Posts from the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact

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.

19101

From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:14pm
Subject: Re: Ford and Oliveira (was/still is: A Talking Picture, politics and films)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, programming
wrote:
> On 12/17/04 12:46 PM, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> > I regret not being able to see A Silent Film, because of my Sacred Oath
>
> Bill,
>
> If you have the chance to see A TALKING PICTURE and if your vow not to
see
> any Malkovich films is irrevokable, do yourself the favor of going anyway
> and watching the first half (you can plug your ears and run when you first
> spot the evil M). It's worth it.
>
> Patrick F.
>
OK - I'll try it when it comes out on DVD.
19102

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:19pm
Subject: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

Lots of SPOLIERS for THE BIG HEAT:

> Re; Totalitarian structure in Big Heat - The way Graham dies to bring
> down the big heat while keeping Ford's hands clean has always struck me
> as deliberately unsettling. She is a scapegoat, but Lang's use of
> scapegoats (cf. the death of the ALWAYS designed to make the audience
> uneasy about the ritual.

It's rather odd, isn't it, that Grahame acts as Ford's conscience on the
matter of killing the cop's blackmailing wife - "If you could do that,
you'd be no better than they are" - but then does the job for him,
specifically because he wants it done. It's halfway between two
conventions, and not a good marriage of conventions, I wouldn't say.
(Carl Franklin's DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS handled this situation more
thoughtfully, as I recall, with Don Cheadle's evil-on-the-side-of-good
character performing the murderous act of revenge that hero Denzel
Washington is not permitted.)

Her subsequent death is overdetermined: she's become a killer and owes a
debt to Hollywood codes; she's disfigured, and must die by an ancient law
of drama that does not permit the permanently damaged to survive; and her
survival would pair her with Glenn Ford, an unacceptable match for various
reasons. So she's a goner, and as long as she has to cash in, she might
as well take her own revenge on Lee Marvin first.... - Dan
19103

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rushmore (Was: Wes Anderson's New Film)

> re the switcheroo: I repeat, what about Nutty Professor?

It's been too long for me to comment on it... - Dan
19104

From: Travis Miles
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Columbia DVD + Malick

Am I the only one who finds this kind of thing absolutely delicious? I
wouldn't mind if all my favorite films were re-packaged to look like horrid,
USA Up All Night/Jeff Fahey vehicles, the more incongruous the better. I
mean, this packaging is grotesque, and is at least not boring. I don't
expect any support here, but for many of my generation, the pleasures of
half-assed design are not indistinct from the pleasures of "vulgar
modernism." Expect soon my essay, "The Perfect Filmic Appositeness of
Michael Sopkiw."

On 12/17/04 2:14 PM, "Kevin Lee" wrote:

>
>
> JESUS CHRIST! They make it look like a cheap b-flick from the 80s.
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> wrote:
>>
>> Not to disrupt the flow of two very interesting threads, but I
> thought
>> some here might be interested in seeing the cover design for the
>> forthcoming (long-version) release of 'Bitter Victory,' courtesy
>> Columbia Pictures DVD. For those who find this sort of thing
>> inconsequential, you can avoid clicking here --
>>
>> http://www.dvdplanet.com/productimages/front/49813.jpg
>>
>> -- for the rest, prepare to fall out of your seats. If any
> remember
>> their design treatment for 'The Caine Mutiny', you'll understand
> why
>> I'm trying to drum up support to put an end to this studio's
> diseased
>> aesthetic, as applied to their classic reissues. Compared to the
> care
>> that Warner Bros. bestows upon each of its releases, Columbia's
> designs
>> express the belief that their backcatalog is C-grade waste.
> Anyway,
>> another small skirmish in the war of ideas.
>>
>>> craig.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
19105

From: Kevin Lee
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:52pm
Subject: Re: Frenzy (Was: Film violence)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

> BTW, I just watched some Griffith 2-reelers, and I'm starting to ee
> why he poses a problem for you. It's not just political - it has to
> do with the acting.

I've seen a number of Griffith shorts earlier this year, I'm about to
watch some more early next year. So what is this problem and
this "tendentiousness" (Dan's word) that you guys are referring to?

Kevin

19106

From: Kevin Lee
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:56pm
Subject: Re: Columbia DVD + Malick

Hmmm, I can see where you're coming from. It's a way to keep all of
us honest, I suppose.

Next, look for the compleat works of Max Ophuls repackaged as
Lifetime movies of the week.

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Travis Miles wrote:
> Am I the only one who finds this kind of thing absolutely
delicious? I
> wouldn't mind if all my favorite films were re-packaged to look
like horrid,
> USA Up All Night/Jeff Fahey vehicles, the more incongruous the
better. I
> mean, this packaging is grotesque, and is at least not boring. I
don't
> expect any support here, but for many of my generation, the
pleasures of
> half-assed design are not indistinct from the pleasures of "vulgar
> modernism." Expect soon my essay, "The Perfect Filmic Appositeness
of
> Michael Sopkiw."
>
> On 12/17/04 2:14 PM, "Kevin Lee" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > JESUS CHRIST! They make it look like a cheap b-flick from the
80s.
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Not to disrupt the flow of two very interesting threads, but I
> > thought
> >> some here might be interested in seeing the cover design for the
> >> forthcoming (long-version) release of 'Bitter Victory,' courtesy
> >> Columbia Pictures DVD. For those who find this sort of thing
> >> inconsequential, you can avoid clicking here --
> >>
> >> http://www.dvdplanet.com/productimages/front/49813.jpg
> >>
> >> -- for the rest, prepare to fall out of your seats. If any
> > remember
> >> their design treatment for 'The Caine Mutiny', you'll understand
> > why
> >> I'm trying to drum up support to put an end to this studio's
> > diseased
> >> aesthetic, as applied to their classic reissues. Compared to the
> > care
> >> that Warner Bros. bestows upon each of its releases, Columbia's
> > designs
> >> express the belief that their backcatalog is C-grade waste.
> > Anyway,
> >> another small skirmish in the war of ideas.
> >>
> >>> craig.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
19107

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04

> Just so I can fully agree with what you're saying, can you think of
> an example of unsuccessful, baseline-less extreme behavior?

I just saw one a little while ago, but it's kind of obscure: Skolimowski's
FERDYDURKE/30 DOOR KEY, where the intention seemed to be to evoke dream
logic, but where the surrealism got lost amid the general grotesquerie.

I dunno, we get into questions of taste here pretty quickly. For
instance, I pretty much agreed with whoever criticized MAGNOLIA as a
series of all-out emotional climaxes. I haven't kept up with Coppola, but
around the time of THE OUTSIDERS and RUMBLE FISH, I felt that he was going
for the gold all the time and didn't give the viewer any context. I feel
as if it's not a rare problem - I'm sure I'll run across other examples. -
Dan
19108

From: thebradstevens
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:12pm
Subject: CALIFORNIA SPLIT (Re: Columbia DVD + Malick)

Bad packaging is the least of Columbia's sins. Their contemptuous
attitude towards their back-catalogue recently resulted in them
absolutely butchering Robert Altman's CALIFORNIA SPLIT, because they
didn't think it was worth making any effort to clear the rights to
various songs heard on the soundtrack. They even cut a scene in which
Elliott Gould and George Segal sing 'Happy Birthday To You' - How
difficult could it possibly be to obtain the rights to 'Happy
Birthday To You'?!

I recently reviewed this DVD for VIDEO WATCHDOG, giving full details
of all the cuts. Since that review hasn't yet appeared in print, I'd
rather not post it here, but I'd be happy to e-mail it to anyone who
contacts me off-list.

Also, I wonder which 'long version' of BITTER VICTORY will be
released. The film was screened by the BBC recently in a version that
was longer than any I'd seen before, but which was still missing a 40-
second sequence that had been in every other print. I suspect that
this is the 'restoration' version.
19109

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:27pm
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Lots of SPOLIERS for THE BIG HEAT:

Do you mean that there are people on this Group who haven't seen
THE BIG HEAT?!

> > Re; Totalitarian structure in Big Heat - The way Graham dies to
bring
> > down the big heat while keeping Ford's hands clean has always
struck me
> > as deliberately unsettling. She is a scapegoat, but Lang's use
of
> > scapegoats (cf. the death of the ALWAYS designed to make the
audience
> > uneasy about the ritual.

Have been trying to understand the above sentence. Surely some
words are missing...

It's rather odd, isn't it, that Grahame acts as Ford's conscience
on the
> matter of killing the cop's blackmailing wife - "If you could do
that,
> you'd be no better than they are" - but then does the job for him,
> specifically because he wants it done. It's halfway between two
> conventions, and not a good marriage of conventions, I wouldn't
say.

Wouldn't say what? Is it or is it not a good marriage? Sentence
not clear again, but here there are no missing words apparently.

>
> Her subsequent death is overdetermined: she's become a killer and
owes a
> debt to Hollywood codes; she's disfigured, and must die by an
ancient law
> of drama that does not permit the permanently damaged to survive;
and her
> survival would pair her with Glenn Ford, an unacceptable match for
various
> reasons. So she's a goner, and as long as she has to cash in, she
might
> as well take her own revenge on Lee Marvin first.... - Dan

Is Lang being taken to task here for making a hollywood thriller
according to the Hollywood codes requirement? Is her death really
overdetermined? The audience knows that she must die because she is
a killer (plus her shady past -- gangster moll etc...)The audience
is probably NOT aware of the "ancient law of drama" but knows about
the "various reasons". But is it better to have only one reason to
get rid of a character than to have two or more reasons?
JPC
19110

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Totalitarian aesthetics (resend)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
wrote:
> >
> > Re; Totalitarian structure in Big Heat - The way Graham dies to
bring down
> > the big heat while keeping Ford's hands clean has always struck
me as
> > deliberately unsettling. She is a scapegoat, but Lang's use of
scapegoats
> (cf.
> > the death of the collaborator in Hangmen) isALWAYS designed to
make the
> audience uneasy about the
> > ritual.
> >
OK Bill, I had missed your resend with the sentence complete.
Now I get it. Sorry for bitching.

JPC
19111

From: Kevin Lee
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:57pm
Subject: Re: acting '04

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I dunno, we get into questions of taste here pretty quickly. For
> instance, I pretty much agreed with whoever criticized MAGNOLIA as
a
> series of all-out emotional climaxes. I haven't kept up with
Coppola, but
> around the time of THE OUTSIDERS and RUMBLE FISH, I felt that he
was going
> for the gold all the time and didn't give the viewer any context.
I feel
> as if it's not a rare problem - I'm sure I'll run across other
examples. -
> Dan

I think something can be said in favor of "going for the gusto" as an
aesthetic strategy with charms and virtues all its own, vis a vis
MAGNOLIA. Though I was younger and perhaps less wise when I saw it
three times when it came out, and probably would have a lot of
problems with it today.

I wonder how much the TV aesthetic may have to do with what we're
talking about. James L Brooks is on my mind these days, what with
SPANGLISH getting lukewarm reviews and Jonathan in his review today
recanting his "masterpiece" evaluation of AS GOOD AS IT GETS (which
is too bad, because I thought his defense of the film -- as a
movie "musical" for the musical-averse, pro-TV sitcom age -- was
brilliant and I used it to defend the film many times. Do I feel
betrayed?). I'm not sure what I think of Brooks as I now realize
that AS GOOD AS IT GETS is the only film of his I love. I watched
TERMS OF ENDEARMENT on TNT earlier this week, and man it was like
that movie was made with commercial interruptions in mind. There's a
dinner scene where Shirley MacLaine is supposed to vent about how she
doesn't want to be a grannie, and we go from point A to point E in 60
seconds, bypassing all points in between.

But even if I were to conclude (not ready to just yet) that the
emotions Brooks manufactures are largely artificial or steroidally
enhanced by sitcom screenwriting, I wouldn't use this as a reason to
dismiss him outright. All I know is that I love AS GOOD AS IT GETS,
because the characters, for whatever reason, occupy a world that
operates on its own logic of moods, gestures and emotional problems,
even if few of them bear any authentic resemblance to our own. After
all, if people can rationalize EYES WIDE SHUT the same way...

I think he's had some measure of influence on two of his proteges,
Cameron Crowe (another emotional highlight reel type of director)
and, to a lesser extent, Wes Anderson (whose BOTTLE ROCKET was
executive produced by Brooks).

Kevin
19112

From:
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:58pm
Subject: Re: Object-oriented directors (was: Acting, Bresson)

Some of Bresson's characters seemed ferociously focussed on their mental
goals (escaping from prison, Joan following her voices, etc). The acting style
conveys that the characters are highly oriented towards their mental life. It is
a "cognitive existance" or focus, as opposed to an emotional one.
I think the dramatic style in Bresson conveys this powerfully. Whatever
Bresson might nave said about this in interviews, it is not "non-acting". Instead,
it seems a way to convey that the characters have a fierce mental life.
Many heroes of prose detective fiction have such a "thinking" personality.
Was it Andrew Sarris who said that Sherlock Holmes was literature's chief symbol
of reason? One also gets it in science fiction heroes - see Adam Strange, who
was contemporaneous with much Bresson. He was designed as a "thinking man's
hero".

Mike Grost
PS "Object-oriented" has a completely different meaning in computers. It
refers to a group of programming languages: C++, Smalltalk, Java, CLOS, in which
small objects communicate by sending computer "messages" to each other...
19113

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:07pm
Subject: Emotional highlight reels (Was: acting '04)

> I think he's had some measure of influence on two of his proteges,
> Cameron Crowe (another emotional highlight reel type of director)

I never feel that way about Crowe, though - I think there's a lot of
low-key stuff in his work. - Dan
19114

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

>> It's halfway between two
>> conventions, and not a good marriage of conventions, I wouldn't
>> say.

> Wouldn't say what? Is it or is it not a good marriage? Sentence not
> clear again, but here there are no missing words apparently.

I thought it was not a good marriage. Maybe the two conventions could
have been married well if Grahame had some powerful, well-laid out inner
conflict that made her do the thing she disapproved of. But this conflict
isn't laid out, and she doesn't seem so conflicted as she pulls the
trigger. She seems like an ally in revenge.

Another problem with this structure is that we don't really get to find
out if Glenn Ford is capable of killing Jeanette Nolan. Which seems an
important point. If he had been tortured about it, then I wouldn't mind
not knowing, because him being tortured tells us what we need to know.
But I don't see him wavering much.

>> Her subsequent death is overdetermined: she's become a killer and owes
>> a debt to Hollywood codes; she's disfigured, and must die by an ancient
>> law of drama that does not permit the permanently damaged to survive;
>> and her survival would pair her with Glenn Ford, an unacceptable match
>> for various reasons. So she's a goner, and as long as she has to cash
>> in, she might as well take her own revenge on Lee Marvin first.... -

> Is Lang being taken to task here for making a hollywood thriller
> according to the Hollywood codes requirement?

Well, multiple codes aren't required.... I wasn't taking Lang to task
when I made that comment, but the problems that I'm having with the film
these days have to do with my perception that, in his American period at
least, Lang is too willing to let movie conventions govern the characters,
the way they behave, the emotions they convey to us.

> The audience is
> probably NOT aware of the "ancient law of drama"

I think they *are* aware of it, or else it wouldn't be an ancient law. -
Dan
19115

From: Kevin Lee
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:27pm
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
You're true about
> distrust: I think he's a guy that will always stick to the official
motto,
> whatever this motto will be. In portuguese, we call these
people "chapa
> branca".

Yeah but like Richard pointed out, for some filmmakers they may have
no choice but to adopt that persona. This has contributed to Zhang's
falling out of favor with critics in his post-SHANGHAI TRIAD period,
where he made up with the Party and regained their favor so that he
could resume making films in his own country. (and who can blame
him -- look at what Chen Kaige has accomplished in Hollywood!). The
critics who once looked to him as a heroic rebel artist bucking one
censorship ban after another now don't know what to make of him.

But this doesn't mean the films can't be subversive, or that the
artist can interrogate his own servitude in an interesting way. The
director-as-smuggler as Scorsese put it.

>
> I like the films which are previous to TO LIVE as well, but I think
they are
> academicist, very well crafted films. But they have some kind of
arthouse
> exotism that keeps me distant from taking them seriously as pieces
of great
> art.

That issue helps explain why I think HERO is a step forward,
something I like to call post-Orientalism -- where Eastern fetish
images are presented in such an exaggerated manner that they trigger
an analytical distance, at least for me. But I make this argument
only for HERO, which already has proven to be a transitional work.
FLYING DAGGERS shows he's resumed turning Chinese culture into Vegas
spectacle with minimal self-consciousness. But other critics have
claimed what I claim for HERO to apply to all of his films.

> Well, the scene that the teacher teaches her kids to be a group and
then
> drink Coca Cola says it all. Or the ending of the film with
television
> saving the day. But mostly I like to have my own feelings about
scenes, and
> not feel invaded by some syrupy music that tells me it's time to
cry.

But I see all this working on a reflexive level -- offering more
ironic, self-critical questions (Kiarostami) than sentimental, self-
promoting answers (Spielberg). The film was Zhang's first work under
the approval of the state, and I think the film raises a lot of
questions about how fruitful such a relationship between an
individual and the state can be. He defines it in largely
transactional terms (the girl, who can be seen in some ways as a
stand-in for Zhang, will get rewarded for just showing up and
overseeing the "production" of the classroom). The film coincided
with a national campaign to promote rural education (see, it's not
just US corporations that have movie tie-ins to their marketing
strategies). When I was a teacher there my students were required to
write a report praising the film. When you're in a situation like
that as a filmmaker, one would think you become sensitive to the
irony, much less the absurdity of the situation, and that those
feelings may infiltrate your work (even if it has to be held down
barely beneath the schmaltzy surface).

Kevin
19116

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:00pm
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Well, multiple codes aren't required.... I wasn't taking Lang to
task
> when I made that comment, but the problems that I'm having with
the film
> these days have to do with my perception that, in his American
period at
> least, Lang is too willing to let movie conventions govern the
characters,
> the way they behave, the emotions they convey to us.
>

Is it a matter of being too willing or of not having a choice?

> > The audience is
> > probably NOT aware of the "ancient law of drama"
>
> I think they *are* aware of it, or else it wouldn't be an ancient
law. -

I meant not consciously aware of it as a "law of drama." But
certainly aware that a disfigured woman cannot be matched with the
hero, and thus must be disposed of. (the audience probably feels
her death as a relief).
> Dan
19117

From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 0:02am
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

> Another problem with this structure is that we don't really get to
find
> out if Glenn Ford is capable of killing Jeanette Nolan. Which
seems an
> important point. If he had been tortured about it, then I
wouldn't mind
> not knowing, because him being tortured tells us what we need to
know.
> But I don't see him wavering much.
>
>
> Dan

If my memory of the film is correct, I think that Dave Bannion is
about to strangle Bertha but the arrival of the cops prevents him
from doing this. In the novel, Dave can not bring himself to
undertake this act.

Thus, Debbie acts as his wish-fulfilment surrogate and becomes a
disposable commodity within Dave's ideologically determined universe
which can never come to terms with the fact that bar girls and molls
like Debbie are often much more moral than the Bertha Duncans of his
world.

Tony Williams
19118

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:49am
Subject: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, politics and films)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:

> Oliveira is not
> obligated to consider every ridiculous misinterpretation that some
moron
> might put on historical facts.

I haven't won anybody over with my arguments, so I'll drop my case.

I'll point out, as topics for further research, that Umberto Eco has
written about several concepts that might be relevant to the film: the
"new middle ages," the association of apocalypse with the destruction
of libraries, and the mythic perfect language that existed before
Babel.

> Why don't you go
> after the media that reports on Islamic terrorist attacks without
adding
> the full context (the Iraqis might be said to be resisting US
> occupation), since those facts might inspire the American right far
more
> than Oliveira's film, which just about none of "them" are going to
see
> anyway.

I'm not especially concerned about how the American right will receive
the film. There are supporters and opponents of the "declinist" and
"clash of civilizations" theses among both the right and liberals.
Also, I'm not clear what you specifically object to in Samuel
Huntington's work.

Paul
19119

From:
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:11pm
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

Debbie's shooting of Bertha Duncan is not just "revenge" - maybe not revenge
at all.
It is Debbie's making the truth come out, as she says. This whole scene is
one of the electrifying transitions in film, where long buried truth comes out.
There is a similar finale in "Fury", when all the lying and social denial
about lynching is finally revealed.
What does Debbie say? "The lid is finally coming off the garbage can"?
What Debbie does is what every oppressed, suffering, lower class person
dreams of: revealing the truth about the rotten people in power. It is just
electrifying. It is both liberal social change, and an invocation of the Bible saying
"the truth shall make you free."

Mike Grost
19120

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 2:17am
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Debbie's shooting of Bertha Duncan is not just "revenge" - maybe
not revenge
> at all.
> It is Debbie's making the truth come out, as she says. This whole
scene is
> one of the electrifying transitions in film, where long buried
truth comes out.
> There is a similar finale in "Fury", when all the lying and social
denial
> about lynching is finally revealed.
> What does Debbie say? "The lid is finally coming off the garbage
can"?
> What Debbie does is what every oppressed, suffering, lower class
person
> dreams of: revealing the truth about the rotten people in power.
It is just
> electrifying. It is both liberal social change, and an invocation
of the Bible saying
> "the truth shall make you free."
>
> Mike Grost

Great post, Mike. Except that what she has done doesn't make anybody
free. And most probably doesn't lead to any social change.Every time
you lift the lid off a garbage can, another can is being
replenished.
JPC
19121

From:
Date: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:28pm
Subject: Re: James L. Brooks (was: acting '04)

I am a bit dismayed, by the tendency to criticize Brooks by suggesting that
his artistic problems stem from his TV origins. There are dozens of TV writers
whose works I for one thoroughly enjoy. If Brooks is a bad filmmaker, maybe it
is just because he is a bad filmmaker. Maybe TV writers as a whole do not
share a collective guilt for his failings!

The only one of Brooks' features seen here was "Broadcast News". The brief
scenes deconstructing TV news broadcasts are fascinating, with the writer and
the anchorman mouthing the dialogue at the same time, etc. But the bulk of the
film seemed dull.
I am the only human being ever to dislike Brooks' "Mary Tyler Moore Show". It
is not the show's charming star that bothered me. It was the sheer dullness,
and often mean-spiritedness, of this alleged classic of comedy. I have never
understood what people saw in this show.

Mike Grost
19122

From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:34am
Subject: Re: Object-oriented directors (was: Acting, Bresson)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:

> PS "Object-oriented" has a completely different meaning in
> computers....

I know, but I couldn't resist the opportunity to misuse the term. ;~}

MEK
19123

From:
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:39am
Subject: Wise

Can anyone recommend any important auteurist studies or analyses of Robert
Wise's films (or a single Robert Wise film)? The essay by John Russell Taylor
in Richard Roud's critical dictionary isn't too bad, though far from exhaustive
or in-depth. Dan mentioned some months ago, for instance, that the Cahiers
was an early champion of Wise; does anyone remember any particular articles or
issues devoted to him?

Thanks very much!

Peter

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19124

From:
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:35am
Subject: Re: Spoken Credits

In addition to "Ambersons" and "Othello," the credits are also spoken at the
end of Welles' "The Trial." He also narrated his own trailers at least twice,
the amazing trailers for "Citizen Kane" and "F for Fake."

Peter

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19125

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:38am
Subject: Tashlin interview

A very interesting interview with Frank Tashlin, mainly on his
cartoons, but including brief comments on his feature films.

http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Interviews/Tashlin/tashlin_interview.htm

There are also interviews with Chuck Jones and Bob Clampett.
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Funnyworld/Clampett/interview_bob_clampett.htm
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Funnyworld/jones/interview_chuck_jones.htm
19126

From:
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:27am
Subject: FINISHED and cinema as memory

J-P, Mike and all, check out William E. Jones' FINISHED, a remarkable if
problematic (and even the problems are intriguing to mull over) meditation on a
gay male porn star who committed suicide at 25. Jones ponders cinema's capacity
to capture the looks, voice, gestures, etc. of people. But at what price, he
asks, since these same people are frequently frozen in an idealized state of
youth?

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19127

From:
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:40am
Subject: Zemeckis - object-oriented director?

Yes. Had an opportunity to check out CAST AWAY again and I'm astonished at
Zemeckis' empathy for objects. I'm not just talking about Wilson (the
volleyball) or the "we sure take lighters and food for granted" scenes. I mean the
positively jaw-dropping shot of Hanks at the hub, cheering crowd in the background,
TV monitor bearing his image and redisplacing time. Then the camera drifts
with him as a overgrown, bulbous globe seems to be jeering at his extreme
loneliness. Or the scene in Helen Hunt's home with Hanks framed by a rack of plates
and cups for show. Now I know why plates are used for commemoration. Soon
every object in the frame becomes charged with isolation or history or memory or
praxis. Sirk-worthy to my eyes.

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19128

From:
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:49am
Subject: Lifetime TV Network + Korty

Posters to a_film_by who live outside of the US might not understand the
recent joke about Lifetime (packaging Max Ophuls films). This is a US cable TV
channel that concentrates on what it describes as "programming for women". It
produces a huge number of made for TV movies. It is almost a whole parallel
universe of American film production. Most of these feature at least one or two
reasonably well known performers.
Most of the Lifetime movies are relentlessly grim soap operas. They tend to
move s-l-o-w-l-y. Often times they are about "women in jeopardy", popularly
known as "jeps" in the American film industry. Example: a woman can marry a
charming man, not realising he is a psychopath plotting to murder her and her kids.
The Lifetime movies are utterly humorous, and always presented with extreme
seriousness.
I have tried on several occasions to watch Lifetime movies. But their
grimness has tended to put me off.
Occasionally Lifetime tackles socially significant subjects:
Oklahoma City: A Survivor's Story (John Korty, 1998)
The recent thread about terrorism brought this to mind. This was a harrowing
look at the aftermath of the 1995 tragedy. It is unusual in modern American
film, in that it focuses not on the alledged "excitement" of violence, but the
horrible real-life after-effects of same. Its most powerful subplot deals with
a fireman who has a mental collapse after weeks of digging bodies out of the
rubble. This was played by Patrick Cassidy, a veteran TV performer. Watching a
big, macho man like Cassidy have a complete emotional breakdown on screen was
a disturbing experience.

Mike Grost
19129

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 2:43pm
Subject: Re: FINISHED and cinema as memory

Glad you've discovered that film, Kevin.
Jones is a remarkable talent. We gave him LAFCA's
Independent/Experimental Award for that one. Very
influencd by Straub-Huillet his films consist of
cinematic spaces that perpetually refer to a much
stronger off-screen space, access to which is
extremely hard to come by.

The project started out rather simply in that Jones
read of the death of this porn star -- whose erotic
power had always delighted him. Then the REAL story
took shape -- an exceedingly weird one that Jones'
film is best left to describing as words fail.

--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:

> J-P, Mike and all, check out William E. Jones'
> FINISHED, a remarkable if
> problematic (and even the problems are intriguing to
> mull over) meditation on a
> gay male porn star who committed suicide at 25.
> Jones ponders cinema's capacity
> to capture the looks, voice, gestures, etc. of
> people. But at what price, he
> asks, since these same people are frequently frozen
> in an idealized state of
> youth?
>
> Kevin John
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
19130

From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:36pm
Subject: Re: Lifetime TV Network + Korty

Speaking of unusual television programming, I just noticed this
intriguing double-bill of documentaries playing on the National
Geographic channel next month:

Sunday January 23rd

20.00: WHY CHIMPS KILL
They often attack each other over territory, food and the opposite
sex, and have even been known to kill children. This programme
explores the darker side of chimps.

21.00: PROTECTING THE PRESIDENT
The elite men and women who protect the US president, even if it
means risking their own lives.
19131

From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:47pm
Subject: Cinema as Memory: What's eating Gilbert Grape?

Leonardo di Carprio has made many films since his What's Eating Gilbert
Grape? days. If he had made no others, for whatever reason, cinema
would have captured a persona quite different from reality. Is there
any case of an actor forever caught in a persona so divergent from
reality because of an untimely demise?
Elizabeth

> J-P, Mike and all, check out William E. Jones' FINISHED, a remarkable
> if
> problematic (and even the problems are intriguing to mull over)
> meditation on a
> gay male porn star who committed suicide at 25. Jones ponders cinema's
> capacity
> to capture the looks, voice, gestures, etc. of people. But at what
> price, he
> asks, since these same people are frequently frozen in an idealized
> state of
> youth?
>
> Kevin John
19132

From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:22pm
Subject: Tic-Fest BOYS DON'T CRY

I dislike most tic-fest actor scenes as they are so often overdone.
Still, Swank's character in BOYS DON'T CRY is living in someone else's
skin and it must get rather uncomfortable for such a person. This is a
comment I wrote after the seeing the film early on at a festival, long
before the Oscar buzz of that year:

There is not one scene that is comfortable to watch in this movie
because the film captures the range of experiences and emotions that
Teena/Brandon feels; because of that, the film should be seen by any
one willing to get into another person's skin...which is really what
Teena/Brandon was trying to do. Hilary Swank ought to be considered for
an Oscar; entire ensemble (which includes Chloe Sevigny) is so good
that it's as if watching home movie (with a Hollywood filming crew).
Elizabeth

> Subject: Re: Re: acting '04
>
>>> I keep hearing great reports on Swank in Baby.
>>> Anybody like her?
>
>> Not me. All "technique."
>
> Haven't seem BABY, but I thought Swank's famous performance in BOYS
> DON'T
> CRY was a horrible tic-fest. - Dan
19133

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:56pm
Subject: Re: Wise

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Can anyone recommend any important auteurist studies or analyses
of Robert
> Wise's films (or a single Robert Wise film)? The essay by John
Russell Taylor
> in Richard Roud's critical dictionary isn't too bad, though far
from exhaustive
> or in-depth. Dan mentioned some months ago, for instance, that
the Cahiers
> was an early champion of Wise; does anyone remember any particular
articles or
> issues devoted to him?
>
> Thanks very much!
>
> Peter
>
> You could look up my essay on Wise in AMERICAN DIRECTORS, Peter! I
discussed Curse of the Cat People, The Set Up, Executive Suite (his
masterpiece in my opinion) among others, quite at length.

JPC
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19134

From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:58pm
Subject: SUDDENLY - strong father-in-law

The strong father-in-law had a law enforcement career, perhaps in the
Secret Service; I think reference is made to his guarding another
president and that he knew one of the current agents who regarded him
with great respect. I always felt that the mother's restriction on the
son was unreal as she married into this family of a Secret Service
agent.
Elizabeth

> Suddenly is an obvious attempt at eroding any pacifist leanings. It
> uses
> and targets women as the weak link in the chain of vigilant security.
> The
> young mother Ellen Benson (played by Nancy Gates), has lost her
> husband in
> Korea (fighting the communist menace) and consistently attempts to
> keep her
> son Pidge (Kim Charney) from playing with guns. The strong
> father-in-law
> opposes this and the mother is portrayed as a simple un-worldly female
> unaware of the threats that society is consistently exposed to. From
> this
> standpoint the film is a true classic of pro-war propaganda and
> 'defense of
> country' with nationalistic intent. You can almost hear in the
> narrative "
> The commies could be everywhere". A fascinating and obvious piece of
> cold-war fear mongering - 4.5 out of 5 Gary
19135

From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: acting '04 (A Talking Picture, politics and films)

From: "Paul Gallagher"
>>>>>It reminds me of a comment Oliveira made to
Ruy Gardnier. I may be misunderstanding Oliveira's statement: "Agora,
s�o os mu�ulmanos que querem retornar � Europa, ou para o ocidente. H�
a quest�o do terrorismo." Is he worried about immigrants or something
else?

I think he watches it from a historical standpoint. So "worried" doesn't
seem the best word, and I don't feel Oliveira thinks that easterns should
keep on the East and westerns on the West. He's simply saying that there's a
tension, and he's connecting that tension to a long history (which is what
he does as well in A Talking Picture). That tension takes place, from an
occidental perspective, as immigration and terrorism. He's not "against"
them, he doesn't regard it through morals. And the tone he expressed to me
was like talking about Moli�re or Descartes: simply stating things as they
happen. He stresses the cycles in history --once they were thrown out, now
they want to return-- rather than showing concern for purity of the west or
something. The myth of the Hidden, on which he bases his last picture, O
Quinto Imp�rio -- Ontem como Hoje (good but not great IMO) is a moor one.
It's probably not the best account on the relation between west and east
that you may have to see clear on the situation, but also it's not the voice
of bad conscience which will express what we have already expected to
hear/see (Moore, not a moor). I think his putting things into historical
perspective is illuminating, even if it tends not to fulfill our political
agenda.
Ruy
19136

From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:18pm
Subject: Re: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

> TO LIVE (also known as LIFETIMES which I think is a better title; I
> don't know what the Chinese title is)is a history lesson and as such
> it could have suffered from submerging the charcaters in the events
> that it depicts, and it seems to me that Zhang was aware of that. TO
> LIVE and THE STORY OF QIU JU and certainly his most engaging movies.

I'm to see The Story of Qiu Ju again. By the way, To Live was called "Tempos
de Viver" in portuguese: kind of "Living Times". I think Red Sorguhm and Ju
Dou have great color, and some true emotion.

> As a commentary on the genre HERO is of considerable formal interest,
> but to appreciate it one would have to be familiar with its routine
> predessors.

You mean Chang and King Hu, Lia and Lau?

> Kevin has very astutely examined the thematic concerns of HERO in his
> earlier posts here. One thing to keep in mind about Zhang and other
> filmmakers who are or were working in one party countries (like
> Eisenstein or several Japanese filmmakers working during the facist
> era of 1936-1945) is the civil constraints under which they must
> live. A concientious appraisal of Zhang, Eisenstein and other
> directors working under similar conditions would have to take take
> into account the prevailing intellectual atmosphere of their time and
> place and the limits to freedom of expression imposed by the state as
> well as the penalties meted out for defying the state.

Of course. But I think that these limits to freedom of expression are not
the things that bother me most about him. It's majorly his style, that began
flamboyant-pompous and now I feel it becoming mainstream-film-pompous, with
Not One Less, The Road Home and the action films diptych. (Haven't seen Keep
Cool or Happy Times Motel, but that's about it). Naturally, if I read a book
chapter or something about the conditions in which Zhang needed to perform
like this or like that, it would make me reconsider some aspects of his work
(mainly political), but I'm not sure I'd feel better about his style.
19137

From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

From: "Kevin Lee"
> Yeah but like Richard pointed out, for some filmmakers they may have
> no choice but to adopt that persona. This has contributed to Zhang's
> falling out of favor with critics in his post-SHANGHAI TRIAD period,
> where he made up with the Party and regained their favor so that he
> could resume making films in his own country. (and who can blame
> him -- look at what Chen Kaige has accomplished in Hollywood!).

look at what Jia Zhangke has accomplished without being tied to the
industry. He made three feature films illegally and now he's making one
(that I didn't get to see yet) with the system. I mean: I'm willing to agree
with you and Richard to a certain extent about "being a director in
one-party-countries". But the "only chance of making films" is not a
realistic argument, and Jia is the perfect exemple of that.

> But this doesn't mean the films can't be subversive, or that the
> artist can interrogate his own servitude in an interesting way. The
> director-as-smuggler as Scorsese put it.

> That issue helps explain why I think HERO is a step forward,
> something I like to call post-Orientalism -- where Eastern fetish
> images are presented in such an exaggerated manner that they trigger
> an analytical distance, at least for me. But I make this argument
> only for HERO, which already has proven to be a transitional work.
> FLYING DAGGERS shows he's resumed turning Chinese culture into Vegas
> spectacle with minimal self-consciousness. But other critics have
> claimed what I claim for HERO to apply to all of his films.

The packed theater didn't feel very post-Oriental about it at all! They took
it very much like it was the source from which the two volumes of Kill Bill
(which I find highly superior, but I know you don't) were made. (OMG!)

> But I see all this working on a reflexive level -- offering more
> ironic, self-critical questions (Kiarostami) than sentimental, self-
> promoting answers (Spielberg).

Wow! You saw a completely different film than I did. I think you have to
disregard a lot of stuff about Zhang and about this film
specifically --music, pace, the story itself-- to turn it into Kiarostami.

> The film was Zhang's first work under
> the approval of the state, and I think the film raises a lot of
> questions about how fruitful such a relationship between an
> individual and the state can be. He defines it in largely
> transactional terms (the girl, who can be seen in some ways as a
> stand-in for Zhang, will get rewarded for just showing up and
> overseeing the "production" of the classroom). The film coincided
> with a national campaign to promote rural education (see, it's not
> just US corporations that have movie tie-ins to their marketing
> strategies). When I was a teacher there my students were required to
> write a report praising the film. When you're in a situation like
> that as a filmmaker, one would think you become sensitive to the
> irony, much less the absurdity of the situation, and that those
> feelings may infiltrate your work (even if it has to be held down
> barely beneath the schmaltzy surface).

That creates context fort the film, but I don't think it serves well as an
excuse for its flaws.
19138

From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:17pm
Subject: Re: Object-oriented directors (was: Acting, Bresson)

Brian De Palma often conveys to objects the role of animated characters.
Never one will feel so afraid of a bucket as in CARRIE, or staring at some
floating M&M's in MISSION TO MARS.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
> Ozu, perhaps. Have teapots and smokestacks ever been so eloquent?
> MEK
19139

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:24pm
Subject: Re: Object-oriented directors (was: Acting, Bresson)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> Brian De Palma often conveys to objects the role of animated
characters.
> Never one will feel so afraid of a bucket as in CARRIE, or staring
at some
> floating M&M's in MISSION TO MARS.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
> > Ozu, perhaps. Have teapots and smokestacks ever been so eloquent?
> > MEK

Hitchcock again. Cf. Godard's comparison of AH to Cezanne in Histoire
(s) 4A - "Le controle de l'univers."
19140

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Revisionist Tashlin Interview: "We got it all from Disney..."

http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Interviews/Tashlin/tashlin_interview.htm
19141

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:32pm
Subject: WONG KAR-WAI (objects, again)

Watching CHUNGKING EXPRESS again yesterday I couldn't help link it
to the recent "object-oriented" thread (I apologize if someone
already mentioned it in a post I've missed). Not only do objects
play an essential role in the plot (the food, the cans, the blonde
wig, the toy planes, the letter, the key, the boarding pass etc...)
but Wong is addicted to pathetic fallacy to the point that objects
are given an almost human status by one of the two (interchangeable)
young cops: he talks to his shirt, a bar of soap, a wash rag, a toy
tiger, beer bottles, and seems to consider his apartment as a real
person. The film's last shot is a shot of a radio/CD player (which
has been playing "California Dreaming" throughout the film).
19142

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:35pm
Subject: Re: Tashlin interview

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> A very interesting interview with Frank Tashlin, mainly on his
> cartoons, but including brief comments on his feature films.
>
>
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Interviews/Tashlin/tashlin_interview.htm
>
>
> There are also interviews with Chuck Jones and Bob Clampett.
>
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Funnyworld/Clampett/interview_bob_clampe
tt.htm
>
http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Funnyworld/jones/interview_chuck_jones.h
tm
Oops! Didn't see this before rushing to post it. For me the cartoon
stuff is what's really stunning. The revisionist stance re: Disney
and other sources for Termite Terace creativity is fascinating. It's
a not-to-be-missed interview.
19143

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:40pm
Subject: Re: Tic-Fest BOYS DON'T CRY

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
This is a
> comment I wrote after the seeing the film early on at a festival,
long
> before the Oscar buzz of that year:
>
> There is not one scene that is comfortable to watch in this movie
> because the film captures the range of experiences and emotions
that
> Teena/Brandon feels; because of that, the film should be seen by
any
> one willing to get into another person's skin...which is really
what
> Teena/Brandon was trying to do. Hilary Swank ought to be considered
for
> an Oscar; entire ensemble (which includes Chloe Sevigny) is so good
> that it's as if watching home movie (with a Hollywood filming crew).
> Elizabeth

Agree - she's great in Boys Don't Cry. Her blue-collar origins
probably helped there.
19144

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:44pm
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:

Kevin asked why I like Happy Times. Very simple reasons: It's funny,
a tad perverse (hence very subversive by mainland standards) and
beautiful without being heavy-handed. I love the young actress.

Still haven't seen Daggers, but the obvious comparison to Hero, it
seems to me, is Leone. And Hero comes up short.
19145

From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:11pm
Subject: Re: Wise

Try to track down MONTHLY FILM BULLETIN 550 (November 1979), which
includes a useful series of pieces on Wise, notably an absolutely
spot on analysis of BLOOD ON THE MOON by Richard Combs (as well as a
Wise interview).
19146

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:12pm
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Lots of SPOLIERS for THE BIG HEAT:
>
> > Re; Totalitarian structure in Big Heat - The way Graham dies to
bring
> > down the big heat while keeping Ford's hands clean has always
struck me
> > as deliberately unsettling. She is a scapegoat, but Lang's use of
> > scapegoats (cf. the death of the ALWAYS designed to make the
audience
> > uneasy about the ritual.
>
> It's rather odd, isn't it, that Grahame acts as Ford's conscience
on the
> matter of killing the cop's blackmailing wife - "If you could do
that,
> you'd be no better than they are" - but then does the job for him,
> specifically because he wants it done. It's halfway between two
> conventions, and not a good marriage of conventions, I wouldn't
say.
> (Carl Franklin's DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS handled this situation more
> thoughtfully, as I recall, with Don Cheadle's evil-on-the-side-of-
good
> character performing the murderous act of revenge that hero Denzel
> Washington is not permitted.)

That's called a contradiction, and it doesn't come from trying to
marry two conventions in the H'wd playbook - it can be traced back
further, to sources Lang knew well. In any case, the scapegoat-
revenger figure is a widespread symptom of a contradiction deep in
western culture, and I first understood it by studying Lang and Walsh
while reading every extant Jacobean tragedy. (Marston, little read
today, is the ideal case study.) It's foregrounded in Lang by
triggering contradictory audience responses.
>
> Her subsequent death is overdetermined: she's become a killer and
owes a
> debt to Hollywood codes; she's disfigured, and must die by an
ancient law
> of drama that does not permit the permanently damaged to survive;
and her
> survival would pair her with Glenn Ford, an unacceptable match for
various
> reasons.

The ancient law of drama I see in this case is the prevalence in
Renaissance English drama of female characters who play a symbolic
role, ultimately going back to the pagan goddess Fortuna, who is
often shown with a half-disfigured face: She is beautiful when she
smiles on us, monstrous when she frowns. She is also a whore, always
contrasted to the faithful woman, who embodies Providence and is
often associated (in English drama) with the Virgin Mary (another
repressed archetype after Henry VIII). The Mary character is wiped
out near the beginning of The Big Heat, and what happens subsequently
is controlled by Grahame's character.

These figures are metaphors, if you will, for a contradiction
expressed clearly in Renaissance historiography, which was making
more and more room for second causes (nature, fortune, human
fallibility, economics...) in explaining how God's will was carried
out in History. This was prior to His total withdrawal in the 18th
Century, where he becomes the absent God who set a clockwork universe
in motion and just watches it play out its foreordained conclusions.
The contradiction was much more alive in the Renaissance, when the
writings of Machiavelli (his history of Florence, more than The
Prince, which was culled from that unfinished work) and others were
being integrated into the writing of history, leading to the
discipline we know today.

The problem was that God is all powerful and man does bad things - as
does nature, as does chance. The fact that all these secondary evils
fit into and carry forward the Divine Plan was the central problem of
a theological subspecialty called theodicy. As Levi-Strauss has
shown, primitive cultures (like ours) resolve big contradictions by
comparing them to analogous contradictions that are more familiar and
easy to grasp. The central metaphor for resolving the question of
God's guilt (and the more local question of the guilt of Elizabeth
via her predecessors on the throne, who killed off the legitimate
heirs to get there, making her "perfect" reign possible) was the
Revenger, who accomplishes the desires of the good characters and
perishes at the end. Elizabethan England was by any measure I know a
totalitarian state, BTW, and the works of the greatest writer who
ever lived were produced within it, and theoretically in conformity
to its rules.

The three major works where this matter can be studied are Hamlet, of
course, Paradise Lost and Henry IV, Parts 1 and 2. The best one-line
summary comes from The Changeling: "How many thieves make an honest
man?" Cf. The Strawberry Blonde, The Return of Frank James, Hangmen
Also Die, etc. etc.
19147

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:14pm
Subject: Re: Frenzy (Was: Film violence)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> > BTW, I just watched some Griffith 2-reelers, and I'm starting to
ee
> > why he poses a problem for you. It's not just political - it has
to
> > do with the acting.
>
> I've seen a number of Griffith shorts earlier this year, I'm about
to
> watch some more early next year. So what is this problem and
> this "tendentiousness" (Dan's word) that you guys are referring to?
>
> Kevin

I'll let Dan address that, but after watching the shorts packaged by
Kino w. Musketeers of Pig Alley I almost fell into a clinical
depression. Maybe it's seeing all that shit come back into power that
caused it.
19148

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:15pm
Subject: Re: Columbia DVD + Malick

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
> > Am I the only one who finds this kind of thing absolutely
> delicious? I
> > wouldn't mind if all my favorite films were re-packaged to look
> like horrid,
> > USA Up All Night/Jeff Fahey vehicles, the more incongruous the
> better.

I'm still getting over the artwork on It's All True.
19149

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:17pm
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Lots of SPOLIERS for THE BIG HEAT:
>
>
> Do you mean that there are people on this Group who haven't
seen
> THE BIG HEAT?!
>
>
> > > Re; Totalitarian structure in Big Heat - The way Graham dies to
> bring
> > > down the big heat while keeping Ford's hands clean has always
> struck me
> > > as deliberately unsettling. She is a scapegoat, but Lang's use
> of
> > > scapegoats (cf. the death of the ALWAYS designed to make the
> audience
> > > uneasy about the ritual.
>
>
> Have been trying to understand the above sentence. Surely some
> words are missing...

Read "Resend," then my longer explanation posted this a.m.
19150

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:21pm
Subject: Re: acting '04

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
>
> I wonder how much the TV aesthetic may have to do with what we're
> talking about. James L Brooks is on my mind these days, what with
> SPANGLISH getting lukewarm reviews and Jonathan in his review today
> recanting his "masterpiece" evaluation of AS GOOD AS IT GETS (which
> is too bad, because I thought his defense of the film -- as a
> movie "musical" for the musical-averse, pro-TV sitcom age -- was
> brilliant and I used it to defend the film many times. Do I feel
> betrayed?). I'm not sure what I think of Brooks as I now realize
> that AS GOOD AS IT GETS is the only film of his I love.

I prefer Broadcast News, an allegory of Ronald Reagan's ascent to
power. But I haven't seen it since its first release. I caught a few
minutes on the monitor at Rocket Video recently - Hurt putting the
moves on Hunter and Brooks begging her to say no - and they hurt as
much as ever. It is a tv-derived esthetic, but it isn't tv.
19151

From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:29pm
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > Debbie's shooting of Bertha Duncan is not just "revenge" - maybe
> not revenge
> > at all.
> > It is Debbie's making the truth come out, as she says. This whole
> scene is
> > one of the electrifying transitions in film, where long buried
> truth comes out.
> > There is a similar finale in "Fury", when all the lying and
social
> denial
> > about lynching is finally revealed.
> > What does Debbie say? "The lid is finally coming off the garbage
> can"?
> > What Debbie does is what every oppressed, suffering, lower class
> person
> > dreams of: revealing the truth about the rotten people in power.
> It is just
> > electrifying. It is both liberal social change, and an invocation
> of the Bible saying
> > "the truth shall make you free."
> >
> > Mike Grost
>
> Great post, Mike. Except that what she has done doesn't make
anybody
> free. And most probably doesn't lead to any social change.Every
time
> you lift the lid off a garbage can, another can is being
> replenished.
> JPC

The Revenger, in the theory of totalitarian plot structure that I
outlined this morning, is a surrogate for the Revolutionary, so Mike
has it right; so does Jean-Pierre, because liberal social change will
never do away with the garbage-machine.

Here's the end of what I wrote about Fuller and Cities recently:

If Fuller's City finally spawns a revolution in Street of No Return
and The Madonna and the Dragon, it is a revolution made not by the
professionals (terrorists or black militants), who are in the pay of
the Gang, but by the people of the Zone [the back alley where Michael
lives in Street, the "smoking mountain" in Madonna] when they finally
find a way into the sunlight.
19152

From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:30pm
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:

"You mean Chang and King Hu, Lia and Lau?"

Yes, exactly.

"It's majorly his style, that began flamboyant-pompous and now I
feel it becoming mainstream-film-pompous, with Not One Less, The
Road Home and the action films diptych. (Haven't seen Keep Cool or
Happy Times Motel, but that's about it). Naturally, if I read a book
chapter or something about the conditions in which Zhang needed to
perform like this or like that, it would make me reconsider some
aspects of his work (mainly political), but I'm not sure I'd feel
better about his style."

I was dismayed by THE ROAD HOME and the later films (excepting HERO,
and I haven't seen KEEP COOL or HAPPY TIMES MOTEL either,) so here I
agree with you. I don't see Zhang's earlier style as flamboyant-
pompous, rather I would fault it for being academic-formal. Like I
said before I think LIFETIMES and THE STORY OF QUI JU transcend the
dry formalism of his earlier films, and these two movies and HERO
make it worth following his career for me.

Richard
19153

From:
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 2:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Wise

Jean-Pierre Coursodon wrote:

>You could look up my essay on Wise in AMERICAN DIRECTORS, Peter!

I have! I should have mentioned that one in my initial post. As is to be
expected, it's very, very good.

Thanks for the tip about Monthly Film Bulletin, Brad; I will try to track it
down.

Peter
19154

From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:19pm
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

> Kevin asked why I like Happy Times. Very simple reasons: It's funny,
> a tad perverse (hence very subversive by mainland standards) and
> beautiful without being heavy-handed. I love the young actress.

Glad to see another fan of "Happy Time", though I'm not certain who it
was due to "quoting ambiguities".

I feel that the original ending (destruction of the old factory) was
far better than the substitute one (the accident -- which was the one
used in the version that was widely released). I think it is
unfortunate that he was pressured into discarding his original intention.

MEK
19155

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:31pm
Subject: Re: Wise

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Can anyone recommend any important auteurist studies or analyses of
Robert
> Wise's films (or a single Robert Wise film)? The essay by John
Russell Taylor
> in Richard Roud's critical dictionary isn't too bad, though far from
exhaustive
> or in-depth. Dan mentioned some months ago, for instance, that the
Cahiers
> was an early champion of Wise; does anyone remember any particular
articles or
> issues devoted to him?

Truffaut admired Wise's ability with actors. Wheeler Winston Dixon's
"The Early Film Criticism of Francois Truffaut" translates Truffaut's
brief reviews in "Arts" of "The Desert Rats" and "Executive Suite."

The review of "The Desert Rats" mainly complains that Hathaway's "The
Desert Fox" had been banned by French censors, but it adds that Wise's
Rommel is "without prestige or glory." The review of "Executive Suite"
gives much of the credit to the producer, John Houseman, and notes the
similarities with "Citizen Kane" and "The Bad and the Beautiful."
Truffaut writes: "If the film is rather literary, indeed theatrical,
Executive Suite succeeds as an excellent piece of cinema thanks to the
work of Robert Wise... Robert Wise makes subtle use of the camera,
which no longer holds any secrets for him. Each shot's reliability,
sureness, its length and density, contributes to the creation of a
style essentially characterized by efficiency... The success of such a
film is closely related to its cast of characters. The jury at Venice
crowned them unanimously -- and deservedly."

Truffaut called "Born to Kill" "Bressonian." Chabrol, however, wrote
"it's the script itself that is admirable and completely new; the weak
spot is the mise en scene. Technically it is beyond reproach and in
places quote powerful, but alas, dreadfully ordinary and typical of
the genre, which was precisely what the film aimed to break away from
and grind into dust... Pushing each scene to its paroxysm of violence,
comedy or the macabre, [James Gunn, the novelist] succeeds in giving
them all a dimension of the unexpected, the profound or the poetic...
Overprudent, Wise could not -- or did not know how to -- work in tune
with this, and Born to Kill was by no means the masterpiece and the
manifesto it should have been" ("The Evolution of the Thriller,
Cahiers du Cinema, Christmas 1954, translated in "Cahiers du Cinema:
the 1950s," edited by Jim Hillier).

Barry Keith Grant's "Children of the Night: A Critical Bibliography of
Horror Filmmakers" (Literature/Film Quarterly v.25 no.4, 1997)
provides this bibliography for Wise.

Coursodon, Jean-Pierre, with Pierre Sauvage. American Directors,
vol. 2, pp. 367-378. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983.
Fischer, Dennis. Horror Film Directors, 1931-1990, pp. 736-749.
Jefferson, N.C. and London: McFarland, 1991.
Kantor, Bernard R., Irwin R. Blacker, and Anne Kramer, eds.
Directors at Work. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1970. [interview]
Leeman, Sergio. Robert Wise on His Films: From Editing Room to
Director's Chair. Beverly Hills: Sicman James Press, 1995.
Mank, Greg. "Val Lewton's The Body Snatcher." Cinefantastique 15,
no. 5 (January 1986): 30-31, 58-61.
Nogueira, Rui. "Robert Wise at RKO." Focus on Film 12 (Summer
1972): 43-49; "Robert Wise at Fox," no. 14 (Spring 1973): 47-49;
Robert Wise Continued," no. 16 (Autumn 1973): 49-54; "Robert Wise to
Date," no. 19 (Autumn 1974): 52-59.
Petlewski, Paul. "Audrey Rose." Cinefantastique 6, no. 2 (Fall
1977): 20, 23.
Shay, Don. "Robert Wise on Audrey Rose." Cinefantastique 6, no. 1
(Summer 1977): 26.
Siegel, Joel E. Val Lewton: The Reality of Terror. London: Secker
and Warburg/British Film Institute, 1972.
Telotte, J. P. Dreams of Darkness: Fantasy and the Films of Val
Lewton. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985.
Telotte, J. P. "A Photogenic Horror: Lewton Does Robert Louis
Stevenson." Literature/Film Quarterly 10, no. 1 (1982): 25-37. [The
Body Snatcher]
Thompson, Frank. Robert Wise: A Bio-Bibliography. Westport, Conn.:
Greenwood Press, 1995.
White, Patricia. "Female Spectator, Lesbian Specter: The
Haunting." In Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories, edited by
Diana Fuss, pp. 142-172. New York: Routledge, 1991.
19156

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 9:08pm
Subject: Re: Wise

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> > Can anyone recommend any important auteurist studies or analyses
of
> Robert
> > Wise's films (or a single Robert Wise film)?

I did a search online for articles about Robert Wise.
http://66.108.49.138/wise.txt

Paul
19157

From:
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:58pm
Subject: Re: Columbia DVD + Malick

<< Am I the only one who finds this kind of thing absolutely
> delicious? I
> > wouldn't mind if all my favorite films were re-packaged to look
> like horrid,
> > USA Up All Night/Jeff Fahey vehicles, the more incongruous the
> better. >>

You mean you didn't like Lawnmower Man 27?
19158

From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: Columbia DVD + Malick

On Saturday, December 18, 2004, at 02:15 PM, hotlove666 wrote:
> I'm still getting over the artwork on It's All True.

I was gonna ask you about that...
19159

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:39pm
Subject: Re: Columbia DVD + Malick

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
> wrote:
> > > Am I the only one who finds this kind of thing absolutely
> > delicious? I
> > > wouldn't mind if all my favorite films were re-packaged to
look
> > like horrid,
> > > USA Up All Night/Jeff Fahey vehicles, the more incongruous the
> > better.
>
> I'm still getting over the artwork on It's All True.

Finding atrocious bad taste in repackaging "absolutely delicious"
is a fine example of postmodern camp. From another point of view I
would justify (although not defend) that sort of packaging by saying
that most of the American posters for films of the sound era (there
were some great exceptions earlier) were in a similarly atrocious
style, so that the bad taste of the video reissues seems more in
touch with the context of the time the movies were released than
with some modern, highbrow artwork.
JPC
19160

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:00pm
Subject: Re: Tashlin interview

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

> http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Funnyworld/jones/i
nterview_chuck_jones.h
> tm
> Oops! Didn't see this before rushing to post it. For me the cartoon
> stuff is what's really stunning. The revisionist stance re: Disney
> and other sources for Termite Terace creativity is fascinating.
It's
> a not-to-be-missed interview.

I was prejudiced against Disney, thinking he stopped being funny
around 1930. But I recently resaw "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,"
which is beautiful, and several shorts, including "Clock Cleaners,"
which Tashlin mentioned, which are very funny. In contrast, I saw some
Tex Avery cartoons -- this is going to sound like sacrilege -- which
struck me as more clever than funny.

I noticed Tashlin didn't like Porky Pig. I once told someone that
Porky was my favorite character, but afterwards I noticed that Porky
doesn't really doesn't do much of anything, although he's an excellent
straight man to Daffy Duck, and "Porky in Wackyland" is one of my
favorite cartoons. Chuck Jones said, "He was pushed back because he
wasn't very interesting -- but he wasn't interesting because we didn't
make him very interesting."

I also noticed Tashlin's comments about Truffaut and Godard...

Paul
19161

From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:04pm
Subject: OT - Latin Translation

I was wondering if anyone on this list might be able to help me
translate with precision a short six-word phrase from English into
Latin. If so, please email me off-list!

thanks in advance,
craig.
19162

From: programming
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:15pm
Subject: FW: A Critical Cinema 4

MacDonald's three previous "Critical Cinema" books are extremely good.
Lengthy interviews with many mostly experimental film/video makers. His new
one is out - with at least a few people who've been mentioned on this list
recently (Brakhage, McBride) and others of probable interest.

(But WHY Chuck Workman I'll never understand).

Patrick F.

> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Scott MacDonald
> Reply-To: Experimental Film Discussion List
> Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:51:45 -0500
> To: FRAMEWORKS@L...
> Subject: A Critical Cinema 4
>
>
> Frameworkers,
> Forgive, please, the shameless self-promotion, but A Critical Cinema 4
> (interviews with Sitney, a long one with Brakhage, Godmilow [and Harun
> Farocki], Kubelka [on Unsere Afrikareise], Jim McBride [on David Holzman's
> Diary], Abigail Child, Chuck Workman, Chantal Akerman, Lawrence Brose, Peter
> Forgacs, Shirin Neshat, and Ellen Spiro) has just been published by University
> of California Press (ISBN 0-520-24271-8).
>
> Happy Holidays!
>
> Scott
>
> __________________________________________________________________ For info on
> FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
>
>
>

------ End of Forwarded Message

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19163

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:09am
Subject: Re: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

>> Well, multiple codes aren't required.... I wasn't taking Lang to
> task
>> when I made that comment, but the problems that I'm having with
> the film
>> these days have to do with my perception that, in his American
> period at
>> least, Lang is too willing to let movie conventions govern the
> characters,
>> the way they behave, the emotions they convey to us.
>>
>
> Is it a matter of being too willing or of not having a choice?

I don't think my post was very clear on this point, but my reservations
about Lang don't have to do with the sort of restictions that Hollywood
imposes. There's a thing which is in the power of any director to
influence, something which is hard to define precisely except by vague
words like "tone": it has to do with acting style, and where the
storytelling emphases fall. It's the first thing I notice about any film,
and 90% of the time it's the key thing. If a film is conventional, its
conventionality is usually centered there: everything written and said
sounds familiar, originality is sacrificed in favor of hitting familiar
storytelling cues, the audience knows quickly what kind of message is
sent.

I don't want to put the above forth as a definition, because all films are
conventional in some way or another, and there's always that 10% of movies
where one's first impression of unoriginality is eventually proven wrong.

But, among Pantheon directors, Lang is the only one who almost always
gives me the impression that he is neglectful of this "tone." I really
want to respond to him, because his visual and rhythmic representation of
life is so very striking and compelling - no one is like him, and he
creates amazing things. But time and time again I've sat there listening
to his people talk and his story unfold, and felt as if the emotional
heart of the movie was undistinguished and rote.

The other major dude who makes me feel this way is Walsh. - Dan
19164

From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:22am
Subject: Re: Re: Columbia DVD + Malick

Kitano's Sonatine is called "Maximum Adrenalin" in video here in Brazil.

From: "Craig Keller"
> On Saturday, December 18, 2004, at 02:15 PM, hotlove666 wrote:
> > I'm still getting over the artwork on It's All True.
> I was gonna ask you about that...
19165

From:
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Wise

Wow - thank you, Paul, for the helpful summaries of the CdC pieces as well as
your outstanding Wise bibliography! I really appreciate it!

Peter

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19166

From:
Date: Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:34pm
Subject: Re: Object-oriented directors (was: Acting, Bresson)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Welles again comes to mind.
Think of the sled in "Kane"; the seashell at the climax of "The Immortal Story";
the vial of potion in "The Fountain of Youth"; the ring Marcus gives
Pellegrina in the fragment from "The Dreamers"; or the stunning, stunning, stunning
shots of Chartres in "F for Fake"?

Dreyer is perhaps also a good example. Fred, didn't you post once that you
read a review of "Gertrud" describing it as "a study of furniture" (or
something like that) and that made you really want to see it?

Peter

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19167

From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:56am
Subject: Re: Re: Wise

On the first 100 issues of Cahiers du Cin�ma:
#12 The Day the Earth Stood Still (Pierre Kast)
#36 So Big capsule (J.-J. Richer)
#40 Executive Suite (Philippe Demonsablon)
#40 Executive Suite in Venice 1954 (J.-J. Richer)
#43 The Desert Rats (Philippe Demonsablon)
#46 Destination Gobi (Philippe Demonsablon)
#54 dictionary (xxx)
#54 Born To Kill (Claude Chabrol)
#57 Helen of Troy (Jacques Audibert)
#57 Helen of Troy in Lettre de New York (Weinberg)
#67 Somebody Up There Likes Me (Louis Marcorelles)
#80 The Day the Earth Stood Still (Fereydoun Hoveyda)
#94 I Want To Live, Odds Against Tomorrow in A New York (Moskowitz)
19168

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:15am
Subject: Re: Re: Wise

> Truffaut admired Wise's ability with actors. Wheeler Winston Dixon's
> "The Early Film Criticism of Francois Truffaut" translates Truffaut's
> brief reviews in "Arts" of "The Desert Rats" and "Executive Suite."

Has anyone mentioned Truffaut's review of SO BIG, translated in THE FILMS
IN MY LIFE? - Dan
19169

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:19am
Subject: Griffith (Was: Frenzy)

>> I've seen a number of Griffith shorts earlier this year, I'm about
> to
>> watch some more early next year. So what is this problem and
>> this "tendentiousness" (Dan's word) that you guys are referring to?
>
> I'll let Dan address that

I really don't have much more to say about this than what was in the
original post. Griffith does put a fair amount of acting shading and
detail into his films, but I always feel as if the end result is not all
that different from hanging signs around the actors' necks that tell us
what their story function is and how much we should like them. - Dan
19170

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:20am
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> But, among Pantheon directors, Lang is the only one who almost
always
> gives me the impression that he is neglectful of this "tone." I
really
> want to respond to him, because his visual and rhythmic
representation of
> life is so very striking and compelling - no one is like him, and
he
> creates amazing things. But time and time again I've sat there
listening
> to his people talk and his story unfold, and felt as if the
emotional
> heart of the movie was undistinguished and rote.
>
> The other major dude who makes me feel this way is Walsh. - Dan

You're opening such a big can of worms, Dan! I'm sure some will
pick it up to go fishing. Unfortunately I'm pretty inept myself at
man's favorite sport. JPC
19171

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:28am
Subject: Re: Griffith (Was: Frenzy)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I really don't have much more to say about this than what was in
the
> original post. Griffith does put a fair amount of acting shading
and
> detail into his films, but I always feel as if the end result is
not all
> that different from hanging signs around the actors' necks that
tell us
> what their story function is and how much we should like them. -
Dan

And was anybody at the time doing anything else (more) in film?
Let's not talk about some 1910 shorts as though they were made fifty
years later.
19172

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:07am
Subject: Re: Re: Griffith (Was: Frenzy)

>> I really don't have much more to say about this than what was in
> the
>> original post. Griffith does put a fair amount of acting shading
> and
>> detail into his films, but I always feel as if the end result is
> not all
>> that different from hanging signs around the actors' necks that
> tell us
>> what their story function is and how much we should like them. -
> Dan
>
> And was anybody at the time doing anything else (more) in film?
> Let's not talk about some 1910 shorts as though they were made fifty
> years later.

I wasn't talking about the 1910 shorts, really (don't remember if I
changed the subject of the thread), but Griffith's entire career. - Dan
19173

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:37am
Subject: Re: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

>
> You're opening such a big can of worms, Dan! I'm
> sure some will
> pick it up to go fishing. Unfortunately I'm pretty
> inept myself at
> man's favorite sport.

Indeed,J-P. And the can opener I reccomend is
Rivette's review of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"
entitled "The Hand." It can be found in English
translation in Jonathan Rosenbaum's BFI book on Rivette.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
19174

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:25am
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
> > You're opening such a big can of worms, Dan! I'm
> > sure some will
> > pick it up to go fishing. Unfortunately I'm pretty
> > inept myself at
> > man's favorite sport.
>
> Indeed,J-P. And the can opener I reccomend is
> Rivette's review of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"
> entitled "The Hand." It can be found in English
> translation in Jonathan Rosenbaum's BFI book on Rivette.
>
Do you mean the can of worms had been opened fifty years ago by
Rivette and Dan didn't know about it?

I hope the Rivette piece makes sense in English. It's tough
enough in French. I must say I have always been reluctant to accept
statements like: "If you're not deeply moved by this, you know
nothing not only about cinema but about man." (my own translation).
No matter how much I admire Lang and "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt",
this kind of high-flying pomposity has always turned me off (by the
way Rivette now disavows practically everything he wrote in those
days). Of course it was the way cinephiles spoke and wrote at the
time. Hyperbole was king. it was also fashionable to discuss
everything under the sun except the film at hand (Rivette brought up
Clouzot, Hitchcock, Bresson, Cayatte, Murnau in his piece -- that
huge footnote). Dragging in "grace" and "sin" didn't hurt either.
Ending in a blaze with "the honor to be a man" (or to be human? --
let's not be sexist in translation)was a guarantee of greatness. Oh,
don't misunderstand, it was a great sermon, but wasn't it preaching
a bit too loudly to a choir of happy few?

JPC
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
19175

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:29am
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
> > You're opening such a big can of worms, Dan! I'm
> > sure some will
> > pick it up to go fishing. Unfortunately I'm pretty
> > inept myself at
> > man's favorite sport.
>
> Indeed,J-P. And the can opener I reccomend is
> Rivette's review of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"
> entitled "The Hand." It can be found in English
> translation in Jonathan Rosenbaum's BFI book on Rivette.
>
>
> David, i just wrote a long response dealing with the Rivette
article, and it got lost in cyberspace when I clicked on "send" and
got the message "the page cannot be opened". I am disgusted. Maybe
I'll try again tomorrow. JPC
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
19176

From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:24am
Subject: Re: acting '04

.
>
> I wonder how much the TV aesthetic may have to do with what we're
> talking about. James L Brooks is on my mind these days, what with
> SPANGLISH getting lukewarm reviews and Jonathan in his review
today
> recanting his "masterpiece" evaluation of AS GOOD AS IT GETS
(which
> is too bad, because I thought his defense of the film -- as a
> movie "musical" for the musical-averse, pro-TV sitcom age -- was
> brilliant and I used it to defend the film many times. Do I feel
> betrayed?). I'm not sure what I think of Brooks as I now realize
> that AS GOOD AS IT GETS is the only film of his I love. I watched
> TERMS OF ENDEARMENT on TNT earlier this week, and man it was like
> that movie was made with commercial interruptions in mind.

> But even if I were to conclude (not ready to just yet) that the
> emotions Brooks manufactures are largely artificial or steroidally
> enhanced by sitcom screenwriting, I wouldn't use this as a reason
to
> dismiss him outright.

All I know is that I love AS GOOD AS IT GETS,
> because the characters, for whatever reason, occupy a world that
> operates on its own logic of moods, gestures and emotional
problems,
> even if few of them bear any authentic resemblance to our own. >
Kevin

For whatever it's worth, my own choice for Brooks's best film is the
musical version of I'LL DO ANYTHING--which must be annoying as hell
since it's so out of reach. But I would add that I still value a
great deal of his other films (with the possible exception of TERMS
OF ENDEARMENT, which hasn't stuck to my ribs to the same degree as
the others). I had a difficult edit on my SPANGLISH piece, and I
originally thought of giving three stars to the film instead of two.
But the bottom line is that I think Brooks's brilliance and falsity
are ultimately opposite sides of the same coin--which is a bit like
the way I feel about MY SON JOHN and certain icky passages in other
McCarey films--which leads me to conclude that people who reject
Brooks's films outright are actually missing more than they think.
He's the guiltiest of my guilty pleasures, but that doesn't mean
that I don't value him enormously. And, incidentally, regretting my
four stars for AS GOOD AS IT GETS doesn't mean I was disavowing the
terms of my defense (thanks for the support, Kevin), only that I was
overestimating the film in relation to some of Brooks's other films.
(E.g., what I like in BROADCAST NEWS I like even more.

Trying to work out one's ambivalence and (perhaps) confusion in
public is always a risky matter. My SPANGLISH piece has already
occasioned one of the longest and angriest pieces of hate mail I've
ever received--much of it a half-hearted (or three-quarters-hearted)
defense of Kael that winds up arguing that few movies are worth
seeing twice anyway, that Kael already knew Brooks was a phony after
seeing BROADCAST NEWS only once, that I obviously said I couldn't
accept her as a great critic because I obviously thought I was the
only great critic in the world, and P.S., I'm Jewish, which
obviously explains everything. (The unsigned correspondent doesn't
appear to be aware that Kael was Jewish too.) So it looks like I
picked a hot subject.

Jonathan
19177

From:
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:59am
Subject: Re: The Perils of Pauline (was: acting '04)

Most people on a_film_by loathe Pauline Kael. After all, this is the
auteurist forum!
I for one have always regarded her as the Worst Film Critic of All Time, The
Toady of the Literary Establishment in its Quest to Downgrade Movies, the Arch
Enemy of the Auteur Theory, The Proponent of Movies as Trash, a Writer who
Snidely Condescends to Directors, and one step up from being The Second Cousin
of Satan!
Aside for all that, I have no strong feelings on the subject.

Mike Grost
19178

From:
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:35am
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

If Lang seems a bit conventional, maybe it is because he invented the
conventions!
"Metropolis" is the most influential science fiction film ever made. It is
still the model of most sf films that came after.
Similarly, Lang's crime thrillers are the model for most subsequent
directors, including Hitchcock and all of film noir.

Genre still seems like a touchy subject in responding to film. Many people
just do not like genre films as much as "realistic dramas". Fritz Lang, who is
Mr. Genre himself, is at the epicenter of this controversy. I am still unsure
why my whole being resonates so deeply with Lang, sf and mystery, while many
other people do not.
For most critics in 2004, the film of the year is the really, really
depressing "Sideways", a "realistic drama" if there ever was one. It seems infinitely
less interesting to me than just about anything Lang ever directed.
Fritz Lang is a genius, being sacrificed on the altar of "realism".

Mike Grost
author of:
The Films of Fritz Lang
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/lang.htm

(for a deeper dive into Lang)
19179

From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:16am
Subject: Re: Re: The Big Heat - SPOILERS

>> David, i just wrote a long response dealing with the Rivette
> article, and it got lost in cyberspace when I clicked on "send" and
> got the message "the page cannot be opened". I am disgusted. Maybe
> I'll try again tomorrow. JPC

That post went through. I find much of your commentary on "La Main" to
be dead-on, not to mention quite amusing. But with regard to hyperbole
as king in the world of '50s French cinephile criticism, I appreciate
this aspect of the Cahiers-crew's (et al) prose as only one brush for
what turned out to be something more like expressive canvasses than
anything approaching modern-day (or more accurately, modern-day
extra-French) film criticism. But from Comolli through Daney and up to
many of the current French critics, I wouldn't say hyperbole has
vanished completely (with respect to your comment that "it was the way
cinephiles spoke and wrote at the time")... although the degree of the
hyperbole might have gone down a notch. Perhaps the battles aren't
-so- vital anymore, or the stakes considered so high?

As for the opening paragraph of "Le G�nie de Howard Hawks," Rivette's
remarks about the onscreen evidence have always struck me as a
rhetorical stroke, something playful for the here and now, but which,
were he pressed, he would have been prepared to back up with "real"
cogency in a forum other than the one he's defined here and now (there
and then?) *as just the sort of place for such a discussion*; he builds
the armature for just such a forum, then no matter how model (that is,
despite how the essay's title would have things be) prefers to set it
spinning on a cornice by riffing (brilliantly) about morality. (So not
too far off from grace and sin!) In some relation to Hawks, although
one could make many of the same points for many another director, just
choose a name then Find&Replace "Hawks." Anyway, I'm sure Rivette
wouldn't have allowed himself such an excursion were Hawks's status
within the group not already one of a cause c�l�bre, and were he not
certain that Hawks would get his due and then some in every issue of
the revue.

Whatever the case, one of the things I appreciate most about French
film criticism is the sense of utter unboundedness, the feeling that
anything goes. The essay here becomes an extension of the individual
and an opportunity to express a worldview; hardly surprising then that
so many French movie critics became and become serious, often
important, artists in their own right. They've always treated their
essays as playthings, or investigations of the self. And as such their
pieces are often very entertaining (in the way that J-P has often
asserted all good art should necessarily be -- we can also extend this
to criticism). Nonetheless, I can't say the same for so much
English-language film criticism (though, not even to be conciliatory, I
can note I really enjoy a lot of the work produced here and elsewhere
by members of this list), which seems to exist purely so the writer can
score points for being a good little student, or well-adjusted member
of society, or whatever, measuring the artwork up to some kind of
theoretical morality (in Christ-knows what sense), or depersonalized
theoretical "objectivity." While calmly stating, when he or she is
pressed on some particular point: "Well, of course, all points-of-view
are subjective..."

craig.
19180

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

> > David, i just wrote a long response dealing with
> the Rivette
> article, and it got lost in cyberspace when I
> clicked on "send" and
> got the message "the page cannot be opened". I am
> disgusted. Maybe
> I'll try again tomorrow.

Please do. Needless to say my mention of "The Hand"
was a provocation of sorts in that it's one of the
most extravagant pieces of "criticism" ever written.

But it does underscore the fact (circled around in
recent discussions in here but never really nailed
down) that Lang is not a realistic director.
Ritualistic would be more to the mark -- which is what
connects his late works to Rivette's more arcane
experiments, particularly "Noroit."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
19181

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 2:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Perils of Pauline (was: acting '04)

--- MG4273@a... wrote:

> Most people on a_film_by loathe Pauline Kael. After
> all, this is the
> auteurist forum!
> I for one have always regarded her as the Worst Film
> Critic of All Time, The
> Toady of the Literary Establishment in its Quest to
> Downgrade Movies, the Arch
> Enemy of the Auteur Theory, The Proponent of Movies
> as Trash, a Writer who
> Snidely Condescends to Directors, and one step up
> from being The Second Cousin
> of Satan!
> Aside for all that, I have no strong feelings on the
> subject.
>
Don't hold back, Mike. Tell us what you really think.

I've always found her a mass of contradictions.
Obviously an intelligent woman, exceptionally charming
in person -- yet quite often be incredibly stupid in
print. In fact any number of Kael articles contain
both keen insight and rank stupidity.

She was a very American character, in mainstream
terms, in that she was an anti-intellectual
intellectual.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19182

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:16pm
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > > David, i just wrote a long response dealing with
> > the Rivette
> > article, and it got lost in cyberspace when I
> > clicked on "send" and
> > got the message "the page cannot be opened". I am
> > disgusted. Maybe
> > I'll try again tomorrow.
>
> Please do. Needless to say my mention of "The Hand"
> was a provocation of sorts in that it's one of the
> most extravagant pieces of "criticism" ever written.
>
> But it does underscore the fact (circled around in
> recent discussions in here but never really nailed
> down) that Lang is not a realistic director.
> Ritualistic would be more to the mark -- which is what
> connects his late works to Rivette's more arcane
> experiments, particularly "Noroit."
>
>
> Well, my post did go through after all... "Ritualistic' is
not bad. Rivette called Lang "le cineaste du concept" in his (in)
famous review (characters have lost all individual value, they are
no longer but human concepts, he wrote). Well yes, Rivette
in "Noroit" is in a sense at least going the same way.
JPC
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
19183

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

Well yes,
> Rivette
> in "Noroit" is in a sense at least going the same
> way.

And not just there. I think to of the ending of "Va
Savoir" with the trampoline or the golf course
sequence in "Merry Go Round."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19184

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:18pm
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOILERS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
But with regard to hyperbole
> as king in the world of '50s French cinephile criticism, I
appreciate
> this aspect of the Cahiers-crew's (et al) prose as only one brush
for
> what turned out to be something more like expressive canvasses
than
> anything approaching modern-day (or more accurately, modern-day
> extra-French) film criticism. But from Comolli through Daney and
up to
> many of the current French critics, I wouldn't say hyperbole has
> vanished completely (with respect to your comment that "it was the
way
> cinephiles spoke and wrote at the time")... although the degree of
the
> hyperbole might have gone down a notch. Perhaps the battles
aren't
> -so- vital anymore, or the stakes considered so high?

Hyperbole is a French tradition, and, no, it hasn't vanished
completely, far from it, but whereas it used to be motivated by
genuine passion it has largely degenerated into a polemical weapon.
Fifties French critics may have been unfair to some (on both sides --
let's say, to simplify, the Cahiers side and the Positif side)but
their enthusiasms were almost always right on target, and they were
fighting for a woethy cause in the name of "evidence". I wouldn't
say that of, say, the Liberation gang of today.
>
>
> Whatever the case, one of the things I appreciate most about
French
> film criticism is the sense of utter unboundedness, the feeling
that
> anything goes. The essay here becomes an extension of the
individual
> and an opportunity to express a worldview; hardly surprising then
that
> so many French movie critics became and become serious, often
> important, artists in their own right. They've always treated
their
> essays as playthings, or investigations of the self.

Yes. ideally that's what criticism should always be -- an
investigation of the self.

On the other hand the "utter unboundedness' you mention could
spawn absolutely bewildering pieces of delirous literature such as
Michel Cournot's famous 1965 "review" of PIERROT LE FOU, really a
kind of surrealistic prose poem in which the film is
never "discussed" but serves as a pretext for a flow of stream-of-
consciousness images. Should the line be drawn somewhere? I'm not
saying it should, and anyway the point is moot because this is not
the kind of writing on film we're likely to see again.

And as such their
> pieces are often very entertaining (in the way that J-P has often
> asserted all good art should necessarily be -- we can also extend
this
> to criticism).
Yes, I do tend to repeat myself, don't I? Age, you know...

Nonetheless, I can't say the same for so much
> English-language film criticism (though, not even to be
conciliatory, I
> can note I really enjoy a lot of the work produced here and
elsewhere
> by members of this list), which seems to exist purely so the
writer can
> score points for being a good little student, or well-adjusted
member
> of society, or whatever, measuring the artwork up to some kind of
> theoretical morality (in Christ-knows what sense), or
depersonalized
> theoretical "objectivity." While calmly stating, when he or she
is
> pressed on some particular point: "Well, of course, all points-of-
view
> are subjective..."
>
> craig.

English-language critics (especially film critics) have always
been leery of enthusiasm, not to mention deliriousness. There's an
old tradition of condescension, of writing about movies as though
you were slumming. Most mainstream critics more or less still cling
to that attitude.

JPC
19185

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:38pm
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >> Well, multiple codes aren't required.... I wasn't taking Lang to
> > task
> >> when I made that comment, but the problems that I'm having with
> > the film
> >> these days have to do with my perception that, in his American
> > period at
> >> least, Lang is too willing to let movie conventions govern the
> > characters,
> >> the way they behave, the emotions they convey to us.
> >>
> >
> > Is it a matter of being too willing or of not having a choice?
>
> I don't think my post was very clear on this point, but my
reservations
> about Lang don't have to do with the sort of restictions that
Hollywood
> imposes. There's a thing which is in the power of any director to
> influence, something which is hard to define precisely except by
vague
> words like "tone": it has to do with acting style, and where the
> storytelling emphases fall. It's the first thing I notice about
any film,
> and 90% of the time it's the key thing. If a film is conventional,
its
> conventionality is usually centered there: everything written and
said
> sounds familiar, originality is sacrificed in favor of hitting
familiar
> storytelling cues, the audience knows quickly what kind of message
is
> sent.
>
> I don't want to put the above forth as a definition, because all
films are
> conventional in some way or another, and there's always that 10% of
movies
> where one's first impression of unoriginality is eventually proven
wrong.
>
> But, among Pantheon directors, Lang is the only one who almost
always
> gives me the impression that he is neglectful of this "tone." I
really
> want to respond to him, because his visual and rhythmic
representation of
> life is so very striking and compelling - no one is like him, and
he
> creates amazing things. But time and time again I've sat there
listening
> to his people talk and his story unfold, and felt as if the
emotional
> heart of the movie was undistinguished and rote.
>
> The other major dude who makes me feel this way is Walsh. - Dan

Thanks for a concise statement of your position. Very, very
interesting.
19186

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:46pm
Subject: Re: The Big Heat - SPOLIERS (Was: Totalitarian Aesthetics)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
Lang is not a realistic director.
> Ritualistic would be more to the mark -- which is what
> connects his late works to Rivette's more arcane
> experiments, particularly "Noroit."
>
> A director who took the Fortune/Maria paradigm (see my post in this
thread) from Lang and made them goddesses.
19187

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:49pm
Subject: Current french crit (was: The Big Heat - SPOILERS)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>

>
>
> Hyperbole is a French tradition, and, no, it hasn't vanished
> completely, far from it, but whereas it used to be motivated by
> genuine passion it has largely degenerated into a polemical weapon.
> Fifties French critics may have been unfair to some (on both sides -
-
> let's say, to simplify, the Cahiers side and the Positif side)but
> their enthusiasms were almost always right on target, and they were
> fighting for a woethy cause in the name of "evidence". I wouldn't
> say that of, say, the Liberation gang of today.
> >
What did you think of Patrice LeConte's not-supposed-to-be-public
letter about this subject in 2000?
19188

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:50pm
Subject: Re-seeing THE AVIATOR...

...with the main Academy group this time, I still like it, and I
think it's "about" Bush.
19189

From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:02pm
Subject: RE: Wise and other directors http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/filmdirectors/

I've mentioned this site before but as there are new members, I'll site
it again as a source for on the web articles about directors.

Wise, Robert

Rausch, Andrew J. �Sure I�ll Do It: An Interview with Robert Wise�.
Bright Lights Film Journal, 35,
Jan 2002.
(http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/35/robertwise1.html)

Smuts, Aaron. �Haunting the House from Within: Disbelief Mitigation and
Spatial Experience� (on
The Haunting). Film-Philosophy, 6(7), April 2002.
(http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol6-2002/n7smuts)

von Dassanowsky, Robert. �An Unclaimed Country: The Austrian Image in
American Film and the Sociopolitics of The Sound of Music�. Bright
Lights Film Journal, 41, August 2003.
(http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/41/soundofmusic.htm)

Elizabeth
19190

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:13pm
Subject: Re: Current french crit (was: The Big Heat - SPOILERS)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >
> > Hyperbole is a French tradition, and, no, it hasn't vanished
> > completely, far from it, but whereas it used to be motivated by
> > genuine passion it has largely degenerated into a polemical
weapon.
> > Fifties French critics may have been unfair to some (on both
sides -
> -
> > let's say, to simplify, the Cahiers side and the Positif side)
but
> > their enthusiasms were almost always right on target, and they
were
> > fighting for a woethy cause in the name of "evidence". I
wouldn't
> > say that of, say, the Liberation gang of today.
> > >
> What did you think of Patrice LeConte's not-supposed-to-be-public
> letter about this subject in 2000?

The letter was a rambling mess, but it was largely justified.
There is a critical mafia in France that is bent on destroying
everything and everybody they do not approve of, and their methods
are unspeakable. Some filmmakers got tired of being systematically
reviled and insulted. Their reaction was clumsy (the original draft
by Tavernier was considerably amanded and rewritten, with a lot of
extraneous material added) but understandable. JPC
19191

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:59pm
Subject: Erratum: The Big Heat - SPOILERS

For those who read my long screed on theodicy, the one-line summary
from THE CHANGELING was mis-reported. It's "How many knaves make an
honest man?" That's why they're Middleton and Rowley and I'm just me.
19192

From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Current french crit (was: The Big Heat - SPOILERS)

>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>> What did you think of Patrice LeConte's not-supposed-to-be-public
>> letter about this subject in 2000?
>>
>> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
>> wrote:
> The letter was a rambling mess, but it was largely justified.
> There is a critical mafia in France that is bent on destroying
> everything and everybody they do not approve of, and their methods
> are unspeakable. Some filmmakers got tired of being systematically
> reviled and insulted. Their reaction was clumsy (the original draft
> by Tavernier was considerably amanded and rewritten, with a lot of
> extraneous material added) but understandable. JPC

Can this letter be found anywhere online?

cmk.
19193

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:22pm
Subject: Re: Current french crit (was: The Big Heat - SPOILERS)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:

>
> Can this letter be found anywhere online?
>
> cmk.

I don't know. It was published by LE MONDE (November 25, 1999)and
I printed it out from their website at the time. It's in their
archive but you have to pay for material older than a week or so. It
was a very long letter, and there were followups, including a
hostile response by Jean-Louis Comolli (November 27). If you can't
find it online I can mail you a copy.

JPC
19194

From:
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:28pm
Subject: Re: Current french crit (was: The Big Heat - SPOILERS)

The letter and the replies became a huge public controversy in France, on the
order of Whistler VS Ruskin.
Wish we could have some genuine artistic controversies here in the States -
it shows respect for and interest in the arts!

Mike Grost
19195

From:
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Re: Erratum: The Big Heat - SPOILERS

Bill -
You're still doing better than I - your post brought home that I have never
read either "The Changeling" or "The Malcontent". They have been added to the
reading list...
The discussion of The Revenger was VERY interesting.

Mike Grost
Marston-less in Michigan
19196

From:
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 5:34pm
Subject: Re: Re-seeing THE AVIATOR...

In a message dated 04-12-19 12:51:09 EST, Bill Krohn writes:

<< I still like it, and I think it's "about" Bush. >>

O no!
I was looking forward to this - but I do NOT want to see a film about "W".
The film looks gorgeous in all its TV ads...

Mike Grost
19197

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:42pm
Subject: Re: Re-seeing THE AVIATOR...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 04-12-19 12:51:09 EST, Bill Krohn writes:
>
> << I still like it, and I think it's "about" Bush. >>
>
> O no!
> I was looking forward to this - but I do NOT want to see a film
about "W".
> The film looks gorgeous in all its TV ads...
>
> Mike Grost

If/When they make a film about GWB someone is sure to say that
it's "about" Howard Hughes.

By the way, Bush is TIME's "Man of the Year." Deservedly so,
since he managed to get reelected after fucking everything up for
four years. "Faut le faire," as we say in France.
19198

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:45pm
Subject: Re: Re-seeing THE AVIATOR...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 04-12-19 12:51:09 EST, Bill Krohn writes:
>
> << I still like it, and I think it's "about" Bush. >>
>
> O no!
> I was looking forward to this - but I do NOT want to see a film
about "W".
> The film looks gorgeous in all its TV ads...
>
> Mike Grost

Call HH a precursor of our current messianically absolutist Texas
loon, in the same way that Hitchcock, say, is a predecessor of some
hack doing erotic thrillers for cable tv. Same type, different
stature. But seeing the film again, I did think of a number of points
they have in common. And I can promise you'll have a good old
fashioned movie-movie great time, Mike - until the last hour, which
is a deliberate downer like the last hour of Kane. By way of
compensation, I suppose, that's when the three-strip look starts,
while Kate H. is bandaging his foot after the accident.
19199

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:47pm
Subject: Re: Erratum: The Big Heat - SPOILERS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Bill -
> You're still doing better than I - your post brought home that I
have never
> read either "The Changeling" or "The Malcontent". They have been
added to the
> reading list...
> The discussion of The Revenger was VERY interesting.
>
> Mike Grost
> Marston-less in Michigan

Try The Malcontent for starters. I really think having auteurist
training gives one a one-up on professional scholars of the Jacobean
period. They would never think to look for continuities the way we're
accustomed to, strangely enough.
19200

From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:53pm
Subject: Re: Re-seeing THE AVIATOR...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:

BTW, besides being messianically convinced of the infallibility of
his instincts, surrounded by yes-men, oil-business-rich from birth,
anti-regulation, fanatically pro-business and borderline paranoid (a
border Hughes eventually crossed), W. is of course an aviator (of
sorts) and was a producer while trying to find himself: From 1983 to
1992 he was an unlisted member of the board of Silver Screen
Management (or Partners), a company that produced movies exclusively
for Tri Star, then Walt Disney. Silver Screen was founded by Bush's
Yale frat brother (and fellow Skull and Bones member) Roland W.
Betts. People always talk about The Hitcher as the slasher W.
produced, but the list is about 40 films long, and includes things
like Return to Oz and Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Mostly duds.

a_film_by Main Page

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact