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.
16001
From: George Robinson
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:28pm
Subject: Re: Buchanan Rides Alone (Was: Suggestions about films habelove can distribute on DVD)
Buchanan is a great favorite of mine, too. It has the Beckett-like quality
that makes the best of the Scott-Boettichers so much twisted fun. I don't
know that I'd say it was "made up on the set," though, because it is based
on a novel, the first in an amusing series by the pseudonymous Jonas Ward.
g
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
16002
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 3:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds & auteurism
jess_l_amortell wrote:
>It appears that you remember it almost perfectly, but it was Eugene Archer =
>
>in the New York Times!
>
Thanks a lot. I had no idea the Times's pre-Internet archive was online.
But as I didn't find the page you did with some standard 'Net searches,
it might be of general interest to know how you found it. I couldn't
even find it by searching that site's search page at
http://pqarchiver.com/ Nor could I figure out how to purchase the whole
article -- "click to purchase" doesn't work, and I couldn't immediately
see how to become a "member."
Fred Camper
16003
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:23pm
Subject: Secret Films (was Head in the Clouds)
"I'm clinging to the idea that auteurism is a matter of looking for
the secret film behind the obvious one"
That's a horrible idea! The great auteur films are always absolutely
clear about what they are doing: there are no 'secrets' in the work
of Sirk, Hawks, Hitchcock or Preminger. Everything is right there on
the surface. All auteurist critics did was look at these films
without preconceptions, with a willingness to see what the filmmakers
had placed in plain view. More traditional critics were unable to see
these things, since they were blinded by their received ideas about
the kinds of value that it was appropriate to find in
Hollywood 'products'.
In the words of Jacques Rivette, "The evidence on the screen is the
proof of Hawks's genius: you only have to watch MONKEY BUSINESS to
know that it is a brilliant film. Some people refuse to admit this,
however; they refuse to be satisfied by proof. There can't be any
other reason why they don't recognize it".
16004
From:
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 0:28pm
Subject: Re: Secret vs. Obvious (Was: Head in the Clouds)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
.
> I'm clinging to the idea that auteurism is a
> matter of looking for the secret film behind the obvious one.
This is a very good description of auteurism!
One powerful technique to find the "secret" films: by studying a director's
works as a whole, hidden patterns and techniques often emerge.
Another aspect. Traditional auteurism often claimed that there were merits in
genre films (thrillers, comedies, Westerns, musicals, melodramas, love
stories, etc). Many non-auterurist critics often despised such films, praising only
realistic dramas of modern life instead, such as "From Here to Eternity"
(Zinnemann), "On the Waterfront" (Kazan). Auteurism claimed that many makers of
genre films had both meaning and visual styles that were of great value.
Oddly enough, we seem to be right back where we started from with genre
films. Dogme 95 claims genres should not be made at all. And most "serious" critics
today seem to dismiss most genre films made in the last 30 years in favor of
realistic dramas, just as they did in 1955. Very strange! Genre films are seen
as worthless, commercial "entertainment", while realistic dramas are film
"art".
MIke Grost
16005
From:
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 0:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds
In a message dated 9/26/04 10:24:54 AM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
>
> But then there are cases where there is no secret film behind the
> obvious one -- just the obvious one. The emperor is sometimes naked.
>
Far From Heaven being the penultimate example.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16006
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:38pm
Subject: Re: Secret Films (was Head in the Clouds)
thebradstevens wrote:
>"I'm clinging to the idea that auteurism is a matter of looking for
>the secret film behind the obvious one"
>
>That's a horrible idea!
>
Actually, the idea as quoted above applies for me to minor films of
interest to auteurs for one reason or another. "Thunder Road" might be
an example, at least for me, though I suppose others will think of it as
very major.
It also applies in terms of differentiating what the mass audience and
most of the critics might have seen, or still see, versus what the
"auteurist" might see. If people had seen the films I see in "The
Tarnished Angels" or "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" at the time, the
history of film criticism and film reception would be quite different.
I might agree with you that for me there's nothing "secret" about the
greatness of "Vertigo" and "The Tarnished Angels" and "The Searchers"
and "Touch of Evil" and so on, but take a look at the longer version of
what Dan wrote:
"But I'm clinging to the idea that auteurism is a matter of looking for
the secret film behind the obvious one: looking for the film created by
rhythm and behavior and perspective, not the one that you could put down
on paper or make a trailer about."
It sounds like he's saying "auteurism" is in the mise en scene. Yes, of
course. And for a good auteurist, "rhythm" et al. (I would add
composition and light and camera movement) are no secrets.
Fred Camper
16007
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> Far From Heaven being the penultimate example.
>
Of what? Secrecy or nudity?
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16008
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 4:48pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
"Far From Heaven being the penultimate example."
So what was the ultimate example?
16009
From:
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 0:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds
In a message dated 9/26/04 11:49:34 AM, bradstevens22@h... writes:
> So what was the ultimate example?
>
It hasn't been made yet (not sure it's even possible) which is why I used the
word "penultimate."
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16010
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Secret Films (was Head in the Clouds)
"But I'm clinging to the idea that auteurism is a matter of looking
for the secret film behind the obvious one: looking for the film
created by rhythm and behavior and perspective, not the one that you
could put down on paper or make a trailer about."
I totally agree with all this, but object to the word 'secret'.
"It sounds like he's saying "auteurism" is in the mise en scene. Yes,
of course. And for a good auteurist, "rhythm" et al. (I would add
composition and light and camera movement) are no secrets."
These things are not secrets to a good auteurist, but I would argue
that they are also not secrets to that audience for which these films
were primarily intended, which was a wide general audience. In REAR
WINDOW, EXODUS, KISS ME DEADLY and ARTISTS AND MODELS, composition,
light and camera movement (as well as editing, body language, etc.)
are precisely the things that shape an audience's emotional reaction:
to say that a viewer identifies with the protagonist of REAR WINDOW,
is split between identification with several characters in EXODUS, is
distanced from the protagonist of KISS ME DEADLY and laughs at the
protagonists of ARTISTS AND MODELS is not to tease out some buried
secret, but rather to describe how these films would have been
received by anyone who saw them during their original releases. Of
course, 'mainstream' viewers and auteurist critics would not have
articulated their enjoyment in the same terms, but they would
nevertheless have been reacting in much the same way to much the same
things.
16011
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:24pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds & auteurism
> I had no idea the Times's pre-Internet archive was online.
> But as I didn't find the page you did with some standard 'Net searches,
> it might be of general interest to know how you found it. I couldn't
> even find it by searching that site's search page at
> http://pqarchiver.com/ Nor could I figure out how to purchase the whole
> article -- "click to purchase" doesn't work, and I couldn't immediately
> see how to become a "member."
>
> Fred Camper
It's a matter of finding the secret archive behind the obvious one! (Starting with the "archive" link on the left sidebar, you reach a page containing a link to their historic or prehistoric archive in the small print near the top. You have to input some dates for an efficient search. The fact that the archive includes [movie] ads is kind of interesting, although it doesn't seem to give sample text for those.)
I've never tried to actually buy an article, though. I wonder if there isn't more to arch-auteurist Archer's Lang review than the lead paragraph lets on.
There's a profile of Wong Kar-wai in today's magazine section, by the way.
16012
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds & auteurism
--- jess_l_amortell wrote:
>
> There's a profile of Wong Kar-wai in today's
> magazine section, by the way.
>
>
Yes, and I was greatly dissatisfied with it. Talks
more about the fact that everybody who's "hip" loves
him than it does why he's worthy of love. Not one word
on "Happy Together" -- which I find odd.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16013
From:
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 2:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds
In a message dated 9/26/04 11:46:52 AM, cellar47@y... writes:
> > Far From Heaven being the penultimate example.
> >
>
> Of what? Secrecy or nudity?
>
Nudity, of course.
I think this secrecy question is particularly fascinating re: Sirk. Sure,
sure, the (m)asses and most critics didn't get Sirk's ironic distanciantion at
the time which, of course, was available right there on the surface. But as
Christine Gledhill and others so insightfully ask "ironic for whom?" I don't think
the women (and others?) weeping at the end (and elsewhere) of IMITATION OF
LIFE in 1959 were necessarily missing something. They may not have even been
missing the irony. But whether or not a film has a "secret" to give up is very
contigent upon the sociohistorical makeup of particular viewers.
Brad splits it all between emotion and articulation. An audience,
"'mainstream' viewers" have an "emotional reaction" whereas auterists are more articulate
about their reactions. Yes, yes, I know the actual phrase was "'mainstream'
viewers and auteurist critics would not have articulated their enjoyment in the
same terms." But I think it's implied here that auterists would be more
articulate since mise-en-scene and rhythm and composition and light and camera
movement and holy holy texture are the terms they would use. These are the salient
"facts" of film and they threaten to turn criticism into an "objective"
science. Our apprehension of these elements is not neutral; it's historical. Who
knows what we'll be able to see in IMITATION OF LIFE 50 years from now? For now,
I'm glad Sirk failed to gain the distance he craved. The genius of IMITATION
OF LIFE is that it allows one to oscillate between poles of extreme
identification and extreme ironic distance. (Of course, the word "genius" is probably
missaplied here then. Sirk didn't exactly make the film he wanted to make so the
genius must lie partially outside of auteurist purity or authorial intent.)
But there's nothing inevitable about that analysis. Similarly, there is no
neutrality to the evidence found.
This is why I find Rivette's comment re: MONKEY BUSINESS faintly absurd. And
a viewer doesn't NECESSARILY identify with the protagonist of REAR WINDOW.
Therefore, I don't think 'mainstream' viewers and auteurist critics (or this
audience or that audience) are reacting in much the same way to much the same
things. Auteurist critics have barely paid attention to Lisa's fashion magazines
at all.
And I'd like to second Mike post re: genre. Although I would add that genre
needs no help from auteurism. It has its own ever-shifiting (and devalued)
practices and relationships.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16014
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:03pm
Subject: Re: Secret vs. Obvious (Was: Head in the Clouds)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
Oddly enough, we seem to be right back where we started from with
genre
> films. Dogme 95 claims genres should not be made at all. And
most "serious" critics
> today seem to dismiss most genre films made in the last 30 years
in favor of
> realistic dramas, just as they did in 1955. Very strange! Genre
films are seen
> as worthless, commercial "entertainment", while realistic dramas
are film
> "art".
>
> MIke Grost
Yes, and the irony is that "realistic drama" (whatever that really
means) is a genre like any other genre. It was in the fifties and it
is now.
Actually there are differences between attitudes then and now. For
example, Science Fiction movies, despised as juvenile B or Z stuff
in the fifties and highly regarded today.
JPC
16015
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:15pm
Subject: Re: Secret Films (was Head in the Clouds)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
they are also not secrets to that audience for which these films
> were primarily intended, which was a wide general audience. In
REAR
> WINDOW, EXODUS, KISS ME DEADLY and ARTISTS AND MODELS,
composition,
> light and camera movement (as well as editing, body language, etc.)
> are precisely the things that shape an audience's emotional
reaction:
things.
How many people in that "general audience" do you think were
aware of the greatness of KISS ME DEADLY and experienced it as
something more than a run-of-the-mill B thriller(this is certainly
the way American critics viewed it)? It would be so enlightening to
have testimonies of 1950's moviegoers' reaction to this film and
other masterpieces of the time.
JPC
16016
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
I don't think
> the women (and others?) weeping at the end (and
> elsewhere) of IMITATION OF
> LIFE in 1959 were necessarily missing something.
Not at all. In fact I'd go so far as to say that
anyone who doesn't cry at the end of "Imitation of
Life" doesn't understand that film in any way shape or
form.
Likewise while he may be "post-modernist" to a fault,
Todd has said his real intent was to make audiences
cry.
After all, he was crying over lost love when he wrote
the script.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16017
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
.
>
> I think this secrecy question is particularly fascinating re:
Sirk. Sure,
> sure, the (m)asses and most critics didn't get Sirk's ironic
distanciantion at
> the time which, of course, was available right there on the
>
Unfortunately lots of critics have argued that whatever was of
value in the film and other Sirks was "beneath the surface", as Jon
Halliday insisted Re Heaven and Imitation. Which was
nonsense. "Heaven' is "a tough attack on the moralism of petty
bourgeois America" (Halliday again) but in the most explicit
fashion, not "beneath the surface." There may be things under the
surface, but they are of different nature. And I would agree that
audiences at the time were aware of the film's critical attitude,
because it's so unmistakable.
JPC
16018
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:37pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
"sure, the (m)asses and most critics didn't get Sirk's ironic
distanciantion at the time which, of course, was available right
there on the surface."
It depends what you mean by 'get'. I strongly suspect that 1950s
audiences did 'get' Sirk's irony, but had no way of articulating
their understanding (to themselves or to others).
"a viewer doesn't NECESSARILY identify with the protagonist of REAR
WINDOW."
I honestly don't believe you can understand REAR WINDOW on any
meaningful level if you don't identify with the protagonist to at
least some degree (however provisional and qualified this
identification might be).
16019
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 6:56pm
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> It depends what you mean by 'get'. I strongly
> suspect that 1950s
> audiences did 'get' Sirk's irony, but had no way of
> articulating
> their understanding (to themselves or to others).
>
That's rather presumptuous. Housewives in Brooklyn
weren't taking post-graduate classes in semiotics, but
they had every reason and opportunity to talk about
the films with their friends in great detail. My
mother was particularly impressed with "Imitation of
Life" and went on about it with her friends on the
phone long hours into the night. Sorry I didn't tape
record her, as she was a damned sight more savvy than
David Thomson.
>
> I honestly don't believe you can understand REAR
> WINDOW on any
> meaningful level if you don't identify with the
> protagonist to at
> least some degree (however provisional and qualified
> this
> identification might be).
>
>
Well that opens up a whole can of worms. Hitchcock
places us in Stewart's POSITION in the mise en scene,
but also encourages us to look AROUND it.Kelly and
Ritter aren't window drssing, but critic of Stewart's
every word and deed.
Moreover the entire film pivots on a moment when
Stewart is asleep and we see something he doesn't --
Thorvald leaving the building with a woman whomay be
Mrs. Thorvald.
The film's quite in-depth critique of sexual politics
plays a major role in how deeply we "identify" with
Stewart, as do class issues. Kelly is the essence of
galmour, but for all her wealth she's not a snob in
any way. More important she's exceedingly brave.
I dare say any number of women moviegoers identified
with HER rather than Stewart.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16020
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 7:34pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> I dare say any number of women moviegoers identified
> with HER rather than Stewart.
>
>
> Isn't it rather natural for a woman viewer to identify with
the female character rather than with the male (especially if the
female character is glamorous,very nice and very brave )? I have
never quite understood the concept of identification and I suspect
different people mean different things when they use it, but if it's
a matter of somehow "putting yourself in the character's place",
gender identification would seem to make things easier.
> __JPC_____________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
16021
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:30pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
"That's rather presumptuous. Housewives in Brooklyn weren't taking
post-graduate classes in semiotics, but they had every reason and
opportunity to talk about the films with their friends in great
detail."
I didn't mean to imply that I thought housewives in Brooklyn were too
stupid - merely that the language later developed by auteurist
critics was not yet available to them (or to anyone else). I should
add that gneral audiences in the 1950s were clearly way ahead of that
era's critics.
16022
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:34pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
"Isn't it rather natural for a woman viewer to identify with the
female character rather than with the male (especially if the female
character is glamorous,very nice and very brave )?
I kind of doubt it. I have no problem identifying with Lola Montes,
Lisa in LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN, or (to use a random example
from a film I happened to be watching a few days ago), Halle Berry's
character in GOTHIKA.
16023
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:15pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> "Isn't it rather natural for a woman viewer to identify with the
> female character rather than with the male (especially if the
female
> character is glamorous,very nice and very brave )?
>
> I kind of doubt it. I have no problem identifying with Lola
Montes,
> Lisa in LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMAN, or (to use a random example
> from a film I happened to be watching a few days ago), Halle
Berry's
> character in GOTHIKA.
And I easily identify with Thelma Ritter in REAR WINDOW...
But would you say it's easy for most women to identify with, say,
John Wayne? (I find it very difficult myself, and I'm not even a
woman). JPC
16024
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:29pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
JPC:
> But would you say it's easy for most women to identify with, say,
> John Wayne? (I find it very difficult myself, and I'm not even a
> woman).
I wouldn't say that John Wayne is the sort of star for whom
identification is very important. We "look up" to Wayne more than
we look with him.
--Zach
16025
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:56pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
"would you say it's easy for most women to identify with, say, John
Wayne? (I find it very difficult myself, and I'm not even a woman)"
I find it difficult to identify with (or look up to) Wayne as well -
surely that kind of proves the point I was making!
16026
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> I find it difficult to identify with (or look up to)
> Wayne as well -
> surely that kind of proves the point I was making!
>
>
While finding it easy to identify with Mary Astor in
"The Palm Beach Story," I couldn't find a male actor I
could identify with until I saw Richard Warwick in
"If..."
Being a Supreme Cinematic Fantasy, I found Alain Delon
no easier to identify with than Dietrich or Garbo or
Louise Brooks. One "looks up" to this group.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16027
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Sep 26, 2004 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
"Being a Supreme Cinematic Fantasy, I found Alain Delon no easier to
identify with than Dietrich or Garbo or Louise Brooks. One "looks up"
to this group."
I passionately identify with Louise Brooks in PANDORA'S BOX!
16028
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 0:07am
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> "Being a Supreme Cinematic Fantasy, I found Alain Delon no easier
to
> identify with than Dietrich or Garbo or Louise Brooks. One "looks
up"
> to this group."
>
> I passionately identify with Louise Brooks in PANDORA'S BOX!
My question is: what do we talk about, actually, when we talk about
identifying?
Do you "passionately identify' with Louise Brooks in PANDORA'S BOX
because you share her feelings and emotions? Or because you somehow
would like to be Louise Brooks, or Brooks-like, or the character she
plays, or all, or none (and if so, what?) of the above?
I don't understand why there should be a choice
between "identifying" with some and "looking up" to others. You
identify with a character, not the performer who plays the character.
I don't see why David couldn't identify with Dietrich walking out in
the desert at the end of MOROCCO. Or with Garbo doing whatever she
does (I'm not a Garbo fan). By the way, what is Delon doing up
there? What has he ever done beside being cute? (here I go taunting
David again...)
JPC
16029
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 0:16am
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
By the way, what is
> Delon doing up
> there? What has he ever done beside being cute?
> (here I go taunting
> David again...)
>
Delon kissing his reflection in the mirror is one of
the greatest erotic moments in all of cinema.
I also adore his farewell scene to the family when he
rides off to join Garibaldi early on in "The Leopard."
More dashing than Tyrone Power and Valentino -- put
together!
Then there's the "insolite" Delon of "Le Samourai" and
"Nouvelle Vague."
We're well beyond "cute" here.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16030
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:30am
Subject: Re: Delon
Delon's superb performance in _Notre Histoire_ is worth
mentioning--certainly one of the finest I've seen. And against
type--here he's anything but a heartthrob.
-Matt
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>Delon kissing his reflection in the mirror is one of
>the greatest erotic moments in all of cinema.
>
>I also adore his farewell scene to the family when he
>rides off to join Garibaldi early on in "The Leopard."
>More dashing than Tyrone Power and Valentino -- put
>together!
>
>Then there's the "insolite" Delon of "Le Samourai" and
>"Nouvelle Vague."
>
>We're well beyond "cute" here.
>
>
16031
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:40am
Subject: Re: Secret Films (was Head in the Clouds)
> "I'm clinging to the idea that auteurism is a matter of looking for
> the secret film behind the obvious one"
>
> That's a horrible idea! The great auteur films are always absolutely
> clear about what they are doing: there are no 'secrets' in the work
> of Sirk, Hawks, Hitchcock or Preminger. Everything is right there on
> the surface. All auteurist critics did was look at these films
> without preconceptions, with a willingness to see what the filmmakers
> had placed in plain view. More traditional critics were unable to see
> these things, since they were blinded by their received ideas about
> the kinds of value that it was appropriate to find in
> Hollywood 'products'.
Well, the whole world thinks that auteurists are crazy. Do you think
that's just their delusion? I don't. They think we're crazy because
we're seeing some other film than what they saw.
(Not that we're all on the same page. Most of you will probably think I'm
crazy if and when you see HEAD IN THE CLOUDS. And I'll understand,
because there's some really bad stuff in that film.)
I don't care for the theory that all non-auteurists are blinded by
preconceptions. There are some pretty smart, sensitive non-auteurists.
Even so, they go to a film about a sheriff and a drunk fighting some bad
guys, and they think it's not very important stuff. I think they're
missing out big time, but I certainly understand the way it works.
I *feel* as if I'm looking for the secret film when I sit in a theater.
My antennae are out, I'm looking for vibrations. When one picks them up,
they are generally very hard to put into words, because they're just
vibrations. I'm comfortable with this model, because I think film
direction is a mysterious, indirect form of creation, so much less
concrete than what a writer or an actor does. - Dan
16032
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:41am
Subject: Re: Suggestions about films habelove can distribute on DVD
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
>
> Hayward was kind of terrific - he's good fun in AND THEN THERE WERE
> NONE, and gives a very clever double perf in Whale's THE MAN IN THE
> IRON MASK - playing the evil brother with his voice an octave
higher
> than the good one.
A close friend of the Ulmer family, Hayward buckled and swashed his
way thru Pirates of Capri, one of EGU's biggestand best pictures,
made in Italy after the War. He also produced w. Ulmer The Swiss
Family Robinson, a 1-hr unsold tv pilot now available on the Pirates
DVD.
16033
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:42am
Subject: Re: Speaking of Boetticher . . .
> A new edition of Horizons West by Jim Kitses, still one of my favorite film
> books and one of the most intelligent discussions of the genre:
> http://www.ucpress.edu/books/bfi/pages/PROD0480.html
Very exciting - new material! I fully agree: one of the best of all film
books. - Dan
16034
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:42am
Subject: Re: Sarris and Archer (Was: Head in the Clouds & auteurism)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I was quoting Sarris on Ulmer from THE AMERICAN CINEMA: "Strictly
> speaking, most of Ulmer's films are of interest only to unthinking
> audiences or specialists in mise-en-scene." I'm startled to see
the
> phrase's geneology stretch back to Archer: I've always heard the
rumors
> that Sarris's early writing was heavily influenced by Archer, but
never
> saw any concrete evidence until now. - Dan
Wow! And used in a pan pf Lost City, no less.
16035
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:44am
Subject: Re: Secret vs. Obvious (Was: Head in the Clouds)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Yeah - I think this is the concept behind Sarris's "less than meets
the
> eye" joke. - Dan
I always took it to refer to directing that wasn't very visual.
16036
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:47am
Subject: Re: Buchanan Rides Alone (Was: Suggestions about films habelove can distribute on DVD)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
I don't
> know that I'd say it was "made up on the set," though, because it
is based
> on a novel, the first in an amusing series by the pseudonymous
Jonas Ward.
Aha! Are the story and characters close to the book? Is every store
in town named Agry-something, and the town itself, Agrytown?
16037
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:50am
Subject: Re: Secret vs. Obvious (Was: Head in the Clouds)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
Oddly enough, we seem to be right back where we started from with
genre
> films. Dogme 95 claims genres should not be made at all. And
most "serious" critics
> today seem to dismiss most genre films made in the last 30 years in
favor of
> realistic dramas, just as they did in 1955. Very strange! Genre
films are seen
> as worthless, commercial "entertainment", while realistic dramas
are film
> "art".
>
> MIke Grost
Interesting if a bit tendentious, Mike -- let's not forget the
importance of realists Renoir and Rossellini, and the "realist"
theories of Bazin, to auteurism. But there's more than a grain of
truth to what you say.
16038
From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:52am
Subject: Re: Re: Buchanan Rides Alone (Was: Suggestions about films habelove can distribute on DVD)
I'll have to go back and look.
g
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 10:47 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Buchanan Rides Alone (Was: Suggestions about films
habelove can distribute on DVD)
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
> wrote:
> I don't
> > know that I'd say it was "made up on the set," though, because it
> is based
> > on a novel, the first in an amusing series by the pseudonymous
> Jonas Ward.
>
> Aha! Are the story and characters close to the book? Is every store
> in town named Agry-something, and the town itself, Agrytown?
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
16039
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:58am
Subject: Re: Secret Films (was Head in the Clouds)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
It would be so enlightening to
> have testimonies of 1950's moviegoers' reaction to this film and
> other masterpieces of the time.
> JPC
wW do for some films -- anything that was tested, where the cards
were kept. The cards on Suspicion are fascinating reading -- one
respondent thought a tree limb seen in the last shot very
significant. Not all films were tested -- I don't know about Kiss Me
Deadly -- but there are lots of these cards gathering dust in
scattered archives, and they tell us quite a bit more about the test
audiences' reactions than "like/don't like."
16040
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:59am
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
It tore the guts out of the two women I saw it with, for reasons
explained in an earlier post. No irony at all.
16041
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:02am
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> >
>
> Unfortunately lots of critics have argued that whatever was of
> value in the film and other Sirks was "beneath the surface", as Jon
> Halliday insisted Re Heaven and Imitation. Which was
> nonsense. "Heaven' is "a tough attack on the moralism of petty
> bourgeois America" (Halliday again) but in the most explicit
> fashion, not "beneath the surface." There may be things under the
> surface, but they are of different nature. And I would agree that
> audiences at the time were aware of the film's critical attitude,
> because it's so unmistakable.
> JPC
The Sirk films would be a great case for looking into what preview
cards show about real people's reactions at the time. I'm sure they
were tested, and the cards would be preserved at USC. I doubt if
anyone has looked at them since the 50s. "Don't confuse me with the
facts..."
16042
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:05am
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
> I wouldn't say that John Wayne is the sort of star for whom
> identification is very important. We "look up" to Wayne more than
> we look with him.
>
> --Zach
Daney used to say that he thought Hawks was scared of Wayne (the
characters, not the actor) and the films reflect this.
16043
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:27am
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
I don't want to deny the possibility that the "general audience," or
some segment thereof, responds to light and camera movement and the
like, even if unconsciously, and reads the irony in Sirk as I do, and is
moved in ways that I am. But it seems to me that if most members of the
"public" were seeing films the way "we" do, Sirk and Borzage and Hawks
and Ford would have achieved grosses notably higher than Stevens and de
Mille and Wyler and Wellman. if only because "Summer Storm" would have
compelled repeated viewings while "A Place in the Sun" would not have.
There are levels and levels. One of my favorite stories from my own
viewing involves "All That Heaven Allows." This sounds a little
familiar; forgive me if I've told it before here. There's a scene in
which Carrie is at home just before Christmas and some carolers come by.
We cut between her face behind her window observing them and the
carolers outside. Then Sirk moves in on the window in one shot. The
narrative meaning behind the mise en scene and editing here is obvious:
the carolers are together; Carrie's alone; they are outside, she's
walled up in the prison of her dead husband's house. It's a very strong
scene. But it was only on something like my tenth viewing of the film
that the move in acquired a visionary power as strong as the famous
dolly in on the TV screen. What happened then, and since, to me in that
shot is that the move in doesn't simply emphasize her isolation behind
the proverbial Sirkian surface of glass, but opens up a strange
perceptual space, creates a sense of fracture or rupture between viewer,
glass, and Carrie, in a way that seems impossibly complex, and that
relates to the film's other perceptual paradoxes and ultimately to the
blindness theme. The full power of that shot wasn't apparent to me until
after many viewings, and I would say the same about many many of the
greatest moments in Sirk. Since the "public" mostly saw it only once,
and of course without the benefit of Sirk's later interviews, I might
guess few saw it as I did after my tenth viewing. Since David mentions
"Imitation of Life," I'd say that the confusion of the opening, the way
certain shots are framed, only acquires its full power when one knows
the film fairly well.
Crying at the end of "Imitation of Life" is fine, but it seems to me
(SPOILERS ahead) that one's tears are far more bitter if one fully
perceives the power of the long take crane in on Sarah Jane's arrival at
the funeral, from the overhead shot of her trying to break through the
crowd (perhaps invoking the opening) to the final deadening and
devastating two-shot of her face and the flowers on her mother's coffin.
Another director might have divided this into a bunch of banal and
manipulate shorter shots, and my guess is that many people would be
crying just as hard at the scene presented that way, but by including
them in the same take Sirk makes the tragedy more of a metaphysical one:
it's a condition of the universe, or at least of us humans, that our
attempts to reach authentic human connections succeed for only the
briefest of moments (Sarah Jane's lips move to express her love for her
mom in the hotel scene but she can't say it) before yielding up the
surfeit of objects and surfaces that people get reduced to, or reduce
themselves to -- keep in mind that having left behind precise
instructions, Annie is the "director" of her funeral.
This, then, is where I suspect I differ with many of my fellow members
of a_film_by. I don't place a lot of value in the emotions evoked by
acting and script alone, without seeing them transformed by the
visionary style of a great auteur. The former seems to me to be at best
entertaining manipulation (not excluding that acting and script can't be
"great," but they don't seem to come together that way for me in most
cases); the latter, great art.
Fred Camper
16044
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:45am
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
--- Fred Camper wrote:
>
> This, then, is where I suspect I differ with many of
> my fellow members
> of a_film_by. I don't place a lot of value in the
> emotions evoked by
> acting and script alone, without seeing them
> transformed by the
> visionary style of a great auteur. The former seems
> to me to be at best
> entertaining manipulation (not excluding that acting
> and script can't be
> "great," but they don't seem to come together that
> way for me in most
> cases); the latter, great art.
>
Oh I quite agree, Fred -- and so did my mother. When
she talked about the film she spoke of the way it
looked as part and parcel of the feelings it sought to
evoke. "The way they shot the funeral" was especially
important to her in that the visual beauty of the
scene meshed with the actor's expressiveness --
particularly Susan Kohner when she throws herself on
the coffin begging her mother's forgiveness.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16045
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:48am
Subject: Re: Re: Delon
--- Matt Teichman wrote:
> Delon's superb performance in _Notre Histoire_ is
> worth
> mentioning--certainly one of the finest I've seen.
> And against
> type--here he's anything but a heartthrob.
>
>
That's one I've never seen. It was a great flop
--putting a crimp in Blier's career as well as Delon's
at the time.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16046
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:26am
Subject: Re: Delon
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>That's one I've never seen. It was a great flop
>--putting a crimp in Blier's career as well as Delon's
>at the time.
>
>
Interestingly, Delon was overcome with enthusiasm for the script and
urged Blier (who thought it still needed work) to go ahead and shoot
it. Anyone who can absorb as unsual and complicated a text as that has
got to be a visionary.
Blier thinks of the film as a failed experiment; I think of it as a test
run for the extraordinary _Tenue de soiree_. If you're curious, Studio
Canal has done a fine job with the DVD.
-Matt
16047
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:49am
Subject: Re: Re: Delon
--- Matt Teichman wrote:
> >
> Interestingly, Delon was overcome with enthusiasm
> for the script and
> urged Blier (who thought it still needed work) to go
> ahead and shoot
> it. Anyone who can absorb as unsual and complicated
> a text as that has
> got to be a visionary.
>
Of course he is. It's fairly obvious that like all the
great movie goddesses Delon can "see himself" on
screen. He knows the effect of his presence. His
performance in "M. Klein" is a masterpiece of terse
intensity. Especially the last shot. And as I'm sure
I've mentioned before his deliver of the last line in
"The Assassination of Trotsky" is one of the all time
great line readings -- right up there with Maria
Casares "Je me vengerai" (correct me if I've misstated
that, J-P) in "les Dames du Bois de Boulogne" and
Peter Lawford's "They sure are blue" in "Good News."
> Blier thinks of the film as a failed experiment; I
> think of it as a test
> run for the extraordinary _Tenue de soiree_. If
> you're curious, Studio
> Canal has done a fine job with the DVD.
>
I'll look for it.
"Tenue de Soiree" is my favorite Blier. I especially
love the opening with Miou-Miou's tirade constrasting
with the Serge Gainsbourg dance theme in the background.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16048
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:49am
Subject: "auteurism" is in the mise en scene
I have a question. I know Charles Laughton directed one film, The
NIGHT of the HUNTER with a unique style that lasts even today.
I have wondered if a director with a single film to his / her credit
could be considered an auteur. Are there single film directors who are
auteurs? Are there contemporary directors who on the basis of one film
(not necessarily their first) could be called auteurs. If so, please
name any director, film, and what it is that makes the film
auteuristic?
Elizabeth
thebradstevens wrote:
>
>> "I'm clinging to the idea that auteurism is a matter of looking for
>> the secret film behind the obvious one"
>>
>> That's a horrible idea!
>>
> Actually, the idea as quoted above applies for me to minor films of
> interest to auteurs for one reason or another. "Thunder Road" might be
> an example, at least for me, though I suppose others will think of it
> as
> very major.
>
> It also applies in terms of differentiating what the mass audience and
> most of the critics might have seen, or still see, versus what the
> "auteurist" might see. If people had seen the films I see in "The
> Tarnished Angels" or "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" at the time,
> the
> history of film criticism and film reception would be quite different.
>
> I might agree with you that for me there's nothing "secret" about the
> greatness of "Vertigo" and "The Tarnished Angels" and "The Searchers"
> and "Touch of Evil" and so on, but take a look at the longer version
> of
> what Dan wrote:
>
> "But I'm clinging to the idea that auteurism is a matter of looking for
> the secret film behind the obvious one: looking for the film created by
> rhythm and behavior and perspective, not the one that you could put
> down
> on paper or make a trailer about."
>
> It sounds like he's saying "auteurism" is in the mise en scene. Yes, of
> course. And for a good auteurist, "rhythm" et al. (I would add
> composition and light and camera movement) are no secrets.
>
> Fred Camper
16049
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:34am
Subject: Re: "auteurism" is in the mise en scene
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> I have a question. I know Charles Laughton directed one film, The
> NIGHT of the HUNTER with a unique style that lasts even today.
> I have wondered if a director with a single film to his / her
credit
> could be considered an auteur. Are there single film directors who
are
> auteurs?
Yes, Laughton. He had a lot more to do with the writing of the script
than Agee, and Cortez didn't come up with those ideas on his own.
even the editing rhythm of the film -- which some have seen as a
flaw -- is Laughton exercising total control. He is one of the great
American auteurs --- for one film.
Brando directed one film, and it is unquestionably an auteur work all
the way -- One Eyed Jacks.
The idea that you only become an auteur by repeating yourself is kind
of academic. That's one way we find or confirm auteurs, but it's not
what the word means.
16050
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:15am
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
"I don't want to deny the possibility that the "general audience," or
some segment thereof, responds to light and camera movement and the
like, even if unconsciously, and reads the irony in Sirk as I do, and
is moved in ways that I am."
My point was that mise-en-scene is pretty much the only
thing 'general audiences' react to. When a viewer has an emotional
reaction to a film - even one as crude as wanting to cheer the hero
and hiss the villain - they are responding to the mise-en-scene. It
is this highly complex emotional reaction - the one which allows us
to identify with people and positions often far removed from our own -
that is created by the mise en scene. Ironic/critical distance from
the protagonists (as in KISS ME DEADLY or TO LIVE AND DIE IN L.A. -
or in your example from Sirk) is itself an 'emotional' response. But
make no mistake: mise-en-scene is not some secret code that Lang,
Sirk, Hitchcock, etc. created in order to send subversive messages to
a few enlightened viewers: it is the primary tool by which the
director communicates with her/his audience.
"if most members of the "public" were seeing films the way "we" do,
Sirk and Borzage and Hawks and Ford would have achieved grosses
notably higher than Stevens and de Mille and Wyler and Wellman. if
only because "Summer Storm" would have compelled repeated viewings
while "A Place in the Sun" would not have."
Maybe they simply preferred the mise-en-scene of Wellman, Wyler,
Stevens, etc. - after all, those filmmakers directly appealed to the
kinds of middle-class values which their audiences doubtless shared.
I claimed that general audiences reacted to mise-en-scene, not that
they had great taste!
On the other hand, surely many films by Hawks, Ford and Sirk (not to
mention Hitchcock, Cukor and Minnelli) were every bit as successful
as those by Wyler, et al.
16051
From:
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:55am
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
In a message dated 9/26/04 10:29:06 PM, f@f... writes:
> Sirk and Borzage and Hawks and Ford would have achieved grosses notably
> higher than Stevens and de Mille and Wyler and Wellman.
>
No doubt A PLACE IN THE SUN beat SUMMER STORM at the box-office. But Sirk's
IMITATION OF LIFE was Universal's highest grossing film to date. That's not
only higher; that's notably higher than most, if not all, of the films by
Stevens, etc. And IMITATION OF LIFE was hardly an isolated success for Sirk.
Furthermore, as always, it's all relative. While I believe that Borzage was a
better director than Wellman, I've yet to see a Borzage film that cuts my
beloved TRACK OF THE CAT. And I'd be willing to bet that Borzage's SMILIN'
THROUGH did better business. And for the record, TRACK OF THE CAT did NOT appeal
directly to middle-class values.
And, Fred, I find your readings of ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS and IMITATION OF
LIFE to be alarmingly abstract, so much so that it's downright (deliberately?)
confusing in the first instance. As for IMITATION OF LIFE, I find that the
reason we cry is precisely because "our attempts to reach authentic human
connections succeed for only the briefest of moments." That's not some deeper
metaphysical meaning that one can glean only by knowing what a crane shot is. It's a
fundamental force that drives the melodrama genre. Melodrama is all about
trying to find a better, more direct mode of communication in order to make
authentic human connections. The characters always fail. Or if they do manage to find
one, it's always too late. And they (and we) cry. And hells yes, it's bitter.
Also sad. Also tragic.
Finally, I don't think you differ from members of a_film_by all that much re:
emotions. Few, if any, members are placing a lot of value in the emotions
evoked by acting and script alone. I, for one, certainly haven't re: IMITATION OF
LIFE in the past.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16052
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:38pm
Subject: Re: "auteurism" is in the mise en scene
I had a friend who wrote children's books in the 50's. Often, he
never saw the illustrations until the book was finished; sometimes
he was completely amazed at the look of the book. Of course,
there is much more going on in a film but I wonder how many
screenwriters feel the same?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> The idea that you only become an auteur by repeating yourself is
kind
> of academic. That's one way we find or confirm auteurs, but it's
not
> what the word means.
16053
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:32pm
Subject: Sirk (Was: Head in the Clouds)
> For now, I'm glad Sirk failed to gain the distance he
> craved. The genius of IMITATION OF LIFE is that it allows one to
> oscillate between poles of extreme identification and extreme ironic
> distance. (Of course, the word "genius" is probably missaplied here
> then. Sirk didn't exactly make the film he wanted to make so the genius
> must lie partially outside of auteurist purity or authorial intent.)
I can't tell whether I'm disagreeing or not, but I think there's a
tendency today to assume that Sirk was trying for irony, distance, etc. to
the exclusion of emotional involvement. Whereas I think he was very much
concerned with delivering the emotional payload of melodrama. The
distancing elements work with the emotionality, not against it, to my
mind. - Dan
16054
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:39pm
Subject: Die, Yahoo, Die!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
I wrote a long comment agreeing w. Brad and Kevin, and enlarging on
those points to raise questions about auteurism and audience response
that pointed the direction for new research and analysis.
And Yahoo lost it.
YAHOO TOTALLY SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16055
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:38pm
Subject: Re: TENUE DE SOIREE (was: Delon)
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>"Tenue de Soiree" is my favorite Blier. I especially
>love the opening with Miou-Miou's tirade constrasting
>with the Serge Gainsbourg dance theme in the background.
>
>
"Pauvre type, espèce de con, t’es vraiment rien qu’une merde!" What an
exquisite opening.
Great to hear you also appreciate the use of Gainsbourg's music in this
film; this was where Blier fully incorporated pop music into his late
80s/90s style (developed further through Khaled in _1, 2, 3, Soleil_ and
through Barry White in _Mon Homme_). There's really nothing quite like
it--the closest thing to an antecedent here would be Bruce Conner or
Kenneth Anger.
-Matt
16056
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:25pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
I would submit that for most general audiences, it is the narrative
to which they are responding. If you ask "regular folks" about what
films they're interested in, generally the base their interest on the
plot and, secondly, to the stars. Once in the theatre, it's probably
the editing -- rather than general mise-en-scene -- which keeps their
attention.
When I told an elderly aunt that I didn't like the film "Gandhi," she
looked at me increduously and said, "How could you say it's not good,
it's a true story." In other words, for her the film was worthwhile
because it informed her about Gandhi's life, and she was completely
oblivious to Richard Attenborough's deadly dull mise-en-scene.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
>
> My point was that mise-en-scene is pretty much the only
> thing 'general audiences' react to. When a viewer has an emotional
> reaction to a film - even one as crude as wanting to cheer the hero
> and hiss the villain - they are responding to the mise-en-scene. It
> is this highly complex emotional reaction - the one which allows us
> to identify with people and positions often far removed from our
own -
> that is created by the mise en scene.
16057
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
> This, then, is where I suspect I differ with many of my fellow members
> of a_film_by. I don't place a lot of value in the emotions evoked by
> acting and script alone, without seeing them transformed by the
> visionary style of a great auteur. The former seems to me to be at best
> entertaining manipulation (not excluding that acting and script can't be
> "great," but they don't seem to come together that way for me in most
> cases); the latter, great art.
This comes closer than some of your other statements to advocating the
primacy of the visual. Actors are influenced by the director to the same
extent as is the cinematographer: i.e., a lot or a little, depending.
Visionary style quite often transforms acting. Were you expressing a
preference here? - Dan
16058
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:06pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>.
> >
>
> Oh I quite agree, Fred -- and so did my mother. When
> she talked about the film she spoke of the way it
> looked as part and parcel of the feelings it sought to
> evoke. "The way they shot the funeral" was especially
> important to her in that the visual beauty of the
> scene meshed with the actor's expressiveness --
> particularly Susan Kohner when she throws herself on
> the coffin begging her mother's forgiveness.
>
>
> Being little David's mother, she was quite naturally an
auteurist without knowing it.
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16059
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:30pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
mise-en-scene is not some secret code that Lang,
> Sirk, Hitchcock, etc. created in order to send subversive messages
to
> a few enlightened viewers: it is the primary tool by which the
> director communicates with her/his audience.
>
>
> "if most members of the "public" were seeing films the way "we" do,
> Sirk and Borzage and Hawks and Ford would have achieved grosses
> notably higher than Stevens and de Mille and Wyler and Wellman. if
> only because "Summer Storm" would have compelled repeated viewings
> while "A Place in the Sun" would not have."
>
> Maybe they simply preferred the mise-en-scene of Wellman, Wyler,
> Stevens, etc. - after all, those filmmakers directly appealed to
the
> kinds of middle-class values which their audiences doubtless
shared.
> I claimed that general audiences reacted to mise-en-scene, not that
> they had great taste!
Excellent point, Brad, although content also has a lot to do with it.
This is how Biette, in his article "What is a cineaste?",
distinguished between Rossellini and De Sica -- DeS made films that
reinforced and reproduced his audience's beliefs and way of seeing
the world (on film), while RR challenged both. (Dan Sallitt's
relentless battle with "convention" also has a lot to do with this
kind of distinction -- cf the post that started this thread.) When
the CdC argued for two decades against mise en scene that reproduces
the "dominant ideology," they were continuing -- by other means and
with other goals -- the arguments that founded auteurism, with
respect to the differences between Hitchcock and Wyler (much admired
by Bazin).
So the case of Sirk becomes crucial: How did Sirk -- in Imitation of
Life, if not in Summer Storm -- make a film we can love today that
was also the biggest grosser in Universal history? Was he using a
coded double language, or was he speaking directly to adiences as he
speaks to us? Are moviegoers all "swing voters" who have some of the
dominant worldview in them and some of the alternative worldview(s)
the great directors appeal to? Again, I'd be most curious to see
what's on the preview cards for the Hunter-Sirk films at USC's
Universal archives.
I'm surprised no one here has sprung to the defense of Wellman and
Stevens!
16060
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:26pm
Subject: Re: Die, Yahoo, Die!
The above topic heading refers to an e-mail I sent after realizing
that my contribution to the discussion of auteurism and popular
consciousness had been lost by Yahoo. Now I find that my post
commenting on this has also been lost.
YAHOO IS A FUCKING PROTOFASCIST BUNCH OF SHIT-EATING MOTHERLESS FUCKS
WITH B.O. -- EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM!!!!!!!!
I hope this will not be construed as a personal attack.
16061
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:16pm
Subject: Re: Secret Films (was Head in the Clouds)
> "But I'm clinging to the idea that auteurism is a matter of looking for
> the secret film behind the obvious one: looking for the film created by
> rhythm and behavior and perspective, not the one that you could put down
> on paper or make a trailer about."
>
> It sounds like he's saying "auteurism" is in the mise en scene. Yes, of
> course. And for a good auteurist, "rhythm" et al. (I would add
> composition and light and camera movement) are no secrets.
I wasn't meaning to denigrate the visual here. Rather clumsily, I was
trying to catalogue second-level attributes - not technical components,
but aesthetic ones. For instance, "rhythm" would be created by editing,
acting, composition, and other things.
But I made the mistake of including "behavior" on this list, which is too
first-level for what I was trying to say. - Dan
16062
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:01pm
Subject: Re: Die, Yahoo, Die!
To add to the tale of discontent the WebMaster of Black Rock
(Carbondale) Community Library has refused access to both "A Film
By" and "Hitchcock Enthusiasts" on the grounds that they are Yahoo
Chat Rooms!
I've naturally protested this decision
> And Yahoo lost it.
>
> YAHOO TOTALLY SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
16063
From:
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:09pm
Subject: Re: Die, Yahoo, Die!
Bill,
I got the original "Die, Yahoo, Die!"
Maybe your original post will eventually re-surface too. Looking forward to
reading it.
Mike
16064
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:11pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> I would submit that for most general audiences, it is the
narrative
> to which they are responding. If you ask "regular folks" about
what
> films they're interested in, generally the base their interest on
the
> plot and, secondly, to the stars. Once in the theatre, it's
probably
> the editing -- rather than general mise-en-scene -- which
keeps their
> attention.
>
> When I told an elderly aunt that I didn't like the film "Gandhi,"
she
> looked at me increduously and said, "How could you say it's
not good,
> it's a true story." In other words, for her the film was
worthwhile
> because it informed her about Gandhi's life, and she was
completely
> oblivious to Richard Attenborough's deadly dull
mise-en-scene.
I submit: What we mean when we say the spectator wants a
story is really -- as your aunt's comment shows : The spectator
wants knowledge. The need to know more, and more, is what
pulls her thru the film. This is something AH understood. And it's
a matter of mise-en-scene.
Re: Attenborough -- I like A Bridge Too Far, Cry Freedom (RA's
most personal film) and Magic (his other most personal etc.).
And I bet I could show classical knowledge-driven m-e-s at work
in Gandhi.
16065
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
"When I told an elderly aunt that I didn't like the film "Gandhi,"
she looked at me increduously and said, "How could you say it's not
good, it's a true story."
I recall Jean-Luc Godard defending the 'implausible' ending of
Hitchcock's THE WRONG MAN in exactly the same terms!
16066
From:
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
On a new way to look at the world (which Bill Krohn ascribes to the great
Roberto Rsossellini) as the mark of a true cineaste:
Just saw the three Bowery Boys films made by Joseph H. Lewis. What is
startling about these little B movies is that they just don't look like any other
movies I have ever seen. They look... different. Do not know yet how to define
the difference. But every time I sit down and look at them, I think "These don't
look like anything I've seen." Its a matter of the visual style.
The best of the three films is the middle one, "That Gang of Mine" (about the
race horse). The first one "Boys of the City" is a turkey (including the
bigoted gags that are really hard to take), while the third one, the boxing film
"Pride of the Bowery" starts out well but runs down midway through.
Mike Grost
16067
From:
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:43pm
Subject: I, the Jury
Am looking forward to learning all about those audience cards, and what they
say.
There is a whole new academic sub-discipline of Film Studies. It's called
Audience Studies. Read about it on the bfi web site - think its discussed in "The
Film Book" or somewhere...
A few months ago my cable company called, and asked me to watch and rate a TV
preview. It came on an obsure cable channel. It was a half hour pilot for a
TV comedy called "Hot Mama". Gina Gershon starred as the sexy mother of a prim
teenage daughter, who wants to be a poet. I wound up enjoying it.
Afterwards, the comapany called, and put me through the most thorough phone
survey of my life. What did I think about each character? Each actor? Each
relationship between each pair of characters, and how they played off against each
other? Each scene in the 23 minute TV show?
The survey was extremely fine grained. It had the same exhaustive seriousness
as Robin Wood on Marnie...
I discovered that I had strong opinions on all of these things - Gina, the
daughter and the daughter's school friends were good, Gina's co-workers at the
wedding planning agency were bad. The whole survey took longer than the actual
show.
I planned to wow the surveyors with my auteurist expertise in directors and
writers. Unfortunately, the pilot was shown with no credits whatsoever.
Tell Quentin Tarentino, that if he need someone to serve on the next Cannes
jury, that I now have experience.
Mike Grost
16068
From:
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: Die, Yahoo, Die!
"To add to the tale of discontent the WebMaster of Black Rock
(Carbondale) Community Library has refused access to both "A Film
By" and "Hitchcock Enthusiasts" on the grounds that they are Yahoo
Chat Rooms!"
This is a Bad Day at Black Rock.
Mike Grost
16069
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> >
> > Being little David's mother, she was quite
> naturally an
> auteurist without knowing it.
> >
Undoubtedly.
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/mnop/b_jaunitamoore.shtml
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16070
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:56pm
Subject: Re: Die, Yahoo, Die!
That is why I rename Carbondale "Black Rock" - but it lacks the
presence of heavies who would make it more interesting that Ryan,
Marvin, and Borgnine!
Tony Williams
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> "To add to the tale of discontent the WebMaster of Black Rock
> (Carbondale) Community Library has refused access to both "A Film
> By" and "Hitchcock Enthusiasts" on the grounds that they are Yahoo
> Chat Rooms!"
>
> This is a Bad Day at Black Rock.
>
> Mike Grost
16071
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:08pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> On a new way to look at the world (which Bill Krohn ascribes to
the great
> Roberto Rsossellini) as the mark of a true cineaste:
> Just saw the three Bowery Boys films made by Joseph H.
Lewis. What is
> startling about these little B movies is that they just don't look
like any other
> movies I have ever seen.
Tavernier the critic called Lewis a "calligrapher."
16072
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Die, Yahoo, Die!
If you're writing anything long, you should always write it in a word
processing program and keep saving it as you go along. Even if Yahoo
were perfect, your computer could crash in mid-post, or there could be a
power failure.
Fred Camper
16073
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 0:27am
Subject: Re: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
> DeS made films that
> reinforced and reproduced his audience's beliefs and way of seeing
> the world (on film), while RR challenged both. (Dan Sallitt's
> relentless battle with "convention" also has a lot to do with this
> kind of distinction -- cf the post that started this thread.)
Actually, I'm trying to quit the "convention" argument - I'm down to two
or three usages a day. At one point, Zach Campbell made a good argument
about it being a slippery concept, and I eventually agreed that I wasn't
actually saying much more than "I don't see what's so special about it."
But the Biette argument on De Sica is somewhere near a substitute for the
"convention" argument. Like, maybe some strategies have such a strong
reasssuring effect - i.e., giving the audience a big clue about how to
slot the film into a well-established archetype - that all subsidiary
effects are obliterated. - Dan
16074
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:47am
Subject: Re: "auteurism" is in the mise en scene
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
> I had a friend who wrote children's books in the 50's. Often, he
> never saw the illustrations until the book was finished; sometimes
> he was completely amazed at the look of the book. Of course,
> there is much more going on in a film but I wonder how many
> screenwriters feel the same?
The majority.
16075
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:58am
Subject: I Heart Huckabee's
I heart it a lot.
16076
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:21am
Subject: Oliveira alert
Sundance Channel is showing three of Oliveira's most recent films on
Saturday 10/23:
Oporto of My Childhood, A Speaking Picture, I'm Going Home. Great
feature-length films by a guy in his mid-90s. (Take that Leni Riefenstahl.)
George (not nearly 90 yet) Robinson
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
16077
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:33am
Subject: Was Douglas Sirk gay?
The current Doc Film schedule
(http://docfilms.uchicago.edu/calendar.html ) "outs" Douglas Sirk by
calling him a "gay auteur," I was about to write them and quarrel but
thought first I should draw on the collective wisdom of this group. Is
there some secret video of Douglas and Rock that I don't know about?
Sirk did have two wives and a son by his first wife. I remember hearing
rumors years ago that the second Mrs. Sirk had published a book about
him in German that "outed" him in some sort of way. Does anyone know more?
It kind of irritates me when people throw around the "g" word
indiscriminately. I've also read that Maya Deren was "gay," for example.
I think it's the right of a person who has had sexual experiences with
both genders to call himself "gay" rather than "bi," if he thinks the
same sex attraction is the main one, but for others to do so after the
subject has died seems really wrong, unless, unless there's good
supporting evidence.
Fred Camper
16078
From:
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:51am
Subject: Re: Sirk (Was: Head in the Clouds)
In a message dated 9/27/04 4:02:56 PM, sallitt@p... writes:
> I think there's a tendency today to assume that Sirk was trying for irony,
> distance, etc. to
> the exclusion of emotional involvement.
>
From the Halliday interviews: "Sirk: But I couldn't overcome the material. As
you can see, now you know me, I'm not a weepie man. I don't really like this
kind of picture...I feel uneasy about "IMITATION OF LIFE)." (153)
So I feel safe in reading "overcome the material" as irony, distance, etc.
And this is how I explain my affection for IMITATION OF LIFE over, say, WRITTEN
ON THE WIND (which I still adore). The latter is all overcoming.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16079
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:32am
Subject: Re: Was Douglas Sirk gay?
> I think it's the right of a person who has had sexual experiences
with
> both genders to call himself "gay" rather than "bi," if he thinks
the
> same sex attraction is the main one, but for others to do so after
the
> subject has died seems really wrong, unless, unless there's good
> supporting evidence.
Sirk certainly never called himself a gay filmmaker, and in Sirk On
Sirk comes across as very mildly homophobic. But the book by his wife
would be a good source if it exists, and I know many people feel they
can see his sexuality in his work - including people who don't
normally believe one can do such things.
One would be hardly surprised by such a revelation, but it does seem
wrong to assume his preference and print it without stronger evidence
than supposition.
16080
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:36am
Subject: Re: "auteurism" is in the mise en scene
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
> wrote:
> > I had a friend who wrote children's books in the 50's. Often, he
> > never saw the illustrations until the book was finished;
sometimes
> > he was completely amazed at the look of the book. Of course,
> > there is much more going on in a film but I wonder how many
> > screenwriters feel the same?
>
> The majority.
Aren't they mostly HORRIFIED when they see what's been done with
their work? I mean, most screenplays are bad, but most films are
worse than bad...
It's often the case that writers of great films will sometimes focus
on the faults, ignoring what has been added. Robbe-Grillet was very
enthusiastic about MARIENBAD, descibing it as looking exactly as he
had envisaged it (not better) but mentioned that here and there were
moments he'd have done differently. And that's a very snazzily
directed film indeed, and not one that R-G could have equalled in
style, talented though he is.
16081
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:48am
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
> Furthermore, as always, it's all relative. While I believe that
Borzage was a better director than Wellman, I've yet to see a Borzage
film that cuts my beloved TRACK OF THE CAT.
Damn, I gotta see TRACK. I like Wellman a lot. Borzage IS better
though - SEVENTH HEAVEN and MOONRISE are all the proof I need.
I know Stevens' reputation suffers from his later, more pompous work,
but his early comedies are absolutely masterful, and I hate to see
him and Wyler lumped together as examples of populist mediocrity.
Wyler was dramaturgically the finest director Hollywood has known, in
my book.
One could perhaps draw a vague division between filmmakers who move
the camera based on a desire to create abstract cinematic beauty, and
those who move it to bring out dramatic values and emotions. Most
filmmakers blur those lines quite a bit, though. I would hazard a
guess that the latter group would be more popular with a mass
audience, who may not "appreciate" a crane shot for what it is or
knowhow it is achieved, but certainly feel the emotional impact just
as kieenly as more "educated" cineastes. The average punter might
appreciate "good photography" but they are less likely to be taken
with a Von Sternberg film, say, where the visual beauty is not at the
service of a traditional narrative drama.
So Hitchcock and Wyler both score highly with audiences, as do Sirk,
Stevens and Wellman. Stevens and Wyler score best with the
contemporary critics as their works cross more genre boundaries and
deal with "issues". While I think that such criteria are pretty
useless for deciding the true worth of a filmmaker, and I deplore the
critical dismissal of Hitchcock and Sirk that went on during their
careers, that doesn't mean I don't like Stevens and Wyler for their
skills as filmmakers, which I consider to be very high.
16082
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:52am
Subject: Re: Suggestions about films habelove can distribute on DVD
> He was quite a character. His (many) lovers included
> Noel Coward and Ida Lupino.
I recall reading that he suffered shell-shock in the war and emerged
a wreck. And I thought, "he managed to keep on working remarkably
frequently, considering all that."
16083
From:
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:30am
Subject: Sirk, Stevens, Sternberg (was: Head in the Clouds)
On Sternberg and audiences: In an interview, Sternberg said that producers
tolerated him in the 30's because he enhanced "star values". His glamorous,
emotionally gripping treatments of Dietrich and his other players gave them the
glamour and charisma that was desired by the industry. Presumably, audiences
also liked this aspect of Sternberg.
The de-glamourized entertainment of the last 10 years really seems odd to me.
Traditionally, audiences loved Hollywood (and Cinecitta, etc) glamour.
Sirk: Always felt that Sirk tried to convey the feelings of his melodramas as
vividly as possible. Never understood the idea that they were deliberate
Camp. (A critic might decide they are cornball and hence campy, but that is
different.)
Sirk probably DID struggle with his material. He was probably presented with
a lot of what he saw as hokey storylines, out of which he would try to make
something convincing. This feeling is common in show biz. No less than Lillian
Gish felt this way when Griffith told her they were making that old stage
melodrama, Way Down East. This is very different from the idea of camp.
Stevens. Always liked George Stevens very much. Have seen Giant at least 3
times, and always find it fascinating. Ditto for the Talk of the Town. Stevens
was uneven, but at his best he was a rich and complex storyteller with real
visual style.
Mike Grost
16084
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 0:51pm
Subject: re: Sirk
When it comes to Sirk interviewed by Halliday, there is another factor we
have to take into consideration: Sirk indicated to a friend of mine in the
late '70s that some of what he said to Halliday is what he 'thought Halliday
wanted to hear' - and particularly since what was at stake was a complete
rediscovery/rehabilitation of the guy and his work, after quite a while in
the relative wilderness!! So, there's an element there of Sirk playing up to
the Marx-Brecht-irony-distanciation sensibility of his interlocuter - rather
than the emotive-full-blooded-melodrama sensibility that he insisted on to
my friend.
Surely this happens a lot that directors mould their statements and project
their persona - consciously or unconsciously - in terms of who is
interviewing them; it is a rather human reflex, after all! Look at Welles,
for example! Interviews shouldn't always be taken as the testament of a
person 'revealing themselves' transparently or saying exactly what they
think or feel. That's one of the problems with the CASSAVETES ON CASSAVETES
book: by taking out all the contextual info of who he is talking to and when
(whether it's a jazz buff in the 80s or PLAYBOY in the 70s or CAHIERS in the
60s) makes, completely artificially, his words into a seamless flow of
'self'. Things are more complex than that.
Adrian
16085
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:23pm
Subject: Re: Was Douglas Sirk gay?
--- Fred Camper wrote:
> The current Doc Film schedule
> (http://docfilms.uchicago.edu/calendar.html ) "outs"
> Douglas Sirk by
> calling him a "gay auteur," I was about to write
> them and quarrel but
> thought first I should draw on the collective wisdom
> of this group.
Well that's damned presumptuous for reasons beyond the
specifics of Sirks' sexual and romantic life. As I'm
sure I've said before there's an enormous difference
betweena filmmaker who happened to be gay and a gay
filmmaker. In the former category I'd place Ozu, Cukor
and Whale. In the latter Todd Haynes, Derek Jarman and
Patrice Chereau. I understand much of the impatience
that's grown in recent years to correct decades of
neglect and misinformation, but you can't deal with
the past in terms of the present. Sirk may indeed have
had "the urge to merge with a splurge," but it counts
for little in terms of the actual films. Indeed Todd
made "Far From Heaven" the better to examine
everything that Sirk wouldn't dream of dealing with.
I recall Sirk noting of Jarman's "Sebastiane" when it
premiered at the San Sebastiane film festival "Those
boys were just too damned pretty." So make of that
what you will.
In Sirk's own life and work Rock Hudson was of less
import than producer Ross Huner -- a deeply closeted
and very powerful gay man.
Naturally people want to talk about a "gay
sensibility" from here to the moon, invariably
relating it to all manner of visual lushness. So does
that make Sternberg gay? He was, after all, having an
affair with Marlene Dietrich at the time of his
greatest triumphs which were expressly created for her
-- and as we all know they're "way gay," right?
And then there' s Vincente Minnelli who wore make-up
and was married to Judy Garland. How gay is that? WAY
gay -- except that Minnelli, as wildly effeminate as
he was, had affairs with a great many women after
Garland.
So that leaves us with. . .Charles Walters. Pretty
damned gay, no? And his last movie was Cary Grant's
last movie. How gay is that? You tell me.
Not as gay as Robert Bresson! No visual lushness save
for the most beautiful boys in the history of the
cinema.
That's entertainment!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16086
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:28pm
Subject: Re: Sirk, Stevens, Sternberg (was: Head in the Clouds)
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
Never understood the idea that
> they were deliberate
> Camp. (A critic might decide they are cornball and
> hence campy, but that is
> different.)
Camp isn't synonymous with corn. Especially in
Sternberg's case. Great camp moments: Dietrich in
"Shanghai Express" saying she's gone to Shanghai "To
buy a new hat," and my fave in "The Devil is a Woman"
where she's toying with her spit-curls while staring
into a mirror asLionel Atwill gushes on about how much
he loves her and she says "Wait just a minute and I'll
give you a kiss."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16087
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:50pm
Subject: Re: Sirk, Stevens, Sternberg (was: Head in the Clouds)
> On Sternberg and audiences: In an interview, Sternberg said that
producers tolerated him in the 30's because he enhanced "star
values". His glamorous, emotionally gripping treatments of Dietrich
and his other players gave them the glamour and charisma that was
desired by the industry. Presumably, audiences also liked this aspect
of Sternberg.
Up to a point - MOROCCO and SHANGHAI EXPRESS were big hits, but
DISHONORED, BLONDE VENUS, THE SCARLET EMPRESS and THE DEVIL IS A
WOMAN all lost money, I believe. I'd argue that the commercially
successful films are the ones that fit my model for what audiences
like: beautiful photography enhancing engaging stories. I think
DISHONORED belongs on that list too - I can't see why it wasn't a
hit. But the other three are more complex, the story isn't remotely
important to their success as masterpieces, and the characters don't
really invite "identification" very well - they are works of pure art
unsullied by strong narrative values, and the public stayed away.
> Stevens. Always liked George Stevens very much. Have seen Giant at
least 3 times, and always find it fascinating. Ditto for the Talk of
the Town. Stevens was uneven, but at his best he was a rich and
complex storyteller with real visual style.
THE MORE THE MERRIER would earn him a place in celluloid heaven even
if he never made anything else!
16088
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:53pm
Subject: Re: Sirk
> I have a tape here, made for me by a friend in Cyprus, with APRIL,
> APRIL! and DAS HOFKONZERT on it, but it's in PAL format...
Then send it to me! I'll watch it and report back!
Or, better yet, I can give you a friend's address in the US - he'll
transfer it to NTSC for you for free if he and I can get copies.
(Hope it isn't against board rules to talk about copying - apologies
if I've erred!)
16089
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:55pm
Subject: Re: Sirk
> Maybe Scandal in Paris is my favorite...
"Behave, Satan!"
I love it. Also like THERE'S ALWAYS TOMORROW a whole heck of a lot,
and you don't hear much about that one.
Saw PIEGES recently, which made me think a little less of LURED,
which owes so much to the original. But I think in a few key ways,
Sirk improves on the Siodmak.
16090
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:00pm
Subject: Re: Delon
> "Tenue de Soiree" is my favorite Blier. I especially
> love the opening with Miou-Miou's tirade constrasting
> with the Serge Gainsbourg dance theme in the background.
I like it but not as much as BUFFET FROID.
LES VALSEUSES is amazing but it kind of makes me squirm.
It's been years (decades?) since I saw NOTRE HISTOIRE but I remember
liking it a lot.
I saw him present LES ACTEURS here in Edinburgh and I thought it was
terrific - am still waiting for it to become available with subtitles
though. "My mission is the same as Godard's - to expose the
mechanisms of cinema but keep the meotion of cinema."
16091
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 2:43pm
Subject: Minnelli (was Re: Was Douglas Sirk gay?)
"And then there' s Vincente Minnelli who wore make-up and was married
to Judy Garland. How gay is that? WAY gay -- except that Minnelli, as
wildly effeminate as he was, had affairs with a great many women
after Garland."
In a 1992 interview published in TIME OUT, Kenneth Anger discussed
some of the material he had gathered for HOLLYWOOD BABYLON
III, "which is now nearing completion": "I have interviews with
people who say that Vincent Minnelli was 100 per cent gay when he
arrived in Hollywood till the studios told him to knock it off".
HOLLYWOOD BABYLON III has still not appeared, but I've always been
fascinated by this information, since it suggests an autobiographical
dimension to Minnelli's films: they're full of characters who are
forced to play 'roles' with which they are uncomfortable. One day I
might even try writing a book about Minnelli that attempts to
reevaluate his oeuvre from this perspective.
Several accounts of the Judy Garland/Minnelli wedding suggest that it
was a kind of theatrical event stage-managed by Louis B. Mayer.
16092
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:07pm
Subject: Re: "auteurism" is in the mise en scene
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
Robbe-Grillet was very
> enthusiastic about MARIENBAD, descibing it as looking exactly as he
> had envisaged it (not better) but mentioned that here and there
were
> moments he'd have done differently. And that's a very snazzily
> directed film indeed, and not one that R-G could have equalled in
> style, talented though he is.
Unusual case. He and Resnais talked for weeks, then R-G produced a
script that describes to the letter every camera placement/movement,
which Resnais, with a few exceptions, followed to the letter.
16093
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:04pm
Subject: Re: Was Douglas Sirk gay?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> The current Doc Film schedule
> (http://docfilms.uchicago.edu/calendar.html ) "outs" Douglas Sirk
by
> calling him a "gay auteur," I was about to write them and quarrel
but
> thought first I should draw on the collective wisdom of this group.
I spent 30 minutes talking about Syberberg with him in 1983; his wife
of the moment was with us, and seemed to be watching him like a hawk.
I have no idea why.
My companion (Barnara Frank) said that he struck her as "sexually
complicated." She usually has a good sense about people.
Short answer: I have no idea.
Internal evidence: Directors who occassionally made films aimed
specifically at female audiences include Cukor (gay), Minnelli and
Rapper (both bi). Sirk, because of Ross Hunter's decision to go after
that audience in the 50s, made a series of films that were very
female-targeted. Was he gay? Was Hunter? As my father would say, "I
wasn't holding the lantern..."
16094
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:09pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
The average punter might
> appreciate "good photography" but they are less likely to be taken
> with a Von Sternberg film, say, where the visual beauty is not at
the
> service of a traditional narrative drama.
But weren't the Sternberg-Dietrichs beginning w. Morocco big hits?
16095
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:12pm
Subject: Re: Sirk
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Surely this happens a lot that directors mould their statements and
project
> their persona - consciously or unconsciously - in terms of who is
> interviewing them; it is a rather human reflex, after all! Look at
Welles,
> for example!
When I interviewed him on the phone he said after a while, "This is
good. If I can't see your face I'll tell fewer lies to please you."
16096
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:27pm
Subject: Minnelli (was Re: Was Douglas Sirk gay?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
"In a 1992 interview published in TIME OUT, Kenneth Anger discussed
some of the material he had gathered for HOLLYWOOD BABYLON
III, 'which is now nearing completion': 'I have interviews with
people who say that Vincent Minnelli was 100 per cent gay when he
arrived in Hollywood till the studios told him to knock it off'."
I wonder if we can trust the veracity of "Hollywood Babaylon"?
According to Anger's friend David Del Valle Anger was staying with
him while writing "Hollywood Babylon II" and had run out of
scandalous stories, so Del Valle supplied one about George Zucco
wandering out of the mental hospital where he'd been committed and
raving that Great Cthulhu was after him! This story was completely
fabricated. The Hitchcock-Grace Kelly story in the same book was also
bogus. I suspect that there are as many fake stories as true ones in
the "Hollywood Babylon" books.
Richard
16097
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:28pm
Subject: Re: Sirk, Stevens, Sternberg (was: Head in the Clouds)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
Stevens was uneven, but at his best he was a rich and
> complex storyteller with real visual style.
>
> THE MORE THE MERRIER would earn him a place in celluloid heaven
even
> if he never made anything else!
I'd give a slight edge to The Talk of the Town. The swing to serious
drama after the war was already predicted by Alice Adams and Penny
Serenade, two great films. An oddity that has considerable power in
places: the footage he filmed in Europe during the war.
Marilyn Moss's critical bio of Stevens is appearing this fall, and
LACMA is having a Stevens retro to celebrate it.
16098
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:37pm
Subject: Re: Head in the Clouds (auteurists versus audience)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"But weren't the Sternberg-Dietrichs beginning w. Morocco big hits?"
Based on what I've read MOROCCO, SHANGHAI EXPRESS and BLONDE VENUS
were big hits but THE SCARLET EMPRESS and THE DEVIL IS A WOMAN were
flops. DISHONORED as said to be a disappoinment. One also gets this
impression from Sternberg's autobiography too thought he's not
explicit about it.
Incedently, SHANGHAI EXPRESS has been canonized by China schoalers
since Jonatahn Spence wrote a laudatory essay about it a few years
ago,and Sternberg would be surprised to learn that his imaginary
China is taken to be accurate by the West's leading China schoaler.
Richard
16099
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 3:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: "auteurism" is in the mise en scene
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
>
> Unusual case. He and Resnais talked for weeks, then
> R-G produced a
> script that describes to the letter every camera
> placement/movement,
> which Resnais, with a few exceptions, followed to
> the letter.
>
>
Yet "Mariendbad" isn't like any of Robbe-Grillet's own
films. Same with Duras vis-a-vis "Hiroshima Mon
Amour."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16100
From:
Date: Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:41am
Subject: Re: re: Sirk
Yes, I've heard that the Halliday interviews are a tad hazy re: "reality."
But I find it hard to believe that in his playing up to the irony mongers, Sirk
was spewing nothing but falsities. For instance, did Sirk admit to your friend
that he did, in fact, read the Fannie Hurst novel in its entirety and adored
it, Adrian? I think there was some sort of dissatisfaction with the material
that he felt he had to overcome or distance himself from.
At the end of the day, "emotional involvement" is there in IMITATION OF LIFE
whether Sirk intended it or not.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact