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.


14901


From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 6:34am
Subject: Homophobic filmmakers
 
Joao Cesar Monteiro was once asked if he saw Derek Jarman's BLUE.

He said no, because he doesn't watch films by fags.

Yet for Monteiro, Murnau was the ultimate filmmaker. He liked Fassbinder. And surely
he had gay friends.

It's not a huge coincidence that Vincent Gallo and Monteiro once hung out for three
days in Portugal on the set of Robert Kramer's DOC'S KINDGDOM. I think Gallo learned
a few tricks from the notorious provocateur.

In Montiero's REMEMBRANCES OF THE YELLOW HOUSE, one of Vincent's favorite
movies of all-time, the character Joao de Deus proudly announces to a Salazar-era
police commander that, no, he is not crazy, he is merely a far left intellectual.

He's put in the looney bin.
14902


From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 6:35am
Subject: Re: politics (OT) + film
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Guthartz" wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> > > In hindsight, Reagan, horrible as we was, did I
> > > think believe in democracy, at least for Americans. I'm not sure
> that
> > > Bush or his thugs do at all.
> >
> > I can't see how Reagan believed in democracy at all.
>
> Maybe Reagan in his heart believed that Donald Duck is God and Bush
> secretly believes that he is the reincarnation of Leon Trotsky.
> They're foolish men who look good in suits, and anything is possible.
> But while what Hitler believed, unfortunately, mattered, what these
> fools believe has no importance whatsoever.

Reagan & Bush are certainly fools, but even with Hitler, I find it
troubling to talk about "beliefs" rather than actions and
consequences, something we tend to do in the U.S. which may reflect
our rampant religionism. There's too much concern with what a man
(and inevitably it is a man) says and the coherence of his logic,
rather than with how our socio-economic structures, cultural products
and technologies reify that logic in our everyday visual, aural, and
spatial senses. Ideology is not merely philosophical but is also
reflected in and reflective of the way we literally see and hear the
world. This is how art can be political without being polemical;
Brakhage and Tati understood this.

As interesting as it may be to examine him, it seems to me there's too
much focus on Hitler's psychopathology. This is not to ignore the
mind-controlling factors of ideology and propaganda, but only to
underscore the fact that many people have shared Hitler's ideas but
few have had the conditions and opportunities enabling them to act on
those ideas with such horrific consequences. The Nazi murder
factories could not have been as "efficient" without IBM's machines --
a fact usefully noted in the otherwise flawed THE CORPORATION. Bush &
Co could not have sold Americans on its Iraq invasion/occupation and
on its anti-Palestinian policies without decades of popular, anti-Arab
product like DELTA FORCE, TRUE LIES (thanks, Gov'nor) and its ilk,
shown over and over and over again on TV. Whether or not the neocons
in power have anti-Arab beliefs, these cultural conditions enabled
them to do what they've done.

-Jason G.
14903


From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 6:43am
Subject: Re: where are the women...
 
I used to run films in my apartment when I lived in Manhattan, 1972-6. I
had great sources, at least three major collectors, and a friend who
worked at Audio Brandon (a big 16mm distributor at the time that even
had avant-garde stuff, including lots of Brakhage) who could borrow
anything they had, and did, for me to see. I had a young undergraduate
friend who was amazed that I could "order" up films to show him -- if he
was interested in Fuller, I'd get three or four Fullers. The people I
invited were people who I thought would love the films. And none of them
were women. This is not because I would not have been delighted to
invite a woman; I just didn't know any women who were passionate enough
about Sirk and Fuller and Brakhage.

Actually, there was one who was passionate about Brakhage. She got
mugged on the way to my place and never made it (not seriously hurt
though). It wasn't that unsafe an area; she just had bad luck.

Earlier, in Cambridge, it didn't surprise me that the MIT Film Society
attracted no women members, as there were very few women percentage-wise
at MIT, but the two film societies at Harvard, with which I was well
connected, didn't seem to attract that many women passionate enough to
inquire about private screenings et cetera either. There were certainly
some in the audience, but none who inquired further that I recall.
Though maybe the "guy culture" of filmdom discouraged them.

I have no opinion about why this is so. I've since met women who love
Sirk and other "authors." But the composition of our group is an
indication of something or other too. I think if anything Peter and I
would be likely to be especially encouraging to a woman applicant, just
on "diversity" grounds. And there are lots of references to our group
that will show up in google. Perhaps it's just that there are more men
than women doing searches for Brakhage Ulmer de Toth (the first hit of
which will be a page of our group).

Fred Camper
14904


From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 6:46am
Subject: Re: Re: Politics (OT)
 
> I'd be more than willing to make the sacrifice of losing a tennis
> partner in order not to associate with a Republican. I gave up my
> best source for high-quality pot because of his right-wing politics.
...
> So if youre pining for a couple of sets of tennis with the despicable
> likes of them, that's something between you and your conscience.

So by this logic, we should renounce all loved ones who think
"differently" than us. This is as sadly ideological as the neo-con
creed.

Yeah Gabe, how dare you have even consorted with that Republican
player! I can't believe you didn't brain him when you found out about
his voter-registration.

Give me a break.
14905


From: jaketwilson
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 6:48am
Subject: Republicans (was: Brown Bunny)
 
"Gabe Klinger" wrote:
...we could use a couple in this
> group, maybe even a total fascist! --, lest we become overly
secular and so unrealistic
> that we deny that there are other people in the world who are
different from us.

Agree totally. How about this guy?

http://cinecon.blogspot.com

I just went to the 24fps site to look again at some of the articles
he did for you, and was sorry to see it had folded. His DOGVILLE
analysis was truly chilling, but I'm sure he's onto something as far
as LVT's own politics go.

JTW
14906


From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 6:52am
Subject: BREATHLESS and Manny and Patricia
 
BREATHLESSS was like a Roy Lichtenstein painting come to life.

Like Belmondo, Gere never misses a beat, and what's her face is the cutest thing I've
ever seen.

Great moment: "The Silver Surfer sucks!"

Was the final hideout scene an homage to REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE? Are any
a_film_byers in the audience of GUN CRAZY?


Andy Rector and I recently visited Manny Farber and Patricia Patterson, two of the
kindest souls you'd ever wanna meet....
I'd like to save my (and Andy's) anecdotes of our visit for some other time... it was
very special, to say the least, I was happy to discover Patricia's artwork, and to get a
deep down personal feel of the two. Manny, at 87, is a graceful, illuminating person,
and very happy.
14907


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 6:56am
Subject: Re: Politics (OT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:

> Boy, these conversations are difficult.

So are conversations about film when they're not limited to what's
easy to talk about.

Did you get from what I said
> that I thought the problem was liberals?

Yes, because you feel that if liberals learned how to voice their
opposition to Muslim terrorists better, and not come off as wishy-
washy advocates of the right to privacy, people would vote for them.
I don't.

First of all, some opinion polls show that people are pretty fed up
with this issue and much more concerned about the fact that we're all
going down a rathole in our precarious economic lives -- one major
illness or layoff away from becoming homeless.

On the other hand, the Democrats have been falling all over
themselves for the last four years trying to sound strong on
terrorism, and they can only come off as simpering me-too'ers,
because it's Bush's issue -- his only one. For some voting segments --
cf. Ed Koch's astounding article three days ago urging Jews to vote
for Bush on one that one issue, despite the fact that he's wrong on
all the others -- liberalism is antithetical to the War on Terror
(Koch comes right out and says it), and that will never change, no
matter how many ads Daschle runs in his home state of himself
embracing Bush. (I hope he loses.) The only impression that kind of
grotesque foolery makes on people who want to take this war to the
Arabs and win it is: "What a bunch of wimps!" Bush has those people,
and will never lose them. But that's far from being most Jews (those
who read George's paper, The Jewish Journal, instead of The Jewish
Press, which ran Koch's editorial on page one, are a serious voting
block), most New Yorkers, or most rednecks, to name three segments
one would expect to be susceptible to the go get 'em appeal.

Assuming that we are really still having an election -- I hope that
we are, in spite of all the chicanery, and anyway your statement
presumes it, so let's go -- it will be won on two obvious facts: this
administration has fucked up the economy, and it has fucked up
foreign affairs, including its fabulous winnable/unwinnable War on
Terrorism, by invading the wrong country. Every day brings new
disasters, and Iraq is just about lost. The American units there have
virtually stopped patrolling to keep the body count as low as
possible till November -- most of the country is controlled by
insurgents of one stripe or another. And those grunts e-mail their
friends and family constantly. As Gary Hart said recently, Vietnam
was the tv war, and Iraq is the e-mail war. It's over, lost, and the
people who are serving over there have been telling the depressed
neighborhoods they come from that for months now.

Sure it would be lovely if Democrats could come up with a way of
talking about security issues that would pull in the hardcore, but
that would probably just alienate bewildered conservatives who are
planning to vote for Kerry or sit this one out because they still
believe in the Bill of Rights. Of COURSE it's silly to gripe about
racial profiling at airport checkpoints, but I haven't heard anyone
doing that in a long time.

As for gathering information on citizens -- spying cable repairmen,
cookies in AOL subscribers' software, vast computerized printouts of
people's library records -- the question of whether to use those
methods or not, IMO, does not demand fine dialectical analysis --
those methods obviously are silly and totally unproductive. The
glimmers of truth we've heard about pre-9/11 show that intelligence
gathering had produced a ton of information that just didn't get
acted on. Bush's current chief advisor on terrorism stopped a 4-year
FBI investigation of terrorist funding organizations when she was in
the Justice Department because the word went out after Bush's
election to go easy on the Saudis. Flooding the organizations
responsible for gathering serious intelligence with lists of people
who are reading the Koran is the height of folly -- and a natural
reaction on the part of people who left the barn door wide open when
it mattered.

If it's really true that half the people in NY State think Bush let
9/11 happen, I'm willing to concede the terror issue to the neocons,
along with right-to-life and gay marriage. It's not one they can ride
to victory, and me-tooing will just make the Democrats look foolish.
Actually, I have known enough Americans, and a wide enough variety,
to believe that by and large they're rather intelligent. This
election will prove me right or wrong, I guess...assuming their votes
are really counted, which seems to be a risky assumption at this
point.
14908


From:
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 3:21am
Subject: Re: Brown Bunny, our groiup, and politics (OT)
 
Just to weigh in, I agree with what Fred wrote. As Fred notes, a_film_by was
founded partly out of a response to personal insults and the like which
prospered on another film list we belonged to. So if we appear especially diligent
about this matter, hopefully everyone can understand why.

That being said, none of the political posts subsequent to Fred posting his
note have appeared to me to be in violation of our Statement of Purpose, so I'm
pleased that the discussion is remaining at our typically high level. And
I've been reading the posts with some interest. I don't choose to label myself
politically, but it may surprise some to learn that one of my favorite
political magazines is "The American Conservative" (http://www.amconmag.com)... one
of the most vocally anti-war publications I've encountered. It just goes to
show you how far, how very, very far, the neo-cons have strayed from their
conservative roots.

Peter
14909


From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 8:28am
Subject: Re: Politics (OT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
> > I'd be more than willing to make the sacrifice of losing a tennis
> > partner in order not to associate with a Republican. I gave up my
> > best source for high-quality pot because of his right-wing politics.
> ...
> > So if youre pining for a couple of sets of tennis with the despicable
> > likes of them, that's something between you and your conscience.
>
> So by this logic, we should renounce all loved ones who think
> "differently" than us. This is as sadly ideological as the neo-con
> creed.

No, it's not. You're ignoring context. The regressive right has so
successfully demolished the notion of a public sphere and what a
democratic society is about, that it becomes easy to confuse private
decisions with public ones. We all have our own ideology and some
degree of self-righteousness and narcissism. A decision not to
associate with people who make you ill (for whatever reason) is not
the same as a decision to bomb Arab and Muslim civilians, and one does
not necessarily lead to the other. The evil of ideologically-driven
politics arises when individuals lack the self-awareness and critical
thinking skills necessary to recognize that decisions we make for
ourselves should not be imposed upon others through violent or
oppressive means (and, to distinguish myself from those wily
"libertarian" tricksters, that we have an obligation to guarantee full
citizenship and human rights for all, regardless of
economic/ethnic/gender status).

Finding a tennis partner whose head is less appealing than the ball to
hit isn't likely to entirely insulate one's exposure to different
political opinions, nor make one more resistant to such opinions.
Some who feel less passionate about politics might be able to tolerate
some Republican swine as their tennis partner, others find them
difficult enough to deal with on a daily basis and seek refuge on the
court. (And some of us seek refuge in films like FAHRENHEIT 9/11.)

The problem with the neo-cons is not that they have an ideology nor
that they act on it. It is that their ideology is entirely based upon
idealism, on an absolute Manichaeistic moralism, rather than upon
realism, on material consequences in complex contexts.

-Jason G.
14910


From: Kristian Andersen | FLUXURIES.COM
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 10:51am
Subject: Who else despise Hal Hartley?
 
Just saw Surviving Desire. Have seen Ambition, Theory of Achievement, and the Unbelivable Truth, too. Unbelivable Truth was actually OK. But this Surviving Desire joint? What the hell? I don't get it. Break it down. So he obviously doesn't despise intellectualism (why would he use it in all his films then?), but he's still mocking it, giving the film this breeze of dated irony. The idea of film about film is nasty (the dance scene without music, comment on musical, etc.). The idea of reductionism, that these characters go through years of emotions in 5 minutes - oh, so destilliation is good? Well, it doesnt make Me feel.(yes, that is the only thing worthy of my attention) .we know it anyways, its not insightful (this destillation, reduction thing). the whole theatricality of mundaneness juxtapiosed with the intellectualism (from talking litterature to talking detergent, deadpan), is a dated joke as well (ok it was made in 91). tell me why he is so revered. i dont get it.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14911


From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 0:43pm
Subject: Re: Republicans (was: Brown Bunny)
 
Jake:
> How about this guy?
>
> http://cinecon.blogspot.com

Victor is, indeed, a smart conservative film enthusiast. (The only
one I know, actually.) He's a very intelligent and nice guy, not
exactly what we're talking about vis-a-vis dangerous Republicans.
A "true conservative," David might say, though if he joined this
group I suspect that he and David would not be friends. (By the
way, a lot of people have written a lot of things I agree with; but
I think Bill has hit the nail on the head as far as my own beliefs
go about Republicans and Americans.)

> I'm sure he's onto something as far
> as LVT's own politics go.

I agree with so much of Victor's review of DOGVILLE; the only
problem is that all my values are inverted from his, which is why I
hated that film. But it's a spot-on piece of analysis, the most
illuminating I've read on that film.

http://www.24fpsmagazine.com/Dogville.html

--Zach
14912


From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 0:49pm
Subject: Re: Brown Bunny, our groiup, and politics (OT)
 
Peter:
> one of my favorite
> political magazines is "The American Conservative"
> (http://www.amconmag.com)... one
> of the most vocally anti-war publications I've encountered.

It's a well-made publication; I bought a copy for a train ride out
of sheer morbid curiosity. (I felt like I was buying porn in a
family bookstore.) The various paleocons are far more interesting
than the thugs in charge now. Even so I'd be a little wary of
sharing a room with these guys.

By the way, we can probably all agree that classical Hollywood had
important directors with conservative leanings. What about today?
Of the last few decades, the only conservative filmmaker of note
that comes to mind this pre-coffee morning is Milius (surprise, a
paleocon). Others?

--Zach, who is running late for work
14913


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 1:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: Politics (OT)
 
--- Gabe Klinger wrote:

> Am I being too naive in thinking that there are more
> nuances to the RNC than just
> rallying around Bush, nuances that David and Damien
> would rather not acknowledge?

Fascist "nuances"?

(Insert parade scene from "Amarcord")


> I don't expect we'll agree on these matters any time
> soon, but isn't it funny that all of
> this happened because David is biased against Gallo?

Criticizing a lousey filmmaker and even lousier human
being is "bias"?


> I can't believe there are actually
> people here who are dubious about checking BROWN
> BUNNY out just because the
> director/star has mixed politics. If the film is
> propagandistic about anything, it's
> Gallo's cock.
>
Proving my point.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14914


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 1:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: Brown Bunny, our groiup, and politics (OT)
 
--- hotlove666 wrote:
But Goebbels admired Lang...unless that's
> another exploded
> myth.

Lang made huge spectacle films inthe silent era.He was
world famous.They wanted him to be their Eisenstein.

This didn't in any way prevent Hitler from rivatelt
preferrig Norman Taurog.

Stalin was also a big film buff: cf.
> Konchalovsky's The Inner
> Circle.
>
>
But he was only intersted in it for propaganda
purposes. "Brezhin Meadow" was cancelled because the
utter lie on which it was based (it was supposedly a
true story -- actually a propaganda myth) was no
longer of use to him at thatpoint.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14915


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 1:34pm
Subject: Re: Homophobic filmmakers
 
--- Gabe Klinger wrote:

And surely
> he had gay friends.
>

Could you please explain that statement. It makes not sense.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14916


From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 1:32pm
Subject: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser"
wrote:
> > I'm planning a sign that
> > says "Before Bush, how many Americans were beheaded in Saudi > >
> > Arabia? Before Bush, how many Americans were beheaded in Iraq?"
>
> Those are wonderful, Robert -- great bumper sticker stuff. And
> another line of attack that the infuriating Democrats seem loathe >
> to undertake because -- God forbid -- Fox News might call them
> unseemly.

Has anyone sighted Jaime with his "Kerry-haters for Kerry" sign?
>
> By the way, it's fascinating that state of cinema in Saudi Arabia
> parallels the porno industry in the States, videos having put adult
> theatres out of business years ago.

Hah! The difference, though, is that Saudi Arabia never did have any
cinemas. In fact, the only way they got TV was by persuading the
Wahhabi Koran-thumpers who are in control that the medium could be
used for the propagation of the faith. They also provided a
commercial-free mostly English language channel to amuse all the
resident foreigners (and keep them off the streets). Imagine my
delight to find that this was a Turner Classic Movies-type operation
showing immaculate prints of 30s and 40s Warners fare. (When the five-
minute call-to-prayer would interrupt the program, the station would
maddeningly leave the movie running offscreen).

The advent of the satellite dish, however, eroded the government's
control over what images people could see (not that most citizens
could afford a satellite dish! The sociological surprise to me was
how many poor people there are in Saudi Arabia and how politicized
many of them have become...and that was 25 years ago!)
>
> But lest I offend Gabe's sensibility by talking politics and not
> cinema, let me ask, which do you prefer, John Rawlins's Arabian
> Nights or Charles Lamont's Bagdad?

It's always a mistake, of course, to underestimate the Maria Montez
ouevre (she's her own auteur), but my choice would be burlycue queen
Ann Corio in The Sultan's Daughter (photographed --apparently through
Kleenex--by John Alton!), a production which completely eschews
verismo in its depiction of harem life.

--Robert Keser
14917


From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 1:36pm
Subject: Re: Joe May's ASPHALT
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> Didn't May end up running a restaurant in Los Angeles?
>
The Blue Danube? One source says he managed it until he died, though
Damien believes the eatery closed in a month. A subject for Further
Reserarch!

--Robert Keser
14918


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 1:40pm
Subject: Re: Re: Politics (OT)
 
--- Craig Keller wrote:


>
> So by this logic, we should renounce all loved ones
> who think
> "differently" than us. This is as sadly ideological
> as the neo-con
> creed.
>

Really? When my family found out that I was gay and
not atall ashamed of that fat I was "renounced."

I've never looked back.


> Yeah Gabe, how dare you have even consorted with
> that Republican
> player!

(Insert shot of Robert Walker watching farley Granger
play tennis in "Strangers on a Train")





_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14919


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 1:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Brown Bunny, our groiup, and politics (OT)
 
--- Zach Campbell wrote:


>
> By the way, we can probably all agree that classical
> Hollywood had
> important directors with conservative leanings.
> What about today?
> Of the last few decades, the only conservative
> filmmaker of note
> that comes to mind this pre-coffee morning is Milius
> (surprise, a
> paleocon). Others?
>
Clint Eastwood, Spielberg.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14920


From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 2:11pm
Subject: Re: Brown Bunny, our groiup, and politics (OT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Zach Campbell wrote:

> > Of the last few decades, the only conservative
> > filmmaker of note
> > that comes to mind this pre-coffee morning is Milius
> > (surprise, a
> > paleocon). Others?
> >
> Clint Eastwood, Spielberg.

George Lucas, Mel Gibson, Ridley and Tony Scott, just about the
entire Jerry Bruckheimer stable.

--Robert Keser
14921


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 2:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Politics (OT)
 
> Did you get from what I said
>> that I thought the problem was liberals?
>
> Yes, because you feel that if liberals learned how to voice their
> opposition to Muslim terrorists better, and not come off as wishy-
> washy advocates of the right to privacy, people would vote for them.
> I don't.

I didn't say that! Or believe it. I'm not even talking about how to win
an election. I'm talking about why one half of America has trouble
communicating with the other half. One half (obviously it's not really
half, but I'll keep the user-friendly image) thinks that freedom has to be
curtailed in insecure times, and the other half not only doesn't think
that, but also doesn't have an easy time even framing the terms of the
discussion. I have no preconceived notions about what would come of such
a dialogue if it occurred - I'm trying to note that it's not really
occurring. - Dan
14922


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 2:22pm
Subject: Re: where are the women...
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Earlier, in Cambridge, it didn't surprise me that the MIT Film
Society
> attracted no women members, as there were very few women percentage-
wise
> at MIT, but the two film societies at Harvard, with which I was
well
> connected, didn't seem to attract that many women passionate enough
to
> inquire about private screenings et cetera either. There were
certainly
> some in the audience, but none who inquired further that I recall.
> Though maybe the "guy culture" of filmdom discouraged them.
>
> I have no opinion about why this is so. I've since met women who
love
> Sirk and other "authors." But the composition of our group is an
> indication of something or other too. I think if anything Peter and
I
> would be likely to be especially encouraging to a woman applicant,
just
> on "diversity" grounds. And there are lots of references to our
group
> that will show up in google. Perhaps it's just that there are more
men
> than women doing searches for Brakhage Ulmer de Toth (the first hit
of
> which will be a page of our group).
>
> Fred Camper

Traditionally, cinephilia has been a male thing. I have had the
same experience as Fred both in France and in the US. Groups of film
buffs typically were all-male groups, or with an occasional woman who
almost always was the girlfriend or wife of one member of the
group. "Cahiers du Cinema" was an all-male staff until 1967, when
Sylvie Pierre started writting for them. Similarly Positif had an all-
male editor board plus a token woman, Michele firk, who was deeply
involved in politics and revolutionary activities and killed herself
in Guatemala to avoid capture by police. Today there are three women
out of 21 names on the Positif editorial board -- one is the wife of
a long-time Positif critic, another was recently divorced from
another long-time member.

Some months ago I tried to get two brilliant women critics (Ronnie
Scheib and Eithne O'Neill) into our Group, but with no success. it is
too bad as i really think we could benefit from some femme (sorry)
voices, on "diversity" and other grounds.
JPC
14923


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 2:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Republicans (was: Brown Bunny)
 
> Victor is, indeed, a smart conservative film enthusiast. (The only
> one I know, actually.) He's a very intelligent and nice guy, not
> exactly what we're talking about vis-a-vis dangerous Republicans.

Victor is a great person to have around in a discussion: not only a smart
conservative, but also an analytic thinker who is good at shooting holes
in careless arguments. However, I don't think he cares for auteurism
much. - Dan
14924


From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 2:37pm
Subject: Re: where are the women...
 
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:

> Earlier, in Cambridge, it didn't surprise me that the MIT Film
> Society attracted no women members, as there were very few women >
> percentage-wise at MIT, but the two film societies at Harvard, with
> which I was well connected, didn't seem to attract that many women.

In my abortive year at the University of Maryland graduate school, I
co-directed the student film society with a woman, but she was almost
certainly the exception that proved the rule...

--Robert Keser
14925


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 2:48pm
Subject: "Great Person"
 
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:


> Victor is a great person to have around in a
> discussion: not only a smart
> conservative,

An oxymoron.

Or maybe an oxycontin.





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14926


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 2:50pm
Subject: Re: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts
 
--- Robert Keser wrote:


>
> It's always a mistake, of course, to underestimate
> the Maria Montez
> ouevre (she's her own auteur), but my choice would
> be burlycue queen
> Ann Corio in The Sultan's Daughter (photographed
> --apparently through
> Kleenex--by John Alton!), a production which
> completely eschews
> verismo in its depiction of harem life.
>
> --Robert Keser
>
>

Don't forget Howard Hughes production "Son of Sinbad"
with Lili St. Cyr and her harem cuties!




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14927


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 2:51pm
Subject: Re: Who else despise Hal Hartley?
 
> Just saw Surviving Desire. Have seen Ambition, Theory of Achievement,
> and the Unbelivable Truth, too. Unbelivable Truth was actually OK. But
> this Surviving Desire joint? What the hell? I don't get it. Break it
> down. So he obviously doesn't despise intellectualism (why would he use
> it in all his films then?), but he's still mocking it, giving the film
> this breeze of dated irony.

I don't think he's mocking intellectualism. His hero is angry and a bit
self-important at times, but his anguish over his inability (or anyone's)
to teach is conveyed seriously, I think.

> The idea of film about film is nasty (the
> dance scene without music, comment on musical, etc.).

I love this scene. It's not a comment on the musical, is it? It's kind
of a double perspective on the musical: the dance is an expression of joy,
but, in the absence of music, the audience is kicked to a different
perspective, not sharing the joy as much as observing the stylized
expression of it from an alien point of view.

> The idea of
> reductionism, that these characters go through years of emotions in 5
> minutes - oh, so destilliation is good? Well, it doesnt make Me
> feel.(yes, that is the only thing worthy of my attention) .

Me too. You know, a lot of people have always been put off by Hartley.
Some find him philosophical, others mannered and coy. You're not alone.

> tell me why he is so revered. i
> dont get it.

I can't sum it up quickly, but it's exciting to see a filmmaker used forms
of stylization that are essentially comic, and yet always keep a sad,
thoughtful philosophical distance. - Dan
14928


From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 2:55pm
Subject: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Robert Keser wrote:
>
> >
> > It's always a mistake, of course, to underestimate
> > the Maria Montez
> > ouevre (she's her own auteur), but my choice would
> > be burlycue queen
> > Ann Corio in The Sultan's Daughter (photographed
> > --apparently through
> > Kleenex--by John Alton!), a production which
> > completely eschews
> > verismo in its depiction of harem life.
> >
> > --Robert Keser
> >
>
> Don't forget Howard Hughes production "Son of Sinbad"
> with Lili St. Cyr and her harem cuties!

Well, now you're talking classics. And how about Ulmer's "Babes in
Bagdad", with Paulette Goddard, Gypsy Rose Lee (Otto Preminger's
squeeze), and the ubiquitous John Boles!

--Robert Keser
14929


From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 3:07pm
Subject: Re: where are the women...
 
"the composition of our group is an indication of something or other
too."

My cinephile friends are fairly evenly divided between men and women.
It's true that this group is dominated by men, but then the Film
Philosophy 'salon' (at http://www.film-
philosophy.com/portal/writings/) seems to be pretty much dominated by
women.
14930


From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 3:25pm
Subject: how others view films, solo or in groups
 
> From: David Ehrenstein
>> Most of my viewing is solo, whether in theaters or at home, except
>> when attending a crowded film festival.
>> Elizabeth
>
> Is this by choice on your part?

I meant to ask how others view films, solo or in groups.

In my study of films the past few years, most viewing at home has been
solo (I live with just my husband). I sometimes stop scenes of movies
I have already viewed, although sometimes I watch the film entirely.
TiVo and DVD and digital cable have been great study aids.

Most of the time I attend (art house) films on a weekday early
afternoon matinee and the theater just isn't crowded. I know I miss
some of the audience responses, but I usually see a crowded pre-view
screening once a week so I haven't lost the sense of an audience.

Even when I attend my 800 member film group a few times a month, I
often seat alone or away from movie friends. I am an agreeable person
but I am often the person who has an empty seat next to her for
whatever reason (probably because I am reading something) and yet
people always talk with me before and after a screening. I also sit in
different parts of the theater so that I get an opportunity to meet
different people in our group.

I am aware that 'audience' can influence the cinematic experience but
when my mind is at my best, I'll probably not even know others are in
the auditorium.

Interesting that as my brain recovers, I have seen the return of my
personal reaction when reading subtitles a moment or two before the
rest of the audience reads the subtitles.

About the only person I plan to go to a movie with is my husband who
prefers to watch them at home at this point in his life (he can turn
them off if he wants); because most people are working during the day
and because I don't know my schedule until I see what is on TV or what
my husband is doing, I tend not to make plans with others. I'm one of
those people who is comfortable alone, even when dinning out.
14931


From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 4:10pm
Subject: movies and politics (not so OT)
 
David, then Robert:
> > Clint Eastwood, Spielberg.
>
> George Lucas, Mel Gibson, Ridley and Tony Scott, just about the
> entire Jerry Bruckheimer stable.

Hmm. When I wrote 'of note' I was thinking artistically--though
it's my slip for not writing that. Eastwood and Spielberg make the
cut IMO; these others I'm not so sure (though they all have or had
some sort of raw talent).

The South Park creators are conservatives. That's the only addition
coming to mind this time around.

Eastwood and Spielberg, though, aren't always that conservative. I
mean, on some things, they certainly are. But there are important
socially progressive strains in Eastwood's ouevre, just as there are
in Spielberg's. Then again, there kind of are in Milius' work too;
he has a certain respect for the cultural Other that Hollywood's
guilty liberal mainstream can't touch. For a nostalgic moviemaker
ultimately interested in heroic white men, he's got a fine handle
on "strong female characters," and has made some puncturing
critiques of privileged white characters' misunderstandings
of "uncivilized" societies.

Have I mentioned that I think FAREWELL TO THE KING, studio-butchered
though it is, should be read as a corrective in many ways to DANCES
WITH WOLVES? (Then again Costner is tied to Republicans, isn't
he?) But DWW clearly exemplifies Hollywood's least substantive
liberal iterations. When Hollywood makes a truly insightful, "left-
leaning" social critique (on his Fablog David does well to mention
SHAMPOO and Warren Beatty's directorial work) it's often treated as
something other than this. Or not treated at all.

I'm interested in Gallo's new film. I liked BUFFALO '66 a lot,
though I haven't seen it since high school, so who knows. But like
Harmony Korine (anyone know his politics? does he have anything to
do with politics?), Gallo has this weird meta-hipster vibe that
produces intriguing, idiosyncratic moments. Maybe he's an idiot,
but it's not like he's an idiot with any influence (correct me if
I'm wrong, but I don't think Republicans have even tried to claim
him as "one of their own" yet), so if the work he produces is
interesting, I don't mind taking it into consideration with the
contextual baggage that may come with it.

--Zach
14932


From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 4:21pm
Subject: Real brown shirts, politics (OT)
 
> politically, but it may surprise some to learn that one of my favorite
> political magazines is "The American Conservative"
(http://www.amconmag.com)... one


Uh, this is edited by one Patrick J. Buchanan, an actual brownshirt
("You just wait until 1996, then you'll see a real right-wing
tyrant.") This is the sort of conservatism that racist conservatives
and isolationists in the pasts of both parties would be happy with,
and something that doesn't need to be resurrected. This guy is
sick--he was behind the Bitburg visit, among his many horrible acts.
And he was one of the most conservative guys in the Reagan White
House, which actually had far more moderates in it than one would expect.

The war on terror is very real, by the way (part of my job is to cover
it) but Bush has mischaracterized as them against the U.S. for the
most part--it's really Muslims against Muslims as much as extremist
vs. US. The 9/11 report is fairly cogent about this.

PWC
14933


From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 4:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
The recent blanket condemnation of the possibility of good filmmaking or
film viewing coming from Republicans, which I don't share, has set me
thinking. I have always found it disturbing that most cinephiles (who as
we have noted here are more often on the left than on the right) seem to
give Stalinist cinema a pass. There was some discussion of Boris Barnet
in our group, but unless memory fails me I don't recall Uncle Joe being
mentioned.

In my youth leftists often said that the USSR somehow "deserved" Eastern
Europe after World War II since it bore the brunt of defeating Hitler
and took by far the worst losses in the war. But we now know that World
War II was started by two countries, Germany *and* the USSR. The
invasion of Poland by the Germans on September 1, 1939 was preceded by
one week by the notorious German-USSR nonaggression pact which has a
secret codicil in which Stalin and Hitler agreed to carve up Poland
between them, and in fact both nations invaded Poland. And it was
Stalin, not Hitler, who murdered in cold blood many thousands of Polish
officers in the infamous Katyn Forest Massacre. (When the Nazis
discovered evidence of this after invading the USSR in 1941, they
thought it would be a great publicity coup for them to publicize
Stalin's atrocities to the world. For some mysterious reason no one
believed them -- of course no one should have believed the Nazis, but in
that case they were telling the truth.)

One could not write today on the "aesthetics" of "The Triumph of the
Will" without mentioning fascism. To do so would be to guarantee
ridicule. Even Peter Kubelka, whose film history lectures, when I
attended them, might be narrowly if somewhat unfairly described as
"formalist" (he used the analyzer projector, which allows freeze frames
and projection at slower speeds, a lot) started his lecture on "The
Triumph of the Will" (after screening the film complete) in a formalist
mode, but five minutes into it stopped the analyzer projector and said,
"I also need to say that this is fascist cinema, and I have lived under
fascism." The then proceeded to talk about fascist music, fascist
editing, fascist compositions.

I approve of all this. But what I find incomprehensible is how anyone
could write even briefly on Boris Barnet's "Bountiful Summer" without
mentioning Stalinism. (See, for example the capsule at
http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/capsules/25339_BOUNTIFUL_SUMMER )
This is not only not a very good Barnet aesthetically, it is morally and
ethically fully as repugnant as "The Triumph of the Will." Stalinism and
praise of tractors at the expense of human individuality is present
throughout, but the film ends in a giant celebratory tableau showing the
group ecstasy that follows a successful harvest in which a huge picture
of Stalin is placed at the center of the crowd, and the last lines are
if I remember right something of a paean to Comrade Stalin. This was in
1950, after Stalin had directly murdered or caused the death of tens of
millions of his own citizens, to say nothing of his then-not-fully-known
role alongside Hitler in starting World War II. We all understand that
Barnet may have had no choice, and that he certainly couldn't have told
the truth about Stalin, but Leni couldn't have told the "truth" about
Hitler in 1935 either, even if she'd understood it.

I could cite other examples of critical blindness to, or softness for,
Stalinist cinema. I have written a capsule review of my own in which I
tried to mention the way the individual is effaced or destroyed in some
Soviet filmmaking. So perhaps I could be accused of adhering to a
"crypto-fascist" ideology of individualism, but we now know that a lot
of those joyous members of the collectives were not joyously subsuming
their individuality to the group goals by choice -- they were trying to
avoid getting murdered by Stalin's NKVD.

Before we judge others too harshly, imagine a not-implausible-to-me
future in which global warming has spiraled out of control, China has
nuked the population of Bangladesh as they tried to walk into China
fleeing the rising seas, the world's coastal cities are all underwater,
and billions have died. How will a future civilization view the
uncriticized use of the automobile in the American cinema? It's funny
today to feel a slight distaste when seeing the way cigarettes are used
in older Hollywood films as a sign of coolness, because of the shift in
attitudes toward them. Perhaps in the future the attitude toward
automobiles in Hollywood films will seem far more repugnant as part of
an ideology that will have, by that future date, destroyed much of our
planet's life and habitat. Perhaps American action films will seem more
revolting than "The Triumph of the Will," for adhering to a
praise-of-machine ideology that has destroyed much of the planet.

Perhaps some of us even think this way today.

If I denied the aesthetic merit of every film I found ethically
repugnant, I would have a pretty small personal canon.

Fred Camper
14934


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 4:51pm
Subject: Re: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts
 
--- Robert Keser wrote:


>
> Well, now you're talking classics. And how about
> Ulmer's "Babes in
> Bagdad", with Paulette Goddard, Gypsy Rose Lee (Otto
> Preminger's
> squeeze), and the ubiquitous John Boles!
>


Now you're talking Film Festival!

Just add "Flaming Creatures" and stir.





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14935


From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 5:10pm
Subject: Re: movies and politics (not so OT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
>
> The South Park creators are conservatives. That's the only
addition addition coming to mind...
>
My impression is that Stone and Parker are more like libertarians,
ready to tear down anyone perceived as interfering with their
pleasures. So, on the one hand, they carpet-bomb the entire Baldwin
brothers clan in their movie, "South Park: Bigger, Longer, and
Uncut", but then "That's My Bush!" on TV did not exactly exalt
George as a leader(I guess you could argue that their jokey
depiction makes a hipster-friendly cover for the Repos' faith-based
takeover of the nation).

--Robert Keser
14936


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 5:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
--- Fred Camper wrote:

> The recent blanket condemnation of the possibility
> of good filmmaking or
> film viewing coming from Republicans, which I don't
> share, has set me
> thinking. I have always found it disturbing that
> most cinephiles (who as
> we have noted here are more often on the left than
> on the right) seem to
> give Stalinist cinema a pass. There was some
> discussion of Boris Barnet
> in our group, but unless memory fails me I don't
> recall Uncle Joe being
> mentioned.
>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do recall going off
quite a bit in here about Eisenstein vis-a-vis the
alleged anti-Stalinism of "Ivan the Terrible."





_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
14937


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 5:20pm
Subject: Babes in Baghdad [was: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts]
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Robert Keser wrote:
>
> >
>
> Don't forget Howard Hughes production "Son of Sinbad"
> with Lili St. Cyr and her harem cuties!

And ULmer's Babes in Baghdad -- radical, feminist and rentable at
Cinefile, but only in an 88-minute, B&W version. JP, is it possible
that Tavernier has a 16 print of the French version, which Truffaut
compared to Marivaud? I sorta heard he did. I've seen the Spanish
long version, with alternate reels printed in color, and it's a lot
better than the tv print that we've seen, referenced above.

> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14938


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 5:23pm
Subject: Re: how others view films, solo or in groups
 
--- Elizabeth Nolan wrote:


>
> I meant to ask how others view films, solo or in
> groups.
>

It's interesting that you should bring this up because
I'm in the process of writing my memoris -- much of
which involves moviegoing experiences.

I'm sure Fred can recall the special preview
screenings Warren Sonbert had of his films on Sunday
mornings at the Bleecker Street Cinema.

The film nut group I "ran" with (Lorenzo Mans, Jim
McBride, Marty Scorsese) and its avant-garde adjuncts
(Amy Taubin and Richard Foreman, Ken Kelman, Daniel
Manus Pinkwater) were both collective and solitary in
nature.

One of my fondstmemories is arevival of "Lola" at th
New Yorker. I caught the second show. Vivian Kurtz
(see Bruce Conner's "Vivian" and Andy Meyer's "Match
Girl") was coming out of the first show smiling from
ear-to-ear. "I knew I'd find you here," she said --
and floated on.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
14939


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 5:28pm
Subject: Re: Real brown shirts, politics (OT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ciccone" wrote:
> The war on terror is very real, by the way (part of my job is to
cover
> it) but Bush has mischaracterized as them against the U.S. for the
> most part--it's really Muslims against Muslims as much as extremist
> vs. US. The 9/11 report is fairly cogent about this.
>
> PWC

Of course it's real, and expensive, but it is being waged by Karl
Rove, who thinks nothing of outing an entire network of CIA agents
guarding against acquisition of nuclear materials in Russia by
terrorist groups and rogue states (with Plame, the whole network
fell) and a valuable Al-Quaeda captive whose identity was casually
revealed to the press to bolster claims for the recent terror alert
in New Jersey. It is being waged entirely for political purposes and
with political goals. And like the invasion of Iraq, it isn't making
this country any safer. Where do you write about it, Patrick?
14940


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Re: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:

As my friend John wrote in his book on Africa, our place in history
will be as the generations that polluted the planet.
14941


From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 5:32pm
Subject: [Fwd: New York Film Festival -VIEWS from the Avant -Garde]
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New York Film Festival -VIEWS from the Avant -Garde
Resent-Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 11:29:55 -0500
Resent-From: f@F...
Resent-To: fc@f...
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 12:27:14 -0400
From: Mark McElhatten
Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List
To: FRAMEWORKS@L...
References: <40ca6d405ec8.405ec840ca6d@w...>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14942


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 5:34pm
Subject: Re: how others view films, solo or in groups
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> One of my fondstmemories is arevival of "Lola" at th
> New Yorker. I caught the second show. Vivian Kurtz
> (see Bruce Conner's "Vivian" and Andy Meyer's "Match
> Girl") was coming out of the first show smiling from
> ear-to-ear. "I knew I'd find you here," she said --
> and floated on.


And I recently reconnected with Jim McBride (mentioned in your post)
and Tracy Tynan, after a long period of being out of touch, as they
were coming out of the Nuart after seeing Bay of Angelsm wearing that
same smile. Of course, Jim ALWAYS wears that same smile...
14943


From:
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 5:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
Or, perhaps, no canon at all, in view of what Kodak has done to the Hudson
&c.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16030

Fred.

> If I denied the aesthetic merit of every film I found ethically
> repugnant, I would have a pretty small personal canon.
>
> Fred Camper
14944


From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 5:59pm
Subject: Re: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

"As my friend John wrote in his book on Africa, our place in history
will be as the generations that polluted the planet."

Loose on Earth
From "Danger on Peaks" by Gary Snyder

A tiny spark, or
the slow-moving glow on the fuse
creeping toward where
ergs hold close

in petrol, salt peter, mine gas,
buzzing minerals in the ground,
are waiting.

Humainity,
said Jeffers, is like a quick

explosion on the planet
we're loose on earth
half a million years
our weird blast spreading-

and after,
rubble--millenia to weather,
soften, fragment,
sprout, and green again
14945


From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 6:35pm
Subject: Assayas in the Voice --
 
In case you didn't catch this --

"My Generation" by Olivier Assayas

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0434/assayas.php
14946


From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 6:36pm
Subject: Re: Politics (OT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:

> So by this logic, we should renounce all loved ones who think
> "differently" than us. This is as sadly ideological as the neo-con
> creed.
>
> Yeah Gabe, how dare you have even consorted with that Republican
> player! I can't believe you didn't brain him when you found out
about
> his voter-registration.
>
> Give me a break.

You live your life as you see fit, and I'll live mine -- and never
the twain shall meet.
14947


From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 6:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Politics (OT)
 
>
> You live your life as you see fit, and I'll live mine -- and never
> the twain shall meet.

God willing.
14948


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 7:17pm
Subject: Re: Politics (OT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> >
> > You live your life as you see fit, and I'll live mine -- and never
> > the twain shall meet.
>
> God willing.

Uh...

Just as a reminder, Gabe said his Republican-linked tennis
partner dropped HIM for making critical remarks about Bush, not
vice versa. That means the guy/girl was an authentic neocon,
and that's why I don't expect to see to many of them turning up
here. Discussion, dissent, criticism: Stay away from my door.
That's their motto.
14949


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 7:24pm
Subject: The Manchurian Candidate
 
Perhaps the most telling political criticism in the new version is
Demme's portrayal of the political convention at the end, which
happens to be a Democratic one. I was reminded of it when Joe
McBride sent me this, of which I post only a portion. Not OT, in
my opinion:

washingtonpost.com

Remarks by Barbara and Jenna Bush to the Republican
National Convention


FDCH E-Media, Inc.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004; 11:27 PM


The remarks by Barbara and Jenna Bush, the daughters of
President Bush, to
the Republican National Convention.

J. BUSH: It's great to be here. We love Arnold. Isn't he awesome?

(APPLAUSE)

Thanks to him, if one of us ever decides to marry a Democrat,
nobody can
complain, except maybe our grandmother, Barbara. And if she
doesn't like it,
we would definitely hear about it.

(LAUGHTER)

We already know she doesn't like some of our clothes, our
music, or most of
the TV shows we watch.

Gammie (ph), we love you dearly, but you're just not very hip.

(LAUGHTER)

She thinks "Sex and the City" is something married people do,
but never talk
about.

(LAUGHTER)

We spent the last four years trying to stay out of the spotlight.
Sometimes,
we did a little better job than others.

(LAUGHTER)

J. BUSH: We kept trying to explain to my dad that when we are
young and
irresponsible, well, we're young and irresponsible.

(LAUGHTER)

B. BUSH: Jenna and I are really not very political, but we love our
dad too
much to stand back and watch from the sidelines.

(APPLAUSE)

We realized that this would be his last campaign, and we wanted
to be a part
of it.

Besides, since we've graduated from college, we're looking
around for
something to do for the next few years.

(LAUGHTER)

Kind of like dad.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

J. BUSH: Our parents have always encouraged us to be
independent and dream
big. We've spent a lot of time at the White House, so when we
showed up the
first day, we thought we had it all figured out. But apparently my
dad
already has a chief of staff, named Andy.

(LAUGHTER)

B. BUSH: When your dad's a Republican and you go to Yale, you
learn to stand
up for yourself.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

I knew I wasn't quite ready to be president, but number two
sounded pretty
good.

B. BUSH: Who is this man they call Dick Cheney?

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)
14950


From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Re: Politics (so so so so OT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> wrote:
> > >
> > > You live your life as you see fit, and I'll live mine -- and never
> > > the twain shall meet.
> >
> > God willing.
>
> Uh...
>
> Just as a reminder, Gabe said his Republican-linked tennis
> partner dropped HIM for making critical remarks about Bush, not
> vice versa. That means the guy/girl was an authentic neocon,
> and that's why I don't expect to see to many of them turning up
> here. Discussion, dissent, criticism: Stay away from my door.
> That's their motto.

I promised myself last night I would not talk about politics, but -- Yes, Bill is correct
that he dropped me, but I'm afraid it was because he was embarrassed to be playing
with me after my stance against Bush became apparent to his goon friends, not
because I offended his Republicanism, I don't think that would have mattered, but that
his continuing to play with me might cause *him* to lose friends. Which I can
empathize with: some people are not so strong.

So it's a pure social thing, affected one way or the other by politics.
14951


From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 7:56pm
Subject: Re: Homophobic filmmakers
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- Gabe Klinger wrote:
>
> And surely
> > he had gay friends.
> >
>
> Could you please explain that statement.

I guess because there are a lot of fags in the film industry.
14952


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 8:04pm
Subject: Re: Homophobic filmmakers
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> >
> > --- Gabe Klinger wrote:
> >
> > And surely
> > > he had gay friends.
> > >
> >
> > Could you please explain that statement.
>
> I guess because there are a lot of fags in the film industry.

Huh?
14953


From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 8:07pm
Subject: Re: Joe May's ASPHALT
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
> wrote:
> > Didn't May end up running a restaurant in Los Angeles?
> >
> The Blue Danube? One source says he managed it until he died,
though
> Damien believes the eatery closed in a month. A subject for Further
> Reserarch!
>

In his book, Ed Sikov says the place only lasted two weeks, which I
always found a bit difficult to believe -- it just doesn't seem that
you give up on a business venture that quickly (it's not enough time
to fail), especially when your friends have invested in it.

I knew Joe May's name from some of the films he directed, so several
years ago when I learned that he was a major filmaker in Germany I
was surprised. The name Joe May sounded like an old vaudevillian who
ended up in Hollywood and found his perfect metier in directing Huntz
Hall.
14954


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 8:33pm
Subject: Babes in Baghdad [was: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts]
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
!
>
> And ULmer's Babes in Baghdad -- radical, feminist and rentable at
> Cinefile, but only in an 88-minute, B&W version. JP, is it possible
> that Tavernier has a 16 print of the French version, which Truffaut
> compared to Marivaud? I sorta heard he did. > >

I doubt it. He has thousands of videos but no 16 prints as far as I
know. In our book he wrote that the color of "Babes" are hideous ("at
least in the print we've seen") and the film "clownish" (I haven't
seen it myself). JPC__________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14955


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 8:52pm
Subject: Babes in Baghdad [was: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts]
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Robert Keser wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > Don't forget Howard Hughes production "Son of Sinbad"
> > with Lili St. Cyr and her harem cuties!
>
> No fewer than 40 girl thieves! And Vincent Price as Omar Kayyam!
And a donkey named Sesame ("Open, Sesame!") Very funny tongue-in-
cheek script (Audrey Wisberg and Jack Pollexfen also wrote
Ulmer's "The Man from Planet X." JPC
14956


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 8:54pm
Subject: Babes in Baghdad [was: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts]
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"

> wrote:
> !
> >
> > And ULmer's Babes in Baghdad -- radical, feminist and
rentable at
> > Cinefile, but only in an 88-minute, B&W version. JP, is it
possible
> > that Tavernier has a 16 print of the French version, which
Truffaut
> > compared to Marivaud? I sorta heard he did. > >
>
> I doubt it. He has thousands of videos but no 16 prints as far
as I
> know. In our book he wrote that the color of "Babes" are
hideous ("at
> least in the print we've seen") and the film "clownish" (I haven't
> seen it myself).
JPC__________________________________

At least he saw the colors. They're hardly hideous. The sets are
a strange amaglam of cultures, as Joseph K noted when we
watched it, but the colors are often lovely. "Clownish"? Well, it
stars a burlesque dancer. But even Bertrand, as I recall, loved
the episode of the Caliph who becomes a beggar, which seems
to be right out of the Arabian Nights.

The script is by the guy who wrote St. Benny, and contains some
deft touches. The villain tells his dumb henchman to rob a
caravan and kill everyone -- no survivors. Seeing the look on the
henchman's face he adds, "Except you, of course." "Thanks
chief," says the other. "For a second I thought I was done for!"

The Spanish version uses different comic actors in those
scenes than the American version, and shoehorns in two
belly-dances by a local star. I have no idea what the French
version -- "Les mille et une filles" -- was like. Truffaut called it
"Voltarian marivaudage." Not a bad description overall.
14957


From: Dave Kehr
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 9:23pm
Subject: Babes in Baghdad [was: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts]
 
>
> The script is by the guy who wrote St. Benny, and contains some
> deft touches. The villain tells his dumb henchman to rob a
> caravan and kill everyone -- no survivors. Seeing the look on the
> henchman's face he adds, "Except you, of course." "Thanks
> chief," says the other. "For a second I thought I was done for!"
>
> The Spanish version uses different comic actors in those
> scenes than the American version, and shoehorns in two
> belly-dances by a local star. I have no idea what the French
> version -- "Les mille et une filles" -- was like. Truffaut called
it
> "Voltarian marivaudage." Not a bad description overall.

Actually the script for "Babes in Bagdad" is mostly the work of Joe
Ansen, father of film criticism's David Ansen.

And for those whose TIVO's might not be working for "Tomorrow We
Live," a DVD is available from www.sinistercinema.com, as is "Girls
in Chains." Don't know if that copy came from "the only surviving
16mm print," but I doubt it. We used to rent it from Union City
Film Supply for Doc Films at the University of Chicago, so I don't
think it's all that rare.

But "Babes in Bagdad" in color? This is all I have to live for.

Dave
14958


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 9:29pm
Subject: Re: Babes in Baghdad [was: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts]
 
--- Dave Kehr wrote:


>
> Actually the script for "Babes in Bagdad" is mostly
> the work of Joe
> Ansen, father of film criticism's David Ansen.
>

FABULOUS! I'll encourage David to pen a gay remake.






_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14959


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 9:30pm
Subject: Babes in Baghdad [was: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts]
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Dave Kehr wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Actually the script for "Babes in Bagdad" is mostly
> > the work of Joe
> > Ansen, father of film criticism's David Ansen.
> >
>
> FABULOUS! I'll encourage David to pen a gay remake.

It wouldn't be a stretch.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14960


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 9:29pm
Subject: Babes in Baghdad [was: (OT) Re: Brown Bunny and Brown Shirts]
 
>
> But "Babes in Bagdad" in color? This is all I have to live for.
>
> Dave

Hey, there's always Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye 2.

That's fascinating about Ansen's dad. Roeburt did do rewrites,
per Arianne. He was a good writer who became close to the
family, and was a long-time friend of Arianne's husband Jay. A lot
of St. Benny reflects Roeburt: he was a nocturnal flaneur, like the
Bishop in the film. I love that film.

Totally news to me about Tomorrow being available -- it's been a
an auteurist Moby Dick to me ever since that one screening at
Bergamo.
14961


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 9:52pm
Subject: Re: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> I approve of all this. But what I find incomprehensible is how
anyone
> could write even briefly on Boris Barnet's "Bountiful Summer"
without
> mentioning Stalinism. (See, for example the capsule at
>
http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/capsules/25
339_BOUNTIFUL_SUMMER )
> This is not only not a very good Barnet aesthetically, it is morally
and
> ethically fully as repugnant as "The Triumph of the Will." Stalinism
and
> praise of tractors at the expense of human individuality is present
> throughout, but the film ends in a giant celebratory tableau showing
the
> group ecstasy that follows a successful harvest in which a huge
picture
> of Stalin is placed at the center of the crowd, and the last lines
are
> if I remember right something of a paean to Comrade Stalin. This
was in
> 1950, after Stalin had directly murdered or caused the death of
tens of
> millions of his own citizens, to say nothing of his
then-not-fully-known
> role alongside Hitler in starting World War II.

I'd have to disagree with your analysis of the origins of the WWII,
and I think you've overestimated the number of citizens Stalin
murdered, but to keep things on topic, I don't think you're
being fair to "Bountiful Summer." In the last line of the film, the
state farm is renamed for Stalin, but otherwise, if I recall
correctly, there's no mention of Stalin. I wouldn't characterize
the film as "praise of tractors at the expense of human
individuality." I'd call it praise of cooperation. The one scene
that deals with abstract political ideas is handled comically, when
Nazar (or was it Ruban) asks for advice about whether jealousy is a
capitalist remnant. "Bountiful Summer" is light-hearted, but I
do think it is a serious work, morally and politically. It
confines itself to how great political changes manifest themselves
in personal experience.

I don't get the impression that "Stalinist cinema" gets a free pass.
For example, Robin Wood in "Sexual Politics and Narrative Film"
called Stalinist cinema worthless.

Paul
14962


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 10:17pm
Subject: Re: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:

> I don't get the impression that "Stalinist cinema" gets a free
pass.
> For example, Robin Wood in "Sexual Politics and Narrative
Film"
> called Stalinist cinema worthless.
>
> Paul

Paradjanov's tractor musical was screened at the LA
Cinematheque a few years ago. Campy and rather lovely. He
became an enemy of the state later, and paid dearly for it --
under Brezhnev, as I recall. The tractor musical may have been
made under Kruschev, actually...
14963


From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 11:52pm
Subject: Re: Boris & Uncle Joe
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>There was some discussion of Boris Barnet
> in our group, but unless memory fails me I don't recall Uncle Joe
being
> mentioned.

That's normal; there is no connection between Boris Barnet and
Stalin.
Barnet was a free mind.
However, in the early 50's, he had to do his part....

Iosseliani told as follows their first meeting:
Who are you?
- Film-maker.
- Soviet. Always ad: Soviet film-maker, that's a specific job.
- How?
- If you manage to be honest, which would surprise me, you
eventually could eliminate the word "Soviet". I'm a Soviet film-
maker myself. I recently became so.

Barnet about Bountiful Summer: "But I hardly appreciate Bountiful
Summer, which had some admirers in France I believe. It is a film
where I suffered all the constraints of a difficult period "

Great article by Eisenschitz published in the 85 Locarno edition
(and maybe elsewhere) with some inputs on this matter. I may email a
copy to anyone interested (French reader).
14964


From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 0:44am
Subject: Re: Re: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
David, of course I saw your connections to Eisenstein and Stalin. But
those connections have been made before. Barnet has not been discussed
so much, and I don't recall in the discussions here any mention of
Stalin. Perhaps no one discussed "Bountiful Summer" here, but the
capsule I posted on it has no mention of Stalin either. To Paul, I don't
know how you can say, "In the last line of the film, the state farm is
renamed for Stalin, but otherwise, if I recall correctly, there's no
mention of Stalin," when the last shot of the film has that huge
portrait of Stalin I mentioned placed right at its iconic center, meant
to represent the ecstatic climax of everything that came before.

Maxime, thanks a lot for your comments and for the Barnet quote! I'm
glad to know he shares my low opinion of that film, and wasn't thrilled
with the constraints he was under. Some of his other films were wonderful.

Fred Camper

>
>
14965


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 0:44am
Subject: Re: Re: Boris & Uncle Joe
 
> That's normal; there is no connection between Boris Barnet and
> Stalin.
> Barnet was a free mind.
> However, in the early 50's, he had to do his part....

It's very interesting how Barnet deals with Soviet content. It's there
in the films, and he doesn't try to undermine it, but when he has any
freedom at all, he puts such unusual detail into the characterizations
and mixes moods so well that the propaganda value of the films is
greatly reduced. (BOUNTIFUL SUMMER doesn't seem to be a project that he
had much freedom on, though it's very nice to look at.)

Some commentators say that Barnet was a naif about politics who
genuinely believed that the people running the country were wiser than
he in this regard, and therefore got away with a lot because he didn't
put up direct resistance. Other stories make it sound as if Barnet's
"I'm not a political man" shtick was a canny way of protecting himself.
In any case, he seems to have had a personal charm that helped him get
his way without making enemies.

> Great article by Eisenschitz published in the 85 Locarno edition
> (and maybe elsewhere) with some inputs on this matter. I may email a
> copy to anyone interested (French reader).

This is the same article translated into English in Taylor and
Christie's INSIDE THE FILM FACTORY. - Dan
14966


From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 1:58am
Subject: Harvey Weinstein on Asian cinema
 
So it's all Dave Kehr's fault :)
http://tinyurl.com/63sbk

-Nick>-
14967


From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 2:09am
Subject: most influential movie for me was ...
 
> From: David Ehrenstein
> --- Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
>> I meant to ask how others view films, solo or in
>> groups.
>
> It's interesting that you should bring this up because
> I'm in the process of writing my memoris -- much of
> which involves moviegoing experiences.

While some might think 'how we view films' or 'most influential movie
for me' are off-topic, I like the little insights they give us to each
other:


The most influential movie for me was Sacco and Vanzetti which I saw
around 1975 at Harvard when I was a graduate student. I have some
political injustice in my family background that had a great effect on
my immediate family. My father was beaten by the police for exposing
local corruption and could not work for over a year ....

I was moved by the Sacco and Vanzetti story when I saw it and wanted to
get away from the crowd of students mulling in the halls afterwards. I
took a short cut and leaped from a 6 foot wall which would have been
fine except that the ground was on a slant, and I found my self on
landing stretching outward to correct my balance, feeling like I had
strained my entire side. The next morning I had the symptoms of a
kidney stone as I had probably dislodged some renal calcium ...
eventually ended up going to medical school because of that experience.

The movie did not change by life, but my response to it certainly did.


Elizabeth
14968


From:
Date: Wed Sep 1, 2004 10:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
In a message dated 9/1/04 5:26:31 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:


> Paradjanov's tractor musical was screened at the LA
> Cinematheque a few years ago.
>

What's it called?

Kevin John


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14969


From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 3:20am
Subject: Re: movies and politics (not so OT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
> David, then Robert:
> > > Clint Eastwood, Spielberg.
> >
> > George Lucas, Mel Gibson, Ridley and Tony Scott, just about the
> > entire Jerry Bruckheimer stable.
>

David Lynch, Dennis Hopper, Robert Duvall. I had the impression
Spielberg was a Democrat, and Lucas a liberal of some stripe -- not
so?

Neo-con true believers are one thing, but plenty of smart people wind
up as "conservatives" by default because they simply don't take
politics very seriously. Clearly, Gallo's political views are pure
dandyism -- I doubt he spends much time mulling over foreign policy.
Lynch is another example. He doesn't believe governments of whatever
kind will save the world -- he's into TM.

JTW
14970


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 4:05am
Subject: Re: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> Paradjanov's tractor musical was screened at the LA
> Cinematheque a few years ago. Campy and rather lovely. He
> became an enemy of the state later, and paid dearly for it --
> under Brezhnev, as I recall. The tractor musical may have been
> made under Kruschev, actually...

Actually, "Bountiful Summer" doesn't have much music or many
tractors. I think there were more songs in the war film, "Dark
is the Night," and while I imagine there must have been tractors
on the farm, they weren't prominent. There might be some
significance to this. For example, in contrast to Vertov
and Eisenstein's films' great emphasis on the industrialization of
agriculture, "Bountiful Summer" is more concerned with the social
relations of production. (This might have little to do with
Eisenstein's and Barnet's actual beliefs.)

Paul
14971


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 4:17am
Subject: Re: Re: movies and politics (not so OT)
 
--- jaketwilson wrote:

I had the
> impression
> Spielberg was a Democrat, and Lucas a liberal of
> some stripe -- not
> so?
>

Spielberg may think he's a liberal.

"Star Wars" (espeically the second trilogy) is clearly
neo-fascist.

> Neo-con true believers are one thing, but plenty of
> smart people wind
> up as "conservatives" by default because they simply
> don't take
> politics very seriously.

Clearly, Gallo's political
> views are pure
> dandyism -- I doubt he spends much time mulling over
> foreign policy.

Making him all the more reprehensible.

> Lynch is another example. He doesn't believe
> governments of whatever
> kind will save the world -- he's into TM.
>
And was a major Reagan supporter.





_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14972


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 4:39am
Subject: Re: movies and politics (not so OT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jaketwilson" wrote:
>
> David Lynch, Dennis Hopper, Robert Duvall. I had the impression
> Spielberg was a Democrat, and Lucas a liberal of some stripe -- not
> so?
>
> Neo-con true believers are one thing, but plenty of smart people wind
> up as "conservatives" by default because they simply don't take
> politics very seriously.

Paul Morrissey is conservative and also a bit irony-challenged:
"Without institutionalized religion as the basis a society can't
exist. In my lifetime, I've seen this terrible eradication of what
makes sense and its replacement by absolute horror. All the
sensible values of a solid education and a moral foundation have
been flushed down the liberal toilet in order to sell sex, drugs,
and rock and roll."
http://www.warholstars.org/warhol/warhol1/andy/warhol/can/paul12.html

Paul
14973


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 4:42am
Subject: Re: Re: movies and politics (not so OT)
 
--- Paul Gallagher wrote:


>
> Paul Morrissey is conservative and also a bit
> irony-challenged:
>

And after all these years STILL a closet queen!



_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14974


From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 5:46am
Subject: Re: Homophobic filmmakers
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> I guess because there are a lot of fags in the film industry.

There are also a lot of fags in the steel, insurance, banking,
costume design, legal, publishing, transportation, public service,
ranching, asphalt, maritime, construction industries.
14975


From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 5:49am
Subject: Paradjanov's Tractor Musical (Was: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/1/04 5:26:31 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:
>
>
> > Paradjanov's tractor musical was screened at the LA
> > Cinematheque a few years ago.
> >
>
> What's it called?
>
Of the titles on his short list of films, "Ukrainian Rhapsody" (1961)
is the one that rings a bell. Am I right, Joseph K?
14976


From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 6:15am
Subject: Re: Paradjanov's Tractor Musical (Was: Politics, Barnet, and Stalinist cinema
 
>Of the titles on his short list of films, "Ukrainian Rhapsody" (1961)
>is the one that rings a bell. Am I right, Joseph K?

Yes, I think so. I also remember one that was some kind of folk
tale, but done in a more standard style than the later tableaux-films.
--

- Joe Kaufman
14977


From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 6:09am
Subject: Re: movies and politics (not so OT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jaketwilson"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
> wrote:
> > David, then Robert:
> > > > Clint Eastwood, Spielberg.
> > >
> > > George Lucas, Mel Gibson, Ridley and Tony Scott, just about the
> > > entire Jerry Bruckheimer stable.
> >
>
> David Lynch, Dennis Hopper, Robert Duvall.

Duvall, by some accounts is not all that different from Colonel
Kilgore, whom he portrayted so brilliantlyin Apocalyspe Now.

I had the impression
> Spielberg was a Democrat, and Lucas a liberal of some stripe -- not
> so?

Correct. Naming the fish-faced villains in Phantom Empire "Newt
Raygun" and "Trout Lott" would certainly seem to indicate that Lucas
has stayed true to his Northern California leftism.

It's hard to tell when you're dealing with archetypes, but Anakyn's
slaughter of the sand dwellers in Attack of the Clones -- men, women
and children -- after his mother's death had a Bomb Aghanistan vibe
to it. In any case, the point of that scene and of the new trilogy
overall is to stage heroic actions that would have been applauded in
the old trilogy -- forcing a Senate resolution to defend one's home
planet, saving a gifted boy from slavery, killing the villain who
killed one's guru -- so that they can intertwine to produce the
triumph of Evil at the end of Episode 3. The stated theme of the new
trilogy is how a republic turns into an empire, and Lucas purports to
have devoted a lot of study and thought to the question before
whipping out the old penpack and starting to write the new episodes.

No one seems to have noticed, but the warrior virtues exalted in the
old trilogy are being exalted in a revolutionary context. Lucas was
the original director for Apocalypse Now (in 1967, I think -- I know
he never forgave Coppola for taking it for himself), and a lot of the
rebels vs. the Death Star imagery in The New Hope recall images in
Milius' 1967 script, where the Americans are shown at the beginning
in a svcifi underground bunker filled with computers and blinking
lights.

I discussed Milius and Lucas with Thom Andersen, who was their
classmate at SC. He told me a story about Milius organizing a group
of film students as an honor guard to protect a guy who was selling
socialist newspapers in the quad when some of the football players
threatened to beat him up. As for Lucas, Thom thinks it's a tragedy
that he made Star Wars instead of Apocalypse, because the latter
would have laid the groundwork for a very different career. I like
the one he's had, but I'd have loved to see Milius's original script,
which I love, shot on 16mm in the Phillipines by George Lucas, with
Francis Coppola producing.

Most of what has been written about those three directors throughout
their careers is bilge.
14978


From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 6:59am
Subject: Never Darken My Door Again (was Politics (OT) )
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
isn't it funny that all of
> this happened because David is biased [sic] against Gallo? I can't
>believe there are actually > people here who are dubious about
>checking BROWN BUNNY out just because the
> director/star has mixed politics.

Despite the smug attitude of Gabe Klinger's post, I'm wondering if
the members of this board have directors whose films they won't see
based either on past bad experiences or an awareness that the
filmaker's sensibility is so opposed to one's own?

Myself, Magnolia has ensured that I'll never again subject myself to
a Paul Thomas Anderson Picture (Boogie Nights also helped me reach
that conclusion). The loathesome "Those Who Love Me Can Take The
Train" and its cavalcade of contempt means that Patrice Chereau will
never again intrude upon my life. Robert Zemeckis has also been
getting along without my ten bucks helping out his cause.

And when I'm flipping around the channels, I'm never going to stay on
the Fox Movie Channel if a Harmon Jones picture is being shown.
14979


From:   Jack Angstreich
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 9:13am
Subject: Re: Re: Homophobic filmmakers
 
Especially in costume design!

Jack Angstreich




On Sep 2, 2004, at 1:46 AM, Damien Bona wrote:

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> I guess because there are a lot of fags in the film industry.

There are also a lot of fags in the steel, insurance, banking,
costume design, legal, publishing, transportation, public service,
ranching, asphalt, maritime, construction industries.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14980


From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 9:48am
Subject: Re: Never Darken My Door Again (was Politics (OT) )
 
Let's have the rest, Damien.

I've touched upon something very sensitive for you -- obviously more sensitive for
you than it is for me -- but I'm surprised this has turned into an ad hominem attack.

Meanwhile you and Robert are exchanging kudos on bumper stickers and such.
MEMO: You think the rest of us give a fuck?

And as you and David conjure up these violent fantasies of what you'd like to do to
Republicans, the rest of us are just tip-toeing away politely. "No thanks" -- like the
guy I once sat next to at the movies who said, in a way that was audible to everyone
around us, that he wanted to pull his knife out and cut the guy in front of him
blocking his view. Dumb joke, poor taste.

Dozens of posts have now been made with BROWN BUNNY in the subject line. Only
two or three have actually been about the film. If I can make one suggestion it's that
we stay focused.

And I'm done with this shit. There are people whose posts I won't read in the future,
even if they're about Leo McCarey or Philippe Garrel.

Gabe
14981


From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 10:12am
Subject: P-DL by PTA
 
"Magnolia has ensured that I'll never again subject myself to
a Paul Thomas Anderson Picture (Boogie Nights also helped me reach
that conclusion)."

Damien, I seriously suggest you give PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE a try - I didn't like
those two films you mention, either, but PUNCH-DRUNK really turned me around
on PTA. It's among the very greatest modern American films. I could watch
and study this movie every day - it's inexhaustible on the level of its
image-sound-performance interplay. And fantastically funny, if you can get
on its vibe. This guy is a formally radical filmmaker. And what an
incredible take on romantic comedy! The Dutch critic Belinda van de Graaf
(one of the approximately one million passionate female cinephiles worldwide
who happen not to post to 'A Film By'!) compared the casting of Adam Sandler
and Emily Watson to the Jerry Lewis and Shirley Maclaine pairing in
Tashlin's ARTISTS AND MODELS ("If our lips should meet inamorata ..."), and
that's an inspired insight.

The cult around this film is set to grow and grow - but it's a case of where
most of the reviews that came out when it first appeared (even by some
terrific critics) just didn't 'get' it. (And it's also the kind of movie
that can get unexpecting/frustrated audiences throwing objects at the screen
- another reason that I adore it!) Do we have any other PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE
fans out there?

Adrian
14982


From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 10:28am
Subject: I vote for BROWN BUNNY!
 
> Despite the smug attitude of Gabe Klinger's post, I'm wondering if
> the members of this board have directors whose films they won't see
> based either on past bad experiences or an awareness that the
> filmaker's sensibility is so opposed to one's own?

The point is that Gallo's Republicanism is posturing as far as I can tell -- and I've met
the guy twice and even spent an entire night walking around in Chicago with him, to
the point where he dropped his guard and was very informal. We even made plans to
go out and pick up women the following night, but I ended up with conflicting plans.

There. I didn't want to bring that in to this, but hell, I've been bated.

Here's my suspicion about Gallo's politics: he's interested in people, in leaders, in
their charisma, and their function as *public* figures. He wasn't interested in Bill
Clinton, for whatever reason (and even chided a colleague of ours for voicing his
support of Clinton). But that doesn't mean he's completely pro-Bush either (when I
met him he didn't seem jumpy about the claim); he's just picking parties, now that it's
that time in the election cycle, and it's only natural that he's goes for the controversial
one.

Everything I've heard him say about Bush has been totally unique and personal, so
there's no bandwagon he's following here. Just an eccentric dude -- and if the RNC
decides against Ms. Spears, you can believe they won't touch Gallo with a 10ft pole.
14983


From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 10:38am
Subject: Re: P-DL by PTA
 
> Do we have any other PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE
> fans out there?

I'm one -- big time. (And am also a 'Boogie Nights' and 'Magnolia' fan
-- and a bonafide 'Sydney'/'Hard Eight' enthusiast.) Despite what some
might say, I think PTA's got it all. I haven't seen an American film
since 'Punch-Drunk Love' that's impressed me as much as that picture
has.

craig.
14984


From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 11:26am
Subject: Re: Never Darken My Towels Again (was Politics (OT) )
 
> Despite the smug attitude of Gabe Klinger's post, I'm wondering if
> the members of this board have directors whose films they won't see
> based either on past bad experiences or an awareness that the
> filmaker's sensibility is so opposed to one's own?

Michael "Happy" Haneke is a personal loathing of mine. The same goes
for any of those filmmakers who "think it is the director's job to
give the audience a hard time" in the words of Chevalier in LE
SILENCE EST D'OR.

Of course I can like tough, grim films, difficult films, etc, but for
me Haneke just wants to punish his audience. And as a spectator I
fell quite guilt-free (I'm not hurting anyone) so I don't feel the
need to be punished.

Have pretty much given up on Oliver Stone, for the crimes of
incoherence and hysterical shrillness. I might miss something good by
him now and again but it'll be worth it to avoid another ANY GIVEN
SUNDAY.

That's the good thing about the auteur approach - it allows you to
not only track down films you might be interested in, based on who
directed, but to avoid things that will ruin your week.
14985


From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 11:28am
Subject: Re: where are the women...
 
Me, my partner and our pal Nicola have regular noirathons where we
watch at least two classic noirs, as well as eating dinner and
enjoying a splash of slivovitz.

Lately we've shifed to doing screwball comedies too. Nicola won't
stand for anything too up-to-date or too foreign. That's the trouble
with watching in company, you do have to compromise to what the
others want, but the communal side of it is fun. And Nicola makes
great lasagne.
14986


From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 11:31am
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
 
> And, as one of the great examples, FONTANE EFFI BRIEST, with
> Fassbinder himself reading the narration (as Truffaut did on LES
> DEUX ANGLAISES). Plus there's Joanne Woodward's narration on THE
AGE
> OF INNOCENCE.

ANATAHAN! Von Sternberg himself doing the narration, in English with
a German accent, standing in for one of the Japanese men, though
never making it clear which one. A trope borrowed (probably
unknowingly) in THE VIRGIN SUICIDES.
14987


From: joey lindsey
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 1:12pm
Subject: We don't like actors and directors for their amazing insight into politics (not so OT)
 
I think caring much at all about the politics of actors makes the same
mistake as most of celebrity culture - giving the actor responsibility
for something they really aren't an expert at. I like actors that act
well, that can allow their own ego to be absorbed into a piece and do
what is best for the film. There are people who are good at politics
and foreign policy, and they usually end up ... in politics! They're
not actors.
With directors it's a little hairier, and I think Michael Moore, if he
did anything, pointed out the long ignored fact that what a good
director is often doing is presenting a network of ideas/images which
cohere into a world view - and I actually think directors of fiction
often do this far better than documentarians. I didn't like Demonlover
because of the world view, primarily - I loved Donnie Darko because of it.
At the root of it though, I prefer directors who focus on telling the
story. A good story can allow one to ignore the politics and get into
the characters/plot/etc. Stories that can't transcend their own
politics are usually stilted and pretty empty.

I think, ultimately, the only person whose politics really impact a film
are the writer's, although what I say about stories above obviously
still applies. On a list about auteurs, I guess the director and writer
are often the same, but I fell it's not usually mentioned when they aren't.


joey Lindsey
14988


From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 2:00pm
Subject: Re: Never Darken My Door Again (was Politics (OT) )
 
Damien Bona wrote:

>--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
>wrote:
>
>
>.... I'm wondering if
>the members of this board have directors whose films they won't see
>based either on past bad experiences or an awareness that the
>filmaker's sensibility is so opposed to one's own?
>
On the second point, never. I *want* to be exposed to sensibilities
other than, and even opposed to, my own. That, for me, is part of the
reason to view films. Hawks and Ford's sensibilities are definitely
opposed to my own. I was thinking in part of "Collateral" in wondering
if the use of cars in current films is not, by my own standards, rather
evil. But I want to see "evil" works, good and bad. Hell, I even once
read "The Turner Diaries," which while it has received some publicity
has not been generally understood as a fully Nazi book. Know thine enemy.

On the first point, not really either, though I might talk that way. But
if I say I have no plans to see another Fassbinder (choosing a filmmaker
I know many here love), that's more because life is short. It's not even
past "bad" experiences -- I rather enjoyed "Veronika Voss," the last one
I saw. It's just that the six or seven I have seen never made what I'd
call great cinema, so I'd rather give other filmmakers a chance.

Still, experience has taught me that I am much more likely to come to
like a filmmaker whose works I haven't appreciated than I am to decide a
filmmaker who I thought was great is actually not. I don't think I've
"demoted" a filmmaker down from "great" status since I was about 20. If
a film is incredible on an aesthetic level for me, it usually stays that
way.

Fred Camper
14989


From:
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 10:05am
Subject: Re: Never Darken My Door Again (was Politics (OT) )
 
Damien, what past bad experience did you have with Chereau or what
sensibility of Chereau's is so opposed to you own?

Kevin John


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14990


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 2:27pm
Subject: Re: Never Darken My Door Again (was Politics (OT) )
 
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:

> Damien, what past bad experience did you have with
> Chereau or what
> sensibility of Chereau's is so opposed to you own?
>

Thanks for asking, Kevin. I was really taken aback by
that one.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14991


From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 2:35pm
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:

"ANATAHAN! Von Sternberg himself doing the narration, in English with
a German accent, standing in for one of the Japanese men, though
never making it clear which one. A trope borrowed (probably
unknowingly) in THE VIRGIN SUICIDES."

He dosen't emphasize it, but it's Maruyama the samisan player who's
doing the narration. Sternberg (mostly)used the real-life Maruyama's
actual words for the narration, and the Japanese version uses
narration just like the English language version. I read that
Sternberg in preparing the Japanese version (which otherwise is
identical to the English language version) auditioned various actors
for the Japanese narrator including Maruyama Michiro himself. I saw
the movie again about a year ago and Sternberg's accent is soft to
the point of being unnoticeable (and he was Viennese not German.)

Richard
14992


From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 3:41pm
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
I saw
> the movie again about a year ago and Sternberg's accent is soft to
> the point of being unnoticeable (and he was Viennese not German.)

I thought Sternberg had a trace of a New York accent somewhere in
there as well, mixed an obsolescent one. (as noted before, recorded
voice accents only get more alien.)

Patrick
14993


From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 4:27pm
Subject: Re: Voiceovers (Was: A Fuller without VO)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ciccone" wrote:


"I thought Sternberg had a trace of a New York accent somewhere in
there as well..."

I think you're right. It's Sternberg's voice on the phonograph
record in JET PILOT too.

Richard
14994


From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 5:05pm
Subject: Re: Never Darken My Door Again (was Politics (OT) )
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
> Despite the smug attitude of Gabe Klinger's post, I'm wondering if
> the members of this board have directors whose films they won't see
> based either on past bad experiences or an awareness that the
> filmaker's sensibility is so opposed to one's own?
>
Sure, but David is talking personalities. On that short list, I
avoided DePalma for a long time because of something quite
specifically horrible he'd done, then started watching, but always
with a sense that he's talented, but not great, and Jarmusch,
although I did check in periodically, always finding what was there
bland and uninteresting, and plan to do so again since JR has written
a whole book on Dead Man, when I can catch it in a theatre; Herzog
(but again after verifying that I wasn't missing anything. I wrote
this about Angelo My Love for Boxoffice: "In his second film as a
director Robert Duvall scores imprssively with a cast of real gypsies
performing under their own names in fictional situations, an approach
only a director of Duvall's sensitivity could pull off." Then I got
another take on Duvall's "sensitivity" from a book called Below the
Line (recommended reading) and stayed away from the ensuing --
although I covered my ass by buying a cassette of The Apostle for a
buck. I'll certainly look at it one of these days, just to be sure
I'm not cutting off my nose to spite my face.
14995


From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 5:16pm
Subject: Ashes of N.Y. Times
 
The piece on Zhang Yimou today begins by identifying him as "the Hong Kong film-maker" -- ?

There's also an article on Friedkin, Garry Marshall and others directing opera. An opera magazine editor is quoted: "It gives a big bump to a marketing department to be able to say Friedkin or Ingmar Bergman is working on a particular project in opera, because you get movie fans." While Hollywood types may turn out for Friedkin, this had me idly wondering whether auteurists interested in Friedkin but not in opera would necessarily attend a production of "Ariadne auf Naxos." Or, if this were 1953, would New York auteurists flock to Preminger's production of an opera based on "The Trial"? (Italian cinephiles presumably followed Visconti into the opera house, his other home, but Italians presumably already love opera anyway.)
14996


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 5:29pm
Subject: Re: Ashes of N.Y. Times
 
--- jess_l_amortell wrote:


> There's also an article on Friedkin, Garry Marshall
> and others directing opera. An opera magazine
> editor is quoted: "It gives a big bump to a
> marketing department to be able to say Friedkin or
> Ingmar Bergman is working on a particular project in
> opera, because you get movie fans." While Hollywood
> types may turn out for Friedkin, this had me idly
> wondering whether auteurists interested in Friedkin
> but not in opera would necessarily attend a
> production of "Ariadne auf Naxos." Or, if this were
> 1953, would New York auteurists flock to Preminger's
> production of an opera based on "The Trial"?
> (Italian cinephiles presumably followed Visconti
> into the opera house, his other home, but Italians
> presumably already love opera anyway.)
>
>
>

And then there's THIS

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

great director of opera.

14997


From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 7:28pm
Subject: Re: P-DL by PTA
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
>
Do we have any other PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE
> fans out there?
>
> Adrian

Me. I reviewed it with THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE for The
Uncommunist, pointing out that both were 40th anniversary
homages to Shoot the Piano Player. Demme, who included a
clip from Shoot in TTAC, is thanked in the final credits of PDL,
which is more directly modelled on the Truffaut. Watson's
character is named Leena (sic).
14998


From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 7:29pm
Subject: Re: P-DL by PTA
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:

PS - I also quite liked Hard Eight, a better Melville than Melville
ever made.
14999


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 7:40pm
Subject: Re: Boris & Uncle Joe
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > That's normal; there is no connection between Boris Barnet and
> > Stalin.
> > Barnet was a free mind.
> > However, in the early 50's, he had to do his part....
>
> It's very interesting how Barnet deals with Soviet content. It's there
> in the films, and he doesn't try to undermine it, but when he has any
> freedom at all, he puts such unusual detail into the characterizations
> and mixes moods so well that the propaganda value of the films is
> greatly reduced. (BOUNTIFUL SUMMER doesn't seem to be a project
that he
> had much freedom on, though it's very nice to look at.)
>

I'm a little surprised that Barnet was singled out. This sort
of discussion occurs often on Usenet, on rec.arts.movies.past-films
and alt.movies.silent, but almost always deals with Eisenstein
or Dovzhenko.

Those debates aren't particularly illuminating. Nonetheless,
I recommend that people not familiar with Usenet check out its
archives on http://groups.google.com. Type in, for example,
"rec.arts.movies.past-films" or "alt.movies.silent" and a topic, then
click on Google Search.

Paul
15000


From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Sep 2, 2004 7:48pm
Subject: Re: Never Darken My Door Again (was Politics (OT) )
 
Damien --

Harmon Jones? Jeez, why Harmon Jones? I mean, he's a lousy director, but
he's just one of hundreds of totally negligible untalented hacks that
Hollywood threw up (in both senses of that phrase) over the 30 or so years
of the heyday of the studio period.

You might as well say you're boycotting Lew Landers or S. Sylvan Simon.

g


What we need is more people who specialize in the impossible.

-- Theodore Roethke


>
> And when I'm flipping around the channels, I'm never going to stay on
> the Fox Movie Channel if a Harmon Jones picture is being shown.

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