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.
18901
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:27am
Subject: Re: RUSHMORE (WAS: Wes Anderson's New Film)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
>
> Warning: this is long and if discussions of Laura Mulvey
and/or "the
> gaze" make your eyes glaze over you may want to skip this post.
Never - great essay, little read. The phrase "passive object of the
male gaze" never appears ONCE in it, and half of it is a reading of
VERTIGO (in which Novak is anything but the Pootmg) as a critique of
male voyeurism. It's facinating how an insightful essay - I'm not
saying this about Kevin, but about cinepundits of an earlier vintage -
- got reduced to sludge by its proponents. My madball mentor Harold
Bloom would say it's the anxiety of influence at work in the critical
sphere; I'd be more inclined to lay it at the door of the widespread
mediocrity of Hackademia... until recently, that is. Many of the
posts on this site have made me revise my estimate of current film
studies - apparently they're producing some great grads these days!
18902
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:30am
Subject: Digital Tools & Non-Narrative (was: Boston Society of Film Critics awards)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> Roger Ebert said on a talk show that kids nowadays go the
> movies to see special effects. That's an overstatement, but most of
> the biggest grossing films are dependent on special effects
If you don't limit CGI to FX in the classical sense, it's becoming
rare to see a film these days - including many arthouse films, like
Tropical Malady, say - that don't use digital technology, often in
ways we may not notice. I assume that in non-narrative cinema that
line was crossed way back when.
18903
From: Sam Adams
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:37am
Subject: Re: Digital Tools & Non-Narrative (was: Boston Society of Film Critics awards)
Especially true if you define "use" broadly -- i.e. not just in manipulation of the image, but
in editing, color timing and so forth. I take it as read that there's no such thing as a bad
technology, just one that, as in the case of digital, is often used badly, sometimes
horrendously. The images in A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT and PHANTOM OF THE OPERA
had been so pawed and tweaked I couldn't bear to look at them. Oh my poor eyes.
Sam
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
> wrote:
> >
>
> > Roger Ebert said on a talk show that kids nowadays go the
> > movies to see special effects. That's an overstatement, but most of
> > the biggest grossing films are dependent on special effects
>
> If you don't limit CGI to FX in the classical sense, it's becoming
> rare to see a film these days - including many arthouse films, like
> Tropical Malady, say - that don't use digital technology, often in
> ways we may not notice. I assume that in non-narrative cinema that
> line was crossed way back when.
18904
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:43am
Subject: Re: Re: RUSHMORE (WAS: Wes Anderson's New Film)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Never - great essay, little read.
Really? It's been referred to non-stop in academe
since it first came out. Never liked it one little
bit. My "Desert Fury, Mon Amour" was a response to it
18905
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:47am
Subject: Re: RUSHMORE (WAS: Wes Anderson's New Film)
David E:
> Really? It's been referred to non-stop in academe
> since it first came out. Never liked it one little
> bit. My "Desert Fury, Mon Amour" was a response to it
And your "Desert Fury, Mon Amour" is a great, great article--if I
hadn't expressed my appreciation of it before. (Haven't been able
to see the movie yet though.) I've recently calcified my desire to
pursue a PhD in film studies in order to teach (long way down the
line), and I would love to use the article one day as an example of
analysis for Hollywood's bulk ("non-auteur") product.
--Zach
18906
From:
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 0:01am
Subject: Re: Re: RUSHMORE (WAS: Wes Anderson's New Film)
You don't think these two sentences are contradictiory, even remotely?
> Ms. Cross, by the way, is the embodiment of one of the "important issues
> for the female
> unconscious which are scarcely relevant to phallocentric theory" that Mulvey
> writes about, that is,
>
> RUSHMORE simply isn't a film about a woman.
>
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18907
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:13am
Subject: TOTALLY, UTTERLY O.T., but too cool not to post...
The Official Kerry-Edwards Position on How to Handle the Ohio
Recount,
Sent to the Individual Boards of Election in the State
BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
Confirmed by the Offices of Donald J. McTigue, Kerry-Edwards State
Counsel in Ohio, below is the letter sent by McTigue to the
individual
board of elections in each of the counties in Ohio.
* * *
December 10, 2004
Re: Presidential Recount
Dear Director and Deputy Director:
Enclosed please find a copy of a letter personally signed by John
Kerry appointing me as his legal counsel with respect to the recount
for President and Vice President of the United States, with full
authority to act on behalf of him and John Edwards, including
appointing witnesses to attend the recount. Also enclosed is a
letter
personally signed by John Kerry designating witnesses to attend the
recount in your county.
On behalf of John Kerry and John Edwards I am making the following
requests regarding the conduct of the recount:
1. The selection of precincts for the three percent hand count
should
be according to a scientifically valid random sampling method. I am
aware that you have received a letter from Votewatch regarding this
issue with an offer by that organization to provide resources to
ensure that the sampling method is valid. We urge you to accept this
offer of assistance or otherwise be able to demonstrate that the
method employed by the Board to select the precincts for the three
percent hand count is scientifically valid.
2. We request that each candidate be given the opportunity to
select
at least one precinct for a hand count, either as part of or in
addition to the three percent hand count.
3. For those counties that use touch screen voting systems, we
request
that the three percent hand count include a hand count of three
percent of the ballot images stored in the each of the redundant
memories of the machines selected for the recount and on any paper
trail for the machines.
4. We request that the Board provide the opportunity for candidates
participating in the recount to have the programming and calibration
of the tabulating system, scanners, and electronic voting machines
verified by independent experts.
5. We request that the test used by the Board to verify the logic
and
accuracy of the computer tabulating program be performed for each
precinct, including any separate absentee precinct. Further, the
test
should include testing for under and over voted ballots.
6. We request that computer printouts of the recount results
include
the under and over votes recorded in each precinct.
7. John Kerry and John Edwards hereby request to have their
witnesses
visually inspect all ballots for which your voting system has not
recorded a vote for President and Vice President, i.e. the undervote
and overvote ballots. If the Board does not agree to a visual
inspection of these ballots, then we hereby request to visually
inspect all ballots pursuant to R.C. § 3515.04 and OAG 74-103.
8. We request to inspect envelopes and related paperwork for all
uncounted provisional and absentee ballots. This includes documents
stating the reason or reasons that a ballot was not counted and the
documentation to support the same.
9. In order to verify candidate rotation, we request to inspect the
ballot page assemblies of all punch card voting devices and the
ballot
faces of all touch screen voting machines used at the polls or at
the
Board's office.
10. For those counties where the names of Nader and Camejo were
visible to voters on the ballots, ballot pages or faces of voting
machines, i.e. where the names were not covered over with a sticker
or
blacked out or the ballots were not reprinted without their names,
we
request to know whether any votes were cast for Nader and Camejo for
President and Vice President.
11. We request that absentee ballots which were postmarked by
election
day, November 2, 2004, and were received by the board no later than
November 12, 2004, be counted if the voter did not vote at the polls.
The above requests are in addition to any other requests that may
be
made by our witnesses.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
cc: Daniel J. Hofheimer
Kerry-Edwards State Counsel, Ohio
Donald J. McTigue
18908
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:25am
Subject: Re: Re: RUSHMORE (WAS: Wes Anderson's New Film)
--- Zach Campbell wrote:
>
> And your "Desert Fury, Mon Amour" is a great, great
> article--if I
> hadn't expressed my appreciation of it before.
> (Haven't been able
> to see the movie yet though.) I've recently
> calcified my desire to
> pursue a PhD in film studies in order to teach (long
> way down the
> line), and I would love to use the article one day
> as an example of
> analysis for Hollywood's bulk ("non-auteur")
> product.
>
Merci, Zach!
Several years back the American Cinemathque here in
Los Angeles screened it with the sublime Lizabeth
Scott in attendance. She had so much fun she came back
a year later for a screening of "Pitfall."
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
18909
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:51am
Subject: Palm Springs Folllies has senior citizen dancers
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
>
>
> Mike: "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."
>
> Damien: "My late collaborator Mason Wiley ...always mused on
> how they came to Hollywood hoping to become great stars, only to end
> up kicked in the derriere with pies in their faces and that made him
> sad. Me, I like to think that Christine McIntyre, to mention one
> actress co-starred with the stooges frequently, enjoyed the work and
> was pleased when the films found new, and seemingly endless, life on
> television."
>
> In that Kobal interview with Busby Berkeley's veterans, the
> showgirls say that in the midst of the Great Depression they
> couldn't even find jobs as salesgirls, so they were delighted to get
> the work (and BB didn't require any dancing expertise because they
> basically didn't dance). The interviewees say that some of their
> colleagues went on to marry photographers and other craftspeople,
> while others stepped up to leading lady parts opposite cowboys in B-
> western serials. (They don't mention it, but surely some must been
> lured into a downward slope as party girls).
>
> They also said that BB protected them by keeping them on salary as
> long as he could, although they uniformly complain that they didn't
> get enough bathroom breaks (giving new resonance to "Shuffle Off to
> Buffalo"?)
>
> --Robert Keser
18910
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:54am
Subject: Re: RUSHMORE (WAS: Wes Anderson's New Film)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> I didn't know how true habelove's statement to me that girls in particular are
> obsessed by RUSHMORE until I met a girl with a Max Fischer tattoo last night
> -- it's her ONLY tattoo. (She saw a preview of LIFE AQUATIC where the
> audience was going wild. She was very let down by TENENBAUMS.) A very
> intelligent , witty girl, she said many friends had told her how good
> HUCKABEE'S is, but she doesn't want to see another movie with Jason
> Schwartzman because "I don't want to lose Max."
Saw Life Aquatic with a college audience... very few laughs
18911
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:08am
Subject: Re: Digital Tools & Non-Narrative LEMONY SNICKET
I just saw LEMONY SNICKET. The production design is interesting
but it never comes to life; the characters seem to be walking
around in an artificial world (an expensive one - budget = $125M).
It might have worked better if the human beings were more
artificial, like the characters in Polar Express (although I thought
they were a bit too bouncy).
18912
From:
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:15am
Subject: Re: Digital Tools & Non-Narrative (was: Boston Society of Fil...
To clue people in:
"Torque" is a wild adventure film about motorcycle riders. It is full of CGI
created motorcycle stunts, that are impossible in real life - they simply defy
the laws of physics. This has offended a lot of viewers of the film. The IMDB
is full of detailed denunciations of "Torque" in this vein. By contrast, they
say that "The Fast and the Furious" only used CGI to create racecar scenes
that realistically conform to the laws of physics - which makes it a good movie.
As best as I can tell, these critiques of "Torque" are technically correct -
it is full of "impossible" stunts. But I confess I do not know why I should
care!
I tend to experience films (and prose fiction and comics) as works of
imagination: if they are full of imagination, they are "good" works of art.
I tend to see "realism" as something that is smothering imagination in
current art.
We are not allowed to have colorful Westerns any more - because the Real West
was a poverty-filled, dingy place.
Mystery fiction must deal with Real People, LIke You Meet Next Door - the
wild extravagances of such Golden Age writers as Ellery Queen and John Dickson
Carr are now taboo.
People have actually told me they prefer "reality" shows like "Unsolved
Mysteries" to Hitchcock style crime thrillers because they are "more real".
I am afraid that I will be deluged by posts that praise Andre Bazin and
Italian neorealism - both of which I value highly.
Still, the petty concern over realism today is really hurting a lot of art
forms.
Mike Grost
18913
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 0:22pm
Subject: Re: Digital tools
Mike wrote:
"As best as I can tell, these critiques of "Torque" are technically correct
- it is full of "impossible" stunts. But I confess I do not know why I
should care!"
I'm going with Mike on this one, for the sake of a healthy FILM BY debate. I
was fascinated by what Chris said some posts back about HOUSE OF FLYING
DAGGERS: that (I am paraphrasing from memory) it's not too exciting to see a
perfectly CGI-directed arrow (or three thousand arrows simultaneously) fly
through fake air to reach its mark.
But, to play anti-Bazinian devil's advocate here for a moment, are we in
danger of fetishising 'real' (ie. 'possible') action achieved in front of
the camera? - although I do appreciate that (and thrill to it) when I see
it, and it's well done. All the same, hasn't screen action pretty much
always been a matter of cinematic artifice? Arrows hitting trees (say) have
often been an affair of frame-animation - or simply of clever decoupage.
Taking Mike's lead, it's more of a matter of whether the particular instance
of artifice 'gets you in' or not. Of course, if it doesn't get you in - and
I know CGI has this negative, distancing effect on a lot of current viewers
- then everything is ruined, and the discussion ends!
On a slightly more theoretical plane, I find myself wondering a lot about
the ways and means artifice in cinema: a very under-discussed and
unrecognised area, the opposite (in a sense) to the après-Bazin enterprise
or sensibility (still a reigning one in film crit and theory in the
Kiarostami era!). As I think Bill was saying, CGI artifice is just about
everywhere these days, in DEAD MAN, TROPICAL MALADY ... sometimes we don't
see it - it's classically 'invisible' in this respect! - or we do see it as
very fake/artificial, and like it FOR THAT VERY REASON. I am of the JASON
AND THE ARGONAUTS (1963) school of cinematic artifice: the more I can see
those frames being animated (dance, ye skeletons!), the more I like it !!
Adrian
18914
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:30pm
Subject: Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
> 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.
But would one expect to find this? Most "best of" lists feature a
wide range of material reflecting the list-maker's range of tastes,
so not only are there no major lists with large numbers of "highly
violent" films, but no lists with large numbers of musicals, comedies
or silent films - these things tend to appear in proportion, with
some people having more than others but few serious cineastes making
a top ten list that includes more than four from each category.
It would be pretty easy to make a list of great films which happen to
include extremely violent sequences, from Un Chien Andalou to
Battleship Potemkin, if that would convince you.
*
On Peckinpah - I don't buy his justifications but think he's a
fascinating filmmaker. I think his treatment of female psychology is
aberrant as well as his emphasis on violence, but both are
artistically inetersting because of what they reveal about HIM.
Once you get to the lovely slomo exploding headlights and paperback
books in THE GETAWAY any argument that slow motion is about the
horror of violence for Peckinpah has to be abandoned - he's
celebrating action and movement, pure and simple.
18915
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:48pm
Subject: Re: Digital tools
> I'm going with Mike on this one, for the sake of a healthy FILM BY debate. I
> was fascinated by what Chris said some posts back about HOUSE OF FLYING
> DAGGERS: that (I am paraphrasing from memory) it's not too exciting to see a
> perfectly CGI-directed arrow (or three thousand arrows simultaneously) fly
> through fake air to reach its mark.
I agree in part, but OTOH (in further defense of HOUSE which I'm not
making big claims for, I just like it) I do love the fight in the bamboo
trees, it's currently #1 in the "fight in bamboo trees" subtheme genre
of wu xia......
Of course, this means already that there is a "classical past" of hidden
wirework, rendered such by the introduction of CG wire removal &
compositing..
Actually if you think about it, CG and Digital Intermediate allow you to
move from the neccesity of the CUT to hide the effect, so now we have
gone from 'montage' to 'mise-en-scene', hmm ?...... ;-)
-Sam Wells
18916
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:52pm
Subject: Re: Digital Tools & Non-Narrative (was: Boston Society of Film Critics awards)
> If you don't limit CGI to FX in the classical sense, it's becoming
> rare to see a film these days - including many arthouse films, like
> Tropical Malady, say - that don't use digital technology, often in
> ways we may not notice. I assume that in non-narrative cinema that
> line was crossed way back when.
No, if you're talking about specifically film originated non-narrative film,
film as film, then in fact there has been considerable resistance to it.
-Sam Wells (not one of the resistance, I'm prepared to embrace it)
18917
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:43pm
Subject: Re: Digital Tools & Non-Narrative 'physical impossibility'
I have not seen TORQUE but can imagine that part of the problem with
'physical impossibility' is that it violates expectations and the
implied drama of the situation.
Let's say you have a character straddling two planks that are slowly
separating (with or without a shark below). There is implied drama.
Now, if suddenly, the character's legs elastically grow, that has a
moment of humor, but loses all the drama. Cartoons often work this
way, but with real characters it violates physical sense.
Motorcycle riding has the inherent thrill of danger; when that is
removed by physical impossibilities, the entire viewing experience is
changed.
> From MG
> To clue people in:
> "Torque" is a wild adventure film about motorcycle riders. It is full
> of CGI
> created motorcycle stunts, that are impossible in real life - they
> simply defy
> the laws of physics. This has offended a lot of viewers of the film.
> The IMDB
> is full of detailed denunciations of "Torque" in this vein. By
> contrast, they
> say that "The Fast and the Furious" only used CGI to create racecar
> scenes
> that realistically conform to the laws of physics - which makes it a
> good movie.
> As best as I can tell, these critiques of "Torque" are technically
> correct -
> it is full of "impossible" stunts. But I confess I do not know why I
> should
> care!
18918
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:46pm
Subject: Re: Digital Tools & Non-Narrative LEMONY SNICKET
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
>
> I just saw LEMONY SNICKET. The production design is interesting
> but it never comes to life; the characters seem to be walking
> around in an artificial world (an expensive one - budget = $125M).
> It might have worked better if the human beings were more
> artificial, like the characters in Polar Express (although I thought
> they were a bit too bouncy).
I saw it with an audience that was half kids, half foreign press, at
a very poorly run Dreamworks junket screening where no senior
publicists were in attendance - and no producers. It was like
watching a train wreck. This is a great example of what happens when
people with no personality make movies. It was produced by Walter
Parkes, Spielberg's producer (=human blotting paper), and directed by
Brad Silberman (=human bloting paper: His big hit, Casper, looked
exactly like a Spielberg film). It appears to have been developed by
Scott Rudin for Barry Sonnenfeld, hoping to repeat their Addams
Family franchise success for Paramount. (Sonnefeld also made Men in
Black work despite Parkes' presence.) I assume that if it had stayed
with them they would have given it some life. I felt sorry for Jim
Carrey. He gave it his all, but he seemed to be channelling the worst
parts of Jerry Lewis's uneven multi-character romp, The Family
Jewels. In any case, Lemony Snicket could be the flagship film for
a_film_by in that it proves that, even with all the money in the
world and a pretty good script (from three pretty good books), a FILM
has to be BY someone.
18919
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:52pm
Subject: Re: Digital tools
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> But, to play anti-Bazinian devil's advocate here for a moment, are
we in
> danger of fetishising 'real' (ie. 'possible') action achieved in
front of
> the camera? - although I do appreciate that (and thrill to it) when
I see
> it, and it's well done. All the same, hasn't screen action pretty
much
> always been a matter of cinematic artifice?
There has always been a dialectical antithesis to Bazin's realism
arguments going at CdC, sometimes even inside Bazin himself. J-L
Comolli, who began deploying the word "fantastic" in pieces like his
review of ADVISE AND CONSENT, was an early critic making this
explicit within the bosom of the mag. Ironically, he's doing nothing
but documentaries now, but he should be making musicals, to judge by
LA CECILIA.
18920
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:55pm
Subject: Re: Film violence [was: Now you know ...]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
> On Peckinpah - I don't buy his justifications but think he's a
> fascinating filmmaker. I think his treatment of female psychology
is
> aberrant as well as his emphasis on violence, but both are
> artistically inetersting because of what they reveal about HIM.
>
> Once you get to the lovely slomo exploding headlights and paperback
> books in THE GETAWAY any argument that slow motion is about the
> horror of violence for Peckinpah has to be abandoned - he's
> celebrating action and movement, pure and simple.
To quote Boetticher: "Sam says his movies are against violence.
That's bullshit - he loves it because it's spectacular!" Budd also
blamed Peckinpah partly for the death of westerns. "If you know when
you go to see a western that you're gouing to be watching the
equivalent of people getting killed in a carwreck, you start to get a
litle queasy right away." (I'm quoting entirelt from memory - he said
it much beter.)
18921
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:58pm
Subject: Re: Digital tools
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>
> Of course, this means already that there is a "classical past" of
hidden
> wirework, rendered such by the introduction of CG wire removal &
> compositing..
>
> Actually if you think about it, CG and Digital Intermediate allow
you to
> move from the neccesity of the CUT to hide the effect, so now we
have
> gone from 'montage' to 'mise-en-scene', hmm ?...... ;-)
What would Bert I. Gordon have done w. digital technology? Probably
he'd have fucked that up too....
18922
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:41pm
Subject: Re: RUSHMORE (WAS: Wes Anderson's New Film)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Zach Campbell wrote:
>
>
> >
> > And your "Desert Fury, Mon Amour" is a great, great
> > article--! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
David, I've always been fascinated by "Desert Fury" (although I
would never call Lizabeth Scott "sublime" -- what is it that turns
you on, the lisp?) Where can I find your article? (what a great
title!)
JPC
18923
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: RUSHMORE (WAS: Wes Anderson's New Film)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> David, I've always been fascinated by "Desert
> Fury" (although I
> would never call Lizabeth Scott "sublime" -- what is
> it that turns
> you on, the lisp?)
She's my own private Maria Montez.
Where can I find your article?
> (what a great
> title!)
>
It's in the collection "Film Quarterly, Forty Years --
a selection" edited by Brian Henderson and Ann Martin,
University of California Press, 1999
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
18924
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:13pm
Subject: Re: RUSHMORE (WAS: Wes Anderson's New Film)
> > A very
> > intelligent , witty girl, she said many friends had told her how good
> > HUCKABEE'S is, but she doesn't want to see another movie with Jason
> > Schwartzman because "I don't want to lose Max."
She's probably echoing Garbo's Belle et la Bete remark, "Give me back my Beast." [In Rushmore he must have been, to allow myself a John Simon moment, just about the most hideous-looking boy, John Merrick types aside, ever to play a leading role onscreen -- it could have been done with cgi -- but he just seems to look (relatively) normal now.]
18925
From:
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:23pm
Subject: Re: Desert Fury, Mon Amour
This terrific article originally appeared in Film Quarterly.
And it was reprinted in the hardback omnibus of Film Quarterly articles.
A University Library would be likely to contain these.
It is both a manifesto, and a cri du coeur (hope my French is right here!)
Mike Grost
18926
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:30pm
Subject: Re: RUSHMORE (WAS: Wes Anderson's New Film)
> You don't think these two sentences are contradictiory, even
> remotely?
No, because Ms. Cross can be something without the film being about
her.
--Zach
18927
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:34pm
Subject: Re: Desert Fury, Mon Amour
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> This terrific article originally appeared in Film Quarterly.
> And it was reprinted in the hardback omnibus of Film Quarterly articles.
> A University Library would be likely to contain these.
> It is both a manifesto, and a cri du coeur (hope my French is right here!)
At the risk of depriving the author of possible royalties, I'll take the liberty of pointing out that the Ehrenstein essay can be browsed online using Amazon.com's "Search inside the book" feature (start by searching for Film Quarterly). Have link, don't know if it will travel: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0520216032/ref=sib_vae_pg_474/102-3122446-7782525?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=Desert%20Fury&p=S0DJ&twc=21&checkSum=yfCKRhRXGUYGaqTz0UqEn1cB1NyebNoC1LoyDg2eqQI%3D
18928
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:35pm
Subject: Re: Digital tools
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"What would Bert I. Gordon have done w. digital technology? Probably
he'd have fucked that up too...."
If Gordon had been able to use digital technology it would have
looked like what you get in a Robert Halmi TV movie. Not all CGI is
equally sophisticated, and it's not always used to create the
illusion of reality (e.g., THE LADY AND THE DUKE.)
Richard
18929
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:50pm
Subject: Bye-Bye Miramax
Since my post announcing that JOhn Kerry is making an all-out attempt
to overturn the results of the last election went over with this
starry-eyed group like a pregnant pole vaulter, here's some ON-topic
hard news:
DISNEY'S 'MAXING OUT
Ongoing projects may be abandoned [!]
In the first official acknowledgment that its relationship with Bob
and Harvey Weinstein may be coming to an end, the Walt Disney Co.
said Monday that it doesn't expect Miramax Films to continue "at the
same level" after its current contract with the brothers expires next
September.
18930
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rushmore (Was: Wes Anderson's New Film)
> Well, remember that the play only continues production after Max has
> made a whole lot of apologies and reconciliations.
I don't want to belabor this too much, because my problems with the film
may not generalize enough to be interesting to others. But: Max's
behavior in the first, I don't know, three-fourths of the film was
calculated to give us pleasure. It would be odd for the film to apologize
for it, or to stand behind Max's apology. And yet one feels that the film
is doing just that. I can't help but think that Anderson is hiding a
little, is not willing to cop to how his movie won the audience over. -
Dan
18931
From: Peter Henne
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: RUSHMORE (WAS: Wes Anderson's New Film)
"Rushmore" foregrounds the males' possession of vision, and critiques their unfair advantage. Max's various kinds of snooping are preposterous and made fun of by Anderson. It is even true that the director's use of Scope contributes to putting Max and Herman in their place. Several times in the film one or the other is situated near the center of the frame, exhibiting an inflated degree of self-possession, yet the huge amount of environment surrounding them implies they live in a great big world which moves on its own and their control over it is not what they think. Each fancies himself the center of his universe, but the film's style betrays they're dreamers. Speaking for myself, I feel that Max has learned his lesson when he dances with the girl his age. The shot is planar and at their eye level: at this moment they hold the screen space as equals, they look into each other, and neither monopolizes their gaze.
But having said that, "Rushmore" is one more film that treats the problem of patriarchy by critiquing it instead of empowering the female characters or creating the kind of pleasure which Mulvey writes about (I hope I've got that right, it's been a while since I've read the essay). It is simply true that Ms. Cross never gains back the vision which "the guys" appropriate. And, in part for this reason, she is never as much of a full-blooded person as some of the other supporting characters (again, such as the girl who pursues Max). It seems to me there are scores of well-meaning films which go so far as to critique, but not nearly as many which give the female character/female audience a controling viewpoint. Don't get me wrong, I actually love "Rushmore" (and my girlfriend and her grown daughter adore it). It's hard for me to "re-write" this comedy such that it could work back to empowering Ms. Cross with the vision which Max and Herman had throughout. You can hear the trumpets in
this one but it's not the revolution.
Peter Henne
LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
You don't think these two sentences are contradictiory, even remotely?
> Ms. Cross, by the way, is the embodiment of one of the "important issues
> for the female
> unconscious which are scarcely relevant to phallocentric theory" that Mulvey
> writes about, that is,
>
> RUSHMORE simply isn't a film about a woman.
>
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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 - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18932
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: Digital tools
> But, to play anti-Bazinian devil's advocate here for a moment, are we
> in
> danger of fetishising 'real' (ie. 'possible') action achieved in front
> of
> the camera? - although I do appreciate that (and thrill to it) when I
> see
> it, and it's well done. All the same, hasn't screen action pretty much
> always been a matter of cinematic artifice? Arrows hitting trees (say)
> have
> often been an affair of frame-animation - or simply of clever
> decoupage.
I'm not sure what the general consensus of the anti-digital crowd is,
in regard to digitality being the bane of the cinema -- but my own
feelings on the matter, decidedly anti-digital, can be summed up as
follows: The problem with digital intrusion upon the movies isn't so
much a matter of the introduction of rampant artifice, it's a matter of
nothing having been photographed from the onset -- no negative. The
power of the original cinema lay precisely in the fact of an audience
being shown something that occurred. Whether it was Flaherty's
directed Eskimos, Kurosawa's lords at the gate, Tex Avery's cells in a
shuffle, or a miniature of the Millennium Falcon hurtling through a
matte cloudscape, these were photographed images, real-world objects,
and they had (and still have) the power to arrest. Now, it's something
different. In many ways, what we see in current films, fantastic or
otherwise, doesn't count in cinema terms (cinematography, the
photographed real, alchemy of the development process). Digital
manipulations, and digital effects, are hardly ever through-considered
gestures of a human mind, of a human maker -- they're the results of
after-thoughts (it's hardly surprising Adobe's software is called
"After Effects"), random mouse-clicks through menus ("we've got a bunch
of different options here"), the machine effecting the brainstorm and
the execution. I think it's terrible.
Of course, there are times when a computer effect can be used
beautifully. Sorry for reaching into the typical anti-Hollywood
wellspring, but the first things that come to mind are Rohmer and
Rivette.
So what about the "little digital cameras [that would] save the
cinema," or the digital edit, all these non-chemical systems -- I don't
have a problem with them from a point of view of utility (my first
short, but not the second or third, will be shot on DV), but they place
the onus on the viewer that he or she must believe what they see "only
in good faith."
For myself, the main problem facing the cinema (the first one and the
best one, the photochemical cinema) is a somewhat stalled-out attitude
toward developments in the science of celluloid and lenses -- thirty
years on from 'Barry Lyndon,' we still don't have a 35mm, never mind
16mm, stock sensitive enough to register a room's natural light, or
capture the perfect chance mood.
craig.
18933
From:
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:16pm
Subject: Re: Bye-Bye Miramax
In a message dated 12/14/04 12:54:24 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:
> Since my post announcing that JOhn Kerry is making an all-out attempt
> to overturn the results of the last election went over with this
> starry-eyed group like a pregnant pole vaulter
>
I read it and forwarded it to a friend....
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18934
From:
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:28pm
Subject: Kim Wayans/COLLATERAL (WAS: RUSHMORE)
Peter, excellent post on RUSHMORE. But since I feel as if I'm said my piece
on that film (with the provision that I will resee it ASAP), I want to update
my gripe about the lack of Oedipal shark-chasing art house epics starring
Laraine Newman and Jane Curtin. I saw COLLATERAL last week. Ace film! But I
couldn't help but mourn the fact that, just as with SNL, IN LIVING COLOR has sent few
women to big roles on the big screen. There's probably no turning back now
for Jamie Foxx nor Bill Murray (although curiously, Jim Carrey still can't get
no respect). But will Kim Wayans (my vote for the funniest ILC member) be an
Oscar contender next year for ELLA? Will Kelly Coffield peep in on boarding
school boys or forgoe the sexual economies of vision altogether?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18935
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:16pm
Subject: Re: Desert Fury, Mon Amour
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > This terrific article originally appeared in Film Quarterly.
> > And it was reprinted in the hardback omnibus of Film Quarterly
articles.
> > A University Library would be likely to contain these.
> > It is both a manifesto, and a cri du coeur (hope my French is
right here!)
>
> At the risk of depriving the author of possible royalties, I'll
take the liberty of pointing out that the Ehrenstein essay can be
browsed online using Amazon.com's "Search inside the book" feature
(start by searching for Film Quarterly). Have link, don't know if
it will travel:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0520216032/ref=sib_vae_pg_474/102-
3122446-7782525?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=Desert%
20Fury&p=S0DJ&twc=21&checkSum=yfCKRhRXGUYGaqTz0UqEn1cB1NyebNoC1LoyDg2
eqQI%3D
It did travel! Thanks! Great article! And "cri du coeur" is right.
JPC
18936
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: Digital tools
--- Craig Keller wrote:
The problem with digital intrusion upon the
> movies isn't so
> much a matter of the introduction of rampant
> artifice, it's a matter of
> nothing having been photographed from the onset --
> no negative. The
> power of the original cinema lay precisely in the
> fact of an audience
> being shown something that occurred. Whether it was
> Flaherty's
> directed Eskimos, Kurosawa's lords at the gate, Tex
> Avery's cells in a
> shuffle, or a miniature of the Millennium Falcon
> hurtling through a
> matte cloudscape, these were photographed images,
> real-world objects,
> and they had (and still have) the power to arrest.
Precisely. This is why I take such heart in "The
Aviator" whose most important scen -- the plane crash
in Beverly Hills -- is real. Nothing on the screen
like it since "1941." And in that film there's genuine
craft in the model and miniatures that CGI can't
approach. Same for "One From the Heart."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
18937
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:08pm
Subject: Re: Rushmore (Was: Wes Anderson's New Film)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I don't want to belabor this too much, because my problems with the film
> may not generalize enough to be interesting to others. But: Max's
> behavior in the first, I don't know, three-fourths of the film was
> calculated to give us pleasure. It would be odd for the film to apologize
> for it, or to stand behind Max's apology. And yet one feels that the film
> is doing just that. I can't help but think that Anderson is hiding a
> little, is not willing to cop to how his movie won the audience over. -
> Dan
How does that apply to Buddy Love in The Nutty Professor?
18938
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:20pm
Subject: Re: Digital tools
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
Digital manipulations, and digital effects, are hardly ever through-
considered
> gestures of a human mind, of a human maker -- they're the results of
> after-thoughts (it's hardly surprising Adobe's software is called
> "After Effects"), random mouse-clicks through menus ("we've got a bunch
> of different options here"), the machine effecting the brainstorm and
> the execution. I think it's terrible.
>John Carpenter, when I asked him if he'd redo the spider/head in The Thing
digitally if he did it today, said he'd do it today just the way he did it then - with
rubber and vaseline. "Much more disquieting" that way.
> For myself, the main problem facing the cinema (the first one and the
> best one, the photochemical cinema) is a somewhat stalled-out attitude
> toward developments in the science of celluloid and lenses -- thirty
> years on from 'Barry Lyndon,' we still don't have a 35mm, never mind
> 16mm, stock sensitive enough to register a room's natural light, or
> capture the perfect chance mood.
A good subject for Jean-Pierre Beauviala, inventor of the Aaton.
18939
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:21pm
Subject: Strong female roles
Would MAY count as one? She sure appropriates some shit...
18940
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:35pm
Subject: Re: Digital tools
> > For myself, the main problem facing the cinema (the first one and the
> > best one, the photochemical cinema) is a somewhat stalled-out attitude
> > toward developments in the science of celluloid and lenses -- thirty
> > years on from 'Barry Lyndon,' we still don't have a 35mm, never mind
> > 16mm, stock sensitive enough to register a room's natural light, or
> > capture the perfect chance mood.
>
> A good subject for Jean-Pierre Beauviala, inventor of the Aaton.
Yes we do. Put a Zeiss superspeed prime lens on a S16 or 35mm Aaton,
shoot Kodak's highspeed Vision 2 stock - absolutely you can do this.
But you can do it with similar lenses & high end and HD video cameras too.
I would say it's a horse race bet as far as video vs. film ability to work in
low light, You also have to realise that the issue is to get a range of
brightnesses comfortable to work with (CCD/digital cameras being at a
disadvantage currently in their ability to handle *highlight detail*)
and at thesame time, compress that range into what is acceptable to
the viewing medium - print stock, DVD, etc.
The problem with making the lenses faster (a la Barry Lyndon) is that the
depth of field is further reduced. You want the realism of the eye's
range of focus, you can't shoot with f 0.7 lenses.
But you can do what Kubrick Alcott did today with more finesse.
-Sam W.
18941
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:47pm
Subject: Re: Digital tools
>> these were photographed images,
> > real-world objects,
> > and they had (and still have) the power to arrest.
OTOH Real world objects have been manipulated in one form
or another in cinema since Melies...
Where I think the problem lies can be found in something Jean Renoir
quoted in "Renior, My Father" -- I don't have it so I'll have to
paraphrase: Auguste Renior: "If you want to paint a [picture of a]
leaf, pick one from nature, which will give you thousands of examples,
whereas your imagination alone will give you two or three"
I think "aboriginal digital" suffers sometimes in that sense" purely CGI
work always looks like Mr Potato Head land to me.
But to use the computer as an extended optical printer, I think can be pretty
cool stuff.
Moreover I think it can be used to further research/Lumiere as well
as spectacle/Melies
-Sam
18942
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:51pm
Subject: acting '04
On Friday I vote in the Chicago Film Critics Association awards,
which are ridiculous*. Anyway, this time of the year I start to break
down the different categories to decide what to nominate. I try to
put myself in a populist mindframe, since there's no hope of
beating the bulk of the membership, who have only seen, for
example, THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES in the foreign language
category**.
Acting is a difficult category for me and I always come up short in
my lists of lead and supporting performers.
I would love to hear the favorites of our group members, even
though for most of the non-critics the year is not totally wrapped
up. For me I saw SPANGLISH (not as awful or great as some of
his others) on Friday and that ends all the commercial releases I
have to see for the year.
Here are some of the performances I liked, beginning with the
casts of Moolaade and Vera Drake, two films unlike anything
being made today. Sembene and Leigh are such radical
outsiders that they deserve to be judged in their own private
categories. In both films (Moolaade being the more conspicuous
example as a film from a part of the west that we don't yet
understand) the characters inhabit precise worlds that allow
them to make palpable the most nuanced aspects of day-to-day
life. In Leigh's film, I enjoyed Phil Davis (Vera's husband), Eddie
Marsan (the neighbor and future son-in-law), and Ruth Sheen
(the black-marketeer) as much as Imelda Staunton, who is
perfect as the title character. And for the sake of pragmatism
(since at this time I can't identify all the actors I liked in the
Sembene film), Fatoumata Coulibaly, as Colle, the savior of the
children, is not only beautiful but Moolaade's strongest character.
Other performances I liked:
Ornella Muti and François Morel as the amazing couple from the
title of Lucas Belvaux's film.
...Or witness the sheer oddity of Tom Hanks in The Ladykillers,
more of a foreigner than his Viktor Navorsky in The Terminal.
J.K. Simmons' hilarious newspaper editor in Spider-Man 2.
Next, I thought Chloë Sevigny's sincerity in her role in The Brown
Bunny was touching.
Anna Hathaway in Ella Enchanted charmed me more than any
other fairy tale character this year (excluding maybe the Holly
Hunter incredible in The Incredibles).
Julie Delpy conveyed her "ugliness" through speech (whereas
Ethan Hawke only had to crack a creepy smile), and for this I
think her performance in Before Sunset was a revelation.
David Carradine, one cool cat in Kill Bill 2.
Jeff Goldblum's "part gay" nemesis to Bill Murray's Zissou was
the more eccentric and funny character. It takes a (small)
performance like this to remind us what a calibrated actor he is.
In Lee Chang-dong's Oasis, So-ri Moon, who is poised to be an
international star, is masterful as a handicapped woman who
the main character (also handicapped) occasionally imagines
as a flawless beauty.
Next, both Jo Odagiri (lead) and Tadanabu Asano (supporting) in
Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Bright Future turn in minimalist
performances which are haunting and ocassionally funny.
Last but not least, Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, and Morgan
Freeman in Million Dollar Baby, my favorite commercial release
of the year, if not my favorite movie of 2004, period.
But that's one for another discussion.
In the meantime, I look forward to any opinions on performances
for the year.
Gabe
*Obviously, I am joking. Several CFCA members are friends or at
the very people I respect. And I don't really mean it. But awards in
general are all... yeah, you guessed it.
** Okay, they have not *only* seen CHE AND SANCHO PANZA
GO NORTH. They have also seen A VERY LAME ENGAGEMENT.
18943
From:
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:53pm
Subject: Re: Digital tools
"The Falcon in Hollywood" (Gordon Douglas, 1944) is a minor B-Movie whodunit.
The mystery takes place at a movie studio - and RKO's backlot was used as the
scene of the crime. There is a studio tour - and we see the model shop where
the miniatures for special effects are made. A delightful scene!
Mike Grost
18944
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 0:06am
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS
Anyone interested in this film should definitely watch Chang Cheh's "The
Trail of the Broken Blade" and "Have Sword, Will Travel". In the latter you
have a *very similar ending* (which I won't post since it is a major
spoiler) but it may as well be a tradition in Chinese adventure tales of
wuxia (and our experts on eastern culture Richard and Paul may have a word
on it). I don't like Mr. Zhang's action diptych at all. A hand too heavy and
films that do not breathe. By the way, in different occasions two friends of
mine (who don't know each other) who enjoy and are kind of self-learned
specialists on totalitarian aesthetics (icons, respect for the leader/male
strong figure, love for the the land, etc.) started conversation with me on
"Hero" saying it was the most totalitarian film they saw in ages (one said
fascist, in the correct sense of the word). Might account to something, but
for now I still am not so sure to what...
Ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
To:
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 3:25 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS
>
>
> I saw HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS a few weeks back at AFI in Palm Springs.
> The color is remarkable, there is something of a romance story, the action
> almost non-stop. The special effects are unique given the Asian
environment
> of the time offers bamboo shoots, etc; however, they tend to hang around
just
> a few moments too long as they become a bit too noticeable. I'll see the
> movie again.
> HERO had a lot of action often based on two characters 'fighting' each
other.
> HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS incorporates not only daggers flying across the
> screen (with at least one unexpected outcome in the final fight scenes)
but
> also more of the environment in the scene (those bamboo shoots again),
> the scene seems more full.
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>
> > > Did anyone on this group actually like HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS?
> > I did, I like to see Zhang Ziyi move through space. I prefered it to the
overblown Hero
> > (the Last Emperor of wu xia piam) except for the fight between Maggie
Cheung * and
> > ZZ. (As I said I lke to see Zhang Ziyi move through space).
> > This is what I do instead of watch Star Wars DVD's, ok ?
> > It's no "Swordsman 2" or "The East Is Red" by a long shot.
> > * like Charlton Heston, an axiom ;-)
> > -Sam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
18945
From: samfilms2003
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 0:07am
Subject: Re: Digital tools
>> these were photographed images,
> > real-world objects,
> > and they had (and still have) the power to arrest.
OTOH Real world objects have been manipulated in one form
or another in cinema since Melies...
Where I think the problem lies can be found in something Jean Renoir
quoted in "Renior, My Father" -- I don't have it so I'll have to
paraphrase: Auguste Renior: "If you want to paint a [picture of a]
leaf, pick one from nature, which will give you thousands of examples,
whereas your imagination alone will give you two or three"
I think "aboriginal digital" suffers sometimes in that sense" purely CGI
work always looks like Mr Potato Head land to me.
But to use the computer as an extended optical printer, I think can be pretty
cool stuff.
Moreover I think it can be used to further research/Lumiere as well
as spectacle/Melies
-Sam
18946
From:
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:22pm
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS
In a message dated 04-12-14 19:13:21 EST, Ruy writes:
<< By the way, in different occasions two friends of
mine (who don't know each other) who enjoy and are kind of self-learned
specialists on totalitarian aesthetics (icons, respect for the leader/male
strong figure, love for the the land, etc.) started conversation with me on
"Hero" saying it was the most totalitarian film they saw in ages (one said
fascist, in the correct sense of the word). >>
Sounds a bit like The Motorcycle Diaries, too.
Mike Grost
PS - With all the talk about female centered films, no one mentions
Rosenstrasse. Its an interesting movie... And its non-violent politics are the opposite
of Communism or Fascism.
18947
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 0:52am
Subject: Re: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS
Really? With a revolutionary turned into a priest? Walter Salles can be
anything, and I'm not exactly the person who is willing to defend his films,
but he's not a revolutionary. And his aesthetics is everything but
monumentalist, which is key to totalitarian aesthetics. On the contrary,
Salles is always (too much) very measured, taking always the middle lane of
the road, avoiding real drama or pasteurizing it. Skipped Rosenstrasse in
Festival do Rio.
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 10:22 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS
>
> In a message dated 04-12-14 19:13:21 EST, Ruy writes:
>
> << By the way, in different occasions two friends of
> mine (who don't know each other) who enjoy and are kind of self-learned
> specialists on totalitarian aesthetics (icons, respect for the
leader/male
> strong figure, love for the the land, etc.) started conversation with me
on
> "Hero" saying it was the most totalitarian film they saw in ages (one
said
> fascist, in the correct sense of the word). >>
>
> Sounds a bit like The Motorcycle Diaries, too.
>
> Mike Grost
> PS - With all the talk about female centered films, no one mentions
> Rosenstrasse. Its an interesting movie... And its non-violent politics are
the opposite
> of Communism or Fascism.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
18948
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 0:55am
Subject: Re: acting '04
I vote for the 105th duck that appears on the fourth take of Kiarostami's
Five. He looks to the camera and flips his wings in the most astonishing
performance this year, by far.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe Klinger"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 9:51 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] acting '04
Acting is a difficult category for me and I always come up short in
my lists of lead and supporting performers.
18949
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:14am
Subject: Re: Digital tools
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
"...This is why I take such heart in "The
Aviator" whose most important scen -- the plane crash
in Beverly Hills -- is real. Nothing on the screen
like it since '1941.' And in that film there's genuine
craft in the model and miniatures that CGI can't
approach. Same for 'One From the Heart.'"
I saw an Imageworks screening at the Academy for all the special
effects gods in Hollywood. The effects for THE AVIATOR were a
combination of in-camera miniatures, blue screen and CGI. The
Beverly Hillds plane crash was shot in part at the actual location.
The location co-ordinator got permission from the present owners of
the damaged houses to fly a mini-camera over their roofs, take shots
from the actual properties and arrange the FX-11 debris at the place
were it actually crashed.
Paul Legato said the effects budget was very tight so they relied on
in-camera effects and miniatures and forced perspective as much as
possible. The "Hell's Angels" sequence and the re-creation of two
color Technicolor had the most digital work. I got to tell the
effects co-ordinator that it was the best plane crash since FOREIGN
CORRESPONDENT and it seems that Scorcese wanted a FOREIGN
CORRESPONDENT look (also note how the camera goes through space into
the Chrysler building the way it does into the newspaper office at
the beginning of FT.)
18950
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:28am
Subject: Re: Re: Digital tools
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> I saw an Imageworks screening at the Academy for all
> the special
> effects gods in Hollywood. The effects for THE
> AVIATOR were a
> combination of in-camera miniatures, blue screen and
> CGI. The
> Beverly Hillds plane crash was shot in part at the
> actual location.
> The location co-ordinator got permission from the
> present owners of
> the damaged houses to fly a mini-camera over their
> roofs, take shots
> from the actual properties and arrange the FX-11
> debris at the place
> were it actually crashed.
>
Wellobviously there was SOMe CGI all thoriugh the
film. But this is the big set piece and we're actually
looking at something -- not nohting as in "Sky
Captain"
I got
> to tell the
> effects co-ordinator that it was the best plane
> crash since FOREIGN
> CORRESPONDENT and it seems that Scorcese wanted a
> FOREIGN
> CORRESPONDENT look (also note how the camera goes
> through space into
> the Chrysler building the way it does into the
> newspaper office at
> the beginning of FT.)
>
No surprise there as Marty knows "Foreign
Correspondent " like the back of his hand.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
18951
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:32am
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> I vote for the 105th duck that appears on the fourth take of
Kiarostami's
> Five. He looks to the camera and flips his wings in the most
astonishing
> performance this year, by far.
Ruy, were you *actually* counting the ducks? Because if I want to
get the nomination in we have to be precise.
I can see it now: Virginia Madsen and the duck, their pictures
next to one another in Variety, racing for the Oscar!
Incidentally, there is a great line by David Lynch about ducks, or
more specifically, the eye of the duck. I will try to dig it up.
But enough about ducks ! HELP ME OUT!
Gabe
18952
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:45am
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> I vote for the 105th duck that appears on the fourth take of
Kiarostami's
> Five. He looks to the camera and flips his wings in the most
astonishing
> performance this year, by far.
>
>
To each his own, but I thought Duck #97 had that "je ne sais
quoi." It's all subjective of course.
18953
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:52am
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> Julie Delpy conveyed her "ugliness" through speech (whereas
> Ethan Hawke only had to crack a creepy smile), and for this I
> think her performance in Before Sunset was a revelation.
What in the world does that mean? Conveyed her ugliness through
speech (even between quotes)?
18954
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:58am
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04
> But enough about ducks ! HELP ME OUT!
I don't keep good records on actors, and my taste in acting is eccentric,
but....
For some reason I thought Kitano was quite wonderful in ZATOICHI.
I'm with you on Chloe in THE BROWN BUNNY.
Maybe Taylor Mead should win something for COFFEE AND CIGARETTES, as a
sort of career award? I was also impressed with Benigni's shtick in that
film.
The lead actor in CRIMSON GOLD - a great performance.
I'm an Anne Hathaway fan too.
Kate Winslet in ETERNAL SUNSHINE was wonderfully good. I'd never
appreciated her before.
The father in Sokorov's FATHER AND SON was great.
If Marky Mark got an award for HUCKABEES, I wouldn't mind. I thought
Hoffman was pretty good too.
I didn't like Roger Michell's THE MOTHER, but the woman who played the
mother was good.
A big me-too on Moon in OASIS - she's better than CGI.
If you like this sort of low-key acting, both the guys in PRIMER were
pretty great.
RAJA is such a good movie for actors. Pascal Greggory is
especially wonderful in it.
The younger brother in THE RETURN was super-impressive.
TIME OF THE WOLF may not have been my favorite Huppert performance, but
all she has to do is show up and she gets a nomination from me. (Not in
HUCKABEES, though.)
Your choices for VERA were good, especially Ruth Sheen.
Laura Dern deserves some credit for bringing a little clarity to WE DON'T
LIVE HERE ANYMORE, but she was too handicapped to get an actual vote from
me.
Neve Campbell in WHEN WILL I BE LOVED.... In a way, you have to give
Toback a lot of the credit just for staring so hard at her. But she was
amazing. The Anna Karina of 2004.
Sophie Quinton in WHO KILLED BAMBI - definitely one of the performances of
the year. Laurent Lucas did a good job too.
- Dan
18955
From:
Date: Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:12pm
Subject: Re: acting '04
My votes:
So-ri Moon for Oasis
Jamie Bell for Undertow
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18956
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:18am
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
> wrote:
> > Julie Delpy conveyed her "ugliness" through speech
(whereas
> > Ethan Hawke only had to crack a creepy smile), and for this I
> > think her performance in Before Sunset was a revelation.
>
> What in the world does that mean? Conveyed her ugliness
through
> speech (even between quotes)?
I am at home with the flu -- cut me some slack.
I found both Hawke and Delpy kind of disturbing the second time
I saw the film (at hom on DVD), but Hawke mainly because he
has aged in such a bad way. Delpy because she seemed so
neurotic to me, wtih such a pretty surface. She manages to
express everything about her personality (or what it has become
since the last time we saw her) just through stories, just through
words.
And that's what I meant.
The staircase scene in Before Sunset is pretty good (to bring up
our old staircase thread). That's the point in the movie where I
just started crying.....
Thank you Dan for your annotations!
Gabe
18957
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:19am
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> My votes:
>
> So-ri Moon for Oasis
One more vote and she gets the a_film_by actress of the year
award!
Gabe
18958
From: J. Mabe
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:42am
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04
I agree about Mark Walhberg in Huckabees, and add
Kevin Dunn just for the way he handled "She said
Fuckabees."
Filmmaker's children: Ernie Gehr's son in Precarious
Garden, and Leslie Thornton's (I think) daughter in
End in New World
Charleen Swansea in Bright Leaves, the only character
in a documentary I've ever seen get a round of
applause when she appeared on screen.
Comedies: Irma P. Hall in Ladykillers, Ben Stiller in
Dodgeball, Will Ferrell and Steve Carell in Anchorman,
Mark McKinney in Saddest Music in the World.
Val Kilmer, Tia Texada, Ed O'Neil, and Clark Gregg in
my favorite narrative film of the year, Spartan.
and Peter Kubelka's performance when presenting Poetry
and Truth
-Josh Mabe
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > But enough about ducks ! HELP ME OUT!
>
> I don't keep good records on actors, and my taste in
> acting is eccentric,
> but....
>
> For some reason I thought Kitano was quite wonderful
> in ZATOICHI.
>
> I'm with you on Chloe in THE BROWN BUNNY.
>
> Maybe Taylor Mead should win something for COFFEE
> AND CIGARETTES, as a
> sort of career award? I was also impressed with
> Benigni's shtick in that
> film.
>
> The lead actor in CRIMSON GOLD - a great
> performance.
>
> I'm an Anne Hathaway fan too.
>
> Kate Winslet in ETERNAL SUNSHINE was wonderfully
> good. I'd never
> appreciated her before.
>
> The father in Sokorov's FATHER AND SON was great.
>
> If Marky Mark got an award for HUCKABEES, I wouldn't
> mind. I thought
> Hoffman was pretty good too.
>
> I didn't like Roger Michell's THE MOTHER, but the
> woman who played the
> mother was good.
>
> A big me-too on Moon in OASIS - she's better than
> CGI.
>
> If you like this sort of low-key acting, both the
> guys in PRIMER were
> pretty great.
>
> RAJA is such a good movie for actors. Pascal
> Greggory is
> especially wonderful in it.
>
> The younger brother in THE RETURN was
> super-impressive.
>
> TIME OF THE WOLF may not have been my favorite
> Huppert performance, but
> all she has to do is show up and she gets a
> nomination from me. (Not in
> HUCKABEES, though.)
>
> Your choices for VERA were good, especially Ruth
> Sheen.
>
> Laura Dern deserves some credit for bringing a
> little clarity to WE DON'T
> LIVE HERE ANYMORE, but she was too handicapped to
> get an actual vote from
> me.
>
> Neve Campbell in WHEN WILL I BE LOVED.... In a way,
> you have to give
> Toback a lot of the credit just for staring so hard
> at her. But she was
> amazing. The Anna Karina of 2004.
>
> Sophie Quinton in WHO KILLED BAMBI - definitely one
> of the performances of
> the year. Laurent Lucas did a good job too.
>
> - Dan
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
18959
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:42am
Subject: Re: Re: Digital tools
On Tuesday, December 14, 2004, at 06:35 PM, samfilms2003 wrote:
> Yes we do. Put a Zeiss superspeed prime lens on a S16 or 35mm Aaton,
> shoot Kodak's highspeed Vision 2 stock - absolutely you can do this.
>
> But you can do it with similar lenses & high end and HD video cameras
> too.
> The problem with making the lenses faster (a la Barry Lyndon) is that
> the
> depth of field is further reduced. You want the realism of the eye's
> range of focus, you can't shoot with f 0.7 lenses.
>
> But you can do what Kubrick Alcott did today with more finesse.
I guess I didn't think it was that easy -- indeed, it sounds like
you're still as handicapped with the depth-of-field as ever, and the
camera must essentially remain immobile. I long for the day when it's
me, a camera, and no-one else -- no arclights, no reflectors, nothing.
Ten minutes between discovering the lighting in such-and-such a place
is perfect, to having the camera set up and ready to film, just me and
the actors, no dawdlers or equipment on the periphery except a sound
recordist with his boom feeding into an iPod. --
"3e Royaume"
> OTOH Real world objects have been manipulated in one form
> or another in cinema since Melies...
But a real-world object manipulated is still a real-world object...
craig.
18960
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:02am
Subject: Re: acting '04
Gabe:
> One more vote and she gets the a_film_by actress of the year
> award!
I'd be happy to give her that vote.
--Zach
18961
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:08am
Subject: Re: acting '04
Most of my favorites have been mentioned, and I still have a lot
left to see, but Gaspar Ulliel's performance in STRAYED has stuck
with me.
--Zach
18962
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:40am
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
>
> Gabe:
> > One more vote and she gets the a_film_by actress of the
year
> > award!
>
> I'd be happy to give her that vote.
Great. Fred: Here's her picture:
http://www.cinefile.biz/oasis2.jpg
Put it on the a_film_by home page immediately!
Gabe
18963
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:09am
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> I am at home with the flu -- cut me some slack.
> Hope it's just a bad cold and you get better.
>
I found both Hawke and Delpy kind of disturbing the second time
> I saw the film (at hom on DVD), but Hawke mainly because he
> has aged in such a bad way. Delpy because she seemed so
> neurotic to me, wtih such a pretty surface. She manages to
> express everything about her personality (or what it has become
> since the last time we saw her) just through stories, just through
> words.
>
> And that's what I meant.
OK. But it's hard to tell whether you're talking about the actress
or the character, or perhaps it's both?
>
The staircase scene in Before Sunset is pretty good (to bring up
> our old staircase thread). That's the point in the movie where I
> just started crying.....
>
The staircase is so authentic it's enough to make a former
Parisian break into tears.
>
> Gabe
18964
From:
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 0:15am
Subject: Zach rocks
I was asked offlist the following (and I'm posting it to the list with the
asker's permission):
> Kevin, just curious why you didn't think Zach's posts on RUSHMORE were
> worth as much praise, or any at all.
>
To which I responded:
I'm gunna sound like Fred Camper here (definitely not a bad thing but a tad
counterintuitive for me) but I don't think Zach backed up his argument by
offering specific examples of the film's formal strategies the way Peter did. Not
that I require that. I'm staunchly opposed to the idea that formal strategies
are a sort of last instance in determining a film's value. But I think Zach
and I were arguing thematics and I feel I have those down pretty well in
relation to RUSHMORE. Pete, by contrast, was arguing something about form and I'm
definitely not as certain about the film's formal startegies. His post made me
want to look at the film EVEN MORE meaning that Zach had already planted that
desire. And I said as much to the list at least twice. Zach is whip-smart and
his posts will get me to look at RUSHMORE again soon. That's praise, no?
Should I post this to the list?
Kevin
A couple of further points. For the record, I haven't made up my mind about
RUSHMORE. I thought that was clear when I said I would watch it again (BEFORE
Peter Henne's post). Second, Zach, I suggested that you read OR RE-READ the
Mulvey. Thus, I made a provision for the fact that you had already read it. I've
read it countless times myself and always re-read it, especially if I'm going
to teach it. Third, Peter Henne and I DON'T agree on RUSHMORE (as of now) so I
didn't praise his post for that reason. Finally, I don't think Peter posted
about RUSHMORE to help Zach; I think he posted about it simply because he had
something insightful to say.
In short, Zach rocks and I will watch RUSHMORE again IN PART because of his
own insightful posts on it.
xo,
Kevin
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18965
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:31am
Subject: Fernando Poe, Jr. is dead
Don't know if anyone of you has even heard of him, but still...
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?
type=worldNews&storyID=638058
Fernando Poe Jr. had an amazing career--200 films in 54 years (he
made a film only last year), about three years longer than John
Wayne.
Some of his films--Celso Ad. Castillo's "Asedillo," Eddie
Romero's "Aguila," Eddie Romero and Gerardo De Leon's "Intramuros:
the Walls of Hell"--are worth watching.
18966
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:38am
Subject: Re: Fernando Poe, Jr. is dead
Damned yahoo links.
Here, try this:
http://journals.aol.com/noelbotevera/MyJournal/entries/623
18967
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:17am
Subject: OASIS
I've been telling many about OASIS since I saw it a few years ago at
Palm Springs; I almost purchased the KOREAN version to pass on to
others but thought it might be better to wait. I agree with the
comments on the female lead; and fellows, the male lead is good, too.
18968
From:
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:48am
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04
If Dan Sallitt's "All the Ships at Sea" counts as a '04 release, his two
leads - Edith Meeks and Strawn Bovee - impressed me as much as any performers on
screen this year. I also liked Justine Waddell in Peter Bogdanovich's "The
Mystery of Natalie Wood," Isabelle Huppert in Michael Haneke's "The Time of the
Wolf," Bryce Dallas Howard in M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village," for starters.
If there was an a_film_by award for ensemble acting, I'd give it to the cast
of Jim Jarmusch's "Coffee and Cigarettes," though Alfred Molina and Steve
Coogan stand out for me (as does the vignette they appear in.)
I think I might have a hard time separating "a good performance" from the
film itself, as every one of the aforementioned pictures is on my current ten
best list.
Peter
18969
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:31am
Subject: Léaud in Brazil - query
Can any of our Brazilian members verify this, from IMDB, about Jean-Pierre
Léaud?
"In 1968, during the military dictatorship government in Brazil, as seen in
the documentary "Barra 68 - Sem Perder a Ternura" (2001), Jean-Pierre Léaud,
who was a political militant too, made a speech for hundreds of students at
Brasilia University, in the capital of Brazil."
Has anyone seen this doco?
Adrian
18970
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 0:56pm
Subject: Re: OASIS
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> I've been telling many about OASIS since I saw it a few years ago at
> Palm Springs; I almost purchased the KOREAN version to pass on to
> others but thought it might be better to wait. I agree with the
> comments on the female lead; and fellows, the male lead is good, too.
I concur with the recommendations of both MOON So-ri -- and SOL
Kyung-gu (who played the male lead). What one sees from SolOL is pure
performance, indeed I did not even recognize him the first time I
watched the film, so thorough was his immersion in his role. His
portrayal of an indicidual with an autistic spectrum disorder is just
as eerily authentic as Moon's depiction of an individual with cerebral
palsy.
Sol's filmography:
http://www.koreanfilm.org/actors.html#sulkg
Michael Kerpan
18971
From: samfilms2003
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:20pm
Subject: Re: Digital tools
> camera must essentially remain immobile.
Not neccesarily...
>I long for the day when it's
> me, a camera, and no-one else -- no arclights, no reflectors, nothing.
> Ten minutes between discovering the lighting in such-and-such a place
> is perfect, to having the camera set up and ready to film, just me and
> the actors, no dawdlers or equipment on the periphery except a sound
> recordist with his boom feeding into an iPod. --
See "All The Vermeers in New York" (Jon Jost) for instance.
> I guess I didn't think it was that easy -- indeed, it sounds like
> you're still as handicapped with the depth-of-field as ever, and the
Those pesky Laws of physics ;-)
Really, though, I'm finding that the extended dynamic range of
new Kodak films stocks altho wonderful for naturalism (even if
"the industry" is not so interested in giving up what I call the 'ten ton grip
truck' mentality' actually can have *too much* range.. i.e. would we
always WANT a film (or CCD/ CMOS imager) that approaches capturing the
brightness range of the human eye ? (in truth we're not quite 'there'
yet.
The art is sometimes in the equivalancies, pace Stan Brakhage....
(Then again, one would love to film Stella by starlight so to speak ;-)
-Sam Wells
18972
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, objects in films)
Gabe Klinger wrote:
> Great. Fred: Here's her picture:
>
> http://www.cinefile.biz/oasis2.jpg
>
> Put it on the a_film_by home page immediately!
It's nice to see the auteurist playfulness of this thread, in including
inanimate objects, Peter Kubelka lecturing, et cetera, as acting
eesnomin. I take Gabe's command to be playful -- no one really expects
me, of all people, to replace Brakhage strips with a woman's picture, right?
Sirk would be a particularly great director for giving acting awards to
objects, or to actors who don't really "act": several dolls in "There's
Always Tomorrow," the boy on the horse in "Written on the Wind," the
fire hydrant in "Imitation of Life," the death mask or the coffin
emerging from the tent in "The Tarnished Angels."
This would be '03 rather than '04, by coincidentally I just saw de
Oliveira's "A Talking Picture" last night, which at least until the
appearance of that *actor* John Malkovich I found incredibly great and
deeply moving -- I'm not sure about the whole second half, though I'm
prepared to discover its greatness too. The obvious nominee in the first
half is the little girl, but I'd go for the less obvious ones of the
pyramid in the background of one scene (not sure which pyramid it is,
sorry,) or even one of the Suez Canal paintings he cuts to.
There's a serious point here, which perhaps everyone understands as so
obvious that it doesn't need articulating, which is that in a great film
a cut to an object, or the placement of an object in a scene, can have
the same affective effect as an actor's performance.
Fred Camper
18973
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, objects in films)
--- Fred Camper wrote:
>
> Sirk would be a particularly great director for
> giving acting awards to
> objects, or to actors who don't really "act":
> several dolls in "There's
> Always Tomorrow," the boy on the horse in "Written
> on the Wind," the
> fire hydrant in "Imitation of Life," the death mask
> or the coffin
> emerging from the tent in "The Tarnished Angels."
>
And then there's "Shockproof," around which Richard
Hamilton produced a series of memorable paintings.
It's referecned in my "Desert Fury" piece.
> I just saw de
> Oliveira's "A Talking Picture" last night, which at
> least until the
> appearance of that *actor* John Malkovich I found
> incredibly great and
> deeply moving
What's with the Malkovich-dissing in here? First Bill
Krohn, now you. I love his creepiness and greatly look
forward to his playing Brooks Bakeland in "Savage Grace."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
18974
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:27pm
Subject: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, objects in films)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>>
> And then there's "Shockproof," around which Richard
> Hamilton produced a series of memorable paintings.
> It's referecned in my "Desert Fury" piece.
David, I was able to read the whole -- almost -- of
your "Desert Fury" piece on Amazon and it's really great.
Unfortunately I couldn't get the footnotes. I'm curious about your
reference to Barbara Deming's discussion of the film. It's not in
her book "Running Away from Myself" -- which i greatly admire --and
as far as I can remember (I just glanced at a few pages of the book)
she didn't use the term "film noir". She seems to have been a
remarkable person. And the book (published in 1969 but apparently
started in the early fifties)) is one of the very best things
written about forties Hollywood films (and especially film noir even
though she doesn't use the term).
JPC
18975
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, objects in films)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
I'm
> curious about your
> reference to Barbara Deming's discussion of the
> film. It's not in
> her book "Running Away from Myself" -- which i
> greatly admire --and
> as far as I can remember (I just glanced at a few
> pages of the book)
> she didn't use the term "film noir".
She didn't mention "Desert Fury." I was quoting her
remarks about the films we have come to know today as
"film noir." She doesn't use that term.
She seems to
> have been a
> remarkable person.
She was a left-wing political activist.
And the book (published in 1969
> but apparently
> started in the early fifties)) is one of the very
> best things
> written about forties Hollywood films
Indeed. I plug it every chance I get.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
18976
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, objects in films)
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> ...What's with the Malkovich-dissing in here? ...
He annoys me a bit, but so what, anything can "work." It was the film's
shift in style and tone that confused me, so I have to reserve judgment
on the second half; I was just having a little fun with Malkovich's
obnoxiousness.
Fred Camper
18977
From: Travis Miles
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04
What about these extraordinary performances:
Mathieu Amalric in Kings and Queen
Zhao Tao in The World
Min-sik Choi in Old Boy
Laurent Soffiati "Johnny Goth" in No Rest for the Brave
Jon Heder and Aaron Ruell in Napoleon Dynamite
Nao Omori in Vibrator
All the boys in 15, especially "Armani"
Poker face Godard in Notre Musique
Aaron Kwok "Fight Me!" in Throw Down
18978
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:55pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04
> What about these extraordinary performances:
>
> Nao Omori in Vibrator
She was great. I was listing only performances in films that had played
theatrically for a week in NYC this year. If we're going outside that,
the triple agent in TRIPLE AGENT definitely deserves mention. - Dan
18979
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:47pm
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Maybe Taylor Mead should win something for COFFEE AND CIGARETTES, as a
> sort of career award? I was also impressed with Benigni's shtick in
that
> film.
I would like to point out that Taylor Mead performs the weekly "Taylor
Mead Show, Starring Taylor Mead" at New York's Bowery Poetry Club on
Fridays at 6:30, during happy hour. It's quite an act.
http://www.bowerypoetry.com
18980
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:49pm
Subject: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, objects in films)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> What's with the Malkovich-dissing in here? First Bill
> Krohn, now you. I love his creepiness and greatly look
> forward to his playing Brooks Bakeland in "Savage Grace."
I thought all the acting in "A Talking Picture" was off-putting.
Leonor Silveira is flat, as if reading the history lectures she gives
off cue cards. She has no convincing interaction with her child. John
Malkovich is annoyingly unctuous. Deneuve, Sandrelli, and Papas appear
fake and shallow. But it does not seem to have been the director's
intention to make the characters so charmless.
Malkovich's character is written as obsequious, and Malkovich plays to
that. The Time Out review describes it: "Everybody insists that Walese
(Malokovich) is incredibly noble, but you assume it's a misdirection,
since Malkovich musters all the charm of a satyr with a toothache...
Does the captain insinuate himself into Rosa Maria's life for some
evil purpose? Um, no. He really is supposed to be noble, and it's not
a MacGuffin--just a really, really ill-conceived performance by the
unctuous Malkovich." However, the fault may lie with Oliveira, since
Malkovich seems to be playing the character as written. Perhaps some
critique is intended by portraying these representatives of Western
civilization and avatars of Oliveira's ideas as so shallow, but I
didn't see it.
Oliveira's response is that he didn't direct the actors at all -- and
in fact the actors do seem undirected.
Question: A while ago you were accused of badly directing the actors.
What do you say to that?
Oliveira: It's impossible because I don't direct them. I
promote spontaneous performances. The actors are the salt of a film.
They give a body and a voice to the characters and make up the
strength of the film. And this is the reason why the most difficult
part of making a film is choosing the actors. Once I've done the
casting I'm much more relaxed. Unfortunately if there's any
credit given, it usually goes to the director.
18981
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:56pm
Subject: Re: OASIS
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
> I concur with the recommendations of both MOON So-ri -- and SOL
> Kyung-gu (who played the male lead).
Me, too! (I'm probably too late to help Gabe, but I've been pushing
this film for well over a year now). MOON So-ri is also great in A
GOOD LAWYER'S WIFE, where she plays a sort of Mrs. Robinson.
Brad Bird's voicing of the Edith Head-like designer is hilarious
in THE INCREDIBLES and re-energizes the film just when it needs it.
Another vote for Tadanobu Asano, but as the displaced Japanese in
LAST LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.
It's fashionable to knock Jude Law for overexposure, but he has
by far the hardest role in I HEART HUCKABEES, and I think he really
put it across with variety and wit.
Jean-Pierre Darroussin's long-take scene of multiple telephone
calls in FEUX ROUGES is unforgettable tightrope-walking acting.
Eric Bana as Hector in TROY was the only cast member who evoked the
nobility of the ancient classic.
Not only Mathieu Amalric but also Emanuelle Devos in ROIS ET REINE.
How about Robert McNamara in THE FOG OF WAR?
--Robert Keser
18982
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:57pm
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > But enough about ducks ! HELP ME OUT!
.
>
> I'm with you on Chloe in THE BROWN BUNNY.
Don't you mean, "I'm 'down with' Chloe Seigny in THE BROWN BUNNY"?
I'm vile. I take it back. She IS great. God forgive me etc.
18983
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04
>> What about these extraordinary performances:
>>
>> Nao Omori in Vibrator
>
> She was great.
Oops. I am informed that Nao Omori was the truck driver in the
film, and that Shinobu Terajima was the woman. I liked him too, but I
thought she had the more challenging role. - Dan
18984
From: acquarello2000
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:15pm
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger" wrote:
> In the meantime, I look forward to any opinions on performances
> for the year.
The Cinemarati process is finally underway, and I've been lobbying for
these candidates. At this point, I suspect that only Moon So-ri *may*
survive the first cut:
Best Actor
Mathieu Amalric for KINGS AND QUEEN
Sami Bouajila for PLAYING "IN THE COMPANY OF MEN"
Tadanobu Asano for LAST LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE
Nao Omori for VIBRATOR
Min-sik Choi for OLDBOY
Eol Lee for SAMARIA
Best Actress
Emmanuelle Beart for THE STORY OF MARIE AND JULIEN
Nathalie Baye for LES SENTIMENTS
Liv Ullman for SARABAND
Fatoumata Coulibaly for MOOLAADÉ
Zhao Tao for THE WORLD
Moon So-ri for OASIS
acquarello
18985
From: Peter Henne
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, objects in films)
It is exactly the director's intention to make the characters charmless in this sense. The flatness is not dissimilar to Bresson's and Straub/Huillet's, though de Oliveira's actors speak lines in a way which reminds me of the way Moreau reads back Mastroianni's letter at the end of "La Notte." There are inevitably personal inflections but the speaker addresses the listener as though it is hopeless to sway the person listening. De Oliveira is one of those filmmakers who will go to great lengths not to nudge the audience to believe a performance or stated opinion at face value. There is an excellent essay on de Oliveira at senseofcinema.com which you may find good reading. I was very disappointed by "A Talking Picture" because I thought the ending played into the hands of the American right, even though de Oliveira arrived at his position by a different route. Maybe I didn't get it; I hope I didn't.
Peter Henne
Paul Gallagher wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
I thought all the acting in "A Talking Picture" was off-putting.
Leonor Silveira is flat, as if reading the history lectures she gives
off cue cards. She has no convincing interaction with her child. John
Malkovich is annoyingly unctuous. Deneuve, Sandrelli, and Papas appear
fake and shallow. But it does not seem to have been the director's
intention to make the characters so charmless.
Oliveira's response is that he didn't direct the actors at all -- and
in fact the actors do seem undirected.
Question: A while ago you were accused of badly directing the actors.
What do you say to that?
Oliveira: It's impossible because I don't direct them. I
promote spontaneous performances. The actors are the salt of a film.
They give a body and a voice to the characters and make up the
strength of the film. And this is the reason why the most difficult
part of making a film is choosing the actors. Once I've done the
casting I'm much more relaxed. Unfortunately if there's any
credit given, it usually goes to the director.
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 holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18986
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:04pm
Subject: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, objects in films)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
> I was very disappointed by "A Talking Picture" because I thought the
>ending played into the hands of the American right, even though de >
>Oliveira arrived at his position by a different route. Maybe I didn't
> get it; I hope I didn't.
>
> Peter Henne
My impression is that he arrives at his position by the same route as
much of the American right. I recommend this article, which addresses
Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" thesis, but could just as
well be addressed to Oliveira's film.
http://www.counterpunch.org/alampeddle.html
Oliveira in addition seems to be asserting that this (reified) Western
Civilization lacks the will to defend itself and is fundamentally
threatened by Islam, which is motivated by envy of Western progress.
These are beliefs commonly held by neo-conservatives.
I'll also dispute these lines:
"But what I find most curious is the case of the Arabs who, having
spread Greek culture in Europe and beyond, were the ones to destroy
it, burning all the books in the blindness of their religious
fervour…However, the Arabs also founded a great culture. Now it is
decadent. What haunts the Arab world nowadays is the development of
the West with its many technical advances and scientific progress."
I wonder if Oliveira is thinking of the claim that the Arab general
Amr Ibn-al-As burned the library of Alexandria under orders from
Caliph 'Umar in 642. This is often repeated in anti-Muslim literature,
but it likely never happened. It was never mentioned until six
centuries later, and the account is inconsistent with what is known:
the authority of the Caliphate was weak, 'Amr did not take orders from
'Umar, and Alexandria was taken peacefully, not in battle. Also, if
Arab armies had destroyed the library, histories written by Christians
likely would have mentioned it.
The previous library at Alexandria was destroyed by Christians under
the influence by Patriarch Theophilus in 390. One could make a better
argument that the Christian West destroyed "[Greek culture], burning
all the books in the blindness of their religious fervour." However,
one can't reduce Christianity or the West to a single event; neither
should Islam be reduced to a single event.
Paul
18987
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, politics and films)
Paul Gallagher wrote:
> My impression is that he arrives at his position by the same route as
> much of the American right....
The ending may play to the right, as Peter Henne says, via the exclusion
of the causes of Islamic terrorism, but Islamic terrorism is also a
fact, not some right-wing fantasy. Al Quad has been trying to acquire
nuclear weapons since 1996, and the plan is to use one or more on
American cities, which would be a hell of a lot worse than blowing up a
cruise ship, or even, dare I say, than Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq.
It's also the case that our Great Leader "W" is unwittingly (or perhaps
more appropriately dimwittedly) helping the terrorists by serving as
their chief recruiter, starting wars, invading and (incompetently)
occupying Islamic countries, reappointing the Defense Secretary who sat
on those Abu Gharib porn pics for months without investigating them or
changing anything until they became public. But none of that justifies
Al Qaeda's goals.
What would you have had de Oliveira do, then? Include material
condemning the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (which of course should be
condemned), recently cited by bin Laden as one of his casus belli? Why
not then critique every WWII pic for not including the Japanese point of
view, the history of U.S. imperialism in Asia before 1933, or Germany's
legitimate gripes against the Versailles reparations, and so on? All
these things *should* be critiqued, of course, but as a cause for
disliking Walsh's "Objective Burma," I don't think so, though you might
want to use your splicer to lop of its final wartime title about the
"evil forces of Japan."
Did I miss something in the mother's explanation of Islam to her
daughter in "A Talking Picture"? I don't remember any biases or
anti-Islamic feelings expressed there, bur rather that Islam was
discussed as sensitively and objectively as everything else. Mom
explains that lots of people get killed on and by all sides in wars. Yet
it seems to me that's where anti-Islamic biases should have been
expressed if de Oliveira were really doing a "clash of civilizations" movie.
The ending of the film reminded me of von Kleist's great short story,
"The Earthquake in Peru," in which the narrative is utterly disrupted by
an unexplainable and unpredictable cataclysm (hint: the title gives away
what that cataclysm is). Sure, de Oliveira's introduction of
"terrorists" (who are by the way not identified as to religion or sect
or cause, right?) can be read to some extent in the way that's being
suggested by Peter, but I think you're both way overdoing it.
If you reject this film as a film these grounds, what are you going to
do with "Alexander Nevsky."
The core of what I loved so much in "A Talking Picture," not discussed
in the few reviews I've read so far, is that it's a mother-daughter love
story (how many of those are there in great films?) that places love in
the context of teaching and learning and culture and history,
interweaving all (even rarer). The effect of the mother-daughter
dialogues set against de Oliveira's dreamy backdrops (which in their way
reminded me of the actually artificial backdrops in "The Satin Slipper,"
which is why the insertion of the paintings of the Nile also seemed so
important -- all of civilization is seen as an artificial construct and
thus subject to easy obliteration, a truth we too often forget), was,
for me, unbelievably moving.
If I rejected every film whose politics I disagreed with my canon
cupboard would be pretty bare, especially since I believe that history
will someday record the unecessary-for-basic-living way that Americans
use automobiles, almost totally unquestioned in American films, as one
of our civilization's greatest and most destructive crimes against our
planet's (and our children's) ecological future, one which also turns
out to cause crimes against the peoples of the Middle East to secure oil
(surely the CIA coup that overthrew democracy and installed the Shah's
dictatorship in Iran in the early 50s was one clear example), crimes
that then blow back to us (and much of the rest of the world) in the
terrorists' own evil mass murders.
Don't drive to your next political meeting -- ride your bike! Gandhi's
"Be the change you want to see in the world" is generally harder to
bring off than writing critiques and condemnations.
Fred Camper
18988
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:41pm
Subject: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, politics and films)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Paul Gallagher wrote:
Why
> not then critique every WWII pic for not including the Japanese point of
> view, the history of U.S. imperialism in Asia before 1933, or Germany's
> legitimate gripes against the Versailles reparations, and so on? All
> these things *should* be critiqued, of course, but as a cause for
> disliking Walsh's "Objective Burma," I don't think so, though you might
> want to use your splicer to lop of its final wartime title about the
> "evil forces of Japan."
I think Walsh took at least some of the curse off the racism of the script (by two
Communist writers) with a little editing trick he pulled. I'll e-mail my detailed
comments later from home.
I also think Bush was complicit in 9/11.
18989
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 0:05am
Subject: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, politics and films)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> > Paul Gallagher wrote:
>
> Why
> > not then critique every WWII pic for not including the Japanese
point of
> > view, the history of U.S. imperialism in Asia before 1933, or
Germany's
> > legitimate gripes against the Versailles reparations, and so on?
> I also think Bush was complicit in 9/11.
This was probably make a better subject for Oliver Stone than
ALEXANDER. Maybe, a veiled allegory on the lines of Gore Vidal's
reading of Pearl Harbor in GOLDEN AGE (2000) following the arguments
expressed in DAY OF DECEIT (1995)?
But these are "patriotic" times and "The President is not a liar"
as Burt Lancaster's General Dell says in TWILIGHT'S LAST GLEAMING.
However, as I grade my Peckinpah papers I note that many students
have become fascinated by THE OSTERMAN WEEKEND's relevance to their
own times. All 18 students had never seen the film before and were
as excited as those seeing F FOR FAKE in my Welles class also for
the first time.
Tony Williams
18990
From:
Date: Wed Dec 15, 2004 7:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, politics and films)
Fred Camper wrote:
>[...] Americans
>use automobiles, almost totally unquestioned in American films [...]
Almost totally unquestioned except in one of the greatest of all American
films: "The Magnificent Ambersons"! Welles found in the ascent of the automobile
a perfect metaphor for the destruction of innocence he wanted to portray.
One can only imagine how much more profoundly this would have come across - and
it already comes across awfully profoundly - had his original cut survived.
Peter
18992
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 0:36am
Subject: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, politics and films)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Fred Camper wrote:
>
> >[...] Americans
> >use automobiles, almost totally unquestioned in American films
[...]
>
> Almost totally unquestioned except in one of the greatest of all
American
> films: "The Magnificent Ambersons"! Welles found in the ascent of
the automobile
> a perfect metaphor for the destruction of innocence he wanted to
portray.
>> Peter
Also, let us not forget Sam Peckinpah. In THE WILD BUNCH, Mapache's
automobile is used to drag Angel's tortured body and another one
finishes off Jason Robards's "American Adam" in THE BALLAD OF CABLE
HOGUE.
Tony Williams
18993
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:48am
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Travis Miles wrote:
> What about these extraordinary performances:
>
> Min-sik Choi in Old Boy
Dae-su, Dae-su, everyone's crazy about Dae-su (or will be, when the film finally hits
the States like a Mack truck). I actually think Yu Ji-tae had the more difficult role of
taking a total psychopath and actually making you feel sorry for him at the end (while
still being scared shitless of what he'll do next)
> Nao Omori in Vibrator
What about Shinobu Terajima?
> All the boys in 15, especially "Armani"
Yes!
> Aaron Kwok "Fight Me!" in Throw Down
especially considering that the guy normally can't act worth a lick. Which makes me
admire Johnny To all the more -- To, like Michael Mann (whom he's often compared
unfavorably to) is commonly regarded as a stylist/action choreographer but he
consistently gets great performances, so it's no fluke. but my favorite performance in
that film was Cherrie Ying as the living embodiment of irrepressibility. Louis Koo and
and Jordan Chan (the mumbling gang leader) were also great.
18994
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:52am
Subject: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, objects in films)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
I take Gabe's command to be playful -- no one really expects
> me, of all people, to replace Brakhage strips with a woman's picture, right?
>
But that's no mere woman. That's Moon So-freakin'-Ri! It's not like he's asking you to
put up Kate Beckinsale or Jennifer Lopez.
How about we compromise with a Brakhage strip of a woman's picture?
18995
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:07am
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger" wrote:
I have a list back in my office, but in the meantime...
>
> In Lee Chang-dong's Oasis, So-ri Moon, who is poised to be an
> international star, is masterful as a handicapped woman who
> the main character (also handicapped) occasionally imagines
> as a flawless beauty.
Actually, I think those flawless beauty moments are a projection of her own fantasy,
not his.
It's nice to see the enthusiasm for Moon and the film, but I'd actually like to offer a
modest voice of skepticism. She's a great actress without question, but in this role I
felt there was not a small measure of ostentatiousness in the Meryl Streep vein, where
the actor paradoxically makes the viewer aware that their acting is supposed to be
self-effacing. The best way I could rationalize her acting was that it was
purposely pushing my buttons as to what I could accept as authentic human behavior
in a person cerebral palsy, and my reluctance paralleled that of the family members.
In this way, acting serves an active social critique. I'd rather vote for Moon's
performance in A GOOD LAWYER'S WIFE, if only because I've rarely seen a screen
actress so comfortable with her nudity.
But the true master of this "actor as social critic" technique is the other lead of the
film, Sol Kyung-gu. In this film as well as PEPPERMINT CANDY, he seems to go deep
inside himself and extract a monster in the classic sense of the word, a being that
simply cannot exist in society because he cannot function within the governing set of
rules. And unlike with Moon, I feel Sol is totally burrowed in his character like a good
little termite artist -- you don't feel like he's acting which makes his behavior all the
more unnerving and compelling. He may be the closest thing we have to '50s Brando.
So he has my vote for best male performance among films released in the US this
year.
18996
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:13am
Subject: Re: acting '04
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> For some reason I thought Kitano was quite wonderful in ZATOICHI.
You're right, he was -- his performance is an active critique of his predecessors, not
just Zatoichi but all onscreen Samurai (including Tarantino's, avant lettre).
> The lead actor in CRIMSON GOLD - a great performance.
Does that really count as a performance? I mean he really was schizo.
> Kate Winslet in ETERNAL SUNSHINE was wonderfully good. I'd never
> appreciated her before.
ditto!
>
> If you like this sort of low-key acting, both the guys in PRIMER were
> pretty great.
I finally saw this today, on the recommendation by you and Mike and anyone else who
praised it here. I nominate this film for the 2004 Manny Farber award for Termite
filmmaking of the year.
>
> RAJA is such a good movie for actors. Pascal Greggory is
> especially wonderful in it.
Yes!
>
> The younger brother in THE RETURN was super-impressive.
>
Yes!
I can also think of Andy Lau and Tony Leung in INFERNAL AFFAIRS I and III. More to
come...
18997
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:17am
Subject: A Talking Picture, politics and films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> The ending may play to the right, as Peter Henne says, via the
exclusion
> of the causes of Islamic terrorism, but Islamic terrorism is also a
> fact, not some right-wing fantasy.
Fred later mentions the recent bin Laden tape, which I advise to read
in toto. It's total garbage, absolute nihilism, somewhat
misrepresented by the excerpts.
I don't know what to think of A TALKING PICTURE, especially in regards
to the Malkovich bifurcation, but the moment that struck me
(SPOILERS!) was just before the end, when the mother realizes that the
daughter is not with her, and returns to the cabin. We see the same
sequence of shots forward, backward, then forward again (I think,
maybe it's just twice). De Oliveira takes us back to the "Rescued by
Rover"-and-ilk movies, in between the cinema of attractions and
Griffith, which coincidentally locates us quite close to de Oliveira's
own birthday (1908). And is the ending not supposed to make us think
of the sinking of the Titanic only a few years later? The title (A
TALKING PICTURE) is a pun at different levels, and, I think, at least
to some degree a pun about de Oliveira himself: i.e. the only working
director who started working in the silent era.
PWC
18998
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:29am
Subject: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, politics and films)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Paul Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> > My impression is that he arrives at his position by the same
route as
> > much of the American right....
>
> The ending may play to the right, as Peter Henne says, via the
exclusion
> of the causes of Islamic terrorism, but Islamic terrorism is also
a
> fact, not some right-wing fantasy.
If I can throw another perspective on this into the discussion: my
friend and sometimes collaborator Mehrnaz Saeed-Vafa, an Iranian
filmmaker-teacher-writer and in some ways the most passionate De
Oliveira fan I know, was greatly bothered by A TALKING PICTURE--but
not at all by the terrorists at the end of the film, if I remember
her comments correctly. For her, the treatment of civilization and
its roots as something existing north but not south of the
Mediterranean, at least not in the same way, is what she found
disturbing, leading her to conclude that she wished De Oliveira
hadn't addressed this subject....I haven't seen the film for over a
year, so I can't comment on how just or unjust her criticism is,
though it seemed to make sense to me at the time--despite the fact
that her objections hadn't occurred to me when I originally saw the
film.
One hilarious aspect of Malkovich, by the way, as an embodiment of
America at the end of the film is his absolute readiness, as
captain, to desert a sinking ship.
18999
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:33am
Subject: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, politics and films)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Paul Gallagher wrote:
> Did I miss something in the mother's explanation of Islam to her
> daughter in "A Talking Picture"? I don't remember any biases or
> anti-Islamic feelings expressed there, bur rather that Islam was
> discussed as sensitively and objectively as everything else. Mom
> explains that lots of people get killed on and by all sides in wars.
Yet
> it seems to me that's where anti-Islamic biases should have been
> expressed if de Oliveira were really doing a "clash of
civilizations" movie.
Apart from whether the film is anti-Islam, it could still be a "clash
of civilizations" movie. However, I suspect we disagree not so much on
what Oliveira's ideas are, as on our evaluation of them.
I'm skeptical of generalities about civilizations. For example, here
are some interpretations of the film from the sensesofcinema.com
essay. "It is not, surprising, therefore, that in this reprisal of the
Trojan War, the East is winning." "If action still exists anywhere in
the world, it is no longer in the West." These seem to be valid
interpretations of the film, but I don't see merit in the ideas
expressed.
> The core of what I loved so much in "A Talking Picture," not
discussed
> in the few reviews I've read so far, is that it's a mother-daughter
love
> story (how many of those are there in great films?) that places
love in
> the context of teaching and learning and culture and history,
> interweaving all (even rarer).
Leonor Silveira doesn't seem to be interacting with her daughter. In
fact, if we construct a backstory for these characters, she doesn't
seem to have given her daughter any instruction prior to the film,
since her daughter doesn't seem to know about history (except that
Portugal lost its colonies in 1975). The lectures aren't appropriate
to her daughter's age and background knowledge. It seems, instead,
that Silveira is speaking to the audience, and her daughter is a
dramatic device to provoke these speeches.
When they visit Naples and Pompeii, I thought of "Voyage to Italy,"
which emphasized that something was lacking in "A Talking Picture."
> The effect of the mother-daughter
> dialogues set against de Oliveira's dreamy backdrops (which in their
way
> reminded me of the actually artificial backdrops in "The Satin
Slipper,"
> which is why the insertion of the paintings of the Nile also seemed
so
> important -- all of civilization is seen as an artificial construct
and
> thus subject to easy obliteration, a truth we too often forget),
was,
> for me, unbelievably moving.
Well, I don't see civilization as so fragile. It's not clear what is
claimed to under threat. Western civilization? Terrorists would have
difficulty even accomplishing what's shown in the film.
I suppose one could contrast the film with a conservative text, such
as Oriana Fallaci's http://www.autentico.org/oa09646.php
and emphasize the differences as well as the similarities. I note the
similar emphasis on the EU, national identity, and language. But
there's a great difference in tone.
Paul
19000
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Thu Dec 16, 2004 2:49am
Subject: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, politics and films)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
>
> her comments correctly. For her, the treatment of civilization and
> its roots as something existing north but not south of the
> Mediterranean, at least not in the same way, is what she found
> disturbing, leading her to conclude that she wished De Oliveira
> hadn't addressed this subject
Where would the ship go? Carthage? Tunis? Tripolis? There is Augustine
in North Africa, where exactly I can't remember. However, the main
problem with this critique is that the film goes to the Pyramids, in
Cairo, which is on the south side of the Mediterranean. The film is a
journey back to barbarism, not geographically but temporally. By
hazard, this coincides with the geographical locations visited in the
film, but isn't a comment on the character of the present lands
themselves.
PWC
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact