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.
15201
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 5:09am
Subject: Re: The 'Thon (was:"I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Well, I suspect that many more people in middle America believe
that Tom
> Cruise is gay (whether he is or not) than ever believed that Rock
Hudson
> was back in the day.
I'm not sure that's true. "L'Amerique profond" is pretty "profond."
I was just reminded again of my own slow weaning away from early
hatred of capitalism and the American middle class per se (learned at
prep school and college, after being a Goldwaterite up till age 16)
in the early 70s by...the Telethon! Seeing those K-Mart managers and
the like coming up with those checks, even today, makes me remember
how wholesome these folks can be. It was interesting dipping into
the 'Thon today -- knowing that every last man jack one of them,
including the firefighters, would be touching the screen for Bush in
November -- just before seeing Bowling for Columbine for the first
time. There's a K-mart manager in there, too, but he has her on the
ropes much of the time. Nonetheless, Moore's identification with the
Midwest is part of his strength as a polemicist.
15202
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 5:12am
Subject: Re: "I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I think it was more than elision: I think that
> > straight middle America
> > wanted Rock Hudson, for instance, to be straight,
> > more than they enjoyed
> > the gossip value of pegging him as gay. My
> > recollection is that the
> > prevailing attitude was something like, "It's a
> > shame that people spread
> > damaging rumors like that."
> >
>
> Meaning that at heart they knew it was true. At the
> time of his death there was no end of feigning
> "surpriuse" that he was gay, with story after story
> after story about how "No one knew his secret!"
>
> Such baloney.
>
> Before he became ill it was widely expected that he
> would come out. Armisted Maupin was encouraging him to
> do so.
>
> There was even an incident at a performance of
> "Camelot" (Hudson was touring as King Arthur) where at
> the curtain call a bouquet of flowers was sent up to
> him from a male admirer -- which he accepted with a
> laugh and a wink.
>
>
A rich gay friend of my family (whose mother died in resolute denial
of his gayness, even though he could give pointers to Capote: very
Midnight in the Garden) told my sister that when Hudson toured local
gays used to leave notes with their phone numbers on his dressing
room door.
15203
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 5:16am
Subject: Re: Bisexual form/content (Was: A Touch of Pink (Ian Iqbal Rashid))
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/6/04 4:30:59 PM, cellar47@y... writes:
> >
I'm interested in the way Ozon's films (others?) can be called
> bisexual in the way that The Night of the Hunter or Queen Bee or
Torch Song or
> Ruby Gentry or Cobra Woman or Beyond The Forest can all be called
gay films,
> which I think is perfectly reasonable.
I doubt if American Matchmaker is part of the ulmer day on TCM, but
you guys should check it out. Mucho subtext, as in the Astaire RKO
films.
15204
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 5:19am
Subject: Re: Bisexual form/content (Was: A Touch of Pink (Ian Iqbal Rashid))
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> The Night of the Hunter is an incomparable work of art
> -- the greatest American film ever made -- directed by
> a gay man.
>
> Will John grow up to be gay? I certainly hope so for
> Miz Cooper's sake. The son she threw out of the house
> years before was obviously gay.
Explicitly so in the book, right?
She has devoted her
> life to making up for rejecting him.
>
> So it's a sort-of-gay movie.
A tad conflicted maybe.
15205
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 5:54am
Subject: Re: Ozon - a negative view
>And the book club crowd? I'm not 100% certain I know what you mean by
> that.
Apologies to anyone who is currently part of or has ever belonged to a book club --
just to be clear, a circle of people -- retirees, middle-aged wives, and other groups
who I'm about to unfairly stereotype -- who read the same book and discuss it in
short, informal sessions, usually over drinks and appetizers and the like (parodied on
The Simpsons, exploited on a national level by Oprah). There's a similar thing that
goes on with films, usually art films that get some kind of wide distribution -- let's
say, Sony Pictures Classics' catalogue, which includes CENTRAL STATION, THE ROAD
HOME, EAST-WEST, GOODBYE, LENIN!
Zach and others have identified this type of film (elsewhere than in this forum) as
"bistro cinema" -- the filmic equivalent of a mid-price Merlot wine, a Paulo Coelho
novel, a Three Tenors concert, etc. etc.
I have nothing against this crowd -- I wouldn't throw eggs at them as I was driving by
blasting gangsa rap and taking swigs from my forty ounce -- but I would say -- fairly
or unfairly -- that they are predisposed to a certain cinema that appears to be
challenging but is in fact very "safe"...
Take that how you like, whenever I get into these discussions I make statements I
usually regret.
15206
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 6:13am
Subject: Re: A Touch of Pink (Ian Iqbal Rashid)
> Almodovar is unquestionably talented. But I've never
> really been all that impressed with his work. When he
> first burst upon the scene his supporters -- like Kael
> -- were always going on about how "daring" he was. Yet
> I've never found anything at all daring in any of his
> films, even "Law of Desire."
Count me in the lack of love, even more so for the later,
more 'human' works than for the wilder, earlier ones (which I do
like). Actually, there's what I think is a Filipino equivalent to
Almodovar, and one who started working earlier than he did--Joey
Gosengfiao, gay Filipino filmmaker with Japanese blood who was doing
straight-faced camp in the early '70s until today.
In fact his masterpiece, Temptation Island (1981, no relation to the
reality show) is stranger than anything Almodovar's ever done, I
think: beauty pageant contestants on a ship that sinks are marooned
on an island, where they are forced to seek food, water, shelter,
and a place to plug in their hairdryers. Plenty of sex, bitching,
giant ice cream cones and a climactic act of cannibalism.
15207
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 6:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Ozon - a negative view
> Zach and others have identified this type of film (elsewhere than in
> this forum) as
> "bistro cinema" -- the filmic equivalent of a mid-price Merlot wine, a
> Paulo Coelho
> novel, a Three Tenors concert, etc. etc.
> Take that how you like, whenever I get into these discussions I make
> statements I
> usually regret.
"Bistro cinema" is also an appropriate term because these films are the
types of movies that will always get booked at a Landmark-owned
theater, where a small counter will without fail be on hand to serve
cappuccinos and some pastries, which you can then take and eat at a
pre-fab observation deck munching-area. (Usually decked out in decor
not unlike the paintings of Joyce and Borges and Austen and Chekov that
loom overhead at the Starbucks inside of Barnes & Noble stores.)
I had a conversation with a friend recently about Miramax, and was
railing on about them, and she replied with legitimate surprise, "Yeah,
but of all the Hollywood studios, aren't they the ones who at least
make an effort to get something 'good' out there?" I told her that
wasn't the case, and if you think hard about what Miramax has released
(although explaining to the average movie-goer why 'Amélie' is a bad
film always comes off as disingenuous, no matter how solidly one states
his case), you'll find that their backcatalogue consists of a lot of
nothing. To which she replied, "Okay, but how do I know which movies
are out there that are worth seeing?" This was such a stupid question
(coming from someone who goes to graduate school and lives in
metropolitan Pittsburgh), that I was relieved when, before I could
stammer-reply, her daughter jumped in and said:
"You have to read the French magazines!"
craig.
15208
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 7:02am
Subject: Re: Ozon - a negative view
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> >And the book club crowd? I'm not 100% certain I know what you mean
by
> > that.
>
> Apologies to anyone who is currently part of or has ever belonged
to a book club --
> just to be clear, a circle of people -- retirees, middle-aged
wives, and other groups
> who I'm about to unfairly stereotype -- who read the same book and
discuss it in
> short, informal sessions, usually over drinks and appetizers and
the like (parodied on
> The Simpsons, exploited on a national level by Oprah).
My Aunt Mildred in Dallas used to belong to one of those -- she
called it her "taling women."
I thought you meant the kind of book club where you clip out a coupon
to join and get cheap editions books sent to you in even out-of-the-
way holes like the one I grew up in, where my membership in the
Science Fiction Book Club was my lifeline to reality.
15209
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 7:08am
Subject: Re: A Touch of Pink (Ian Iqbal Rashid)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
> > Almodovar is unquestionably talented. But I've never
> > really been all that impressed with his work. When he
> > first burst upon the scene his supporters -- like Kael
> > -- were always going on about how "daring" he was. Yet
> > I've never found anything at all daring in any of his
> > films, even "Law of Desire."
I like all Almodovar and some Ozon (Sand, Drops), whose debt to PA is
flagrant. To me it's a little constricting to look for gay content
everywhere in PA's films -- he has been making films about post-
Franco Spain in which gay characters are prominent, but not always
central. His influences also include Bunuel (opmnipresent in Spanish
film culture), H'wd and a lot of stuff we don't know because we
aren't Spanish. Would I have known that the filmmaker was gay if I
didn't know? Almost certainly. But his work is very social and not
limited to identity politics. Personally, I like the melodramas a lot.
15210
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 7:17am
Subject: Re: Ozon - a negative view
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> "Bistro cinema" is also an appropriate term because these films are
the
> types of movies that will always get booked at a Landmark-owned
> theater, where a small counter will without fail be on hand to
serve
> cappuccinos and some pastries, which you can then take and eat at a
> pre-fab observation deck munching-area.
In 1975 I talked to the Chicago exhibitor who claimed he started the
arthouse movement in this country. "We noticed that if we played Day
of Wrath, everyone wouldn't come, but 1% would." Like the first man
who ate an oyster, he -- or whoever made that discovery -- is why we
have film culture. Sure I laugh at the trailers with the same breathy-
voiced narrator and characters who never speak lest we cotton to the
fact that their Ukrainian, the posters pitching the films as
guidebooks to the Joy of Life, Miramax and all the rest of it. I even
have a resistance to setting foot in the Nuart (Landmark), where I
recently saw and enjoyed The Brown Bunny. That's because right next
door, in Cinefile, I can get all the Bergman I want. Believe me, I
was a lot less snooty when the only place you could see Persona was
one theatre in NY that served espresso in the lobby. I took a train
and a cab to get to it, filling in with whatever was playing at four
other similarly-themed theatres if I could before catching the
Midnight Special back to Yale. And I even, after a matinee of
Children of Paradise at the Paris, was offered a lift in a cab by the
only other spectator, Barabara Loden, en route to the theatre where
she was appearing in After the Fall. Top THAT, AMC!
15211
From: apmartin90
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 11:34am
Subject: What is a 'feel-good' film?
I have been thinking about a term that the film industry and many
critics/reviewers throw around: 'feel good' movie. In essence, we
all know what it is. But I am trying to figure out: what exactly are
the elements/ingredients of the contemporary feel-good model?
Any input, descriptive or critical, will be appreciated!
Adrian
15212
From:
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 8:53am
Subject: Re: What is a 'feel-good' film?
Actually, I like films that make me feel good, and wish there were more of
them. Most films today are deeply soaked in gloom. If this gloom dealt with real
social problems I would support it: the environment, war, hunger, prejudice.
But usually, the gloom seems artificial and layered on the film by a trowel.
Some years ago, was wandering around my local multiplex. Noticed that ALL of
the movie posters were solid black. The films were all depicted as horrifying,
terrifying, nightmarish, etc. Finally found a poster that was in bright
cheerful colors. It was for an Elmo movie! Elmo was red, Big Bird was yellow, etc.
Had a similar experience at the glorious Whistler exhibit at the Detroit
Institute of Arts two months ago. The paintings blazed with brilliant colors. But
suddenly noticed that I was the only person there wearing bright colored
clothes - this in the midst of early summer. The crowd was all wearing the most
drab, neutral colors possible. These were not poor people - they were well to do
suburbanites, dressed in dull blues and earth tones. I had on a shiny red tee
shirt and royal blue track pants and shoes. Only one lady wore a bright pink
dress - the two of us were the only ones who believed in the Aesthetic Movement.
In conclusion, if anyone knows where these "feel good" films are, please let
me know. I will rush out and see them at once!
Mike Grost
PS The Fox Movie Channel has been showing the recently restored "Call Me
Madam" (Walter Lang), an Irving Berlin musical with Ethel Merman and Donald
O'Connor. This IS a feel good movie.
15213
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 1:15pm
Subject: Re: What is a 'feel-good' film?
I think the happy ending may be the one important ingredient. Hard
to think of any reputed feelgoods with downbeat endings, though a
sort of weepie climax as in ET is allowable.
But I could see somone calling IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE feelgood, so
it's obviously acceptable to have depressing and traunatic stuff on
the way to the happy ending. In a way, the darker it gets, the more
impact the happy finale will have. I'm sure THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION
is thought of as feely goody, and that can only be for the
conclusion.
15214
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 1:20pm
Subject: Re: Anthony Boucher (was: "I went gay all of a sudden")
Boucher turns up in the McGilligan Hitchcock bio as an associate of
Hitch's consulting on scripts. I forget which ones.
Another regrettable erratum in that book: re John Gavin's casting in
PSYCHO: "Hitchcock had already suffered through IMITATION OF LIFE, a
Douglas Sirk weepie in which Gavin was impossibly in love with Lana
Turner's older woman."
McGilligan offers no proof that hitch didn't like the film (indeed,
he seems to have screened the whole movie, whereas he frequently
stopped films he didn't like) and McGilligan's assumption that
the "weepie" would be low quality is very outdated. Plus he seems to
be confusing the plot with ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS.
15215
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 1:25pm
Subject: Re: "I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
> I also remember rumors about Rock Hudson's gayness making their
way into
> the straight, small-town world every so often in the 60s and 70s.
My
> distinct recollection is that straight people didn't really want
to
> believe them, and discounted them.
I recall that when British tabloids ran stories of Cary Grant's sex
life after his death, they lost readers. It wasn't that straight
people were shocked or disbelieving, just that they liked Cary and
didn't want to think of him that way. They were happy to have a gay
film star as long as they didn't have to consciously "know" about it.
It's kind of weird. It fits in with the British public's acceptamce
of blatantly gay comedians who were camp but not obviously sexy. As
long as you didn't have to picture them "at it" you were fine.
15216
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 1:28pm
Subject: Re: What is a 'feel-good' film?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "apmartin90" wrote:
> I have been thinking about a term that the film industry and many
> critics/reviewers throw around: 'feel good' movie. In essence, we
> all know what it is. But I am trying to figure out: what exactly are
> the elements/ingredients of the contemporary feel-good model?
>
> Any input, descriptive or critical, will be appreciated!
>
> Adrian
Common element in "feel good" movies is "Overcoming adversity",
"Opposite natures who become one", adding motifs of friendship,
tolerance, equality and unity, and of course a happy end.
Model movies of that category are for me "Driving Miss Daisy", "Fried
Green Tomatoes" and "Bagdad Cafe". But I would also say that films
like "Pricilly, Queen of the Desert" and "Rainman" belong to these.
Henrik
15217
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 1:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: "I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
--- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
>
> I recall that when British tabloids ran stories of
> Cary Grant's sex
> life after his death, they lost readers. It wasn't
> that straight
> people were shocked or disbelieving, just that they
> liked Cary and
> didn't want to think of him that way.
Didn't really have that here. Discussions of Cary
Grant's sexuality have always been prettymuch buried
-- unlike Rock Hidsons's.
They were
> happy to have a gay
> film star as long as they didn't have to consciously
> "know" about it.
A general rule in the past -- fast vanishing in the
present.
>
> It's kind of weird. It fits in with the British
> public's acceptamce
> of blatantly gay comedians who were camp but not
> obviously sexy. As
> long as you didn't have to picture them "at it" you
> were fine.
>
>
Which makes the fact that Kenneth Williams was one of
Joe Orton's best friends all the more radical.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
15218
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 3:45pm
Subject: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing?"
> To which she replied, "Okay, but how do I know which movies
> are out there that are worth seeing?" This was such a stupid question
> (coming from someone who goes to graduate school and lives in
> metropolitan Pittsburgh), that I was relieved when, before I could
> stammer-reply, her daughter jumped in and said:
>
> "You have to read the French magazines!"
The daughter sounds pretty cool, but I find the mother's question a bit
trickier than you do. There are no critics that match my tastes closely
enough that I can use them as consumer consultants, and no advance data
about films (plot, cast/crew, etc.) is reliable. I would have said that
the answer to her question is, "You don't."
One of the corollaries of an auteurist approach to movies is that good
filmmaking can come from anywhere. - Dan
15219
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 3:48pm
Subject: Re: "I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> JP - Re: PC cluelessness, see my earlier post on Grant's
ejaculation,
> 15114.
>
> Where have you been? Were you in harm's way w. the storm?
Thanks for asking, Bill. We were lucky -- we're just a few miles
south of West Palm Beach, which was hit pretty hard. Our house didn't
even lose power, although thousands of neighbors did. Still it was
rough, a "Key Largo" atmosphere for a few days. To quote Redford's
last line in the much maligned HAVANA, "It's hurricane country..."
15220
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 3:52pm
Subject: Re: Syberberg (was Re: Ashes of N.Y. Times)
> Syberberg's interview reflects some of values that one of the most
> prominent New Rightists, Ernst Nolte, ascribes to Nazism: "national
> self-assertion and autonomy," "counter- revolutionary and
> counter-Enlightenment traditions," "the deliberate exclusion of other
> people," "a longing for the restoration of community, particularity,
> rootedness, and the concrete, as opposed to alienation and
> abstraction."
But isn't this exactly the point that Syberberg is making? He's saying
that there's something valuable which has become associated with Nazism,
but which is not the same as Nazism and need not lead to bad things. To
argue against him, one would try to demonstrate a cause-and-effect
relationship betwen things like rootedness and Nazism, and not merely
point out similar attributes (which Syberberg openly acknowledges). - Dan
15221
From: joey lindsey
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 3:54pm
Subject: Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing?"
Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > To which she replied, "Okay, but how do I know which movies
> > are out there that are worth seeing?" This was such a stupid question
>
>
> about films (plot, cast/crew, etc.) is reliable. I would have said that
> the answer to her question is, "You don't."
This is similar to when I asked a friend "How do I know which jazz
records to buy?" when I first got into jazz heavily, around age 18. His
response was "You have to listen to every record in every store and dig
through mountains of shit before you find anything you'll like."
The point is that I agree with Dan, and my youthful friend: you don't
know. You can't develop your own taste and aesthetic vocabulary about a
medium until you devour tons of the stuff, after which your own tastes
and the practitioners you enjoy or find interesting start becoming
apparent. After that, you still have to check out new people and tastes
because not only are you always changing, but so are the mediums you're
interested in.
joey Lindsey
15222
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 3:56pm
Subject: Re: "I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> >
> >
> >The most amazing thing about Grant's "Bringing Up Baby"
exclamation
> >is that it passed the Code of Production's scrutiny....
> >
> It doesn't surprise me. "Gay" as a code for "homosexual" was very
much
> an underground word in 1938, and for quite a while afterwards. Also
> Grant's line is spoken very fast.
>
I too assumed it was an underground term at the time, but now it
appears that "to go gay" was a fashionable phrase in Hollywood, so
it's a bit strange that the Production Code watchdogs, who could
sniff out an obscenity in the most innocent remarks, had never heard
of it, and didn't react to a man in drag shouting "I've gone gay."
Also the line is not spoken so very fast and is very distinct.
JPC
15223
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 3:55pm
Subject: Re: What is a 'feel-good' film?
My idea of a feel-good movie is "Chungking Express" .. a film that
contains murder, a kidnapping, and various betrayals :)
OTOH I'm the person who said at the end of "The Sweet Hereafter"
"This is Atom Egoyan's most optimistic film" !!
-Sam
15224
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 4:02pm
Subject: EDGAR G. ULMER: THE MAN OFF-SCREEN
This terrific 77-minute documentary about Edgar Ulmer appeared on the
German television channel '3 Sat' a few days ago. It was directed by
Michael Palm, and produced by 'The Edgar G. Ulmer Preservation
Corp.', which I believe is the creation of Ulmer's daughter Arianne,
who is among the interviewees. There are also interviews with Wim
Wenders, Joe Dante, Roger Corman, Ann Savage, John Saxon, John
Landis, Peter Bogdanovich, Alex Horwath, Greg Mank and Tom Weaver.
It's mostly in English (except for Horwath and Wenders).
Anyone else seen this? I've no idea if it has received wider
distribution (which it certainly deserves).
15225
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 4:26pm
Subject: Re: "I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Dan Sallitt wrote:
I think a lot of people might miss the line the first
> time, but also very few would have known what "gay" meant.
>
> Fred Camper
In that case the line didn't make any sense to most people.
15226
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 4:52pm
Subject: Re: "I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
Discussions of Cary
> Grant's sexuality have always been prettymuch buried
> -- unlike Rock Hidsons's.
I thought Cary Grant, a Class Apart got into all that. The director
told me it did, but I haven't seen it -- it premiered at Cannes and I
assume has since run on tv here.
15227
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 4:56pm
Subject: Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing?"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > To which she replied, "Okay, but how do I know which movies
>
> One of the corollaries of an auteurist approach to movies is that
good
> filmmaking can come from anywhere. - Dan
Definitely, but with my limited filmgoing time I also use it as a
filter to eliminate films by directors who don't interest me. If I
hear about a new discovery from enough people I trust, I check it out
and add the director to the list if I agree -- then I often find
myself playing ketchup on video. In any case, a major corrolary of
auteurism is that you CAN tell, because even a poor film by a major
director is more interesting than a "good" one by a nothing director.
Usually.
15228
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 5:00pm
Subject: Re: EDGAR G. ULMER: THE MAN OFF-SCREEN
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
That's the film Arianne produced. It was supposed yto be on TCN 9/17
and got pulled. Glad to hear it's finished.
15229
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 5:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: "I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> I thought Cary Grant, a Class Apart got into all
> that. The director
> told me it did, but I haven't seen it -- it
> premiered at Cannes and I
> assume has since run on tv here.
>
>
It was just the same old stuff, really. And Orry-Kelly
was never mentioned.
Grant's lawsuit against Chevy Chase put the
frighteners on everyone in the 4th estate from talking
about Grant. That plus the fact that he's greatly (and
deservedly) loved, and gayness continues to be
regarded as a detriment.
But how can one "explain" Cary Grant? He was a great,
great actor, and a supreme movie star whose power
remains undiminished. And as a human being he was
quite complex. I have no idea who the "real Cary
Grant" was, and he probably didn't either.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
15230
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 5:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing?"
> Definitely, but with my limited filmgoing time I also use it as a
> filter to eliminate films by directors who don't interest me. If I
> hear about a new discovery from enough people I trust, I check it out
> and add the director to the list if I agree -- then I often find
> myself playing ketchup on video.
I do the same thing, because of limited time and money. But there was a
time when I saw a whole lot of films on spec, and I learned in those
days that you miss a lot of good and promising stuff if you rely on
recommendations and proven track records.
> In any case, a major corrolary of
> auteurism is that you CAN tell, because even a poor film by a major
> director is more interesting than a "good" one by a nothing director.
> Usually.
Yeah, usually. But, if one has all the resources in the world, it's
more rewarding to treat auteurism as an a posteriori construct instead
of an a priori one. I always found Sarris' attitude on this point
admirable: "Eventually we must talk of everything if there is enough
time and space and printer's ink...the last thing an auteur critic
desires is to keep a reader from seeing a movie." - Dan
15231
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 6:04pm
Subject: Re: "I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> But how can one "explain" Cary Grant? He was a great,
> great actor, and a supreme movie star whose power
> remains undiminished. And as a human being he was
> quite complex. I have no idea who the "real Cary
> Grant" was, and he probably didn't either.
Good attempts: Moullet, Kael, Schickel, Ehrenstein.
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
15232
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 7:56pm
Subject: Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
To which she replied, "Okay, but how do I know which movies
> are out there that are worth seeing?" This was such a stupid
question
> (coming from someone who goes to graduate school and lives in
> metropolitan Pittsburgh), that I was relieved when, before I could
> stammer-reply, her daughter jumped in and said:
>
> "You have to read the French magazines!"
>
> craig.
Why is this necessarily a stupid question? I think it's a question
that all of us grapple with (consciously or not), or should grapple
with. I'd be more leery of those that DON'T.
I've been working with a Harvard researcher on her project studying
the cultivation of movie taste in the individual movie viewer. As
part of the research I wrote a mini-autobiography trying to account
for, as comprehensively as I can, what forces have shaped my tastes
in film ever since I used to play-act Indiana Jones movies with my
grade school classmates. I came up with dozens upon dozens of
influences throughout my life that could serve as answers to that
question your friend asked, from Damien Bona's INSIDE OSCAR (which I
permanently borrowed from the library when I was a teen -- I taught
myself how to type by copying the results from 60 years of Oscars on
and old Olivetti) to the Chicago Reader articles and capsules by Dave
Kehr, Jonathan Rosenbaum and Fred Camper (which I discovered online
while I was in China and triggered a major restructuring of aesthetic
values), just to name some people on this board whom I owe a debt of
influence.
Maybe it's anathema or a sign of weakness to admit how dependent one
might be on whatever forces might be influencing one's way of
thinking, perceiving and valuing movies (or anything else), but I
find it liberating and honest. I think there has to be a way to
break down the presumptions about values and taste not just held by
others but by ourselves, if real communication is to occur. I guess
the problem is there always has to be some kind of shared presumption
to establish a rapport. It seems that what you thought was a shared
understanding about movie taste was proven wrong, leaving you in a
difficult position of finding some other ground to re-establish the
discussion.
btw, about the French magazines, was her daughter being sincere or
sarcastic?
Kevin
15233
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 8:24pm
Subject: The Movies That Are Worth Seeing (ie. The Basics,no particular order)
La Jetee
Sans Soleil
The Red Shoes
8 1/2
La Dolce Vita
Citizen Kane
F For Fake
Singin' in the Rain
Rules of the Game
The Night of the Hunter
Celine and Julie Go Boating
Out 1: Spectre
Contempt
A Woman is a Woman
Jules and Jim
Cleo From 5 to 7
Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne
A Man Escaped
Orpheus
Beauty and the Beast
I Was Born But. . .
City Lights
Force of Evil
Gertrud
Sunset Boulevard
Some Like it Hot
The Lady Eve
Sullivan's Travels
The Devil is a Woman
Shanghai Express
The Chelsea Girls
Beauty #2
The Umbrellas of Cherbourg
Lola
The Servant
Performance
The Devils
Good News
Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter
The Ladies Man
Providence
Hiroshima Mon Amour
Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
15234
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 8:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
(Citations first, reply below) --
Dan Sallitt:
"The daughter sounds pretty cool, but I find the mother's question a bit
trickier than you do. There are no critics that match my tastes closely
enough that I can use them as consumer consultants, and no advance data
about films (plot, cast/crew, etc.) is reliable. I would have said that
the answer to her question is, "You don't."
One of the corollaries of an auteurist approach to movies is that good
filmmaking can come from anywhere. - Dan"
+
Kevin Lee:
> Why is this necessarily a stupid question? I think it's a question
> that all of us grapple with (consciously or not), or should grapple
> with. I'd be more leery of those that DON'T.
+
>
> Maybe it's anathema or a sign of weakness to admit how dependent one
> might be on whatever forces might be influencing one's way of
> thinking, perceiving and valuing movies (or anything else), but I
> find it liberating and honest. I think there has to be a way to
> break down the presumptions about values and taste not just held by
> others but by ourselves, if real communication is to occur. I guess
> the problem is there always has to be some kind of shared presumption
> to establish a rapport. It seems that what you thought was a shared
> understanding about movie taste was proven wrong, leaving you in a
> difficult position of finding some other ground to re-establish the
> discussion.
The reason I thought it was a stupid question is probably because I
hadn't interpreted it, nor did I interpret her asking it, as a kind of
celestial musing upon the nature of how we arrive at the end-results of
evaluation and then come to grips with the anxiety over the "truth" of
our results. I think what both you, Dan, and you, Kevin, write is
quite valid and spot-on, but I think that taking a step backward, one
can simply answer the qustion: "How do I know what's good that's out
there?" with the answer, "You read the capsule reviews in your free
alternative weekly, if only for plot descriptions, and by scanning for
the word 'sentimental', begin your process of elimination," or, "Start
using the World Wide Web." These were things that hadn't occurred to
her. As I see it, it sort of goes back to the point Fred was making a
few weeks ago -- to find out about anything in life, you must simply
turn off your television and/or get off your ass and do some
investigation. I don't expect everyone to be a voracious autodidact,
but at the same time, we shouldn't expect to have our hands held every
step of the way to something like self-enrichment. If one isn't going
to look for anything other than what one sees ads for on television,
nor ever bother to look in the paper at the movie-listings that don't
take up a quarter-page of space, then it's only natural that one will
feel there's "nothing good out there." Because she does live in a
metropolitan area, where there are at least two large universities, and
is in an area with several art-house theaters, it only means that she
was passing over the "smaller ads" by way of habit, and never really
reads anything anywhere anyway. One can be as naïve as a plum-tree
when it comes to "knowing what's good in the movies," but if you're a
human being who regularly reads things around you, you will eventually
come upon notices in even mainstream outlets about, say, "There is this
movie called 'Greendale,' " or, "this director Wong Kar-wai," or "the
new Michael Mann thriller with Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx called
'Collateral' is really something." And for that, I mean, there's no
excuse -- she cares enough to complain, but not apparently to make the
most minimal effort to observe the world around her. Of course it
doesn't make her any less warm and conscientious a human being.
> btw, about the French magazines, was her daughter being sincere or
> sarcastic?
I think she was being half-serious half-teasing, because she was
flipping through some issues of Cahiers at my apartment several months
ago. For her part, she's very eager to learn about new things even if
they present her with a challenge. She has in fact gone out and picked
up (and actually read) half of Nabokov and, more recently, purchased
and read 'Pale Fire' along with Brian Boyd's 'Nabokov's 'Pale Fire':
The Magic of Artistic Discovery,' which I might have mentioned only
once a long time ago.
craig.
15235
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 8:43pm
Subject: Re: The Movies That Are Worth Seeing (ie. The Basics,no particular order)
> La Jetee
> Sans Soleil
> The Red Shoes
> 8 1/2
> La Dolce Vita
> Citizen Kane
> F For Fake
etc.
I'm forwarding this to her, David, with some other additions. I'm sure
she'll find the complete lack of context wholly amusing (at least I
will). Or, maybe just a short note that reads, "Dear Babs -- Once
you've seen 'The Testament of Orpheus,' you can rest easy knowing that
you have just, more or less, seen it all."
cmk.
15236
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 8:45pm
Subject: Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing?"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
There are no critics that match my tastes closely
> enough that I can use them as consumer consultants, and no advance
data
> about films (plot, cast/crew, etc.) is reliable. I would have said
that
> the answer to her question is, "You don't."
>
> One of the corollaries of an auteurist approach to movies is that
good
> filmmaking can come from anywhere. - Dan
I didn't notice your reply when I posted mine, Dan. I think "you
don't" is a good answer. Though chances are she'll still left
wondering where to get her tipsheet from. If what you say is true,
that most of the advance information you may reference will prove
unreliable or uncomprehensive, the question remains though, how do
you determine which movies to watch? How often you watch movies
these days based on your own familiarity with the auteur, vs.
recommendations from friends, vs. print reviews or articles? All
three of these inform my own decisions as to what to watch, though I
wouldn't be able to say to what extent with each.
But deciding what to watch is one thing. Reflecting on HOW you're
watching it (the other side of this issue) is another ball of wax --
one that 99% of the moviegoing populace is probably unconcerned with,
sadly.
I think one thing we may (unadmittedly) share with Craig's friend's
mother is that we all tend to settle into our respective comfort
zones about what, and how, we should be watching.
Kevin
15237
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 8:54pm
Subject: Re: The Movies That Are Worth Seeing (ie. The Basics,no particular order)
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> I'm forwarding this to her, David, with some other
> additions. I'm sure
> she'll find the complete lack of context wholly
> amusing (at least I
> will). Or, maybe just a short note that reads,
> "Dear Babs -- Once
> you've seen 'The Testament of Orpheus,' you can rest
> easy knowing that
> you have just, more or less, seen it all."
>
She wanted to know what was worht seeing? Here it is.
After she's seen them we can talk about context -- and
everything else.
Note to Chris Fujiwara: Gallo-Fortified-Wine-in-a-Box
copped "Tears for Dolphy" from Pasolini's "Teorema"
where it's used as the main theme. He doubtless sees
himself as the Terence Stamp of grunge.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
15238
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 9:02pm
Subject: Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing?"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I do the same thing, because of limited time and money. But there
was a
> time when I saw a whole lot of films on spec, and I learned in
those
> days that you miss a lot of good and promising stuff if you rely on
> recommendations and proven track records.
I guess you answer my question from the other post. I need to read
all the messages next time. Your point is well taken and it supports
a sickening suspicion I've harbored for some time since I've moved to
Manhattan, surrounded by limitless viewing options, that my criteria
for selecting worthwhile viewing is faulty and restricting by
definition. But in this regard it's really a microcosm of life
itself, isn't it? I like Sarris' quote but it also belies the
dilemma -- that there is no such thing as limitless viewing options.
I've watched 1,000 films in the three years I've lived in NYC, and
it's only made me realize that I have more movies to watch, not
less. I've had to work towards devising a new personal philosophy
towards film where my interest is driven not towards watching as many
movies as possible, but in developing as rich an understanding of
what movies mean to me independent of the # of films one must see. A
way to get more out of less, so to speak. Not that watching as many
movies as possible is a bad thing, but it should not be the end in
itself. This was what I was getting at in a post about the dangers
of "cinephilia" that for some reason never materialized on this
board, in which I called for either a re-definition or clarifying
distinction in how we understand that word, or else abandoning it
altogether.
15239
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 9:11pm
Subject: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
She has in fact gone out and picked
> up (and actually read) half of Nabokov and, more recently,
purchased
> and read 'Pale Fire' along with Brian Boyd's 'Nabokov's 'Pale
Fire':
> The Magic of Artistic Discovery,' which I might have mentioned
only
> once a long time ago.
>
> craig.
Coincidentally (and OT) I was thinking about Pale Fire this
morning. David, do you consider it a homophobic novel? I hope
not -- it's my favorite Nabokov, and one of my all-time favorite
anythings. But Kinbote does seem an awful fool.
15240
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 9:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing?"
> I've had to work towards devising a new personal philosophy
> towards film where my interest is driven not towards watching as many
> movies as possible, but in developing as rich an understanding of
> what movies mean to me independent of the # of films one must see. A
> way to get more out of less, so to speak. Not that watching as many
> movies as possible is a bad thing, but it should not be the end in
> itself.
Well said. Talk about anxiety -- the number of films I've yet to see
is like a sun-sized tsunami misting my neck. But there's a way to be
zen about this -- all the time you're not watching movies, you're at
least living real life, and this is as valuable to a "conception of the
cinema" as seeing movies, in many respects. I'll never have seen as
much as, say, Jacques Rivette, but I'm no less alive.
Likewise, one can't read every book ever written!
And remember kids, "It's not how many movies you've seen -- it's how
well [and how many times] you've seen the ones you've seen!"
15241
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 9:16pm
Subject: The case of the missing Ulmer doc
Arianne delivered a short version, unreviewed by her, to make
the delivery date. TCM had it skedded in prime time, then
decided that the version they'd seen wasn't strong enough.
Arianne didn't want it playing at 3, so TCM will play the long
version -- the one Brad saw on German tv -- later. In the
meantime, it's virgin in the US market, if any fest programmers
are interested.
15242
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 9:17pm
Subject: Re: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
>
> Coincidentally (and OT) I was thinking about Pale Fire this
> morning. David, do you consider it a homophobic novel? I hope
> not -- it's my favorite Nabokov, and one of my all-time favorite
> anythings. But Kinbote does seem an awful fool.
And a couple more weeks till 'Smile,' Bill! And I'm with you on 'Pale
Fire': my favorite Nabokov, probably my favorite novel (and as a result
one of my all-time favorite anythings). It is truly, deeply miraculous.
craig.
15243
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 9:17pm
Subject: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
She has in fact gone out and picked
> up (and actually read) half of Nabokov and, more recently,
purchased
> and read 'Pale Fire' along with Brian Boyd's 'Nabokov's 'Pale
Fire':
> The Magic of Artistic Discovery,' which I might have mentioned
only
> once a long time ago.
>
> craig.
Coincidentally (and OT) I was thinking about Pale Fire this
morning. David, do you consider it a homophobic novel? I hope
not -- it's my favorite Nabokov, and one of my all-time favorite
anythings. But Kinbote does seem an awful fool.
15244
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 9:46pm
Subject: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> >
> > Coincidentally (and OT) I was thinking about Pale Fire this
> > morning. David, do you consider it a homophobic novel? I
hope
> > not -- it's my favorite Nabokov, and one of my all-time favorite
> > anythings. But Kinbote does seem an awful fool.
>
> And a couple more weeks till 'Smile,' Bill! And I'm with you on
'Pale
> Fire': my favorite Nabokov, probably my favorite novel (and as a
result
> one of my all-time favorite anythings). It is truly, deeply
miraculous.
>
> craig.
And completely unfilmable. Did you ever see Corliss's BFI book
on Lolita? He didit as a pastiche of Pale Fire.
I think I'll reread Pale Fire soon.
15245
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 10:07pm
Subject: Re: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Coincidentally (and OT) I was thinking about Pale
> Fire this
> morning. David, do you consider it a homophobic
> novel? I hope
> not -- it's my favorite Nabokov, and one of my
> all-time favorite
> anythings. But Kinbote does seem an awful fool.
>
>
Funny you should ask.
Like "O.C. & Stiggs" it's homophobic and homoerotic at
the same time.
It's that mildest form of homophobia that finds
same-sexuality "funny." Doubtless it relates to N's
gay brother about whom much has recently been written.
It's my favorite of all his books.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
15246
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 10:25pm
Subject: Re: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
> And completely unfilmable. Did you ever see Corliss's BFI book
> on Lolita? He didit as a pastiche of Pale Fire.
Never saw that -- I'll have to check it out. And yes, 'Pale Fire' is
absolutely unfilmable -- although in my mind's eye, I always pictured
John Shade to resemble Stan Brakhage.
How is the Tony Richardson film of 'Laughter in the Dark'? (With Anna
Karina as Margot!)
> I think I'll reread Pale Fire soon.
Have you read the Boyd book? It's a first-rate piece of scholarship
and criticism -- from 1999, I think. At some point in re-reading, it's
likely that the reader comes to a point where he or she makes a certain
decision in favor of either Kinbote or Shade (don't want to be
super-vague, but I also don't want to give any spoilers away), and ends
up "choosing" one or the other based on the impression of what looks
like semi-certain "evidence" throughout the book. And this is where
Boyd concludes his discussion (coming out on the side of Shade, I
think?) in the second volume of his magnificent biography on VN (from
1990, I think), in the long analysis devoted to the novel. However, he
had a kind of "breakthrough" in the years following publication, and
across 400 pages in 'Nabokov's 'Pale Fire,' or: The Magic of Artistic
Discovery' lucidly makes his case, all but ending the Kinbote vs. Shade
dispute that's raged through the years, and showing with irreproachable
clarity the way through to what is a third or fourth layer of the
novel, thus moving beyond what most people (himself included) had taken
as the final conundrum or paradox of the book, into a realm of absolute
unification. The artistic accomplishment is so dazzling (what a will
VN must have had to take the secrets of some of those later books to
the grave without a peep beforehand!) that when I think about the novel
and its "endgame" I... just don't know what to do. Throw myself in the
ocean, or weep, or something.
craig.
15247
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 10:45pm
Subject: Re: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> How is the Tony Richardson film of 'Laughter in the
> Dark'? (With Anna
> Karina as Margot!)
>
It's not bad. Ana Karina's breasts are featured.
And while the IMDB doesn't mention him
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064576/
David Hockney has a walk-on in it.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
15248
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 10:47pm
Subject: Re: The Movies That Are Worth Seeing (ie. The Basics,no particular order)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Craig Keller wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I'm forwarding this to her, David, with some other
> > additions. I'm sure
> >
Thanks for the list, David. But where can one now see OUT ONE:
SPECTRE which I first read about when Jonathan wrote an intriguing
article some thirty years ago? Naturally, one can catch up with most
of these films over the years but this Rivette remains elusive. One
may not have "all the time in the world" as Diana Rigg discovers in
ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE - to quote a lyric from a "non-
canonical" film. The discussion also evokes an earlier message a
year ago about the possibility of Paul Schrader writing a film canon
book parallel to Harold Bloom's efforts in literature.
Tony Williams
15249
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 10:51pm
Subject: Re: The Movies That Are Worth Seeing (ie. The Basics,no particular order)
"where can one now see OUT ONE: SPECTRE"
The 13-hour version (which is simply called OUT 1) has played on
Italian, German and French television within the last few years.
15250
From: Andy Rector
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 10:53pm
Subject: Re: What is a 'feel-good' film?
A "feelgood" film is a film that wants to keep everything the way it
is at all costs. Even when the costs are rather high:
aesthetics, talent, memory, presence, honesty...these are spent
wildly or strictly, or somewhere inbetween, but what they're buying
is the same: the will of people.
yours,
andy
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "apmartin90" wrote:
> I have been thinking about a term that the film industry and many
> critics/reviewers throw around: 'feel good' movie. In essence, we
> all know what it is. But I am trying to figure out: what exactly
are
> the elements/ingredients of the contemporary feel-good model?
>
> Any input, descriptive or critical, will be appreciated!
>
> Adrian
15251
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 11:21pm
Subject: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> Have you read the Boyd book? It's a first-rate piece of
scholarship
> and criticism -- from 1999, I think.
Normally I would assume I don't have anything to learn from a
book about a novel I read enraptured and with full understanding
at age 17, but with a recommendation like that, I'll get it!
15252
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 11:24pm
Subject: Peter Hunt: (Was: The Movies That Are Worth Seeing )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>One
> may not have "all the time in the world" as Diana Rigg
discovers in
> ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE - to quote a lyric from
a "non-
> canonical" film. The discussion also evokes an earlier
message a
> year ago about the possibility of Paul Schrader writing a film
canon
> book parallel to Harold Bloom's efforts in literature.
>
> Tony Williams
I love certain Peter Hunt films, that one included. Death Hunt is a
byoot -- for once I don't regret the first director (Aldrich) bowing
out.
15253
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 11:25pm
Subject: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Craig Keller wrote:
>
>
> >
> > How is the Tony Richardson film of 'Laughter in the
> > Dark'? (With Anna
> > Karina as Margot!)
> >
>
> It's not bad. Ana Karina's breasts are featured.
Hear hear. What about King Queen Knave, dir. by Skolimowski,
and Despair, dir. by Fassbinder?
15254
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 11:29pm
Subject: Peter Hunt: (Was: The Movies That Are Worth Seeing )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>One
> may not have "all the time in the world" as Diana Rigg
discovers in
> ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE - to quote a lyric from
a "non-
> canonical" film. The discussion also evokes an earlier
message a
> year ago about the possibility of Paul Schrader writing a film
canon
> book parallel to Harold Bloom's efforts in literature.
>
> Tony Williams
I love certain Peter Hunt films, that one included. Death Hunt is a
byoot -- for once I don't regret the first director (Aldrich) bowing
out.
15255
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 11:29pm
Subject: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> Have you read the Boyd book? It's a first-rate piece of
scholarship
> and criticism -- from 1999, I think.
Normally I would assume I don't have anything to learn from a
book about a novel I read enraptured and with full understanding
at age 17, but with a recommendation like that, I'll get it!
15256
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 11:33pm
Subject: Re: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
>>
>> It's not bad. Ana Karina's breasts are featured.
>
> Hear hear. What about King Queen Knave, dir. by Skolimowski,
> and Despair, dir. by Fassbinder?
Is the Skolimowski film done as a period piece? And do any scenes
replicate the haberdasher's automata?
Also, was the "treatment" of a film-adaptation of 'Hamlet' as found in
'Bend Sinister' a partial-parody of the Olivier film? Regardless, that
passage has always struck me as the basis for the greatest 'Hamlet'
never made.
15257
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 11:55pm
Subject: Re: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Hear hear. What about King Queen Knave, dir. by
> Skolimowski,
> and Despair, dir. by Fassbinder?
>
>
Both are excellent in very different ways. The former
is a Tashlin style comedy, while the latter is RWF in
Viosconti mode, whil his star Dirk Bogarde seems to be
in a Losey film.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
15258
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Sep 7, 2004 11:58pm
Subject: Re: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> Is the Skolimowski film done as a period piece?
No.
And
> do any scenes
> replicate the haberdasher's automata?
>
It's been awhile since I've seen it, I don't recall
such a scene. Gina Lollabrigida is quite good in it,
and John Moulder-Brown seems to have modelled himself
after our friend Jonathan Rosenbaum. It's quite
uncanny.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
15259
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 0:14am
Subject: Re: "I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"I too assumed it was an underground term at the time, but now it
appears that 'to go gay' was a fashionable phrase in Hollywood, so
it's a bit strange that the Production Code watchdogs, who could
sniff out an obscenity in the most innocent remarks, had never heard
of it, and didn't react to a man in drag shouting 'I've gone gay.'
Also the line is not spoken so very fast and is very distinct.
At its inception the Production Code was headed by Will Hays of the
Wilson Administration and staffed by his political proteges and
cronies, so it was originally a non-insiders outfit. Hays and his
successor Joseph E. Breen were both members of the Catholic layman's
organization Knights of Columbus, and I understand that the PC under
their leadership maintained close ties with the National Legion of
Decency. I don't know who staffed the PC under Breen, but they may
have been clueless outsiders (by allowing the use of "gunsel" in THE
MALTESE FALCON they showed that they certainly didn't know Yiddish.)
Evem today the ratings board is staffed by honest johns from the
suburbs (the screening room used to be located in the San Fernando
Valley in Sherman Oaks.)
Richard
15260
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 0:56am
Subject: dirty Hitch
Speaking of the production code, does anyone know how this exchange made
it into _The Trouble With Harry_?
Sam: You're not the one...
Wiles: Oh, Sam! She could do a lot worse, you know!
Sam: Couldn't do any better. Just think--you'd be establishing a
precedent.
Wiles: I'm not establishing nothing. I'm going over for some blueberry
muffins and coffee by her own invitation. And possibly some elderberry
wine.
Sam: Listen, do you realize that you'll be the first man to... cross her
threshold?
Wiles: Well, it's not too late, you know. She's a well-preserved woman.
Sam: I envy you.
Wiles: Yes, very well-preserved. And preserves have to be opened some
day, eh?
Still leaves me speechless.
-Matt
15261
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 1:52am
Subject: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
> It's my favorite of all his books.
I find Lolita perhaps more moving (the latter passages of their
relationship, which resembles an unhappy marriage), but I'd agree,
Pale is Nabokov's masterpiece.
Kinbote may be a fool, but he's a sympathetic, well-rounded fool,
and you feel for him the same time you laugh at him. That doesn't
make the book homophobic, I think.
15262
From: Adam Hart
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 2:03am
Subject: Re: What is a 'feel-good' film?
> > I have been thinking about a term that the film industry and
many
> > critics/reviewers throw around: 'feel good' movie. In essence,
we
> > all know what it is. But I am trying to figure out: what exactly
> are
> > the elements/ingredients of the contemporary feel-good model?
For me, the primary feature of a 'feelgood' film is that it values
audience response over anything else in the film - whether that's
character development, thematic ideas, aesthetics, whatever. It
seeks to 'reaffirm' the audience by telling them (us) that
everything isn't just great, it's wonderful, but only after a scare
or trauma of some sort. Usually, this requires complete
identification with the main character, no troubling ideas floating
around. It's a generic enough term that critics (or "critics", as
long as I'm breaking out the quotation marks) can use it for
anything from a comedy that's a lot of fun to a sentimental weepie
with a happy ending. I tend to associate it with bad melodrama,
although movies that create the happiest feelings inside of me
are 'Playtime' and 'Sans Soleil,' although 'Jackass: the Movie'
works in a pinch.
15263
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 2:17am
Subject: Jost's THE BED YOU SLEEP IN, Carney, Noonan
Spurred by Adrian's recent and resounding endorsement of Jost's Tom
Blair films, I rented THE BED YOU SLEEP IN and watched it earlier
today. What a rich and powerful film, balancing between a singular
tonal thrust and a host of sociopolitical ambiguities. The
performances are, no qualifications necessary, some of the best I've
found in '90s indie cinema. And the color work is very rich; even
though the DVD doesn't look like the highest quality transfer,
there's a powerful saturation to the colors (powerful reds and
yellows, among others, burst through the bold Pacific Northwest
browns and greens) that comes through impressively.
I had kept Jost on a back burner (a distant back burner) after
seeing ALL THE VERMEERS IN NEW YORK some years ago and being largely
unaffected by it. Now I wonder if I was missing something very
important. I highly recommend THE BED YOU SLEEP IN, at any rate.
Finally I have one question for Adrian, who made this comment:
> Jost is, equally, completely outside the Carney-approved vision of
> American Indie cinema, because he is so radical on every level,
> from ideology to on-set creativity to financing
> and self-marketing.
Could you clarify this, Adrian? Carney has included Jost in his
pantheon list of important American independent filmmakers, citing
him alongside favorites like Kramer, Burnett, and Noonan*. I know
the first time I even heard of Jon Jost was some years back when,
roughly concurrently, I read some of Jonathan Rosenbaum's and Ray
Carney's approvals of Jost.
* Have we discussed Tom Noonan here? An extremely worthwhile
filmmaker; I long for a chance to see his latest (and still
incomplete I believe) film. Whatever problems I and everyone else
have with Ray Carney, I'll be grateful that I gave WHAT HAPPENED
WAS... and THE WIFE a chance because I read about them in Carney's
writing.
--Zach
15264
From: Adam Hart
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 2:15am
Subject: Re: Ozon - a negative view
It's the mirror image of Far From Heaven. Far From Heaven says
> everything; 8 Women says nothing (which is different from
concluding that it has nothing to say).
>
Ozon is very much a French Todd Haynes. Normally I'd qualify that
with an "I know I'm simplifying things here", but their ranges,
styles and aesthetic/thematic interests seem to be very, very
similar. While I enjoyed 8 Women and thought Under the Sand was a
terrific film, the comparison leaves Ozon lagging behind, by quite a
bit.
15265
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 2:34am
Subject: Syberberg (was Re: Ashes of N.Y. Times)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Syberberg's interview reflects some of values that one of the most
> > prominent New Rightists, Ernst Nolte, ascribes to Nazism: "national
> > self-assertion and autonomy," "counter- revolutionary and
> > counter-Enlightenment traditions," "the deliberate exclusion of other
> > people," "a longing for the restoration of community, particularity,
> > rootedness, and the concrete, as opposed to alienation and
> > abstraction."
>
> But isn't this exactly the point that Syberberg is making? He's saying
> that there's something valuable which has become associated with
Nazism,
> but which is not the same as Nazism and need not lead to bad things.
To
> argue against him, one would try to demonstrate a cause-and-effect
> relationship betwen things like rootedness and Nazism, and not merely
> point out similar attributes (which Syberberg openly acknowledges).
- Dan
Possibly, but I'd present as a counterargument that if this were
his intention -- to rescue German traditions from Nazism -- than he
would have chosen much clearer ways to express himself, denouncing
Nazi racism, oppression, aggression, and so on along with
the praise for the Homeland. Also, some of the values of German
Romanticism are questionable in themselves.
I need to look into this some more. I'm inclined to give a lot of
weight to David Ehrenstein's opinion, since he's spoken with
Syberberg, and to Silke-Maria Weineck's opinion, since she knows
German intellectuals well, and I don't think she would call someone
a Nazi lightly.
I found the abstract to an article by Ian Buruma in the New
York Review of Books (Dec. 20 1990):
Hans-Jurgen Syberberg ... ha[s] ... put forth visions of an
imaginary motherland or Heimat that are upsetting,
controversial, and provocative in reunified Germany.
Syberberg's vision is one of Germany as an organic community,
where art grows from the beauty of nature and of the people.
He pines for the solidarity that Nazism promised, for a kind
of Germanness rooted in the poetry of Holderlin and the music
of Wagner. Syberberg is more of a dandified reactionary than
a neo-Nazi, but he quotes Hitler often and believes
that the pervading Jewish influence in the world has condemned
Germany, lowered its art, and tainted all talk of German
tradition with the taboo
of Nazism.
I also looked at an article by Stephen Brockmann, "Syberberg's
Germany," in The German Quarterly (Winter 1996), which describes
Syberberg's 1990 book, "Vom Unglück und Glück der Kunst in
Deutschland nach dem letzten Kriege." Brockmann writes:
At this time of triumph for a vision of German normality,
Syberberg's awkward and strange book, which proclaimed a
completely different vision of German identity, was doubly
out of place... While Syberberg's various and troubling
anti-Semitic statements received a good deal of negative
critical attention, the major arguments of his book itself
have largely been ignored or not taken seriously. This is
unfortunate, because the book continues many of the themes
and motifs of the epochal Hitler film, taken so seriously,
albeit sometimes critically, in the late 1970s; and it is one
of the crucial texts in a reemergence, after a long
hiatus, of pessimistic German conservatism. Just as the
Hitler film caught the spirit of its time with remarkable
precision, so Syberberg's book shed insight on post-
unification Germany. It might even be termed a key text in a
new, post-1989 "Conservative Revolution."
Syberberg's book has a distinct philosophy, much of which
will be familiar to those who know his Hitler, ein Film
aus Deutschland. At its core is the belief that art or
aesthetics is the most important sphere of human existence,
and that all other spheres are secondary...
Hence, for Syberberg, Hitler is precisely a work of art,
a film, not a historical figure, and the German question
is primarily aesthetic, not political... In history as Syberberg
writes it, the "traurigste Opfer" [saddest victim] of the twelve
years of Nazi rule was not German democracy or millions of Jews,
Poles, Russians, and Ukrainians, nor even millions of Germans;
rather, it was art itself, which, Syberberg writes, "nach der
Umerziehung 1945 unterging ..." (127) [declined after the 1945
reeducation]. Such a view, however shocking, is entirely
consistent with Syberberg's ideas about the primacy of the
aesthetic...
Beyond its central aesthetic core, Syberberg's philosophy can
be sketched out in a number of key points: (1) modern
Western history is a gradual process of cultural and artistic
coarsening with a caricatured American Hollywood and ecological
catastrophe as its ultimate, idiotic telos; (2) as an awkwardly
delayed modern nationstate, Germany has always been the primary
European locus of resistance to this process of cultural
deadening; (3) the phenomenon of Hitler was a final, catastrophic
attempt at resistance against an Americanized modernity,
but, ironically, (4) Hitler ultimately cleared the way for a
modernization and Americanization of Germany more thorough than
anything that had previously occurred, so that (5) the postwar
Federal Republic of Germany became a completely bastardized,
degraded copy of American cultural superficiality, forgetting
its own German cultural heritage and the German mission to
resist cultural modernization itself, and leaving (6) the
German Democratic Republic, unbeknownst to its own Stalinist
leaders, as an unwitting and healthy center of resistance to
the overall process of degradation and Americanization, the
only German state to have preserved the core mission of
German culture, so that (7) the reunification of the two parts
of Germany made it possible for West Germans to see and to
experience their true German heritage and mission,
and thus to return to a truer, healthier path.
No matter how horrible their deeds, the Germans were simply
the tools of the ultimate historical structure: "der Weltgeist"
[the World Spirit]... For Syberberg, none of these
crimes ultimately has any lasting significance in the face of
the "Ewigkeit der Kunst" [Eternity of Art] --they are so
insignificant as to be likened to "Staub" [dust] shaken from
the wings of an eagle on its flight to the sun... The only
real catastrophes to be acknowledged in Syberberg's view
are ecological and aesthetic: the disappearance of eagles on
the one hand, and of human beings able to appreciate them on
the other.
15266
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 4:05am
Subject: Re: Jost, etc
Zach, glad you liked BED YOU SLEEP IN so much! (Brad: take note.) So is that
a legally available DVD you watched?
On the Carney question: your point is taken, Zach. I didn't mean to imply
that Carney has never mentioned or praised Jost. Rather, with almost all the
filmmakers you mention - Kramer, Burnett, Jost (Noonan, also an interesting
figure, would be the exception) - I believe Carney's approach effectively
de-politicises them; he praises them as independents, but manages to fudge
everything that is truly radical about their work except that it has 'an
artist's vision', independence, etc etc. He turns every movie into an
existential playground wherein soulful identities work themselves out, etc -
and of course he does this to Cassavetes, too, missing an awful lot in the
process. In general, I feel Carney is terribly poor at formal analysis of
any kind - it's all waffling around the characters, psychology, emotions,
situations. Which are important elements, but not enough - certainly not
enough for getting the measure of THE BED YOU SLEEP IN!
However, if Carney's work has encouraged you or anyone to go and seek some
important films, I would say he only deserves 99.9% of the punishment
Rowlands is currently putting him through.
scales-of-justice Adrian
15267
From: Andy Rector
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 4:12am
Subject: Re: What is a 'feel-good' film?
> For me, the primary feature of a 'feelgood' film is that it values
> audience response over anything else in the film - whether that's
> character development, thematic ideas, aesthetics, whatever. It
> seeks to 'reaffirm' the audience by telling them (us) that
> everything isn't just great, it's wonderful, but only after a scare
> or trauma of some sort. Usually, this requires complete
> identification with the main character, no troubling ideas floating
> around. It's a generic enough term that critics (or "critics", as
> long as I'm breaking out the quotation marks) can use it for
> anything from a comedy that's a lot of fun to a sentimental weepie
> with a happy ending. I tend to associate it with bad melodrama,
> although movies that create the happiest feelings inside of me
> are 'Playtime' and 'Sans Soleil,
I agree, especially about Playtime. I'd add Liliom and Homework to
that. Also Kafka's novel Amerika (because of the last chapter, even
though the novel is incomplete) but not Straub/Huillet's film version
of it, Class Relations, which fails as hope (unlike most of their
films).
Lost in Translation, anything by the Andersons, Sun Shines Bright
(but not all of Ford), Fahrenheit 9/11, Life is Beautiful, and in a
pinch Oh! I've made another list instead of a qualification...well
an affirmation of "life" (if you consider it living) beyond the
trials and tribulations (cliched)...maintainance of order,
established like a shot. In feel good movies there's usually a moment
when offscreen space is treated stoically yet superficially.
andy
15268
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 4:15am
Subject: Re: Re: Ozon - a negative view
--- Adam Hart wrote:
>
> Ozon is very much a French Todd Haynes. Normally I'd
> qualify that
> with an "I know I'm simplifying things here", but
> their ranges,
> styles and aesthetic/thematic interests seem to be
> very, very
> similar.
Ozon has yet to make his "Safe."
Not to mention his "Velvet Goldmine."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
15269
From: Andy Rector
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 4:15am
Subject: Re: Jost, etc
apmartin said:
> On the Carney question: your point is taken, Zach. I didn't mean to
imply
> that Carney has never mentioned or praised Jost. Rather, with
almost all the
> filmmakers you mention - Kramer, Burnett, Jost (Noonan, also an
interesting
> figure, would be the exception) - I believe Carney's approach
effectively
> de-politicises them; he praises them as independents, but manages
to fudge
> everything that is truly radical about their work except that it
has 'an
> artist's vision', independence, etc etc. He turns every movie into
an
> existential playground wherein soulful identities work themselves
out, etc -
> and of course he does this to Cassavetes, too, missing an awful lot
in the
> process. In general, I feel Carney is terribly poor at formal
analysis of
> any kind - it's all waffling around the characters, psychology,
emotions,
> situations. Which are important elements, but not enough -
certainly not
> enough for getting the measure of THE BED YOU SLEEP IN!
Thats right on the money Adrian. Thank you for saying it so bluntly.
andy
15270
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 4:20am
Subject: Re: Jost, etc
Adrian Martin wrote:
> Zach, glad you liked BED YOU SLEEP IN so much! (Brad: take note.)
> So is that a legally available DVD you watched?
As far as I know it's legal. Looks like it was put out by a company
called Vanguard in 2000.
> I believe Carney's approach effectively
> de-politicises them; he praises them as independents, but manages
> to fudge everything that is truly radical about their work except
> that it has 'an artist's vision', independence, etc etc.
Gotcha. I suspected you meant something like this (and I agree with
you on these flaws of Carney's by the way, though he was an
important and valuable writer for me to get into at a certain point
in time).
> However, if Carney's work has encouraged you or anyone to go and
> seek some important films
Certainly. He's a big cheerleader of a lot of neglected and semi-
neglected names. It's hard for me to hold too negative an opinion
of a guy who relentlessly plugs films like MY BRILLIANT CAREER, WHAT
HAPPENED WAS..., CASUAL RELATIONS, SAFE, THE KILLING OF A CHINESE
BOOKIE, and KILLER OF SHEEP.
--Zach
15271
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 6:18am
Subject: Paris's own "Joe's Place" (for those who remember...)
In a secret Paris cavern, the real underground cinema
Jon Henley in Paris
Wednesday September 8, 2004
The Guardian
Police in Paris have discovered a fully equipped cinema-cum-
restaurant in a large and previously uncharted cavern underneath the
capital's chic 16th arrondissement.
Officers admit they are at a loss to know who built or used one of
Paris's most intriguing recent discoveries.
"We have no idea whatsoever," a police spokesman said.
"There were two swastikas painted on the ceiling, but also celtic
crosses and several stars of David, so we don't think it's
extremists. Some sect or secret society, maybe. There are any number
of possibilities."
Members of the force's sports squad, responsible - among other tasks -
for policing the 170 miles of tunnels, caves, galleries and
catacombs that underlie large parts of Paris, stumbled on the complex
while on a training exercise beneath the Palais de Chaillot, across
the Seine from the Eiffel Tower.
After entering the network through a drain next to the Trocadero, the
officers came across a tarpaulin marked: Building site, No access.
Behind that, a tunnel held a desk and a closed-circuit TV camera set
to automatically record images of anyone passing. The mechanism also
triggered a tape of dogs barking, "clearly designed to frighten
people off," the spokesman said.
Further along, the tunnel opened into a vast 400 sq metre cave some
18m underground, "like an underground amphitheatre, with terraces cut
into the rock and chairs".
There the police found a full-sized cinema screen, projection
equipment, and tapes of a wide variety of films, including 1950s film
noir classics and more recent thrillers. None of the films were
banned or even offensive, the spokesman said.
Advertiser links
Auto Loans
Compare interest rates, fees and terms from top lenders....
siestaproducts.com
Car Finance
Find Cheap ways for you to finance your car today.
autoinsurance-directory.com
Guaranteed Car Finance
Free insiders guide to automobile financing. Get it today...
realfinanceadvice.com
A smaller cave next door had been turned into an informal restaurant
and bar. "There were bottles of whisky and other spirits behind a
bar, tables and chairs, a pressure-cooker for making couscous," the
spokesman said.
"The whole thing ran off a professionally installed electricity
system and there were at least three phone lines down there."
Three days later, when the police returned accompanied by experts
from the French electricity board to see where the power was coming
from, the phone and electricity lines had been cut and a note was
lying in the middle of the floor: "Do not," it said, "try to find
us."
The miles of tunnels and catacombs underlying Paris are essentially
former quarries, dating from Roman times, from which much of the
stone was dug to build the city.
Today, visitors can take guided tours around a tightly restricted
section, Les Catacombes, where the remains of up to six million
Parisians were transferred from overcrowded cemeteries in the late
1700s.
But since 1955, for security reasons, it has been an offence
to "penetrate into or circulate within" the rest of the network.
There exist, however, several secretive bands of so-called
cataphiles, who gain access to the tunnels mainly after dark, through
drains and ventilation shafts, and hold what in the popular
imagination have become drunken orgies but are, by all accounts,
innocent underground picnics.
The recent discovery of three newly enlarged tunnels underneath the
capital's high-security La Santé prison was put down to the
activities of one such group, and another, iden tifying itself as the
Perforating Mexicans, last night told French radio the subterranean
cinema was its work.
Patrick Alk, a photographer who has published a book on the urban
underground exploration movement and claims to be close to the group,
told RTL radio the cavern's discovery was "a shame, but not the end
of the world". There were "a dozen more where that one came from," he
said.
"You guys have no idea what's down there."
15272
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 6:23am
Subject: Re: "I went gay all of a sudden" (was: History is made by "Wh...
What do we make of the fact that that the ejaculation is uttered by
repressed, reclusive anthropologist David Huxley, not someone you'd
expect to know the word in 1938? Unless of course David IS gay.
15273
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 6:26am
Subject: Re: dirty Hitch
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman
wrote:
> Speaking of the production code, does anyone know how this exchange
made
> it into _The Trouble With Harry_?
The equally racy moment when the Captain leans on the bare bosom of
the masthead lady was shot two ways, one with and one without the
gag, just in case.
15274
From:
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 2:29am
Subject: Anderson, Jost, Ozon, Ford, et al
First, in response to Adrian's post of several days ago, I love P.T.
Anderson's "Punch-Drunk Love," a film my colleagues and I at the Central Ohio Film
Critics Association voted the best of 2002. I like "Hard Eight," don't like
"Boogie Nights" at all, and am curious to revisit "Magnolia," which I don't
particularly like, due to Jean-Pierre's enthusiasm for it. But "Punch-Drunk" was
the first Anderson film that I loved. I agree with nearly everything positive
that's been written about it in recent posts. Per Bill, I think the film is
much more French New Wave than anything else; I've never seen much Altman in him
in the way he composes shots or uses sound or edits. (Nevertheless, his
biggest and most overt Altman "homage" is the loveliest moment he's put on film to
date: the extended sequence in "Punch-Drunk Love" set to Shelly Duvall
singing, as Olive Oyl in Altman's wonderful "Popeye," "He Needs Me.")
I haven't seen nearly enough Jon Jost to feel equipped to comment on his work
one way or the other, but I did see "All the Vermeers in New York" some years
ago and really liked it.
I'm afraid that I've really disliked the two most recent Francois Ozons I've
seen, "Under the Sand" and "Swimming Pool." However, enough friends whose
views I respect - namely, Fred and Gabe - make a mild case for the one based on
the Fassbinder play where I would see it if it was playing somewhere nearby.
Films that always give me pleasure? Well, I love that Andy mentions "The Sun
Shines Bright"; since first seeing this masterpiece, perhaps the greatest
Ford film, on videotape several weeks ago, I've re-watched it three times and
could re-watch the final parade sequence a hundred times. Fred wrote a few weeks
ago of the greatness of the final shot; I agree, but wouldn't want to elevate
it above the greatness of the shot preceding the final shot, of Priest
standing in the hallway, back to the camera. Anyway, other films which fall into
this "category" for me include Welles' "Dreamers" fragments; Tati's "Parade";
Bogdanovich's "They All Laughed"; Vidor's "An American Romance." These are
films I revisit all the time for the pleasure of their company, the absolute,
inexhaustible richness of their forms, and their humanity.
Peter
15275
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 6:29am
Subject: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
> > It's my favorite of all his books.
>
> I find Lolita perhaps more moving (the latter passages of their
> relationship, which resembles an unhappy marriage), but I'd agree,
> Pale is Nabokov's masterpiece.
Nabokov follwoing the salacious Lolita, which mad him a best-seller,
with Pale Fire was a bit like Bunuel sticking it to the raincoat
brigade by following Belle de Jour with The Milky Way. As I recall,
Pale Fire was also a best-seller and won a well-deserved National
Book award.
15276
From:
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 2:31am
Subject: Re: Re: Brown Bunny, our groiup, and politics (OT)
Zach Campbell wrote:
>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.)
I'm a subscriber!
>By the way, we can probably all agree that classical Hollywood had
>important directors with conservative leanings.
I think this is a very interesting topic. For several months, I've been
toying with the idea that conservatism (in the original sense, not the neo-con
sense) comes very naturally to a number of great filmmakers. Peter Conrad
discusses this in relation to Welles at length in his recent book (which, despite my
annoyance with some aspects of it, improves on re-reading). Welles is quoted
in Conrad as asking (and I paraphrase here), "Should we not look to the
values important to our fathers and grandfathers?" This sentiment is all through
Welles, I think, from "Ambersons" right through his final, unfinished magic
movie - which contained no illusions which could be accurately described as
"modern." Of course, it's not an uncomplicated sentiment. The contrast between
Welles' deep-seated and deeply felt nostalgia for old times and Welles'
consistent left-wing political activism is particularly fascinating and worthy of
further study (including the notion that they may not be entirely mutually
exclusive). Stuart Byron wrote a key essay on Blake Edwards (and specifically the
remarkable "Darling Lili") in which he argues for Edwards as "the last
conservative." I'm sure I could come up with other examples and, actually, I'm hoping
to parlay some of these thoughts into an essay at some point.
Peter
15277
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 6:39am
Subject: Re: Jost's THE BED YOU SLEEP IN, Carney, Noonan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
> I had kept Jost on a back burner (a distant back burner) after
> seeing ALL THE VERMEERS IN NEW YORK some years ago and being
largely
> unaffected by it. Now I wonder if I was missing something very
> important. I highly recommend THE BED YOU SLEEP IN, at any rate.
Let me repeat what I said in an earlier Jost post. I didn't care for
All the Vermeers either, but just about everything before is good to
great: Slow Moves, Last Chants for a Slow Dance, Bell Diamond, Angel
City and Chameleon.
All the Vermeers marked the start of a collaboration between Jon and
an honest-to-God producer from NY with whom he later broke, but the
films before were made all by hislonesome for budgets of 2 or 4
thousand. To keep going on the intense Slow Moves shoot Jon made
himself blind drunk by the time he shot the love scenes, after which
he lost consciousness. (He was his own cinematographer, always, as
far as I know.) Those conditions seem to have worked for him. I
should also cite as a favorite (along with the pool table scene in
Last Chants) the Slow Moves couple's visit to San Francisco's camera
obscura, which is very lovely.
I'm less of a fan of the later Tom Blair films than Adrian, but
definitely mean to resee them one of these days. In any event,
Blair's performance in Last Chants, the best Jon Jost film I've seen,
is exceptional by anyone's standards. I regret giving away my copy --
I haven't seen that film in a long time, and I used to play it
periodically like a favorite album.
15278
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 6:42am
Subject: Re: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
>
> Nabokov follwoing the salacious Lolita, which mad him a best-seller,
> with Pale Fire was a bit like Bunuel sticking it to the raincoat
> brigade by following Belle de Jour with The Milky Way. As I recall,
> Pale Fire was also a best-seller and won a well-deserved National
> Book award.
And in the midst of the turmoil surrounding getting 'Lolita' to market
in the US (and settling affairs with the unscrupulous French
publisher), he was of course publishing 'Pnin' serially in The New
Yorker -- which went to market in novel form before 'Pale Fire.'
Nevertheless, it's 'Pale Fire' which is the follow-up to 'Lolita' --
and 'Ada' on from there, in 1969 I think. I haven't read 'Ada' or the
two novels following (although I've read all the novels up to that
point), because I simply don't want to have "read it all" just yet.
For the same reason I'm saving the collected stories. (His son, btw,
has been editing and finishing up translations on the collected poems
for quite some time. Don't know when publication is supposed to take
place, although I can't wait. "Ode to a Model" is my favorite piece of
verse in the world... next to John Shade's "Pale Fire.")
Anyway, 1969 was still a time, apparently, when the publication of a
new novel by a major writer was still a cover-of-Time Magazine event.
(As was the case with 'Ada, or Ardor: A Family Chronicle.')
craig.
15279
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 6:19am
Subject: Re: What is a 'feel-good' film?
I think a 'feel-good' movie is one that "agrees" with the viewer's
sensitivities, regardless of what is objectively on the screen.
Personally, I like to see a movie that compels me to watch it again for
whatever reason.
Elizabeth
15280
From: Andy Rector
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 6:53am
Subject: Re: Anderson, Jost, Ozon, Ford, et al
peter wrote:
> Films that always give me pleasure? Well, I love that Andy
mentions "The Sun
> Shines Bright"; since first seeing this masterpiece, perhaps the
greatest
> Ford film, on videotape several weeks ago, I've re-watched it three
times and
> could re-watch the final parade sequence a hundred times. Fred
wrote a few weeks
> ago of the greatness of the final shot; I agree, but wouldn't want
to elevate
> it above the greatness of the shot preceding the final shot, of
Priest
> standing in the hallway, back to the camera. Anyway, other films
which fall into
> this "category" for me include Welles' "Dreamers" fragments;
Tati's "Parade";
> Bogdanovich's "They All Laughed"; Vidor's "An American Romance."
These are
> films I revisit all the time for the pleasure of their company, the
absolute,
> inexhaustible richness of their forms, and their humanity.
I included Sun Shines Bright in my 'backwards' feelgood film
catagory, not as a film that actually makes me feel good. But I'm
glad there was confusion because it gave so much pleasure to Peter
just to recall it, and that's palpable. I'm glad because I hesitated
to call it a feelgood film, but it was the last shot that I recalled,
greatness in tact, that tells me everything in this town will remain
the same. I've tried to reconcile with it but to no avail. Perhaps I
am wrong.
Ford's Pilgrimage gives me the feeling of inexhaustible richness and
hope in the world. Ahh Parade! maybe even more genuine happiness than
Playtime.
I'm more embarrassed at this confusion because that means you thought
I listed LIT and Fahrenheit 9/11 as my sky high films.
yours,
andy
15281
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 7:01am
Subject: Syberberg (and Maddin's Heart of the World)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
Thanks, Paul, as always for the very valuable summary. Do you have
any anti-Semitic or pro-Hitler quotes from H-JS? These crucial lapses
have so far been asserted but not illustrated.
Personally, I'm less down on German Romanticism than a lot of recent
graduates, perhaps because the Romantic revival was just starting to
explode in American universities when I came along. I should also
note, for what it's worth, that the Straubs have been filming
Holderlin's works, and that Holderlin, as far as I know, was a
communist. Zizek has also done a fairly recent book on German
Romantic philosophy that is far from negative.
To state it rather strongly, I'm not sure that we can "escape"
Romanticism, of any flavor. A recent attempt to do so vis a vis
poetry is Angus Fletcher's A New Theory for American Poetry. In
appropriating Whitman -- a canonical American Romantic -- for his new
theory of descriptive poetry, he is consciously effecting the escape
I have expressed skepticism about. But at least Angus knows it!
Just sticking to literature, I don't see any fundamental differences
between German and British Romantic poetry, for example. And I'm not
ready to give up Blake, Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth, Coleridge (so
German, Coleridge!), Byron, Browning, Tennyson, Pater, Wilde,
Emerson, Whitman, Thoreau, Stevens, Crane, Ashbery or Ammons, so I
can't blame H-JS for clinging to Holderlin or even Wagner.
To some extent the problem he has enunciated -- I await with some
apprehension the quotes proving that he has since lost his mind -- is
not all that different from the problem confronting Derrida vis a vis
Heidegger, who was a Nazi and sounded National Socialist themes -- or
something very like them -- in his most important works. I only
understand a litle of Heidegger, but what I've gleaned so far is
pretty cherce, so I'm going to wait till I understand more before I
decide to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I just had my mind blown by several viewings of Guy Maddin's Heart of
the World, the 2000 short that melds Lang and Eisenstein in a single
mad rush for Kino glory. I'm not sure that the operation Maddin is
performing in that masterpiece is worlds apart from H-JS's Hitler
film, because the Eisenstein part is mostly out of Ivan and the Lang
part, Metropolis -- two films deeply implicated in the national and
political ideologies of monstrous totalitarian regimes.
15282
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 7:03am
Subject: Re: Jost, etc
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Zach, glad you liked BED YOU SLEEP IN so much! (Brad: take note.)
So is that
> a legally available DVD you watched?
>
> On the Carney question: your point is taken, Zach. I didn't mean to
imply
> that Carney has never mentioned or praised Jost. Rather, with
almost all the
> filmmakers you mention - Kramer, Burnett, Jost (Noonan, also an
interesting
> figure, would be the exception) - I believe Carney's approach
effectively
> de-politicises them
He de-politicises Capra, too, but so does everyone else.
15283
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 7:07am
Subject: Re: Anderson, Jost, Ozon, Ford, et al
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
his
> biggest and most overt Altman "homage" is the loveliest moment he's
put on film to
> date: the extended sequence in "Punch-Drunk Love" set to Shelly
Duvall
> singing, as Olive Oyl in Altman's wonderful "Popeye," "He Needs Me."
How do we know it's not a tribute to Van Dyke Parks?
15284
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 7:16am
Subject: Re: Brown Bunny, our groiup, and politics (OT)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
"Should we not look to the
> values important to our fathers and grandfathers?" This sentiment
is all through
> Welles, I think, from "Ambersons" right through his final,
unfinished magic
> movie - which contained no illusions which could be accurately
described as
> "modern." Of course, it's not an uncomplicated sentiment. The
contrast between
> Welles' deep-seated and deeply felt nostalgia for old times and
Welles'
> consistent left-wing political activism is particularly fascinating
and worthy of
> further study (including the notion that they may not be entirely
mutually
> exclusive).
Hardly. Welles fought for the Carnival of the streets and the
jangadeiros, two traditions on the way out -- raft fishing was
practiced by indigenous Brazilians 400 years before Europeans
arrived. All that the jangadeiros who made the famous voyage wanted
was to belong to Vargas's equivalent of the New Deal for Brazil, but
their leader, Jacare, and Edgar Morel, the jangadeiro-born journalist
who championed them, were considered communists by the DIP and the
right wing of the Vargas gov't. Many -- including Rogerio Sganzerla --
still believed when I was down there that the DIP murdered Jacare.
Think of Jacare as an earlier version of the native and caboclo
activists fighting to preserve the rain forest because it has always
supplied them with a living. Every Brazilian gov't before the present
one has seen no reason they, like the jangadeiros, shouldn't make way
for progress, and their fucking rain forest with them. The
jangadeiros, who still fish as their ancestors did, are about to be
finally put out of business by Japanese slash-and-burn fishing
vessels that clean out all sellable organisms in their traditional
fishing grounds, using poor divers who smoke grass to stay warm in
their wet suits. Progress usually means profit in this society, and
arguably Welles' career was destroyed for fighting that kind of
progess in Brazil.
15285
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 7:19am
Subject: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> >
I haven't read 'Ada' or the
> two novels following (although I've read all the novels up to that
> point), because I simply don't want to have "read it all" just
yet.
> For the same reason I'm saving the collected stories. (
Ditto re: Ada, although Ada has defeated a few attempts by me to get
into it. I'm sure it will be just fine when I'm ready to read it
straight through, some warm summer some lovely where.
15286
From: jaketwilson
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 7:27am
Subject: Re: Paris's own "Joe's Place" (for those who remember...)
Wow. Reading carefully, though, it's ambiguous whether they were
projecting film or just video. Can't imagine print storage conditions
would be ideal.
JTW
15287
From:
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 3:43am
Subject: Re: Re: Anderson, Jost, Ozon, Ford, et al
Andy Rector wrote:
>I'm more embarrassed at this confusion because that means you thought
>I listed LIT and Fahrenheit 9/11 as my sky high films.
Oops - I did misunderstand you, Andy. Apologies for not reading more
carefully, as I can see that you were quite clear.
Anyway, I'm glad you enjoyed my enthusiasm for the Ford!
I don't know if I would make the case that "Parade" is a greater film than
"Playtime," but I can speak to my personal response: I love it just as much and
sometimes a bit more. I can certainly understand and sympathize with
Jonathan's initial reaction to it (as reported in one of his wonderful essays on
Tati), the sadness of seeing something so small and humble next to Tati's grand
ambitions for future projects, but there's something so eloquent, so indelible in
its (apparent) simplicity of form. Just parenthetically, in my recent piece
on Welles' "The Magic Show," I compared the two films (and "The Magic Show" is
another Welles movie, albeit an unfinished one, which always give me pleasure
to watch) in the way they both have their directors returning to their roots
and the beautifully cinematic way they present "staged" (as in, it's Welles
and Tati performing for an audience in a theatre) material.
Peter
15288
From:
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 4:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Brown Bunny, our groiup, and politics (OT)
Great post, Bill. Obviously, your extensive knowledge of Welles' time in
Brazil adds a lot to this discussion.
The exact quote of Welles's, by the way, is from an episode of "Around the
World with Orson Welles" where he asks if we ought not to stop "to examine the
things that our fathers and grandfathers knew and valued, and which have helped
to make our civilization."
While we're talking Welles and quoting Welles, I can't resist one more. From
his remarkable interview with Leslie Megahey: "I think Shakespeare was
greatly preoccupied, as I am in my humble way, with the loss of innocence. And I
think there has always been an England, an older England, which was sweeter and
purer, where the hay smelt better and the weather was always springtime, and
the daffodils blew in the gentle warm breezes. You feel nostalgia for it in
Chaucer. And you feel it all through Shakespeare. And I think that he was
profoundly against the modern age, as I am. I am against my modern age, he was
against his."
... and he goes on. Is it any wonder he never wanted to stop working on "Don
Quixote"?
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
15289
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 9:06am
Subject: Re: Syberberg (and Maddin's Heart of the World)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Paul, as always for the very valuable summary. Do you have
> any anti-Semitic or pro-Hitler quotes from H-JS? These crucial lapses
> have so far been asserted but not illustrated.
>
I found some in Ian Buruma's article in the Dec. 20, 1990 New York
Review of Books. Ian Buruma does not think Syberberg is a Nazi nor
that he likes Hitler. Burama describes a screening of Syberberg's
Hitler film in East Berlin in October 1990, attended by Edith Clever
and Susan Sontag. Syberberg exclaimed, "My god, I was really
provocative! If only my enemies had realized…. I am surprised I'm
still alive!" He believed he could only express his views in East
Berlin since he thought the Academy in West Berlin was controlled
by his left-wing enemies. Buruma writes:
"Syberberg's delivery was remarkable: an almost silky tone of voice
alternating with what can only be described as a theatrical tirade; a
tirade against the filth, the shamelessness, the soulless greed, and
vacuous idiocy of contemporary (West) German culture, corrupted by
America, by rootless 'Jewish leftists,' by democracy. Syberberg also
believes that the pernicious legacy of Auschwitz has crippled the
German identity that was rooted in the German soil, in Wagner's music,
in the poetry of Hölderlin and the literature of Kleist, in the folk
songs of Thuringia and the noble history of Prussian kings—a Kultur,
in short, transmitted from generation to generation, through the
unbroken bloodlines of the German people, so cruelly divided for forty
years as punishment for the Holocaust. Well, said some of Syberberg's
champions on the panel, shifting uneasily in their seats, these
opinions may be absurd, even offensive, but he's still a great artist.
Then an elderly man got up in the audience. He had seen the Hitler
film, he said, his voice trembling with quiet rage, and he thought it
was dreadful. He was left with the impression that Syberberg actually
liked Hitler. And although he was a Polish Jew who had lost most of
his family in the death camps, he could almost be tempted to become a
Nazi himself after seeing that film: 'All those speeches, all that
beautiful music….'
"Then followed a remark that stayed in my mind, as I tried to make
sense of Syberberg, and of the literary debates raging in Germany this
year, in the wake of November 1989: 'Why is it,' the Polish Jew said,
"that when a forest burns, German intellectuals spend all their time
discussing the deeper meaning of fire, instead of helping to put the
damned thing out?"
...
Syberberg has described modern German art as "filthy and sick... in
praise of cowardice and treason, of criminals, whores, of hate,
ugliness, of lies and crimes and all that is unnatural."
...
Syberberg describes why art has degenerated to this point:
"The Jewish interpretation of the world followed upon the Christian,
just as the Christian one followed Roman and Greek culture. So now
Jewish analyses, images, definitions of art, science, sociology,
literature, politics, the information media, dominate. Marx and Freud
are the pillars that mark the road from East to West. Neither are
imaginable without Jewishness. Their systems are defined by it. The
axis USA-Israel guarantees the parameters. That is the way people
think now, the way they feel, act and disseminate information. We live
in the Jewish epoch of European cultural history. And we can only
wait, at the pinnacle of our technological power, for our last
judgment at the edge of the apocalypse…. So that's the way it looks,
for all of us, suffocating in unprecedented technological prosperity,
without spirit, without meaning... Those who want to have
good careers go along with Jews and leftists
[and] the race of superior men [Rasse der Herrenmenschen] has been
seduced, the land of poets and thinkers has become the fat booty of
corruption, of business, of lazy comfort."
Buruma adds, "Over and over, the message is banged home: the real
winners of the last war are the Jews, who have regained their
motherland, their ancient Heimat, the very thing the Germans have
lost. And the Jews had their revenge for Auschwitz by dropping the
atom bomb and atomizing the Kultur of Europe through their barren,
rationalist, rootless philosophy."
However, Buruma adds:
"The old man who stood up in the East Berlin Academy was wrong, of
course: Syberberg does not like Hitler. Like Ernst Jünger, an author
he often quotes, he sees Hitler as a megalomaniac, who vulgarized and
distorted ideals that should have been kept pure, beautiful, in the
custodianship either of rough and simple peasants, the purest
representatives of the old Volk, or of aristocratic Feingeister, such
as Jünger and Syberberg, the true heirs of Hölderlin, Kleist, and
Wagner. Hitler's greatest crime was not to kill six million Jews—an
act of which Syberberg does not approve—but to destroy the Herrenvolk,
or rather, the culture of the Herrenvolk, by tainting it with his
name, by making, as Syberberg often puts it, Blood and Soil a taboo.
"Syberberg is not so much a crypto- or neo-Nazi as a reactionary
dandy, of the type found before the war in the Action Française, or in
certain British aristocratic circles (whose spirit lives on in The
Salisbury Review today). Like T.S. Eliot, Ernst Jünger, Charles
Maurras, and Curzio Malaparte, he is a self-appointed savior of
European Kultur from the corrupt forces of alien, often Semitic,
barbarism."
"It is not for his aesthetics, however, that Syberberg has been
attacked, but for his politics. The strongest criticism of his book
was published in Der Spiegel, the liberal weekly magazine. Syberberg's
views, wrote the critic, were precisely those that led to the book
burning in 1933, and prepared the way for the Final Solution of 1942.
In fact, he went on, they are worse, for "now we know that they are
caked with blood…. They are not just abstruse nonsense, they are
criminal." The Spiegel critic compared Syberberg to the young Hitler,
the failed art student in Vienna, who rationalized his failure by
blaming it on a conspiracy of left-wing Jews. Syberberg feels he is an
unappreciated genius, and he too blames it on the same forces.
"Frank Schirrmacher, the young literary editor of the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, and the scourge of woolly thinkers of all
political persuasions, is equally opposed to Syberberg and draws
similar parallels with the Twenties and Thirties. And like the critic
in Der Spiegel, he singles out for special censure an interview with
Die Zeit in which Syberberg claimed that he "could understand" the
feeling of the SS man on the railway ramp of Auschwitz, who, in
Himmler's words, "made himself hard" for the sake of fulfilling his
mission to the end. He did not admire this feeling, but he could
understand it. Just as he could understand its opposite, the rejection
of principles to act humanely.
"A reaction was bound to come and it emerged in the 1980s, when
historical revisionism and neoconservatism became popular everywhere,
from Chicago to Frankfurt to Tokyo. Some of the reaction, not only in
Germany, came in the form of a neo-Romantic critique of rationalism
and liberalism. Syberberg's publisher, Matthes & Seitz, played a part
in this. One of its authors, Gerd Börgfleth, launched an attack on
"the cynical Englightenment." Like Syberberg he blamed the "returned
Jewish left-wing intelligentsia" for "wishing to remodel Germany
according to their own cosmopolitan standards. In this they have
succeeded so well that for two decades there has been no independent
German spirit at all."
15290
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 11:43am
Subject: Re: Jost, etc
"He de-politicises Capra, too, but so does everyone else."
I've never quite understood why so many people insist that Carney de-
politicises the filmmakers he writes about. His attacks on formalist
approaches can certainly be subjected to criticism, but not to the
criticism that they reject politics. Here's what he says in the Capra
book:
"Ed Meese's or Ronald Reagan's implicit belief that whereas politics
is serious business, art is a frivolous game played by sissies in
which nothing is really at stake and in which nothing that matters is
actually affirmed or denied, ironically meets contemporary
deconstructionist efforts to insulate the text within the hermetic
boundaries of its own margin of textuality and the attempts of
formalist and most genre critics of film to treat the text as
existing within a self-contained artistic realm of self-referential
signification".
15291
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 1:00pm
Subject: Re: Jost, etc
Brad: Carney in his SHADOWS book - and in about hundred pages worth of
dubious 'interviews' included on his website - dismisses as 'fashionable
identity politics' the idea that Cassavetes' film has something centrally do
with race relations! Oh no, it's all about the 'universal human condition'
of life, love, self, other, beat-poetry-personal-freedom, blah blah ... if
this isn't de-politicisation of the absolute worst sort, what is??
The quote you gave is not, to me, political thinking on RC's part: it is, as
always, about the veneration of 'art', mixed with a typical slur on
intellectual theory. Yes, he says that art is serious business: but serious
about what? According to him, not race, not class, not social power ... It's
a terribly ABSTRACTED, wholly symbolic view of art, the social action of art
- not to mention the social action of politics. Film criticism is full of
this abstract, symbolic politics ...
I know as well as you do that many levels of life and experience can be
regarded and analysed as political, but Carney is looking at a very slim
band of 'existential' experience no matter what the film (all films seem
the same after he has written about them!) Could any critic possibly pay any
LESS attention to specific national political conditions than his sorry tome
on Mike Leigh? And his stuff on Robert Kramer is completely unbelievable on
this level! - his films are (apparently) about passing time, knowing your
self, etc etc. Hey, and this about a guy who made a film called SCENES FROM
THE CLASS STRUGGLE IN PORTUGAL - Jost could make use of that title now !!!
Adrian
15292
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 1:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: Anderson, Jost, Ozon, Ford, et al
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> How do we know it's not a tribute to Van Dyke Parks?
>
>
Or more to the point, Harry Nilsson.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
15293
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 1:19pm
Subject: Re: OT: Pale Fire, Re: "How do I know which movies are worth seeing" (was Ozon)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Ditto re: Ada, although Ada has defeated a few
> attempts by me to get
> into it. I'm sure it will be just fine when I'm
> ready to read it
> straight through, some warm summer some lovely
> where.
>
>
"Ada" is exceedingly overblown -- N getting off on his
own fumes. But it's of considerable interest to this
group in that Kubrick and "2001" are a a celf
reference point in it. I gather that "2001" rather
alarmed N.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
15294
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 1:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Syberberg (and Maddin's Heart of the World)
--- Paul Gallagher wrote:
>
> "Then followed a remark that stayed in my mind, as I
> tried to make
> sense of Syberberg, and of the literary debates
> raging in Germany this
> year, in the wake of November 1989: 'Why is it,' the
> Polish Jew said,
> "that when a forest burns, German intellectuals
> spend all their time
> discussing the deeper meaning of fire, instead of
> helping to put the
> damned thing out?"
> ...
BINGO! A direct hit!
This is the central problem with German culture, as
reflected in everything from Mann (about whom
Isherwood is most amusing) to Straub.
Straub likes to deny he's German, but couldn't be more
so if he tried. In many ways he's very much a
left-wing dandy as Syberbery is a right-wing dandy.
But Syberberg -- for all his blather about the german
soul -- has none of his own. He's a Nazi wannabe,
resentful that the other boys won't allow him into the
"He-Man, Woman-Hater's Club" of National Socialism--
even though he hates the Jews.
Ah but he does so for "cultural" reasosns. Such a
clever fellow. And not at all as audacious as he would
imagine.
Fassbinder was right about him.
Without Edith Clever and Harry Baer he's nothing.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
15295
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 3:10pm
Subject: Re: Brown Bunny, our groiup, and politics (OT)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Zach Campbell wrote:
"The contrast between Welles' deep-seated and deeply felt nostalgia
for old times and Welles' consistent left-wing political activism is
particularly fascinating and worthy of further study (including the
notion that they may not be entirely mutually exclusive)."
The anarchist Paul Goodman (who was also a poet, novelist, film
critic, therapist and early gay activist)described himself as
a "neolithic conservative" inasmuch as he wanted to preserve existing
community bonds, human scale social interaction and include the
excluded such as gays and people of color. The threat to the human
community came from being powerless in to do anything about the
immense interlocking system of government, military and corporate
entities which acted mainly on the concerns and ambitions of their
ruling elites. Goodman cited Coleridge as one of his forerunners.
So I would say that conservatism as defined by Goodman and left-wing
activism are not at all mutually exclusive. Any further study of
Welles' political beliefs should examine this particular strain of
anarchism (I'm not claiming Welles was an anarchist but rather that
his desire to preserve the the scale of the old in combination with
his desire to see justice done to the excluded dovetails with these
deeply held anarchist ambitions.)
Richard
15296
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 3:34pm
Subject: Re: Syberberg (and Maddin's Heart of the World)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
Bingo -- got it. Thanks again Paul, and thanks for the analysis of H-
JS as the equivalent of Charles Mauras, founder of l'Action
Francaise, a clever and talented man who was a friend of the
Symbolistes before becoming a rightwing French nationalist before the
war. Mauras served 7 years in prison after the War, was given a
merciful pardon and still came out swinging. Syberberg, obviously,
has fallen into the abyss of anti-Semitism. The fact that Celine is
in there with him doesn't make it any better. Too bad.
15297
From:
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 3:59pm
Subject: Re: Syberberg (and Maddin's Heart of the World)
Always thought that most of the English language romantic writers were liberals, politically - Blake, Coleridge, Keats, Shelley, Byron, Thoreau, Whitman. These are key authors in literary history. And enjoying them is 100% guilt-free, politically speaking (I am a liberal, and a life long supporter of the Democratic Party here in the United States). Romantic composers Beethoven and Rossini were also ardent liberals and supporters of democratic government. I know much less about German Romantic poets, but somehow got the impression that Goethe, Schiller and Heine were also liberals and supporters of democracy.
I have not seen any of Syberberg's films, unfortunately. But his comments about Jewish influence seems especially moronic and wrong. After all, Heine was Jewish, so was Mendelssohn! How can you think about German Romanticism without admiring its great Jewish contributors?
On Lang and "Metropolis". Once again, Lang seems like a liberal, IMHO. Metropolis is NOT a Nazi film. It celebrates non-violent resistance to a totalitarian regime. This resistance, led by Maria and joined by the foreman at the end, is both based in Christian ideals (Maria) and middle class aspirations (the foreman). It leads to a new, non-violent transition to democarcy at the end, and a reconciliation between capital and labor. Is this not a liberal point of view?
Mike Grost
15298
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 4:27pm
Subject: RED LIGHTS
RED LIGHTS -- saw preview yesterday. Good film; quite good with
further reflection... that's what a film should do for me: get better
with reflection!
Does anyone (who has seen it) recall the early computer scene? I
sensed it suggested an email romance with the male lead stating
something like he felt like a young boy/male again. And then a line
about picking up the children.
None of the reviews I read make mention of how 'hopefully excited' the
husband was about the trip... which really makes the whole story even
more painful.
15299
From: Gary Tooze
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 4:47pm
Subject: More Treasures from American Film Archives 1894-1931 - 50 Films
More Treasures from American Film Archives 1894-1931 - 50 Films
In case any of the members are keen on this ( and all will be most likely),
I have received an early copy of the 3 DVD set and have reviewed it here:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews5/moretreasures.htm
It is magnificent...
Regards,
Gary Tooze
15300
From: jaketwilson
Date: Wed Sep 8, 2004 4:56pm
Subject: Welles' nostalgia (was: Brown Bunny...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> The exact quote of Welles's, by the way, is from an episode
of "Around the
> World with Orson Welles" where he asks if we ought not to stop "to
examine the
> things that our fathers and grandfathers knew and valued, and which
have helped
> to make our civilization."
>
> While we're talking Welles and quoting Welles, I can't resist one
more. From
> his remarkable interview with Leslie Megahey: "I think Shakespeare
was
> greatly preoccupied, as I am in my humble way, with the loss of
innocence. And I
> think there has always been an England, an older England, which was
sweeter and
> purer, where the hay smelt better and the weather was always
springtime, and
> the daffodils blew in the gentle warm breezes. You feel nostalgia
for it in
> Chaucer. And you feel it all through Shakespeare. And I think
that he was
> profoundly against the modern age, as I am. I am against my modern
age, he was
> against his."
Picking up on a parallel thread, revolt against the technological,
rationalistic bent of our civilisation is a central theme of both
Romanticism and modernism of many stripes, and Welles fits right in
here. One wrinkle is that for the last century (as still today) many
commentators of both left and right have seen the cinema itself as
the epitome of alienating, mechanical inauthenticity, and I have to
wonder if Welles (and maybe other filmmakers of his generation) felt
conflicted for this reason about the principal medium he worked in --
a bit like Eugene Morgan's relation to the motorcar in THE
MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. (Unless I¡¦ve forgotten something, cinema as a
contemporary invention is never referred to directly in AMBERSONS ¡V
but of course we¡¦re reminded of it by archaic stylistic markers like
the iris.)
Still on the quote above, it¡¦s easy to point out that on the
mythological level, the expulsion from Eden has always already
occurred -- after all, Welles admits that the ¡§Merrie England¡¨ of
his dreams was a nostalgic fantasy even in Chaucer¡¦s day. But that's
not to say the sense of loss which comes with modernity isn't well-
founded. As I wrote to Peter a while back, Welles' highly "visible"
stylistic rhetoric, and his use of voiceover, often suggest a kind of
direct address to the viewer; the pathos of this could be seen as
bound up with a quixotic attempt to re-establish the immediate
contact between artist and audience which is present in theatre or
oral storytelling, but which cinema necessarily lacks.
JTWs
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact