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.
17201
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:18am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
We had a discussion about Kubrick on rec.arts.movies.international two
years ago. I made some comments I wasn't sure about then or now.
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=alpgnh%248jr%241%40reader1.panix.com
One comment I made described my lack of sympathy with some of
Kubrick's interviews, that the onstensive ideas of some of his films
are shallow or offensive.
"I'm thinking especially of the texts on
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk
associated with _2001_ and _A Clockwork Orange_. For example, another
thread on alt.movies.kubrick cites this page:
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0037.html
Kubrick states, for example: "Man isn't a noble savage, he's an
ignoble savage. He is irrational, brutal, weak, silly, unable to be
objective about anything where his own interests are involved..."
"Now I disagree with many of the views Kubrick expressed. I had
interpreted the films differently, and I had imagined Kubrick's films
were less literal minded than they appear to be in Kubrick's
statements of his intentions. Much of the complexity and ambiguity of
_2001_ and _ACO_, which I had valued, seems to dissipate due to
Kubrick's own words. If the Dawn of the Man sequence is just a
depiction of Ardrey's killer apes in 'African Genesis,' or A Clockwork
Orange simply expresses a view of man's debased nature, then they are
less interesting than I supposed. Also, the criticisms of Robin Wood,
which I quoted earlier and had thought overly harsh, seem to be
confirmed by Kubrick's own words.
"For example, Kubrick endorses a kind of genetic determinism. Now this
is not incompatible with art -- such ideas were very common in 19th
century literature, and it is not so far from doctrines of Original
Sin, Fatalism, predestination, etc., which have played a role in
much literature and film. So my disagreements with Kubrick's ideology
are not sufficient to dismiss the films. But when determinism is not
combined with some humane sentiment or some ironic distance or some
acknowledgement of human freedom, then I think it can diminish a work."
I made another comment -- I have a lot of doubt about it -- but maybe
someone could make some sense of it.
"When I earlier read your words in praise of a woman's face animated
by love, I did reproach myself: do I care more about tracking shots or
people? Of course, as you noted, form and the expression of feeling
are not mutually exclusive -- I just opened a magazine at random and
found this phrase, concerning a scene in _The Little Theater of Jean
Renoir_, 'The camera movement is a gesture of love, of great sensuality.'
"I'll admit that Kubrick's camera movements are rarely gestures of
love and rarely sensual. Instead Kubrick's style often functions to
block access to his characters. Biographers have noted how appropriate
it was that Kubrick's home was surrounded by dozens of 'keep
out' signs, and that he preferred communication by electronic means.
"When you mentioned pure form, I thought of the tendency toward
abstraction in mid-20th century American art and architecture.
Comparisons with Kubrick may seem peculiar, when one considers
Kubrick's obsessive attention to realistic detail, but I think there
is a tendency toward abstraction in Kubrick's films, also a tendency
to use form as a means of egotistic expression. Maybe not unlike the
art and architecture that emerged in New York while he lived there as
a young man, Kubrick's films evince a desire for bold formal patterns
even at the cost of losing the richness and fullness of life, and
for the expression of, and escape from, alienation and anxiety in the
rigor of form. The grandeur, anxiety, and sense of alienation, also
the coldness, sterility, and contempt, of Kubrick's color films don't
seem so far from an International Style skyscraper or a color field
painting. There might also be in Kubrick's films some other traits of
mid-20th century American art: a desire to assume or create an
international style to escape the supposed provincialism of American
culture, and an expression of contempt for mass society that is not so
far from contempt for humanity in general.
"I am being very vague, and I certainly could be wrong about this.
There is also Kubrick the satirist, who despises authority and
bureaucracy and has a keen sense of human and cosmic absurdity. And
Kubrick clearly cared about ideas. But at least I'm mildly curious
whether those who like or dislike Kubrick also like or dislike, say,
abstract art or Modern architecture..."
By the way I liked this review of "Eyes Wide Shut" in Film Quarterly,
available here:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1070/is_3_53/ai_62402522/pg_1
One point I made in the discussion on rec.arts.movies.international is
that the problem of "Eyes Wide Shut" is like a problem of
representation. "Eyes Wide Shut is filled with women, but do we see
the faces of women in love? We don't know; each face is a riddle. Does
Alice love Bill? (Does Nicole Kidman love Tom Cruise?) Did the woman
in the morgue die for Bill? We can't know. Now I think we can
interpret this in a variety of ways. It might be a statement about
perception and representation. We can't know or show others' true
feelings. I don't know if this is healthy attitude, but it seems too
heartfelt to be cheap cynicism." Again I suspect I may be in error,
confusing Bill's unhealthy mental state with a kind of philosophical
problem.
Paul
17202
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:50am
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.
>
> Which may be why it's the one Kubrick film I've liked in a long
time.
But she says, "Don't say forever - it scares me." By the way, I think
Michel is just plain nuts to argue in his BFI monograph that the film
is told from the pov of their unconceived child.
17203
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:04am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Other films with that structure: Tristana, Vertigo, What? -- all of
which repeat their first halves symmetrically, with a castration in
the middle: Tristana's amputation, Alex's conditioning, Scotty's
melancholia (which clearly includes impotence), Sydne Rome's right
leg being painted blue. Polanski used a modified version of the
structure (modified to fit hide within a straight narrative) in
Chinatown, with Gittis geting his nose slashed in the middle.
Kubrick and Polanski (in What?) are the only directors who make the
mirroring halves symmetrical in length and repeat scenes rigorously:
Polanski did it as an attempt at sonata-allegro form, Kubrick with
the aims I argue for in my Full Metal Jacket piece. In Tristana
Bunuel is ironically "righting" the scandalous situation that
underlies part 1 by reversing all the elements -- in part 2 Tristana
becomes pure again, Don Lope really becomes her guardian.
Hitchcock, who invented this structure, as far as I can see, did it
instinctively with a brilliant assist from Angus MacPhail, just
before the latter relapsed into alcoholism. MacPhail was
knowledgeable about story structure and myth, and was thinking a lot
about the latter at the time.
For me this structure defines one important current of cinematic
modernism that includes other films, albeit less obviously: Fellini
Satyricon, for example.
17204
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:07am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
>
> 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 what it's worth, Jean-Claude Biette came to the same conclusion
in one of his last pieces, "Kubrick's Beard," where we learn that,
despite his rejection of Kubrick until then, he had seen Lolita seven
times and given it a lot of thought.
17205
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:07am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> By the way, I think
> Michel is just plain nuts to argue in his BFI monograph that the
film
> is told from the pov of their unconceived child.
Yeah, it's a very "out there" kind of reading...
17206
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:27am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
Much of the complexity and ambiguity of
> _2001_ and _ACO_, which I had valued, seems to dissipate due to
> Kubrick's own words.
Trust the tale, not the teller.
Maybe not unlike the
> art and architecture that emerged in New York while he lived there
as
> a young man, Kubrick's films evince a desire for bold formal
patterns
> even at the cost of losing the richness and fullness of life.
Unquestionably -- the representation of NY in Eyes Wide Shut offended
many critics: every detail has been selected, every pedestrian has
been directed. It's an abstraction which has many similarities to the
New York of Killer's Kiss -- including the fact that neither city is
ever named. In fact, no city is ever named in Kubrick. "The capitol"
in Barry Lyndon (I assume Vienna) is one shot of a broad highway with
samples of Palladian architecture, widely spaced, on either side.
The City (rarerly seen, and rarefied when it is), like its symbolic
equivalent, the Desert (including the vacuum of space, or the ruined,
burning cities in Barry Lyndon and Full Metal Jacket, which are
returning to the state of Nature) are not real places -- they are
the transcendental condition for any Kubrick film, which takes place
in one or more interiors that exist to shut them out. But as an
abstraction the City has certain properties when Kubrick shows it.
It's full of sirens, for example. For me the party at the rich man's
home in EWS and the orgy (presumably the same people) are the
equivalents of Times Square (lots of neon, dime a dance girls) and
the loft full of mannequins in Killer's Kiss.
Kubrick's interiors (his films) are usually all-male, but in Shining
and Eyes Wide Shut they contain nuclear families. I sense an
ambivalence working itself out -- even though in Eyes Wide Shut the
sirens are as dangerous as ever.
I concocted this "topographical" theory of Kubrick while studying The
Seafarers, his best early short, which I highly recommend.
"I am being very vague, and I certainly could be wrong about this.
> There is also Kubrick the satirist, who despises authority and
> bureaucracy and has a keen sense of human and cosmic absurdity.
And anyone can read his commercial films on that level. Paths of
Glory and A Clockwork Orange could play on Times Square.
"Eyes Wide Shut is filled with women, but do we see
> the faces of women in love? We don't know; each face is a riddle.
Again I suspect I may be in error,
> confusing Bill's unhealthy mental state with a kind of philosophical
> problem.
A lot of people want to see him as unhealthy, even at the end, but I
think you're closer to the truth when you invoke philosophy. Maybe
anthropology would be a better word.
17207
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:34am
Subject: For all Miramax haters (of which I'm not particularly one..)
WINDS SHIFTING AT INDIE ARMS
Par, Mouse shop for toppers
A game of musical chairs is afoot in the specialty film world, with
both Paramount and Disney gearing up to retool their indie divisions.
With the clock winding down on contract talks between Miramax co-
heads Bob and Harvey Weinstein and corporate parent the Walt Disney
Co., the Mouse House is exploring the possibility of continuing the
Miramax label without the movie maven brothers should they exit the
fold.
17208
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:58am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
"they're WASPs where the couple in Schnitzler's "Traumnovelle" are
Jewish"
There is absolutely nothing in Schnitzler's novella to indicate that
the central couple are Jewish. The only character Schnitzler
identifies as Jewish is Nachtingal.
On the other hand, Kubrick does suggest that Bill and Alice are
Jewish. They may have a Christmas tree, but there's also a menorah
clearly visible among the decor in their apartment. The film can
certainly be seen as being about the reemergence of a suppressed
Jewish identity.
17209
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:54am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> There is absolutely nothing in Schnitzler's novella to indicate
> that the central couple are Jewish.
I assumed that the anti-Semitic students and their harassment of
Fridolin denoted that he was Jewish.
17210
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 0:51pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
"I assumed that the anti-Semitic students and their harassment of
Fridolin denoted that he was Jewish."
But there's nothing in the novella to suggest that the students are
anti-Semitic.
17211
From:
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
In a message dated 10/20/04 12:32:44 AM, noelbotevera@y... writes:
> 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.
>
You don't think Cruise welcomes that invitation after such a horrible descent
into hell? How free is this sexual freedom when participants are punished
with death?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
17212
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Unquestionably -- the representation of NY in Eyes
> Wide Shut offended
> many critics: every detail has been selected, every
> pedestrian has
> been directed. It's an abstraction which has many
> similarities to the
> New York of Killer's Kiss -- including the fact that
> neither city is
> ever named.
Jonathan Rosenbaum has pointed out that in EWS Kubrick
meticulously reconstructs the New York he knew the
last time he was there. As someone who lived in New
York at that time I can testify to its
ship-in-a-bottle "authenticity." This highly
abstracted "New York" is one of the most amazing
things about the film -- key to its "dream-like" nature.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
17213
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> There is absolutely nothing in Schnitzler's novella
> to indicate that
> the central couple are Jewish. The only character
> Schnitzler
> identifies as Jewish is Nachtingal.
>
> On the other hand, Kubrick does suggest that Bill
> and Alice are
> Jewish. They may have a Christmas tree, but there's
> also a menorah
> clearly visible among the decor in their apartment.
> The film can
> certainly be seen as being about the reemergence of
> a suppressed
> Jewish identity.
>
Dealing with sexual guilt in the manner that it does
"EWS" is Kurbrick's second-most-Jewish movie."Barry
Lyndon" being the all-time champ with its message of
"If you try and rise above your station God will get
even with you and cut off your leg."
In some ways Kubrick is the Michael Jackson of Jews.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17214
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
--- Matthew Clayfield
wrote:
>
> I assumed that the anti-Semitic students and their
> harassment of
> Fridolin denoted that he was Jewish.
>
>
>
>
Which is neatly exchanged to the homophobic street
youths and their harrassment of Cruise for being gay.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17215
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:43pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Which is neatly exchanged to the homophobic street
> youths and their harrassment of Cruise for being gay.
Exactly. But Brad has me wondering now, to the point where I think I
might have to go back and read "Traumnovelle" again.
17216
From:
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:12pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick/Coens
>
> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 05:49:38 -0000
> From: "Damien Bona"
>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.
I'll concede that "contempt" is not quantifiable and thus more or
less impossible to argue -- I walk out of the Coens' best movies
with feelings of empathy for the characters, which either means I
hold myself in contempt or I'm seeing something others don't. But
just looking at the performance styles in Kubrick and Coens, it seems
to me the Coens have a genuine love of human eccentricity that
Kubrick can't come anywhere near. Even as far back as DR STRANGELOVE,
the performances in Kubrick's movies are flat, two-dimensional -- I
watched DS again recently (on film, i hasten to add) and was amazed
and eventually disappointed that it was exactly as I remembered it,
which is to say that after however many viewings and however many
years, the movie remains static, unchanging, everything on the
surface. Apart from Alan Cumming's sublimely bizarre turn in EYES
WIDE SHUT, I can't think of an instant that was even memorable, let
alone truthful. I don't fall as firmly into the "cold fish" camp re:
Kubrick as I used to, but he still seems to be among the most
anti-humanist of filmmakers.
By contrast, whether the Coens love their characters or not (anyone
care to argue the point rather than just assert it?), their movies
are full of memorable performance moments: practically every line out
of the four main characters' mouths in RAISING ARIZONA, most of John
Turturro and Marcia Gay Harden's dialogue in MILLER'S CROSSING, John
Goodman, Michael Lerner and Tony Shalhoub's incandescent turns in
BARTON FINK (not to mention the fine support of detectives
Mastronatti and Deutsch), Tim Robbins and Jennifer Jason Leigh in
HUDSUCKER, Frances McDormand and Steve Buscemi in FARGO, Clooney,
Zeta-Jones and the Baron in INTOLERABLE CRUELTY, and that's just from
memory. Without getting into how they feel about their characters,
can anyone argue they don't love actors? If anything, they might
occasionally love them too much -- it was gratifying to see Hanks
recover some of his former goofiness in LADYKILLERS, but the
performance could have been dialed down a notch or six. Sure, the
movies are stylized, "self-conscious" if you will, but since when is
that a sin? I'd be the first to admit their recent output has been
extremely scattershot -- with the exception of INTOLERABLE, there's
not a movie since FARGO I'd defend in full. But if only in terms of
acting, the Coens are virtually alone in preserving and expanding an
immensely enjoyable performance style, and god bless 'em for it.
Sam
17217
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: NYC - auteurist trilemma
> I went to see THE STORY OF THE LAST CHRYSANTHEMUM. It was shown in
> 16mm, which maybe diminished the experience a little.
So was ANNE OF THE INDIES - and either the print or the projection was
awful. A decent VHS would have been better.
I don't find this a major Tourneur film at all, myself.
> 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.
Well, it's kind of outrageous and disgusting - maybe even some of its fans
would give it that. You know that overheated Aldrich mode where all the
characters go over the top and taste is discarded? I could never handle
THE GRISSOM GANG, myself, though I would have liked to revisit it. - Dan
17218
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:56pm
Subject: Re: Re: NYC - auteurist trilemma
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I could never handle
> THE GRISSOM GANG, myself, though I would have liked
> to revisit it.
I can't imagine why anyone would consider throwing
away the sublime title "No Orchids For Miss Blandish"
for "The Grissom Gang."
Has anybody seen Chereau's "Flesh of the Orchid" with
Charlotte Rampling? Chereau himself dislikes it ("I
was young. I didn't know what I was doing!") but with
a cast that includes Simone Signoret, Eve Francis and
Edwige Feullierre how bad could it be?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
17219
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:20pm
Subject: Shara (Was: Twentynine Palms)
> To be honest, what I
> really want to see, thinking of its shared-a-Cahiers-cover-with
> counterpart, is Naomi Kawase's 'Shara.'
I really liked SHARA, and would love to see Kawase's other work. - Dan
17220
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:21pm
Subject: Re: 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
New York has long needed a cinema czar or coordinator (especially, it sometimes seems, on Tuesday nights).
> According to the Anthology program notes, the Lincoln Center Tourneur
> retrospective "purposely excluded" ANNE OF THE INDIES. Does anybody
> know why this was?
That was rather a provocative remark, since we seldom learn about the considerations in selecting titles for retrospectives, other than availability and print condition. In Jonathan Rosenbaum's phrase, how do the film societies and revival theaters "limit what films we can see"?
When I realized it was the ubiquitous Mark McElhatten, himself associated with Lincoln Center, who programmed this Anthology series and presumably wrote that note, it occurred to me that he must know the answer if anyone does.
The condition of the print, which was *literally* hard to see (and hear), could have been reason enough for its exclusion uptown. (As may have been McElhatten's intention here, it sometimes almost resembled the reshot-and-recut-from-8mm QUO VADIS excerpts in the avant-garde films that opened the show!) Still, it was very good to get some sense of it at last, although I'd rather have seen it at the Walter Reade.
What's this on the imdb about a longer "director's cut"?
17221
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:30pm
Subject: re: Kawase
One Naomi Kawase film really worth seeing if you ever get the chance - I
caught a rare screening in Australia years back, with Kawase present, but it
has also been shown more recently in Rotterdam - is her early short (maybe
45 minutes or so), an intimate 'diary film' called LIKE AIR aka EMBRACING.
Still my favourite of all her work. She is a extremely interesting
filmmaker.
Adrian
17222
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 8:45pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick/Coens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
> >
Even as far back as DR STRANGELOVE,
> the performances in Kubrick's movies are flat, two-dimensional -- I
> watched DS again recently (on film, i hasten to add) and was amazed
> and eventually disappointed that it was exactly as I remembered it,
> which is to say that after however many viewings and however many
> years, the movie remains static, unchanging, everything on the
> surface.
Another major film that's like that: Gun Crazy. What you see is what
you get, and when you see it again, you get it again. But any time I
turn on the tv and see Shining's playing, I'm sucked in. It's
infinitely rewatchable.
Apart from Alan Cumming's sublimely bizarre turn in EYES
> WIDE SHUT, I can't think of an instant that was even memorable, let
> alone truthful.
The Hungarian wolf. The hooker. The costume man and his daughter.
Nick Nightingale. The counter girl. But it's true that Cummings walks
off with the movie when he's on.
By contrast, whether the Coens love their characters or not (anyone
> care to argue the point rather than just assert it?), their movies
> are full of memorable performance moments.
Very important distinction. They do love actors, and actors love them.
17223
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:48pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
The whole ending is more complex than it initially appears and
evokes a "loss of nerve" as well as denial syndrome. In terms of the
Robert Ardrey associations that one critic has noticed in terms of
2001's "Dawn of Man" sequence, has anybody noticed the scene in the
taxi when Cruise in on his way to his fatal destination? The
lighting evokes Kubrick's primeval savage facial expression that
Michel Cinemt illustrates in his book on the director via various
stills.
Although not exhibiting the regressive nature of Jack Torrance in
the latter part of THE SHINING, the lighting suggests that Cruise's
character is groing through his own form of primal atavism similar
to Pyle in FULL METAL JACKET and Alex punishing his droogs in A
CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Wish I had a still of this shot.
Despite many reservations over the status of "chipmunk guy" in
Hollywood cinema, he may have been a better choice than John
Malkovich whom Kubrick considered at one point, whose manneristic
mode of acting would have been inappropriate for the casting.
Tony Williams
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
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
17224
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:33pm
Subject: George Cukor Rolls Over in His Grave
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1541&ncid=1541&e=1&u=/afp/20041020/en_afp/afplifestyle_us_film_041020190944
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17225
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:36pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/20/04 12:32:44 AM, noelbotevera@y... writes:
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> You don't think Cruise welcomes that invitation after such a
horrible descent
> into hell?
Isn't that the worst part--that he's not only cut off from every
avenue of escape, but has (like Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life)
lost the will to even try?
It's hell because there's no fulfillment. Cruise is teased, seduced,
led towards one tableau or the other, but when he's at the point
that he might participate, the possibility is shut down, flat.
Death might be preferable.
17226
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:48pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
>
> But she says, "Don't say forever - it scares me."
Sounds like a Bush campaign promise to me.
17227
From:
Date: Wed Oct 20, 2004 7:48pm
Subject: A Time for Burning
I saw this documentary in the 1960's on Public TV, but had forgotten all
about it:
A Time for Burning
Thanks for the reminder. It was good!
Public televsion used to be a true window on civilization and the world.
Mike Grost
17228
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 0:36am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
> Despite many reservations over the status of "chipmunk guy" in
> Hollywood cinema, he may have been a better choice than John
> Malkovich whom Kubrick considered at one point, whose manneristic
> mode of acting would have been inappropriate for the casting.
>
As someone who loves "Eyes Wide Shut," I think the one flaw in the
picture is Cruise's presence. It's not so much the quality of his
performance as it is his callowness. The film would have been more
affecting with a more solid central presence, perhaps Jeff Bridges or
Richard Gere or even Kevin Costner. (But certainly not Malkovich!)
On the other hand, without Cruise, the film would have lost -- to use
a favorite Sarris term -- its Pirandellian elements via the gay
bashing scene and the Cruis/Kidman cinema a clef.
17229
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 0:37am
Subject: Re: A Time for Burning
>
> I saw this documentary in the 1960's on Public TV, but had forgotten
> all
> about it:
> A Time for Burning
> Thanks for the reminder. It was good!
> Public televsion used to be a true window on civilization and the
> world.
I'm hoping PBS and Frederick Wiseman will arrange an agreement in the
near future about getting some of his films on DVD at long last...
craig.
17230
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 0:42am
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
> Although not exhibiting the regressive nature of Jack Torrance in
> the latter part of THE SHINING, the lighting suggests that Cruise's
> character is groing through his own form of primal atavism similar
> to Pyle in FULL METAL JACKET and Alex punishing his droogs in A
> CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Wish I had a still of this shot.
I can make stills for you of the Pyle shot and the Harford shot if you
want. Kubrick employs the slow zoom on the close-up in both (if the
Pyle shot you're thinking of is the one during the Whitman/Oswald
lesson -- the moment when Pyle's short-circuit becomes evident, as I
recall).
craig.
17231
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 0:55am
Subject: Re: George Cukor Rolls Over in His Grave
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&cid=1541&ncid=1541&e=1&u=/afp/20041020/en_afp/afplifestyle
_us_film_041020190944
>
> C'mon David! It could be worse. Madonna, Demi Moore, and Britney
Spears could also be signed up with Guy Ritchie directing.
Tony Williams
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
17232
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 0:57am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
has anybody noticed the scene in the
> taxi when Cruise in on his way to his fatal destination? The
> lighting evokes Kubrick's primeval savage facial expression that
> Michel Cinemt illustrates in his book on the director via various
> stills.
Yep. He's pissed all right. And btw, that's definitely "Nick" in the
b&w shots.
>
> Despite many reservations over the status of "chipmunk guy" in
> Hollywood cinema, he may have been a better choice than John
> Malkovich whom Kubrick considered at one point, whose manneristic
> mode of acting would have been inappropriate for the casting.
Plus, I would've had to skip Kubrick's last film!
17233
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 0:58am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
> wrote:
> > > As someone who loves "Eyes Wide Shut," I think the one flaw in
the
> picture is Cruise's presence...... > perhaps Jeff Bridges or
> Richard Gere or even Kevin Costner. (But certainly not
Malkovich!)
> On the other hand, without Cruise, the film would have lost -- to
use
> a favorite Sarris term -- its Pirandellian elements via the gay
> bashing scene and the Cruis/Kidman cinema a clef.
Gee! Kevin Costner! The most boring actor in American cinema!
Gigolo Gere chanting Zen in one scene?
Perhaps, there is something to be said for chipmunk guy after all?
Tony Williams
17234
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 0:58am
Subject: Re: Re: George Cukor Rolls Over in His Grave
--- peckinpah20012000
wrote:
> >
> > C'mon David! It could be worse. Madonna, Demi
> Moore, and Britney
> Spears could also be signed up with Guy Ritchie
> directing.
>
>
Your forgot Jennifer Lopez.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
17235
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:03am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps, there is something to be said for chipmunk guy after all?
>
> Tony Williams
Let me say it: He's a terrific actor, and a real movie star.
17236
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:04am
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
--- Damien Bona wrote:
>
> As someone who loves "Eyes Wide Shut," I think the
> one flaw in the
> picture is Cruise's presence. It's not so much the
> quality of his
> performance as it is his callowness. The film would
> have been more
> affecting with a more solid central presence,
> perhaps Jeff Bridges or
> Richard Gere or even Kevin Costner. (But certainly
> not Malkovich!)
> On the other hand, without Cruise, the film would
> have lost -- to use
> a favorite Sarris term -- its Pirandellian elements
> via the gay
> bashing scene and the Cruis/Kidman cinema a clef.
>
>
>
>
Oh Maybe. But after "Strangelove" Kubrick lost
interest in charismatic actors -- Nicholson in "The
Shining" being the exception to the rule.
Cruise serves his purpose as it's not necessary to
"like" him at all -- just be vaguely interested in him
for "what happens next" purposes.
But if I'm not bodily removed from the event this
coming Monday I'll do my best to ask Cruise about the
Pirandellian aspects of EWS.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
17237
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:05am
Subject: Re: George Cukor Rolls Over in His Grave
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- peckinpah20012000
> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > C'mon David! It could be worse. Madonna, Demi
> > Moore, and Britney
> > Spears could also be signed up with Guy Ritchie
> > directing.
> >
> >
> Your forgot Jennifer Lopez.
Sounds like "the ultimate chick flick."
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
17238
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Let me say it: He's a terrific actor, and a real
> movie star.
>
>
>
>
OK , say it.
I'll say he's the luckiest guy in Hollywood.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17239
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:09am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Let me say it: He's a terrific actor, and a real
> > movie star.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> OK , say it.
>
> I'll say he's the luckiest guy in Hollywood.
Touche. And a half.
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
17240
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:15am
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
>>
>> Perhaps, there is something to be said for chipmunk guy after all?
>>
>> Tony Williams
>
> Let me say it: He's a terrific actor, and a real movie star.
Thank you!!
Vindicated.
craig.
17241
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:40am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
> Gee! Kevin Costner! The most boring actor in American cinema!
> Gigolo Gere chanting Zen in one scene?
>
> Perhaps, there is something to be said for chipmunk guy after all?
Costner and Gere (and Bridges, as well as, say Daniel Day-Lewis, Liam
Neeson, Michael Douglas, even the terminally-boring William Hurt)
would have brought a gravitas that Cruise will probably not even have
when he's in his Lewis Stone/Charles Coburn phase. Cruise is simply
not believable as a very rich New York society doctor.
He was inoffensive in his early days in the 80s, but starting with
Rain Man, it's been painful to watch his earnest ineptitude as he's
tried to prove he's a "real actor" and not just another chipmuk face.
17242
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:22am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Jonathan Rosenbaum has pointed out that in EWS Kubrick
> meticulously reconstructs the New York he knew the
> last time he was there. As someone who lived in New
> York at that time I can testify to its
> ship-in-a-bottle "authenticity." This highly
> abstracted "New York" is one of the most amazing
> things about the film -- key to its "dream-like" nature.
>
I noticed one small detail from today's New York: Bill walks down a
section of W. 4th Street that's otherwise nondescript, but there's a
copy of the actual sidewalk sign for the Pink Pussycat Boutique sex
shop. That sign had always stuck out in my memory for some reason,
maybe just because it blocks traffic on the sidewalk...
One half-formed idea I had in relation to EYE WIDE SHUT was to relate
it to Laura Mulvey's essay that claims the traditional cinema forces
the spectator, whether male or female, to assume in relation to the
image of woman either a fetishistic/ masochistic role, surrendering to
the pleasures of the erotic image of the woman, or a voyeuristic/
sadistic role, controlling the woman by means of the story. Bill, the
spectator to the events in the films, is systematically frustrated in
his attempts either to look at or to control what he desires and
fears. (It might be, however, that Kubrick views sexual relations as
usually fetishistic or sadistic.) In any case, Bill is unable to
assume either role, but at the end there seems to be some hope of
interaction. At least the woman assumes an active role: Alice asserts
her desire. It might be notable that it's with a word, 'fuck,' rather
than an image. The image itself is unthreatening: a family in an
expensive toy store. The woman assumes control of words, of the story.
Mandy tried it once and died. Alice tries and this time may succeed.
I didn't see this an affirmation of traditional values, of Bill's
authority. Instead throughout the film he feared the power of women's
sexuality, which seemed to him symbolically castrating, and tried to
control it; here there is a possibility of accepting Alice and her
desire without needing to control it.
I think there are some similarities to this summary of Laura Mulvey on
Hitchcock. Her reading reminds me of EYES WIDE SHUT in that Bill is an
authority figure, a doctor -- a fact that he repeatedly asserts -- but
the lure of the gaze tears down his respectability:
"In Hitchcock, by contrast, the male hero always sees what the
audience sees. There are scopophilia moments, 'oscillating between
voyeurism and fetishistic fascination', and the male heroes usually
lose their respectability ('His heroes are exemplary of the
symbolic order and the law') by succumbing to erotic drives. Sadistic
subjection, and voyeuristic gaze are both directed at women, thinly
justified by acting in the name of legalised power, or because the
woman is classically 'guilty' -- 'evoking castration,
psychoanalytically speaking'. Viewers are encouraged to identify,
through devices like 'liberal use of subjective camera from the point
of view of the male protagonist'. [A more detailed discussion of
Vertigo ensues -- it demonstrates an interesting opinion that the
viewer in Hitchcock films can feel uneasy, complicit, 'caught in the
moral ambiguity of looking', almost as if the sexual pleasures are too
blatant, and too thinly disguised by the apparent morality of the
film, its 'shallow mask of ideological correctness'].
(http://www.arasite.org/mulvey.htm)
Paul
17243
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:44am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
"...if I'm not bodily removed from the event this
coming Monday I'll do my best to ask Cruise about the
Pirandellian aspects of EWS."
David, are you sure you weren't invited to this thing the way Hrundi
V. Bakshi was invited to Clutterbuck's party?
Richard
17244
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:53am
Subject: Re: Re: George Cukor Rolls Over in His Grave
I have to say three things on this one, David.
First and least important, The Women is far from a great Cukor film,
although it has its moments.
Second, who the hell is Diane English and what qualifies her to write and
direct this film (other than her gender, I assume)?
Third, any film that gathers such a distinguished cast of terrible actresses
in one place deserves our gratitude because otherwise they'd sully several
different films. This way I can avoid all of them in one shot.
George (not Cukor, although I did get a nice letter from him once) Robinson
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ehrenstein"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Re: George Cukor Rolls Over in His Grave
>
>
> --- peckinpah20012000
> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > C'mon David! It could be worse. Madonna, Demi
> > Moore, and Britney
> > Spears could also be signed up with Guy Ritchie
> > directing.
> >
> >
> Your forgot Jennifer Lopez.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
17245
From: Noel Vera
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:59am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Oh Maybe. But after "Strangelove" Kubrick lost
> interest in charismatic actors -- Nicholson in "The
> Shining" being the exception to the rule.
Maybe Malcolm McDowell in Clockwork.
> But if I'm not bodily removed from the event this
> coming Monday I'll do my best to ask Cruise about the
> Pirandellian aspects of EWS.
You'll probably get a more sensible answer if you ask Kubrick.
17246
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:12am
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
> David, are you sure you weren't invited to this
> thing the way Hrundi
> V. Bakshi was invited to Clutterbuck's party?
>
Nous nous voyons!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
17247
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:15am
Subject: Re: Re: George Cukor Rolls Over in His Grave
--- George Robinson wrote:
> I have to say three things on this one, David.
>
> First and least important, The Women is far from a
> great Cukor film,
> although it has its moments.
>
I think you underrate it. It's amodel of speed and
sass.
> Second, who the hell is Diane English and what
> qualifies her to write and
> direct this film (other than her gender, I assume)?
>
She created "Murphy Brown."
> Third, any film that gathers such a distinguished
> cast of terrible actresses
> in one place deserves our gratitude because
> otherwise they'd sully several
> different films. This way I can avoid all of them in
> one shot.
>
True.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
17248
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:17am
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
--- Noel Vera wrote:
>
> Maybe Malcolm McDowell in Clockwork.
>
He saw him as a "type."
>
> You'll probably get a more sensible answer if you
> ask Kubrick.
>
>
>
>
True.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17249
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:41am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Rosenbaum has pointed out that in EWS Kubrick
> > meticulously reconstructs the New York he knew the
> > last time he was there. As someone who lived in New
> > York at that time I can testify to its
> > ship-in-a-bottle "authenticity." This highly
> > abstracted "New York" is one of the most amazing
> > things about the film -- key to its "dream-like" nature.
> >
>
> I noticed one small detail from today's New York: Bill walks down a
> section of W. 4th Street that's otherwise nondescript, but there's a
> copy of the actual sidewalk sign for the Pink Pussycat Boutique sex
> shop. That sign had always stuck out in my memory for some reason,
> maybe just because it blocks traffic on the sidewalk...
That's not 60s New York. PAccording to American Cinematographer,
Kubrick had thousands of photos taken and built 90s New York on
soundstages. What gives it the "ship-in-a-bottle" feel, as David
eloquently puts it, is how it's reconstructed. As I said, you feel
that every detail was selected, and every extra directed as they
march past the laterally tracking camera. This can be avoided -- look
at the reconstruction of New York Dmytryk built and filmed (also in
England) for Christ in Concrete -- it's alive, organic, real.
Kubrick's New York is an abstraction, but a period-accurate one --
and that drove some critics nuts when it was released.
17250
From:
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:12am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
David Ehrenstein:
>> >
> >
> Oh Maybe. But after "Strangelove" Kubrick lost
> interest in charismatic actors -- Nicholson in "The
> Shining" being the exception to the rule.
>
Not quite sure I agree, David. McDowell in ACO is an obvious
example, but so is Lee Ermey in FMJ, not to mention Baldwin and
Arliss Howard in the same film. And yeah, I'd argue that both Cruise
and Kidman are charismatic in EWS. Of course, my favorite is Ryan
O'Neal in BARRY LYNDON, but I've fought that battle one too many
times to bother with it again at this particular moment.
Oh...looking at some later posts I now see that you refer to
McDowell in ACO as a "type." Couldn't we say the same for the
characters in STRANGELOVE? I think there is this archetypal element
to Kubrick's characters, sure, but I don't think it negates the
possibility of charismatic acting.
-Bilge
17251
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
--- ebiri@a... wrote:
> Not quite sure I agree, David. McDowell in ACO is an
> obvious
> example, but so is Lee Ermey in FMJ, not to mention
> Baldwin and
> Arliss Howard in the same film.
Kubrick cast McDowell because of his work in "If. . ."
-- therefore it's "typeage" acting once again. No
reflection on McDowell -- he was simply required to do
certain things,and never others.
And yeah, I'd argue
> that both Cruise
> and Kidman are charismatic in EWS.
Chaque a son GOO!
Of course, my
> favorite is Ryan
> O'Neal in BARRY LYNDON, but I've fought that battle
> one too many
> times to bother with it again at this particular
> moment.
Kubrick cast him because Vivian liked him in "What's
Up Doc?"
> Oh...looking at some later posts I now see that you
> refer to
> McDowell in ACO as a "type." Couldn't we say the
> same for the
> characters in STRANGELOVE?
Yes. See Eisenstein and Pudovkin.
I think there is this
> archetypal element
> to Kubrick's characters, sure, but I don't think it
> negates the
> possibility of charismatic acting.
Pretty much so. Go back and read the reviews for "The
Shining" where critics complained that Nicholson was
being more "Jack" than ever. He certainly was. However
I think he managed to "slip one past the goalie" in
the scenes at the bar where he imagines Joe Turkel
before Turkel "actually" shows up.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17252
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:09pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
> Kubrick cast McDowell because of his work in "If. . ."
> -- therefore it's "typeage" acting once again. No
> reflection on McDowell -- he was simply required to do
> certain things,and never others.
But I certainly don't think he gives the same performance in IF...
and CLOCKWORK ORANGE. The characters are quite different, as are the
levels of ham and the accents and the...well, everything. Alex is a
much more flamboyant performance.
> I think there is this
> > archetypal element
> > to Kubrick's characters, sure, but I don't think it
> > negates the
> > possibility of charismatic acting.
>
> Pretty much so.
I don't see how this can be argued in the face of Leonard Rossiter in
BARRY L! And I'd say all the characters in PATHS OF GLORY are quite
archetypal too - reading the Ciment interviews, Kubrick seems to have
strongly favoured simplicity in characerisation. I don't agree with
him that it's a must, but I think he's awfully good with it.
17253
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
--- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
>
> But I certainly don't think he gives the same
> performance in IF...
> and CLOCKWORK ORANGE. The characters are quite
> different, as are the
> levels of ham and the accents and the...well,
> everything. Alex is a
> much more flamboyant performance.
>
I disagree. How long has it been since you've seen
"If. . ." ? There's nothing in "CO" quitelike the cafe
scene where he wrestles with the girl. And the moment
in the caning scene where he flings open the doors
grandly before stariding in made me fall in love with
him for the rest of my life. If tou want to know what
I'm like when I'm really angry see McDowell in
thatmoment.
>
> I don't see how this can be argued in the face of
> Leonard Rossiter in
> BARRY L! And I'd say all the characters in PATHS OF
> GLORY are quite
> archetypal too - reading the Ciment interviews,
> Kubrick seems to have
> strongly favoured simplicity in characerisation. I
> don't agree with
> him that it's a must, but I think he's awfully good
> with it.
>
MacCready and Menjou are given much more roomto
operate as actors than the performers in later
Kubrick. "The men died wonderfully" is a great
MacCready moment. And Menjou's last scene with Douglas
is amazing.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17254
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:16pm
Subject: Re: The Letter
> 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."
Any film where actors of one race portray characters of another race
is always going to pose problems for a modern viewer. But one has to
accept that this was standard practice at the time. Interesting how
many Swedish actors played Chinese characters, as if all forms of
foreignness were interchangeable.
I haven't seen the film often enough to form a definite view as to
its treatment of race, but the depiction of the ethnic characters as
inscrutable, unpredictable and "other" seemed appropriate given that
the film was from the POV of western characters. Although Wyler
allows us to stand back and judge the white folks in the film, he
doesn't withdraw so far as to take the film out of one particular
cultural standpoint. It may in fact be essential that the film
maintains a Western viewpoint, since we have to be able to judge
Davis' actions as they appear to her fellow Europeans.
THE LITTLE FOXES is certainly a less troubling piece from an ethnic
standpoint, simply because Lillian Hellman is a far more progressive
writer than Somerset Maugham. But both are damned GOOD writers.
17255
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:25pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
> 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.
A rather strong reaction! That shot actually provoked a rare debate
between the brothers - one or the other of them thought it was
perhaps too self-conscious. But are you fundamentally opposed to self-
conscious filmmaking, or is it just in the hands of the Coens, with
the accompanying attitudes, that you find it so infuriating?
Along with Sturges, it seems to me a comparison could be made between
the Coens and Tashlin (with Tashlin probably coming out on top, but
there'd be common grounds, including the self-referentiality).
Nobody touches Sturges for me, but I do see a strong connection:
Sturges is obviously laughing at his characters - all of them - but
he loves them too. The fact that the Coens retain some small measure
of respect for at least some of their characters can be seen from the
fact that they clearly wouldn't dream of having anything bad happen
to Marge in FARGO, or hurting McDormand's blameless character in
BLOOD SIMPLE, or leaving the convicts in O BROTHER in a bad
situation: if the characters were just jokes, it wouldn't matter.
They have enough dimensionality to require respect. The Coens are
never gratuitously mean to nice characters.
17256
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 3:26pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Kubrick's New York is an abstraction, but a period-accurate one --
> and that drove some critics nuts when it was released.
Which reminds me of the American film critic mentioned by
Truffaut Re: "Rear Window". FT had been praising the Hithcock film
highly and the critic said something like: "That's because you don't
know how Greenwich Village really looks."
"period-accurate abstraction" is an excellent description, but
isn't it a bit of an oxymoron? Why be so accurate if you want to be
abstract? (and conversely, why be so abstract if you want to be
accurate -- but there is no attempt at recreating the feeling of an
actual New York neighborhood. It's just as glaringly a sound-stage
set as in a 30's or 40's Hollywood movie). But anyway we don't
expect Dmytryk-like realism from Kubrick, do we?
17257
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
Why be so accurate
> if you want to be
> abstract? (and conversely, why be so abstract if you
> want to be
> accurate -- but there is no attempt at recreating
> the feeling of an
> actual New York neighborhood. It's just as glaringly
> a sound-stage
> set as in a 30's or 40's Hollywood movie). But
> anyway we don't
> expect Dmytryk-like realism from Kubrick, do we?
>
No wedon't and that's the point. "Rear Window" was,
quite obviously, shot on an enormous set. But the
characters and actions are firmly grounded in realism.
The soudntrack's a wonder of ambience. We hear street
noises, bits of talk, carefully calibrated for
"distance," music and the like. The scene in which the
dead dog is discovered and neighbors are confronted
would be inconcievable in Kubrick,ikewise Thelma
Ritter and Grace Kelly.
The impact of the "New York" of "EWS" stems from its
artificiality. it's like "Beatlemania -- Not the real
thing but an incredible simulation." But where
Hitchcok fills in as much detail as he can to make the
apartment set in "Rear Window" behave like a real
place, Kubrick drains the realism out of "EWS."
Everything is pitched toa quasi-dream-like state, with
a story chock-a-block with Kafkaesque frustration.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17258
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:03pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
>
> The fact that the Coens retain some small measure
> of respect for at least some of their characters can be seen from
the
> fact that they clearly wouldn't dream of having anything bad
happen
> to Marge in FARGO, or hurting McDormand's blameless character in
> BLOOD SIMPLE, or leaving the convicts in O BROTHER in a bad
> situation: if the characters were just jokes, it wouldn't matter.
Of course, some people will have you believe that the Coens actually
have nothing but contempt for Marge, Norm and small-town mores in
general. Jonathan Rosenbaum has described Marge as being the
Coen's "pet hick". The Coens might not have anything bad happen to
her in terms of the plot (after all, she's one of the only
characters no, uh, not die), but surely, in the Coen's eyes, living
a life as dull as Marge's is, in the end, as bad as Carl's date with
the wood chipper?
I don't buy into this reading myself. I'm just offering it up as a
counterpoint.
17259
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
But are you
> fundamentally opposed to self-
> conscious filmmaking, or is it just in the hands of
> the Coens, with
> the accompanying attitudes, that you find it so
> infuriating?
>
It's the attitude. It was so damned smart-ass I just
wanted to smack them.
> Nobody touches Sturges for me, but I do see a strong
> connection:
> Sturges is obviously laughing at his characters -
> all of them - but
> he loves them too. The fact that the Coens retain
> some small measure
> of respect for at least some of their characters can
> be seen from the
> fact that they clearly wouldn't dream of having
> anything bad happen
> to Marge in FARGO, or hurting McDormand's blameless
> character in
> BLOOD SIMPLE, or leaving the convicts in O BROTHER
> in a bad
> situation: if the characters were just jokes, it
> wouldn't matter.
> They have enough dimensionality to require respect.
> The Coens are
> never gratuitously mean to nice characters.
>
But then you have to take the Coens SAT to qualify for
"nice." If you fail then you're a patsy who gets fed
into a wood-chipper.
Had the Coens made "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek" it
would have ended with Norville and Trudy blowing each
other's brains out in a mutual suicide pact.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
17260
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:15pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
wrote:
>
>
> Of course, some people will have you believe that the Coens
actually
> have nothing but contempt for Marge, Norm and small-town mores in
> general.
> I don't buy into this reading myself. I'm just offering it up as a
> counterpoint.
The last scene where she talks about how the post office will always
need the little stamps is a statement about permanent inflation,
which is part of the economic mechanism that keeps Marge and Norm
poor. (They have a black and white tv.) Marge is someone who is a
hero in spite of her low position on the class totem pole. The movie
is about money vs. family, and Marge and Norm come out looking much
better than Macy and his inlaws.
17261
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:27pm
Subject: Fw: [AMIA-L] Harold Lloyd films getting theatrical re-release
Very good news indeed.
g
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Kreines"
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 4:15 AM
Subject: [AMIA-L] Harold Lloyd films getting theatrical re-release
> Sony Pictures Releasing has acquired domestic theatrical rights to the
> films of comedian Harold Lloyd.
>
> Pact reps the first comprehensive deal for the Lloyd pictures since the
> early '70s, when Time-Life briefly distributed re-edited versions.
>
> Theatrical engagements will begin in early 2005, with retrospectives in
> major cities, after which the films will be available to theaters on an
> individual basis.
>
> Pics will be released via SPR's repertory division.
>
> All prints will be uncut and struck from newly restored negatives.
>
>
17262
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:49pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
"The last scene where she talks about how the post office will always
need the little stamps is a statement about permanent inflation,
which is part of the economic mechanism that keeps Marge and Norm
poor. (They have a black and white tv.) Marge is someone who is a
hero in spite of her low position on the class totem pole. The movie
is about money vs. family, and Marge and Norm come out looking much
better than Macy and his inlaws."
Yes, but surely the 'sympathetic' treatment of Marge is itself
heavily laced with irony. You can almost hear the Coens laughing up
their sleeves at the idea of anyone believing that they are actually
being serious here.
17263
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:00pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> "The last scene where she talks about how the post office will
always
> need the little stamps is a statement about permanent inflation,
> which is part of the economic mechanism that keeps Marge and Norm
> poor. (They have a black and white tv.) Marge is someone who is a
> hero in spite of her low position on the class totem pole. The
movie
> is about money vs. family, and Marge and Norm come out looking much
> better than Macy and his inlaws."
>
> Yes, but surely the 'sympathetic' treatment of Marge is itself
> heavily laced with irony. You can almost hear the Coens laughing up
> their sleeves at the idea of anyone believing that they are
actually
> being serious here.
You know, the Coens are the only filmmakers whose press conferences
are in circulation on video. People who write about film and have
seen even one of those will always hear their sardonic laughter
ringing in their ears when they see anything by the Coens, but IMO
they are laughing, sadly, at us. Which doesn't make it any easier to
take.
Sure you smile a bit when Marge says the line about "they'll always
need the smaller ones," but you smile affectionately, and then
hopefully think about what the line implies. Until that phantom
laughter starts up in your ears.
We all bring context to films by known directors. As someone pointed
out, a shot of a handsome Jesus Christ running barefoot over rocks in
The Milky Way reads differently than the same shot would in a film by
Rossellini, and that is a legitimate part of how we read films in
this day and age.
We all definitely bring contextual baggage to the Coens' films, but
I'm not convinced that it's coming from the films -- a lot of it is
coming from their interviews, and then from endlessly repeated
complaints that they are always laughing up their sleeves at their
characters in endless conversations among journalists and critics,
written and spoken, who rightly feel personally offended by the way
they behave in those interviews. They should show some respect! But
they never will.
The thing I can't stand about the MOVIES is the dialogue sometimes --
even frequently. Having a behemoth bruiser kidnapper saying he
needs "ungwent" is pure Damon Runyon, and they do it a lot, and it's
sophomoric and silly. I've said so more than once in print, too.
17264
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> We all definitely bring contextual baggage to the
> Coens' films, but
> I'm not convinced that it's coming from the films --
> a lot of it is
> coming from their interviews, and then from
> endlessly repeated
> complaints that they are always laughing up their
> sleeves at their
> characters in endless conversations among
> journalists and critics,
> written and spoken, who rightly feel personally
> offended by the way
> they behave in those interviews. They should show
> some respect! But
> they never will.
>
I hadn't known about that, but it doesn't surprise me
because I sense the same sort of laughter in the
films.
There's a huge difference between laughing AT a
character and laughing WITH them.
In "The Palm Beach Story" the Weenie King appears at
first to be a silly old man. But he understands
Colbert's situation immediately and springs to help
her out. The Ale and Quail Club guys may be louts but
they're gallant as well. There isn't so much as the
slighest indication that want to rape Colbert -- which
would be de rigeur in almost anyone else's movie.
Hackensacker III is likewise funny-peculiar("Tipping
is Unamerican.") But I defy anyone not to be moved by
Rudy Vallee singing "Goodnight Sweetheart" as Colbert
and MacRea collapse into each other's arms.
> The thing I can't stand about the MOVIES is the
> dialogue sometimes --
> even frequently. Having a behemoth bruiser kidnapper
> saying he
> needs "ungwent" is pure Damon Runyon, and they do it
> a lot, and it's
> sophomoric and silly. I've said so more than once in
> print, too.
>
And one could scarcely imagine a Coens version of "The
Big Street" -- not to mention "Guys and Dolls."
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17265
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:39pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
"People who write about film and have seen even one of those will
always hear their sardonic laughter ringing in their ears"
But only because it fits so well with the attitude expressed by the
films. My viewing of Hitchcock's films is certainly not influenced by
Hitchcock's public persona (which Tag Gallagher has described as an
Irishman's parody of Englishness). Same thing with Preminger.
17266
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:49pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> "People who write about film and have seen even one of those will
> always hear their sardonic laughter ringing in their ears"
>
> But only because it fits so well with the attitude expressed by the
> films. My viewing of Hitchcock's films is certainly not influenced
by
> Hitchcock's public persona (which Tag Gallagher has described as an
> Irishman's parody of Englishness).
I don't know how it could not be, if only as a persona you know
he's "putting on." By the way, Tag's formulation is one of the best I
know re: Hitchcock's persona.
17267
From:
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:51pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
JPC:
>>
> "period-accurate abstraction" is an excellent description, but
> isn't it a bit of an oxymoron? Why be so accurate if you want to
be
> abstract? (and conversely, why be so abstract if you want to be
> accurate -- but there is no attempt at recreating the feeling of
an
> actual New York neighborhood. It's just as glaringly a sound-stage
> set as in a 30's or 40's Hollywood movie). But anyway we don't
> expect Dmytryk-like realism from Kubrick, do we?
I actually had a post last night that got eaten by a connection
glitch, in which I noted one thing I haven't seen mentioned here
about EWS's recreation of New York: Some of it is actually rear
projection. Someone mentioned the Pink Pussycat. I'm pretty sure
that scene, for example, is rear projection, utilizing second unit
footage shot in New York. Although the effect is quite seamless in
EWS, it does also lend these scenes an added hallucinatory effect.
I think what Kubrick's aiming for here isn't total abstraction. He
wants to be as surface accurate as possible so that his immediate
audience doesn't just throw up its hands and yell, "That's not New
York!" Which is unfortunately exactly what my girlfriend at the time
did when we saw EWS(...but that's okay, cause I "corrected" her
[sorry, couldn't resist that lame joke]). But Kubrick's New York is
meant to become more and more a dreamscape, I think. We go from
actual 2nd unit establishing shots, to rear projection shots, to a
full-on set, one which gradually becomes emptier and emptier, and
one in which the decidedly un-New-Yorkian consecutive street numbers
become more and more visible. There are all sorts of narrative
reasons for this, of course, but one has to admit that there's a
formal beauty to such graduated abstraction as well.
What makes it even more interesting is that if you look at the final
scenes, with Cruise's "confession," Nicole's tear-soaked eyes in the
morning (complete with very prominent construction sounds in the
background), and the finale inside the toy store, there's a very
tangible sense of realism, or "authenticity" there. We don't see the
street at all, but simply through the immediacy of the camera style,
the rather unflattering costuming and make-up on the actors, and the
use of ambience, EWS suddenly finds its bearings in the real world
once again.
-Bilge
17268
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:59pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
>
>
>
> I actually had a post last night that got eaten by a connection
> glitch, in which I noted one thing I haven't seen mentioned here
> about EWS's recreation of New York: Some of it is actually rear
> projection. Someone mentioned the Pink Pussycat. I'm pretty sure
> that scene, for example, is rear projection, utilizing second unit
> footage shot in New York.
Plates were indeed shot.
Kubrick's New York is
> meant to become more and more a dreamscape, I think. We go from
> actual 2nd unit establishing shots, to rear projection shots, to a
> full-on set, one which gradually becomes emptier and emptier, and
> one in which the decidedly un-New-Yorkian consecutive street
numbers
> become more and more visible. There are all sorts of narrative
> reasons for this, of course, but one has to admit that there's a
> formal beauty to such graduated abstraction as well.
You have those empty streets at the end of Killer's Kiss too. And if
you look at the shot thru the coffee bar door when Bill takes refuge
from the stalker, you'll see passers-by, whereas in the previous shot
the street was total;ly empty. Which suggests to me that the decision
to film the stalker stuff on empty streets was taken after they had
filmed the restaurant interior.
Great point about the street numbers!
>
> What makes it even more interesting is that if you look at the
final
> scenes, with Cruise's "confession," Nicole's tear-soaked eyes in
the
> morning (complete with very prominent construction sounds in the
> background), and the finale inside the toy store, there's a very
> tangible sense of realism, or "authenticity" there. We don't see
the
> street at all, but simply through the immediacy of the camera
style,
> the rather unflattering costuming and make-up on the actors, and
the
> use of ambience, EWS suddenly finds its bearings in the real world
> once again.
>
> -Bilge
17269
From:
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:07pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
Bill K:
>
> And if
> you look at the shot thru the coffee bar door when Bill takes
refuge
> from the stalker, you'll see passers-by, whereas in the previous
shot
> the street was total;ly empty. Which suggests to me that the
decision
> to film the stalker stuff on empty streets was taken after they
had
> filmed the restaurant interior.
>
I wouldn't be surprised if the scenes with the stalker were a part
of Kubrick's extensive reshoots. I know a lot of those were night
scenes, and I get the sense that Kubrick went in a deliberately more
Kafkaesque direction with his additions and reshoots to the film.
(I think it worked, btw.)
-Bilge
17270
From: Brian Fass
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Total piece of shit
--- Aaron Graham wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yayahoogroupsom, "hohotlove6"
>
> wrote:
>
> > We have to review the work, not the smirk Joel
> CoCoenlways 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 HuHudsuckerroxy" stand for you?
>
>
How about "The Man Who Wasn't There"? One of my
favorites along with "Blood Simple"....
Brian
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17271
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:18pm
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You know, the Coens are the only filmmakers whose press
conferences
> are in circulation on video. People who write about film and have
> seen even one of those will always hear their sardonic laughter
> ringing in their ears when they see anything by the Coens, but IMO
> they are laughing, sadly, at us. Which doesn't make it any easier
to
> take.
>
>
I interviewed the Coens at length once (for "The Hudsucker Proxy")
and I have no recollection of "sardonic laughter" or of a sardonic
attitude (either toward their characters or myself). The interview
was friendly and rewarding. I attended two press conferences
Re "Miller's Crossing", and press conf. being what they are (mostly
either dumb or loaded or irrelevant questions) I don't think the
Coens' s responses were particularly inappropriate.
What is sad is that a filmmaker's attitude discussing his films
could make critics so uncomfortable as to influence their evaluation
of the films.
17272
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:09pm
Subject: Re: The Letter
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
"Any film where actors of one race portray characters of another race
is always going to pose problems for a modern viewer."
I don't know how it was in the UK, but here in the US there was a
vigorous Asian-American press that extisted from the 1890s on. These
papers editorialized against subjects such as the Alien Exclusion Act
and the "Yellow Peril" as it was depicted in popular culture like
pulp magazines and later comic books and movies, so the Asian-
American viewer of those days had a problem with yellow face from the
beginning. But having said that, the Rafu Shimpu (a bi-lingual
Japanese-American newspaper published in Los Angeles)singled out
THINK FAST, MR. MOTO for praise for the benign portrayal of a
Japanese even though Peter Lorre played Mr. Moto (but he didn't
have stipled eyes and made do with only a light application of burnt
cork.)
"But one has to accept that this was standard practice at the time."
As for yellow face being standard practice, there are some notable
exceptions, for example, Anna May Wong, Victor Sen Young, Philip Ahn
and Keye Luke among others.
I don't know of any modern white viewers or reviewers who voiced
criticism of the casting of Joel Grey in yellow face playing a
Chinese in REMO WILLIAMS released in 1985 or '86, but certainly
modern viewers of color have a problem with that.
"Interesting how many Swedish actors played Chinese characters, as if
all forms of foreignness were interchangeable."
It's some kind of testimony to the versatility of Warner Oland that
he could play a Jewish patriarch, a Chinese and a Tibetan with equal
conviction. According to Keye Like Oland dispensed with yellow face
once he started playing Charlie Chan (the mustache and lip beard were
sufficient.) Luke made an appearance at UCLA shortly before he died
and talked about Oland with great warmth and respect, and he said he
also got along with Sternberg who comissioned him to do the murals
for THE SHANGHAI GESTURE, another movie based on a colonialist play,
but one that questions the orientalist assumptions of the source
material.
Richard
17273
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:22pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick
>
>
> Costner and Gere (and Bridges, as well as, say Daniel Day-Lewis,
Liam
> Neeson, Michael Douglas, even the terminally-boring William Hurt)
> would have brought a gravitas that Cruise will probably not even
have
> when he's in his Lewis Stone/Charles Coburn phase.
But maybe he will age gracefully in quite another way in becoming an
older version of George "Foghorn" Winslow?
Tony Williams
17274
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Letter
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
THE SHANGHAI GESTURE, another movie based on a
> colonialist play,
> but one that questions the orientalist assumptions
> of the source
> material.
>
I think this is the heart of the matter. Ona Munsons
"Mother Gin Sling" is of highly "mixed" heritage. The
fact that "races" intermingle is brought up throughout
SHANGHAI GESTURE in numerous ways. I think also of
Angie Dickinson's "Lucky Legs" in Fuller's "China
Gate" who memorably describes herself as "a little bit
of everything and a whole lot of nothing.
Gail Sondergaard is a spectral apparition in "The
Letter," invariable referred to as"that Eurasian
woman." She's a world apart from the lawyer's
secretary --who by my lights is much more frightening
and insidious. He makes Bette Davis squirm over her
crimes -- quite a feat. I can'timagine Asian
spectators not enjoying that spectacle
I'm over the moon about "The Letter." Hands down it's
got the greatest oepning scene of all-time. Night,
quiet, the camera almostwaltzing through the
underbrush up toward the porch of the manor house. And
then "Bang!" and a man stumbles out followed by Bette
Davis emptying her revolver into him with calm
deliberation and a blank facial expression whose
sinister power I really can't put into words.
Man he REALLY must have done something to annoy her!
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17275
From:
Date: Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:47pm
Subject: Re: Race and Casting (was:The Letter)
There are alternative traditions.
In opera, and in Shakespeare, it is now considered good to cast performers
regardless of their race. If you are putting on the version of "The Barber of
Seville", you will cast the best singers available in all the roles. Even though
the opera takes place in Spain, and all the character sare white, if a black
baritone is your best choice for Figaro, or a Chinese soprano has the greatest
vocal gifts to sing the heroine, they are cast in the roles. No one cares
about casting performers by race. Everyone wants to see the most talented
performers!
In fact, if a casting director told a black singer that they could not play a
role, because the character was white, it would trigger international outrage
and be considered discrimination of the worst type.
Hollywood today has moved to the opposite approach. The current idea is that
all casting must be done strictly by race. East Asians play East Asians,
whites play whites, etc. There is extreme literalness by race.
The current approach might not benefit minority performers. Suppose when it
becomes time to make the next James Bond movie, that Jet Li were cast as Bond.
Or if Denzell Washington starred in the next Indiana Jones movie. This is how
casting works in opera. But it is something that is Out of the Question in
today's film industry.
In old Hollywood, this approach to casting was used IN PART (we will get to
the downside in a minute). Robert Osborne on TCM pointed out how much Anthony
Quinn's career, for example, benefitted by his being cast in every sort of
nationality. He could play the French Gaughin in "Lust for Life", or "Zorba the
Greek". Today, the tendency would be to say that Quinn is Hispanic, and must
never play anything other than Hispanic roles. His career would be far more
limited.
The BIG limitation in this was its treatment of Asians and blacks. Whites
often played Asian roles (eg Charlie Chan), but Asians were not allowed to play
whites. This led to horrendous discrimination against Asians and blacks.
In summary, I wholeheartedly agree that discrimination is always wrong. It is
not clear, however, that anybody is well served by the current film industry
standard that roles and actors must always match in race. An opera-like system
in which any performer can play any role, whether they match the race or not,
might be far more effective.
Mike Grost
17276
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:43am
Subject: Re: The Letter
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I'm over the moon about "The Letter." Hands down it's
> got the greatest oepning scene of all-time. Night,
> quiet, the camera almostwaltzing through the
> underbrush up toward the porch of the manor house. And
> then "Bang!" and a man stumbles out followed by Bette
> Davis emptying her revolver into him with calm
> deliberation and a blank facial expression whose
> sinister power I really can't put into words.
>
> Man he REALLY must have done something to annoy her!
>
He was dumping her, David! Reason enough... Wouldn't you do the
same? (I mean, if you had a gun)... But, oh that moon... Coming to
haunt her (us) throughout the film.... "There is in existence a
letter..." "puts an entirely different complexion on the matter."
> There is one thing the film teaches us: Never write a
compromising letter (or e-mail?). I rest my case...
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
17277
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:57am
Subject: Re: Race and Casting (was:The Letter)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> There are alternative traditions.
>> Mike Grost
There has always been. How do we deal with negroes (sorry,
African-Americans)being played by whites in black face in early
movies, especially Griffith's, especially The Birth of a Nation?
I wouldn't mind accepting the convention if they didn't look so
ridiculously non-black. But then how would we respond to a
performance of a Shakeaspeare play around 1600 with all the female
parts being played by men? Some of us would admittedly enjoy it as
high camp but most would be bewildered and shocked. And yet it was
merely a convention, just like the conventions of Hollywood a few
decades back that we now feel worthy of debating on a forum like
this. Certainly, all conventions have meaning and are worthy of
discussion, but isn't it overdoing it a bit to ponder whether Wyler
was being a racist and to base an appreciation of the film on such
considerations?
JPC
17278
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:42am
Subject: Re: Total piece of shit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Brian Fass wrote:
> --- Aaron Graham wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> How about "The Man Who Wasn't There"? One of my
> favorites along with "Blood Simple"....
>
> Brian
I enjoyed it. Didn't Camus like Cain? Seems they made Cain Camus-like
in this one.
17279
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:44am
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
>
> I interviewed the Coens at length once (for "The Hudsucker Proxy")
> and I have no recollection of "sardonic laughter" or of a sardonic
> attitude (either toward their characters or myself). The interview
> was friendly and rewarding. I attended two press conferences
> Re "Miller's Crossing", and press conf. being what they are (mostly
> either dumb or loaded or irrelevant questions) I don't think the
> Coens' s responses were particularly inappropriate.
>
> What is sad is that a filmmaker's attitude discussing his films
> could make critics so uncomfortable as to influence their
evaluation
> of the films.
My two interviews - for the Miller's Crossing and Barton Fink
presskits -- found them courteous, articulate and forthcoming.
17280
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:45am
Subject: Necromania makes The New Yorker
From the issue of 2004-10-25
IN THE VAULT
The filmmaker Ed Wood, Jr., who died in 1978, didn't make many movies
during the last decade of his life, owing to problems with money and
booze, not to mention the problem of never having made movies that
were any good in the previous decades. He got by, toward the end, by
writing pulp—some hundred and thirty-five sex novels, such as "Bye
Bye Broadie" and "Killer in Drag." Seven years before he died,
though, he did shoot one last picture, a pornographic film
called "Necromania: A Tale of Weird Love!" Wood wrote, produced, and
directed it (in three days, dressed in a pink baby-doll outfit) under
the name Don Miller. The budget was five thousand dollars. It was one
of the first skin flicks to have what, technically, could be called a
plot, and for Ed Wood fanatics—among whom are many Woodites, as
adherents of the Church of the Heavenly Wood call themselves (no
joke)—it was for years the ultimate buried treasure, the Woodite
equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wood made two versions, one soft-
core (the sex is simulated) and the other hard-core (the sex is
real), both of which went missing after an extremely brief run at the
Hudson Theatre, on West Forty-fourth Street, in 1971. The soft-core
version turned up at a yard sale in California in 1992 and eventually
achieved limited distribution, thanks to the exertions of some West
Coast cult-video collectors. But the longer, dirtier cut was the
grail.
In 2001, after a seventeen-year quest, Rudolph Grey, the author of
the Ed Wood biography "Nightmare of Ecstasy" (which became the basis
for the Tim Burton film "Ed Wood"), found the triple-X "Necromania"
in a warehouse in Los Angeles. He and a B-movie distributor named
Alexander Kogan bought the negatives for "two and a half nickels," as
Kogan put it. Their next task was to figure out what to do with them.
A year ago, Kogan came across a profile in the Times of the blog
impresario Nick Denton, who had just launched a pornography Web site
called Fleshbot. Kogan e-mailed Denton and said that if Denton ever
wanted to sell porn films on his site he should consider
buying "Necromania." "I bought it as a joke," Kogan said last week,
in an effort to make it clear that he was not, repeat not, a
pornographer.
Denton, however, was interested in it as a business proposition, in
his quest to become a pornographer, if a somewhat ironic one, and
next week he is releasing it as Fleshbot Films' first title. And so,
at long last, Woodites, if not the world, have an opportunity to see
the story of Danny and Shirley, a young couple who, to spruce up
their flagging sex life, visit a strange house that seems to be both
a sex clinic and a funeral parlor. They seek out a therapist named
Madame Heles, who ministers to her patients inside a coffin. There
are numerous erotic pairings (including one between a woman and a
bronze skull), some delightfully incongruous music (surf songs and
cha-cha-cha), and, of course, choice dialogue (Danny, gesturing to a
pair of red pajama bottoms: "For such a fancy setting, you think
these are conventional enough?" Tanya: "The word `conventional' has
many connotations, never more so than in this establishment").
Compared with the pneumatic tattoo-and-tan-line porn that the Valley
turns out these days, or even with the steamier passages in the
sexual-harassment suit filed against Bill O'Reilly last week (one
wishes that Wood had lived long enough to make a movie
called "Loofah!"), the squalor of the contortions onscreen seems
almost quaint.
Rudy Grey, who is in his forties and lives in Hell's Kitchen, stopped
by the other day to deliver a copy of an article that he wrote two
years ago for the magazine Cult Movies, under the headline "Lost Ed
Wood Movies . . . Found!" (The other lost one was an unfinished porno
flick called "The Only House in Town," which Fleshbot is releasing as
well.) Grey has spiky dark hair and patchy stubble; imagine Pedro
Almodóvar without a job. "Ed Wood was a great filmmaker," Grey
said. "Maybe he's not Hitchcock or Kubrick, but . . . " Grey is not
an ironic enthusiast.
In his view, even "Necromania" contains moments of brilliance. Grey
writes in Cult Movies, "Take particular note also of the sequence
which begins 28 minutes & 7 seconds into the movie, where Ric Lutze
struggles to get his red pajama bottoms unraveled to put them on.
But, he can't. His fumbling lasts about 15 seconds, easily edited
out. But Wood deliberately leaves it in. Why? I think it's his
perverse sense of humor . . . I think he got a kick out of Lutze
fumbling on camera with the pants." At the end of the piece, Grey
remarks upon a moment when Danny looks behind a curtain and glimpses
what some might call a blurry, kaleidoscopic orgy but which Grey
calls "the sex dimension of lost souls who can never be satisfied."
His last sentence: "Taking into account the context and the tone of
the rest of the movie, it may be the most remarkable sequence in the
history of film."
— Nick Paumgarten
17281
From: daveheaton2000
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 2:58am
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I hadn't known about that, but it doesn't surprise me
> because I sense the same sort of laughter in the
> films.
>
> There's a huge difference between laughing AT a
> character and laughing WITH them.
But isn't it possible for a filmmaker to be laughing AT a character
without hating them or being condescending, and for an audience to do
the same? In the Coen Brothers films (as well as the films of Todd
Solodnz, to bring up another director often described as mean towards
his characters, or towards humanity), I find myself laughing AT
characters that I also relate to. Is it necesarily mean to point out
that we're all idiots sometimes?
dave
17282
From: Adam Hart
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:00am
Subject: Love Streams
Does anybody know where to find prints of Love Streams in America
(i.e. for theatrical distribution)? Do they exist?
And is there a particular reason why that film wasn't included on
the Criterion Cassvetes set? Any news on that front?
17283
From: Hadrian
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:58am
Subject: way back when...
HOwdy folks,
Someone a ways back referred to having read somewhere (how's that for vague) that
people lost interest in new music after the age of 42, and either focus more narrowly
on the music they're already interested in, or begin learning about the roots to the
music their interested in (go further back). I am presently trying to write a kind of
mission statement for our new label, and this idea is relevant --but i'd like to cite it
specifically, and make sure it's true, and not just an urban legend...so if you're out
there...shoot me a line!
Hadrian
17284
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:24am
Subject: Re: Love Streams
That's an interesting question. "Love Streams" was
made for Cannon films and is therefore owned by
whoever happens to own Cannon.
As it's Cassavetes crowning achievement the fact that
it isn't available on home video is a crime.
I taped it off of "Z" channel many years ago. The
moment where John and Gena dance in the kitchen to the
tune of "I'm Almost in Love with You" (a song he wrote
with Bo Harwood) is one of the most magical in all of
cinema.
--- Adam Hart wrote:
>
> Does anybody know where to find prints of Love
> Streams in America
> (i.e. for theatrical distribution)? Do they exist?
>
> And is there a particular reason why that film
> wasn't included on
> the Criterion Cassvetes set? Any news on that front?
>
>
>
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
17285
From: asitdid
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:36am
Subject: Re: Kubrick
> Kubrick's New York is
> > meant to become more and more a dreamscape, I think. We go from
> > actual 2nd unit establishing shots, to rear projection shots, to a
> > full-on set, one which gradually becomes emptier and emptier, and
> > one in which the decidedly un-New-Yorkian consecutive street
> numbers
> > become more and more visible. There are all sorts of narrative
> > reasons for this, of course, but one has to admit that there's a
> > formal beauty to such graduated abstraction as well.
EWS's NYC isn't meant to be a realistic representation, as I don't
believe that Kubrick wants viewers to feel they are in/watching a
familiar environment. A dreamscape is too familiar as well. In every
post-'Dr. Stranglove' picture he has rendered 'alien' worlds which he
distances/alienates viewers from so that they can objectivly watch the
interrelation between the protagonist and his environment/society. If
anything, they are psychological scapes that are warped or rendered
accordingly to the (often emotionally vacant) stance of his
characters. The final shot of ACO is the perfect example of images
being 'created' in accordance with the desires of a character.
-Saul.
17286
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:41am
Subject: Re: Love Streams
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> That's an interesting question. "Love Streams" was
> made for Cannon films and is therefore owned by
> whoever happens to own Cannon.
>
> As it's Cassavetes crowning achievement the fact that
> it isn't available on home video is a crime.
>
> I taped it off of "Z" channel many years ago. The
> moment where John and Gena dance in the kitchen to the
> tune of "I'm Almost in Love with You" (a song he wrote
> with Bo Harwood) is one of the most magical in all of
> cinema.
I taped it off the same place, but I think Cannon did put it out on
cassette at least. And I agree that it's the best one, the best film
of the 80s, and magical from end to end once they get together in it.
17287
From:
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 0:43am
Subject: Re: Necromania makes The New Yorker
Bill (and everyone),
That's an interesting article, but all members need to please remember our
ban on the posting of entire articles. We make mention of this in our Statement
of Purpose, and Fred just recently posted a note about it in Message 16802:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/16802
I found the New Yorker article on Ed Wood online here:
http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?041025ta_talk_paumgarten
Again, we really ask members to quote copyrighted material only to the extent
allowed by "fair use" or in the extreme circumstances Fred mentions. I think
we can all agree that we wouldn't want to get our group deleted!
Thanks,
Peter
Co-moderator, a_film_by
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
17288
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:53am
Subject: Re: Race and Casting (was:The Letter)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"Certainly, all conventions have meaning and are worthy of
discussion, but isn't it overdoing it a bit to ponder whether Wyler
was being a racist and to base an appreciation of the film on such
considerations?"
No one has suggested that Wyler was being a racist, and therefore no
one is basing an appreciation of the film on such considerations;
however, race is central to THE LETTER and the treatment of inter-
racial sexuality in the movie is worth considering in order to really
appreciate its strengths and weaknesses. The visit to the "native
quarter" is a remarkable tour-de-force of filmmaking and the
confrontation between Davis and Sondagaard is notably well-acted and
directed. Even so, there's something wrong here. There's more
involved than just the convention of a white actor playing a non-
white character.
I'm reminded of Brecht's review of GUNGA DIN (reprinted in "Brecht on
Theatre") where he praises the filmmaking, the acting, the
screenplay, laughs at the comedy, feels anxiety for the heroes, etc.
but at the same time knows he watching a travesty of a people
suffering under colonial rule, that the villain is a patriot and that
the loyal Gunga Din is a traitor, and that all this talent has been
used to tell a self-serving lie. Let me say that I don't regard THE
LETTER so harshly as Brecht regarded GUNGA DIN.
Keeping to movies of that era, SHANGHAI EXPRESS, THE SHANGHAI GESTURE
and THE BITTER TEA OF GENERAL YEN all question their orientalist
assumptions to varying degrees, but Wyler didn't question the
orientalism of the story and that fact problematizes the movie for
some viewers now and for some viewers at the time of its original
release. To paraphase Spinoza, I have endeavored not to ridicule,
bewail or disdain THE LETTER but to understand it, and it remains a
movie of great interest for its weaknesses as well as its
ccomplishments.
Richard
17289
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:55am
Subject: Re: Necromania makes The New Yorker
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Bill (and everyone),
>
> That's an interesting article, but all members need to please
remember our
> ban on the posting of entire articles. We make mention of this in
our Statement
> of Purpose, and Fred just recently posted a note about it in
Message 16802:
>
> http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/16802
>
> I found the New Yorker article on Ed Wood online here:
>
> http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?041025ta_talk_paumgarten
>
> Again, we really ask members to quote copyrighted material only to
the extent
> allowed by "fair use" or in the extreme circumstances Fred
mentions. I think
> we can all agree that we wouldn't want to get our group deleted!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
> Co-moderator, a_film_by
Sorry -- I thought the posting interdiction was about length. Won't
do it again.
17290
From:
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 0:55am
Subject: Re: Re: Love Streams
I saw the long version of the film on 35mm a few years ago at the Wexner
Center at Ohio State. (The video put out by MGM/UA is cut.) To continue with
David and Bill's phrase, the night was indeed magical from start to finish. The
film was second on a double-bill with Jim Jarmusch's "Night on Earth" (this
was part of a Jarmusch retrospective which paired JJ's own films with some of
his favorite films by others.)
I remain convinced that it's Cassavetes's greatest achievement as a director.
(Though I can't wait to break the seal on that Criterion set and check out
"Opening Night" for the first time in years!)
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
17291
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:57am
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
Dave Heaton wrote:
> But isn't it possible for a filmmaker to be laughing AT a character
> without hating them or being condescending, and for an audience to
do
> the same? In the Coen Brothers films (as well as the films of Todd
> Solodnz, to bring up another director often described as mean
towards
> his characters, or towards humanity), I find myself laughing AT
> characters that I also relate to. Is it necesarily mean to point
out
> that we're all idiots sometimes?
It struck me that more than any other character the Coens have
created, Hanks' Professor in THE LADYKILLERS embodies many of the
negative traits people accuse them of -– grandiloquence, boyish
sniggering, lack of feeling, attachment to a private literary fantasy
world, and a taken-for-granted sense of superiority to ordinary folk.
He's not at all a sympathetic character, but isn't there something
rather touching, and recognisable, in the absolute folly of his
romantic dreams?
I liked this one more than INTOLERABLE CRUELTY, baffling as it is.
Here as in most of their work I get the feeling both that the tongue-
in-cheek moralising is actually quite sincere, and that the surface
flamboyance of writing and direction is a sort of camoflage for a
abstract, quasi-mathematical structure. (When the cat drops the
finger in the river it's like the final digit being carried over, so
to speak.) The Poe references seemed on target in more than one way:
I'm sure the story would have appealed to his reliably tasteless
sense of humour.
JTW
17292
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:25am
Subject: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jaketwilson"
wrote:
>
> It struck me that more than any other character the Coens have
> created, Hanks' Professor in THE LADYKILLERS embodies many of the
> negative traits people accuse them of -– grandiloquence, boyish
> sniggering, lack of feeling, attachment to a private literary
fantasy
> world, and a taken-for-granted sense of superiority to ordinary
folk.
That's an interesting analogy!
> Here as in most of their work I get the feeling both that the
tongue-
> in-cheek moralising is actually quite sincere, and that the surface
> flamboyance of writing and direction is a sort of camoflage for a
> abstract, quasi-mathematical structure. (When the cat drops the
> finger in the river it's like the final digit being carried over,
so
> to speak.)
The barges are wonderful!
The Poe references seemed on target in more than one way:
> I'm sure the story would have appealed to his reliably tasteless
> sense of humour.
And Hanks' dialogue would appeal to his tin ear. There are other Poe
references -- The Premature Burial, for example.
>
> JTW
I may have mentioned this before, but the Coens' formalism directly
owes something to Kubrick. The gas station men's room where Cage's
old cellmates "wash and brush up" after breaking jail has Strangelove
graffiti on the walls: OEP - OPE - POE....
I wonder why Cage never worked with them again. They played a big
role in cementing his doofus persona. A line like "I'm going to show
you God exists" (The Rock) would never have been uttered if the
foundations weren't laid in Raising Arizona.
17293
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:04am
Subject: re: LOVE STREAMS
LOVE STREAMS is my favourite film in the universe.
In terms of prints: wasn't it re-released commercially in France earlier
this year? Something could be chased up through there.
Peter: can you remember/detail at all the differences between the video
version and the longer print you saw? TV screenings, at least in Australia,
tend to censor and snip a few other bits as well.
True and horrible story: in 1985, this film was shown to an especially
invited gathering of a few select film reviewers (a couple of guys who wrote
for the major local newspapers) by its big commercial distributor in
Australia. The question put to them was: "Should we release this film?", and
the answer they got back was a resounding: "No, it's unreleasable". So the
35mm print was promptly sent back to USA - after a single midnight screening
at a repertory arthouse cinema, which is when and where I first saw it
(changed my life).
And now, in the past few weeks, a newer bunch of local film reviewers have
greeted the execrable THE NOTEBOOK with phrases like: "Nick Cassavetes is a
maverick who walks in the footsteps of his legendary Dad!"
I am about to be sick.
Adrian
17294
From: thebradstevens
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 11:06am
Subject: Re: LOVE STREAMS
I believe that Warner Bros. owns the rights to Cannon's library. That
would certainly explain why Criterion didn't include LOVE STREAMS in
their box set. Warners almost never license films to outside
companies - not even films they have absolutely no interest in
releasing themselves (and you can bet LOVE STREAMS belongs in that
category).
The old UK video is almost complete, bar a few missing seconds (at
the start of a dream sequence) in which Cassavetes used flashes of
black screen and jump cuts (this was presumably removed by a telecine
operator who assumed it was a flaw on the print). Channel 4 has
screened a completely uncut version.
17295
From: filipefurtado
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 0:18pm
Subject: Re: re: LOVE STREAMS
> True and horrible story:
This happens regularly in Rio where
the exhbitor who owns almost all the
arthouse circuit always asks O Globo
(Rio's biggest papper whose head
critic once wrote about Straub's
Sicilia! "this is a film only a film
critic could like") about the rating
that the film will get and only them
decide how/if the film will be
released. Thanks to that The Son got
dumped in a lousy theatre for exactly
one week (it stay around here in São
Paulo for 4 months and I doubt that it
would do much worse with Rio audiences
if they had give it a chance) and Ten
didn't even got released.
Filipe
__________________________________________________________________________
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br/
17296
From: filipefurtado
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 0:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Total piece of shit
Best Vietnam film: Tsui Hark's A
Better Tomorrow III
Filipe
__________________________________________________________________________
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br/
17297
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 3:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: LOVE STREAMS
>
> I believe that Warner Bros. owns the rights to Cannon's library. That
> would certainly explain why Criterion didn't include LOVE STREAMS in
> their box set.
I just saw Altman's 'Fool for Love' on DVD -- a Cannon film
(Menahem-Globus production), released by MGM. So they might be the
ones with the Cannon library...
craig.
17298
From:
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 0:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Coen/McCarey (WAS: Total piece of shit)
In a message dated 10/21/04 10:00:54 PM, dvheaton@h... writes:
> Is it necesarily mean to point out that we're all idiots sometimes?
>
SOMETIMES? Sure. Every freakin' movie? Forget it!
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
17299
From: Travis Miles
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:44pm
Subject: Straub/Huillet/Tsui/Chambers
This has been a week of extraordinary repertory viewing in New York, but
three films shine out above the rest:
Straub/Huillet's Death of Empedocles: After struggling for years to see more
of their work, I finally got a taste with the little selection we had at
Anthology. Although there were some truly execrable prints, this is
virtually the only way to see this work in the US, and I got myself through
by pretending to see in the palimpsestic scratches the traces of my betters,
from Roud on, who had no doubt viewed the very same prints as me.
The Death of Empedocles, however, was a fine 35mm, and it was a glorious
film. Shot by Renato Berta (whose work I've been tracing backwards, in a
sense, from The Principle of Uncertainty), every set-up in this film is
heart-rendingly beautiful. Although I'll have to dive deep into the
Holderlin text on which its based to get a handle on what transpired (I
don't think epic poetry translates well into subtitles), the immaculate
framings of figure, landscape and light were more expressive than much of
the text. It seemed a fuller realization of many of the ideas attempted in
Othon, and it anticipates (and partly inspired?) the extraordinary
Classicism and precision of late Godard. Truly a revelation.
Within the very limited arena of Straub criticism, this film seems to have
been caught in limbo somewhat, poised as it is between the two "halves" of
the Straub/Huillet canon. Anyone have something special to say about it?
Tsui Hark's Time and Tide: Finally being able to see this projected (and at
the Walter Reade) was a huge treat. I remember Bill mentioning this in a
post a while ago and indicating that it made him want to revisit Tsui, who I
find, film for film, one of the most exciting directors alive. A bravura
shot or sequence by Tsui automatically ups the standard for everyone else,
and in the four years since this was made, only Ryuhei Kitamura has made
anything that approximates its brio (although Kitamura cannot sustain his
films, in my opinion). Time and Tide is one of Tsui's few films that really
combine and contain his talents for brilliant action choreography, low-brow
comedy, sentimentalism, and aesthetic ambition. I find the lurching shifts
in tone much more exciting and suggestive than Desplechin's attempt to do
something similar in Kings and Queen and to tell the truth (SPOILER) the
shoot out in Kings reminded me more of Tsui than Tarantino.
Jack Chambers' Hart of London: Contrary to Fred C.'s first viewing, I was
overwhelmed by this, having been led to expect very different things from
years of rumors and botched descriptions. My friend Will Fowler has written
that he thought it was split in two "like the Bible", but I found it much
more open in structure, more symphonic. Having a limited knowledge of
Chambers, this seems like a masterwork from out of nowhere, and it humbled
me to think of what other things are waiting for me, totally unknown, round
the bend. And of all the hours of images I saw this week, there are a few
seconds in Hart of London that will permanently shake me.
17300
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 22, 2004 5:21pm
Subject: Re: Straub/Huillet/Tsui/Chambers
--- Travis Miles wrote:
Truly a
> revelation.
> Within the very limited arena of Straub criticism,
> this film seems to have
> been caught in limbo somewhat, poised as it is
> between the two "halves" of
> the Straub/Huillet canon. Anyone have something
> special to say about it?
>
Wish I could agree with you but I can't. I saw it in
Paris in 1983. That same week I also saw Chereau's
"L'Homme Blesse" and Rozier's amazing "Main Ocean."
I've seen the former countless times but the latter
only that once and it's still fresh in my mind --
unlike the Straub.
I'd rank "The Death of Empedokles" with "The Courtship
of Eddie's Father." It's a nicely furnished empty room
"Time and Tide" is pretty good pulp.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact