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.
17101
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:24am
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
"Before the list becomes "unavailable" again, let me post the URL for
my Full Metal Jacket article"
Where Bill goes, I must follow. You can find MY piece on the film
here:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/02/21/full_metal.html
This is based on sleeve notes I wrote for FULL METAL JACKET's UK DVD
box set - Warner Bros. rejected this entire section, since they were
only interested in information on the film's production history.
"Godard would no doubt agree w. Gabe -- he never stopped disliking
Kubrick, and went on tv to demonstrate why FMJ was a bad film, frame
by frame."
Now that I'd like to see!
17102
From:
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:02am
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
Just re-read Brad Stevens article on Kubrick & "Full Metal Jacket".
This is a good article, and a largely true account of the basic anti-war
theme of 3 Kubrick films: "Paths of Glory", "Full Metal Jacket", and as best as I
can tell without having seen it, "Dr. Strangelove" (the thought of seeing a
film on nuclear war terrifies me). Plus I am a pacifist, and I am deeply
anti-war myself.
So why don't I like Kubrick's movies?
As far as I can see, the full anti-war content of these films can be summed
up in a few paragraphs, as Brad Stevens does in this article. The actual films,
which take hours to unreel, add little to these ideas.
Kubrick's films certainly have thematic ideas, sometimes good ones. What they
lack is storytelling, characterization, visual style, etc: most of the things
that make up a good movie.
Admittedly, as Hollywood makes more and more nauseating "war is good"
propoganda films, Kubrick's anti-war stance seems ever more morally impressive. I am
NOT trying to justify the ghastly war movie drek pouring out of Hollywood
today.
Still, Kubrick's ideas are hardly original. The critique of war as futile and
a machinery of destruction was common currency of pacifism for over a hundred
years.
Getting back to the "gap" between pro and anti-Kubrick camps: thematic
discussion of Kubrick is not going to bridge this gap. We anti's agree that Kubrick
has themes. We just don't think he makes very good movies.
Mike Grost
17103
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:39pm
Subject: Re: The Letter
>
> It was me and not J-P who finds the orientalism of THE LETTER an
> obstacle. As I recall J-P called it "a fine movie."
>
I'm glad I am absolved! If racist attitudes in old Hollywood
movies were obstacles to enjoying them (and there's no doubt that
they sometimes are) then we'd have to reject most films that
portray "the Other" -- minorities, blacks, Hispanics, foreigners in
general, Asians in particular -- as was the case in THE LETTER. I'm
sure it never ocurred to Wyler to "distance" himself from his white
characters' natural, matter-of-fact "racism" (he had no reason to
challenge his own material). The Sondergaard character is a
fascinating caricature of all the Asian cliches -- mysterious,
unscrutable, cruel to the point of sadism, exotically sexy in a way
repulsive to the whites -- except to the mysterious Hammond who, for
unexplained (kinky?) reasons, has dumped respectable and oh-so-white
Bette Davis for "that awful woman."
Although I think BEST YEARS is by far Wyler's best film, THE
LETTER is one that I have enjoyed again and again over the years,
and the racial stereotypes are essential to its success. I love Sen
Yung's performance as the assistant to the attorney.
JPC
17104
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:20pm
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
> "On the ground" perhaps so, but one of my issues with "Full Metal
> Jacket"
> > and the rest of them is this 'purposelessness hell' stuff disguises
> a strategy
> > of very intense purpose; Vietnam, Iraq, we've got purpose galore....
> >
> > -Sam
>
> This is true. And it's the reason that Aldrich's TWILIGHT'S LAST
> GLEAMING is the greatest film about the Vietnam war.
One more on my unseen list. Interestingly, ULANZA'S RAID has been
recommended to me in the same light. I'd like to catch up.
That said, in researching my own work on the subject, it's easy to
overdose on American representation of "Nam"
Why I went and shot there: "Nam" isn't quite there anymore, that place
"Nam" doesn't really exist now in Viet Nam.
(One reason, I think, why when Bush & Kerry were starting to snipe
about war records last Feb, - this was on CNN Asia every morning -
the Vietnamese atitude was like "WTF is THAT about ?"
-Sam W
17105
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:34pm
Subject: Vietnam films and Aldrich (Was: Total piece of shit)
thebradstevens wrote:
> ....Aldrich's TWILIGHT'S LAST
> GLEAMING is the greatest film about the Vietnam war.
I like "Twilight's Last Gleaming," but I'd make a case for Aldrich's
"Choirboys" as the ultimate Vietnam film -- I should add this comes from
someone who hasn't seen many favorite Vietnam films, though I have seen
"Apocalypse Now," "Coming Home," "Platoon," "Full Metal Jacket."
"Choirboys" begins with maybe one minute in Vietnam, a firefight, before
settling into its gross-out story of LA Cops chained nude to trees and
ducks who appear to give blowjobs. It includes an offensive gay
stereotype that's so ridiculous that it's hard to take seriously, and is
balanced by a gay youth treated with relative sympathy. But what I love
about it, if "love" can be applied to this ultra-crude film, is the way
the total meaninglessness of its action and the total disorientation of
its space seem to flow from that opening: the flame obliterates the
coordinates of space, so to speak, to the point where all that's left is
crudity and masochism. This all makes it a film about the shadows of
meaningless war, the effects of a wrong war.
Most Aldrich lovers I know hate it. Jonathan Rosenbaum seems to
(http://onfilm.chicagoreader.com/movies/capsules/1895_CHOIRBOYS), and
his description of it as "a sort of Animal House celebrating police
corruption" seems accurate, though his little good-humored snipe at
cinephiles like me cracked me up rather than annoyed.
Fred Camper
17106
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:32pm
Subject: Re: Full Metal Jacket + Kubrick (was: Godard on DV / total piece of shit)
Just to throw a curve, I should point out that it would be difficult
for any Vietnamese in Vietnam to participate in this discussion
as access to Yahoo Groups is - or at least was last Feb/March
blocked by Govt. firewall......
There's a popular bar in tp Ho Chi Minh/Saigon called "Apocalypse Now"
and I think now one called "Platoon" Don't know if there's a "Full Metal
Jacket" bar yet; it wouldn't surprise me if I found one on my next visit...
Then again a bar down the street from my hotel featured a *Kara Walker*
reproduction over the front door..... the place never seemed to be open,
though.....
-Sam
(FWIW I watched "The Devil, Probably" on TV in my Saigon hotel room,
hmm, could I do that here at a Holiday Inn ? !!)
17107
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:40pm
Subject: Re: Vietnam films and Aldrich (Was: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> thebradstevens wrote:
"I like 'Twilight's Last Gleaming,' but I'd make a case for Aldrich's
'Choirboys' as the ultimate Vietnam film -- I should add this comes
from someone who hasn't seen many favorite Vietnam films, though I
have seen 'Apocalypse Now,' 'Coming Home,' 'Platoon,' 'Full Metal
Jacket.'"
KARMA (1985) by Ho Quang Minh was one Viet Nam war movie made by a
Vietnamese and shot on location that was released in the West. It
was a 16mm black & white picture (blown up to 35mm) that is framed by
the funeral of an ARVN soldier and takes the point of view of his
widow. The picture unfolds in flashbacks and each act is punctuated
by a funeral. The combat scenes were reminiscent of Fuller's THE
STEEL HELMET. US personnel exist in the background the way the
Vietnamese exist as background in US Viet Nam movies. It should be
screened as a double feature with all those Hollywood Viet Nam movies
mentioned above.
Richard
17108
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:27pm
Subject: Re: Vietnam films and Aldrich (Was: Total piece of shit)
I've heard many many good things about KARMA, including a rather rave
review - on the somewhat defunct "Vietnam Generation" web site
by a US veteran:
"The Vietnamese, if one dare generalize, dwell in a land scoured by light
and have a particular gift for the play of light"
(enough right there to get me interested !!)
Richard, where did you see this ? Available on DVD ?
Actually a print rental source would be interesting as a programmer I know
is floating the idea to me of doing a Vietnam themed show next year.
Re Hollywoodnam, in the Cineaste interview Tran Anh Hung says
"the first Rambo film" [First Blood] was very interesting. It transposed
the Vietnam war to the United States"
-Sam Wells
> KARMA (1985) by Ho Quang Minh was one Viet Nam war movie made by a
> Vietnamese and shot on location that was released in the West. It
> was a 16mm black & white picture (blown up to 35mm) that is framed by
> the funeral of an ARVN soldier and takes the point of view of his
> widow. The picture unfolds in flashbacks and each act is punctuated
> by a funeral. The combat scenes were reminiscent of Fuller's THE
> STEEL HELMET. US personnel exist in the background the way the
> Vietnamese exist as background in US Viet Nam movies. It should be
> screened as a double feature with all those Hollywood Viet Nam movies
> mentioned above.
>
> Richard
17109
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:28pm
Subject: Re: Vietnam films and Aldrich (Was: Total piece of shit)
> It should be
> screened as a double feature with all those Hollywood Viet Nam movies
> mentioned above.
>
> Richard
Even sight unseen I think I agree with you.
-Sam
17110
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:59pm
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
> Before the list becomes "unavailable" again, let me post the URL for
> my Full Metal Jacket article, which just showed up on a Kubrick
> website:
>
> http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0104.html
This is a *very* interesting review, Bill !
I think I might have an issue with "superior form of realism" - but:
"Stone, who was there, has portrayed it in images copied from TV coverage of the
war and myriad other war films, so that the shock of discovering a new reality Is
mediated by images that are believable because they are already familiar"
...I think is right on the money.
Meanwhile another "division" in my brain can't help but think what FMJ
would have been had it been shot in 65mm B&W, which apparrently he did
for the first week of production before abandoning that plan.
-Sam W
17111
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:10pm
Subject: Re: Vietnam films and Aldrich (Was: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>
> > It should be
> > screened as a double feature with all those Hollywood Viet Nam
movies
> > mentioned above.
> >
> > Richard
>
> Even sight unseen I think I agree with you.
>
> -Sam
The "shit" has hit the fan in more ways than one!
TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING was scripted by a blacklisted writer who
was very aware of American politics. Indeed, the opening images in
the original screenplay contained a "Living Newspaper" anthology of
the dark side of American political history beginning with the
Lincoln assassination and moving towards the film's present time. It
was a shame this sequence was cut out of the film.
Yes, KARMA is an outstanding film along with WHEN THE TENTH MONTH
COMES. I screen both these Vietnamese films in my Vietnam in
Literature and Film class whenever possible. Both appeared in the
original 1988 roadshow of films from the Republic of Vietnam but
only appeared in major cities. They are presently locked up in the
UCLA Film Archive for several reasons. Perhaps the powers-that-be
never wanted screen images of the Vietnamese as human beings to
reach a wider audience - apart from budget reasons?
For those seeking KARMA and living in the Philadelphia area, I'd
recommend a visit to La Salle University's "Imaginative
Representations of the Vietnam War" curated by Vietnam Veteran and
Library Director John Baky. He does have a copy of KARMA on video.
The irritating thing about many of these Vietnamese films is that
they are not generally accessible. A request I sent to the
Vietnamese Embassy in London for copies never reached them as I
learned when I spoke to the Cultural Attache some years ago. I
wonder where my original letter went and where it is filed now?
I appreciate Fred's comments on THE CHOIRBOYS, particularly in
relation to the opening scene. However, as William Aldrich
said, "Nobody emerged with any credit from that film." The author of
the book Jospeh Wambaugh took his name off the credits. But if you
read the novel, all the faults critics condemned Aldrich for appear
in the novel - and much worse.
Howver, among the redeeming features of the film are the
sympathetic depiction of the young gay and Burt Young's sympathy
towards him as well as the ending Aldrich added to replace
Wambaugh's original which appeared both in the novel and the
novelist's own screenplay. It involves Spermwhale's getting back at
the system and redeeming himself like Charley Davis in BODY AND
SOUL. This ending may not be artistically or thematically
satisfactory but it least again reveals "le gros Robert"'s heart
being in the right place - but not in its present political
connotations. He did try to modify the bleak nature of the novel's
original conclusion.
Tony Williams
17112
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 6:19pm
Subject: Re: Vietnam films and Aldrich (Was: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
"'The Vietnamese, if one dare generalize, dwell in a land scoured by
light and have a particular gift for the play of light'
"(enough right there to get me interested !!)"
That anonymous reviewer is right about the use of light. I also
remember being impressed by the use of combat sounds in certain
scenes, and the overall ingenuity of suggesting a larger world beyond
what the filmmaker was able to show given the limited means at his
disposal.
I saw KARMA at an Asian film festival in 1990. According to the
program notes the distributor is Pacific Visions, Inc. if that's any
help. I hope someone is able to resurrect it since it deserves a
wider audience.
Richard
17113
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:14pm
Subject: Stan Brakhage's "Stately Mansions Did Decree"
If you receive our group's posts by email and haven't looked at our
group's main Web page for a while, there's a new "still" there, three
two frame strips from a great late 5-minute Brakhage film, "Stately
Mansions Did Decree." There's also a larger version in the "Files"
section, and larger versions of some past homepage stills there too.
My plan is to continue to change these every few months, retaining a
bias toward avant-garde film especially as a counterweight to the
subjects of the majority of posts here.
This relatively little known work is one of Brakhage's greatest, a
handpainted explosion of color. Most frames were repeated once, so that
each of the frames you see on our page were actually adjacent to
identical frames; a four frame strip would have shown the repetition.
This repetition slows down the rhythm enough to make the individual
compositions a bit more visible. Brakhage tended to use two, three, or
four frame repetitions; more than four, he used to say, put one in
danger of creating a "slide show." Instead you're always perched on a
kind of expectationary cusp, never able to "grasp" what's before you as
a flood of new imagery wipes out the old like an onrushing flood. The
same may be said of most of Brakhage's handpainted films, and part of
his aesthetic was to place the viewer in the present instant (he was
inspired by Gertrude Stein's "continuous present).
He also took seriously the idea that "all that is, is light," which he
got from Ezra Pound's quotation of a medieval philosopher, and in his
last decades began speculating on the electrical nature of thought.
The strips from "Stately Mansions Did Decree" represent the film pretty
well, if you can imagine those images going by incredibly rapidly and
colliding with each other. The whole film is like a gigantic energy
field of somewhat ethereal and immaterial light patterns. The patterns
are complex enough and changeable enough to make a world, but this world
seems continually charged with energy, and, most importantly,
continually changing.
The title is a dual literary reference: to Coleridge's famous poem,
"Kubla Khan" ("In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree"), but also to a Eugene O'Neill play I
haven't yet read.
Fred Camper
17114
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:31pm
Subject: Re: Vietnam films and Aldrich (Was: Total piece of shit)
> For those seeking KARMA and living in the Philadelphia area, I'd
> recommend a visit to La Salle University's "Imaginative
> Representations of the Vietnam War" curated by Vietnam Veteran and
> Library Director John Baky. He does have a copy of KARMA on video.
Just checked their web site. I can't thank you enough for putting me on to this
resource !
(I'm 1 hr. drive from Philly)
-Sam Wells
17115
From:
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:52pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
Have just read Bill Krohn's piece on "Full Metal Jacket" (Kubrick) at:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0104.html
This is a really complex article!
It suggests that what is key in Kubrick are his anti-narrative structures,
ways in which he subverts narrative conventions. Here, Kubrick's target is the
traditional war film.
Kubrick's goal: fresh perception of the world, in new ways.
This is a formalist reading of Kubrick, suggesting concentration on unique,
different narrative strategies. Or perhaps anti-narrative strategies.
Other Kubrick films certainly "explode narrative", as Kubrick put it: the
finale of "2001" most famously.
I will have to keep on watching Kubrick (whose work has only been seen here
in part) with these radically different ideas about the director in mind.
Many cinephiles today seem oriented to what might be called semi-narrative
films. These films are not strongly based in narrative, in the tradition of
classical cinema such as Renoir, Griffith, Mizoguchi, Lang, Hitchcock, Rossellini,
etc. Nor are they non-narrative, such as much of Brakhage, Belson,
Fischinger, de Hirsch, Mekas, Rice etc. Instead they have very thin narrative lines that
are in a non-priviledged role in the film. One thinks of Tarkovsky, Kubrick,
Tsai, Kiarostami, etc. Many cinephiles seem to find this their preferred mode
of cinema.
Mike Grost
17116
From:
Date: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:05pm
Subject: Re: Stan Brakhage's "Stately Mansions Did Decree"
I have not read O'Neill's play "More Stately Mansions" yet either!
But the title is a quote from a poem that is very good: "The Chambered
Nautilus" by Oliver Wendell Holmes.
It is on-line at:
http://www.bartleby.com/102/107.html
You can see films of a real live chambered nautilus (one of the most
primitive surviving molluscs in the world) in one of David Attenborough's nature
documentary series, "The Living Planet", if memory serves. The nautilus has a
beautiful spiral shell. It keeps building new chambers of the shell, linked to the
cycles of the moon, spiralling outward from the center. These are the "stately
mansions" in which the nautilus lives.
I have never had a chance to see this Brakhage film. I was totally
overwhelmed by the painted films on the "by Brakhage" DVD.
Mike Grost
17117
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:46am
Subject: Re: Vietnam films and Aldrich (Was: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> thebradstevens wrote:
>
> > ....Aldrich's TWILIGHT'S LAST
> > GLEAMING is the greatest film about the Vietnam war.
>
> I like "Twilight's Last Gleaming," but I'd make a case for
Aldrich's
> "Choirboys" as the ultimate Vietnam film -- I should add this comes
from
> someone who hasn't seen many favorite Vietnam films, though I have
seen
> "Apocalypse Now," "Coming Home," "Platoon," "Full Metal Jacket."
>
Of the titles you cited, Platoon comes closes to an immersive view of
Vietnam (as opposed to an exploration of the causes, which is what
Twilight was more about); I'm just not a big fan of its
sentimentality.
My personal fave is Hamburger Hill. Directed very quietly by an
underrated craftsman, John Irvin (the I think very good Tinker Tailor
Soldier Spy, and my 2nd fave Schwarzenegger film, Raw Deal). Part of
it was shot in our countryside farm, by the way (has nothing to do
with my choice, I swear).
17118
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:52am
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
> my Full Metal Jacket article, which just showed up on a Kubrick
> website:
>
> http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0104.html
Interesting article, Bill, especially this:
"all of Kubrick's films portray the world as a brain"
as something I've noticed (and written about) as well. The ship in
2001 looks like a huge skull with a spinal cord trailing behind; the
hotel in The Shining mimics the intricate folds of the cerebrum; the
final sniper scene is so precisely mapped out you can stepped into at
any point and know exactly where you are.
I suppose my problem with them is that some of these constructs (FMJ
in particular) seem to have little to do with reality. I like it, I
enjoy it, I think cinema has room for these kinds of intricate mind
games, but it doesn't exactly rock my world.
17119
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:07am
Subject: Judex complete
Finished Feuillade's Judex last night and it was lovely; much of
it==the multicharactered, mulistoried narrative--seems at the very
least inspired by Victor Hugo. It's old-fashioned, but not in the
embarrassing way Griffith is old-fashioned--it has an exuberant
spirit.
Interesting to note that Judex, a man seemingly alone and needing no
one but himself, is hemmed in at all sides by women--Jaqueline, with
whom he falls in love; Diana Monti (vivid-eyed Musidora--Irma Vep in
Les Vampires), with whom he struggles; and his own mother, with whom
he pleads to be released from his sworn oath. He's helped by the men-
-his brother, Cocantin, that delightful Licorice Kid (a gamin if
ever I saw one).
There was one moment that threw me off: a girl (Cocantin's fiance)
dives off the ship to try recover Diana Monti, and when the ship
docks, Cocantin asks about her, and Judex shrugs him off! Tad
callous, I thought, even if it was the punchline of a quick joke;
she helped him at one point. He could at least wonder where she
went.
Kerjean and Cocantin seem like variations on Judex's theme--one's
fate veers towards total tragedy, the other towards total happiness.
Judex is relieved to get what he does get.
17120
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:12am
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> > my Full Metal Jacket article, which just showed up on a Kubrick
> > website:
> >
> > http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0104.html
>
> Interesting article, Bill, especially this:
>
> "all of Kubrick's films portray the world as a brain"
as something I've noticed (and written about) as well.
"as a brain that malfunctions." The insight comes from Deleuze -- I
think his section on Kubrick is posted right after mine for
convenient reference on the Kubrick website. If it's from the
published English version of Cinema 1 and 2, bewar -- at least my
article was all correctly spelled before it went through the digital
meatgrinder. The Deleuze translation, which translates the French
titles of American films literally, is full of mistakes to begin with.
I think cinema has room for these kinds of intricate mind
> games, but it doesn't exactly rock my world.
Deleuze's idea of the cinema of the brain actually came to cover a
lot of ground besides Resnais and Kubrick -- one of the things I'm
uncertain about is just how much he intended it to cover. (An obvious
other example, the Coens.) I don't give much weight to the scientific
foundations Deleuze claims for his taxonomy, but it's certainly an
interesting insight into one side of modern cinema, the other being
the cinema of the body (Cassavetes, Godard). If you feel pretty much
the same way about Kubrick, Resnais and the Coens, Deleuze may be
identifying a species of modern cinema that you don't much care for.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the really interesting Serial Killer
films would be examples of "le cinema du cerveau."
17121
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:15am
Subject: Stanwyck line in Crime of Passion
In Crime of Passion, while trading barbs with a fellow San Francisco
newspaper reporter at the beginning, Stanwyck gets off a wickedly
sophisticated line that must have escaped the censors' eye: They're
talking about a sappy letter from a teenage girl who has been asked
to run away with the man she loves, but finds out that he's married.
Stanwyck: "Tell her to run away with his wife."
17122
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:33am
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> it's certainly an
> interesting insight into one side of modern cinema, the other
being
> the cinema of the body (Cassavetes, Godard).
Does Cronenberg fit in there somewhere? Cinema of the genitals,
perhaps?
>If you feel pretty much
> the same way about Kubrick, Resnais and the Coens, Deleuze may be
> identifying a species of modern cinema that you don't much care
for.
You may be right. Not a fan of a lot of Kubrick (loved Spartacus,
Strangelove, Lolita, 2001 that's it, with lesser admiraton for his
earlier films and guarded admiration for The Shining, parts of FMJ,
techinical aspects of Barry Lyndon (Thackeray should sue) and Eyes
Wide Shut). Used to like Clockwork Orange, till I read Burgess'
novel--the full edition.
Not a fan of Resnais either (tho I have to admit, Night and Fog is a
great, great film).
And the Coens are enjoyable, I think, not great.
17123
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:23am
Subject: Re: Re: Total piece of shit
--- Noel Vera wrote:
>
> Not a fan of Resnais either
WHAT?!?!!!
(tho I have to admit,
> Night and Fog is a
> great, great film).
And so are "Providence," "Muriel," "Hiroshima Mon
Amour," "Melo," "Je T'Aime Je T'Aime," "Toute la
Memoire du Monde," and the beyond sublime "Pas Sur la
Bouche."
>
> And the Coens are enjoyable, I think, not great.
>
Wildly overrated. Far too smug for their own good.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17124
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:29am
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Noel Vera wrote:
>
> >
> > Not a fan of Resnais either
>
> WHAT?!?!!!
Long-running argument, David, with no sign of ending. I'd like to
see "Je T'Aime, Je T'Aime" tho--that sounds like something I'd
really like.
> > And the Coens are enjoyable, I think, not great.
> >
> Wildly overrated. Far too smug for their own good.
Hear, hear.
17125
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:17am
Subject: TV goodies
Don't know if any of you are able to get GoodLife TV, yet another
nostalgia-filled cable network (they bill themselves as the Boomer Network),
but in amongst the cooking and antique shows are a raft of old Warner Bros.
series from my misspent youth -- Cheyenne, Sugarfoot, Maverick, Hawaiian
Eye, 77 Sunset Strip -- plus Combat!, The Gallant Men, I Spy and The Man
(and The Girl) From U.N.C.L.E. (Also F Troop, Mayberry RFD, Chico and the
Man and other sitcom horrors.)
I haven't checked if they are time-compressed, although it's likely, but
this is a minor treasure trove, directorially speaking. Boetticher, Altman,
Lupino, De Toth, Wendkos, Brahm. Not to mention, George WaGGner, Arthur
Lubin, Richard L. Bare and the never-to-be-forgotten Montgomery Pittman
(sounds like a Woody Allen character).
In upper Manhattan, the channel is available on Warner Digital at #153.
George (I never miss a Montgomery Pittman, try though I might) Robinson
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
17126
From:
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:13am
Subject: Re: TV goodies
Wish we got the GoodLife TV channel her ein Detroit.
I like Montgomery Pittman. He was a writer-director. He did the "Pappy"
episode of Maverick, where James Garner plays both himself and his father. Plus
several interesting Twilight Zones. Know nothing about him personally.
Mike Grost
17127
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:28am
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
> Does Cronenberg fit in there somewhere? Cinema of the genitals,
> perhaps?
Ha! I'd say that Cronenberg's more a cinema of the brain type
filmmaker than he is a cinema of the body (or genitals) one. That
goes for Lynch as well. That is, of course, if a cinema of the
subconscious exists as well, as a sort of sub-category.
Meanwhile, I think that "cinema of the brain" is a label that fits
Kubrick (whose films I happen to adore) like a glove.
That said, I'm only just now beginning to see Resnais' films for the
first time (!), although if my LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD experience is
anything to go by, it's going to take far more than one viewing a
piece to really "see" any of them at all; I think I might have to
relearn how to look before I can begin to say anything about them.
Personally, I have no problem with cinema of the body and cinema of
the brain co-existing with (and perhaps even complimenting?) one
another. They need not be at loggerheads. I'd just as soon watch
CONTEMPT as I would EYES WIDE SHUT.
In fact, I might even make a bizarre "brain and body" double bill
out of them at some point...!
17128
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:45am
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> > > And the Coens are enjoyable, I think, not great.
> > >
> > Wildly overrated. Far too smug for their own good.
>
> Hear, hear.
We have to review the work, not the smirk Joel Coen always has
plastered on his mug. Confusion of realms, guys.
I like Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink and Fargo...a lot.
17129
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 0:05pm
Subject: Re: Full Metal Jacket + Kubrick (was: Godard on DV / total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>
> Just to throw a curve, I should point out that it would be difficult
> for any Vietnamese in Vietnam to participate in this discussion
> as access to Yahoo Groups is - or at least was last Feb/March
> blocked by Govt. firewall......
>
If you know anybody who wants to participate, there's a simple way
to get around the firewall: instead of reading the messages on the
web, participate by e-mail, and have the group messages sent as a
daily digest.
Paul
17130
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Total piece of shit
I don't know if Jean Douchet's book "L'art d'aimer" has ever been translated
to english, but in one of the first articles (L'art d'aimer itself) he
quotes Resnais alongside with Eisenstein and Welles as the "bad guys" (Car
la tentation est forte, et peu d'artistes y échappent à un moment de leur
carrière et quelquefois jamais, d'arracher la forme à son art et de se
l'approprier, sans respect pour la forme propre et spécifique de cet art.
Ceux qui contestent Eisenstein, Welles ou Resnais me comprendront. Il lui
faut être un affluent qui enrichit et modifie par la qualité originale de sa
source le gros du fleuve dans lequel volontairement il se noie pour mieux
vivre. Il lui faut éviter cette tentation mégalomane de capter les eaux du
fleuve pour fabriquer une superbe pièce d'eau dont il se fait un miroir qui
ne réfléchit que sa propre image, orgueilleuse et solitaire. La splendeur
apparente d'une telle ouvre ne parvient pas à dissimuler qu'il s'agit là
d'une eau morte), while Lang, Walsh, Preminger would be on the good one.
That's mainly in relation to form, to the non-french readers in the list.
As for myself, I love Resnais and Welles, like some Coens (not very much
since Fargo, really) and have no definite opinion on Eisenstein and Kubrick,
even having seen nearly everything they directed: some speak strongly to me,
some don't even scratch.
----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 12:12 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Total piece of shit
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
> wrote:
> >
> > > my Full Metal Jacket article, which just showed up on a Kubrick
> > > website:
> > >
> > > http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0104.html
> >
> > Interesting article, Bill, especially this:
> >
> > "all of Kubrick's films portray the world as a brain"
> as something I've noticed (and written about) as well.
>
> "as a brain that malfunctions." The insight comes from Deleuze -- I
> think his section on Kubrick is posted right after mine for
> convenient reference on the Kubrick website. If it's from the
> published English version of Cinema 1 and 2, bewar -- at least my
> article was all correctly spelled before it went through the digital
> meatgrinder. The Deleuze translation, which translates the French
> titles of American films literally, is full of mistakes to begin with.
>
> I think cinema has room for these kinds of intricate mind
> > games, but it doesn't exactly rock my world.
>
> Deleuze's idea of the cinema of the brain actually came to cover a
> lot of ground besides Resnais and Kubrick -- one of the things I'm
> uncertain about is just how much he intended it to cover. (An obvious
> other example, the Coens.) I don't give much weight to the scientific
> foundations Deleuze claims for his taxonomy, but it's certainly an
> interesting insight into one side of modern cinema, the other being
> the cinema of the body (Cassavetes, Godard). If you feel pretty much
> the same way about Kubrick, Resnais and the Coens, Deleuze may be
> identifying a species of modern cinema that you don't much care for.
>
> If I had to guess, I'd say that the really interesting Serial Killer
> films would be examples of "le cinema du cerveau."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
17131
From:
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:32am
Subject: Deep End/Eyes Wide Shut
Anyone ever notice the striking similarities between Deep End (Skolimowski,
1970) and Eyes Wide Shut? For me, both films are captivatng and endlessly
watchable but oppressively normalizing as well which paradoxically diminishes
rewatch potential. B+ films (not a particularly good grade in my book) if I've
ever seen 'em.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
17132
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:40pm
Subject: Re: Deep End/Eyes Wide Shut
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Anyone ever notice the striking similarities between
> Deep End (Skolimowski,
> 1970) and Eyes Wide Shut?
No.
For me, both films are
> captivatng and endlessly
> watchable but oppressively normalizing as well which
> paradoxically diminishes
> rewatch potential. B+ films (not a particularly
> good grade in my book) if I've
> ever seen 'em.
>
Well that's an extrapolated quality pertaining to your
reaction, but I don't see any thematic similarity.
"Deep End" is seldom discussed anymore. But then
Skolimowski is seldom discussed anymore. "Hands Up" is
an amazing film.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17133
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:49pm
Subject: films seen in festival do rio 2004
I'm sorry I have been for a long time unable to follow the threads in this
group. First my computer had a collapse and never recovered, then I went
into this crazy schedule of four films a day and wildly writing about them
whenever I could (my efforts and the efforts of the whole Contracampo
"gang", as Fred once wrote it, can be seen at
www.contracampo.com.br/64/festivaldorio2004.htm)
All the six last Leone films in 35mm and huge screens (they're not meant to
be seen otherwise, I tell you) aside, there were several films I loved, but
only two of them blew my mind completely: Apichatpong Weerasethakul's
TROPICAL MALADY and Claire Denis' L'INTRUS. The first one is a very
different take from the equally great BLISSFULLY YOURS, though dealing also
with love on the woods, and the film goes completely insane (and truly
heartbreaking in cinematic terms) after the second half; L'INTRUS is Denis
recovering herself from the huis clos semi-fiasco of FRIDAY NIGHT and
striking where she's good at. It's a kind of best-of Denis, with all her
fetish actors (Michel Subor, Grégoire Colin, Béatrice Dalle, Ekaterina
Golubeva, Alex Descas), very strong, wild, sensuous and tactile images.
The other ones I greatly admired were Jonathan Caouette's TARNATION,
Lucrecia Martel's LA NINA SANTA, Godard's NOTRE HISTOIRE, Kiyoshi Kurosawa's
BRIGHT FUTURE, Asia Argento's THE HEART IS DECEITFUL ABOVE ALL THINGS,
Genjiro Arato's AKAME 48 WATERFALLS, Tarantino's KILL BILL V. 2, Almodovar's
BAD EDUCATION and Pablo Trapero's FAMILIA RODANTE.
Enjoyed Éric Rohmer's TRIPLE AGENT, Youssef Chahine's ALEXANDRIE... NEW
YORK, Takeshi Kitano's ZATOICHI, Richard Linklater's BEFORE SUNSET, Serge
Bozon's MODS, Rebella-Stoll's WHISKY, Breillat's ANATOMY OF HELL, Dario
Argento's THE CARD PLAYER and Pen-ek Ratanaruang's LAST LIFE ON THE
UNIVERSE.
On the brazilian premieres that are worth seeing and I hope they get to
foreign art audiences because the films are really good, two charmingly
imperfect films by veteran filmmakers: Carlos Reichenbach's CONFISCATED
GOODS and Domingos Oliveira's WOMAN TALK. Haven't seen all of the premier
films, but the general opinion is that most of them suck (the ones I saw
definitely do).
Zhang Yimou's two sword epics, HERO and HOUSE OF THE FLYING DAGGERS, seemed
much ado about nothing for me. I don't think that anyone that ever saw
something like Chang Cheh's THE TRAIL OF THE BROKEN BLADE (or, for any
matter, even KILL BILL or Kitano's worst, ZATOICHI) can really take them
seriously as pieces of cinema construction. It's for the fighting films the
equivalent of CHICAGO in musicals: these guys can't frame, these guys can't
edit!
VERA DRAKE is a melodramatic, tearjerker and populist UN AFFAIR DE FEMMES,
and is the worst Mike Leigh film I ever saw. Bruno Dumont might have seen
and loved the films of Gaspar Noe, because he turns his 29 PALMS from a
boring posed "beautiful" photographic film to a slasher-art piece of shit
that's supposed to be deranging but in fact achieves only cheapness. Those
were the two most debunkable films in the festival.
Leaving for Sao Paulo by the end of the week, where I'm gonna catch the new
Oliveira, a Kiarostami retrospective of all his feature-length films,
Gianikian's Oh Uomo, among many others... Hope that at least until the end
of the week I can follow the threads that are taking place.
ruy
17134
From:
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:54am
Subject: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
In a message dated 10/19/04 3:46:51 AM, hotlove666@y... writes:
> We have to review the work, not the smirk Joel Coen always has
> plastered on his mug. Confusion of realms, guys.
>
But Bill, you can read that smirk in the work. You can see it in the way he
frames his characters. And he maintains an enormous distance from them at all
times. The use of music in FARGO, for instance, is meant to prevent us from
diving too deeply into the proceedings. I often like his/their films in spite of
themselves (FARGO, RAISING ARIZONA, O BROTHER, etc.). But I always feels like
he's laughing at me for crying or being moved or even just caring. He's the
anti-McCarey. Gawd - can you possibly imagine what a bungle Coen would have made
of MY SON JOHN?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
17135
From:
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 0:06pm
Subject: Re: Deep End/Eyes Wide Shut
In a message dated 10/19/04 10:47:39 AM, cellar47@y... writes:
> I don't see any thematic similarity.
>
SPOILERS
Both are Dante-esque descents into hell. Both are triggered by urban/sexual
panic. Both parade a series of sexual grotesqueries in front of our ever so
white and heterosexual males. Both punish some of those sexual grotesqueries with
death (and/or imminent death). Both wind up normalizing white, heterosexual
males (even though we grow increasingly repulsed by Mike in DEEP END, Susan's
ridiculous, arbitrary death places him slightly ahead in the no
punishment/normalizing sweepstakes). And yet both are the work of master directors...
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
17136
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:25pm
Subject: Re: films seen in festival do rio 2004
Ruy, I agree with you on the Denis and Weerasethakul. Michel
Subor in L'intrus and the tiger in Tropical Malady even
compliment one another!
But what do you like in FAMILIA RODANTE?????
Gabe
17137
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:34pm
Subject: Re: films seen in festival do rio 2004
> Bruno Dumont might have seen
> and loved the films of Gaspar Noe, because he turns his 29 PALMS from a
> boring posed "beautiful" photographic film to a slasher-art piece of
> shit
> that's supposed to be deranging but in fact achieves only cheapness.
I'm not a fan of Gaspar Noé nor do I really care for the "New Extreme
French Cinema" or whatever James Quandt calls it, but I am a fan of
Dumont, and moreover I loved 'Twentynine Palms.' Of course it took a
Frenchman to make the most honest narrative film about America I've
seen in the last year or two.
craig.
17138
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:41pm
Subject: Re: Deep End/Eyes Wide Shut
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> Both are Dante-esque descents into hell.
With Skolimowski it's more like Purgatory.
Both are
> triggered by urban/sexual
> panic.
Only in Kubrick. Coming-of-age isn't "urban/sexaul
Panic"
Both parade a series of sexual grotesqueries
> in front of our ever so
> white and heterosexual males.
Kubirck wou;ldn't have cast Diana Dors.
Both punish some of
> those sexual grotesqueries with
> death (and/or imminent death).
Arguable. More like accident in Skolimowski.
Both wind up
> normalizing white, heterosexual
> males (even though we grow increasingly repulsed by
> Mike in DEEP END, Susan's
> ridiculous, arbitrary death places him slightly
> ahead in the no
> punishment/normalizing sweepstakes).
Which didn't prevent this gay black male from finding
John Moulder-Brown incredibly hot.
And yet both
> are the work of master directors...
>
Agreed!
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
17139
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:46pm
Subject: Irvin (Was: Vietnam films and Aldrich)
> My personal fave is Hamburger Hill. Directed very quietly by an
> underrated craftsman, John Irvin (the I think very good Tinker Tailor
> Soldier Spy, and my 2nd fave Schwarzenegger film, Raw Deal).
I also think Irvin has talent. I first noted him with the appealing THE
DOGS OF WAR; he also did well with TURTLE DIARY, one of his rare
departures from genre. I mostly know his 80s work - how has he been doing
since then? - Dan
17140
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:17pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
> This is a really complex article!
> It suggests that what is key in Kubrick are his anti-narrative
structures,
> ways in which he subverts narrative conventions.
There's partial backup for this in Frederic Raphael's book EYES WIDE
OPEN - Kubrick asks what FR thought of FMJ's narrative structure. "It
was interesting...it didn't reall have one." Kubrick grins. "Maybe a
mistake, huh?"
It was clear to me on first viewing that the film didn't follow
accepted forms, by the way it just seemed to STOP: I couldn't see any
reason why there couldn't have been anouther major sequence or
several. It was a bunch of stuff from Kubrick's idea of the war.
There may be a more intricate concealed plan in there, but it's
certainly concealed. Whether that's a good thing or not is debatable
but I think it's definitely an intentional effect. The two sections
of the film do not interact in a normal way.
Ciment, I think, suggests that Kubrick's films are about systems and
tasks that go wrong, due to "human error" as HAL says. Even HAL's
malfucntion is due to human error. THE SHINING, in this light, can be
seen as a manual on how not to run a hotle, like FAWLTY TOWERS with a
bigger body count. It works for THE KILLING, it works for PATHS OF
GLORY (a great film on mortality and injustice, but not an antiwar
film - the implication, as Richard Lester said, is that had Kirk
Douglas been general, we'd have all been able to kill Germans more
efficiently) and the only major one I don't think it fits in any
clear way is EYES WIDE SHUT. Although the Cruiser does spend a lot of
time trying to carry out an act of revenge-unfaithfulness, with
conspicuous lack of success...
17141
From:
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:25pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
This anti-personal rap on the Coens hasn't changed since their
earliest films, and I remain as baffled now by it as I always have
been. Could it be that condescension is in the eye of the beholder? I
wouldn't take the Coens' public personae too seriously -- they're
serious filmmakers who wouldn't be caught dead saying anything
serious. I don't think the Coens would "laugh at you" for being moved
by Hy's hapless distress in RAISING AZ, or Tom Regan's selfless
sacrifice in MILLER'S CROSSING, or even Miles and Marylin's
knock-down, drag-out romance in INTOLERABLE CRUELTY. (You won't get
me to defend LADYKILLERS and O BROTHER, which I think are their
worst, or least substantial, movies apart from the unformed BLOOD
SIMPLE.) At times in my life, I've been a Norville Barnes, an H-i
McDonough, and (often) a Barton Fink. Seeing what's ridiculous about
those characters doesn't translate into feeling superior to them (at
least unless you believe you're immune to ridicule). I happen to
prefer the Coens' oeuvre to Sturges' (is that an old shoe flying this
way?) but I think there's a definite similarity in their approach to
character; Sturges can paint his characters as absurd and still
respect them because, deep down, you get the sense he thinks everyone
is absurd, himself most assuredly included.
I can't argue if people feel they can't relate to the Coens'
characters, but blanket statements about their supposed alienation
strike me as irredeemably odd. Do Coen-bashers think the bros would
honestly devote a career to making portraits of people they dislike?
Wouldn't that get awfully tiresome after a while (unless you're
Oliver Stone)? Kevin, maybe you should try and watch one of the
Coens' movies without thinking about whether they're laughing at you
or not -- enjoyment in spite of itself is still enjoyment, and lord
knows there isn't enough of that any way you slice it.
Sam
PS: You can copy-paste much of the above argument and apply it to
Alexander Payne's ELECTION and SIDEWAYS.
>
> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:54:00 EDT
> From: LiLiPUT1@a...
>Subject: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
>
>
>In a message dated 10/19/04 3:46:51 AM, hotlove666@y... writes:
>
>
>> We have to review the work, not the smirk Joel Coen always has
>> plastered on his mug. Confusion of realms, guys.
>>
>
>But Bill, you can read that smirk in the work. You can see it in the way he
>frames his characters. And he maintains an enormous distance from them at all
>times. The use of music in FARGO, for instance, is meant to prevent us from
>diving too deeply into the proceedings. I often like his/their films
>in spite of
>themselves (FARGO, RAISING ARIZONA, O BROTHER, etc.). But I always feels like
>he's laughing at me for crying or being moved or even just caring. He's the
>anti-McCarey. Gawd - can you possibly imagine what a bungle Coen
>would have made
>of MY SON JOHN?
>
>Kevin John
17142
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:35pm
Subject: New colorization efforts
This fills a crying need:
http://www.legendfilms.net/index2.html
"Legend Films is a studio specializing in restoring and colorizing classic
films. Our proprietary new technology allows us to color films in high
definition at a never-before-seen vibrancy."
Oh goody. Colorized versions of My Man Godfrey and the Rathbone-Bruce
Sherlock Holmes films.
I like the fact that their distributor is called "OffColor Films." How apt.
And their first big offering is a colorized version of Carnival of Souls,
"with an irreverent audio commentary by Mike Nelson of Mystery Science
Theater 3000. And best of all, Mike has personally hand-autographed each one
of the DVDs."
Can you stand it?
g
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
17143
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:51pm
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> We have to review the work, not the smirk Joel Coen always has
> plastered on his mug. Confusion of realms, guys.
>
> I like Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink and Fargo...a
lot.
Where does "The Hudsucker Proxy" stand for you?
17144
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:53pm
Subject: Re: New colorization efforts
"We are a company comprised of both film preservationists and experts in digital
video effects all of whom are sensitive to film purists, because like them, we are all
vintage film lovers too and respect the integrity of the original black and white films.
Therefore we always include the restored original black and white version on the
same disk with the color version. "
No, you're a bunch of twerps with the mentality of three year olds.
> And their first big offering is a colorized version of Carnival of Souls,
> "with an irreverent audio commentary by Mike Nelson of Mystery Science
> Theater 3000. And best of all, Mike has personally hand-autographed each one
> of the DVDs."
MST3K was an amusing show, but shouldn't he go out and get a real job.
like driving trucks in Iraq ?
-Sam (not amused)
17145
From: Dave Kehr
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:54pm
Subject: Ulmer Westerns
Does anyone have the titles of the two-reel Westerns that Edgar G.
directed for Universal? The IMDB lists only one.
For those who haven't seen his deeply subversive, pseudonyminous B-
western "Thunder over Texas," it's available from Sinister Cinema on
the web.
17146
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:55pm
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
> wrote:
>
> > Does Cronenberg fit in there somewhere? Cinema of the genitals,
> > perhaps?
>
> Ha! I'd say that Cronenberg's more a cinema of the brain type
> filmmaker than he is a cinema of the body (or genitals) one. That
> goes for Lynch as well.
I don't know. It can be argued that Scanners is a cinema of the
brain type movie, and so is Videodrome, but the exploding brains are
so, well, solid, while there are plenty of vaginas and penises in
Videodrome.
Plus Marilyn Chamber's penis in Rabid, the hanging fetuses in The
Brood, the AIDS metaphor in The Fly, the surgical instruments in
Dead Ringers...
Very, very genital. I don't discount brain matter, but part of the
impact of Cronenberg is that he's fantastical cinema presented as
porn--as a purely physical show of horrors. That he literalizes his
horror of genitals, that's what hits us at gut level.
17147
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- samadams@e... wrote:
> I happen to
> prefer the Coens' oeuvre to Sturges' (is that an old
> shoe flying this
> way?)
No, it's a giant flaming bag of shit.
but I think there's a definite similarity in
> their approach to
> character; Sturges can paint his characters as
> absurd and still
> respect them because, deep down, you get the sense
> he thinks everyone
> is absurd, himself most assuredly included.
> I can't argue if people feel they can't relate to
> the Coens'
> characters, but blanket statements about their
> supposed alienation
> strike me as irredeemably odd.
Not aleination -- contempt. Utter, undisguised
contempt for people (pick a movie) and ideas ("Barton
Fink" and "The Hudsucker Proxy" in particular.)
Do Coen-bashers think
> the bros would
> honestly devote a career to making portraits of
> people they dislike?
Yes!
> Wouldn't that get awfully tiresome after a while
> (unless you're
> Oliver Stone)?
One might imagine so, but there appears to be no
stopping them.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17148
From:
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
What Ehrenstein said (I agree with, flaming bag of shit most definitely
included).
But just look at it from an auteur perspective. Their oeuvre consistently
features smalltown people (often from the USA's South) and they're usually dumb
and/or simple. The cumulative effect of this idée fixe by now is wearying. It's
like Frank Zappa's oeuvre - sure, there are fine moments sprinkled
throughout. But the consistent smugness and snideness sends me back to The Jackson 5
every time. Who needs THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE when there's something as
world-historic as THE PALM BEACH STORY in our universe (and let me add here that THE
PALM BEACH STORY has more to say about concurrent World War II than most people
intimate)? Besides, in the end, the pleasures of a RAISING ARIZONA or a
WEASLES RIPPED MY FLESH are just not all that grand to warrant second or third
viewings/listenings, not to mention a retreat from my beloved THE PALM BEACH STORY
or "The Love You Save."
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
17149
From:
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:45pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey
In general, I have had a very low opinion of a lot of recent US Independent Film. By this vague term, mean the Coens, Sophia Coppola, Terry Zwigoff, David Lynch, Spike Lee, Wes Anderson, Alexander Payne, Michael Almereyda, Hal Hartley, Richard Linklater, and a host of even lesser figures.
I DO like Maggie Greenwald, James Ivory, Jim Jarmusch, Michael Rehfield, Wayne Wang, John Waters. And was pleasantly surprized recently by David O. Russell and his "I Heart Huckabees".
Still, in general, have been amazed by the enthusiasm that US Independent film has generated among critics. A lot of this stuff looks so thin and inconsequential.
Many of these filmmkaers are viewed as great in the cinephile community. But they seem really weak, especially compared with the classics of pre-1975 cinema in France, Hollywood, Japan and Italy.
I know that a brief letter like this is inadequate to justify my remarks about dozens of filmmakers. But there is also a place to look and time to look at broad trends in film history. Trying to assess the worth of a whole film movenment has its place.
Mike Grost
PS The above group of filmmakers is not to be confused with that other group often called American Independent film, Brakhage, Belson, Anger, Rice, Jack Smith, etc. This group I admire deeply.
17150
From:
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:02pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
Can I clarify about Kubrick?
The hardest types of films and filmmakers to assess fairly are the mid-level ones. Their works are a frustrating mix of success and failure.
This is where I tend to place Kubrick. He is talented, and has made such impressive works as 2001 and Barry Lyndon. I do not think he is "one of the world's greatest film directors", as he has constantly been called at least since 1964 by his admirers.
Mike Grost
17151
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> Can I clarify about Kubrick?
> The hardest types of films and filmmakers to assess
> fairly are the mid-level ones. Their works are a
> frustrating mix of success and failure.
> This is where I tend to place Kubrick. He is
> talented, and has made such impressive works as 2001
> and Barry Lyndon. I do not think he is "one of the
> world's greatest film directors", as he has
> constantly been called at least since 1964 by his
> admirers.
>
The thing is that while Kubrick may only hit
"mid-level" (and most of the time he does) he has
consistently aimed higher. In fact his aim is so high
("2001" in particular) that it sets a standard even
for filmmakers who are arguably far superior to him.
Complicating this is a directorial personality whose
mystique is comparable to Garbo's.
I like "Lolita" more than anything he's ever done,
largely because he allowed Sellers and Mason so much
room to be brilliant. "Barry Lyndon," "Dr.Strangelove"
and "2001" are pretty terrific movies, IMO. And "Eyes
Wide Shut" and "The Shining" aren't chopped liver
either.
Love the idea of a "Fawlty Towers" parallel. Can just
see John Cleese running around with an axe.
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17152
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:35pm
Subject: Re: Ulmer Westerns
Ulmer claimed (to Bogdanovich) full direction of 24 two-reel western
(by year...) during that time. I believe that, up to now, none has
been identified.
I thought that "the Border Sheriff" (listed on IMDB) was a long
feature directed by Robert Bradbury, with Ulmer as 2nd assistant.
Bill probably knows...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Kehr" wrote:
>
> Does anyone have the titles of the two-reel Westerns that Edgar G.
> directed for Universal? The IMDB lists only one.
>
> For those who haven't seen his deeply subversive, pseudonyminous B-
> western "Thunder over Texas," it's available from Sinister Cinema
on
> the web.
17153
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:43pm
Subject: Re: films seen in festival do rio 2004
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
Welcome back, Ruy! I wish more people were as open as you about what
they've seen lately and liked/not liked. It's one of the most
important things we could be doing here.
17154
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:45pm
Subject: NYC - auteurist trilemma
New Yorkers have a choice tonight among three hard-to-see auteurist
favorites that are playing at the same time: ANNE OF THE INDIES at
Anthology, THE STORY OF THE LAST CHRYSANTHEMUMS at Japan Society, and THE
GRISSOM GANG at BAM. - Dan
17155
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:47pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
"Not aleination -- contempt. Utter, undisguised
contempt for people (pick a movie) and ideas ('Barton
Fink' and 'The Hudsucker Proxy' in particular.)"
How about THE BIG LEBOWSKI? It seems the one Coen Bros. movie that's
largely free of the contempt on display in BARTON FINK for example.
It's their self-concious mannerism that I can't get past most of the
time.
Richard
17156
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:49pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
I happen to
> prefer the Coens' oeuvre to Sturges' (is that an old shoe flying
this
> way?) but I think there's a definite similarity in their approach
to
> character; Sturges can paint his characters as absurd and still
> respect them because, deep down, you get the sense he thinks
everyone
> is absurd, himself most assuredly included.
After trying and failing to do a good Sturges-style film in
Hudsucker, they nailed it in Cruelty. Sturges would have loved that
movie.
17157
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:51pm
Subject: Re: Ulmer Westerns
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Kehr" wrote:
>
> Does anyone have the titles of the two-reel Westerns that Edgar G.
> directed for Universal? The IMDB lists only one.
>
> For those who haven't seen his deeply subversive, pseudonyminous B-
> western "Thunder over Texas," it's available from Sinister Cinema
on
> the web.
that's great news. Arianne has a copy of The Border Sheriff, bought
off e-bay.I tried years ago to track the Ulmer westerns in various
sources to no avail. Maybe when I see the credits on BS I will tackle
that again.
17158
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:30pm
Subject: Re: Resnais
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>And so are "Providence," "Muriel," "Hiroshima Mon
>Amour," "Melo," "Je T'Aime Je T'Aime," "Toute la
>Memoire du Monde," and the beyond sublime "Pas Sur la
>Bouche."
>
>
My favorite Resnais are _Muriel_ and _La guerre est finie_.
I am curious to hear what you see in _Melo_; that one I don't like very
well at all. _Pas sur la bouche_ at the very least has Lambert Wilson's
hilarious American accent (which I am convinced is an apology for his
roles in the _Matrix_ movies).
-Matt
17159
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:34pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
Coens better than Sturges? I don't agree--and it's not only because
Sturges cares so much more than the Coens (agree, that's not
necessarily a mark of quality). Sturges is much funnier, and his
jokes operate on simpler and more complex levels. And Sturges deals
with a far greater range of human experience and emotion than the
Coens have yet covered.
Agree Hudsucker was an attempt (fitfully successful, but not in the
ways Sturges was successful) to emulate Sturges; thought Intolerable
Cruelty could be the better work, but Catherine Zeta Jones, she
don't push any of my buttons. Cold piece of marble.
17160
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Resnais
--- Matt Teichman wrote:
> I am curious to hear what you see in _Melo_; that
> one I don't like very
> well at all. _
"Melo" is "filmed theater" -- relating to Resnias
interest in Sacha Guitry (referenced in "Stavisky")
It's kind of like a collaboration between Carl Th.
Dreyer and Douglas Sirk.
Andre Dussolier's marvelous aria in Act One anchors
the film's concersn with love and obsession (Resnais
fell in love with Sabine Azema.)
Pas sur la bouche_ at the very least
> has Lambert Wilson's
> hilarious American accent (which I am convinced is
> an apology for his
> roles in the _Matrix_ movies).
>
According to Jonathan Rosenbaum this American
character is central to Resnais' political concerns.
Lambert Wilson sings in his own voice in the film --
everyone else is song-dubbed.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
17161
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:40pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
> Can I clarify about Kubrick?
> The hardest types of films and filmmakers to assess fairly are the
> mid-level ones. Their works are a frustrating mix of success and
> failure.
You say mid-level, Mike, I say supreme master. I still haven't read a
convincing argument for any of Kubrick's "failures" on here -- although
I do recognize three imperfect films in his oeuvre -- 'Killer's Kiss,'
'Spartacus,' and 'Lolita.'
> This is where I tend to place Kubrick. He is talented, and has made
> such impressive works as 2001 and Barry Lyndon. I do not think he is
> "one of the world's greatest film directors", as he has constantly
> been called at least since 1964 by his admirers.
Calling Kubrick "talented," to my mind, is the ultimate 'damnation by
faint praise.' I'm amazed by the fact that Bill and Brad can write the
insightful pieces as they have and share them with the group, in
addition to my own jottings in an effort to bring forth some solid
evidence on the rigor of Kubrick's aesthetic in just one of his films,
but it can seemingly be dismissed with the proclamation that he's
talented and "mid-level" -- and Mike, this is despite the fact that you
praise Bill's formalist reading of 'Full Metal Jacket.' Really,
though, isn't what strikes us great about films always necessarily in
part their "formalist" aspects? You yourself write cogently, for one
example, on the geometries within the frames of Lang on your website
(which is why I used the word "us") -- yet with a similar abundance of
"signifiers" in Kubrick's films, with a similar complexity of meaning,
the appreciation suddenly seems to break down itself like a Kubrickian
'system.' About Kubrick's films one can talk, and talk, and talk, and
discover and re-discover, new difficulties, new suggestions, new
insights -- which is more than can be said for many contemporary or
so-called "classic" films. I suspect that the form of Kubrick's work
is too uncomfortably "foreign" for the cinephile-classicists, with this
-stratospheric- talent sitting parallel to so cynical a world-view
threatening to undermine the classicist view of the American canon's
studio tradition as the most exquisite porcelain factory there ever
was. Kubrick's films are -too- personal, his ambition -too- great...
In attempt to reverse your opinion of 'Eyes Wide Shut' as "a minor
work," Mike, I might suggest that you read Michel Chion's BFI monograph
on the film or, local to this list, Jonathan Rosenbaum's superb
almost-in-real-time-with-the-release valediction of the film either in
his 'Essential Cinema' book or here on the Web:
http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/1999/0799/07239.html
Finally, to address a quote from an earlier post of yours:
"But most of his work does not seem to have a lot of shot by shot,
scene by scene inspiration. It just seems flat and uninteresting."
I will address the above by saying: Shocking. Absolutely shocking.
Kubrick's films contain, shot by shot, scene by scene, enough
inspiration, enough details, enough compositional-thematic resonances
with other 'shots' within the same film or Kubrick films from before or
after, to give me a lifetime's viewing's worth of pleasure -- I also
thrill to the extreme attention paid to color, light, the
schematization of fore-, middle-, and backgrounds, and the rhythm of
performances within those frames. I wouldn't begrudge anyone's having
a different 'favorite director,' but I can't accept the pretense that
a Kubrick film is anything other than something worthy of serious
intellectual/cinephiliac engagement.
craig.
17162
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
>
> How about THE BIG LEBOWSKI? It seems the one Coen
> Bros. movie that's
> largely free of the contempt on display in BARTON
> FINK for example.
Oh maybe around the edges
> It's their self-concious mannerism that I can't get
> past most of the
> time.
>
That's what made me walk out of "Blood Simple" -- when
the camera tracked across the bar towards a passed out
customer, craned up, dollied across him and them
craned down and continued on.
I headed straight for the exit.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17163
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:19pm
Subject: Re: Resnais
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> According to Jonathan Rosenbaum this American
> character is central to Resnais' political concerns.
> Lambert Wilson sings in his own voice in the film --
> everyone else is song-dubbed.
>
> WRONG, David. They ALL sing in their own voice. They rehearsed
the songs for two months before recording and shooting. No one was
dubbed. Resnais absolutely insisted on it.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
17164
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:26pm
Subject: Re: Resnais
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman
wrote:
>."
> >
> >
> My favorite Resnais are _Muriel_ and _La guerre est finie_.
>
> I am curious to hear what you see in _Melo_; that one I don't like
very
> well at all. _).
>
> -Matt
I don't see how one can like Resnais and not love MELO. In it
Resnais transcends filmed theater by totally embracing the
theatrical convention and thereby paradoxically creating pure
cinema. It's a magical film, my favorite Resnais with... MURIEL,
coincidentally. JPC
17165
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Resnais
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> > WRONG, David. They ALL sing in their own voice.
> They rehearsed
> the songs for two months before recording and
> shooting. No one was
> dubbed. Resnais absolutely insisted on it.
>
Really? Well that's great to know.
Wilson's a marvelous singer. He has a CD of Broadway
show tunes on Angel/EMI that's a favorite of mine.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
17166
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:54pm
Subject: Coens, Resnais, recent viewing
Coens: I mostly like them, but largely agree with the charges
against them anyway. THE BIG LEBOWSKI is their finest film in a
walk, I think, though I haven't seen BLOOD SIMPLE or their last two
efforts. It's the only one I'd really feel an urge to defend at
least, even if I still have affection for FARGO, HUDSUCKER PROXY, O
BROTHER, and MILLER'S CROSSING.
Resnais: Still have yet to see a few key films of his, but JE
T'AIME, JE T'AIME is close to being the very peak of the Nouvelle
Vague.
As per Bill's suggestion, here are some very brief thoughts on what
I've seen lately. The NYFF had at least a handful of near-
masterpieces in Hong's WOMAN IS THE FUTURE OF MAN, Apichatpong's
TROPICAL MALADY, and Jia's THE WORLD, which Jonathan Rosenbaum
recently singled out as his favorite film of the year. Arnaud
Desplechin's new film was a slight disappointment to me (though
worthwhile overall), but cinephiles who were previously not major
fans of this director seem to enjoy this one a lot (web critic
Acquarello is one example). How do others feel about this film?
Last night I saw an excellent documentary, Bill Jersey's A TIME FOR
BURNING ('65), which documents the efforts of a white liberal
Lutheran preacher to reach out to the black Luthern community of
Omaha. There's a black barber in the film who is the very voice of
reason, and Jersey composes a fine, textured portrait of black and
white feelings on Christianity and racial politics at the time.
I know that Damien really likes the new John Waters film, and a
former instructor of mine--plus Armond White--recommend the latest
James Toback. Anyone to second these plugs?
--Zach
17167
From:
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:03pm
Subject: Re: Formalist (was: Kubrick)
I am an ardent Formalist! 100% strongly total formalist!
When I called Bill Krohn's piece on Kubrick formalist, this was meant as
praise.
He was looking at formal patterns in Kubrick's narrative. (a good thing to
do).
Mike Grost
17168
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:11pm
Subject: Re: Coens, Resnais, recent viewing
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
>
>
> Resnais: Still have yet to see a few key films of his, but JE
> T'AIME, JE T'AIME is close to being the very peak of the Nouvelle
> Vague.
>
>
> --Zach
It's incredible and a great shame that only two Resnais features
are available on DVD in the US -- HIROSHIMA and LA GUERRE EST FINIE,
(I think) (I read that a third, MARIENBAD, is expected). Is there
any reason other than negligence, I wonder?
17169
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: Re: Resnais
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> >
> Really? Well that's great to know.
>
> But what made you think they were dubbed when you saw the film?
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
17170
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: Resnais
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > But what made you think they were dubbed when
> you saw the film?
> >
> >
>
>
I'd heard somewhere that they were.
BTW, "Marienbad" is on DVD from FoxLorber.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17171
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:19pm
Subject: Re: Formalist (was: Kubrick)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I am an ardent Formalist! 100% strongly total formalist!
> When I called Bill Krohn's piece on Kubrick formalist, this was
meant as
> praise.
> He was looking at formal patterns in Kubrick's narrative. (a good
thing to
> do).
>
> Mike Grost
A psychoanalytic reading of FULL METAL JACKET is also to be found
in FILM AND PHILOSOPHY (1994) which is also on the internet.
Despite Bordwell, formalism has its valuable aspects and Bill's
article is a good example of this.
Tony Williams
17172
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:26pm
Subject: Re: Coens, Resnais, recent viewing
"a great shame that only two Resnais features are available on DVD in
the US -- HIROSHIMA and LA GUERRE EST FINIE, (I think)"
STAVISKY is certainly available.
17173
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Formalist (was: Kubrick)
>
> I am an ardent Formalist! 100% strongly total formalist!
> When I called Bill Krohn's piece on Kubrick formalist, this was meant
> as
> praise.
I wasn't taking issue with you on this. I wrote: "...but it [ meaning
"they", as I should have written -- "all of these critical
weighings-in"] can seemingly be dismissed with the proclamation that
he's talented and "mid-level" -- and Mike, this is despite the fact
that you praise Bill's formalist reading of 'Full Metal Jacket.'
Really, though, isn't what strikes us great about films always
necessarily in part their "formalist" aspects?"
That is to say, the success or not-success of a film usually relies in
part on its formal virtues. I know you're an ardent formalist, that's
why I likewise praised your Fritz Lang pieces.
craig.
17174
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coens, Resnais, recent viewing
>
> "a great shame that only two Resnais features are available on DVD in
> the US -- HIROSHIMA and LA GUERRE EST FINIE, (I think)"
>
> STAVISKY is certainly available.
I believe the version of 'Stavisky' out on disc in the US is dubbed and
cut -- possibly also pan and scan, if I remember correctly...?
Recently added 'Pas sur le bouche' to my Amazon.fr cart -- can't wait
to see it. (Along with the Monteiro set at long last.)
craig.
17175
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coens, Resnais, recent viewing
>
> Recently added 'Pas sur le bouche'
I should have written 'Pas sur LA bouche' -- my bad.
craig.
17176
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coens, Resnais, recent viewing
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> I believe the version of 'Stavisky' out on disc in
> the US is dubbed and
> cut -- possibly also pan and scan, if I remember
> correctly...?
>
Nope it's in French and not pan/scanned either.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17177
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coens, Resnais, recent viewing
>>
>> I believe the version of 'Stavisky' out on disc in
>> the US is dubbed and
>> cut -- possibly also pan and scan, if I remember
>> correctly...?
>>
>
> Nope it's in French and not pan/scanned either.
I'll be damned. I've been holding off buying it all these years on
account of what's turned out to be a bunk tip!!
17178
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:46pm
Subject: Resnais, recent viewing
On the subject of Resnais and our still-living French masters on DVD,
'Triple Agent' is out on the 28th in France on a disc with English subs
from the excellent BlaqOut label, and 'Histoire de Marie et Julien'
sometime in the near future from Artificial Eye in England (who just
released in theatrically in the UK). Page here:
http://www.artificial-eye.com/marieetjulien/main.html
I wonder what happened to the supposed October MK2 DVD release of
'Paris nous appartient'?
craig.
17179
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:49pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
>
> ...and the only major one I don't think it fits in any
> clear way is EYES WIDE SHUT.
You think? Take a look at Michel Chion's BFI Modern Classics
monograph on the film. It places EYES WIDE SHUT very much in
the "systems failing" tradition.
The system in EYES WIDE SHUT is Bill and Alice's seemingly picture
perfect marriage. The human errors in question are Bill's jealousy
and paranoia and Alice's desire (earlier in the film) to hurt him in
spite of herself. Kubrick removes all external factors that could be
mistaken as causes for the marriage's collapse -- such as financial
problems (Bill and Alice are suitably loaded) or race and religion
(they're WASPs where the couple in Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle" are
Jewish) -- so there can be no doubt about Bill and Alice being the
cause of the marital system's breakdown themselves.
Of course, in the end, they come back together, which makes EYES
WIDE SHUT, to my mind, the only Kubrick picture that ends on such a
note of hope (albeit a slightly jaded and cautious one).
17180
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 0:00am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
---
>
> Of course, in the end, they come back together, which makes EYES
> WIDE SHUT, to my mind, the only Kubrick picture that ends on such
a
> note of hope (albeit a slightly jaded and cautious one).
It may be hope but is that not based on the denial of a traumatic
bad night in more senses than one?
Tony Williams
17181
From:
Date: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:11pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
I agree with some of the concerns raised.
I definitely should do a deeper study of Kubrick's films, keeping in mind
some of the ideas being discussed on them.
And lay down my pen (ok, my keyboard) until such time as deeper observation
occurs.
Serious study always improves everything!
Thanks,
Mike Grost
17182
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 0:51am
Subject: Re: Resnais
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> > > But what made you think they were dubbed when
> > you saw the film?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> I'd heard somewhere that they were.
>
> But can't you tell that Sabine's voice, say, is her own?
It's like saying that you thought Audrey Hepburn was dubbed
singing "How Long Has This Been Going On" in Funny Face because
someone told you.
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
17183
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:01am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
(albeit a slightly jaded and cautious one).
Speaking of EWS (which I reviewed at the time). I remember
discussing it with Pierre Rissient once and telling him I had
serious reservations about it and he emphatically stated that the
film was an absolute piece of shit without any redeeming features.
For what it's worth...
JPC (see, Fred, I've deleted 99.9% of the post I was responding
to. I hope you'll be proud of me).
17184
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:08am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I agree with some of the concerns raised.
> I definitely should do a deeper study of Kubrick's films, keeping
in mind
> some of the ideas being discussed on them.
> And lay down my pen (ok, my keyboard) until such time as deeper
observation
> occurs.
> Serious study always improves everything!
> Thanks,
>
> Mike Grost
Follow your gut feelings, Mike. You don't have to force yourself to
like anything you don't like. Some people like broccoli, others
don't. No article on brocolli, no matter how wonderful, is going to
convince you to eat the stuff and love it. So and So's article about
Kubrick or anybody may make me see things I had neglected or
misunderstood, but it's not going to change much to my response.
Pleasure is the ultimate yardstick.
17185
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:20am
Subject: Desplechin (was: Coens, Resnais, recent viewing)
His weakest, definitely. Of course, the same main concerns troughout his
films seem to operate in LEO as well, but I don't buy the whole scene-stage
thing and son't see much sense in the whole project. But the actors are
magnificent and there's always a sense of conspiracy and a call for a
paranoic "world that's out there and only we are the ones that don't know
about it" that make the film tasteful. But it's not on pair with THE
SENTINEL, MY SEX LIFE or ESTHER KAHN.
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zach Campbell"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 7:54 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Coens, Resnais, recent viewing
> recently singled out as his favorite film of the year. Arnaud
> Desplechin's new film was a slight disappointment to me (though
> worthwhile overall), but cinephiles who were previously not major
> fans of this director seem to enjoy this one a lot (web critic
> Acquarello is one example). How do others feel about this film?
>
17186
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:33am
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
Count me in for the EWS defense. Only I belive that the system that fails is
not "marriage", but manhood. The more I think about the film, the more it
seems to me that it can only be unveiled if we consider Cruise's highway to
hell as a subconscious (TRAUMnovelle) search for revenge -- only he can't
because everything that has to do with sex appears as death or perversion. I
don't think the ending of the film is hopeful at all. Fucking won't help a
thing. They'll build up a family but the hole will remain open.
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 9:49 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Kubrick
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
> wrote:
> >
> > ...and the only major one I don't think it fits in any
> > clear way is EYES WIDE SHUT.
>
> You think? Take a look at Michel Chion's BFI Modern Classics
> monograph on the film. It places EYES WIDE SHUT very much in
> the "systems failing" tradition.
>
> The system in EYES WIDE SHUT is Bill and Alice's seemingly picture
> perfect marriage. The human errors in question are Bill's jealousy
> and paranoia and Alice's desire (earlier in the film) to hurt him in
> spite of herself. Kubrick removes all external factors that could be
> mistaken as causes for the marriage's collapse -- such as financial
> problems (Bill and Alice are suitably loaded) or race and religion
> (they're WASPs where the couple in Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle" are
> Jewish) -- so there can be no doubt about Bill and Alice being the
> cause of the marital system's breakdown themselves.
>
> Of course, in the end, they come back together, which makes EYES
> WIDE SHUT, to my mind, the only Kubrick picture that ends on such a
> note of hope (albeit a slightly jaded and cautious one).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
17187
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:40am
Subject: Re: Resnais
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>"Melo" is "filmed theater" -- relating to Resnias
>interest in Sacha Guitry (referenced in "Stavisky")
>It's kind of like a collaboration between Carl Th.
>Dreyer and Douglas Sirk.
>
>
On the one hand I don't think it's anything like either Dreyer or Sirk,
but on the other I see what you mean.
The connection to Guitry is interesting; I'll be sure to have _Melo_ in
view the next time I see one of his films.
>Andre Dussolier's marvelous aria in Act One anchors
>the film's concersn with love and obsession (Resnais
>fell in love with Sabine Azema.)
>
>
Sometimes I wonder whether he isn't also in love with Pierre Arditti.
jpcoursodon wrote:
> I don't see how one can like Resnais and not love MELO.
>
But isn't it rather dramatically different from some of his earlier films?
>In it
>Resnais transcends filmed theater by totally embracing the
>theatrical convention and thereby paradoxically creating pure
>cinema.
>
I like the way you put this--in general there certainly is something
paradoxical about medium purism in film. Inevitably the quest for it
leads one back to painting, or theater, or music, or literature, or
photography. But painting, theater, music, literature, and photography
with a difference. Probably one of the points behind Bazin's "Pour un
cinema impur."
Resnais is certainly sophisticated enough a filmmaker to have a feel for
how to make footage of "filmed theater" into something that works as a
film. And to whatever extent I find _Melo_ uninteresting, at least it
isn't the kind of canned theater one comes across so frequently; that
would almost be worse than uninteresting.
-Matt
17188
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:42am
Subject: Re: films seen in festival do rio 2004
"I'm not a fan of Gaspar Noé nor do I really care for the "New Extreme
French Cinema" or whatever James Quandt calls it, but I am a fan of
Dumont, and moreover I loved 'Twentynine Palms.' Of course it took a
Frenchman to make the most honest narrative film about America I've
seen in the last year or two.
craig"
So I apologize for my vocabulary. I really like L'HUMANITÉ and was
profoundly disappointed by 29PALMS. What was honest about it? The xenophobia
shouting/beating/raping? The animal-like moans while having sex? The final
slaughter? The unending landscape sightings? The man/woman relationship
between Katia Golubeva and whothefuckcareswho'shisname? Am not bullying,
Craig, I really want to know what you thought 'honest' about it.
Well, did you see THE BROWN BUNNY?
ruy
17189
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:58am
Subject: Re: Re: films seen in festival do rio 2004
Hi, Gabe
Maybe I should have placed it in the "Enjoyed" category. Trapero is good at
filming rituals. I don't know if you have seen EL BONAERENSE: its strongest
moments are rituals. The whole south american family voyage is full with
codes and rituals, ehich he develops, I think, very well. He's a guy that
knows how to use the camera in order to always make everything look so
crowded with people and noises. Plus I admire the gap he's trying to
overcome between argentinian commercial films (9 QUEENS, THE SON OF THE
BRIDE or Piñeyro's films) and argentinian art cinema (himself and Martel).
It's a comedy, but everything is laughable the same way it is compelling.
For example, everything the grandmother says, when and how she says it, is
very great and moving.
But it is likely that FAMILIA RODANTE strikes brazilian cinephiles more: all
we wanted was a more than well crafted, deep felt, authentic popular
national film to defend against the commercial cinema that's made in Brasil
right now.
Ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe Klinger"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 2:25 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: films seen in festival do rio 2004
>
>
> Ruy, I agree with you on the Denis and Weerasethakul. Michel
> Subor in L'intrus and the tiger in Tropical Malady even
> compliment one another!
>
> But what do you like in FAMILIA RODANTE?????
>
>
> Gabe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
17190
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:03am
Subject: Re: Coens, Resnais, recent viewing
> Coens: I mostly like them, but largely agree with the charges
> against them anyway.
I sometimes like the Coens - mostly FARGO and MILLER'S CROSSING. If they
have a general problem, I don't think it's contempt for people. Maybe
it's the difficulty of creating a cinema with quotes around everything.
> Resnais: Still have yet to see a few key films of his, but JE
> T'AIME, JE T'AIME is close to being the very peak of the Nouvelle
> Vague.
This is my favorite Resnais film.
> Arnaud
> Desplechin's new film was a slight disappointment to me (though
> worthwhile overall), but cinephiles who were previously not major
> fans of this director seem to enjoy this one a lot (web critic
> Acquarello is one example). How do others feel about this film?
I was pretty badly disappointed, and after this and LEO I'm very worried
that one of my favorite directors is striking out in a direction I don't
like. It's as if Desplechin has started reaching out for the audience
directly instead of concerning himself with the inner workings of his
world. KINGS AND QUEEN felt like theater in the worst sense, satisfied
with easy, flattering appeal.
> and a
> former instructor of mine--plus Armond White--recommend the latest
> James Toback. Anyone to second these plugs?
The Toback needs to be seen, I think, even though it's a very mixed bag.
The guy comes off as such a sleaze - at this point, he doesn't even
pretend not to implicate himself in all the snazzy low life that he
depicts again and again. But then he demonstrates that he's a natural
cineaste, just by watching Neve Campbell in a sustained way with a mix of
detachment and admiration. And there's one beautiful privileged moment in
the film that's as good as anything I've seen in a while. But I must
admit that I hated the film for a good half-hour, and there's all kinds of
bad decision-making going on, right up to the last shot. - Dan
17191
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:45am
Subject: Re: Resnais
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman
> wrote:
> I am curious to hear what you see in _Melo_; that one I don't like
> very well at all. -Matt
MÉLO is one of my favorite films of all time: what seems
especially original (and moving) to me is how the film uses the
transitory nature of performing live music as a metaphor for the
transience of emotion and love, and then Resnais expresses this
through ultra-long takes that capture another kind of performance
(in fact, some extraordinary acting by all the principals) but with
wonderfully subtle camera adjustments. Resnais gets a perfect fusion
of form and emotion here, more successfully than in any of his other
films (at least that's how it works for me).
--Robert Keser
17192
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:06am
Subject: Re: recent viewing/Festival fare
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
> As per Bill's suggestion, here are some very brief thoughts on
what I've seen lately.
Me too. I'm in recovery from seeing 22 films at the Chicago Film
Festival (*and* going to work!), but here's my take:
Absolutely original and first-class accomplishments: TOMORROW WE
MOVE, TROPICAL MALADY, possibly KINGS AND QUEEN and BITTER DREAM
(Iranian).
Very good films: STRAY DOGS, TRILOGY: THE WEEPING MEADOW, NOTRE
MUSIQUE, WHISKY, MOOLADÉ, 10th DISTRICT COURT, BATTLES WITHOUT
HONOR AND HUMANITY (Fukasaku retrospective), Á TOUT DE SUITE, THE
CENTER/DIE MITTE.
Good but with certain weaknesses: NOBODY KNOWS, HEAD ON/GEGEN DIE
WAND, SOUTH OF THE CLOUDS, INFERNAL AFFAIRS 2, HENRI LANGLOIS doc.
Okay: FINDING NEVERLAND, SHOUF SHOUF HABIBI.
Rubbish: TARNATION.
--Robert Keser
17193
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:19am
Subject: Re: Desplechin (was: Coens, Resnais, recent viewing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> His weakest, definitely. Of course, the same main concerns
troughout his
> films seem to operate in LEO as well,
Actually I was referring to KINGS AND QUEEN (and I liked PLAYING "IN
THE COMPANY OF MEN" quite a bit). But I would say that KINGS AND
QUEEN is his weakest. It'd be awful if Desplechin 'jumped the
shark.'
--Zach
17194
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:29am
Subject: Twentynine Palms (was: films seen in festival...)
> So I apologize for my vocabulary. I really like L'HUMANITÉ and was
> profoundly disappointed by 29PALMS. What was honest about it? The
> xenophobia
> shouting/beating/raping? The animal-like moans while having sex? The
> final
> slaughter? The unending landscape sightings? The man/woman relationship
> between Katia Golubeva and whothefuckcareswho'shisname? Am not
> bullying,
> Craig, I really want to know what you thought 'honest' about it.
No bullying taken. Some reasons I liked 'Twentynine Palms': in one
sense, as much as Dumont's cinema is concerned with the body (by
showing it in work [in the scientific sense], or by filming the sheer
mechanics of physicality and "renewing" [undistanciating?] /
re-investing routine behaviors with a kind of beautiful earthiness),
'Twentynine Palms' seems to me to show a widening of concern from the
body-as-foundation, to "the natural chain" of human phenomena -- a
reacquaintance with the earth, but also species (human) interaction
with the earth, and with each other -- such that when 'things happen'
in the film, and when things happen badly, what occurs seems less an
event than a phenomenon. Having said that, I thought the "wild West"
setting was probably as apt a locale as any for the equation/reduction
of the human against the earth -- with much of the vast expanse of
America born from westward pioneering and start-from-zero
civilizationeering, if I can neologize for a beat. Of course, the
irony is that somewhere along the way this re-investment (in both
meanings of the term) in naturalism became modern America --
supermasculinized, xenophobic -- a reduction or regression to
aggression and basest, even chaotic impulses. So the pair of lovers
(the turn-on-a-dime, almost reasonless Sturm-und-Drang of their
repartée struck me as more 'natural' and real than I've seen in a lot
of recent films -- but eclipsed for all time, in my opinion, by 'Scenes
from a Marriage,' wherein the beats of the couple's rapport are far
less arbitrary... but, I digress; completely different film) howl and
let out the most earth-shaking orgasms I've ever seen on film -- almost
"tall-tale" orgasms. And, in the end, their problems and tumult morph
into something like little fish being gnashed by the beak of a giant
squid in a cartoon diagram ('Finding Hemo'?) -- horrifying,
unnatural-naturalism, brought on in the corollary of "nature" or "the
wild" by something like pheromones but at this human-eye-level by
something closer probably to "the vibes they were emitting." In a
blatant danger-zone of this West-as-America.
One can say that the phenomena that occur to the couple, the
manifestation of the brutality, comes in the form of the new "American
mythos" -- a phantom materialization of the Jerry Springer bile, of the
surveillance-voyeur images and serial-killer hunting grounds (note the
"art film" they watch in the motel room, the shadows and the fence, the
stalking tracking shot -- oracular vision)*, of the tangible dread on
the inskirts and the outskirts of American life (inskirts and
outskirts, because the two zones have gone inside-out in our culture).
When all hell befalls them, [SORTA-SPOILER] it befalls them with the
vengeance that is unspoken but feared behind every American discourse
on violence (or, on the flip-side, security) -- the
real-worst-possible-thing -- prison-tale sodomy by The Stranger --
and, with the aggressor as "Stranger," the specter of HIV or another
deathly transmission must will overtake the thoughts of the victim, and
effectively castrate him in the span of the initial trauma, if not for
good. From god's/gaia's-eye-view -- phenomena; at the human level -- a
culture of self-perpetuating violence and fear, a black-hole and a
danger-zone, utterly corrupting, that would swallow whole any being
wandering into its territory. Looked at from one angle, the last
"shock" of the film is over-the-top; but from another angle, a
quasi-allegorical corruption (as in, "passed on from one to another"),
a terrible vision of the End Result of "all this" -- it disturbed the
living shit out of me and, to my soul, played like genuine tragedy.
The last shot -- [EXPLICIT SPOILER] -- the high-angle wide shot, gives
us man (the body and the cop) recontextualized against the earth
(literal desert ground), and another sign, at the human-level, of the
civilization falling apart: the cop's pleas for three or four moments
over the walkie-talkie trying to convince his co-worker about the
priority of what he's just turned up out in the desert. Cut to
silence, black, credits.
This film haunted me for days after seeing it; the only film that has
had any comparable effect on me in the last three months has been 'Late
Spring,' which I'd just seen for the first time.
-Completely different movies-, as it turns out.
* = The name of this film, of which only an excerpt appears in
'Twentynine Palms,' is given in the end credits, but it escapes me
right now. P.S., for any who didn't watch to the end: The final name
appearing in the Special Thanks? Kirsten Dunst.
> Well, did you see THE BROWN BUNNY?
No, but I plan on seeing it. Not sure if I'll like it or not. I love
Chloë Sevigny, so I'm looking forward to it. To be honest, what I
really want to see, thinking of its shared-a-Cahiers-cover-with
counterpart, is Naomi Kawase's 'Shara.' ('Sharasôju')
craig.
17195
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:20am
Subject: Re: NYC - auteurist trilemma
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> New Yorkers have a choice tonight among three hard-to-see auteurist
> favorites that are playing at the same time: ANNE OF THE INDIES at
> Anthology, THE STORY OF THE LAST CHRYSANTHEMUMS at Japan Society,
and > THE GRISSOM GANG at BAM. - Dan
I went to see THE STORY OF THE LAST CHRYSANTHEMUM. It was shown in
16mm, which maybe diminished the experience a little.
According to the Anthology program notes, the Lincoln Center Tourneur
retrospective "purposely excluded" ANNE OF THE INDIES. Does anybody
know why this was?
I recently looked through the scrapbooks of movie reviews at the NY
Public Library, and saw some of the outrage and disgust directed at
the THE GRISSOM GANG, so I'm very curious to see it now.
Paul
17196
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:32am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
> Of course, in the end, they come back together, which makes EYES
> WIDE SHUT, to my mind, the only Kubrick picture that ends on such
a
> note of hope (albeit a slightly jaded and cautious one).
I had a rather different interpretation (similar to my reaction to
the end of It's a Wonderful Life--the two come to similar
conclusions, come to think of it). If, thanks to Kidman's marijuana
induced moment of honesty, a whole world of erotic possibliites were
opened up to Cruise, the rest of the movie was Kubrick's way of
demonstrating (comically, magisterially) that that world wasn't open
to him.
So when he finally comes back to Kidman and she says "let's fuck,"
it's not just an affirmation of their marriage; it's possibly an
invitation to possibly impregnate her, engender a child, further
seal their marriage (and seal off Cruise's sexual freedom) all the
more solidly, forever and ever, amen. Those two words are the sound
of Cruise's velvet cage clanging shut.
Which may be why it's the one Kubrick film I've liked in a long time.
17197
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:36am
Subject: Re: The Letter
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> You noted Wyler's objectivity in this film as a virtue, but the
> objectivity didn't encompass the Asian characters, I didn't see any
> attempt to distance the viewer from sharing the horror of
> misceganation experienced by the white characters. He also takes
>the colonial politics for granted
Probably instead of "objectivity," a better word to describe Wyler's
directorial stance would have been "coldness" or "pitiless-ness." I
think one has to look at The Letter as a work taken from a
colonialist point of view, so that the unnerving atmosphere is one of
displacement. For that reason, it makes sense within the context
that the Asian characters -- which I do think havedepth to them --
are portrayed as "The Other."
>
> Of Wyler's theatrical adaptaions I prefer THE LITTLE FOXES to THE
> LETTER; it has all the virtues of THE LETTER and is a very
>corrosive portrait of the Southern bourgeois gentry and the social
>fabric that sustains that gentry.
I haven't seen The Little Foxes in maybe 30 years but my recollection
of
> Representations of the other are always fascinating. BREAKFAST AT
> TIFFANY'S is a film I really admire, but the Mickey Rooney
character
> poses difficulties. I asked some Japanese friends what they
thought
> about that charcater and they did not percieve the character as
> Japanese!
Breakfast At Tiffany's is my number one all-time favorite picture.
Since the movie is, above all, about the letting down of self-
protective masks as a necessity for finding love, love being the only
safe harbor against the aburdities of the world, I always argue that
nothing can represent those absurdities than Andy Hardy being a
Japanese photographer.
I do remember when I was 5 or 6 and my parents saw the film, they
and their friends couldn't stop talking about how funny The Mick
was. And if memory serves, in the first edition of TV Movies back in
1969. Leonard Maltin singled out Rooney as being particularly
hilarious. My Filipino-American beloved hates the characterization.
17198
From:
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:44am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
Ruy:
> Count me in for the EWS defense. Only I belive that the system
that fails is
> not "marriage", but manhood.
Bingo.
Of course, part of that marriage is founded on Bill Harford's
manhood, so they're not all that different. But, starting with his
wife's revelation of thoughts of adultery, he is sytematically
emasculated, an emasculation that continues, throughout the first
part of the film, especially. (That's why that brief episode with
the gay-bashing jocks is a pretty significant moment, I think.)
I like to think of EWS as being structurally akin to ACO, with the
second half mirroring the first, with the Ludovico sequence/orgy in
the middle. In the second half, however, the emasculation is
different; it's more a tearing away of the *trappings* of
masculinity. In other words, the second half is more realistic - by
destroying Cruise's male mystique, it arrives at a far better place
for him and his marriage. He is downtrodden by the end, but I think
the film does end on a strangely hopeful note, precisely for that
reason.
-Bilge
17199
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:49am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
I think it's an interesting coincidence that The Coens and Kubrick
are being discussed here concurrently because what they have in
common is a facile misanthropy.
But for me Kubrick finally redeemed himself with "Eyes Wide Shut"
because it is filled with great wisdom, as well as mesmerizing
imagery. For once, he didn't look at human inadequcy with disdain,
and Cruise's failure as a husband and a "man" was, to me, hugely
moving. Obviously, Kubrick didn't know he was soon to die, but the
final scene of Eyes Wide Shut seems to me to be so compassionate and
so kind, that it serves as a rebuttal to his previous disdain of
humankind -- that a scene of great hopefulness was presented in
a "crass" way ("fuck" rather than "make love") is perhaps all the
more moving for its very tentativeness. It is a perfect swan
song.
17200
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:00am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> So when he finally comes back to Kidman and she says "let's fuck,"
> it's not just an affirmation of their marriage; it's possibly an
> invitation to possibly impregnate her, engender a child, further
> seal their marriage (and seal off Cruise's sexual freedom) all the
> more solidly, forever and ever, amen. Those two words are the sound
> of Cruise's velvet cage clanging shut.
This is Chion's interpretation as well, though he looks upon the
birth of a child as being a good thing for the marriage as opposed to
a negative thing for Cruise's sexual freedom.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact