Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
14701
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:11pm
Subject: Fernandel and Pagnol (Was: Ali Baba)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Responding to JPC's post about 1940's French films:
> The only Fernadel movie seen here was "Ali Baba", directed by the
great
> Jacques Becker.
Fernandel was brilliant in films for Pagnol: Regain (Harvest), Angele
and Le Schpountz, my ex-wife's favorite movie. Her/our children can
recite passages from heart, and sing the songs. Do not miss these
colossal films (Le Schpountz is now available w. subtitles), as well
as the other great Pagnols: The Baker's Wife, The Welldiger's
Daughter, Topaze, the trilogy (of which MP technically only directed
the conclusion) and the astonishing late diptych Manon des
sources/Ugelain, which was remade by Berri in a way that greatly
transformed the original. Pagnol and Guitry were major influences on
French film and theory of the New Wave era. They are filmed theatre
only in the sense that Pas sur la bouche is: they are the essence of
cinema, and both were greatly appreciated here by Orson Welles, among
others.
14702
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:14pm
Subject: Re: Cronenberg (Was: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Hart" wrote:
> for a while now, cronenberg has been just as concerned with the
> problems of perception and willful corruption of mental processes,
He's a Gnostic. Videodrome and Naked Lunch are remakes of Orphee.
14703
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:24pm
Subject: Re: Women's pictures (Ida Lupino)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> Ronnie Scheib also wrote a career piece. The one time I heard IL
> speak at the Nuart, her abrasive gay-bashing turned me off. I guess
> I'm still discovering the films -- obviously she has many devotees
> here, and I should follow up.
I mentioned Ronnie's article in an earlier post, Bill. Also our
Lupino entry in "50 ans"... There's no gay-bashing in any of her
films, so why the reluctance?
14704
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:38pm
Subject: Candidate Collateral Vilage Ughxorcist
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
Having finished a number of tasks and crises, I took in a film last
night, The Manchurian Candidate, and (to make up for the outrrageous
12.50 ticket price, and despite the ad where the stunt man shames
people who see movies for free) snuck into 3 others. I saw all of
TMC -- good movie, sappy ending, and isn't it really about Kerry? --
20 minutes of Collateral (bad), the ending of Ughxorcist 4 1/2
(awful) and all of The Village.
Which brings me to M. Knight Sleight-of-Hand's latest weird opus. As
always, there's the issue of the Surprise! ending, which comes
halfway thru this time and isn't that important. The "film" critics I
read focused on not revealing this Surprise -- I'd call it the
premise -- and grousing noises about how silly it is when you get to
it. I didn't see gripes about how the characters talk, but assume
that was part of their reaction. All this, of course, is purely
script stuff, so while we're on it, I should mention that the
premise -- hardly novel -- is not used simplistically, because the
aims of the idealistic characters are seriously undermined by an
event in the village thatis more surprising than the Surprise. (Say
no more...)
As cinema, I found The Village a rare treat, particularly after the
Husands and Wives excesses of Michael Mann's non-style in the
dreadful excerpt from Collateral which I had just endured while
waiting for my "second feature" to start. MNS's way with a tale has
evolved -- the early scenes unfold unpredictably and economically.
The world of the village is very fetching to look at, with all those
bowlers on the young men, the absence of red, and the yellow
protective cowls and banners they use to keep off "those of whom we
do not speak." Interiors, exteriors and shots combining both "font
systeme," and more than once I was reminded of silent cinema --
Dreyer, for example. Ron Howard's daughter is smashing, another great
MNS acting find, and the film is really about her character, Ivy,
although she's introduced last of all the major characters. The woods
are lovely, dark and deep, and the Boschesque creatures are handled
with the same oblique flair as the mean, green ETs in Signs. James
Newton Howard's score, which is orchestrated like a violin concerto,
is quite nice, and unexpectedly lyrical at moments like the slo-mo
shot when the Ivy's family are going into their hidey-hole to escape
a visit from "those of whom we do not speak." Once again, a film that
film enthusiasts should have embraced gets overlooked because it's
out of the mainstream of H'wd conventions. If you haven't seen it, I
recommend it. Bring your eyes and ears.
14705
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:39pm
Subject: Re: Women's pictures (Ida Lupino)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> I mentioned Ronnie's article in an earlier post, Bill. Also our
> Lupino entry in "50 ans"... There's no gay-bashing in any of her
> films, so why the reluctance?
I'm sure you're right. Just another old broad with too much time on
her hands and too much bourbon and branch water in her gutty-wuts.
14706
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Women's pictures (Ida Lupino)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
The one
> time I heard IL
> speak at the Nuart, her abrasive gay-bashing turned
> me off. I guess
> I'm still discovering the films -- obviously she has
> many devotees
> here, and I should follow up.
>
>
Alcoholism did her in. She was very bitter woman
towards the end, and had no way of dealing with a new
generation seeking her out to celebrate her
achievements.
Does anybody on the list recall "Mr. Adams and Eve"
the sitcom she did with hubster Howard Duff? Great
stuff.
They played a movie star couple who at one point had a
fight and forced their studio into making two "Gone
with the Winds" -- his and hers. But they made-up by
the finale.
There was another greaat episode where a series of
events kept them from having lunch. They arrived at a
coctail party literally starving, but there were no
hors d'oeuvres. So they kept downing martinis to eat
the olives.
You can guess the rest.
And THEN there was the episode where he decided to
leave the movies for avant-garde theater, starring in
a play called "Dinosaur on a Bicycle."
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14707
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cronenberg (Was: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> He's a Gnostic. Videodrome and Naked Lunch are
> remakes of Orphee.
>
>
I prefer "Parking."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14708
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 0:42am
Subject: Re: David Ehrenstein Presents
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"Those days are behind me,.."
Just teasing Bill, but PERFORMANCE and THE DEVILS were notrious head
movies in their day.
Richard
14709
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:28am
Subject: Re: Art History & Reproduction (Was Ok, you asked for it, Camper)
-- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> "I'd guess that the study of the history of style would be most
> affected by photography. My impression is that at the end of the
> 19th century the following ideas took hold: each artist has a
> personal style, there are national styles, there are period
> styles, and the role of art history is to study the principles
> and history of style. Of course, this is an oversimplification."
>
> That's a very reasonable surmise, but the writers of art histories
in
> the 19th century still went to the source (the early art histories
> are illustrated by steel engravings rather than photographs, but
> maybe engravings were cheaper to do than photographs at that time.)
I've seen some of the late 19th century books (often the size
of atlases) with engravings of art objects. However, I'd expect
most of the photographs would not be in books. Lantern slides
would have been very important, certainly.
> Art historiographiy was developed with the rise of the art
academies
> during the late 17th century with early attempts at creating a
> taxonomy of period, national style and personal style, and did in
> fact attain the state of development you describe by the end of the
> 19th century. The role of photography in all this is at present
open
> to question in my view.
I haven't actually read anything about this topic. One professor
commented on the role of photography in art history's development,
another mentioned its possible role in the the decline of
Guido Reni's reputation, but I haven't seen anything in print about
how photography may have transformed art history. Maybe I'll do some
research.
I also have my own experience: I think I see much more clearlythrough
photographs; in person, I get lost in the details.
My main point is that the critic or historian
> of painting, sculpture and especially (as noted by
Zach)architecture
> is obliged to actually examine the work in question and not a
> photographic reproduction, and than present his or her conclusions
> with the best illustrations available (I'm not advocating art books
> without illustrations.)
That's reasonable. The researcher ought to examine the original
objects, especially when they are the primary topic of research.
Paul
14710
From: Yoel Meranda
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:40am
Subject: Lumiere = Light
I was lucky to see the Lumiere Brothers' 130 films in Anthology
today. I had seen some of them here and there but was not aware of
the value of what Lumieres had created until today.
First, I see on the web that only one of the brothers, Louis, is
considered to be the director behind these films. However, Anthology
defines the filmmaker as 'The Lumieres Brothers'. I would be very
happy if someone can inform me on how they worked and why Louis
can/should be considered the director. It is also very much O.K. if
you can direct me to some source where I can learn about this.
Anyway, I think that almost all of the films are beautiful, and some
of them are simply unbelievable.
It is obvious that Louis (or both him and Auguste) felt every
movement recorded on the camera very deeply, which is much more than
what most directors that followed him (or them) achieved. It seems
that most people who came afterwards took the camera, its capacities
and its limitations for granted.
Most of my favorites are the ones where they just record the streets
and the people walking around (or even better, people changing their
movements after they notice the camera) and the ones where the
camera moves (attached to a boat or a train). Anyone can put a
camera in the middle of a city and record stuff but very few people
can put it in such a way to record movements as dynamic and as
complex as these. I wish I had the chance to see the films a few
more times.
Beauty and complexity are not qualities you would really expect from
the first director ever. Or actually, I guess one might make the
opposite statement and assume that the first director was bound to
feel the cinema very deeply. This is all speculation of course.
Most of my least favorites (not that they were bad or anything) were
the ones where the camera recorded a parade of something
spectacular. Those seem to be more interested in showing 'some
interesting things' to the audiences. I'd like to hear if somebody
disagrees with this.
Finally, I know that this has been noted in a few other places but I
cannot not be impressed by the fact that the first people who used
the camera were called 'Lumiere'. ('light' in English, as most of
you probably know.)
Looking forward to any responses...
Yoel
14711
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 2:07am
Subject: Re: Re: David Ehrenstein Presents
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> Just teasing Bill, but PERFORMANCE and THE DEVILS
> were notrious head
> movies in their day.
>
Especially the former.
Everyone should own a copy of Colin McCabe's BFI book
on the film. It's a treasure trove of information and
a first rate piece of film criticism.
There's also an excellent documentary on "Donald
Cammell: The Ultimate Performance" that was produced
for television a few years back. James Fox and Johnny
Shannon are in it along with China Cammell, Kenneth
Anger and Barbara Steele.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14712
From:
Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 10:07pm
Subject: Re: Lumiere = Light
There is a first rate compilation available on video:
Lumière Brothers' First Films (Louis Lumière, 1895 - 1897)
85 of the Brothers' best short films, each 50 seconds long.
There is commentary (on the sound track) by Bertrand Tavernier.
Not all of these are actually directed by Louis or the brothers. They sent
teams of filmmakers around the world, to make short films using their camera.
The footage of 1890's New York City is unique. One never sees New York in motion
from such an early date.
This is only a fraction of the films made - there are around 1100 in the
catalogue, if memory serves. Remember seeing three films in sequence, decades ago
at the film society, which documented dancers doing the cakewalk - just
delightful.
Yoel's comments on the films are very good - they capture deep truths about
the films' use of motion.
Mike Grost
PS - The 1995 "Lumière and Company", in which dozens of modern directors make
50 second films with the Lumière camera, is also worth watching.
14713
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 2:10am
Subject: Re: Re: Lumiere = Light
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> PS - The 1995 "Lumière and Company", in which dozens
> of modern directors make
> 50 second films with the Lumière camera, is also
> worth watching.
>
Indeed it is, especially for the films by Rivette,
Konchalavsky, David Lynch, and Spike Lee.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14714
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 2:19am
Subject: Re: Lumiere = Light
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda"
wrote:
>> First, I see on the web that only one of the brothers, Louis, is
> considered to be the director behind these films. However,
Anthology
> defines the filmmaker as 'The Lumieres Brothers'. I would be very
> happy if someone can inform me on how they worked and why Louis
> can/should be considered the director.
It is now estimated that Louis Lumière did not direct himself more
than 30 or 40 films (there should be some list somewhere), and
Auguste, only one, according to Georges Sadoul, quite an authority
on this subject. Louis Lumière recruited dozen of cameramen and sent
them all over the world (Promio and Mesguich were among the first
ones).
Maxime
14715
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:01am
Subject: Re: Candidate Collateral Vilage Ughxorcist
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> As cinema, I found The Village a rare treat, particularly after the
> Husands and Wives excesses of Michael Mann's non-style in the
> dreadful excerpt from Collateral which I had just endured while
> waiting for my "second feature" to start. MNS's way with a tale has
> evolved -- the early scenes unfold unpredictably and economically.
> The world of the village is very fetching to look at, with all
those
> bowlers on the young men, the absence of red, and the yellow
> protective cowls and banners they use to keep off "those of whom we
> do not speak." Interiors, exteriors and shots combining both "font
> systeme," and more than once I was reminded of silent cinema --
> Dreyer, for example. Ron Howard's daughter is smashing, another
great
> MNS acting find, and the film is really about her character.
I found The Village to be pretty much of an abomination both
narratively and visually (not to mention in terms of logic and
characterization). The long sequence with Opie's kid in the woods
seemed like nothing more than a redux of Richard Fleischer's (not
very good) See No Evil -- I would say a "tribute" except that Mr.
Shyamalan has shown himself to be a complete philistine when it comes
to film history, and I doubt that he's even heard of Fleischer, let
alone this particular film.
14716
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:16am
Subject: Re: David Ehrenstein Presents
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> "Those days are behind me,.."
>
> Just teasing Bill, but PERFORMANCE and THE DEVILS were notrious
head
> movies in their day.
>
> Richard
Curiously, I never saw either -- catching them in Ehrenstein-O-Vision
should be fun.
14717
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:19am
Subject: Re: Lumiere = Light
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda"
wrote:
There's a book by Sadoul, and a film by Rohmer. Also a more recent
film by Andre Labarthe. And I'm sure the Institut Lumiere has
published tons of stuf.
14718
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:22am
Subject: Re: Candidate Collateral Vilage Ughxorcist
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> I found The Village to be pretty much of an abomination both
> narratively and visually (not to mention in terms of logic and
> characterization). The long sequence with Opie's kid in the woods
> seemed like nothing more than a redux of Richard Fleischer's (not
> very good) See No Evil -- I would say a "tribute" except that Mr.
> Shyamalan has shown himself to be a complete philistine when it
comes
> to film history, and I doubt that he's even heard of Fleischer, let
> alone this particular film.
Hm. What was the name of the film you saw? By the way, we have
precedent to disagree. Joe Dante, for example, loathes MNS, and the
CdC is split right down the middle, or was before they all got canned.
14719
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:25am
Subject: TCM Dreyer / Ulmer
Just a reminder that this month on TCM the Director's Spotlight shines
on Carl Theodor Dreyer -- and, in addition, for one or two days they're
going to be playing 24 hours of Ulmer.
craig.
14720
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:40am
Subject: THE BIG RED ONE reconstruction
Saw this in Edinburgh. The film goes from being a collection of great
scenes, to being a definiteive Fuller statement on life, death and
war. And a masterpiece.
But, as you'll have heard, Schickel has retained the studio cut VO,
which is now even more pointless than before, since it spells out
things that the extended version already makes abundantly clear. And
it even usurps the ending of the movie from the visuals. This leads
to some confusion - a VO proclaiming that the only glory in war is
surviving, to a title card informing us of Fuller's birth and death
dates. This almost comes across as a sick joke, and killed the round
of applause the film would surely have earned from its dumbstruck
audience.
Schivkle is to be applauded for getting this cut produced and
released, but the VO is a real blot, and doesn't clarify squat.
Depressing that so many years later, somebody still thinks they can
make THE BIG RED ONE better than Fuller could.
14721
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:37pm
Subject: Re: THE BIG RED ONE reconstruction
It's my own impression that some portions of the plot can't be
relayed without the VO (written by Jim McBride, incidentally, as
some members of this chatgroup may already know). I wondered (and
wonder) about its inclusion myself, knowing how much Sam disliked it
on principal. But he also spoke about there being a much longer cut
that may not have existed--maybe because he carried this film around
in his head for so many years that he might have periodically
confused the actual version(s) from the ideal one(s) in his head.
(Another feature of his ideal version, as I recall, was using only
Beethoven and Wagner for the music.) As nearly as I can tell, this
version isn't either of Sam's cuts (which apparently can't be found)
but a new one based on his script and the existing footage--except
for the fact (and it's a big difference) that there's no VO in the
script. But I've been trying to figure out how all the plot points
could be conveyed without it, and in some cases I haven't (yet) come
up with a solution.
It's important to note that Christa, Sam's widow, who's generally
quite rigorous and hawklike about such matters (and who collaborated
on some of Sam's later scripts), appears to support Schickel's
version without any misgivings. Since we exchange emails fairly
often, I should ask her at some point about this. Perhaps I can ask
Schickel as well if he makes it to the Chicago film festival
showing. In theory, I'm introducing this screening as a Critic's
Choice, at least if it can be scheduled during the first week of the
festival, and I'm hoping that a q and a might be possible.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
> Saw this in Edinburgh. The film goes from being a collection of
great
> scenes, to being a definiteive Fuller statement on life, death and
> war. And a masterpiece.
>
> But, as you'll have heard, Schickel has retained the studio cut
VO,
> which is now even more pointless than before, since it spells out
> things that the extended version already makes abundantly clear.
And
> it even usurps the ending of the movie from the visuals. This
leads
> to some confusion - a VO proclaiming that the only glory in war is
> surviving, to a title card informing us of Fuller's birth and
death
> dates. This almost comes across as a sick joke, and killed the
round
> of applause the film would surely have earned from its dumbstruck
> audience.
>
> Schivkle is to be applauded for getting this cut produced and
> released, but the VO is a real blot, and doesn't clarify squat.
> Depressing that so many years later, somebody still thinks they
can
> make THE BIG RED ONE better than Fuller could.
14722
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:38pm
Subject: Anthology screenings ahead
I have to urge all New Yorkers (and anyone planning any trips to NYC
this fall) to grab a copy of Anthology's new calendar if they
haven't already. I think it is the most impressive four months of
programming I've ever seen. This post would be too long for me to
list all the highlights, let alone all the films, but here is the
tip of the iceberg:
- THE HART OF LONDON (in a program with work by Cornell, Phil
Solomon, and Ken Jacobs)
- Jacques Tourneur's ANNE OF THE INDIES (!) (in a program with work
by Peggy Ahwesh, Lewis Klahr) [by the way I don't know Nina Fonoroff
who has films in this and the previous program; worthwhile?]
- Straub/Huillet retrospective (incomplete but nice-sized; but even
if they showed a single title it'd be far more than we usually get)
- Babette Mangolte retrospective, including screenings of THE MODELS
OF PICKPOCKET (a very worthwhile film though I've seen only extended
clips)
- Insane amounts of Cornell, Frampton, etc.
- CARRIAGE TRADE
You get the picture. I was looking forward to some Brakhage this
season, but this makes up for it. Considering that other NYC venues
are doing some damn fine programming this fall as well, I feel
incredibly spoiled.
--Zach
14723
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:55pm
Subject: Re: Candidate Collateral Vilage Ughxorcist
> I found The Village to be pretty much of an abomination both
> narratively and visually (not to mention in terms of logic and
> characterization).
I thought it looked handsome enough (Roger Deakins, what the hey),
but the story was absurd. Same problem with everything Shyamalan's
done--nice bits of visuals here and there, hung on a silly story. My
favorite I suppose is Unbreakable, because it's an admission of
geekdom.
Wrote more about it here:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/453
14724
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:07pm
Subject: A Fuller without VO (was: THE BIG RED ONE)
Saw Sam Fuller's Pickup on South Street again, and it still holds
up, from the tense opening sequence in the subway car (Fuller's
journalism training taught him to grab you from start) to the long
takes where various lowlife characters--pickpockets
(called 'cannons' here, the language is wonderfully precise),
informers, 'muffins' and Commie spies argue with each other and
reveal themselves to each other and struggle with each other's wants
and needs.
Wondered about Skip (Richard Widmark), and the ease with which he
seems to best the police, the Communists and the US government, then
it hit me: he's not dealing with very high-ranking people, either in
the government or in the espionage ring; in effect, they're all
small-timers trying to grift each other.
The DVD has all kinds of revealing comments, from Fuller telling us
why he likes constructed sets (he likes the control it gives him),
to his revealing that Jean Peters' phone booth scene was shot
partially blind (there wasn't room enough between the booth and the
wall for the camera operator), to Widmark's remark that he swung
from his shack to the dock drunk on several martinis, and nearly
fell into the water.
It's terrific; I doubt if Widmark ever got a more complexly
sympathetic role, a kind of street samurai with hands for weapons
and a tarnished (and yet all the more important because of its
tarnish) code of honor to follow; I doubt if Thelma Ritter got a
better role, as the informer who, despite everything, loves Skip
even if she did sell him for $38.50--as Skip himself says it, "she's
gotta eat."
14725
From:
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:52pm
Subject: Re: Anthology screenings ahead
In a message dated 8/29/04 12:14:06 PM, rashomon82@y... writes:
> - THE HART OF LONDON (in a program with work by Cornell, Phil
> Solomon, and Ken Jacobs)
>
Don't miss this one! After Some Call It Loving, it's my very favorite film. I
had the opportunity to stay in London (Ontario, the "setting" of Chambers'
film) earlier this year and it's actually quite a lovely city (with an AMAZING
restuarant called Garlic's) when you get past the miles of strip malls. The
Museum London has some of Chambers' paintings (and an Attila Lukacs - how do you
explain that one to the kids?).
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14726
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:10pm
Subject: Re: A Fuller without VO
I agree "Pickup" is great, and I agree with (per Jonathan's comments)
Fuller that the original voiceover in "The Big Red One" was horrible. I
can't comment on the new version since I've not seen it, but I would
argue that in general terms the very *idea* of an authoritative
voiceover narration, even if spoken by one of characters, is contrary to
Fuller's whole ethos. His films are about the collision of voices and
egos, none necessarily more "wrong" or "right" than each other (except
perhaps when it comes to, say, pedophilia in "The Naked Kiss" -- but
even there the pedophile is at least given a voice). This is why we
sometimes hear voiceovers of individual characters, as in "Fixed
Bayonets" and "Shock Corridor," that don not pretend to present an
objective narration but rather bring us into their private and
idiosyncratic worlds. "A clash of idiosyncratic worlds" -- maybe that's
even a good way of stating Fuller's general theme, at least for some of
his films. One of the great moments in Fuller is when the rain becomes
"real" in "Shock Corridor," and it's this kind of immersive subjectivity
that seems so contrary to the authoritative voiceover.
Maybe there a great Fuller film with an authoritative voicever that
doesn't hurt it. Maybe Howard Hawks also could have made a great
whodunit, though I doubt it.
Fred Camper
14727
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:39pm
Subject: Re: THE BIG RED ONE reconstruction
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
> But, as you'll have heard, Schickel has retained the studio cut VO,
> which is now even more pointless than before
I've never liked the v.o. -- haven't seen the new cut, but I'm sure I
will still find it distracting. It's by Jim McBride, by the way, but
it's superfluous. Sam didn't want the audience to even know what
country they were in --hence no cards
saying "Belgium," "Czecholslovakia" -- because the infantrymen didn't
know where they were either: There were no signs to tell them when
they crossed a border. Richard felt keeping the v.o. would help the
audience get into the film; I think the opposite.
Richard's approach was pragmatic -- he also rejected Sam's idea of
German music (Beethoven, Wagner, Lili Marleen, the Horst Weschel
song) as the only score, feeling it would make people laugh. For what
it's worth, Luc Moullet thought the Beethoven at the beginning of
Verboten! was ridiculous, citing Once More with Feeling as a satire
on that kind of thing. But as Pierre Rissent (who likes the
restoration very much) observed, the only way to know would be to lay
in some of the intended cues and see how they play.
Maybe someone will do a v.o.-less, classical-scored version and
circulate it on the Net one of these days, like the Jar Jar-less
Phantom Empire reportedly edited by Kevin Smith. I'm pretty sure no
v.o., at least, would make for a much more powerful experience. In
the meantime, kudos to Richard for giving us back those scenes, and
by all reports doing a great job of it. I can't wait to see it.
14728
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:07pm
Subject: Re: THE BIG RED ONE reconstruction (plus SHOCK CORRIDOR and BEHIND LOCKED DOORS)
"I wondered (and wonder) about its inclusion myself, knowing how much
Sam disliked it on principal."
According to Jim McBride, when he first met Sam Fuller (a couple of
years after actually working on THE BIG RED ONE), Fuller told him
that he thought he'd done a good job with the voiceover. Maybe he was
just being polite.
For me, the great Sam Fuller mystery SHOCK CORRIDOR's connection with
Budd Boetticher's BEHIND LOCKED DOORS. The origins of SHOCK CORRIDOR
can be traced back to 1946, when Fuller submitted a story
entitled 'Lunatic' - about a journalist who goes undercover as a
patient in an insane asylum to find out who killed one of the
inmates - to the Screen Writers' Guild. That same year, he
unsuccessfully tried to interest Walter Wanger in making this film
under the title 'Strait-Jacket'. Fritz Lang (who wanted to cast Joan
Bennett as the reporter) was to have directed. Budd Boetticher's
BEHIND LOCKED DOORS was released two years later, in 1948, and has
almost exactly the same plot (except that Boetticher's hero is a
private investigator trying to find a criminal hiding in an asylum
rather than a journalist attempting to solve a murder). The main
female character in both BEHIND LOCKED DOORS and SHOCK CORRIDOR is
named Cathy. BEHIND LOCKED DOORS' screenplay is credited to Eugene
Ling (who later helped adapt Fuller's novel THE DARK PAGE into the
Phil Karlson film SCANDAL SHEET) and producer Malvin Wald, from a
story by Wald (an unpublished short story according to some sources).
Could Wald have stolen Fuller's idea? Could this be nothing more than
a coincidence? Or might this be one of the film's on which Fuller
worked as a ghost writer? I asked Christa Lang about this, but all
she would say was that "Sam never revealed his ghostwriting credits
to anyone".
But Fuller and Boetticher certainly knew each other, and some 16mm
footage shot by Fuller appears in the trailer for BULLFIGHTER AND THE
LADY.
14729
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: THE BIG RED ONE reconstruction (plus SHOCK CORRIDOR and BEHIND LOCKED DOORS)
--- thebradstevens wrote:
Budd
> Boetticher's
> BEHIND LOCKED DOORS was released two years later, in
> 1948, and has
> almost exactly the same plot (except that
> Boetticher's hero is a
> private investigator trying to find a criminal
> hiding in an asylum
> rather than a journalist attempting to solve a
> murder). The main
> female character in both BEHIND LOCKED DOORS and
> SHOCK CORRIDOR is
> named Cathy. BEHIND LOCKED DOORS' screenplay is
> credited to Eugene
> Ling (who later helped adapt Fuller's novel THE DARK
> PAGE into the
> Phil Karlson film SCANDAL SHEET) and producer Malvin
> Wald, from a
> story by Wald (an unpublished short story according
> to some sources).
> Could Wald have stolen Fuller's idea? Could this be
> nothing more than
> a coincidence?
A coincidence. I looked at "Behind Locked Doors"
recently as part of my on-going Lucille bremer
project. It was the last of her films to be released
-- though "The Adventures of Casanova" was the last
one she actually appeared in.
As the pivotal inmate is played by Tor Johnson,
"Behind Locked Doors" has much in common with "Bride
of the Monster." In fact it's exactly the sort of
technically well-made but otherwise pedestrian
programmer that Wood aspired to. Only money held him
back.
Bremer looks glum throughout and who can blame her? It
was a long slide down from "Yolanda and the Thief."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14730
From:
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 3:21pm
Subject: Re: A Fuller without VO
In a message dated 8/29/04 1:57:31 PM, f@f... writes:
> Maybe there a great Fuller film with an authoritative voicever that doesn't
> hurt it.
>
People loathe authoritative voiceovers because they give the impression of
holding the viewer's hand, of not allowing us to come to our own conclusions.
Are there any great films with authoritative voiceovers? I'm sure they're out
there; I just can't think of any right now. I like the VO at the beginning of
Ophuls' The Reckless Moment because I think it perfectly crystallizes the film's
central tension. But it never returns in the film so I doubt that it even
counts.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14731
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:28pm
Subject: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
> Are there any great films with authoritative voiceovers? I'm sure they're out
> there; I just can't think of any right now. I like the VO at the beginning of
> Ophuls' The Reckless Moment because I think it perfectly crystallizes the film's
> central tension. But it never returns in the film so I doubt that it even
> counts.
Some of Truffaut's films?
By "authoritative," do you mean that the v.o. doesn't belong to a
character, but rather to someone seemingly representing the filmmakers?
- Dan
14732
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:41pm
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Are there any great films with authoritative
> voiceovers?
"Le Roman d'un Tricheur"
"Sans Soleil"
"Bob le Flambeur"
"The Last of England"
"India Song" -- indeed, most of Duras.
"Querelle"
and the voice of Jean-Baptiste heard periodically
throughout the first 1/2 of "Those Who Love Me Can
Take the Train"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14733
From:
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 3:46pm
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
In a message dated 8/29/04 2:38:41 PM, sallitt@p... writes:
>
> By "authoritative," do you mean that the v.o. doesn't belong to a
> character, but rather to someone seemingly representing the filmmakers?
>
Yes and I assumed that Fred was using it the same way. I could be wrong,
though.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14734
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
>
> > > Are there any great films with authoritative
> > voiceovers?
>
> "Le Roman d'un Tricheur"
>
> "Sans Soleil"
>
> "Bob le Flambeur"
>
> "The Last of England"
>
> "India Song" -- indeed, most of Duras.
>
> "Querelle"
>
> and the voice of Jean-Baptiste heard periodically
> throughout the first 1/2 of "Those Who Love Me Can
> Take the Train"
Don't forget The Magnificent Ambersons. And Barry Lyndon.
__________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14735
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:56pm
Subject: Re: Candidate Collateral Vilage Ughxorcist
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
>
> Having finished a number of tasks and crises, I took in a film last
> night, The Manchurian Candidate, and (to make up for the
outrrageous
> 12.50 ticket price, and despite the ad where the stunt man shames
> people who see movies for free) snuck into 3 others. I saw all of
> TMC -- good movie, sappy ending, and isn't it really about Kerry? --
> 20 minutes of Collateral (bad), the ending of Ughxorcist 4 1/2
> (awful) and all of The Village.
>
> As cinema, I found The Village a rare treat, particularly after the
> Husands and Wives excesses of Michael Mann's non-style in the
> dreadful excerpt from Collateral which I had just endured while
> waiting for my "second feature" to start.
Gee. I liked Collateral and thought Manchurian was a muddle, both
politically and as storytelling. (I saw The Village as well but
wasn't feeling so hot that night and couldn't concentrate. Seemed
better than Signs, but then what isn't?) Bill, I'm just surprised
that you thought Collateral was full of Husbands and Wives excesses
because one of the pleasures of the film for me (as with all of
Mann's films) is how it looked. Apart from the miraculous use of
digital in the outdoor sequences and the extremely expressive use
of 'scope and of urban space, light, and architecture throughout,
Mann here and elsewhere has always seemed to me to be very much a
late (and great) classicist. And while his films are visually
striking they don't seem at all devoted to superficial flash. Both
the individual shots and the ways in which those shots are organized
through montage always have a clarity and function to them. (The
rescue of Jada Pinkett near the end of the film is, among other
things, an extremely intelligent reworking of the rescue of the
innocent in an enclosed space idea which is at least as old as
Griffith.) I don't even want to get started on his approach to genre
or to American history and culture since these are all worthy of more
extended analysis than I'm capable of here. But if you get a chance,
please sneak into that theater again and see the film from the
beginning. Mann is a major filmmaker.
14736
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:56pm
Subject: Re: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
> Don't forget The Magnificent Ambersons. And Barry Lyndon.
and DOGVILLE's John Hurt narration, where LvT showed BARRY LYNDON to
Hurt and said, "Just do it like Michael Hordern did here".
I thought of DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST, but that's the main character
narrating. I love how he says one thing and does another.
-Nick>-
14737
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 8:20pm
Subject: Re: Lumiere = Light
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda" wrote:
> I was lucky to see the Lumiere Brothers' 130 films in Anthology
> today. I had seen some of them here and there but was not aware of
> the value of what Lumieres had created until today.
> Anyway, I think that almost all of the films are beautiful, and some
> of them are simply unbelievable.
I was there as well. I agree; some of the films are heartbreakingly
beautiful. Were there program notes? I didn't see any. I would like
to have known some of the titles. Some of the films are familiar.
One of my favorites wasn't shown: "Bataille de boules de neige,"
which shows a snowball fight in the street. I was curious about
some of the films that seemed to be on different film stock, with
much less contrast. They didn't have the "soot and whitewash"
look of early film. I would have guessed they were filmed in
the 1930's.
> Most of my least favorites (not that they were bad or anything) were
> the ones where the camera recorded a parade of something
> spectacular. Those seem to be more interested in showing 'some
> interesting things' to the audiences. I'd like to hear if somebody
> disagrees with this.
I agree, except that sometimes the parades and military formations
are truly spectacular. And the horses have personality. I'd imagine
someone who loves horses would like these films.
>
> Finally, I know that this has been noted in a few other places but I
> cannot not be impressed by the fact that the first people who used
> the camera were called 'Lumiere'. ('light' in English, as most of
> you probably know.)
>
> Looking forward to any responses...
>
> Yoel
14738
From:
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Candidate Collateral Vilage Ughxorcist
The auteurist divide over Shyamalan continues, I see. For what it's worth, I
thought "The Village" was marvelous. The story didn't actually strike me as
absurd, Noel; in fact, I came away empathizing with these characters who, in
creating this life for themselves, were looking a way to cope with the pain
they'd experienced in their lives. Nevertheless, even if I did find the story
silly, Shyamalan's mise-en-scene makes up for a lot. There are many beautiful
moments. Bill names the wonderful slo-mo shots as Lucius leads Ivy down into
the cellar. Another terrific shot is the low angle when two of the girls are
sweeping a porch and Shyamalan makes a little camera move to reveal a red
flower in the bottom of the frame. I could describe it more accurately if I saw
the film again. Quite elegant.
I do think Yoel might argue with you about "Collateral" having no style,
Bill. I haven't seen the picture myself yet, but Yoel makes a case for it, as
does Joe, I see.
Speaking of directors who often seem discussed as though they have no style,
I just discovered a terrific interview with Robert Benton which takes that
claim and refutes it pretty well. Many of you have probably seen this interview
already, but I stumbled upon it by accident while doing some research. It's
the first interview I've ever read with Benton - whose great films include "The
Late Show," "Places in the Heart" (long championed by Bill), and "Twilight" -
where he discusses things like composition and camerawork. As the
interviewer notes, Benton's sentiment is usually recognized, but his methods are usually
ignored.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1069/is_n1_v31/ai_16280853
Also, reading Benton's tastes in other films, I think he belongs on our group!
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14739
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
>
>Don't forget The Magnificent Ambersons....
>
A great example, and perfect for the film's historical sweep and "epic"
stance, in which it takes the view of none of the characters, sort of
the opposite of Fuller, who takes the point of view of all of them.
I have nothing against authoritative voiceover in a great or good film,
if it works with the film. If I'm going to watch a mediocre or bad film,
especially a documentary, I'd probably prefer less or no authoritative
voiceover, but there can be exceptions here too.
Among avant-garde films, the greatest example that immediately comes to
mind is Christopher Maclaine's unhinged, sublime, sad, moving, fractured
masterpiece, "The End." And he tells you what's happening a lot of the
time, but does lots of other things, including the ecstatic moment when
he intones, accompanied by the last movement of Beethoven's Ninth
Symphony, "Here is the most beautiful music on earth. Here are some
pictures. WHAT is happening?"
Fred Camper
14740
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:02pm
Subject: Re: Candidate Collateral Vilage Ughxorcist
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> Gee. I liked Collateral and thought Manchurian was a muddle, both
> politically and as storytelling.
I should see it from the beginning -- it's quite possible that what I
saw as a rag-tag approach was the endgame of a well thought-out film.
Certainly the night-in-LA look was lovely in itself. BTW, Taschen is
bringing out a book on Mann this spring by FX Feeney.
14741
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:12pm
Subject: Charles Burnett
Had a nice Charles Burnett evening Saturday.
Alerted by Andy Rector, I asked Charles for a DVD of Nat Turner: A
Troublesome Property, and when I swung by the Actor's Studio to pick
it up he comped me in to see Down from the Mountain, written and
acted by Calvin Levels and directed by Charles. The one-man show was
well-acted and instructive; seeing the real James Baldwin in footage
Charles edited into Nat Turner: A Troublesome Property right after
was a shock -- he was much too strong a personality to be imitated.
Which is a bit the point of the play -- it starts off w. a young
actor afraid to do a Baldwin one-man show, invoking JB's spirit
(Levels), who appears and does the show. Charles says he supplied
editorial services and pulled it into shape for a public version
after Levels had workshopped it at Actors Studio and communuity
thetares around LA.
Apart from one too many v.o. repetition of the idea that each writer
creates his own Nat Turner according to his needs, I share Andy's
admiration for NT:ATP. Charles' dramatizations of the 9 versions of
Turner are ravishing and intriguing, like fragments of 9 different
films that could have been. Carl Lumbly plays the Ur-Nat, the one
whose jailhouse confession is all we have way in the way of real
documentation. Good interviews, including Styron. As it says on the
jacket, a bold venture post-9/11. (It was made in 2002.) Every chance
to do great cinema Charles gets, he grabs it.
He took of for S. Africa today to set up a historical feature there.
I gave him Hustling Isn't Stealing: Stories of an African Bar Girl,
an oral history collected by my old schoolmate John Chernoff, to read
on the plane. Highly recommended to all who are interested in Africa,
where the next round of the stepped-up war between US imperialism and
the Third World is already going on, now that the war for the Middle
East has been lost.
14742
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:16pm
Subject: Directed by Robert Duvall
In 1998, I was quite impressed by The Apostle. Duvall is always on
the screen, but his attention everywhere. Mostly long and large
shots, a great work with actors. The film is constantly carried by
the sincerity and the passion of his auteur.
Just saw Assassination Tango, released only this summer here. A bit
perplexed at first sight, with this tired plot and a drop of chic
mood. But the warm look is still in force. Virtuosity is a scar;
rigour is nothing without the generosity and the honesty of the eye.
What about Angelo, my Love?
Maxime
14743
From:
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:16pm
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
"The Naked City" (Jules Dassin) - it has a continuous narration throughout,
and most interesting, too. Is there narration in "Border Incident" (Anthony
Mann)?
"Providence" (Alain Resnais) has a strange experimental cross between
character and authorial narration.
On "The Big Red One" and voiceover. If lots of footage is missing from
Fuller's planned film - either lost or never shot, then SOMETHING has to be done to
clarify for the audience what is going on in the lost footage. One has a
choice of title cards or voice over - both imperfect.
In the fantastic restored "Metropolis", the archivists used extra title
cards. This works great for a silent film like "Metropolis", but it might be
disruptive in "The Big Red One".
Mike Grost
14744
From:
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:21pm
Subject: Re: Hawks & whodunit (was: A Fuller without VO)
In a message dated 04-08-29 14:57:34 EDT, Fred Camper writes:
<<
Maybe there a great Fuller film with an authoritative voicever that
doesn't hurt it. Maybe Howard Hawks also could have made a great
whodunit, though I doubt it. >>
Has anyone ever seen Hawks' version of "Trent's Last Case" (1929)? I have not.
It is based on one of the most famous of all detective novels, by E. C.
Bentley (1913).
Mike Grost
14745
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:28pm
Subject: Re: Charles Burnett
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Had a nice Charles Burnett evening Saturday.
>
> Alerted by Andy Rector, I asked Charles for a DVD of Nat Turner: A
> Troublesome Property,
I hope you got to see the long version (which I managed to see
thanks to Scott Fondas)--which was way too intellectually honest for
NET, who cut it by about a third, if I recall correctly.
14746
From:
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:32pm
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
Almost forgot: most of the sequences in "Rocky and Bullwinkle" have
narrators!
How can one forget the greatest American TV series ever made?
Mike Grost
14747
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:33pm
Subject: Re: THE BIG RED ONE reconstruction (plus SHOCK CORRIDOR and BEHIND LOCKED DOORS)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> "I wondered (and wonder) about its inclusion myself, knowing how
much
> Sam disliked it on principal."
>
> According to Jim McBride, when he first met Sam Fuller (a couple
of
> years after actually working on THE BIG RED ONE), Fuller told him
> that he thought he'd done a good job with the voiceover. Maybe he
was
> just being polite.
I'm sure that was it. Sam was never rude to anyone, in my
experience. But he wasn't at all happy with what Jim wrote.
14748
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> Almost forgot: most of the sequences in "Rocky and
> Bullwinkle" have
> narrators!
> How can one forget the greatest American TV series
> ever made?
>
"Hey Rocky -- watch me pull a rabbit out of a hat!
Nothin' up my sleeve --presto!
Don't know my own strength."
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14749
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:42pm
Subject: Re: Michael Mann's Collateral (was: Candidate Collateral Vilage Ughxorcist)
Well, I liked "Collateral" a lot.
One way to consider it as a good piece of genre filmmaking with an
excellent sense of "time and place"; this is Jonathan Rosenbaum's
approach in his review at
http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2004/0804/080604.html
Coincidentally, I recently heard a radio commentary by Ray Pride, who
writes for Chicago's "alternative alternative" weekly, that is, the
Reader's much smaller competitor, "New City," also known as "Newcity,"
in which he ascribed Mann's sense of place to his Chicago origins. Pride
may be on to something there: the grid of this city, where I too live,
and the way it articulates the flatness of the prairie and the adjacent
lake, does convey a more "oriented" spatial sense than either New York
or Los Angeles. Pride also has an interview with Mann at
http://www.newcitycgi.com/cgi-bin/film/film_new.cgi?movie=Collateral&submit=go
, and there Mann describes his films as "story-driven," though he also
calls L. A. a "landscape of dreams."
Anyway, Jonathan is of course right about the film's sense of time and
place, but this isn't what I really liked about it. Nor did I
particularly like the genre film button-pushing: will the killer get to
kill his victims, will he get away annoyed me as methods of holding my
attention. What I liked most was the way certain formal elements
functioned (no surprise here for people who know me; I hope I'm not
starting to sound like a self-parody), particularly the moment-to-moment
sense of imbalance Mann creates in composition and editing. In this
sense, the film reminded me of "Ali," which I also liked a lot, though
its tone is very different. Unbalanced compositions that place
characters on the edge of the frame are answered by differently
unbalanced ones that follow, and the whole film seems to be teetering on
more than one edge. This is entirely appropriate to its story, or
course, and likely enhances one's experience of it, but I think it also
goes beyond that, in that it uses its particular combination of
composition and rhythms to create a way of seeing.
This connects with the other element I liked, the "dreamy" one, made
most explicit in the extremely high helicopter views following moving
cars, but also in the film's lighting, in the choice of bizarre
backgrounds, in one's sense of the characters as "floating" in their
traps for much of the film. It's not a Blake Edwards movie, though,
because Mann's compositions and compositional imbalances are hard-edged
and precise, and he often uses editing beautifully to enhance one's
feeling of displacement.
I see very few new Hollywood movies, but unlike most of the ones I do
see this seems to me to be real cinema, clearly articulated visually in
space and time, rather than images merely illustrating a script, the
"picture-book" mode of many narrative films I dislike. Whether Mann is
greater than I think he is so far (and I'm missing some key ones), or
not as great, I'm not sure, but it's nice to see a film that actually
"works" on my terms, as a film.
Fred Camper
14750
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:47pm
Subject: Re: The Village
Am I alone to be irritated by the stale thought that underlies his
work? Withdrawal and world's refusal as improbable keys? As for
visual talent, if I liked the very clever, economical and efficient
visual narration in Signs – the feeling that every single shot was
not fortuite, as part of a solid construction – it seems to me that
MNS preferred here rely only on a few colors and pieces of fabric...
And still incapable to take anything from the actors (whatever the
grace of Ivy is).
Maxime
14751
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 0:31am
Subject: Re: Re: Hawks & whodunit (was: A Fuller without VO)
MG4273@a... wrote:
>Has anyone ever seen Hawks' version of "Trent's Last Case" (1929)?
>
Yes, I've seen a 35mm print viewed on the Steenbeck at the Library of
Congress -- which I'd be the first to say isn't necessarily than video.
On the other hand ,every black and white Hawks film that I have seen on
video looked like a great film seen that way This one did not look very
good. I'm not sure that I would have identified it as a Hawks film if I
saw it without knowing what it was. I don't know the novel and don't
remember the plot very well; maybe knowing the plot in advance would
help. I remember it as stale, talky in a dramatic theatrical way, in
other words, un-Hawksian.
Fred Camper
14752
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:58am
Subject: Re: Anthology screenings ahead
If only they could project them correctly.
Jack Angstreich
On Aug 29, 2004, at 12:38 PM, Zach Campbell wrote:
I have to urge all New Yorkers (and anyone planning any trips to NYC
this fall) to grab a copy of Anthology's new calendar if they
haven't already. I think it is the most impressive four months of
programming I've ever seen.
--Zach
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14753
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 2:41am
Subject: Re: Charles Burnett
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
>
> I hope you got to see the long version (which I managed to see
> thanks to Scott Fondas)--which was way too intellectually honest
for
> NET, who cut it by about a third, if I recall correctly.
Since I got the DVD from Charles, I assume it's his cut. It's
available from an organization called newsreel.org for those who are
interested.
14754
From: Dave Kehr
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 2:46am
Subject: Re: Hawks & whodunit (was: A Fuller without VO)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> MG4273@a... wrote:
>
> >Has anyone ever seen Hawks' version of "Trent's Last Case"
(1929)?
I've seen the Library of Congress print, too. Unfortunately, the
last reel, which was apparently in sound, is missing -- a real
problem with a whodunit. But in fact, it isn't much of a picture,
unlike some of the other LoC Hawks gems -- "The Cradle Snatchers,"
for example.
Speaking of the LofC, all of you folks should get in your orders
for "Treasures from American Film Archives, Vol. 2," which is due
out in a couple of weeks. Packed with amazing, beuatiful stuff,
including Lubitsch's sublime "Lady Windemere's Fan."
Dave Kehr
14755
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:16am
Subject: Re: The Village
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
> Am I alone to be irritated by the stale thought that underlies his
> work? Withdrawal and world's refusal as improbable keys? As for
> visual talent, if I liked the very clever, economical and efficient
> visual narration in Signs – the feeling that every single shot was
> not fortuite, as part of a solid construction – it seems to me that
> MNS preferred here rely only on a few colors and pieces of
fabric...
> And still incapable to take anything from the actors (whatever the
> grace of Ivy is).
>
> Maxime
So (in my kindest, gentlest tone) what is the stale idea conveyed by
SPOILER
>
>
>
>
the murder and Ivy's journey? The purpose of the village is to
eliminate violence -- all the founders lost someone to urban
violence. But when violence of the worst kind happens there, it never
raises questions for the founders. Ivy's ordeal -- which, IMO, has
none of the sadism of the treatment of Mia Farrow in Speak No Evil,
Damien: Fleischer or no Fleischer, that's a stomach-turning film, and
no touchstone of cinematic culture in my book -- is a function of
that gaping contradiction: the withdrawal doesn't keep out violence,
but it does keep out medicine. As long as we're doing narratology,
does anyone want to comment on that?
My main point, in any case, is that one doesn't even have to talk
about this stuff, which is of secondary interest, to review one of
these films. If ever there was a chance for critics, pro or con, to
simply talk about the visual plan of the film they're reviewing, this
is it! But it's never mentioned. That's because no one talks about
film as a visual medium in the mainstream press. Instead they soldier
on while whining about not being able to reveal the plot -- which
would enable them to conclusively damn the thing, so silly is it. In
a way, denying them that habitual crutch may be the best
justification for MNS's "trick endings." (PS, this film doesn't have
one. The real nature of the beasts is revealed halfway thru.)
Hearing Fred defend Collateral as a film definitely makes me want to
see the whole thing. I love Husbands and Wives, but I might be
disoriented walking into it 2/3 of the way through. And Fred, from
what has been drifting to my ears from the interview FX's book is
based on, city-consciousness is supreme to Mann (as it is to
Friedkin). I'm still not sure what De Niro was doing living in a $2
million house in Heat, my last full viewing of a Mann film, but
that's a Thom Andersen gripe, not a hotlove gripe -- maybe he was on
the take. For the record, I didn't like the picture.
As for MNS, his films are eschatological fables, and narrative
probability isn't a main consideration in that genre. Actually, I
really don't consider either The Sixth Sense or Unbreakable to have
silly stories -- in addition, the story of Unbreakable is rather
original, IMO -- but again, that's not the main thing I pay attention
to in them. What is clear is that a lot of people who write about
film -- and some who make them -- are driven up the wall by what this
guy is doing!
The last two have raised the most hackles, because they are rather
risky compared to Sixth Sense, a recycled Twilight Zone. Using a Rube
Goldberg causality model consisting of greenskinned aliens, a
horrible car wreck and glasses of water to justify the ways of God to
Man isn't silly -- it's outrageous. And I like outrageous.
14756
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:22am
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
The great classical documentarists often made rather brilliant use of
"authoritative voiceover." The commentary on _Song of Ceylon_ (for
example) is authoritative, certainly, but peculiarly poetic and
appropriate. Then there's Leo Hurwitz, Humphrey Jennings, Lindsay
Anderson, Alexander Hammid, Paul Rotha, Ralph Steiner, and maybe even
Joris Ivens...
-Matt
14757
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:24am
Subject: new DVDs
>
> Speaking of the LofC, all of you folks should get in your orders
> for "Treasures from American Film Archives, Vol. 2," which is due
> out in a couple of weeks. Packed with amazing, beuatiful stuff,
> including Lubitsch's sublime "Lady Windemere's Fan."
>
> Dave Kehr
I agree--having just received my own review copy as well. Some of
the commentaries (e.g., Tom Gunning's on Griffith's "Country
Doctor", Donald Crafton's on some of the animated shorts) are
excellent, and the accompanying book is pretty substantial in terms
of information. And a newsreel about the filming of the Death Valley
sequence of "Greed" is especially fascinating, even if it's all
filmed in long shot.
Another recommendation I can make for people with multiregional
players: the BFI DVD of PLAYTIME, drawn from the recent 70 mm
restoration. There's also some great documentary material about the
film's production, including silent footage of Tati directing. I'm
told that a new Criterion edition of the film is on its way, and
perhaps they will also use this material. I'm also hoping that the
posthumous editing by Tati's daughter of his comic documentary short
about a rugby match in the rain, shown on ARTE in Europe, will also
turn up as an extra on some DVD.
Jonathan
14758
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:27am
Subject: Slasher
Recommended for the strong of stomach: John Landis's Slasher, a
documentary about a car salesman named Michael Bennett, made for IFC
and now out on DVD. A vision of Hell. Bennett is clearly a severe ADD
case who'll be dead by 50. All the suckers are black and poor. This
one makes Salesman look like an ad for the American Way of Life.
There's a montage of the last 4 presidents lying right into the
camera at the beginning, ending with a shot of our Lungfish-in-Chief
announcing (on Polish TV!) that the WMDs in Iraq have been found.
Lots of music, which JL must have paid for from his own pocket,
because the rights would pay for 3 normal docs. Otherwise it's just
high-energy, state-of-the-art documentary filmmaking, which makes
clever use of jumpcuts to characterize Bennett, and it's often funny.
But the smile is on the face of the Tiger.
14759
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:31am
Subject: Re: Charles Burnett
> >
> > I hope you got to see the long version (which I managed to see
> > thanks to Scott Fondas)--which was way too intellectually honest
> for
> > NET, who cut it by about a third, if I recall correctly.
>
> Since I got the DVD from Charles, I assume it's his cut. It's
> available from an organization called newsreel.org for those who
are
> interested.
Apparently it isn't the longer version. I just looked up the
DVD/video on that site--where it's priced only for educational
institutions--and it's listed as 60 minutes. CB's rough cut is 90.
14760
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:41am
Subject: Re: Re: Hawks & whodunit (was: A Fuller without VO)
>>Has anyone ever seen Hawks' version of "Trent's Last Case" (1929)?
>
> Yes, I've seen a 35mm print viewed on the Steenbeck at the Library of
> Congress -- which I'd be the first to say isn't necessarily than video.
> On the other hand ,every black and white Hawks film that I have seen on
> video looked like a great film seen that way This one did not look very
> good. I'm not sure that I would have identified it as a Hawks film if I
> saw it without knowing what it was. I don't know the novel and don't
> remember the plot very well; maybe knowing the plot in advance would
> help. I remember it as stale, talky in a dramatic theatrical way, in
> other words, un-Hawksian.
They showed it at AMMI in NYC in July 1994 - the print wasn't complete,
but I don't believe the complete film exists. I guess it wasn't all
that good, but I found it watchable and a little bit interesting. - Dan
14761
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:43am
Subject: Re: Charles Burnett
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I hope you got to see the long version (which I managed to see
> > > thanks to Scott Fondas)--which was way too intellectually
honest
> > for
> > > NET, who cut it by about a third, if I recall correctly.
> >
> > Since I got the DVD from Charles, I assume it's his cut. It's
> > available from an organization called newsreel.org for those who
> are
> > interested.
>
> Apparently it isn't the longer version. I just looked up the
> DVD/video on that site--where it's priced only for educational
> institutions--and it's listed as 60 minutes. CB's rough cut is 90.
Thanks for the info. I'll send Charles an e-mail. BTW, I went to the
site, and it's a great resource: California Newsreel, tons of African
and African American films, such as La genese. Check it out,
everybody.
14762
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:45am
Subject: Re: Directed by Robert Duvall
> What about Angelo, my Love?
It's worthwhile - not as dramatically structured as THE APOSTLE, but
with a lot of the same feeling of authenticity. I missed ASSASSINATION
TANGO, but Duvall strikes me as a talented director. - Dan
14763
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:56am
Subject: PICKUP on SOUTH STREET
Happened to watch PICKUP on SOUTH STREET today.
I sometimes think of film stories as moving toward one moment in the
film. In POSS, it is the moment when Candy says she was beaten up by
Joe because she wouldn't tell Joe where Skip lived. The look on Skip's
face, his sense of not being sold out by someone (even MO, God Bless
her, he would say knows the score in this dog eat dog world), his
knowing her feelings for him are on the up and up... the whole movie
is to bring these two people together... which is where the movie
starts and ends.
> From: "Noel Vera"
>
> Saw Sam Fuller's Pickup on South Street again, and it still holds
> up, from the tense opening sequence in the subway car (Fuller's
> journalism training taught him to grab you from start) to the long
> takes where various lowlife characters--pickpockets
> (called 'cannons' here, the language is wonderfully precise),
> informers, 'muffins' and Commie spies argue with each other and
> reveal themselves to each other and struggle with each other's wants
> and needs.
>
>
> It's terrific; I doubt if Widmark ever got a more complexly
> sympathetic role, a kind of street samurai with hands for weapons
> and a tarnished (and yet all the more important because of its
> tarnish) code of honor to follow; I doubt if Thelma Ritter got a
> better role, as the informer who, despite everything, loves Skip
> even if she did sell him for $38.50--as Skip himself says it, "she's
> gotta eat."
14764
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:10am
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman
wrote:
> The great classical documentarists often made rather brilliant use
of
> "authoritative voiceover." The commentary on _Song of Ceylon_ (for
> example) is authoritative, certainly, but peculiarly poetic and
> appropriate. Then there's Leo Hurwitz, Humphrey Jennings, Lindsay
> Anderson, Alexander Hammid, Paul Rotha, Ralph Steiner, and maybe
even
> Joris Ivens...
>
> -Matt
One of the most famous cases is Terre san pain. After hearing the
French narration recorded by Modot in 1936, which is available on
DVD, and comparing it to 2 English-language versions pulled from DVD
and recorded off Z, and looking at the great French-Spanish dossier
on the film published in 1983 by the Madrid Cinematheque, I came to
the conclusion that the narrator is not an unreliable narrator, or a
parody of the Ivens-Jennings school, as has often been written by
English-language (and French-influenced) commentators. Bunuel got
Ivens and Hemingway their papers to film in Spain for Spanish Earth,
and later advised Ivens on the music -- he said years later that
liked the film. Terre sans pain has an odd soundtrack, but it's not a
gag -- that goes for the Brahms, too. Some real howlers ("at the
entrance to the village we are greeted by a choir of idiots" - "un
choeur de toux") found their way into the American-accented
soundtrack I got off Z, and thus, it seems, the legend was born...and
transmitted back to France, which had it coming.
Not to denigrate the French theoretical contribution. Pascal
Bonitzer's article on voiceovers is widely available, and that kind
of critique is reflected -- or was inspired by -- a lot of
experimentation with militant film in that period, here and in
France, ultimately leading to Histoire(s) du cinema. Michel Chion has
carried Bonitzer's questions much further, in ways that apply to
fiction films as well, and the results are conveniently summarized in
the one-volume English book Audiovision.
Just practically, any editor will tell you that a little bit of
voiceover can save five minutes of visual exposition, and I think it
is most often used for that purpose, not to impose a worldview on the
subjugated spectator. But Bonitzer's article -- his main example is
the voice of Mr. Big in Bezzerides' script and Aldrich's film of Kiss
Me Deadly -- is still well worth reading. (Parallel to but completely
separate from Chion, the oeuvre of Fred Walton, who deals only in
disembodied voices, is well worth discovering.) Another offshoot is
Daney's "The T(h)errorized," which is up on Steve Erickson's web
site. A new book, Dumbstruck, on "the ventriloqual voice," opens
major new perspectives. There's a cool web site of the book at
http://www.dumbstruck.org/.
14765
From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:10am
Subject: Re: The Village
> The last two have raised the most hackles, because they are rather
> risky compared to Sixth Sense, a recycled Twilight Zone. Using a
Rube
> Goldberg causality model consisting of greenskinned aliens, a
> horrible car wreck and glasses of water to justify the ways of God
to
> Man isn't silly -- it's outrageous. And I like outrageous.
I like outrageous as much as the next guy but for something to be
truly outrageous, seems to me it has to be grounded on what's real.
If it just flies into the wild blue yonder without even bothering to
touch base with the ground it's harder to follow, or appreciate
what's supposed to be so strange (that's the genius of Philip Dick,
with his powers of characterization, or JG Ballard and his very
tactile prose).
14766
From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:32am
Subject: Re: Charles Burnett
So, the 90 minute version is out there, unavailable? Have to agree,
I liked the Nat Turner doc, even in its truncated version. Wrote
about it here:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/436
Burnett himself looks surprisingly young in person (seems to be in
his mid 30's which he isn't) and very soft-spoken for someone who
has bitter words to say about how films are made or blacks are
regarded in America. Was nice enough to lend me a VHS of Killer of
Sheep when he was in Manila, which I thought was a great, great
film. I've been hunting down his other films ever since, from Selma
Lord Selma (simple and moving, though it fudges the facts a little),
to The Glass Shield (surprisingly tense police noir), to
Annihilation of Fish (wonderful characterization).
Only Facets seems to have a copy of his To Sleep with Anger. Either
that or Killer is his masterpiece, I think.
14767
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:54am
Subject: Re: Terre sans pain (was: voiceover)
hotlove666 wrote:
>One of the most famous cases is Terre san pain. After hearing the
>French narration recorded by Modot in 1936, which is available on
>DVD, and comparing it to 2 English-language versions pulled from DVD
>and recorded off Z, and looking at the great French-Spanish dossier
>on the film published in 1983 by the Madrid Cinematheque, I came to
>the conclusion that the narrator is not an unreliable narrator, or a
>parody of the Ivens-Jennings school, as has often been written by
>English-language (and French-influenced) commentators.
>
I wanted to ask you about this earlier. I have a French version buried
away somewhere that I believe was taped off French television, and which
I always found just as "satirical" as the English version (I don't know
whether the one I saw is the one you mention, but it does sound like it
was recorded in '36). As I recall it has a lot of the same sound-image
juxtapositions that really seem to encourage skepticism in the viewer
(like the remark about the woman's age). But it is a bit of a mystery,
and I've been given the impression that Bunuel was infuriatingly silent
about his intentions here.
-Matt
14768
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:59am
Subject: Re: Charles Burnett
> Only Facets seems to have a copy of his To Sleep with Anger.
This has also recently been released by the BFI on DVD.
14769
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:11am
Subject: Re: Charles Burnett ANNIHILATION OF FISH
I enjoyed THE ANNIHILATION OF FISH, and hoped it would have
a better reception; I wonder if the middle age of the characters
kept it from becoming more popular. Although these people
were 'mental cases,' they are essentially enjoyable people, like
the characters in ELLING. One might see them as just eccentric.
14770
From:
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:12am
Subject: Re: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
I absolutely agree with Jonathan on the wonderful voiceovers in "The
Magnificent Ambersons" and "Barry Lyndon." I'd add Jacques Tourneur's "Stars in My
Crown" to the mix, which, besides being a great film in almost every other way,
has a touching and sparely used voiceover. I'm sure I can think of other
examples, but "Ambersons" and "Stars" are the two which popped out at me when I
glanced over some of my favorite movies lists looking for great films with
voiceovers.
Peter
14771
From:
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:14am
Subject: Re: Slasher
I really liked "Slasher," which I saw at a time when I was seeing or
re-seeing a lot of Landis pictures (faves so far: "Into the Night" and "Innocent
Blood"; fave writing on Landis so far: Dan's terrific review of the latter).
Anyway, I kind of want to connect "Slasher" to something you, Bill, have talked and
written a lot about (and coined the term for): the "M.I.A." films Hollywood
filmmakers make in their post-Hollywood years. I wouldn't presume to say
Landis's H'wood days are over (though he hasn't made a studio picture since 1998's
"Blues Brothers" sequel), but "Slasher" is certainly a case of a filmmaker
going out and exploring the world, as you put it to me when I interviewed you
about Welles.
Peter
14772
From:
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 1:22am
Subject: Re: new DVDs
Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
>Another recommendation I can make for people with multiregional
>players: the BFI DVD of PLAYTIME, drawn from the recent 70 mm
>restoration. There's also some great documentary material about the
>film's production, including silent footage of Tati directing.
Thanks for the recommendation, Jonathan - it sounds like an absolute
must-buy. And it would be great to see a comparable edition from Criterion. I'm also
hoping that Criterion issues "Traffic" and "Parade" on DVD at some point;
Home Vision, Criterion's parent company, put them on VHS a number of years ago.
I can't exactly "recommend" this DVD since I haven't viewed it yet, but this
might be the thread to post a reminder that Peter Bogdanovich's "Mask" is
being reissued on R1 DVD on September 7. From what he told me and based on all of
the publicity I've seen so far for the DVD, it is indeed the director's cut
and includes the Bruce Springsteen songs. I've never seen this version of the
film - a film I already love - so this is quite exciting.
Peter
14773
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:47am
Subject: Re: The Village
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> I like outrageous as much as the next guy but for something to be
> truly outrageous, seems to me it has to be grounded on what's real.
> If it just flies into the wild blue yonder without even bothering
to
> touch base with the ground it's harder to follow, or appreciate
> what's supposed to be so strange
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about films like The Brain from
Planet Arous? Of course, Joe Dante loves that stuff, and boy does he
hate Shyamalan!
14774
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:49am
Subject: Treasures from AFA (Was: Hawks & whodunit)
> Speaking of the LofC, all of you folks should get in your orders
> for "Treasures from American Film Archives, Vol. 2," which is due
> out in a couple of weeks. Packed with amazing, beuatiful stuff,
> including Lubitsch's sublime "Lady Windemere's Fan."
Is there any difference between this version of WINDEMERE and what we've
been able to see? WINDEMERE is one of my two favorite silent dramatic
films, along with THE DOCKS OF NEW YORK. - Dan
14775
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:15am
Subject: Re: Terre sans pain (was: voiceover)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman
wrote:
> >
> I wanted to ask you about this earlier. I have a French version
buried
> away somewhere that I believe was taped off French television, and
which
> I always found just as "satirical" as the English version (I don't
know
> whether the one I saw is the one you mention, but it does sound
like it
> was recorded in '36). As I recall it has a lot of the same sound-
image
> juxtapositions that really seem to encourage skepticism in the
viewer
> (like the remark about the woman's age). But it is a bit of a
mystery,
> and I've been given the impression that Bunuel was infuriatingly
silent
> about his intentions here.
>
> -Matt
The narration published in the Madrid dossier has that line -- and
it's unfortunately no doubt true. The only studies of Las Hurdes that
tell this kind of horrifying truth are Bunuel's and Legendre's, which
is comparable to the writing of Swift in places...but all true.
Bunuel to La Colina and Turrent: "There is nothing gratuitous in
Terre sans pain. It's the least gratuitous film I ever made."
The famous puff of smoke that enters the frame when he shoots the
goat was an accident. Two goats were killed -- one for the long shot,
one for the high angle -- and served up to the nearby village as a
feast, as part of the deal the filmmakers made. They couldn't kill a
third to get rid of the smoke or they'd have been lynched, Bunuel
later said many times. The scene is intended to illustrate a common
incident described by Legendre, who considers it a metaphor for
Hurdano history. It's not "baring the device," in other words.
If you listen to the French, you'll also hear Modot say that the
filmmakers, finding the phrase about "Respecting the property of
others" in a book lying on the teacher's desk, asked a pupil to write
the phrase on the blackboard. They are totally up front about their
manipulations, for political purposes, IMO. An article in Vertigo
points out (with another interpretation) how frequent the gesture of
showing something is: hands pushing aside grass to show what's under
it, fingering ornaments the camera films in the La Alberca sequence,
etc. And we also hear that they enlisted the cooperation of the
idiots and dwarves they filmed in one striking sequence through a
Hurdano translator, who is shown discussing with one of them during
the filming -- in striking contrast to the horrid scenes of dwarves
being chased by embedded journalists travelling with King Alfonso or
dragged in front of the camera in the infamous 1927 newsreel. I would
call it impeccable political manners, not surprising when you
consider that three of the filmmakers were communists and two were
anarchists.
Lastly, and this is just a theory, Unamuno in his 1914 essay on the
region referred to the heroism of the Hurdanos, calling them
the "honor of Spain," and contrasted his own view (influenced by
conversations with Legendre) to that of an imaginary "sociologist" he
sets up as a straw man. Bunuel certainly knew "Las Jurdes," and may
have taken his cue from Unamuno's heroic/sociological contrast for
his own divided soundtrack. The Brahms is Brahms' last major work,
full of tragic feeling -- it's not like they used the Trout Quintet!
In Espagne 1937, which Bunuel produced, Beethoven is used in the same
way over footage of the Republican struggle, while a minuet from
Beethoven's First is used to satirize the liberal Republican
government who fled Franco and left the communists to hold Madrid.
Bunuel told Colin and Turrent that the Brahms just suggested itself
to him (remember: he trusted his unconscious) and imposed its rhythm
when he was editing Terre sans pain.
The result is certainly queer, but not reducible to ideas
like "sending up documentary form." That would really have been
gratuitous, under the circumstances. For one thing, the anarchist
friend who gave him the money to make the film had been execucted by
the fascists by the time the soundtrack was added in 1936. It just
wasn't a time for Bunuel to be playing the kind of facile formalistic
games that have been attributed to him since.
14776
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:17am
Subject: Re: Slasher
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
"Slasher" is certainly a case of a filmmaker
> going out and exploring the world, as you put it to me when I
interviewed you
> about Welles.
>
> Peter
It's also about time that the most Bazinian filmmaker of that odd
cartoon-fed generation of H'wd directors should make a documentary.
14777
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:18am
Subject: Re: new DVDs
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
Peter Bogdanovich's "Mask" is
> being reissued on R1 DVD on September 7. From what he told me and
based on all of
> the publicity I've seen so far for the DVD, it is indeed the
director's cut
> and includes the Bruce Springsteen songs. I've never seen this
version of the
> film - a film I already love - so this is quite exciting.
>
> Peter
Huzzah!
14778
From: Yoel Meranda
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:38am
Subject: Re: Lumiere = Light
Thanks a lot for the sources hotlove666.
Paul,
There were no program notes for the films. It's just that the
Anthology schedule defines the filmmakers as 'Louis and Auguste
Lumiere'. I'll try to find out more about the films that were shown
and will let you know if I learn anything.
Yoel
14779
From: Doug Cummings
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:52am
Subject: Re: Charles Burnett
Burnett also screened his Nat Turner film for a class at Caltech, where
I work, and offered a stimulating Q&A afterward, and it was definitely
the 60-minute version. I don't think a longer version currently
exists. He talked about having to take a "Rashomon" approach because
PBS or other major venues wouldn't allow him to present Turner
completely in a heroic mode. As I recall, he was also miffed about
having to feature Styron and his Pulitzer Prize-winning novel so much,
too. It was pretty odd (and somehow refreshing) to listen to a
director criticize his film more than anyone else in the room. Of
course, once Burnett began explaining why he wasn't happy with the
film--and why he wished he could've made a more unabashedly positive
portrait--the predominantly white, elite college students in attendance
began to get flustered and argumentative. ("Maybe what you're trying to
say," they offered, "is that you admire Turner's spirit but not his
actions?") The whole discussion would've made a fascinating social
study.
Incidentally, I just talked to Milestone this week, and they assured me
that a theatrical run of "Killer of Sheep" is on its way but that all
of the legal hassles dealing with its soundtrack have literally taken a
couple of years to sort out. They said they were about 90% of the way
to finishing the project. And hopefully they'll be releasing a box set
of his work on DVD, including his short films, after that...
Doug
14780
From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 2:18pm
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I absolutely agree with Jonathan on the wonderful voiceovers
in "The
> Magnificent Ambersons" and "Barry Lyndon." I'd add Jacques
Tourneur's "Stars in My
> Crown" to the mix, which, besides being a great film in almost
every other way,
> has a touching and sparely used voiceover.
The question seems to be third-person voiceovers, otherwise, I'd
mention, oh, Taxi Driver as an example of voiceovers conveying the
state of mind of the protagonist without detracting too much from
the camera's ability to reveal character, and Clockwork Orange as an
attempt (I've got problems with it, but not with the voiceover) to
convey some of the flavor of Burgess' NADSAT argot.
14781
From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 2:28pm
Subject: Re: The Village
> Out of curiosity, how do you feel about films like The Brain from
> Planet Arous? Of course, Joe Dante loves that stuff, and boy does
he
> hate Shyamalan!
I think it helps not to take oneself too seriously too (which,
incidentally, Dante doesn't, at least in his films). Maybe if
Shyamalan poked fun at his twist endings and somberness (which he
seemed closest to doing in Unbreakable, maybe why it's the one I
like most) people would swallow the narrative implausibilities more?
And it's not so much realism--okay, billionaire eccentric gathers
people to playact Quakers or something--as it is convincing me that
people would act that way. Send your blind daughter off alone in the
woods (she should have gone off on her own, as an act of rebellion)?
Leave a blind girl in the forest (she should be as much in danger of
having her mission aborted by the guy dragging her home with him).
Hard to get into the story if you keep thinking "wait a minute, that
can't happen." At least with Dante, he defuses it by making it clear
impossible things WILL happen, and he likes it that way.
14782
From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 2:33pm
Subject: Re: Charles Burnett
A BFI release of To Sleep with Anger and a limited run of Killer of
Sheep? Next thing you know people will actually have heard of
Burnett...
14783
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 2:42pm
Subject: Re: THE BIG RED ONE reconstruction
> It's my own impression that some portions of the plot can't be
> relayed without the VO (written by Jim McBride, incidentally, as
> some members of this chatgroup may already know).
McBride did an OK job, considering his useless remit. I noticed a few
scenes where the background to the situation was conveyed by VO, such
as the strategic situation which leads to the men having to hide from
a huge convoy of tanks. But it seemed to me that if one didn't have
this infomation, one wouldn't be much worse off - it would still be
clear that the men were having to hide from a bif convoy of tanks!
If this information were considered essential, a middle path seems
like an option - use VO just a few times in the film. Establish it at
the start (though the "Now it's World War Two" stuff is amongst the
most egregious, included for the benefit of the ignorant, who can
usually be relied on to enjoy the violence without any need to
understand the historical background) and a few more examples where
clarification seems needed. But for Heaven's sake CUT the VO from the
ending and from the scenes where it simply describes what we can see
on screen.
Schickel seems to be arguing that the VO is needed as the film jumps
around too much for modern audiences' sensibilities, which seems an
incredibly wrong-headed view.
And while Christa Lang may approve of the reconstruction, it's worth
remembering that she's not Sam, nor is she a filmmaker. Where Sam's
wishes are known, I feel they should be respected, even if the result
is a little unclear at times.
14784
From: Dave Kehr
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:03pm
Subject: Re: Treasures from AFA (Was: Hawks & whodunit)
> Is there any difference between this version of WINDEMERE and what
we've
> been able to see? WINDEMERE is one of my two favorite silent
dramatic
> films, along with THE DOCKS OF NEW YORK. - Dan
It's MOMA's superb restoration. No new footage, but a very handsome
image. And I couldn't agree with you more about its stature.
Dave
14785
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:03pm
Subject: Re: The Village
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
ALL SPOILERS ---
> And it's not so much realism as it is convincing me that
> people would act that way. Send your blind daughter off alone in
the
> woods (she should have gone off on her own, as an act of
rebellion)?
He sends her with two strong young men as companions.
> Leave a blind girl in the forest (she should be as much in danger
of
> having her mission aborted by the guy dragging her home with him).
The companions are cowards, a trait bred into them by Hurt and
company. Would you try to drag Bryce Howard home at the cost of the
life of the man she loves? She has more balls than all the other
young adults in the community put together -- she'd claw the kid's
eyes out.
I'm tilting the interpretation toward a critique of Hurt, but I'm
still waiting to hear ANY interpretation except: "Naw, couldn't be."
(Bugs Bunny, 1964)
And, no, Dante isn't serious in person, except deep down. He's a
satirist through and through. That may be the source of his allergy
to "M. Night Sleight-of-Hand," as he has baptised him. He obviously
sees him as a target ripe for a Mad parody. He is!
14786
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Village
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> And, no, Dante isn't serious in person, except deep
> down. He's a
> satirist through and through. That may be the source
> of his allergy
> to "M. Night Sleight-of-Hand," as he has baptised
> him. He obviously
> sees him as a target ripe for a Mad parody. He is!
>
>
It's not just that. "Night" has become the sine qua
non of fanasy and horror in Hollywood today. I have no
doubt that every meeting Joe has taken with a studio
executive over the past few years has featured
Schaylaman's name being thrust in Joe's face over and
over.
In fact I've no doubt there are projects that Joe
wanted that were taken away from him in the hopes of
attaching Schaylaman.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14787
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 3:39pm
Subject: Re: The Village
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > And, no, Dante isn't serious in person, except deep
> > down. He's a
> > satirist through and through. That may be the source
> > of his allergy
> > to "M. Night Sleight-of-Hand," as he has baptised
> > him. He obviously
> > sees him as a target ripe for a Mad parody. He is!
> >
> >
>
> It's not just that. "Night" has become the sine qua
> non of fanasy and horror in Hollywood today. I have no
> doubt that every meeting Joe has taken with a studio
> executive over the past few years has featured
> Schaylaman's name being thrust in Joe's face over and
> over.
>
> In fact I've no doubt there are projects that Joe
> wanted that were taken away from him in the hopes of
> attaching Schaylaman.
No doubt, and there can be absolutely no doubt that affects him. But
his antipathy is sincere -- they're polar opposites.
Anyway, the suits should stop trying to attach "Night" to their
projects -- he's probably not all that attachable (although he was
temporarily slated to script the new Raiders -- which Joe calls "Indy
4: Nap Time." Wonder what happened.) IMO, he's going to keep on doing
just what he's doing till he scores another 6th Sense. They give you
ten years to do that when the first score is as big as that one was.
Joe's ten ran out in 1993, regrettably. We'll see if "Night" has the
same steely resolve to soldier on and make personal films despite, if
that happens to him. Throwing a Scifi Channel "journalist" out of his
van mid-profile bodes well.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14788
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:54pm
Subject: Re: The Village
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Throwing a Scifi Channel "journalist" out of
> his van mid-profile bodes well.
But that was purely a stunt concocted by Shyamalan and the director
of "My Architect" to create hype for "The Village". You can read
about the sorry dishonesty here:
http://yahoo.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14545,00.html?yhnws
--Robert Keser
14789
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 5:42pm
Subject: Re: The Village
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> > Throwing a Scifi Channel "journalist" out of
> > his van mid-profile bodes well.
>
> But that was purely a stunt concocted by Shyamalan and the director
> of "My Architect" to create hype for "The Village". You can read
> about the sorry dishonesty here:
>
> http://yahoo.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14545,00.html?yhnws
That sounds more like Night. BTW, Hitchcock told Truffaut that he had been
obliged to make a narrow range of films and do lots of silly hype because of
lack of support from critics. Actually, it began in England: I chronicle some of
the stunts in the first chapter of HAW. And all signs show that he loved doing
it.
When Fox released Edward Scissorhands, still my favorite Burton film, he
directed a 1-hr HBO special on his life that he didn't sign, also a
mockumentary, about how he was traumatized by a strange birthday clown
etc. After that CAA took over, and his career went south.
Pursuing the ever-interesting Dante comparison: Joe hates possessory
credits, and doesn't have a publicist. I keep telling him he should, but auteurist
self-hype is anathema to him: it's a team, directors who take the credit do it for
ego reasons, etc.
Whereas, auteurist self-hype, thy name is Shyamalan. Since his disastrous
first picture, he has carefully played the game by the rules of the industry --
except, I would maintain, for the films, which keep getting dottier.
But auteurist self-hype isn't limited to H'wd. Indie and art directors do quite a
bit of it -- have you ever been at a press event where Werner Herzog was
anywhere in the vicinity? I was, at Telluride -- he didn't even have a film
showing that year, but suddenly the press conference at the picnic was all
about Werner wersus H'wd. And when Syberberg was talking trash about
H'wd at the same high-altitude event (always a good way for an artiste to grab
ink), Budd Boetticher almost punched him.
I'm not knocking it -- it's a survival mechanism. But it does go on on both sides
of the great divide, as do a lot of other things.
14790
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:16pm
Subject: Re: The Village
> > "hotlove666" wrote:
> >
> > > Throwing a Scifi Channel "journalist" out of
> > > his van mid-profile bodes well.
> > > "Robert Keser" wrote:
> > But that was purely a stunt concocted by Shyamalan and the
> > director of "My Architect" to create hype for "The Village". You
> > can read about the sorry dishonesty here:
> >
> > http://yahoo.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14545,00.html?yhnws
> "hotlove666" wrote:
> That sounds more like Night. BTW, Hitchcock told Truffaut that he
> had been obliged to make a narrow range of films and do lots of
>silly hype... And all signs show that he loved doing it.
> Whereas, auteurist self-hype, thy name is Shyamalan...
> But auteurist self-hype isn't limited to H'wd. Indie and art
> directors do quite a bit of it ...Werner Herzog...Syberberg was
> talking trash about H'wd ... Budd Boetticher almost punched him.
>
> I'm not knocking it -- it's a survival mechanism. But it does go
> on on both sides of the great divide, as do a lot of other things.
Well, there's certainly no dearth of look-at-me! ego displays in
the auteurist universe, of course. But it seems to me that silly
hype is one thing, and then there's hype that's taken several
steps further, crossing a line into rank dishonesty. The
Shyamalan/Kahn replicant was not a mockumentary like Best of Show
but a case of bait-and-switch: you think it's a documentary but
you're actually watching an infomercial. Call me an idealist, but
no thanks, M!
--Robert Keser
14791
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 7:49pm
Subject: Re: The Village
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
.
>
> Well, there's certainly no dearth of look-at-me! ego displays in
> the auteurist universe, of course. But it seems to me that silly
> hype is one thing, and then there's hype that's taken several
> steps further, crossing a line into rank dishonesty. The
> Shyamalan/Kahn replicant was not a mockumentary like Best of Show
> but a case of bait-and-switch: you think it's a documentary but
> you're actually watching an infomercial. Call me an idealist, but
> no thanks, M!
>
> --Robert Keser
I'm horrified too.
14792
From: Doug Cummings
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 8:25pm
Subject: Re: THE BIG RED ONE reconstruction
For those who are interested, UCLA Archives will be screening this in October.
Doug
14793
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:12pm
Subject: Brown Bunny
Angelenos and New Yorkers should see BROWN BUNNY if you haven't already. Ch=
ris
Fujiwara wrote a review -- http://www.fipresci.org/festivals/archive/2003/
vienna_2003/vienna2003_cfujiwara.htm -- that comes closest to my own feelin=
gs
about the film. Chicagoans can see it starting Sept. 3.
Since we've been taking about director self-promotion, Vincent Gallo is wor=
ld champ
in this category, more entertaining than Michael Moore, and not as prone to=
skewing
facts.
Unlike Moore (and Shyamalan, from what I've heard), Gallo is truly affable =
in person.
Plus his films are interesting in themselves: marginal enough that they're =
not affected
by the external aspects.
Gallo may come off as a jerk, but he doesn't try to win our sympathies with=
his stunts;
he's simply drawing attention to the *work*, which, again, is worth seeing,=
despite
unclear personal motives.
I'm glad Manohla Dargis defended Chloë Sevigny's performance, since it is w=
ith
surprising conviction and professionalism that she announces herself at the=
end of
the picture. Vincent's presence can be arresting, but Chloë is the one who =
escapes
herself and blends in best in the fiction.
FYI -- Vincent Gallo revealed on Howard Stern earlier this week that Paris =
Hilton acts
(stars?) in his short film HONEY BUNNY, which, to my knowledge, the world h=
as yet to
see. There may yet be a film career for this gifted fellater.
14794
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:16pm
Subject: Brown Bunny (formatting hopefully fixed)
Angelenos and New Yorkers should see BROWN BUNNY
if you haven't already. Chris
Fujiwara wrote a review --
http://www.fipresci.org/festivals/archive/2003/
vienna_2003/vienna2003_cfujiwara.htm -- that
comes closest to my own feelings
about the film. Chicagoans can see it starting
Sept. 3.
Since we've been taking about director
self-promotion, Vincent Gallo is world champ
in this category, more entertaining than Michael
Moore, and not as prone to skewing facts.
Unlike Moore (and Shyamalan, from what I've
heard), Gallo is truly affable in person. Plus
his films are interesting in themselves: marginal
enough that they’re not affected by the external
aspects.
Gallo may come off as a jerk, but he doesn't try
to win our sympathies with his stunts; he's
simply drawing attention to the *work*, which,
again, is worth seeing, despite unclear personal
motives.
I'm glad Manohla Dargis defended Chloë Sevigny's
performance, since it is with surprising
conviction and professionalism that she announces
herself at the end of the picture. Vincent's
presence can be arresting, but Chloë is the one
who escapes herself and blends in best in the
fiction.
FYI -- Vincent Gallo revealed on Howard Stern
earlier this week that Paris Hilton acts (stars?)
in his short film HONEY BUNNY, which, to my
knowledge, the world has yet to see. There may
yet be a film career for this gifted fellater.
14795
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:18pm
Subject: RE: Brown Bunny
> Since we've been taking about director self-promotion, Vincent
> Gallo is wor= ld champ
> in this category, more entertaining than Michael Moore, and not
> as prone to= skewing
> facts.
Even when he speaks to Republican groups? What little I've heard
about his tirades are very entertaining.
Jonathan Takagi
14796
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:27pm
Subject: Re: Brown Bunny
>
> Even when he speaks to Republican groups? What little I've heard
> about his tirades are very entertaining.
There was an amusing article/interview on Gallo by the Ebert in
yesterday's Sun-Times --
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/sho-sunday-gallo29.html
craig.
14797
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:58pm
Subject: Re: Brown Bunny
--- Gabe Klinger wrote:
>
> Gallo may come off as a jerk, but he doesn't try to
> win our sympathies with=
> his stunts;
> he's simply drawing attention to the *work*, which,
> again, is worth seeing,=
> despite
> unclear personal motives.
>
He IS a jerk.
To quote what Gary Oldman once said of Glenda Jackson
-- I wouldn't piss in his ear if his brains were on
fire.
And I have no intention of wasting two of the precious
hours I have left in life perusing such cinematic
detritus.
> I'm glad Manohla Dargis defended Chloë Sevigny's
> performance, since it is w=
> ith
> surprising conviction and professionalism that she
> announces herself at the=
> end of
> the picture. Vincent's presence can be arresting,
> but Chloë is the one who =
> escapes
> herself and blends in best in the fiction.
>
Slurp!
I prefer Marushka Detmers.
> FYI -- Vincent Gallo revealed on Howard Stern
> earlier this week that Paris =
> Hilton acts
> (stars?) in his short film HONEY BUNNY, which, to my
> knowledge, the world h=
> as yet to
> see. There may yet be a film career for this gifted
> fellater.
>
>
They were made for each other.
In overall appearance Vincent Gallo suggests he may be
a carrier of airbourne STDs.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14798
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:00pm
Subject: Re: Brown Bunny
--- Craig Keller wrote:
> >
> > Even when he speaks to Republican groups? What
> little I've heard
> > about his tirades are very entertaining.
>
> There was an amusing article/interview on Gallo by
> the Ebert in
> yesterday's Sun-Times --
>
>
http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/sho-sunday-gallo29.html
>
The only good Republican is a dead Republican.
Preferably one who has been subjected to a slow and
extremely painful death.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14799
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:03pm
Subject: Fwd: Paper Dolls Lizabeth Scott.jpg
Note: forwarded message attached.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14800
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:11pm
Subject: Re: Terre sans pain (was: voiceover)
hotlove666 wrote:
>The narration published in the Madrid dossier has that line -- and
>it's unfortunately no doubt true. The only studies of Las Hurdes that
>tell this kind of horrifying truth are Bunuel's and Legendre's, which
>is comparable to the writing of Swift in places...but all true.
>Bunuel to La Colina and Turrent: "There is nothing gratuitous in
>Terre sans pain. It's the least gratuitous film I ever made."
>
>The famous puff of smoke that enters the frame when he shoots the
>goat was an accident. Two goats were killed -- one for the long shot,
>one for the high angle -- and served up to the nearby village as a
>feast, as part of the deal the filmmakers made. They couldn't kill a
>third to get rid of the smoke or they'd have been lynched, Bunuel
>later said many times. The scene is intended to illustrate a common
>incident described by Legendre, who considers it a metaphor for
>Hurdano history. It's not "baring the device," in other words.
>
>
This is fascinating.
Here's what I'm wondering: it often seems to happen in documentary that
something unforseen intervenes during the shooting of a scene that can't
be reshot, and including it in the final cut ends up radically changing
the nature of the film. Is it possible that _Las Hurdes_ turned into a
metacommentary on documentary during post-production? (i.e. "We can't
shoot a third take without smoke, so let's include the take with smoke
and deal with the effect that has on the rest of the film.") For
instance, the commentary talks about practically nothing other death and
suffering, but the film ends up showing us almost none, as far as I can
tell (and this is just the kind of juxtaposition that post-production
decisions are capable of giving more weight). The baby is the only
example I can think of, but even that looks as if it could have been
shot at any time or location and just thrown in there, like Ivens' bombs
in _The Spanish Earth_.
(note that I'm not really arguing with you, just trying to work out some
lingering uncertainties based on the historical data you provided)
-Matt
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact