almost for sure that no films of the 50s would
> have been shown in 1.77:1.
Criterion have L'AVVENTURA as 1.77:1 too, yet don't have the balls to
claim OAR on the box or insert.
I was researching 1.77:1 AR to see whether anything like it ever
existed theatrically, and a friend told me of a widely used 1.75:1
format in Italy in the late 1950s through to the 1970s. It eliminated
rental expenses on
CinemaScope/Panavision/DialyScope/TotalScope/Franscope/TohoScope/
NikkatsuScope/ToeiScope lenses (just as most of those were invented to
circumvent costly rentals too).
I never did find out whether L'AVVENTURA used this format, or any other
films that did.
-Nick Wrigley>-
13531
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 1:58am
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project
> >Is there any chance, though, that the directors or cinematographers had
> >1.66:1 in mind? - Dan
I am going to 'guess out loud' that given the strong legacy of the Academy
frame, there was a tendency to want to compose in a relation closer to
that than the novelty of 1.85.
Pure, and likely unprovable speculation on my part.
-Sam
13532
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 2:05am
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project (1.77:1)
> > But I think we can say almost for sure that no films of the 50s would
> > have been shown in 1.77:1.
>
> I was researching 1.77:1 AR to see whether anything like it ever
> existed theatrically, and a friend told me of a widely used 1.75:1
> format in Italy in the late 1950s through to the 1970s.
Actually, now that I think of it, 1.75 was one of the three aspect ratios referred to in the George Sidney 1953 material I posted the other day: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/13435
13533
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 2:09am
Subject: Re: ALAIN RESNAIS MK2 boxset (was: Jules Feiffer)
> Mike - There are two versions of I Want to Go Home. It's hard to find
> either, but if you can, see the English-language one, not the French
Where are you looking, Bill?
Resnais' I WANT TO GO HOME is available on DVD from MK2 in France with
both English and French audio on the disc.
Those with money should look at the official French MK2 "COFFRET
RESNAIS" box set (all five of his 80s films). Eng subs where needed.
Those with little money: there's an exact Chinese copy of the MK2
boxset, for 1/5th the price. Replete with MK2 logos, packaging, and
colour disc art. Sometimes shows on eBay.
-Nick Wrigley>-
13535
From:
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 10:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Resend: Jules Feiffer, Patrice Leconte. Winsor McCay
Jean-Pierre Coursodon wrote:
>Peter, "many years" for you means only a very few years!
I think I saw it last in 1995-96, around the time when I was first getting
into Feiffer. So, only eight or nine years ago, but it's all relative! It
really is a lifetime ago in terms of my sophistication in appreciating
film/writing/etc.
>I saw it
>when it came out, or shortly thereafter, and I was bewildered,
>nonplussed and words to that effect but found it extremely
>interesting.
Talking about Jules Feiffer in this thread has me interested in seeing it
again. I know I was mainly responding to Feiffer's screenplay when I first
viewed it; I'd certainly be more attuned to the direction if I saw it today.
That's fascinating that Godard was going to direct it at one point!
Peter
13536
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 3:04am
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project
> This is definitely a subject for further research among surviving
> directors and d.p's. From my point of view, I agree with Fred that
> 1.66 simply looks better, more comfortable, less cramped, for most
> non-scope films of that era.
Do you think it looks better than 1.33 in some cases? - Dan
13537
From:
Date: Mon Aug 2, 2004 11:03pm
Subject: Re: Mike Nichols
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
>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.
Dan is also a fan of "The Graduate," so I probably ought to have another look
at it. I just remember not caring for the, for want of a better word,
"flashier" visual effects, particularly all the zooms. I like "Virginia Woolf"
mainly for the source material; I find it lacking when compared to some other
really cinematic plays-on-film, such as Mulligan's "Same Time, Next Year."
So the first film where Nichols gets good for me is "Catch-22." You have his
long take approach present for the first time; all those elegant, intricate
shots make for a very pleasurable viewing experience. Interestingly, it's been
suggested that Nichols was more comfortable with all-in-ones due to his stage
background; yet his films became less, not more, cinematic when he began
shooting coverage later on and cutting scenes more conventionally. Long takes,
done well, are very cinematic. Nichols seems downright apologetic about this
style on the "Catch-22" commentary track; disappointing.
"Catch-22" also features one of my favorite Orson Welles performances from a
non-Welles film (though this brings up the issue of how Welles himself wanted
to direct the film... I try not to let this cloud my appreciation of Nichols'
version.)
"The Fortune" is maybe my favorite Nichols' film, which sounds wild to most
of the world, I'm sure. His long take approach is put to its fullest use here,
perhaps.
I'd say that "Carnal Knowledge" is both things at once, Jaime: a good film,
and one also full of arch, theatrical dialogue (Feiffer first conceived of it
as a stage play) and mannered playing. But I'd still give the film another
shot; you may end up liking it once you get used to the style.
I'll have another look at "Primary Colors," Jaime and David; and another look
at "Postcards from the Edge," David. I remember thinking "Wolf" (94) was
interesting, but still not up to the promise Nichols evinced from 1970-75.
Peter
13538
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 3:40am
Subject: Re: our group archive
>The purpose of doing
>this is to encourage search engines to index all our
>posts, which to my
>surprise doesn't seem to be happening.
Not surprising. I've been maintaining an egroups of my
articles since 1999 and while it does a good job of
distributing text articles, 1) the search function
isn't worth much, 2) you can't edit messages posted,
and 3) as you pointed out, Google doesn't seem to pick
up the messages--unlike, say, in a blog or as you
proposed, a website.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13539
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 4:03am
Subject: Re: I, Robot
> superb article
Thanks!
> 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.
Of the newer effects-heavy filmmakers, he seems the
most promising. Prefer him over Emmerich, or even
Lucas, anyway.
> Thanks for posting
Answered your email directed at me; didn't know it
would show up again in digest form, so my reply here
will be a little different.
I know Asimov's name but haven't
> read any
> sci-fiction
Asimov I'd say, forget it; but if you're at all
interested in dipping your toes, I'd recommend Philip
Dick, JG Ballard, John Sladek, Thomas Disch among
others.
> I think a robot filled world of 2035
> would look like a
> Robert Estes painting: clean, crisp, but melocholic.
I'm second-guessing the filmmakers and your notion
sounds fantastic, but I think that emotionless,
undistinctive cityscape is their point. And Asimov's
(unfortunately) vision.
> The cgi images of the cityscape included graffiti,
> which
> made no sense to me
Didn't think of that. Anti-anti-graffiti paint,
perhaps? Still if they're showing graffiti you'd think
they'd want to make a quick sociological point by
showing the graffiti artists, how and why they're
doing it.
> Further, I found the use of a badge in the wallet in
> the
> his pocket as the requirement for identification
> rather
> unimaginable.
Could be his retro inclinations (again, it would have
been better if they actually made a point of this).
> 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...
This, surprisingly, is a detail actually faithful to
Asimov. He completely missed out on the development of
the computer.
> (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.)
Terra chips which are a mix of sweet potato, taro and
other exotic tubers is quite good.
> (Dark City is a Gnostic film preceding Matrix by a
> few years, and
> much better.)
Hah. I happen to agree with this. Tho the best SF I've
seen onscreen in recent years is, I think, Cowboy
Bebop.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13540
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 4:34am
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project
> > This is definitely a subject for further research among surviving
>> directors and d.p's. From my point of view, I agree with Fred that
>> 1.66 simply looks better, more comfortable, less cramped, for most
>> non-scope films of that era.
>
>Do you think it looks better than 1.33 in some cases? - Dan
Yes, because once cropping for 1.85 was introduced, there's just too
much empty headroom at the top when shown at 1.33/1.37. 1.66 is a
nice compromise.
--
- Joe Kaufman
13541
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 4:39am
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project
>>Do you think it looks better than 1.33 in some cases? - Dan
>
> Yes, because once cropping for 1.85 was introduced, there's just too
> much empty headroom at the top when shown at 1.33/1.37. 1.66 is a
> nice compromise.
But, if they were cropping for 1.85, you'd think that 1.85 would look good.
The article Jim dug up suggests that 1.66 and 1.75 may possibly have
been used in the 50s. Maybe filmmakers thought, "Well, the theaters are
liable to show it at anything from 1.33 to 1.85 - let's strike a happy
medium." - Dan
13542
From:
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 2:26am
Subject: Cowboy Bebop bit! (Was: I, Robot)
In a message dated 8/2/04 11:03:37 PM, noelbotevera@y... writes:
> Tho the best SF I've seen onscreen in recent years is, I think, Cowboy
> Bebop.
>
Oh my gawd, I absolutely loathed that film. What did you like about it? My
review is here:
http://www.onwisconsin.com/movies/movie.asp?id=833
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
13543
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 6:42am
Subject: Re: Our group archive (please read)
Yea, Fred!
13544
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 6:44am
Subject: Re: Our group archive (please read)
are.
>
> I was also wondering if group members wanted to have another real-
time
> chat some time soon. I wasn't able to attend the first one, but it
> seems long enough ago now that a second one might be welcome.
>
> craig.
Sure,
Bill
13545
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 6:53am
Subject: Re: I, Robot
>
> > The cgi images of the cityscape included graffiti,
> > which
> > made no sense to me
>
> Didn't think of that. Anti-anti-graffiti paint,
> perhaps? Still if they're showing graffiti you'd think
> they'd want to make a quick sociological point by
> showing the graffiti artists, how and why they're
> doing it.
>
You never know - it may turn up as a deleted scene on the DVD.
One word in defense of Asimov: Nightfall is a classic, which was
actually filmed twice by Roger Corman's production company. Tipped
off by Jonathan I saw the first version, directed by Paul Mayersberg,
which is quite good. Not surprisingly, RC's twentysomething femme
Stanford grad production execs remembered the film with horror when I
brought it up on the set of Frankenstein Unbound. The sceond version
seems to have been made in India - haven't seen it. But I do
recommend the Mayersberg.
13546
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 6:56am
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
There's been a lot of discussion about ar of the Touch of Evil remix.
When I spoke to Welles he said that Academy aperture was the only one
to shoot a picture in. Of course he may have been "talkin' thru his
hat..."
13547
From:
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 3:40am
Subject: Re: Favorite Fords
Late John Ford films are certainly extraordinary - "The Long Gray Line", "The
Searchers", "The Last Hurrah", "Sergeant Rutledge", "The Man Who Shot Liberty
Valence", "Seven Women". These show almost limitless creativity. Also love
the cavalry trilogy. Among the early talkies, "Up the River" and "Pilgrimage"
stand out.
No one has spoken up in favor of John Ford's silents. Some of the ones seen
here are truly outstanding films: "Three Bad Men", "The Blue Eagle", "Four
Sons", "Hangman House". These are all much better works than their current
auteurist non-reputation would indicate.
Mike Grost
13548
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 7:51am
Subject: Re: Re: Favorite Fords
I haven't followed this thread that carefully -- since Ford is one of my
favorite directors I supposed I should be ashamed, but those are the
exigencies of work -- but I hope someone mentioned "They Were Expendable"
and ghe painfully underrated "Rio Grande" in addition to the obvious
masterpieces. I think Mike G is not far off, either, when he talks about the
neglect of the Ford silents. I suspect the problem, though, isn't so much
that the films are undervalued as that they are underseen. I can't recall
the last time a Ford silent other than "The Iron Horse" or "Straight
Shooting" was shown in NYC. And, of course, with so many of his silents lost
there is an understandable reluctance to draw many conclusions about the
first part of his career.
George Robinson
He that would make his own liberty secure
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself.
--Thomas Paine
13549
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 8:56am
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
hotlove666 wrote:
>When I spoke to Welles he said that Academy aperture was the only one
>to shoot a picture in. Of course he may have been "talkin' thru his
>hat..."
>
Wow. I know it more from 16mm prints than 35mm, and 16mm prints are of
course Academy aperture, and so when I saw the restored version in 35mm
I was particularly annoyed by the 1.85 ratio, which seemed really wrong.
I don't know if I would have preferred 1.66 to 1.33, but surely in the
16mm prints I saw I never felt there was any dead space or awkward
compositions.
Our lack of knowledge here is kind of pathetic, really. Here we have a
great artist only fairly recently deceased and we don't even know for
sure how to display his work as he intended. I could sputter on about
the attention academics gave to deconstructive analyses of this and that
while great filmmakers were (possibly) taking important knowledge to the
grave. Bill did a great thing by asking Welles, but to be sure he wasn't
"talkin' through his hat" we'd need to have asked some follow-ups,
talked to the cinematographer, et cetera. Someone did tell me that he
heard that someone else asked Stanley Cortez about the aspect ratio for
"The Naked Kiss," and Cortez said the same thing, 1.33:1. Maybe some
filmmakers regarded what happened in the theaters as a kind of temporary
butchery that they weren't going to worry about. As I understand it, it
did begin that way: theater owners tried to compete with 'Scope by
chopping the tops and bottoms off of non 'Scope films to make them look
"wider." So for example a film made in 1955 perhaps really was 1.33.
On the other hand, as I posted recently, I thought "Day of the Outlaw"
looked much better in 1.85/
I did write to Sirk about aspect ratios decades ago, and his answer was
vague. He didn't really answer my question directly, but instead talked
about how he had to shoot some of his early 'Scope films in 1.33 as
well, two separate cameras, as not all theaters were equipped for scope.
If anyone knows a good spiritualist/medium who can put me in touch with
Russell Metty, please schedule a session for us.
Fred Camper
13550
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 9:50am
Subject: Re: I, Robot
A major problem with "I, Robot" is, that it lacks intelligence.
Thruout the film, Spooner asks questions, which never gets answered.
The first be "Why did you want to kill yourself?", then later, when
examinating the security glass, "How could he penetrade the glass?",
then later "What revolution?" and so on. These questions are not meant
to be answered, but to keep the audience in suspence. Eventually they
all are answered, so we can say "of course, how smart", but it is more
like getting the answers to a question from a quizmaster after youve
defaulted.
Further, Spooner follows cryptic leads like, "the breadcrumbs", which
becomes an index by the book about "Hansel and Gretle". This fairytale
is about a woodcutter, who, when unable to feed his children, sends
them into the woods and their death, but instead of dying, they
discover a candyhouse, where a witch keeps them prisoners, until they
trick her and she goes into the oven insteand of Hansel, then
returning to freedom and later home. The fairytale is about growing
up, leaving home and making it on your own; But what has that got to
do with "I, Robot"? Nothing, except being a cryptification to make
audience being amazed by the logic of Spooner.
The entire plan of creating a robot messiah rests upon the actions of
Spooner. What if Spooner's hatred to robots hadn't made him think?
What if the robot was executed? What if Spooner was killed by the
"evil" robots? What if they hadn't managed to kill VIKI?
Rather than Asimov, I find "I Robot" to have more in common with
"Metropolis". There is the mad scientist who invents the evil robot,
there is the hater of robots who eventually comes to like them and by
whos actions the robots become liberated. The handshake between the
Sonny and Spooner towards the end is to me an allusion of the
handshake between the foreman and Fredersen, connection the body
(humans) with the mind (robots), becoming the heart (understanding).
There are also points of stupidity in "I Robot". Susan is completely
unaware of manual operated CD players. Given that this film takes
place 31 years from now, that is highly unlikely. The same about her
reaction to gasoline (it can explode); So was oil and gasoline just
replaced like that, and if so, where did Spooner get his gasoline?
There is no grafitti, there are no unions protesting against the
massive invasion of robots. The future is so artificial, that it
becomes unrealistic and unlikely. As such, "I Robot" is poor science
fiction.
To me, "I Robot" is nothing more than a shake'n'bake Hollywood
screenplay, a typical summer movie, so structured as if painted by
numbers. Each character is a stereotype, whos actions are predictable.
Asimov deserves better than this. "I Robot" will slip into oblivion
along with "Bicentennial Man", another horrible Asimov adaptation.
Henrik
PS: Lets not forget about the so not obvious product placements :)
13551
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 10:19am
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
> Maybe some
> filmmakers regarded what happened in the theaters as a kind of temporary
> butchery that they weren't going to worry about. As I understand it, it
> did begin that way: theater owners tried to compete with 'Scope by
> chopping the tops and bottoms off of non 'Scope films to make them look
> "wider." So for example a film made in 1955 perhaps really was 1.33.
>
> If anyone knows a good spiritualist/medium who can put me in touch with
> Russell Metty, please schedule a session for us.
Well, his shade might not like it, but here's a report (which didn't require much digging) actually associating these three ratios with different studios -- 1.66 for Paramount; 1.75 for MGM (George Sidney, take a bow) and Disney; and 1.85 for Universal (in which case Criterion's croppings might actually be conservative!) and Columbia: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/evolution.htm
13552
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 11:15am
Subject: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
> 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)
Welles was quoted as saying, re widescreen, "I don't believe the
cinema audience deserves anything bigger than they've been getting,"
and approvingly quoted Cocteau's "The next time I do a drawing I'm
going to use a big sheet of paper."
But he's supposed to have directed the opening scene of THE SOUTHERN
STAR which I saw in the New York Welles retrospective this year. A
scope film, shot by Coutard. The opening is GREAT, widescreen is used
for comedy in a manner comparable to Leone, and the dynamism of
Welles' style is nehanced by the wider frame.
As for CASINO ROYALE, one of the directors of Welles' scenes was a
friedn of his, the other was Joe McGrath, who's not very talented but
is fairly modest. Either of these men might have been open to
directorial suggestions from the master.
13553
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 1:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
--- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
> As for CASINO ROYALE, one of the directors of
> Welles' scenes was a
> friedn of his, the other was Joe McGrath, who's not
> very talented but
> is fairly modest.
STRONGLY beg to diffewr on McGrath. "The Great
McGonagall" is a masterpiece! And "The Bliss of Mr.
Blossom" isn't chopped liver either. A very neglected
British talent in the Richard Lester vein, with
variations that make much of his work comparable to
mid-60's Godard ad even Straub-Huillet.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13554
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 2:25pm
Subject: Filmmaker Peter Wintonick researches the origins of cinema verite SUNDANCE Channel
I've seen this before; interesting, especially since filming was done
before the digital camera.
Cinema Verite: Defining the Moment
CATEGORY:
Doc
SYNOPSIS:
Filmmaker Peter Wintonick researches the origins of cinema verite,
the art of using the camera in an unobtrusive style.
CHANNEL:
513 [SUNDAEP]
DATE / TIME:
August 3: 10:15AM
August 7: 8:15AM, 5:00PM
August 12: 2:00PM
August 13: 1:30AM
RATING:
NR ***
LENGTH:
105 Minutes
NOTES:
Black and White, English
13555
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 2:42pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"...when I saw the restored version in 35mm I was particularly
annoyed by the 1.85 ratio, which seemed really wrong. I don't know
if I would have preferred 1.66 to 1.33, but surely in the 16mm prints
I saw I never felt there was any dead space or awkward compositions."
I saw the restored version at two different venues in Los Angeles and
in both cases it was screened at 1.33 x 1, so at least the restord
version was not hard matted. It would seem that it's up to the
exhibitor as to which aspect ratio to use when projecting the film.
For TOUCH OF EVIL the clue to the matting is how much of
the "Universal-International" logo is visible. When screened at 1.85
the polar caps at the top and bottom of the globe are cut off, and
this is how it looks on dvd.
Richard
13556
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 3:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
> STRONGLY beg to diffewr on McGrath. "The Great
> McGonagall" is a masterpiece! And "The Bliss of Mr.
> Blossom" isn't chopped liver either. A very neglected
> British talent in the Richard Lester vein, with
> variations that make much of his work comparable to
> mid-60's Godard ad even Straub-Huillet.
Many of us first encountered David's name when Sarris named him in a
Village Voice review as one of the "sleeper-spotters" who discovered THE
BLISS OF MRS. BLOSSOM. - Dan
13557
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 3:45pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
Yes but are the 16mm prints the camera's Academy ap or are they
missing the edges of a 1.66 or 1.85 frame ?
I saw the restored print but don't remeber any impressions re AR,
I was happy to see it in 35 for once & for all & without the credits
over the opening shot...
(although it survives abuse; the first couple times I sawa it were Late Show,
the SM Rose Chevrolet and DeCarlo land commercials, etc.
One time, Channel 2 in NYH ran reels in the wrong order; it
began with Janet Leigh opening the window shade in the motel...
deconstruted version)
Also saw a restored The Lady From Shanghai in the same theater,
pretty tasty in 1.37....
-Sam
p.s. Walter Murch is certainly accessible
> >When I spoke to Welles he said that Academy aperture was the only one
> >to shoot a picture in. Of course he may have been "talkin' thru his
> >hat..."
> >
> Wow. I know it more from 16mm prints than 35mm, and 16mm prints are of
> course Academy aperture, and so when I saw the restored version in 35mm
> I was particularly annoyed by the 1.85 ratio, which seemed really wrong.
> I don't know if I would have preferred 1.66 to 1.33, but surely in the
> 16mm prints I saw I never felt there was any dead space or awkward
> compositions
13558
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 3:47pm
Subject: Re: Cowboy Bebop bit! (Was: I, Robot)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Oh my gawd, I absolutely loathed that film. What did you like
about it? My
> review is here:
> http://www.onwisconsin.com/movies/movie.asp?id=833
>
> Kevin John
I was thinking more of the TV series (actually, most anime fans who
mention Bebop are likely to be referring to the series). I liked the
film well enough, as a big-budget appendage that caught the tone of
the series, more or less, without doing much to add to the story
threads. I can see where the film, taken on its own, fails to convey
the context of the full story.
Best I can do by way of reply is link what I wrote about it--the
series, I mean:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/405
13559
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 3:50pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
I recommended this site here re something not long ago, so
Thanks for reminding me to go read it :)
-Sam
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/evolution.htm
13560
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 3:51pm
Subject: Re: I, Robot
> One word in defense of Asimov: Nightfall is a classic
Yeah, it does have classic status, and it does give us this
interesting feeling of a normal situation turned inside-out (sunset
regarded as a nightmare occurence), tho even here the charactes are
a bit wooden.
I'd like to see the filmed versions tho, especially the Paul
Mayersberg.
13561
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 3:53pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
Now I can't remember what I saw it in, I'll have to ask the projectionist !
-Sam
> I saw the restored version at two different venues in Los Angeles and
> in both cases it was screened at 1.33 x 1, so at least the restord
> version was not hard matted. It would seem that it's up to the
> exhibitor as to which aspect ratio to use when projecting the film.
> For TOUCH OF EVIL the clue to the matting is how much of
> the "Universal-International" logo is visible. When screened at 1.85
> the polar caps at the top and bottom of the globe are cut off, and
> this is how it looks on dvd.
>
> Richard
13562
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 3:56pm
Subject: Re: I, Robot
> A major problem with "I, Robot" is, that it lacks intelligence.
Good points, and good plot points you mention, tho I submit even in
its Hollywoodized, Will-smithed and CGI'd form it's still an
improvement on Asimov.
Interesting point on Metropolis. I think they share another quality,
a flawed and simplistic script--diference is, Metropolis also has
tremendous filmmaking, where I, Robot just has tremendously
expensive filmmaking (with a bit, a handful of Proyas' unsettiling
style).
13563
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 3:56pm
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
samfilms2003 wrote:
>Yes but are the 16mm prints the camera's Academy ap or are they
>missing the edges of a 1.66 or 1.85 frame ?
>
>
>
This is a good question, because some 50s films were shot masked, so
that the 16mm and TV versions are in fact missing the sides. I'm almost
certain that "Imitation of Life" was one of these. I think that the 16s
of "Touch of Evil" show more, though.
Richard, that's a great point about the Universal logo. Do you have the
two Criterion Universal Sirk DVDs, and can you compare? If the Universal
logo is much more c hopped on the masked "Touch of Evil" DVD than in the
Sirks, that might be evidence that Welles was talking truth about
shooting it in 1.33.
Fred Camper
13564
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 4:18pm
Subject: Re: Metropolis (was: I, Robot)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
> Interesting point on Metropolis. I think they share another
quality,
> a flawed and simplistic script--diference is, Metropolis also has
> tremendous filmmaking, where I, Robot just has tremendously
> expensive filmmaking (with a bit, a handful of Proyas' unsettiling
> style).
Jean Douchet again addresses the problem of Metropolis in a DVD
review in the June CdC, going beyond the problem of the script, which
Bunuel was criticizing in his review at the time, and many have
criticized since, to raise questions about the filmmaking, such as
the failure of shots to flow together creatively (following a logic
of cause and effect) as they do in other Lang films because of the
impulse to make each shot a masterpiece in and of itself.
13565
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 4:37pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> samfilms2003 wrote:
>
> >Yes but are the 16mm prints the camera's Academy ap or are they
> >missing the edges of a 1.66 or 1.85 frame ?
> >
> >
> >
> This is a good question, because some 50s films were shot masked, so
> that the 16mm and TV versions are in fact missing the sides. I'm almost
> certain that "Imitation of Life" was one of these. I think that the 16s
> of "Touch of Evil" show more, though.
>
> Richard, that's a great point about the Universal logo. Do you have the
> two Criterion Universal Sirk DVDs, and can you compare? If the
Universal
> logo is much more c hopped on the masked "Touch of Evil" DVD than in
the
> Sirks, that might be evidence that Welles was talking truth about
> shooting it in 1.33.
Well, they'd be more open on the top and bottom than TOUCH OF EVIL,
wouldn't they? Potentially more cramped on the sides?
I'm sending an e-mail to (presumably) the guy at Criterion to whom
these questions are to be directed, Jon Mulvaney. The question asks
him to explain the reasons behind the 1.77:1 frame, if in fact that's
the correct presentation ratio.
Anyone wishing to be stone-walled by their operator can call Criterion at:
(212) 756-8822 (this number is available on the internet at
SuperPages.com)
or you can visit them in person/mail a letter at:
210 East 52nd Street
Floor 5
New York, NY 10022
-Jaime
13566
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 4:50pm
Subject: screening at my house: WHISTLE STOP - Boris Barnet - 1963
Apologies for provincial-ness:
Any and all New York a_film_by-ers are welcome to stop by my 36,000
acre Brooklyn estate to watch a gloriously unsubtitled videotape copy
of Boris Barnet's final film: WHISTLE STOP (1963). Tape graciously
provided by Dan Sallitt, who will be present, synopsis graciously
provided by Vadim Rizov.
Interested parties, please e-mail me offlist for address and
directions. It's near the end of the R line, so take that into
consideration.
The date and time: Saturday, August 7, at 1pm.
-Jaime
13567
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 4:57pm
Subject: Re: screening at my house: WHISTLE STOP - Boris Barnet - 1963
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> Apologies for provincial-ness:
>
> Any and all New York a_film_by-ers are welcome to stop by my 36,000
> acre Brooklyn estate to watch a gloriously unsubtitled videotape
copy
> of Boris Barnet's final film: WHISTLE STOP (1963). Tape graciously
> provided by Dan Sallitt, who will be present, synopsis graciously
> provided by Vadim Rizov.
>
> Interested parties, please e-mail me offlist for address and
> directions. It's near the end of the R line, so take that into
> consideration.
>
> The date and time: Saturday, August 7, at 1pm.
>
> -Jaime
Shades of Rogerandhoward's!
13568
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 4:55pm
Subject: Masculin Feminin (was: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> Anyone wishing to be stone-walled by their operator can call
Criterion at:
> -Jaime
I had to laugh at that. It's appropriate that this, the longest
thread in a_film_by's history, should be triggered by Godard's
complaints about Notre Musique. He has Leaud banging on the door of a
projection booth in Masculin-Feminin because the Swedish soft-core
porn film is being shown at the wrong AR.
By the way, that film-within-the-film, which Godard shot himself, is
the only trace of the Maupassant short story that was supposed to be
at least part of the plot of M-F, as I recall -- something about an
upperclass woman who pretends to be a prostitute. It raised questions
at the time -- one being, is it a parody of Bergman? I don't think
so, because Godard would have no reason to parody Bergman, one of his
favorite directors, whereas this f-w-t-f is obviously a piece of
trash that Leaud despises, although he'd prefer to see it projected
properly. I remember also at the time some discussion of whether the
actress in the film was a man. Again, I don't think she is, but has
anyone ever heard that question raised? It would tie in with the gag
or whatever it is about the two guys he sees kissing in the john on
his way back to his seat. All these little historical details about
Godard are beginning to dim -- like the fact that he was supposed to
direct Little Murders. I sure hope someone has been taking notes...
13569
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Kings of the Road (Was: Masculin Feminin)
> I had to laugh at that. It's appropriate that this, the longest
> thread in a_film_by's history, should be triggered by Godard's
> complaints about Notre Musique. He has Leaud banging on the door of a
> projection booth in Masculin-Feminin because the Swedish soft-core
> porn film is being shown at the wrong AR.
I always liked the scene in Wenders' KINGS OF THE ROAD when Rudiger
Vogler walks up to a theater's projection booth to complain, and finds
the projectionist masturbating. The literalization of a metaphor.... - Dan
13570
From:
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 2:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
In terms of Welles' directing his own scenes in "Casino Royale," Abb Dickson
told me that Welles wanted to include the footage from that film of him
performing a magic trick for his own "magic movie," "The Magic Show." Since "The
Magic Show" was, I gather, one of his most beloved projects, shot intermittently
from 1976 to 1985, this would indicate to me that he was at least "satisfied"
with how the "Casino Royale" scene came out, even if he didn't literally
direct it himself. And perhaps he did.
And Gary Graver, the main cinematographer on the new footage shot for "The
Magic Show," told me that the new footage was shot full frame, intended for
television broadcast, in both 35mm and 16mm.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
13571
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 9:05pm
Subject: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-040803dpkubrick,1,5409738.story?coll=chi-homepagenews-utl
Lots of interesting stuff on Kubrick and "2001"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
13572
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 9:38pm
Subject: Re: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow
Can you paste the article into a post? It's taking forever for the
Tribune to send my "activation" to register for an account.
thanks! cmk.
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-
> 040803dpkubrick,1,5409738.story?coll=chi-homepagenews-utl
>
> Lots of interesting stuff on Kubrick and "2001"
13573
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 9:40pm
Subject: Re: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> Can you paste the article into a post? It's taking forever for
the
> Tribune to send my "activation" to register for an account.
>
> thanks! cmk.
>
>
> > http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-
> > 040803dpkubrick,1,5409738.story?coll=chi-homepagenews-utl
> >
> > Lots of interesting stuff on Kubrick and "2001"
I'd also like to support Craig's call since I'm having a different
set of problems concerning rejection of "name" and passwords.
Thanks,
Tony Williams
13574
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 10:03pm
Subject: Re: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow
Search:
chicagotribune.com >> Leisure >> Arts & Entertainment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Hartford Courant
2004: Remembering 'Odyssey'
Dullea looks back at the role for which he will
forever be known
By Frank Rizzo
Courant Staff Writer
Published August 3, 2004
The Westport Country, Conn., Playhouse Film Series
this week was to present a conversation with Keir
Dullea after a screening of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A
Space Odyssey" at the Community Theater in Fairfield.
Following is a conversation with Dullea, 68, at the
home in Fairfield that he shares with his wife,
actress Mia Dillon:
Q: How did you get the part of Commander Dave Bowman
in the film?
A: I was doing [Otto Preminger's] "Bunny Lake Is
Missing" in London, and I got a call from my agent
saying Kubrick wanted me for the film after seeing me
in "David and Lisa," "The Thin Red Line" and outtakes
of "Bunny Lake," which were sent to him. Over the
years, I heard somewhere that Warren Beatty was up for
my part, but when I recently looked at a casting list
for the film, my name was the only one listed for my
part. The names of actors such as George Hamilton,
Murray Hamilton, Rod Taylor, Hugh O'Brien, James
Coburn and Sterling Hayden were being tossed around
[for the part of Frank Poole, played by Gary
Lockwood]. For the role of the main ape, Albert
Finney, Jean-Paul Belmondo, Robert Shaw and Richard
Kiley were on that list. [William Sylvester got that
role]. My part of the film was shot in England in the
spring of 1966. We shot nearly four months. [The film
wasn't released until 1968.]
Q: What was Kubrick looking for in his astronauts?
A: What he didn't want was the way scientists had been
portrayed in movies -- you know, those goatee-wearing
figures. Stanley projected they would not be military
people.
Q: Your character and the other astronauts were a
little cool.
A: Many people talked about how the humans in the film
were more machine-like than the machines, but that was
intentional. The only time my character showed any
type of emotion was when HAL [super-computer HAL-9000]
wouldn't let him back inside the ship, and I had to go
inside the emergency hatch. And then there was the
scene where you see me taking HAL's [intelligence
machinery] apart, and it was not easy for my character
to do that because it was like taking the persona of a
human being apart, and I'm saying, "Yeah, HAL. It's
OK," or "Sing 'Daisy' for me, HAL."
The voice of HAL came much later, though. Stanley was
thinking of Martin Balsam as the voice of HAL, but
then he decided he didn't want a slightly New York
accent. Then he hired Nigel Davenport, an English
actor. He came to the set for a few weeks, but then
Stanley decided he didn't want an English accent
either. Then he decided to worry about it in
post-production, so we had an assistant reading HAL's
lines for us. He sounded like Michael Caine, so that's
how HAL sounded to us. [Canadian actor Douglas Rain is
the voice of HAL in the film.]
Q: There's so little dialogue in the film. Was it a
big script?
A: It was, but mostly in description. It did, however,
have more dialogue than what was used, and some we
improvised -- like the scene in the pod when HAL was
reading our lips; there was more in that scene -- but
that scene just kept getting shorter and shorter.
Q: How much freedom did you have as actors?
A: Stanley was so well prepared. Every good director
has cunning. Stanley gave us the sense we had all the
freedom in the world, but he was guiding us all the
time. I loved every minute working with him. He was
always open to ideas.
Q: Did Kubrick talk to the actors about what the film
meant?
A: He was open to any questions we wanted to ask, but
what we understood was that our characters were in the
dark about a lot of things. But we talked about
interpretations. About the aliens spinning what we
called our "mind tapes" in that last scene.
Q: Can you talk about your final scene, when the
astronaut you play ends up in a strange room alone and
ages in a series of shots? What did it signify?
A: I was playing a character who was unbelievably
bewildered. However, I was being guided by "an alien
presence." At least that was my interpretation -- and
Stanley's. The room was not a physical room. This
alien presence millions of years in advance of us
created the room. It is like what human beings would
do when we build cages for little animals, or in a
zoo, put some brush, or a cave, to make them think
it's the animal's habitat. But it's not. It's the same
principle [in that scene]. But in this case, the alien
presence doesn't have to physically create the room.
They would do the equivalent of spinning a tape in
your brain and looking for something that represents
"habitat" coming across this Louis XVI room, or
whatever it was - perhaps it was a room you may have
once walked through, perhaps in a museum. The alien
presence wasn't worried about exactly what it was,
only that it represented "habitat" in my brain, so
they put me there.
Q: And the extended scene when you were being
transported to Jupiter? The scene is an extended
close-up of you while a strange light show takes
place.
A: Well, I was just looking at the camera. There was
some interesting lighting being done around me. But to
keep me engaged, Stanley played music, Vaughan
Williams' "Sinfonia Antarctica." There was a movement
in that suite that was very mysterioso. It was really
weird music, and it helped me a lot. I knew from the
script that it would be very unusual. The situation
was that I was in the hands of an alien presence,
which was millions of years in advance of us, and I
was seeing the wonder of it, and I brought my actor's
sense of what that might be.
But he would say, look this way, or that way, or down
- that was what is called the Kubrick look. It's in "A
Clockwork Orange" a lot and "Full Metal Jacket." It's
like your head is down, and you're looking straight
out, like through your eyebrows.
Q: How was the film received?
A: The initial reviews were mixed. Some praised it;
some panned it. And in some cases, critics re-reviewed
the film [after it became an audience phenomenon].
Q: Seeing the film stoned became part of its appeal.
Since you were described as "the face that launched a
thousand trips," did you ever see the film high?
A: Yes. I think the light trips were something then.
I remember reading about a fan somewhere, maybe it was
San Francisco, who, in the last five minutes of the
film, some crazed stoned person ran from the back of
the house, ran to the front of the stage screaming,
"It's God! It's God!" He jumped up on the stage and
ran right through the screen still screaming, "It's
God!"
Q: There were no sci-fi conventions of the magnitude
we have now, or Internet clubs, so all of the
excitement surrounding the film was created solely by
word of mouth.
A: Word got out fast, and part of the appeal was the
different interpretations surrounding the film. It was
not a neat Hollywood film that tied up all the loose
ends. It was filled with question marks. In a way,
it's more like a European film, like "L'Avventura."
I've always been hesitant to explain what I thought
"2001" was about because I believe it's all in the eye
of the beholder. What other films leave as many
questions that could be answered in so many different
ways? A Buddhist would be as intrigued as a Christian
or an agnostic or an atheist.
It was the first movie of its kind, the granddaddy of
a film with that kind of budget -- $11 million, a big
budget then, but laughable now. After "2001," it was
different: "Star Wars," and all the rest. But ours did
not have one computer-generated effect. They were all
done mechanically. What Kubrick did was sheer genius.
Q: Has the film changed your cosmic perception of the
universe?
A: I don't think so. I do know how the magic was made,
so I don't quite see it the same way others do.
Q: Were you forever identified with 2001 after the
film opened?
A: Prior to "2001," I was first identified with [the
film] "David and Lisa," and then "2001" replaced all
of that. It's a double-edged sword.
I know there are other things I've done that I'm proud
of, and people recognize that, too. But for the
average Joe, no matter what I do, it will be
"2001."But if you're only going to be identified by
one product, you could do a lot worse
--- David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/arts/chi-040803dpkubrick,1,5409738.story?coll=chi-homepagenews-utl
>
> Lots of interesting stuff on Kubrick and "2001"
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download
> now.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13575
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 10:37pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"Do you have the two Criterion Universal Sirk DVDs, and can you
compare? If the Universal logo is much more chopped on the
masked "Touch of Evil" DVD than in the Sirks, that might be evidence
that Welles was talking truth about shooting it in 1.33."
I don't own either one of them but I don't mind renting them to find
out. I'll let you know tomorrow.
Richard
13576
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 10:47pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> "Do you have the two Criterion Universal Sirk DVDs, and can you
> compare? If the Universal logo is much more chopped on the
> masked "Touch of Evil" DVD than in the Sirks, that might be
evidence
> that Welles was talking truth about shooting it in 1.33."
I just compared "Touch of Evil" with the criterion release of "All
that Heaven Allows", and the Welles' film certainly has more of the
globe chopped off at the top than the Sirk film.
-Aaron
13577
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
Aaron Graham wrote:
>-I just compared "Touch of Evil" with the criterion release of "All
>that Heaven Allows", and the Welles' film certainly has more of the
>globe chopped off at the top than the Sirk film.
>
>-Aaron
>
>
>
Double wow. Thanks a lot. I feel like my subjective judgment has been
vindicated. Best guess is that the meaning of this is that Welles was
telling Bill the truth. Same time period, same studio, same
cinematographer, same 1.33:1 image on the prints, but while one should
probably be projected masked to 1.66 the other shown be shown full
aperture, that is, 1.33.. Of course the Universal logos themselves
aren't conclusive, but we have other evidence, including that of our eyes.
So Criterion's "Touch of Evil" should be called "75 per cent of 'Touch
of Evil'" and the release of the "restored" version a few years back
should have been called, at those theaters that showed it in 1.85 (I'd
guess, most), "72 per cent of 'Touch of Evil.'" I'm not inventing these
numbers either; I did the math.
I hope this little portion of our thread has convinced some film
scholars, including some in Los Angeles, to take on a "real" version of
this project.
When I get a chance I'll forward the relevant messages here to my
contact at Criterion.
Fred Camper
13578
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 11:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
Fred Camper wrote:
>
>When I get a chance I'll forward the relevant messages here to my
>contact at Criterion.
>
>
>
Oops, the "Touch of Evil" DVD is not a Criterion release, right?
Fortunately I didn't write to them. I don't think I'll bother them about
1.77 versus 1.66 versus 1.85 on the Sirks...
Fred Camper
13579
From: heyrocker
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 11:33pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
> "Do you have the two Criterion Universal Sirk DVDs, and can you
> compare? If the Universal logo is much more chopped on the
> masked "Touch of Evil" DVD than in the Sirks, that might be
evidence
> that Welles was talking truth about shooting it in 1.33."
I am largely a lurker on this list but the discussion of the aspect
ratio project has sparked my interest as I have longed for a resource
which definitively lists aspect ratio as intended. Nice to see I'm
not the only one.
Anyways, I actually have both of these DVDs and just checked them.
Written On The Wind crops the top of the Universal logo just a bit,
and the bottom exists in full. On All That Heaven Allows the top and
bottom of the logo just touch the edges of the frame. It seems like
the ratio is the same in both, but the placement of the frame is
slightly different. Notice that on the left side there is a star that
disappears in WOW vs ATHA. I grabbed my digital camera and took
photos of them:
Written On The Wind
http://www.heyrocker.com/wow.jpg
All That Heaven Allows
http://www.heyrocker.com/atha.jpg
Obviously even here there are some slight differences, which is kind
of interesting. I don't have Touch Of Evil so I can't check back to
that one, but someone can check it against these images.
Feel free to use the images however you might like.
13580
From:
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 7:56pm
Subject: Re: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow
Dullea's description of the finale of 2001 as involving "an alien presence"
is a good as a description of that work as I have ever seen.
The Stargate is a favorite passage here. It definitely invokes the abstract
"color music" films of such greats as Jordan Belson.
By the way, I have never used alcohol, tobacco or drugs - and their absense
probably enhances the extraordinary artistic and sensory impact of this scene.
Looking at the world of color and light is a deep and joyous experience.
I wish more commercial films would include such passages. With computer
effects, they could become complex and dazzling.
The strange colors of the lighting in "Sugarbaby" (Percy Adlon) also come to
mind here.
Mike Grost
13581
From:
Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 8:01pm
Subject: Re: Metropolis (was: I, Robot)
In a message dated 04-08-03 12:22:01 EDT, Bill Krohn writes:
<< Jean Douchet again addresses the problem of Metropolis in a DVD
review in the June CdC, going beyond the problem of the script, which
Bunuel was criticizing in his review at the time, and many have
criticized since, to raise questions about the filmmaking, such as
the failure of shots to flow together creatively (following a logic
of cause and effect) as they do in other Lang films because of the
impulse to make each shot a masterpiece in and of itself. >>
This is an interesting idea! The film does have a more jagged quality than
say "Spione" or "Ministry of Fear". But, boy those individual shots are great!
Mike Grost
13582
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 3:50am
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
> > "Do you have the two Criterion Universal Sirk DVDs, and can you
> > compare? If the Universal logo is much more chopped on the
> > masked "Touch of Evil" DVD than in the Sirks, that might be
> evidence
> > that Welles was talking truth about shooting it in 1.33."
>
I have always been convinced that TOUCH was filmed in Academy AR
(by the way, shouldn't we be saying 1.37 rather than 1.33?)This
seemed obvious from the bad cropping of the phony "wide screen"
versions it was shown in when first released in France.
The "restored" version of course makes things worse...
13583
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 3:51am
Subject: Re: Metropolis (was: I, Robot)
--- a_film_by@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion
> Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/b5IolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> There are 25 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Filmmaker Peter Wintonick researches the
> origins of cinema verite SUNDANCE Channel
> From: Elizabeth Nolan
> 2. Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
> From: "Richard Modiano"
>
> 3. Re: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
> From: Dan Sallitt
>
> 4. Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
> From: "samfilms2003"
> 5. Re: Cowboy Bebop bit! (Was: I, Robot)
> From: "Noel Vera"
>
> 6. Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
> From: "samfilms2003"
> 7. Re: I, Robot
> From: "Noel Vera"
>
> 8. Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
> From: "samfilms2003"
> 9. Re: I, Robot
> From: "Noel Vera"
>
> 10. Re: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles
> weighs in
> From: Fred Camper
> 11. Re: Metropolis (was: I, Robot)
> From: "hotlove666"
> 12. Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
> From: "Jaime N. Christley"
>
> 13. screening at my house: WHISTLE STOP -
> Boris Barnet - 1963
> From: "Jaime N. Christley"
>
> 14. Re: screening at my house: WHISTLE STOP -
> Boris Barnet - 1963
> From: "hotlove666"
> 15. Masculin Feminin (was: aspect ratio project
> - Welles weighs in)
> From: "hotlove666"
> 16. Kings of the Road (Was: Masculin Feminin)
> From: Dan Sallitt
>
> 17. Re: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
> From: ptonguette@a...
> 18. Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow
> From: David Ehrenstein
>
> 19. Re: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow
> From: Craig Keller
> 20. Re: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow
> From: "peckinpah20012000"
>
> 21. Re: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow
> From: David Ehrenstein
>
> 22. Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
> From: "Richard Modiano"
>
> 23. Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
> From: "Aaron Graham"
>
> 24. Re: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles
> weighs in
> From: Fred Camper
> 25. Re: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles
> weighs in
> From: Fred Camper
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 07:25:04 -0700
> From: Elizabeth Nolan
> Subject: Filmmaker Peter Wintonick researches the
> origins of cinema verite SUNDANCE Channel
>
> I've seen this before; interesting, especially since
> filming was done
> before the digital camera.
>
>
> Cinema Verite: Defining the Moment
>
> CATEGORY:
> Doc
>
> SYNOPSIS:
> Filmmaker Peter Wintonick researches the origins
> of cinema verite,
> the art of using the camera in an unobtrusive style.
>
> CHANNEL:
> 513 [SUNDAEP]
>
> DATE / TIME:
> August 3: 10:15AM
> August 7: 8:15AM, 5:00PM
> August 12: 2:00PM
> August 13: 1:30AM
>
> RATING:
> NR ***
>
> LENGTH:
> 105 Minutes
>
> NOTES:
> Black and White, English
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 14:42:30 -0000
> From: "Richard Modiano"
> Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper
> wrote:
>
> "...when I saw the restored version in 35mm I was
> particularly
> annoyed by the 1.85 ratio, which seemed really
> wrong. I don't know
> if I would have preferred 1.66 to 1.33, but surely
> in the 16mm prints
> I saw I never felt there was any dead space or
> awkward compositions."
>
> I saw the restored version at two different venues
> in Los Angeles and
> in both cases it was screened at 1.33 x 1, so at
> least the restord
> version was not hard matted. It would seem that
> it's up to the
> exhibitor as to which aspect ratio to use when
> projecting the film.
> For TOUCH OF EVIL the clue to the matting is how
> much of
> the "Universal-International" logo is visible. When
> screened at 1.85
> the polar caps at the top and bottom of the globe
> are cut off, and
> this is how it looks on dvd.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:25:35 -0400
> From: Dan Sallitt
> Subject: Re: Re: on the misuse of 'Scope
>
> > STRONGLY beg to diffewr on McGrath. "The Great
> > McGonagall" is a masterpiece! And "The Bliss of
> Mr.
> > Blossom" isn't chopped liver either. A very
> neglected
> > British talent in the Richard Lester vein, with
> > variations that make much of his work comparable
> to
> > mid-60's Godard ad even Straub-Huillet.
>
> Many of us first encountered David's name when
> Sarris named him in a
> Village Voice review as one of the
> "sleeper-spotters" who discovered THE
> BLISS OF MRS. BLOSSOM. - Dan
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:45:37 -0000
> From: "samfilms2003"
> Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
>
> Yes but are the 16mm prints the camera's Academy ap
> or are they
> missing the edges of a 1.66 or 1.85 frame ?
>
> I saw the restored print but don't remeber any
> impressions re AR,
> I was happy to see it in 35 for once & for all &
> without the credits
> over the opening shot...
>
> (although it survives abuse; the first couple times
> I sawa it were Late Show,
> the SM Rose Chevrolet and DeCarlo land commercials,
> etc.
> One time, Channel 2 in NYH ran reels in the wrong
> order; it
> began with Janet Leigh opening the window shade in
> the motel...
> deconstruted version)
>
> Also saw a restored The Lady From Shanghai in the
> same theater,
> pretty tasty in 1.37....
>
> -Sam
>
> p.s. Walter Murch is certainly accessible
>
> > >When I spoke to Welles he said that Academy
> aperture was the only one
> > >to shoot a picture in. Of course he may have been
> "talkin' thru his
> > >hat..."
> > >
> > Wow. I know it more from 16mm prints than 35mm,
> and 16mm prints are of
> > course Academy aperture, and so when I saw the
> restored version in 35mm
> > I was particularly annoyed by the 1.85 ratio,
> which seemed really wrong.
> > I don't know if I would have preferred 1.66 to
> 1.33, but surely in the
> > 16mm prints I saw I never felt there was any dead
> space or awkward
> > compositions
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:47:58 -0000
> From: "Noel Vera"
> Subject: Re: Cowboy Bebop bit! (Was: I, Robot)
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a...
> wrote:
> > Oh my gawd, I absolutely loathed that film. What
> did you like
> about it? My
> > review is here:
> > http://www.onwisconsin.com/movies/movie.asp?id=833
> >
> > Kevin John
>
> I was thinking more of the TV series (actually, most
> anime fans who
> mention Bebop are likely to be referring to the
> series). I liked the
> film well enough, as a big-budget appendage that
> caught the tone of
> the series, more or less, without doing much to add
> to the story
> threads. I can see where the film, taken on its own,
> fails to convey
> the context of the full story.
>
> Best I can do by way of reply is link what I wrote
> about it--the
> series, I mean:
>
>
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/405
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:50:24 -0000
> From: "samfilms2003"
> Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
>
> I recommended this site here re something not long
> ago, so
> Thanks for reminding me to go read it :)
>
> -Sam
>
>
>
>
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/evolution.htm
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:51:27 -0000
> From: "Noel Vera"
> Subject: Re: I, Robot
>
> > One word in defense of Asimov: Nightfall is a
> classic
>
> Yeah, it does have classic status, and it does give
> us this
> interesting feeling of a normal situation turned
> inside-out (sunset
> regarded as a nightmare occurence), tho even here
> the charactes are
> a bit wooden.
>
> I'd like to see the filmed versions tho, especially
> the Paul
> Mayersberg.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:53:21 -0000
> From: "samfilms2003"
> Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
>
>
> Now I can't remember what I saw it in, I'll have to
> ask the projectionist !
>
> -Sam
>
> > I saw the restored version at two different venues
> in Los Angeles and
> > in both cases it was screened at 1.33 x 1, so at
> least the restord
> > version was not hard matted. It would seem that
> it's up to the
> > exhibitor as to which aspect ratio to use when
> projecting the film.
> > For TOUCH OF EVIL the clue to the matting is how
> much of
> > the "Universal-International" logo is visible.
> When screened at 1.85
> > the polar caps at the top and bottom of the globe
> are cut off, and
> > this is how it looks on dvd.
> >
> > Richard
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 15:56:22 -0000
> From: "Noel Vera"
> Subject: Re: I, Robot
>
>
> > A major problem with "I, Robot" is, that it lacks
> intelligence.
>
> Good points, and good plot points you mention, tho I
> submit even in
> its Hollywoodized, Will-smithed and CGI'd form it's
> still an
> improvement on Asimov.
>
> Interesting point on Metropolis. I think they share
> another quality,
> a flawed and simplistic script--diference is,
> Metropolis also has
> tremendous filmmaking, where I, Robot just has
> tremendously
> expensive filmmaking (with a bit, a handful of
> Proyas' unsettiling
> style).
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 10:56:48 -0500
> From: Fred Camper
> Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles
> weighs in
>
> samfilms2003 wrote:
>
> >Yes but are the 16mm prints the camera's Academy ap
> or are they
> >missing the edges of a 1.66 or 1.85 frame ?
> >
> >
> >
> This is a good question, because some 50s films were
> shot masked, so
> that the 16mm and TV versions are in fact missing
> the sides. I'm almost
> certain that "Imitation of Life" was one of these. I
> think that the 16s
> of "Touch of Evil" show more, though.
>
> Richard, that's a great point about the Universal
> logo. Do you have the
> two Criterion Universal Sirk DVDs, and can you
> compare? If the Universal
> logo is much more c hopped on the masked "Touch of
> Evil" DVD than in the
> Sirks, that might be evidence that Welles was
> talking truth about
> shooting it in 1.33.
>
> Fred Camper
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 16:18:55 -0000
> From: "hotlove666"
> Subject: Re: Metropolis (was: I, Robot)
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
>
> wrote:
> > Interesting point on Metropolis. I think they
> share another
> quality,
> to raise questions about the
> filmmaking, such as
> the failure of shots to flow together creatively
They don't, they don't...
> (following a logic
> of cause and effect) as they do in other Lang films
> because of the
> impulse to make each shot a masterpiece in and of
> itself.
They are! They are!
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
13584
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 4:01am
Subject: Re: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow
That's a fascinating interview, especially that
statement about using mechanical effects. The sense of
darkness and isolation and sheer distance you get in
the outer space Kubrick creates is incredible; you
don't get that in any other film, not Star Wars, not
Apollo 13, absolutely nowhere else.
Had my own spin on Kubrick, some time back:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/34
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/35
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13585
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 4:07am
Subject: Re: Metropolis (was: I, Robot)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
>
> This is an interesting idea! The film does have a more jagged
quality than
> say "Spione" or "Ministry of Fear". But, boy those individual shots
are great!
>
> Mike Grost
Lang achieved greatness when he left great "individual shots"
behind. I admire those individual shots but not the film itself.
13586
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 4:48am
Subject: The drive-in may be dead but . . .
you can still see a movie outdoors.
This is just a small plug for a three-film series in my neighborhood in
northern Manhattan, three indie features about Washington Heights/Inwood:
Wed. Aug. 4 -- Washington Heights (2002), dir. by Alfredo de Vila; w/Tomas
Milian, Bobby Cannavale, Jude Ciccollela
8 p.m., Inwood Hill Park (218th St. and Indian Road)
Wed. Aug. 11 -- Feliz Christmas, Happy Navidad! (1999; TV) dir. by Luis
Palomo
8 p.m. Ft. Tryon Park (Broadway and Dyckman St.)
Wed. Aug. 17 -- Santo Domingo Blues (2003), dir. by Alex Wolfe
Documentary about bachata, a particularly delightful popular music from the
Dominican Republic
8 p.m. Highbridge Park (175th St. and Amsterdam Ave.)
I haven't seen any of the films, but the first one has a decent reputation
and the last one should have great music.
George Robinson
He that would make his own liberty secure
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself.
--Thomas Paine
13587
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 5:19am
Subject: Touch of Evil ratio: Welles vs. Studio
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> > > "Do you have the two Criterion Universal Sirk DVDs, and can
you
> > > compare? If the Universal logo is much more chopped on the
> > > masked "Touch of Evil" DVD than in the Sirks, that might be
> > evidence
> > > that Welles was talking truth about shooting it in 1.33."
> >
>
>
> I have always been convinced that TOUCH was filmed in Academy AR
> (by the way, shouldn't we be saying 1.37 rather than 1.33?)This
> seemed obvious from the bad cropping of the phony "wide screen"
> versions it was shown in when first released in France.
> The "restored" version of course makes things worse...
In the mid-1990s, some Welles experts got together to assemble a
version of TOUCH OF EVIL that would as closely as possible correspond
with what we may assume was "Orson Welles's original vision,"
according to a memo he sent to Universal executives, pleading for
numerous changes to be made to the film following his expulsion from
the post-production phase of TOUCH OF EVIL.
I've got some jitters regarding the fact that all this dialogue on
a_film_by about TOUCH OF EVIL's aspect ratio has essentially been
interpolation, extrapolation, and sometimes just plain old
speculation, with far less gravity than what Welles stated explicitly
or hinted at in his famous memo to the Universal execs.
Unless I missed it, I didn't read anything about an aspect ratio in
the Welles TOUCH OF EVIL memo.
We might take into consideration that Welles shot the film in Academy
but composed it for what he presumed would be an eventual,
Universal-mandated 1.66, 1.77, or 1.85 presentation. Or he may have
composed it for Academy.
After all, given Welles's weary attitude towards studio interference
by 1958 (the year he made his first film on a studio lot since THE
STRANGER, twelve years earlier), we're at least somewhat safe in
assuming that the memo was intended as a barrage of "please make this
change" gestures, wherein Welles would have basically taken whatever
he could get. Universal makes all the changes, wonderful. They make
half the changes, still great. They make one change out of ten
suggestions, that's okay, too. They don't make any changes...well, at
least I raised a hand in protest.
But what is to be said about his intentions on matters that were never
made clear even in the "I'll take what I can get" memo? Perhaps that
he thought less about the edges of a TOUCH OF EVIL frame than the
center, the meat, the main zone of activity, mise-en-scene, and
gesture?
It's a mistake to assume that if he shot with an Academy aperture, he
*must* have meant the film to have been presented in Academy.
I'd like to find out for certain, if it's possible. I'll post the
question on Wellesnet. There are a lot of people who like to "guess"
there, too, but a stated source will always be the proof in the
pudding, so to speak.
Until then, I'll check my laserdisc of the film, which was the
accepted version prior to the 1998 re-release and "memo version."
-Jaime
13588
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 8:28am
Subject: Kubrick: space, improvs, romace (was: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Noel Vera wrote:
> That's a fascinating interview, especially that
> statement about using mechanical effects. The sense of
> darkness and isolation and sheer distance you get in
> the outer space Kubrick creates is incredible; you
> don't get that in any other film, not Star Wars, not
> Apollo 13, absolutely nowhere else.
>
The simple fact of not having sound, whereas Lucas using whooshing
sound effects for spacecraft, makes a world of difference. Images of
greatr height suggest images of great depth in Kubrick's images of
the Discovery and its passengers in deep space -- the Discovery looks
like a luminescent, skeletal fish.
Thanks for the post on Kubrick the control freak. We're close to
having a lot of good information about his working methods -- Taschen
will be publishing The Ultimate Kubrick, a massive collection of
documents from the archives, a barn in Hertfordshire. It'll probably
take a couple of years yet.
From the little I know I believe SK heavily rewrote the Nabokov
screenplay for Lolita, and of course encouraged Sellers, who had been
improvising with Edwards and before that in England, to go wild on
screen. The impersonations of Sellers/Quilty are a very close
equivalent for how this doppelganger functions in the book, where
he's also a chameleon, everywhere and nowhere, now you see him now
you don't. I have always thought of Lolita as Kubrick's one unabashed
Ophuls movie -- he revered Ophuls, we know, and imitated him not just
in his camera movements, but in lots of individual shots and scenes
throughout the career. But in Lolita, starring Mason, who was so
memorable in The Reckless Moment and Caught, he came as close as he
ever did to the romanticism of Ophuls' cinema.
13589
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 8:30am
Subject: Re: The drive-in may be dead but . . .
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> you can still see a movie outdoors.
>
> This is just a small plug for a three-film series in my
neighborhood in
> northern Manhattan, three indie features about Washington
Heights/Inwood:
Here in LA we have screenings a couple of times a month on Saturdays
in Hollywood Cemetery, the one behind Paramount where Fairbanks and
many others are buried. Last weekend they showed The Big Clock.
13590
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 9:01am
Subject: Re: Touch of Evil ratio: Welles vs. Studio
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> It's a mistake to assume that if he shot with an Academy aperture,
he
> *must* have meant the film to have been presented in Academy.
>
> I'd like to find out for certain, if it's possible. I'll post the
> question on Wellesnet. There are a lot of people who like
to "guess"
> there, too, but a stated source will always be the proof in the
> pudding, so to speak.
>
> Until then, I'll check my laserdisc of the film, which was the
> accepted version prior to the 1998 re-release and "memo version."
>
> -Jaime
Jaime, if you want to read what he said about Academy aperture, it's
in my interview reprinted in The Unknown Welles, Stefan Droessler's
catalogue which was being sold during the Unknown Welles screenings
in NY and LA. Translating from the French version, which is all I can
lay hands on at the moment, Welles said, "There is only one
reasonable format for a film, the classical 1.33/1." When I said he
may have been "talkin' thru his hat," I was thinking of statements I
recall hearing quoted -- I can't recall where -- from Walter Murch,
when purists contested the 1.85 projection in press screenings here,
to the effect that he could tell by looking at it that Metty framed
it so that it could be shown both ways. Welles was a complete master
of all aspects of film technique, as good as Hitchcock or anyone, and
if that's what Metty was doing, he would certainly have known it.
However, that doesn't change his conviction about the "rightness" of
1.33 as stated in the interview.
13591
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 0:21pm
Subject: Joe McGrath (was: on the misuse of 'Scope)
> STRONGLY beg to diffewr on McGrath. "The Great
> McGonagall" is a masterpiece! And "The Bliss of Mr.
> Blossom" isn't chopped liver either. A very neglected
> British talent in the Richard Lester vein, with
> variations that make much of his work comparable to
> mid-60's Godard ad even Straub-Huillet.
TGG would be good if you could see the image properly or hear the
sound. That COULD just be the VHS I saw but I don't think so - it was
made using a vision-mixing ("live editing") multi-camera technique
which results in notoriously muddy image.
It's INTERESTING, I'll give it that. So is THE MAGIC CHRISTIAN, which
UK comedian Paul Merton calls "one of the few British films with an
epic sensibility". Inconsistent, badly made (INTERMINABLE Paul
McCartney song throughout) but imaginative and weird. Actually
funnier than the book.
I'm prepared to give him some credit for being different.
I LOVE Lester's stuff, but Lester can compose a shot, shoot coverage
so that a scene cuts together, and create original cinematic effects,
all talents that mcGrath lacks.
Actually, McGrath may have had those abilities when he shot the
filmed inserts for Peter Cook and Dudley Moore's NOT ONLY...BUT ALSO
show for TV. They were beautiful, poetic little black and white
things.
13592
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 1:09pm
Subject: Re: Joe McGrath (was: on the misuse of 'Scope)
--- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
>
> TGG would be good if you could see the image
> properly or hear the
> sound. That COULD just be the VHS I saw but I don't
> think so - it was
> made using a vision-mixing ("live editing")
> multi-camera technique
> which results in notoriously muddy image.
>
Nope it's your VHS. The film got a cursory relase in
the mid-70's and looked great.
> It's INTERESTING, I'll give it that. So is THE MAGIC
> CHRISTIAN, which
> UK comedian Paul Merton calls "one of the few
> British films with an
> epic sensibility".
Yes.
Inconsistent, badly made
> (INTERMINABLE Paul
> McCartney song throughout) but imaginative and
> weird. Actually
> funnier than the book.
>
I treasure the shots of Raquel Welch cracking her whip
oevr the heads of the galley slaves, Christopher Lee
sweeping throguh the hallways in full Dracula garb,
and best of all, Yul Brynner in drag singing "Mad
About the Boy" to Roman Polanski.
> I'm prepared to give him some credit for being
> different.
>
"Digby: The Biggest Dog in the World" has some nice
moments a does "30 is a Dangerous Age Cynthia."
> I LOVE Lester's stuff, but Lester can compose a
> shot, shoot coverage
> so that a scene cuts together, and create original
> cinematic effects,
> all talents that mcGrath lacks.
>
As I've said McGrath's talents lie elsewhere.
> Actually, McGrath may have had those abilities when
> he shot the
> filmed inserts for Peter Cook and Dudley Moore's NOT
> ONLY...BUT ALSO
> show for TV. They were beautiful, poetic little
> black and white
> things.
>
>
In preparation for his oddly beautiful and
occasionally quite poetic color ones.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13593
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 1:14pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick: space, improvs, romace (was: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
The impersonations of Sellers/Quilty are a
> very close
> equivalent for how this doppelganger functions in
> the book, where
> he's also a chameleon, everywhere and nowhere, now
> you see him now
> you don't.
I may have mentioned this before, but
Sellers'much-remarked-upon American accent was created
by copying legendary jazz producer Norman Granz.
Sellers got to know Granz,liked him and actually asked
him if he could borrow his accent. Granz said yes
ethusiastically.
I have always thought of Lolita as
> Kubrick's one unabashed
> Ophuls movie -- he revered Ophuls, we know, and
> imitated him not just
> in his camera movements, but in lots of individual
> shots and scenes
> throughout the career. But in Lolita, starring
> Mason, who was so
> memorable in The Reckless Moment and Caught, he came
> as close as he
> ever did to the romanticism of Ophuls' cinema.
>
>
This is especially true of Mason's last scenes with
Sue Lyon -- very remindful of "Letter From an Unknown
Woman."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13594
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 1:15pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick: improvisation, Ophüls
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> From the little I know I believe SK heavily rewrote the Nabokov
> screenplay for Lolita, and of course encouraged Sellers, who had been
> improvising with Edwards and before that in England, to go wild on
> screen. The impersonations of Sellers/Quilty are a very close
> equivalent for how this doppelganger functions in the book, where
> he's also a chameleon, everywhere and nowhere, now you see him now
> you don't. I have always thought of Lolita as Kubrick's one unabashed
> Ophuls movie -- he revered Ophuls, we know, and imitated him not just
> in his camera movements, but in lots of individual shots and scenes
> throughout the career. But in Lolita, starring Mason, who was so
> memorable in The Reckless Moment and Caught, he came as close as he
> ever did to the romanticism of Ophuls' cinema.
He didn't exactly rewrite it. Nabokov's original screenplay was over
400 pages, which caused Kubrick and Nabokov to have an argument,
because, "You written a script for a 7 hour film". As a result of
this, Kubrick prepared a long list of alterations, deletions and
additions, by which Nabokov then rewrote the final screenplay.
How much rubbernecking Kubrick did during this rewriting i don't know,
but I do know that the air between them became as ice, because Kubrick
changed the age of Lolita to 14. To Nabokov, that undermined the
entire idea of the story and destroyed the character. To Kubrick, it
was a necessary sacrifrice in order for get MPAA off his back.
Kubrick considered Sellers to be the best actor in the world and made
him improvise his scenes. This caused alot of trouble for Mason, who,
on one side felt inferior to Sellers' amazing ability to get into a
scene and on the other was furious about both his own lacking ability
to match it and that Kubrick would give one actor total control over a
scene.
I completely agree with you on Kubrick / Ophüls. Kubrick had this long
love affair with Ophüls and his camera. In "Killers Kiss", he uses
negative to suggest internal thought / emotion, as Ophüls also did,
and in "Lolita" he imitates Ophüls camera. Because of the sensitivity
of the characters in "Lolita", I too consider it to be his most
"Ophülian" film.
Henrik
13595
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 3:11pm
Subject: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "heyrocker" wrote:
"...I actually have both of these DVDs and just checked them.
Written On The Wind crops the top of the Universal logo just a bit,
and the bottom exists in full. On All That Heaven Allows the top and
bottom of the logo just touch the edges of the frame. It seems like
the ratio is the same in both, but the placement of the frame is
slightly different. Notice that on the left side there is a star that
disappears in WOW vs ATHA."
All I can add after viewing both discs is ditto. I also looked at
the laser disc of TOUCH OF EVIL which is presented full frame, and
the top and bottom of the globe have space above and below, i.e., the
globe does not touch the edge of the frame. It would seem then that
1.85 is wrong for TOUCH OF EVIL.
Richard
13596
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 4:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in
> It would seem then that 1.85 is wrong for TOUCH OF EVIL.
So am I right in thinking that the film was restored properly in 1998
to Academy ratio 1.37:1 but that the subsequent DVD has been fudged
(1.85:1)?
from imdb:
> • Originally released at 95 minutes. A subsequent restored version
> ran 108 minutes and included additional footage, some directed by
> Harry Keller.
>
> • A new version, running 111 minutes, has been restored by Universal
> and debuted at the Telluride Film Festival in September 1998. This
> version has been re-edited according to Orson Welles' original vision,
> as outlined in a 58-page memo that the director wrote to Universal
> studio head Edward Muhl in 1957, after Muhl took editing out of
> Welles' hands. The new version has been prepared by editor by Walter
> Murch, sound recordists Bill Varney, Peter Reale and Murch, and
> picture restorer Bob O'Neil under the supervision of Rick Schmidlin
> and film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum. One difference between the two
> versions is that the famous opening tracking shot is now devoid of
> credits and Henry Mancini's music, featuring only sound effects.
-Nick Wrigley>-
13597
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 5:08pm
Subject: Re: Touch of Evil ratio: Welles vs. Studio
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Jaime, if you want to read what he said about Academy aperture, it's
> in my interview reprinted in The Unknown Welles, Stefan Droessler's
> catalogue which was being sold during the Unknown Welles screenings
> in NY and LA. Translating from the French version, which is all I can
> lay hands on at the moment, Welles said, "There is only one
> reasonable format for a film, the classical 1.33/1." When I said he
> may have been "talkin' thru his hat," I was thinking of statements I
> recall hearing quoted -- I can't recall where -- from Walter Murch,
> when purists contested the 1.85 projection in press screenings here,
> to the effect that he could tell by looking at it that Metty framed
> it so that it could be shown both ways. Welles was a complete master
> of all aspects of film technique, as good as Hitchcock or anyone, and
> if that's what Metty was doing, he would certainly have known it.
> However, that doesn't change his conviction about the "rightness" of
> 1.33 as stated in the interview.
If you're looking for someone to oppose the idea that Welles wasn't a
complete master of all aspects of film technique, you've got the wrong
guy.
But Bill, you've spoken to Welles, right? You know he loved to
proselytize, to hold forth on a subject...but that he could contradict
himself in another interview. And he loved to say things like "the
funniest sequence ever made in talkies," which was 100% true even if
it wasn't. He loved to lie! Except that every lie he told, every
instance of pulling Bogdanovich's or someone's leg, was 100% true.
All this is neither here nor there - Jerry Lewis said that with
widescreen ('Scope or Panavision) you just ended up making a "*bigger*
bad movie," that you could get a "choker" (close-up) with the lens,
etc. If ever a video of a Jerry Lewis movie came along that was
cropped to 2.35:1, I'd scream bloody murder. But Jerry never made a
picture with the relationship Welles had with Universal on TOUCH OF EVIL.
I've got an answer from Wellesnet. To be posted in a moment.
-Jaime
13598
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 5:11pm
Subject: hold your horses [Re: aspect ratio project - Welles weighs in]
I want to say "hold your horses" and then I'm going to open up another
can of worms - simultaneously solving and potentially re-complicating
the whole affair. Here's what Jeff Wilson (who runs Wellesnet) reports:
"Well, all I can tell you is this: in a previous thread, linked below,
Rick Schmidlin wrote 'According to the records of Phil Lathrop and
Russel Metty, both well documented and easy to find a AFI and The
Academy Welles intended and composed TOE to be 1:85. This film like
Pshycho were shot full frame for future T.V. use. At the time of
release and all screenings Welles attended it was screened as labled
on the orignal neg. can 1:85. In regard to the DVD , I offered to
produce it and was told NO!'"
http://www.wellesnet.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=74;hl=1.85+schm=
idlin
"I've been meaning to do a comparison between the DVD and full frame
restored version with screen caps on the site, but I still have to
transfer my videotape to DVD. I find it hard to believe Welles didn't
compose the image for both ratios while preferring 1.33. He had to
know it was going to be screened at 1.85."
That link leads to a statement by Rick Schmidlin, one of the men who
made the 1998 "memo version."
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Nick Wrigley wrote:
> > It would seem then that 1.85 is wrong for TOUCH OF EVIL.
>
> So am I right in thinking that the film was restored properly in 1998
> to Academy ratio 1.37:1 but that the subsequent DVD has been fudged
> (1.85:1)?
>
> from imdb:
>
> > • Originally released at 95 minutes. A subsequent restored version
> > ran 108 minutes and included additional footage, some directed by
> > Harry Keller.
> >
> > • A new version, running 111 minutes, has been restored by Universal
> > and debuted at the Telluride Film Festival in September 1998. This
> > version has been re-edited according to Orson Welles' original
vision,
> > as outlined in a 58-page memo that the director wrote to Universal
> > studio head Edward Muhl in 1957, after Muhl took editing out of
> > Welles' hands. The new version has been prepared by editor by Walter
> > Murch, sound recordists Bill Varney, Peter Reale and Murch, and
> > picture restorer Bob O'Neil under the supervision of Rick Schmidlin
> > and film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum. One difference between the two
> > versions is that the famous opening tracking shot is now devoid of
> > credits and Henry Mancini's music, featuring only sound effects.
>
>
> -Nick Wrigley>-
13599
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 5:12pm
Subject: Re: Touch of Evil ratio: Welles vs. Studio [correction]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> bad movie," that you could get a "choker" (close-up) with the lens,
> etc.
Should be "couldn't," not "could."
-Jaime
13600
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Aug 4, 2004 5:15pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick: space, improvs, romace (was: Kier Dullea Gone Tomorrow)
Sorry about the huge quote of previously posted
messages; replying to a digest of posts has its
hazards. If the moderator wants to delete that post,
he's welcome to.
> Thanks for the post on Kubrick the control freak.
> We're close to
> having a lot of good information about his working
> methods -- Taschen
> will be publishing The Ultimate Kubrick, a massive
> collection of
> documents from the archives, a barn in
> Hertfordshire. It'll probably
> take a couple of years yet.
Look forward to that, tho I'm willing to bet it'll
hardly be the definitive word on the subject, and
speculation will still be possible...
>The simple fact of not having sound, whereas Lucas
>using whooshing
>sound effects for spacecraft, makes a world of
>difference.
If I recall correctly, some scenes were even more
ingenious than that: Kubrick used the ambient sound of
a CRAMPED room, of voice and instrumental sounds
bouncing off a very small volume of space, exactly
what you would feel inside a tiny spaceship. The net
result was not unsimilar to a submarine, where you are
conscious of a tiny bubble of air enclosed by steel,
and of huge immensities surrounding you outside. Very
unsettling.
> I may have mentioned this before, but
> Sellers'much-remarked-upon American accent was
> created
> by copying legendary jazz producer Norman Granz.
> Sellers got to know Granz,liked him and actually
> asked
> him if he could borrow his accent. Granz said yes
> ethusiastically.
I never knew that, that's fascinating. Like the source
for Elmer Fudd's voice.
>
> I have always thought of Lolita as
> > Kubrick's one unabashed
> > Ophuls movie
The long takes in and out of the Haze household, the
moving (and improvising) of actors as if on a stage,
sure.
> He didn't exactly rewrite it. Nabokov's original
> screenplay was over
> 400 pages, which caused Kubrick and Nabokov to have
> an argument,
> because, "You written a script for a 7 hour film".
> As a result of
> this, Kubrick prepared a long list of alterations,
> deletions and
> additions, by which Nabokov then rewrote the final
> screenplay.
The punchline of which (if I remember right) was that
Nabokove published his version of the script (I'm not
sure if it's the 400 page one, or if even the final
screenplay had plenty of scenes not included in the
film) as a sort of alternative to the movie, which he
praised, perhaps not unsarcastically.
> How much rubbernecking Kubrick did during this
> rewriting i don't know,
> but I do know that the air between them became as
> ice, because Kubrick
> changed the age of Lolita to 14. To Nabokov, that
> undermined the
> entire idea of the story and destroyed the
> character. To Kubrick, it
> was a necessary sacrifrice in order for get MPAA off
> his back.
Kael mounted an ingenious defense, pointing out that
girls of 12 and 13 dress as if they were older, and
I'm not sure she's not right. You see that sort of
thing even today.
> Kubrick considered Sellers to be the best actor in
> the world and made
> him improvise his scenes. This caused alot of
> trouble for Mason, who,
> on one side felt inferior to Sellers' amazing
> ability to get into a
> scene and on the other was furious about both his
> own lacking ability
> to match it and that Kubrick would give one actor
> total control over a
> scene.
And all that insecurity and fear shows up onscreen as
part of his character. Brilliant!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact