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.
18701
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:03am
Subject: Re: Crowther/Canby/Cimino [was: Film violence]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Plus poor advance sales. It was a quasi-roadshow you
> know. "Hard tickets" were made available. Few buyers.
>
David, I don't think "few buyers" was the case. "Heaven's Gate" was
playing for just one week in New York for Oscar consideration, two
showings a day (the same strategy that hsd worked so well for "The
Deer Hunter" two years earlier). My recollection is that it was a
very hot ticket, because if you didn't get to the film in December
you'd havve to wait two months to see Cimino's follow-up to "The Deer
Hunter."
A friend and I bought tickets as soon as they went on sale in New
York, and the showing we attended, in the middle of its run, was sold
out. I believe the entire run was sold out, with tickets having gone
on sale long before Canby's review could have affected anybody.
Almost all of my cinephile friends at the time saw it, and most of us
were quite impressed by it, the only perplexity being Canby's
virulence towards the film. (Film Commentreported that at the
conclusion of one showing that week, an audience member yelled
out, "Fuck you, Vincent Canby!" - a declaration that was met by
cheers by other audeince members.
On the matter of Vincent Canby in general, he was certainly a better
critic than many of his contemporaries in New York (Crist, Kael,
Denby, Kathleen Carroll, Archer Winsten) with some interesting quirks
and a contagious sense of passion for films and filmmakers he loved,
although, admittedly, film history would have been better served if
Roger Greenspun had been the first stringer (and the best film
writers were at the Voice or the SoHo Weekly News). But the one
thing that set Canby apart was that he was a magnificent writer:
witty and wry, he had a kack for employing the perfect bon mot.
Canby was a wonderful stylist and a joy to read even when he was
trashing a film you loved.
18702
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:20am
Subject: Re: Re: Crowther/Canby/Cimino [was: Film violence]
--- Damien Bona wrote:
>
> David, I don't think "few buyers" was the case.
> "Heaven's Gate" was
> playing for just one week in New York for Oscar
> consideration, two
> showings a day (the same strategy that hsd worked so
> well for "The
> Deer Hunter" two years earlier). My recollection is
> that it was a
> very hot ticket, because if you didn't get to the
> film in December
> you'd havve to wait two months to see Cimino's
> follow-up to "The Deer
> Hunter."
>
I was out here when the whole show went down in
flames. hard tickets were going to be made available
here. There was even goign to be a premiere. I still
have my invitation ticket.
> A friend and I bought tickets as soon as they went
> on sale in New
> York, and the showing we attended, in the middle of
> its run, was sold
> out. I believe the entire run was sold out, with
> tickets having gone
> on sale long before Canby's review could have
> affected anybody.
> Almost all of my cinephile friends at the time saw
> it, and most of us
> were quite impressed by it, the only perplexity
> being Canby's
> virulence towards the film. (Film Commentreported
> that at the
> conclusion of one showing that week, an audience
> member yelled
> out, "Fuck you, Vincent Canby!" - a declaration that
> was met by
> cheers by other audeince members.
>
Really? And I was at an early screening of "The
Silence of the lambs" where a chrous froom the back of
the house yelled out a rousing "KILL THE FAGGOT!!!" at
the finale.
Vox Populi anyone?
Include me out.
> On the matter of Vincent Canby in general, he was
> certainly a better
> critic than many of his contemporaries in New York
> (Crist, Kael,
> Denby, Kathleen Carroll, Archer Winsten) with some
> interesting quirks
> and a contagious sense of passion for films and
> filmmakers he loved,
> although, admittedly, film history would have been
> better served if
> Roger Greenspun had been the first stringer (and the
> best film
> writers were at the Voice or the SoHo Weekly News).
Roger was a very sweet guy. Insightful too. Nearly
forgotten today.
> But the one
> thing that set Canby apart was that he was a
> magnificent writer:
> witty and wry, he had a kack for employing the
> perfect bon mot.
> Canby was a wonderful stylist and a joy to read even
> when he was
> trashing a film you loved.
>
Precisely. In fact I'd place his review of "Heaven's
Gate" right up there with Grahame Greene's of"Wee
Willie Winkie."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
18703
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
An exceelent point. Everyone has been talking aout
violence in here as if it were a simple, identifiable
quality -- acceptable only when placed in the hands of
an approved auteur.
This is quite silly.
And by the way,I saw and greatly enjoyed "Pirates of
the Carribean," which is a light entertainment whose
violence is entirely of the "play/pretend" variety
associated with children. Gore Vibrinski is a rather
interesting hack ("The Mexican" has much to reccomend
it) but in this instance the film's auteur is the
sublime Johnny Depp.
--- Damien Bona wrote:
>
> Saw Godard's "Notre Musique" last night. The first
> segment, the
> Kingdom of Hell, which consists of a montage of
> carnage taken from
> movies and newsreels (mostly from depictions of
> wars, although the
> climax of Kiss Me Deadly, for instance is included),
> probably
> contains the highest ratio of violence to film
> frames of any movie
> I've seen. But I doubt that any person watching the
> film could find
> the violence and destruction appealing, sexy,
> seductive. Of course,
> most people at a Godard film are probably not
> inclined to commit
> violent acts, but I daresay that even the Audience
> for, say, "Mondo
> Cane" would be repulsed by the imagery in "Notre
> Musique," even
> though many of the individual segments were designed
> to be
> inspirational and exhilarating.
>
>
>
>
18704
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:42am
Subject: Jim McBride
I was curious if anyone has seen McBride's "My Girlfriend's Wedding"
('69) or "Pictures from Life's Other Side" ('71) (perhaps Brad? I
remember reading he's researching a book on the filmmaker.)
Anyway, are they recommended? Similar to "David Holzman's Diary", or
are they a different animal all-together?
-Aaron
18705
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 8:19am
Subject: re: Violence in the Cinema
Mike - I love violent films!! I wrote a book on the MAD MAX movies, after
all!!! As well as some of the ones mentioned by other film-by-ers, how can
we go past Fuller, Scorsese, Anthony Mann? And I have a special
recommendation for you, if you can ever see it: the first significant film
made by George MAD MAX Miller, a wonderful short which is actually called
VIOLENCE IN THE CINEMA: PART 1. (The 'part 1' bit of the title is a
Landis/Dante-type joke.) This re-presents a lecture by a 'media sociologist'
who is extremely well-known in Australia: and, slowly, as he drones on, this
sage is beaten, shot, thrown out of the window, run over by a car, immolated
... (This sociologist, suitably miffed, went on to decry the subsequent MAD
MAX as the 'pornography of death'.)
On a more serious note, I find that most public debates about screen
violence break down very quickly. Everything becomes cross-wires and
misunderstandings - because to talk meaningfully about the subject, before
you can get to the point of staking some 'position' on the matter, you have
to very carefully define just what the heck 'screen violence' is on about a
dozen, carefully differentiated levels. Violence as graphic content? As
'impactful' effect? Violence condoned or 'critiqued'? Etc, etc ... it's a
quagmire, and I know this as one who has been called upon too many times to
ponitificate on the subject in feature newspaper articles and public
forums!! (Well, at least I always try to begin with the declaration: I LOVE
VIOLENT FILMS!)
Just to take one tiny sliver of this topic: Peter H has raised the
interesting criterion of 'violent feelings', as distinct from thematic
'critiques' of violence, and whatnot. Well, I feel very violent after
watching BATTLE OF ALGIERS: I want to go and shoot the fascist oppressors!
And Glauber Rocha films offer me a similar 'feel bad' experience which is,
of course, a very good feeling! - because it is righteous anger, politically
motivated rage stirring you into potential action, or a new attitude.
'Feeling violent' is itself an incredibly complex thing.
On a whole other level, we can't separate the topic of screen violence from
a whole complex history, in every cinephile culture, of a kind of 'rhetoric
of violent cinema'. For example: whenever people find it necessary to argue
that the Fuller/Scorsese/Tarantino axis IS cinema, the essence of cinema,
because cinema is violent, cathartic, kinetic, etc etc. Or another instance:
the Third World/Third Cinema 'Manifestos of Violent Cinema' from the 60s -
that make for rousing reading today! Of course you can't 'essentialise'
violent cinema as one thing for all time: there is also a 'rhetoric of
gentleness' (eg, as regards much minimalist cinema, or 'light entertainment'
cinema as in Mike's plea) that has equal weight in certain places at certain
times.
Saying nothing very definite ... Adrian!
18706
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 7:18am
Subject: Re: Crowther/Canby/Cimino [was: Film violence]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I was out here when the whole show went down in
> flames. hard tickets were going to be made available
> here. There was even goign to be a premiere. I still
> have my invitation ticket.
David, was the L.A. premiere engagement of Heaven's Gate cancelled?
The film was nominated for an Oscar for Best Art Direction of 1981,
which would indicate that it didn't actually play LA at the same time
it was opening in New York in December 1980 (or, at least that it
didn't play for a week in LA).
It's hard to believe that UA wouldn't have opened the film on both
coasts at the same time, but maybe it was waiting for raves from New
York to make the film's launch in California all the more
impressive. Before it opened, most people seemed to expect Heaven's
Gate to be treated as the picture of the year. I remember just
before it opened there was a portrait of Kris Kristofferson on a TV
magazine show in which he declared that Heaven's Gate may well be the
greatest Hollywood movie of all time.
18707
From: Andy Rector
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 9:59am
Subject: Re: Fishing with John
Kristian Andersen wrote:
> > > Has anyone else seen this TV series with John Lurie?
> >
Bill wrote:
> > Sounds dreadful. Which network?
Gabe wrote:
> They were on IFC and later on a Criterion DVD.
>
> I don't think they suck. In fact, some episodes I have watched
> three or four times (the two-part Dennis Hopper one in Malaysia
> is particularly good).
I think they are brilliant, nearly all of the episodes. In spite of
the star quality concept, there's no star adoration. Most of them
are deliberately boring and its fascinating. They (Lurie and his
star friends) are careful travellers who use malaise and patience to
avoid the usual trampling, physical touristic trampling as well as
representational trampling, that nature and travel shows take part
in. The episode with Lurie-Dillon has almost no fishing in it, its
mostly the journey from the urban area to the remote fishing area of
the country they were in-- this took the most time. Its closer to
Mack Sennett than Leni Reifenstahl.
This is an instance where the lackadaisical quality of everything
makes for richer images.
The episodes are a bit like, excuse the expression, little Las
Hurdes's.
My favorite one is the Lurie--Defoe ice fishing episode where the
narration pronounces them dead several times.
Incidentally these were made in 1992-- long before so-called reality
tv had been harnassed. They have nothing to do with the humiliation,
composed naturalism, and product placement of reality tv.
One could learn a lot about editing by comparing "Fishing..." with
any contemporary reality tv show (which all have identical
decoupage), like Apprentice or Fear Factor. That's why I
know "Fishing..." is good!
best,
andy
18708
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 11:26am
Subject: Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
> I don't think your political interpretation fits very well
with "Day
> of the Dead." The zombies CAN'T be killed off, so another way for
> humanity to survive has to be found. Surprise, surprise, we might
> try living with them and breaking down differences....
What the zombies represent in DAY is not necessarily what they
represent in DAWN. In DAWN they are the remnants of a living dead
consumer culture that must be rejected. In DAY they are more like an
ethnic 'other'.
18709
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 11:38am
Subject: Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
> 1) We might be talking at cross purposes. When some people
say "highly
> violent films", they are referring to a handful (maybe 25 or less)
of films made by
> prestige directors: Peckinpah, Coppola, Ferrara, Tarantino, a
little Kubrick
> and Arthur Penn.
> When other people, such as myself, refer to "highly violent films",
they are
> mainly talking about the huge flood of really bad commercial films
typified by
> "True Lies", "Pirates of the Caribbean", "Twister", "American
Kickboxer IV"
> and hundreds, maybe thousands of other films that flood the
multiplex, video
> store and late night cable TV. These films are really Baaaaaad.
They stink to
> high heaven.
In other words, the phrase 'highly violent films' means whatever you
want it to mean at any given moment. What do you object to about
these films? That they are 'bad'? That they are violent? That they
are bad and violent? Is a bad film without violence more acceptable
than a bad film with violence? Do you think that TRUE LIES would
suddenly become a 'good' film if all the violent scenes were removed?
18710
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 11:47am
Subject: Re: Violence in the Cinema
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
>the first significant film made by George MAD MAX Miller, a wonderful
>short which is actually called VIOLENCE IN THE CINEMA: PART 1. (The
>'part 1' bit of the title is a Landis/Dante-type joke.) This
>re-presents a lecture by a 'media sociologist' who is extremely
>well-known in Australia: and, slowly, as he drones on, this sage is
>beaten, shot, thrown out of the window, run over by a car, immolated
>... (This sociologist, suitably miffed, went on to decry the
subsequent >MAD MAX as the 'pornography of death'.)
I've been watching a lot of violent movies lately with the recent dvd
releases in Australia of the uncut versions of "last house on the
left" and "i spit on your grave", and of course i watch a lot of
giallo, and though not one of the most violent of this genre, "the new
york ripper" has always been one of my favourite.
Adrian, I wanted to ask you if you know whereabouts in Sydney I could
get a copy of this Miller film? It sounds fascinating.
Saul.
18711
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 11:51am
Subject: Re: Jim McBride
> I was curious if anyone has seen McBride's "My Girlfriend's
Wedding"
> ('69) or "Pictures from Life's Other Side" ('71) (perhaps Brad? I
> remember reading he's researching a book on the filmmaker.)
>
It was seeing these two films - particularly PICTURES - that made me
want to write a book about Jim. I regard PICTURES as the key that
unlocks McBride's oeuvre.
A DVD-Rom containing both films can be ordered from SuperHappyFun at:
http://www.superhappyfun.com/content.htm
18712
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 1:37pm
Subject: re: Violence in the Cinema
Saul - Alas, George Miller's VIOLENCE IN THE CINEMA is not officially
available in any form on video or DVD. Like a number of directors, Miller
keeps his early, short work close to his chest. However, he does give
specific, special permission (through his production office in Sydney) for
the print to be shown at certain prestigious events, such as a French
retrospective of his work, a UCLA Australian Cinema show back in 1988, a
'secret history of Australian cinema' I curated for Buenos Aires Film
Festival last year (this is how I got to see it) ... So, all I can advise
is: keep your eyes peeled!
Adrian
18713
From:
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 8:51am
Subject: Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
Yikes! The more I write, the more I seem to offend people.
We are in a bit of a "shoot the messenger" situation here.
There are seemingly no film canons or film lists created by auteurists that
have large numbers of "highly violent" films on them. I am simply "reporting"
this.
We can start with Andrew Sarris and his annual "10 Best" lists, and work our
way down!
Posters on a_film_by who feel there are a substantial body of of "highly
violent" films that achieve artistic quality, have not published canons anywhere -
on the Files section of a_film_by, on their personal web sites, in paper
print.
I would strongly welcome such lists.
And I would pay close, respectful attention to their ideas.
Mike Grost
PS - I practise what I preach. My web site:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/film.htm
has complete lists of every theatrical film I have ever liked.
It also contains lists of every TV program I ever enjoyed (near the bottom of
the home page, there are links to these TV lists).
Each TV show I liked has a broadcast date, writer and director credits.
This is the first and only attempt anywhere to create a canon for TV.
18714
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 2:17pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride
Yes, they're excellent.
Jim's career can be divided into independent films
like those and his Hollywood movies. "David Holtzman's
Diary" (I ran into Kit Carson at an event for "The
Motorcycle Diaries" just last week, BTW) and "The Big
Easy" were made by two different people -- both
talented but in different ways.
--- Aaron Graham wrote:
>
> I was curious if anyone has seen McBride's "My
> Girlfriend's Wedding"
> ('69) or "Pictures from Life's Other Side" ('71)
> (perhaps Brad? I
> remember reading he's researching a book on the
> filmmaker.)
>
> Anyway, are they recommended? Similar to "David
> Holzman's Diary", or
> are they a different animal all-together?
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
18715
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 2:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: Crowther/Canby/Cimino [was: Film violence]
--- Damien Bona wrote:
>
> David, was the L.A. premiere engagement of Heaven's
> Gate cancelled?
Yes. it was suppsoed totake plae the week after the
new York premier.
> The film was nominated for an Oscar for Best Art
> Direction of 1981,
> which would indicate that it didn't actually play LA
> at the same time
> it was opening in New York in December 1980 (or, at
> least that it
> didn't play for a week in LA).
>
> It's hard to believe that UA wouldn't have opened
> the film on both
> coasts at the same time, but maybe it was waiting
> for raves from New
> York to make the film's launch in California all the
> more
> impressive.
That's what they did.
Or rather hoped to do.
Before it opened, most people seemed to
> expect Heaven's
> Gate to be treated as the picture of the year. I
> remember just
> before it opened there was a portrait of Kris
> Kristofferson on a TV
> magazine show in which he declared that Heaven's
> Gate may well be the
> greatest Hollywood movie of all time.
>
I've got a Dorothy Dean story about Kristofferons I'll
tell the group one day.
Meanwhile you all may be interested in an article I've
just written about a Hollywood screenwriter:
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/03/books-ehrenstein.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
18717
From: Charles Leary
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 2:54pm
Subject: Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> > Surprise, surprise, we might
> > try living with them and breaking down differences....
>
> What the zombies represent in DAY is not necessarily what they
> represent in DAWN. In DAWN they are the remnants of a living dead
> consumer culture that must be rejected. In DAY they are more like
an
> ethnic 'other'.
And the premise of LAND OF THE DEAD, Romero's next zombie movie,
sounds so cool.
Humanity has been forced to have to live with zombies roaming the
earth, so the living all
inhabit these biosphere-like towers. But there's already a class
hierarchy established
where some people have to work at the ground level to keep the
zombies out. Sounds a
little like METROPOLIS. Anyway, the zombie films are often about race
and class conflict
and political hysteria, but its interesting how you detect a shift in
their representation
from one film to the next - particularly because the films make it so
difficult for the
spectator to get a handle on how to sympathize with the zombies. I
wonder (maybe from
an auteur approach to Romero) if there's some explanation for this.
charley
18718
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 3:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
Oh Uomo, by Yervant Gianikian and Angela Ricci-Lucchi (sp?) consists of
found-footage of kids and soldiers severely wounded, brain damaged or
underfed in the First World War, all images in slow motion. Not violence
itself but the product of violence on the bodies of people. Should be seen
at all costs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Damien Bona"
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 3:28 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
>
>
> Saw Godard's "Notre Musique" last night. The first segment, the
> Kingdom of Hell, which consists of a montage of carnage taken from
> movies and newsreels (mostly from depictions of wars, although the
> climax of Kiss Me Deadly, for instance is included), probably
> contains the highest ratio of violence to film frames of any movie
> I've seen. But I doubt that any person watching the film could find
> the violence and destruction appealing, sexy, seductive. Of course,
> most people at a Godard film are probably not inclined to commit
> violent acts, but I daresay that even the Audience for, say, "Mondo
> Cane" would be repulsed by the imagery in "Notre Musique," even
> though many of the individual segments were designed to be
> inspirational and exhilarating.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
18719
From:
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 3:14pm
Subject: Re: Film violence
To me, critiquing and/or condemning "film violence" is an
impossibility -- there are a thousand kinds of violence, and as many
ways of depicting it. Not all of them are serious, or meant to be
taken as such. To me it's moral, not physical violence -- the
appalling sadism, for example of MAN ON FIRE -- that turns my
stomach. To run with Brad's example, the violence in PIRATES OF THE
CARIBBEAN (a movie I thoroughly enjoyed despite its obvious
shortcomings) is entirely comic and generally unobjectionable (and
since this is a_film_by I'll add that the director, Gore Verbinksi,
is if nothing else one of the most talented hacks in Hollywood).
Violence isn't always violence, by which I mean the violence done to
a body is not always or only representative of physical harm (to kill
a king is to kill the state, etc.). Every movie in which violence
and/or death is played for laughs (the death of Wheezy Joe in the
Coens' INTOLERABLE CRUELTY, for example, or the steak-toting henchman
in Soderbergh's OUT OF SIGHT) does not represent a further step in
society's downfall. If it did, the Three Stooges would long since
have destroyed Western civilization as we know it.
Nor does the increasing average violence in movies condemn every
movie with explicit violence to the ash heap. Brad's mention of DAWN
OF THE DEAD prompted a flashback to my recent viewing of (the very
underrated) DAY OF THE DEAD, whose *extremely* graphic and gory
violence -- bodies being torn apart by zombies, fingers ripping the
flesh from a living man's skull and so on -- left me physically
shaken despite the movie's sillier aspects. (oh, that acting.) But I
don't object to being shaken by a filmmaker who is thoughtful and
purposeful, and who I don't feel (because this is, eventually, a
thoroughly subjective issue) is exploiting carnage for carnage's
sake. (although there's a big difference between MAN ON FIRE and,
say, DEAD ALIVE.)
To deny that screen violence can occasionally be enjoyable may be
noble, but it denies a fundamental part of ourselves -- the part, for
example, that gets off ripping down a wall or blasting punk rock or
watching, I dunno, STARSHIP TROOPERS. I don't find the simultaneous
fascination with and condemnation of violence by a filmmaker like
Peckinpah to be hypocritical -- I think it's honest. That some of the
audience will only go as far as the first part is hardly something
it's fair to hold the director accountable for; there's no such thing
as an idiot-proof work of art. (nor does any worthwhile work of art
prompt only one reaction from its audience.) The essence of
subversive mainstream art is to lure viewers into a conventional plot
and then show them its ugly underpinnings, the way INTOLERABLE
CRUELTY exposes the bloodsport underlying the modern American
romantic comedy. Saying there's simply too much violence in movies
is, to use currently fashionable parlance, applying a red-state
solution to a blue-state problem: removing the objectionable rather
than fixing what makes it objectionable. Was there too much violence
in FAHRENHEIT 9/11? I think the American people needed to see the
charred corpses hanging from that bridge, and in fact should have
seen them much sooner.
The moral and emotional violence of reality television is far uglier
to me than any orc getting sliced in two, or the brutal physicality
of David Mamet's SPARTAN (a highly underrated movie that is
everything THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE should have been). Considering
the violence the American government is sowing around the world, I
think American movies, if anything, ought to be *more* violent; I
feel like every American who blithely supports the war ought to have
their face shoved in the carnage we are sowing every day until they
realize just exactly what they voted for. (bitter, moi?) As the man
said, violence is as American as apple pie, and we're serving it up
by the plateful.
Sam
18720
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 4:03pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride
>
> Jim's career can be divided into independent films
> like those and his Hollywood movies. "David Holtzman's
> Diary" (I ran into Kit Carson at an event for "The
> Motorcycle Diaries" just last week, BTW) and "The Big
> Easy" were made by two different people -- both
> talented but in different ways.
I think PICTURES FROM LIFE'S OTHER SIDE is the film which shows that
the two (three? four?) Jim McBrides are one and the same. He's always
trying to deal with couples on the move. This is certainly the theme
that links PICTURES..., GLEN AND RANDA, BREATHLESS, THE BIG EASY and
THE WRONG MAN. When the couples stop moving and try to settle down
(in GREAT BALLS OF FIRE and MEAT LOAF: TO HELL AND BACK), the
relationship fails. Other films focus on a male protagonist on the
move, trying to find his way back into a failed relationship: DAVID
HOLZMAN'S DIARY, HOT TIMES, DEAD BY MIDNIGHT. It's a remarkably
coherent body of work.
18721
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 5:22pm
Subject: Re: Fishing with John
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Kristian Andersen wrote:
>
> > > > Has anyone else seen this TV series with John Lurie?
> > >
> Bill wrote:
> > > Sounds dreadful. Which network?
>
> Gabe wrote:
> > They were on IFC and later on a Criterion DVD.
> >
> > I don't think they suck. In fact, some episodes I have watched
> > three or four times (the two-part Dennis Hopper one in Malaysia
> > is particularly good).
>
> I think they are brilliant, nearly all of the episodes. In spite of
> the star quality concept, there's no star adoration. Most of them
> are deliberately boring and its fascinating. They (Lurie and his
> star friends) are careful travellers who use malaise and patience
to
> avoid the usual trampling, physical touristic trampling as well as
> representational trampling, that nature and travel shows take part
> in. The episode with Lurie-Dillon has almost no fishing in it, its
> mostly the journey from the urban area to the remote fishing area
of
> the country they were in-- this took the most time. Its closer to
> Mack Sennett than Leni Reifenstahl.
>
> This is an instance where the lackadaisical quality of everything
> makes for richer images.
>
> The episodes are a bit like, excuse the expression, little Las
> Hurdes's.
>
> My favorite one is the Lurie--Defoe ice fishing episode where the
> narration pronounces them dead several times.
>
> Incidentally these were made in 1992-- long before so-called
reality
> tv had been harnassed. They have nothing to do with the
humiliation,
> composed naturalism, and product placement of reality tv.
>
> One could learn a lot about editing by comparing "Fishing..." with
> any contemporary reality tv show (which all have identical
> decoupage), like Apprentice or Fear Factor. That's why I
> know "Fishing..." is good!
>
> best,
> andy
Sounds terrific!
18722
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 5:25pm
Subject: Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> > I don't think your political interpretation fits very well
> with "Day
> > of the Dead." The zombies CAN'T be killed off, so another way for
> > humanity to survive has to be found. Surprise, surprise, we might
> > try living with them and breaking down differences....
>
> What the zombies represent in DAY is not necessarily what they
> represent in DAWN. In DAWN they are the remnants of a living dead
> consumer culture that must be rejected. In DAY they are more like
an
> ethnic 'other'.
Important point. The zombies mean something different in each film.
In fact, they have multiple meanings within films. What's unusual
about Dawn is that, having made Night with little or no thought about
meaning, Romero was retrospectively interpreting his own film. This
process actually begins in the end credits of Night, which as Daney
observed answer a question that hasn't been asked (in the film).
18723
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 5:46pm
Subject: Partial Defense of Pirates of the Carribean (was:Film violence )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
Do you think that TRUE LIES would
> suddenly become a 'good' film if all the violent scenes were
removed?
Actually, I kind of got a kick out of TRUE LIES, one of the few
successful imports from the dubious treasure trove of popular French
comedy to H'wd. And like David, I surprised myself by at least
enjoying PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN. I will risk the ire of the Site
Nazis by posting my Economist review in this e-mail because it didn't
appear in print, so I own it, and there's no link for it, and it's
not all that long...
What is Jack Sparrow's problem? The former captain of the Black
Pearl, scourge of the Seven Seas, seems rather like a sparrow hinself
at times, with his bobbing head and fluttering hands. But birds don't
wear black eyeshadow and make goo-goo eyes at their interlocuters
while tilting their heads, and neither do pirates. And while we're on
the subject, what's with the sensuously pursed lips and the
Liverpudlian lisp? By way of explanation, Jack tells one credulous
listener that his brains fried after his crew, led by his treacherous
first mate Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), stranded him on an atoll while
they sailed off in search of a legendary cache of Aztec gold. But
that story is as open to question as everything else Jack says,
except for the part about the mutineers and the treasure, which
turned out to be cursed.
The truth: Jack Sparrow is the latest eccentric characterization by
Johnny Depp, the former teen idol who has become America's foremost
comic actor since Marlon Brando, and his role model this time is his
pal Keith Richards, the mad guitarist of Rolling Stones, Inc. In the
hands of the talented Mr. Depp, Sparrow somehow manages to combine
Zorro's derring-do with the uber-twee body language of his foppish
alter ego, Don Diego, and whether you buy that or not, you can't take
your eyes off the screen when he is on it.
This is a big help during the first act of Pirates of the Caribbean:
The Curse of the Black Pearl, which threatens to be just a straight-
ahead pirate picture, dumbed-down by horde of character actors
cranking out lame comic relief like galley slaves. Afterwards, when
the ghastly nature of the curse that has befallen the mutineers is
made known and the special effects kick in, one senses the star's
relief at not having to carry the rest of the picture by himself.
Produced by Jerry Bruckheimer and directed by Garth Verebinsky, whose
contribution is anyone's guess, Pirates of the Caribbean is the first
movie based on a amusement-park ride - one that certainly deserves
its perennial popularity with visitors to the Walt Disney Company's
flagship theme-park. If the picture works - and why shouldn't it? -
we may be in for more.
It's a Small World: The Movie, perhaps? Let's see: Evil aliens dunk
Earth in a bath of unknown radioactivity that transforms the
inhabitants into ethnically and culturally correct cuddle-toys. But a
pair of Ken and Barbie lookalikes (voiced by Edward Norton and Rene
Zellwegger) rally the doll-humans to put their differences aside and
repel the invaders. Up comes the hauntingly familiar theme song,
orchestrated for the big screen by Danny Elfman. So much for
overpopulation...
Not all the news about Pirates of the Caribbean is good. Kiera
Knightley and Orlando Bloom supply his-and-hers eye-candy and little
else as characters who fell in love as children and haven't evolved
much since. Seeing Jonathan Price squandered on the role of
Knightley's doting dad makes one almost nostalgic for those Lexus
commercials. And the dumb gags enacted by sundry pirates, drunks and
soldiers of the Empire strip from the venerable profession of Fool
whatever laurels still clung to it, and trample them in the mire.
As the Seventh Art sails into its second century, it sometimes
appears that there is nothing left for it to do but imitate past
triumphs. If so, the artists would be well advised to choose their
models carefully, as Mr. Depp has done, and Mr. Rush has not. After a
few promising flourishes at really playing the flamboyant Barbossa,
he settles for imitating Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, a role
that has long since turned to ashes in the mouth of the actor who
created it. Mr. Rush having no such excuse, when he shouts during the
climactic duel that he and Mr. Depp are "two immortals in a fight to
the death," one is tempted to shout back, "Make that one immortal,
Matey!" In any event, as Mr. Depp proves again here, one immortal is
sometimes enough.
18724
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 5:57pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride (and Hitchcock)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> > I was curious if anyone has seen McBride's "My Girlfriend's
> Wedding"
> > ('69) or "Pictures from Life's Other Side" ('71) (perhaps Brad? I
> > remember reading he's researching a book on the filmmaker.)
> >
>
>
> It was seeing these two films - particularly PICTURES - that made
me
> want to write a book about Jim. I regard PICTURES as the key that
> unlocks McBride's oeuvre.
Jim kept PICTURES under wrap for a long time out of I don't know what
scruple. When it finally was shown at Rotterdam, the unerring
Stephane Bouquet of Cahiers described it as worthless. But I agree
with The Brad - I think it's a great film, and I'm glad Jim has
finally let it out. Jim's first three films are a trilogy about
cinema verite: DHD is fake cv; MGW IS cv; and PICTURES carries the
genre to stoned heights of sublimity -- most of it is set in motel
rooms where Jim and titular gf Clarissa stayed during the cross-
country trek that landed them in H'wd, with the tv always going. The
anti-war tv montage accompanied by the title song is pretty memorable.
BTW, a_film_byers, The Brad recently debuted in Trafic with an
excellent Woodean piece on Hitchcock's tv work. I had never realized
how gender-subversive these little films, collectively, were. Could
that have anything to do with the fact that Joan Harrison was the
producer of the series, or is it just AH being his usual old rad-lib
self?
18725
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:11pm
Subject: Re: Film violence
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
> To me, critiquing and/or condemning "film violence" is an
> impossibility -- there are a thousand kinds of violence, and as
many
> ways of depicting it.
A comment on Sam's thoughtful post: The big rape scene in FRENZY
(which was finally shown uncut on some cable channel during the
centenary, I'm told) included a shot of spittle running down the dead
woman's chin, which AH used a special lens to get. In The Dark Side
of Genius Anthony Shaffer bemoans AH's sadism in one of those Spoto
quotes that makes you wonder if Shaffer really said it, and adds he
was glad Lou Wasserman convinced AH to take it out. Of course, this
is exactly the same as the protracted murder of Gromek in Torn
Curtain, the textbook example of showing violence to condemn it.
Happily, AH had warned Lou the Lame in advance that the test audience
in Phoenix was going to laugh nervously during the Gromek scene, so
it stayed in.
18726
From: Peter Henne
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
I agree that the zombies in the Romero trilogy are politically suggestive. And in "Dawn" it is tempting to see them as a neat symbol for raging consumer lust. That dimension is there but, as others have said, you can't be reductive. I don't get the impression that Romero is treating his material as an advocate, insisting on or endorsing an interpretation, and if he were just making a political tract then the films wouldn't be so fascinating. But I wonder if it is simply the case that "the zombies mean something different in each film." I think there is an evolution of views across the trilogy; the human race within the films certainly goes through a process of understanding. There is not just a random shuffling of meanings by Romero: "Here, they mean this" and "For a change of pace, in this one, they mean that instead." There is a purposeful development of themes across the films. My way of viewing the films is that they work together. Still, I don't want to insist on a single
reading of what the meanings are, because I think you can't.
As for reacting to the violence, even in "Dawn" I feel some sympathy for the zombies. They're hungry and helpless. It is really not just a recognition that I ought to feel charitable, but inevitably my heart goes out to creatures mowed down when they can't do otherwise. Of course the zombies are also threatening so my reaction to them is complex. And, yes, a lot of "Dawn" is funny. But it is important to see that the other two films are not nearly so satirical.
Peter Henne
hotlove666 wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> > I don't think your political interpretation fits very well
> with "Day
> > of the Dead." The zombies CAN'T be killed off, so another way for
> > humanity to survive has to be found. Surprise, surprise, we might
> > try living with them and breaking down differences....
>
> What the zombies represent in DAY is not necessarily what they
> represent in DAWN. In DAWN they are the remnants of a living dead
> consumer culture that must be rejected. In DAY they are more like
an
> ethnic 'other'.
Important point. The zombies mean something different in each film.
In fact, they have multiple meanings within films. What's unusual
about Dawn is that, having made Night with little or no thought about
meaning, Romero was retrospectively interpreting his own film. This
process actually begins in the end credits of Night, which as Daney
observed answer a question that hasn't been asked (in the film).
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Get unlimited calls to
U.S./Canada
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18727
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:26pm
Subject: TRIPLE AGENT
Just saw this on the Brit DVD that a friend slipped me in Paris.
Although I doubt Rohmer thought of this, it is really his homage to
TOPAZ. Hitchcock, who was an omniverous reader of books on
international politics (per Pat), would have loved this one (as do
I), endless talking heads and all -- after all, what else is TOPAZ,
if you take out a couple of set-pieces near the beginning? Samuel
Taylor's astute remark in a memo to AH urging him to ditch the
airport ending applies to Rohmer's film as well: "Your point, which
you have made successfully, is that the Cold War, and politics, and
spying, destroy character, destroy lives..."
The DVD contains a very helpful interview with two experts that puts
the story in context by relating it to the real events, and puts the
blame on Mame (Stalin). The camera move at the end suggests that the
interview - done in one very long video plan-sequence - could have
been directed by Rohmer. I hope it turns up when the film is released
on DVD here.
18728
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:26pm
Subject: TRIPLE AGENT
Just saw this on the Brit DVD that a friend slipped me in Paris.
Although I doubt Rohmer thought of this, it is really his homage to
TOPAZ. Hitchcock, who was an omniverous reader of books on
international politics (per Pat), would have loved this one (as do
I), endless talking heads and all -- after all, what else is TOPAZ,
if you take out a couple of set-pieces near the beginning? Samuel
Taylor's astute remark in a memo to AH urging him to ditch the
airport ending applies to Rohmer's film as well: "Your point, which
you have made successfully, is that the Cold War, and politics, and
spying, destroy character, destroy lives..."
The DVD contains a very helpful interview with two experts that puts
the story in context by relating it to the real events, and puts the
blame on Mame (Stalin). The camera move at the end suggests that the
interview - done in one very long video plan-sequence - could have
been directed by Rohmer. I hope it turns up when the film is released
on DVD here.
18729
From: Peter Henne
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:31pm
Subject: Re: re: Violence in the Cinema
Adrian, you have a point, and thank you for forcing me to think harder. I don't relinquish my basic point, whatever final shape it might take, but it will have to be refined. Yes, Glauber Rocha's films make me feel righteous indignation, and I will have to consider this.
Peter Henne
Adrian Martin wrote:
(Well, at least I always try to begin with the declaration: I LOVE
VIOLENT FILMS!)
Just to take one tiny sliver of this topic: Peter H has raised the
interesting criterion of 'violent feelings', as distinct from thematic
'critiques' of violence, and whatnot. Well, I feel very violent after
watching BATTLE OF ALGIERS: I want to go and shoot the fascist oppressors!
And Glauber Rocha films offer me a similar 'feel bad' experience which is,
of course, a very good feeling! - because it is righteous anger, politically
motivated rage stirring you into potential action, or a new attitude.
'Feeling violent' is itself an incredibly complex thing.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18730
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:32pm
Subject: Bert I. Gordon question
I just saw TORMENTED on a Sinister Cinema video acquired for a buck
at Amoeba. A dead woman haunts the man who killed her so that he
could marry another woman. At the wedding, after the preacher
says "...or forever hold his peace," the doors of the chapel bang
open with a rush of cold wind, and a stunning tracking shot along the
aisle following the path of the invisible ghost shows bouquets
mounted on the pews on either side wilting as she goes past, ending
on the bride's bouquet. It wilts, she screams and drops it. Does this
idea appear in any earlier film, or is the overlooked Bert I. Gordon
spme kind of minor genius? (Of course, from a technical standpoint,
the wilting effect sucks...)
18731
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:45pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride (and Hitchcock)
"Jim's first three films are a trilogy about cinema verite"
PICTURES... was actually Jim's fourth film. GLEN AND RANDA was third -
and I guess that's another cinema verite film, even though it's set
in the future!
18732
From: Sam Adams
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 6:53pm
Subject: Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
I heartily agree. Romero himself has fostered the consumer-culture reading of DAWN, but
I don't think it holds water as an overall understanding of the movie. The references are
slight and far between (although "this used to be an important place in their lives" is pretty
pointed.) In a sense the zombies (and a certain kind of horror movie in general) are
cultural reflectors, symbols with no direct referent. They don't "mean" any one thing so
much as they represent a void of meaning (life, sense). In a sense, the settings of the three
movies say as much as the zombies themselves: from a cabin in the woods to an air-
conditioned mall to an underground storage bunker-- further and further from nature,
more and more closed off. (Interesting that for the fourth film-in-progress, Romero will go
back aboveground, to a metropolitain skyscraper inhabited by "fat cats.") I suppose on the
most primal level, the zombies are the anti-civilizing part of human nature, especially in
DAY, where they drag most of the surving humans down with them. This even while "Bud,"
the semi-humanized zombie, is crossing over in the other direction. Over the course of
time, humans fight a losing battle against their baser urges, eventually withdrawing into
decadence -- DAY's tropical island and the forthcoming film's glassed-in paradise. Wish
that didn't feel so accurate right about now.
Sam
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
> I agree that the zombies in the Romero trilogy are politically suggestive. And in "Dawn"
it is tempting to see them as a neat symbol for raging consumer lust. That dimension is
there but, as others have said, you can't be reductive. I don't get the impression that
Romero is treating his material as an advocate, insisting on or endorsing an interpretation,
and if he were just making a political tract then the films wouldn't be so fascinating. But I
wonder if it is simply the case that "the zombies mean something different in each film." I
think there is an evolution of views across the trilogy; the human race within the films
certainly goes through a process of understanding. There is not just a random shuffling of
meanings by Romero: "Here, they mean this" and "For a change of pace, in this one, they
mean that instead." There is a purposeful development of themes across the films. My way
of viewing the films is that they work together. Still, I don't want to insist on a single
> reading of what the meanings are, because I think you can't.
>
> As for reacting to the violence, even in "Dawn" I feel some sympathy for the zombies.
They're hungry and helpless. It is really not just a recognition that I ought to feel
charitable, but inevitably my heart goes out to creatures mowed down when they can't do
otherwise. Of course the zombies are also threatening so my reaction to them is complex.
And, yes, a lot of "Dawn" is funny. But it is important to see that the other two films are
not nearly so satirical.
>
> Peter Henne
>
18733
From: rpporton55
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 7:02pm
Subject: Re: TRIPLE AGENT
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> er, destroy lives..."
>
> The DVD contains a very helpful interview with two experts that puts
> the story in context by relating it to the real events, and puts the
> blame on Mame (Stalin).
I was quite taken with "Triple Agent" and was struck by Rohmer's explcit reference in the
dialogue to "Andre Nin"—the Spanish POUM leader murdered by the Stalinists. Rohmer is
sometimes considered a conservative director, but this film did not strike me as
conservative at all; it merely took a jaundieced stance towards authoritarians of both the
right and left.
R. Porton
18734
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 7:04pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride (and Hitchcock)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> "Jim's first three films are a trilogy about cinema verite"
>
> PICTURES... was actually Jim's fourth film. GLEN AND RANDA was
third -
> and I guess that's another cinema verite film, even though it's
set
> in the future!
Huh! I thought G and R was made after they got to California - hence,
after the trip shown in PICTURES. But I never contradict The Brad on
this kind of thing...
18735
From:
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 7:17pm
Subject: Re: Partial Defense of Pirates of the Carribean (was:Film violence )
>
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:46:53 -0000
> From: "hotlove666"
>Subject: Partial Defense of Pirates of the Carribean (was:Film violence )
>
>
>--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
> wrote:
>
>Do you think that TRUE LIES would
>> suddenly become a 'good' film if all the violent scenes were
>removed?
>
>Actually, I kind of got a kick out of TRUE LIES, one of the few
>successful imports from the dubious treasure trove of popular French
>comedy to H'wd. And like David, I surprised myself by at least
>enjoying PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN. I will risk the ire of the Site
>Nazis by posting my Economist review in this e-mail because it didn't
>appear in print, so I own it, and there's no link for it, and it's
>not all that long...
>
Glad to see the remake aspect of TRUE LIES remembered. If memory
serves, Cameron et. al never credited LA TOTALE as the source,
despite copying several sequences practically shot by shot,
especially the bit where Jamie Lee Curtis kills several terrorists by
dropping an Uzi down a flight of stairs. (This is all from memory; I
saw the French movie on a bus.) Especially ironic since several
reviews I remember credited Cameron's ingenuity in dreaming up the
sequence.
Despite definite respect for Cameron, who has to be acknowledged as
*the* influence on the modern studio action movie (for what it's
worth), I was pretty appalled by TRUE LIES at the time, both by the
cavalier Stooges-esque manner in which the deaths of several Arab
characters was treated and by the grotesque sexism of the scene where
Schwarzenegger allows his wife to strip for him without knowing he's
watching.
Sam
18736
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 7:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jim McBride (and Hitchcock)
--- thebradstevens wrote:
GLEN AND
> RANDA was third -
> and I guess that's another cinema verite film, even
> though it's set
> in the future!
>
>
>
>
Nope.It's a dystopic fantasy of life after WWIII,
starring Martha Plimptpon's Mom.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
18737
From: Sam Adams
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 7:18pm
Subject: Re: Film Violence
Speaking of physical and emotional violence (although really I just wanted a segue), has
anyone else seen Norman Mailer's MAIDSTONE? It's screening in Philadelphia this weekend
(area folks, don't miss it) and the advance screening I saw fairly blew me away. I
knew only its reputation as a white elephant, but I found it to be at least as astonishing as
it is ridiculous. Mailer, playing a megalomanical movie director (obviously, and blatantly,
modeled on himself) thoroughly abuses and exploits a series of actresses in the process of
"auditioning" his new film, simultaneously arranging gatherings of black and Latin radicals
who promptly turn on his presumptions and steal the screen in a fashion that instantly
made me think of the episode of TANNER '88 where Altman essentially turns the screen
over to the families of victims of gang violence and all but abandons the plot. The death of
Mailer's "character" is followed by an accusatory montage which replays his appalling
behavior as a kind of auto-critique, at which point the fictional pretenses disintegrate
altogether. (This all before the famous scene in which Rip Torn apparently genuinely tries
to throttle Mailer and Mailer bites off a chunk of his ear.) I came across a reference to the
film in an interview with Larry Charles, the director of MASKED AND ANONYMOUS, a
similarly-intentioned exploitation/deconstruction of an artist's personality (albeit with
slumming Hollywood actors instead of nonprofessionals), and its accusatory self-
indulgence was strongly reminiscent of BROWN BUNNY as well. Especially interesting to me
was the way the movie uses sex and violence, both apparently unsimulated, to assault the
boundary between fiction and non-. It strikes me that they're the two physical acts where
most people no longer accept that "acting" is involved. Obviously I see the difference, but
particularly where sex is concerned, it always strikes me as odd that people accept the
idea that actors can fake any emotion (no matter how real it might seem to actor or
audience) but feel that there's no way to to fake an action: screwing is screwing, and a
punch is a punch.
So, anyone care to discuss MAIDSTONE? I'll post a link to my review to get things rolling.
http://citypaper.net/articles/2004-12-09/movies.shtml
Sam
18738
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 7:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film Violence
--- Sam Adams wrote:
>
> So, anyone care to discuss MAIDSTONE? I'll post a
> link to my review to get things rolling.
>
>
http://citypaper.net/articles/2004-12-09/movies.shtml
>
"failms Maudit" don't get any more"Maudit" than this
one. Yes it bears a passing acquainance to "Gimme
Shelter" but work it's most marked by is Warhol's "The
Chelsea Girls." It was the success of "The Chelsea
Girls" that moved Mailer to make "Wild 90." And in
this one you can see him strianling for an "Ondine
Moment" which Torn happily provides.
Among the starlets, Joy Bang -- Parker Posey avant la
lettre -- shines.
That is is showing in a series that includes "India
Song" is especially amusing. Why didn't they include
Robbe-Grillet ("L'eden et apres" and "Glissements
progressif du plaisir" especially) or Pasolini or
Cocteau is rather surprising.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
18739
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 7:58pm
Subject: Re: TRIPLE AGENT
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> Although I doubt Rohmer thought of this, it is really his homage to
> TOPAZ.
You have confirmed my suspicion. But if even I, barely remembering TOPAZ, thought this while watching it, how could Rohmer not have? (If I remember correctly, though, he seems to want to throw us off track by referencing the wrong film: "Que sera sera...")
18740
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 7:59pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Yes, they're excellent.
>
> Jim's career can be divided into independent films
> like those and his Hollywood movies. "David Holtzman's
> Diary" (I ran into Kit Carson at an event for "The
> Motorcycle Diaries" just last week, BTW) and "The Big
> Easy" were made by two different people -- both
> talented but in different ways.
I must thank everyone for their replies. I've ordered the dvd-r off
of superhappyfun.com along with Carson's documentary on Dennis
Hopper, THE AMERICAN DREAMER. I love Carson's screenplays for the
remake of BREATHLESS and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2. He must also
be a great judge of talent, as I read he discovered Wes Anderson -
before his more publicized "discovery" with James L. Brooks.
I recently read an old issue of "Cinema" with an article on HOLZMAN'S
DIARY premiere, written by Carson. He mentions he was making a film
at the time of McBride's MY GIRLFRIEND'S WEDDING, called THE FUTURE
IS OURS. Anyone know what happened to this? I can't find any
information online.
Also, can't wait to read your book on McBride, Brad. "The Moral
Vision" was so remarkably essential for completists like me who want
to read about every last television episode or abandoned project in-
depthly. I'm eagerly awaiting to see how you handle McBride post-
WRONG MAN. As for me, I thought PRONTO was great fun.
-Aaron
18741
From:
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 3:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jim McBride (and Hitchcock)
What do the McBride-ians on this list think of "Glen and Randa,"
incidentally? Though there remain a fair number of films I haven't yet seen, to date
"Glen and Randa" and "Breathless" are my favorites.
Peter
18742
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 8:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jim McBride
--- Aaron Graham wrote:
He mentions he
> was making a film
> at the time of McBride's MY GIRLFRIEND'S WEDDING,
> called THE FUTURE
> IS OURS. Anyone know what happened to this? I can't
> find any
> information online.
>
Never heard of it. Perhaps it was a version of the
never-filmed "August/September" that Jim and Kit
planned to make way back when.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
18743
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 8:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jim McBride (and Hitchcock)
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
> What do the McBride-ians on this list think of "Glen
> and Randa,"
> incidentally? Though there remain a fair number of
> films I haven't yet seen, to date
> "Glen and Randa" and "Breathless" are my favorites.
>
I haven't seen it since it's "release" (more like
"escape") back in -- when was it? '71? love to see it
again. Very strange. Very Lorenzo Mans.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
18744
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride
> He mentions he
> > was making a film
> > at the time of McBride's MY GIRLFRIEND'S WEDDING,
> > called THE FUTURE
> > IS OURS. Anyone know what happened to this? I can't
> > find any
> > information online.
> >
>
> Never heard of it. Perhaps it was a version of the
> never-filmed "August/September" that Jim and Kit
> planned to make way back when.
Perhaps this is true. After all, MY GIRLFRIEND'S WEDDING was still
being called CLARISSA in the article.
Portion from the mag:
"THE FUTURE IS OURS is a half-hour color and black and white
adventure story inter-cut with a mock-documentary on its making. The
story: 2 teams are granted government contracts to wipe each other
out. Watched by a certifier (referee) from the Bureau of Standards,
the game is played - one group winning by a rules violation. The
referee threatens to report the violation; they shoot the referee:
the game is over.
The point of the editing: how much reality can a simple little
fiction like this stand before it breaks down (that is, in the middle
of a scene I include the arrival of the police to check the filming-
permit, a love-scene pulls back for a moment to show the crew
standing around. (This was financed by the AFI).
Both movies (CLARISSA) continue our probes into the truth and its
twisting, into mucking with the real."
Sounds really interesting.
-Aaron
18745
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 8:57pm
Subject: Re: Violence in the Cinema
Did violence not exist before film? Another question: Did road rage
exist before cars?
I suspect most violence comes from appetites that cannot be met given
the circumstances. Given that there are more and more people on earth
and fewer resources, violence is probably an expected outcome.
(There were 4 people on earth at one time and one of them killed
another.)
Most violence is a momentary solution to what is not recognized as a
long term problem... which is why film violence seems so real, it is a
momentary solution (and the long term problem is taken as a given).
18746
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 10:05pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride
"I've ordered the dvd-r off of superhappyfun.com"
SuperHappyFun are very reliable and, as you can see, have an
absolutely astonishing catalogue.
"I recently read an old issue of "Cinema" with an article on
HOLZMAN'S DIARY premiere, written by Carson."
I haven't read that. I'll have to try and track that down that issue.
"he was making a film at the time of McBride's MY GIRLFRIEND'S
WEDDING, called THE FUTURE IS OURS. Anyone know what happened to
this?"
It's a short film. Some sources have claimed that Jim was involved
with this, but I asked him about it, and he claimed he had nothing to
do with it.
""The Moral Vision" was so remarkably essential for completists like
me who want to read about every last television episode or abandoned
project"
Thanks. It seems possible that Abel's MARY will shortly begin
shooting in Rome - though without Vincent Gallo, who was announced
for one of the leads.
18747
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 10:11pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride (and Hitchcock)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> > What do the McBride-ians on this list think of "Glen
> > and Randa,"
> > incidentally? Though there remain a fair number of
> > films I haven't yet seen, to date
> > "Glen and Randa" and "Breathless" are my favorites.
> >
> I haven't seen it since it's "release" (more like
> "escape") back in -- when was it? '71? love to see it
> again. Very strange. Very Lorenzo Mans.
>
Like David I saw it a very long time ago -- not when it was
released but some years later at MOMA, in McBride's presence. I
liked it a lot and thought it was the most convincing and original
of all films dealing with post-apocalyptic survival. The look of the
film was very authentic, if one can use the term for a film set in
the future.
Very Lorenzo mans, yes, but don't forget Rudy Wurlitzer... By
the way Mans played David's painter friend in "My Girlfriend's
Wedding" in which he had a speech indicting cinema-verite.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
18748
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride (and Hitchcock)
"Very Lorenzo mans, yes, but don't forget Rudy Wurlitzer"
I thought I could detect Wurlitzer's themes all the way through, but
it seems that his contribution was minimal - he wrote the magician's
spiel, and some dialogue for the old man who lives by the ocean.
18749
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 10:24pm
Subject: Re: Violence in the Cinema
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
.
> (There were 4 people on earth at one time and one of them killed
> another.)
>
According to an uncorroborated source.
> Most violence is a momentary solution to what is not recognized as
a
> long term problem... which is why film violence seems so real, it
is a
> momentary solution (and the long term problem is taken as a given).
Film violence doesn't seem real at all. Real violence doesn't look
at all like the staged violence in fiction films (which is largely
what has been discussed here, isn't it?)Most people have never been
exposed to real violence and tend to believe that what they see in
movies looks like the real thing, but the moment they are actually
exposed to the real thing, they know the difference.
18750
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 11:08pm
Subject: Re: TRIPLE AGENT
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "rpporton55"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> > er, destroy lives..."
> >
> > The DVD contains a very helpful interview with two experts that
puts
> > the story in context by relating it to the real events, and puts
the
> > blame on Mame (Stalin).
>
> I was quite taken with "Triple Agent" and was struck by Rohmer's
explcit reference in the
> dialogue to "Andre Nin"—the Spanish POUM leader murdered by the
Stalinists. Rohmer is
> sometimes considered a conservative director, but this film did not
strike me as
> conservative at all; it merely took a jaundieced stance towards
authoritarians of both the
> right and left.
I'm not sure where Rohmer got the idea of mentioning Andrés Nin in
connection with his film. Nin was shot (apparently by Aleksandr Orlov,
who soon after defected to the US) in June 1937, several months
before the events of the film, and before the real double agent,
Skoblin, escaped to Spain, where he was killed in an air raid. Skoblin
didn't have any relation to Nin. Serge Renko spoke about the real
Skoblin at the NY Film Festival, but he seemed to have been unaware of
all the information that has become available on Skoblin. Skoblin is
apparently a well-known figure in Russia, and much has been a written
about him.
Paul
18751
From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 11:55pm
Subject: Re: Film Violence
> That is is showing in a series that includes "India
> Song" is especially amusing. Why didn't they include
> Robbe-Grillet ("L'eden et apres"
They did: Sunday 19th
-Sam W.
18752
From: Peter Henne
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:27am
Subject: Re: Re: Film Violence
I'd love to see "India Song" again here in the Locked Attic (Los Angeles), and if it played with a really violent film I'd probably just skip the other feature.
samfilms2003 wrote:
> That is is showing in a series that includes "India
> Song" is especially amusing. Why didn't they include
> Robbe-Grillet ("L'eden et apres"
They did: Sunday 19th
-Sam W.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18753
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:07am
Subject: Re: Re: Jim McBride
--- thebradstevens wrote:
It seems possible that Abel's MARY will
> shortly begin
> shooting in Rome - though without Vincent Gallo, who
> was announced
> for one of the leads.
>
>
Abel dodged a bullet.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
18754
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:09am
Subject: Re: Re: Jim McBride (and Hitchcock)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> Very Lorenzo mans, yes, but don't forget Rudy
> Wurlitzer... By
> the way Mans played David's painter friend in "My
> Girlfriend's
> Wedding" in which he had a speech indicting
> cinema-verite.
> >
A speech that Lorenzo improvised, as it was the sort
of rant he was prone to at that time at a moment's notice.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
18755
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:20am
Subject: Marty Makes a Comeback
Saw "The Aviator"today, and it's just marvelous. After
losing his way in the Cinecitta Swamp of "Gangs of New
York," he's found himself again with a film about an
obsessive -- "Raging Bull" with money. For once all
the "money" on the screen is well-spent. The color is
amazing -- desaturated rotogravure that in the course
of the action moves from two-strip to full color by
the story's end.
In "Gangs" heand DeCaprio appear to have barely been
introduced. This time he's rightinside the character--
along with Martyof course. Cate Blanchett Is a
Goddess,as I'm sure weall know, but her Hepburn is
truly "something else" -- a comic parody with real
teeth. Kate Beckinsale has less to do as Ava gardner,
though she does look sumptuous. Alec Baldwin is very
witty as Juan Trippe, Alan Alda marvelousas a slimy
Senator, and John C. Reilly proves once again that
he's the Warner Bros. stock company backed inot one
man
And that's Rufus Wainwright singing "I'll Build a
Stairway to Paradise"and his father Loudon does "Happy
Feet."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
18756
From: Noel Vera
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:23am
Subject: Re: Film violence and Day of the Dead [was: Now you know ...]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
wrote:
>In
> a great film like Hawks' SCARFACE, the violence is constant and
> gleeful, but those montages of random slaughter create a definite
> nightmarish feel. What's more, as florid as the opening titles are,
> the film tries to portray a socially relevant problem.
If I remember correctly, Hawks had to adopt a more moralistic
stance, include that "this is YOUR problem" titles, the terrible
scene where the police officer lectures the reporters, and the
detail that Scarface is gunned down trying to escape because of
censorship pressure. It may have been socially relevant, but whether
Hawks had a more morally commendable or flat-out exploitative
attitude towards the issue I don't think is as clear.
> If anything, THE WILD
> BUNCH is about hobbyists feeling left out when their pasttime
becomes
> too professional.
I like this interpretation; it's possibly not too far from what
Peckinpah had in mind--and maybe a rather telling comment on our
times (no, I don't think it's a 'small' topic at all--
institutionalized, corporate violence would also be a theme in Bring
Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, and even The Killer Elite). I suspect
his assertion that the movie was really anti-violence is more of an
alibi, and what he was really after, even if he wasn't consciously
going for it, was violence as poetry. Not totally mindless, but as
an outbreak and consequence of Pike and company's feelings about the
whole matter.
For the record, I love Day of the Dead best of all. What do the
zombies stand for this time? How about a terminal baseline for
humanity--a reminder that, while the surviving so-called humans
growl and claw each other for what dwindling resources they have
left, it's possible for a former human to learn to think, even to
feel affection. I think Romero was trying to make a final statement
with this film (which is why I wonder how he can top it with Land--I
hope I'm wrong, though).
Day of the Dead is the perfect film to see, this post-November 2
season. Captures the mood of the times perfectly.
18757
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:28am
Subject: Re: Violence in the Cinema
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
>
> I've been watching a lot of violent movies lately with the recent
dvd
> releases in Australia of the uncut versions of "last house on the
> left" and "i spit on your grave", and of course i watch a lot of
> giallo, and though not one of the most violent of this genre, "the
new
> york ripper" has always been one of my favourite.
>
> Saul.
I've seen Fulci fans call "A Lizard in a Woman's Skin" and "Don't
Torture a Duckling" his best, but I haven't seen them. "New York
Ripper" is the best of the Fulci films I've seen. As to moral
objections, Fulci's stated goal of putting the equivalent of horrific
nightmares on screen seems legitimate. Although I prefer films such as
"Tenebrae" or "Dressed to Kill," I suspect "New York Ripper" might be
more defensible, since the violence is intended to inspire revulsion.
In a sense the complicit viewer is the target of the film's
violence. I suppose a similar argument could be made about Hisayasu
Sato's films, which also depict extreme violence with serious, if
confused, purpose.
Paul
18758
From:
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:03pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film violence
Oh, Robbe-Grillet's in there (w/ EDEN...), as are Genet (LE CHANT
D'AMOUR/Le Chant d'amour), Burroughs (CUT UPS/TOWERS OPEN FIRE),
Brecht (WHITHER GERMANY), Mishima (RITE OF LOVE AND DEATH) and Sontag
(DUET FOR CANNIBALS). The series focused on directors primarily
known, and first established, as writers. It did strike me looking at
the list it's been an awfully long time since an American author
took, or was allowed to take, the kind of chances Mailer took at the
time: the last author of any significance I could think of to direct
a feature was Paul Auster, and the most recent my literarily-inclined
friend could come up with was Arthur Bradford, a minor short-story
writer who directed a documentary about his work at a special
education summer camp. Sad how many novelists now move into film only
as screenwriters protecting their stories.
Sam
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:36:41 -0800 (PST)
> From: David Ehrenstein
>Subject: Re: Re: Film Violence
>
>
>--- Sam Adams wrote:
>
>>
>> So, anyone care to discuss MAIDSTONE? I'll post a
>> link to my review to get things rolling.
>>
>>
>http://citypaper.net/articles/2004-12-09/movies.shtml
>>
>
>"failms Maudit" don't get any more"Maudit" than this
>one. Yes it bears a passing acquainance to "Gimme
>Shelter" but work it's most marked by is Warhol's "The
>Chelsea Girls." It was the success of "The Chelsea
>Girls" that moved Mailer to make "Wild 90." And in
>this one you can see him strianling for an "Ondine
>Moment" which Torn happily provides.
>
>Among the starlets, Joy Bang -- Parker Posey avant la
>lettre -- shines.
>
>That is is showing in a series that includes "India
>Song" is especially amusing. Why didn't they include
>Robbe-Grillet ("L'eden et apres" and "Glissements
>progressif du plaisir" especially) or Pasolini or
>Cocteau is rather surprising.
18759
From:
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:07pm
Subject: Re: Film violence and Day of the Dead [was: Now you know ...]
My impression was always that DAY was explicitly intended as an end
to the trilogy -- the one to which Romero, following Douglas Adams,
is now adding a fourth chapter. DAY ends with the human race at least
symbolically reduced to three people on a desert island. How much
more final can you get than that? It seems pretty clear that Romero
is trying to re-jump-start his career with the only kind of movie he
can get financiers interested in without breaking a sweat (he
referred to LAND in a NY Times interview as a "calling card"). A
crying shame he has to film in Toronto rather than his trademark
western PA.
Sam
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 06:23:35 -0000
> From: "Noel Vera"
>Subject: Re: Film violence and Day of the Dead [was: Now you know ...]
>
>
>For the record, I love Day of the Dead best of all. What do the
>zombies stand for this time? How about a terminal baseline for
>humanity--a reminder that, while the surviving so-called humans
>growl and claw each other for what dwindling resources they have
>left, it's possible for a former human to learn to think, even to
>feel affection. I think Romero was trying to make a final statement
>with this film (which is why I wonder how he can top it with Land--I
>hope I'm wrong, though).
>
>Day of the Dead is the perfect film to see, this post-November 2
18760
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 3:13pm
Subject: Re: Film violence
> >
> >Among the starlets, Joy Bang -- Parker Posey avant la
> >lettre -- shines.
The name "Joy Bang" is my "madeleine proustienne." I wonder what
became of her. I'm sure a Google search would tell me, but I'd
rather wonder... JPC
18761
From:
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:32am
Subject: Re: The Writing Crisis (was: Film violence)
John Sayles, Michael Moore and John Waters all have parallel careers as
writers, but only Sayles' novels are the sort of fiction that is being discussed in
this thread.
My perception is that the is a world-wide "Writing Crisis" going on. The
quality of commercially published writing from big presses or mainstream film
studios, whether literary books, mystery books, or screenplays, is often very low.
Very little writing from such "corporate sources" is really gripping the
public's imagination. I know in mystery fiction, much of the best work comes from
small presses, not the big commercial publishing houses in New York City.
Meanwhile, the treatment of writers by "corporate entertainment" is also
often very poor. They are treated as if they were expendable garbage, not as the
source of creativity for these "industries".
One sees many movies today, in which it looks as if $50 million was spent on
CGI, while the screenplay was batted out in half an hour.
All of this is somewhat amazing. Writing is the cheapest part of creating
entertainment, and the one with apparently the fewest technological restrictions.
This SHOULD be a Golden Age for writing, but it is not...
Mike Grost
18762
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:09pm
Subject: Re: Film violence and Day of the Dead [was: Now you know ...]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
Actually, the planned ending of the trilogy, also called DAY OF THE
DEAD, was an epic about a world where zombies coexist with humans who
live in a fortress fascist state - the end result of the experiments
Mary is carrying out in the version of DAY that got made. That film
was made after the producers pulled the plug on the real DAY in pre-
production - Romero whipped up a small-scale script in two weeks,
using some elements of his intended conclusion. As described, LAND OF
THE DEAD is finally the big DAY OF THE DEAD script rethought to give
the series a proper ending, perhaps similar to the unmade DAY, with
good zombies and humans fighting side by side against the fascists,
and God finally lifting the curse on humanity by letting the last
casualty of the war stay dead.
It's amazing how cream rises. Almost universally put down at the time
of its release, DAY is now recognized as the best film of the series,
which it is. Who'd 'a' thunk it?
> My impression was always that DAY was explicitly intended as an end
> to the trilogy -- the one to which Romero, following Douglas Adams,
> is now adding a fourth chapter. DAY ends with the human race at
least
> symbolically reduced to three people on a desert island. How much
> more final can you get than that? It seems pretty clear that Romero
> is trying to re-jump-start his career with the only kind of movie
he
> can get financiers interested in without breaking a sweat (he
> referred to LAND in a NY Times interview as a "calling card"). A
> crying shame he has to film in Toronto rather than his trademark
> western PA.
>
> Sam
>
> >
> > Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 06:23:35 -0000
> > From: "Noel Vera"
> >Subject: Re: Film violence and Day of the Dead [was: Now you
know ...]
> >
> >
> >For the record, I love Day of the Dead best of all. What do the
> >zombies stand for this time? How about a terminal baseline for
> >humanity--a reminder that, while the surviving so-called humans
> >growl and claw each other for what dwindling resources they have
> >left, it's possible for a former human to learn to think, even to
> >feel affection. I think Romero was trying to make a final statement
> >with this film (which is why I wonder how he can top it with Land--
I
> >hope I'm wrong, though).
> >
> >Day of the Dead is the perfect film to see, this post-November 2
18763
From: thebradstevens
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 4:30pm
Subject: Re: Film violence and Day of the Dead [was: Now you know ...]
"the planned ending of the trilogy, also called DAY OF THE DEAD, was
an epic about a world where zombies coexist with humans who live in a
fortress fascist state"
You can read the screenplay of that version here:
http://www.un-official.com/The_Daily_Script/dayofthedead.html
"DAY ends with the human race at least symbolically reduced to three
people on a desert island."
I find the ending almost unreadably ambiguous.
18764
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film violence
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > >
> > >Among the starlets, Joy Bang -- Parker Posey
> avant la
> > >lettre -- shines.
>
>
> The name "Joy Bang" is my "madeleine
> proustienne." I wonder what
> became of her. I'm sure a Google search would tell
> me, but I'd
> rather wonder... JPC
>
>
>
>
I wonder myself, and suspect the worst. Bang was her
married name, BTW. She was born Joy Wenner. For awhile
back in the early 70's she was quite hot: "Cisco
Pike," "Play It Again Sam," and "Dealing" had moved
her up the list. Then Katharine Hepburn took an
"interest" in her and demanded that she be cast as the
hippie girl in "Travels with My Aunt." When the
producers preferred Cindy Williams instead, La Hepburn
walked off the project, giving the lead to Maggie
Smith. It was awhile before she and Cukor were
speaking again, but of course they buried the hatchet.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
18765
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:18pm
Subject: Re: Film violence and Day of the Dead [was: Now you know ...]
Bill:
> It's amazing how cream rises. Almost universally put down at the
> time of its release, DAY is now recognized as the best film of the
> series, which it is. Who'd 'a' thunk it?
Is it really recognized now that DAY is the best of the three? I
would have thought that DAWN, if anything, still reigned. (I think
DAY OF THE DEAD has an unreservedly tremendous final third, but I've
got all the obvious reservations about the first hour.)
--Zach
18766
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:31pm
Subject: Re: Film violence and Day of the Dead [was: Now you know ...]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
>
> Bill:
> > It's amazing how cream rises. Almost universally put down at the
> > time of its release, DAY is now recognized as the best film of the
> > series, which it is. Who'd 'a' thunk it?
>
> Is it really recognized now that DAY is the best of the three? I
> would have thought that DAWN, if anything, still reigned. (I think
> DAY OF THE DEAD has an unreservedly tremendous final third, but I've
> got all the obvious reservations about the first hour.)
>
> --Zach
Threes are usually flaky, but I think the DEAD trilogy is solid throughout. Of
course, DAWN was such a critical smash that it still has the reputation of
being the high-point, but I find the dead-end wrangling about ways and
means and morality in DAY more true to the purity of the first film, because it
offers critics no easy pegs to hang their hats on -- eg the famous remark about
the mall. Visually, DAY is the most beautiful. Also, let's not forget that opening
- "Four Years Since the Dead First Walked!" I am really looking forward to the
new one.
If anyone wants to see MY epic (essay) "13 Ways of Looking at a Zombie,"
e-mail me at my milder addresss, kaybarr35@a..., and I'll forward it.
18767
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:11pm
Subject: Marker / Cahiers
Apparently Cahiers du cinéma have finally made something like progress
on their website -- one can download the cover of the most current
issue (December -- Le Besco, vous hentaïs!) along with a table of
contents. Anyway, there's a year-end DVD section again, and apparently
Chris Marker has a new work out, of which I was unaware -- 'Chats
perchés.' It premiered last week at the Centre Pompidou --
http://www.centrepompidou.fr/Pompidou/Manifs.nsf/0/
7FFCF08BBA833C0FC1256F3A00496B17?OpenDocument
CHATS PERCHÉS
2004 / 58’20” / coul. / son
En partenariat avec Arte et les Films du Jeudi, « Vidéo et après »
propose la projection en avant-première de Chats Perchés , vidéo
réalisée par Chris Marker en 2004.
Cette séance exceptionnelle sera accompagnée d’une intervention du
collectif CHAT sur la Piazza et dans le Forum du Centre Pompidou.
« Peu de temps après le choc de septembre 2001, voilà qu’apparaissent,
sur les toits de Paris, des Chats. Par un graphisme simple et
parfaitement maîtrisé, qui tranche sur la virtuosité quelquesfois
embrouillée des tags, ils affichent un large sourire. Ainsi quelqu’un,
pendant la nuit, risque de se rompre le cou pour faire flotter un
message de bienveillance sur cette ville qui en a tant besoin. C’est en
suivant la piste des Chats Souriants que ce film s’est construit,
allant de surprise en surprise. » Chris Marker.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18768
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:25pm
Subject: Re: Film violence
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> I wonder myself, and suspect the worst. Bang was her
> married name, BTW. She was born Joy Wenner. For awhile
> back in the early 70's she was quite hot: "Cisco
> Pike," "Play It Again Sam," and "Dealing" had moved
> her up the list. Then Katharine Hepburn took an
> "interest" in her and demanded that she be cast as the
> hippie girl in "Travels with My Aunt." When the
> producers preferred Cindy Williams instead, La Hepburn
> walked off the project, giving the lead to Maggie
> Smith. It was awhile before she and Cukor were
> speaking again, but of course they buried the hatchet.
>
> She was credited as Joy Wener (one "n")in a 1970 indie movie called
> "Events." Her first screen appearance, I think. By now she would
be in her late fifties. Would she be as good-looking a grand-mother
as Julie Christie? JPC
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
18769
From: thebradstevens
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Re: Marker / Cahiers
"apparently Chris Marker has a new work out, of which I was
unaware 'Chats perchés.' It premiered last week at the Centre
Pompidou --"
CHATS PERCHES was screened a few days ago on the French/German
channel ARTE. It's absolutely wonderful.
18770
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:17pm
Subject: Re: Marker / Cahiers
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:11:08 -0500, Craig Keller wrote:
> Chris Marker has a new work out, of which I was unaware -- 'Chats
> perchés.' It premiered last week at the Centre Pompidou --
It was subsequently shown on TV and also released on DVD. Marker
(a.k.a. M. Chat) also guest edited an issue of Libération, mainly
adding random cats to several pages. Apparently you could assemble
some of the pages to make a template for your own graffiti cat. There
was also an interview in the issue.
18771
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film violence
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> > She was credited as Joy Wener (one "n")in a 1970
> indie movie called
> > "Events." Her first screen appearance, I think. By
> now she would
> be in her late fifties. Would she be as good-looking
> a grand-mother
> as Julie Christie?
Yes she would. Her first screen appearance was in 1966
in "An Early Clue to the New Direction" -- a brilliant
black and white featurette by Andrew Meyer in which
she co-starred with Rene Ricard (who Andy Warhol
called "the George Sanders of the lower east side")
and a marvelous ancient Boston bohemian named Prescott
Townsend. The title comes from "A Hard Day's Night."
She also appeared in Meyer's "Flower Child" and "Sky
Pirate."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
18772
From: Peter Henne
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film violence and Day of the Dead [was: Now you know ...]
I think that "Day of the Dead" stands up pretty well. It takes needed time to work out themes of rejuvenation and repression. I don't see a weak link in any of the three. What we get by the end of "Day" is that the zombies look salvagable, but the fascist wing of humanity undermines the best efforts of those using reason and compassion. "Day" does come to a satisfactory end regarding the plot--perfectly secluded, now the humans will either die off, or (against slim odds) build a new civilization on the island. However, the film leaves open just what the potentials are for the zombies, and for humans to make peace with them. So if Romero is going to make a fourth segment, I'd say there is thematic room left for him to work out. I remember when "Day" came out and many were dismissive because they believed "Dawn" had brought the human-zombie conflict to a decisive conclusion. Personally, I think the notion of the zombies reconnecting with their human side did a mind trip on them. They
wanted their zombies lined up HERE and their humans lined up THERE, but Romero wasn't going to feed that us-them mindset, which after all is fascist. I think what I love about all three is how I identify with the living and the dead, even though each has something which is repugnant about it.
Peter Henne
hotlove666 wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
Actually, the planned ending of the trilogy, also called DAY OF THE
DEAD, was an epic about a world where zombies coexist with humans who
live in a fortress fascist state - the end result of the experiments
Mary is carrying out in the version of DAY that got made. That film
was made after the producers pulled the plug on the real DAY in pre-
production - Romero whipped up a small-scale script in two weeks,
using some elements of his intended conclusion. As described, LAND OF
THE DEAD is finally the big DAY OF THE DEAD script rethought to give
the series a proper ending, perhaps similar to the unmade DAY, with
good zombies and humans fighting side by side against the fascists,
and God finally lifting the curse on humanity by letting the last
casualty of the war stay dead.
It's amazing how cream rises. Almost universally put down at the time
of its release, DAY is now recognized as the best film of the series,
which it is. Who'd 'a' thunk it?
> My impression was always that DAY was explicitly intended as an end
> to the trilogy -- the one to which Romero, following Douglas Adams,
> is now adding a fourth chapter. DAY ends with the human race at
least
> symbolically reduced to three people on a desert island. How much
> more final can you get than that? It seems pretty clear that Romero
> is trying to re-jump-start his career with the only kind of movie
he
> can get financiers interested in without breaking a sweat (he
> referred to LAND in a NY Times interview as a "calling card"). A
> crying shame he has to film in Toronto rather than his trademark
> western PA.
>
> Sam
>
> >
> > Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 06:23:35 -0000
> > From: "Noel Vera"
> >Subject: Re: Film violence and Day of the Dead [was: Now you
know ...]
> >
> >
> >For the record, I love Day of the Dead best of all. What do the
> >zombies stand for this time? How about a terminal baseline for
> >humanity--a reminder that, while the surviving so-called humans
> >growl and claw each other for what dwindling resources they have
> >left, it's possible for a former human to learn to think, even to
> >feel affection. I think Romero was trying to make a final statement
> >with this film (which is why I wonder how he can top it with Land--
I
> >hope I'm wrong, though).
> >
> >Day of the Dead is the perfect film to see, this post-November 2
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18773
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:49pm
Subject: Heaven's Gate (Was: Aviator)
> I'm curious what NYers thought of the film when it was screened there
> recently. Dan?
Missed it, I'm afraid - it was a busy time for me. I'll get to it
eventually. - Dan
18774
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:53pm
Subject: Not with a Bang... (was: : Film violence)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> Yes she would. Her first screen appearance was in 1966
> in "An Early Clue to the New Direction" -- a brilliant
> black and white featurette by Andrew Meyer in which
> she co-starred with Rene Ricard (who Andy Warhol
> called "the George Sanders of the lower east side")
> and a marvelous ancient Boston bohemian named Prescott
> Townsend. The title comes from "A Hard Day's Night."
>
> She also appeared in Meyer's "Flower Child" and "Sky
> Pirate."
>
>
> David, I broke down and looked her up. The trail goes cold after
1973. IMBd doesn't have a shred of biographical data except a birth
date (1947) and this astonishing piece of information dated July
2001 under "Where Are They Now?" : works as a nurse in Minnesota.
IMDb gives her last movie as "Dead People" aka "Second Coming,"
aka "Revenge of the Screaming Dead" (or something), aka "Messiah of
Evil". None of those titles appear either in Maltin or in John
Willis's 1974 "Screen World".
This is the way Joy ends, not with a Bang, but in a whimper...
JPC
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
18775
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:01pm
Subject: Re: Not with a Bang... (was: : Film violence)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > David, I broke down and looked her up. The trail
> goes cold after
> 1973. IMBd doesn't have a shred of biographical data
> except a birth
> date (1947) and this astonishing piece of
> information dated July
> 2001 under "Where Are They Now?" : works as a nurse
> in Minnesota.
>
Hmm, 2001, eh? Well that means she MAY still be alive.
Katharine Hepburn RUINED her life.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
18776
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
> as a point of reference, Bill, what did you think of THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS? That
> was my first letdown with W Anderson -- I loved RUSHMORE and BOTTLE ROCKET had
> moments of true originality. TENENBAUMS was the first instance I sensed he was
> headed towards the cloying mannerist style some people accuse him of (most
> recently last week on this board).
My reaction to Wes Anderson was pretty much the opposite: BOTTLE ROCKET
didn't make much of a dent in me, and RUSHMORE seemed problematic
despite its originality. The first film of his that I made a good
emotional connection to was TENENBAUMS. Then I revisited RUSHMORE, and
was still a bit bothered at how the film seemed to be getting a lot of
pleasure out of the smart power games that Max played on the other
characters. - Dan
18777
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS
>>REMEMBER MY NAME remians my favorite -- a critique of
>>all marriage films.
>
> Agreed! Geraldine Chaplin is extraordinary throughout the
> film. Emily is one of the most astonishing female characters in film
> history.
I too think REMEMBER MY NAME is Rudolph's peak, and one of the best
films of its decade. It's hard to see now.
> CHOOSE ME is my favorite of all Rudolph's films (TROUBLE IN
> MIND is a worthy companion piece). EQUINOX, in which Lara Flynn Boyd
> plays a character close to Chaplin's Emily and Bujold's Nancy
> (CHOOSE ME, is one of AR's most underrated efforts. MRS PARKER AND
> THE VICIOUS CIRCLE is also a major Rudolph. However, unlike Peter, I
> thought BREAKFAST was a total disaster and I couldn't believe AR had
> sunk so low. I'm looking forward to seeing DENTISTS...
To me, Rudolph went through a change after the success of CHOOSE ME.
CHOOSE ME is to TROUBLE IN MIND almost what L'AVVENTURA is to LA NOTTE:
there's surface similarity, but the later film has a greater
self-consciousness, a greater pleasure in being about itself, about the
filmmaker's own head. Whereas the earlier film feels less empowered to
be art for its own sake, feels obligated to channel the expression
through story or genre.
I prefer the early period, but I like a lot of the later films -
BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS the most, but also THE MODERNS and EQUINOX.
DENTISTS didn't get me, though - it struck me as a little more
conventional than usual for Rudolph, and I thought the Denis Leary
character was a bad idea. - Dan
18778
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:11pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride
> I was curious if anyone has seen McBride's "My Girlfriend's Wedding"
> ('69) or "Pictures from Life's Other Side" ('71) (perhaps Brad? I
> remember reading he's researching a book on the filmmaker.)
>
> Anyway, are they recommended? Similar to "David Holzman's Diary", or
> are they a different animal all-together?
I'll dissent from the prevailing opinion here: I'm a big McBride fan and
adore DAVID HOLZMAN, but couldn't get that interested in either WEDDING
or PICTURES. For one thing, there's a big different between
pseudo-verite and real verite. GLEN AND RANDA, on the other hand, is
pretty cool - I wish it weren't so rare. - Dan
18779
From: Robert Keser
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:10pm
Subject: Re: Not with a Bang... (was: : Film violence)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > David, I broke down and looked her up. ...IMDb gives her last
movie as "Dead People" aka "Second Coming,"
> aka "Revenge of the Screaming Dead" (or something), aka "Messiah
> of Evil". None of those titles appear either in Maltin or in John
> Willis's 1974 "Screen World".
MESSIAH OF EVIL was issued on VHS (under that title). It's the first
directing credit by Willard Huyck, after his Oscar nomination for
the screeenplay of AMERICAN GRAFITTI. He went on to write two of the
Indiana Jones movies, and also directed FRENCH POSTCARDS and (gulp)
HOWARD THE DUCK.
--Robert Keser
18780
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film violence
> To deny that screen violence can occasionally be enjoyable may be
> noble, but it denies a fundamental part of ourselves -- the part, for
> example, that gets off ripping down a wall or blasting punk rock or
> watching, I dunno, STARSHIP TROOPERS. I don't find the simultaneous
> fascination with and condemnation of violence by a filmmaker like
> Peckinpah to be hypocritical -- I think it's honest.
I'm jumping in late on this discussion, but I think Sam has made the
crucial point here. A truly anti-violence film, like a truly pro- or
anti-anything film, runs the serious risk of being artistically
negligible. Violence is a big, important part of our personalities,
intimately connected to other urges such as creativity and sexuality.
If good art comes from complexity rather than simplification, then
artists benefit from the complexity of our attitudes toward violence. - Dan
18781
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:21pm
Subject: Cameron (Was: Partial Defense of Pirates of the Caribbean)
> Do you think that TRUE LIES would
>>suddenly become a 'good' film if all the violent scenes were
> removed?
>
> Actually, I kind of got a kick out of TRUE LIES, one of the few
> successful imports from the dubious treasure trove of popular French
> comedy to H'wd.
Yeah, I'd like to defend TRUE LIES too, at least partly. To me, the
first TERMINATOR film and TRUE LIES are the works that show that Cameron
has a sensibility as well as cinematic verve, and that sensibility
expresses itself largely through dark humor. - Dan
18782
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:26pm
Subject: Frenzy (Was: Film violence)
> A comment on Sam's thoughtful post: The big rape scene in FRENZY
> (which was finally shown uncut on some cable channel during the
> centenary, I'm told) included a shot of spittle running down the dead
> woman's chin, which AH used a special lens to get. In The Dark Side
> of Genius Anthony Shaffer bemoans AH's sadism in one of those Spoto
> quotes that makes you wonder if Shaffer really said it, and adds he
> was glad Lou Wasserman convinced AH to take it out. Of course, this
> is exactly the same as the protracted murder of Gromek in Torn
> Curtain, the textbook example of showing violence to condemn it.
> Happily, AH had warned Lou the Lame in advance that the test audience
> in Phoenix was going to laugh nervously during the Gromek scene, so
> it stayed in.
Hmmm. I wonder if that spittle would have saved the scene. I adore
Hitchcock, and think that his innate sadism is generally deployed in the
most valuable ways, but I've always felt that that scene in FRENZY got
away from him and turned into jerk-off material. - Dan
18783
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:32pm
Subject: SuperHappyFun (Was:Jim McBride)
> "I've ordered the dvd-r off of superhappyfun.com"
>
> SuperHappyFun are very reliable and, as you can see, have an
> absolutely astonishing catalogue.
My one, recent experience with SuperHappyFun wasn't that happy. I
ordered Deville's BENJAMIN from them, though the site listed it as an
English-language film (it turned out to be dubbed, which I was braced
for). My credit card was charged, but the DVD was never sent. Probably
just a mistake, because after prodding, the DVD finally arrived months
later: but it's a frightenly bad DVD-R dupe, badly blurred and almost
colorless. - Dan
18784
From: thebradstevens
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:37pm
Subject: Re: Jim McBride
UK-based members of this group (are there any apart from me?) May
like to know that Jim McBride's wonderful television film DEAD BY
MIDNIGHT is playing on BBC1 tomorrow night.
18785
From:
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Not with a Bang... (was: : Film violence)
My mother used to be fascinated by the women one would see dancing in the
chorus line in old 30's musicals - such as Busby Berkley films. She wondered what
they were doing now, many years later.
These ladies were never stars. But they sure gave millions of people great
enjoyment!
Mike Grost
18786
From: Robert Keser
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 0:20am
Subject: Re: Not with a Bang... (was: : Film violence)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> My mother used to be fascinated by the women one would see dancing
in the
> chorus line in old 30's musicals - such as Busby Berkley films.
She wondered what
> they were doing now, many years later.
> These ladies were never stars. But they sure gave millions of
people great
> enjoyment!
John Kobal's "People Will Talk" (1986, I think) has fascinating
interviews with several of the chorines--when's the last time you
used *that* word?--who worked for Busby Berkeley in the Warner
years. As labor rights hardly existed in the early 30s in Hollywood,
the dancers would find themselves locked in the soundstage
throughout a weekend, forced to rehearse and sleep and rehearse
there until BB was satisfied with the number he was preparing. In
the extensive swimming scenes in FOOTLIGHT PARADE's "By a Waterfall"
number, apparently the water was freezing cold (the brothers Warner
being too cheap to provide heating). Kobal's book has lots of unique
oral history testimony about the practices and personalities of that
era.
--Robert Keser
18787
From:
Date: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:49pm
Subject: Re: Not with a Bang... (was: : Film violence)
My mother always guessed these women had hard lives. Their dancing careers
were probably short, and they probably had little money when they would suddenly
find themselves unemployed at age 30 or whatever.
My mother came from a working class background, and she always loved stars
who seemed to express the same - Sandra Bullock was her modern favorite. "I used
to know a million girls just like her when I was growing up," she would say.
Plus she really like Lola in "Run, Lola, Run".
There is a short documentary showing choreographer Bobby Connolly in the
1930's, which features his chorines in a dance in which each gets a close-up with
the camera. Somehow, I always suspected that Connolly treated his chorines at
least marginally better than Busby - but I have no proof.
I'm a big fan of Connolly's dance work, plus his co-direction of the B
mystery movie, "The Patient in Room 18".
Mike Grost
18788
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:30am
Subject: Re: Not with a Bang... (was: : Film violence)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> My mother used to be fascinated by the women one would see dancing
in the
> chorus line in old 30's musicals - such as Busby Berkley films.
She wondered what
> they were doing now, many years later.
> These ladies were never stars. But they sure gave millions of
people great
> enjoyment!
>
> Mike Grost
I can't see an old movie (a silent, or something from the thirties
or forties) without at some point mulling over the fact that: all
these people are dead, or at least most of them, and it is at the
same time a very sad and very exhilarating feeling. They are gone,
but they survive, forever or almost, and this is the miracle of
cinema. Which we take for granted but would have been an incredible
miracle to people of pre-cinema times.
We just should try not to take miracles for granted.
JPC
18789
From: Doug Dillaman
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:29am
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1011
Sam:
>
> My impression was always that DAY was explicitly intended as an end
> to the trilogy -- the one to which Romero, following Douglas Adams,
> is now adding a fourth chapter. DAY ends with the human race at least
> symbolically reduced to three people on a desert island. How much
> more final can you get than that? It seems pretty clear that Romero
> is trying to re-jump-start his career with the only kind of movie he
> can get financiers interested in without breaking a sweat (he
> referred to LAND in a NY Times interview as a "calling card").
Hasn't he been trying to get this script (or variants of it) off the
ground for something like fifteen years? I know I've been reading about
his attempts to get it done for as long as I've been paying attention
to that sort of thing (which, to be fair, is only the late 90's). I
think it's something he's pretty much passionate about, and it's only
the success of 28 DAYS LATER and the DAWN remake that's giving him a
chance to do it.
Having said that, I'm sure he's also well-aware that it's the biggest
budget that he's been given in a long time (if not ever) and that its
performance will pretty much determine whether he is given more high
budgets or re-relegated to BRUISER-level productions. And given the
level of visions that Romero seems to have, I don't doubt that he's
itching for the chance after LAND to pursue other large-scale projects.
I've only seen the "Director's cut" of DAWN OF THE DEAD, but I'd easily
declare it the weakest of the three, overlong and with the least
interesting characters of the bunch. I was shocked after the rep of
DAWN how little I liked it (and how much of its much-ballyhooed 'social
commentary' seemed to simply consist of them being in a mall), and then
likewise shocked how much I preferred DAY after its much higher rep. I
see it as a toss-up between NIGHT and DAY - they're such different
movies, it's hard for me to compare.
> A
> crying shame he has to film in Toronto rather than his trademark
> western PA.
True, that.
As for the parallel thread about writers, the collaboration between
comic-book writer cum novelist Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean, MIRRORMASK,
is premiering at Sundance.
Doug
18790
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:38am
Subject: Delia (Was: Movies that take place in Hell)
> And a surprising number of
> porno films are set in a hell which is either literal (Damiano's
> DEVIL IN MISS JONES, Francis Delia's NIGHTDREAMS)
What is this film? It's not listed in the IMDb.
And has anyone seen Delia's adaptation of Mailer's notorious short story
THE TIME OF HER TIME? - Dan
18791
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:45am
Subject: Bertolucci (Was: Dial "!" for Criterion)
> I didn't care for The Dreamers and I never liked Last Tango in
> Paris, but The Sheltering Sky (1990) is a sadly underrated,
> endlessly fascinating and visually gorgeous film.
Yeah, I too have mixed feelings about Bertolucci but love THE SHELTERING
SKY. The other film of his that really calls to me is the
much-criticized LA LUNA. - Dan
18792
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:07am
Subject: Re: Delia (Was: Movies that take place in Hell)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > And a surprising number of
> > porno films are set in a hell which is either literal (Damiano's
> > DEVIL IN MISS JONES, Francis Delia's NIGHTDREAMS)
>
> What is this film? It's not listed in the IMDb.
>
It's in there:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082811
By default IMDb omits adult titles.
"To provide some level of control for those of a sensitive nature some
adult titles have been made searchable only by users who are
registered with the IMDb and have requested access to this material.
"Adult titles cannot be located during a casual search. Only
registered users can update their registration profile and
activate/deactivate the option to include adult titles in searches and
displays."
Paul
18793
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:24am
Subject: Re: SuperHappyFun
Dan:
Thanks for the heads-up.
Their website gives _Benajmin_ a 6/10 "quality rating." I wonder
whether their "9/10" DVDs (like their version of _Seven Women_, for
example, which as far as I know isn't in print) are at all watchable...
-Matt
Dan Sallitt wrote:
>My one, recent experience with SuperHappyFun wasn't that happy. I
>ordered Deville's BENJAMIN from them, though the site listed it as an
>English-language film (it turned out to be dubbed, which I was braced
>for). My credit card was charged, but the DVD was never sent. Probably
>just a mistake, because after prodding, the DVD finally arrived months
>later: but it's a frightenly bad DVD-R dupe, badly blurred and almost
>colorless. - Dan
>
>
18794
From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:16am
Subject: Re: Marker / Cahiers
>On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:11:08 -0500, Craig Keller
>wrote:
>
> > Chris Marker has a new work out, of which I was unaware -- 'Chats
> > perchés.' It premiered last week at the Centre Pompidou --
>
>It was subsequently shown on TV and also released on DVD. Marker
>(a.k.a. M. Chat) also guest edited an issue of Libération, mainly
>adding random cats to several pages. Apparently you could assemble
>some of the pages to make a template for your own graffiti cat. There
>was also an interview in the issue.
Here's the interview:
http://liberation.fr/page.php?Article=259141
Here are some details about the DVD:
http://www.artefrance.fr/boutique/produit/fiche_produit.cfm?id_article=1959139
CHATS PERCHES is a very refreshing work. I'll try to put up some comments
about it after seeing it a second time.
Samuel
18795
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:41am
Subject: Re: Film violence and Day of the Dead [was: Now you know ...]
Yeah, critical consensus pretty much puts Dawn on top of the list--
Ebert ranks it as his favorite. My theory is that it goes over so
well because there's the consumer satire for everyone to point at,
plus the humor is a helpful leavening, to counteract against the
gore (Savini considers his work in Day to be his best ever, which
probably didn't help endear the film to Ebert). I do like Dawn, but
Day is an altogether more serious (tho still funny) and far more
ambitious effort.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Actually, the planned ending of the trilogy, also called DAY OF
THE
> DEAD, was an epic about a world where zombies coexist with humans
who
> live in a fortress fascist state - the end result of the
experiments
> Mary is carrying out in the version of DAY that got made.
What's annoying is that every link you look for leads to that
particular screenplay (the original DAY script) and not to some
transcript of the actual film Romero did--wouldn't it be nice to
have both available?
Actually, I wonder about LAND OF THE DEAD, or if maybe the script
changes weren't some kind of fortuitous event. By scaling the story
down to a single bunker with a handful of men, I felt that Romero
concentrated the juices, so to speak, and maybe came up with a more
flavorful brew.
I love the claustrophobic sets--the way the men and woman snarl and
struggle, trying to create more space for themselves by eviscerating
(literally and metaphorically) the others. I love the way the fate
of humanity has come down to a series of underground caverns--the
way the fate of the world in Dr. Strangelove was decided in three
separate rooms, one tinier and more confined than the other. Might
say Day was Romero's Strangelove.
18796
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:11am
Subject: Re: Cameron (Was: Partial Defense of Pirates of the Caribbean)
> > Actually, I kind of got a kick out of TRUE LIES, one of the few
> > successful imports from the dubious treasure trove of popular
French
> > comedy to H'wd.
It's not just True Lies that Cameron imported from someone else
(without due acknowledgement? I remember a tiny nod to the French
original tucked away in the credits somewhere): The Terminator
(still the only Cameron I really like) and its sequel has elements
borrowed from, not just Harlan Ellison, but Philip Dick as well,
namely two stories: "Second Variety" and "Jon's World."
Difference is, Ellison managed to hire a lawyer to sue for inclusion
of his name in the credits, while Dick was too dead to bother.
18797
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:48am
Subject: Re: Delia (Was: Movies that take place in Hell)
It's in there:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082811
>
> By default IMDb omits adult titles.
Yes, but NIGHTDREAMS should still show up on Francis Delia's
filmography. The IMDB lists Francis Delia and Frank Delia as two
different people!
The NIGHTDREAMS entry is, in any case, very inaccurate. Stephen
Sayadian was not the co-director, but he was the co-screenwriter
(under the pseudonym 'Rinse Dream'), with Jerry Stahl (aka 'Herbert
W. Day') of PERMANENT MIDNIGHT fame.
Francis Delia was also the DP on NIGHTDREAMS, as well as on the
Sayadian-directed CAFE FLESH - something else you wouldn't know from
the IMDB.
18798
From:
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:37am
Subject: Missing films in IMDB
This database is also weak on British documentary films.
Could not find one of my favorite films in it:
The Tribal Eye (1976)
This is a five-part documentary on so-called "primitive art" made by various
tribal groups around the world. It stars Sir David Attenborough, and MIGHT be
directed by him - although I am going from my 1970's memories.
And there is no mention of:
Miss Goodall and the Wild Chimpanzees (Hugo van Lawick, circa 1965)
one of the best of all nature documentaries.
Mike Grost
18799
From:
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:21am
Subject: 8 1/2 and its influence
8 1/2 was proposed as an influence on "The Aviator" - which won't reach
Detroit till December 25 (:
My favorite parts of this remarkable Fellini film are the fantastic elements:
the visit to the steam room in the middle, and the great finale, in which
everyone the director has known starts dancing around him.
Can't tell yet about "The Aviator", of course, but suspect the finale of 8
1/2 was the model for the endings of some other films I treasure:
Places in the Heart (Robert Benton, 1984) the Communion sequence
Longtime Companion (Norman René, 1990) the scene on the beach
De-Lovely (Irwin Winkler, 2004) the "Blow, Gabriel, Blow" number
Mike Grost
18800
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:12pm
Subject: Re: 8 1/2 and its influence
"8 1/2 was proposed as an influence on "The Aviator"..."
It certainly wouldn't surprise me given Scorsese's love of the
picture; I'm reminded, of course, of the ending to his student film
IT'S NOT JUST YOU, MURRAY! (1964), which pretty much steals 8 1/2's
ending for itself [unoriginal, yes, but lovingly so].
Coincidentally, a number of people have been citing 8 1/2 as an
influence on THE LIFE AQUATIC as of late as well.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact