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.
14001
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 0:16pm
Subject: the latest Godard/Breillat
NOTRE MUSIQUE and SEX IS COMEDY are in Film Forum's premiere calender.
No details on either except they're both getting two-week runs, the
Breillat in the last part of October, and Godard's (which we hope will
be framed correctly, or there'll be hell to pay!) in late November,
early December.
Also on the slate of premieres, among a bunch of titles I know little
about, is an odd-sounding docu-essay called TARNATION, which I heard
of through some Sundance dispatches, and it sounds pretty good:
"Filmmaker Jonathan Caouette's documentary on growing up with his
schizophrenic mother -- a mixture of snapshots, Super-8, answering
machine messages, video diaries, early short films, and more -- culled
from 19 years of his life."
Plus the guy on the IMDb says it "isn't that great," which means it
must be of some interest.
-Jaime
14002
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 2:26pm
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Plays Itself
Hi Joe,
Now that Andy and Gabe have weighed in on this film I'm more
interested in hearing them expand on their disappointments on
Andersen's film than listen to myself. Basically it sounds like they
wanted less Isaiah and more Messiah -- and wouldn't we all! But I
still am perfectly happy that Andersen's film not so much asserts a
trailblazing vision of Los Angeles than it defends a way of seeing
that some of us may take for granted but that I consider endangered.
I think the inclusion of the clip from HANGING UP (people too caught
up with their cellphone conversations to notice the spaces they're
moving through) clinched the vital importance of this film for me.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> I didn't say that Anderson's reading of Chinatown was Stalinist.
> Rather, the language he was using to describe his own problems with
> the film (in particular, its resolution) had a repressive,
Stanlinist
> tinge to it. Couldn't Greek tragedy be criticized at the same level
> that Anderson is criticizing Chinatown? Furthermore, I'm not sure
> how Chinatown's own reading of Los Angeles history is Stalinist, as
> you claim here.
I guess we have different interpretations of the term "Stalinist." I
take it you meant that Andersen was assuming a repressive air of
authoritarianism in his way of closing the case on CHINATOWN -- I
think he was making the same argument against the film, the way it
effectively revises popular history, like a Stalin-approved
Eisenstein movie, to coddle us into a hard-boiled sense of cynical
contentment regarding both our present and our past.
There is something Sophoclean about CHINATOWN isn't there? I don't
see any problem with criticizing Greek tragedy -- I have a feeling
that Andersen fully recognizes that CHINATOWN is a great and powerful
movie, but that shouldn't stop him from taking the film to task,
especially if it helps us to understand how exactly the film works
its power over our imaginations. Again I am reminded of David
Walsh's criticism of MYSTIC RIVER:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/myst-n03.shtml
"Genuine tragedy is not simply anything one wants to make it. Not
every chronicle of unhappy events, even well told, is tragedy of the
highest order. Genuine tragedy has a powerful element of necessity;
it artistically reflects and maximizes essential features of social
life. In some manner, the tragic situation of the protagonists and
the drama that unfolds must accord with the larger, "world-
historical" conflict at the center of a given epoch's social life...
The tragedies that need to be written and filmed in America today, in
any event, will not reprise ancient concerns with Fate or Elizabethan
studies of individual passion. Writers and directors will be obliged,
first of all, to uncover the real driving forces in society, the real
existing social relationships, not mythologized ones based on "tribal
codes of kinship, blood and honor." On that basis, one is confident,
there will be no shortage of material."
What is the
> point of being "generous" to Hanging Up? And of all the films in
the
> world about L.A., why this one? In fact, I don't think he's
generous
> to the film at all and that it simply provides him with another
> platform on which he can feel (and encourage the audience to feel)
> superior to what is being shown.
Elaborating on what I was talking about at the start of this post,
here's what I wrote about the significance of HANGING UP on another
site:
"The juxtaposition of the clips of BUSH MAMA and HANGING UP shouldn't
be valued as "black is better than white" or "one is a better
drama/entertainment than the other" or even "one is more true-to-
experience" than the other, but "one offers a more socially
responsible way of seeing than the other." What do I mean by this?
The clips Andersen uses from BUSH MAMA show Bush Mama looking outside
her apartment window and observing all the different people on the
street, and reacting to what's happening around her. In HANGING UP we
get women charging heedlessly through hallways while caught up in
their cell phone conversations, or driving in black tinted window
sedans through the anonymous highways of L.A anxious to reach their
destination. I wouldn't question that the depiction of life in
HANGING UP is any less "true" to the kind of people it represents
than BUSH MAMA is to its constituency (and ruefully, I must admit
that the HANGING UP lifestyle more closely reflects my own) -- the
issue for me (and Andersen, I think) is what we can learn from
watching how these people live and act in their own onscreen, and
what this has to say about the way we see our own worlds and live our
own lives."
My film, should it ever see the
> light of day or the darkness of the auditorium, would largely be a
> documentary of the imaginary, fed by seeing so many films set in
Los
> Angeles that I feel I know the city without having been in it all
> that much. But it would probably centrally draw upon (to choose
films
> Anderson doesn't deal with) In a Lonely Place, Angel Face, Crime of
> Passion, the 1954 version of A Star is Born (which is, to follow
> Anderson's logic, more about Los Angeles as a space than Hollywood
in
> contrast to Wellman's version, which is more about the space of
> Hollywood), and The Blue Gardenia.
I don't think this sounds entirely antithetical to Andersen's
project, and would serve as a vivid complement.
Kevin
14003
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 2:55pm
Subject: Re: Re: McBride (Was: Uncovered IS The Flanders Panel)
> He has also become quite a good filmmaker -- one whose instincts to
> create authentic films have remained miraculously intact thru much
> travail.
This, to me, is the big surprise and joy of McBride's career: that
someone used to making very quirky films with a high quotient of
personal content was forced to enter the Hollywood system, without much
prestige, and revealed enough directorial chops, intelligence, and
adaptability to make a high proportion of his commissioned projects work
as art. - Dan
14004
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:14pm
Subject: Re: Happy Birthday, Hitch
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> Happy 105th birthday
What can I say -- I love the guy.
14005
From:
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:44pm
Subject: DVDBeaver to gnaw no more?
Just checked DVDBeaver.com to see if they'd posted anything new and
ran across the rather sad message that they're soliciting donations
to stay afloat; seems the increase in visitors has upped the bandwith
costs to prohibitive levels. I know there are a couple of
contributors on this list and I'm sure many more regular users.
Worth checking out the site (and maybe e-plunking down a few bucks)
if you're a fan.
Sam
14006
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 5:01pm
Subject: Re: the latest Godard/Breillat
> and Godard's (which we hope will
> be framed correctly, or there'll be hell to pay!)
Someone on the Godard list just mentioned the other day that he had
received a letter from Wellspring, or is friends with one of the main
guys there, or something, and assured him that 'Notre musique' would be
projected in 1.37, and released on DVD as such as well. Very good...
craig.
14007
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 5:44pm
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Plays Itself
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
>
> I guess we have different interpretations of the term "Stalinist." I
> take it you meant that Andersen was assuming a repressive air of
> authoritarianism in his way of closing the case on CHINATOWN -- I
> think he was making the same argument against the film, the way it
> effectively revises popular history, like a Stalin-approved
> Eisenstein movie, to coddle us into a hard-boiled sense of cynical
> contentment regarding both our present and our past.
Huh?! Alexander Nevsky? Ivan the Terrible? How do they "coddle" the
viewer?
14008
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 5:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: Los Angeles Plays Itself
--- Michael Worrall
wrote:
>
> Huh?! Alexander Nevsky? Ivan the Terrible? How do
> they "coddle" the
> viewer?
>
>
>
Not to mention Vertov's "The Man with a Movie Camera"
which I was looking at again just last night.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
14009
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 5:57pm
Subject: To Jaime (Tarnation) and Peter (Signs)
Peter,
my co-editor Eduardo Valente is the one who's nuts about Shyamalan. I always
enjoyed his filmmaking, but am not deeply moved by how he develops his
themes. Casting Mel Gibson as a guy who's incapable of action seemed quite
good, and Sh. won where Wenders had lost (although arguably the only one
thing worthy of notice in Wenders' Million Dollar Hotel was Mel's
backmachine). His seemingly anachronic defense of faith and belief is the
one thing that holds Signs strong for me (well, and... the mise-en-scene).
The thing about "The Sacrifice" is that both structure themselves on a "what
if" situation: supposed the world is destroyed, what then? Structure
similarity makes these really look alike.
Jaime,
I'm hoping Festival do Rio brings "Tarnation" in late september. It got
raves on Libération and, I guess, Jean-Sébastien Chauvin's weblog and, by
what I read, it's an absolute must-see.
I'm sorry I can't keep posting more, but I'm 400 messages behind and with
several deadlines. Still getting to read almost everything on a_f_b...
Ruy
14010
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:07pm
Subject: venice
Any of the a_film_by'ers is going to be at Venice doing daily writing?
There's a HUGE amount of films I'm dying to get good info on, but unlike
Cannes, I don't know how to get them since I don't speak italian and
brazilian papers suck.
Does anyone know of french/english/spanish speaking papers/mags worth
reading about Venice?
Ruy
14011
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:37pm
Subject: Chicagoans go see GIDEON'S DAY!
The lovely new print of GIDEON OF SCOTLAND YARD/GIDEON'S DAY that a
few NYC a_film_by-ers enjoyed a couple of weeks ago is this week's
Chicago Reader "Critic's Choice." It's a wonderful movie, very
Fordian for reasons that won't be made apparent until you see it.
-Jaime
14012
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:41pm
Subject: Re: venice
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> Does anyone know of french/english/spanish speaking
papers/mags worth
> reading about Venice?
> Ruy
No.
14013
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Chicagoans go see GIDEON'S DAY!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> The lovely new print of GIDEON OF SCOTLAND
YARD/GIDEON'S DAY that a
> few NYC a_film_by-ers enjoyed a couple of weeks ago is this
week's
> Chicago Reader "Critic's Choice." It's a wonderful movie, very
> Fordian for reasons that won't be made apparent until you see
it.
>
> -Jaime
I second that in triplicate. It was shown here two years ago -- a
splendid film, despite Leonard Maltin's classification of it as "a
dud." Must be seen in color -- made two years after "The
Searchers," with a very different palette, to say the least.
14014
From: Damien Bona
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:25pm
Subject: Dave Kehr on Kiss Me Deadly
Check out Dave's terrific piece in today's Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/movies/13CHOI.html
14015
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:36pm
Subject: Re: Dave Kehr on Kiss Me Deadly
Perceptive as always.
His note of the cinematic advantage Aldrich takes of
Mike Hammer's frequent blackouts brings "My Own
Private Idaho" to mind.
--- Damien Bona wrote:
> Check out Dave's terrific piece in today's Times:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/movies/13CHOI.html
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14016
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Re: Dave Kehr on Kiss Me Deadly
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Perceptive as always.
>
> His note of the cinematic advantage Aldrich takes of
> Mike Hammer's frequent blackouts brings "My Own
> Private Idaho" to mind.
>
>And John Carl Buechler's Friday 13th Part 7: The New Blood!
14017
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:01pm
Subject: China Gate in scope
Hi Group,
Can anybody help me track this one down? I'm looking for a VHS or DVD
copy of Samuel Fuller's CHINA GATE letterboxed. Years ago I used to
run a 16mm scope copy in my class and have not yet found a VHS copy
with any of my "bootlegger" contacts.
Any leads will be most appreciated.
Thanks,
Tony Williams
14018
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:04pm
Subject: Re: China Gate in scope
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> Can anybody help me track this one down? I'm looking for a
VHS or DVD
> copy of Samuel Fuller's CHINA GATE letterboxed. Years ago I
used to
> run a 16mm scope copy in my class and have not yet found a
VHS copy
> with any of my "bootlegger" contacts.
>
> Any leads will be most appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tony Williams
Last time I looked my public library had a 'Scope VHS. Shall I
dupe and send it, or just find out where they got it?
14019
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:10pm
Subject: Re: China Gate in scope
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
> wrote:
> > Hi Group,
> >
> > Can anybody help me track this one down? I'm looking for a
> VHS or DVD
> > copy of Samuel Fuller's CHINA GATE letterboxed. Years ago I
> used to
> > run a 16mm scope copy in my class and have not yet found a
> VHS copy
> > with any of my "bootlegger" contacts.
> >
> > Any leads will be most appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Tony Williams
>
> Last time I looked my public library had a 'Scope VHS. Shall I
> dupe and send it, or just find out where they got it?
Thanks Bill,
If you have time (and I can wait) I'd love a duped copy. But if you
are busy then the source will be enough. Whatever is convenient and
thanks for the help. Reading the Los Angeles postings in darkest
southern Illinois (where old re-runs of THE LAWRENCE WELK SHOW
represents the local PBS highlight on Saturday night. they don't run
old movies anymore!) lowered my spirits so I'm glad to read the
Meeker and others.
Tony
14020
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:09pm
Subject: Re: China Gate in scope
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
> wrote:
> > Hi Group,
> >
> > Can anybody help me track this one down? I'm looking for a
> VHS or DVD
> > copy of Samuel Fuller's CHINA GATE letterboxed. Years ago I
> used to
> > run a 16mm scope copy in my class and have not yet found a
> VHS copy
> > with any of my "bootlegger" contacts.
> >
> > Any leads will be most appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Tony Williams
>
> Last time I looked my public library had a 'Scope VHS. Shall I
> dupe and send it, or just find out where they got it?
Bill, I'd like to get in on some of that. However, CHINA GATE had a
"legit" VHS release but in pan & scan - just like the tsunami of
classic 'Scope films that were put out on deluxe-looking cropped tapes
from when VHS ruled the earth. (And laserdisc was the connoisseur's
market, and DVD was but a gleam in some genius's eye who looked at his
CD, then at his laserdisc, then back at his CD, then...) I mean, I
imagine your same library has a tape of Anthony Mann's CIMARRON and
Minelli's SOME CAME RUNNING, but they ain't in 'Scope.
However, if the tape is letterboxed, your library has a pretty rare item.
Don't mean to piss on anyone's parade. I'd love to see it (really see
it) myself. It played as part of a month-long Vietnam-oriented series
at the BAM Cinematek in late '02. Of all the money titles I only
caught De Palma's CASUALTIES OF WAR...which was mindblowing, of course.
-Jaime
-Jaime
14021
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:40pm
Subject: Collateral
Does anyone know the background for "Collateral"? Did DQ hire him to
do it? Was he given the script or did he pick it himself?
Henrik
14022
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:49pm
Subject: Re: Chicagoans go see GIDEON'S DAY!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I second that in triplicate. It was shown here two years ago -- a
> splendid film, despite Leonard Maltin's classification of it as "a
> dud." Must be seen in color -- made two years after "The
> Searchers," with a very different palette, to say the least.
[spoilers for GIDEON'S DAY]
.
.
.
.
Re: the GIDEON'S DAY palette. A ton of amazing pitch blacks and
wooden browns, but not a film that suffers from a shortage of bright
colors. Compositions in the corrupt cop's apartment and the painter's
home (the encounter between Gideon and the Joanna Delafield is
visually dazzling, hilarious, and harrowing more or less at the same
time) are very great. And someone should write a thesis paper on
Ford's use of doorways.
When is Maltin ever trusted for anything besides widescreen formats
and running times, bah! I consider the day, week, or month that I
stopped taking him seriously to be more of a milestone in my lifetime
education than my high school graduation. He gave two stars to I SHOT
JESSE JAMES and THIS LAND IS MINE, and that doesn't even scratch the
surface. (He doesn't even see all the films, so one must blame an
entire invisible staff of loonies, not just one talking head.)
Of course, Ford being of Irish descent, London wasn't exactly Mars.
I'd love to have seen Ford make a film using all Japanese actors, in
Japan, and Ozu make a film using all British actors, in London. Only
in Dimension X, alas.
Some Fordian elements in GIDEON'S DAY: his treatment of the young
cop, who deserves both a spanking and a medal. The scene with the
bereaved mother. The devoted but independent-minded hero's wife. His
daughter, who presents to Gideon a feminized version of his strength
and shrewdness, tempered with teenaged brashness and romanticism. (I'm
thinking of Shirley Temple in FORT APACHE.) And especially Gideon's
relationship with his superior and subordinates, the camaraderie and
natural devotion to duty Ford depicts and contrasts against their
day-to-day work, dealing with dishonesty and murder. Why, it's a Ford
film after all.
-Jaime
14023
From: Programming
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:00pm
Subject: Antonioni short in Chicago
Hey All,
In addition to the rare Ford, another heads-up for Chicagoans.
The Landmark theater at Century Center is showing MICHELANGELO EYE TO EYE
(2004, 17 mins.) by Antonioni.
It showed today and will show again Saturday and Sunday at 11:50 AM only.
According to Fred's auteurist preferences, Antonioni should be verbotten on
this list (!) but this thing is just barely poping up on the radar and at a
completely unexpected venue.
Oh, and Bela Tarr's Macbeth at Facets on Saturday (1 pm) and Sunday (8 pm)
and F for Fake at the Music Box (Sat and Sun 11:30 am), Preminger's Where
the Sidewalk Ends at the Lasalle (Sat at 8 pm), and They Were Expendable at
the Film Center (Sat at 4:45). Whew!!
Patrick Friel
14024
From: Brad Stevens
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:12pm
Subject: Introduction
Bill Krohn was kind enough to mention (in one of his recent posts about Jim
McBride) that I've been 'lurking' on this board, so I thought it was high
time to actually join.
I'm the author of two books: MONTE HELLMAN: HIS LIFE AND FILMS (published
last year by McFarland) and ABEL FERRARA: THE MORAL VISION (published a few
weeks ago by FAB Press). I'm currently working on a book about Jim McBride
(to be published by Rouge Press, probably in 2006). I also contribute to
SIGHT AND SOUND (I'm usually assigned to review any silent films released on
DVD), the SENSES OF CINEMA website, and occasionally VIDEO WATCHDOG. My
analysis of Hitchcock's television films should appear in the next issue of
TRAFIC. I wrote sleeve notes for the UK DVD releases of FULL METAL JACKET,
SHOCK CORRIDOR and THE NAKED KISS, as well as the recent American reissue of
THE DRILLER KILLER (which also contains three of Abel Ferrara's early short
films).
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
14025
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:13pm
Subject: Re: Chicagoans go see GIDEON'S DAY!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> wrote:
> Why, it's a Ford
> film after all.
>
> -Jaime
One of his best, IMO.
14026
From: thebradstevens
Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:27pm
Subject: Re: McBride (Was: Uncovered IS The Flanders Panel)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote: In some ways the (surviving) lovers in Uncovered are like
> odd reflections of Jim and Tracy when they were younger, if I'm not
> imagining things. Very good people.
That wouldn't have occurred to me, but it fits in very neatly with my
take on McBride, which is that his more 'commercial' films are in a
way his most personal. On the surface, DEAD BY MIDNIGHT (aka MIDNIGHT
MAN) is McBride's most impersonal project (and Jim certainly doesn't
think he brought anything of himself to it), yet at a deeper level
it's almost a summing up of McBride's feelings about his career at
that point - the sense that this bland televisual world is an
illusion from which he must escape (just as the protagonist played by
Tim Hutton escapes from a middle-class existence which proves to be a
hallucination).
Re: UNCOVERED. That's actually the correct title (I have the
impression that some people believe it's a DVD retitling). McBride
told me that the title was thought up by "my brother-in-law, Matthew
Tynan. None of us loved THE FLEMISH BOARD or THE FLANDERS PANEL
(which was what the U.S. edition of the novel was ultimately called),
so, toward the end of shooting, Ricky (producer Enrique Posner) held
a contest, offering $1,000 to whoever could come up with a good
title. There weren't a lot of entries, and we ended up with
UNCOVERED, which I liked a lot, but Ricky was luke warm, and I don't
think he ever paid up. It was released in Spain as LA TABLE DE
FLANDES, the book title."
The DVD isn't much good, though. The film was shot hard matte 1.85,
but the DVD crops the image to fullscreen. I compared the disc with a
letterboxed transfer screened on Italian TV, and the picture loss is
significant.
14027
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 2:56am
Subject: The Fugitive
This was a real surprise--a sombre, beautifully photographed
adaptation of Graham Greene's arguably best work, The Power and the
Glory, and from John Ford. I'm aware of his Catholicism, and I've
seen Latinos in his westerns, but I never realized just how
profoundly he felt his faith, or how effectively he could depict
Latin Americans beyond the odd stereotype or caricature (I've always
thought John Huston was more effective on that score--that this novel
would be more up his alley).
And Henry Fonda, that quintessentially American actor, playing a
Mexican priest. If you can get beyond his height and his flatly
Yankee inflections, he's amazingly effective--the furtive, frightened
eyes, the bowed posture, the tight lips terrified to let a careless
word pass them.
Sure, his character has been watered down--he's not explicitly a
drunkard, and we aren't shown his mistress or bastard child. But I
don't agree that he's left with mere pride as a sin. You can see it
in his face, in the way he holds himself; he suggests a whole
panorama of sins he's feeling guilty for (the way he looks at Dolores
del Rio, for one, implies they had more going on than what's said
onscreen; and the way he tightly clutches a bottle of brandy in
another scene, implies he's too fond of the stuff to simply let go).
And the photography, by the great Mexican cinematographer, Gabriel
Figueroa--I thought Reed's The Third Man was the most superbly
photographed adaptation of Greene; I have to count this one as a
possible equal, maybe even superior (it isn't as flashy, for one, and
it fits the film's austere spirituality perfectly). A great,
underrated film, easily one of my favorite of Ford's.
14028
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 3:28am
Subject: Re: Mr. and Mrs. Price (was "good bad acting")
Oh, I agree that one has to take this type of story with a grain of
salt; I heard this one third-hand, but it originated with a gay
friend of Price's. I just think it's a sweet, touching and funny
image.
Victoria Price's biography of her father is quite lovely. She quotes
Vincent on Otto Preminger: "I once asked Otto why he did so much
better with 'Laura' than [original director] Rouben [Mamoulian]. He
told me, 'Rouben only knows nice people. I understand the characters
in "Laura." They're all heels, just like my friends.'"
Incidentally, when I was a kid I sent Price a fan letter, and he
responded with a gracious note and an autographed picture.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
> wrote:
>
> "I've heard that on their wedding night, Vincent and Coral sat up
in
> bed, eating bonbons and drinking champagne as they went through the
> Academy Players Directory. He pointed out all the men with whom he
> had slept, she all the actresses she had done."
>
> Sounds apocryphal. Even Price's daughter Victoria, an out
Lesbian,
> couldn't pin his sexual orientation down when she was researching
the
> biography she wrote. And if anyone could find out where all the
> bodies are buried it would be her.
>
> Richard
14029
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 4:10am
Subject: Re: venice
> Does anyone know of french/english/spanish speaking papers/mags worth
> reading about Venice?
A French-speaking friend passes along the following info:
--------------
Unfortunately, the French-language coverage doesn't come
close to matching what they do for Cannes, but my first
stops for all film coverage are usually:
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Rubrique=CINEMA
and
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/sequence/0,2-3476,1-0,0.html
Right now, they're doing a little on Locarno, as can be seen
from these two links:
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=229625
and
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3246,36-374858,0.html
Their Venice coverage won't be much more extensive, just two
or three dispatches each.
---------------
- Dan
14030
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 5:05am
Subject: Re: venice
>
> Their Venice coverage won't be much more extensive, just two
> or three dispatches each.
Shameful chauvinism. At least the trades will review any new
releases -- and Screen Int'l, if it's still around.
14031
From: Andy Rector
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 6:02am
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Plays Itself
I can't comment at the length or with such eloquence as Kevin has but
I'd like to say a few things.
Thom's video makes some astounding connections with ideas beyond
reproach, most of which have been mentioned already (architecture,
public history, disrespect of space, etc.). I would argue for a more
potent movie, for what he has to say that is important, in my
opinion, does not fill a 2 1/2 hour or 3 hour video essay. In this
video Thom is not an engaged filmmaker. Too much of his video is
personal fetishism that seems esoteric against his expressed reason
for making it. His films are full of this esotericism which usually
results in a more lucid dynamism. Its a bit of an insult to his
alternative LA to dwell on modernist architecture and spatial
vagaries using a voiceover that often denies the chance to really see
the clips as images--in my opinion a grave error that contributes to
misconceptions in the same way as the offending Hollywood filmmaking
which he takes to task, through commentary.
Another objection within this decent film: his own footage, mostly of
signs on poles directing production crews to their locations are
highly dematerialized, delocalized, and more for sniggering than
thinking.
Maybe my objections are broad but as a filmmaker living in Los
Angeles I found it 70% trifle and 30% useful as thought or practice.
With great regret,
andy
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> Now that Andy and Gabe have weighed in on this film I'm more
> interested in hearing them expand on their disappointments on
> Andersen's film than listen to myself. Basically it sounds like
they
> wanted less Isaiah and more Messiah -- and wouldn't we all! But I
> still am perfectly happy that Andersen's film not so much asserts a
> trailblazing vision of Los Angeles than it defends a way of seeing
> that some of us may take for granted but that I consider
endangered.
> I think the inclusion of the clip from HANGING UP (people too
caught
> up with their cellphone conversations to notice the spaces they're
> moving through) clinched the vital importance of this film for me.
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> wrote:
> > I didn't say that Anderson's reading of Chinatown was Stalinist.
> > Rather, the language he was using to describe his own problems
with
> > the film (in particular, its resolution) had a repressive,
> Stanlinist
> > tinge to it. Couldn't Greek tragedy be criticized at the same
level
> > that Anderson is criticizing Chinatown? Furthermore, I'm not
sure
> > how Chinatown's own reading of Los Angeles history is Stalinist,
as
> > you claim here.
>
> I guess we have different interpretations of the term "Stalinist."
I
> take it you meant that Andersen was assuming a repressive air of
> authoritarianism in his way of closing the case on CHINATOWN -- I
> think he was making the same argument against the film, the way it
> effectively revises popular history, like a Stalin-approved
> Eisenstein movie, to coddle us into a hard-boiled sense of cynical
> contentment regarding both our present and our past.
>
> There is something Sophoclean about CHINATOWN isn't there? I don't
> see any problem with criticizing Greek tragedy -- I have a feeling
> that Andersen fully recognizes that CHINATOWN is a great and
powerful
> movie, but that shouldn't stop him from taking the film to task,
> especially if it helps us to understand how exactly the film works
> its power over our imaginations. Again I am reminded of David
> Walsh's criticism of MYSTIC RIVER:
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/myst-n03.shtml
>
> "Genuine tragedy is not simply anything one wants to make it. Not
> every chronicle of unhappy events, even well told, is tragedy of
the
> highest order. Genuine tragedy has a powerful element of necessity;
> it artistically reflects and maximizes essential features of social
> life. In some manner, the tragic situation of the protagonists and
> the drama that unfolds must accord with the larger, "world-
> historical" conflict at the center of a given epoch's social
life...
>
> The tragedies that need to be written and filmed in America today,
in
> any event, will not reprise ancient concerns with Fate or
Elizabethan
> studies of individual passion. Writers and directors will be
obliged,
> first of all, to uncover the real driving forces in society, the
real
> existing social relationships, not mythologized ones based
on "tribal
> codes of kinship, blood and honor." On that basis, one is
confident,
> there will be no shortage of material."
>
> What is the
> > point of being "generous" to Hanging Up? And of all the films in
> the
> > world about L.A., why this one? In fact, I don't think he's
> generous
> > to the film at all and that it simply provides him with another
> > platform on which he can feel (and encourage the audience to
feel)
> > superior to what is being shown.
>
> Elaborating on what I was talking about at the start of this post,
> here's what I wrote about the significance of HANGING UP on another
> site:
>
> "The juxtaposition of the clips of BUSH MAMA and HANGING UP
shouldn't
> be valued as "black is better than white" or "one is a better
> drama/entertainment than the other" or even "one is more true-to-
> experience" than the other, but "one offers a more socially
> responsible way of seeing than the other." What do I mean by this?
> The clips Andersen uses from BUSH MAMA show Bush Mama looking
outside
> her apartment window and observing all the different people on the
> street, and reacting to what's happening around her. In HANGING UP
we
> get women charging heedlessly through hallways while caught up in
> their cell phone conversations, or driving in black tinted window
> sedans through the anonymous highways of L.A anxious to reach their
> destination. I wouldn't question that the depiction of life in
> HANGING UP is any less "true" to the kind of people it represents
> than BUSH MAMA is to its constituency (and ruefully, I must admit
> that the HANGING UP lifestyle more closely reflects my own) -- the
> issue for me (and Andersen, I think) is what we can learn from
> watching how these people live and act in their own onscreen, and
> what this has to say about the way we see our own worlds and live
our
> own lives."
>
> My film, should it ever see the
> > light of day or the darkness of the auditorium, would largely be
a
> > documentary of the imaginary, fed by seeing so many films set in
> Los
> > Angeles that I feel I know the city without having been in it all
> > that much. But it would probably centrally draw upon (to choose
> films
> > Anderson doesn't deal with) In a Lonely Place, Angel Face, Crime
of
> > Passion, the 1954 version of A Star is Born (which is, to follow
> > Anderson's logic, more about Los Angeles as a space than
Hollywood
> in
> > contrast to Wellman's version, which is more about the space of
> > Hollywood), and The Blue Gardenia.
>
> I don't think this sounds entirely antithetical to Andersen's
> project, and would serve as a vivid complement.
>
> Kevin
14032
From:
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:06am
Subject: Re: Kiss Me Deadly & Ralph Meeker
There are some notes on my web site on Kiss Me Deadly:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/aldrich.htm
and on Meeker's earlier film Code Two:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/wilcox.htm
Mike Grost
14033
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 3:05pm
Subject: Re: The Fugitive
I agree and worth watching for that reason alone (but then "Grapes of
Wrath" is worth watching carefully just for Gregg Toland).
For me, Gabriel Figueroa's crowning achievement is "Nazarin"
-Sam Wells
> This was a real surprise--a sombre, beautifully photographed
> adaptation
> And the photography, by the great Mexican cinematographer, Gabriel
> Figueroa--I thought Reed's The Third Man was the most superbly
> photographed adaptation of Greene; I have to count this one as a
> possible equal, maybe even superior (it isn't as flashy, for one, and
> it fits the film's austere spirituality perfectly). A great,
> underrated film, easily one of my favorite of Ford's.
14034
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 4:52pm
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Plays Itself
There's a lengthy review by Lippe in the new Cineaction -- very
positive, but raising questions about what he calls the dogmatism of
Part 3.
14035
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:12pm
Subject: Re: The Fugitive
John Ford is my favorite filmmaker, but I couldn't disagree more
about The Fugitive, which after the recent sublime achievements of
They Were Expendable and My Darling Clementine found him back
in "artsy" Informer-land. A very ponderous film, full of heavy-handed
New Testament metaphors, even Good Theif Ward Bond and J. Carroll
Naish's Judas (in a terrible performance).
Fonda is impressively haunted, but he's not a character he's a
symbol, and he's certainly not Graham Greene's priest.
The film IS strikingly shot -- Gabriel Figourea's lighting evokes
Vermeer at times -- but because Ford so depends on images, it has the
feel of a Russian proletariat film. It's not without some interest
because it was clearly very personal to Ford, but for me it just
doesn't work.
14036
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:30pm
Subject: Re: The Fugitive
> John Ford is my favorite filmmaker, but I couldn't disagree more
> about The Fugitive, which after the recent sublime achievements of
> They Were Expendable and My Darling Clementine found him back
> in "artsy" Informer-land.
Loved My Darling Clementine, not a big fan of The Informer, and I'd
say the ponderousness and NT metaphors owe as much to Greene (if
anything, his novel felt a hell of a lot heavier) as to Ford.
I suppose we'll have to disagree about Fonda's character--felt he
kept a lot of things understated, but I do feel they were stated
(more in the gestures and looks than in the dialogue, I agree with
you there too, there is a heavy dependence on the images).
14037
From: Andy Rector
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:48pm
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Plays Itself
I certainly didn't mean that what Thom has to say in general couldn't
fill a 3 hour movie. But what he has to say in Los Angeles Plays
Itself would go over best if it was a little less indulgent.
correcting,
andy
14038
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:34pm
Subject: Re: Chicagoans go see GIDEON'S DAY!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> > Why, it's a Ford
> > film after all.
> >
> > -Jaime
>
> One of his best, IMO.
I may not be able to make the screening but I remember the creative
use of color when I first viewed it in England. Those who can attend
are in for a real treat, especially in regard to the acting and the
ensemble performance of English and Irish actors.
Tony Williams
14039
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Canons to the Left of Me, Canons to the Right of Me...
> Paul should be on a_film_by. Re-reading and re-viewing the history of
> the cinema is what we've all been doing here... But I'm not sure what
> he means by "people's choice mentality."
I think he's referring to the media's propensity for constantly holding
polls to "find out" what the "best film ever" is. This is a way of
forming canons too, and whilst it's touted as "democratic", it is, of
course, nothing of the sort. The voters are only those watching their
dumb TV programme, or reading their dumb magazine, and the type of
person who votes is the sort whose film history consists of a small
Blockbuster video rental store.
Here in the UK, I was shocked/dismayed to find that the bulk of the
population voting in one of these things, for a TV channel, found the
"best film ever" to be THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION.
-Nick Wrigley>-
14040
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:48pm
Subject: Re: The Fugitive
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
> > John Ford is my favorite filmmaker, but I couldn't disagree more
> > about The Fugitive, which after the recent sublime achievements
of
> > They Were Expendable and My Darling Clementine found him back
> > in "artsy" Informer-land.
I like The Fugitive and The Informer both. Sam Fuller LOVED The
Informer -- it's a shame his "rap" when he used to screen a 16 print
at home was never recorded for posterity, although God knows JR and I
tried. I can understand why lovers of later Ford look askance at the
Expressionist work as being inferior to the purity of something like
Wagnomaster, but it's kind of like turning the silly thesis of Noel
Burch on its head and using Lang's American films to beat Mabuse der
Spieler and M over the head. I haven't seen The Fugitive recently
enough to know where I stand in that debate, but the three Oscars for
Informer don't make it a bad film: It's a film Ford fought tooth and
nail with RKO to get made, and it still came out beautiful.
14041
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:47am
Subject: Re: The Fugitive
The Informer DOES have what I consider beautiful passages--the one
where the police are bent on capturing the IRA man while Mclaglen
waits at the station comes to mind, and stays in the mind. Parts I
think are creaky (Mclaglen yelling out in the end), but that's the
same with All Quiet on the Western Front--parts are creaky, but
parts retain their power.
The Fugitive if I recall correctly was also a struggle to make--Ford
felt he had to tone down the more unsavory aspects of the priest,
the drunkeness and the bastard child (it would never have been made
otherwise), and I suppose instead tried to capture the essence, the
spiritual weakness at the heart of the character.
I do think Ford was more successful maintaining the emotional tone
in The Fugitive than he was with The Informer. But then, he was
probably at his filmmaking peak at the time...
14042
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 6:17am
Subject: The Militant on "Fahrenheit 9/11"
http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6831/683142.html
14043
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 6:39am
Subject: Re: The Fugitive
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> I like The Fugitive and The Informer both. Sam Fuller LOVED The
> Informer -- it's a shame his "rap" when he used to screen a 16
print
> at home was never recorded for posterity, although God knows JR and
I
> tried. I can understand why lovers of later Ford look askance at
the
> Expressionist work as being inferior to the purity of something
like
> Wagnomaster, but it's kind of like turning the silly thesis of Noel
> Burch on its head and using Lang's American films to beat Mabuse
der
> Spieler and M over the head.
I find that when Ford is in his moody, expressionist mode (The Long
Voyage Home is another example, although that film has many lovely
moments), he seems to be straining for effect. It's not just in
juxtaposition to later Ford, though -- Doctor Bull, for instance, was
from the year before The Informer, and I think it is a much richer,
more moving and ultimately much more "artistic" achievement. And in
Ford's more naturalistic films, the emotional effects are achieved
seemingly so effortlessly that the movies seem almost miraculous.
Curiously, not only is Ford my favorite director but Graham Greene is
my favorite novelist, so The Fugitive should have been heaven. And
for me the one great adaptation of a Greene novel is End of the
Affair, even though otherwise I don't find Neil Jordan to be a
particularly interesting filmmaker.
14044
From: Andy Rector
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:11am
Subject: Re: The Militant on "Fahrenheit 9/11"
The best piece I've read about the film.
Thank you Jack!
yours,
andy
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6831/683142.html
14045
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:24am
Subject: Re: The Fugitive
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> It's not just in juxtaposition to later Ford, though -- Doctor
Bull, for instance, was
> from the year before The Informer, and I think it is a much richer,
> more moving and ultimately much more "artistic" achievement
I completely agree -- that's one of my very favorites.
> Curiously, not only is Ford my favorite director but Graham Greene
is
> my favorite novelist, so The Fugitive should have been heaven. And
> for me the one great adaptation of a Greene novel is End of the
> Affair, even though otherwise I don't find Neil Jordan to be a
> particularly interesting filmmaker.
Welles wanted to do The Honorary Consul and wrote a script (he knew
Greene, I assume from the Third Man), but he couldn't get funding and
the Paramount disaster knocked him out of contention. I believe
Greene refused Hitchcock the rights to Our Man in Havana, but I
wouldn't stake my life on it. If so, that makes two wonderful
opportunities that were missed.
14046
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:47am
Subject: She Hate Me
Or: How to Piss EVERYBODY off. Make a film about the ultimate ok
topic for 2004 -- The Corporation, Enron, the Noble Embattled
Whistleblower -- and stick in the middle of it a sleazy, cartoon-y
sex comedy about a black stud impregnating lesbians. Exactly what
John Armstrong's stunning lawyer berates him for doing in the film:
Here she is building a case for him as the noble, embattled
whistleblower, and he goes off and gets involved in a sleazy get-rich-
quick scheme impregnating lesbians. So Armstrong is Spike Lee, and
even the most bizarre attacks on him -- like the black cop who rails
at him for besmirching the image of African Americans -- become
comprehehensible.
Sony pulled it from all but one theatre, where I caught it tonight.
Too bad -- the six people who were at the Beverly Connection with me
were having a great time. I loved the sex, the lesbians, the
cartoons, the John Turturro scenes, the young Mafiosi talking to
Armstrong about rap, the scene with Armstrong's buddy in the sperm
bank (which brings all these issues of neo-eugenics and genetic
engineering down to earth: two guys suddenly realizing the
implications of what they're doing), all the brilliant Watergate
stuff, the fact that he managed to drag in not only AIDS but diabetes
(which has reached epidemic proportions in the African American
population), the fact that Monica Belluci ALMOST shows her breasts
but doesn't for a change, the skewering of Teddy Kennedy and the
whole Senate in the person of Brian Dennehy, the ironies involved in
the German doctor's suicide, the scene where Woody Harrelson
addresses his employees, the amazing allusion to Clarence Thomas
(when Armstrong uses the phrase "high-tech lynching"), the outrageous
happy ending, the opening credits, the end cedits ("Mission
Accomplished").
What can I say, I love the guy. He puts more good ideas in one film
than H'wd has had in the last 20 years. Go, Spike.
PS - Can you imagine how boring the film would be without those
wonderful lesbians? "I was in a tight situation..."
14047
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:01am
Subject: Re: The Fugitive
> I find that when Ford is in his moody, expressionist mode (The
Long
> Voyage Home is another example, although that film has many lovely
> moments), he seems to be straining for effect.
I can see the effort being made (it's expressionistic, after all,
not naturalistic), but I suppose we must disagree on the strain
part. Or that I think he strains and succeeds, mostly.
> And in
> Ford's more naturalistic films, the emotional effects are achieved
> seemingly so effortlessly that the movies seem almost miraculous.
No disagreement there.
> for me the one great adaptation of a Greene novel is End of the
> Affair, even though otherwise I don't find Neil Jordan to be a
> particularly interesting filmmaker.
Odd, I like the film enough, I just don't think it's my favorite of
Jordans (I don't know--Company of Wolves, maybe?), and perhaps my
biggest plaint is that the hero (or heel) and heroine (or...well,
you get the structure) do get together again onscreen, which ruined
the perfectly sustained condition of blueballs Greene managed in the
novel.
14048
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 2:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Chicagoans go see GIDEON'S DAY!
> Some Fordian elements in GIDEON'S DAY: his treatment of the young
> cop, who deserves both a spanking and a medal. The scene with the
> bereaved mother. The devoted but independent-minded hero's wife. His
> daughter, who presents to Gideon a feminized version of his strength
> and shrewdness, tempered with teenaged brashness and romanticism. (I'm
> thinking of Shirley Temple in FORT APACHE.) And especially Gideon's
> relationship with his superior and subordinates, the camaraderie and
> natural devotion to duty Ford depicts and contrasts against their
> day-to-day work, dealing with dishonesty and murder. Why, it's a Ford
> film after all.
Seeing GIDEON a few weeks ago made me start trying on a theory that
there's something intrinsically comic about Ford's style, and that
something of the distinctive feeling of his serious films might come
from this infusion of the comic. Certainly Ford's way of directing
actors, which is distinctive (and is not always considered his strong
point), has the effect of making it natural for him to lapse into overt
comedy at almost any time, with no big sense of transition. - Dan
14049
From:
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 2:58pm
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
The movie brings me to the inescapable conclusion that Spike Lee is
better when he doesn't know what he wants to say. For me, the movie
has a lot of terrible, slightly less great, and a whole lot of huh?
The early reviews seem to have zeroed in on the movie's
homophobia/sexism, not because it's particularly pronounced (at
least, not for Spike Lee), but because it's the easiest thread to
extract from the movie's tangled skein. But Kerry Washington's
character is probably the strongest and most complex woman in any Lee
movie, and the final embrace of non-traditional families is, if not
totally convincing, at least sincere. What's both intriguing and
unsatisfying for me is Lee's insistence on finding new and often
contrived angles of approach on endlessly debated issues: i.e. he
obviously wants to address the issue of African-American men who
don't act as fathers to their children, so he conjures up a black man
who is contractually obligated to abandon his offspring. Did I say
"huh" yet? It's certainly a more intriguing movie than a lot of
reviews have given it credit for, and does some pretty nifty things
with Super 16 to boot.
Sam
14050
From:
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:02am
Subject: Re: Chicagoans go see GIDEON'S DAY!
Many of Ford's great films are rich in comedy, such as "Up the River" and
"The Quiet Man".
In general, pre-contemporary popular culture was often comedy oriented. This
was true of prose mystery and comics, as well as film. The current wave of
what Dorothy L. Sayers called "grimth" is something distinctly different in film
- pointless grimness for its own sake. It can be really hard to take in
contemporary movies.
Would really love to see "Gideon's Day"!
Mike Grost
14051
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:05pm
Subject: Re: The Fugitive
>it has the
> feel of a Russian proletariat film.
Yes, the iconic shadows are what stand out the most in memory.
> The film IS strikingly shot -- Gabriel Figourea's lighting evokes
> Vermeer at times --
What is so stunning about "Nazarin" is that you can't "bust" his light
sources in the interiors; they are absolutely articulated and patterned
but he does not reveal his hand: no virtual line drawn back to "source
specifically over HERE; another right THERE"
-Sam
14052
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:14pm
Subject: Aspect Ratios Again
As late as 1957 the 1.33 (or 1.37 as JPC would correctly have it)was
being used by Budd Boetticher and Burnett Guffey in DECISION AT
SUNDOWN (Columbia release in Technicolor.) I saw a 35mm print
yesterday at the Monica in its large auditorium with a 1935 Three
Stooges short also 35mm and in the academic aspect ratio, so I could
compare the ratios of both pictures. The tell is whether or not the
logo is cropped and if not, how much space is visible at the top
above the torch and the feet below. DECISION AT SUNDOWN very
definetely looked like it was framed for 1.33 judging by shots where
the top of the actor's head touches the upper edge of the frame.
How much longer did directors and dps frame for 1.33? Did those of
you who recently saw GIDEON'S DAY/GIDEON OF SCOTLAND YARD note the
aspect ratio?
Richard
14053
From: Dave Kehr
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:42pm
Subject: Expressionist Ford
While we’re talking about expressionist Ford, let’s not forget that he got
started on that path when he was at Fox with Murnau. “Four Sons” and
“Pilgrimage” both show strong signs of Murnau’s influence. It’s almost as
if he were developing a parallel style – an “artistic” one that he would use
in his prestige pictures, like “The Informer” and “The Long Voyage Home,”
and the “plain” one he would use for what he called his “potboilers” and
what we call his masterpieces.
Some recent discussion in this group finally got me to see Resnais’ “I Want
to Go Home,” which I found very interesting. The American characters are
all portrayed as the French cliché of Americans – childish,
anti-intellectual, sentimental, instinctive, etc. – while the French
characters embody all of the American clichés about the French – they’re
rude, snobbish, impatient, coldly intellectual, etc. A great idea, but it’s
easy to understand why the film was despised on both sides of the Atlantic.
Dave Kehr
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14054
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:45pm
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
he
> obviously wants to address the issue of African-American men who
> don't act as fathers to their children, so he conjures up a black
man
> who is contractually obligated to abandon his offspring. Did I say
> "huh" yet?
Good point. As for your overall reaction, satire on this level of
ambition is almost always going to be hit and miss. I thought of
Pasolini's Hawks and Sparrows while I was watching -- not a perfectly
successful film by any means, but one I'd be sorry to have to do
without. Which should underline that I don't feel the film is
homophobic -- the lesbians are very likeable and fun, and the story
and characterizations are as balls-out pro-gay marriage as any I've
seen. Actually, I was less satisfied than you with the attempts at
serious characterization. But I believed the sperm.
Does anyone know if the film will be released outside of LA and NY,
or did the critical pranging it took consign it to early video
release?
14055
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: She Hate Me
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> I thought of
> Pasolini's Hawks and Sparrows while I was watching
> -- not a perfectly
> successful film by any means, but one I'd be sorry
> to have to do
> without.
And I think it'sa masterpiece -- A key Pasolini.
Which should underline that I don't feel
> the film is
> homophobic -- the lesbians are very likeable and
> fun, and the story
> and characterizations are as balls-out pro-gay
> marriage as any I've
> seen.
If Spike Lee ever met a lesbian he seems to have
erased the event from his brain pan.
> Does anyone know if the film will be released
> outside of LA and NY,
> or did the critical pranging it took consign it to
> early video
> release?
>
>
Died the Death. Video Express.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14056
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:57pm
Subject: Re: Expressionist Ford
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Kehr" wrote:
> While we're talking about expressionist Ford, let's not forget that
he got
> started on that path when he was at Fox with Murnau. "Four Sons"
and
> "Pilgrimage" both show strong signs of Murnau's influence. It's
almost as
> if he were developing a parallel style – an "artistic" one that he
would use
> in his prestige pictures, like "The Informer" and "The Long Voyage
Home,"
> and the "plain" one he would use for what he called
his "potboilers" and
> what we call his masterpieces.
>
The plainest work of the period -- which is in the minority -- was
all done at Fox (the Will Rogers films), while the most flamboyant
films tend to be for RKO or UA. He kept running away from home
looking for the independence to make more experimental films, but
when he finally found himself at the end of the 30s he came back to
Fox and made the series of masterpieces that begin with Lincoln, his
self-portrait of the artist as a (not so) young man.
Jean Douchet said (I'm repeating an earlier post which raised some
eyebrows) that Murnau showed Ford how to give Griffith's universe an
unconscious.
14057
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:59pm
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
> > I thought of
> > Pasolini's Hawks and Sparrows while I was watching
> > -- not a perfectly
> > successful film by any means, but one I'd be sorry
> > to have to do
> > without.
>
> And I think it'sa masterpiece -- A key Pasolini.
>
> Which should underline that I don't feel
> > the film is
> > homophobic -- the lesbians are very likeable and
> > fun, and the story
> > and characterizations are as balls-out pro-gay
> > marriage as any I've
> > seen.
>
> If Spike Lee ever met a lesbian he seems to have
> erased the event from his brain pan.
>
>
> > Does anyone know if the film will be released
> > outside of LA and NY,
> > or did the critical pranging it took consign it to
> > early video
> > release?
> >
> >
>
> Died the Death. Video Express.
>
>
Thanks, David.
14058
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Chicagoans go see GIDEON'S DAY!
> Many of Ford's great films are rich in comedy, such as "Up the River" and
> "The Quiet Man".
There aren't too many that aren't poised to break out into goofy comedy
at any moment. And the ones that aren't (the "expressionist" ones) are
the ones people usually don't like as much.
A lot of good comedies don't have an obvious "comic style," because such
a style can seem obvious. For instance, most Hawks comedies try for a
more dramatic ambience, the better to obtain the "What the hell is this
comic person doing in my serious universe?" effect. (BRINGING UP BABY
is something of an exception, wavering between obvious and
not-so-obvious comedy - it's a great film, but I see it as transitional
for Hawks.)
So when I talk about a "comic style" that Ford seems to come close to,
I'm thinking of a style that's identified with the genre, a style that's
easier to spot in comedies when no one powerful is directing. Something
about the acting and pacing of a lot of average comedies tips the viewer
off that a comedy is underway: a certain emphasis on the mechanical
aspects of the storytelling, a bit of signposting in the acting that
steers away from naturalistic detail and imparts a light, bright
coloring to the interactions.
Obviously, this idea is in its early stages. - Dan
14059
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 6:00pm
Subject: Ford's comic style [was GIDEON'S DAY!]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Many of Ford's great films are rich in comedy, such as "Up the
River" and
> > "The Quiet Man".
>
> There aren't too many that aren't poised to break out into goofy comedy
> at any moment. And the ones that aren't (the "expressionist" ones) are
> the ones people usually don't like as much.
>
> A lot of good comedies don't have an obvious "comic style," because
such
> a style can seem obvious. For instance, most Hawks comedies try for a
> more dramatic ambience, the better to obtain the "What the hell is this
> comic person doing in my serious universe?" effect. (BRINGING UP BABY
> is something of an exception, wavering between obvious and
> not-so-obvious comedy - it's a great film, but I see it as transitional
> for Hawks.)
>
> So when I talk about a "comic style" that Ford seems to come close to,
> I'm thinking of a style that's identified with the genre, a style
that's
> easier to spot in comedies when no one powerful is directing.
Something
> about the acting and pacing of a lot of average comedies tips the
viewer
> off that a comedy is underway: a certain emphasis on the mechanical
> aspects of the storytelling, a bit of signposting in the acting that
> steers away from naturalistic detail and imparts a light, bright
> coloring to the interactions.
>
> Obviously, this idea is in its early stages. - Dan
Anthony Mann has his own special way of doing this - and with him, his
favorite technique seems to be to keep the audiences from resting
comfortably with a protagonist and his goal-oriented narrative. In
fact, at times, there's no clear way to extract a comic moment from
its "deadly serious" context: the great moment early on in WINCHESTER
'73 (what a wonderful and strangely shaped western) where Lin McAdam
(James Stewart) and Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) try to draw
absent pistols is a perfect example of this.
Without a better explanation, I would have to say that some filmmakers
are simply more graceful at this transition than others - they make it
seem like it's not a transition at all.
-Jaime
14060
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 6:05pm
Subject: Mann, Kitses (Was: Ford's comic style)
> Anthony Mann has his own special way of doing this - and with him, his
> favorite technique seems to be to keep the audiences from resting
> comfortably with a protagonist and his goal-oriented narrative. In
> fact, at times, there's no clear way to extract a comic moment from
> its "deadly serious" context: the great moment early on in WINCHESTER
> '73 (what a wonderful and strangely shaped western) where Lin McAdam
> (James Stewart) and Dutch Henry Brown (Stephen McNally) try to draw
> absent pistols is a perfect example of this.
By the way: for New Yorkers who are attending the Mann festival, it's a
great time to dig out Jim Kitses' essay on Mann's Westerns in HORIZONS
WEST - one of the best pieces of film criticism ever. - Dan
14061
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 6:51pm
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Plays Itself
Thanks Andy. This is the only Andersen film I've seen and I would love to see
his other works -- I just noticed that a two-reel 16mm of EDWEARD
MUYBRIDGE is in my library's reserve collection.
I can see what you mean now about a more concise and "potent" version (and
I can even see what you mean about the film taking easy shots, how in its own
way it ingratiates the audience) -- I am guessing that something more along
the lines of Marker or Resnais is what you would prefer? (interestingly the film
has been marketed as being in the tradition of "Godard, Varda and Marker")
Kevin
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector" wrote:
>
> I can't comment at the length or with such eloquence as Kevin has but
> I'd like to say a few things.
> Thom's video makes some astounding connections with ideas beyond
> reproach, most of which have been mentioned already (architecture,
> public history, disrespect of space, etc.). I would argue for a more
> potent movie, for what he has to say that is important, in my
> opinion, does not fill a 2 1/2 hour or 3 hour video essay. In this
> video Thom is not an engaged filmmaker. Too much of his video is
> personal fetishism that seems esoteric against his expressed reason
> for making it. His films are full of this esotericism which usually
> results in a more lucid dynamism. Its a bit of an insult to his
> alternative LA to dwell on modernist architecture and spatial
> vagaries using a voiceover that often denies the chance to really see
> the clips as images--in my opinion a grave error that contributes to
> misconceptions in the same way as the offending Hollywood filmmaking
> which he takes to task, through commentary.
> Another objection within this decent film: his own footage, mostly of
> signs on poles directing production crews to their locations are
> highly dematerialized, delocalized, and more for sniggering than
> thinking.
> Maybe my objections are broad but as a filmmaker living in Los
> Angeles I found it 70% trifle and 30% useful as thought or practice.
>
> With great regret,
> andy
>
14062
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:13pm
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Plays Itself
Blame it on faulty sentence structure -- the clause on hard-boiled coddling
was directed more at Polanski than Eisenstein/Stalin. And I was thinking
specifically about OCTOBER when I brought in Eisenstein/Stalin as revisionist
historiographers.
Kevin
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Worrall"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
> wrote:
> >
> > I guess we have different interpretations of the term "Stalinist." I
> > take it you meant that Andersen was assuming a repressive air of
> > authoritarianism in his way of closing the case on CHINATOWN -- I
> > think he was making the same argument against the film, the way it
> > effectively revises popular history, like a Stalin-approved
> > Eisenstein movie, to coddle us into a hard-boiled sense of cynical
> > contentment regarding both our present and our past.
>
> Huh?! Alexander Nevsky? Ivan the Terrible? How do they "coddle" the
> viewer?
14063
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:38pm
Subject: Re: Los Angeles Plays Itself
Blame it on faulty sentence structure -- the clause on hard-boiled coddling
was directed more at Polanski than Eisenstein/Stalin. And I was thinking
specifically about OCTOBER when I brought in Eisenstein/Stalin as revisionist
historiographers.
Kevin
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Worrall"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
> wrote:
> >
> > I guess we have different interpretations of the term "Stalinist." I
> > take it you meant that Andersen was assuming a repressive air of
> > authoritarianism in his way of closing the case on CHINATOWN -- I
> > think he was making the same argument against the film, the way it
> > effectively revises popular history, like a Stalin-approved
> > Eisenstein movie, to coddle us into a hard-boiled sense of cynical
> > contentment regarding both our present and our past.
>
> Huh?! Alexander Nevsky? Ivan the Terrible? How do they "coddle" the
> viewer?
14064
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Re: Expressionist Ford
> The American characters are
> all portrayed as the French cliché of Americans – childish,
> anti-intellectual, sentimental, instinctive, etc. – while the French
> characters embody all of the American clichés about the French – they're
> rude, snobbish, impatient, coldly intellectual, etc.
Which is reprised, in a way, in PAS SUR LA BOUCHE ...?
I dislike the exagerrated tone of both films, and prefer Resnais when he in=
tercuts his
fantasy world with real situations and real characters. But that's just me:=
I seem to be
in the minority with the latest one.
Gabe
14065
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:54pm
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
On SHE HATE ME:
> > Died the Death. Video Express.
> >
> >
> Thanks, David.
No, it's still around. Chicago has it for at least another week. It was only press
screened at the last minute, so several critics never saw it.
Gabe
14066
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 8:02pm
Subject: Re: Mann, Kitses (Was: Ford's comic style)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> By the way: for New Yorkers who are attending the Mann festival,
it's a
> great time to dig out Jim Kitses' essay on Mann's Westerns in
HORIZONS
> WEST - one of the best pieces of film criticism ever. - Dan
If any of you read French and can locate it, Jacques Ranciere's
Trafic essay on the Stewart-Mann films is great. I don't have an
index to tell me when it appeared, but it is also reprinted in
Jacques' last book, La fable cinematographique. Let me stress: it's
really worth a look.
14067
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 8:05pm
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> On SHE HATE ME:
>
> > > Died the Death. Video Express.
> > >
> > >
> > Thanks, David.
>
> No, it's still around. Chicago has it for at least another week. It
was only press
> screened at the last minute, so several critics never saw it.
>
> Gabe
Hey, Gabe -- that's good to hear. I'll be watching for JR and MW's
reactions...and yours, if any of you gets to see it. This one is
really getting bulldozed out of existence.
14068
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 8:34pm
Subject: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
The films of Paul Morrissey. John Waters. Are these not examples of "good
bad acting"? Acting that seems "off" that it becomes a running commentary on
the principles of acting and performance -- not just in the movies but in
everyday human interactions? (someone wrote me a PM suggesting that I
seem enamoured of "psychological conventions" that enable me to deem a
performance as "good" or "bad". I'd rather like to think that what I'm doing is in
the service of challenging those conventions, as I'll explain below.) I think
what's really at stake here is to what extent auteurist thinking can (or should)
allow us to divorce our aesthetic tastes from the more "conventional" modes of
aesthetic evaluation. Sometimes I feel that the all-purpose auteurist defense
(that everything is intentional, everything is stylized, ergo everything is good)
plays a convenient shield preventing us from really engaging in what a film
might have to say.
I haven't seen enough Preminger films so I reserve judgment on his career-
long approach towards performance. But there was something about how
Webb, Price, Anderton are allowed to chew the scenery in this film that intially
led me to feel that Preminger was not in full control of his ensemble (this
despite the knowledge that Preminger discarded all Mamoulian-shot footage
and started over). But the way I subsequently rationalized it was that these
scenery-chewers, in their very act of chewing, reflected the desperate hanger-
on aspect of these social types, these "heels", to borrow Damien's term in his
revealing quote of Preminger. And now, thanks to Damien's quote, I feel more
comfortable with the assumption that Preminger was encouraging over-acting
in his actors, in such a way that points out the charming ridiculousness of
these poseurs (more charming in their own way than the relatively well-
adjusted blank-slates of Andrews and Tierney).
Regarding Stanwyck in DOUBLE INDEMNITY -- I actually didn't mean to lump
her in the same "good bad acting" as MacMurray or Robinson's revealingly
ecstatic monologue. Though reading your defense of Stanwyck actually
makes me feel more conscious of how iconicized and fetishized she is, in a
misogynistic way, like a DeKooning painting. A colleague of mine on another
board thought that Claire Trevor would have made for a more believably
human character, but I think that's missing the point -- Stanwyck is excellent
because of how INhuman she is: she's the embodiment of Walter Neff's
schmucky quiet desperation projected as a fetishized feminine fantasy
destined to be unfulfilled.
As much as I want to agree with you that Stanwyck's performance is "good" , I
want to qualify that goodness insofar as it, like the good bad performances in
LAURA, reveals to us something about performance as a metaphor for social
behavior, whether functional or dysfunctional. In this light, what I described
about Stanwyck's performance as being "stiff" or "thickly handled" goes
beyond merely assessing good or bad, but about how I think Billy Wilder, at
this point in his career, didn't know quite how to direct such a formidable
woman character such as Stanwyck's in any way other than the iconic
Hollywood Madonna-Whore model (still in its nascent stages at this time).
Here I would like to address Dan's response to me:
> I would have thought that even Wilder's fans (of which I am not one)
> would acknowledge a cartoonish streak in his direction of actors. In
> the last year or two, I've seen only KISS ME STUPID and part of SOME
> LIKE IT HOT, and the acting in both of them seemed like all cartoon, all
> the time.
I think that the cartoonishness of Wilder's late films is looser, more fluid and
more comfortable with itself (and certainly more open to self-criticism) than
what you see in the relatively constipated DOUBLE INDEMNITY. But don't get
me wrong, I'm not saying that the constipated acting of MacMurray is a bad
thing -- in fact it has a whole lot to say about the repression (social and
economical as well as sexual) of its time. I'm just not of the hardcore auteurist
mindset to credit Wilder for being fully responsible (or even conscious) of
what I consider great about the film.
Addressing Craig's question -- what's the significance of using a term like
"good bad acting" if I agree with Craig that the performances in these movies
are ultimately "good"? I guess for me the significance is that by calling a
performance "bad acting" one is acknowledging that there is a dominant, pre-
existing aesthetic code that differentiates between good and bad acting,
which for me correlates to a pre-dominant social code that differentiates
between good and bad behavior. This for me is the key -- insight on
cinematic performance has always got to reflect on insight on human
behavior at large. And so when I turn an instance of "bad" acting around and
argue for how it can be seen as "good", I am doing so as an analysis and
critique of social behavioral codes as realized onscreen. Thus the "badness"
of the acting LAURA and DOUBLE INDEMNITY gain value in how they
critique the forces that determine "good" behavior in the societies depicted
onscreen. So in this way perhaps you see that by definition I cannot
acknowledge how these performances are "good" without acknowledging
how they can be seen as "bad" -- because the two are inextricably linked, just
as my aesthetic argument is inextricably sociological as well.
My present dilemma is in determining how much of this "good bad acting" is
the intention of an auteur in certain cases, like LAURA or DOUBLE
INDEMNITY. In key films by Morrissey, Waters, Sirk, the acting is clearly
intended to be stylized in their respective mannerisms. Apparently such was
the case with LAURA, as I am now learning -- though I would still like to see
other Preminger films to make comparison (i still think it may be more
fascinating to argue that Preminger, directing his first feature, didn't have a full
grasp of his performances and their desired effects). In the case of Wilder, I
don't think he was in full control of what performance effects he wanted -- and
the overacting insurance boss who features prominently in one scene is my
Exhibit A. But despite his lack of virtuosity, Wilder was able to elicit three
performances whose thick, somewhat dehumanized characterizations of
people actually become vivid illustrations of the alienated and mechanized
behavior of modern society (a profound vision of 20th century inhumanity that
itself may have been an unintended effect of this journeyman's potboiler).
Kevin
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
> >>
> I find this to be a pretty strange thread, maybe just because I side
> with the fact that the acting in these films is "good," through and
> through. I don't find Stanwyck's performance (wrought of her own free
> will or cultivated by Wilder) to be stiff or "thickly handled." It's a
> power-house piece, she's the perfect desperate conniver, even down to
> the make-up level; her platinum bang-bob and plasticized lip-plate are
> like the grill on a Mack truck, the physical armor for her inner
> limpness. Which Stanwyck manages to put forth and hold back all at
> once -- one of the great performances of '40s Hollywood.
>
> craig.
14069
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:38pm
Subject: Miramax monopolism
Miramax is attacking etailers in the US who sell non US DVD of films
owned by Miramax in North American. Miramax has already stopped North
American-based DVD sellers on the Internet, including eBay, from
selling the import versions (uncut with subtitles) of the movies they
own the rights to, which is its prerogative, and a few days ago
MonkeyPeaches (http://www.monkeypeaches.com) were told by Miramax,
that either they stopped selling the Asian DVD of Hero or they would
face a lawsuit.
Last week Miramax openly accused the site Kung Fu Cinema of "selling,
distributing, and/or otherwise exploiting copies of the film `Hero' on
DVD and/or VHS" and ordered them to stop referring readers to
retailers outside of North America who sell legally manufactured
import versions of the movies that Miramax has distribution rights to.
More so, according to a legal representative of Miramax Films who
spoke with Kung Fu Cinema's owner Mark Pollard, the company also
claims that individuals caught importing a film into the U.S. that is
owned by Miramax could face legal action.
Henrik
14070
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:40pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
"(someone wrote me a PM suggesting that I
> seem enamoured of "psychological conventions" that enable me to
deem a
> performance as "good" or "bad". I'd rather like to think that
what I'm doing is in the service of challenging those conventions,
as I'll explain below....) "
"I guess for me the significance is that by calling a
performance "bad acting" one is acknowledging that there is a
dominant, pre- existing aesthetic code that differentiates between
good and bad acting, which for me correlates to a pre-dominant
social code that differentiates
between good and bad behavior. This for me is the key -- insight on
cinematic performance has always got to reflect on insight on human
behavior at large."
Kevin, how is the statement above a challenge to psychological
conventions? It seems you are relying again on what you consider
real motivations and behavior. My question to you in the PM -- I
thought it was going to a private correspondence, but I guess not--
was where the aspects of form/style come into your consideration. I
was not reaching for the all purpose auteur excuse, nor was I saying
that form must be absolutely be separated from content. (though it
seems that most people thought I was arguing that in a past
discussion-- and I haven't had the time to point where my argument
got twisted.) I was pointing out how perhaps form utimately shapes
the content. There is still a place for content but I don't give it
the "front seat", to referrence someone elses response to me.
"So in this way perhaps you see that by definition I cannot
acknowledge how these performances are "good" without acknowledging
how they can be seen as "bad" -- because the two are inextricably
linked, just as my aesthetic argument is inextricably sociological
as well."
This statement and "has always got to reflect" seems a bit enamored--
-your choice of word, not mine-- of realism. Again I ask, where
these directors interested or intending to make their fiction film
in a "realistic" vein?
Michael Worrall
14071
From:
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:48pm
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
Just saw a trailer for "She Hate Me" again today, when attending a screening
of "De-Lovely" here in Detroit. It is one of those "Long, Long Trailers" that
make one feel one has already seen the whole movie. So apparently, there are
still plans to unreel it here in Motown.
Mike Grost
14072
From:
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 6:02pm
Subject: Re: Expressionist Ford, Comedic Ford
Have only seen it once, but thought "Four Sons" was major Ford. It totally
swept me up, and got me concerned with the characters in the film, and their
emotional lives. Liked "Pilgrimage" too.
Would like to see both films again, and write a deeper commentary on them.
Really like Dan Sallitt's comments on Ford's comedy style. A thought: there
seems to be an element of "comedy of manners" in Ford. His characters are often
displaying forms of social politeness and gallantry that belong to other
societies - in the past, in the South Pacific, in Europe or wherever. Ford is
drawing a rich comedy of manners tradition, one that shows civilized behavior. In
"Sergeant Rutledge", much is made of the gallantries the men show the ladies
in the courtroom. This is delightfully funny, yet refined and admirable, too. A
key moment: when the prosecutor reveals by his impatience to the Colonel's
wife, that he really does not have anything substantial behind his surface
gallantry towards women. It is a betrayal of a civilizing code. The other
characters look a bit shocked - and it shocks me too in the audience. Meanwhile, both
the officers and the enlisted men have their own forms of codified mannered
gallantry to women, which seem to be sincere. All of this comes out of a "comedy
of manners" tradition in plays, books and film, which is at once comic,
sympathetic and concerned with educating the audience in the proper way to behave.
Mike Grost
14073
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 10:03pm
Subject: Re: Antonioni short in Chicago
> The Landmark theater at Century Center is showing MICHELANGELO EYE
TO EYE
> (2004, 17 mins.) by Antonioni.
>
> It showed today and will show again Saturday and Sunday at 11:50
AM only.
I just saw this film today, and I think it's quite wonderful. Based
on what I've been able to glean from the Internet, Landmark has been
releasing it in their theaters across the country (Warners
Independent Pictures is distributing, and it recently premiered at
Cannes with a restoration of BLOWUP) but hasn't been holding any
press screenings. I got in with a Landmark pass but was told that
the admission price for the short alone was $2.00 (it's showing with
INTIMATE STRANGERS).
The action consists of Antonioni himself entering the St. Pietro
church in Rome to look at and touch/caress the restoration of
Michelangelo's Moses and then leaving again: it sounds quite simple,
but like the montage sequence at the end of ECLIPSE, it's a very
intricate (and beautifully intricate) simplicity, in terms of
framing as well as editing. The only words in the film apart from
the credits are an opening intertitle explaining that Antonioni has
been confined to a wheelchair since his stroke in 1985, but through
the "magic of movies" shows himself visiting the sculpture on foot.
I'm not sure whether this is done with an (uncredited) body double
in some shots or digital trickery or both, but the results are
seamless. It looks like Antonioni before he had his stroke, walking
without a cane, so in a way the film can be described as one
restoration (Antonioni himself) interacting with another
(Michelangelo's Moses).
Jonathan
14074
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 10:06pm
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
>
> Hey, Gabe -- that's good to hear. I'll be watching for JR and MW's
> reactions...and yours, if any of you gets to see it. This one is
> really getting bulldozed out of existence.
Alas, I wasn't in town when the press screening was held, so I
assigned it to Jim Jones. But at least I managed to get to the
Antonioni (see separate post).
14075
From: Adam Hart
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 10:16pm
Subject: Re: Miramax monopolism
Jesus Christ. After sitting on Hero for two years, Miramax deserves
for all the tickets in the world to be sapped away by dvds. For
better or for worse, dvds are truly changing the industry, and are
allowng filmmakers and audiences to bypass distributors entirely.
The current slate of anti-Bush dvds (Outfoxed, Bush's Brain, etc.)
have demonstrated that you don't need a Miramax to sell independent
films. They got their support elsewhere and took their movies
straight to the public, and cinema programmers have followed suit.
Now you see things like Su Friedrich and Ken Jacob selling (in the
near future) dvds of their films themselves, through their own
websites or whatever. Independent filmmakers have been selling
videos on their own for years, but I think that the higher quality
of digital technology will make people take notice.
There's no way that Miramax can prohibit people from searching out
their films when they don't want to supply them. The internet
renders all national boundaries for video rights almost meaningless.
There are obvious drawbacks to this trend, but dvds are allowing
cinephiles to return to the source and bypass the mandated
interference of Harvey and Co. And, personally, I think that the
dvds of 'Hero' will help its attendance. Not a favorite of mine, but
once people see that it's certainly more than a 'Crouching Tiger'
knock-off, then they'll be more inclined to see it on a big screen,
as this is undoubtedly a movie that requires the biggest screen you
can find. And that will be obvious to anyone who sees it on a
television.
Wow, that message was kind of all over the place, wasn't it?
14076
From: Adam Hart
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 10:42pm
Subject: Re: Antonioni short in Chicago
The Antonioni short, which I saw yesterday in Seattle, is indeed
wonderful. Warner Independent has saddled it with the unfortunate
title "Michelangelo Eye to Eye" rather than a more accurate
translation such as "Michelangelo's Gaze." It's a sad film - it
feels as though this is the film they'll play at Antonioni's
funeral. The simple act of the filmmaker, "magically" standing,
contemplating the perfect and practically eternal marble specimens
that have already lasted several centuries is heartbreaking. His
eyes start to water ever so slightly as he studies the statues. Is
he contemplating his own flesh, contrasted against the eternal
perfection of the marble? Perhaps wondering how long his own art
will outlast him? And he has placed himself onscreen to be studied
just as he has studied his actors and actresses, and now studies the
other Michelangelo's statues.
All this might sound terribly simplistic (I hope it's clear that
those are my impressions, jotted down in my little notebook, and not
anythin made explicit in the film - an I think it's obvious from
rereading the above paragraph that I've been writing too many
program descriptions lately...), but I don't think Antonioni's main
concern has ever been creating new discourses (except, perhaps,
those more formalistic in nature), but in conveying the full, almost
mythical importance of ambiguous, sometimes contradictory emotions
that can sometimes seem so banal, or even distasteful, that we try
to disparage them or discard them entirely. 'Eye to Eye' is a film
about an old man staring at himself in a mirror, basically. Along
with 'I'm Going Home', it might be one of the supreme statements on
aging, and dying, that the cinema has produced.
Then again, I'm almost exactly 1/4 the age of the filmmaker, so
maybe I should shut up about such things for another decade or two.
14077
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 10:51pm
Subject: contemporary comedy body humor jokes / scenes
I wonder if we see more body humor jokes / scenes because they are
often equal humanity offenders? Additionally, they have minimal
intelligence requirements.
> In general, pre-contemporary popular culture was often comedy
> oriented. This
> was true of prose mystery and comics, as well as film. The current
> wave of
> what Dorothy L. Sayers called "grimth" is something distinctly
> different in film
> - pointless grimness for its own sake. It can be really hard to take in
> contemporary movies.
> Mike Grost
14078
From:
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 10:56pm
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
>
>Does anyone know if the film will be released outside of LA and NY,
>or did the critical pranging it took consign it to early video
>release?
Opens in Philly on Friday. I imagine Spike's got the clout to mandate
a minimum number of cities, which is probably exactly what he'll get.
Sam
14079
From:
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 10:58pm
Subject: Re: Miramax Monopolism
Well, if they didn't sit on movies for two years, they wouldn't run
into this problem, now would they? Zhang Yimou recently told Salon,
"All Chinese people in the US have already seen this movie."
Obviously Miramax has the money to sue people, but does anyone know
if they have a leg to stand on? If I legally buy a copy from a site
in another country and they ship it to me, have any laws been broken?
Likewise, is there anything actually illegal about region-free
players, or is it just overwhelming industry pressure that keeps them
off the market (wink, wink)?
Sam
>
> Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 21:38:04 -0000
> From: "Henrik Sylow"
>Subject: Miramax monopolism
>
>Miramax is attacking etailers in the US who sell non US DVD of films
>owned by Miramax in North American. Miramax has already stopped North
>American-based DVD sellers on the Internet, including eBay, from
>selling the import versions (uncut with subtitles) of the movies they
>own the rights to, which is its prerogative, and a few days ago
>MonkeyPeaches (http://www.monkeypeaches.com) were told by Miramax,
>that either they stopped selling the Asian DVD of Hero or they would
>face a lawsuit.
>
>Last week Miramax openly accused the site Kung Fu Cinema of "selling,
>distributing, and/or otherwise exploiting copies of the film `Hero' on
>DVD and/or VHS" and ordered them to stop referring readers to
>retailers outside of North America who sell legally manufactured
>import versions of the movies that Miramax has distribution rights to.
>
>More so, according to a legal representative of Miramax Films who
>spoke with Kung Fu Cinema's owner Mark Pollard, the company also
>claims that individuals caught importing a film into the U.S. that is
>owned by Miramax could face legal action.
>
Henrik
14080
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:00pm
Subject: Aspect Ratios Again A TOUCH OF PINK
There is a scene in A TOUCH OF PINK in which the characters
enter into a movie set scene (one of the characters is a
photographer on a movie shoot).
I don't know the ratios, but the film itself is in "regular" ratios
and when the character and his fantasy friend (Cary Grant) enter
the movie set scene, the frame of the masking changes during the
movie; you literally see the upper frame coming down to shrink the
ratio -- almost as if the projectionist decided to change the ratios.
It
was an unusual effect, but too slow for the movie as it took you away
from the center of the screen, yet any faster would have been intrusive.
I don't know what the solution would have been other than a gradual
fading out of the edges rather than what seemed to be movement of
the masking frames.
14081
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:04pm
Subject: SHE HATE ME trailer shown in SD Landmark.
Preview trailers of SHE HATE ME has been shown in SD Landmark theater.
> From: "hotlove666"
> Subject: Re: She Hate Me
> Does anyone know if the film will be released outside of LA and NY,
> or did the critical pranging it took consign it to early video
> release?
14082
From: Hadrian
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:05pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
I think one has to consider that acting in general, like dialogue,
and plots, and just about everything else connected to human
behavior that's used in Drama, is almost always a highly
conventionalized version of reality. Haven't most of us heard
examples of how even the most "realistic" dialogue is stylized,
articulated, condensed, etc, compared to the natural repetitive
meandiring that real conversations tend to be made up of?
These conventions --of dialogue, behavior, and
performance--are useful ways to dramatically mirror our lives,
but change subtly from generation to generation, so often older
films seem more artificial and strange than newer ones...until a
couple more years pass. Another reason why it's hard to get
people to watch movies before their time.
This is a roundabout way for me to say it's hard for me to make
strong judgements about something as subtle as performance
in films from other times and places. I can be told the sensitivity
Renoir has for casting against type, but can't really feel it
--because i don't know how each actor would be received in that
place and time. All of his actors look appropriately cast to me,
because it's usually through these films that i'm learning about
this culture, and those actors.
With all that in mind, when I watch old Billy Wilder movies, or any
classic director for that matter, it's like a new country I'm visiting,
and I don't judge the acting for it's BELIEVABILITY. Of course,
other aspects of acting can be noticed: energy, imagination,
interpretation, intensity....but judging something stylized as BAD
seems doubtful. You gotta take things for what they are trying to
be.
hadrian
Hadrian
>
> Addressing Craig's question -- what's the significance of using
a term like
> "good bad acting" if I agree with Craig that the performances in
these movies
> are ultimately "good"? I guess for me the significance is that
by calling a
> performance "bad acting" one is acknowledging that there is a
dominant, pre-
> existing aesthetic code that differentiates between good and
bad acting,
> which for me correlates to a pre-dominant social code that
differentiates
> between good and bad behavior. This for me is the key --
insight on
> cinematic performance has always got to reflect on insight on
human
> behavior at large. And so when I turn an instance of "bad"
acting around and
> argue for how it can be seen as "good", I am doing so as an
analysis and
> critique of social behavioral codes as realized onscreen. Thus
the "badness"
> of the acting LAURA and DOUBLE INDEMNITY gain value in
how they
> critique the forces that determine "good" behavior in the
societies depicted
> onscreen. So in this way perhaps you see that by definition I
cannot
> acknowledge how these performances are "good" without
acknowledging
> how they can be seen as "bad" -- because the two are
inextricably linked, just
> as my aesthetic argument is inextricably sociological as well.
>
> My present dilemma is in determining how much of this "good
bad acting" is
> the intention of an auteur in certain cases, like LAURA or
DOUBLE
> INDEMNITY. In key films by Morrissey, Waters, Sirk, the acting
is clearly
> intended to be stylized in their respective mannerisms.
Apparently such was
> the case with LAURA, as I am now learning -- though I would
still like to see
> other Preminger films to make comparison (i still think it may
be more
> fascinating to argue that Preminger, directing his first feature,
didn't have a full
> grasp of his performances and their desired effects). In the
case of Wilder, I
> don't think he was in full control of what performance effects he
wanted -- and
> the overacting insurance boss who features prominently in one
scene is my
> Exhibit A. But despite his lack of virtuosity, Wilder was able to
elicit three
> performances whose thick, somewhat dehumanized
characterizations of
> people actually become vivid illustrations of the alienated and
mechanized
> behavior of modern society (a profound vision of 20th century
inhumanity that
> itself may have been an unintended effect of this journeyman's
potboiler).
>
> Kevin
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> > >>
> > I find this to be a pretty strange thread, maybe just because I
side
> > with the fact that the acting in these films is "good," through
and
> > through. I don't find Stanwyck's performance (wrought of her
own free
> > will or cultivated by Wilder) to be stiff or "thickly handled." It's
a
> > power-house piece, she's the perfect desperate conniver,
even down to
> > the make-up level; her platinum bang-bob and plasticized
lip-plate are
> > like the grill on a Mack truck, the physical armor for her inner
> > limpness. Which Stanwyck manages to put forth and hold
back all at
> > once -- one of the great performances of '40s Hollywood.
> >
> > craig.
14083
From: Hadrian
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:10pm
Subject: More Good-Bad Acting
one other thought in answer to the question of directors who
purposefully direct their actors to be "bad"...which in this case,
i'm interpreting as "unrealistic".
Watching the Rivette documentary on Renoir recently, something
came up pretty relevant. Renoir was very conscous of stylizing
performance as a way to be artful and expressive. He takes the
point of view that audiences essentially will only accept movies
as a photographic medium, so it's not in a director's best interest
to tamper to much with external realities (he uses the example of
make-up, but i think it could be applied to all kinds of
expressionistic devices). But you can tamper with the
performances, and people will accept it more easily.
Aside from the fact that i think his basic premise has dated
considerably...modern audiences will accept much higher levels
of stylization, he has an interesting point. And certainly
demonstrates his willingness to push the envelope of "good bad
acting".
hadrian
14084
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 0:04am
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
.) I think
> what's really at stake here is to what extent auteurist thinking
can (or should)
> allow us to divorce our aesthetic tastes from the
more "conventional" modes of
> aesthetic evaluation. Sometimes I feel that the all-purpose
auteurist defense
> (that everything is intentional, everything is stylized, ergo
everything is good)
> plays a convenient shield preventing us from really engaging in
what a film
> might have to say.
But isn't "auteurist thinking" a conventional mode of aesthetic
evaluation?
> I haven't seen enough Preminger films so I reserve judgment on his
career-
> long approach towards performance. But there was something about
how
> Webb, Price, Anderton are allowed to chew the scenery in this film
that intially
> led me to feel that Preminger was not in full control of his
ensemble
He WAS in control, because they are the kind of people who do
chew the scenery. especially Waldo. (moreover, Price doesn't really
chew the scenery; he is most restrained and underplaying, as a matter
of fact. So I don't really see what you mean).
. And now, thanks to Damien's quote, I feel more
> comfortable with the assumption that Preminger was encouraging over-
acting
> in his actors, in such a way that points out the charming
ridiculousness of
> these poseurs
True except that it is not "over-acting" -- just acting as the
part required!
JPC
(
14085
From:
Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 8:34pm
Subject: De-Lovely
Just saw De-Lovely (Irwin Winkler) around a month after everyone else on-list
saw it (a hazard of living outside of New York & LA). This is a musical
biopic of Cole Porter, complete with many of his best-loved songs. The film fits
into that big group of "musicals which are highly imperfect, yet give a lot of
pleasure". As in umpteen other musicals before it, the song and dance numbers
are a lot better than the backstage plot. Highlights: "Let's Fall in Love",
"Night and Day", "Blow, Gabriel, Blow". The film also gives pleasure by being
full of colorful, extravagent sets and costumes, that transport one to a dream
world. It desperately needs someone like Resnais to give it true visual style.
But still, it is pleasing to see a film that is like a Technicolor riot.
Recently read Adrian Martin's survey of World Cinema musicals in "Movie
Mutations". An interesting overview, full of recommended rarities. Good reading!
Mike Grost
14086
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 0:52am
Subject: Re: More Good-Bad Acting
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Hadrian" wrote:
Repeat post: In Rohmer's Le Gout de la Beaute there's an essay he
wrote for Arts about The Little Theatre of Jean Renoir that discusses
the issue of "bad" acting in Renoir's films in depth.
14087
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 0:53am
Subject: She Hate Me
Glad to hear folks in Philly, Detroit and San Diego get to see it. If
anyone does decide to go, think Run of the Arrow.
14088
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:19am
Subject: Bad acting: simple/simplistic questions
1. What is "bad" acting? Without a definition, there is no point in
discussing "bad" and "good" or "good bad". Maybe there's no point
with a definition either.
2. Are there any great films that have bad acting in them? (I don't
mean an occasional character actor in a small role, but a major
player).
3. If so, are they great in spite of or because of the bad acting? Or
doesn't the acting have anything to do with the greatness? And if so,
why care about the acting at all?
14089
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:46am
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
"...(i still think it may be more fascinating to argue that
Preminger, directing his first feature, didn't have a full grasp of
his performances and their desired effects)"
LAURA was Preminger's 6th or 7th feature, and prior to directing
movies he directed plays in Europe and on Broadway. He knew what he
was doing with actors, and morever he had experience in front of the
camera as an actor himself (and directed himself in a secondary role
in a Broadway show too.) The acting in LAURA is all of piece with the
mise-en-scene. The expression "good bad acting" dosen't seem to be a
useful descriptive term.
There are several variables involved in calling acting good or bad:
the skill of the peformer, the range of the peformer and the kind of
production. For example, telegraphing is bad in Ibsenite theatre but
good in Epic theatre, and some actors easliy adapt to any given style
of acting. To make a cross-cultural comparison, the same actor in a
Japanese period film changes his or her style of acting for a
contemporary story. If the acting serves the overall design of a
given story than it should be called simply good acting.
There are two other adaptations of LAURA other than Preminger's
verision and both were for television. One dated from the 1950s and
had George Sanders as Waldo and the other was from the early 1970s
and again with Sanders as Waldo. This version was adapted by Truman
Capote and featured Farley Granger as Shelby and Lee Radzwell as
Laura. Capote updated the story to the then present. It would be
interesting to compare all three since there were three different
directors working in three different eras.
Richard
14090
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:08am
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> There are several variables involved in calling
> acting good or bad:
> the skill of the peformer, the range of the peformer
> and the kind of
> production.
There's only one "variable" anyone in here is
interested in -- naturalism.
If the acting doesn't conform to cliched "realistic"
cues (eg. Brando in "On the Waterfront," Gregory Peck
in "To Kill a Mockingbird, -- honeycured ham all the
way), then it's "bad."
There's absolutely nothing "bad" about any of the
performers in either "Laura" or ( heaven help us! )
"Double Indemnity"
Is everyone in here ignorant of Jack Smith's seminal
essay "The Perfect Cinematic Appositeness of Maria
Montez" ?
It's the most complex and sustained defense of "bad
acting" ever written.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14091
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:00am
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
Wasn't it conventional wisdom among auteurists that Preminger was
usually indifferent to performance? Fred Camper mentioned this to me
many years ago when I asked him why it seemed that the work of all
great directors featured great acting. Sarris also refers to this in
his entry on Preminger. Possibly his meticulous "construction" of Jean
Seberg contradicts this perception. Does someone such as Joe McElhaney
have any knowledge of the history of this issue?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
"...(i still think it may be more fascinating to argue that
Preminger, directing his first feature, didn't have a full grasp of
his performances and their desired effects)"
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14092
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:41am
Subject: Re: The Militant on "Fahrenheit 9/11"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector" wrote:
> The best piece I've read about the film.
> Thank you Jack!
>
> yours,
> andy
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
> wrote:
> > http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6831/683142.html
There are several articles for and against "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s
line at counterpunch.org.
http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine07022004.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen07052004.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo06142004.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06302004.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/bardacke07292004.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/wolff06162004.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/rosenthal07032004.html
However, I think you should take into account the film's ability
to reach and speak to a wide audience, which is related to Moore's
populism, which has its own strengths and weaknesses, with both
political and artistic consequences.
Paul
14093
From:
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 0:52am
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>If the acting doesn't conform to cliched "realistic"
>cues (eg. Brando in "On the Waterfront," Gregory Peck
>in "To Kill a Mockingbird, -- honeycured ham all the
>way), then it's "bad."
Hmm... well, acting is not the primary reason I love Robert Mulligan films in
general nor "To Kill A Mockingbird" in specific, but I actually think Peck is
really good in "Mockingbird." And is he playing it realistically? I always
agreed with Dave Kehr's observation that Atticus is being viewed through the
eyes of the children; that doesn't suggest to me that Peck was playing it in a
naturalistic vein, and I don't think the performance comes across as such.
A belated reply to Patrick Ciccone in the David Raksin thread: I've not seen
the 1998 "Otto Preminger," unfortunately. I have seen an interesting,
thorough, and not at all uncritical documentary about him entitled "Anatomy of a
Filmmaker"; I believe it was produced by his son, Erik, who was involved in
several of his father's late films. It's included as a supplemental feature on the
DVD release of "The Cardinal."
Peter
14094
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:09am
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
Richard Modiano wrote:
>.... telegraphing is bad in Ibsenite theatre but
>good in Epic theatre....
>
It is a fundamental consequence of my personal brand of auteurism that
"good" or "bad" in acting cannot be determined separately from
considering the whole film, and in particular the appropriateness of the
performance style to the filmmaker's vision. My interest in acting, at
least in a great film, is not a question of whether I like the character
or find him interestingly or subtly or artfully portrayed on his own,
but how the performance contributes to the whole. Dean Martin's Dude in
"Rio Bravo" would make no more sense in a John Ford film than would
Jeffrey Hunter's Martin in "The Searchers" work in a Hawks film.
I once showed "Written on the Wind" at Bard College. Actually, twice.
The first time, in the late 1970s, in what must have been an excellent
course on Sirk co-taught by Paul Arthur and Warren Sonbert, the students
were sympathetic. The second time, circa 1990 I believe, with both of
those instructors long since departed that institution, they were not.
And they complained about a "bad" script and "bad" acting. What was an
example of a "good" script and "good" acting, I asked. "A Place in the
Sun." I started looking at the exit signs. Dorothy Malone's Marylee
would not, in fact, exemplify "good" acting in a Ford film, and probably
not in a George Stevens film either.
I have fond memories of a few moving performances in otherwise
uninteresting films: Olivier's Wiesnthal like character in "The Boys
From Brazil" comes to mind, as well as Rita Hayworth's wonderful
portrayal of a drunk -- was it the real her then that she was
portraying? -- in "The Money Trap." When there's no total vision
controlling things, a performance can stand out.
And I say all this without even mentioning Bresson.
Fred Camper
14095
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:15am
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
Kevin:
> In this light, what I described
> about Stanwyck's performance as being "stiff" or "thickly handled" goes
> beyond merely assessing good or bad, but about how I think Billy Wilder, at
> this point in his career, didn't know quite how to direct such a formidable
> woman character such as Stanwyck's in any way other than the iconic
> Hollywood Madonna-Whore model (still in its nascent stages at this time).
I don't have any problem with our speculating about whether a director
had control of a performance or not, but it's a difficult thing to nail
down. If we've ultimately decided that the performance helps the film
rather than hurts it, then we might hesitate to assume that the director
had no control over the good result. This is true even if we perceive
incoherence or extra-cinematic qualities in the performances.
> I guess for me the significance is that by calling a
> performance "bad acting" one is acknowledging that there is a dominant, pre-
> existing aesthetic code that differentiates between good and bad acting,
> which for me correlates to a pre-dominant social code that differentiates
> between good and bad behavior. This for me is the key -- insight on
> cinematic performance has always got to reflect on insight on human
> behavior at large. And so when I turn an instance of "bad" acting around and
> argue for how it can be seen as "good", I am doing so as an analysis and
> critique of social behavioral codes as realized onscreen. Thus the "badness"
> of the acting LAURA and DOUBLE INDEMNITY gain value in how they
> critique the forces that determine "good" behavior in the societies depicted
> onscreen. So in this way perhaps you see that by definition I cannot
> acknowledge how these performances are "good" without acknowledging
> how they can be seen as "bad" -- because the two are inextricably linked, just
> as my aesthetic argument is inextricably sociological as well.
This is interesting, but I need more guidance on how to make the
connection between good acting codes and good behavior codes - I'm not
sure I see this immediately. It can't be as simple as it sounds, or
else there would be a tendency for people not to like, say, Michel
Simon's acting in BOUDU.
Jean-Pierre,
> 1. What is "bad" acting? Without a definition, there is no point in
> discussing "bad" and "good" or "good bad". Maybe there's no point
> with a definition either.
Seems to me there are two basic approaches here. One is to say, "Good
acting is acting that makes the film work." This lets one argue that
John Wayne is a good actor, Bresson's actors, Warhol's, etc. In this
approach, one rejects any evaluation of acting that is independent of
the evaluation of the work as a whole. The other approach is to uphold
criteria for the performance itself. The criteria can have to do with
whether the actor is the same in every role he or she plays, wears lots
of makeup, yells loud enough, suggests real people that the viewer has
known, exhibits great skill in rendering some behavior, etc.
I suppose one can draw on both approaches, but it's good to get clear on
which approach one is using at any moment.
Jack Angstreich:
> Wasn't it conventional wisdom among auteurists that Preminger was
> usually indifferent to performance?
I can't believe that Joan Crawford gave the performance she did in DAISY
KENYON without someone leaning on her. Maybe Jimmy Stewart might have
come up with the conception for his character in ANATOMY on his own, but
it remains one of the cinema's sharpest critiques of an actor's own
persona - I wouldn't think that a director indifferent to performance
would have even thought to make that particular movie.
- Dan
14096
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:29am
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
There are many fine performances in Preminger films but Sarris
commented that there were often indifferent or poor ones within the
same film; but what else within the auteurist literature has been said
about acting in Preminger's oeuvre?
- Jack Angstreich
On Aug 16, 2004, at 1:15 AM, Dan Sallitt wrote:
Jack Angstreich:
> Wasn't it conventional wisdom among auteurists that Preminger was
> usually indifferent to performance?
I can't believe that Joan Crawford gave the performance she did in
DAISY
KENYON without someone leaning on her. Maybe Jimmy Stewart might have
come up with the conception for his character in ANATOMY on his own,
but
it remains one of the cinema's sharpest critiques of an actor's own
persona - I wouldn't think that a director indifferent to performance
would have even thought to make that particular movie.
- Dan
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14097
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:41am
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
I don't know if anyone will pay attention to this, but here goes,
anyway: there's an early Brecht story about a fishmonger who believes
that the sole purpose of the contents of a newspaper was to draw
attention to his fish. One may extend this to our current
conversation. I believe, and have long believed, that the
determination of "good" and "bad" acting lies within the jurisdiction
of acting connoisseurs, other actors, and drama critics.
And that the sole purpose of acting, to a hardcore auteurist, is
subordinate to strong/great mise-en-scene, and that we are more likely
to prize a great perfromance - as a singular event - when it exists
amidst weak or poor mise-en-scene.
Any port in the storm - is that how the saying goes?
No point to this post. Sorry, very sorry.
-Jaime
14098
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:42am
Subject: Acting
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
The actor (a word now used of both sexes, it seems) is the main
ingredient of narrative cinema. When s/he is part of a visual scheme
that makes good use of the performance, you get one kind of great
cinema -- I always cite Martin Landau in Ed Wood as a rare recent
example of the perfect marriage between a performance and the camera.
Now rare, once fairly common, as all of Fred's examples show.
Sometimes great cinema is born of a more complicated relationship
between the actor and the image. Certain actors (cf. Farber on this)
occupy space in the military sense (Katharine Hepburn taking over an
office in Baby); some squeeze themselves into it, becoming part of
the furniture (Dustin Hofman in tHe Graduate). Duras said Chaplin
could occupy a whole city, while Woody Allen only occupies a small
slice of one.
Oudart thought that some early films -- Dreyer's Joan of Arc, The
Wind -- were metaphors of the struggle of the actor not to be
absorbed by the celluloid. Certainly there are modern films which are
allegories of a similar (losing) struggle: Beetlejuice and The Last
Emperor (actor seeking to escape from, or accepting confinement
within, a shrinking space) are two I cited in an article for the CdC
issue on The Actor, in which all these points are made at greater
length. The fact that Bertolucci also made Partner tells me that this
is not too cockeyed a reading. And Burton has never exercised his
visual wizardry well in the absence of at least one screen-busting
great actor. He made a documentary about Price called Vincent and Me
for that reason.
A whole branch of French cinephilia -- while very mise-en-scene-
oriented -- is actor-centered: MacMahonism. For most film spectators,
the actor is (or used to be) what they paid to see, and the fact that
a turkey like The Last Samurai still made a fortune because it
starred Cruise suggests this is still the case. Any theory that
doesn't take the actor into account as the main ingredient of H'wd
film and the narrative cinema of other countries is barking up the
wrong tree, IMHO. North by Northwest without Cary Grant? You've got
to be kidding! Sure The Reluctant Debutante is a lesson in the
heartless mechanics of mise en scene -- but at its center, giving it
meaning and substance (and constantly exerting a counterforce to the
anti-matter of John Saxon and Sandra Dee), are Rex Harrison and Kay
Kendall. Try taking your eyes off them when they're on-camera...
14099
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:58am
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> It is a fundamental consequence of my personal brand of auteurism that
> "good" or "bad" in acting cannot be determined separately from
> considering the whole film, and in particular the appropriateness of the
> performance style to the filmmaker's vision.
I agree. This is why I asked Preminger or Wilder was concerned with or
attempting in their respective films. A very close friend of mine
tends to criticize performances in films, saying that they are not
realistic or believable, and when I ask him if that what was the
filmmaker was intending he usually can't answer. He misses or doesn't
recognize the stylization of a film and how it shapes and informs
performances.
Michael Worrall
14100
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:06am
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Seems to me there are two basic approaches here. One is to
say, "Good acting is acting that makes the film work." This lets one
argue that John Wayne is a good actor, Bresson's actors, Warhol's,
etc. In this approach, one rejects any evaluation of acting that is
> independent of the evaluation of the work as a whole. The other
approach is to uphold criteria for the performance itself. The
criteria can have to do with whether the actor is the same in every
role he or she plays, wears lots of makeup, yells loud enough,
suggests real people that the viewer has known, exhibits great skill
> in rendering some behavior, etc.
Sure, but it's often hard to draw the line. I think Wilder uses Fred
MacMurray brilliantly in both DOUBLE INDEMNITY and THE APARTMENT;
whether MacMurray is an actor of great range or virtuosity is another
question. Still, it's hard to see how he would have given those
performances without being quite thoughtful and self-aware about the
ambigities in his persona.
Picking up on an earlier comment about Wilder: the acting in KISS ME,
STUPID and SOME LIKE IT HOT is very broad, but after all, these are
broad farces, not the only thing he was capable of. I'd agree,
generally, that Wilder is fond of caricature, and that there's a
certain lack of playfulness in the way he encourages his actors to
relate to his scripts -- the tone of each film is signalled at the
outset, and subsequently doesn't much vary. But within that, you get
everything from Kirk Douglas in ACE IN THE HOLE to Robert Stephens in
PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES – both quite stylised performances
(in diametrically opposed ways) but neither what I'd
call "cartoonish".
On the most obvious level, Wilder makes a principle of varying his
emotional register from film to film, a lot of this depending on his
choice of actors and, particularly, actresses: Stanwyck, Dietrich (in
A FOREIGN AFFAIR), Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, Shirley Maclaine, etc. I'd
be interested to know how often his scripts were written for
particular performers, and how his plans changed on those occasions
when the first choices dropped out.
JTW
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact