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.
18001
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:01pm
Subject: I love PEPPERMINT CANDY - and Korean Cinema
FORREST GUMP meets IRREVERSIBLE, and both get utterly outclassed by
the dynamic duo of director Lee Chang-dong and actor Sol Kyung-gu
(easily one of the best performances of this decade so far).
Anywone else seen this? Or any of the many other Korean films
playing at Lincoln Center thru December?
18002
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:27pm
Subject: Currently in theaters
I have a little time on my hands, and so I thought I'd talk up a few very
good movies that are currently playing in NYC, and probably other places.
VERA DRAKE is, in my humble opinion, a masterpiece, one of those movies
that goes beyond what even a great director is normally capable of. Mike
Leigh has taken a turn toward a more emotionally direct treatment of his
material in recent years: maybe as early as HIGH HOPES and LIFE IS SWEET,
definitely from SECRETS AND LIES on. I've regretted this tendency at
times, but VERA DRAKE is the fulfillment of Leigh's recent development.
The rigor with which Leigh elaborates and develops his story should
finally make people start wondering how this allegedly improvisational
director manages to express himself through structure again and again.
PRIMER, the $7000 film that won the Grand Prize at Sundance this year, is
also an amazing piece of cinema, the work of a natural artist (Shane
Carruth, a former computer programmer). I can't remember when I last saw
a film that felt so unlike every other film I know. The first time I saw
PRIMER, I filled pages with notes on distinctive dialogue and delivery,
until I realized that almost every line in the film was striking me as
extraordinary and unprecedented. Of special interest to those who have
been exposed to the practical or entrepreneurial sciences.
A very interesting French film, QUI A TUE BAMBI?, opened this week in NYC.
For some reason this film gets more mixed responses than I expected.
It's basically a hospital thriller, pegged on an extraordinary natural
performance by one Sophie Quinton, and indebted to Hitchcock in the best
ways, so that it increasingly becomes an interrogation and a
repositioning of the audience's sympathies. Director Gilles Marchand
wrote the script for Dominic Moll's good suspense film HARRY, UN AMI QUI
VOUS VEUT DU BIEN, but I think his own film is even better. A big plus is
the art direction of the hospital, in a MARIENBAD-meets-Kubrick mode.
Other worthwhile films in town include Albaladejo's intelligent gay comedy
BEAR CUB, Alexander Payne's compromised but brilliant SIDEWAYS, and our
own Bilge Ebiri's genre-bending NEW GUY. - Dan
18003
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:37pm
Subject: Torino
Greetings from a very good fest, where I just ran into fellow AFBist
Chris Fujiwara, seeing Big Red One whole for the first time on Sam
and Christa's 38th wedding anniversary. Jean-Claude Rousseau's
shorts, the retro of an old Italian director named Emmer, Soldiers
Pay, several Sganzerlas (including his incredible last film) and a
mini-Fleischer retro, which just screened 10 Rillington, have all
been great experiences. Disappointments: the new Paulo Rocha,
Vanitas, and A Visit to the Louvre by the Straubs. The only Emmer
I've seen is Chronicle of August -- anyone know it? Cross-
fertilization experience of the fest: the Sganzerla girls (Elena,
Sinai, Djin) wandered into a screening of The Stupids and loved it so
much they're seeing it again tomorrow. They send their love, Ruy.
18004
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:47pm
Subject: Re: I love PEPPERMINT CANDY - and Korean Cinema
> FORREST GUMP meets IRREVERSIBLE, and both get utterly outclassed by
> the dynamic duo of director Lee Chang-dong and actor Sol Kyung-gu
> (easily one of the best performances of this decade so far).
Yeah, it's a very good film. Everything Lee has directed has been worthy:
OASIS is as good as PEPPERMINT CANDY, I think, and even the early GREEN
FISH is distinctive and expressive.
Out of what I've seen already, I'd also recommend both the Hong Sang-soo
films, and Park Chan-ok's very good JEALOUSY IS MY MIDDLE NAME. - Dan
18005
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:16pm
Subject: Re: Currently in theaters
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
Alexander Payne's compromised but
> brilliant SIDEWAYS,
"Compromised"? How so?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
18006
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 7:31pm
Subject: Re: I love PEPPERMINT CANDY - and Korean Cinema
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Yeah, it's a very good film. Everything Lee has directed has
> been worthy: OASIS is as good as PEPPERMINT CANDY, I think, and
> even the early GREEN FISH is distinctive and expressive.
"Green Fish" seems more interesting conceptually than visually
somehow. It was as if LEE was still more in screen writer mode than
visual director mode. (Great acting though).That all changed with
"Peppermint Candy" -- where the purely visual expression was as good
or better than the script and acting (both excellent or better). I
still don't see how a film that shows you it's endpoint at the
beginning can build up such a sense of suspense (or is it just
something else that sort of feels like suspense) as it move towards
its end/beginning. "Oasis" is a great movie that was so painful to
watch the first timethat I'll find it hard to re-watch.
Speaking of LEE as a script writer... Both he and HUR Jin-ho
(possibly my favorite Korean director) served as writers and assistant
directors on one of the greatest political films I've ever seen --
from Korea or anywhere else -- PARK Kwang-su's "A Single Spark". This
film about the life and death of JEON Tae-il, the labor martyr whose
death gave rise to Korea's trade union movement (and, in a parallel
story, the story of an author trying to write an unauthorized
biography of Jeon in the face of the military dictatorship's
opposition) is also utterly overwhelming. If this film (Korean name
simply "Jeon Tae-il") shows up (sadly, it doesn't seem to be part of
the the current retrospective -- but it should have been), I urge
people not to miss it. The Korean DVD, btw, is quite good (assuming
it't still in print).
> Out of what I've seen already, I'd also recommend both the
> Hong Sang-soo films, and Park Chan-ok's very good JEALOUSY IS
> MY MIDDLE NAME.
I'm waiting for a packet from Korea with the HONG films I have yet to
see. Of the three I have seen, "Turning Gate" evoked the least strong
affection on first exposure. "Virgin Stripped Bare" immediately
became a contemporary classic for me -- and the enigmatic "The Day a
Pig Fell into the Well" was also more engaging. I suppose I need to
re-visit "Turning Gate" one of these days (mind you, I did like it).
"Jealousy" is a fascinating counterweight to Hong's films, as Park
Chan-ok (a former assistant director for Hong -- and one of Korea's
recent group of young female directors) tackles the same sort of
subject matter as Hong (the ways males and females connect -- or
don't) from a different perspective -- a bit more detached, with less
humor. More low-key than Hong's films -- but with some extraordiary
performances (especially that of Moon Seong-keun)
I find that many of my favorite films of the past five years have
hailed from Korea. I f someone had predicted this 10 years ago, I
would have thought they were nuts. ;~}
If people haven't yet seen "Take Car of My Cat", I recommend that too.
This was actually the second Korean film I ever saw, and it is the
one that set of my current infatuation. (Curiously, my first Korean
film is also one of my favorites -- "Christmas in August" -- I guess I
just set this aside as one-of-a-kind exception).
MEK
18007
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:21pm
Subject: Re: Currently in theaters
> Alexander Payne's compromised but
>> brilliant SIDEWAYS,
>
> "Compromised"? How so?
Maybe that's not the perfect word, but I felt as if SIDEWAYS was one of
those films that tried to show behavior that is outside the range of usual
entertainment fare, and yet fell back on some of the least interesting
entertainment conventions to keep the story together. I was especially
unhappy with the Giamatti-Madsen romance - her character was both given
short-shrift and idealized, making her something close to a standard-issue
Hollywood dream girl. (I also was bothered by the movie shorthand of
giving then a common passion - I felt as if we were being asked to accept
that as a sign of compatibility. Mostly because the film didn't otherwise
take up the issue of compatibility.)
And I also felt that Church's very interesting character was used for some
wacky comic shtick that didn't cut too deep for me (i.e., the attempts to
wreck the car), especially near the end.
Harder to justify this, but, in a way, Giamatti's snobbish-loser persona
also feels a bit manipulative (of the audience) to me. I wanted Payne to
come to terms with this guy, and Payne showed signs of wanting to do so.
But finally Giamatti seems like an idenfication magnet more than a
character to be examined and understood. His going to Madsen at the end
gives the illusion of development. - Dan
18008
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: I love PEPPERMINT CANDY - and Korean Cinema
> "Oasis" is a great movie that was so painful to
> watch the first timethat I'll find it hard to re-watch.
Yeah, I know what you mean.
> Both he and HUR Jin-ho (possibly
> my favorite Korean director)
I'm not quite that high on him, but I do think he makes good films,
especially CHRISTMAS IN AUGUST.
> I find that many of my favorite films of the past five years have
> hailed from Korea.
No doubt about it.
> If people haven't yet seen "Take Car of My Cat", I recommend that too.
I know that film has some other fans on this list, but somehow it didn't
appeal to me all that much. - Dan
18009
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:33pm
Subject: Re: Currently in theaters
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
I was especially
> unhappy with the Giamatti-Madsen romance - her
> character was both given
> short-shrift and idealized, making her something
> close to a standard-issue
> Hollywood dream girl. (I also was bothered by the
> movie shorthand of
> giving then a common passion - I felt as if we were
> being asked to accept
> that as a sign of compatibility. Mostly because the
> film didn't otherwise
> take up the issue of compatibility.)
>
I didn't find her that 'dreamy." She seems to be a
nice girl, that's all.
> And I also felt that Church's very interesting
> character was used for some
> wacky comic shtick that didn't cut too deep for me
> (i.e., the attempts to
> wreck the car), especially near the end.
>
Oh I thought it went prettydamned deep. He's a selfish
monster. Giamatti's character has clung to him
masochistically because he's always felt he was a
"winner" and some of it might rub off. I don't think
he's going to have anything to do with him againat the
film's end.
His going
> to Madsen at the end
> gives the illusion of development. - Dan
>
Not at all.
Great ending. He knocks at her door. We don't find out
if she answers it ot, if she does, whether she
welcomes him. Odds are very good that she might not.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
18010
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:34pm
Subject: Re: Currently in theaters
This is the first criticism of SIDEWAYS I've encountered, and it
sounds similar to problems I've had with previous Payne screenplays
(problems that, given the overwhelming praise of SIDEWAYS, I assumed
Payne had finally surmounted). I'll have to check this out when I
pull a 2-for-1 Bill Krohn-style next week at the AMC Times Square
(the designated second bill is KINSEY).
What did you think of I HEART HUCKABEES? Or BAD EDUCATION (which I
just saw)? And why is VERA DRAKE your favorite film of the year (I
just visited your site).
Sorry to give you the third degree (must be PEPPERMINT CANDY rubbing
off on me)
Kevin
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Alexander Payne's compromised but
> >> brilliant SIDEWAYS,
> >
> > "Compromised"? How so?
>
> Maybe that's not the perfect word, but I felt as if SIDEWAYS was
one of
> those films that tried to show behavior that is outside the range
of usual
> entertainment fare, and yet fell back on some of the least
interesting
> entertainment conventions to keep the story together. I was
especially
> unhappy with the Giamatti-Madsen romance - her character was both
given
> short-shrift and idealized, making her something close to a
standard-issue
> Hollywood dream girl. (I also was bothered by the movie shorthand
of
> giving then a common passion - I felt as if we were being asked to
accept
> that as a sign of compatibility. Mostly because the film didn't
otherwise
> take up the issue of compatibility.)
>
> And I also felt that Church's very interesting character was used
for some
> wacky comic shtick that didn't cut too deep for me (i.e., the
attempts to
> wreck the car), especially near the end.
>
> Harder to justify this, but, in a way, Giamatti's snobbish-loser
persona
> also feels a bit manipulative (of the audience) to me. I wanted
Payne to
> come to terms with this guy, and Payne showed signs of wanting to
do so.
> But finally Giamatti seems like an idenfication magnet more than a
> character to be examined and understood. His going to Madsen at
the end
> gives the illusion of development. - Dan
18011
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:06pm
Subject: Re: Currently in theaters
I guess there are SPOILERS for SIDEWAYS here....
> His going
>> to Madsen at the end gives the illusion of development. - Dan
>
> Not at all.
>
> Great ending. He knocks at her door. We don't find out if she answers it
> ot, if she does, whether she welcomes him. Odds are very good that she
> might not.
Well, anything can happen in real life. But movie codes indicate "happy
ending" here. As he travels to her apt., we hear her very warm, welcoming
letter read on the voiceover - she doesn't even seem to mind the exposure
of his last lie (about the book's success).
Anyway, even the attempt to contact her represents development for that
character, and I wonder whether the movie has really shown that.
Everything about the story seems to me to indicate continued stasis. - Dan
18012
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Currently in theaters
> This is the first criticism of SIDEWAYS I've encountered, and it
> sounds similar to problems I've had with previous Payne screenplays
> (problems that, given the overwhelming praise of SIDEWAYS, I assumed
> Payne had finally surmounted).
The film has wonderful aspects, though. Payne's control, both on the
script and direction level, is really impressive.
> What did you think of I HEART HUCKABEES? Or BAD EDUCATION (which I
> just saw)? And why is VERA DRAKE your favorite film of the year (I
> just visited your site).
I'll be seeing BAD EDUCATION this weekend. The other two movies I
actually posted about: see post #18002 for a few comments on VERA, #17028
and #17055 for HUCKABEES.
I haven't seen anything as exciting as VERA since, maybe, ESTHER KAHN. -
Dan
18013
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:31pm
Subject: Re: Currently in theaters
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Well, anything can happen in real life. But movie
> codes indicate "happy
> ending" here. As he travels to her apt., we hear
> her very warm, welcoming
> letter read on the voiceover - she doesn't even seem
> to mind the exposure
> of his last lie (about the book's success).
>
Possibly. Possibly not.
> Anyway, even the attempt to contact her represents
> development for that
> character, and I wonder whether the movie has really
> shown that.
> Everything about the story seems to me to indicate
> continued stasis.
Not after his blow-up at the winery -- and his
reaction to his ex-wife. This trip changes him.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
18014
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:42am
Subject: Re: re: Soderbergh's SOLARIS
I don't count myself exactly as a fan,
but Soderbergh's Solaris is actually
quite interesting when seeing as part
of his ouvre. Soderbergh's filmography
can more or less easily divided
between two groups of films, genre
films he uses as exercises on style
(and i'd add here arthouse fare like
sex,lies and videotape and King of the
Hill) and those weird films he do
while trying to prove his a true
artist (Schizopolis, Kafka, Full
Frontal). I think the second group is
unwatchable, while the first is
sometimes likable but always to light
to have much staying power. With
Solaris he do manage to succefully
bring together this two tendencies. I
don1t think it compltly works, but it
struck me as the film he was trying to
make for a long time. If I cared more
to Soderbergh work, I'm quite sure I
would find the film fascinating (call
this the perspective of an auteurist
who doesnqt care much for the auteur
in question). I should also add that
outside of Stalker, I'm not much of a
Tarkovisky fan, so I had no resistence
to a Solaris remake.
Filipe
>
> Brad wrote ironically: " ... it was
a really
> great idea to remake SOLARIS in the
style of a whiskey commercial"
>
> I am not a great Soderbergh fan
(although I value some of his movies)
- but
> his SOLARIS is a special achievement
in his career, I believe. The
> appreciations in POSITIF were right
on the mark, I thought. It is his most
> systematically and intricately
stylised film - not a note of music
for about
> the first 20 minutes, and once off
the score hardly stops humming and
> throbbing in that distressing way -
such a move takes great courage (not to
> mention clout) in Hollywood today!
This movie also sold me on Clooney, too:
> he's very good in it. And the sound
design is awesome, so subtle in its
> modulations of atmosphere, effect,
spatial disorientations, etc.
>
> If SOLARIS looks like a whiskey
commercial (which brand?), then so do the
> collected works of Assayas, Wong
Kar-wai and Philippe Grandrieux!
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo!
Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads.
Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
> Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for
free!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/b5IolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
>
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br/
18015
From: filipefurtado
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:06am
Subject: Re: Torino
>several Sganzerlas (including his
incredible last film)
Glad you had a chance to see it. I've
being writing an essay on it for
months hoping to have it finished by
the time the film finally opens here
next March (I hate brazilian
distributors), mostly on the film
amazing editing work, taking a lead
from Julio Bressane's remark that
Sganzerla took his years of studyng
the fragmentary montage of late Welles
and turn it it in something even more
experimental. Did you saw the Belair
films (Sem Essa Aranha and Copacabana
Mon Amour)? How the festival audience
reacts to theretrospective? I hope it
was success.
Filipe
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo!
Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!.
Register anything.
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/b5IolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
>
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br/
18016
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:46am
Subject: Re: Soderbergh's SOLARIS (and Lem, Tarkovsky)
The Soderbergh film has little to do with the original Lem novel of Solaris.
Much of the novel is about the ocean planet itself, its strange complex
geometric patterns it creates in its intelligent ocean, and the alleged inability of
human science to understand it (too complex for the human mind, according to
Lem). One gets some of this in the Tarkovsky film - there are some interesting
special effects showing the ocean's surface - but almost nothing in the
Soderbergh. There is also a long satirical history in Lem of Solaristics - the
science of studying Solaris. This allows Lem to analyze the nature of science
history and methodology. Once again, Tarkovsky makes an introductory stab of
including a little of this material - Soderbergh almost zilch. Tarkovsky is not a
master of exposition (to put it mildly), and one wonders if his material on
Solaris' ocean and Solaristics really register clearly on viewers who have not
read Lem's novel. Still, they arey are an interesting part of his film.
I understand the rules of the game GO - played with white & black counters
(stones) on a huge rectangular grid gameboard. But have never mastered the
strategy or really understood the game at a deep level. When I happen to glance at
a huge board filled with dozens of GO stones, it always reminds me of the
ocean in Solaris - a vast complex field full of intricate patterns that one does
not understand.
It is not clear if Soderbergh has even read Lem's novel. His film is like a
remake of Tarkovsky, with zero input from Lem's book.
I am not a big fan of the Lem novel - it is REALLY depressing. Plus I am not
convinced by his depiction of human reason as limited. Still, I have never
forgotten it either, and it shows show vivid imagination, especially in the parts
dealing with the Solaris ocean.
Attacks on reason and science in Lem, and in part 1 of Dekalog, have perhaps
some background. In Communist countries, Marxism was endlessly depicted in
government propoganda as a "scientific" philosophy of history, and the hideous
Marxist regimes were depicted as "science based". Hence, resistance to science,
and belief that science has limitations, etc, was a form of protest against
Marxism. This perhaps the root of much of the anti-science diatribes in Lem,
Zanussi, Kieslowski, etc, and other Polish artists.
When the Soderbergh film was announced, my first thought was that modern
special effects would be used tp recreate all the Solaris ocean sections of Lem's
novel. Of course, this did not happen at all. Strange as it sounds, this means
that sooner or later there will probably be ANOTHER Solaris film, this one
based closely on Lem's book, and concentrating on CGI views of the ocean.
When I first saw Tarkovsky's film, it did not register deeply. When I saw it
again one Friday night when I was half asleep, it seemed hypnotic, and its
imagery really sunk in. There is something to be said for being in the
"hypnogogic state" (half between sleeping and waking) and watching some kinds of films.
My favorite Tarkovsky is Nostalghia, with its endless scenes of meditation on
water and wetlands. This is the kind of scene that Tarkovsky does best.
Mike Grost
18017
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:22am
Subject: Re: Re: re: Soderbergh's SOLARIS
I pretty much agree with Filipe's assessment of Soderbergh's career, as well
as the appreciations of his "Solaris" made by Dan and Adrian. That is to say:
I've enjoyed a number of Soderbergh's films in the past (particularly "The
Limey"), but "Solaris" was the first one which I felt he hit out of the ballpark
in terms of cinematic art. I thought that it was not only a tremendously
risky and courageous film to make in a Hollywood/commercial sense, but also
perhaps Soderbergh's most personal to date: not only did he photograph it, but he
wrote the adaptation and evidently edited the film as well. I'm pleased to
hear it being discussed in a rather favorable light. I championed it endlessly
when it came out in 2002, seeing it three times in theatres and voting it #1 in
Gabe and Zach's poll for 24fps. "Whiskey commercial" I don't know, but I do
know that the scene of Kelvin sending the second Rheya off in the pod (? -
it's been two years) is an incredibly moving moment in recent American film, made
all the more so thanks to Soderbergh's spartan, carefully chosen selection of
shots.
Peter
18018
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:27am
Subject: The Country Doctor (D. W. Griffith) + Almodóvar
"The Country Doctor" (D. W. Griffith, 1909) is a short film by Griffith,
included in the "More Treasures from America's Film Archives" set.
It has a beautiful opening section, with lyrical exteriors of the (New
Jersey?) countryside. These scenes, showing the happy family in complexly filmed
landscapes, are visually creative. They seem like something new and distinctive
in Griffith. Maybe just a minute long - but definitely worth studying. The
opening pan is rich. And the shot of the family walking through the grass is
worthy of Mizoguchi.
The rest of the film, showing fatal illness attacking the doctor's child, are
very hard to watch. They anticipate later Griffith films: "The Mothering
Heart" (1913) and "Way Down East" (1920), two of Griffith's most important works
(which are closely linked to each other). This subject must have been of deep
importance for Griffith.
What is less typical here: the grown-up male character of the doctor. He is a
virile young patriarch, and largely sympathetic. One rarely sees such
characters in Griffith. One is used to his boyish heroes, played by Bobby Harron,
Richard Barthelmess, Neil Hamilton, etc. And stern older men, such as the father
in "Way Down East". The doctor's virilty is empahsized here by the tall top
hat he wears, a phallic symbol if there ever was one. All this reminded me oddly
enough, of the early films of Pedro Almodóvar. Such films as "Matador" and
"Law of Desire" feature such grown-up macho men as Eusebio Poncela and Nacho
Martinez. These have tended to disappear from Almodóvar's later work - although
the husband in "The Flower of My Secret" is perhaps a late example - leaving
one with the more boyish characters played by Antonio Banderas and others.
Perhaps a similar disappearance occurs in Griffith's world.
Mike Grost
18019
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:31am
Subject: "The Honey Pot"
I thought some members of the group would be interested to know that Turner
Classic Movies is airing a letterboxed version of Joseph L. Mankiewicz's "The
Honey Pot" on Monday, November 22 at 5:30 PM Eastern.
I know some (Fred?) consider this to be the greatest Mankiewicz, perhaps his
archetypal "last film" (even though he made two more after it.)
Peter
18020
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:53am
Subject: Re: Torino
I attended the Turin festival once, in 1986, as one of the participants
in a survey of American avant-garde film in the 1960s.
At that time there were a large number of programs labeled "Spazio
Aperto," or "Open Space." The deal was that any filmmaker under 30 could
have his or her film shown if he or she brought it to Turin. Not only
that, they got some sort of minimal free accommodations. It was
basically a giant open screening, with all the quality problems you'd
expect, but with some interesting things and a few very good things
sprinkled about.
I dunno what I thought of the "don't trust anyone over 30" implications
of the rule, but I loved the utopianism of this open screening idea. And
unlike most open screenings, these were announced: that is, there were
printed schedules with title, filmmaker, running time.
Does that still exist at Turin?
If you want to see a work of art that's in a way pre-cinematic, and
likely much greater than most of the movies at the festival, go to the
Galleria Sabauda and look at Memling's "Passion of the Christ" (hmm,
interesting title, though it's also known as "Scenese from the Passion
of Christ").
A relatively large panel painting but painted with the precision of
illuminated manuscripts, it presents multiple scenes of Christ's
passion within a single space, an overhead view of Jerusalem and
environs. There's a link to an image of it plus details (though the
colors seem off to me) at http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/m/memling/1early2/
Fred Camper
18021
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:34am
Subject: Re: The Country Doctor (D. W. Griffith) + Almodóvar
""The Country Doctor" (D. W. Griffith, 1909) is a short film by
Griffith, included in the "More Treasures from America's Film
Archives" set."
I just reviewed the AFA set for SIGHT AND SOUND, and was particularly
struck by Thomas H. Ince's THE INVADERS (1912). Aside from its
remarkably progressive attitude towards Native Americans, Ince's film
includes some of the most striking 'deep focus' compositions I've
ever seen - one shot, in which a woman on horseback observes a
battle, takes in two distinct planes which seem to be separated by at
least a mile! There are similar compositions in John Ford's recently
rediscovered BUCKING BROADWAY (1917). I can't understand why Gregg
Toland's deep focus photography of the '30s and '40s was considered
so innovative - this kind of composition seems to have been
relatively commonplace during the silent era.
18022
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:09am
Subject: Re: The Country Doctor (D. W. Griffith) + Almodóvar
Forgot to mention:
The male lead in "The Country Doctor" is played by Frank Powell. He also was
the "Wheat King" in Griffith's masterpiece, "Corner in Wheat" (1909). (Kate
Bruce, the kind-hearted Mother in so many Griffith films, is in both too.) Both
films can be read as a critique of some kinds of macho masculinity, although
Powell is infinitely more sympathetic as the doctor than as the wheat
speculator. One thinks of "Way Down East", in which Barthelmess' animal-loving,
sensitive suitor is contrasted positively to Lowell Sherman's seducer, as two kinds
of masculinity.
Powell made a lot of short films with Griffith in 1909, then launched his own
directorial career. These are often hard to see. But his best known work, the
feature length "A Fool There Was" (1915), is now out on DVD. This is the
original Vamp movie, the film that created the whole Vamp craze in pictures, and
made Theda Bara a star. Despite the low camp of much of Theda's later publicity
campaigns, this film is not cornball at all. It is a good movie. Powell's
direction has the lyricial quality to which many films of the teens (1910's)
aspire. He frequently shoots on front lawns and other spaces in front of buildings
that are full of greenery - this was a common practise in the era, and leads
to both striking compositions, and a presense of nature in the films. The
film's lyricism reminds one a bit of "Tom Sawyer" (William Desmond Taylor, 1917).
Keaton also loved city & suburban streets in front of houses.
"A Fool There Was" is one of those films that are always mentioned in film
history books, but which are never actually seen. I have heard about it for 35
years, but never expected to actually see it. It just showed up one day in the
video store, where I rented it. Feuillade was often in the same category -
until "Les Vampires" and "Judex" came out recently, the only Feuillade seen here
was an hour long episode circulated by MOMA, "Juves contre Fantomas".
Mike Grost
18023
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:15pm
Subject: Re: Currently in theaters
Dan wrote:
> VERA DRAKE is, in my humble opinion, a masterpiece, one of those
> movies that goes beyond what even a great director is normally
> capable of.
Hmm, I was curious to know what you thought of it. Do you think
you'd rank this as your favorite Leigh ever, then? Or is it
just "up there" with the other highlights?
> Mike Leigh has taken a turn toward a more emotionally direct
> treatment of his material in recent years: maybe as early as HIGH
> HOPES and LIFE IS SWEET, definitely from SECRETS AND LIES on.
> I've regretted this tendency at times, but VERA DRAKE is the
> fulfillment of Leigh's recent development.
I'm practically a Mike Leigh virgin, having seen only three of his
films (don't shoot!), but I think I can see what you mean. SECRETS
& LIES and VERA DRAKE are "emotionally direct" and deal with their
themes straight-on if not sensationally, whereas THE KISS OF DEATH
(and I presume a lot of his early work) directly confronts behaviors
but not the emotions underlying them.
> The rigor with which Leigh elaborates and develops his story
> should finally make people start wondering how this allegedly
> improvisational director manages to express himself through
> structure again and again.
It's kind of impressive the way that VERA DRAKE follows this
straightforward line (there's barely a dramatic arc) and yet the
film still plays like good, basic drama (albeit a real downer). Do
you think Leigh really has these "structures" in mind from the get-
go? Or does he exert a lot of force in the editing room?
> Other worthwhile films in town include Albaladejo's intelligent
> gay comedy BEAR CUB
Armond White has written this up very positively too. Maybe I'll
see it.
--Zach
18024
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:39pm
Subject: Re: "The Honey Pot"
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> I know some (Fred?) consider this to be the greatest
> Mankiewicz, perhaps his
> archetypal "last film" (even though he made two more
> after it.)
>
Not the greatest but pretty damned great. I recall a
review in the French-Canadian film magazine "Take One"
comparing it to John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" and
Eric Dolphy's version of "You Don't Know What Love is"
A Cahiers interview with Mankiewicz at the time was
filled with stills of scenes that never made it inot
the final cut.
The great Gianni di Venanzo diedduring the shooting.
His visual signature remains. An essential Venice
film, right up there with "Eve," "Don't Loo Now,"
"Death in Venice" and "The Talented Mr. Ripley."
It's the climax of his work with Harrison -- the
pluperfect Mankiewicz actor. And Maggie Smith is
teriffic.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
18025
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:14pm
Subject: Re: Torino
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> If you want to see a work of art that's in a way pre-cinematic,
and
> likely much greater than most of the movies at the festival, go to
the
> Galleria Sabauda and look at Memling's "Passion of the Christ"
(hmm,
> interesting title, though it's also known as "Scenese from the
Passion
> of Christ").
Mama mia, Fred - that's a heck of a painting. I will have to see it
at Torino next year, because I'm leaving uin the morning, but the
version on that web site is stunning.
The open screenings are no longer held, but there is still a lot of
young cinema to be seen here, inclding a huge number of shorts. As
with most good festivals, you can only see a tiny part of what's on
offer, and I haven't had time to be too adventurous, but what I have
seen is cherce. When Straub and Rocha are the 'disappointments' (a
very relative term), you know the selection is good. Highly
recommended to AFBists.
18026
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:22pm
Subject: Re: Torino
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
wrote:
Did you saw the Belair
> films (Sem Essa Aranha and Copacabana
> Mon Amour)? How the festival audience
> reacts to theretrospective? I hope it
> was success.
Copacabana si - an amazing film, more radical than the first film
with Elena, La mulher di tudo (sp?) (no relation) which I gather was
a hit in Brazil. The films have been very well received at Torino -
all screenings packed and appreciative. Rogerio had invented his own
blend of art cinema and B-movie raunch which is very much at home in
Torino, where audiences go from the minimalism of Jean-Claude
Rousseau to the maximalism of John Landis without a hitch. Also, the
carnivalesque populism of the Sganzerlas resonates very well with
Italian audiences. It has been a huge success. And Copacabana has
been one of my favorite discoveries. I saw it and Mulher di todo
with Christa Fuller, who observed affinities with Sam's films,
particularly the post-72 ones. She was very impressed, and has
already been offered a part in Elena's first film as director, based
on a script by Rogerio: a sequel to Red Light Bandit to be made next
year and, hopefully, premiered at Torino. Now we have to spread the
word about Rogerio in the States.
18027
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:26pm
Subject: Re: "The Honey Pot"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I thought some members of the group would be interested to know
that Turner
> Classic Movies is airing a letterboxed version of Joseph L.
Mankiewicz's "The
> Honey Pot" on Monday, November 22 at 5:30 PM Eastern.
>
> I know some (Fred?) consider this to be the greatest Mankiewicz,
perhaps his
> archetypal "last film" (even though he made two more after it.)
>
> I agree with David that it's pretty damn great. I hope someone
tapes it and lends it to me - haven't seen it since its release. Luc
Moullet wrote a piece on the last 4 Mankiewiczes in CdC in the 90s,
rating them all highly, and I pretty much agree with that too.
18028
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:27pm
Subject: Film history up to Bazin (Was: The Country Doctor)
> I can't understand why Gregg
> Toland's deep focus photography of the '30s and '40s was considered
> so innovative - this kind of composition seems to have been
> relatively commonplace during the silent era.
In a way, though, all the Bazin-Cahiers tastes in style could be seen as a
revival, a reaction. According to this theory, film history goes like
this:
1) Naive realism, unity of space, no intrascene editing to speak of,
proximity to camera equals proximity within the film universe, deep focus
as a necessity.
2) Griffith popularizes an editing syntax, with intrascene editing
conventions, proximity to camera used for dramatic effect - first signs of
"montage."
3) Griffith syntax hardens into a monolithic commercial style, and is
extended/transformed into Russian/academic editing theories. Deep focus
at a low ebb, rendered obsolete by sophisticated editing.
4) In reaction to 3), pre-Griffith techniques take on an aura of realism.
Welles/Wyler/Toland championed for deep focus, long takes; Hitchcock
resurrects the correspondence of camera proximity and character proximity;
Rossellini and Renoir court visual ambiguity by discarding Griffith's
narrative clarity.
And then there's something new for people to react to, etc. - Dan
18029
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:39pm
Subject: Leigh and VERA (Was: Currently in theaters)
> Hmm, I was curious to know what you thought of it. Do you think
> you'd rank this as your favorite Leigh ever, then? Or is it
> just "up there" with the other highlights?
I'm sort of intoxicated by VERA right now, so it's hard to say. I think
NAKED, at least, has to compete with VERA on my list of top Leigh films.
(Haven't seen HARD LABOUR in a while, which deeply impressed me with its
simple, sly play with structure.) Those two films are quite different,
actually: NAKED is like a Roman candle, a little messy but with enough
inspiration for two masterpieces; VERA, complex as it is from a social
point of view, ultimately works through reduction. It made me think of
Dreyer.
> Do
> you think Leigh really has these "structures" in mind from the get-
> go? Or does he exert a lot of force in the editing room?
I'm quite convinced that Leigh's improvisation is merely a writing tool, a
way of writing acting and script at the same time. But, as a writer, he
depends absolutely on structural play, is quite rigorous in general.
It's interesting how the acting in his films is so distinctively his, and
really isn't realistic at all - it's very big, full of body language and
comedy. The actors are probably contributing of themselves during the
improv, but nonetheless Leigh gets what he wants. - Dan
18030
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:40am
Subject: The Trial of Joan of Arc (Robert Bresson)
A long time ago Fred Camper asked for comments on (a film he greatly admired):
Procès de Jeanne d'Arc / The Trial of Joan of Arc (Robert Bresson, 1962)
Had not seen it for decades, but recent rebroadcast on TCM gave a chance to
re-view.
The opening shot, a rhythmically repeating flow of black shoes and clothes
into a white floor, is just astonishing. This is echoed at the end, where a
pattern of white robed and black robed monks, the cross and other elements make
complex compositions.
The film stresses Joan's virginity - and the horrifying attempts of her
prosecutors to destroy it. Bresson's Joan is gay. And the film links her gayness to
her religious devotion, and her utter individuality as a person. Much of the
film centers on the question: Who was Joan? What was she really like as a
person? How did she become one of the most unusual people in human history?
Bresson's opening titles announce such themes. She recalls other gay heroes in
Bresson, such as the hero of "Diary of a Country Priest", and the prisoner in "A
Man Escaped". The attack on Joan's virginity is also a depiction of what
Adrienne Rich called "compulsory heterosexuality" - the attempt by soiciety to force
everyone to be straight. Bresson's film is one of the most powerful &
horrifying depictions of this, along with "Late Spring" (Ozu), in which the lesbian
heroine is forced into marriage - truly a nightmare from hell.
The film stresses the utter importance of the sacraments to Roman Catholics.
Joan's first utterance in the film is a plea that she be allowed to receive
confession. And the scene where she takes communion is one of the most powerful
depictions of what this means for Catholics. It is an astonishingly clear
picture of Joan's religious devotion.
Even before this, the film starts with two other sacraments. Joan's mother
begins her monologue by stating that Joan's parents were joined in true
marriage, and that Joan was confirmed - two other key sacraments of the Church.
One of the many loathsome moments of the political campaign, was the attempt
of conservative Catholic bishops to prevent John Kerry from receiving
communion. This was really disgusting! I am really horrified that the Catholic bishops
here in Michigan spent half a million dollars supporting the anti-gay
marriage amendment. They are really dragging our Holy Mother Church through the
gutter, with their attempt to replace Jesus' teachings of love with hatred for
minority groups. Shame! Shame! Shame!!!!
There are elements in "Joan" that anticipate "Au Hasard, Balthazar" (1966) to
come, Bresson's next film. The innocent animals that wander through the film
are moving reminders of innocence, and serve as Nature's protest against the
cruelty of humans. There are other ways, that I do not fully understand, in
which the two films are linked, especially in their "feel": a cross between their
visual style and themes. Having just seen "Balthazar" for the first time a
few months ago (it has always been very difficult to see in the States) I felt I
understood "Joan" a lot better emotionally than I did on my first viewing in
1977.
Mike Grost
18031
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:52pm
Subject: Re: The Trial of Joan of Arc (Robert Bresson)
> The film stresses Joan's virginity - and the horrifying attempts of her
> prosecutors to destroy it. Bresson's Joan is gay.
> "compulsory heterosexuality" - the attempt by soiciety to force everyone
> to be straight. Bresson's film is one of the most powerful & horrifying
> depictions of this, along with "Late Spring" (Ozu), in which the lesbian
> heroine is forced into marriage - truly a nightmare from hell.
That's very interesting. My first reaction to this statement about LATE
SPRING was, "But what about her love for her father?" My second reaction
was, "Well, that's not really a contradiction, is it." Sometimes great
love is born of identification.
Ozu's film seems to feel as if the father is doing the daughter a favor,
but it's the nature of complex art that you can look at it from the other
side and it still coheres.
If some farm girl today put on men's clothes and lead an army, it wouldn't
take long for us to start speculating about her sexuality, voices or no. -
Dan
18032
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:55am
Subject: Re: Film history up to Bazin (Was: The Country Doctor)
There are some really interesting deep focus shots in Griffith, and other
filmmakers of the teens.
In "The Mothering Heart" (Griffith, 1913) the shots at the fancy restuarant
are just teeming with diners, both on the main floor, and a raised area at the
back. These shots are so multi-focus they suggest Tati's "Playtime". Or some
of Minnelli's crowd scenes, in which each extra has a carefully rehearsed
characterization and bit of business by Minnelli (he would spend hours coaching all
the extras, driving his producers crazy).
In Episode 2 of "Les Vampires" (Feuillade, 1915), the theater scenes are
amazing deep focus compositions. This is some of Feuillade's most delirious
filmmaking.
"Regeneration" (Raoul Walsh, 1915) has panoramas at both the saloon and the
excusrion boat.
"The Spiders" (Fritz Lang, 1919) has some crowd scenes at hero Kay Hoog's
club near the beginning. They are really complex, with all sorts of business
going on among the elegant denizens of his club.
I like this stuff!
Mike Grost
18033
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:17pm
Subject: Stanley Kubrick's Last (Fake) Interview
There's a hilarious piece about the guy who faked an interview with
Stanley Kubrick in today's GUARDIAN. It's available online at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1354082,00.html
18034
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:18am
Subject: Re: Early Spring (was: The Trial of Joan of Arc (Robert Bresson))
The father in "Early Spring" believes he is doing his daughter a favor by
forcing her to marry. So does the society around them, which starts the pressure.
But Ozu is careful never to embrace this idea.
Generations of film critics have treated the social pressure to marry in
"Early Spring" as a Good Thing, Nature's Way, etc. They have a right to their
opinion. But it is not clear IMHO that OZU or his film endorses such forced
marriage as a good thing.
When I saw "Early Spring", it seemed utterly different from the concensus
critical commentary on it. It seemed like a scream of pain, and a cry of outrage!
There has long been much more commentary on this and other intersections of
Ozu and gayness on my web site article:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/ozu.htm
Mike Grost
18035
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:21pm
Subject: Re: The Trial of Joan of Arc (Robert Bresson)
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
Bresson's Joan is gay.
> And the film links her gayness to
> her religious devotion, and her utter individuality
> as a person. Much of the
> film centers on the question: Who was Joan? What was
> she really like as a
> person? How did she become one of the most unusual
> people in human history?
Nice that you should pick up on this. There's
considerable reason to suspect that Joan may have been
transgendered, thus making Bresson's film a "Boys
Don't Cry" avant la lettre.
Rivette completely overlooks this aspect of Joan. But
she's less an individual for him than a political pawn
undone by forces beyond her control.
> Bresson's opening titles announce such themes. She
> recalls other gay heroes in
> Bresson, such as the hero of "Diary of a Country
> Priest", and the prisoner in "A
> Man Escaped".
Well now you've opened up a whole can of worms. I
quite agree, particularly vis-a-vis "Diary." The
climactic -- and decidedly homoerotic -- bike ride is
the happiest moment of the poor hero's life.
The attack on Joan's virginity is also
> a depiction of what
> Adrienne Rich called "compulsory heterosexuality" -
> the attempt by soiciety to force
> everyone to be straight. Bresson's film is one of
> the most powerful &
> horrifying depictions of this, along with "Late
> Spring" (Ozu), in which the lesbian
> heroine is forced into marriage - truly a nightmare
> from hell.
Got to look at that one again!
I am really
> horrified that the Catholic bishops
> here in Michigan spent half a million dollars
> supporting the anti-gay
> marriage amendment.
Pedophile cults don't like secular freedom.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
18036
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:23pm
Subject: Korean Films
WHAT IS THE WEB SITE? (I'm on a telephone connection and loading a
series of image pages takes time).
The San Diego Asian Film Festival is in its 5 year and is run by a
KOREAN woman (local newscaster), Lisa Kim, who brought JOINT SECURITY
AREA to the local MUSEUM of PHOTOGRAPHIC ARTS a few years back. JSA is
quite good
I agree with the OASIS comments; extraordinary film. There is a DVD
but only in Korean without subtitles so I didn't get it.
I saw PEPPERMINT CANDY several years back at the AFMarket in Santa
Monica and it was one of my first introductions to Korean film. It is
interesting to see rich story telling in a contemporary setting as most
such American films are so superficial in content and story telling.
I don't remember the name but there is one about a group of prisoners
who are trained to do an assassination... then for political reasons,
the assassination is aborted... what happens to the highly trained
killing machine criminals? Quite good.
There is one ?MURDER MEMORIES about an unsolved murder that I would see
again.
Another ONG...... (a marshall arts film without special effects?) that
is also well liked.
LOVE ME IF YOU DARE was the most memorable for me.
My Sassy Girl was fun, TEACH ME ENGLISH cute; I don't know if all
these are KOREAN as I have no reference materials with me. You might
want to check out the San Diego Asian Film Festival site.
http://www.sdaff.org/
I'm in Palm Springs for a few AFI screenings this weekend including
BEYOND THE SEA
MERCHANT OF VENICE
HOUSE OF DAGGERS
BAD EDUCATION
IMAGINARY WITNESS
A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT
THE SEA INSIDE
Hopefully, there will be some good speakers / discussions. Last year
they had an early look (OCTOBER) at MONSTER with the writer /
direction.
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:01:56 -0000
From: "Kevin Lee"
Subject: I love PEPPERMINT CANDY - and Korean Cinema
FORREST GUMP meets IRREVERSIBLE, and both get utterly outclassed by
the dynamic duo of director Lee Chang-dong and actor Sol Kyung-gu
(easily one of the best performances of this decade so far).
Anywone else seen this? Or any of the many other Korean films
playing at Lincoln Center thru December?
18037
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:27am
Subject: Correction: Late Spring
Correction: It's "Late Spring", of course!
My apologies.
I seem to be temporally confused...
Mike Grost
18038
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:29pm
Subject: Re: Korean Films
> WHAT IS THE WEB SITE? (I'm on a telephone connection and loading a
> series of image pages takes time).
http://www.filmlinc.com/wrt/programs/11-2004/korea04.htm
- Dan
18039
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Sideways
Payne is still very much attached to the idea of himself as a
"director of comedies," very much in the vein of an old Hollywood
artisan, which I agree leads to some minor hedging of bets in
SIDEWAYS, though it is by far the least schticky of his movies.
(Which is not to say the schtick in ELECTION particularly bothers
me.) But the movie also confronts what to my mind is both an
incredibly trenchant issue and one that's virtually impossible for
American movies to address: the terror of mediocrity. Hollywood likes
failures who can be redeemed, but not middle-aged semi-achievers
confronting the fact that they may already have been as successful as
they'll ever be. It's not a particularly ambitious movie, but I think
it's actually fairly bold in terms of subject matter. Payne, who does
a video introduction on the new DOLCE VITA DVD, is an avowed Fellini
aficionado, and I wonder if he doesn't come to the theme by that
route: I VITELLONI and especially DOLCE VITA are both centered on
characters whose moderate success becomes a trap; Marcello is so
terrified of failing as an artistic writer that he essentially
destroys himself before someone else can do it first. SIDEWAYS of
course isn't anywhere near as harrowing a movie, but Thomas Haden
Church's breakdown scene (so similar to Fausto's in VITELLONI) gives
a brief but indelible sense of the abyss lurking under the bravado.
Side note: I'd gone around for weeks thinking of SIDEWAYS's focus on
the terror of mediocrity as a universal theme, but then a day or two
after the election, it hit me: a good portion of the country -- say,
oh, 51, percent -- is actually more comfortable with mediocrity than
any kind of uppity achievement. I don't necessarily know if that
accounts for the brief shot of our C-student president in the movie,
but it made me think.
Sam
18040
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:06pm
Subject: Re: Soderbergh's SOLARIS (and Lem, Tarkovsky)
> The Soderbergh film has little to do with the original Lem novel of Solaris.
Don't agree.
> Much of the novel is about the ocean planet itself, its strange complex
> geometric patterns it creates in its intelligent ocean, and the alleged inability of
> human science to understand it (too complex for the human mind, according to
> Lem).
Yes, but isn't Rhea the touchstone ?
> It is not clear if Soderbergh has even read Lem's novel. His film is like a
> remake of Tarkovsky, with zero input from Lem's book.
Really, Mike ? ! If you don't like Soderbergh's angle on it ok, but...
> When the Soderbergh film was announced, my first thought was that modern
> special effects would be used tp recreate all the Solaris ocean sections of Lem's
> novel. Of course, this did not happen at all. Strange as it sounds, this means
> that sooner or later there will probably be ANOTHER Solaris film, this one
> based closely on Lem's book, and concentrating on CGI views of the ocean.
Here I absolutely see it your way. I can easily imagine a Solaris or two
(Solari ?) along these lines.
How about an Anime version from Oshii ? ;-)
...but Soderbergh's IS the "Rhea film" if you will.
-Sam Wells
18041
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Film history up to Bazin (Was: The Country Doctor)
> > I can't understand why Gregg
> > Toland's deep focus photography of the '30s and '40s was considered
> > so innovative - this kind of composition seems to have been
> > relatively commonplace during the silent era.
Of course Gregg Toland did not invent deep focus.
What Toland / Welles are about (presaged I think by Toland / Ford)
is foreground / background *scale* ......
> proximity to camera equals proximity within the film universe, deep focus
> as a necessity.
or deep focus as inevitability ?
-Sam Wells
18042
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 0:32pm
Subject: Re: Soderbergh's SOLARIS (and Lem, Tarkovsky)
Thanks to Sam Wells for the tip on Oshii. I have never heard of him, and
never seen any Anime films. (Unless "Final Fantasy" counts - pretty remarkable
technically). My ignorance of cinema is just boundless! I plan to keep trying to
learn, however.
Which Oshii films are the best?
Also thanks to Dan Sallitt for the current movie tips. Am off this afternoon
to see "Primer".
Ursula K. Le Guin once wrote that there are Confucian science fiction novels
(focusing on human relationships) and Taoist sf novels (focusing on the
universe).
If people are paramount, then Lem's Solaris is a novel about the hero and his
wife. If the universe is paramount, it is a novel about the world ocean of
the planet Solaris. Confess it has always seemed like the latter...
Tarkovsky is deeply interested in water, too. It is the great subject of his
films...
Mike Grost
18043
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:50pm
Subject: Voice-over narration from Criterion Collection site FYI http://www.criterionco.com/
Perhaps some know of this, perhaps others do not; voice over was a
topic a few months back:
Voice-over narration has existed since the beginnings of cinema and has
been an integral part of some of the great masterworks of narrative
film, from The Magnificent Ambersons to Double Indemnity to Jules and
Jim to Taxi Driver. It spans all genres and national cinemas, utilized
in a myriad of distinct styles to complement, clarify, or complicate
the filmed story. Yet, despite its ubiquity, voice-over remains a
neglected and often reviled technique, considered by many to be
antithetical to the true cinematic experience. In this installment of
Focus, five noted film writers turn their attention to voice-over
narration and its attendant controversies, examining the joys and
pitfalls of this contested technique: Sarah Kozloff (author of
Invisible Storytellers: Voice-over Narration in American Fiction Film)
kicks things off with a condensed history of the topic; Adrian Martin
considers the innovative uses of voice-over in French New Wave cinema;
Michael Atkinson provides a look at irony in voice-over, with special
emphasis on the work of director Terrence Malick; Paul Arthur examines
the provocative disjunctions between narration and image in Martin
Scorseseís The Age of Innocence; and Chris Chang analyzes the
melancholy narrator through two seemingly dissimilar filmsóAlain
Resnaisís Hiroshima mon amour and Roger Avaryís The Rules of
Attraction. Criterion is pleased to offer Focus: A Look at Voice-over
Narration.
18044
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film history up to Bazin (Was: The Country Doctor)
This is a very interesting thread and I hope it goes on a bit longer.
Just to offer a rather more practical-than-theoretical response, in the
Griffith shorts, the impact of deep focus is probably blunted somewhat
by the visual quality of the prints available. When you look at the
Tolands or, to pick a favorite of mine from the period, Cortez's work on
Magnificent Ambersons, the photographic sharpness of the images is (in a
good print) jaw-dropping. Billy Bitzer's work doesn't look as impressive
to us because the film stocks aren't as light-sensitiveand the prints we
see don't look that hot.
Mind you, this is just a from-the-gut reaction. It is very possible
(even likely) that I'm full of shit here.
George (Frequently full of shit, but that's my charm) Robinson
MG4273@a... wrote:
>There are some really interesting deep focus shots in Griffith, and other
>filmmakers of the teens.
>In "The Mothering Heart" (Griffith, 1913) the shots at the fancy restuarant
>are just teeming with diners, both on the main floor, and a raised area at the
>back. These shots are so multi-focus they suggest Tati's "Playtime". Or some
>of Minnelli's crowd scenes, in which each extra has a carefully rehearsed
>characterization and bit of business by Minnelli (he would spend hours coaching all
>the extras, driving his producers crazy).
>In Episode 2 of "Les Vampires" (Feuillade, 1915), the theater scenes are
>amazing deep focus compositions. This is some of Feuillade's most delirious
>filmmaking.
>"Regeneration" (Raoul Walsh, 1915) has panoramas at both the saloon and the
>excusrion boat.
>"The Spiders" (Fritz Lang, 1919) has some crowd scenes at hero Kay Hoog's
>club near the beginning. They are really complex, with all sorts of business
>going on among the elegant denizens of his club.
>
>I like this stuff!
>
>Mike Grost
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
--
The entire world is a narrow bridge,
but the main thing is not to be afraid.
-- Rabbi Nakhman of Breslov
18045
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:12pm
Subject: Late Spring (was: Early Spring)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> The father in [Late Spring] believes he is doing his daughter a
> favor by forcing her to marry. So does the society around them,
> which starts the pressure. But Ozu is careful never to embrace
> this idea. Generations of film critics have treated the social
> pressure to marry in [Late Spring] as a Good Thing, Nature's Way,
> etc. They have a right to their opinion. But it is not clear IMHO
> that OZU or his film endorses such forced marriage as a good thing.
> When I saw [Late Spring], it seemed utterly different from the
> concensus critical commentary on it. It seemed like a scream of
> pain, and a cry of outrage!
I agree with much of what you say, but not quite all.
One really needs to know whether a young woman in Noriko's (Setsuko
Hara's) socio-economic situation in "Late Spring" had any realistic
alternative to marriage at that time and place. Until one knows this
sociological fact, one is at a bit of a loss to interpret the film
definitively.
I am not convinced that Noriko is a lesbian, I am certain, however,
that her sexuality is ill-defined. As I understand, she lost her
mother at a young age, and was brought up by her father as much as
"only son" as "daddy's girl". Then, she was ill for what would appear
to be an extended period -- and institutionalized in a sanatarium (did
this occur even before she finished high school -- surprisingly, she
seems to feel uncharacteristically little solidarity with her
classmates in general). One gets a sense that her only real "role
model" as a female was her aunt -- and her aunt was rather hit or miss
in this responsibility. Consequently, she has not been fully
socialized as female. At most, she knows how to act the part in a
very external and superficial fashion. I would describe her more as
asexual (or, at least, not yet settled in any adult sexual identity)
than as hetero- or homosexual. Whatever her orientation, however, she
is not psychologically ready for marriage.
In passing, I would note that I consider Hara's performance in this
film one of the most complex and sophisticated I've ever seen. To a
large extent, she manages to move (and comport herself) more like an
ungainly teen boy than a 20-something young woman.
Back to sociology. The father here (Chishu Ryu) seems to believe
sincerely that (soon to be 1950s) Japan has no role for his daughter
except as a married woman. He is almost certainly correct in
believing that Noriko's preference -- that she stay with him and
minister to his needs -- was NOT a viable option. What we don't know
is whether or not there were indeed other options -- and if not, how
much "shelf life" Noriko had on the marriage mart. It may well be
that, pragmatically, there was some degree of urgency in getting her
married off -- ready or not.
I aqgree entirely with the notion that the tactics the Father pursues
are brutal -- and I believe he knows this and is appalled at what he
feels he HAS to do. I see no trace of quiet resignation at the end --
I see a man who is disgusted and devastated. I will never understand
how critics have tried to paint this as a conservative work. Ozu may
or not have been a "liberal" or a "feminist" (an even slipperier term
in Japan than in the west), but he certainly had a keen eye for social
reality and intense sympathy for persons forced by society to act in
ways that were (to say the least) uncongenial to them.
Michael Kerpan
Boston
18046
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:15pm
Subject: Re: Early Spring (was: The Trial of Joan of Arc (Robert Bresson))
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
"The father in 'Early Spring' [LATE SPRING] believes he is doing his
daughter a favor by forcing her to marry. So does the society around
them, which starts the pressure."
The pressure during this era of Japanese history was more acute
because of the late war and the then current Occupation; the Japanese
middle class welcomed political changes and at the same time wanted
to preserve the old social order. Ozu was acutely aware of this, and
it shows in the film.
"But Ozu is careful never to embrace this idea. Generations of film
critics have treated the social pressure to marry in 'Early Spring'
as a Good Thing, Nature's Way, etc. They have a right to their
opinion. But it is not clear IMHO that OZU or his film endorses such
forced marriage as a good thing."
Certainly generations of Western critcs thought so. Howevert, some
contemporary Japanese reviewers noted the melancholy fate of the
heroine, now consigned to the prison house of domesticity, a servant
of strangers (a least she loves her father.) A Marxist critic saw it
as the damning portrait of the bourgeois family in which feudalism
survives ("feudalism" was a code word for everything reactinary at
the time) by denying women autonomy, but he faulted the picture
for not suggesting an alternative (invalid in my view, and typical of
Marxist criticism in those days.) So your position has support from
Japanese critics then and now.
"When I saw 'Early Spring', it seemed utterly different from the
concensus critical commentary on it. It seemed like a scream of pain,
and a cry of outrage!"
I don't know about outrage, but the pain is there. Interesting irony
is that Hara Setsuko who played Noriko never married, retired from
movies at age 42 and lived out of the public eye with a female
companion. I was in Japan in 1993 when Ryu Chisu died, and she gave
a statement to the media about his passing but didn't appear in
public or attend his funeral.
Richard
18047
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:29pm
Subject: Late Spring (Was: Early Spring)
> The father in "Early Spring" believes he is doing his daughter a favor
> by forcing her to marry. So does the society around them, which starts
> the pressure. But Ozu is careful never to embrace this idea. Generations
> of film critics have treated the social pressure to marry in "Early
> Spring" as a Good Thing, Nature's Way, etc. They have a right to their
> opinion. But it is not clear IMHO that OZU or his film endorses such
> forced marriage as a good thing. When I saw "Early Spring", it seemed
> utterly different from the concensus critical commentary on it. It
> seemed like a scream of pain, and a cry of outrage!
I find your ideas about the Hara character quite interesting, but I must
say that it would ruin the (stunning) ending of LATE SPRING for me if I
thought Ozu disapproved of the marriage. It would seem odd for him to end
with the father's pang of sorrow if the daughter had really been sent off
to a nightmare - the coda would no longer seem appropriate to the bleak
situation. Of course, there's the alternative explanation: that the fall
of the apple peel shows, not the father's sorrow at the inevitable
parting, but his horror at realizing what he'd done. But this would
coarsen and simplify a moment that, in the more conservative
interpretation, is suspended very delicately between happiness and sorrow
(or, rather, happinesses and sorrows). And the all-important music cue at
the end seems way off the mark if the daughter has been tricked into a
nightmare. - Dan
18048
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:31pm
Subject: Re: Late Spring (was: Early Spring)
> I will never understand
> how critics have tried to paint this as a conservative work. Ozu may
> or not have been a "liberal" or a "feminist" (an even slipperier term
> in Japan than in the west), but he certainly had a keen eye for social
> reality and intense sympathy for persons forced by society to act in
> ways that were (to say the least) uncongenial to them.
But there's no contradiction between being a conservative and having a
keen eye, intense sympathy, etc. - Dan
18049
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sideways
--- samadams@e... wrote:
SIDEWAYS of
> course isn't anywhere near as harrowing a movie, but
> Thomas Haden
> Church's breakdown scene (so similar to Fausto's in
> VITELLONI) gives
> a brief but indelible sense of the abyss lurking
> under the bravado.
>
Bingo! It's an American I VITELLONI! Hadn't seen this
at first but now that you mention it it's
prettyobvious. MEAN STREETS deliberately evokes I
VITELLONI but its characters issues are quite
different. Fellini's people aren't really in danger
for their lives, and neither are Payne's -- enraged
naked husbands aside.
> Side note: I'd gone around for weeks thinking of
> SIDEWAYS's focus on
> the terror of mediocrity as a universal theme, but
> then a day or two
> after the election, it hit me: a good portion of the
> country -- say,
> oh, 51, percent -- is actually more comfortable with
> mediocrity than
> any kind of uppity achievement.
Bingo again!
I don't necessarily
> know if that
> accounts for the brief shot of our C-student
> president in the movie,
It most surely does. In fact"Sideways" is a far more
political film than it first appears.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
18050
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sideways
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
>I don't necessarily
>
>
>>know if that
>>accounts for the brief shot of our C-student
>>president in the movie,
>>
>>
>
>It most surely does. In fact"Sideways" is a far more
>political film than it first appears.
>
>
>
>
>
>
I would agree with both of you and I also like the film a great deal.
As for its political content, I think that Payne's sympathetic but entirely negative take on preening masculinity and his understanding of the catastrophic insecurities underlying machismo are very astutely political. In fact, I think it's his warmth towards the characters as people that makes the analysis of their shortcomings so powerful.
George (my catastrophic insecurities are none of your business) Robinson
--
The entire world is a narrow bridge,
but the main thing is not to be afraid.
-- Rabbi Nakhman of Breslov
18051
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:51pm
Subject: Re: Late Spring (was: Early Spring)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> But there's no contradiction between being a conservative and
> having a keen eye, intense sympathy, etc. - Dan
I'll refrain from comment on the general observation. ;~}
Apropos Ozu, however, the issue is whether he approved (or even
justified the status quo -- as Joan Mellen and, more recently,
Catherine Russell suggest) or simply described it -- showing both the
flaws and benefits of tradition -- and modernity. My sense is that,
all in all, Ozu seems to criticize the role (and limitations) imposed
on women more than he smiled upon them.
In late film after late film, we see the pain of oppression of females
-- and, in a few cases, the sense of relief when women are allowed to
make their own choices. In ¨Equinox Flower", the issue is not
marriage or not, but marriage on whose terms -- and, in it, we see
female solidarity (mother and daughter, daughter and friend) leading
to allowing the daughter (Ineko Arima) not only to make her own
decision but to have it accepted by the father. In "End of Summer",
the patriarch (Ganjiro Nakamura) is a likeable old rogue, but he is
also a symbol of oppressive male authority over the sex lives of his
daughter. He is trying to compel his widowed daughter (Hara) to
re-marry a wealthy buffoon, and to coerce his youngest daughter into
marrying the (would-be) heir of a competing brewery business (when she
actually wants to marry a salryman co-worker). Despite the portentous
music at the end (query: did Ozu have less control over the music
here, in this non-Shochiku film), my final sense is one of liberation
-- as the two women acknowledge their ability to do as THEY wish, and
not what they are expected to do).
Michael Kerpan
Boston
18052
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:58pm
Subject: Re: Early Spring (was: The Trial of Joan of Arc (Robert Bresson))
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> Interesting irony
> is that Hara Setsuko who played Noriko never married, retired from
> movies at age 42 and lived out of the public eye with a female
> companion. I was in Japan in 1993 when Ryu Chisu died, and she gave
> a statement to the media about his passing but didn't appear in
> public or attend his funeral.
A question we have debated in our household -- would Hara have retired
so early had Ozu not died? Although she did extraordinary work for
other directors (such as Naruse and Kurosawa), they seemed to have
pushed her into behavior gravely at odds with her own very reserved
self-identity (she actually had to kiss someone in her last role for
Naruse).
As far as I know, Hara is still alive and living in Tokyo.
MEK
18053
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:00pm
Subject: Re: Film history up to Bazin (Was: The Country Doctor)
To carry on the technical discussion, i feel I need kore information
on the Griffith shot before I can judge it myself. Ideally I would
see it for myself.
but it isn'tenought to say that the two layers of action are
separated by half a mile. This isn't in itself remarkable.With a
decent amount of light, even in Griffith's day, it would have been no
problem to film a horseman on a hill with a vast view behind him and
have it all in focus. the main requirement is to have the camera far
enough from the figure for both to register as "infinity" - both
would be in focus and no great effort would be required.
The point at which deep focus becomes a technical challenge is where
one level is very close to the camera - a closeup - and the other
further away. Six foot or half a mile, it's not that important.
Toland's work presents subjects sometimes very close to the lens
indeed (admittedly,sometimes using superimposition to do so) and
maintains an acceptable sharpness in the background.
So - is it a shot of a man on a horse, or just a closeup of the face
of the man on the horse? Even if it's a head and shoulders view, that
isn't a great Tolandesque achievement - you or I could go up a hill
with a cheap camer and achieve that. What would make the shot
technically difficult would be an extreme closeup, just face, with a
sharp background, however near or far.
Of course, from an aesthetic viewpoint Griffith's shot could still be
magnificent in it's own right, the simple-to-achieve depth creating a
stunning visual and dramatic effect - I'm not knocking it!
18054
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:01pm
Subject: Re: Late Spring (was: Early Spring)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
"One really needs to know whether a young woman in Noriko's (Setsuko
Hara's) socio-economic situation in "Late Spring" had any realistic
alternative to marriage at that time and place. Until one knows this
sociological fact, one is at a bit of a loss to interpret the film
definitively."
At that time Japan was in transition. There was a concious and
deliberate effort to liberate women and educate the public about the
new constitution (adopted in 1947) that had an equal rights article
(something missing from the US constitution); women were entering the
labor force in record numbers, and they were delaying marriage. They
also entered politics and held seats in the Diet as members of the
Japan Socialist Party (women JSP members are satirized in
GOJIRA/GODZILLA.) For a vivid picture of Japan during this period
see "Embracing Defeat" by John Dower and for a Japanese account
see "Japan Under the Occupation" recently translated into English.
The evidence indicates that not getting married was indeed a viable
alternative for at least some women (Hara herself never married.)
"I am not convinced that Noriko is a lesbian, I am certain, however,
that her sexuality is ill-defined."
I agree that her sexual orientation remains ambiguous.
"In passing, I would note that I consider Hara's performance in this
film one of the most complex and sophisticated I've ever seen. To a
large extent, she manages to move (and comport herself) more like an
ungainly teen boy than a 20-something young woman."
It seems probable that Setsuko Hara is a lesbian, so she may have
drawn on women that she knew in lesbian circles. The first gay bars
opened in Japan during the Occupation. For an account of gay life
during that era see Mishima's "Forbiden Colors," and there was a
corresponding lesbian world; it's briefly described in Donald
Richie's "Tokyo Nights."
"Back to sociology. The father here (Chishu Ryu) seems to believe
sincerely that (soon to be 1950s) Japan has no role for his daughter
except as a married woman. He is almost certainly correct in
believing that Noriko's preference -- that she stay with him and
minister to his needs -- was NOT a viable option. What we don't know
is whether or not there were indeed other options -- and if not, how
much 'shelf life' Noriko had on the marriage mart. It may well be
that, pragmatically, there was some degree of urgency in getting her
married off -- ready or not."
The family in LATE SPRING is a middle class family caught up in the
radical changes brought about by defeat in WWII and the overturning
of society that followed. However, remaining at home was a viable if
not entirely respectable option in that household because there was
no wife or other female relative there, no son and no daughter-in-
law. Then and now unmarried women have stayed at home to take care of
widowed parents. Certainly the father believes sincerely that Japan
has no role for his daughter except as a married woman, but in my
view he's also grasping at stability by forcing Noriko to marry even
though it seems that he would like her to remain with him; he thinks
he's sacrificing his happiness for her's, and this is what makes the
movie so poignant, this unnecessary sacrifice made in the name of
respectability.
Richard
18055
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:07pm
Subject: Re: Korean Films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> I agree with the OASIS comments; extraordinary film. There is a DVD
> but only in Korean without subtitles so I didn't get it.
Actually, there is an excellent Korean box set, with all three of LEE
Chang-dong's film, all of which are subtitled (albeit not the
extensive extras). The Oasis DVD is R3, the others two are
all-region. In any event, a US DVD release of "Oasis" is scheduled
fairly soon.
> There is one ?MURDER MEMORIES about an unsolved murder that I would see
> again.
"Memories of Murder", directed by BONG Joon-ho (who also made the
extraordinary "Barking Dogs Never Bite") is available on a Korean
(subtitled) DVD.
> Another ONG...... (a marshall arts film without special effects?) that
> is also well liked.
Ong Bak probably (from Thailand).
> My Sassy Girl was fun, TEACH ME ENGLISH cute;
I'm a "Sassy Girl" dissenter. While the female lead was indeed
quirkily appealing, I found the film to be poorly written and directed
overall.
MEK
18056
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:17pm
Subject: Re: The Country Doctor (D. W. Griffith)
I was even more struck by Ernst Lubistch's silent
LADY WINDERMERE'S FAN, which has somewhat
astonishing affect of making Oscar Wilde's
dialogue seem superfluous. The performance style
in particular is strikingly modern, a striking
physical analogue for WIlde's wit. There's an
astonishing Charley Bowers short called THERE IT
IS which shades past anarchy into
proto-surrealism (the notes say Andre Breton was
a fan), and a hypnotizing industrial film shot by
Billy Bitzer called PANORAMIC VIEW, AISLE B, an
unbroken overhead tracking shot of a production
line which could have influenced WEEKEND
(although it probably didn't), and a cigarette
commercial from 1896 whose off-kilter
incompetence I find endlessly fascinating.
Accompanying notes and commentaries are all first
rate. I rarely make it all the way through such
long box sets (and I'll admit to skipping the Rin
Tin Tin movie) but I'm very glad I stuck it out
with this one.
Sam
>
> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:34:43 -0000
> From: "thebradstevens"
>Subject: Re: The Country Doctor (D. W. Griffith) + Almodóvar
>
>
>""The Country Doctor" (D. W. Griffith, 1909) is a short film by
>Griffith, included in the "More Treasures from America's Film
>Archives" set."
>
>I just reviewed the AFA set for SIGHT AND SOUND, and was particularly
>struck by Thomas H. Ince's THE INVADERS (1912). Aside from its
>remarkably progressive attitude towards Native Americans, Ince's film
>includes some of the most striking 'deep focus' compositions I've
>ever seen - one shot, in which a woman on horseback observes a
>battle, takes in two distinct planes which seem to be separated by at
>least a mile! There are similar compositions in John Ford's recently
>rediscovered BUCKING BROADWAY (1917). I can't understand why Gregg
>Toland's deep focus photography of the '30s and '40s was considered
>so innovative - this kind of composition seems to have been
>relatively commonplace during the silent era.
>
18057
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:22pm
Subject: Re: Late Spring (was: Early Spring)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> For a vivid picture of Japan during this period
> see "Embracing Defeat" by John Dower and for a Japanese account
> see "Japan Under the Occupation" recently translated into English.
Dower (who I have heard speak) is on my need-to-read list.
> The evidence indicates that not getting married was indeed a viable
> alternative for at least some women (Hara herself never married.)
But Hara would have been independently wealthy when she retired,
wouldn't she? Noriko from "Late Spring" would not have been. Once
her father died, she would have been pretty much impoverished,
wouldn't she?
> Certainly the father believes sincerely that Japan
> has no role for his daughter except as a married woman, but in my
> view he's also grasping at stability by forcing Noriko to marry even
> though it seems that he would like her to remain with him; he thinks
> he's sacrificing his happiness for her's, and this is what makes the
> movie so poignant, this unnecessary sacrifice made in the name of
> respectability.
I'm still not convinced that Ozu would have thought the sacrifice WAS
unnecessary, though I suspect that he might have felt it _should_ have
been unnecessary. I agree the ending is far more poignant than those
who view it as "quietly resigned" would have us believe. ;~}
MEK
18058
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:24pm
Subject: Re: Film history up to Bazin (Was: The Country Doctor)
"To carry on the technical discussion, i feel I need more information
on the Griffith shot before I can judge it myself."
It's not Griffith, but rather a shot in Thomas H. Ince's THE INVADERS
(1912).
"is it a shot of a man on a horse, or just a closeup of the face of
the man on the horse?"
It's a full-figure shot of a woman. I just looked at the shot again.
I remembered her being on horseback, but in fact she's leading a
horse along a path when she sees a battle raging in the distance.
"Even if it's a head and shoulders view, that isn't a great
Tolandesque achievement - you or I could go up a hill with a cheap
camera and achieve that. What would make the shot technically
difficult would be an extreme closeup, just face, with a sharp
background, however near or far."
I didn't realize that. But surely many of the 'deep focus' shots
Bazin admires in Wyler (for example, the telephone scene from BEST
YEARS OF OUR LIVES) don't make use of the kind of compositions you
are describing.
18059
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 7:28pm
Subject: Re: The Country Doctor (D. W. Griffith)
"I'll admit to skipping the Rin Tin Tin movie"
You should definitely watch this. It's actually a disguised Western
in which Rin Tin Tin plays a half-breed!
18060
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:03pm
Subject: Re: Soderbergh's SOLARIS (and Lem, Tarkovsky)
> Which Oshii films are the best?
Since I've only seen "Ghost In The Shell" and "Ghost In The Shell 2: Innocence"
I'll say those two :)
See them in that order, and (I've been told) avoid dubbed versions like the
plague.
I'm not an Anime fan as it were, but there are some startling asmopherics in the
first, and "Innocence" - which I saw in the theater 2 weeks ago has some
stunning CGI work - something I'm not typically fond of (understatement!)
but once again Asian cinema at it's best is ahead of the pack, not so much
techincally but in sensibilty.
Oshii Mamoru, is surely an auteur of Anime.
> Ursula K. Le Guin once wrote that there are Confucian science fiction novels
> (focusing on human relationships) and Taoist sf novels (focusing on the
> universe).
> If people are paramount, then Lem's Solaris is a novel about the hero and his
> wife. If the universe is paramount, it is a novel about the world ocean of
> the planet Solaris. Confess it has always seemed like the latter...
> Tarkovsky is deeply interested in water, too. It is the great subject of his
> films...
A friend of mine (who in fact turned me on to Oshii etc) & who likes both
Solari puts it "Tarkovsky's is from a filmmaker who believes in God,
Soderbergh's from a filmmaker who doesn't believe in God"
(altho I've no idea there, but I know what my friend means)
Interesting distinction above there, food for thought, thanks !
-Sam Wells
18061
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:18pm
Subject: Re: Film history up to Bazin (Was: The Country Doctor)
There's considerable emphasis in Ambersons on vanishing points -
I mean converging electric lines tracks, virtually all the archtecture.
One even say it's a film *about* vanishing points (of social and industrial
reference)
-Sam
18062
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Country Doctor (D. W. Griffith)
Half-dog and half-chicken
It's actually a horror film, with Charles Laughton as a deranged
scientist and chef who is seeking the perfect lunch meat mix.
His famous line is "My god! This tastes just like chicken. Or dog."
George (tastes like chicken) Robinson
thebradstevens wrote:
>"I'll admit to skipping the Rin Tin Tin movie"
>
>You should definitely watch this. It's actually a disguised Western
>in which Rin Tin Tin plays a half-breed!
>
>
>
>
>
>
18063
From: Hadrian
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:24pm
Subject: Boris Barnet tapes
HOwdy,
Does anyone have any Boris Barnet tapes, other than Girl WIth a
Hatbox or Outskirts? I have a friend writing a paper, can't find
much for him. I'd love to collect them for the store, anyways.
hadrian
18064
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:28pm
Subject: Re: Late Spring (was: Early Spring)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
"But Hara would have been independently wealthy when she retired,
wouldn't she? Noriko from "Late Spring" would not have been. Once
her father died, she would have been pretty much impoverished,
wouldn't she?"
There are two issues here: Middle class conformity dictates marriage
before the age of 30 or else endure the shame of not "being good
enough." Both the character Noriko and the real Hara faced that
possibility, but Hara was famous and beautiful and had suitors (none
of whom she dated, and according to my 72 year old Japanese step-
mother, Hara's female fans didn't want her to get married,)and her
status as a celebrity and actor made her exempt. That is, until she
retired and didn't get married (professional women were expected to
marry when they retired from their practicing their art.) It was then
that rumours of her sexual orientation started. The economic
incentive was entirely secondary for middle class women if they were
the sole offspring and there were no grandchilren because they would
inherit their parents' property, and in Noriko's case she would get
the house in Kamakura, her father's savings (and the Japanese are big
savers) and his pension (if he had one.) Concievably Ozu could have
introduced the character of a son (even off-screen) and then the
reason for marriage would be as much economic as social.
"I'm still not convinced that Ozu would have thought the sacrifice WAS
unnecessary, though I suspect that he might have felt it _should_ have
been unnecessary. I agree the ending is far more poignant than those
who view it as "quietly resigned" would have us believe."
On reconsideration, I think you're right about Ozu's view here.
After reviewing what I know about Ozu from his films and his life I
don't see any strong evidence that Ozu was completely at odds with
the society in which he lived.
Richard
18065
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:27pm
Subject: Re: Deep Focus (was Film History Up to Bazin)
Very nice, Sam.
It's also about the social space that separates people from one another;
look at how Welles (and Cortez) use deep focus and the extraordinary
sets to create the interior of the Amberson mansion as a sort of
perverse layer cake of personal conflict, with fights raging from
landing to landing between people who (literally) cannot even see one
another.
In fact, the brilliance of Welles's use of deep focus in all his films
is the way in which it keeps them orbiting one another like angry
planets whose gravitational fields are the only thing keeping them from
total destruction. Welles's films could be said to be -- again,
literally -- about the spaces between people, their inability to get out
of the boxes created by their egos.
g
samfilms2003 wrote:
>There's considerable emphasis in Ambersons on vanishing points -
>I mean converging electric lines tracks, virtually all the archtecture.
>
>One even say it's a film *about* vanishing points (of social and industrial
>reference)
>
>-Sam
>
>
>
>
18066
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:46pm
Subject: Re: Soderbergh's SOLARIS (and Lem, Tarkovsky)
"Tarkovsky's is from a filmmaker who believes in God, Soderbergh's
from a filmmaker who doesn't believe in God"
The fact that Soderbergh managed to finance his big-budget remake of
OCEAN'S ELEVEN while Monte Hellman has been unable to get a single
project off the ground in the last 15 years is certainly incompatible
with the idea that there's a benevolent diety watching over us.
I can sort of understand why people like SODERBOLARIS, which may well
be a model of 'serious' filmmaking for the Nintendo generation. It's
surface brilliance is undeniable. But that's all there is. It's all
surface.
The cloyingly cute flashback scenes showing the Clooney character's
romance are photographed in exactly that 'perfect' and 'pretty'
whiskey commercial style that to me represents everything bad in
contemporary cinema.
I guess there might be a defence of this stylistic banality. If (as
seems entirely possible) the entire film (opening scenes included)
takes place on Solaris, then perhaps the flashbacks are supposed to
represent not what happened, but how Clooney's character remembers
it. So their seeming banality is really a critique of his narcisstic
romanticism.
Or do the film's admirers not find these scenes banal?
Juxtaposing OCEAN'S ELEVEN with SOLARIS does suggest that Soderbergh
is a kind of auteur - in both films, George Clooney must penetrate a
technological labyrinth in order to be reunited with his ex-wife.
Maybe I should look at SOLARIS again. I have to admit that I was
thinking about doing this while watching ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE
SPOTLESS MIND recently (those two films might make an interesting
double-bill).
18067
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 9:25pm
Subject: Re: "The Honey Pot"
ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I know some (Fred?) consider this to be the greatest Mankiewicz, perhaps his
> archetypal "last film" (even though he made two more after it.)
That's me. I'm not prepared to argue chapter and verse about why it's
greater than someone else's favorite, as I've not seen it in decades,
but it seemed to me that both visually and in the narrative twists it
had that intense self-reflexivity of other "last" films -- "Seven
Women," "Anatahan," "Play Dirty," not that I think it's quite as great
as those.
Fred Camper
18068
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:28pm
Subject: Re: Boris Barnet tapes
Hadrian wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any Boris Barnet tapes, other than Girl WIth a
> Hatbox or Outskirts? I have a friend writing a paper, can't find
> much for him. I'd love to collect them for the store, anyways.
>
I have a bunch, but they're all in Russian. Actually, Russian
versions of quite a few Barnet films are available through legit
release VHS versions that don't look too bad. They're fine if you
know some Russian, have seen the films before, or can get a Russian
friend to help you out. (And luckily, Barnet isn't too dialogue
driven a director anyway.) You can find them at: www.rbcmp3.com.
-Bilge
18069
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:40pm
Subject: Re: Late Spring (Was: Early Spring)
Thanks everybody for the truly informative posts on "Late Spring".
It is a great relief to know that all Japanese critics in 1949 did not find
this film sweetness & light - so maybe I am not imagining things!
I am going to backtrack a bit. The film definitely seems to be about the
horror of forcing gay people to try to be straight and to marry. But I agree Ozu
concentrates on the horror of forced marriage, and treads very lightly on the
gay aspects of the daughter's character. Posts that suggest her sexuality is
undefined, but with strong elements of boyishness, are probably most accurate.
So whether the character is fully well-defined as a lesbian, or whether her
situation rather represents the plight of lesbians and gay people in general,
with her own character less clearly defined, is an fair question. Maybe the
latter.
I have only seen this film once. And it was so painful that I have never
watched it again. Truly, it is a descent into hell! When the final wave breaks on
the shore, one realises that the characters are totally damned.
Mike Grost
18070
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:48pm
Subject: Re: Soderbergh's SOLARIS (and Lem, Tarkovsky)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
"I guess there might be a defence of this stylistic banality. If (as
seems entirely possible) the entire film (opening scenes included)
takes place on Solaris, then perhaps the flashbacks are supposed to
represent not what happened, but how Clooney's character remembers
it. So their seeming banality is really a critique of his narcisstic
romanticism."
I took those scenes to be a Woody Allenish parody of the human
society Kelvin left when he went to the space station. The whole
picture was a kind of alienation parable.
Richard
18071
From: Gary Tooze
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:55pm
Subject: Au Hasard Balthazar, Mouchette DVDs
Hi, I don't post much, but thought the Bresson fans would be quite thrilled
with the new releases by Nouveaux Pictures on DVD in Region 2.
Excellent transfers based on the newly restored prints.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReview6/auhasardbalthazar.htm
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReview6/mouchette.htm
The release date is this Monday. A must purchase in my mind.
Regards,
Gary
18072
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:11am
Subject: Re: Korean Films
...and whats the deal about Korean film anyway? Ten years ago no one
had ever seen a Korean film and each Korean film is a masterpiece?
Is Korean film really that good or has critics just gotten enough of
European films imitating themselves to death and thus shifted global
attention?
Henrik
PS: I missed you guys too :)
18073
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:22am
Subject: Re: Re: Late Spring (was: Early Spring)
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> On reconsideration, I think you're right about Ozu's
> view here.
> After reviewing what I know about Ozu from his films
> and his life I
> don't see any strong evidence that Ozu was
> completely at odds with
> the society in which he lived.
>
It's an interesting question. His early films
arefarmorecritical of Japanese ddle-class life than
his later ones for the most part. But I've always felt
that Ozu's famous low-angle cameraposition was key.
it's the position of an outside looking in. Ozu was
fascinated by a world that he knew, as a gay man, he
could never be part of.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
18074
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:42am
Subject: Re: Au Hasard Balthazar, Mouchette DVDs
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Gary Tooze wrote:
>http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReview6/auhasardbalthazar.htm
Thanks! Here's one correction or question. I assume that the distributor of BALTHAZAR must have billed it as the U.S. theatrical premiere -- a claim which turned up in a number of reviews last year. I see it's in your review too, so I felt I should note for the record that it actually opened at the New Yorker Theater in February 1970, about three and a half years after the NYFF screening. At least one critic castigated the Times for not reviewing last year's "premiere," but presumably this was not done because it had already been re-reviewed, certainly favorably, by Roger Greenspun on the occasion of the actual theatrical premiere in 1970.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes/357411822.html?did=357411822&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Feb+20%2C+1970&author=By+ROGER+GREENSPUN&desc=The+Screen%3A+%27Au+Hasard%2C+Balthazar%27
(Now, I don't know whether or not it played outside New York back then -- could that possibly have been the determining factor in calling this the U.S. theatrical premiere?)
18075
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:34pm
Subject: Re: Boris Barnet tapes
I can get my hands on unsubtitled copies of By The Bluest of Seas, The
Wrestler and The Clown, Alyonka and Miss Menda.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18076
From:
Date: Sat Nov 20, 2004 11:45pm
Subject: UNDERTOW
MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
While I don't think it quite matched the poetry of ALL THE REAL GIRLS,
UNDERTOW is still pretty smashing and firmly establishes David Gordon Green as a
MAJOR threat. THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER touches are definitely there. But this
time, I thought Green was more in step with Cronenberg than anyone else.
One question, though. Are we to assume that Chris (a jaw-dropping performance
from Jamie Bell who I JUST found out was Billy freakin' Elliot) does, in
fact, die at the end? The voice-over, the balloon popping, the B&W footage of him
at a body of water (after all that River Styx talk) all suggest that he does.
Thoughts?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18077
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:43am
Subject: Re: Late Spring (was: Early Spring)
David Ehrenstein:
> But I've always felt
> that Ozu's famous low-angle cameraposition was key.
> it's the position of an outside looking in. Ozu was
> fascinated by a world that he knew, as a gay man, he
> could never be part of.
The low-key camera style I always thought his most audacious gesture-
-how dare he make great films almost from a single camera angle!
Late Spring, incidentally is my favorite Ozu, not the least because,
as someone pointed out, the ending can be interpreted several ways:
of a daughter forced to marriage by a father who knows better for
her (granting her happiness at the cost of his); of a daughter
forced into marriage by a father who doesn't know what's best for
her, is in effect unknowingly selling her into feudal bondage
(granting her unhappiness and him the masochistic happiness of
indulging his blinkered ideals); of a father who knows just what
marriage will do to her, but does so anyway because he feels he
doesn't have a choice (granting both of them unhappiness, and only
the meager satisfaction that this was the best he could do for her,
notwithstanding). That apple peel may be the saddest piece of sliced-
off fruit in cinematic history.
18078
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:53am
Subject: Re: Soderbergh's SOLARIS (and Lem, Tarkovsky)
I agree with Mike G that Lem's Solaris was a far more complex novel
than was shown in either adaptation, though it's hard to imagine how
you can put the satirical history of Solaristics in a picture and
still make it dramatically interesting. I do think the main point of
Lem's detailed account of the ocean and the study of the ocean is
the impossibility of knowing it fully--the mystery of Solaris, in
effect. If I much prefer Tarkovsky's un-"whiskey commercial"-like
film over Soderbergh, it's mainly because Tarkovsky with his
derelict, trash-littered space station is able to give a larger,
more brooding sense of this mystery than Soderbergh's spotless sets
ever could.
18079
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:06am
Subject: Re: Korean Films
> ...and whats the deal about Korean film anyway?
There seems to be a recent boom, not only in art films but in
commercial comedies, action, animation, etc.
Along with those already mentioned, I'd also recommend Jung Ji
Woo's "Happy End, a well made erotic drama, " and Kang Woo
Suk's "Public Enemy," a surprsingly funny violent-cop film ("Dirty
Harry" with a sense of humor). And Kim Ki-Duk's works don't seem so
popular here, but I did like his "Bad Guy."
18080
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:17am
Subject: Re: The Country Doctor (D. W. Griffith) + Almodóvar
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> ""The Country Doctor" (D. W. Griffith, 1909) is a short film by
> Griffith, included in the "More Treasures from America's Film
> Archives" set."
>
> I just reviewed the AFA set for SIGHT AND SOUND, and was
particularly
> struck by Thomas H. Ince's THE INVADERS (1912). Aside from its
> remarkably progressive attitude towards Native Americans, Ince's
film
> includes some of the most striking 'deep focus' compositions I've
> ever seen - one shot, in which a woman on horseback observes a
> battle, takes in two distinct planes which seem to be separated by
at
> least a mile! There are similar compositions in John Ford's
recently
> rediscovered BUCKING BROADWAY (1917).
Several of Griffith's Biograph shorts -- The Lonely Villa (1909),
Ramona (1910), The Massacre (1912), New York Hat (1912), The
Musketeers of Pig Alley (1912) -- are notable for their use of deep
focus. There's the qualification that "deep focus" means narrative
action in multiple planes, with the medium foreground and deep
background in simultaneous focus. Since early film was about 20 ASA,
depth of field indoors was relatively limited. Barry Salt noted an
isolated example from Stroheim's Foolish Wives, in which the interiors
were so extremely brightly lit so as to match the sunlit exteriors,
allowing a lens aperture of f 5.6 or f 8, producing considerable depth
of field: "not deep-focus in the post-Toland sense, but on the way
there."
There was a Biograph shorts program today at the American Museum of
the Moving Image. The Biograph cinematographer Billy Bitzer is quoted
in the program notes : "We got the best photographic results in the
early morning, without shadows. Is is then the light sharpens the
distant hills..." However, at least in the text quoted, his complaints
about the the slow film he used involved not depth of field but
lighting. He goes on to discuss the problem of illuminating faces with
the light behind them, which he solves by using a bed sheet as a light
reflector. Later he finds that white gravel at the actors' feet serves
the same function.
Joe Heumann singled out two Ince films, which I haven't seen, for
their use of deep focus: Blazing the Trail (April 15, 1912) and The
Bargain (Dec. 1914). He wrote (Film Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Winter,
1980-1981), 62-64): "Blazing the Trail is the most impressive use of
deep focus I have seen from this period and is one of the concrete
examples that blows Bazin's 'Evolution of the Language of the Cinema'
right out of the water. Blazing the Trail uses some of the most
sophisticated multiple-plane narrative action from the early film
period. Using the natural depth achieved by outdoor photography, Ince
staged action on two or three planes at one time. This construction
created a narrative of stunning originality and complexity. Of the
film's 43 shots, 23 are composed in depth, where multiple-plane action
in foreground, midground. And background contribute to the story. The
imaginative use of off-screen space also is employed and it is clear
that Ince's film is one of the most sophisticated works that has ever
employed deep focus as a narrative technique throughout the span of a
whole film story. I find it to be one of the most important works in
all of American film history. The Bargain is a film that destroys many
film historians' contentions about the use of natural space and
surroundings in Hollywood Westerns. The attempts to reveal character
within a forbidding natural environment did not start in the 20's or
30's. Griffith's The Massacre is just one example of an early film
that attempted to produce such effects, but The Bargain is the most
impressive film that I have been able to find that reveals the
incredible use of outdoor locations to build a character's mood and
motivation. The Bargain's use of natural depth is as impressive as any
film made by John Ford and just points out, in another way, how
difficult it becomes to make sweeping statements about film genres or
traditions such as the Western. Film history isn't that cut or dried."
18081
From:
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:01am
Subject: Re: Primer (was: Currently in theaters)
In a message dated 04-11-19 13:40:36 EST, Dan Sallitt writes:
<< PRIMER, the $7000 film that won the Grand Prize at Sundance this year, is
also an amazing piece of cinema, the work of a natural artist (Shane Carruth,
a former computer programmer). I can't remember when I last saw a film that
felt so unlike every other film I know. The first time I saw PRIMER, I filled
pages with notes on distinctive dialogue and delivery, until I realized that
almost every line in the film was striking me as extraordinary and
unprecedented. Of special interest to those who have been exposed to the practical or
entrepreneurial sciences. >>
Wish to second this. Just saw Primer this afternoon, and felt it was terrific.
Primer is a science fiction story. It strongly stresses plot, storytelling,
characterization. By contrast, there is little or no violence, glorification of
war or horror, those current nausea-inducing mainstays of Hollywood film. It
is a "real movie", just like your grandfather used to make.
Primer is very untypical of current Hollywood sf filming (and a good thing,
too!). But it is closer to the central traditions of prose science fiction
writing. Its feel seemed somewhat reminscent of Robert Heinlein's "The Door into
Summer", one of his sunnier 1950's novels. And also a bit of such short stories
as Anthony Boucher's "Barrier", Charles Harness' "The New Reality" and "Child
by Chronos".
Primer also won an award for "Science in Film". The merger of science and
storytelling used to be a mainstay of popular entertainment. In addition to
science fiction (real stories about science, not the crude excuses for horror and
violence that modern Hollywood keeps pumping out), there used to be tons of
mystery stories based in science. Some details on these in my mystery web site:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/moffett.htm
This film allegedly cost $7,000. This is probably an exageration - one
suspects there are "finishing" costs not part of that figure. Still, it shows how to
make a remarkable film on a very low budget. Its production values seem as
good as "I (Heart) Huckabees", which reportedly had an $18 million budget.
Mike Grost
18082
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 0:23pm
Subject: Re: Korean Films
> And Kim Ki-Duk's works don't seem so popular here, but I did like
his "Bad Guy."
I've seen very little Korean cinema (despite having heard, like
everyone else, such good things about it recently), but one
filmmaker that I *am* aware of -- and am extremely interested in --
is Ki-duk.
His SAMARIA (a.k.a SAMARITAN GIRL) was one of the best films at this
year's Brisbane International Film Festival, second only to Jafar
Panahi's CRIMSON GOLD.
Im Sang-soo's A GOOD LAWYER'S WIFE was also outstanding.
18083
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Late Spring (Was: Early Spring)
> Certainly generations of Western critcs thought so. Howevert, some
> contemporary Japanese reviewers noted the melancholy fate of the
> heroine, now consigned to the prison house of domesticity, a servant
> of strangers (a least she loves her father.) A Marxist critic saw it
> as the damning portrait of the bourgeois family in which feudalism
> survives ("feudalism" was a code word for everything reactinary at
> the time) by denying women autonomy
Would it really be necessary for Ozu to purge all negative consequences in
order to make a film that accepts the social order? Only the worst films
(be they entertainments or ideological position papers) remake reality so
that everything good is on their side, and everything bad is against it.
Because Ozu is an accomplished artist, he fashions his work from the
complexity of life, not from our simplified ideas of what it should be.
What kind of movie would LATE SPRING have been if the daughter had come
around at the end and clearly signposted to the audience that her dad had
done right by her? Or if the father's sadness at the end had been clearly
shown to be bearable and cushioned by the benefits of belonging to his
society? I don't say it would have been a dopey film, but it would have
had to find some indirect way of avoiding dopiness; it would have been on
a straight track to dopiness.
I'm not saying that one can't have an opinion about a good artist's
ideological orientation. But any such argument must at least take into
account the fact that good art grows from contradiction and irresolution.
- Dan
18084
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:14pm
Subject: Re: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Boris Barnet tapes
>> Does anyone have any Boris Barnet tapes, other than Girl WIth a
>> Hatbox or Outskirts? I have a friend writing a paper, can't find
>> much for him. I'd love to collect them for the store, anyways.
>
> I have a bunch, but they're all in Russian. Actually, Russian
> versions of quite a few Barnet films are available through legit
> release VHS versions that don't look too bad. They're fine if you
> know some Russian, have seen the films before, or can get a Russian
> friend to help you out. (And luckily, Barnet isn't too dialogue
> driven a director anyway.) You can find them at: www.rbcmp3.com.
Hate to go against Bilge, thanks to whom I was able to see these
unsubtitled Barnets, but I think the dialogue is pretty much needed to
appreciate these films. (I tend to think this about nearly all movies
with dialogue, I must say.) Bilge got a Russian friend of ours to provide
synopses, which reduced the damage. But all these movies have long
passages of dialogue that play an important role. I hate to think of
ALYONKA, for instance, without the comic counterpoint between the
characters' voiceovers (which reveal the limitations of their
sensibilities) and what we see on screen. Fortunately, that film has
shown in the US recently with subtitles, unlike the estimable WHISTLE STOP
and THE WRESTLER AND THE CLOWN. - Dan
18085
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:18pm
Subject: Re: Boris Barnet tapes
> I can get my hands on unsubtitled copies of By The Bluest of Seas, The
> Wrestler and The Clown, Alyonka and Miss Menda.
MISS MEND, eh? Is this from the source that Bilge mentioned
(www.rbcmp3.com)? I don't see it there. - Dan
18086
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:30pm
Subject: Re: UNDERTOW
SPOILERS for UNDERTOW:
> One question, though. Are we to assume that Chris (a jaw-dropping
> performance from Jamie Bell who I JUST found out was Billy freakin'
> Elliot) does, in fact, die at the end? The voice-over, the balloon
> popping, the B&W footage of him at a body of water (after all that River
> Styx talk) all suggest that he does. Thoughts?
My impression too was that Chris in fact was dead at the end. The balloon
popping was actually probably one of the cinema's better attempts at
rendering "that dream feeling."
I like Green, but something about his "poetry" is limiting for me, despite
its cinematic appeal. I always feel as if the films fail to find a unity
to replace the conventional dramatic-thematic unity that Green floats
free from. - Dan
18087
From:
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:30am
Subject: Re: Boris Barnet tapes
In a message dated 11/21/04 8:20:11 AM, sallitt@p... writes:
>
> MISS MEND, eh? Is this from the source that Bilge mentioned
> (www.rbcmp3.com)? I don't see it there. - Dan
>
No. I've never heard of that site. It's from a collector friend. I'm a Barnet
novice but I understand that MISS MEND was written and starring him but not
directed by him.
If you want me to ask for it, just say the word. But again, no English subs.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18088
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:35pm
Subject: Ince, Bazin-bashing (Was: The Country Doctor)
> Joe Heumann singled out two Ince films, which I haven't seen, for
> their use of deep focus: Blazing the Trail (April 15, 1912) and The
> Bargain (Dec. 1914). He wrote (Film Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Winter,
> 1980-1981), 62-64): "Blazing the Trail is the most impressive use of
> deep focus I have seen from this period and is one of the concrete
> examples that blows Bazin's 'Evolution of the Language of the Cinema'
> right out of the water.
Grrr. Maybe if he would, like, read the piece, he would find out that
he's actually stealing his idea from Bazin.
I'm very interested in exploring Ince, though. If HELL'S HINGES isn't a
fluke, then we've got a major filmmaker on our hands. - Dan
18089
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Primer (was: Currently in theaters)
> This film allegedly cost $7,000. This is probably an exageration - one
> suspects there are "finishing" costs not part of that figure.
Carruth claims that there were no costs to speak of beyond the $7,000. -
Dan
18090
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 2:48pm
Subject: Re: Boris Barnet tapes
> No. I've never heard of that site. It's from a collector friend. I'm a
> Barnet novice but I understand that MISS MEND was written and starring
> him but not directed by him.
He's generally listed as co-director (Barnet: "When the script was ready,
I was offered work as an assistant on the picture, and within three
months, I was appointed as co-director of the production"), and I believe
it's thought that he more or less took the project over from Ozep.
(Eisenschitz: "Ozep, apparently, was too lazy to keep up with the pace of
shooting on MISS MEND.")
> If you want me to ask for it, just say the word. But again, no English
> subs.
Thanks. I'm fazed by the lack of subtitles - let me ponder the options
before you ask. - Dan
18091
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:16pm
Subject: Re: Ince, Bazin-bashing (Was: The Country Doctor)
"I'm very interested in exploring Ince, though. If HELL'S HINGES
isn't a fluke, then we've got a major filmmaker on our hands."
My thoughts exactly, after seeing THE INVADERS - though it should be
pointed out that, according to the AFA box set's sleeve notes, it's
impossible to be sure whether it was Ince or Francis Ford who
directed this film.
18092
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ince, Bazin-bashing (Was: The Country Doctor)
> "I'm very interested in exploring Ince, though. If HELL'S HINGES
> isn't a fluke, then we've got a major filmmaker on our hands."
>
> My thoughts exactly, after seeing THE INVADERS - though it should be
> pointed out that, according to the AFA box set's sleeve notes, it's
> impossible to be sure whether it was Ince or Francis Ford who
> directed this film.
Yes, that's always the problem with Ince: the role of the director seems
to have been a little cloudy in his organization. I say we watch
everything and sort it all out afterwards. - Dan
18093
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:23pm
Subject: Re: Late Spring (Was: Early Spring)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
"Would it really be necessary for Ozu to purge all negative
consequences in order to make a film that accepts the social order?
Only the worst films (be they entertainments or ideological position
papers) remake reality so that everything good is on their side, and
everything bad is against it."
During the immediate post-war period many Japanese critics
(especially doctrinaire Marxist critics)were more interested in what
a given film should have been rather than what it actually was.
There was a range of film criticism in that era that went from from
the crude prescriptive to the insightful and illuminating. Ozu was
recognized as an important filmmaker by young post-war Japanese film
critics, some of whom found fault with him for not going far enough
in cricizing Japanes society. Even if it's not the best criticism,
it's of historical interest since it shows a range of response to
Ozu's films.
"I'm not saying that one can't have an opinion about a good artist's
ideological orientation. But any such argument must at least take
into account the fact that good art grows from contradiction and
irresolution."
You're absolutely right. Looking at art through an ideological frame
can be expansive but really dosen't account for the whole of the
work. GENROKU CHUSHINGURA is a sublime movie despite the ideology it
seems to endorse. Also, a good artist's ideological orientation can
change according to the times and circumstances under which he or she
was working.
Richard
18094
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:47pm
Subject: Ozu as Critic (was: Late Spring)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> On reconsideration, I think you're right about Ozu's
> view here. After reviewing what I know about Ozu from
> his films and his life I don't see any strong evidence
> that Ozu was completely at odds with the society in which
> he lived.
While by no means a radical, Ozu was typically fairly critical of
tradition and the status quo. Some critics have painted him as
conservative, however, because he also cast a critical eye on the
problems spawned by modernity. I would submit that, even in his later
years, the criticism tended to proceed more from liberal humanism than
traditionalism. To a certain extent, there were aspects of modernism
that were inter-mingled with preservation of the "new status quo"
(hierarchical authority -- in government, corporations and family life).
Looking at his post-war films, this is what we find.
Record of a Tenement Gentleman -- criticism of Japan's disregard for
war orphans and otherwise abandoned children. Seemed to target the
attitrude of ordinary citizens. Audiences didn't want to hear any
such criticism.
Hen in the Wind -- seems to criticize the men of Japan (and by
extension the institutions dominated by men) for abandoning the women
and children of Japan, due to their wartime follies. Also criticizes
men's hypocritical acceptance of the benefits of women's sacrifices,
while punishing them for the "compromises" they had to undertake in
order to survive.
Late Spring -- if not "critical" of the imposition of society's values
on young women (i.e., virtually forcing marriage), it certainly
laments this -- rather than celebrating "quiet resignation" (as
critical conventional wisdom suggested).
Munekata Sisters -- hard for me to assess. Ozu had extremely control
over the content here, and I find the film's outlook muddled.
Early Summer -- no acquiescence to status quo. Hara's character does
what _she_ wants, in the face of family oppression (albeit relatively
mild in nature).
Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice -- mixed messages -- old early war-era
script "recycled". On the one hand, the niece uses every stratagem
she can manage to fend off an unwanted arranged marriage. On the
other hand, we have the traditional husband presented as a model of
virtue. The women's patent disrespct for male authority throughout
the film is rather transgressive, but male authority seems to be
re-asserted at the end. Or is it? Could Ozu be urging a certain
degree of equality between and women in the familial context? I
haven't decided yet.
Tokyo Story -- a film not susceptible to any reductionist
interpretation. In a sense, it simply revisits the territory of "Only
Son". The economic pressures of Tokyo are seen as placing a heavy
toll on familial relations. Most commentaries ignore the fact that
the grandparents here are not "saints". They have not done much to
ever establish relations with their grandchildren -- and have entirely
failed in their traditional responsibilities to their widowed
daughter-in-law. While undue pre-occupation with financial gain (viz.
the comically over-reaching daughter) takes the heaviest hit, many
aspects of both tradition and modernity get nailed rather even-handedly.
Early Spring -- almost as fiercely critical as any of Ozu's pre-war
works. One aspect of post-war status quo -- salaryman culture
involving devotion to both work and post-work "bonding" with
colleagues to the virtual exclusion of family concerns -- is portrayed
very negatively. Familial harmony is (hopefully) re-established by
rejection of this norm, and Ozu seems to present "exile" to the
provinces a reasonable trade-off. (Ryu's character cwertainly makes
the case for rejection of unconstrained striving for success within
corporate life).
Tokyo Twilight -- Ozu's most savagely anti-patriarchal film. Ryu is a
self-indulgent "single father" who seems to be spectacularly
neglectful of his duties. After his wife ran off (one suspects she
had her reasons), he seems to have left the care of his children to a
servant. He forced his older daughter into a disastrous marriage
(blocking her marriage to someone she preferred) and hasn't a clue
what is going on with his younger daughter. He seems worried and
pre-occupied throughout (even as he sneaks off from work to play
pachinko), but has not a care in the world at the very end -- when he
no longer needs to worry about either of his daughters (both of which
have been destroyed, in one way or another). The audiences stayed
away in droves -- not surprising as Chishu Ryu and Setsuko Hara had
been given the task of showing the dark undersides of the characters
they normally portrayed.
Equinox Flower -- despite the disastrous critical and popular
reception of "Tokyo Twilight", Ozu just couldn't leave the theme of
"Father Doesn't Know Best" alone. In a way, this film is a comic
remake of his previous film (albeit a completely inverted one) -- with
Shin Saburi as the comic butt, as the deluded (and very
hypocritical),l and Ineko Arima (the doomed daughter of "Twilight") as
the ultimately triumphant daughter -- with the support of both her
mother and friend. I believe that this film actually marks the start
of Ozu's final period -- in which he routinely masked criticism of
patriarchal (and hierarchical) authority with a veneer of
light-hearted humor. The undermining of the patriarch here is just as
unrelenting as in "Twilight", but the tone is humorous.
Good Morning -- In part, a children's eye lampoon of the inadequacies
of adult social communication, but complicated by the question of
whether the television era (to which the adults acquiesce) won't cause
new problems.
Floating Weeds -- as a remake of its silent predecessor, this is in a
class by itself. Nonetheless, it fits into the overall pattern (albeit
as a melodrama rather than a comedy) -- the troupe leader (Ganjiro
Nakamura) is intent on exercising authority, even where he displays
minimal genuine responsibility.
Late Autumn -- Like "Equinox Flower", this involves the issue of
female solidarity and male cluelessness, involving the disruption of
the mother-daughter bond by a pack of older males, who (at the end)
frankly acknowledgment their enjoyment of the "game" of manipulating
the lives of their womenfolk. Hara (as mother here) ultimately is
able to make clear to her daughter that she had no part in (and did
not approve of) these male machinations. Contains the funniest -- and
most over-the-top assault on males by a female in all the Ozu canon
(Mariko Okada chasing down the lions in their own lair -- and then
exploiting them in her own).
End of Summer -- another full frontal assault on patriarchal
authority. The head of the family (Nakamura again) is engaging as a
person, but not only irresponsible as the head of both the business
and the family, but a blight on the lives of his daughters. He is
pushing a widowed daughter to remarry (to a wealthy buffoon and) to
compel an arranged marriage of his youngest daughter to the
prospective heir of a business competitor (when she alreasdy has
decided who SHE wants to marry). Some critics have viewed the demise
of the patriarch as tragic (and the film's ending as bleak), somehow
they seem to miss the fact that the family members (and most
especially the daughters) have been freed from oppressive control by
the tyrannical (albeit good-natured) patriarch.
Autumn Afternoon -- Just as "Equinox Flower" was (in many ways) a
comic inversion of "Tokyo Twilight", this is a comic inversion of
"Late Spring". Ostensibly, the narrative here is much like that of
the earlier film, a father is prompted by "society" to marry off his
only daughter (who is not all that enthusiastic about the notion).
Here, however, there is virtually no father-daughter bond, he knows
virtually nothing about her and treats her with routine (but not
actively ill-natured) inconsideration. The daughter has to deal not
only with her father but her younger brother (still at home) and her
married older brother (who, together with her father, bungles her
chance to marry the person of her choice). When she agrees to the
arranhged marriage here, one senses that she has decided that the
proposed husband HAS to be an improvement over the men she currently
has to deal with. At least, as wife (and later mother), she will have
some zone of real authority. Mixed in, satirical savaging of both
post-war consumerism (among the younger generation) and foolish
nostalgia over Japan's past.
I would maintain that Ozu continued to be just as much a humanistic
liberal critic after the war as he was before, but changed in two
respects. Beginning with "Late Spring", Ozu began exploring (more
than before) multiple sides to the issues he dealt with. Nonetheless,
"Early Spring" and "Tokyo Twilight" bore as much resemblance to the
great 30s films as to the films that followed. Only after the
"failure" of "Twilight" (which he clearly considered an important and
necessary film), did Ozu re-adjust his methodology -- using ostensibly
good-natured humor to repeatedly re-examine the same critical themes
that had been so soundly rejected when presented bluntly, with no
sugar coating in "Twilight".
Michael Kerpan
Boston
18095
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 5:10pm
Subject: MY SASSY GIRL
I had a unique viewing of MY SASSY GIRL, except for a few most of the
300-400 viewers were Asian (I an caucasian). It was quite crowded,
fellows sitting in the aisles. There were groups of males and females,
few seemed to be couples.
As the movie goes on, the females encouraged the girl, the males were
moaning at how poorly the girl treated the fellow. This was not loud
group engagement but more quiet... it was not crowd or mob behavior but
just personal comments that could be heard. I even moved for a few
moments to the other side of the theater to check out the other side.
Perhaps that is what I found interesting about the movie.
It would be interesting to examine how young women are portrayed in
American and Asian films in terms of what the females' strengths and
weaknesses are.
> My Sassy Girl was fun, TEACH ME ENGLISH cute;
I'm a "Sassy Girl" dissenter. While the female lead was indeed
quirkily appealing, I found the film to be poorly written and directed
overall.
MEK
18096
From:
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:17pm
Subject: [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: Boris Barnet tapes
Dan Sallitt :
> Hate to go against Bilge, thanks to whom I was able to see these
> unsubtitled Barnets, but I think the dialogue is pretty much
needed to
> appreciate these films. (I tend to think this about nearly all
movies
> with dialogue, I must say.) Bilge got a Russian friend of ours to
provide
> synopses, which reduced the damage. But all these movies have
long
> passages of dialogue that play an important role. I hate to think
of
> ALYONKA, for instance, without the comic counterpoint between the
> characters' voiceovers (which reveal the limitations of their
> sensibilities) and what we see on screen. Fortunately, that film
has
> shown in the US recently with subtitles, unlike the estimable
WHISTLE STOP
> and THE WRESTLER AND THE CLOWN. - Dan
This may just be my own individual quirk, thanks to both my limited
familiarity with Russian and a lifetime of watching unsubtitled
films in languages I don't understand, but I didn't feel too lost
watching these films. If anything, the bigger problem watching
WHISTLE STOP was the small TV frame, where it was hard to tell
certain characters when they were in long-shot. The one nice thing
about video, though, is the ability for repeat viewings, and the
second time watching WHISTLE STOP, the lack of subs really didn't
feel like a problem at all. Not that I wouldn't be willing to spend
a whole lot of cash to get a subtitled version.
I guess I should agree about ALYONKA, which is more dialogue-driven
than most, but my favorite aspects of the film are more plastic, so
it bothers me less. (Also, seeing it on a screen twice with
subtitles helps, duh...)
Hey, are all my emails coming through as "Possible Spam", or was
that just a temporary quirk in the a_f_b server?
-Bilge
18097
From:
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:46pm
Subject: Re: UNDERTOW
>
> I like Green, but something about his "poetry" is limiting for me, despite
> its cinematic appeal. I always feel as if the films fail to find a unity
> to replace the conventional dramatic-thematic unity that Green floats
> free from. - Dan
>
Dan, I agree with you 100%. A species of what you're saying kept ALL THE REAL
GIRLS hovering just outside of my top ten list last year. But I'm not a
"unity" kind of guy. At least not all the time. I embrace the ineffable, the
unsumupable. Sometimes that leaves me with not much to say about a film. But loose
ends tied up can get oppressive at times, no?
In any event, I find some sort of unity in UNDERTOW. Again, I saw Cronenberg
and THE GLEANERS AND I in practically every scene.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18098
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Nov 21, 2004 9:25pm
Subject: Re: Ozu as Critic (was: Late Spring)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
"While by no means a radical, Ozu was typically fairly critical of
tradition and the status quo. Some critics have painted him as
conservative, however, because he also cast a critical eye on the
problems spawned by modernity. I would submit that, even in his later
years, the criticism tended to proceed more from liberal humanism than
traditionalism."
I pretty much agree, and I'd add that part of Ozu's greatness comes
from his recognition of the limitations of his centarl charcters and
the presentation of those characters as "human, all too human." I
don't see any heroes and villains in these post-war films.
"Record of a Tenement Gentleman -- criticism of Japan's disregard for
war orphans and otherwise abandoned children. Seemed to target the
attitrude of ordinary citizens."
RECORD OF A TENEMENT GENTLEMAN was made under the constraints of
Occupation censorship so Ozu wasn't allowed to explore the issue as
fully as he maight have (some criticism would have extended to the
Occupatio's neglect of the problem.) However it does have the great
image of the orphans congregating under the staue of National Hero
Saigo.
"Munekata Sisters -- hard for me to assess."
Possibly because he had to remain faithful to the then popular novel.
"Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice -- mixed messages -- old early war-era
script "recycled". On the one hand, the niece uses every stratagem
she can manage to fend off an unwanted arranged marriage. On the
other hand, we have the traditional husband presented as a model of
virtue. The women's patent disrespct for male authority throughout
the film is rather transgressive, but male authority seems to be
re-asserted at the end. Or is it? Could Ozu be urging a certain
degree of equality between and women in the familial context? I
haven't decided yet."
That sums it up nicely.
"Tokyo Story -- a film not susceptible to any reductionist
interpretation."
Absolutely.
"While undue pre-occupation with financial gain (viz.
the comically over-reaching daughter) takes the heaviest hit, many
aspects of both tradition and modernity get nailed rather even-
handedly."
The Occupation was over and Japan's economic recovery was fully under
way by then, the social background of the movie.
"Tokyo Twilight -- Ozu's most savagely anti-patriarchal film. Ryu is a
self-indulgent 'single father' who seems to be spectacularly
neglectful of his duties. After his wife ran off (one suspects she
had her reasons), he seems to have left the care of his children to a
servant."
In his behavior here I see the father as a victim of Japanese
imperialism and the social system that sustained it. He was sent to
Seoul in colonized Korea and submitted to duty thus sacrificing his
wife and children, the giri/ninjo conflict in modern guise. By
Western standards this conflict is weak, but it forms the catharsis
for a lot of Japanese drama.
"He forced his older daughter into a disastrous marriage
(blocking her marriage to someone she preferred) and hasn't a clue
what is going on with his younger daughter."
He acknowledges that maybe he shouldn't have forced her to marry the
scholar, and nobody else knows what's going on with the younger
daughter either because she dosen't trust her elders (for good
reason.)
"He seems worried and pre-occupied throughout (even as he sneaks off
from work to play pachinko), but has not a care in the world at the
very end -- when he no longer needs to worry about either of his
daughters (both of which have been destroyed, in one way or another)."
At the daughter's sick bed he *is* concerned for her recovery and
displays the most emotion he's shown up to this point in the story,
and at the end he lights the candle in front of the mortuary tablet
and photo and recites the 49 day prayer. Ryu's performance didn't
make it seem like a pro-forma gesture at all, in fact I found it very
moving; too late, the father realizes his inadequacies as a parent.
It is indeed his most anti-patriarchal film. The self-centered
scholar husband and the callous college boy are two of the most
unsympathetic charcters in Ozu. But Ozu does seem to have some
guarded sympathy for the father.
I don't find much to disagree with in your asessment of the rest of
the pictures.
"I would maintain that Ozu continued to be just as much a humanistic
liberal critic after the war as he was before, but changed in two
respects. Beginning with 'Late Spring', Ozu began exploring (more
than before) multiple sides to the issues he dealt with. Nonetheless,
'Early Spring' and 'Tokyo Twilight' bore as much resemblance to the
great 30s films as to the films that followed."
David suggested that the pre-war movies were more sharply critical
than the post-war movies, and I think this is because of the social
climate of the era; Japan was poised on the brink of facism and for
that reason the liberal humanist view was much closer to the that of
the militant left.
"Only after the 'failure' of 'Twilight' (which he clearly considered
an important andnecessary film), did Ozu re-adjust his methodology --
using ostensibly good-natured humor to repeatedly re-examine the same
critical themes that had been so soundly rejected when presented
bluntly, with no sugar coating in 'Twilight'."
I don't think that, in the final analysis, Ozu was a social
conservative. I think that in his post-war pictures Ozu
was re-inventing the shomin geki genre that he inherited in the
early '30s as the now familiar home drama.
Morever, Ozu was able to view middle class life as an outsider for
the reason David said, and this distance gave his films a critical
edge. For me Ozu's greatness is that he devised and refined a mise-en-
scene that perfectly articulated that critical distance in all its
complexity.
Richard
18099
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:00am
Subject: A Very Long Engagement (Un Longue Dimanche De Fiancailles)
From Screen Daily review of A Very Long Engagement (Un Longue Dimanche
De Fiancailles)
Benny Crick in Paris
"Yet for all its darkness and tragedy, Jeunet still finds plenty of
room for moments of his signature humour and some recurring comic
figures as a Jacques Tati-esque country postman who brings Tautou news
of her investigation."
What do most people think about these type of scenes: HOMAGE or
WEAKNESS in director's storytelling? I haven't seen TATI's work
recently so I don't know if it is 'copy' or an extension; either way,
is it legitimate?
I wonder is there is a place for a HOMAGE theory in film?
on a slight tangent:
Recently after seeing RAY and BEYOND the SEA, I wondered why not just
show the real footage of these performers.
18100
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:11am
Subject: Re: A Very Long Engagement (Un Longue Dimanche De Fiancailles)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> What do most people think about these type of scenes: HOMAGE or
> WEAKNESS in director's storytelling?
Pedro Almodóvar in Laurent Tirard's book of interviews, MOVIEMAKER'S
MASTER CLASS, pretty much sums up my opinion:
"You can also learn cinema, to a lesser extent, by watching films.
Here, however, the danger is that you might fall into the trap of
hommage [sic]. You watch how certain master filmmakers shoot a
scene, and then you try to copy that in your own films. If you do it
out of pure admiration, it can't work. The only valid reason to do
it is if you find the solution to one of your own problems in
someone else's film and this influence then becomes an active
element in your film.
One could say that the first approach -- the tribute -- is
borrowing, whereas the second is theft. But for me, only theft is
justifiable."
Of course, even worse is when someone borrows or pays tribute to
something, but then refuses to admit to it, writing it off as their
own creation.
Tarantino, for example, claims to have never seen Truffaut's LA
MARIÉE ÉTAIT EN NOIR, even though the KILL BILL cycle -- which
borrows from absolutely everywhere, of course -- arguably borrows
most from here, at least in terms of wafer-thin plot.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact