Posts from the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact

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.

14301

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:00am
Subject: Re: Smilin' Through/They All Laughed

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:

[about SMILIN' THROUGH]

Fred, I had to skip your post because you mentioned "spoilers," and I
haven't seen it yet.

But I wanted to say that your review of FIXED BAYONETS in the Reader
this week is terrific (as usual), and I hope it pushes many Chicagoans
to see the great Sam Fuller film.

With DAY OF THE OUTLAW, it's another reason for New Yorkers to be
jealous of the Windy City, rather than the other way around.

Here it is for anyone else who may be interested:

http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2004/0804/082004_3.html

-Jaime

p.s. Your post regarding GERTRUD last week ended with something that
struck a chord with me: "... to see this obvious, flat-out highly
poetic masterpiece ridiculed made clear to me that these people didn't
understand ANYTHING." I've been feeling that way a lot lately. Not
just here but elsewhere. Not always for films or directors you'd find
worthwhile, but the kind of teeth-grinding frustration you describe
(always linked to the ecstasy of experiencing "obvious, flat-out
highly poetic masterpieces") is sure as shit hard to shake sometimes.
14302

From: Hadrian
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:24am
Subject: Some more on Hero

AT the time of my store's newsletter, I asked my brother to do the
review. He is not really a "film person", but he is very interested
in Chinese culture. He went to visit, and ended up going native --
he's been living there the last couple of years. So when he visits I
love to get his take on all things Chinese...I'll skip the film
parts of his review, but here was a paragraph he had on context:

"If your Chinese or a student of Chinese history, the story may
alienate you with its blatant political slant and extravagant
glorification of China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang Di. A ruthless
tyrant, more cruel than Ghengis Khan, he beat the other 6 kingdoms
into submission and introduced a harsh legal system to keep the
people in line. He lived a life of seclusion as he trusted no one
and was subjected to numerous assasination attempts on his life. The
plot of this movie concerns one such imaginary attempt and paints
the emperor as a scholar and poet who only wants to unify China for
the good of the people. Under his wise and benificent rule, peace
will finnally spread through the land. China must be (re)unified and
all will be well. Much of the imagery, while rife with metaphor,
someone more intimate with the genre may find it tired and
hackneyed. "
14303

From:
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 4:01am
Subject: Re: Milwaukee Plays Itself??

Milwaukee, like St. Louis, Boston and Detroit, is a city that hardly ever
appears on commercial film. Where is the Boat House? The geodesic domes of
Mitchell Park Conservatory? The river valley? The cliffs along Lake Michigan? We
need a crime thriller that does not exist - "The Stones of Milwaukee", as Ruskin
might have put it...
"The Adventures of Henry Turnbuckle" by Jack Ritichie is a collection of
prose mystery short stories set in Milwaukee, the city where Ritchie lived. It is
a lot of fun. Milwaukee has always been rich in mystery writers: Robert Bloch,
William Campbell Gault, etc.
Mike Grost
14304

From:
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 4:15am
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

This is a play by Herman Wouk. It was filmed twice, once by Edward Dmytryk in
1954, once by Robert Altman in 1988. It is a courtroom drama, about sailors
who mutiny against their emotionally disturbed captain. Captain Queeg, who
juggles steel marbles obsessively in his hand, became an archtype of obsessive
neurosis - a figure like Big Daddy or Blanche Dubois who entered into the general
culture as an archetype.
The play is set in the US Navy. It gives a chance for a large number of
actors to dress up in naval uniforms - spiffy military outfits and political debate
being the main consistent elements of Dmytryk's mise-en-scene over the years
(Crossfire, Hitler's Children, A Walk on the Wild Side, etc). Altman's version
is quite different, but well-done - one of the many plays Altman has filmed
in recent decades for televsion.

Mike Grost
14305

From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:07am
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

This is my favorite Bogart film. I first saw it as a teen, who just
discovered some range in Bogart's acting, in "The Big Sleep", the I
was just blown away by how Bogart could step into character (out of
character even) and give such a strong performance.

Im still getting chills during his breakdown towards the end: "Ahh -
the strawberries!"

Henrik

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> This is a play by Herman Wouk. It was filmed twice, once by Edward
Dmytryk in
> 1954, once by Robert Altman in 1988. It is a courtroom drama, about
sailors
> who mutiny against their emotionally disturbed captain. Captain
Queeg, who
> juggles steel marbles obsessively in his hand, became an archtype of
obsessive
> neurosis - a figure like Big Daddy or Blanche Dubois who entered
into the general
> culture as an archetype.
> The play is set in the US Navy. It gives a chance for a large number of
> actors to dress up in naval uniforms - spiffy military outfits and
political debate
> being the main consistent elements of Dmytryk's mise-en-scene over
the years
> (Crossfire, Hitler's Children, A Walk on the Wild Side, etc).
Altman's version
> is quite different, but well-done - one of the many plays Altman has
filmed
> in recent decades for televsion.
>
> Mike Grost
14306

From: Gary Tooze
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:26pm
Subject: Re: Some more on Hero

At 01:12 PM 8/21/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>"If your Chinese or a student of Chinese history, the story may
>alienate you with its blatant political slant and extravagant
>glorification of China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang Di. A ruthless
>tyrant, more cruel than Ghengis Khan, he beat the other 6 kingdoms
>into submission and introduced a harsh legal system to keep the
>people in line. He lived a life of seclusion as he trusted no one
>and was subjected to numerous assasination attempts on his life. The
>plot of this movie concerns one such imaginary attempt and paints
>the emperor as a scholar and poet who only wants to unify China for
>the good of the people. Under his wise and benificent rule, peace
>will finnally spread through the land. China must be (re)unified and
>all will be well. Much of the imagery, while rife with metaphor,
>someone more intimate with the genre may find it tired and
>hackneyed. "

Good thing I didn't know about this or I may not have enjoyed the film as
much as I did.

I didn't see Qin portrayed as a scholar/humanitarian at all. I saw him as a
paranoid/mass murderer looking for some justification for a life of evil.

I've had a similar discussion with a chap on my LS. Funny things happen
when you impart your own perception of historical context. I prefer when
politics - right or wrong- does not influence the enjoyment of the film!
Ex. If you are looking for an Anti-Bush slant, go watch 9-11- and then you
can say its a great film! (maybe it is I haven't seen it). The film doesn't
necessarily have to be considered poor if it has a 'pro-communist party'
slant ie. if it is contrary to the beliefs that you have been brought up
with. Heck, how many 100'0s of Hollywood films have a pro-US-capitalism
slant? Does that make them good or bad? or does it run deeper? Zhang
Yimou's films are often rife with political reference that can be read (as
Nostradamus) in a variety of leanings - this is his greatness in my
opinion. He remains one of my favorite directors and his versatility from
strident art drama's (Raise the Red Lantern) to comedy (Happy Times) to
Action (Hero) is unique. "To Live" is probably my favorite - filled with
all sorts of politics - he and Gong Li were banned for 2 years (to make
films) after. Sorry, don't mean to rant. I liked Hero, a beautiful film, -
and watching it didn't make me a communist or love/respect Qin. If it had a
blatant political slant - I, for one, was not influenced by it (to my
knowledge) - but I continue to have a almost obsessive desire for Maggie
Cheung.

Regards,
G
14307

From:
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 3:34pm
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

Not that we'd necessarily progressed from "Fred MacMurray is bad in
DOUBLE INDEMNITY" to "Fred MacMurray" is a bad actor, but anyone
inclined to think the latter should cue up CAINE MUTINY but quick.
MacMurray's performance/casting brilliantly subverts his regular/nice
guy image. And of course, Bogart is tops as well. I haven't seen
Altman's version in quite a while, but I remember being pretty
underwhelmed, and that's as someone who considers his early-80s
theatrical adaptations, along with Louis Malle's VANYA ON 42d ST, as
the model for adapting theater to film.

Sam
14308

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 3:58pm
Subject: MacMurray (Was:The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial)

> MacMurray's performance/casting brilliantly subverts his regular/nice
> guy image.

Sometimes I wonder if MacMurray has any movies that don't subvert his
image! He was subverting as early as "Hands Across the Table" and
"Swing High, Swing Low" in the 30s. Maybe it's really "My Three Sons"
that subverted his smooth-but-flawed image.

My favorite MacMurray film is REMEMBER THE NIGHT, but my favorite
performance of his, by far, is in Sirk's THERE'S ALWAYS TOMORROW.
There's something very moving about the way he yearns for something that
he barely has the vocabulary for - you really sense the child inside the
grownup.

Auteurists aren't supposed to say nice things about THE CAINE MUTINY,
but I won't report anyone to Auteurist Central. - Dan
14309

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:08pm
Subject: Re: MacMurray (Was:The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
Dan

Wait a minute -- the "good/bad acting" thread is about someone saying
Fred MacMurray is bad in Double Indemnity? Not a good example. Let me
quote Richard Schickel's BFI classics book on that film: "His is, I
think, one of the greatest performances in the history of American
movies. And, because he remains typed in everyone's mind as just
another agreeable face, the least acknowledged of them." The
hyperbole is RS's opinion, but I certainly agree that MacMurray is
wonderful in Double Indeminity -- they all are. Schickel cites
another great job by MacMurray that may not have been mentioned,
Sheldrake in The Apartment.
14310

From:
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:15pm
Subject: Re: Smilin' Through

I certainly did feel the ephemerality of objects in the film. But the rather
pedestrian direction, the textbook method of conveying space sucked the
airiness right back out for me. I don't think it's a bad film by any stretch. I
liked it, I did. But Moonrise, History is Made at Night, The Mortal Storm, others
cut it for me.

As for whether or not I saw it on video, I refuse to ever answer that
question. Your points re: video have been duly noted over the years here and on
Frameworks. But I have more than enough evidence at my disposal to stand firmly and
passionately against your position. And if you don't mind, I'd rather not get
into all that evidence. I just think it would start a flame war and would
rather keep things as civil as possible.

In any event, I think it's obvious from my post (esp. when I wrote "the lush
vegetation that seemed to work like a dissolve") that I felt "the sensuousness
of the colors and textures and the feeling that they are fleeting, momentary
apparitions." You just said it more eloquently. And I forgot the mention the
divine ending which is perhaps the epitome of this immateriality. Did Brakhage
ever see this?

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14311

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: MacMurray (Was:The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial)

I found the passage in Rui Nogueiraa's "Meville":

"It was an American actor -- of course -- who invented
underplaying: Fred MacMurray. The uncharitable say
this came about because he couldn't act, but it isn't
true. Even today, when you see Fred MacMurray's early
films, you can't help but be astonished by the economy
of means with which he acieves his effects. Looking at
the films of that period, one can see that it was only
after he had shown the way that other actors -- Bogart
for instance -- tuned to the same pitch. In the
American cinema today, James Garner might be
considered the great champion of underplaying."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14312

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Smilin' Through/They All Laughed

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
>
> But I wanted to say that your review of FIXED BAYONETS in the Reader
> this week is terrific (as usual), and I hope it pushes many
Chicagoans
> to see the great Sam Fuller film.

Thanks for the tip, Jaime -- Fred, I sent the review to Christ
Fuller. She'll be thrilled.

I love Fixed Bayonets. Zanuck started the project w. 2 writers he
ordered to update The Immortal Sergeant to Korea; then when he saw
the b.o. figures on Steel Helmet he brought in Sam. Instead of
throwing out DZ's storyline, Sam simply folded it into his, so the
film is slightly marred by Zanuckian moments and lines like "You have
to have the guts to lead" -- but at least Basehart doesn't hear his
dead Sergeant's voice telling him what to do. One more proof that
DZ's strengths came out when he gave good directors their head and
trusted them -- he was not a writer, and his ideas were often
terrible. But as Sam diplomatically put it when we interviewed him on
the day of DZ's funeral, "He'd come up with ideas that challenged you
to top them!"
14313

From:
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Milwaukee Plays Itself??

M. Grost, your erudition continues to astound me. Thanx for your post.

But of course, I forgot to mention Austin playing itself. One of my profs
(and number one candidate for my advisor) is heavily involved with the creation
of a studio at UT-Austin in an attempt to solidfy Austin as the third coast.
The Alamo was shot outside the city but I imagine we'll be seeing more and more
films set within the city limits...and perhaps more distortions.

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14314

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:26pm
Subject: Dan's movie screening in H'wd

All the Ships at Sea by Dan Sallitt will be screened twice at EZTV in
H'wd on Sept 22. One of the stars, Strawn Bovee, is setting this up
as a Kerry fundraiser, $20 a ticket. I'll be presenting the film.
Times and address follow.
14315

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:32pm
Subject: Re: Milwaukee Plays Itself??

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
One of my profs
> (and number one candidate for my advisor) is heavily involved with
the creation
> of a studio at UT-Austin in an attempt to solidfy Austin as the
third coast.

The offbeat Farrelly brotrhers' comedy The Ringer was recently filmed
there -- most of the 150 intellectally disabled extras were Texans.
14316

From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:38pm
Subject: Fuller

> But I wanted to say that your review of FIXED BAYONETS in the Reader
> this week is terrific (as usual), and I hope it pushes many Chicagoans
> to see the great Sam Fuller film.

On a slight tangent... the brand new UK R2 DVD of FORTY GUNS is
confirmed as a *great* OAR transfer, 2.35:1, and an anamorphic DVD ----
despite it saying "4:3 full frame" on the back of the box.

I've written to Optimum about their sloppiness, and congratulated them
on getting such a good transfer from Fox.

I have a strong feeling that we'll see this from Criterion in 2005. If
Fox are willing to license this to Optimum in the UK, along with NAKED
LUNCH, and other Fox properties that Criterion have issued, then it
looks very much like this and some Ford are coming around the bend.

-Nick>-
14317

From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:52pm
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> This is my favorite Bogart film. I first saw it as a teen, who just
> discovered some range in Bogart's acting, in "The Big Sleep", the I
> was just blown away by how Bogart could step into character (out of
> character even) and give such a strong performance.
>
> Im still getting chills during his breakdown towards the end: "Ahh -
> the strawberries!"
>
> Henrik

Wow, someone on an auteurist board who prefers a Dmytryk movie to
some Hawks, Walsh and Ray films. For me, The Caine Mutiny is a
terminally dull film, unfolding in Dmytryk's typically overblown,
non-nuanced manner. It's intriguing how in the 40s, Dmytryk made
some memorable noir films and lively B movies, but after he did an
about face and beame a friendly HUAC witness following his prison
stint as a member of the Hollywood Ten there's little but bloated
dross.

Bogart is one of my half-dozen favorite film actors, but I think
Captain Queeg is one of his least interesting, most-mannered
performances.

> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > This is a play by Herman Wouk.

Mike, just to clarify, The Caine Mutiny was originally a novel by
Herman Wouk. Wouk then adapted his novel into a play, which was
called The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial and just covered the trial
itself.

I've always found The Caine Mutiny to be a highly dubious work. It
spends half its time presenting Queeg as an unstable and dangerous
person, and then after all that it lectures the reader/audience that
he was a Good Man who had dedicated his life to thheservice of his
country, so the whole business about the strawberries is just Straw
Man stuff.
14318

From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: Carl Th. Dreyer interviewer needs IDing

> Nick, You should check on some parts of this account. In his Dreyer
> book, Tom Milne writes about attending the Venice screening, where
> there were quite a few walkouts (something also reported on by Orson
> Welles, by the way, in the book with Bogdanovich that I edited), but
> never mentions anything about attending the Paris premiere (and never
> said anything about this to me, either).

You're spot on Jonathan. Sorry for the confusion. Tom told me he
visited Venice, and he recounted stories about Paris. I got
discombobulated.

> A good eye-witness account of this can be found in Elliott Stein's
> piece about the film in Sight and Sound.

Am tracking that down! Thanks!

----

A friend kindly rang Lincoln Center's archives dept, and they got the
original programme out for the 3rd NYFF. No mention of a Dreyer
interview, no mention of who was on the committee. No records of an
interview being recorded.

I heard back from Jean Drum too. She doesn't know either.

No response from Kauffmann.

I handed the project in yesterday. I could still change it if something
crops up....

Thanks to everybody who listened to it and had a go!

-Nick>-
14319

From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:06pm
Subject: Re: Milwaukee Plays Itself??

Dahmer was shot in Milwaukee, and Richard Curtis's Love, Actually has
some stupid sequences taking place in Milwaukee (which a Milwaukee-an
I know found very offensive), although I don't know if they were
filmed on location. David S. Ward's Major League used the old
Milwaukee County Stadium. And, although it was shot on a Paramount
soundstage, Laverne and Shirley was set in Milwaukee.
14320

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

--- Damien Bona wrote:

It's intriguing how in the
> 40s, Dmytryk made
> some memorable noir films and lively B movies, but
> after he did an
> about face and beame a friendly HUAC witness
> following his prison
> stint as a member of the Hollywood Ten there's
> little but bloated
> dross.
>

Wehn Abraham Polonsky got his career back in the 60's
he was under contract to Universal -- where he worte
"Madigan" for Don Siegel and went on to write and
direct his second film "Tell Them Willie Boy is Here."

He told me he ran into Dymtryk in the commisary who
yelled out cheerfully "Hi Abe!" to which Abe just as
cheerfully replied "Fuck You!"

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14321

From: Adam Hart
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:26pm
Subject: Re: Some more on Hero

> >"If your Chinese or a student of Chinese history, the story may
> >alienate you with its blatant political slant and extravagant
> >glorification of China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang Di.

The film is much more interesting if you, well, ignore the
historical context and look at it as a contemporary product with he
political commentary being directed at today's world rather than
that of the story.
14322

From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:49pm
Subject: Re: Carl Th. Dreyer interviewer needs IDing

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Nick Wrigley wrote:
>
> A friend kindly rang Lincoln Center's archives dept, and they got the
> original programme out for the 3rd NYFF. No mention of a Dreyer
> interview, no mention of who was on the committee. No records of an
> interview being recorded.
>
> I heard back from Jean Drum too. She doesn't know either.
>
> No response from Kauffmann.
>
> I handed the project in yesterday. I could still change it if something
> crops up....

You probably already have this, but (New York-based) Film Comment apparently ran a Dreyer interview in 1966, by Carl Lerner (presumably, the late film editor) -- Lerner, Carl, "My Way Of Working Is In Relation To The Future": An Interview with Carl Dreyer." Film Comment 4:1 (1966:Fall) 62 -- see http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/dreyerbib.html . Maybe a clue there?
14323

From: Hadrian
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:09pm
Subject: Re: Some more on Hero

I probably should have mentioned my brother loved the movie,
and spent a lot of energy trying to get me to see it...i think that
paragraph was there because he had noticed that Americans
seemed to like the film far more than Chinese. Yes it made a
gob of money --but that doesn't necessarily mean it's beloved.

Can you think of any American movies that are both a blast, but
kind of offensive to your political sensibilities? I love Red Dawn,
for example, while simultaenously knowing it's a right wing
fantasy film.

hadrian

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Hart"
wrote:
> > >"If your Chinese or a student of Chinese history, the story
may
> > >alienate you with its blatant political slant and extravagant
> > >glorification of China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang Di.
>
> The film is much more interesting if you, well, ignore the
> historical context and look at it as a contemporary product with
he
> political commentary being directed at today's world rather than
> that of the story.
14324

From: Noel Vera
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:23pm
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

There's yet another version, a bastardized one, by Rob Reiner with
Jack Nicholson upbraiding Tom Cruise for his ballessness and Demi
Moore looking more macho than any of the naval officers.

Altman's I loved for the game metaphors evoked by the basketball
court setting, and the final monologue, which in most stage
productions is put front and center, and in his version is almost a
throwaway, a rant no one wanted to hear.
14325

From: Noel Vera
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:40pm
Subject: Re: Some more on Hero

> The film is much more interesting if you, well, ignore the
> historical context and look at it as a contemporary product with
he
> political commentary being directed at today's world rather than
> that of the story.

Actually, many commercial Hong Kong films play fast and loose with
history--if all you know about Wong Fei Hung comes from the movies,
for example, you'd think he was a cross between George Washington
and Superman. Saw Fist of the Red Dragon recently, starring the arch-
browed Donnie Yen, which deals with the period when the West was
forcefeeding China opium. The fact that its fudged history doesn't
prevent enjoyment of the film--as a film.
14326

From: Noel Vera
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:43pm
Subject: Re: Some more on Hero

> Can you think of any American movies that are both a blast, but
> kind of offensive to your political sensibilities? I love Red
Dawn,
> for example, while simultaenously knowing it's a right wing
> fantasy film.

Not American, but I'm sure there are plenty--Birth of a Nation,
Mississippi (sp?) Burning...
14327

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:04pm
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
> There's yet another version, a bastardized one, by Rob Reiner with
> Jack Nicholson upbraiding Tom Cruise for his ballessness and Demi
> Moore looking more macho than any of the naval officers.

I like A Few Good Men and almost all of Rob Reiner, but that's a
subject for another thread.
14329

From: Noel Vera
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:09am
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

> I like A Few Good Men and almost all of Rob Reiner, but that's a
> subject for another thread.

To be fair, I liked Princess Bride okay and I think Spinal Tap is a
freakish masterpiece of some kind (think it's his best, anyway), but
that's it for me with regards to the Reiner ouvre. I maybe prefer
the father's Man with Two Brains and All About Me (was that Reiner?).
14330

From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:09am
Subject: Re: Smilin' Through

LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:

>....As for whether or not I saw it on video, I refuse to ever answer that question. Your points re: video have been duly noted....
>
That's fine, but then I wish you wouldn't ask me to defend films I love
that you don't love nearly as much, unless you've seen them in decent
prints. I don't generally interfere with the vast amount of discussion
that goes on here that seems to be based on viewing films on video, but
my whole point is that the things that I value most about a film are
precisely those things that tend to be lost when a film is seen on
video. The loss is magnified when the film is in a wider than 1.37:1
ratio, and it's especially magnified when the film is in color. These
losses are subtle, and they aren't necessarily predictable, but they are
there, and they can be crucial to a film's art. And they aren't
necessarily the things that other cinephiles, including many members of
this group if I can judge from the discussions here, value most, which I
understand. As Harvey Kissinger once wrote to Harvey Pekar, as recounted
in one of his comics, "Intelligent people sometimes disagree." (And
Jaime, they're in my second point, which doesn't really have spoilers.)

If you have seen "Smilin' Through" only on video, and you ever do get to
see it on film, let us know what you think.

I have two stories about this.

In the early 70s, I still did not take still photography seriously as an
art. I also hadn't seen very many actual prints. The Museum of Modern
Art, New York, announced a Weston retrospective. I knew he was regarded
as one of the very greatest of photographers, and had already seen his
photos in reproduction and judged them to be stupidly and simply
modernist: sea shells and peppers and naked babes made into simple
consumable objects. I didn't like them, just like I didn't (and still
don't) like Ansel Adams's "awesome" landscapes. I also assumed that
black and white photographs would reproduce really well in glossy books,
and that I could judge Weston's without seeing prints.

Nonetheless, for whatever reason, I went to see it. I think I figured
that I could put the question of photography to rest by actually seeing
the show and confirming that Weston was bad. I remember allotting two or
three hours for it -- I didn't just sneak in before a movie. And I was
completely overwhelmed, deeply moved, transcendently lifted, and all
that. It turns out that what's so great about his work, at least for me,
has to do with the way subtle interplays of photographic tones interact,
almost musically, with the integrity of a Beethoven string quartet. The
effect of how wonderful it all is is simply lost in even the best
reproductions. Hell, it's even often lost in the prints from his
negatives made by his sons, who he trained from boyhood.

Finding that reproductions had totally and utterly failed me for a
medium that I assumed would reproduce well forever hardened my position.
It's not that I say you shouldn't view a film on video. In my early
years I did a lot of that myself. My rule always was that if it's great
in the same way that another film by the same filmmaker is great, you
probably "got" a lot of it. Anything less than that, you just don't know.

Weston's subtleties are related to the kinds of things I most love about
"Smilin' Through," the ways the colors and tones and shapes and spaces
*feel*.

There's a film related story that I think I'll trot out some other time,
when a similar situation arises.

Fred Camper
14331

From:
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:38am
Subject: Re: Smilin' Through

In a message dated 8/22/04 1:21:52 AM, f@f... writes:

> let us know what you think.
>

I already have let everyone know what I think about Smilin' Through.

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14332

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:43am
Subject: Rob Reiner (was: Caine Mutiny)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:

> To be fair, I liked Princess Bride okay and I think Spinal Tap is a
> freakish masterpiece of some kind (think it's his best, anyway),
but
> that's it for me with regards to the Reiner ouvre. I maybe prefer
> the father's Man with Two Brains and All About Me (was that
Reiner?).

I love the two Carl Reiners you mention -- Fatal Attraction is also
quite nice.

Rob is a whole different guy. While I've never sat thru Spinal Tap --
I'm too bored with the form it's parodying -- I love The Princess
Bride. I wish you could have seen it with his original ending, which
he cut for purely intellectual reasons -- big mistake. But that
intellectual quality is what I like in a film like A Few Good Men.

To be brief: I think RR's films are about language, specifically
language as a form of action. A Few Good Men is about a clash between
two kinds of performative: military and legal, commands and laws. (I
recently caught up with the Pfeifer-Willis remarriage comedy, where
the texture of the dialogue is much richer and less schematic, but
cut from the same philosophical cloth.)

The line he chose to end Princess Bride on - "As you wish" -- is a
performative, but the ending that was lost in the process -- after
Falk withdraws the pages of the book are blown by the wind so that we
see high points of the story flash by backwards, with "Picture Book
Romance" playing -- was sublime. Meathead is a tad repressed. And of
course the scene where Elwes, still paralyzed, defeats Guest with
empty threats (straight from the book) is a key moment in the oeuvre.
14333

From:
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:01am
Subject: Re: Rob Reiner (was: Caine Mutiny)

On Carl Reiner: "The Jerk" and "Sibling Rivalry" are also engaging comedies.
And I grew up watching Carl Reiner's scripts on the original "Dick Van Dyke
Show". He has a bubbling comic talent.
On Rob Reiner: in addition to "A Few Good Men", also enjoyed "The American
President" and "Ghosts of Mississippi" - the last being my favorite of his
films.
Bill Krohn's idea about language in Rob Reiner is very interesting!

Mike Grost
14334

From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:17am
Subject: Re: Rob Reiner (language)

I think you hit the nail on the head with your approach to Reiner by
language as action, but also how actions dictate our language.

Reiner's films are full of dialogue and people talk constantly, and
more than just what they say, the intentions behind the words that
cause the dynamic. Thus words becomes tactical in the game of
"conversation".

Another beautiful example of this from "The Princess Bride" is how
words take the form of fencing. In the first fight between Elwes and
Patinkin, the dialogue, in form of noting upon style and technique,
underline the swordplay, and Patinkin constantly says, almost quotes,
"My name is Inigo Montoya, you killed by father, prepare to die" to
add strength to his fencing.

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
> wrote:
>
> > To be fair, I liked Princess Bride okay and I think Spinal Tap is a
> > freakish masterpiece of some kind (think it's his best, anyway),
> but
> > that's it for me with regards to the Reiner ouvre. I maybe prefer
> > the father's Man with Two Brains and All About Me (was that
> Reiner?).
>
> I love the two Carl Reiners you mention -- Fatal Attraction is also
> quite nice.
>
> Rob is a whole different guy. While I've never sat thru Spinal Tap --
> I'm too bored with the form it's parodying -- I love The Princess
> Bride. I wish you could have seen it with his original ending, which
> he cut for purely intellectual reasons -- big mistake. But that
> intellectual quality is what I like in a film like A Few Good Men.
>
> To be brief: I think RR's films are about language, specifically
> language as a form of action. A Few Good Men is about a clash between
> two kinds of performative: military and legal, commands and laws. (I
> recently caught up with the Pfeifer-Willis remarriage comedy, where
> the texture of the dialogue is much richer and less schematic, but
> cut from the same philosophical cloth.)
>
> The line he chose to end Princess Bride on - "As you wish" -- is a
> performative, but the ending that was lost in the process -- after
> Falk withdraws the pages of the book are blown by the wind so that we
> see high points of the story flash by backwards, with "Picture Book
> Romance" playing -- was sublime. Meathead is a tad repressed. And of
> course the scene where Elwes, still paralyzed, defeats Guest with
> empty threats (straight from the book) is a key moment in the oeuvre.
14335

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Reiners

--- Noel Vera wrote:

>
> To be fair, I liked Princess Bride okay and I think
> Spinal Tap is a
> freakish masterpiece of some kind (think it's his
> best, anyway), but
> that's it for me with regards to the Reiner ouvre.

The auteur of "The Princess Bride" is William
Goldlman. "This is Spinal Tap" has multiple auteurs.

Rob Reiner srikes me as the Sidney Lumet of comedy.

I
> maybe prefer
> the father's Man with Two Brains and All About Me
> (was that Reiner?).
>
>

"All of Me" is the title you're looking for, and yes
it's Carl.

I adore "The Man with Two Brains." He works well with
Steve Martin.

Marton's own films, "L.A. Story, " "Bowfinger" and
especially "Roxanne" (he perfers to write and let
others direct) have much to recomend them.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14336

From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:10pm
Subject: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)

Just last night I watched Borzage's FLIGHT COMMAND on a passable
video recorded from television. I thought it was amazing, and
suspect my reaction to it would be largely the same however I viewed
it, just so long as I was able to give my attention to it. More on
FLIGHT COMMAND in a few paragraphs.

As to the film/video thing (again!?) ... I think Fred's logical
underpinning is more or less impeccable. Where one can fruitfully
disagree with him is in his valuing system. If you ask me (not that
anyone should be asking me), what Fred posits as the make-or-break
qualities of true film art are nuances. Sometimes these nuances are
incredibly important! Sometimes they're just icing on the cake.
And sometimes--especially in commercial films today, geared toward
video viewing anyway--they barely exist at all.

The only way to have a good opinion on a film's particular nuances
is to know well both a film's prints and its video translations.
Fred and Kevin both have some solid years of moviegoing behind them,
and it appears they both have empirically demonstrable, and
unshakeable feelings as to the effects of video on film art.

Myself, if I suspect that a film I've only seen on video might work
much better on celluloid, I keep that in mind and consider my video
viewing a first stab (not a definitive one). I recently, finally,
saw MARNIE ... on letterboxed video. I was mixed towards the film,
and while I admired certain formal elements, I didn't feel like
everything cohered. It could be that this would be how I felt even
with 35mm; it could be that the film didn't cohere because I didn't
see it properly. So, I would tell someone I've seen MARNIE and
wasn't crazy about it. But the next thing out of my mouth would
probably be that I hadn't seen it under the best circumstances, and
feel it's entirely possible that 35mm would change my mind. On the
other hand, I also recently saw on video Wyler's THE LETTER (which,
like FLIGHT COMMAND, is a b&w film in 1:37 from 1940), and didn't
like the film at all. (Bette Davis, OK. The film, no.)

Now, I liked MARNIE-on-video more than I liked THE LETTER-on-video,
which could have something to do with it, but I believe more firmly
that I was not "missing something" in THE LETTER-on-video whereas I
feel it is entirely possible, even probable, that I was "missing
something" with MARNIE-on-video. (For Bazin's sake, though, I'm not
entirely closed-minded about the Wyler.) I think every cinephile,
and in a less self-conscious way every regular moviegoer, develops
some kind of intuitive understanding of what works for them w/r/t
film and video.

The great things of FLIGHT COMMAND might conceivably have been lost
on video, but even so, I've no reason to suspect my feelings about
the film would be significantly changed if I saw it in a good
print. (Which is not to say I wouldn't jump at the chance to see it
in 35mm.) FLIGHT COMMAND, which also happens to have a fairly
strong script and a good cast to draw from, has a certain genius to
it that would exist even if the film were shown riddled with TV
commercials.

Borzage's mise-en-scene (that is, largely those visual elements that
are not the ones Fred's emphasizing--which usually translate to
video fine--like blocking, shot choices, etc.) comes off largely as
nondescript, which is not to say bad or lifeless. Certain broad
visual elements, like soft lighting and some costuming decisions
that made for interesting visual cues (like Robert Taylor in
clothing different from the other Hellcats), were likely things
Borzage was given to deal with rather than chose on his own. But
there is one scene of incredible visual beauty that draws a lot of
its power from Borzage's simple and well-crafted handling of much of
the rest of the film.

(MILD SPOILERS FOLLOW.)

After Ruth Hussey's character loses a loved one, she succumbs to
depression. Taylor's Pensacola finds her wandering on the beach
(the same beach from which he emerged to meet her earlier in the
film). Crashing waves boom as Taylor walks toward Hussey; he makes
a few poor attempts to cheer her up; and gives up as he tells her
that she shouldn't face her grief alone. As he walks away, Borzage
films these characters in medium shots, both facing each other.
Hussey is finally touched by Taylor's emotional openness (which
fills a gap left by the loss of her loved one), and she--framed by
the crashing waves--starts toward the right hand side of the film
frame. Cut to a shot of Taylor--framed by the Hussey's home at the
top of the beach--and then we see Hussey enter his frame from the
left. The scene is a movement of Hussey's character out of the
dwarfing, uncontrolled currents of her grief and into safety, an
emotional shelter ... and also a metaphorical reversal of Taylor's
own emergence out of "the water," a fact which deepens the context
of the beautifully modulated relationship between Hussey and
Taylor's characters later on in the film.

It's a gorgeous, powerful moment, drawn seemingly out of nowhere and
disappearing almost as suddenly. And I think it exists because of a
cohesion to the film that survives translation to video. Borzage is
so incredibly good at imbuing his films with a romantic-spiritual
unity that seethes beneath the surface of the line readings, the
gestures, the blocking, the photography. Every so often in his
films, we catch glimpses of this elemental zeitgeist, as it bursts
through the film in practically every element--as it must be, for
Borzage, who could probably never be accused of half-assing the
emotions in his films.

If I saw a Borzage on video that didn't reach these heights that he
so clearly finds in the other work of his I've seen on video, I
would suspect (as Kevin does with SMILIN' THROUGH) that the film
doesn't have whatever it is I'm getting from Borzage. Then again,
if it were a color film (or if the video were a pan-and-scan of a
widescreen film) I'd try my best to see the film on celluloid, as it
would only be fair to give the film, and myself, another shot. I
think it's ideal to emphasize the process of understanding instead
of the elusive end result, which doesn't come often anyway, at least
not for me.

I know this was ridiculously long, if you've made it to the end,
then thanks for reading.

--Zach
14337

From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:11pm
Subject: Re: The Reiners

David:
> The auteur of "The Princess Bride" is William Goldlman.

But the actors are the appeal!

--Zach
14338

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:30pm
Subject: Re: The Reiners

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
.
>
> Rob Reiner srikes me as the Sidney Lumet of comedy.
>

This is unnecessarily snotty. Lumet has made quite a few very fine
films.
14339

From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:43pm
Subject: Re: The Reiners

I recently watched Rob Reiner's ALEX AND EMMA, and was struck by its
close resemblance to MISERY. Both films are about a male writer and a
woman struggling for control of the writer's fictional universe.
14340

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:26pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Reiners

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

>
> This is unnecessarily snotty. Lumet has made
> quite a few very fine
> films.
>
>

No snottiness as intended. I'm a great admirer of
Lumet's urban dramas, particularly "Dog Day
Afternoon." It's simply that Reiner is a "metteur en
scene" rather than an "auteur." If the collaborative
energy is right the films work. If no, not.

"When Harry Me Sally" is charming imitation Woody
Allen. "Alex & Emma" is a bust.

"A Few Good Men" is a Stanley Kramer production nearly
sunk by Chipmunk Boy's "earnestness" but saved by
Nicholson's sugar-cured ham.

Demi Tasse has yet to demonstrate one iota of talent.
All she's got is a grim constipated look that she
apparently believes denotes "serious acting."
Happily she's found her true calling as Ashton
Kutcher's babysitter.

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14341

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:12pm
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
> The only way to have a good opinion on a film's particular nuances
> is to know well both a film's prints and its video translations.
>

I would add "a film's high quality -- preferably pristine -- print
projected in the optimum conditions -- a very rare circomstance
indeed.
>
> Myself, if I suspect that a film I've only seen on video might work
> much better on celluloid, I keep that in mind and consider my video
> viewing a first stab (not a definitive one). I recently, finally,
> saw MARNIE ... on letterboxed video. I was mixed towards the film,
> and while I admired certain formal elements, I didn't feel like
> everything cohered. It could be that this would be how I felt even
> with 35mm; it could be that the film didn't cohere because I didn't
> see it properly. So, I would tell someone I've seen MARNIE and
> wasn't crazy about it. But the next thing out of my mouth would
> probably be that I hadn't seen it under the best circumstances, and
> feel it's entirely possible that 35mm would change my mind.

But a mediocre 35mm print poorly projected is much worse than a
good video.

Your reaction to MARNIE on video seems very similar to almost
everybody's reaction when the film came out -- general public,
critics, film buffs including auteurists; even Truffaut, who called
MARNIE "un grand film malade" - a 'sick" or "diseased" great film.
Today there may be a danger of blaming the video version of a film
for flaws and weaknesses that may be part of the film in its original
format. And how long are you going to suspend your judgement,
waiting for a problematic theatrical screening of a film you have
only seen on video?

One element to be taken into account in the video controversy is
the fact that responses to and judgements on films (works of art)
change with time. I saw BARRY LYNDON in the best conditions possible
when it came out (the Ziegfeld Theatre in New York)and didn't care
much for it (I've never been a Kubrick fan). But although it is one
of those film everybody agrees SHOULD absolutely be seen on the big
screen, I have grown to like it more and more watching it on video
(and here Fred rolls his eyes in sheer disbelief).

JPC
14342

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:28pm
Subject: Re: The Reiners

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> >
> > This is unnecessarily snotty. > >
> >
>
> No snottiness was intended. I'm a great admirer of Lumet's urban
melodramas.

> Demi Tasse has yet to demonstrate one iota of talent.
> All she's got is a grim constipated look that she
> apparently believes denotes "serious acting."
> Happily she's found her true calling as Ashton
> Kutcher's babysitter.

Now THAT's snotty!

bk
14343

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

I saw BARRY LYNDON in the best
> conditions possible
> when it came out (the Ziegfeld Theatre in New
> York)and didn't care
> much for it (I've never been a Kubrick fan). But
> although it is one
> of those film everybody agrees SHOULD absolutely be
> seen on the big
> screen, I have grown to like it more and more
> watching it on video
> (and here Fred rolls his eyes in sheer disbelief).
>

I saw it there too and liked it right away, J-P. But I
valued other Kubrick films over it -- particularly
"2001." Now "2001" looks dated (literally as well as
figuratively) and "Barry Lyndon" appears daisy-fresh.
It has one of my favorite endings in the history of
the cinema. For it deals with that most culturally
obscene of capitalist acts -- signing the check.

"Eyes Wide Shut" may well be Kubick's "Marnie."
I think it's teriffic -- even though it stars my least
favorite person in Hollywood.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14344

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:45pm
Subject: Re: The Reiners

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> I recently watched Rob Reiner's ALEX AND EMMA, and was struck by
its
> close resemblance to MISERY. Both films are about a male writer and
a
> woman struggling for control of the writer's fictional universe.

Haven't seen A & E yet, but of course Misery is all about language as
action (and vice versa, as Henrik notes) -- a writer who has killed
off his series character is taken prisoner by an insane fan and
forced to revive him. Reiner's first King adaptation, Stand By Me, is
about kids at who have entered what Lacan calls the Symbolic and are
fighting to recover their own bodies -- hence the original title of
the story, The Body, referring to the one they find in the woods.
King is a very Lacanian (or at least, Zizekian) writer. Reiner's
company is named Castle Rock after King's imaginary town in Maine.

And of course the scene we all remember from Harry... is Sally
staging an orgasm to prove a point to Harry, the point being that
once you're in the Symbolic (or writing, for the Derrideans reading
this), "authenticity" is haunted by the possibility of falsity,
repetition, etc.

I remember when, after an especially bad year, Tom Sherak announced
to Fox Marketing that "Opie" and "Meathead" were coming to save us,
referring to Cocoon and The Princess Bride. I liked Cocoon, but I
loved The Princess Bride, and in their subsequent directing careers
Meathead has carried the day by a country mile. He's a subtle,
inteelligent filmmaker, but as David's comparison to Lumet suggests,
he's also a skilled craftsman and entertainer. His films are about
something, IMO, but they're also enjoyable, including the serious
ones.
14345

From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:49pm
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)

Me, then JPC:
> > The only way to have a good opinion on a film's particular
nuances
> > is to know well both a film's prints and its video
translations.
>
> I would add "a film's high quality -- preferably pristine --
> print projected in the optimum conditions -- a very rare
> circomstance indeed.

True. Also, I'd like to point out that I know I worded this poorly.
I meant to say not that "the only way to have a good opinion on a
film's particular nuances...," but instead, "the only way to have a
good opinion on how a film's particular nuances translate to
video..."

> But a mediocre 35mm print poorly projected is much worse than a
> good video.

Yeah, there are many factors that go into how someone should watch
something. Even in New York City, a lot of stuff is not presented
ideally in theaters. I'm pretty open to video, more for pragmatic
reasons than anything else. And with films of the 1950s and '60s,
particularly if they are color or widescreen, I'm simply more
willing to temper my evaluations of what I see on video. I'm not as
supremely interested in "the image" as the essence of cinema, like I
used to be. But sometimes the medium of celluloid is going to
unlock things for you that video just can't; unless one disregards
issues of plasticity and tonal nuance entirely, I don't see how this
could be refuted.

> And how long are you going to suspend your judgement,
> waiting for a problematic theatrical screening of a film you have
> only seen on video?

I'll wait as long as I need to! (I'm still young and in no hurry,
anyway.) As I said before, I have an opinion of the film that I
will share, but part of that opinion involves an openness to re-
evaluation.

--Zach
14346

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:52pm
Subject: Re: Marnie and Eyes Wide Shut (was: Borzage, film, video)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:

> "Eyes Wide Shut" may well be Kubick's "Marnie."
> I think it's teriffic -- even though it stars my least
> favorite person in Hollywood.

I'm still catching up with Eyes Wide Shut-- Marnie took some time for
me too. When a filmmaker produces a film like that it may just take
time to shed expectations, including what you knew or thought you
knew about cinema going in. It also may be a process of gating out
flaws that jarred when you first saw it, but I'm unable to say at
this point re: Marnie because I can't even remember what I
considered "flaws."
14347

From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: Borzage, film, video & Hitchcock's Marnie (was Smilin' Through)

Thanks to Zach for his posts, which I agree with just about 100 per
cent. I saw "Flight Command" only once, on commercial TV, maybe 35 years
ago, and can't comment there, except that now I should see it again.

I did see the amazing and weird "Strange Cargo" on TV for the first
time. It was a color TV too, because I saw it in New York at my parents'
(I had bought a B&W TV for film viewing about 1967 or so, on the theory
that black and white films will come through more purely and that I
didn't want to see color films in color on TV anyway), interrupted by
color commercials. It was during the day and I couldn't make the room
dark. I thought it was incredibly great, transcendentally moving, et
cetera, and it was largely the same film, just richer and better, when I
saw it later in 16mm and then 35mm. My point is not to never view films
on video, it's to question what it is you've seen. And there's no simple
formula either; for example, I suspect the other color Borzage of the
period, "I've Always Loved You," would translate to video better than
"Smilin' Through" did. I'm not saying everyone is supposed to agree with
me, but my point is that I *did* see "Smilin' Through" for the first
time on color TV, and then only later in prints, so I have a direct
comparison of the difference according to the things I value most.

To JPC's points about bad prints and bad projection, I might add bad
viewing. At least for myself, and leaving out the time long ago when
seeing it on no sleep I slept through almost all of "The Informer," I'm
not always "on," I don't always get a film the first time even under
ideal viewing circumstances. Thus Kevin's position that he's already
seen "Smilin' Through" is doubly surprising, because for me, films often
change, sometimes a lot, on repeated viewings.

About "Marnie," Zach, you can count at least three exceptions to the
general critical consensus on the film's first release, me and two of my
16-year-old friends. We all thought it was great. And this is also a
good case for my film doesn't translate thesis. In part due to the lower
definition due to letterboxing, and in part to the very nature of the
box (I'm assuming you weren't watching it via ultra-bright filmlike DLP
video projection, which does improve the situation), the images just
aren't going to have the same iconic power as they do in a (with a nod
to JPC) decent print decently projected. The closeups of her purse, or
of the things that she packs in the early scene, have that peculiarly
Hitchockian perverse sensuality that can also be found in the shoe
closeups that open "Strangers on a Train," the jail sequences of "The
Wrong Man," or much of "Vertigo." These connect with the red flashes,
and Marnie's inner chaos, and lead of course to the flashbacks at the
end. You might be able to get much of the theme from video, you might be
able to feel a lot of what's good about the film, but its real power
will probably not come through. And it's the stuff that's sometimes lost
that often makes the difference between an interesting film and great art.

Working on the Brakhage DVD was an interesting experience for me. If I
had been asked by Stan whether I thought he should do it, or earlier
whether I thought he should allow the video release of some of his other
films, as he already had, I would have said as firmly as possibly, No,
no, no, no. And the fact that he couldn't even sit through the video
version of "Dog Star Man" himself just seems to me to be confirmation.
But in hindsight, knowing what I know today (yikes! I sound like "W"), I
would urge that the DVD be made, and that more be made. Seeing the films
on my home TV (a good one), with most of them some of what's good comes
through. And the ability to see them many times, in silence, in true
silence, matters a lot. And seeing them on a good DLP projector
alongside the prints with a group of experienced Brakhage-philes in a
test screening I set up, while there was much griping about particular
transfers most of us agreed that for most of the films a large part of
what was great about them did come through. (This test is more fully
documented at http://www.fredcamper.com/Brakhage/CriterionDVD.html#2 )

After the DVD came out, I got an email from an 18 year old in Wisconsin
wondering if there was a volume 2 in the works (nothing is definitely
planned at present). He wrote that though he has been a film lover since
age 9 when he saw "Pulp Fiction" (well, personally, I make a lot of
allowances for the tastes of 9 year olds...), "recently my world has
been turned on its eyes by Brakhage, I can't even begin to articulate
some of the things I have seen since I have started to watch Stan
Brakhage's films..." I wrote back that he should see them on film, he
wrote back that there was nothing playing in his part of rural
Wisconsin, I pointed him to a showing of a 1995 feature-length
handpainted film coming in Chicago in two months, "Trilogy," and he
wrote back that he was coming. Then I organized, partly for his benefit,
a mammoth screening of films owned by Chicago area collectors, so on his
second night he got to see four hours of mostly masterpieces (as did a
number of other people). There was a second such screening, three hours
in length, and he came to Chicago again for it. Now he's moving here and
going to film school.

It bothers me that many will not make effort to resee films seen only
video on film, and that's one reason I keep carping about this. On the
other hand, it's not clear that this person ever would have seen
Brakhage films otherwise, and it's because of him, and others like him,
that I hope there are more DVDs.

Also, as I've said before, I think the new HD format coupled with good
home projection is going to be a lot closer to film than most present
home viewing situations are. If so, I welcome this. Peter Kubelka thinks
that recorded music is *not* music; his position about vinyl and CDs is
the same as mine about video. But I don't agree with him about music;
for me, CDs are close enough to a live concert, and preserve most of
what's great about the music. (The framework is Western classical music
here, intended to be performed live; electronic music, or the use of
overdubbing in songs first introduced by the great Buddy Holly, is
obviously something else, music made for recording.) But then, I don't
have his experience; he was classically trained, he was a Vienna
choirboy, he's still a musician today.

Fred Camper
14348

From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:18pm
Subject: Re: The Reiners

>
> > Demi Tasse has yet to demonstrate one iota of talent.
> > All she's got is a grim constipated look that she
> > apparently believes denotes "serious acting."
> > Happily she's found her true calling as Ashton
> > Kutcher's babysitter.
>
> Now THAT's snotty!
>
> bk

But I have to agree. David is spot-on in his critical insights
towards "chipmunk boy" and "demi-monde." As Orson would have
said, "It's All True." Why should we keep silent about this inept
brat-pack generation who show nothing of the possibilities of varied
screen acting as opposed to their classical predecessors.

Tony Williams
14349

From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

Damien Bona wrote:
"...after he did an about face and beamer a friendly HUAC witness following his prison stint as a member of the Hollywood Ten there's little but bloated dross."

It always seemed to me that THE CAINE MUTINY was Dimitry's apologia for becoming a friendly witness.

"Bogart is one of my half-dozen favorite film actors, but I think Captain Queer is one of his least interesting, most-mannered performances."

The performance is mannered but works against Dimitry's effort to redeem the captain, so for that reason I find it the most subversive element of the movie. And Mac Murray was quite good as others have noted.

"I've always found The Caine Mutiny to be a highly dubious work. It spends half its time presenting Queer as an unstable and dangerous person, and then after all that it lectures the reader/audience that he was a Good Man who had dedicated his life to service of his
country, so the whole business about the strawberries is just Straw Man stuff."

In that respect the film remains true to Wouk who specialized in setting up rebellion just to subvert it as in "Caine" or sets up non-conformity in MARJORIE MORINGSTAR just to dismiss it. In his conservatism and conformism Wouk was the exemplary Eisenhower era novelist, and Dimitry's version of "Caine" was little more then a gloss on the novel.

Richard

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
HTTP://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/

To subscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-subscribe@yahoo groups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14350

From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:29pm
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Richard Modiano
wrote:
>
> > In that respect the film remains true to Wouk who specialized in
setting up rebellion just to subvert it as in "Caine" or sets up non-
conformity in MARJORIE MORINGSTAR just to dismiss it. In his
conservatism and conformism Wouk was the exemplary Eisenhower era
novelist, and Dimitry's version of "Caine" was little more then a
gloss on the novel.
>
> Richard

For those very same reasons James Jones of FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
despised Wouk as a novelist.

Tony Williams
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> HTTP://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
> To subscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-subscribe@yahoo groups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14351

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:31pm
Subject: Film and Video

Fred's letter re Borzage and Brakhage got me to
ruminating.

Premsuably film and video are two entirely different
creatures.

Films "should" be seen in atheatrical setting.
Unfortunately proper theatrical settings are often as
hard to come by as hen's teeth. I can recall sitting
through the most ghastly prints of classics. You can
imagine my joy at discovering in recent years pristine
videos of smae.

As I've said before the Brakhage DVD has opened an
entirely new audience to his work -- much larger than
the one he had in his lifetime. Moreover there's
something rather marvelous about having a Brakhage
work in this intimate form to look at over and over
again. I can't help but think it won't aide Brakhage
appreciation immeasurably.

Video, particularly DVD, has been a boon to my own
writing. It would have been impossible to write about
"Those Who Love me Can Take the Train" at length as I
did without a DVD. Taking the film apart and putting
it back together again on video enhances the work. Yet
at the same time a theatrical screening --provided
it's equipped with a large screen and a top notch
sound system -- is the FULL IMPACT experience that
must be seen at SOME point in appreciating Chereau's
art. In atheater it all goes by in a flash. You have
to run very hard to keep up. On DVD you can stop and
start, but STILL must run to keep up.

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14352

From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:58pm
Subject: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

>
> But I have to agree. David is spot-on in his critical insights
> towards "chipmunk boy" and "demi-monde." As Orson would have
> said, "It's All True." Why should we keep silent about this inept
> brat-pack generation who show nothing of the possibilities of varied
> screen acting as opposed to their classical predecessors.

No, this definitely trumps David's response in terms of snottiness.
Which brat-pack generation are we talking about? (There have been
three, four, five, six, or seven (or more) depending on whom you ask
and how far back in time you're willing to go.) And from which
continent? I think it's a mistake to dismiss a whole generation of
actors simply because Ashton gets his gesicht on the cover of People
for Kabbalah wedding plannery. For example, is the generation to which
this phantom brat-pack belongs the one that's contemporaneous with the
rise of Naomi Watts, or is it a "generation" younger in age than NW?
(I cite Naomi as one example -- I think she is totally fabulous.) If I
survey the scene of who's "hot" right now, I see a lot of fine actors,
among some who just can't be taken seriously, but so what. It's stupid
narrow-mindedness that stunts the growth of the world, and we as the
would-be arbiters of movie-taste (trudging out in society and spreading
The Word) should hold ourselves to the same standards to which we hold
the flexible-minded artist-saints we revere or would someday ourselves
become. And let me ask, -- who the fuck belongs to the "classical
predecessor" pedigree? Aeschylus' workshop troupe? Many star actors
can only rise to the occasion of the best films Hollywood can make at
any given time (depending upon the era, and we're in a rank era today,
what with the studio-megacorps, no doubt about that) -- the real
problem is that today many stars are unwilling to break away from their
agents (who will probably drop them if their percentage from the
actors' take doesn't reach x amount of dollars from a project) and
their publicists (ditto) at the risk of "industry" castigation to lend
their names to smaller projects, thus ensuring the projects funding and
some modicum of distribution, thus ensuring that they will be in an
against-the-grain picture, and ostensibly do some worthwhile work. To
focus in on the problem more specifically, so many actors won't even
lend themselves to a -single- project of aforementioned small stature,
never mind several (which would really risk their agency/publicist
loss). This however says nothing about their screen talents, but
simply about their personal values and/or mortgage obligations. The
larger-larger picture, in my mind, is that there are very, very few
brilliant American "indie" filmmakers. (The horror of that term!!) My
generation can't be blamed for not having been drafted en masse for
World War II or Vietnam, but there's certainly something in the air
among us that has melted backbones when it comes to ingenuity, hard
work, integrity, and a personal moral compass with real magnetic
shebang.

So let's blame the producers and the filmmakers, not the actors. And
don't ever forget that the stars you see in The Movies in America or on
E! constitute exactly .0076% of the working actors in this country,
many of whom will go undiscovered or be too "quirky" (i.e., unique) to
get splashed into theaters in a 1500 screen opening weekend. I've said
it before and I'll say it again, it says a lot about the current state
of American Hollywood filmmakers when all you see from these people
(who are always vocal about having to make such and such compromise
with the script, on the set, or in post) are the studio films they make
-- and they never self-fund 16mm (even 35mm!) shorts with their
enormous paychecks to show off the supposed personal vision lurking
inside of them all. Pathetic.

craig.
14353

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:11pm
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- Craig Keller wrote:

> Which brat-pack generation are we talking about?
> (There have been
> three, four, five, six, or seven (or more) depending
> on whom you ask
> and how far back in time you're willing to go.)

I'm not willing to go any further than the cast of
"St. Elmo's Fire." That was -- and is -- the Brat
Pack. It's not a term encompassing all young actors--
just that bunch.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
14354

From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:18pm
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

> I'm not willing to go any further than the cast of
> "St. Elmo's Fire." That was -- and is -- the Brat
> Pack. It's not a term encompassing all young actors--
> just that bunch.
>

I agree and think Craig "doth protest too much". Despite the system,
many stars today are in the position to make more demands than their
classical predecessors and take risks. The tragedy is that so many of
them do not. At least, Rita Hayworth broke with her image in THE LADY
FROM SHANGHAI and later THE STORY ON PAGE ONE.

Can "chipmunk" really convince us that he is a real hitman or is he
desperate to gain that Academy award following loss of status in
following BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY with DAYS OF THUNDER?
>
> Tony Williams
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com
14355

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:26pm
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- peckinpah20012000
>
> Can "chipmunk" really convince us that he is a
> real hitman or is he
> desperate to gain that Academy award following loss
> of status in
> following BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY with DAYS OF
> THUNDER?
> >

Ah but this comes on the heels of "The Last Samurai"
-- which he was convinced would bring him an Oscar.
Because he didn't get it, Pat Kingsley got the boot.
Bullies always have to blame their failures on someone
else.

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14356

From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

>
> Can "chipmunk" really convince us that he is a real hitman or is he
> desperate to gain that Academy award following loss of status in
> following BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY with DAYS OF THUNDER?

Well, this is ridiculous. You cite two of the worst films in the
"chipmunk boy" canon (your and David's words, not mine) (and why not
mention 'The Last Samurai'?), and make them speak for his entire
career. I suppose your conception of what constitutes a good
performance (whether you can be "convinced" he's a "real hitman" or
"not") harks back to some of the points in the good vs. bad acting
thread, so what can I say other than I don't agree, and I think Tom
Cruise is a magnificent actor. I'm sure I'll get cat-called by David
for this, but it won't bother me. Recent examples of Cruise's
excellence (and this for sure ain't obscurantist) -- 'Magnolia,'
'Vanilla Sky' (a movie I don't like except for Cruise, and Penelope
Cruz's face), and greatest of greats, 'Eyes Wide Shut.'

Also, you say I doth protest too much, but then agree with the points I
made about the stars not doing enough to appear in such and such, which
never had anything to do with their talents to begin with.

David -- re: the Brat Pack thing, yeah, the capital "B" / "P" pack
certainly refers to the 'St. Elmo's' crowd, but I only used the term in
the same sense as it gets applied to everyone young with a tattoo and
some chin scruff, both nowadays and retroactively (i.e., Dennis Hopper
and Martin Sheen and Margot Kidder, et al, the "seventies brat pack" or
Coreys Feldman and Haim, etc).

Thinking about your Pat Kingsley comment and the recent Rolling Stone
interview, I wonder once again what the conversations across two years
must have been like between Kubrick and Cruise on the subject of the
latter's Scientology.

craig.
14357

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- Craig Keller wrote:

You cite two of the worst
> films in the
> "chipmunk boy" canon (your and David's words, not
> mine) (and why not
> mention 'The Last Samurai'?), and make them speak
> for his entire
> career.

Because they pretty much do.

I suppose your conception of what
> constitutes a good
> performance (whether you can be "convinced" he's a
> "real hitman" or
> "not") harks back to some of the points in the good
> vs. bad acting
> thread, so what can I say other than I don't agree,
> and I think Tom
> Cruise is a magnificent actor.

YIKES! You've drunk the Kool-Aide.

I'm sure I'll get
> cat-called by David
> for this, but it won't bother me.

See above.

Recent examples
> of Cruise's
> excellence (and this for sure ain't obscurantist) --
> 'Magnolia,'
> 'Vanilla Sky' (a movie I don't like except for
> Cruise, and Penelope
> Cruz's face), and greatest of greats, 'Eyes Wide
> Shut.'
>

EWS is the expection that proves the rule. Kubrick
used Cruise in much the same way, and for many of the
same reasons, that he used Ryan O'Neill in "Barry
Lyndon."

And O'Neill, for all has manifest limitations, had not
only "Barry Lyndon" but the sublime "So Fine" to his
credit.

Comedy isn't Cruise's forte as I'm sure you'll note.
Since becoming a star he hasn't gone anywhere near it.

>
> David -- re: the Brat Pack thing, yeah, the capital
> "B" / "P" pack
> certainly refers to the 'St. Elmo's' crowd, but I
> only used the term in
> the same sense as it gets applied to everyone young
> with a tattoo and
> some chin scruff, both nowadays and retroactively
> (i.e., Dennis Hopper
> and Martin Sheen and Margot Kidder, et al, the
> "seventies brat pack" or
> Coreys Feldman and Haim, etc).
>

The what about River and Keanu? Is Alessandro Nivola a
"brat"?

> Thinking about your Pat Kingsley comment and the
> recent Rolling Stone
> interview, I wonder once again what the
> conversations across two years
> must have been like between Kubrick and Cruise on
> the subject of the
> latter's Scientology.
>

I'm sure Kubrick listened respectfully as he adjusted
the light and went over last minute script
alterations.

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
14358

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:59pm
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video & Hitchcock's Marnie (was Smilin' Through)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:

>
> To JPC's points about bad prints and bad projection, I might add
bad
> viewing. At least for myself, and leaving out the time long ago
when
> seeing it on no sleep I slept through almost all of "The Informer,"
I'm
> not always "on," I don't always get a film the first time even
under
> ideal viewing circumstances. Thus Kevin's position that he's
already
> seen "Smilin' Through" is doubly surprising, because for me, films
often
> change, sometimes a lot, on repeated viewings.
>

Very important point! Yes films change, because we change and
everything else does too. "Bad" viewing may be a consequence of
purely or largely physical factors, such as lack of sleep (some would
say that you didn't miss much by sleeping through most of "The
Informer" but I won't go that far. At least you got some needed
sleep, and there would be other opportunities to see the film). I'll
skip over self-induced bad viewings -- viewing under the influence
(e.g. Bill K's experience of watching INDIA SONG while high). Bad
viewing can also be generated by mood, prejudice, laziness, "dominant
ideology" and its influence on the viewer. The attitude you bring to
the viewing of a film has an enormous influence on how you'll fee
about it. So there are many films I didn't particularly like the
first time around that I'd like to see again (Borzage's "I'll Always
Love You" being one of them -- its silliness and immense naivete
might seem sublime today (Moullet argued that the film's excess of
sentimentality placed it beyond criticism). JPC

> About "Marnie," . The closeups of her purse,

I find that shot starting with a closeup of Marnie's back with
her huge cylindrical purse under her arm as striking in video as on
the big screen.
14359

From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

> EWS is the expection that proves the rule. Kubrick
> used Cruise in much the same way, and for many of the
> same reasons, that he used Ryan O'Neill in "Barry
> Lyndon."

This is half-true, and half just an easy answer. I don't think either
could have held these performances together without un certain quelque
chose, 48 takes and Kubrick or not. [p.s., sic O'Neill = O'Neal]

> Comedy isn't Cruise's forte as I'm sure you'll note.
> Since becoming a star he hasn't gone anywhere near it.

But he was pretty funny as Frank T.J. Mackey. I predict Cruise will do
pure comedy someday. He's too into "conquering challenges" to avoid it
forever.

> The what about River and Keanu? Is Alessandro Nivola a
> "brat"?

I was actually going to write "River and Keanu" first. Don't know why
I went with the Coreys instead. BTW, have you seen The Surreal Life
(the first series)? If not, walk, don't run, to the DVD store.

I don't know anything about Alessandro Nivola, except that he was in
'The Clearing.'

> I'm sure Kubrick listened respectfully as he adjusted
> the light and went over last minute script
> alterations.

Sometimes. And for the other times, I'm guessing he calmly razed the
foundations of Tom's faith, then changed the topic to raising children.

craig.
14360

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: Borzage, film, video & Hitchcock's Marnie (was Smilin' Through)

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

>
> > About "Marnie," . The closeups of her purse,
>
> I find that shot starting with a closeup of
> Marnie's back with
> her huge cylindrical purse under her arm as striking
> in video as on
> the big screen.
>
>

And that's because it's a close-up of a very specific
portion of the female anatomy.

Hitchcock's audacity is breathtaking.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14361

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- Craig Keller wrote:

>
> But he was pretty funny as Frank T.J. Mackey. I
> predict Cruise will do
> pure comedy someday. He's too into "conquering
> challenges" to avoid it
> forever.

Really? That's no the impression I get from his
lawyer:

http://www.ehrensteinland.com/htmls/library/tomcruiseletters.html

> I was actually going to write "River and Keanu"
> first. Don't know why
> I went with the Coreys instead.

Cause they're closer to the original "brats" -- being
"talent-challenged"

BTW, have you seen
> The Surreal Life
> (the first series)? If not, walk, don't run, to the
> DVD store.
>

Saw it. I love Tammy Faye.

> I don't know anything about Alessandro Nivola,
> except that he was in
> 'The Clearing.'

Then you must see "Laurel Canyon"

http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_alessandronivola.shtml

>
> Sometimes. And for the other times, I'm guessing he
> calmly razed the
> foundations of Tom's faith, then changed the topic
> to raising children.
>

A tricky set of subjects, Kubrick being Jewish (see
"Barry Lyndon") and having actual offspring rather
than purchased goods.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14362

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:24pm
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Richard Modiano
wrote:
>
>
> Damien Bona wrote:
> "...after he did an about face and beamer a friendly HUAC witness
following his prison stint as a member of the Hollywood Ten there's
little but bloated dross."
>
I don't consider Christ in Concrete bloated dross, but the last time
I looked it was an impossible film to see for legal reasons. Marvin
showed it to me when he was at Columbia.

The only time I saw Caine Mutiny I was on acid, and I saw it as a
film about an obsessional neurotic flipping over into paranoia. The
point being that the Navy, being an OCD outfit, is the perfect home
for OCD cases, to which it furnishes protective coloring. The film's
cold hieratic style, while unlovely, seemed perfectly in keeping w.
the subject.
14363

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:36pm
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- peckinpah20012000
> >
> > Can "chipmunk" really convince us that he is a
> > real hitman or is he
> > desperate to gain that Academy award following loss
> > of status in
> > following BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY with DAYS OF
> > THUNDER?
> > >
>
> Ah but this comes on the heels of "The Last Samurai"
> -- which he was convinced would bring him an Oscar.
> Because he didn't get it, Pat Kingsley got the boot.
> Bullies always have to blame their failures on someone
> else.

I liked him in Born on the 4th. Who is his new publicist?
14364

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:38pm
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video & Hitchcock's Marnie (was Smilin' Through)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
I'll skip over self-induced bad viewings -- viewing under the
influence
> (e.g. Bill K's experience of watching INDIA SONG while high).

That was a GOOD viewing, JP!
14365

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- hotlove666 wrote:

Who is his new
> publicist?
>
>

His sister.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
14366

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:46pm
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Who is his new
> > publicist?
> >
> >
>
> His sister.

That works...
14367

From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:47pm
Subject: Christ in Concrete (was: The Caint Mutiny-Court Martial)

>>
> I don't consider Christ in Concrete bloated dross, but the last time
> I looked it was an impossible film to see for legal reasons. Marvin
> showed it to me when he was at Columbia.

Impossible no longer (for the last two years at least) --

http://www.alldayentertainment.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.100.exe/online-
store/scstore/allday/concrete/p-
concrete.html?L+scstore+tckt4864ff68ef68+1094813523

craig.
14368

From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:51pm
Subject: Cruise and Scientology (was: Actors of Today)

> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
>>
>> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>>
>> Who is his new
>>> publicist?
>>
>> His sister.
>

An excerpt of the excerpt from the RS article by Neil Strauss, posted
at rollingstone.com --

===

"Want to meet my mom?" Tom Cruise asks as we walk through the halls of
the Celebrity Centre, ground zero for Scientology in Los Angeles.

Um, sure.

We round a corner and enter the president's office, where Mary Lee
(a.k.a. Mom) has just ordered a salad. In town from Florida, she is
leaning against a door frame near Lee Anne DeVette, Cruise's sister and
publicist, and Tommy, who manages Cruise's philanthropy work. Mom is
thin and tan, and she beams an even toothier smile than her son when
she is introduced.

Considering that she is a practicing Catholic, it is somewhat
surprising to see her in the Celebrity Centre. "I just finished taking
the Way to Happiness course," she says. "I learned so much."

She pauses for a moment and reflects on the day's lesson: "And I
thought I was happy before."

Cruise joined Scientology, the controversial church of religion and
life philosophy started by L. Ron Hubbard, after church courses helped
him overcome his dyslexia in the Eighties; he was followed, one by one,
by his three sisters. His mother was the lone holdout in the clan. A
year ago, however, after going through what she describes as "some
things," she relented.

But doesn't Scientology conflict with her Catholicism? Not at all, she
says: "I think Jesus wants me to be here right now. My church may not
agree, but I personally know that."

We sit down on the couch, and Lee Anne puts in a video. It is a tape of
Tom Cruise speaking at her daughter's graduation from the Delphian
School, which uses L. Ron Hubbard's learning principles. It is a
passionate speech, in which Cruise sings the praises of Hubbard's
"Study Tech" and rails against psychiatry and psychiatric medication.
After graduating, Lee Anne's daughter will work in Cruise's office.
They're a tight little family.

On the surface, Cruise seems to be at a turning point in his life and
career. Romantically, he is alone, having divorced Nicole Kidman after
ten years and broken up with Penelope Cruz after three. And he recently
left his longtime -- and notoriously overprotective -- publicist, Pat
Kingsley, preferring representation by his family. Meanwhile, in his
movies, he is taking steps to shed his old persona of
headstrong-young-hotshot-with-a-good-heart-underneath-it-all in favor
of progressively more evil characters -- from Lestat in Interview With
the Vampire to Frank "T.J." Mackey in Magnolia to Vincent in his latest
film, Collateral . An older character with salt-and-pepper hair,
Vincent is not a nice guy: He is a cold-blooded killer and an
unredeemable sociopath who leaves a trail of bodies in his wake.

But the most surprising change is that the famously press-phobic Cruise
seems more open than ever about his commitment to Scientology, having
provided funds for a detoxification clinic to help New York
firefighters who became sick after 9/11.

Since Scientology, in the popular imagination, is such a loaded word --
often associated with heavy-handed recruitment tactics,
strong-arm-lawyer assaults and steep membership and course fees -- one
would think that Cruise wouldn't be so willing to take a journalist
through that world.

"Who are those people that say those things?" Cruise asks when I bring
it up over lunch one day. "Because I promise you, it isn't everybody.
But I look at those people and I say, 'Bring it. I'm a Scientologist,
man. What do you want to know?' I don't mind answering questions."

He lists some of Scientology's selling points: its drug-abuse,
prison-rehabilitation and education programs. "Some people, well, if
they don't like Scientology, well, then, fuck you." He rises from the
table. "Really." He points an angry finger at the imaginary enemy.
"Fuck you." His face reddens. "Period."

==

craig.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14369

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:57pm
Subject: Re: Cruise and Scientology (was: Actors of Today)

--- Craig Keller wrote:

>
> Since Scientology, in the popular imagination, is
> such a loaded word --
> often associated with heavy-handed recruitment
> tactics,
> strong-arm-lawyer assaults and steep membership and
> course fees -- one
> would think that Cruise wouldn't be so willing to
> take a journalist
> through that world.
>

Oh yeah? He's been trying to push that crap for years.

> "Who are those people that say those things?" Cruise
> asks when I bring
> it up over lunch one day. "Because I promise you, it
> isn't everybody.
> But I look at those people and I say, 'Bring it. I'm
> a Scientologist,
> man. What do you want to know?' I don't mind
> answering questions."
>

LOL!

> He lists some of Scientology's selling points: its
> drug-abuse,
> prison-rehabilitation and education programs. "Some
> people, well, if
> they don't like Scientology, well, then, fuck you."
> He rises from the
> table. "Really." He points an angry finger at the
> imaginary enemy.
> "Fuck you." His face reddens. "Period."
>

See? What did I tell you! A two-bit bully.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14370

From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:12pm
Subject: curious how many times you see a film -- SHANE

I am curious how many times you view a film before you 'judge it.'
Certainly we all change over the course of a decade or two and
see 'more or less' in a given film. But given that even film makers
in the 50's were surprised that their films would have a long life
(early film makers apparently made little attempt to preserve their
films, thinking perhaps that new ones were always coming along),
I want to ask how many times the average 'good film' needs to be
viewed to allow for an honest assessment. Given that most
movie goers might see most films just once (except for the
recent trend of repeat viewership, especially the young
audiences), how much does the average viewer miss by
viewing films only once.

Certainly films are viewed multiple times for pleasure and
further study, but generally, how many times would the average
person need to see the average 'good film' in order to
get most of what the director intended. My suspicion is that
most (myself included) miss a lot of what is going on... or
others whose writings I read, certainly see a lot more than is
there.

How many viewings does it take to see "more than what is there?"

I watched SHANE, then read THE WESTERN GENRE where its
sequences are discussed. There is an early scene where JOEY's
rifle is shown / said to be unloaded by his father, and can be
interpreted as the father's impotence. I understand that reading
of the scene, but I don't think I would have gotten it the first time
around, even knowing that an empty wallet, an unloaded gun,
etc. might represent impotence.

My first impression of a frontier couple with one child, a ten year old
at that, would lead me to believe there were other children lost in
childbirth, or to disease or accident; or that marital relations were
strained or absent by distance, etc.; or that either the male / female
were infertile for what ever reason. Families were larger-sized then.

> Fred wrote:
> I don't always get a film the first time even under
> ideal viewing circumstances. Thus Kevin's position that he's already
> seen "Smilin' Through" is doubly surprising, because for me, films
> often
> change, sometimes a lot, on repeated viewings.
14371

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:30pm
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video & Hitchcock's Marnie (was Smilin' Through)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> I'll skip over self-induced bad viewings -- viewing under the
> influence
> > (e.g. Bill K's experience of watching INDIA SONG while high).
>
> That was a GOOD viewing, JP!

It was a feel-good viewing, I'm sure, but if it made the film seem
hilarious wasn't there something slightly wrong about the viewing?
14372

From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:03pm
Subject: Re: curious how many times you see a film -- (NEW ROSE HOTEL - spoilers)

While researching my book on Abel Ferrara, I tended to watch each
Ferrara film 7 times during the period that I was writing about it
(usually 2 to 3 weeks). After 7 viewings under these circumstances, I
generally felt that I had pretty much exhausted the film in question
(bearing in mind that I had seen all of these films many times before
starting the book - I'm sure I'd already see SNAKE EYES 15 times).

Long after completing my chapter on NEW ROSE HOTEL (but before
handing the final draft to my publisher), I decided to watch NEW ROSE
HOTEL again, and discovered a sequence that I now believe to be the
heart of the film, but which I had completely missed the significance
of during my previous 7-plus viewings. During this sequence, we see X
(Willem Dafoe) and Fox (Christopher Walken) watching a video filmed
in a brothel. After a shot of their televison screen displaying
footage of two naked women embracing, Ferrara cuts to X and Fox
cheering and laughing like schoolboys as they look at this image.
Ferrara then cuts back to the TV screen, on which the naked women can
still be seen: only now, one of the women has turned away from the
camera, revealing that she has an eye tattooed on her back.

So the sequence begins by showing Fox and X treating these women as
objects for the gaze, but ends by revealing that the look has been
returned. As anyone familiar with NEW ROSE HOTEL will realize, this
sequence is the entire film in miniature: Fox and X treat Sandii
(Asia Argento) as nothing more than an object, a pawn in their game,
but eventually discover that they were actually pawns in her game.

Of course, not many films are as complex and tightly organized as NEW
ROSE HOTEL, but it's worth bearing in mind that, when dealing with a
work of any distinction, we will always be one viewing away from
total understanding.
14373

From:
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:28pm
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

Actually, I have never read any Herman Wouk - just have a vague familiarity
with this work from movies. It has always been controversial, for the very
reasons Damien Bona suggests - it lacks the courage of any convictions. And I was
not endorsing it whole hog. It does give a showpiece for actors, and have lots
of lively food for thought.
Everyone might enjoy Jean Kerr's collection of humor essays, "Please Don't
Eat the Daisies". Among other good advice, it states: "Never trust writers who
get drunk at cocktail parties and announce they can write a better book than
Marjorie Morningstar". :)
She also quotes Time Magazine on her first play: "Leo G. Carroll brightens up
Jean Kerr's play the way flowers brighten up a sickroom". Ouch!

Mike Grost
14374

From:
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:51pm
Subject: Re: curious how many times you see a film -- SHANE

I almost always see new things in a film the 2nd or third times seen. Even on
the level of plot - there are all sorts of details and connections that were
missed the first time.
Also, on later viewings, I like to pause the film and stare at the images.
Sometimes one will freeze the video or DVD, and look at an image for 5 minutes,
trying to analyze it in detail. Or even 15 minutes! Also, will watch a camera
movement again and again, rewinding the video.
Perhaps wrongly, I never hestitate to recommend a film if the first viewing
seemed a great experience. But if the film was not liked at first - one should
watch out... Maybe one just missed what was important.
Many critics, myself included, do "read too much" into a film. This gets
worse if a critic is committed to an ideology.
BUT: it is also easy to ignore apparently "unimportant passages" in a film
maker's work - blinded by what you THINK you know. Example: everyone "knows"
that Fritz Lang's films are crime thrillers about "hate, murder and revenge" (to
quote the song from Rancho Notorious). And there are lots of critical
commentaries that see Lang exclusively in these terms. But when actually watching
Lang, one sees mountains of stuff that does not fit into this category. Lang's
films have a deep interest in modern mass media, for instance - newspapers,
movies, records, telephones, etc. By comparing one Lang film to another (a key
auteurist practise) one starts NOTICING all these Lang interests. If you ignore
this, you are ignoring something important to Lang - because he put variations
on it in movie after movie.
Similarly all the characters in Phil Karlson who are into persuasion:
changing other people's minds through talking and ideas. Or the love of high tech
sound equipment in Raoul Walsh. These are not part of their director's thumbnail
cliche images. But they are a real part of their films.

Mike Grost
14375

From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 0:10am
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)

Dmytryk made Christ In Concrete in 1949 (in England) the year before
going to prison and two years before he ratted out to HUAC.

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Damien Bona wrote:
> > "...after he did an about face and beamer a friendly HUAC witness
> following his prison stint as a member of the Hollywood Ten there's
> little but bloated dross."
> >
> I don't consider Christ in Concrete bloated dross, but the last
time
> I looked it was an impossible film to see for legal reasons. Marvin
> showed it to me when he was at Columbia.
>
>
14376

From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 0:39am
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>I think Tom
> Cruise is a magnificent actor.

Wow, this is probably the most jaw-dropping stratement I've come
across in the 14th months of A Film By. Calling Cruise
even "competent" would be a stretch. The most I think one can say
about Cruise (and I love the highly apt appellation Chipmunk Boy)is
that he was very earnest in Born On The Fourth Of July, and if it
hadn't been for his participation the film probably wouldn't have
been made.

I adore Eyes Wide Shut and find it mesmerizing, but I still can't
help but pine over how Kubrick's swan song would have been even
better if a real actor -- say, Jeff Bridges -- had been cast (not to
mention that Cruise is too callow for the role).

He's ludicrous in Magnolia, but then again that character as written
by Anderson had only the remotest connection with any person who had
actually lived and breathed. (There was the observation of Frank
DeCaro from The Daily Show, citing Cruise's "amazingly accurate
portrayal of a heterosexual.")

But to give credit where credit is due, there is no other movie star
who can preen like Cruise.
14377

From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 0:45am
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video & Hitchcock's Marnie (was Smilin' Through)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:

"And that's because it's [Marnie's purse]a close-up of a very
specific portion of the female anatomy.

Hitchcock's audacity is breathtaking."

I once had the oppertunity to ask Eric Fischl if his painting of the
boy fondling a vaginal purse had been inspired by MARNIE, and he
answered that indeed that was the case. He also liked numerous
compositional shots of the train station and building exteriors and
contemplated working up a painting based on the lightening storm
overhead shot in Rutland's office.

Richard
14378

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:03am
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- Damien Bona wrote:

>
> I adore Eyes Wide Shut and find it mesmerizing, but
> I still can't
> help but pine over how Kubrick's swan song would
> have been even
> better if a real actor -- say, Jeff Bridges -- had
> been cast (not to
> mention that Cruise is too callow for the role).
>

Bridges wouldn't have worked because he's too
likeable. The part requires a zombie.

> He's ludicrous in Magnolia, but then again that
> character as written
> by Anderson had only the remotest connection with
> any person who had
> actually lived and breathed. (There was the
> observation of Frank
> DeCaro from The Daily Show, citing Cruise's
> "amazingly accurate
> portrayal of a heterosexual.")
>

Snerk!

> But to give credit where credit is due, there is no
> other movie star
> who can preen like Cruise.
>
>
>
>

Hmmm. I wonder about that. Consider Val Kilmer.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14379

From:
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:45pm
Subject: Ok, you asked for it, Camper

WARNING: A VERY LONG POST. IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FILM VS. VIDEO DEBATE,
AVOID.

First of all, let's get one thing straight here, Fred. You say:
"Thus Kevin's position that he's already seen "Smilin' Through" is doubly
surprising, because for me, films often change, sometimes a lot, on repeated
viewings."

When the freak did I say or even imply that I've "seen" Smilin' Through, that
I have no intention of ever viewing it again? Did my original inquiry not
bespeak a desire to engage with you about the film, to learn more about it?

What I DID say was: "I already have let everyone know what I think about
Smilin' Through."

And that was only in response to this comment of yours which I found childish
and bullying:
"If you have seen "Smilin' Through" only on video, and you ever do get to
see it on film, let us know what you think."

You're trying to force me to tell you if I saw Smilin' Through on video or on
film even after I said:
"I refuse to ever that question."
And I never will answer that question so please stop trying to get it out of
me! I have serious, deep-seated problems with forever framing discussions in
that context and with you suggesting that I cannot even tell the list (or
anyone) what I think about a film until I frame my discussion within that context.

MUCH more on that later. For now, I think it's absurd and downright offensive
for you to suggest that I am one of the, and I quote you, "many (who) will
not make (an) effort to resee films seen only video on film (sic)." Somewhere on
the Frameworks archives, there is a story about me drowned in sweat and damn
near hyperventilating in an attempt to see Warhol's Hedy in Chicago. I think
that story and my posts here offer more than enough evidence about my
willingness to go out of the way to see a film.

Next, let's address this heart-warming story about the 18 year old Wisconsin
boy to whom you implicitly contrast piggy ole me. There's a very disturbing
undercurrent to this tale and it links back to the discussion on Los Angeles
Plays Itself. And it concerns city bigotry to some extent. Fred, I know you're
not financially well-off and last I heard, you don't have health insurance.
Nevertheless, I think you still fail to see the full ramifications of the
privilege you have of living in Chicago, how "rich" you are because of your location.
And now this boy is moving to Chicago and going to film school. On the
surface, a lovely story. But much as I was touched that you organized a screening
(presumably private - another story unto itself: how was this screening
advertised if at all? who was invited?) partly for his benefit, I couldn't help but
think "Big whoop! Another film freak in a great film city." You blithely ignore
all the social privileges this boy has at his disposal in order to see film on
film. He could afford several trips to Chicago. He's privileged enough to get
into film school and live in a expensive city like Chicago. He could even
afford a DVD. Those aren't light, inconsequential factoids, Fred. A lot of very
nice things need to be in place in order for this boy to get to Chicago to
Brakhage on film. Your insistence that one cannot say what they think of a film
until they see it on film implies a host of privileges that you continually
ignore. And I know this sounds absurd to you given your financial condition, but
privileges are what they are. You know this but it bears repeating: not everyone
can move to Chicago or New York or Los Angeles or Paris or London or Toronto
or Montr�al (can I get an Austin?) and attend film school and have screenings
organized in any part for them. These people whose chances of seeing any
Brakhage or Smilin' Through are slim indeed, can they ever say what they think
about them, Fred? Don't you think lording this imperative over such groups serves
to strengthen a privilege great film cities like Chicago (and the film whores
who populate them) already enjoy?

Finally, I think Coursodon gets at the fundamental issue here when he so
brilliantly asks Zach:
< theatrical screening of a film you have only seen on video?>>

And Zach's reply was extremely telling:
"I'll wait as long as I need to! (I'm still young and in no hurry, anyway.)

Zach, I would ask how you would know when you've waited long enough. And not
as a devil's advocate. I seriously would like you to ponder that question. For
what's at stake in this film/video discourse is establishing authority so
that one can make judgments and not just suspend them (and yes yes, of course,
always with the provision that no judgment is ever etched in stone and final).

And here, the mention of your youth is crucial (and links you up with that 18
year old Wisconsin boy) because one of the ways (not the only one and not
necessarily the best one) to establish authority is through age. And by this I
don't necessarily mean a particular number but a body of work or a variety of
experiences built up over time (not even necessarily a long time). The goal,
then, is to locate someone who we perceive to be an authority and prove our own
authority to them. But sometimes you find that those authorities are full of
shit and you can build up authority (or at least confidence) by trying to call
them on it.

Back to you, Fred. Much as I am pained to admit it at this particular moment
in time, I consider you one of those authorities. You have amassed a
significant body of writing on film. Your experiences with academia, in nature, etc.
lend heft to your pronouncements. You're well-connected in film circles (well,
better than me at least). And you know this because I've said as much on this
list. Your idea that we should dive into the unique filmworlds of directors
instead of perpetually trying to find our absorbed selves in films has honestly
moved me. But the shortcomings inherent in that idea (namely, it implies an
already fully-formed self with which to venture forth into those unique
filmworlds and ignores all those selves in desperate need of some sort of validation)
spill over in this damn goddamn film/video debate.

I've been sitting on the story I'm about to tell for quite some time now. I
decided not to air it at the time because, in the end, it boosted my
confidence. Any further discussion would have just been sour grapes. And besides, a
friend told me to keep it to myself until a situation merited my telling it. Given
how your last few posts have made me feel as if my back was up against the
wall, Fred, I'm telling it now.

A few years ago on Frameworks, I mentioned the placement of Sarah Jane in the
frame of Sirk's Imitation of Life, which remains my favorite classical
Hollywood film. You vehemently fired back something along the lines of "How could
you possibly talk about the placement of Sarah Jane when you've only seen the
film on video?" I don't recall my response but inside, I was embarrassed and
resolved to see the film on film. Later on, I was privileged to get into McGill
University in Montr�al and further privileged to finally get to see Imitation
of Life on film in that great film city. And lo, the print was atrocious. Some
reels were brighter than others. One was bathed in a nauseous pink glow. It
was riddled with awful splices. In fact, the splices were so bad that two whole
minutes were missing (the argument between Steve and Lora outside her
apartment was almost entirely gone). I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone
could prefer this film version over the letterboxed version I had seen on TCM.
And, needless to say, my thoughts on the placement of Sarah Jane within the
frame were not transformed through the gaudy haze and crappy edits. Under all
those privileged conditions, film failed to trump video. (If you doubt the
veracity of this story, I saw the film at Cin�ma du Parc. Ask anyone who has been
there to see an older film lately. They'll tell you - their prints are horrible.
I set my alarm one Sunday morning to see Woodstock on film, another measure
of my willingness to see film on film, and when I got to the ticket counter, I
was informed that many people asked for refunds during the previous night's
screening because the sound was so vomitorious. I opted to go back to bed.)

It was that experience that bolstered my confidence in believing the
imperative to see film on film was bunk. And ever since, I have had the confidence to
pronounce on Sarah Jane's placement within the frame (among many other
things). But the question still burns (oh gawd does it burn!!). Fred, I know the
Smilin' Through debacle was about texture or whatnot and not character placement.
Nevertheless, YOU told me I couldn't pronounce on Sarah Jane's placement until
I had seen the film on film. Well, now I have. Can I now pronounce on the
film? Must I wait for a pristine print? Even with all those privileges I enjoyed,
can you possibly predict when I will be so privileged again to see a pristine
print? Had I not told you or anyone else this story, would it have been my
moral duty in any published essay on the film to alert readers of my pathetic
viewing conditions? Or even in face-to-face communication?

Of course, I've already made up my mind on all of these questions. But I
defer to your authority enough to solicit an answer from you. And I'm genuinely
curious about some other things too. Are you consumed with some sort of
intellectual dread because you cannot see every painting in its original form? And how
do you deal with the Mona Lisa? It may be a clich� but I hear she's behind
glass and it's an extremely disappointing experience. Assuming that's true, can
you ever make peace with that state of affairs? Will you never pronounce on
the Mona Lisa because of this dilemma?

In sum, I think it's appalling how Benjamin's landmark "Work of Art" essay,
which was primarily about film, has been so perverted and grossly misunderstood
over the years. We desperately need a social history of film viewing in
relation to video (and if there is one, someone please advise).

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14380

From:
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:51pm
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper

That should read:
What I DID say was: "I already have let everyone know what I think about
Smilin' Through."

Don't know why the rest became italicized but I apologize nonetheless.

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14381

From:
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:53pm
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper

Oops and:

You're trying to force me to tell you if I saw Smilin' Through on video or on
film even after I said:
"I refuse to ever that question."

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14382

From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:12am
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

> that he was very earnest in Born On The Fourth Of July, and if it
> hadn't been for his participation the film probably wouldn't have
> been made.
>
> I adore Eyes Wide Shut and find it mesmerizing, but I still can't
> help but pine over how Kubrick's swan song would have been even
> better if a real actor -- say, Jeff Bridges -- had been cast (not
to
> mention that Cruise is too callow for the role).
>
> He's ludicrous in Magnolia, but then again that character as
written

Funny, I loathed Born in the Fourth, liked Eyes Wide Shut (tho
Bridges--that's an idea), and liked Cruise best in Magnolia (tho I
didn't like the movie). I do agree, he's at the very best adequate,
at the very worse...well, there was something monumentally
impressive about his self-regard in Top Gun, even if he was several
inches shorter than co-star Kelly.

To David: he thought Last Samurai would get him an Oscar? Really?!
14383

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:18am
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- Noel Vera wrote:

well, there was something
> monumentally
> impressive about his self-regard in Top Gun, even if
> he was several
> inches shorter than co-star Kelly.
>

Give me Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake!

> To David: he thought Last Samurai would get him an
> Oscar? Really?!
>
>

He most certainly did! He campaigned like nobody's
business for it. And beeing the raging narcissist that
he is he thought it was "owed him" by now.

I'm really disappointed with Spielberg for working
with him. But that's show biz, folks.

("Minority Report" would have been SO much better with
Eddie Deezen in the lead.)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14384

From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:43am
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> ("Minority Report" would have been SO much better with
> Eddie Deezen in the lead.)
Right On!
>
Superb responses, David.

The Prosecution rests its case, Your Honor.

Tony Williams

>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14385

From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:05am
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper

Kevin J:
> Zach, I would ask how you would know when you've waited long
> enough. And not as a devil's advocate. I seriously would like you
> to ponder that question.

Whoa whoa, look. That response to M. Coursodon was breezy and
facetious. As I wrote in my original post, I do have an opinion of
the film. I won't hesitate to air that opinion or to discuss
MARNIE, or any other film I've seen on video. My only point was
that, because I had seen this '60s color widescreen film on video
(and, though letterboxed, not of the finest quality or on the
largest screen), I was open to the possibility that I was missing
something. Just as I was also open to the possibility that maybe
the film just doesn't fully work. Right now I'd side with the
latter, but sometimes the things gained from a seeing a film in a
good celluloid print are worth something, and considering that I
like Hitchcock and found the visuals the most intriguing parts of
the film, it seems like a good idea to keep this open-mindedness. I
would be shocked to discover that anybody could have a problem with
this.

> For what's at stake in this film/video discourse is establishing
> authority so that one can make judgments and not just suspend them

Yes, this is one thing at stake in the film/video discourse. (Not
the only thing, as film preservation itself is also at issue, let's
not forget.)

As I hope my first paragraph indicated, I'm certainly not talking
about "suspending" a judgment. I didn't say, "Well I won't know how
I feel about MARNIE until I see it on 35mm." I did indicate that
I'd like to see the film on 35mm because I suspect it (unlike, say,
THE LETTER) might benefit from a screening in that format. If I saw
MARNIE in pink 16mm, I'd probably be saying the same thing I am
after seeing video: the point in this particular case is that I
didn't see it under optimal circumstances, and I think there's a
decent chance that optimal circumstances might make everything work
better. Or they might not. But, see, I'm always willing to fall in
love with another film ...

So, no need for you or anyone to put words in my mouth, OK?

> I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone could prefer this
> film version over the letterboxed version I had seen on TCM. And,
> needless to say, my thoughts on the placement of Sarah Jane within
> the frame were not transformed through the gaudy haze and crappy
> edits.

It seems strange that Fred would call you on your discussion of
frame placement, because that's something that translates, well,
pretty much perfectly from film to (letterboxed) video. But if he
did, I'm on your side on this one.

Fred can speak for himself about this, but in his defense: in the
time I've known his writing (and "him," online that is), I've never
read him write that all video is inferior to all film. I mean, a
discolored print falling apart versus a letterboxed showing on a
decent television set? Of course the video is better! (And I
suspect Fred would agree.) This doesn't mean the video is perfect
or ideal; it's simply the best one might have in the given
circumstances. You're absolutely right to say that privilege has a
lot to do with it, and it's a point I would bring up (and have
brought up) in debates with "purists." But this doesn't mean we
should disregard the sensitive and sometimes important differences
just because they're largely inaccessible.

(And a "film purist" at least has some aesthtic credo; I'm probably
more bothered by people who have no problems with video per se, but
who will tell you, *after* you've expressed dislike or disinterest
in some cinema they admire that has an ounce of visual presence,
that you "really" need to see LAWRENCE OF ARABIA or Peter Greenaway
on the big screen to understand them ... "oh, that's why you don't
like the movie.")

No one would argue that sometimes things are lost in the transition
from film to video. Fred cares about these particular things very
deeply, so much so that they seem to form the crux of aesthetic
greatness and experience for him. And I think that's OK, just as
other aesthetics are OK. Myself, I don't find these things so very
essential to cinema as an art form--I just think they can be very
crucial aspects of particular works.

--Zach
14386

From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:22am
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein

> >
> > ("Minority Report" would have been SO much better with
> > Eddie Deezen in the lead.)
> Right On!
> >
> Superb responses, David.

I'd have to agree. Philip Dick's protagonists often have their
worldview, their certainty eaten away little by little until all
that's left is a desperate clinging-on to what's left. Cruise isn't
exactly a great essayer of that kind of acting.
14387

From:
Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper

In a message dated 8/22/04 10:06:32 PM, rashomon82@y... writes:

> That response to M. Coursodon was breezy and facetious.
>
I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I took what you said at face value
because you gave no indication that it should be taken otherwise. As I've said
many times before, facetiousness does not travel well in an email. Then again, as
someone pointed out on this list, I'm just a "damn kid" who doesn't
understand facetiousness, sarcasm, whatnot so what do I know?

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14388

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:30am
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)

> Certain broad
> visual elements, like soft lighting and some costuming decisions
> that made for interesting visual cues (like Robert Taylor in
> clothing different from the other Hellcats), were likely things
> Borzage was given to deal with rather than chose on his own.

I'm not sure if your reference to "soft lighting" means what I think it
means, but many of Borzage's films do have a distinctive kind of
lighting without many blacks, so that the image looks un-contrast-y, and
visual elements aren't that different from each other in brightness.

I too liked FLIGHT COMMAND when I saw it years ago, and Zach's comments
make me want to see it again. - Dan
14389

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:35am
Subject: Re: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper

>>For what's at stake in this film/video discourse is establishing
>>authority so that one can make judgments and not just suspend them
>
> Yes, this is one thing at stake in the film/video discourse. (Not
> the only thing, as film preservation itself is also at issue, let's
> not forget.)
>
> As I hope my first paragraph indicated, I'm certainly not talking
> about "suspending" a judgment.

What's to be gained, intellectually speaking, from establishing
authority? I don't see why we can't all just throw out ideas from a
position of non-authority, and go on revising them for the rest of our
lives. - Dan
14390

From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:37am
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper

Kevin:
> I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I took what you said at face
> value because you gave no indication that it should be taken
> otherwise.

OK, I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly there. Did
my recent post at least clarify anything, then, or should I have
deleted the numerous paragraphs and simply said "don't put words in
my mouth"?

--Zach
14391

From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:43am
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)

Dan:
> I'm not sure if your reference to "soft lighting" means what I
> think it means, but many of Borzage's films do have a distinctive
> kind of lighting without many blacks, so that the image looks un-
> contrast-y, and visual elements aren't that different from each
> other in brightness.

This seems pretty right-on to me. FLIGHT COMMAND does have some
nice sharp blacks in it, but certainly a lot of the backgrounds are
lit soft, gray, with objects almost bleeding into each other.

--Zach
14392

From:
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 0:17am
Subject: Re: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper

Yes, Zach, your recent post was very clear and no, it wouldn't have been good
if you simply said "don't put words in my mouth." The numerous paragraphs
were welcome.

Thanx!

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14393

From:
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 0:28am
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)

To reiterate a lot of what Fred has already written, my personal experiences
tell me that there's no comparison between seeing films on film and seeing
films on tape or DVD. But it has less to do with me recognizing what's great
about the film than the overall power of the experience itself. That is to say,
I feel that after, oh, fifty video viewings of "The Immortal Story" or
"Bringing Up Baby" or "Vertigo," I recognized what was special about Welles', Hawks',
and Hitchcock's mise-en-scene. I got Welles' striking use of framing
characters from behind bars, as though they lack free will, in "The Immortal Story";
I got the greatness of the final shot in the Hawks and the way it summed the
whole picture up; and I'm sure I got at least an intellectual appreciation of
the awe-inspiring greatness of Judy walking in the green light in the
Hitchcock.

But it wasn't until I saw each of these films in (good) 35mm prints that the
films sprang alive: suddenly, my appreciation became "visceral," for lack of a
better word. This has without exception been my experience with films I've
seen on video first and then later saw on celluloid. I'm not saying that one
shouldn't see films on video; all of the above I first saw that way. Nor am I
saying that you can't love films seen on video; I loved all of the above based
on video viewings. I think you could sum up my view thusly and I can't
imagine how it could be offensive to anybody here: if you've seen a film you love
on video, just wait 'til you see it on film. You're in for an amazing
experience. Everything you already love becomes heightened.

Peter
14394

From:
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 0:57am
Subject: Re: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper

In a message dated 8/22/04 11:07:35 PM, sallitt@p... writes:

>
> What's to be gained, intellectually speaking, from establishing authority?
> I don't see why we can't all just throw out ideas from a position of
> non-authority, and go on revising them for the rest of our
> lives. - Dan
>
Perhaps nothing. But we don't throw out ideas in a social vacuum. And that's
the reason why we can't all just throw out ideas from any kind of position.
There are authorities who (try to) place restrictions on what ideas we can throw
out and when we can throw them. Fred was basically telling me that I had to
tell the list when and/or if I had seen Smilin' Through on film before I could
throw out ideas on it. And the same goes for Imitation of Life. Fred was
telling me that I couldn't throw out any ideas on Sarah Jane's placement until I
had seen it on film. How can I being to revise my ideas when I'm not even
allowed to express them in the first place?

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14395

From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:13am
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper

LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
"Back to you, Fred. Much as I am pained to admit it at this particular moment in time, I consider you one of those authorities. You have amassed a significant body of writing on film. Your experiences with academia, in nature, etc. lend heft to your pronouncements. You're well-connected in film circles (well, better than me at least)."

While Fred may be an "authority" he certainly hasn't been authoritarian. I took a class from him many years ago at NYU and I always felt free to disagree with him even though he had the power to give me a bad grade and thus jeopardize my partial scholarship. You only had to come up with cogent reasons in order to register your disagreement. Fred was/is a good teacher and I've found his insights valuable in deepening my understanding of certain films and filmmakers. Were that not the case, his authority would indeed be hollow no matter how much influence he wieled in academia, the world of film criticism, festival programing, etc.

My experience as a fine art print maker has convinced me that something valuable is lost in translating a work created in one medium to another medium, certain nuances (as Zach so aptly put it) are stripped away. But even with that reservation, I enjoying watching my laser disc of MOONFLEET for example, just because that movie is so unlikely to be screened even in Los Angeles. I have seen it in 35mm, a good print, but that was over 20 years ago.

As to rendering a judgment based on a video viewing, for viewers like myself who aren't critics it's not a major issue, however, only seeing a video version leaves me with the uneasy feeling that I might be missing something crucial. The same is possibly more true with painting; even if the Mona Lisa is under glass you can still move around it and see it under raking light that reveals the brushwork.

My compromise view is that it's always better to see the movie on film, but failing that one can make do with a video version.

Richard

14396

From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:16am
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)

> I think you could sum up my view thusly and I can't
> imagine how it could be offensive to anybody here: if you've seen a
film you love
> on video, just wait 'til you see it on film. You're in for an amazing
> experience. Everything you already love becomes heightened.

Spot on, Peter. Many of the films I've seen in the recent Anthony
Mann series I've already seen and either liked or loved on video. But
seeing them on film has allowed each of them to blossom in a way I'd
not anticipated: BEND OF THE RIVER, THE MAN FROM LARAMIE, WINCHESTER
'73, EL CID, and DEVIL'S DOORWAY literally explode when projected
large and with the detail of at least a halfway-decent print.
Relatable to the film vs. video discussion, I "sort of liked" THE FALL
OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE on letterboxed laserdisc, squashed but a very,
very good video transfer...but I *loved* it on film, even though the
print was quite bad and seemed warped in places. Without getting
trying to apply statistics to a more nebulous subject of aesthetic
experience, I'd say my enhanced enjoyment was 40% due to the film-ness
and 60% due to the fact that it was my second viewing.

-Jaime
14397

From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:52am
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)

> suddenly, my appreciation became "visceral," for lack of a
> better word.

Talk about visceral, I remember my first viewing of that series of
re-releases of Hitchcock's fifties films, after a long absence. I'd
just enjoyed Man Who Knew Too Much and The Trouble with Harry, and
loved Rear Window--thought it was a great film.

Then I sat down to Vertigo. All I knew about it was what Time
Magazine had said, that it was the one great film of the series. And
as the images unfolded onscreen and the colors washed all over our
faces and Bernard Hermann's score thrummed at our spines, we just
got utterly swallowed up in the experience.

When the camera in the film's final image moved away from Stewart
standing in the belltower, my companion bolted up and yelled "What?!
That's it?!" She couldn't believe it ended that way, and I had to
laugh at her uncomprehending face. Later she claims she enjoyed Rear
Window most of all, but I gently pointed out to her that she didn't
stand up at the end of Rear Window, shrieking, and that it just
didn't affect her as profoundly. She replied that at least Rear
Window was a pleasant experience.

I've seen Vertigo several times since on cable and laser, but I
already knew from that first screening that Vertigo was one of the
greatest films I've ever seen; Sight and Sound's latest survey is
just belated vindication.
14398

From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:00am
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Bridges wouldn't have worked because he's too
> likeable. The part requires a zombie.
>

I think the reason Bridges would have worked so well is that he
brings his likability with him into the film, making the
subsequent "zombie-ness" of the character that much more unsettling.
(Plus he's a great actor.)
14399

From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:09am
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
FLIGHT COMMAND does have some
> nice sharp blacks in it, but certainly a lot of the backgrounds are
> lit soft, gray, with objects almost bleeding into each other.
>

I haven't seen Flight Command so I can't say for sure, but this
description does sound like the MGM soft-focus house style of the 30s
and 40s, which can be found in almost all of the studio's black-and-
white releases, whether it's Camille or Tarzan's New York Adventure.
14400

From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:21am
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)

> Wow, this is probably the most jaw-dropping stratement I've come
> across in the 14th months of A Film By. Calling Cruise
> even "competent" would be a stretch.

I think your hatred for Tom Cruise is blinding your judgment. Calling
him "competent" would be a stretch? That would make him a step away
from Justin Guarini, if I'm tracking correctly.

> I adore Eyes Wide Shut and find it mesmerizing, but I still can't
> help but pine over how Kubrick's swan song would have been even
> better if a real actor -- say, Jeff Bridges -- had been cast (not to
> mention that Cruise is too callow for the role).

What facet of the character am I overlooking that will illuminate me on
the matter of Stanley Kubrick miscasting his lead? And how can you
adore the film and find it mesmerizing, but find serious, incompetent
fault in the lead actor who graces almost every scene?

> He's ludicrous in Magnolia, but then again that character as written
> by Anderson had only the remotest connection with any person who had
> actually lived and breathed.

Well, it's a movie.

> (There was the observation of Frank
> DeCaro from The Daily Show, citing Cruise's "amazingly accurate
> portrayal of a heterosexual.")

Frank DeCaro knows fuck-all about cinema. Plus he's one of those
"everything is for me to poop on" comedians that go for cheap laughs
and play up to audience prejudices and predispositions -- who enrage
me. The hickory-dickery-jokery of publicly outing Tom Cruise is right
up there with "let the French take Jerry Lewis" and, for that matter,
"the French don't bathe," in my book.

cmk.

a_film_by Main Page

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact