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.
13701
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 6:35pm
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
> wrote:
> > > What?! Is this critic 'talking through his hat'? Did Rivette and
> > Emmanuelle
> > > Béart have something going on in 1991 ???
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Have we ever known that much about Rivette's biography?
Do we
> need
> > to?
> > >
> > > Adrian
> >
> > I don't think we need to. Many directors (most, from what I
> hear) have affairs with their actresses -- the affair may or may
not
> last after the shooting is completed (David might tell us if the
same
> applies to gay directors and their actors). The relevance is
> anecdotal at best, of interest to the biographer more than to the
> cinephile.
>
> Rivette was in his early sixties when he made NOISEUSE,
Beart was
> what, twenty-five? Par for the course, no doubt. And he certainly
> enjoyed putting her naked in uncomfortable positions for great
> lengths of time. A sure sign of romantic attachment (all film
> directors are a bit sadistic)... I read somewhere that EB was
> romantically involved with Daniel Auteuil around that time. But
who
> can keep track?
>
> JPC
I disagree about the \importance of biographical data in film
interpretation, particularly a datum as important to the shape and
content of a film as that. Sternberg, Godard, Truffaut, Fellini,
Renoir, Rossellini...their relations with Dietrich, Karina, Deneuve,
Magnani, Bergman are important for understanding certain of
their films.
13702
From: rpporton55
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 6:42pm
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
>
> > wrote:
> > > > What?! Is this critic 'talking through his hat'? Did Rivette and
> > > Emmanuelle
> > > > Béart have something going on in 1991 ???
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Have we ever known that much about Rivette's biography?
> Do we
> > need
> > > to?
> > > >
> > > > Adrian
> > >
> > > I don't think we need to. Many directors (most, from what I
> > hear) have affairs with their actresses -- the affair may or may
> not
> > last after the shooting is completed (David might tell us if the
> same
> > applies to gay directors and their actors). The relevance is
> > anecdotal at best, of interest to the biographer more than to the
> > cinephile.
> >
> > Rivette was in his early sixties when he made NOISEUSE,
> Beart was
> > what, twenty-five? Par for the course, no doubt. And he certainly
> > enjoyed putting her naked in uncomfortable positions for great
> > lengths of time. A sure sign of romantic attachment (all film
> > directors are a bit sadistic)... I read somewhere that EB was
> > romantically involved with Daniel Auteuil around that time. But
> who
> > can keep track?
> >
> > JPC
>
> I disagree about the \importance of biographical data in film
> interpretation, particularly a datum as important to the shape and
> content of a film as that. Sternberg, Godard, Truffaut, Fellini,
> Renoir, Rossellini...their relations with Dietrich, Karina, Deneuve,
> Magnani, Bergman are important for understanding certain of
> their films.
Well, from the admittedly inconclusive evidence of a half hour I once spen=
t interviewing
Beart, I'd be extremely surprised if her and Rivette's relationship was any=
thing but purely
Platonic. She certainly expressed affection for Rivette, but indicated that=
she really didn't
know him particularly well. I have no reason to believe that she was hidin=
g anything.
R. Porton
13703
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 6:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette query
--- rpporton55 wrote:
>
> Well, from the admittedly inconclusive evidence of
> a half hour I once spen=
> t interviewing
> Beart, I'd be extremely surprised if her and
> Rivette's relationship was any=
> thing but purely
> Platonic. She certainly expressed affection for
> Rivette, but indicated that=
> she really didn't
> know him particularly well. I have no reason to
> believe that she was hidin=
> g anything.
>
And leave us not forget Beart has been physically
displayed to great personal and artistic advantage by
Francois Ozon and Andre Techine -- both of whom are
gay.
I understand Rivette had a long term relationship with
Marilu Parolini.
He is one of the great directors of actresses, and a
humungous appreciator of female talent and beauty ie.
Bulle Ogier, Juliet Berto, Bernadette Laffont,
Hermione Karagheuz, and everybody in "La bande des
Quatres" (aka. "Bulle Ogier's School for Actresses")
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13704
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 6:57pm
Subject: Re: Shyamalan [SPOILERS FOR 'LE VILLAGE']
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> Ty Burr's (basically positive) review of The Village in the Boston
> Globe has the following comparison that struck me as fascinating:
>
> "Shyamalan's interest in [monsters] is simply as a type of lore --
> it's fascinatingly juvenile. In a sense, he's like Michael Jackson.
> He'll put you through all kinds of cynical, luridly disillusioned
> behavior just to maintain his belief in innocence.
>
> "Every minute of "The Village" is the work of a genius and a fool,
> as each of Shyamalan's last four movies has been. And this, by the
> filmmaker's standards, is the bravest, craziest one yet,
questioning
> the meaning of magic and the trauma of loss. It springs from a type
> of defiant immaturity that seems possible only with him -- or
> Jackson: a Neverland sprung from hurt and paranoia. Both men's art
> is so otherworldly, grandiose, and disfigured with naivete that
> you're forever asking whether you share the same planet with them."
>
> I'll leave it to those who've seen The Village to figure out
whether
> the comparison is justified in this case. The entire review is at:
>
> http://www.boston.com/movies/display?display=movie&id=2720
>
> --Robert Keser
[the following reveals key plot information]
My main point of contention with the review - contention might be the
wrong word - is that he doesn't really explain what Shyamalan's "hurt"
is supposed to be. It might be hypothetical. It might be bullshit.
My instincts tell me that Shyamalan has no greater traumatic weight on
his shoulders than any of the rest of us, or rather that he's not
drawing on anything personal but reacting to an image he's created of
general pain and anxiety Out There, living in this post-modern world
of money and greed and cruelty.
His next move is, shrewdly, to declare that this pain and anxiety is
timeless, that there has always been a type of person in our society
that can't cope with life after trauma. And furthermore that the only
medicine for this malaise is a sheltered, controlled commune
development built on an expensive version of "make pretend" that is
first applied to one's self and then to one's children, and so on.
The village controls its members through fear - real dread of modern
society (the specific time frame doesn't matter) and "fake" fear of
nefarious, possibly man-eating creatures. In the end, the result of
Shyamalan's experiment isn't that he faces any kind of personal demons
(barring future revelations about his personal history; it's probably
not a coincidence that he casts himself as a park ranger who may or
may not know about The Village, in any case a Neutral Observer given a
mission to protect their secret) but that he's made up a fictional
community, started by a dozen or so people with identical emotional
difficulties (I'd love to see the ad for the support group), who
together cannot reasonably support each other or themselves
emotionally without making a complete break from society as we know
it. They break from society but can only maintain this break by
transforming this same fear into six-foot porcupine/warthog-like
creatures.
But given Shyamalan's three previous features (all of which I liked to
one degree or another), and what Michael Atkinson calls his "rote
blockbuster reflexes," I don't have the impression that Shyamalan got
that far in his thinking. Let me put it another way: I don't think
the end of THE VILLAGE has the same ambiguous and disturbing weight as
the end of A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, and that's because I think
Shyamalan's love for his own carefully-erected illusions surpasses any
motivation he might have to examine the relationship between
"illusion" and "reality", or illusion and anything else; that may put
him in the same league as Michael Jackson but I don't think it'll make
him anything more than an expert craftsman. (Of whose product the
public is quickly becoming weary.) He's a multiplex Haneke (or Haneke
is our high-concept arthouse huckster; except Haneke would rather show
an animal being skinned than having been skinned), his best films are
rich, carefully calculated emotional experiences that nevertheless
don't make us feel like suckers, his worst are just as calculated but
do. The worst part of THE VILLAGE involves a lot of cross-cutting
between this solemn revelation and that one, in an effort to drum up
suspense that the film never really needed in the first place. I
suppose the drama regarding whether the blind girl will make it or not
was interesting and well-done, but I didn't buy it for a second.
Let me put it still another way - two things that we're not meant to
question about THE VILLAGE, two things we're simply meant to assume to
be true, are these: (1) that the villagers and the concept of the
village are, above all, Good. The Village is life, all around its
margins lies the gulf. And (2) that the Outside World isn't just bad,
but it is the film's invisible antagonist, scarcely worth a moment's
consideration. Hell, "those we do not speak of" get a more thorough
backstory. Maybe a good film could have resulted from (1) being
questioned and (2) being addressed as a fundamental flaw in
Shyamalan's reasoning. Maybe if he had a sharp co-writer.
Postscript: I liked the way the village treated funerals and wedding
services as essentially private affairs. In reality I would expect
something more along the lines of the weddings and funerals in
BREAKING THE WAVES, where the elders probably wouldn't include
kind-faced William Hurt or Celia Weston. And on that note, what a
strange double feature this would make with DOGVILLE, especially
considering that the heroine in that film's sequel will be played by
the Spawn of Ron Howard (the director we do not speak of), so luminous
as the heroine of THE VILLAGE.
-Jaime
13705
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 7:02pm
Subject: Re: Rivette query
>
> He is one of the great directors of actresses, and a
> humungous appreciator of female talent and beauty ie.
> Bulle Ogier, Juliet Berto, Bernadette Laffont,
> Hermione Karagheuz, and everybody in "La bande des
> Quatres" (aka. "Bulle Ogier's School for Actresses")
He casts more name beauties and future stars than Rohmer,
but he shares a gift with Rohmer: his camera "sees" female
beauty where another filmmaker might not -- even a
much-adored star like Jeanne Balibar somehow looks different
in a Rivette film. At the same time, his portrayal of Beart in
Noiseuse is unique in the way he makes her look like a little
animal rather than a goddess -- which of course she is.
Platonic love affairs also affect films: look at Hitchcock.
13706
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 10:38pm
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> I disagree about the \importance of biographical data in film
> interpretation, particularly a datum as important to the shape and
> content of a film as that. Sternberg, Godard, Truffaut, Fellini,
> Renoir, Rossellini...their relations with Dietrich, Karina,
Deneuve,
> Magnani, Bergman are important for understanding certain of
> their films.
I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I'd like to have some
examples to be convinced.
Are you saying that I have to know what those directors did (or
didn't do) in bed with those actresses in order to "understand" their
films? I don't even know whether Sternberg ever fucked Dietrich or
not, let alone how (although I admit it would be interesting to know)
but I don't think that jeopardizes my understanding of his films.
Actually it might even help it.
Ultimately what matters is what's on the screen, not the auteur's
biography. (literary criticism has abandonned the biographic approach
a long time ago. Why would we need it in film?)
JPC
13707
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 10:45pm
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
At the same time, his portrayal of Beart in
> Noiseuse is unique in the way he makes her look like a little
> animal rather than a goddess -- which of course she is.
>
Do you mean she is a little animal or a goddess? She is neither, of
course.
I didn't know Balibar was "much-adored".
But I agree that both Rivette and Rohmer are wonderful with women.
13708
From: Andy Rector
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 11:26pm
Subject: Re: Rivette query
> He casts more name beauties and future stars than Rohmer,
> but he shares a gift with Rohmer: his camera "sees" female
> beauty where another filmmaker might not -- even a
> much-adored star like Jeanne Balibar somehow looks different
> in a Rivette film.
I thought about this after seeing Va Savoir! and concluded that it
was because of the direct sound (and at the time this film's direct
sound struck me as incredibly open, the closed muffling door
of "sound design" and "sweetening" knocked over, or continually
traversed, by Rivette for clarity the likes of which my young ears
hadn't heard in a contemporary film projected in a theater. This was
a personal reaction as a young person hearing, finally, the sensual
result of what had only been intimated to me through video
watching/hearing, or as a concept in various instances of theory and
practice). Really, I think its Balibar's body and gait crunching
around on the gravel roof, image and sound in synchronous recording
(not to mention the grain of the voice) which seperates them apart.
yours,
andy
13709
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 11:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: Shyamalan
I second to the religious filmmaker thing. SIGNS, this "mess", is The
Sacrifice-reloaded. (yes, the Tarkovsky one). THE VILLAGE hasn't opened in
Brazil yet.
> Yep -- very acute observation. I haven't seen The Village yet, but
> this misses describing Unbreakable by a mile -- it misses
> everything by a mile, including the one pre-Sixth Sense flop by
> MNS that I have seen. He's a religious filmmaker, something no
> true Paulette could stomach, and when they like someone who's
> too serious, they'll just make up some baloney to "clear" him of
> that terrible charge.
>
13710
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 11:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette query
> Really, I think its Balibar's body and gait crunching
> around on the gravel roof, image and sound in synchronous recording
> (not to mention the grain of the voice) which seperates them apart.
Balibar's voice reminds me sometimes of Delphine Seyrig's.
cmk.
13711
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 0:36am
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette query
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
I don't even know whether Sternberg ever
> fucked Dietrich or
> not,
He did!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13712
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 0:41am
Subject: A Medical Melodrama
of potentialinterest to the group:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=6917605802&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13713
From:
Date: Fri Aug 6, 2004 8:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Shyamalan
Ruy Gardnier wrote:
>I second to the religious filmmaker thing. SIGNS, this "mess", is The
>Sacrifice-reloaded. (yes, the Tarkovsky one).
I've been enjoying what everybody has been writing on Shyamalan. Thanks to
Bill, Jaime, et al, for their thoughts as I prepare to see "The Village" on
Sunday. Ruy, I'm fascinated by your comparison of "Signs" to "The Sacrifice."
Have you done any writing on the film (the Shyamalan, that is)?
Peter
13714
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 1:20am
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> I don't even know whether Sternberg ever
> > fucked Dietrich or
> > not,
>
> He did!
>
>
> I know, david. You were there. And I suspected so myself, although
I wasn't anywhere near. But SO WHAT? What's the relevance? Would his
films have been less if he had not? Or different? How?
I want more than terse quips on the subject, or else let's talk
about something else...
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13715
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 1:31am
Subject: Re: nor ... even exist on celluloid in order to have a sizable social impact
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2004/0704/073004_1.html
>
> is J ROSENBAUM's review of OUTFOXED.
>
>. Because you no
> longer have to live in Paris, New York, or Chicago in order to
> find out who Feuillade was or why he's so great --
Jonathan means well and is mostly right, but please... A long long
time ago before the internet ("Oh grandpa please tell us about when
there was no internet and you walked to school wearing clogs...")
believe it or not there were people who did NOT live in Paris or New
York and somehow miraculously managed to find out about Feuillade.
Actually Jonathan is probably a good example of it. Availability is
important, but motivation is all.
JPC
13716
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 2:08am
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- (literary criticism has abandonned the biographic approach
> a long time ago. Why would we need it in film?)
>
> JPC
Actually, I don't know that that was ever the case, even with the New
Critics -- brilliant critical biographies by the likes of WJ Bate and
Richard Ellman have never stopped appearing. Anyway, my meretricious
mentor Harold Bloom, who loathed New Criticism, must have thought
biography was part of the Wimsatt fatwah because he used to
say, "Half of the meaning of a poem is the biographical fallacy, half
is the intentional fallacy and half is the genetic fallacy." I fear I
learned his lessons well, and Cahiers theorists' focus on the
inscription/negation of the process of production in the product
(including "Bresson's fascination with bourgeois adolescentes
travestied as proletarians" - Oudart, Un discours en defaut) did
little to wise me up. As with "Freud, of course, is passe" and "Now
that Marx has been completely disproven," I'm no fan of that kind of
statement.
13717
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 2:11am
Subject: Re: Shyamalan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
Joe Dante doesn't care much for him. He just referred to him in an
e-mail as "M. Night Sleight-of-Hand."
13718
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 3:15am
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- (literary criticism has abandonned the biographic approach
> > a long time ago. Why would we need it in film?)
> >
> > JPC
>
> Actually, I don't know that that was ever the case, even with the
New
> Critics -- brilliant critical biographies by the likes of WJ Bate
and
> Richard Ellman have never stopped appearing. Anyway, my
meretricious
> mentor Harold Bloom, who loathed New Criticism, must have thought
> biography was part of the Wimsatt fatwah because he used to
> say, "Half of the meaning of a poem is the biographical fallacy,
half
> is the intentional fallacy and half is the genetic fallacy."
There must have been a fourth half, perhaps the pathetic fallacy?
I fear I
learned his lessons well, and Cahiers theorists' focus on the
> inscription/negation of the process of production in the product
> (including "Bresson's fascination with bourgeois adolescentes
> travestied as proletarians" - Oudart, Un discours en defaut) did
> little to wise me up. As with "Freud, of course, is passe" and "Now
> that Marx has been completely disproven," I'm no fan of that kind
of
> statement.
13719
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 3:27am
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
I
> learned his lessons well, and Cahiers theorists' focus on the
> inscription/negation of the process of production in the product
> (including "Bresson's fascination with bourgeois adolescentes
> travestied as proletarians" - Oudart, Un discours en defaut) did
> little to wise me up.
I must brush up my Oudart, this sounds like mumbo jumbo to me.
What does l'inscription du processus de production dans le produit
have to do with the auteur's biography and its relevance
to "understanding" the "product"? You haven't answered my request for
an example of how knowledge of a filmmaker's sex life enlightens our
appreciation of his "products".
As with "Freud, of course, is passe" and "Now
> that Marx has been completely disproven," I'm no fan of that kind
of
> statement.
I have never made or would never make either of the two above
statements. I did say that literary criticism has largely abandonned
explaining works by reference to the biography of the authors.
Perhaps it should go back to it, I don't know. Perhaps we'll go back
to Freud and Marx. It's all a matter of fashion.
JPC
13720
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 3:57am
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette query
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > I know, david. You were there. And I suspected so
> myself, although
> I wasn't anywhere near. But SO WHAT? What's the
> relevance? Would his
> films have been less if he had not? Or different?
> How?
>
> I want more than terse quips on the subject, or
> else let's talk
> about something else...
>
>
No need to be terse at all. The Sternberg-Dietrich
films pulsate with desire: His desire for her, her
desire for her.
To a degree they might have been the same had there
been no physical proximity. But even though there was,
it makes it all the more masochistically delicious,
because Marlene can never be truly possessed.
In fact, we spectators are in a better position to
HAVE her than Sternberg.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13721
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 4:13am
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette query
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> I must brush up my Oudart, this sounds like
> mumbo jumbo to me.
> What does l'inscription du processus de production
> dans le produit
> have to do with the auteur's biography and its
> relevance
> to "understanding" the "product"?
I don't find any mumbo-jumbo-ness about it. Bresson's
young people are drop-dead gorgeous. For a filmmaker
famed for his asceticism he really knew how to lay on
the hubba-hubba.
You haven't
> answered my request for
> an example of how knowledge of a filmmaker's sex
> life enlightens our
> appreciation of his "products".
>
>
OK, well how about Bertolucci and Allen Midgette?
Midgette has important roles in "La Commare Secca" and
"Before the Revoution." Then he figures in
Bertolucci's films as a kind of fetish object. Had he
stayed in Italy he might have become a Bernardo star.
But he travelled all over the place, settling in New
York in the mid-sixties where he appeared to startling
effect in Warhol's "****" (aka the 25-Hour movie) in
which right at the start he has a big romantic love
scne with Susan Bottomly (aka. International Velvet)
and is discovered actually falling in love with
another guy he was selected to do a scene with, right
on camera (It's a heart-stopping movie moment.) Later
he's back in Italy appearing as an "Indian" in Godard
& Gorin's Maoist western "Wind From the East." Then
he's back in New York where, according to a bio I've
just read of the great and troubled dance impressario
had an affair with Jerome Robbins.
I have always felt that there is a marked difference
between the Bertolucci films WITH Midgette and those
without him.
I am not quite certain at this point in time whtehr or
not he is among the living, but his absence is sorely
felt in "The Dreamers."
About 8 or 9 years ao Betolucci was in L.A. and I
asked him about Midgette. He gasped, smiled and then a
faraway look clouded his eyes as he said "I'm not
sure. I don't know. He'll turn up."
The REAL beginning of Bernardo Bertolucci is
Agostino's drunken bike ride in "Before the
Revolution." It's safe to say he never had anyone
quite as electric before his cameras as Allen
Midgette.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13722
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 4:15am
Subject: Re: nor ... even exist on celluloid in order to have a sizable social impact
> >
> >. Because you no
> > longer have to live in Paris, New York, or Chicago in order to
> > find out who Feuillade was or why he's so great --
>
>
> Jonathan means well and is mostly right, but please... A long
long
> time ago before the internet ("Oh grandpa please tell us about
when
> there was no internet and you walked to school wearing clogs...")
> believe it or not there were people who did NOT live in Paris or
New
> York and somehow miraculously managed to find out about Feuillade.
> Actually Jonathan is probably a good example of it. Availability
is
> important, but motivation is all.
>
> JPC
Not to belabor a point, but it was in Paris and New York that I got
to see Feuillade films and thereby discover what was great about
them. Subsequently, while teaching film at the University of
California, Santa Barbara, I was appalled to discover that none of
my worthy colleagues had ever included Feuillade in the program's
supposedly comprehensive film history course, taught every quarter
for well over a decade; I was the very first. Why? Because the only
Feuillade film in distribution in the U.S. then was Juve contre
Fantomas from MOMA, and most of my colleagues hadn't even seen that.
Jonathan
13723
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 5:56am
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> I
> > learned his lessons well, and Cahiers theorists' focus on the
> > inscription/negation of the process of production in the product
> > (including "Bresson's fascination with bourgeois adolescentes
> > travestied as proletarians" - Oudart, Un discours en defaut) did
> > little to wise me up.
>
>
> I must brush up my Oudart,
Start with "4 Nights of a Dreamer: The Offspace of the Author," the
only place where the phrase "castrated metteur en scene" appears in
the Oudart oeuvre. By inscribing and negating his own desires for his
actress(es), the filmmaker produces an idealized version of his
creative practice which corresponds exactly to your belief that those
desires play no role in the process of production and leave no trace
in the film, when in fact they do. The phantasm through which this
inscription/negation that produces the film is produced within the
film is the Oedipally overdetermined plot of the castrated metteur en
scene (your idealized author figure, who has no relations with his
actors or anyone else, either economic or sexual), an obsessional
neurotic who contemplates a hysterical woman (Magnani in Golden
Coach, Bergman in Stromboli, Wiazemsky in Balthasar, Karina in the
Oval Portrait scene of VsV), whose symptoms of erotic trouble (French
word) are apparently not addressed to the metteur en scene off-screen
(even though this is in fact the case: negation), but rather to the
me-e-s's Other on-screen (the blonde kid who seems to be speaking the
Oval Portrait story, even though we don't see his lips, as Godard
reads it v.o.). Plotwise this becomes the perennial cinematic depth
perversion of the castrated metteur en scene - Losey's Go Between,
Pierrot, Octave ("Go to her"), Bresson's dreamer, Ray Walston in Kiss
Me Stupid, Mr. Clay in the Immortal Story, Grant in Notorious, Menjou
at the end of Morocco, Nixon when he was courting Pat -- whose role
is to bring together the woman he desires and another man who
possesses her before his eyes. More generally, your idealized meteur-
en-scene -- this creature of your theories -- becomes the model for
the Bressonian hero, who appears in many guises in the cinema of
modernism -- a hero who is "out of it" because he has no sexual,
economic or linguistic relationships with the other characters.
13724
From:
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 3:06am
Subject: Re: nor ... even exist on celluloid in order to have a sizabl...
For what it is worth - the only Feuillade I had a chance to see in Michigan
was "Juve contre Fantomas", shown in a film class in Ann Arbor in 1976 (and
presumably rented from MOMA). I was fascinated by film stills in books of
Feuillade, but his work was really unavailable. Finally, around 2000 I walked into
the video store, and there was "Les Vampires" on four tapes! With this,
Feuillade went from being a name, to a living presense in film art. Now that Feuillade
is gradually being released on DVD, he is making a big impression everywhere.
Mike Grost
Who wrote a mystery-comedy featuring Feuillade:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/feuil.htm
Hoping that a lot more Feuillade comes out on DVD.
13725
From: jaketwilson
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 7:50am
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> You haven't answered my request for
> an example of how knowledge of a filmmaker's sex life
enlightens our
> appreciation of his "products".
One the most striking examples I've encountered is in this essay
by our co-moderator:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/archives/2000/0400/0004
28_1.html
JTW
13726
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 3:09pm
Subject: Re: Shyamalan [SPOILERS FOR 'LE VILLAGE']
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> My main point of contention with the review - contention might be
>the wrong word - is that he doesn't really explain what
>Shyamalan's "hurt" is supposed to be. It might be hypothetical.
>It might be bullshit. My instincts tell me that Shyamalan has no
>greater traumatic weight on his shoulders than any of the rest of
>us, or rather that he's not drawing on anything personal but
>reacting to an image he's created of general pain and anxiety Out
>There,
Very interesting appraisal, Jaime! It could be that the
missing "hurt" can be explained from the religious angle that
several people here have suggested: original sin, expulsion from
eden, internal struggles against the demons of temptation, and so
on. But my reaction is: so what? Religious underpinnings don't
make him Carl Dreyer. Just as calling Leni Riefenstahl a
"political" filmmaker doesn't mean much without
evaluating the content of her politics, taking Shyamalan seriously
requires dealing with the content of his worldview, which seems to
lean heavily toward the fundamentalist Manichean. It's all about
sin and lack of sin, the lurid versus the innocent, which brings us
back to Michael Jackson!
>living in this post-modern world
> of money and greed and cruelty.
To me, his first three movies show no indication of any interest in
economic conditions of the world.
> His next move is, shrewdly, to declare that this pain and anxiety
> is timeless,
Original sin!
>that there has always been a type of person in our society
>that can't cope with life after trauma. And furthermore that the
>only medicine for this malaise is a sheltered, controlled commune
>development
Cult headquarters
... > I think Shyamalan's love for his own carefully-erected
>illusions surpasses any motivation he might have to examine the
>relationship between "illusion" and "reality", or illusion and
>anything else; that may put him in the same league as Michael
>Jackson but I don't think it'll make him anything more than an
>expert craftsman. (Of whose product the public is quickly becoming
>weary.)
I agree, except the public seems to be lapping up The Village like a
kitty with a saucer of milk (the movie is being credited with saving
Disney's hide in this financially disastrous summer).
--Robert Keser
13727
From:
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 11:27am
Subject: Re: Shyamalan [SPOILERS FOR 'LE VILLAGE']
One theme in Shyamalan's movies is "men who are under-employed, due to their
own internal conflicts". Bruce Willis is hacking along as a security guard in
"Unbreakable", despite his talents, and Gibson's character is an ex-priest in
"Signs". This does not make Shyamalan's films fascinating, however.
I confess I am dismayed by everything "supernatural". Years ago, there was a
clear distinction between science fiction (stories that take place in a world
governed by rational scientific law), fantasy (what-if stories about what
would be the logical consequences of things we all agree do not exist, such as
magic rings or hobbits) and supernatural tales (stories that take place in a
world ruled by superstition, and in which events cannot be predicted according to
any scientific law). People with a scientific word view (such as myself) used
to like both science fiction and fantasy, but condemn supernatural fiction, on
the grounds it was anti-rational, and seriously supported discredited
superstitions. Religions condemned the supernatural on similar grounds. For example,
in my own Roman Catholic religion, it is a sin to believe in the supernatural
or superstition.
Consequently, the flood of supernatural horror that runs through film and
television of the last decade seems bizarre to me. It seems to be supporting bad
ideas about how the universe works. I feel disturbed when people buy tickets
for supernatural movies or read supernatural books. They are making a
metaphysical statement that seems deeply false. I also wonder if this plays a part in
the "dumbing down" of popular culture. A dumbing down that seems to be setting
us up for right-wing manipulation by the Bushies.
Mike Grost
13728
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 3:30pm
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> it makes it all the more masochistically delicious,
> because Marlene can never be truly possessed.
>
I'll agree that this is one major thread of his cinema (but then,
who can truly be "possessed"? -- Can Cooper be possessed?)
>
In fact, we spectators are in a better position to
> HAVE her than Sternberg.
Maybe in some ways, but fundamentally I think we're in the same
boat. (Many years ago i wrote an article on this sort of things,
called it "Un rituel de la frustration.")
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13729
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 3:42pm
Subject: Feuillade LES VAMPIRES
For those like myself not in the know, LES VAMPIRES is available on DVD
and is listed in Netflix (and it is not about vampires).
Les Vampires (1915)
This collection of 10 short films chronicles the exploits
of a clandestine criminal organization -- dubbed the Vampires --
that's menacing the Parisian establishment. Standing in the
way of the malefactors and their alluring henchwoman
(Musidora) are intrepid reporter Philippe Guérande
(Edouard Mathé) and his trusty sidekick, Oscar Mazamette
(Marcel Lévesque). Director Louis Feuillade's anthology
presaged American serials of the 1930s and '40s.
Starring: Musidora, Edouard Mathé, More
Director: Louis Feuillade
Genre: Classics
Format: Full Screen, More
Language: None
Subtitles: English
Length: 399 minutes
Screen Formats: Full Screen 1.33:1
> From: MG4273@a...
> Subject: Re: nor ... even exist on celluloid in order to have a
> sizabl...
> Finally, around 2000 I walked into the video store, and there was
> "Les Vampires" on four tapes! With this, Feuillade went from being a
> name, to a living presense in film art. Now that Feuillade
> is gradually being released on DVD, he is making a big
> impression everywhere.
>
> Mike Grost
> Who wrote a mystery-comedy featuring Feuillade:
> http://members.aol.com/MG4273/feuil.htm
>
> Hoping that a lot more Feuillade comes out on DVD.
13730
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 3:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette query
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> I'll agree that this is one major thread of his
> cinema (but then,
> who can truly be "possessed"? -- Can Cooper be
> possessed?)
> >
>
Well Patricia Neal made a good stab at it.
>
> Maybe in some ways, but fundamentally I think
> we're in the same
> boat. (Many years ago i wrote an article on this
> sort of things,
> called it "Un rituel de la frustration.")
> >
> >
True to some degree. But the cinema is ourishment for
fantasy and reverie. In the end we always win.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13731
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 3:47pm
Subject: Geraldine Peroni is Dead
Practically fell out of my chair when I read this this
morning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/07/arts/07peroni.html
What a loss. "Short Cuts" is right up there with
"Raging Bull" and "Dog Day Afternoon" as one of the
greatest example of modern film editing.
Rather disturbing about the family questioning the
coroner's verdict.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13732
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 3:48pm
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> > wrote:
> > I
> > > learned his lessons well, and Cahiers theorists' focus on the
> > > inscription/negation of the process of production in the
product
> > > (including "Bresson's fascination with bourgeois adolescentes
> > > travestied as proletarians" - Oudart, Un discours en defaut)
did
> > > little to wise me up.
> >
> >
> > I must brush up my Oudart,
>
the filmmaker produces an idealized version of his
> creative practice which corresponds exactly to your belief that
those
> desires play no role in the process of production and leave no
trace
> in the film, when in fact they do.
WHERE did I express such a ridiculour belief, Bill??? It would be
tantamount to saying that the creator has no feelings, no desires,no
motivations whatsoever, in other words that he is not human...
The phantasm through which this
> inscription/negation that produces the film is produced within the
> film is the Oedipally overdetermined plot of the castrated metteur
en
> scene (your idealized author figure, who has no relations with his
> actors or anyone else, either economic or sexual)
Same remark as above. I never thought or wrote any such thing. I
certainly don't "idealize" film directors (although auteurism tends
to). But if all this personal ("autobiographical") stuff is so
important in "appreciating" or understanding the films you would have
to admit that film criticism has been woefully inadequate in largely
neglecting this aspect of the producing process and leaving it mostly
to the tabloids.
Also, I wouldn't necessarily take as gospel truth, the way you seem
to, everything Oudart wrote on the subject. This is certainly worthy
of further discussion (if I am deemed worthy of discussing Oudart).
JPC
13733
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 3:50pm
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > I'll agree that this is one major thread of his
> > cinema (but then,
> > who can truly be "possessed"? -- Can Cooper be
> > possessed?)
> > >
> >
>
> Well Patricia Neal made a good stab at it.
>
>
> >
> > Maybe in some ways, but fundamentally I think
> > we're in the same
> > boat. (Many years ago i wrote an article on this
> > sort of things,
> > called it "Un rituel de la frustration.")
> > >
> > >
> True to some degree. But the cinema is ourishment for
> fantasy and reverie. In the end we always win.
>
>
> Because the ultimate "jouissance" is to NOT possess.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13734
From:
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 0:12pm
Subject: Re: Feuillade LES VAMPIRES
Thank you, Elizabeth!
Feuillade's film is a classic early good guys versus robbers thriller. No one
is sure, but people suspect it influenced Fritz Lang's crime thrillers soon
to come. It is quite inventive, with rich atmosphere.
1915 was a good year for crime movies "Regeneration" (Raoul Walsh) (about
street corner gangs in New York City) and "Alias Jimmy Valentine" (Maurice
Tourneur) (about a safecracker) are also gems from 1915.
"Les Vampires" is nearly 7 hours long. Feuillade intended it to be shown in
ten chapters, as an irregularly appearing serial in the theaters. It is best
seen in small doses, the way its writer-director intended. Maybe an hour and a
half to two hours at a time. It is a really gripping movie!
Mike Grost
13735
From: joey lindsey
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 4:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: Shyamalan [SPOILERS FOR 'LE VILLAGE']
the real meat of this post may be the last paragraph, so if the other
stuff bugs you just skip to that
these negative reactions to "The Village" onlist are starting to remind
me of fundamentalist literature rather than film discussion, and it
seems it's easier to critique Shyamalan than get at why his movies make
a big enough impact for us to be talking about them in the first place.
I haven't seen the Mel movie, but I've seen the others. Some of the
critiques here do seem to point out essential fallacies in Shyamalan's
fantasy constructions, but I don't think those fallacies make them bad
movies or somehow harmful to society or film, which some of the list
critiques intimate. I think, ultimately, there is an implied critique
of the 'innocent' 'pure' 'heros' in his films, and in both movies with
Bruce and in The Village, the 'heros' are ultimately unable to deal with
the reality of their situation when forced to - if I remember correctly,
Bruce lets the police sort things out at the end of 'Unbreakable', which
is not what the super-hero type would usually do if the fantasy is
followed to the hilt. When he finally finds the real villain, he lets
others deal with it. (and of course, if my memory is wrong here, I
urge you to overlook this example.) The Village's whole premise is a
similar theme.
I guess my point is that the elements of Shyamalan's movies that seem to
be under critique here lately are no less or more annoying than the hero
worship, sexism, egoism, religious conciets, etc. of any director in the
auteurist cannon from the 40s to the 60s. Reviewing the movies in my
netflix queue I added mainly because they were movies/directors talked
about on this list, I realized that movie after movie was
about...prostitutes! No matter how great they make the prostitutes
seem, if their only heroines sell themselves, there's something fucked
up about their concept of women.
I just wanted to get my opinion in here, I'm not trying to say
critiquing Shyamalan is worng or whatever - if I thought so I just
wouldn't read those posts. I just felt the conversation was getting a
little lopsided and more importantly misdirected. He's at the start of
his career and obviously has interesting enough films that people are
talking about them - let's hope he keeps improving.
[Village SPOILERS lie beyond these brakets, BEWARE!]
I felt far less ripped off from The Village than either of the previous
movies. I was suprised but felt somehow anticlimactic about the Sixth
Sense, I had guessed the end of Unbreakable early on, but the Village
was far more complex. I was arguing with myself from about 20 mins in
until the end about whether they would end up being surrounded by
present day, and how they could have been isolated that long if the
adults had been to the towns, etc etc - I didn't really think about
whether the monsters were fake, but was relieved when that was revealed
because it explained their cheesyness. The answers in The Village were
richer and more pleasing than I had expected.
I think the movie's real strength is the double critique the villagers
embody.
The first layer I saw was a critique of US isolationism in particular
and isolationism/nationalism in general, shown as regressive to social
relations, technology, health, etc. Essentially, a critique of
conservative isolationism.
The other aspect I read was a critique of essentially liberal
isolationism, the attempt to preserve humane ideals in an in-humane or
amoral society. I think the critique here is that you end up committing
inhumanities anyway by isolating yourself from the benefits that go with
the modern society - the technology that comes with the inhumanity.
My friend said upon leaving "I know if my son were dying and I knew
modern medicine was out there I'd get him the hell to a hospital."
joey lindsey
13736
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 4:34pm
Subject: Re: Feuillade LES VAMPIRES
> For those like myself not in the know, LES VAMPIRES is available on DVD
> and is listed in Netflix (and it is not about vampires).
Flicker Alley have JUDEX out on DVD too:
http://www.flickeralley.com/pages/5/index.htm
-Nick Wrigley>-
13737
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 5:46pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
A couple of propositions.
It isn't necessary to know anything about a director's life to have a
deep aesthetic appreciation of and understanding of one of his films.
In some cases, knowing something about a director's life, and in
particular whether he sexually desired one of his performers, can
greatly "enhance" (one of JPC's words) one's understanding of a film. In
that regard, thanks to JTW for posting a link to my review of Warhol's
"Sleep," which is certainly one clear case of this. Another is
"Stromboli." Imagine a review by someone who managed to remain totally
ignorant of the circumstances of its production: "There seems a curious
imbalance in the cast, however. None of the other performers can hold
even half a candle to Bergman; the camera treats them as minor
satellites to her; the whole film seems to revolve around her for some
mysterious reason..." Well, duh.
Similarly, in those avant-garde films in which the maker appears, or
his/her voice is heard on the soundtrack, knowledge of this is crucial
to a full understanding of what the film is trying to do.
In Brakhage's films, you are certainly *supposed* to recognize Jane as
his wife. The lone shots of her face and hands in "Creation," discussed
by Sitney in his "Chicago Review" article, are clear examples of this --
it's not just any woman, it's the wife of the person behind the camera,
sitting apart from the scene.
Another way to look at this is that there are different approaches to
understanding a film, rather than only one true Way. Each has its limits
and its advantages. I have no interest in the biographical approach
without an appreciation of the aesthetic effects of film form, but at
least for me biography has a place. I don't think it's that important to
know whether von Sternberg slept with Deitrich (though per JPC and
really like to know *what* they did to together -- it's hard to imagine
them just going at it missionary style, from the films, and did I not
read somewhere that some sort of masochistic games were involved), but
it does seem useful confirmation of the films' obvious expression of
desire for her.
Fred Camper
13738
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 4:54pm
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"Half of the meaning of a poem is the biographical fallacy,
> half
> > is the intentional fallacy and half is the genetic fallacy."
>
>
> There must have been a fourth half, perhaps the pathetic fallacy?
>
JP - Actually, I misquoted Mr. Bloom. The three halves of the meaning
of a poem are the genetic fallacy ( or the biographical fallacy, I
wasn't taking notes...), where it comes from; the intentional fallacy
(title of a Wimsatt essay), what the author aims to be/mean/achieve;
and the affective fallacy )title of another Wimsatt essay), the
emotion the poem arouses in the reader. All three are more or less
gathered up in Bloom's later theory of the anxiety of influence.
13739
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 5:02pm
Subject: Re: Rivette query
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
you would have
> to admit that film criticism has been woefully inadequate in
largely
> neglecting this aspect of the producing process and leaving it
mostly
> to the tabloids.
Inadequate and idealizing (bourgeois). Godadrd certainly didn't omit
it in his famous kiss-off letter to Truffaut, where he says that the
missing scene in La nuit americaine is Trufaut having dinner with
Bisset.
Re: my believing everything Oudart ever wrote, I actually thought I
was going to find one of his most important articles wanting when I
was writing up my conclusions on Tristana. Then I realized that "Je
de mots, jeu de maitres" was just an early formalist article that had
been thoroughly corrected later. I ended up quoting it, and also his
later piece on L'histoire d'O, "O et les veaux," re: L'Age d'Or and
what Charles Tesson calls "Sadean burlesque" in Bunuel. JPO is (was)
a pretty darn good critic.
13740
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 6:04pm
Subject: Feuillade .
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
> Not to belabor a point, but it was in Paris and New York that I got
> to see Feuillade films and thereby discover what was great about
> them. Subsequently, while teaching film at the University of
> California, Santa Barbara, I was appalled to discover that none of
> my worthy colleagues had ever included Feuillade in the program's
> supposedly comprehensive film history course, taught every quarter
> for well over a decade; I was the very first. Why? Because the only
> Feuillade film in distribution in the U.S. then was Juve contre
> Fantomas from MOMA, and most of my colleagues hadn't even seen that.
>
> Jonathan
Good point. My point was, more generally, in the nature of "where
there's a will there's a way." Of course if a filmmaker's works are
totally unavailable to you, you won't be able to discover what's
great about him. But I knew about Feuillade long before I saw any of
his films (from reading Sadoul's "Histoire du Cinema" among other
sources).
Even in Paris it was not easy to see Feuillade's films. (and let's
not forget that most of his huge output has disappeared). In the 50s
and 60s I saw some episodes of FANTOMAS and LES VAMPIRES at the
Cinematheque, but the latter were minus inter-titles (the restored
version now on video was done much later, in the eighties). And I did
see TIH MINH for the first time in New York at the Film Festival...
JPC
13741
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 10:44pm
Subject: Feuillade on DVD - Re: Feuillade LES VAMPIRES
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Nick Wrigley wrote:
> > For those like myself not in the know, LES VAMPIRES is available
on DVD
> > and is listed in Netflix (and it is not about vampires).
>
> Flicker Alley have JUDEX out on DVD too:
> http://www.flickeralley.com/pages/5/index.htm
>
> -Nick Wrigley>-
Unfortunately, Netflix doesn't carry it (yet). I saw the great,
great, great JUDEX by renting it through Greencine - the slower
version of Netflix that tries to cater to cinephiles as opposed to
Blockbuster patrons. I suggested JUDEX to Netflix around the time I
was watching it but to my knowledge they haven't added it to their
selection. (Which is actually pretty impressive, despite what I was
told prior to getting an account with them.)
-Jaime
13742
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 10:57pm
Subject: Re: nor ... even exist on celluloid in order to have a sizable social impact
> " a "movie" like Outfoxed no longer has to open at a theater
> or even exist on celluloid in order to have a sizable social impact."
For the record, not that this disproves the thesis, but OUTFOXED does (presumably) exist on celluloid and is now playing at a theater - well, you could call it a theater. (More than one, actually: see http://tinyurl.com/6j8x7 )
JUDEX, as far as I know, is not.
13743
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 10:59pm
Subject: Touch of Evil intended ratio question resolved...
...I hope.
I sent this to Bill Krohn when I couldn't access a_film_by, earlier today.
It's a letter Welles wrote to a film critic at the New Statesman in
London, in May of 1958 - shown to me by one of the great brains on
Wellesnet.
Of particular interest is the last paragraph. This may decide the
matter after all (in favor of Academy, against Schmidlin and against
Universal and against the current DVD), despite Welles's occasionally
oblique rhetorical style. He seems to attack widescreen for its
"realism," the result being that the audience's eyes have been "tamed"
by widescreen processes - a fascinating position on the technology at
the time that expands Bill K.'s earlier report (he wasn't talkin'
through his hat after all!). It also seems to be a defense against
(one presumes) a statement made by the New Statesman critic that TOUCH
OF EVIL is heavy with mechanical trickery, which Welles insists just
ain't so: "there are positively no camera tricks."
And above all it is a typically beautiful piece of writing from Mr.
Welles.
---
Without being quite so foolish as to set my name to
that odious thing, a 'reply to the critic', perhaps I
may add a few oddments of information to Mr.
Whitebait's brief reference to my picture TOUCH OF
EVIL (what a silly title, by the way; it's the first
time I've heard it*). Most serious film reviewers
appear to be quite without knowledge of the hard facts
involved in manufacturing and, especially,
merchandising a motion picture. Such innocence, I'm
sure, is very proper to their position; it is,
therefore, not your critic I venture to set straight,
but my own record. As author-director I was not and
normally would not be-consulted on the matter of the
'release' of my film without a press showing. That
this is an 'odd subterfuge', I agree; but there can be
no speculation as to the responsibility for such a
decision.
[*Whoa! -Jaime]
As to the reason, one can only assume that the
distributor was so terrified of what the critics might
write about it that a rash attempt was made to evade
them altogether and smuggle TOUCH OF EVIL directly to
the public. This is understandable in the light of the
wholesale re-editing of the film by the executive
producer, a process of re-hashing in which I was
forbidden to participate. Confusion was further
confounded by several added scenes which I did not
write and was not invited to direct. No wonder Mr.
Whitebait speaks of muddle. He is kind enough to say
that 'Like Graham Greene' I have 'two levels'. To his
charge that I have 'let the higher slip' I plead not
guilty. When Mr. Greene finishes one of his
'entertainment's' he is immediately free to set his
hand to more challenging enterprises. His typewriter
is always available; my camera is not. A typewriter
needs only paper; a camera uses film, requires
subsidiary equipment by the truck-load and several
hundreds of technicians. That is always the central
fact about the film-maker as opposed to any other
artist: he can never afford to own his own tools. The
minimum kit is incredibly expensive; and one's
opportunities to work with it are rarer less numerous
than might be supposed. In my case, I've. been given
the use of my tools exactly eight times in 20 years.
Just once my own editing of the film has been the
version put into release; and (excepting the
Shakespearean experiments) I have only twice been
given any voice at all as to the 'level' of my,
subject matter. In my trunks stuffed with unproduced
films scripts, there are no thrillers. When I make
this sort of picture -- for which I can pretend to no
special interest or aptitude -- it is not 'for the
money' (I support myself as an actor), but because of
a greedy need to exercise, in some way, the function
of my choice: the function of director. Quite baldly,
this is my only choice. I have to take whatever comes
along from time to time, or accept, the alternative,
which is not working.
Mr. Whitebait revives my own distress at the shapeless
poverty of Macbeth's castle. The paper mache' stagy
effect in my film was dictated by a 'B-Minus' budget
with a 'quickie' shooting schedule of 20 days..
Returning to the current picture, since he comments on
the richness of the urban scenery of the Mexican
border' perhaps Mr. Whitebait will be amused to learn
that all shooting was in Hollywood. There was no
attempt to approximate reality; the film's entire
'world' being the director's invention. Finally, while
the style of TOUCH OF EVIL may be somewhat overly
baroque, there are positively no camera tricks.
Nowadays the eye is tamed, I think, by the new wide
screens. These 'systems' with their rigid technical
limitations are in such monopoly that any vigorous use
of the old black -and-white, normal aperture camera
runs the risk of seeming tricky by comparison. The old
camera permits use of a range of visual conventions as
removed from 'realism' as grand opera. This is a
language not a bag of tricks. If it is now a dead
language, as a candid partisan of the old eloquence, I
must face the likelihood that I shall not again be
able to put it to the service of any theme of my own
choosing.
---
Well, that's that!
-Jaime
13744
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Aug 7, 2004 11:35pm
Subject: Re: Shyamalan [SPOILERS FOR 'LE VILLAGE']
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> Very interesting appraisal, Jaime!
Thanks!
> It could be that the
> missing "hurt" can be explained from the religious angle that
> several people here have suggested: original sin, expulsion from
> eden, internal struggles against the demons of temptation, and so
> on. But my reaction is: so what? Religious underpinnings don't
> make him Carl Dreyer. Just as calling Leni Riefenstahl a
> "political" filmmaker doesn't mean much without
> evaluating the content of her politics,
In Riefenstahl's case we are constantly told that we "shouldn't
forget" this or that, or that we shouldn't ignore her Nazism simply
because she was a great artist. In Shyamalan's case there is a real,
and long-running trend among some critics (we may trace it back to
Pauline Kael) to sniff at spirituality in a director's work. Bill:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/13700
> taking Shyamalan seriously
> requires dealing with the content of his worldview, which seems to
> lean heavily toward the fundamentalist Manichean.
I'm apt to agree, and certainly there is no other evil in SIGNS than
the alien invasion, and they are absolutely evil. But the
dramatic/thematic center of SIGNS, and the others, is found in the
scenes in which the hero accepts the presence of a "super"- or
"extra"- or "supra"-world that affects a great deal - down to what
would normally be (and for some, remains) the most inexcusable
instances of deus ex machina - of what goes on in the "real" world.
What Tracey Walter in REPO MAN might call the "cosmic unconsciousness"
- the "lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything."
It isn't that this Shyamalan-other dominates the Shyamalan-real or is
superior, etc. But it's there, it can be called upon for
assistance. Consider: THE SIXTH SENSE, the supernatural world with
Haley Joel Osment as its priest/medium; UNBREAKABLE, the superheroic
world with Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson in that role; SIGNS,
it's Mel Gibson this time and it seems to be Just Plain Faith in the
classic God of Judeo-Christian and Muslim faiths.
In THE VILLAGE the super-other-extra is the world as you and I know
it. It's "out there" and can be called upon for assistance. The
"chosen one" in THE VILLAGE might be Joaquin Phoenix but the blind
girl is more fitting, since she can go through the movie with her
hands held out for help, not knowing or being terrified by what might
take it.
Unlike SIGNS, UNBREAKABLE, and THE SIXTH SENSE, these villagers are
content to shut out that "benevolent other" and embrace their willed
ignorance, but accords them the same "bathed in a glow" status of
grace and righteousness. I'm not sure what to make of this - it seems
like a blunder on his part. But I could be wrong.
> To me, his first three movies show no indication of any interest in
> economic conditions of the world.
His attitude towards class seems to be neutral - that they all fit
under the umbrella of the "other world" I've been talking about - and
that could be complacency on his part or even-handedness.
-Jaime
13745
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 0:57am
Subject: Re: Re: Shyamalan [SPOILERS FOR 'LE VILLAGE']
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> His attitude towards class seems to be neutral -
> that they all fit
> under the umbrella of the "other world" I've been
> talking about - and
> that could be complacency on his part or
> even-handedness.
>
Or rank stupidity.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
13746
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 1:31am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> A couple of propositions.
>
> Fred Camper
Oh Fred, you took the words right out of my enfeebled mouth. I used
to be able to express myself cogently, though. Old age creeping in I
guess.
But you know, no matter how thrilling it would be to know what kind
of sado-masochistic erotic activities Sternberg and Dietrich may have
had off screen, I doubt that it would change anything about how you
or me or anybody responds to his films.
JPC
13747
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 1:40am
Subject: Touch of Evil ratio
Jaime this is a wonderful post and it does clinch it. TOUCH was
filmed in Academy AR, as I and many always thought. Welles felt it
was so obvious that it didn't occur to him to specify that he had
filmed in 1.37. After all he was responding to what appears to have
been a very dumb review of his film. Why would he go into
technicalities with an idiot?
13748
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 1:41am
Subject: Re: Shyamalan [SPOILERS FOR 'LE VILLAGE']
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- "Jaime N. Christley"
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > His attitude towards class seems to be neutral -
> > that they all fit
> > under the umbrella of the "other world" I've been
> > talking about - and
> > that could be complacency on his part or
> > even-handedness.
> >
>
> Or rank stupidity.
That's up for debate, but the point I made - in the section you chose
not to respond to - was that his focus is elsewhere.
-Jaime
13749
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 2:02am
Subject: Re: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> But you know, no matter how thrilling it would be to
> know what kind
> of sado-masochistic erotic activities Sternberg and
> Dietrich may have
> had off screen, I doubt that it would change
> anything about how you
> or me or anybody responds to his films.
>
I think we get to know quite a lot. I'm particularly
thinking of one of my all-time favorite Sternberg
scenes in "The Devilis a Woman" where Atwill is going
on about his passion for her as Dietrich, arranging a
spit-curl in the mirror and says "Just a moment and
I'll give you a kiss."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13750
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 2:04am
Subject: Re: Touch of Evil ratio
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> Jaime this is a wonderful post and it does clinch it. TOUCH was
> filmed in Academy AR, as I and many always thought. Welles felt it
> was so obvious that it didn't occur to him to specify that he had
> filmed in 1.37. After all he was responding to what appears to have
> been a very dumb review of his film. Why would he go into
> technicalities with an idiot?
I'm only too happy to report a direct commentary from "he that would
know better than anyone else." A few points, not to beat a dead
horse:
- We may now safely assume that TOUCH OF EVIL was shot in Academy
*and* composed for Academy. But most 1.85:1 films are shot with
Academy but composed *for* 1.85, notwithstanding VistaVision. 1.85:1
is an "almost widescreen" process that, like today's lamentably
mandatory Super 35, isn't actually "wide" but "less tall." This is
not to dispute Welles' deposition (not in the least!) but to underline
how the confusion arose in the first place. There never would have
materialized a debate regarding TOUCH OF EVIL being "2.35:1 or 1.85:1"
or "2.35:1 or Academy"? Until roughly the time when James Cameron
came on the scene, 2.35:1 very definitely and emphatically meant a
*wide screen* format that took in more horizontal information than
plain Academy.
- Thus, we came to this debate fighting against the assumption (that I
supported) that 1.85:1 movies are more correct because the filmmaker
imposed a certain "negative space" on the image and when a
projectionist takes away the masking, there is in fact *too much*
information, and ruins the mise-en-scene that way. (I tell you what
would have ended the debate right off - if there was a boom mic or a
C-stand to be seen in 1.37:1 presentations of TOUCH OF EVIL. But the
absence of film equipment would only have prolonged the debate - and
did.)
- I remained undecided until reading the Welles letter. When Bill
reported that Welles said that Academy was the only decent aspect
ratio, my initial reaction was that he was indulging in a bit of the
oratory that Welles fans like myself know him and love him for -
getting on the soapbox. Which was his prerogative, and few were as
charismatic on that soapbox. But when he got down to brass tacks, as
he did in the letter to the New Statesman critic, I knew it wasn't
just a bit of oratory, but a statement of his intentions regarding the
images in a specific film.
- This changes things a bit, I suppose. Whereas most DVD-ophiles weep
at the sight of a full-frame DVD that should be letterboxed, here we
have a widely-circulated (and well-reviewed!) DVD that *should* be
full-frame - usually a criminal misnomer - but is falsely letterboxed.
-Jaime
13751
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 2:17am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> I think we get to know quite a lot. I'm particularly
> thinking of one of my all-time favorite Sternberg
> scenes in "The Devilis a Woman" where Atwill is going
> on about his passion for her as Dietrich, arranging a
> spit-curl in the mirror and says "Just a moment and
> I'll give you a kiss."
But how does that scene *in and of itself* - as a part of THE DEVIL IS
A WOMAN - become enhanced due to our knowledge of the
Dietrich/Sternberg relationship, versus only having a vague idea that
they knew each other off the set?
More specifically, in watching that scene, what does the "in the know"
viewer have over the "not in the know" viewer, provided they are both
equally intelligent in matters of reading a film?
-Jaime
13752
From: jaketwilson
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 2:41am
Subject: Re: Rivette query
"hotlove666" wrote:
The phantasm through which this inscription/negation that produces
the film is produced within the film is the Oedipally overdetermined
plot of the castrated metteur en scene (your idealized author figure,
who has no relations with his
> actors or anyone else, either economic or sexual), an obsessional
> neurotic who contemplates a hysterical woman (Magnani in Golden
> Coach, Bergman in Stromboli, Wiazemsky in Balthasar, Karina in the
> Oval Portrait scene of VsV), whose symptoms of erotic trouble
(French word) are apparently not addressed to the metteur en scene
off-screen (even though this is in fact the case: negation), but
rather to the me-e-s's Other on-screen (the blonde kid who seems to
be speaking the Oval Portrait story, even though we don't see his
lips, as Godard reads it v.o.). Plotwise this becomes the perennial >
> cinematic depth perversion of the castrated metteur en scene -
Losey's Go Between, Pierrot, Octave ("Go to her"), Bresson's dreamer,
Ray Walston in Kiss Me Stupid, Mr. Clay in the Immortal Story, Grant
in Notorious, Menjou at the end of Morocco, Nixon when he was
courting Pat -- whose role is to bring together the woman he desires
and another man who possesses her before his eyes. More generally,
your idealized meteur-en-scene -- this creature of your theories --
becomes the model for the Bressonian hero, who appears in many guises
in the cinema of modernism -- a hero who is "out of it" because he
has no sexual, economic or linguistic relationships with the other
> characters.
Been pondering this since yesterday, and wondering how far it does
shed light on MARIE ET JULIEN -- just to bring the discussion back to
its starting point. Clearly Julien is some type of symbolic artist-
figure, and he fits the "obsessional neurotic" label well enough, but
he does enter into two sets of relations (one economic, one sexual)
which are carefully kept separate from each other. Maybe linked with
this is the question which hangs over the film of how far he might
bear some responsibility for what occurs -- even though he's
outwardly reduced to a spectator, or less, of events that unfold in a
predetermined plot.
JTW
13753
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 2:57am
Subject: Re: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> But how does that scene *in and of itself* - as a
> part of THE DEVIL IS
> A WOMAN - become enhanced due to our knowledge of
> the
> Dietrich/Sternberg relationship, versus only having
> a vague idea that
> they knew each other off the set?
>
> More specifically, in watching that scene, what does
> the "in the know"
> viewer have over the "not in the know" viewer,
> provided they are both
> equally intelligent in matters of reading a film?
>
Well I think you're making it sound alot more obscure
than it is. I don't think anyone needs too much in the
way of extra-cinematic knowledge to guess that
Dietrich and Sternberg are deeply involved with one
another.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13754
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 3:18am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> > But how does that scene *in and of itself* - as a
> > part of THE DEVIL IS
> > A WOMAN - become enhanced due to our knowledge of
> > the
> > Dietrich/Sternberg relationship, versus only having
> > a vague idea that
> > they knew each other off the set?
> >
> > More specifically, in watching that scene, what does
> > the "in the know"
> > viewer have over the "not in the know" viewer,
> > provided they are both
> > equally intelligent in matters of reading a film?
> >
>
> Well I think you're making it sound alot more obscure
> than it is. I don't think anyone needs too much in the
> way of extra-cinematic knowledge to guess that
> Dietrich and Sternberg are deeply involved with one
> another.
So the film is "obscure" whereas our focus should be on the
in-real-life Sternberg-Dietrich relationship?
Okay then, let me change gears and reverse the question: how does the
scene you mention change one's impression of the Sternberg-Dietrich
relationship, *provided* that one already knows they were into "the
freaky stuff"?
Surely your deeper knowledge of what was going on between Sternberg
and Dietrich didn't even need the DEVIL IS A WOMAN scene, except as
corroborating evidence?
-Jaime
13755
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:33am
Subject: Re: Touch of Evil intended ratio question resolved...
Jaime N. Christley wrote:
>Of particular interest is the last paragraph. This may decide the
>matter after all (in favor of Academy....
>
>
Thanks much for posting this, Jaime.
When someone writes in 1958 of an "old black -and-white, normal aperture
camera," I don't think he can mean anything other than 1.37:1.
Fred Camper
13756
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 3:43am
Subject: Re: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> So the film is "obscure" whereas our focus should be
> on the
> in-real-life Sternberg-Dietrich relationship?
>
I think we're speaking past one another on this. The
on-screen material is incredibly rich in and of
itself. Knowledge of off-screen merely supplements it.
> Okay then, let me change gears and reverse the
> question: how does the
> scene you mention change one's impression of the
> Sternberg-Dietrich
> relationship, *provided* that one already knows they
> were into "the
> freaky stuff"?
>
It doesn't change it at all.
Look this is a very simple matter. Sternberg
"discovered" Dietrich, helped transform her and made
her a staar in europe and then Hollywood. You don't
have have a master's degree in mise en scene to know
that the seven films they made together constitute a
unique and very personal collaboration. Add to that
the fact that ALL of the films deal with poweerful
women involved in perverse borderline-sado-masochistic
(and sometimes over that border) relationships with
men and it's pretty clear we're not talkign about how
pretty Vincente Minnelli made Judy Garland look in
"Meet Me in St. Louis."
> Surely your deeper knowledge of what was going on
> between Sternberg
> and Dietrich didn't even need the DEVIL IS A WOMAN
> scene, except as
> corroborating evidence?
>
But that's not why I love the scene. I love it for
itself, irrespective of its "evidentiary" value.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13757
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 3:46am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> > I think we get to know quite a lot. I'm particularly
> > thinking of one of my all-time favorite Sternberg
> > scenes in "The Devilis a Woman" where Atwill is going
> > on about his passion for her as Dietrich, arranging a
> > spit-curl in the mirror and says "Just a moment and
> > I'll give you a kiss."
>
> But how does that scene *in and of itself* - as a part of THE DEVIL
IS
> A WOMAN - become enhanced due to our knowledge of the
> Dietrich/Sternberg relationship, versus only having a vague idea
that
> they knew each other off the set?
>
> More specifically, in watching that scene, what does the "in the
know"
> viewer have over the "not in the know" viewer, provided they are
both
> equally intelligent in matters of reading a film?
>
> -Jaime
I second Jame's question. That was exactly my point in that thread
I more or less started.
13758
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 3:52am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
The "collective text" on Morocco has been published somewhere in
English -- it's highly recommended. It appears to be basically by
Oudart, probably with the help of someone who guided him toward
greater clarity, as Daney did in the Death in Venice piece. It talks
about how Sternberge inscribes and negates his realtionship with
Dietrich in the film, as part of a larger critique of fetishism and
the star system. Not really about S&M, which Oudart considered a
hoot, but it certainly wouldn't have been written the way it was if
he didn't know they were an item.
Repeating an earlier post: The Saga of Anatahan is a film a clef
about the Dietrich-Sternerg relationship and what happened to it when
they took it to Paramount. The island where the events of the film
are set looks like the Paramount logo when shown from the air at the
end. (These points were made by Claude Ollier in a great article on
the film in CdC in the early 60s.) Of course, there's only one woman
on the island, so Dietrich's gay relationships don't make the
allegorical cut.
13759
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 3:55am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
>
>
> But that's not why I love the scene. I love it for
> itself, irrespective of its "evidentiary" value.
>
>
> Back to square one. I feel sometimes David is floating high above
(or way below) the actual topic at hand. By the way my original query
was adressed to Bill rather than to David. He has given me chapter
and verse from Oudart but no actual answer yet.
JPC
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13760
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:00am
Subject: Re: Touch of Evil intended ratio question resolved...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> Jaime N. Christley wrote:
>
> >Of particular interest is the last paragraph. This may decide the
> >matter after all (in favor of Academy....
> >
> >
> Thanks much for posting this, Jaime.
>
> When someone writes in 1958 of an "old black -and-white, normal
aperture
> camera," I don't think he can mean anything other than 1.37:1.
I agree with that.
Welles's letter seems to anticipate a "paradigm shift" with regards to
the general audience's attitude towards the widescreen format vs. the
original Academy ratio.
The former plays upon a desire to see "more of the image," in other
words a certain kind of greater realism (at the risk of running into
complications that that term entails), at the expense of certain
methods of artifice available to those filmmakers who had already
mastered the 1.33/1.37:1 format. This definitely does *not* undermine
the power of the great CinemaScope, VistaVision, and Panavision images
we received thanks to the ingenuity of Vincente Minnelli, Nicholas
Ray, Jerry Lewis, Otto Preminger, Monte Hellman, Howard Hawks, John
Ford, and so on...but it points directly to the "gimmick" aspect of
widescreen that untrained audience members tended to accept without
going after anything else.
-Jaime
13761
From: jaketwilson
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:03am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
Jaime/David:
> > More specifically, in watching that scene, what does
> > the "in the know"
> > viewer have over the "not in the know" viewer,
> > provided they are both
> > equally intelligent in matters of reading a film?
> >
>
> Well I think you're making it sound alot more obscure
> than it is. I don't think anyone needs too much in the
> way of extra-cinematic knowledge to guess that
> Dietrich and Sternberg are deeply involved with one
> another.
Yeah, but wasn't that equally Jaime's point, that what counts is what
shows up in the movie itself? None of us can fully know the "truth"
of the Sternberg-Dietrich relationship, but the evidence of desire is
there for all to see. And with Rivette and Béart: he wouldn't film
her like that if he didn't think she was hot. (What Ozon, say, does
with his actresses is very different.) With or without biography,
these things emerge, one way or another.
JTW
13762
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:10am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> I think we're speaking past one another on this. The
> on-screen material is incredibly rich in and of
> itself. Knowledge of off-screen merely supplements it.
Supplements how? I'm genuinely curious, this isn't just a
rhetorical/op-ed maneuver.
> the seven films they made together constitute a
> unique and very personal collaboration.
This has *never* been debated.
> Add to that
> the fact that ALL of the films deal with poweerful
> women involved in perverse borderline-sado-masochistic
> (and sometimes over that border) relationships with
> men and it's pretty clear we're not talkign about how
> pretty Vincente Minnelli made Judy Garland look in
> "Meet Me in St. Louis."
All this is already "a given."
Their films echo their real-life relationships. And vice verse. But
how does one add to or enhance one's knowledge of the other?
> But that's not why I love the scene. I love it for
> itself, irrespective of its "evidentiary" value.
Then what the fuck are we arguing about, then?
The center of the argument:
1 - The real-life relationships between two film artists has inherent
interest to David Ehrenstein
2 - The scenes and the mise-en-scene and the films have inherent
interest to David Ehrenstein
But what is the relationship between 1 and 2 aside from the way that 1
occasionally reinforces 2, and 2 occasionally reinforces 1, but that
you don't need 1 in order to successfully divulge the meaning of 2,
and vice verse?
-Jaime
13763
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:24am
Subject: Re: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- jaketwilson wrote:
(What
> Ozon, say, does
> with his actresses is very different.)
Really? Is Ludivine Sagnier in "Swimming Pool" all
that different from Bardot in "And God Created Woman" ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13764
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:26am
Subject: Re: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> 1 - The real-life relationships between two film
> artists has inherent
> interest to David Ehrenstein
>
> 2 - The scenes and the mise-en-scene and the films
> have inherent
> interest to David Ehrenstein
>
And a whole bunch of other people in here as well,
obviously.
> But what is the relationship between 1 and 2 aside
> from the way that 1
> occasionally reinforces 2, and 2 occasionally
> reinforces 1, but that
> you don't need 1 in order to successfully divulge
> the meaning of 2,
> and vice verse?
>
More or less.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13765
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:40am
Subject: Not so obscure objects of desire
We've been having quite a curious roundabout vis-a-vis
Sternberg and Dietrich, with a parallel course for
Rivette and Beart.
Sternberg and Dietrich is scarcely a bolt from the
blue, but Rivette and Beart is news to me. That
Rivette is crazy about woemn ISN'T news. And that
leads to a larger situation.
Let's face it -- becoming a film director is a great
way to meet babes.
Truffaut pretty much stated this outright, as I
recall. And there was Godard's annoyance over
Truffaut's affair with Bissett. But I suspect it may
have had to do with the fct that you realy can't tell
from looking at "Day for Night" that there was
anything in particular going on between them.
Chereau's dalliances wiht Les Boys are pretty damend
obvious. Gus Van Sant's less so -- though pevish
heterosexual tongues wagged over the casting of the
dazzling John Robinson in "Elephant." This strikes me
as quite unfair. It's a filmmaker's duty to present us
with as much beauty as he or she can possibly cram
onto the screen.
But then matters of taste come into play. Surely no
one is ungrateful to Visconti for his devotion to
Alain Delon. But his far more intense involvement with
Helmut Berger is another story. Visconti not only made
Berger a star, but did so by putting him in drag as
Dietrich in "The Blue Angel" and have him sing one of
her songs! Yet he quite deliberately allowed Bjorn
Andersson (a John Robinson avant la lettre) to get on
with his life after "Death in Venice" as the lad
didn't want a screen career. And that makes his beauty
shine through even more.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13766
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:59am
Subject: And furthermore!
Bette davis had affairs with both Vincent Sherman and
William Wyler. Yet I defy anyone to sense anything
about this in any of the films she made with them.
Bette davis pictures are always about Bette Davis.
Indeed she's just as powerful in "Now Voyager" and
"Deception" -- two of her most popularly remembered
classics, both of which were directed by Irving
Rapper, who most assuredly did NOT have an affair with
her.
So it's all relative.
Director/Star off-screen relationships MAY tell us
something, and they may not.
Jean-Luc Godard's love affair with Anna Karina is
arguably the most cinematically overdetermined of them
all. Yet the one thing that gave me any understanding
of what was going on between those two crazy kids was
Rivette's "L'Amour Fou."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13767
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 6:41am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
By the way my original query
> was adressed to Bill rather than to David. He has given me chapter
> and verse from Oudart but no actual answer yet.
>
> JPC
No answer to what -- the meaning of David's example from Devil Is a
Woman? Ask him!
13768
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 7:09am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
On the larger subject of biographies: Some of the best film books in
the last 20 years have been biographies, and they assuredly havehad a
lot to say about the art of Ray, Rossellini and Ford (Joe's new one),
for example. These should not of course be confused with celebrity
drek bios, or serious bios that approximate the standards of
celebrity drek bios, like Spoto's Hitchcock. They are major
contributions to scholarship on those directors. JP, after all, is
translating Tag's Rossellini book into French, a huge contribution in
and of itself. Did you pick up any new insight into the films from
that work, JP?
We are just getting to the point where critical biographies that are
both well-researched biographies and good criticism are appearing.
They have been standard in literary history since Johnson's Lives of
the Poets. It's a tough job to pull off, and many books are weak in
one direction or the other. But even the drek bios contain nuggets!
It was only by reading some nth nameless biography of Grant, where
the author had actually spoken to him, of all things, that I learned
that Hitchcock let him and Bergman improvise their dialogue in the
Notorious kissing scene -- something that a look at the scripts at
UCLA confirmed. And it was from Robert Donat's memoirs that I learned
that AH, when he was directing in England, would sip tea on the set
and throw the cup over his shoulder to smash on the floor behind him
when he was finished. Regular habit.
I just finished making a fist at interpreting Bunuel's 36 or so films
in a short compass. You'd better believe that I dipped into Baxter's
biography, however inadequate it may be, time and again, checking it
wherever possible against other sources.
One of the important ones is Jeanne Rucar de Bunuel's memoir, Memoirs
of a Woman Without a Piano (not yet translated into English), in
which she reveals that LB was horribly jealous, citing the example of
him threatening to shoot Gustavo Pitaluga, his best composer (Los
Olvidados, Subida al cielo), for talking to Jeanne one afternoon when
she was out for a stroll in the neighborhood. (They didn't work
together after that for 10 years: Pitaluga selected the onscreen
music for Viridiana.) Bunuel told Turrent and La Colina: "I put more
of myself into El than into any other film." He didn't talk about his
own fits of jealousy, but he did tell them that Francisco's house in
El is modelled on a house his own father had built in Spain. And
unlike one critic who wants to appropriate El as "discourse on
masculinity" for Mexican audiences, I assume that Francisco's
obsession with getting back "his land," lost in "the Revolution," is
personal too: Bunuel lost Spain in a fascist revolution. (The
reactionary old fart who lost his land in the Revolution is a stock
figure that turns up in a few films -- Subida al cielo, most notably -
- and there he is just a satirical Mexican character.)
It helps to know all this, first of all, by way of understanding the
place of that film in Bunuel's oeuvre: Serge Daney and Charles Tesson
both have written that it represents a "coupure," the beginning of a
new creative phase, precisely because of its autobiographical nature.
(I've always wondered what Cocteau meant when he called it "Luis
Bunuel's death certificate.") And without knowing all that, I think
it would be hard to understand the deep affection LB has for this not
very likeable character! The cowled figure walking away in a zigzag
at the end, according to Baxter, is Bunuel, by the way.
13769
From:
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:31am
Subject: Re: Touch of Evil intended ratio question resolved...
The fascinating letter from Welles suggests other issues, too.
One of the things one could do in black & white and non-widescreen was depth
of focus. The black & white non-widescreen crime thrillers (film noir) of the
1940's and early 1950's were full of deep focus shots. They were a major part
of the style of the era. Both color and widescreen tended to be not as good at
such depth of focus. See David Bordwell's "On the History of Film Style" for
discussion of this technological limitation.
Welles' letter suggests that Welles was conscious of using such effects.
The letter goes on to say that non-widescreen films shared a common visual
language. What a statement by an auteur! This comes close to the contention of
many film noir specialists that film noir shared a common visual language, one
that was of course developed and modified by each individual filmmaker. The
language of film noir includes deep focus, extreme low and high camera angles,
night for night shots, high contrast lighting, the use of paintings as elements
of the set, rain scenes, complex camera movements and long takes, staircases,
mirrors, clocks, grillwork, etc. See the "Film Noir Reader" of Silver and
Ursini for many discussions.
Welles' letter comes close to saying that such a language existed, and was
being killed off by the technological changes (widescreen) coming to Hollywood.
Very interesting!
Welles' letter does not say the "language" was restricted to "thrillers"
however - he says it is common to all non-widescreen films.
Definitely something to think about...
Mike Grost
13770
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 1:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Touch of Evil intended ratio question resolved...
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
The
> language of film noir includes deep focus, extreme
> low and high camera angles,
> night for night shots, high contrast lighting, the
> use of paintings as elements
> of the set, rain scenes, complex camera movements
> and long takes, staircases,
> mirrors, clocks, grillwork, etc.
In the interview he did when "Celine and Julie Go
Boating" came out Rivette made mention of its relation
to certain films of the 40's that were
Welles-influenced in that way. However Rivette's film
has precious little in the way of depth of focus.
> Welles' letter comes close to saying that such a
> language existed, and was
> being killed off by the technological changes
> (widescreen) coming to Hollywood.
> Very interesting!
And what's most interesting about it is that Welles
was wrong. Looking at "The Leopard" again just the
other day I was amazed at the enomous about deep focus
shots it features. learly Techniama was suprerior to
Cinemascope as a widescreen process in that it had
height and depth.
Jansco's films are also full of deep focus shots.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13771
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 1:44pm
Subject: Re: And furthermore!
> Bette davis had affairs with both Vincent Sherman and
> William Wyler. Yet I defy anyone to sense anything
> about this in any of the films she made with them.
> Bette davis pictures are always about Bette Davis.
There's anecdotal evidence that the respect and affection she had
for Wyler meant he was able to get his own way more than most of her
directors. Though he still couldn't talk her out of her performance
in THE LITTLE FOXES, where he thought she was too harsh on the
surface.
You're right though, one couldn't tell anything just from watching
the films.
Is there a single bad performance in ANY Wyler film though?
I always get the impression from THE PINK PANTHER that Blake Edwards
ahs a thing for Claudia Cardinale, but then, *I* have a thing for
Claudia Cardinale.
13772
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 1:56pm
Subject: Re: Re: And furthermore!
--- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
>
> I always get the impression from THE PINK PANTHER
> that Blake Edwards
> ahs a thing for Claudia Cardinale, but then, *I*
> have a thing for
> Claudia Cardinale.
>
>
Well who doesn't? On the "Leopard" DVD she appears in
the documentary talking about her work with Visconti
and being most appreciative of the fact that he liked
her so much. It was right at the begging of her career
and he gave her a lot of confidence.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13773
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 2:01pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> By the way my original query
> > was adressed to Bill rather than to David. He has given me
chapter
> > and verse from Oudart but no actual answer yet.
> >
> > JPC
>
> No answer to what -- the meaning of David's example from Devil Is a
> Woman? Ask him!
No. It must go back to the beginning of the thread, ages ago last
week. Basically i was asking you for an example of a real-life
relationship between direcor-star the knowledge of which enhanced,
enriched (whatever words I used) our experience of their film(s)
together. But never mind. I think Jaime has pretty much expressed my
own feelings on the matter. Still, I'm always ready and willing to
be convinced (Oudart may be brilliant but does his discussion enrich
my experience of the films? Not really...
JPC
13774
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 2:17pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> On the larger subject of biographies: Some of the best film books
in
> the last 20 years have been biographies, and they assuredly havehad
a
> lot to say about the art of Ray, Rossellini and Ford (Joe's new
one),
> for example. These should not of course be confused with celebrity
> drek bios, or serious bios that approximate the standards of
> celebrity drek bios, like Spoto's Hitchcock. They are major
> contributions to scholarship on those directors. JP, after all, is
> translating Tag's Rossellini book into French, a huge contribution
in
> and of itself. Did you pick up any new insight into the films from
> that work, JP?
>
I certainly did, but more from Tag's stimulating comments and
analyses than from the actual biographical material, no matter how
fascinating it may be. By the way, i finished that translation two
months ago -- it took me only 18 months to get through (daily
correspondence with the exacting author included).
Of course I agree with you on the high interest of such
biographies. What do you think of Pat's recent Hitchcock and of his
earlier Lang (which I found a bit too sensational) and the hatchet
job on Eastwood? All very well researched...
JPC
13775
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 2:34pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
> In some cases, knowing something about a director's life, and in
> particular whether he sexually desired one of his performers, can
> greatly "enhance" (one of JPC's words) one's understanding of a film. In
> that regard, thanks to JTW for posting a link to my review of Warhol's
> "Sleep," which is certainly one clear case of this.
I didn't expect that this conversation would be so interesting, because
I'm temperamentally like Jean-Pierre, not inclined to look to
biographical information, and inclined to distrust it if it leads me in
a new direction.
But I wonder if this purism is tenable. Thanks to Jake for posting the
link to Fred's essay on SLEEP, which is quite an extraordinary piece of
criticism. Building on this argument, there are basically two different
ways to account for the influence of biographical information here:
1) You could say that the evidence is all on screen, but that it's not
always easy to find it, and that bio info is one possible way for the
viewer to be pointed in the right direction. According to this theory,
the bio info is a useful aid but not essential: one could have arrived
at the work's meaning by another route.
2) Or you could posit the concept of an "open" work, an art piece that
gains power from a conjunction with outside elements. It's easier to
think about this concept with regard to a more abstract work than with
regard to classical narrative, which tries to suggest self-enclosure.
According to this second theory, you wouldn't necessarily need to know
that Warhol loved Giorno or watched him sleep, but you would need to
introduce the idea of erotic/amorous absorption/obsession to the film to
get the effect Fred describes.
I don't need to categorize Fred's discussion of SLEEP as one of these
approaches or another, but I've thought of an example of an "open"
experience from another art form, a rock 'n' roll song that I love
("Philco-Bendyx Sunshine Company" by Love Camp 7). I happen to know
that the song is about the death of a fellow musician in a car crash.
The combination of that knowledge and the song's musical and lyrical
qualities creates an overwhelming experience for me: taken as a way of
dealing with death, the qualities of the song seem to me very complex
and moving. But I must confess that the lyric is so oblique that I
would never have guessed that the song was about a death, and even after
knowing this, I can't honestly say that a discerning third party could
come to this conclusion without bio info. So my experience, which is
very important to me, is a hybrid of what the song gives and what the
bio info is bringing to it.
One more thought: even though it's easier to imagine this "open" effect
with more abstract works, the wall has been breached, and it's
impossible to say that any work of art, no matter how much it tries to
control the audience's experience, is so "closed" that it obviates this
effect.
- Dan
13776
From:
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 11:19am
Subject: Re:Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
Biography has several different levels and meanings.
Fred Camper's example of Brakhage's films is a good one. It IS very important
for the viewer to recognize that Brakhage's wife Jane is on the screen, in
the many films Brakhage made about his family. This is clearly Brakhage's
conscious intent in creating the film. BUT: this seems to fall into what might be
called "off-screen exposition" - facts about a film that the director expects
the audience to find out before seeing the film.
Brakhage ALSO could have put a written note at the beginning of the films
that show Jane, identifying her for viewers. Or he could have identified her in
captions under her first appearance, the way many documentaries identify
on-camera subjects. Brakahge did neither of these things. A guess as to why not:
they would have broken the "pure visual film experience" of his films.
The exhibition history of the films also play a role. Brakhage was often
present at the screenings of his films, offering (fascinating) commentary. And
people who are curious enough to watch Brakhage films usually learn something
about the filmmaker, enough to learn about Brakhage frequently photographing his
wife.
If Brakhage films were frequently shown to millions of people on the late
show, he probably would have been forced to confront this "off-screen exposition"
strategy, and perhaps change his filmmaking practise.
Such "off-screen exposition" is becoming increasingly common in all sorts of
films. I would have been completely confused about Nostalghia (Tarkovsky), if
I had not read Maltin's synopsis that the film is about "a Russian poet and
translator,.. trekking across Italy to inquire about a long dead composer".
There is no way to tell in the film who the characters are, where they are,
etc... Tarkovsky fans regularly consult his published screenplays to get nescessary
exposition, just to follow his films. Then this information is diseminated
through reviews, critical studies, etc.
Whereas "Psycho" (Hitchcock) opens with a statement that we are in Phoenix,
Arizona, many contemporary films tell nothing about their locale. The directors
rely on press releases, DVD notes and reviews to inform audiences of this
fact. I knew "The Return" was set in Russia, because the Detroit Film Theater
schedule said so. From the film itself, one could just as easily figured it was
set near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or Harbin, Manchuria, or Wellington, New
Zealand.
I confess I am dubious about "off-screen exposition" as an approach. I am not
mad at directors who use it - they include some great filmmakers. But I would
never recommend it to anyone. It seems to make all sorts of assumptions about
viewers taking part in some extra-film experience that can be very
unreliable. A little bit of exposition thrown into a film could make everything clear -
and make the film a self-contained viewing experience.
Mike Grost
13777
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 3:25pm
Subject: Re: Touch of Evil intended ratio question resolved...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley" wrote:
> And above all it is a typically beautiful piece of writing from Mr.
> Welles.
Is there more where this comes from? Letters on film, i.e.?
What's not clear is what ratio Whitebait actually saw the film in, not that that matters.
In a Web search, I found that Stanley Kauffmann quoted this letter in his review of the restoration -- "an interesting document that I haven't seen in any book about Welles" -- but omitting the most interesting parts and basically using it to illustrate Welles' "contradictions."
Somehow I thought Badge of Evil was used for the British title; evidently not.
Can we assume that Welles was shooting in 1.66:1 by THE TRIAL, or are his later films also open to question?
13778
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 3:25pm
Subject: Re: And furthermore!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
>
> Is there a single bad performance in ANY Wyler film though?
Wyler achieved an extraordinarily high standard overall, it's true,
but there do exist some negatives: George Brent in Jezebel, Richard
Whorf in Mrs. Miniver, Samantha Eggar in The Collector, and the
absolutely godawful performance he forced out of Shirley Maclaine in
The Children's Hour. As for How to Steal a Million, he certainly let
both Peter O'Toole and Audrey Hepburn slide by on their mannerisms.
>
> I always get the impression from THE PINK PANTHER that Blake
>Edwards has a thing for Claudia Cardinale, but then, *I* have a
>thing for Claudia Cardinale.
Cardinale was the back-up choice after Ava Gardner (mistakenly!)
turned down the role. But let's not forget Capucine, who proved
amazingly adept at slapstick.
--Robert Keser
13779
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 3:56pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> the song is about the death of a fellow musician in a car crash.
> The combination of that knowledge and the song's musical and lyrical
> qualities creates an overwhelming experience for me: taken as a way of
> dealing with death, the qualities of the song seem to me very complex
> and moving. But I must confess that the lyric is so oblique that I
> would never have guessed that the song was about a death, and even after
> knowing this, I can't honestly say that a discerning third party could
> come to this conclusion without bio info.
This brought to mind the example of A TIME TO LOVE AND A TIME TO DIE, which I haven't seen since learning about its relation to Sirk's son's life and death. Granted of course that its story isn't "oblique" to begin with, it would still be interesting to revisit this already great film with this knowledge in mind. (Jon Halliday: "...he did not want me to write about the story of his only son, who disappeared on the Russian front. This film is not _the_ story of his son, but _a_ possible story. It is also in part about Douglas Sirk, who trudged through the ruins of Berlin trying to get information on his son.")
13780
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:02pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> The center of the argument:
>
> 1 - The real-life relationships between two film artists has
> inherent interest to David Ehrenstein
>
> 2 - The scenes and the mise-en-scene and the films have inherent
> interest to David Ehrenstein
>
> But what is the relationship between 1 and 2 aside from the way
>that 1 occasionally reinforces 2, and 2 occasionally reinforces 1,
>but that you don't need 1 in order to successfully divulge the
>meaning of 2,and vice verse?
I would argue that the real-life relationship between two film
artists had inherent interest to Sternberg himself and that he
wanted to communicate this in The Devil Is a Woman. Why else would
he cast the not-especially-bankable Lionel Atwill, whose make-up and
grooming make him a dead ringer for the director, as the embittered
protagonist at the center of the film?
Recent information about the turbulent Dietrich/Sternberg
relationship (including details in Maria Riva's book and testimony
in the lawsuit brought by Sternberg's wife) were not available to
audiences in 1935, of course (although there's a contemporary NYT
review by Andre Sennwald that seems to understand the intimately
personal nature of the film). Access to these emotional strains,
however, makes the movie come alive as an intentional representation
of the affair as it was lived. Also, as David points out, this is
not a question of a single film. The Devil is a Woman is the
culmination of a series of seven films wherein the director put the
star through a range of tantalizing guises and disguises that only a
lover (and an obsessive one at that)would dream up.
The biographical data may not be necessary to appreciate each
individual film, but it enriches our understanding, especially of
the entire body of work.
(In contrast, think of Orson Welles's treatment of Rita Hayworth in
Lady From Shanghai: whatever the film's other achievements, it seems
to me not especially interested in communicating something personal
about the woman he married.)
--Robert Keser
13781
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:25pm
Subject: Re: Shyamalan [SPOILERS FOR 'LE VILLAGE']
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, joey lindsey wrote:
>I think, ultimately, there is an implied critique of
>the 'innocent' 'pure' 'heros' in his films… I guess my
>point is that the elements of Shyamalan's movies that seem to be
>under critique here lately are no less or more annoying than the
>hero worship, sexism, egoism, religious conceits, etc. of any
>director in the auteurist cannon from the 40s to the 60s.
Intriguing point (although to my mind all those negatives didn't
just vanish in 1969; in fact, one could argue that they're worse
than ever in this Age of Bruckheimer). My reaction was to the
religious interpretation proposed, but just as there's no
disputing Shyamalan's facility with the camera, there's no
avoiding a kind of implied moralistic tenor to his films.
>Reviewing the movies in my netflix queue I added mainly because
>they were >movies/directors talked about on this list, I realized
>that movie after movie was about...prostitutes!
Says something about this group, eh? But prostitutes and cinema go
together like, well, soap and water. One masterwork after another
comes to mind on the subject: Naked Kiss, Belle de Jour,
Pandora's Box, The Devil Is a Woman, Life of O-Haru, Le Plaisir,
McCabe and Mrs. Miller, Camille, My Life to Live, Midnight Cowboy,
Nights of Cabiria, My Own Private Idaho, Flowers of Shanghai.
Actually, most of these seem very modern to me in that they deal
with prostitutes as sex workers, a fact of life in every corner of
the globe, rather than sinners or Mary Magdalenes.
>No matter how great they make the prostitutes seem, if their only
>heroines sell themselves, there's something fucked up about their
>concept of women.
Not necessarily, I think. It's all in the treatment. What's
fucked up is the social and economic imperative that forces women
(or men) into a job they don't want. Many of Mizoguchi's
films use stories about geishas and lower-class prostitutes in order
to criticize the oppressive elements of society (and human nature)
that leave no other options, while he also shows the variety of
responses among the women (in Street of Shame, especially). It's
even possible to depict fairly a woman who actually *wants* to be
a prostitute, as in Seijun Suzuki's excellent Story of a
Prostitute, where he separates her sexual desire from her romantic
illusions, using the story as a vehicle to neatly examine the
difference between the two.
--Robert Keser
13782
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 7:11pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
What do you think of Pat's recent Hitchcock and of his
> earlier Lang (which I found a bit too sensational) and the hatchet
> job on Eastwood? All very well researched...
>
>
> JPC
I loved Patrick McGilligan's new Hitchck bio. It gets Hitchcock
right, IMO, and corrects on paper at least -- if not in the minds of
people who have had the "sick sadist" thesis drummed into them -- the
egregious distortions of the Spoto bio. I was scared off reading Mark
of the Beast by knowledgeable Langians (mainly Bernard), but I do
plan to read it this Christmas, now that I know Pat's strengths and
weaknesses better.
I didn't buy the Eastwood bio, for which Pat is being sued, but I
support his right to write it sight unseen -- the very fact that
Eastwood is doing what he's doing suggests that "where there's smoke"
etc. The Hitchcock family certainly could've sued Spoto -- he flat
lied in places, and the youngest granddaughter is a lawyer! -- but
didn't respond in any way. The downside of Eastwood's dialectical
awareness of his image and its implications seems to be a fierce need
to protect it against attack from without.
We now have two good writers -- Schickel and McGilligan -- taking
very different stands on one person: one in an authorized bio, one in
an unauthorized one. It would be interesting to read and compare the
two books for their facts, and how Pat, coming second, responds to
Richard. It would also be interesting to see how they affect our
understanding of the films.
I wrote a piece on Heartbreak Ridge for Giulia d'Agnolo Vallan where
I only had Schickel's book (and an "undeveloped" [=un-joked-up] draft
script) to refer to; I'll flip through Pat's section on the film and
see what it adds or subtracts. I'll say this: the script would have
made a better film, but a more right-wing one. I like Heartbreak
Ridge a lot, but it's fascinating to see how much Eastwood left out
of what must have initially pleased him. What was left out was not
necessarily reactionary. Eastwood's opening monologue, a masterpiece,
was selectively eliminated during mixing for purely PC reasons. I'll
be curious if Pat -- who admits he doesn't look at records the way I
do -- at least identified reasons for that in Eastwood's "life."
As I recall, he was running for mayor at the time, and toning down
his stump language to win, Richard already got the impact of that on
the use of obscenity in the film -- the opening monologue was a
brilliant exercise in obscenity before it was mixed.
13783
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 7:23pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> (In contrast, think of Orson Welles's treatment of Rita Hayworth in
> Lady From Shanghai: whatever the film's other achievements, it
seems
> to me not especially interested in communicating something personal
> about the woman he married.)
>
> --Robert Keser
Robert -- How about the scene where she's losing it in closeup?
I think David has come up with an even better counter-example, Davis
and Rapper in Now Voyager. In fact, the absence of any spark between
them is thematized in the way that she stands alone and self
sufficient at the end. I'm reminded of Pascal Bonitzer's capsule
review in praise of Julia as a film made by the two actresses without
creative input from Zinnemann, as allegorized in the baby which seems
to be "theirs."
13784
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 7:48pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
>
> Robert -- How about the scene where she's losing it in closeup?
>
> I think David has come up with an even better counter-example,
Davis
> and Rapper in Now Voyager. In fact, the absence of any spark
between
> them is thematized in the way that she stands alone and self
> sufficient at the end. I'm reminded of Pascal Bonitzer's capsule
> review in praise of Julia as a film made by the two actresses
without
> creative input from Zinnemann, as allegorized in the baby which
seems
> to be "theirs."
Rita and Orson.
Perhaps somebody knowledgeable might clear up this question? Several
critics assume that LADY FROM SHANGHAI represented Orson's revenge on
his wife who would soon divorce him. But I've read somewhere that
Rita Hayworth wanted to break away from the glamorous stereotype and
do something different. Thus she jumped at the chance of playing Elsa
Bannister even to the extent of cutting her locks and becoming an icy
blonde femme fatale. Which version is correct or are both
complimentary?
Finally, in 1959, Rita played an unglamorous role in THE STORY ON
PAGE ONE directed by Clifford Odets which, I believe, failed
critically and commercially. Granted that she was now loosing her
looks, could her choice of role have been due to the opportunity of
working with Odets who, like Orson, was a key cultural figure of the
1930s. THE STORY ON PAGE ONE could have been made today as an episode
of LAW AND ORDER. It is not as bad as contemporary reviews held and
contains one of the rare film appearances by Group Theatre actor and
later drama teacher Sanford Meisncer in a compelling, yet understated
performance.
Tony Williams
13785
From:
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
Tony Williams >peckinpah20012000@y...< wrote:
>Which version is correct or are both
>complimentary?
My hunch is that the truth may be somewhere in the middle.
If you want to see how lovingly Welles could photograph a woman, see "F for
Fake" (especially the Picasso sequence) or any of his films with Oja Kodar, his
muse/collaborator/companion for nearly twenty years. I really don't remember
how his third wife, Paola, is used in "Mr. Arkadin," but it's interesting to
note that all three of his wives appeared in his films (Virginia Nicholson in
"The Hearts of Age"; Hayworth in "Shanghai"; Mori in "Mr. Arkadin"), as well
as Oja.
Peter
13786
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 8:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- peckinpah20012000
> Perhaps somebody knowledgeable might clear up this
> question? Several
> critics assume that LADY FROM SHANGHAI represented
> Orson's revenge on
> his wife who would soon divorce him. But I've read
> somewhere that
> Rita Hayworth wanted to break away from the
> glamorous stereotype and
> do something different.
That's the truth of the matter. Welles is on record as
saying that he was entirely to blame for his break-up
with Hayworth. That she plays a femme fatale ( one of
the greatest of them all, IMO) in "Lady From Shanghai"
doesn't detractfromthe fact that it's a great part and
she's absolutely smashing in it.
I especially love the way she says "But we're in one
of those far-off places now, Michael."
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
13787
From:
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 4:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>I especially love the way she says "But we're in one
>of those far-off places now, Michael."
Last month, I had the great pleasure of seeing "The Magnificent Ambersons,"
"The Lady From Shanghai," "The Immortal Story," and "F for Fake" in good 35mm
prints. "Ambersons," "Immortal," and "Fake" were already favorites of mine;
seeing them on film simply brought out new facets, enhanced and deepened my
already profound appreciation for them. "The Lady from Shanghai," however, was a
revelation; a film I didn't love when I saw it on video, but very much love on
film. My favorite scene isn't the (admittedly very great) funhouse sequence;
it's the incredible, brilliantly stylized scene when Hayworth sings that song
on the boat, with the very Wellesian close-ups of Hayworth, Welles, Anders,
et al. Perhaps the funhouse sequence is spoiled a bit for me by the music the
studio tacked on at the climax of it; whereas the boat scene feels like the
purest and greatest of Welles.
Peter
13788
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 8:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Touch of Evil intended ratio question resolved...
David opined:
>And what's most interesting about it is that Welles
>was wrong. Looking at "The Leopard" again just the
>other day I was amazed at the enomous about deep focus
>shots it features. learly Techniama was suprerior to
>Cinemascope as a widescreen process in that it had
>height and depth.
Technirama was wonderfully deep-focused and detailed. It was
expected that small details in the background would be as visible as
the main subject in the foreground. For instance I recall a shot in
ZULU which essentially was a two shot of our lead actors, yet way
back in the distance over the hill come the Zulus. Naturally this
kind of technology led to an entirely different kind of mise-en-scene
than what we have in our lower res 21st century.
--
- Joe Kaufman
13789
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 8:17pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
wrote:
> > (In contrast, think of Orson Welles's treatment of Rita Hayworth
> >in Lady From Shanghai: whatever the film's other achievements, it
> >seems to me not especially interested in communicating
> > something personal about the woman he married.)
>
> Robert -- How about the scene where she's losing it in closeup?
Do you mean the end of the funhouse sequence, where she's
foregrounded saying "I don't want to die"? That's a personal moment
with an unexpected authenticity that's striking because it comes
through the overarching artificiality of the femme fatale
character's actions; with The Devil Is a Woman, however, it's not a
moment but the entire narrative that seems personal.
> I think David has come up with an even better counter-example,
>Davis and Rapper in Now Voyager. In fact, the absence of any spark
>between them is thematized in the way that she stands alone and
>self sufficient at the end.
Oh, I agree completely, except that Davis and Rapper had nothing
personal to *put* on film!
> I'm reminded of Pascal Bonitzer's capsule review in praise
> of Julia as a film made by the two actresses without creative
>input from Zinnemann, as allegorized in the baby which seems
> to be "theirs."
Too clever by half! Julia certainly contains some troublesome
pretensions, but in what sense was either actress the auteur of the
harrowing train journey sequence, or the great shock cut to the
Moscow Hamlet, or the Sansho Dayu-like compositions that open and
close the film?
--Robert Keser
13790
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 8:39pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> I loved Patrick McGilligan's new Hitchck bio. It gets Hitchcock
> right, IMO, and corrects on paper at least -- if not in the minds
of
> people who have had the "sick sadist" thesis drummed into them --
the
> egregious distortions of the Spoto bio. I was scared off reading
Mark
> of the Beast by knowledgeable Langians (mainly Bernard), but I do
> plan to read it this Christmas, now that I know Pat's strengths and
> weaknesses better.
It's "The Nature of the Beast" but I like your version... Talk
about "sick sadist" thesis... Lots of anecdotes about Lang's
mistreatment of actresses.
I reviewed it years ago for POSITIF together with Todd
McCarthy's Hawks bio (which I eventually translated). Three months
ago I talked Tavernier and Fremaux into translating Pat's Hitchcock --
or at least I thought I did, because after initial enthusiasm they
are now dragging their feet (we also talked about McBride's Ford --
they wanted to do a Ford bio but couldn't make up their minds which
one).
>
These translations are important because there really is no
tradition of competent, well-researched, critical biography in France
(even in the literary area, with few exceptions). No biography of
Proust until a brit took care of it. And not every French person
interested in film and Hitchcock or Hawks reads English.
JPC
13791
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 8:49pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> I'm reminded of Pascal Bonitzer's capsule review in praise
> > of Julia as a film made by the two actresses without creative
> >input from Zinnemann, as allegorized in the baby which seems
> > to be "theirs."
>
> Too clever by half!
>
> --Robert Keser
Yes, and tongue-in-cheek clever at that (at least I hope it was).
13792
From: joey lindsey
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 9:19pm
Subject: Hitchcock Bio? (WAS : Director biographies and criticism)
jpcoursodon wrote:
> Proust until a brit took care of it. And not every French person
> interested in film and Hitchcock or Hawks reads English.
I may have missed this in the few months I've been here, but is there a
Hitchcock bio or book on the films that is fairly accurate and
reccommended (for the US) ?
thanks,
Joey Lindsey
13793
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 9:38pm
Subject: Brown Bunny billboard removed from Hollywood
Here is a site with a graphic of the BB billboard.
http://www.airmassive.com/amblog_080304_1.html
I know there was discussion of BB and I guess few have yet to see it.
In light of the posts about directors / leading ladies, I thought this
image interesting as the director is also the male lead.
13794
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 9:41pm
Subject: Re: Hitchcock Bio? (WAS : Director biographies and criticism)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, joey lindsey wrote:
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > Proust until a brit took care of it. And not every French person
> > interested in film and Hitchcock or Hawks reads English.
>
> I may have missed this in the few months I've been here, but is
there a
> Hitchcock bio or book on the films that is fairly accurate and
> reccommended (for the US) ?
>
> thanks,
> Joey Lindsey
We were discussing Pat McGilligan's Hitchcock bio
(ReganBooks/HarperCollins) published late last year, and praised by
Bill K. in a post earlier this afternoon. It is accurate and highly
recommended. Anthony Slide called it "a definitive biography". and
such people as Kevin Brownlow and John Baxter praise it very highly
on the dust jacket. I have read only portions of it but I think it's
a great book.
13795
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 10:10pm
Subject: Off-screen exposition
Separate from the implied apparent failure to tell the story,
off-screen exposition is sometimes wrong relative to what
is on the screen. Press-kit articles need to be vetted once
the final print is signed off and not yet released.
Some such articles include plot lines and characters no
longer in the final cut.
Personally, I like a movie to be complete in itself.
On the other side of off-screen exposition, it is
interesting to watch some pre-WW2 movies knowing
what happen later. I watched THE LADY VANISHES and
SECRET AGENT today.
> Such "off-screen exposition" is becoming increasingly common in all
> sorts of
> films. I would have been completely confused about Nostalghia
> (Tarkovsky), if
> I had not read Maltin's synopsis that the film is about "a Russian
> poet and
> translator,.. trekking across Italy to inquire about a long dead
> composer".
> There is no way to tell in the film who the characters are, where they
> are,
> etc... Tarkovsky fans regularly consult his published screenplays to
> get nescessary
> exposition, just to follow his films. Then this information is
> diseminated
> through reviews, critical studies, etc.
> Whereas "Psycho" (Hitchcock) opens with a statement that we are in
> Phoenix,
> Arizona, many contemporary films tell nothing about their locale. The
> directors
> rely on press releases, DVD notes and reviews to inform audiences of
> this
> fact. I knew "The Return" was set in Russia, because the Detroit Film
> Theater
> schedule said so. From the film itself, one could just as easily
> figured it was
> set near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or Harbin, Manchuria, or
> Wellington, New
> Zealand.
> I confess I am dubious about "off-screen exposition" as an approach. I
> am not
> mad at directors who use it - they include some great filmmakers. But
> I would
> never recommend it to anyone. It seems to make all sorts of
> assumptions about
> viewers taking part in some extra-film experience that can be very
> unreliable. A little bit of exposition thrown into a film could make
> everything clear -
> and make the film a self-contained viewing experience.
> Mike Grost
13796
From:
Date: Sun Aug 8, 2004 11:21pm
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
The nadir of the OSE approach is something like THE CREMASTER CYCLE
or a lot of present-day concept-driven art, which doesn't make a lick
of sense unless you've read the footnotes beforehand. Or, in
narrative filmmaking, something like DONNIE DARKO, which becomes a
worse movie every time Richard Kelly opens his mouth to "explain" it,
proving that what a lot of people took to be purposeful ambiguity was
just incompetent filmmaking (not a fan -- can you tell?). As far as
I'm concerned, if a movie doesn't work on its own, it doesn't work,
period. Obviously there's room for enlargment -- Dan's post made me
think of Gram Parsons' song "In My Hour of Darkness," which recalls
the bad ends to which a number of his friends have come to -- but the
supplementary info ought to serve just that purpose. It may be naive
in this day and age to think that anyone goes into a film without
knowing "what it's about", but the experience of having a work of art
wash over you without any expectations is a precious one, and worth
preserving.
Sam
>
> MG4273@a... wrote"
>I confess I am dubious about "off-screen exposition" as an approach. I am not
>mad at directors who use it - they include some great filmmakers. But I would
>never recommend it to anyone. It seems to make all sorts of assumptions about
>viewers taking part in some extra-film experience that can be very
>unreliable. A little bit of exposition thrown into a film could make
>everything clear -
>and make the film a self-contained viewing experience.
>
>Mike Grost
13797
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 9, 2004 0:06am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
> >
> Several
> critics assume that LADY FROM SHANGHAI represented Orson's revenge
on
> his wife who would soon divorce him. But I've read somewhere that
> Rita Hayworth wanted to break away from the glamorous stereotype
and
> do something different. Thus she jumped at the chance of playing
Elsa
> Bannister even to the extent of cutting her locks and becoming an
icy
> blonde femme fatale. Which version is correct or are both
> complimentary?
>
>
> Tony Williams
I don't know -- I'm not really a Welles expert. Let me mention re:
bios that Professor Williams, a newcomer to a_film_by who I'm happy
to see is lurking less and posting more, recently published Body and
Soul: The Cinematic Vision of Robert Aldrich, which doesn't claim to
be a bio, but "examines the relationship of Aldrich's films to the
Cultural Front movement of the 1930s as well as the blacklist of the
1950s...[and] delineates Aldrich's attempts to follow the progressive
ideals of such mentors as Jean Renoir, Lewis Milestone and Charlie
Chaplin." Haven't picked it up yet, but it certainly sounds
interesting.
13798
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 9, 2004 0:12am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
Perhaps the funhouse sequence is spoiled a bit for me by the music
the
> studio tacked on at the climax of it; whereas the boat scene feels
like the
> purest and greatest of Welles.
>
> Peter
The funhouse is also truncated by a reported TEN minutes! (source:
Richard Wilson, if my fading memory isn't deceiving me)
13799
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 9, 2004 0:17am
Subject: Re: Director biographies and criticism (Was: Rivette query)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > These translations are important because there really is no
> tradition of competent, well-researched, critical biography in
France
> (even in the literary area, with few exceptions). No biography of
> Proust until a brit took care of it. And not every French person
> interested in film and Hitchcock or Hawks reads English.
>
> JPC
The reported cost of translation and the absence of money to pay for
it is the equivalent of the Seacam/NTSC boondoggle in keeping a
wealth of materials desperately needed in France from being made
available there. Strangely, this doesn't seem to be as big a problem
when it comes to translating French to English, although the quality
of the many translation that have appeared over the last 25 years is,
to put it kindly, highly variable.
13800
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 9, 2004 0:19am
Subject: Re: Brown Bunny billboard removed from Hollywood
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> Here is a site with a graphic of the BB billboard.
>
> http://www.airmassive.com/amblog_080304_1.html
Lawsy me!
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact