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.
16601
From:
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 3:09pm
Subject: Re: Lewis and BEN CASEY (was Re: Speaking of Jerry Lewis...Pink Lady?)
Brad Stevens wrote:
>Lewis fans should make a point of seeing the BEN CASEY episode Lewis
>directed and starred in (as well as anonymously co-writing).
Have you ever seen some of Lewis' later work in episodic television, Brad (or
anyone)? According to the IMDB, in 1990 he directed episodes of "Good Grief"
and "Super Force." There's also an episode by him of "The Bold Ones: The New
Doctors." I've never seen any of these, though I wouldn't doubt that they
are great.
Peter
16602
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 7:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
He's like Welles!
>
In his dreams.
I'd liken him to a right-wing Stanley Kramer with
elephantiasis
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16603
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 7:26pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
"Is this 5+ hour version some sort of rough cut or is it actually
Cimino's preferred version?"
It was screened (I guess as a workprint) to UA executives (as
described in Steven Bach's book). Cimino apparently regarded this cut
as overlong...but not THAT overlong!
"My understanding is that the currently extant long version - the one
which was savaged by Canby after its New York premiere and which is
available on American DVD today (albeit with color instead of sepia
during the roller-skating scene) - was Cimino's final cut, and it's
only the subsequent, shorter edit that he disowns."
I don't believe he even disowns the shorter edit. According to Bach,
Cimino begged to be allowed to cut the film after the preview. The
short version is actually quite interesting, since it rescues some 7
minutes of footage that didn't make it into the long versions.
16604
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 7:29pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
"I'd liken him to a right-wing Stanley Kramer with elephantiasis "
What's right wing about HEAVEN'S GATE? Or THE SICILIAN? They're two
of the most Marxist films ever made in America!
16605
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 7:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> What's right wing about HEAVEN'S GATE? Or THE
> SICILIAN? They're two
> of the most Marxist films ever made in America!
>
Uh, no. They're not about "The People." They center on
a cult of personality in which "The People" are
regarded as "losers" for their indifference to and/or
rejection of "The Chosen One Who Shall Lead Them."
Warren Beatty's "Reds" (like much of his work) is an
explicit critique of the hero cult, but it's not a
Marxist film either. Neither is anything by Pasolini,
the Straubs - or even Eisenstein for that matter.
Watkins is Marxist (though an anrcho-syndicalist at
heart) Chris Marker too.
Vertov? A little bit around the edges.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
16606
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:21pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
"They're not about "The People." They center on a cult of personality
in which "The People" are regarded as "losers" for their indifference
to and/or rejection of "The Chosen One Who Shall Lead Them.""
But THE SICILIAN is an explicit critique of the hero cult/cult of
personality. It couldn't possibly be any clearer, any less ambivalent
about this. It's the superficiality of Giuliano's commitment to 'the
people' (which is actually rooted in egotism - "I want them to know
that I did this. For THEM", "I want all the credit") that ultimately
allows the power elite (the 'three circles' of Church, Aristocracy
and Mafia) to use him for their own ends.
I honestly can't agree that 'the people' in HEAVEN'S GATE are
regarded as losers. Certainly Averill is not portrayed as 'The Chosen
One who will lead them'. He ultimately DOES lead the people, but
they're defeated anyway.
"Warren Beatty's "Reds" (like much of his work) is an explicit
critique of the hero cult, but it's not a Marxist film either.
Neither is anything by Pasolini, the Straubs - or even Eisenstein for
that matter."
Well, at least Cimino's in good company.
16607
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> But THE SICILIAN is an explicit critique of the hero
> cult/cult of
> personality. It couldn't possibly be any clearer,
> any less ambivalent
> about this. It's the superficiality of Giuliano's
> commitment to 'the
> people' (which is actually rooted in egotism - "I
> want them to know
> that I did this. For THEM", "I want all the credit")
> that ultimately
> allows the power elite (the 'three circles' of
> Church, Aristocracy
> and Mafia) to use him for their own ends.
>
You're thinking of Rosi's (infinitely superiro)
"Salvatore Giuliano."
> I honestly can't agree that 'the people' in HEAVEN'S
> GATE are
> regarded as losers. Certainly Averill is not
> portrayed as 'The Chosen
> One who will lead them'. He ultimately DOES lead the
> people, but
> they're defeated anyway.
>
Of course he'sa"The Chosen One" He goes to college
fucks whores, survives the carnage and winds up on a
yacht.
Very George W. Bush.
>
> "Warren Beatty's "Reds" (like much of his work) is
> an explicit
> critique of the hero cult, but it's not a Marxist
> film either.
> Neither is anything by Pasolini, the Straubs - or
> even Eisenstein for
> that matter."
>
> Well, at least Cimino's in good company.
>
>
Not by my lights.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
16608
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 8:42pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
"You're thinking of Rosi's (infinitely superiro) "Salvatore
Giuliano." "
That's another great film. But mentioning Rosi's film doesn't refute
the point I was making, which is that THE SICILIAN is unambiguously a
critique of the 'hero cult'.
"Of course he's "The Chosen One" He goes to college fucks whores,
survives the carnage and winds up on a yacht."
But the ending is clearly tragic! Why do you think he's crying at the
end? (Though I guess if you've seen the mythic still-frame ending,
he's not crying at the end.) How many other American films regard the
protagonist's achievement of wealth and comfort as something tragic?
That's supposed to be every American's dream!
Also, given the sensitivity with which Isabelle Huppert's character
is treated, describing Averill as someone who 'fucks whores' is
rather like describing FAR FROM HEAVEN as a film about a woman
who 'fucks niggers'!
16609
From:
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 5:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Piano Teacher
In a message dated 10/9/04 11:06:33 AM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
> That's why porn is so boring.
>
Ok I probably inferred too much from what you wrote, JP, and I'm too
exhausted right now to follow through on other points. But I did mean to say that you
and Robin Wood are simply not watching the right porn. Indeed, warehouses of
it are (is?) banal. But there IS something out there for you. The problem is
taking the time to actually find it.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16610
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 10:27pm
Subject: Re: The Piano Teacher
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/9/04 11:06:33 AM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
>
>
> > That's why porn is so boring.
> >
>
> Ok I probably inferred too much from what you wrote, JP, and I'm
too
> exhausted right now to follow through on other points. But I did
mean to say that you
> and Robin Wood are simply not watching the right porn. Indeed,
warehouses of
> it are (is?) banal. But there IS something out there for you. The
problem is
> taking the time to actually find it.
>
> Kevin John
>
Frankly, I can't be bothered. It's a needle-in-a-haystack kind of
search. And I wouldn't know where to look. But there is no doubt
that very explicit sex could make for great movie-making in the
right hands. Unfortunately, either there are no right hands, or they
prefer being busy doing other things .
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16611
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 10:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Piano Teacher
That's an inteesting notion, Kevin. I wonder about
that. Porn is genuinely obscure. What may turn me on
in a passing fugitive moment may do nothing at all for
you or anyone else. Even if we agree on standards of
"sexy."
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Ok I probably inferred too much from what you wrote,
> JP, and I'm too
> exhausted right now to follow through on other
> points. But I did mean to say that you
> and Robin Wood are simply not watching the right
> porn. Indeed, warehouses of
> it are (is?) banal. But there IS something out there
> for you. The problem is
> taking the time to actually find it.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16612
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 10:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> But the ending is clearly tragic! Why do you think
> he's crying at the
> end? (Though I guess if you've seen the mythic
> still-frame ending,
> he's not crying at the end.) How many other American
> films regard the
> protagonist's achievement of wealth and comfort as
> something tragic?
> That's supposed to be every American's dream!
>
You're forgetting one thing : IT'S A MALE WEEPIE!
His Great Adventure is over and he's lost (clutch the
pearls) The Only Woman He Really Loved !
> Also, given the sensitivity with which Isabelle
> Huppert's character
> is treated, describing Averill as someone who 'fucks
> whores' is
> rather like describing FAR FROM HEAVEN as a film
> about a woman
> who 'fucks niggers'!
>
>
Actually that's how the ther characters in the film
WOULD describe Julianne Moore. Remember the street
scene where some guy orders Dennis Haysbert to stay
away from her?
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16613
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 10:44pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
>
>>
> > Also, given the sensitivity with which Isabelle
> > Huppert's character
> > is treated, describing Averill as someone who 'fucks
> > whores' is
> > rather like describing FAR FROM HEAVEN as a film
> > about a woman
> > who 'fucks niggers'!
> >
> >
> Well, she IS a whore and he fucks her. A whore is a whore is a
whore -- even though she is in the great tradition of the "whore
with a heart of gold".
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16614
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 10:50pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> "You're thinking of Rosi's (infinitely superiro) "Salvatore
> Giuliano." "
>
> That's another great film. But mentioning Rosi's film doesn't
refute
> the point I was making, which is that THE SICILIAN is
unambiguously a
> critique of the 'hero cult'.
>
> "Of course he's "The Chosen One" He goes to college fucks whores,
> survives the carnage and winds up on a yacht."
>
> But the ending is clearly tragic! Why do you think he's crying at
the
> end? (Though I guess if you've seen the mythic still-frame ending,
> he's not crying at the end.) How many other American films regard
the
> protagonist's achievement of wealth and comfort as something
tragic?
WRITTEN ON THE WIND!
>
That's supposed to be every American's dream!
>
Averill's dream was different, and at the end he has lost it all.
Not just "the only woman he ever loved."
16615
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 10:54pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
"You're forgetting one thing : IT'S A MALE WEEPIE! His Great
Adventure is over and he's lost (clutch the pearls) The Only Woman He
Really Loved !"
He's crying for a lot more than that.
"Actually that's how the ther characters in the film WOULD describe
Julianne Moore. Remember the street scene where some guy orders
Dennis Haysbert to stay away from her?"
That's my point. If these characters were to wander into HEAVEN'S
GATE, they'd undoubtedly describe Averill as 'a guy who fucks whores'.
16616
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 11:23pm
Subject: re: Heaven's Gate
I - in a burst of cinephilic purity I am now thankful for - have held
out on seeing HEAVEN'S GATE until I could see it on a big screen in a
full or at least very long version. Next week we see here in Melbourne
a version "painstakingly restored by John Kirk". But how does this
relate to the various versions and cuts already mentioned by Brad and
others? What is Kirk's contribution, exactly, if (as Brad says) the
longer version has always been around on video or (as Bill says) on
Channel Z? Is there sepia in this version I am about to see? Will it
have the '7 minutes only in the short version' (Brad)? I want my
money's worth after all these years of enforced Cimino-chastity!!!
Adrian
16617
From:
Date: Sat Oct 9, 2004 7:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>> He's like Welles!
>
>In his dreams.
Well, we disagree on Cimino's merits, David, but understand that I invoked
Welles' name not because I think there are any special aesthetic or thematic
similarities between them. Rather it's because, as anyone who knows me here is
surely well aware, there's virtually nothing that Welles directed which I don't
like or love. I feel the same way about Cimino's (far smaller) filmography.
I can't say this about many directors.
Peter
16618
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 0:50am
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
> A whore is a whore is a
> whore -- even though she is in the great tradition of the "whore
> with a heart of gold".
I've always wondered, is telling stories about whores with a heart of gold
the world's SECOND oldest profession ?
-Sam
16619
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 0:58am
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> I - in a burst of cinephilic purity I am now thankful for - have
held
> out on seeing HEAVEN'S GATE until I could see it on a big screen in
a
> full or at least very long version. Next week we see here in
Melbourne
> a version "painstakingly restored by John Kirk". But how does this
> relate to the various versions and cuts already mentioned by Brad
and
> others? What is Kirk's contribution, exactly, if (as Brad says) the
> longer version has always been around on video or (as Bill says) on
> Channel Z? Is there sepia in this version I am about to see? Will
it
> have the '7 minutes only in the short version' (Brad)? I want my
> money's worth after all these years of enforced Cimino-chastity!!!
I gather that John Kirk has restored the original negative, but not
added any footage. Apparently, Kirk and Vilmos Zsigmond will
introduce the Melbourne screening, so you might even have the
opportunity to ask them about the sepia/color versions of the roller
skating scene, and the still-frame ending.
Another oddity is that older prints of the long version subtitle a
lot of the foreign-language dialogue, but current DVD transfers play
without any subtitles.
I doubt that the 7 minutes of extra footage in the short version
would properly belong in a director's cut.
When is someone going to publish Cimino's novel in English? (It's
already appeared in French translation.) Maybe Rouge Press should
make him an offer.
16620
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:17am
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> I want my
> money's worth after all these years of enforced Cimino-chastity!!!
>
> Adrian
Whatever you get, you WILL get your money's worth. I wish I could
see it again on a big screen the way I did on that glorious (and
infamous) opening day (I still have the stub --it was like a
Broadway theater ticket, with the name of the film and the date and
everything). If any film has to be seen on the big screen, that one
does. JPC
16621
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:50am
Subject: Lewis and BEN CASEY (was Re: Speaking of Jerry Lewis...Pink Lady?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Brad Stevens wrote:
>
> >Lewis fans should make a point of seeing the BEN CASEY episode
Lewis
> >directed and starred in (as well as anonymously co-writing).
>
> Have you ever seen some of Lewis' later work in episodic
television, Brad (or
> anyone)? According to the IMDB, in 1990 he directed episodes
of "Good Grief"
> and "Super Force." There's also an episode by him of "The Bold
Ones: The New
> Doctors." I've never seen any of these, though I wouldn't doubt
that they
> are great.
>
> Peter
There's a collector in Arizona who has 16mms of all of those. He's
probably the big expert on 70s and 80s tv -- a real buff. He was the
first who ever mentioned them to me, long before the days of imdb.
16622
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:57am
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- thebradstevens wrote:
>
>
> >
> > What's right wing about HEAVEN'S GATE? Or THE
> > SICILIAN? They're two
> > of the most Marxist films ever made in America!
> >
>
> Uh, no. They're not about "The People." They center on
> a cult of personality in which "The People" are
> regarded as "losers" for their indifference to and/or
> rejection of "The Chosen One Who Shall Lead Them."
That's a bit harsh, but formally accurate. Yann Lardeau's
grounbreaking article in CdC noted that the three main charcacters in
Heaven's Gate are outside the "circles" (a visual figure for classes)
to which they should belong: Kristofferson, Walken, Huppert. Same
thing in The Sicilian. Giulia Boschi (sp?) expressed that to me
clearly when I was on location with them: she said that her character
and Giuliano's are exceptions, "like Michael."
16623
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:03am
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> But THE SICILIAN is an explicit critique of the hero cult/cult of
> personality. It couldn't possibly be any clearer, any less
ambivalent
> about this. It's the superficiality of Giuliano's commitment
to 'the
> people' (which is actually rooted in egotism - "I want them to know
> that I did this. For THEM", "I want all the credit") that
ultimately
> allows the power elite (the 'three circles' of Church, Aristocracy
> and Mafia) to use him for their own ends.
Cimino's ending showed (after the two old men walking away from the
grave) Giuliano rearing on his white horse, silhouetted against a
full moon. Over the freeze frame appeared the last words of The Great
Gatsby. That shot was visible on the editing table when I visited
Francoise Bonnot just after they locked picture. But Begelman didn't
want to pay the Fitzgerald estate for the use of the quote. I think
the film -- and its difference from the Rosi, to which it was
universally compared -- would have been clarified if that shot and
the quote had been left in.
16624
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 3:10am
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> When is someone going to publish Cimino's novel in English? (It's
> already appeared in French translation.) Maybe Rouge Press should
> make him an offer.
He told me that when he finished it, he sat down and said to
himself, "OK, for once in my life, I'm not going to be stupid. Where
do people like me? France." And he told his agent to contact
Gallimard. My understanding (same conversation) is that he doesn't
want it published in the US, where it would be exposed to "yellow
journalism," which is how he characterizes the current media
environment.
16625
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:38am
Subject: Latest FaBlog: Anti-Intellectualism at the New York Times
http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/
Derrida, Frank Tashlin, Joe Dante, and "I Heart Huckabees."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
16626
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:06am
Subject: Re: Latest FaBlog: Anti-Intellectualism at the New York Times
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/
They misspelled "rite of passage." They spelled it "right."
Good job, David.
16627
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:16am
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
"That's a bit harsh, but formally accurate. Yann Lardeau's
grounbreaking article in CdC noted that the three main charcacters in
Heaven's Gate are outside the "circles" (a visual figure for classes
to which they should belong: Kristofferson, Walken, Huppert. Same
thing in The Sicilian. Giulia Boschi (sp?) expressed that to me
clearly when I was on location with them: she said that her character
and Giuliano's are exceptions, "like Michael.""
The central characters in HEAVEN'S GATE believe that they can exist
outside the circles (of power, ideology and class), Salvatore
Giuliano in THE SICILIAN believes the same thing, even drawing
circles in the ground to illustrate his point. The films
systematically demonstrate that this belief is mistaken. All
these 'independent' characters end up doing is reinforcing the power
of the status quo.
16628
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:20am
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
> wrote:
>
> > When is someone going to publish Cimino's novel in English? (It's
> > already appeared in French translation.) Maybe Rouge Press should
> > make him an offer.
>
> He told me that when he finished it, he sat down and said to
> himself, "OK, for once in my life, I'm not going to be stupid.
Where
> do people like me? France." And he told his agent to contact
> Gallimard. My understanding (same conversation) is that he doesn't
> want it published in the US, where it would be exposed to "yellow
> journalism," which is how he characterizes the current media
> environment.
So maybe he'd welcome an offer from an Australian publisher!
16629
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: Latest FaBlog: Anti-Intellectualism at the New York Times
Thanks.
But perhaps that spelling was deliberate.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> wrote:
> > http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/
>
> They misspelled "rite of passage." They spelled it
> "right."
>
> Good job, David.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16630
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:07pm
Subject: Re: Latest FaBlog: Anti-Intellectualism at the New York Times
David - is the link to Hofstadter's ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM a ringing
endorsement or just a point in the direction of one (of several)
books on the topic? I read his AMERICAN POLITICAL TRADITION in high
school and ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM has been on my to-read list for a
while now and I'm just curious ...
--Zach
16631
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 2:50pm
Subject: Re: Latest FaBlog: Anti-Intellectualism at the New York Times
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> > http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/
>
> They misspelled "rite of passage." They spelled it "right."
>
> Good job, David.
They also misspelled "Ecole Normale Superieure" (they spelled
it "Normal").
They write that Derrida "failed the oral portion of his final
exam" there. There is no final exam at ENS, only a very tough
competitive entrance exam ("concours")and failing it once or several
times is more the rule than the exception.
JPC
16632
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: Latest FaBlog: Anti-Intellectualism at the New York Times
It's a ringing endorsement. It lifted the scales right
off my eyes when I as back in high school.
It should be taught everywhere.
--- Zach Campbell wrote:
>
> David - is the link to Hofstadter's
> ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM a ringing
> endorsement or just a point in the direction of one
> (of several)
> books on the topic? I read his AMERICAN POLITICAL
> TRADITION in high
> school and ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM has been on my
> to-read list for a
> while now and I'm just curious ...
>
> --Zach
>
>
>
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
16633
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Latest FaBlog: Anti-Intellectualism at the New York Times
Thanks! I'll add that.
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> > wrote:
> > > http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/
> >
> > They misspelled "rite of passage." They spelled it
> "right."
> >
> > Good job, David.
>
>
> They also misspelled "Ecole Normale Superieure"
> (they spelled
> it "Normal").
>
> They write that Derrida "failed the oral portion
> of his final
> exam" there. There is no final exam at ENS, only a
> very tough
> competitive entrance exam ("concours")and failing it
> once or several
> times is more the rule than the exception.
> JPC
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
16634
From:
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 5:42pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
Caught up with HG on DVD last week in preparation to see the movie
version of FINAL CUT this week. Just for clarity's sake, I thought
I'd point out that the tail-end of the roller skating scene -- after
Kristofferson and Bridges go out the door -- is in sepia, even if
what proceeds is not.
I think it's vaguely ridiculous to compare Averill to GWB or imply
that the end of the movie is intended as anything but a tragedy (the
coldness of the interaction between Averill and his wife says it
all), but I think it's also going way too far to say that the movie
is in any way Marxist. Cimino pays a lot of lip service to "the
poor," and the most memorable line in the movie is the one attacking
Kristofferson for his class privilege, that he's "a rich man who only
pretends to be poor." But as much as the movie attacks the rich and
extols the poor, it has very little room for actual poor people,
except as voiceless or unsubtitled masses. I suppose the same is
arguably true of THE LEOPARD, but Visconti is much more up-front
about his limited perspective and ambivalent tone, whereas Cimino
often seems to be staging spectacle merely for the sake of spectacle
-- which is a roundabout way of asking, Exactly how many 20-minute
dance sequences does one movie need?
The movie critiques the "cult of personality" to the extent that
Averill's dream of enlightening the proletariat fails (though why his
happy band don't fell more of the cattle company's men in the final
battle is beyond me, especially when they're led by a man with the
magical power to shoot multiple opponents without getting so much as
winged, not to mention fell a man with a single punch. So much for
demystification.) But it also reinforces it with the ultra-cliche
"male weepie" structure David E talks about -- the torrid "caught
between two men" structure that reduces the class-conscious sections
to interludes in the love story. You could say that Visconti loves
the myth of the past but knows it has to be killed, where Cimino
loves it too much to put it down.
Sam
16635
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:21pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
"it has very little room for actual poor people, except as voiceless
or unsubtitled masses."
Maybe you'd feel differently if you'd seen the older prints, in which
this dialogue is subtitled.
"why his happy band don't fell more of the cattle company's men in
the final battle is beyond me"
They fell loads of them! That's why the cavalry has to ride in and
rescue them.
"But it also reinforces it with the ultra-cliche "male weepie"
structure David E talks about -- the torrid "caught between two men"
structure that reduces the class-conscious sections to interludes in
the love story."
If this were true, I'm sure the film would have made a lot more money.
16636
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- samadams@e... wrote:
But as much as the movie
> attacks the rich and
> extols the poor, it has very little room for actual
> poor people,
> except as voiceless or unsubtitled masses. I suppose
> the same is
> arguably true of THE LEOPARD
Not at all. Visconti's film is explicitly about the
uper classes and how they view world events as they're
chaging around them. The poor are WAY in the
background because "The Leopard" is about the
invention of the middle-class.
"La Terra Trema" by contrast is entirely about the
poor,and its sympathies are explicitly Marxist -- even
though Visconti films the fisherman as if, in Bazin's
words, they were "Rennaisance Princes."
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16637
From:
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:00pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
I don't think we actually disagree here, but just to clarify: Both
movies are structured from an explicitly privileged point of view,
but THE LEOPARD makes you much more aware of what you're not seeing.
Lancaster admits his inability to connect with the new post-royalist
era and graciously gives up his place (itself somewhat of a romantic
gesture), where Kristofferson struggles against his birthright and is
condemned to a lifetime of joyless yachting.
HG contrives to make you feel as if you have gotten to know some of
the working-class characters, but unless you recognize Brad Dourif
under that beard, they're only recognizable as physical types. The
scene in which the camera flashes over the faces of the crowd as
Averil reads the "death list" feels like one long Eisenstein
reference (or maybe it's just the woman in the granny glasses), but
once the fighting starts, the film spends a lot more time following
Bridges and Huppert than any of the masses it purportedly cares for.
One more "get down!" and I was going to lose it.
Sam
>
>
>--- samadams@e... wrote:
>
>But as much as the movie
>> attacks the rich and
>> extols the poor, it has very little room for actual
>> poor people,
>> except as voiceless or unsubtitled masses. I suppose
>> the same is
>> arguably true of THE LEOPARD
>
>Not at all. Visconti's film is explicitly about the
>uper classes and how they view world events as they're
>chaging around them. The poor are WAY in the
>background because "The Leopard" is about the
>invention of the middle-class.
>
>"La Terra Trema" by contrast is entirely about the
>poor,and its sympathies are explicitly Marxist -- even
>though Visconti films the fisherman as if, in Bazin's
>words, they were "Rennaisance Princes."
>
16638
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:05pm
Subject: Re: A is A / Rivette's evidence
"A is A. Reality offers no ambiguity, rising into the consciousness
in the full light of evidence. It is these constant flashes of light
which open the way to knowledge, not those systems which substitute
a dance of the mind for the way the world moves on."
(Mourlet, "Beauté de la connaissance", Cahiers # 111 '60).
I'm sorry to come again on that subject when the battle is over, but
I wasn't much there past week to follow all the posts, and I can't
refrain from, shortly, brooding over my obsessions. For what's worth
as excus...
About Rio Lobo ("Veillesse du Même", Cahiers #230 '71), Daney
writes: « No salvation outside the divine rays of the camera». The
word « divine » is not innocent, or purely incidental (his point was
there about the relation to death, off-screen). Is the fundamental
difference between cinema as a reproduction device or an instrument
of revelation purely rhetorical? If, for the cineaste, it must
takes some nerve trying to bring the world from nothing, from a
tensed hand or an eye's blinking; for the viewer, the effort cannot
be lesser to accept such a wager – an act of faith. There is no
proof; there can't be any proof. You just buy it or you don't, as
says Jean-Pierre. However, I don't think it's so superfluous to
stress again that "all is on the screen". In relation to the above
words by Daney, Chabrol wrote somewhere some insightful comments
about Lang's last pieces, where the negation of off-screen would be
more radical than ever: the character exists if and only if he is on
screen. When the screen delimits not only what is – objectively,
obviously – to be seen, but also – moreover – what comes to the
world.
The words of Rivette and Mourlet touch me because they expressed, at
its highest point, the ambition of an art, and the mystery of its
reception, where unconscious fascination has a large part. Two years
after his infamous text on Hawks, Rivette tried again with
Rossellini (Lettre sur Rossellini, Cahiers #46 '55): "Yes I have a
very special admiration for Rossellini's latest film. On what
grounds? Ah, that's where its gets more difficult. I cannot invoke
exaltation, emotion, joy: these are terms you will scarcely admit as
evidence." Come then a dozen pages where the film is actually
little mentioned, except through its "vast melodic phrase,
continuous arabesque, single implacable line which leads people
ineluctably toward the as yet unknown, embracing in its trajectory a
palpitant and definitive universe." A certain idea of cinema. Was
there more to say?
« Every critic must be expressed in terms of light and shade, oxygen
and asphyxiation, flight and crawling. Cries, murmurs, glares,
stridencies, music: what only matters is the tone of the voice,
because it contains all. The rest is literature. » (Mourlet, "La
hauteur de ton")
Maxime
16639
From:
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:07pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
>
> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:21:54 -0000
> From: "thebradstevens"
>Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
>
>
>"it has very little room for actual poor people, except as voiceless
>or unsubtitled masses."
>
>Maybe you'd feel differently if you'd seen the older prints, in which
>this dialogue is subtitled.
Are the new "restored" prints subtitled? Do we know Cimino's
intention in this area? My assumption was he wanted the audience to
be as at sea as Averill is. The intense claustrophobia of the first
scene by the railroad tracks suggested as much.
Sam
16640
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Derrida & films
Derrida's interview in Cahier #556 ("Le cinéma et ses fantômes").
Where he mentions a certain specifity of cinema compared to other
arts. Re : Rivette's evidence (?): « If had to write on cinema, what
would especially interest me would be its mode and its system
of "belief". There is in cinema a modality of "believe" quite
peculiar: one century ago was invented an experiment of belief
without precedent. »
16641
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:20pm
Subject: Re: Derrida & films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
>
> Derrida's interview in Cahier #556 ("Le cinéma et ses fantômes").
> Where he mentions a certain specifity of cinema compared to other
> arts. Re : Rivette's evidence (?): « If had to write on cinema,
what
> would especially interest me would be its mode and its system
> of "belief". There is in cinema a modality of "believe" quite
> peculiar: one century ago was invented an experiment of belief
> without precedent. »
I haven't read that. What's the French words he used for "belief"
and "believe"?
Was he talking about cinema's power to make us "believe" in what we
know is not true or "real" (sur le mode du "je sais bien mais quand
meme...")
16642
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 8:32pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
"Are the new "restored" prints subtitled?"
I wish I knew.
"Do we know Cimino's intention in this area? My assumption was he
wanted the audience to be as at sea as Averill is."
My guess is that the absence of subtitles from recent prints,
together with the absence of the sepia tint from the roller skating
scene, is the result of carelessness on the part of whoever prepared
the DVD transfers.
16643
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:14pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When is someone going to publish Cimino's novel in English?
(It's
> > > already appeared in French translation.) Maybe Rouge Press
should
> > > make him an offer.
> >
> > He told me that when he finished it, he sat down and said to
> > himself, "OK, for once in my life, I'm not going to be stupid.
> Where
> > do people like me? France." And he told his agent to contact
> > Gallimard. My understanding (same conversation) is that he
doesn't
> > want it published in the US, where it would be exposed to "yellow
> > journalism," which is how he characterizes the current media
> > environment.
>
> So maybe he'd welcome an offer from an Australian publisher!
Nice thought, but I believe worldeide rights were sold to Gallimard.
Unless he withheld US -- but I was told they got the whole thing.
16644
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:20pm
Subject: Visconti (Was: Heaven's Gate)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
as much as the movie attacks the rich and
> extols the poor, it has very little room for actual poor people,
> except as voiceless or unsubtitled masses. I suppose the same is
> arguably true of THE LEOPARD, but Visconti is much more up-front
> about his limited perspective and ambivalent tone, whereas Cimino
> often seems to be staging spectacle merely for the sake of
spectacle
You could say that Visconti loves
> the myth of the past but knows it has to be killed, where Cimino
> loves it too much to put it down.
>
> Sam
This isn't an argument, just a point of inforemation: Cimino's three
favorite filmmakers are Ford, Kurosawa and Visconti. That doesn't of
course mean that he replicates their art.
UCLA is having a big Vosconti retro now -- has anyone been going?
16645
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 9:41pm
Subject: Godard on Rossellini and Visconti
In "Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962" Andrew Sarris wrote "Godard
once remarked that Visconti had evolved from a metteur en scene to an
auteur, whereas Rossellini had evolved from an auteur to a metteur en
scene." Where and when did Godard say this and why?
Jack Angstreich
16646
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Derrida & films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" >
> I haven't read that. What's the French words he used for
> "belief" and "believe"?
> Was he talking about cinema's power to make us "believe" in
> what we know is not true or "real" (sur le mode du
> "je sais bien mais quand meme...")
in French only...
"Si j'écrivais sur le cinéma, ce qui m'intéresserait surtout serait
son mode et son régime de "croyance". Il y a au cinéma une modalité
du "croire" tout à fait singulière : on a inventé, il y a un siècle,
une expérience sans précédent de la croyance. Il serait passionnant
d'analyser le régime du "crédit" dans tous les arts : comment on
croit à un roman, à certains moments d'une représentation théâtrale,
à ce qui est inscrit dans la peinture et, bien sûr, ce qui est tout
autre chose, à ce que le cinéma nous montre et nous raconte. Au
cinéma, on croit sans croire, mais ce croire sans croire reste un
croire. On a affaire, sur l'écran, avec ou sans les voix, à des
apparitions auxquelles, comme dans la caverne de Platon, le
spectateur croit, apparitions qu'on idolâtre parfois. Puisque la
dimension spectrale n'est ni celle du vivant, ni celle du mort, ni
celle de l'hallucination, ni celle de la perception, le modalité du
croire qui s'y rapporte doit être analysée d'une façon absolument
originale. Cette phénoménologie-là n'était pas possible avant le
cinématographe car cette expérience du croire est liée à une
technique particulière, celle du cinéma, elle est historique de part
en part. Avec cette aura supplémentaire, cette mémoire particulière
qui nous permet de nous projeter dans les films d'antan. C'est pour
cela que la vision du cinéma est tellement riche. Elle permet de
voir apparaître de nouveaux spectres tout en gardant en mémoire (et
de les projeter alors sur l'écran à leur tour) les fantômes hantant
les films déjà vus."
16647
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:48pm
Subject: Vincente Minnelli and THE BRIBE
Does anyone know if there is any truth to the rumor that Vincente
Minnelli did some uncredited directing on Robert Z Leonard's THE
BRIBE (1948)? Minnelli is credited with working on this film by
various sources, none of them particularly reliable. THE BRIBE's
chase climax so strikingly anticpates SOME CAME RUNNING's finale that
attributing its direction to Minnelli could simply be a case of
wishful thinking - but the stylistic bravura on display here is
hardly typical of Robert Z Leonard.
16648
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:58pm
Subject: Re: Derrida & films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
>
> > I haven't read that. What's the French words he used for
> > "belief" and "believe"?
> > Was he talking about cinema's power to make us "believe" in
> > what we know is not true or "real" (sur le mode du
> > "je sais bien mais quand meme...")
>
> in French only...
>
> "Si j'écrivais sur le cinéma, ce qui m'intéresserait surtout
serait
> son mode et son régime de "croyance". Il y a au cinéma une
modalité
> du "croire" tout à fait singulière : on a inventé, il y a un
siècle,
> une expérience sans précédent de la croyance. Il serait
passionnant
> d'analyser le régime du "crédit" dans tous les arts : comment on
> croit à un roman, à certains moments d'une représentation
théâtrale,
> à ce qui est inscrit dans la peinture et, bien sûr, ce qui est
tout
> autre chose, à ce que le cinéma nous montre et nous raconte. Au
> cinéma, on croit sans croire, mais ce croire sans croire reste un
> croire. On a affaire, sur l'écran, avec ou sans les voix, à des
> apparitions auxquelles, comme dans la caverne de Platon, le
> spectateur croit, apparitions qu'on idolâtre parfois. Puisque la
> dimension spectrale n'est ni celle du vivant, ni celle du mort, ni
> celle de l'hallucination, ni celle de la perception, le modalité
du
> croire qui s'y rapporte doit être analysée d'une façon absolument
> originale. Cette phénoménologie-là n'était pas possible avant le
> cinématographe car cette expérience du croire est liée à une
> technique particulière, celle du cinéma, elle est historique de
part
> en part. Avec cette aura supplémentaire, cette mémoire
particulière
> qui nous permet de nous projeter dans les films d'antan. C'est
pour
> cela que la vision du cinéma est tellement riche. Elle permet de
> voir apparaître de nouveaux spectres tout en gardant en mémoire
(et
> de les projeter alors sur l'écran à leur tour) les fantômes
hantant
> les films déjà vus."
Yes, that's what I thought, and I think he's absolutely right
here. "A believing without believing that is still a believing." And
that is always taken for granted and therefore not analyzed.
16649
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 0:05am
Subject: Re: Derrida & films
Maxime Renaudin (but Derrida, originally) wrote:
>Cette phénoménologie-là n'était pas possible avant le
>cinématographe car cette expérience du croire est liée à une
>technique particulière, celle du cinéma, elle est historique de part
>en part. Avec cette aura supplémentaire, cette mémoire particulière
>qui nous permet de nous projeter dans les films d'antan. C'est pour
>cela que la vision du cinéma est tellement riche.
>
>
Interesting...
I hear echoes of Dai Vaughan: "Documentary represents a mode of
cognition which may scarcely be said to have existed before 1895." The
kind of belief associated with fiction film is, after all, a queer
mutation of the kind of belief engendered by documentary.
-Matt
16650
From: Andy Rector
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:33am
Subject: Re: A is A / Rivette's evidence
"I've defended Clint Eastwood since he started directing. I like all
his films, even the jokey "family" films with that ridiculous monkey,
the ones that everyone are trying to forget – they're part of his
oeuvre, too. In France, we forgive almost everything, but with
Altman, who takes risks each time he makes a film, we forgive
nothing. Whereas for Pollack, Frankenheimer, Schatzberg...risk
doesn't even exist for them. The films of Eastwood or Altman belong
to them and no one else: you have to like them."
-Rivette, March '98
16651
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:46am
Subject: Re: Re: A is A / Rivette's evidence
C'est vrai!
--- Andy Rector wrote:
>
> "I've defended Clint Eastwood since he started
> directing. I like all
> his films, even the jokey "family" films with that
> ridiculous monkey,
> the ones that everyone are trying to forget –
> they're part of his
> oeuvre, too. In France, we forgive almost
> everything, but with
> Altman, who takes risks each time he makes a film,
> we forgive
> nothing. Whereas for Pollack, Frankenheimer,
> Schatzberg...risk
> doesn't even exist for them. The films of Eastwood
> or Altman belong
> to them and no one else: you have to like them."
>
> -Rivette, March '98
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
16652
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:09am
Subject: Christopher Reeve is Dead
L.A. Weekly columnist Nikki Finke is reporting that
actor Christopher Reeve is dead, "according to sources
close to the actor." He died suddenly Sunday. News of
his death has not been reported publicly yet. His
family will make an announcement Monday at the
earliest. Reeve was just mentioned Friday in the
second live presidential debate by John Kerry. Noting
he was a friend of the paralysed Reeve, Kerry said he
was in favor of further stem cell research because
Reeve could walk again one day thanks to such science.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16653
From:
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:01am
Subject: Re: Christopher Reeve is Dead
It's on the wires now, David. A great loss. I'll always remember Reeve for
his simply brilliant comic performances in Lester's "Superman II" and "III"
and Bogdanovich's "Noises Off..."
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16654
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:51am
Subject: re: Notre Musique's anti-semitism?
Sorry for those who have already read about this on FILM-PHILOSOPHY, but I'm
interested to hear anybody's opinion here - or any varying reports - on the
matter:
After a screening of her new Demain on Demenage at Toronto Film Fest,
"someone asked Chantal Akerman what her next
project would be and she replied that she for a while
she was considering making a movie about Israel,
partly to counteract what she perceived as
anti-semitism in Notre Musique. She then delivered
quite a passionate diatribe against Godard's film,
claiming that it was hateful towards Jews."
(I am quoting a post by Rob Ruzic on FILM-PHILOSOPHY)
Adrian
16655
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 0:17pm
Subject: Re: Christopher Reeve is Dead
> Reeve was just mentioned Friday in the
> second live presidential debate by John Kerry. Noting
> he was a friend of the paralysed Reeve, Kerry said he
> was in favor of further stem cell research because
> Reeve could walk again one day thanks to such science.
When the stem cell issues come up at the third debate, Kerry can look
Bush straight in the eye, and tell him, "Mr. President, first you
killed Ronald Reagan. Now you killed Superman. There you go again."
RIP Reeve.
16656
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 0:34pm
Subject: Did anyone tape JUDEX last night on TCM?
I am kicking myself for neglecting to record this. If anyone did, please send
me a PM. I really appreciate it!!!
Kevin
16657
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:36pm
Subject: Re: A is A / Rivette's evidence
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:
>
> "I've defended Clint Eastwood since he started directing. I like
all
> his films, even the jokey "family" films with that ridiculous
monkey,
> the ones that everyone are trying to forget – they're part of his
> oeuvre, too. In France, we forgive almost everything, but with
> Altman, who takes risks each time he makes a film, we forgive
> nothing. Whereas for Pollack, Frankenheimer, Schatzberg...risk
> doesn't even exist for them. The films of Eastwood or Altman
belong
> to them and no one else: you have to like them."
>
> -Rivette, March '98
I'm not sure who the "we" refers to in Rivette's statement "with
Altman... we forgive nothing." Seems to me he is as admired in
France as Eastwood or anybody else. Personally I have written very
positively (if I may venture the joke)about both. And I'd take
exception to the contention that Pollack, Frankenheimer, Schatzberg
have never taken risks... But we'd need the context of all this and
I haven't seen the whole interview.
JPC
16658
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 1:51pm
Subject: Re: Did anyone tape JUDEX last night on TCM?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
>
> I am kicking myself for neglecting to record this. If anyone did,
please send
> me a PM. I really appreciate it!!!
>
> Kevin
I was going to, and at the last minute realized I had run out of
blank tape! Couldn't decide what to erase... I did tape the first
three episodes last week. JPC
16659
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:20pm
Subject: The Unthinking Reed
Speaking of anti-intellectualism in the New York press (see David's
take on the Times' Derrida obit), check out Rex Reed's piece
on "Huckabees" in the New York Observer (October 4). He calls it "a
piece of crap" that 'sinks to new depths of incoherent
pretentiousness." And while he is at it he lauches into a diatribe
against "hollow, juvenile and superficial trash" that includes,
among many other films, Mullolland Drive, Lost Highway, Being John
Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Confessions of a
dangerous mind, and, oh, yes, going back in time, even Brewster
McCLoud. Reed goes on to dismiss Wes Anderson, Paul Thomas Anderson,
Spike Jonze, "freaky" Todd Solondz and 'the dismally overrated non-
writer Charlie Kaufman" as "Film's New Hacks" (the title of his
piece). Those of us who thought some of those guys were doing new
and exciting things should feel embarrassed and revise our opinions,
right? JPC
16660
From: rpporton55
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:34pm
Subject: Some DVD queries
A few , perhaps naive, DVD queries. Perhaps someone can cure my befuddlement:
George Axelrod's "Lord Love a Duck" is a great favorite of mine. A friend of mine, however,
was annoyed that the MGM DVD omitted some self-consciously reflexive moments in
which a boom mike is (deliberately) conspicuous. After a bit of research, I discovered that
these shots were eventually excised from the film when they appeared to "confuse"
audiences during Lord's original release. My friend nevertheless pointed out that these
reflexive shots (not sure I would go as far as to call them "Brechtian") are still included on
the VHS version, also available from MGM. (a used copy can be obtained for a few dollars
on amazon.com.) Why the discrepancy?
On another matter, someone else claimed that the DVD of Salo is a rare item that fetches
high prices on E-bay. (Since I've never shopped on E-Bay , I wouldn't know.) But I
discovered that a discount outlet on 14th ST. in Manhattan is selling copies of the (out of
print?) Criterion edition of Salo for $14.99. So is it a rare item or not?
Richard Porton
16661
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:53pm
Subject: Re: Some DVD queries
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "rpporton55"
wrote:
>
>
> A few , perhaps naive, DVD queries. Perhaps someone can cure my
befuddlement:
>
> George Axelrod's "Lord Love a Duck" is a great favorite of mine. A
friend of mine, however,
> was annoyed that the MGM DVD omitted some self-consciously
reflexive moments in
> which a boom mike is (deliberately) conspicuous. After a bit of
research, I discovered that
> these shots were eventually excised from the film when they
appeared to "confuse"
> audiences during Lord's original release. My friend nevertheless
pointed out that these
> reflexive shots (not sure I would go as far as to call
them "Brechtian") are still included on
> the VHS version, also available from MGM. (a used copy can be
obtained for a few dollars
> on amazon.com.) Why the discrepancy?
> On another matter, someone else claimed that the DVD of Salo is a
rare item that fetches
> high prices on E-bay. (Since I've never shopped on E-Bay , I
wouldn't know.) But I
> discovered that a discount outlet on 14th ST. in Manhattan is
selling copies of the (out of
> print?) Criterion edition of Salo for $14.99. So is it a rare item
or not?
>
> Richard Porton
16662
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:58pm
Subject: Re: Some DVD queries [SALO]
> On another matter, someone else claimed that the DVD of Salo is a
> rare item that fetches
> high prices on E-bay. (Since I've never shopped on E-Bay , I wouldn't
> know.) But I
> discovered that a discount outlet on 14th ST. in Manhattan is selling
> copies of the (out of
> print?) Criterion edition of Salo for $14.99. So is it a rare item or
> not?
It is a rare item, and it has been known to fetch in excess of $500,
but it's not worth it. It's most probable that the discount store you
mention is selling bootlegs (there was a batch of bootlegs with a
"white rim" around the centre of the disc).
Furthermore, the Criterion edition is inferior to the bfi UK R2 DVD
(which has an extra scene).
I wouldn't be surprised if a brand-spanking new anamorphic Criterion
re-release happened soon. Just speculatin'
-Nick>-
16663
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:59pm
Subject: Re: Some DVD queries
> A friend of mine, however,
> was annoyed that the MGM DVD omitted some self-consciously
reflexive moments in
> which a boom mike is (deliberately) conspicuous. After a bit of
research, I discovered that
> these shots were eventually excised from the film when they
appeared to "confuse"
> audiences during Lord's original release. My friend nevertheless
pointed out that these
> reflexive shots (not sure I would go as far as to call
them "Brechtian") are still included on
> the VHS version, also available from MGM. (a used copy can be
obtained for a few dollars
> on amazon.com.) Why the discrepancy?
Richard, the discrepancy is most likely just the difference between a
full-frame VHS master and a DVD matted for 1.85, which would have
eliminated the microphones at the top of the image.
> On another matter, someone else claimed that the DVD of Salo is a
rare item that fetches
> high prices on E-bay. (Since I've never shopped on E-Bay , I
wouldn't know.) But I
> discovered that a discount outlet on 14th ST. in Manhattan is
selling copies of the (out of
> print?) Criterion edition of Salo for $14.99. So is it a rare item
or not?
>
That original Criterion disc is still very rare and very valuable
among collectors. The disc you are seeing in that store (and keep it
under your hat)is an illegal dupe.
16664
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:12pm
Subject: Re: Vincente Minnelli and THE BRIBE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if there is any truth to the rumor that Vincente
> Minnelli did some uncredited directing on Robert Z Leonard's THE
> BRIBE (1948)? Minnelli is credited with working on this film by
> various sources, none of them particularly reliable. THE BRIBE's
> chase climax so strikingly anticpates SOME CAME RUNNING's finale
that
> attributing its direction to Minnelli could simply be a case of
> wishful thinking - but the stylistic bravura on display here is
> hardly typical of Robert Z Leonard.
This is my second attempt to reply to this post so forgive me if you
end up seeing double: I've never heard about Minnelli working on
this film but I have heard rumors that it was Anthony Mann who shot
the chase. Studio records would, of course, be the next place to look.
16665
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:34pm
Subject: Re: The Unthinking Reed
The star of "Myra Breckinridge" should hold his
tongue.
I'm sure his readers are mystified by the "Brewster
McCloud" reference, however.
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Speaking of anti-intellectualism in the New York
> press (see David's
> take on the Times' Derrida obit), check out Rex
> Reed's piece
> on "Huckabees" in the New York Observer (October 4).
> He calls it "a
> piece of crap" that 'sinks to new depths of
> incoherent
> pretentiousness." And while he is at it he lauches
> into a diatribe
> against "hollow, juvenile and superficial trash"
> that includes,
> among many other films, Mullolland Drive, Lost
> Highway, Being John
> Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,
> Confessions of a
> dangerous mind, and, oh, yes, going back in time,
> even Brewster
> McCLoud. Reed goes on to dismiss Wes Anderson, Paul
> Thomas Anderson,
> Spike Jonze, "freaky" Todd Solondz and 'the dismally
> overrated non-
> writer Charlie Kaufman" as "Film's New Hacks" (the
> title of his
> piece). Those of us who thought some of those guys
> were doing new
> and exciting things should feel embarrassed and
> revise our opinions,
> right? JPC
>
>
>
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
16666
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:34pm
Subject: re: 'Boom mike in shot'
I can't comment on the strategies, deliberate or otherwise, of LORD
LOVE A DUCK, but I have long been fascinated by this business of the
'full frame' vs 'matted' prints and/or projections of films.
I remember reading an illuminating piece by Tim Lucas on this in FILM
COMMENT probably over a decade ago.
Am I right in saying that MANY films have boom mikes (and other details
that Lucas pointed to, such as unpainted or unfinished edges of the
set) that we are NEVER meant to see, because the matting procedure is
assumed as the industry norm?
With movie projection as lax and lousy as it is these days, sometimes
filmgoers and reviewers are 'exposed' to these edge-bits - and then
assume them to be faults or gaffes of the cinematography or direction.
For instance, there is a critic in Melbourne who has a running gag
about what he calls directors identifiable by their special mise en
scene of 'boom mike in shot'. He happened to see two Altman films of
the past decade poorly projected in the same crummy arthouse cinema -
with boom mikes galore in evidence. Hence Altman became his all-time
example of 'bad, sloppy' director !!!!!!
So, the question re LORD LOVE A DUCK might indeed be: were those boom
mikes actually deliberate, 'reflexive' additions to the image, meant to
be seen?
And is this a case of Rivettian 'the evidence is on the screen'???
(Just kidding. Actually, JR's PONT DU NORD had some of the most
flagrant 'boom mikes in shot' I've ever seen, intruding in way beyond
the matting edge!!)
Adrian
16667
From: rpporton55
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 3:44pm
Subject: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
ector !!!!!!
>
> So, the question re LORD LOVE A DUCK might indeed be: were those boom
> mikes actually deliberate, 'reflexive' additions to the image, meant to
> be seen?
> >
> Adrian
Well, unless George Axelrod was pulling our leg and covering up for studio
incompetence, I've always heard that the boom mikes in Duck were a deliberate strategy.
Whether it's a particularly big deal is another matter, but fans of the film seem to care.
Either way, it seems that MGM has duck on its face and should make amends for their
error if they want to offer a definitive DVD of the film. RP
16668
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
--- rpporton55 wrote:
>
> Well, unless George Axelrod was pulling our leg
> and covering up for studio
> incompetence, I've always heard that the boom mikes
> in Duck were a deliberate strategy.
Not at all. I recall an interview with Axelrod many
years ago in which he complained that the DP, Danny
Fapp, hated him so much that he disregarded the
placement of the mics, allowing them to be seen in
some of the shots -- a fact Axelrod discovered when he
saw the rushes. He was told that matting would take
care of the problem.
Mics can also be seen in "Shampoo" and "The
Exterminating Angel"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16669
From: J. Mabe
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:15pm
Subject: Re: re: 'Boom mike in shot'
Speaking of bad framing... does anyone know if Isaach de Bankolé’s dialogue in Ghost Dog was subtitled for theatrical release? I watched Ghost Dog in that AMC theater in Times Square and there were no subtitles, but there have been subtitles in all subsequent viewings on cable and DVD (and I think I like it better without). I’ve always wondered if it was intentional or just poor projection.
Josh Mabe
Adrian Martin wrote:I can't comment on the strategies, deliberate or otherwise, of LORD
LOVE A DUCK, but I have long been fascinated by this business of the
'full frame' vs 'matted' prints and/or projections of films.
I remember reading an illuminating piece by Tim Lucas on this in FILM
COMMENT probably over a decade ago.
Am I right in saying that MANY films have boom mikes (and other details
that Lucas pointed to, such as unpainted or unfinished edges of the
set) that we are NEVER meant to see, because the matting procedure is
assumed as the industry norm?
With movie projection as lax and lousy as it is these days, sometimes
filmgoers and reviewers are 'exposed' to these edge-bits - and then
assume them to be faults or gaffes of the cinematography or direction.
For instance, there is a critic in Melbourne who has a running gag
about what he calls directors identifiable by their special mise en
scene of 'boom mike in shot'. He happened to see two Altman films of
the past decade poorly projected in the same crummy arthouse cinema -
with boom mikes galore in evidence. Hence Altman became his all-time
example of 'bad, sloppy' director !!!!!!
So, the question re LORD LOVE A DUCK might indeed be: were those boom
mikes actually deliberate, 'reflexive' additions to the image, meant to
be seen?
And is this a case of Rivettian 'the evidence is on the screen'???
(Just kidding. Actually, JR's PONT DU NORD had some of the most
flagrant 'boom mikes in shot' I've ever seen, intruding in way beyond
the matting edge!!)
Adrian
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16670
From: rpporton55
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:17pm
Subject: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- rpporton55 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Well, unless George Axelrod was pulling our leg
> > and covering up for studio
> > incompetence, I've always heard that the boom mikes
> > in Duck were a deliberate strategy.
>
> Not at all. I recall an interview with Axelrod many
> years ago in which he complained that the DP, Danny
> Fapp, hated him so much that he disregarded the
> placement of the mics, allowing them to be seen in
> some of the shots -- a fact Axelrod discovered when he
> saw the rushes. He was told that matting would take
> care of the problem.
>
> Mics can also be seen in "Shampoo" and "The
> Exterminating Angel"
Well, this is interesting. The only interview I have on hand with Axelrod is in a P.
MicGilligan anthology which doesn't include any discussion of the matter. I was really quite
oblivious to all of this until someone who loves the film complained about the absence of
boom mikes in the DVD. Perhaps this is an odd example of viewers creating their own
interpretation and preferring the botched version to the correction. You have to admit that
the boom mikes go well with the zaniness of the film and don't seem as inapppropriate as
they might in , say, Shampoo. RP
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16671
From:
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
On the first floor of the dorms where I lived as an undergrad, there was a little theatre that showed first run films shortly before or immediately after they were released on video. (It was one of the few places in North America where you could actually smoke while watching a film. And during my freshman year, an alternative film society holed up there and showed HAIL MARY, the original BATMAN movie, etc. Yes, yes, all on film.) Many of the films weren't properly matted (I guess that's the right term; I'm quite brain dead about aspect ratios). For instance, not only could you see MANY boom mics in PRETTY WOMAN but you could also see that Richard Gere was wearing speedos in a bathtub scene. I suspect boom mics exist in the shots of most Hollywood features.
So what kind of challenge does this pose to film purists? Can you claim to have seen the film if you haven't seen the boom mics and such?
Kevin John
16672
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:52pm
Subject: Re: Vincente Minnelli and THE BRIBE
"I've never heard about Minnelli working on this film"
Simon Callow mentions the Minnelli rumor in his biography of Charles
Laughton, and I seem to recall the usually reliable FILM DOPE listing
it in their Minnelli filmography. Minnelli's participation is
mentioned in listings magazines whenever THE BRIBE plays on UK TV.
"I have heard rumors that it was Anthony Mann who shot the chase."
That's a new one on me!
"Studio records would, of course, be the next place to look."
Sounds like a job for...BillKrohnMan!
16673
From:
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:53pm
Subject: CAFE FLESH (WAS: Re: The Piano Teacher)
<>
Perhaps it's fitting, then, that one of the few bonafide pornos to gain any critical acclaim, CAFE FLESH, features deliberately offputting and unsexy hardcore sex scenes. It's miserable for everyone across the board. Or so it would seem - I've yet to meet anyone turned on by this film. Any takers?
Kevin John
16674
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:59pm
Subject: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "rpporton55"
wrote:
"Well, unless George Axelrod was pulling our leg and covering up for
studio incompetence, I've always heard that the boom mikes in Duck
were a deliberate strategy."
He was pulling our collective leg. When asked about the presence of
the boom mike in the shot he answered facetiously that it was
deliberately reflexive and there for the benefit of the Cahiers
crowd, but then he immediately followed up with saying that it was
studio incompetence. Someone must have fixed on the first part of
Axelrod's answer and passed it on as fact. I don't recall where the
interview first appeared but I have a friend who can find out.
Richard M
16675
From: rpporton55
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:03pm
Subject: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> On the first floor of the dorms where I lived as an undergrad, there was a little theatre
that showed first run films shortly before or immediately after they were released on
video. (It was one of the few places in North America where you could actually smoke while
watching a film. And during my freshman year, an alternative film society holed up there
and showed HAIL MARY, the original BATMAN movie, etc. Yes, yes, all on film.) Many of the
films weren't properly matted (I guess that's the right term; I'm quite brain dead about
aspect ratios). For instance, not only could you see MANY boom mics in PRETTY WOMAN
but you could also see that Richard Gere was wearing speedos in a bathtub scene. I
suspect boom mics exist in the shots of most Hollywood features.
>
> So what kind of challenge does this pose to film purists? Can you claim to have seen the
film if you haven't seen the boom mics and such?
In the case of LORD LOVE A DUCK, there is an assumption among some admirers of the
film that the version with the boom mikes is in fact the correct one. This might well be the
cinematic equivalent of an urban legend and could perhaps correspond to the naivete of
a student I once heard about who , after seeing CONTEMPT projected without an
anamorphic lens, began to praise Godard's "El Greco-like" compositions. But there does
seem to be some sort of qualitative difference between these two examples... RP
>
> Kevin John
16676
From: rpporton55
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:09pm
Subject: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "rpporton55"
> wrote:
>
> "Well, unless George Axelrod was pulling our leg and covering up for
> studio incompetence, I've always heard that the boom mikes in Duck
> were a deliberate strategy."
>
>
> He was pulling our collective leg. When asked about the presence of
> the boom mike in the shot he answered facetiously that it was
> deliberately reflexive and there for the benefit of the Cahiers
> crowd, but then he immediately followed up with saying that it was
> studio incompetence. Someone must have fixed on the first part of
> Axelrod's answer and passed it on as fact. I don't recall where the
> interview first appeared but I have a friend who can find out.
>
Well, this would seem to be the logical explanation for all of the confusion that has
ensued. It's pretty amusing and the film actually seems to work (for me at least) with or
without the boom mikes. It would be interesting to track down the interview you're citing
here. Thanks for clearing the matter up.
RP
16677
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:09pm
Subject: CAFE FLESH (WAS: Re: The Piano Teacher)
"CAFE FLESH, features deliberately offputting and unsexy hardcore sex
scenes."
It's interesting how so many porno films with 'artistic' ambitions
take an unambiguously pessmistic attitude towards sexuality. Gerard
Damiano's films of the 70s are incredibly 'offputting' (THE STORY OF
JOANNA is probably the most impressive - a truly remarkable
achievement), culminating in the absolutely misanthropic SKIN FLICKS.
Incidentally, I understand that CAFE FLESH's director Stephen
Sayadian is now very ill, and unlikely to live much longer.
16678
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Vincente Minnelli and THE BRIBE
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> Simon Callow mentions the Minnelli rumor in his
> biography of Charles
> Laughton
I've found the quote in Callow's Laughton book:
"The film is 'The Bribe.' little known now,
littleliked then, but in fact a rather good film with
a distinctly wow finish -- a chase through a foiesta
against a background of exploding fireworks. (It is
unkindly suggested that this sequence was in fact
directed by Vincente Minnelli. It's worthy of him.) "
It should also be noted that Carl Reiner's "Dead Men
Don't Wear Plaid," in which Steve Martin is edited and
superimposed into several movies, to form a kind of
film noir meta-film, makes extensive use of "The
Bribe."
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16679
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:52pm
Subject: Re: Notre Musique's anti-semitism?
Adrian:
> After a screening of her new Demain on Demenage at Toronto Film
Fest,
> "someone asked Chantal Akerman what her next
> project would be and she replied that she for a while
> she was considering making a movie about Israel,
> partly to counteract what she perceived as
> anti-semitism in Notre Musique. She then delivered
> quite a passionate diatribe against Godard's film,
> claiming that it was hateful towards Jews."
Akerman said (in perhaps a more muddled manner than this reviewer
acknowledges) that Godard is wrong for equating violence against
Jews with violence against Native Americans.
I asked Akerman a follow-up on this the next day, interviewing her
one-on-one, but all she had to say was, "I was so shocked when I saw
it [NOTRE MUSIQUE]"... and "let's talk about it another time."
We were supposed to meet up again in Chicago, but she didn't make it
into town, possibly because of passport complications (she had lost
hers in Toronto). She did, however, assure me that she wasn't going
to make this film to counter NOTRE MUSIQUE. And she has always
famously said (actually I don't know if this is a famous anecdote or
not) that she started making films because of Godard, because one
day she walked into Pierrot le fou and it changed her life...
Gabe
16680
From: Travis Miles
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Akerman (was Notre Musique)
The "reaction against" seems to be a sort of operative principle for Akerman
in this last decade. She has said that Sud was a direct response to Harmony
Korine's Gummo; she was perplexed and distressed by her students' enthusiasm
for Korine when she taught at Harvard.
On 10/11/04 1:52 PM, "Gabe Klinger" wrote:
>
>
>
> Adrian:
>
>> After a screening of her new Demain on Demenage at Toronto Film
> Fest,
>> "someone asked Chantal Akerman what her next
>> project would be and she replied that she for a while
>> she was considering making a movie about Israel,
>> partly to counteract what she perceived as
>> anti-semitism in Notre Musique. She then delivered
>> quite a passionate diatribe against Godard's film,
>> claiming that it was hateful towards Jews."
>
> Akerman said (in perhaps a more muddled manner than this reviewer
> acknowledges) that Godard is wrong for equating violence against
> Jews with violence against Native Americans.
>
> I asked Akerman a follow-up on this the next day, interviewing her
> one-on-one, but all she had to say was, "I was so shocked when I saw
> it [NOTRE MUSIQUE]"... and "let's talk about it another time."
>
> We were supposed to meet up again in Chicago, but she didn't make it
> into town, possibly because of passport complications (she had lost
> hers in Toronto). She did, however, assure me that she wasn't going
> to make this film to counter NOTRE MUSIQUE. And she has always
> famously said (actually I don't know if this is a famous anecdote or
> not) that she started making films because of Godard, because one
> day she walked into Pierrot le fou and it changed her life...
>
> Gabe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
16681
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:18pm
Subject: Re: Notre Musique's anti-semitism?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> Akerman said (in perhaps a more muddled manner than this reviewer
> acknowledges) that Godard is wrong for equating violence against
> Jews with violence against Native Americans.
I haven't seen the film, but I assume you meant to
write "Palestinians."
One thing Akerman has learned from Godard is how to come up with
dicta that get you quoted by defaming more famous directors. I
remember her saying at around the time Coppola was struggling to save
his studio that he had "wasted" the famous Las Vegas set in One from
the Heart, assuring the Cahiers interviewers that she would have made
better use of it if she could have goten her hands on it. I guess
Toute une nuit was the walk that went with that talk -- personally, I
was so bored by it that I turned it off after about 20 minutes. But
she certainly seems to have her fans, including some of my best
friends...
16682
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "rpporton55"
> wrote:
>
> "Well, unless George Axelrod was pulling our leg and covering up
for
> studio incompetence, I've always heard that the boom mikes in
Duck
> were a deliberate strategy."
>
>
> He was pulling our collective leg. When asked about the presence
of
> the boom mike in the shot he answered facetiously that it was
> deliberately reflexive and there for the benefit of the Cahiers
> crowd, but then he immediately followed up with saying that it was
> studio incompetence. Someone must have fixed on the first part of
> Axelrod's answer and passed it on as fact. I don't recall where
the
> interview first appeared but I have a friend who can find out.
>
> Richard M
The reference to Cahiers is interesting, because around that time
(late sixties -- LORD LOVE A DUCK is 1966) Cahiers made a great fuss
over a French film (can't remember which; perhaps a Garrel? Bill K.
would know) in which the director had deliberately shown the camera
tracks in his shots. The daring of not concealing the apparatus, you
know... JPC
16683
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:24pm
Subject: Re: Christopher Reeve is Dead
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ciccone" wrote:
>
> When the stem cell issues come up at the third debate, Kerry can
look
> Bush straight in the eye, and tell him, "Mr. President, first you
> killed Ronald Reagan. Now you killed Superman. There you go again."
>
Reeve must have felt a special kind of frustration watching this
cowardly, venal administration block research that could help him and
others just to court votes from its Pharasaic base. I hope the
outpouring of feeling and discussion over the death of this heroic
man helps us tie a can to the tail of Georg K. (for Kryptonite) Bush
and run him out of town on November 2.
16684
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Notre Musique's anti-semitism?
--- hotlove666 wrote:
I guess
> Toute une nuit was the walk that went with that talk
> -- personally, I
> was so bored by it that I turned it off after about
> 20 minutes.
Actually it would have been "The Golden 80's"
But
> she certainly seems to have her fans, including some
> of my best
> friends...
>
She's far from untalented. Several of her films are
lovely. But she's a pretentious, pugnacious
pain-in-the-butt.
She "discovered" her Jewish roots after reading
Singer's "The Manor and the Estate" and set about
hounding the poor old man for the rights. He never
gave in.
Barbra Streisand was a day at the beach compared to
Chantal.
>
>
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16685
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:29pm
Subject: Showing the apparatus (was Boom mike in shot)
We know there is a boom mike, and also all sorts of equipment
necessary, or useful, to make a movie -- including a camera. Why not
show them all -- if only as a distancing gesture? Maybe Derrida
would have like the idea (deconstructing "croyance"). JPC
16686
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:30pm
Subject: Schatzberg (Was:A is A / Rivette's evidence)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
I'd take
> exception to the contention that Pollack, Frankenheimer, Schatzberg
> have never taken risks... But we'd need the context of all this and
> I haven't seen the whole interview.
> JPC
Certainly my belated discovery of early Schatzberg at Amiens (via
Panic in Needle Park and Scarecrow) confirms that, JP. To me
Scarecrow is the East Coast equivalent of Two Lane Blacktop -- one of
the great films of that era. I guess there were things to forgive
later. Certainly there have been with Eastwood and Altman! But
Rivette is right that there isn't really a Schatzberg signature,
perhaps because he didn't have an opportunity to develop one.
16687
From: rpporton55
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:33pm
Subject: Re: Showing the apparatus (was Boom mike in shot)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> We know there is a boom mike, and also all sorts of equipment
> necessary, or useful, to make a movie -- including a camera. Why not
> show them all -- if only as a distancing gesture? Maybe Derrida
> would have like the idea (deconstructing "croyance"). JPC
Or , to invoke Victor Shklovsky, can you "bare the device" without meaning to do so?
RP
16688
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:38pm
Subject: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> Mics can also be seen in "Shampoo" and "The
> Exterminating Angel"
>
In the last shot of La hija del engano (Bunuel's remake of his
unsigned Spanish film Don Quintin, el amargao) the camera dollies in
on Fernado Soler, throwing a highly visible shadow on the back of his
coat. I think that was an accident -- the film was reportedly shot so
fast that Bunuel had to frame out parts of the sets that hadn't had
time to be built. Nonetheless, this also the film where the camera is
put in a cupboard and the door closed for over 30 seconds.
16689
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Vincente Minnelli and THE BRIBE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> "Studio records would, of course, be the next place to look."
>
> Sounds like a job for...BillKrohnMan!
Oddly, I have never known where and how to access MGM records.
16690
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:50pm
Subject: Re: Schatzberg (Was:A is A / Rivette's evidence)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
> I'd take
> > exception to the contention that Pollack, Frankenheimer,
Schatzberg
> > have never taken risks... But we'd need the context of all this
and
> > I haven't seen the whole interview.
> > JPC
>
> Certainly my belated discovery of early Schatzberg at Amiens (via
> Panic in Needle Park and Scarecrow) confirms that, JP. To me
> Scarecrow is the East Coast equivalent of Two Lane Blacktop -- one
of
> the great films of that era. I guess there were things to forgive
> later. Certainly there have been with Eastwood and Altman! But
> Rivette is right that there isn't really a Schatzberg signature,
> perhaps because he didn't have an opportunity to develop one.
Exactly. Schatzberg started his career as a director when he was
already in his forties, with three major films, masterpieces even,
in three years: "Puzzle of a Downfall Child", "Panic in Needle Park"
and "Scarecrow" -- none of them look dated today. They were all
underrated or dismissed by American critics. Later JS had no end of
trouble with studios and producers. "Misunderstood" was mangled by
Damon and Ben Amar, and Cannon mis-handled the remarkable "Street
Smart" which was barely distributed. "Honeysuckle Rose" -- a film
almost unknown -- although uneven is full of delightful bits and
pieces. "Reunion", a French-German-English production, is equally
obscure in the US and I have never seen it (Pinter wrote the
script). JS's last (?) film, "The Day the Ponies Come back" was a
total disappointment to me but it has some fans. JPC
16691
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:54pm
Subject: Re: Vincente Minnelli and THE BRIBE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Studio records would, of course, be the next place to look."
> >
> > Sounds like a job for...BillKrohnMan!
>
> Oddly, I have never known where and how to access MGM records.
Aren't they all in the hands of Ted Turner, somewhere in Atlanta?
16692
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:58pm
Subject: CAFE FLESH (WAS: Re: The Piano Teacher)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> <
at all for you or anyone else.>>
>
> Perhaps it's fitting, then, that one of the few bonafide pornos to
gain any critical acclaim, CAFE FLESH, features deliberately
offputting and unsexy hardcore sex scenes. It's miserable for
everyone across the board. Or so it would seem - I've yet to meet
anyone turned on by this film. Any takers?
>
> Kevin John
None for me, thanx. The premise and the mise-en-scene alike are, as
the French say, "the cure for love. " I like the film, but I'm not
turned on by watching sexual spectacles being performed by the few
memebers of the human race who can still get it on after a nuclear
war, for an audience composed of the rest of the population, who
still feel desire but get sick to their stomachs if they act on it.
Andrew Repasky McElhinney dedicated Georges Bataille's Story of the
Eye to Feuillade and the director of Cafe Flesh, whom I discovered
(although his name escapes me) while doing a write-up of ARM's film
when it premiered in Philadelphia.
A recent discovery: Cinefile gave me a tape of Ice Cream Man, an
interesting slasher directed by "Norman Apstein," which imdb tells me
is the non-porn name of a director who made 19 X-rated films the same
year under his porn name, Paul Norman. Ice Cream Man (starring,
surprisingly, Clint Howard, Sandahl Bergman (sp?), Olivia Hussey and
David Warner) is clearly a try at a Tim Burton pastiche, with much
queasier subject matter than Burton at his boldest would attempt, so
I was not surprised to learn that Norman's extensive hardcore output
(all of his filmography except for ICM) includes the legendary (for
the title) Edward Penishands and its two sequels. But no doubt (to
quote Andrew Sarris), "That way lies madness."
16693
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:05pm
Subject: CAFE FLESH (WAS: Re: The Piano Teacher)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> "CAFE FLESH, features deliberately offputting and unsexy hardcore
sex
> scenes."
>
> It's interesting how so many porno films with 'artistic' ambitions
> take an unambiguously pessmistic attitude towards sexuality. Gerard
> Damiano's films of the 70s are incredibly 'offputting' (THE STORY
OF
> JOANNA is probably the most impressive - a truly remarkable
> achievement), culminating in the absolutely misanthropic SKIN
FLICKS.
That's true, but my recollection of Joanna is that it contains the
only scene where an individual on whom fellatio is being performed
actually comes in the other individual's mouth and not on her face. I
still remember this detail of a film I saw in a theatre many years
ago because it was a rare moment of almost von Stroheimian realism in
a genre where the "money shot" is enshrined as a permanent (and
deeply anti-erotic) convention.
>
> Incidentally, I understand that CAFE FLESH's director Stephen
> Sayadian is now very ill, and unlikely to live much longer.
I tell Andy to send him a DVD of GBSOTE with the dedication. It would
be right up his alley (and not at all up Feulillade's).
16694
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:10pm
Subject: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> The reference to Cahiers is interesting, because around that time
> (late sixties -- LORD LOVE A DUCK is 1966) Cahiers made a great
fuss
> over a French film (can't remember which; perhaps a Garrel? Bill K.
> would know) in which the director had deliberately shown the camera
> tracks in his shots. The daring of not concealing the apparatus,
you
> know... JPC
It was a Garrel. They didn't stay with the idea that showing the
equipment was a deconstructive gesture for very long -- Bonitzer
deconstructed it in its turn about 4 years after the Garrel article.
But showing-the-camera was being done a lot back then -- the most
famous example probably being the ending of One Plus One. Haskell
Wexler did it at the end of Medium Cool etc.
16695
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:18pm
Subject: CAFE FLESH (WAS: Re: The Piano Teacher)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
But no doubt (to
> quote Andrew Sarris), "That way lies madness."
I hate to sound pedantic, but Sarris was quoting Shakespeare ("King
Lear" Acte III, sc IV: "O! That way madness lies, let me shun that.")
16696
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:27pm
Subject: CAFE FLESH (WAS: Re: The Piano Teacher)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> But no doubt (to
> > quote Andrew Sarris), "That way lies madness."
>
> I hate to sound pedantic, but Sarris was quoting Shakespeare ("King
> Lear" Acte III, sc IV: "O! That way madness lies, let me shun
that.")
For an auteurist critic, Sarris IS Shakespeare (or was...).
16697
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:27pm
Subject: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
> > The reference to Cahiers is interesting, because around that
time
> > (late sixties -- LORD LOVE A DUCK is 1966) Cahiers made a great
> fuss
> > over a French film (can't remember which; perhaps a Garrel? Bill
K.
> > would know) in which the director had deliberately shown the
camera
> > tracks in his shots. The daring of not concealing the apparatus,
> you
> > know... JPC
>
> It was a Garrel. They didn't stay with the idea that showing the
> equipment was a deconstructive gesture for very long -- Bonitzer
> deconstructed it in its turn about 4 years after the Garrel
article.
> But showing-the-camera was being done a lot back then -- the most
> famous example probably being the ending of One Plus One. Haskell
> Wexler did it at the end of Medium Cool etc.
Of course in order to show the camera you have to use another
camera (unless you show it in a mirror) which itself cannot be shown
unless you use a third camera and so on ad infinitum. A true
deconstructive conondrum.
16698
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:37pm
Subject: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
The CDC didn't stay with the idea that showing the
> > equipment was a deconstructive gesture for very long -- Bonitzer
> > deconstructed it in its turn about 4 years after the Garrel
> article.
> > But showing-the-camera was being done a lot back then -- the most
> > famous example probably being the ending of One Plus One. Haskell
> > Wexler did it at the end of Medium Cool etc.
>
>
> Of course in order to show the camera you have to use another
> camera (unless you show it in a mirror) which itself cannot be
shown
> unless you use a third camera and so on ad infinitum. A true
> deconstructive conondrum.
That was one of Pascal's points.
16699
From: rpporton55
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:43pm
Subject: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The reference to Cahiers is interesting, because around that
> time
> > > (late sixties -- LORD LOVE A DUCK is 1966) Cahiers made a great
> > fuss
> > > over a French film (can't remember which; perhaps a Garrel? Bill
> K.
> > > would know) in which the director had deliberately shown the
> camera
> > > tracks in his shots. The daring of not concealing the apparatus,
> > you
> > > know... JPC
> >
> > It was a Garrel. They didn't stay with the idea that showing the
> > equipment was a deconstructive gesture for very long -- Bonitzer
> > deconstructed it in its turn about 4 years after the Garrel
> article.
> > But showing-the-camera was being done a lot back then -- the most
> > famous example probably being the ending of One Plus One. Haskell
> > Wexler did it at the end of Medium Cool etc.
>
>
> Of course in order to show the camera you have to use another
> camera (unless you show it in a mirror) which itself cannot be shown
> unless you use a third camera and so on ad infinitum. A true
> deconstructive conondrum.
For what it's worth, despite the exchanges here, my friend is still convinced that the
boom mikes in LORD LOVE A DUCK were meant as deliberate alienation effects. It doesn't
really matter to me either way, but it makes sense if you look at the film—esp. since the
Tuesday Weld character becomes a movie star towards the end and the mikes seem more
obtrusive (and , if my memory is correct, even sway back and forth) than in films where
the presence of the boom is an obvioius mistake. Of course, if R. Mondiano can find that
interview with Axelrod he mentioned, the case will be definiteively closed. and the self-
conscious reflexivity of the boom mikes in LORD will be put to rest as an urban cinematic
legend. RP
16700
From:
Date: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:11pm
Subject: BIRTH OF A NATION - 1st anything?
Is THE BIRTH OF A NATION the first anything? It's certainly not the first feature-length film. It's supposed to be the first film shown at The White House but I hear that CABIRIA was show "on the grounds" of The White House. Can anyone confirm? And speaking of CABIRIA, THE BIRTH OF A NATION is certainly not the first epic film. But is it the first American epic film? Not sure how exactly to define "epic" either but I'd wager that it means big budget, over two hours at least, preferably over two and half hours., etc. Anyone?
Kevin John
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact