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.

19201

From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:03pm
Subject: Cinephile tyrant Re:La Lettre/Renoir/Rivette

Craig Keller wrote:
> Does anyone on the list know where I might be able to find
> issue 20 of La Lettre du cinéma? The P.O.L. site
> only lists as far up as 17 from 2001 -- ditto Amazon.fr.
> Issue 20 (from earlier this year) is what I'm specifically
> looking for, as it contains the "A propos de Jean Renoir"
> piece by Jacques Rivette.

The piece (French readers only):
http://mapage.noos.fr/maximer/lettre.pdf

When the cineaste loses his work, which becomes the property of the
happy few who understand it and care for it.

"Monsieur Jean Renoir, this film, of course, belongs to you, but it
also belongs to us, because we are the ones who liked it the way it
is for years: it belongs to us as much it belongs to you." (I like
the "of course")

I shall admit that, true or not, I prefer the story according to
Delahaye, with Rivette telling to Renoir – by phone, the horrible
thing – that, if the film was released mutilated, nobody would never
speak to him again. This is delightfully absurd.
19202

From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Leconte "La critique des cinéastes"

La critique des cinéastes
ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 25.11.99
À L'INITIATIVE de Patrice Leconte, qui se dit " effaré de l'attitude
de la critique vis- à-vis du cinéma français ", des cinéastes se
sont réunis, le 4 novembre, sous le parrainage de la société civile
Auteurs-Réalisateurs-Producteurs (ARP). De leurs discussions est né
un texte, adressé aux " spectateurs de films " et actuellement
soumis à la signature des cinéastes jusqu'au jeudi 25 novembre, par
l'intermédiaire des responsables de l'ARP. Ses auteurs ont envisagé
de le distribuer " à l'entrée des salles de cinéma " et prévoient de
le publier largement début décembre. Le Monde a obtenu la version
définitive de ce texte et a décidé de le publier sans attendre sa
diffusion publique et sans connaître les noms de ses signataires.
Même si elle y est vivement interpellée et contestée, la presse
écrite n'a rien à perdre dans ce débat qui l'oppose à une partie des
cinéastes. Il va de soi que la publication de ce point de vue,
souvent polémique, ne vaut pas approbation des attaques personnelles
qui y figurent, à l'encontre de plusieurs critiques, et notamment de
notre collaborateur Jacques Mandelbaum.
NOUS ne contesterons jamais la liberté d'expression. Certains
d'entre nous, à travers leurs films, combattent pour en rappeler les
fondements et en dénoncer les violations. Sur un plan plus global,
nous savons que nous vivons dans un pays à l'esprit critique. Un
pays où l'on critique avec esprit. Le pays où couvaient, sous les
articles d'analystes de l'art de leur temps, le talent et le génie
de Diderot, Mirbeau, Proust, Baudelaire, Malraux et tant d'autres,
tous critiques d'art et créateurs.
Mais il y a une colère. Elle s'est exprimée aussi lors de notre
réunion. De cette réunion du 4 novembre est né le texte que voici :
Cela couve depuis un certain nombre d'années. Ce ras-le-bol, cette
exaspération et cette tristesse qui creusent un fossé entre un grand
nombre de cinéastes et de critiques français. Dans ce mélange
irrationnel de dégoût, d'écoeurement, de rage, de mépris, que nous
pouvons parfois éprouver vis-à-vis de certains articles.
Et pourtant, on nous avait prévenus. Le cinéaste qui expose son
oeuvre s'expose aux coups. La sanction de la presse et du public
fait partie du jeu. La fortune du film, son acceptation, la capacité
d'enthousiasme ou de rejet qu'il peut susciter fondent sa relation
avec le public. Notre travail s'articule aussi à travers cette
relation.
Nous sommes dans l'ordre de la nécessaire existence de la critique.
Nous ne sommes même pas outragés par des titres sensationnels : "
Pourquoi le cinéma français est nul ", comme dans Le Figaro
Magazine. Nous avons l'habitude. C'est une plaie récurrente dans le
journalisme français depuis quinze ans que d'inventer un de ces
titres-chocs, que la lecture du même journal contredirait en maintes
reprises. Oui, Le Figaro Magazine a dû défendre et encenser une
bonne vingtaine de films français. Séparément. Car dès qu'il s'agit
d'un bilan, on envoie les titres catastrophistes et accrocheurs.
On regrette d'en trouver une autre preuve dans Le Nouvel
Observateur, qui a récemment écrit : " Le Nord produisait des
betteraves, il produit maintenant des navets. " Par ailleurs, les
articles critiques défendent à juste titre Nord, de Xavier Beauvois.
La Vie de Jésus, de Bruno Dumont, Karnaval, de Thomas Vincent.
Deux journaux ont titré plusieurs fois sur cinq colonnes : " Le
cinéma français est fini ", " Le cinéma français condamné à
disparaître ". Il s'agit du Matin et du Quotidien de Paris. Tous
deux ont sombré, nous sommes toujours là.
Quant à L'Evénement, qui se fit une spécialité de ces accroches
sensationnelles, rappelons qu'il en est à son troisième rachat.
Il est vrai qu'il y a toujours eu des contentieux entre créateurs et
critiques, on se souvient de phrases célèbres : " J'ai parcouru
cette critique d'un derrière distrait " (Henri Jeanson), ou : "
Demander à un créateur ce qu'il pense d'un critique, c'est demander
à un réverbère ce qu'il pense d'un chien " (John Osborne), ou : "
Les critiques sont aussi essentiels à l'oeuvre d'art que les fourmis
le sont à un pique-nique " (Mankiewicz).
Essayons donc d'élever le niveau ou, en tout cas, de cerner les
causes de notre courroux.
Ce qui nous chagrine, ce n'est pas qu'un critique émette des
réserves sur nos films. C'est la manière, le ton, l'utilisation
facile et démagogique de procédés polémiques d'une autre époque,
cette sémantique de la haine et du mépris.
La critique est en crise. En crise d'intelligence, en crise de
compétence, en déficit d'analyse et d'enthousiasme.
Longtemps à l'avance, nous savons, nous sentons que des films seront
exécutés avant même qu'ils ne soient terminés et vus. Que des
cinéastes seront obligatoirement exclus.
L'exemple le plus caricatural et le plus pitoyable se trouve dans
Les Inrockuptibles quand, quelques mois avant leur sortie et sans en
avoir vu aucun, Frédéric Bonnaud et Serge Kaganski donnent la liste
des films de la rentrée 1996 sous le titre : " Les films qui nous
donnent envie de changer de métier ". Ça les amuse ? Pas nous. Après
cela, les mêmes poussent des cris d'orfraie et parlent d'atteinte à
la liberté de la presse lorsqu'ils ne sont pas invités aux
projections. Pour quoi faire ? Puisque la critique est déjà écrite.
Jusqu'au début des années 80, il y avait des règles déontologiques,
morales, élaborées par des gens comme Eric Rohmer, Michel Aubrian,
Michel Cournot, Jean-Louis Bory, Henri Chapier. Ils parlaient avant
tout de ce qu'ils aimaient et ne publiaient jamais d'articles
négatifs avant la sortie d'un film.
Ils accordaient toujours un délai de grâce aux films qui
témoignaient d'un certain degré d'ambition et d'exigence. Jean de
Baroncelli attendait souvent le début de la semaine suivante pour
faire paraître une critique sévère d'un auteur.
Aujourd'hui, il n'est pas rare que Première ou Studio éreintent une
oeuvre dix ou quinze jours avant sa sortie, et, quand on leur en
fait la remarque, ils se réfugient derrière le devoir de coller à
l'actualité, de la précéder. Traduisons en clair : le désir d'avoir
un scoop, de se créer une image combative compte davantage que les
risques, les doutes, la souffrance et l'exaltation qui ont motivé
nos films.
Ils nous ont supprimé le droit au bouche-à-oreille. L'exécution
précède l'exposition.
Libération a écrit des phrases dégueulasses (" Un ratage intégral.
[Ce film] fera date dans l'histoire du merdouillage forcené. [Il]
évoque quelque mauvais porno français des seventies. ") sur le film
de Polanski avant même qu'un spectateur ait eu la chance de le voir.
Qui pourra nous expliquer ce que gagnent les journaux à massacrer
les films avant leur sortie ? Comment peut-on justifier une telle
attitude ? Le goût d'un pouvoir dont on veut sentir la puissance, au
moins pendant quelques jours ? Le désir d'influencer ses confrères ?
La volonté de paraître plus malin ?
Et puis, il y a cette jubilation, quasi palpable, dans le plaisir de
détruire, d'abîmer, cette joie qu'on devine à écrire telle ou telle
exécution, à imaginer tel ou tel titre fracassant.
Les lignes pleines de morgue et de sentiment de supériorité que
Jacques Mandelbaum a écrites sur La Maladie de Sachs (" Deville
n'évite ni l'effet du panel sociologique ni la fabrication
maniériste d'un propos qui se voudrait réaliste "), le " Au lion les
crétins ! " à propos de L'Amour à mort, d'Alain Resnais, au Festival
de Venise, est-ce excusable ? La " chronique d'une merde annoncée "
de Gérard Lefort ( " Des pâtes, des pâtes, oui, mais des Rosi ",
écrivait-il au- dessous du titre de l'article). Serge Loupien disant
que le seul intérêt d' Autour de minuit était que Dexter Gordon
était logé au Crillon, est-ce pardonnable ?
Seule consolation pour nous : mettre dans un plateau Jacques
Mandelbaum et Gérard Lefort, d'un côté, et Michel Deville, Alain
Resnais et Francesco Rosi, de l'autre, et attendre le jugement du
temps.
Quels sont leurs titres de gloire ? Céline pouvait traiter Sartre
d' " agité du bocal " : il avait écrit Voyage au bout de la nuit.
Octave Mirbeau pouvait détruire un très grand nombre d'artistes
académiques, il avait derrière lui des oeuvres comme Le Jardin des
supplices. Le Journal d'une femme de chambre. Jean Renoir pouvait
être profondément méchant envers le Marcel Carné de Quai des
Brumes : il était Jean Renoir
On nous ressortira Godard, Truffaut, la nouvelle vague, etc., cette
histoire sacrée, revendiquée par tous, agitée souvent n'importe
comment, alors qu'on en ignore le plus souvent les réelles
conditions d'émergence. Truffaut reconnaissait avoir été violent,
souvent injuste, s'être parfois trompé, mais il rappelait, avec
raison, que c'était pour faire des films, non pour intégrer des
commissions, siéger au Centre national de la cinématographie (CNC),
briguer des postes honorifiques, une émission de radio, siéger à
l'avance sur recettes, à la sélection de Cannes, au comité pour les
Oscars, etc.
Nous avons l'impression, nous cinéastes, que des gens se servent de
nos films comme d'un marchepied pour obtenir des postes, pour
toucher la " gloire audimatique ". Pour reprendre les mots de
Godard : " Ils ne vivent pas pour le cinéma. Ils vivent du cinéma. "
Imagine-t-on André Bazin, Jacques Rivette, Michel Perez se servir de
leur prestige de critiques pour aller commenter des défilés de mode
sur Paris Première ? Lefort, par ailleurs, le fait très bien... bien
mieux que lorsqu'il écrit sur le cinéma.
Que dire de cet esprit polémique qui attise les clans, les
chapelles, les haines, et repose sur des partis pris connus
d'avance ?
Sur tous les tournages, on s'amuse à prévoir ce que seront les
articles des Inrockuptibles, de Libération, du Monde ou même de
Télérama. Dans 90 % des cas, la suite nous donne raison.
Ces choix et ces diktats sont exprimés avec une suffisance, une
morgue qui nous sont désormais insupportables. Souvent, nous avons
protesté individuellement, et nous nous sommes fait vertement
tancer. La corporation se protège : " Vous attaquez la liberté de la
presse. Vous voulez nous censurer. " Nous pensons simplement que
toute liberté entraîne des devoirs, dont pas mal de journalistes
critiques se croient par leur talent totalement exemptés.
Disons-le : nous connaissons peu d'hommes politiques qui ont été
attaqués avec la même férocité, la même bassesse et le même mépris
que nous, si ce n'est dans la presse d'extrême droite d'avant-
guerre.
Nous, on peut tranquillement nous qualifier de cinéastes vichystes,
traiter Les Enfants du marais de " film gâteux ", de " pétainisme
light ".
Bonnaud peut parler de " Tavernier, ce bourgeois lyonnais " (cela
dit, face à la supériorité de l'intellectuel parisien, il préfère
sans doute être un bourgeois lyonnais). Didier Péron peut évoquer
sans vergogne la " malhonnêteté " de Ken Loach. Le Monde dire de
Philippe Harel qu'il doit avoir un profond mépris de lui-même, ou
faire du réalisateur de Baril de poudre un complice de Milosevic. Le
Monde écrira d'un Géorgien qu'il fait un film d'ivrogne, Libération,
de Philippe Noiret, qu' " il a un gros cul ", et d'Ornella Mutti,
qu' " elle ressemble à un loukoum graisseux ".
Gérard Lefort pouvait lancer de manière insultante à Solveig
Dommartin : " Casse-toi, dégage ! " au sujet de Jusqu'au bout du
monde, de Wim Wenders.
Est-il normal de voir un des critiques télévision de Libération
assassiner récemment toute l'oeuvre de Kubrick (qui " n'était pas un
bon juif " ou Truffaut ( " La Nuit américaine, cette bouillie
sentimentale, cette entreprise d'idéalisation presque pétainiste des
petits métiers du cinéma "), et Leos Carax ( " De Mauvais Sang, il
ne reste rien ") ? Imagine-t-on, dans une revue littéraire ou
musicale, quelqu'un écrivant " En dehors de Pierrot mon ami, Queneau
n'a écrit que de la merde ", ou " Duke Ellington, à part Echo of
Harlem, n'a fait que de la soupe " ?
Dans tous les combats que nous avons menés, en dehors de celui des
sans-papiers, l'ensemble de la presse française a souvent été contre
nous. Dans l'affaire de la colorisation, Lefort nous traitait de
dinosaures, trouvant que la colorisation, " c'était marrant ", que
le fait que John Huston l'interdise n'était pas à prendre au pied de
la lettre. Et ces arguments ont été utilisés par les avocats de Ted
Turner. Il est vrai que la bataille des droits d'auteurs n'est pas
formidablement excitante, rock'n'roll, déglinguée ou poilante.
Combien de fois, dans les batailles pour l'Europe, nous sommes-nous
fait traiter de frileux, de protectionnistes, de cinéastes
hexagonaux !
Qui d'autre, à part les cinéastes français, a eu l'idée géniale de
la Quinzaine des réalisateurs, qui consistait à montrer dans un
festival prestigieux, comme Cannes, des films de cinéastes
étrangers, et qui a permis d'en découvrir des dizaines et des
dizaines ? Est-ce du protectionnisme frileux que de se battre pour
préserver certains acquis, certains droits, certaines lois qui
permettent à la France de financer des cinéastes étrangers comme
Manoel de Oliveira, Mike Leigh, Pedro Almodovar, Jane Campion, Abbas
Kiarostami, Ken Loach, Krzysztof Kieslowski ? Tout cela a été obtenu
grâce à notre enthousiasme, à nos batailles, et nous n'avons été
soutenus que du bout des lèvres, avec une sorte de sourire
condescendant.
Ils n'écrivent plus pour vous donner l'envie.
Les lecteurs semblent aussi peu compter, pour cette nouvelle race de
critiques, que la réalité pour les énarques. Car ils ne se remettent
jamais en question.
Frédéric Bonnaud, à propos du dernier film de Benoît Jacquot, le
compare aux oeuvres " du plus mésestimé des grands cinéastes
français, Claude Sautet ". Mésestimé par qui, à part lui et son
journal ?
Résultat, et nous le déplorons, une grande partie de cette critique
ne sert plus à rien, sinon à amuser un petit cercle d'amateurs de
métaphores douteuses, et d'aficionados d'exécutions capitales.
Résultat " collatéral " : cette critique ne sait plus ou ne fait
plus aimer les films.
Quand Henri Chapier écrivait dans Combat, il offrait 200 ou 300
spectateurs de plus au film. Michel Cournot a fait exister avec
passion les films de Jean-Luc Godard, Claude Lelouch, Milos Forman,
Le Premier Maître de Konchalovsky, et il a donné sa chance à José
Varela, à l'époque de Mamaïa. Aujourd'hui, des films peuvent avoir
une pleine page dans Libération ou Le Monde, le même service dans
Les Inrockuptibles (souvent à la traîne), l'effet ne joue pas : le
lendemain, il n'y a pas un spectateur de plus.
De ce fait, ils font le désespoir de ceux qu'ils soutiennent. Car,
si l'on observe la passion que ces critiques entretiennent avec
l'oeuvre de certains de nos amis cinéastes, l'inefficience de leur
intervention, leur manque de crédibilité, que leurs diatribes ont
par ailleurs induites, rendent leur effort de promotion de ce qu'ils
prétendent aimer encore plus pathétique.
On assiste à une sorte d'incapacité à transmettre la passion,
l'amour d'un film.
Et les acteurs !
Il y eut une époque heureuse où un critique amoureux du cinéma
écrivait de manière lyrique et forte sur le plaisir qu'il avait eu à
voir jouer tel comédien dans tel ou tel rôle.
Nous, metteurs en scène, sommes surpris de voir comme la critique
éprouve du mal à juger le travail réel. " La critique, c'est la
pédagogie de l'enthousiasme ", disait Aragon. Dans vingt ans,
parions qu'on parlera de l'interprétation de nombreux films français
comme on parle de celle des films de Clouzot et de Becker. Et cela,
c'est aussi aux critiques de le remarquer... pour le public.
Nous avons tout à perdre à une mise à l'écart de la critique, et le
cinéma américain a tout à y gagner. Il défend des idées simplistes,
le plaisir du spectacle contre l'ennui des films d'auteurs,
l'excitation technologique contre l'introspection intimiste. C'est
pour cela que notre colère est plus qu'une colère, car elle exprime
une immense tristesse devant tant de dérapages, tant de faux pas,
tant d'occasions manquées.
Ce manque d'humilité, ce plaisir sadique et jubilatoire du
démolissage, ce style arrogant, cette mauvaise foi sans
contradicteurs, cette cruauté facile et plaisante, ce goût du
calembour et du bon mot assassin, le journaliste qui les commet et
s'en délecte doit savoir qu'il flatte une relation avec son lecteur
qui n'est pas d'une grande élévation d'esprit.
Mais peu lui importe d'être en avance sur les goûts du public pour
l'éclairer, peu lui importe de faire partager une certaine idée du
cinéma, le vrai sujet de son article n'est pas l'oeuvre dont il
parle. Le vrai sujet, c'est lui, sa place dans la coterie
parisienne, le regard que portera sur lui tel de ses collègues,
lorsqu'il le rencontrera à la prochaine projection de presse.
Nos films ne sont pas tous bons. Et, nous le répétons, nous ne
pleurnichons pas. Nous ne craignons ni la sanction du public ni les
foudres de la critique.
Mais nous sommes en droit de réclamer que les journalistes dignes de
ce nom, qui ne se reconnaissent pas dans la description de ces
plumitifs, le disent enfin, et cassent cette espèce de solidarité
corporatiste surannée qui les identifie irrémédiablement au pire de
leur métier, dans une sorte de machine à niveler dont ils deviennent
les apologues et les victimes.
Oui, nous sommes en droit de réclamer un pacte qui repose sur une
base de bonne coexistence, de compréhension et de déontologie. Nous
souhaiterions qu'aucune critique négative d'un film ne soit publiée
avant le week-end qui suit la sortie en salles.
Cependant, il s'agit en l'occurrence d'un débat. Et, dans ce débat,
se sont exprimées plusieurs opinions qui nous interpellent tous.
La première concerne la liberté d'expression, et nous nous en sommes
déjà expliqués au début de ce texte.
La deuxième sous-entend que notre colère est une panique devant la
réduction des parts de marché du cinéma français. C'est faux. Dans
un marché où la fréquentation est globalement en extension, nous
savons que la critique n'a rien à voir avec la fragilisation des
films français dans le système de distribution, le choix des salles
et les dates de sortie, la place grandissante des télévisions dans
leur financement, donc dans leur contenu ; ce sont des problèmes que
nous tentons d'affronter, seuls, comme d'habitude.
La troisième est plus complexe, puisqu'elle semble contredire toute
la teneur du texte, et cette contradiction n'est surmontable que si
nous précisons bien certains éléments.
La critique défend certains films. Et, sans elle, de nombreux
cinéastes qu'elle promeut n'auraient pas d'existence. Sans la
critique, qui a tracé un cercle autour de cinéastes qu'elle chérit,
les producteurs de ces metteurs en scène, le système d'aide du
Centre national de la cinématographie et l'intervention de la chaîne
Arte n'auraient pas de raison de continuer à exister. Ils ont besoin
d'un espace naturel de gratification pour valider les risques qu'ils
ont pris, et leurs efforts sont souvent récompensés par de bonnes
surprises publiques que leur passion, leur fidélité à l'art
cinématographique et leur ambition artistique ont mérité. Une
logique économique globale, la violence du marché les condamneraient
au silence, leur oeuvre à l'oubli et leurs créateurs au chômage.
Penser que ce texte est l'émanation d'un groupe qui a les faveurs du
public, contre ceux qui n'ont que celles des journalistes, le
transformerait en un odieux pamphlet poujadiste.
Les phénomènes de mode, la volatilité de ce qui plaît ou déplaît,
les hauts et les bas des carrières répondent pour nous. Notre
métier, que ce soit le marché ou la critique qui nous soutiennent,
que nous ayons la chance d'être à la fois appréciés des journalistes
et récompensés par un grand nombre d'entrées ou non, participe de
ces aléas dont aucun de nous n'est à l'abri.
C'est la raison pour laquelle notre colère n'a pour objet que de
susciter, dans le périmètre de notre intervention, non pas
l'indulgence mais du débat, de l'objectivité, de l'humilité et de la
lucidité, qui, comme chacun le sait, sont des marques d'intelligence.
Il nous faut donc vivre et continuer à tourner des films avec
l'espoir d'avoir été, ne serait-ce que l'espace d'un instant,
entendus.
19203

From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:32pm
Subject: Response by Jean-Louis Comolli to Leconte & Co

"A cinema of everyday consumption may prefer to do without any
criticism."

A propos d'un torchon-manifeste
ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 01.12.99
IL est assez consternant de lire la sorte de torchon-manifeste
produit par « des réalisateurs » (lesquels ? Signeront-ils, cette
fois, ce dont ils sont auteurs ?) et publiée par Le Monde puis
Libération. D'un côté « des » cinéastes, français de surcroît,
disent-ils ; de l'autre, « la critique ».

Y a-t-il « une » critique, y a-t-il « un » cinéma en France
aujourd'hui ? Mettre dans le même sac Première ou Studio, viatiques
promotionnels, et Le Monde, Télérama, Libération ou Les
Inrockuptibles, journaux où s'exerce, bien ou mal, un point de vue
critique sur les films de l'actualité, c'est opérer déjà une
confusion qui ne sert qu'à masquer cette vérité terrible que les
films sont en lutte les uns contre les autres, non pas sous l'angle
d'une « concurrence », sous celui de la bataille des idées et des
formes.

Ce qu'on s'obstine à nommer « le » cinéma français est divisé entre
des régimes économiques, des manières de faire, des systèmes
d'écriture qui ne sont pas et ne seront jamais en paix - pas plus
que la société française n'est et ne sera réconciliée. Entre Jean-
Claude Biette et Claude Berri, entre Patrice Leconte et Luc Moullet,
entre Bertrand Tavernier et Nicolas Philibert (par exemple), quelle
distance, quel abîme, quel monde !

Qu'ils le sachent ou pas, les critiques qui écrivent aujourd'hui et
les spectateurs eux-mêmes, sont à leur tour parties prenantes de ces
combats. Supposer, comme font les rédacteurs de cette compilation
ressentimentale, que le conflit passerait entre critiques et
cinéastes, les uns et les autres pris globalement, relève de
l'imposture et désigne, pire, une volonté de dissimuler la dimension
idéologique et les enjeux de sens qui sont au travail dans tous les
films et qui les font s'affronter.

Se faufilerait là, courant sous les mots, la supposition que les
films d'aujourd'hui pourraient être « ratés » ou « réussis », «
bons » ou « mauvais » du seul point de vue d'une « esthétique »
coupée des significations que ne peut que porter toute esthétique
digne de ce nom (choix de moyens, de formes, de styles qui renvoient
à des positions morales, qui font articulation d'écriture et de
sens) - et qu'il appartient précisément au travail critique de
relever.

Se présenteraient à nous des films « innocents » qu'il faudrait
juger selon la même « innocence », et si possible pas trop vite,
disons... le week-end après sortie ! Il n'y aurait qu'à rire de
cette vision idyllique du cinéma comme divertissement consensuel,
rebaptisé « cinéma populaire » (pauvre peuple !), si elle ne
s'énonçait en un temps particulier, qui est bien celui de la peur,
voire de la haine devant tout ce qui fait effort de pensée, tout ce
qui prétend faire bouger les consciences, troubler les évidences et
les certitudes.

Demandons-nous : pourquoi la charge dite « des cinéastes » survient-
elle aujourd'hui, alors que s'excitent les attaques contre, en vrac,
les artistes et musiciens contemporains, les intellectuels, les
enseignements, la création et la recherche en sciences comme en
télévision, les radios du service public, la politique culturelle de
l'Etat, les bibliothèques ? J'y vois pour ma part la rumeur montante
d'un lepénisme rampant. J'ai besoin, cinéaste, du regard des autres
et d'abord du regard de celui, le critique, dont l'activité
principale est de voir à peu près tous les films du moment. J'ai
besoin qu'il confronte à ce que d'autres font ce que je fais, et que
souvent je ne sais pas. « Bonne » ou « mauvaise », toute critique
induit une mise en question du film dont elle s'empare. Serions-nous
prétentieux au point de croire tout connaître de nos oeuvres, d'en
avoir fait le tour mieux que quiconque, de ne plus rien attendre des
autres regards que la confirmation de nos aveuglements ? Pour avoir
été critique - et critiqué -, j'espère pouvoir dire que le choc
critique (qui peut en effet blesser et même outrager) produit aussi
des étincelles capables de mettre en lumière les ombres que portent
les films, et jusqu'à l'ombre portée du cinéaste lui-même sur son
film quand il s'en fait l'agent publicitaire.

Mais la crise que révèle la lettre de Patrice Leconte et les suites
picrocholines qu'elle a eues nous disent aussi que nous sommes
entrés dans une nouvelle (et sinistre) dimension de l'économie du
cinéma, quand les spectateurs ne sont plus tenus pour des alter ego
par les réalisateurs, mais pour une troupe de consommateurs
incapables de trier entre les critiques et les films, qu'il
s'agirait avant tout d'attirer dans les salles à force de promesses
et de mensonges. Un cinéma de consommation courante peut préférer se
passer de critique.

PAR JEAN-LOUIS COMOLLI
19204

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:56am
Subject: Re: Response by Jean-Louis Comolli to Leconte & Co

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:

I was with Agnes Beraud, Patrice's longtime companion, doing PR
chores for my Hitchcock book while this was all going on - a
situation made more complicated by the fact that Agnes was and had
been the Cahiers publicist for five years at that point, enduring
their knocks of Patrice's work. (Like Tavernier, but not as much, he
wrote for CdC starting out.) I asked her about Kent Jones' article in
Libe attacking Patrice's letter and comparing him to Luc Besson,
France's most successful director of commercial fare. She said, "Why
would Patrice be unhappy to be compared to Luc Besson!"
19205

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:04am
Subject: Re: Response by Jean-Louis Comolli to Leconte & Co

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

> I was with Agnes Beraud, Patrice's longtime companion, doing PR
> chores for my Hitchcock book while this was all going on - a
> situation made more complicated by the fact that Agnes was and had
> been the Cahiers publicist for five years at that point, enduring
> their knocks of Patrice's work. (Like Tavernier, but not as much, he
> wrote for CdC starting out.) I asked her about Kent Jones' article in
> Libe attacking Patrice's letter and comparing him to Luc Besson,
> France's most successful director of commercial fare. She said, "Why
> would Patrice be unhappy to be compared to Luc Besson!"

Kent Jones also wrote an article in the Village Voice:
http://villagevoice.com/issues/9951/jones.php

The article by Alan Riding he refers to is here:
http://marshallinside.usc.edu/mweinstein/teaching/fbe552/552secure/notes/Arts%20Abroad%20The%20French%20Fume%20Over%20Popularity%20of%20U_S_%20Films.htm

Paul

19206

From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:45am
Subject: top tens

Why do film critics' top tens all look the same? I was asking
myself this question earlier tonight glancing at Ebert, Wilmington
and others' lists (a few have been posted to
www.moviecitynews.com).

Do critics have such blind faith in what's out there? Are they so
unoriginal that they all like the same things?

I think, for the most part, it's the nature of the game. Film is mass
distributed -- unlike the art world --, and arrives to one person the
same as it does in all other markets. Naturally, we're all seeing
THE AVIATOR.

But isn't boring that a bunch of people like the film?

Why don't more lists include I LOVE HUCKABEES? And why
aren't more critics at Hollis Frampton screenings?

In November I saw a video piece by Nan Godlin in Paris that was
only shown there, for a limited time, and won't likely show again
soon.

This is a kind of art world decadence: the investment of millions
of dollars into something that only a small group of people will
be able to see. Certainly, films are produced so they can reach
an unlimited potential viewers. Yet the Nan Goldin piece
reminded me in many ways of TARNATION, a film shown at
festivals and which everyone can see (soon it will even be on
DVD and available at every Blockbuster in the country).

And Goldin's piece isn't any more or less accessible than
Caouette's film; there is no context buried in the piece that
TARNATION doesn't also have. They're both about suffering.
They were both made using iMovie techniques.

Goldin and her colleagues seemed satisfied with the
presentation. They didn't -- like Matthew Barney did with the
Cremaster films -- feel that they had to get as much mileage out
of it as possible.

Art world elitism vs. film world populism?

But what happens when film becomes a mouthpiece for the art
world to communicate to a broader audience -- a mere
instrument attached to a larger thing that is *art* !

The blame doesn't rest on filmmakers for this abuse. It's the
critics who are to blame for being so dull, for their appreciation of
only a handful of works, which they all agree are good or bad. In
other words, a fear of elitism.

Apparently, film critics are unaware of the harm this is doing. For
this very reason, I will not compose a top ten list for 2004,
enticing as it is, useful as it may be -- it's a promise now, a
could've been...

Gabe
19207

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:45am
Subject: Re: top tens

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> Goldin and her colleagues seemed satisfied with the
> presentation. They didn't -- like Matthew Barney did with the
> Cremaster films -- feel that they had to get as much mileage out
> of it as possible.
>
> Art world elitism vs. film world populism?
>
> But what happens when film becomes a mouthpiece for the art
> world to communicate to a broader audience -- a mere
> instrument attached to a larger thing that is *art* !

Well, you get crap like the Cremaster films.

It might be interesting to compile a list of individual gestures that
have been made against the uniformity of 10 Best Lists through the
years. Gabe's is the extreme reaction: Silence.

I already turned in my best list to the one outlet that asked for it,
and I'm going to have to resend it because I just saw Before Sunset.
My stepson rented it - at Blockbuster - and turned it off in disgust
halfway through. I put it on intending to see a few minutes; was
fascinated to find myself in Shakespeare & Co., right around the
corner from the hotel I was staying in a couple of weeks ago; was
amused to see an accordionist stationed next to it when they turned
into that street, and more amused to see the street they start down
next turn into another street with a wave of the hand; and watched
fascinated till the end.

Naturally, I was watching Julie Delpy. But I'd be curious to know
what Dan, our acting expert, thought of that mesmerizing performance.
It is a very particular kind of performance: She's seducing us,
whereas Ethan Hawke isn't seducing the camera - he's
seducing "Celine." In retrospect, though I fell into the trap, I miss
the moments in a performance that tell you it's being seen by someone
else - the director - except maybe at the end, when she's doing Nina
Simone, which was great! But it would be interesting to compare
Celine to a Beatrice Romand creation in a Rohmer film, for example. A
very different kind of thing.

By the way, Celine is nuts. Shakespeare & Co. is the worst of about
twenty bookstores in a ten-minute radius of where they are. I know,
because I just spent a fortune in them, as I always do when I stay in
that part of town.
19208

From:
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:27am
Subject: Re: top tens

The uniformity of Top Tens is partly a frightening case of Group Think.
It also reflects common critical values: most US critics favor "serious
dramas about ordinary people in everyday life in modern times", while they hate
genre films, experimental films, anything made for TV.... This year, it is
"Sideways" that has won the "serious drama" sweepstakes. Much contemporary criticism
simply consists of finding the "serious dramas" in the year's releases, then
certifying them as "great art". It is an award for category, pure and simple.
It has nothing to do with visual style, mise-en-scene, or any creativity. If a
film is a "serious drama", and it meets minimal craft standards (the actors
are not visibly drunk, the boom mike is not in the frame) then it is certified
as a "great film".
Have not seen most of this year's top ten lists yet, however.

Mike Grost
19209

From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:08pm
Subject: Re: top tens

Gabe:
> The blame doesn't rest on filmmakers for this abuse. It's the
> critics who are to blame for being so dull, for their appreciation
> of only a handful of works, which they all agree are good or bad.
> In other words, a fear of elitism.

The most useful lists are almost always ones that name titles I
don't know much (or anything) about. Unfortunately the critic who
does this gets tagged for being elitist or esoteric.

A list is a list is a list, and can only do so much for a reader.
If you're submitting one for publication some kind of substantial
commentary is necessary--which is why I always greatly enjoy reading
lists of favorites (year end or otherwise) by Christoph Huber, Kent
Jones, and Nicole Brenez (@ Senses of Cinema), or list members
Adrian Martin and Jonathan Rosenbaum ... among many others.

Sometimes lists alone can be so mysterious and even perverse that
they don't totally need commentary. The "ecstacies"
and "elevations" that Olaf Muller submits to Senses are fun, while
I've always been impressed by former Village Voice critic Gary
Dauphin's 1996 list:

1. Man by the Shore (Raoul Peck)
2. Set It Off (F. Gary Gray)
3. Waati (Souleymane Cisse)
4. The Last Supper (Stacy Title--I think)
5. Independence Day (Roland Emmerich)
6. Mars Attacks! (Tim Burton)
7. Star Trek: First Contact (Jonathan Frakes)

Say what you will about the films on the list, it's certainly the
sort of thing I wouldn't mind seeing more of, and wish I could see
Dauphin's commentary (if he had any). Four wholly mainstream
American movies (I think three of which did very good business), and
yet this comes off as more perverse and iconoclastic than the many
reviewers' lists from the same year that put the same "indies" (THE
ENGLISH PATIENT, SECRETS & LIES, BREAKING THE WAVES, FARGO, PARADISE
LOST, etc.) over and over.

I only got a chance to see Raoul Peck's remarkable, powerful MAN BY
THE SHORE a few months ago, and wonder if it was commercially
released or only exhibited at a rep house or something in NYC 1996.
Because no other reviewer I know of ten-bested the film that year,
but if it was eligible it deserved *far* more attention than it
got. And if it weren't for seeing Dauphin's list, out of context, I
wouldn't have looked forward to seeing the film for some years,
until I happened upon it when it was screened in my black diaspora
film class.

That said, Gabe, I'll keep of my own favorites this year for purely
personal, slightly neurotic reasons, but I also won't even bother to
submit a year-end list anywhere for the simple reason that the few
favorites I do have are all "major" films (though none of them
mainstream smashes), half seen at NYFF, and I don't feel like anyone
would get anything out of seeing my list, as they might if they look
at a list from a programmer or a festival-hopper or simply someone
who keeps up with New York film scene much more exhaustively than I
do. The best thing a list can do is to help the critic/reviewer's
role as teacher, commentator, and example.

--Zach
19210

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:36pm
Subject: Re: top tens

--- Gabe Klinger wrote:

>
> Why do film critics' top tens all look the same?

Because people are like sheep.

> Do critics have such blind faith in what's out
> there? Are they so
> unoriginal that they all like the same things?
>

Yes and yes.

Naturally,
> we're all seeing
> THE AVIATOR.
>
> But isn't boring that a bunch of people like the
> film?
>
Actually it's a lot more controversial than that. Have
you read Manohla's review in the NYT?

> Why don't more lists include I LOVE HUCKABEES?

For the same reason that people believe that Derrida
calimed that nothing made any sense.

And
> why
> aren't more critics at Hollis Frampton screenings?
>
Well now you've opened a REAL can of worms! Nver liked
his films or him.

Especially him.

> In November I saw a video piece by Nan Godlin in
> Paris that was
> only shown there, for a limited time, and won't
> likely show again
> soon.
>
This is Jonathan Rosenbaum's cue.

Yet the Nan Goldin
> piece
> reminded me in many ways of TARNATION, a film shown
> at
> festivals and which everyone can see (soon it will
> even be on
> DVD and available at every Blockbuster in the
> country).
>
A film I liked while I was watching it yet have grown
increasingly disenchanted with subsequently.

> And Goldin's piece isn't any more or less accessible
> than
> Caouette's film; there is no context buried in the
> piece that
> TARNATION doesn't also have. They're both about
> suffering.
> They were both made using iMovie techniques.
>

If Goldin is as much of a showboat as Caouette I know
I'm not going to like it.

> Goldin and her colleagues seemed satisfied with the
> presentation. They didn't -- like Matthew Barney did
> with the
> Cremaster films -- feel that they had to get as much
> mileage out
> of it as possible.
>

And man is HE ever insufferable!

> Art world elitism vs. film world populism?
>
The two terms have collapsed into one in recent years.

> But what happens when film becomes a mouthpiece for
> the art
> world to communicate to a broader audience -- a mere
>
> instrument attached to a larger thing that is *art*
> !
>
Not sure what you're talking about here.

> The blame doesn't rest on filmmakers for this abuse.
> It's the
> critics who are to blame for being so dull, for
> their appreciation of
> only a handful of works, which they all agree are
> good or bad. In
> other words, a fear of elitism.
>

That creates an elitism of its own.

> Apparently, film critics are unaware of the harm
> this is doing. For
> this very reason, I will not compose a top ten list
> for 2004,
> enticing as it is, useful as it may be -- it's a
> promise now, a
> could've been...
>

Oh go ahead, Gabe.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19211

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:14pm
Subject: Re: Response by Jean-Louis Comolli to Leconte & Co

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
:
>
> I was with Agnes Beraud, Patrice's longtime companion, doing PR
> chores for my Hitchcock book while this was all going on - a
> situation made more complicated by the fact that Agnes was and had
> been the Cahiers publicist for five years at that point, enduring
> their knocks of Patrice's work. (Like Tavernier, but not as much,
he
> wrote for CdC starting out.)

"not as much" is debatable if you mean, as I assume, that BT
hasn't been knocked by Cahiers as much as Leconte. Cahiers have been
hating Tavernier and his work ever since he started. He seems to
represent everything they're against. All his films are panned in
Cahiers. "Laisser passer" was savaged in a really shocking
editorial. For an example of the tone, check out the review of "Un
dimanche a la campagne" by Yann Lardeau, #359, titled: "The Sunday
of a Hack" and starting: "What a bore! What a daub!" etc...

BT did write for Cahiers, briefly in the 60s but that doesn't
help -- au contraire. He switched to Positif and wrote some violent
attacks against Cahiers there, so that was it.

JPC
19212

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:33pm
Subject: Delpy and Before Sunset (Was: top tens)

> Naturally, I was watching Julie Delpy. But I'd be curious to know
> what Dan, our acting expert, thought of that mesmerizing performance.

Uh-oh. My acting tastes are too eccentric for me to be the acting expert.

I liked Delpy in the film, but I thought that her performance (and
Hawke's) was a little bit afflicted by Woody Allen Syndrome, where the
actor seems to be directed to keep talking no matter what, and fills space
with little nervous repetitions that strike me as more typical of a busy
improv than of anyone's psychology. The way Linklater shot the film no
doubt made it difficult to avoid this problem.

> It is a very particular kind of performance: She's seducing us, whereas
> Ethan Hawke isn't seducing the camera - he's seducing "Celine."

This is a good observation: the film is structured with a classic
male-as-subject/female-as-object dynamic, which accounts for much of this
effect, I think.

To complicate things, though, Celine's prickly side and her neuroses are
given a fair amount of play in the film. Less than Jesse's: again, this
is the subject/object thing, but with a more complicated strategy of
idealization, one that leaves some room for the viewer to formulate other
opinions. I sat there thinking, "This gal is going to be trouble if you
ever get the relationship with her that you want" - but the film doesn't
fall apart if you position yourself this way. It has just enough
character coherence to allow some speculation on the viewer's part. - Dan
19213

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:39pm
Subject: Re: top tens

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> Why do film critics' top tens all look the same? I was asking
> myself this question earlier tonight glancing at Ebert, Wilmington
> and others' lists (a few have been posted to
> www.moviecitynews.com).
>

To paraphrase Mark Twain on the weather, Everybody complains
about Ten best Lists but no one does anything about it.

By the way, why 10? Why not 7 or 12? They sound less trite.

Since I have not seen much more than a dozen new films this
year, there's no point in my making a 10-best list anyway. Maybe a
three best list. Or a one-best non-list.
19214

From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:37pm
Subject: Re: top tens

The problem I always have with putting together annual ten best lists
is that I'm never sure of the criteria. Is the list supposed to only
include films released during the previous twelve months? I usually
just list the films I liked best out of those I saw for the first
time during the previous year - but maybe that makes the whole
exercise meaningless. Anyway, here's my 2004 list:

AYNCH/THE MIRROR (Jafar Panahi, 1997)
BUCKING BROADWAY (John Ford, 1912)
COMING APART (Milton Moses Ginsberg, 1969)
DOGVILLE (Lars Von Trier, 2003)
KHAMOSH PANI/SILENT WATERS (Sabiha Sumar, 2003)
THE INVADERS (Thomas H. Ince and/or Francis Ford, 1912)
MORVERN CALLAR (Lynne Ramsay, 2001)
THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS (Alan Rudolph, 2003)
LA VIE NOUVELLE (Philippe Grandrieux, 2002)
WERCKMEISTER HARMONIAK /WERCKMEISTER HARMONIES (Bela Tarr, 2000)

But after submitting that to SENSES OF CINEMA, I watched a DVD of
Chaplin's A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG, a film I would definitely have
included on the list if I'd seen it a few days earlier (or submitted
the list a few days later). I guess that's one for the 2005 list.
19215

From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:53pm
Subject: Chicago Film Critics results (Re: top tens)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Gabe Klinger wrote:
>
> >
> > Why do film critics' top tens all look the same?
>
> Because people are like sheep.

Here's the Chicago Film Critics Association results, published
this morning:

BEST PICTURE-"Sideways"

BEST FOREIGN-LANGUAGE FILM-"A Very Long Engagement"
(France)

BEST DIRECTOR-Clint Eastwood for "Million Dollar Baby"

BEST ACTOR-Paul Giamatti for "Sideways"

BEST ACTRESS-Imelda Staunton for "Vera Drake"

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR-Thomas Hayden Church for
"Sideways"

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS-Virginia Madsen for "Sideways"

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY (TIE)-Christopher Doyle for "Hero"
-Robert
Richardson for "The Aviator"

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE-Howard Shore for "The Aviator"

BEST DOCUMENTARY-"Fahrenheit 9/11"

MOST PROMISING NEWCOMER-Catalina Sandino Moreno for
"Maria Full of
Grace"

MOST PROMISING FILMMAKER-Zach Braff for "Garden State"

The prize given to Braff is particularly offensive to me.

Gabe
19216

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:01pm
Subject: Re: Delpy and Before Sunset (Was: top tens)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:

Celine's prickly side and her neuroses are
> given a fair amount of play in the film. Less than Jesse's: again,
this
> is the subject/object thing, but with a more complicated strategy
of
> idealization, one that leaves some room for the viewer to formulate
other
> opinions. I sat there thinking, "This gal is going to be trouble
if you
> ever get the relationship with her that you want" - but the film
doesn't
> fall apart if you position yourself this way. It has just enough
> character coherence to allow some speculation on the viewer's
part. - Dan

So here's another thought experiment: Imagine Celine in a Rohmer
film.
19217

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:03pm
Subject: Re: top tens

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> The uniformity of Top Tens is partly a frightening case of Group
Think.
> It also reflects common critical values: most US critics
favor "serious
> dramas about ordinary people in everyday life in modern times",
while they hate
> genre films, experimental films, anything made for TV...

Good to see you consolidating a theoretical position, Mike. Of course
it's also rare for a comedy to get the top slot.
19218

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:12pm
Subject: Women's vision in films (was:Response by Jean-Louis Comolli to Leconte & Co

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> :
> >
> > I was with Agnes Beraud, Patrice's longtime companion, doing PR
> > chores for my Hitchcock book while this was all going on - a
> > situation made more complicated by the fact that Agnes was and
had
> > been the Cahiers publicist for five years at that point, enduring
> > their knocks of Patrice's work. (Like Tavernier, but not as much,
> he
> > wrote for CdC starting out.)
>
> "not as much" is debatable if you mean, as I assume, that BT
> hasn't been knocked by Cahiers as much as Leconte. Cahiers have
been
> hating Tavernier and his work ever since he started. He seems to
> represent everything they're against. All his films are panned in
> Cahiers. "Laisser passer" was savaged in a really shocking
> editorial. For an example of the tone, check out the review of "Un
> dimanche a la campagne" by Yann Lardeau, #359, titled: "The Sunday
> of a Hack" and starting: "What a bore! What a daub!" etc...
>
> BT did write for Cahiers, briefly in the 60s but that doesn't
> help -- au contraire. He switched to Positif and wrote some violent
> attacks against Cahiers there, so that was it.
>
> JPC

Actually, I meant Leconte wrote even less than Tavernier for CdC,
where they both get slammed regularly. Sylvie Pierre went out of her
way to praise BT's new film (written by his daughter) in a Trafic 52
piece that is the beginning of the first independent polemical
campaign in SP's career. More to follow - when I first called her up
she was just discovering Le gout des autres on tv and thoroughly
enjoying it. Unless I miss my guess, the polemic will be about
women's vision as opposed to men's -- finally, after a lifetime of
supporting the polemics of her male friends.
19219

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:15pm
Subject: Chicago Film Critics results (Re: top tens)

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

Looks like it's going to be Payne's year. (I don't think it's
Scorsese's after seeing Aviator with an Academy audience.) At least
maybe we'll get to see some Emmers here if he becomes King of the
World....
19220

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:16pm
Subject: Re: top tens (and dentists)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> The problem I always have with putting together annual ten best
lists
> is that I'm never sure of the criteria. Is the list supposed to
only
> include films released during the previous twelve months? I
usually
> just list the films I liked best out of those I saw for the first
> time during the previous year - but maybe that makes the whole
> exercise meaningless. Anyway, here's my 2004 list:
>

That's the kind of list I could do! It doesn't make the exercise
any more meaningless than a List limited to films released during
the year. Just makes it more personal.

> AYNCH/THE MIRROR (Jafar Panahi, 1997)
> BUCKING BROADWAY (John Ford, 1912)
> COMING APART (Milton Moses Ginsberg, 1969)
> DOGVILLE (Lars Von Trier, 2003)
> KHAMOSH PANI/SILENT WATERS (Sabiha Sumar, 2003)
> THE INVADERS (Thomas H. Ince and/or Francis Ford, 1912)
> MORVERN CALLAR (Lynne Ramsay, 2001)
> THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS (Alan Rudolph, 2003)
> LA VIE NOUVELLE (Philippe Grandrieux, 2002)
> WERCKMEISTER HARMONIAK /WERCKMEISTER HARMONIES (Bela Tarr, 2000)
>
I am curious about your inclusion of "The Secret Lives of
Dentists". The film was discussed here a few weeks or months ago
(Peter Tonguette started it, I think) but I can't remember what was
said. I hadn't seen the film then. Now I have seen it and am very
ambivalent about it. I felt it attempted to combine two genres, or
two approaches that just don't mix. I thought the idea of
introducing the character of the disgruntled patient/musician into
the actual lives of the family as the protagonist's alter ego or id
was disastrous, although i suspect it was what the film's fans found
most interesting (it's "daring") about it. To me it spoiled the
qualities of realistic observation that distinguish the film (those
three little girls are incredibly convincing!)

JPC
19221

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:23pm
Subject: Re: top tens (and dentists)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> I am curious about your inclusion of "The Secret Lives of
> Dentists". The film was discussed here a few weeks or months ago
> (Peter Tonguette started it, I think) but I can't remember what was
> said. I hadn't seen the film then. Now I have seen it and am very
> ambivalent about it. I felt it attempted to combine two genres, or
> two approaches that just don't mix. I thought the idea of
> introducing the character of the disgruntled patient/musician into
> the actual lives of the family as the protagonist's alter ego or id
> was disastrous, although i suspect it was what the film's fans
found
> most interesting (it's "daring") about it. To me it spoiled the
> qualities of realistic observation that distinguish the film (those
> three little girls are incredibly convincing!)
>
> JPC

Haven't seen it, but it sounds just like what happened on Prelude to
a Kiss - the romantic comedy at the beginning works better than the
daring body switch, and better than most current romantic comedies!
19222

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:22pm
Subject: Re: Women's vision in films (was:Response by Jean-Louis Comolli to Leconte & Co

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > :
> > >
>> >
>
> Actually, I meant Leconte wrote even less than Tavernier for CdC,
> where they both get slammed regularly. Sylvie Pierre went out of
her
> way to praise BT's new film (written by his daughter) in a Trafic
52
> piece that is the beginning of the first independent polemical
> campaign in SP's career. More to follow - when I first called her
up
> she was just discovering Le gout des autres on tv and thoroughly
> enjoying it. Unless I miss my guess, the polemic will be about
> women's vision as opposed to men's -- finally, after a lifetime of
> supporting the polemics of her male friends.

Sorry I misunderstood your post, Bill.

Sylvie Pierre sent Bertrand an e-mail telling him she had
experienced her praise of his film in TRAFIC as breaking a taboo.
JPC
19223

From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:29pm
Subject: Re: Re-seeing THE AVIATOR...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
>
> 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.

I believe the new issue of PSYCHOTRONIC contains further
information concerning George W. in Hollywood.

Tony Williams
19224

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: Delpy and Before Sunset (Was: top tens)

> So here's another thought experiment: Imagine Celine in a Rohmer
> film.

Okay, that's interesting. Cross-reference, maybe, Anne-Laure Meury in THE
AVIATOR'S WIFE, who is intended to charm, perhaps to seduce. There's
similarity, but also a subtle difference. I'd say that Delpy is given an
authority over the film that Rohmer characters don't get. You can like
Delpy or not, but to reject her fascination is to reject the film.
Whereas Meury is always held at arm's length so that we can wonder about
her and study her. You can reject her fascination, and there's still a
movie there - her mystery is interesting in the context of the film, even
if we aren't moved by that mystery. - Dan
19225

From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:04pm
Subject: Re: top tens (and dentists)

"I am curious about your inclusion of "The Secret Lives of Dentists".
The film was discussed here a few weeks or months ago (Peter
Tonguette started it, I think)"

I was the one who started it. Here's what I wrote:

-------------------------------------------------
Last night, I watched Alan Rudolph's THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS
(2003), a film which has had absolutely no exposure in the UK. I
imported the American DVD - Rudolph's previous film, INVESTIGATING
SEX (2001), appears to have completely vanished (unless anyone knows
of a video/DVD release somewhere).

For the first two-thirds/three quarters, I was pretty bored - then I
started to have the strangest feeling that I was watching something
as beautiful and delicate as one of Ozu's masterpieces. It's not that
the film 'improved' or sprang to life - more that I suddenly 'got'
where Rudolph had been going, understood everything he had been
conveying to me without my realizing it. I think I started to feel
this way around the point that Denis Leary says "Marriage is
impossible". Because everything the film has been doing up to then
gives unexpected weight to this otherwise banal line - in exactly the
same way that the experience of watching TOKYO STORY allows us to
perceive "Life is disappointing" as a profound statement.

I'll have to watch the film again before I can be certain that the
conclusions I reached following my initial, rather odd viewing have
any real validity, but I'd be curious to know if there are any other
admirers out there.
----------------------------------------------------

"Now I have seen it and am very ambivalent about it. I felt it
attempted to combine two genres, or two approaches that just don't
mix. I thought the idea of introducing the character of the
disgruntled patient/musician into the actual lives of the family as
the protagonist's alter ego or id was disastrous"

I was also ambivalent during most of the running time, until the film
suddenly clicked for me. Not in the sense that I thought it suddenly
started to work, but in the sense that it had been working all along,
and I'd only just realized it. I haven't had a chance to watch the
film again, but I haven't been able to stop thinking about it.

"those three little girls are incredibly convincing!"

That's something else which made me think of Ozu.
19226

From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:04pm
Subject: Re: top tens (and dentists)

"I am curious about your inclusion of "The Secret Lives of Dentists".
The film was discussed here a few weeks or months ago (Peter
Tonguette started it, I think)"

I was the one who started it. Here's what I wrote:

-------------------------------------------------
Last night, I watched Alan Rudolph's THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS
(2003), a film which has had absolutely no exposure in the UK. I
imported the American DVD - Rudolph's previous film, INVESTIGATING
SEX (2001), appears to have completely vanished (unless anyone knows
of a video/DVD release somewhere).

For the first two-thirds/three quarters, I was pretty bored - then I
started to have the strangest feeling that I was watching something
as beautiful and delicate as one of Ozu's masterpieces. It's not that
the film 'improved' or sprang to life - more that I suddenly 'got'
where Rudolph had been going, understood everything he had been
conveying to me without my realizing it. I think I started to feel
this way around the point that Denis Leary says "Marriage is
impossible". Because everything the film has been doing up to then
gives unexpected weight to this otherwise banal line - in exactly the
same way that the experience of watching TOKYO STORY allows us to
perceive "Life is disappointing" as a profound statement.

I'll have to watch the film again before I can be certain that the
conclusions I reached following my initial, rather odd viewing have
any real validity, but I'd be curious to know if there are any other
admirers out there.
----------------------------------------------------

"Now I have seen it and am very ambivalent about it. I felt it
attempted to combine two genres, or two approaches that just don't
mix. I thought the idea of introducing the character of the
disgruntled patient/musician into the actual lives of the family as
the protagonist's alter ego or id was disastrous"

I was also ambivalent during most of the running time, until the film
suddenly clicked for me. Not in the sense that I thought it suddenly
started to work, but in the sense that it had been working all along,
and I'd only just realized it. I haven't had a chance to watch the
film again, but I haven't been able to stop thinking about it.

"those three little girls are incredibly convincing!"

That's something else which made me think of Ozu.
19227

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Delpy and Before Sunset (Was: top tens)

--- hotlove666 wrote:

>
> So here's another thought experiment: Imagine Celine
> in a Rohmer
> film.
>
>
>
>
Beatrice Romaine would clean her clock.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
19228

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:21pm
Subject: Re: Delpy and Before Sunset (Was: top tens)

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

> So here's another thought experiment: Imagine Celine in a Rohmer
> film.

Delpy speaking French and dropping her American mannerisms would
fit snugly into Rohmer's universe, I think.
19229

From: George Robinson
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 6:41pm
Subject: Ten Best Lists

"The road goes on forever and the party never ends."
Robert Earl Keen, Jr.

And most of us have some variation of this discussion every December.

Nothing wrong with that, by the way, but it is amusing to see how little the dialogue changes -- at least among my circle.

Why do most of the ten-best lists look alike?
The answer to that is not dissimilar to the answer to the question "why do stories out of the White House press corps all read alike?"
The vast majority of the daily critics in any city go to the same screenings, the same cocktail parties, the same junket events.
They talk to one another, drink with one another, lunch with one another, hang out with one another. So they tend to confirm one another's
prejudices. It's pack journalism without the leavening influence of having to actually do any reporting; they speak only to one another, so they
seldom if ever hear dissenting opinions. And in most major cities, the alternative press isn't large enough to inject a dissenting opinion.

Add to that a couple more factors:
As in the White House press corps, access is the heart of the job; if you step outside the mainstream, the powers that be -- whether they are studio PR flacks
or the W.H. press secretary -- drop you from their lists. It doesn't mean shit to me -- I barely register major studio films on my consciousness anymore and
my writing gigs don't require it -- but there are plenty of people for whom it would represent a significant loss of income, prestige or freebies.
If you work for a major daily, you can't afford to be cut off by everyone in the Bush Administration, or by the head of publicity at Warners or Fox. Oh, sure,
if you are big enough, you don't have to worry much -- the NY Times critics can say whatever they want.

But that leads me to another element in this equation:
your editors don't want you to get too far ahead of the readers (or the editors themselves). If you write for a big-city tabloid, you can give five stars to
whatever non-mainstream films you want, knowing that your readers won't be paying attention; but if you make a habit of ripping every major studio release
that comes down the pipe, sooner or later, your editors are going to replace you.
And a sort of self-censorship sets in. No one has to tell you that you can't open every White House story, "The President lied again today, saying that the
war in Iraq was coming to a successful conclusion, despite blah blah blah." You can't open every review of, say, a Jerry Bruckheimer film, by saying,
"Another piece of shit from right-wing asshole Jerry Bruckheimer and his gang of half-trained chimipanzees."
You'd be telling the truth in either case, but it's not a truth you can repeat endlessly in this media climate.

Finally, I firmly believe there are certain critics whose contracts have a bonus clause for every time they are quoted in a review. That is the only possible
explanation for Peter Travers entire career.

My own philosophy of ten-best lists is simple. They're like junk food. They're not real criticism, although they serve a real purpose in the never-ending
building of canons, but they are amusing to play with.

Hey, you eat candy bars occasionally, right? As long as you don't confuse eating a candy bar with eating a meal that has some nutritional value,
and you don't abandon real food for a diet of sugar-coated sugar, there's no major harm done. Once a year, we can all get together in a bar,
metaphorically speaking, get drunk and rowdy and unveil our ten-best lists. And if there are eleven films on them, or six or 21 or none, heck,
we'll all be to drunk to remember the next day.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

George (Last night I was so drunk that I put a Larry Buchanan film on my all-time ten-best list, or at least I think I did) Robinson

--

The vanquished know the essence of war -- death.
They grasp that war is necrophilia. They see that
war is a state of almost pure sin with its goals
of hatred and destruction.

--Chris Hedges
New York Review of Books
12/16/04
19230

From:
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: top tens

In a message dated 04-12-20 11:46:18 EST, you write:

<< AYNCH/THE MIRROR (Jafar Panahi, 1997)
BUCKING BROADWAY (John Ford, 1912)
COMING APART (Milton Moses Ginsberg, 1969)
DOGVILLE (Lars Von Trier, 2003)
KHAMOSH PANI/SILENT WATERS (Sabiha Sumar, 2003)
THE INVADERS (Thomas H. Ince and/or Francis Ford, 1912)
MORVERN CALLAR (Lynne Ramsay, 2001)
THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS (Alan Rudolph, 2003)
LA VIE NOUVELLE (Philippe Grandrieux, 2002)
WERCKMEISTER HARMONIAK /WERCKMEISTER HARMONIES (Bela Tarr, 2000)

But after submitting that to SENSES OF CINEMA, I watched a DVD of
Chaplin's A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG >>

This is a fascinating list!
The only ones seen here: "A Countess from Hong Kong" (a favorite, with an
especially beautiful musical score by Chaplin), and "The Invaders", (which I did
not especially like).
Will definitely watch for all of these!
My favorite Rudolph so far is "The Moderns", his film about painters in the
1920's.

Mike Grost
19231

From:
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:09pm
Subject: Linklater: Tarr :: Dick: Simenon + Ruben

Richard Linklater is reportedly filming Philip K. Dick's anti-drug novel, "A
Scanner Darkly" (1977), using the animation process piloted in "Waking Life",
to create Dick's futuristic world.
Bela Tarr is pursuing a Georges Simenon script.

Just saw "The Forgotten", Joseph Ruben's first film in 6 years - a horror/sf
effort with an all art-film cast. What would happen if the heroine of [safe]
crossed swords with the self-righteous title character of Priest? A thought
experiment now at a multiplex near you...
Lots of confluence now between art films and genre cinema.

Mike Grost
19232

From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:30pm
Subject: Re: Linklater: Tarr :: Dick: Simenon + Ruben

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Richard Linklater is reportedly filming Philip K. Dick's anti-drug
novel, "A
> Scanner Darkly" (1977), using the animation process piloted
in "Waking Life",
> to create Dick's futuristic world.

There was a documentary on Channel 4 last week that showed Linklater
working on this. Woody Harrelson and Winona Ryder are the stars,
though there was no mention of an animation process.

> What would happen if the heroine of [safe]
> crossed swords with the self-righteous title character of Priest? A
thought
> experiment now at a multiplex near you...

How about the killers from Haneke's FUNNY GAMES turning up in WHO'S
AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
19233

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:37pm
Subject: Re: Delpy and Before Sunset (Was: top tens)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > So here's another thought experiment: Imagine Celine in a Rohmer
> > film.
>
> Okay, that's interesting. Cross-reference, maybe, Anne-Laure Meury in THE
> AVIATOR'S WIFE, who is intended to charm, perhaps to seduce. There's
> similarity, but also a subtle difference. I'd say that Delpy is given an
> authority over the film that Rohmer characters don't get. You can like
> Delpy or not, but to reject her fascination is to reject the film.
> Whereas Meury is always held at arm's length so that we can wonder about
> her and study her. You can reject her fascination, and there's still a
> movie there - her mystery is interesting in the context of the film, even
> if we aren't moved by that mystery. - Dan

This is what I meant about Celine not being seen by a third person, the
director. In inappropriatyely cognitive terms, we could say that there's no
context for looking at her; or as you say, no distance.

I relate this to the observation I made about Eastwood, that his films often just
have one character, and another character whose function it is to be an
audience surrogate, as opposed to the old way of making movies. Jesse is a
character, but his function in the movie is to be seduced by Celine, to forgive
her for ruining his life by not coming to the rendezvous etc. Not unlike the
function of the little boy in A Perfect World vis a vis the Costner character.

A cross-refrence not to Rohmer: When you made All the Ships at Sea you
didn't let Strawn be an audience surrogate to be won over by Edith. That's
what it would've been if you had made it the way Linklater made Before
Sunset, or the way Eastwood (IMO) made Midnight in the Garden. I am saving
Aviator's Wife, which is just about the only Rohmer I haven't seen now (I hear
it;s one of the best), but I assume that there are other characters who have
some weight besides Leury in it.
19234

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:42pm
Subject: Re: Linklater: Tarr :: Dick: Simenon + Ruben

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Richard Linklater is reportedly filming Philip K. Dick's anti-drug novel, "A
> Scanner Darkly" (1977), using the animation process piloted in "Waking
Life",
> to create Dick's futuristic world.
> Bela Tarr is pursuing a Georges Simenon script.
>
> Just saw "The Forgotten", Joseph Ruben's first film in 6 years - a horror/sf
> effort with an all art-film cast. What would happen if the heroine of [safe]
> crossed swords with the self-righteous title character of Priest? A thought
> experiment now at a multiplex near you...

Glad to hear all that. I really need to catch Forgotten - I hear the premise is
very interesting, and the film pretty good.
19235

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:03pm
Subject: Re: Re: Delpy and Before Sunset (Was: top tens)

> A cross-refrence not to Rohmer: When you made All the Ships at Sea you
> didn't let Strawn be an audience surrogate to be won over by Edith.
> That's what it would've been if you had made it the way Linklater made
> Before Sunset, or the way Eastwood (IMO) made Midnight in the Garden. I
> am saving Aviator's Wife, which is just about the only Rohmer I haven't
> seen now (I hear it;s one of the best), but I assume that there are
> other characters who have some weight besides Leury in it.

Yes, definitely. She's actually an observer to a romantic triangle, a
potential audience surrogate herself, though Rohmer doesn't work it that
way.

When Delpy had her small breakdown in the car and tried to flee, I
thought, "This story could be the first ten minutes of HONEYMOON...."
(Pardon the reference to my own movie, everyone - hopefully Bill will get
it.) - Dan
19236

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:05pm
Subject: Re: Women's vision in films (was:Response by Jean-Louis Comolli to Leconte & Co

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
.
>
> Sylvie Pierre sent Bertrand an e-mail telling him she had
> experienced her praise of his film in TRAFIC as breaking a taboo.
> JPC

Two taboos: Because she stressed that it's written by his daughter, it falls in
with her long-repressed polemic about women and film that is just sketched at
the beginning of the piece. Maybe that online chat we published in Senses'
issue about women critics egged her on a bit to do this.

Incidentally, re: BT, JR has been a big defender of Round Midnight, I assume
because of his love of jazz.
19237

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:09pm
Subject: Re: Delpy and Before Sunset (Was: top tens)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:

>
> When Delpy had her small breakdown in the car and tried to flee, I
> thought, "This story could be the first ten minutes of HONEYMOON...."
> (Pardon the reference to my own movie, everyone - hopefully Bill will get
> it.) - Dan

But when the characters in Honeymoon get to the cabin, there are definitely
two of them!

In an old H'wd film Phillipe the chauffeur would've had his moment in the sun.
I was expecting him to turn out to be fluent in English or something. No soap.
19238

From: Sam Adams
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:35pm
Subject: Re: top tens

Okay, I realize that any movie as many people like as SIDEWAYS is bound to attract some late hits, but "serious drama"? That's like Matt Zoller Seitz calling the movie "awards-grubbing" in the NY Press. Maybe if you're talking the Independent Spirit Awards, but when was the last time a movie about middle-aged losers swept the Oscars, or was even nominated for one? The movie is widely liked because it's widely likeable, involves characters who are common in the real world and uncommon in movies, and because it's well-acted and intelligently written. What's the mystery? Treating SIDEWAYS as if it's, say, MILLION DOLLAR BABY or HOTEL RWANDA seems at least faintly ridiculous to me.

If any ulterior motive were needed to explain the critics' love of SIDEWAYS, I'd go for the explanation I heard at the time of WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE's critical success-- it's the kind of movie critics love because, as a group, they identify inordinately with the main character: If a lot of critics were Dawn Weiner in high school, they've grown up to be Miles.

For the record, I think year-end lists have a purpose (not least for the mental stock-taking they prompt) but ten is a stupid number: I compose a "top whatever" which, basically, has as many movies on it as ought to be on it.

Sam

Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:27:24 EST
From: MG4273@a...
Subject: Re: top tens

The uniformity of Top Tens is partly a frightening case of Group Think.
It also reflects common critical values: most US critics favor "serious
dramas about ordinary people in everyday life in modern times", while they hate
genre films, experimental films, anything made for TV.... This year, it is
"Sideways" that has won the "serious drama" sweepstakes. Much contemporary criticism
simply consists of finding the "serious dramas" in the year's releases, then
certifying them as "great art". It is an award for category, pure and simple.
It has nothing to do with visual style, mise-en-scene, or any creativity. If a
film is a "serious drama", and it meets minimal craft standards (the actors
are not visibly drunk, the boom mike is not in the frame) then it is certified
as a "great film".
Have not seen most of this year's top ten lists yet, however.

Mike Grost
19239

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:09pm
Subject: Re: Women's vision in films (was:Response by Jean-Louis Comolli to Leconte & Co

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

>
> Incidentally, re: BT, JR has been a big defender of Round
Midnight, I assume
> because of his love of jazz.

Unfortunately a love of jazz is not such a good reason to like
and defend ROUND MIDNIGHT (some jazz fans dislike the film, by the
way), mostly because it is really painful to hear the great
(formerly great)Dexter Gordon barely able to play a note. If the
film had been made ten years earlier, when Gordon was still at the
peak of his power, it would have been so much greater, and would
also have made more sense, because Gordon being musically the wreck
that he is in the film it becomes hard to understand why everybody
admires his playing so much. I discussed that with Bertrand at the
time (but didn't really bring it up in the interview I did with him
for CINEASTE)and he agreed that in a way Gordon's decline echoed
Lester Young's and Bud Powell's, who both spent time in Paris in
their final years (Powell was the main inspiration for the part and
the Gordon fan played by Cluzet is inspired by Francis Paudras, who
was Powell's guardian angel in the Paris years). In a sense the
Cluzet character refuses to acknowledge the fact that Dale is no
longer the great musician he used to be (just as Paudras did in real
life for Powell, I think)-- so to that extent Gordon's poor musical
performance is justified; but it is painful nonetheless. Aside from
that I agree with JR that this is a very fine movie.
19240

From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:56pm
Subject: Re: top tens

Sam wrote:

> If any ulterior motive were needed to explain the critics' love of
>SIDEWAYS, I'd go for the explanation I heard at the time of
>WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE's critical success-- it's the
>kind of movie critics love because, as a group, they identify
>inordinately with the main character: If a lot of critics were Dawn
>Weiner in high school, they've grown up to be Miles.

Furthermore, Virginia Madsen's character is appealing to the
same group of people as a woman who is bruised but beautiful,
inteteresting thought not briliant, and waiting to be saved from
her dead end waitress gig....a middle-age schlep's fantasy.

Gabe
19241

From:
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:56pm
Subject: Re: Sideways, realism (was: top tens)

The idea was not that critics had "ulterior motives" in admiring "Sideways".
Far from it.
The assertion is that most American critics have AESTHETICS centered on a
"realistic view of ordinary people in daily life in modern times". For the past
forty years, many of the films most admired by mainstream US critics have fit
this bill.
This aesthetic point of view is a "legitimate" one - even if I do not share
it. I do wish it were explicit however.
What I am suggesting is that critics saw "Sideways" was about people you
could meet in real life, took place in a contemporary American setting that was
realistically depicted, had nobody in the film who was unusual or exceptional or
atypical, and promptly regarded the film as a treasure beyond rubies.

What disturbs me are suggestions that "Sideways" is admired because it is
"well directed". Or "well made". Or is "just a terrific picture". Or any other
suggestion that it is admired as a film of formal excellence. I find it hard to
believe that anyone actually likes "Sideways" because of its mise-en-scene (if
it has any).
I do not think "Sideways" is anywhere as well made a film as Lang's
"Metropolis", for instance. But "Metropolis" is a science fiction film. Its characters
are atypical - people of the future - not typical Americans. And its events
are science fictional, not realistic. Visually speaking, it is infinitely more
creative than "Sideways".

Realism is the core aesthetic belief of many people. It shows up in their
judgments of literature, film, and even comics.
I can respect this belief. But I sure the heck wish that people who judge art
by realism would be HONEST and OPEN about their beliefs.
When people say "Sideways is an example of what I think all cinema should be
- a realistic look at Modern American society," that is an honest statement.
When people say, "Sideways is as well directed than Lang and Hitchcock and
Sternberg," it is time to start raising some challenges.

Mike Grost
19242

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:11pm
Subject: Re: Sideways, realism (was: top tens)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> The idea was not that critics had "ulterior motives" in admiring "Sideways".
> Far from it.
> The assertion is that most American critics have AESTHETICS centered on
a
> "realistic view of ordinary people in daily life in modern times". For the past
> forty years, many of the films most admired by mainstream US critics have fit
> this bill.
> This aesthetic point of view is a "legitimate" one - even if I do not share
> it. I do wish it were explicit however.

Another nice thing about France: Critics aren't all afraid of theory, so
standards can be made explicit from time to time and even debated. The pros
and cons of realism have been endlessly debated in CdC. All discussion of
that kind stopped here after the 70s, except for whatever version of it is still
going on in the universities.
19243

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:15pm
Subject: Re: Sideways, realism (was: top tens)

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

> When people say, "Sideways is as well directed than Lang and
Hitchcock and
> Sternberg," it is time to start raising some challenges.
>
> Mike Grost

But is anybody saying/writing or even thinking that? I doubt it.
19244

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:20pm
Subject: Re: top tens

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger" wrote:
>
> Virginia Madsen's character is appealing to the
> same group of people as a woman who is bruised but beautiful,
> inteteresting thought not briliant, and waiting to be saved from
> her dead end waitress gig....a middle-age schlep's fantasy.
>
> Gabe

If I hadn't already gone from being a middle-aged shlep to being an old fart I'd
take that age-ist crack personally. But seriously, I do tend to shy away from
criticism of the "assumed audience," because, to quote Michael Cimino,
"Assumptions are the mother of fuckups." Still haven't seen Sideways.

PS - Isn't she, you know, a lesbian or something?
19245

From: Aaron Graham
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:29pm
Subject: Re: top tens (and dentists)

> I am curious about your inclusion of "The Secret Lives of
> Dentists". The film was discussed here a few weeks or months ago
> (Peter Tonguette started it, I think) but I can't remember what was
> said. I hadn't seen the film then. Now I have seen it and am very
> ambivalent about it. I felt it attempted to combine two genres, or
> two approaches that just don't mix. I thought the idea of
> introducing the character of the disgruntled patient/musician into
> the actual lives of the family as the protagonist's alter ego or id
> was disastrous, although i suspect it was what the film's fans
found
> most interesting (it's "daring") about it. To me it spoiled the
> qualities of realistic observation that distinguish the film (those
> three little girls are incredibly convincing!)
>
> JPC

I think it's interesting to note that the discussions between Leary
and Campbell Scott in the film took the form of Scott's inner
thinking in the book.

I also thought the girls in the film were terribly convincing. The
few fleeting moments of them behind the television set captures a
simple, everyday occurrence that's not usually seen in movies. I'm
still undecided on where I stand with Rudolph. I loved WELCOME TO LA
but didn't fall head over heels for the film in question.

-Aaron
19246

From:
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:29pm
Subject: Re: top tens

Bill K:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> >
> > Virginia Madsen's character is appealing to the
> > same group of people as a woman who is bruised but beautiful,
> > inteteresting thought not briliant, and waiting to be saved from
> > her dead end waitress gig....a middle-age schlep's fantasy.
> >
> > Gabe
>
> If I hadn't already gone from being a middle-aged shlep to being
an old fart I'd
> take that age-ist crack personally. But seriously, I do tend to
shy away from
> criticism of the "assumed audience," because, to quote Michael
Cimino,
> "Assumptions are the mother of fuckups." Still haven't seen
Sideways.
>

I love how being able to identify with the characters in a film is
meant to be a good thing...until it happens with a film you don't
like, in which case it's somehow an inexcusable act of awards-
grubbing. With all due respect to Gabe (and others), this kind of
hypocrisy is downright vomitous.

If the characters in SIDEWAYS are easy to identify with, then so too
are the characters in ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND. And
BEFORE SUNSET. And THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS. And dozens and
dozens of other films that critics, and sometimes even audiences,
love. And wasn't one of the reasons the New Wave tore down "le
cinema du papa" was because they couldn't identify with the
characters and situations?

If you don't like the film, fine. But come up with some reasons for
disliking the *film*, not its *audience*. And if people want
characters they can't identify with, then they should just go watch
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. (Again, if need be.)

-Bilge
19247

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: top tens

--- hotlove666 wrote:

>
> PS - Isn't she, you know, a lesbian or something?
>
Well she's had a child by Antonio Sabato Jr. so you do
the math.

She's quite pretty in person and very smart. Got into
a big idscussion of Tom Hulce with her. She says he
was "driven out of the business" and needs to get back
in.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
19248

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: top tens

--- ebiri@a... wrote:

>
> I love how being able to identify with the
> characters in a film is
> meant to be a good thing...until it happens with a
> film you don't
> like, in which case it's somehow an inexcusable act
> of awards-
> grubbing. With all due respect to Gabe (and others),
> this kind of
> hypocrisy is downright vomitous.
>

Your mileage may vary. But speaking for myself the
only film character I ever identified with was Count
Ivenda Dobrzensky who played the young Prince (droopy
sweater and paper-thin mustache, slavishly copied many
years later by John Waters) who makes the
introductions for Marcello in the Bassao di Sutri
sequence in "La Dolce Vita."

But he's far from the only reason I admire the film.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19249

From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 11:57pm
Subject: Re: top tens

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > PS - Isn't she, you know, a lesbian or something?
> >
> Well she's had a child by Antonio Sabato Jr. so you do
> the math.
>
> She's quite pretty in person and very smart.

Actually, that's what I heard. Michael's the lesbian.
19250

From:
Date: Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:09pm
Subject: Re: Sideways, realism (was: top tens)

MIke Grost: When people say, "Sideways is as well directed than Lang and
Hitchcock and Sternberg," it is time to start raising some challenges.

JPC: But is anybody saying/writing or even thinking that? I doubt it.

Mike again here: I'm not sure what people really think of "Sideways".
Numerous American critical groups are picking it as the best film of the year.
Does this mean they think it is directed at a Hitchcock-Lang-Sternberg level?
Or does it mean they think it is the kind of Realism that is the ideal form
of cinema?
It is hard to tell.
I can see the "realism" in "Sideways", but I can see no signs of "great
direction".
Then there is always the "mysterious charm" school of criticism: "When I saw
Sideways, they was something mysterious about it that charmed me. Clearly it
is the Film of the Year." This sort of critical obscurantism has always driven
me up the wall!

I wholeheartedly agree with Bill Krohn: at the center of all this is some
need for aesthetic theory. Nothing baroquely complex - just some discussion of
fairly plain principles.

As for the other issue: I never made the slightest suggestion that critics
"saw themselves" in the lead character in "Sideways"! Such "explanations" were
the furthest thing from my mind.

Mike Grost
19251

From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 0:10am
Subject: Re: top tens

Somehow I always manage to say the right thing to get Bilge out
from hiding. Hey buddy. Nice to hear from you. Boy, your words
always alarm me.

I don't like ageists (or ageisms) either. Look what happened to
me at THE BIG RED ONE screening. And it's definitely a fuck up
for me to assume things about guys a lot older than me. I am
sorry to Bill and Bilge.

But... Virginia Madsen was so uninteresting to me, so one-sided.
I certainly revealed a certain ugliness on my part in my attempt to
justify (for myself) why critics like her.

> If the characters in SIDEWAYS are easy to identify with, then so
too
> are the characters in ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE
SPOTLESS MIND. And
> BEFORE SUNSET. And THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS.

But Kate Winslet, Julie Delpy and HOpe Davis were actually
pretty good in all of these movies.

> But come up with some reasons for
> disliking the *film*, not its *audience*.

Touche.

Gabe
19252

From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 0:53am
Subject: Re: top tens

>> Why do film critics' top tens all look the same? I was asking
>> myself this question earlier tonight glancing at Ebert, Wilmington
>> and others' lists (a few have been posted to
>> www.moviecitynews.com).
> By the way, why 10? Why not 7 or 12? They sound less trite.
> Since I have not seen much more than a dozen new films this
> year, there's no point in my making a 10-best list anyway. Maybe a
> three best list. Or a one-best non-list. JPC

I like your suggestion though I would limit it to either just three or
better yet, the real number of films that should be added to the best
of all time films. Given that we might all have a 'best film' list,
whether our own, AFI, or Rosenbaum's, a best-of-the-year film ought to
replace one of that best film list. How many films are really worthy
of removing one of the best 100 films of all time?

Would I watch any of the "10 best films" again? (probably)
Would I watch them 10 years from now?
Would I buy the DVD?
19253

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:05am
Subject: Re: Sideways, realism (was: top tens)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> MIke Grost: When people say, "Sideways is as well directed than
Lang and
> Hitchcock and Sternberg," it is time to start raising some
challenges.
>
> JPC: But is anybody saying/writing or even thinking that? I
doubt it.
>
> Mike again here: I'm not sure what people really think
of "Sideways".
> Numerous American critical groups are picking it as the best film
of the year.
> Does this mean they think it is directed at a Hitchcock-Lang-
Sternberg level?
> Or does it mean they think it is the kind of Realism that is the
ideal form
> of cinema?

You can bet your life they have no idea of or any interest in what
the "ideal form of cinema" might be.

> It is hard to tell.
> I can see the "realism" in "Sideways", but I can see no signs
of "great
> direction".
> Then there is always the "mysterious charm" school of
criticism: "When I saw
> Sideways, they was something mysterious about it that charmed me.
Clearly it
> is the Film of the Year." This sort of critical obscurantism has
always driven
> me up the wall!

OK, but don't forget that early auteurism was based on what you
call the "mysterious charm" school of criticism.
Rivette's "evidence" gambit, and countless of cinephilic claims
(including some of mine) way back then.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with Bill Krohn: at the center of all this
is some
> need for aesthetic theory. Nothing baroquely complex - just some
discussion of
> fairly plain principles.
>

We agree, but it's not going to happen. Not in this country. Not
at this point in time.
JPC
19254

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:13am
Subject: Re: top tens

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> Somehow I always manage to say the right thing to get Bilge out
> from hiding. Hey buddy. Nice to hear from you. Boy, your words
> always alarm me.
>
> I don't like ageists (or ageisms) either. Look what happened to
> me at THE BIG RED ONE screening. And it's definitely a fuck up
> for me to assume things about guys a lot older than me. I am
> sorry to Bill and Bilge.
>
Hey, I'm older than Bill and Bilge and it didn't bother me. I'm
intent on aging gracefully. JPC
19255

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:46am
Subject: Re: top tens

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
>
> I like your suggestion though I would limit it to either just
three or
> better yet, the real number of films that should be added to the
best
> of all time films. Given that we might all have a 'best film'
list,
> whether our own, AFI, or Rosenbaum's, a best-of-the-year film
ought to
> replace one of that best film list. How many films are really
worthy
> of removing one of the best 100 films of all time?
>

I don't have an all-time list (I'm so against lists) but if I did I
don't see anything in 2004 that would be worthy of making it. Maye
it's just me. As I said, I haven't seen too many new movies this
year.

> Would I watch any of the "10 best films" again? (probably)
> Would I watch them 10 years from now?
> Would I buy the DVD?

My ultimate test is how many times am I going to see a movie and
still enjoy it and want to see it again.
Any list that is going to mean anything to me would have to meet
this test. And there are lots of masterpieces I don't particularly
want to see again and again.
Let's not forget that critics' lists change every ten years or
so -- Like any fashion. Remember when Bicycle Thief was the best
film ever made?
JPC
19256

From:
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:50am
Subject: Re: top tens

Gabe:

> > I don't like ageists (or ageisms) either. Look what happened to
> > me at THE BIG RED ONE screening. And it's definitely a fuck up
> > for me to assume things about guys a lot older than me. I am
> > sorry to Bill and Bilge.
> >

For the record, I'm 31, and I'm pretty sure the
particular "demographic" SIDEWAYS is being accused of targeting is
quite older than me. And my problem with your post wasn't ageism,
although ageism isn't a particularly nice -ism. My problem is this
propensity (we all do it, myself included) to sublimate our contempt
for a particular group into the criticism of the film itself.
SIDEWAYS as a film deserves to be judged on its own terms. Not on
whether you or I like balding middle-aged critics, or tortoiseshell-
eyeglass-wearing hipsters, or 350-pound comicbook geeks, or ageing
auteurists still raging about unjustly neglected Red Scare flicks by
has-been hacks. (See how easy it is to be snidely dismissive?)

-Bilge

P.S. 350-pound balding middle-aged tortoiseshell-eyeglass-wearing
auteurist comicbook geeks, on the other hand, are fair game.
19257

From: J. Mabe
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:52am
Subject: Re: Re: top tens

I just enjoy making these lists and sending them out,
if only for the very slim chance someone might read it
and go out searching for H. Lee Waters or Warren
Sonbert films (like I did in middle and high school -
running through the lists in back issues of Sight and
Sound and Film Comment in Winthrop University's
library). My enjoyment in listmaking is also probably
a result of my being just a film nerd that lacks the
ability to write well.

get the negative out of the way first w/ Bad Enough to
Mention:
Punisher
Das Kapital version .07
Sod and Sodie Sock

best films seen theatrically/on film in 2004:
I.
Movies of Local People; Kannapolis, NC. 1939 (H. Lee
Waters)
Friendly Witness (Warren Sonbert) - might be the
greatest film I've ever seen... I need to see it 70
more times to be sure.

II.
Under the Sun of Satan (Pialat)
Six O'Clock News (MacElwee)
Blonde Cobra (Jacobs)
Hart of London (Jack Chambers)
In a Lonely Place (Ray)
Before Sunset (Linkletter)
Precarious Garden (Gehr)

III.
María Candelaria (Emilio Fernández)
Valentin de las Sierras (Ballie)
What's Wrong with this Picture (Land)
Daylight Moon Quartet (Khlar)
Two Minutes to Zero Trilogy (Khlar)
Fuses (Schneemann)
Happy Together (Wong Kar-Wai)
Spartan (Mamet)
Bright Leaves (MacElwee)
Joan of Arc (Piero Heliczer)
Late Spring (Ozu)
Orchard (Jullie Murray)
Brown Bunny (Vincent Gallo)
Wonder Ring (Brakhage)
American Soldier (Fassbinder)
So is This (Snow)
Town Called Tempest (Kuchar)
Fallen Angels (Wong Kar-Wai)
Hall of Mirrors (Sonbert)
Murder Psalm (Brakhage)
Model Shop (Demy)
War at a Distance (Farocki, video)
Man with the X Ray Eyes (Corman)
Dirt (Piero Heliczer)

best films of 2004
1 Before Sunset & Precarious Garden
2 Daylight Moon Quartet & Two Minutes to Zero Trilogy
3 Spartan
4 Bright Leaves
5 Orchard
6 Brown Bunny
7 War at a Distance
8 Anchorman & Manchurian Candidate
9 Collateral & Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
10 Sideways

Sill haven't seen, but suspect I'll love:
Aviator
Life Aquatic
Nick Dorsky's new film

-Josh Mabe

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
19258

From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:13am
Subject: Re: top tens

> Two Minutes to Zero Trilogy (Khlar)

This is indeed great -- the best condensed narrative(s) since
Maddin's HEART OF THE WORLD.

> Orchard (Jullie Murray)

I usually llike Murray's stuff, but I was not impressed with this
one.

> Brown Bunny (Vincent Gallo)

On more than one "worst of" lists.

> Town Called Tempest (Kuchar)

Having just seen this two weekends ago I can attest to its
greatness. I also liked the one where the man kicks his wife out
of the house for not flushing the toilet (what is this called?).

> Model Shop (Demy)

Hey programmers: Columbia has an excellent print of this that's
struck from the original negative. Why isn't it being shown around
more often?

> Sill haven't seen, but suspect I'll love:
> Aviator
> Life Aquatic

My mom, whose been mooching all my screener dvds, likes Life
Aquatic, the Aviator, and I Love Huckabees, but didn't care for
Sideways. The Anderson is her candidate for number one film of
the year.

Gabe
19259

From: Josh Mabe
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:20am
Subject: Re: top tens

> > Orchard (Jullie Murray)
>
> I usually llike Murray's stuff, but I was not impressed with this
> one.

I'm so fully into her that I even love her films backwards... as I
learned two years ago at Views from the Avant Garde.

> > Town Called Tempest (Kuchar)
>
> Having just seen this two weekends ago I can attest to its
> greatness. I also liked the one where the man kicks his wife out
> of the house for not flushing the toilet (what is this called?).

Confessions of Babbette

-Josh
19260

From: acquarello2000
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:21am
Subject: Re: top tens

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
> get the negative out of the way first w/ Bad Enough to
> Mention:
> Das Kapital version .07
> Sod and Sodie Sock

Heheh! It looks as though we went to some of the same programs at
NYVF. I actually didn't care for the entire Mike Kelley program, but
I agree, watching a fat, naked guy with pig mask crawling through a
tunnel for about 20 minutes in Sod and Sodie Sock was beyond nadir.
Das Kapital would have been interesting if it had ended at 3 minutes
(at least my ears wouldn't have suffered permanent damage), and they
showed us War at a Distance sooner. Incidentally, Farocki's film also
makes my top ten this year.

acquarello
19261

From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:47am
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" 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.
>
I actually did find it heavy-handed and ponderous in both plot and tone. Maybe the best
thing is to cite my capsule, from my website (note that I disagree with Michael's assertion
that the ending of the US distributed version sucks):

"The long, strange career of China's most famous director issues its most commercial
episode to date: a laid-off factory worker tries to woo a fat woman and ends up
babysitting her unwanted stepdaughter, who happens to be blind. The man sets up a fake
massage parlor in his abandoned factory to keep the girl occupied; predictably, the rouse
becomes increasingly hard to maintain for various reasons that make both the hero and
the story look sloppy and idiotic in retrospect. Overall this farce feels like CITY LIGHTS
injected with the hammy insincerities of LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, resulting in second-rate
Preston Sturges. Zhang's way of treating the characters as kind-hearted simpletons may
be some strange way of empathizing with the billions of Chinese who he no doubt wants
to entertain, and his intriguing employment of "crosstalk" (a Chinese version of Abbot &
Costello standup) may indicate his attempts to formulate some kind of contemporary
Chinese popular cinema (which, in the age of pirated Hollywood DVDs, no longer exists).
[note in hindsight: as of HERO, this is no longer the case -ed.] But Zhang's headlong
pacing barely keeps together the holes in his plot; the melodramatic turn at the end is the
film's only moment of liberation (although it is debated whether this was the ending
originally intended), though it feels only slightly more sincere than the goonish antics that
clutter this film from start to finish."

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

That comparison doesn't do much for me, not as much as Eisenstein, or King Hu. We
obviously have different frames of reference.
19262

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:01am
Subject: Sideways (Was: top tens)

> But... Virginia Madsen was so uninteresting to me, so one-sided.

I liked SIDEWAYS, but I must admit I don't see that Madsen's performance
was so special. She didn't do anything bad, but I didn't think it was a
very challenging role - she seemed pretty much becalmed. Mostly I just
remember her sitting there looking interested in what Giamatti was saying.

On the other hand, I think Payne's direction was mighty impressive,
totally assured about how and when to mix moods or shift rhythms. If I
have a few quibbles with the film, they're about its conception, not its
execution. - Dan
19263

From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:01am
Subject: Re: Griffith (Was: Frenzy)

I see what you mean now. Two or three years ago I considered him Pater Didactus, the
progenitor of didactic, propagandistic cinema -- I traced a lineage from Griffith to
Eisenstein all the way to Spielberg. I always found INTOLERANCE to move towards
simplicity rather than complexity -- instead of breaking the space-time continuum it puts
all periods under a moralist umbrella messge. But after watching more of their films, I
changed my mind about these artists somewhat -- that even though their destinations
seemed firmly charted, there was still much to learn in the journey, in terms of narrative
strategies, editing techniques, tools that didactic and non-didactic filmmakers alike can
employ to their own efforts.

But we're talking specifically about acting. I just watched WAY DOWN EAST and I agree
that the characters do have signs on their necks, in a manner of speaking. Maybe this is a
carryover from Victorianism. Maybe this has something to do with why you can't get
passionate about Lang either (whom I think has a similar tendency even in his best work,
and yet you could argue that there's infinite shades of character complexity as well). But
as jp said there are very few directors from the 1910s or even the 20s who conveyed a
sense of mystery or internal life in their characters beyond the immediate needs of the
story. I don't think the ratio improved terribly much over the decades, actually.

Even so, more often than not Gish's expressions have a quality that goes beyond mere
functionality.

Perhaps BROKEN BLOSSOMS is probaby the one Griffith film that excepts itself from your
criticism. There's something achieved between the two leads that goes beyond Griffith's
moralizing -- who knows if he achieved this in spite of himself.

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >> 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
19264

From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:15am
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee" wrote:

> I actually did find it heavy-handed and ponderous in both plot
> and tone. Maybe the best thing is to cite my capsule, from my
> website (note that I disagree with Michael's assertion
> that the ending of the US distributed version sucks)....

All I can say Kevin, is that you really got off on the wrong foot with
this film for some reason (rather like myself and Tsai's "What Time Is
It There"). Your description sounds as if you viewed an utterly
different film from the one I did. I found this funny and sweet --
and the tilt into darker territory at the end of the original version
worked beautifully -- rather than tilting into mawkish melodrama, as
did the "new" ending.

As to Zhang Yimou's latest....

If one loves Asian cinema AND the operas of Giuseppe Verdi -- this
should be a sheer joy. I found it a visual quasi-operatic feast, from
start to finish -- with the pretrenaturally beautiful scenery and
astonishing fights taking the place of operatic arias. The sometimes
over-the-top melodramtic romanticism of the story seemed very close to
classic middle-Verdi (especially Ernani, Forza del destino, Don Carlos
and Aida), in terms of both theme and events. These Verdi operas were
based on blood-and-thunder romantic stories and plays which depicted
lovers who are ground to pieces sometimes almost incidentally) by
political and/or social forces set into motion by others, more
concerned with power.

The most striking parallel I noted was that between the ending of
"Aida" and that of "Flying Daggers". In each work, a spurned lover
has doomed both their rival and their one-time love to death -- and is
left bereft (realizing that even in death, the two lovers are united
-- and they remain alone) and rather horror-stricken by the damage
they have caused.

Verdi, like Zhang Yimou, was an artist who often skirted the edge
politically (until Italy was unified -- and Verdi became an
"eminence") -- sometimes banned, often censored -- he used tales of
personal love and betrayal to make non-propagandistic political points
as well as to "entertain" a broad spectrum of music lovers. The fact
that Kathleen Battle sings the closing credits absolutely confirms
(for me) the connection between this film and Verdian opera.

As ZY was an operatic neophyte when he first tackled Puiccini's
"Turandot", it would appear he has done considerable make-up work
since that time.

I won't call it a masterpiece -- yet -- but one would have to be
practically blind to not appreciate the extraordinary visual beauty of
this film.

Michael Kerpan
Boston
19265

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:23am
Subject: Re: Re: top tens

--- "J. Mabe" wrote:

>
> I just enjoy making these lists and sending them
> out,
> if only for the very slim chance someone might read
> it
> and go out searching for H. Lee Waters or Warren
> Sonbert films (like I did in middle and high school
> -
> running through the lists in back issues of Sight
> and
> Sound and Film Comment in Winthrop University's
> library).

Where and when did you first see Warren's films?

I first saw "Hall of Mirrors" at its premiere in 1966,

Nick has a new film? I've got to keep up.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
19266

From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:27am
Subject: Re: acting '04

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:

> 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.

I think Brooks is very much indebted to McCarey. Comparing them and their films (AS
GOOD AS IT GETS ~ THE AWFUL TRUTH?) is a risky enterprise as one inevitably gets into
contentious debates about the nature of what's carried over, what's lost, what's improved,
from mentor to mentee. Could this be why a passionate McCarey-ite like Damien Bona
denounces Brooks? (Kind of similar to how you've lamented Lars von Trier being touted as
the new Dreyer?)

> He's the guiltiest of my guilty pleasures, but that doesn't mean
> that I don't value him enormously.

Manohla Dargis wrote that she doesn't believe in guilty pleasures, only disreputable ones.

> 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.

Your opening the piece with discussion on Kael was a gambit -- it helped frame the
discussion in terms of what it means to change one's mind on a film, but it also risked
distracting from the film at hand and suggested the piece was about Kael instead of the
movie. The strategy clearly didn't work for that one person, but it doesn't sound like he's
one to change his mind on much of anything. Incidentally, can you think of a critic who
you've admired for his or her ability to change positons on a film without coming off as
inconsistent? I'm not sure if even Manny Farber has "changed" his mind about a movie --
more often than not his writing occupies multiple positions at once.

Have you listened to the commentary on AS GOOD AS IT GETS? at the end Nicholson says,
"Jim, next time, we gotta have a little more fun when we make something, you know, enjoy
the ride?" And Brooks replies, "yeah, but, you know, you just want to make sure we get it
right..." It resonates brilliantly with Melvin Udall's attempt to kiss Carol the Waitress the
right way.

Kevin
19267

From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:32am
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr." wrote:
>
> I won't call it a masterpiece -- yet -- but one would have to be
> practically blind to not appreciate the extraordinary visual beauty of
> this film.
>
Blind, or allergic to CGI or Zhang Ziyi's cheekbones. Or Takeshi Kaneshiro's and Andy
Lau's.

I stand by my criticism of HAPPY TIMES. The scene where the blind girl wanders through
the apartment practically naked pretty much destroyed what enthusiasm I had in whatever
Zhang was up to. This time the accusations of him being an Orientalist pimp were on the
money, and I couldn't care less if he was self-consciously admitting to it onscreen.
19268

From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:48am
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"

> Blind, or allergic to CGI or Zhang Ziyi's cheekbones. Or
> Takeshi Kaneshiro's and Andy Lau's.

Picky, picky picky.

I saw no problems with any of the cheekbones -- and found most of the
CGI pretty effective.

> I stand by my criticism of HAPPY TIMES. The scene where the blind
> girl wanders through the apartment practically naked pretty much
> destroyed what enthusiasm I had in whatever Zhang was up to.

I would submit that you had already written the film off by this point
-- and were just looking for more evidence to confirm your intense
visceral dislike. This episiode, in context, was pretty innocent --
except to you and Roger Ebert. ;~}

> This time the accusations of him being an Orientalist pimp were
> on the money, and I couldn't care less if he was self-consciously
> admitting to it onscreen.

Now this charge goes WAY beyond the issue of taste. It is manifestly
unjust -- and simply wrong, factually speaking. There is no way on
earth that "Happy Time" was aimed primarily (or hardly at all) at
Western audiences. On its face, this was a film aimed squarely at the
domestic Chinese market. He was not selling Orientalism to anyone.
He was making a film that he hoped Chinese audiences would find
entertaining and touching (and might cause them to think about the
human costs of ebncroaching, unconstrained capitalism). He may or may
not have succeeded in his goals -- but that's a different issue
entirely from calculated pandering to foreigners.

MEK
19269

From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:29am
Subject: Re: top tens

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

> For the record, I'm 31, and I'm pretty sure the
> particular "demographic" SIDEWAYS is being accused of targeting is
> quite older than me. And my problem with your post wasn't ageism,
> although ageism isn't a particularly nice -ism. My problem is this
> propensity (we all do it, myself included) to sublimate our contempt
> for a particular group into the criticism of the film itself.
> SIDEWAYS as a film deserves to be judged on its own terms. Not on
> whether you or I like balding middle-aged critics, or tortoiseshell-
> eyeglass-wearing hipsters, or 350-pound comicbook geeks, or ageing
> auteurists still raging about unjustly neglected Red Scare flicks by
> has-been hacks. (See how easy it is to be snidely dismissive?)
>
> -Bilge

This reminds me of the LOST IN TRANSLATION debate last year and me speculating aloud
as to which kind of viewers fell for that crap. So for my own benefit, this deserves further
unpacking. I'll play the -ism side for the sake of devil's advocate. Because the problems
that Gabe identifies in SIDEWAYS are problems I see too, what I described as a "Starbucks/
Barnes and Noble aesthetic". Because I think the reasons why this movie appeals to people
is not unlike the way Starbucks or Barnes and Noble appeal to people -- it's the product
branded as a lifestyle. As with LOST IN TRANSLATION, the film presents not just a story
but a way of life, one that has its share of pleasing idyllic epicurean qualities.

But before you rail at me for indulging in extra-cinematic generalities and not engaging in
the film for its qualities as a film in itself, let me propose that the way the film is
constructed supports my argument, in how it invites us to experience the space of
pleasure it has mapped out. In having us experience this weeklong roadtrip, the film is
brilliant at pingponging us back and forth between Giamatti and Hayden Church's
complementary subjectivities -- we share Hayden Church's wide-eyed, bedazzled
admiration of Giamatti's bona fide, lingo-slanging wine expertise, as well as his happy go
lucky enjoyment of all that happens. This viewpoint alternates with Giamatti's gentle
disbelief at his companion's lasciviousness, teamed up with his own gnawing sense of
middle class middlebrow inadequacy. This film, like other Payne films, is very clever at
playing up and down middle class values and self-image, alternately criticizing and
congratulating it. The scene in the tasting room of the large outlet winery is a brilliant
example of this, where Giamatti's intellectual approach to wine falls apart like a snobbish
facade and he's the one acting like a pathetic slob guzzling a spittoonful of wine amidst a
horde of tourists who have far worse taste than he. Payne's position in the film in regards
to his characters is slippery -- there's one moment at the end of a montage with the four
principals picnicking in a vineyard underneat a tree with the evening sun setting them all
aglow -- an image practically stolen from a Mondavi commercial. Is Payne sending up this
image in all its cliched banality, or is he celebrating it as a rare and fleeting moment of
middle class bliss shored up against an encroaching sea of suburban chaos and fear? For
one to accept the latter, one has to accept that middle class life is fundamentally pathetic,
eliciting a feeling of simultaneous sympathy and disdain consistent to all his work thus far.
I happen to think this feeling appeals to a lot of viewers -- myself included. What I
wonder about is whether this is really laudable, because ultimately I think Payne's method
of seduction, playing both sides, the loathing and loving of petty connoissuership and
middle class values, ultimately keeps us contentedly in the middle, consuming his
product. Even if Giamatti and Virginia Madsen do get together in the end, what really has
changed? He's just become a more well-adjusted consumer, having hooked up with
someone who seems the wet dream embodiment of petty middle class male values, as
Gabe has already described. The Virginia Madsen character is the most obvious sign of
Payne's strategy of middle class seduction.

Anyway, my point is that instead of repressing our own impulse to visualize how the film
appeals to other audiences in order to justify how it doesn't appeal to us, I say we should
exercise our imaginations all the more fervently in ascertaining who these suckers might
be -- because inevitably they may be us. If we really want to implicate a film and its
foolish audience, we must risk implicating ourselves. Somewhere in Gabe's diatribe
against the SIDEWAYS crowd is a critical autobiography that describes him, as well as
everyone. This is something Serge Daney understood.

The awful truth is that films are marketed to audiences, and that marketing has its role in
every step of production and beforehand, from the moment the writer pitches the project
and who it might appeal to. So i think it's a bit disingenuous to think that the things Gabe
and I are talking about are things that are off-base in what a film is up to, those very
terms by which you insist the film deserves to be judged. But you're right in that for us to
be effective at doing this, we have to own up to our own values and subject them to as
much scrutiny as we are to the phantom audience we've identified.
19270

From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:55am
Subject: Re: acting '04

I'm not sure if even Manny Farber has "changed" his mind about a
movie --
> more often than not his writing occupies multiple positions at
once.

In conversation, at least, he has. He once told me he really missed
the boat on The Magnificent Ambersons--and if you can ever look up
that review in a library, you'll see what he meant. (As I recall, he
even charged the film with being uncinematic--basically just a radio
play.)
19271

From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:13am
Subject: Re: top tens

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:

> In November I saw a video piece by Nan Godlin in Paris that was
> only shown there, for a limited time, and won't likely show again
> soon.
>
> This is a kind of art world decadence: the investment of millions
> of dollars into something that only a small group of people will
> be able to see.

*****
Wait. Perhaps I'm reading this poorly. You're saying *millions*
were invested in some Nan Goldin video piece?

> Certainly, films are produced so they can reach
> an unlimited potential viewers. Yet the Nan Goldin piece
> reminded me in many ways of TARNATION, a film shown at
> festivals and which everyone can see (soon it will even be on
> DVD and available at every Blockbuster in the country).
>
> And Goldin's piece isn't any more or less accessible than
> Caouette's film; there is no context buried in the piece that
> TARNATION doesn't also have. They're both about suffering.
> They were both made using iMovie techniques.

*****
All true. But the salient difference is this: One of these (the
Goldin piece) was conceived as a work of capital-A Art, which almost
by definition precludes mass-distribution; whereas the other
("Tarnation") was distributed by a company like Wellspring Media in
order to achieve as wide an audience as it possibly can on its own
terms.

> Goldin and her colleagues seemed satisfied with the
> presentation. They didn't -- like Matthew Barney did with the
> Cremaster films -- feel that they had to get as much mileage out
> of it as possible.

*****
But that's the point. Once a distributor enters the scene, the
intentions of the artist, whatever they may be, become secondary. It
wouldn't matter if Jonathan Caouette were merely "satisfied with the
presentation" as Goldin was in that instance. The distributor, as a
matter of sheer survival, cannot settle for that. Their concern is
indeed one of "mileage"; to make as much money with the work as they
can and, hopefully, do well by the filmmaker in the process.
I don't mean to invoke some hoary cliche about movie
distributors being *solely* interested in the bottom line, but with
a relatively small company such as Wellspring it would be suicidal
if their first principle weren't fiduciary.

> Art world elitism vs. film world populism?
>
> But what happens when film becomes a mouthpiece for the art
> world to communicate to a broader audience -- a mere
> instrument attached to a larger thing that is *art* !
>
> The blame doesn't rest on filmmakers for this abuse. It's the
> critics who are to blame for being so dull, for their appreciation
of
> only a handful of works, which they all agree are good or bad. In
> other words, a fear of elitism.

*****
Well, aren't you presupposing that said critics are arriving at
these lists on the basis of how they wish to appear to their
colleagues, and not because their choices honestly reflect their
judgement?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm merely asking if this is your
contention.

> Apparently, film critics are unaware of the harm this is doing.
For
> this very reason, I will not compose a top ten list for 2004,
> enticing as it is, useful as it may be -- it's a promise now, a
> could've been...

*****
I won't be either.

I'm still working on my Top Ten for 1999.

Tom Sutpen
19272

From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:25am
Subject: Like any fashion.,, versus style / skill / knowledge

I wonder if fashion is the proper term here. I sometimes think that film is
something of a soft science, trying to find the best expression of itself.
In a science as supposedly objective as observation through a microscope
lens, the original viewings of the sperm cell were thought to content the
entire 'small man' or homoculus (of course, no concern for the female,
guess she came from the ova, the sex of the embryo / fetus / baby
determined in a classic battle of the sexes!)
What this just poor perception due to the imposition of contemporary thought
patterns?
Are the temporary trends of cinema just poor critical interpretations due to
the imposition of contemporary thought trends rather than a completely
objective viewing of what is there? I think SIDEWAYS is a good example, not
unlike LOST IN TRANSITION last year.
Many contemporary films are bad, and even the best are poor.
I may not be able to articulate what is a good film, but I feel I am beginning
to know it when I see it.
My best choices for this year (which I have seen but once) are VERA DRAKE
and CRIMSON GOLD, at least they are the ones I recommend to other.
Last year, OASIS and LILYA-4-EVER. No question I seem to have a woman
bias.

Perhaps some day I will be able to articulate what it is able these films that
make them good for me, other than a desire to see them again... but I think
it goes beyond more than fashion.

Elizabeth

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>> How many films are really worthy
> > of removing one of the best 100 films of all time?
> I don't have an all-time list (I'm so against lists) but if I did I
> don't see anything in 2004 that would be worthy of making it. Maye
> it's just me. As I said, I haven't seen too many new movies this
> year.
> > Would I watch any of the "10 best films" again? (probably)
> > Would I watch them 10 years from now?
> > Would I buy the DVD?

> My ultimate test is how many times am I going to see a movie and
> still enjoy it and want to see it again.
> Any list that is going to mean anything to me would have to meet
> this test. And there are lots of masterpieces I don't particularly
> want to see again and again.
> Let's not forget that critics' lists change every ten years or
> so -- Like any fashion. Remember when Bicycle Thief was the best
> film ever made?
> JPC
19273

From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:14am
Subject: Re: top tens

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> My mom, whose been mooching all my screener dvds, likes Life
> Aquatic, the Aviator, and I Love Huckabees, but didn't care for
> Sideways. The Anderson is her candidate for number one film of
> the year.
>
> Gabe

She's a bit of an exception. Young people love Life Aquatic, it
seems - it's just over-the-hill duds like Gabe that think it's "a
mess."
19274

From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:15am
Subject: Re: Like any fashion.,, versus style / skill / knowledge

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:

> Are the temporary trends of cinema just poor critical
interpretations due to
> the imposition of contemporary thought trends rather than a
completely
> objective viewing of what is there?

*****
Well, unless a critic's involvement with Cinema is downright
monastic; unless he or she has nothing else going on for themselves
apart from total, abject devotion to the moving image, then you'll
never get anything approaching the kind of untainted objectivity
you're talking about. A film critic who has a life outside of what
they see on the screen doesn't have to have contemporary thought
trends or fashion or any other extra-cinematic concerns imposed upon
them. They're already there.

> Many contemporary films are bad, and even the best are poor.
> I may not be able to articulate what is a good film, but I feel I
am beginning
> to know it when I see it.

*****
But that's the only way you *would* know a good film from a poor
one, isn't it? Sure, being able to articulate your reasons for
preferring one film over another is . . . nice, I suppose. It's
certainly helpful when you're in social situations. But unless
you're getting paid to do it, I don't see it as an absolute
essential.

That kind of rationalizing one's responses is merely adding words
where none are needed.

Tom Sutpen
19275

From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:24am
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
The scene where the blind girl wanders through
> the apartment practically naked pretty much destroyed what
enthusiasm I had in whatever
> Zhang was up to.

I kind of (croak) liked that scene...
19276

From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:27am
Subject: Re: acting '04

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if even Manny Farber has "changed" his mind about a
> movie --
> > more often than not his writing occupies multiple positions at
> once.
>
> In conversation, at least, he has. He once told me he really missed
> the boat on The Magnificent Ambersons--and if you can ever look up
> that review in a library, you'll see what he meant. (As I recall,
he
> even charged the film with being uncinematic--basically just a
radio
> play.)

His brief review of Bullfighter and the Lady - the only thing he ever
wrote about a Boetticher film - ascribes it to John Wayne, the
producer, and rips it apart. His much later painting "My Budd" (my
analysis is up at Screening or Senses, one or the other) could
certainly be construed as a recantation of that review.
19277

From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:35am
Subject: Re: Like any fashion.,, versus style / skill / knowledge

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
Sure, being able to articulate your reasons for
> preferring one film over another is . . . nice, I suppose. It's
> certainly helpful when you're in social situations. But unless
> you're getting paid to do it, I don't see it as an absolute
> essential.

It's been fun reading the Snicket reviews. Critics keep trying to
explain in one paragraph what went wrong. It might make a good study
project for a class in contemporary reviewing - it would show why
these people are reviewers, not directors or producers. Of course no
one thinks to suggest that Brad Whatsit is simply a worthless
director, and all the elements in the film can't get past that. Who
says the auteur theory has triumphed?

Just read Ebert's muddled pan, which ends with the prediction that
Snicket 2 (which ain't gonna happen) will be better than Snicket
1, "a la Spiderman." As someone who just saw Spiderman 2, finally...

Which critic was it who praised the "witty" performance of the guy
playing JJ? What's startling is that, while the action is generally
fine (albeit a tad animated-cartoon'y) and the soap opera stuff
passable (thanks to the two leads), there isn't a laugh in the whole
6 hours...er, 2 hours. And Raimi used to be FUNNY!
19278

From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:11am
Subject: Re: acting '04

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
> I think Brooks is very much indebted to McCarey. Comparing them
and their films (AS
> GOOD AS IT GETS ~ THE AWFUL TRUTH?) is a risky enterprise as one
inevitably gets into
> contentious debates about the nature of what's carried over, what's
lost, what's improved,
> from mentor to mentee. Could this be why a passionate McCarey-ite
like Damien Bona
> denounces Brooks? (Kind of similar to how you've lamented Lars von
Trier being touted as
> the new Dreyer?)
>

I'm rather thrown for a loop that someone would would mention McCarey
and Brooks in the same breath -- especially two people as insightful
and intelligent as Kevin and Jonathan. To me, that's akin to
comparing Francis Veber to Jean Renoir. McCarey's and Brooks's
methodologies and effects couldn't be more different. Whereas
McCarey employs heightened (often absurd) moments to strengthen
heighten the viewer's connection with the humanity of his characters,
Brooks's dramatic "highs" only emphasize how artificial both his
characters and his conceits are -- the distinction is especially
acute in "The Awful Truth" and "As Good As It Gets," two pictures
which to my eyes have nothing in common.

I don't know whether Brooks is aware of who Leo McCarey is, but it's
not McCarey to whom he owes a debt. With his sit-com sensibility,
it's Don Fedderson and Rod Amateau who are Brooks's forefathers. At
most, Brooks is the Poor Man's Peter Tewksbury.
19279

From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:52am
Subject: Re: acting '04

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

> > I'm not sure if even Manny Farber has "changed" his mind about
a
> > movie --
> > > more often than not his writing occupies multiple positions at
> > once.
> >
> > In conversation, at least, he has. He once told me he really
missed
> > the boat on The Magnificent Ambersons--and if you can ever look
up
> > that review in a library, you'll see what he meant. (As I
recall,
> he
> > even charged the film with being uncinematic--basically just a
> radio
> > play.)
>
> His brief review of Bullfighter and the Lady - the only thing he
ever
> wrote about a Boetticher film - ascribes it to John Wayne, the
> producer, and rips it apart. His much later painting "My Budd" (my
> analysis is up at Screening or Senses, one or the other) could
> certainly be construed as a recantation of that review.

*****
I don't know. Wouldn't it have been better if he'd taken the time to
recant on paper rather than canvas?

Tom Sutpen
19280

From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:07am
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
> wrote:
> > I think Brooks is very much indebted to McCarey. Comparing them
> and their films (AS
> > GOOD AS IT GETS ~ THE AWFUL TRUTH?) is a risky enterprise as one
> inevitably gets into
> > contentious debates about the nature of what's carried over,
what's
> lost, what's improved,
> > from mentor to mentee. Could this be why a passionate McCarey-
ite
> like Damien Bona
> > denounces Brooks? (Kind of similar to how you've lamented Lars
von
> Trier being touted as
> > the new Dreyer?)
> >
>
> I'm rather thrown for a loop that someone would would mention
McCarey
> and Brooks in the same breath -- especially two people as
insightful
> and intelligent as Kevin and Jonathan. To me, that's akin to
> comparing Francis Veber to Jean Renoir. McCarey's and Brooks's
> methodologies and effects couldn't be more different. Whereas
> McCarey employs heightened (often absurd) moments to strengthen
> heighten the viewer's connection with the humanity of his
characters,
> Brooks's dramatic "highs" only emphasize how artificial both his
> characters and his conceits are -- the distinction is especially
> acute in "The Awful Truth" and "As Good As It Gets," two pictures
> which to my eyes have nothing in common.
>
> I don't know whether Brooks is aware of who Leo McCarey is, but
it's
> not McCarey to whom he owes a debt. With his sit-com sensibility,
> it's Don Fedderson and Rod Amateau who are Brooks's forefathers.
At
> most, Brooks is the Poor Man's Peter Tewksbury.

*****
Ouch.

I don't see any similarities in Brooks's and McCarey's work either,
apart from a tendency toward the sentimental (and even *that* wasn't
branded on every film Leo McCarey made). The sentimentality in
McCarey's work is more akin to the sort of thing you encounter in
certain people who've had too much to drink; an unfortunate
emotional lurch he takes that one can excuse and even, under the
right circumstances, share in to a degree. When James Brooks's
movies turn on the soft music it's nothing more than the labor of a
skilled TV producer working a response out of a willing audience.

Leo McCarey was never that cynical.

Tom Sutpen
19281

From:
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:14am
Subject: Re: top tens

Kevin Lee:
>
> I think the reasons why [SIDEWAYS] appeals to people
> is not unlike the way Starbucks or Barnes and Noble appeal to
people -- it's the product
> branded as a lifestyle. As with LOST IN TRANSLATION, the film
presents not just a story
> but a way of life, one that has its share of pleasing idyllic
epicurean qualities.
>
> But before you rail at me for indulging in extra-cinematic
generalities and not engaging in
> the film for its qualities as a film in itself, let me propose
that the way the film is
> constructed supports my argument, in how it invites us to
experience the space of
> pleasure it has mapped out.

Kevin, this is exactly the sort of criticism I'd rather see, instead
of the snide dismissals of other critics for being "middle-aged
shlubs". You may not think you're engaging the film itself, but you
clearly are. There's a world of difference between the following:

>In having us experience this weeklong roadtrip, the film is
> brilliant at pingponging us back and forth between Giamatti and
Hayden Church's
> complementary subjectivities -- we share Hayden Church's wide-
eyed, bedazzled
> admiration of Giamatti's bona fide, lingo-slanging wine expertise,
as well as his happy go
> lucky enjoyment of all that happens. This viewpoint alternates
with Giamatti's gentle
> disbelief at his companion's lasciviousness, teamed up with his
own gnawing sense of
> middle class middlebrow inadequacy.

...and stuff that basically takes critics and/or the public to task
for identifying with the characters.

> This film, like other Payne films, is very clever at
> playing up and down middle class values and self-image,
alternately criticizing and
> congratulating it. The scene in the tasting room of the large
outlet winery is a brilliant
> example of this, where Giamatti's intellectual approach to wine
falls apart like a snobbish
> facade and he's the one acting like a pathetic slob guzzling a
spittoonful of wine amidst a
> horde of tourists who have far worse taste than he. Payne's
position in the film in regards
> to his characters is slippery -- there's one moment at the end of
a montage with the four
> principals picnicking in a vineyard underneat a tree with the
evening sun setting them all
> aglow -- an image practically stolen from a Mondavi commercial.
Is Payne sending up this
> image in all its cliched banality, or is he celebrating it as a
rare and fleeting moment of
> middle class bliss shored up against an encroaching sea of
suburban chaos and fear?

Needless to say, I think he's having it both ways (although the ways
I see him having it are a bit different than yours), but I see
nothing really wrong with that: For example, when he presents a
montage of the characters at dinner, with the waitress reading the
specials, them getting soused, etc., it's akin to that alternately
biting and loving montage of the wedding in ABOUT SCHMIDT. He likes
to present these sorts of rituals in ways that jump back and forth
between affectionate and caustic.* Indeed, I think he recognizes teh
inherent falseness of the rituals while simultaneously acknowledging
their necessity. John Ford did pretty much the same thing. [ducks]

*-Of course, the balance here is also why I think ABOUT SCHMIDT is a
superior film to SIDEWAYS. I'm surprised nobody has caught onto
Payne's somewhat Olympian sensibilities here, as I think they're
fairly overt.

-Bilge
19282

From: Matt Teichman
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:17am
Subject: Re: Hollis Frampton

David Ehrenstein wrote:

> <> And why aren't more critics at Hollis Frampton screenings?
>
>Well now you've opened a REAL can of worms! Nver liked
>his films or him.
>
>Especially him.
>
>
I'm glad Gabe asked the above question. It suggests an answer to the
one I usually find myself asking, which is, why aren't there more Hollis
Frampton screenings? Those of us who were fortunate enough to be in the
Princeton area this November had the distinct pleasure of seeing _Hapax
Legomena_ in its entirety, and I suspect it is going to be a very long
while before any of us get that chance again. (I know Sam W. was
there--was anyone else?)

Anyway, David, I'm sure you knew you weren't going to get away with that
remark. Would you care to open the can a bit more?

-Matt
19283

From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:51am
Subject: Re: Tashlin interview

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:

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

*****
Imagine. Accusing Truffaut and Godard of engaging in philosophical
doubletalk.

Est nusquam sanctus?
19284

From: Zach Campbell
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:47pm
Subject: Re: top tens

Bilge:
> Kevin, this is exactly the sort of criticism I'd rather see,
> instead of the snide dismissals of other critics for being "middle-
> aged shlubs".

I agree! I read Kevin's post hoping there weren't major spoilers
lurking, since I haven't caught up with SIDEWAYS yet but the topic
interests me. Kevin, that was fascinating bit of criticism--FWIW
from someone who hasn't seen the film in question.

--Zach
19285

From:
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:45pm
Subject: Re: Ten Best Lists

Actually, according to online columnist David Poland, Travers
specifically demanded the right to be quoted in advance of
publication when he took the Rolling Stone job. You may speculate
freely as to why he might want such a right.

Sam

>
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:41:52 -0500
> From: George Robinson
>Subject: Ten Best Lists
>
>
>Finally, I firmly believe there are certain critics whose contracts
>have a bonus clause for every time they are quoted in a review. That
>is the only possible
>explanation for Peter Travers entire career.
19286

From: Zach Campbell
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:53pm
Subject: Re: Like any fashion.,, versus style / skill / knowledge

Elizabeth wrote:
> My best choices for this year (which I have seen but once) are
> VERA DRAKE and CRIMSON GOLD, at least they are the ones I
> recommend to other. Last year, OASIS and LILYA-4-EVER. No
> question I seem to have a woman bias.

A woman's bias is a fine thing to have! I think OASIS, CRIMSON
GOLD, and VERA DRAKE are all very worthy films. (Haven't seen the
Moodysson.)

--Zach
19287

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 2:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: Hollis Frampton

--- Matt Teichman wrote:

>
> Anyway, David, I'm sure you knew you weren't going
> to get away with that
> remark. Would you care to open the can a bit more?
>

After the recent posts about Alexander Payne, it's
rahter odd to turn to Ezra Pound's favorite
apple-polisher. But when it comes to Olypmpian
detachment nobody beats Hollis Frampton. The schematic
absolutism of his work make Peter Greenaway look like
Jean Renoir. Yvonne Rainer ( a far superior filmmaker)
was much taken with a segment of "Hapax Legomena" (I
forget which one) so one can't exactly say he was good
for nothing. But I shall never forget an evening many
years ago where he "spoke" at a screening of a segment
of his never-finished (perhaps by design) magnum opus,
"Magellan" at which a spectator dared to ask -- quite
politely I must add -- a perfectly pertinent question
about his motives. The icy contempt with which he
ripped said spectator to shreds has stayed with me for
a long time. I doubt it will ever go away, as it
exemplifies the arrogance of "artists" when placed in
the presence of mere mortals.

Needless to say Annette Michelson would disagree.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
19288

From:
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:08pm
Subject: Re: top tens/Sideways

I think Kevin's definitely onto something with his analysis of how
the movie "Ping-pongs" (my kind of verb!) between Church and
Giamatti's sensibilities -- not unlike the way cartoonist Bill
Griffith split his personality into culturally omnivorous Zippy and
disdainful Griffy in the Zippy the Pinhead strips. But I also agree
with Bilge that there's nothing wrong with "having it both ways", and
the tension between those two characters/ways of seeing is
intentional. The film (lovingly) skewers Giamatti in the opening
scene, as he orders his latte, rolls the r in "croissant" and does
the Times crossword in ink, but it's also clearly on his side. Such
ambivalence is evident in interviews with Payne, where he will go on
and on about how much he loves Fellini (another director,
incidentally, whose popularity with the wine-and-cheese crowd led to
accusations of a middlebrow sensibility) and then insist that he sees
himself primarily as "a director of comedies." I think this tension
between desiring a certain degree of intellectual superiority to "the
masses" (which I think would pertain to everyone on a list like this)
mixed with feelings of social inferiority for not "fitting in" or
being "out of touch" is probably fairly common -- again perhaps
especially so for professional intellectuals (of whatever stripe or
grade).

I see Mike G's point about the tyranny of a realist aesthetic, which
I have railed against on many an occasion, but I don't think
SIDEWAYS, a film with fairly modest aspirations, makes a particularly
good stalking horse , especially where critics polls and awards are
concerned. What tends to emerge from any poll is a snapshot of
conventional wisdom and compromise -- the things everyone likes tend
to rise to the top, while those which polarize opinion are dragged
down by the negatives. I doubt SIDEWAYS will be many critics
individual top pick, just as I doubt that it will many Oscars. (Maybe
for supporting actor and screenplay.) But it's the kind of movie most
people can agree on -- I think there are more people who dislike it
on this list than among all the people I've talked to who have seen
it. I wouldn't put it in the pantheon myself, and if I had to narrow
my year's choices to 10 (which, except for polls, I don't) it would
be right on the fence. But it's the kind of movie I can, for
instance, take my mother and my two younger siblings to see over the
holidays, and then have a good conversation with them about
afterwards (as opposed to, say, the bafflement and hostility
occasioned by ETERNAL SUNSHINE). Perhaps it can be accused of being
"just smart enough," but I can't say that bothers me unduly, since so
many movies aren't even that smart.

Sam
19289

From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Hollis Frampton

I think Frampton is a genuinely great filmmaker. My little capsule
review of his early films will be at
http://65.201.198.41/movies/critic.html until Thursday.

It doesn't surprise me that he puts David off. He was, at least
superficially, dry, extremely intellectual, and apparently humorless.
Not that David isn't "intellectual," because obviously he is; it's just
that they strike me as two very different personalities. Actually
Frampton was full of a certain kind of humor, but it might not be to
David's taste. And his films are allusive, mysterious, suggestive,
poetic, and even in most cases highly sensual, though again these
qualities are often contained in a "dry" "structure."

David's Pound slur shouldn't go unanswered. Frampton was one of the
young people who visited Pound in his insane asylum in the 1950s. I
believe Frampton was writing poetry then. Pound was not insane, though;
a doctor saved him from a treason conviction by certifying him as such.
And Pound apparently was guilty of treason during World War II, and an
obnoxious anti-Semitic fascist, but anyone who thinks that that means
one could not learn from him is being pretty narrow-minded. Frampton
was, as far as I know, free of any bigotry.

Frampton was actually vastly "cultured": fluent in several languages,
but also extremely knowledgeable in general. He tried several arts,
including poetry, and eventually became a photographer and then a
filmmaker. He also had great technical knowledge of film, and worked in
labs for some years.

I wouldn't judge a filmmaker by a hostile response to an audience
question. Many great artists have been extremely arrogant. Some bad
artists are arrogant too. My point is that being obnoxious in person
doesn't have much predictive value as to anything else.

Frampton's writing (collected in the long out-of-print "Circles of
Confusion") is also amazing.

As to why more critics don't go to Frampton screenings, "more" critics
in general don't go to old films, and they don't go to avant-garde
films, so there are two reasons. And of course Frampton's films don't
have stories, or actors, or any of those easy pleasures. Many are
(gasp!) silent, in the true sense of the modern silent film, silent not
because the exhibitor was supposed to provide the music or because (per
Warhol) the audience was expected to provide the sound track, but to
focus the viewer's attention on image and rhythm -- the Brakhage reasons.

One problem I have with ten best lists, from an auteurist point of view,
is that they implicitly treat films as consumable objects, like
restaurant meals or new models of automobiles. Did it deliver pleasure
seems to be the question. The category of individual films has never
mattered that much to me, because for a great filmmaker it's the body of
work, and the way one film illuminates another, that seems most useful
(and, in the end, most pleasurable). And finally, year made never seems
to matter much to me either. Of course films are reflective of their
eras, but from my own "consumer" point of view I am as interested in
seeing something that was made in 1904 as 2004.

I discovered cinema through what were then relatively current films --
"Twice a Man" by Markopoulos, "Dog Star Man" and others by Brakhage,
"The Birds" and "Marnie" by Hitchcock, and "Shock Corridor" by Fuller,
all seen and loved by the summer of 1964, when I was 16. But that same
summer the Museum of Modern Art (New York) had a Griffith retrospective,
and his films seemed as great and as "relevant" to me as any other, a
"discovery" confirmed by a viewing of "Sunrise" early that fall. The ten
best list, at least in its generic form (rather than, for example, the
"favorite films I saw in 2004" form) seems to cater to the opposite
point of view: a focus on individual films, and a focus on the current year.

Fred Camper
( - who is still planning to reply to Zach on acting, but finds this
group moves just too fast for him....)
19290

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:00pm
Subject: Re: Discovery (Was Re: Hollis Frampton)

--- Fred Camper wrote:

>
> I discovered cinema through what were then
> relatively current films --
> "Twice a Man" by Markopoulos, "Dog Star Man" and
> others by Brakhage,
> "The Birds" and "Marnie" by Hitchcock, and "Shock
> Corridor" by Fuller,
> all seen and loved by the summer of 1964, when I was
> 16.

Well I had a year on you Fred, and I remember that era
as if it were yesterday. The aesthetic co-existence of
Hollywood and the American avant-garde was common
cultural currency. I met Martin Scorsese at a
screening of "Contempt" that year -- we recognized one
another from hanging out at the Museum of Modern Art.
Nice guy. Very intense. Asthmatic. Never thought he
had a prayer in the movie business.

One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is the fact that
there was no video back then. We spent the better part
of our days running around like maniacs chasing
figitive screenings from one end of New York to
another. The fact that films I'd lay in wait for
months to see are now widely available on DVD truly
amazes me.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19291

From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:13pm
Subject: Re: Discovery (Was Re: Hollis Frampton)

David Ehrenstein wrote:

> One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is the fact that
> there was no video back then. We spent the better part
> of our days running around like maniacs chasing
> figitive screenings from one end of New York to
> another. ...

That's right. I remember one day when I saw six films in Manhattan,
though I think one was on TV, mostly in different locales. I don't
remember what they were except the last: "Gertrud."

In fall 1964 I moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts, and lived there until
1971, when I moved back to New York. But I made many trips to New York
to see films, sometimes alone and sometimes with friends, and also to
New Haven, Rochester, and Montreal.

After I moved to New York I went to Washington once to see a double bill
of "Europe 51" and "Viva L'Italia," both very hard to see. I've seen the
first again but not the second. They were incredible.

Having screenings be so rare gave them a certain "event" quality. You
knew it was your only chance; you knew there was no "rewind" button, and
so you really tried to pay attention. There was no "I have the DVD, but
haven't gotten to it yet," but rather great anticipation beforehand, if
there was reason to believe the film was going to be fantastic.

I'm not objecting to video for reasons of availability, just as I can
hardly object to books, but I once read a reminiscence of a Russian who
was half-mourning the days of "samizdat," when many of the best books
were illegal and manuscripts were rare typewriter carbons and you'd stay
up all night reading something you were just loaned because someone else
wanted it the next day. The Russian thought this "problem" gave reading
an intensity and urgency that it now lacked.

Fred Camper
19292

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:33pm
Subject: Re: Discovery (Was Re: Hollis Frampton)

--- Fred Camper wrote:

>
> Having screenings be so rare gave them a certain
> "event" quality. You
> knew it was your only chance; you knew there was no
> "rewind" button, and
> so you really tried to pay attention. There was no
> "I have the DVD, but
> haven't gotten to it yet," but rather great
> anticipation beforehand, if
> there was reason to believe the film was going to be
> fantastic.
>

It's true that sense of anticipatoryattentionis
largely gone. But it can't be denied that the great
advantage of video for any critic is precise recall.
So much of film criticism of the past was based ona
single viewing. Consequently many reviews were filled
with mistakes of all sorts.

I was thinking of this just last night as I was ooking
at"La Dolce Vita" in the opening sequence there's a
greatshor of the shadow of the helicopter carrying the
statue of Christ rising up the side of an apartment
building. Cleary this is where Parker Tyler got the
idea for the title of his book "The Shadow of an
Airplane Climbs the Emprre State Building."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
19293

From: programming
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:33pm
Subject: Re: Nathaniel Dorsky (was Re: top tens)

On 12/20/04 10:23 PM, "David Ehrenstein" wrote:

>
> Nick has a new film? I've got to keep up.
>
>
>
After about a decade with nothing, Dorsky has been comparatively prolific
since the mid 1990's.

Patrick Friel

******************************************

[from Canyon Cinema's website]

Dorsky, Nathaniel

Triste

TRISTE is an indication of the level of cinema language that I have been
working towards. By delicately shifting the weight and solidity of the
images, and bringing together subject matter not ordinarily associated, a
deeper sense of impermanence and mystery can open. The images are as much
pure-energy objects as representation of verbal understanding and the screen
itself is transformed into a "speaking" character. The "sadness" referred to
in the title is more the struggle of the film itself to become a film as
such, rather than some pervasive mood.

1974-1996, 16mm, color/si, 18.5m (18fps), $65

.

Variations

VARIATIONS blossomed forth while shooting additional material for TRISTE.
What tender chaos, what current of luminous rhymes might cinema reveal
unbridled from the daytime word? During the Bronze Age a variety of
sanctuaries were built for curative purposes. One of the principal
activities was transformative sleep. This montage speaks to that tradition.

1992-1998, 16mm, color/si, 24m (18fps), $80

Arbor Vitae

ARBOR VITAE is a gesture towards a cinema of pure being. Its atmosphere is
haunted by the period in which it was shot, the year of 1999. Although the
cuts are open and numerous in their intent, the underlying motivation is the
delicate reveal of the transparency of presence, our tender mystery midst
the elaborate unfolding of the tree of life.

Note: Please project the 10 feet of black leader on the screen that preceeds
the main title and that follows the last shot!! Thank you. - Nathaniel
Dorsky

1999/2000, 16mm, color/si, 18fps 28m, $100

Love's Refrain

Perhaps the most delicately tactile in this series, LOVE'S REFRAIN rests
moment to moment on its own surface. It is a coda in twilight, a soft-spoken
conclusion to a set of four cinematic songs.

2000/2001, 16mm, color/si, 22.5m @ 18fps, $80

The Visitation
The first of two devotional songs

Part One of a set of Two Devotional Songs. "The Visitation" is a gradual
unfolding, an arrival so to speak. I felt the necessity to describe an
occurrence, not one specifically of time and place, but one of revelation in
one's own psyche. The place of articulation is not so much in the realm of
images as information, but in the response of the heart to the poignancy of
the cuts.

2002, 16mm, color/si, 18fps, 18m, $60

Threnody (not available until after 12/15/2004)

THRENODY is the second of two devotional songs, the first being THE
VISITATION. It is an offering to a friend who died. These two films were
preceeded by a series of Four Cinematic Songs: TRISTE, VARIATIONS, ARBOR
VITAE, and LOVE'S REFRAIN.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19294

From:
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:03pm
Subject: Realism Vs Auteurism

I think that the main reason the auteur theory is not widely accepted today
is because most critics believe in "realist" theories of art instead.
Pauline Kael's "Trash, Art and the Movies" (1968) (reprinted in her
collection "Going Steady") sums up the realist, anti-auteurist position. Kael felt that
Hollywood movies were "entertaining trash", not "art". The main basis for
this claim was their lack of realism: the movies were about "glamorous thieves
and seductive women who sang in cheap cafes".
Just read Richard Maltby's "Hollywood Cinema" (Second Edition, 2003). This is
a 700 page university textbook, by a British academic. It is devoted to the
proposition that Hollywood films have no value as art, and that they are purely
works of entertainment created in a capitalist system. The book is explicitly
anti-auteurist, and devotes a great deal of effort to undercutting the auteur
theory.
After a brief introduction it quotes Kael's essay, giving its arguments
central place in the book's thesis.
Let me make some contrary propositions.
Most narrative popular culture, commercial films, comics, prose mystery and
science fiction, in France, Britain and the US from 1890-1975 is non-realist,
stressing imagination instead of realism as its chief artistic virtue.
Narrative popular culture is also largely plot-oriented, stressing storytelling as a
central approach.
By contrast, most literary and film critics are devoted to a realist
tradition in literary prose fiction, theater and some kinds of film. They value a work
of art insofar as it depicts the daily life of ordinary people in a realistic
fashion. They are also opposed to seeing any artistic value in plot.
My impression is that 99% of resistance to auteurism comes from realist
beliefs. It is based on a coherent system of realist aesthetics, which I believe to
be incorrect.
I do not think auteurism will ever be accepted, as long as people hold
pro-realist, anti-plot ideals.
Let's give an example.
Apparently the "Real West" of history was made up of subsistence farmers,
working 90 hours a week to grow enough food not to starve, and who lived in crude
dug-out sod houses.
When non-auteurists look at films such as "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence",
"Rio Bravo", or "Seven Men from Now", they instantly dismiss them as not a
realistic picture of the West. End of discussion.
When auteurists politely suggest that such films are very imaginative or
highly creative, this makes no impression at all on realist critics. They are not
able to recognize any merit whatsoever in any "imagination" a work of art
contains. It is against their aesthetics.
Similarly, "Vertigo" is seen and disnmissed as not being a realistic picture
of typical daily life in San Francisco in the 1950's.
A qualifier: I am not opposed to works being realistic. Rossellini, Olmi and
Satyajit Ray are three of my favorite filmmakers. But I am opposed to the idea
that a work's merit is measured by its degree of realism. I do not value
"Stromboli" chiefly because it is a sociologically realistic look at peasant life
in the island of Stromboli, for example.
I do not think auteurism will ever be accepted, unless fundamental ideals
about aesthetics change. Pro-realist, anti-plot aesthetics will automatically bar
any acceptance of narrative popular culture, until such ideals fall and are
replaced.
Furthermore, I find that anti-auteurist writers such as Richard Maltby seem
extremely energetic, enthused and committed to spreading anti-auteurist ideas.
These people have clear, carefully thought out aesthetic positions.
Where is the auteurist response to such books? In 1968 works such as Sarris'
"The American Cinema"? Where is the contemporary response to such works?
And will auteurists ever come up with consistent positions on aesthetics?

Mike Grost
19295

From: Matt Teichman
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:03pm
Subject: Re: Hollis Frampton

David Ehrenstein wrote:

>But when it comes to Olypmpian
>detachment nobody beats Hollis Frampton. The schematic
>absolutism of his work make Peter Greenaway look like
>Jean Renoir.
>
I have to say it suprises me that anyone could find his films schematic
or absolutist in any but the most superficial sense (i.e. one that has
to do with superstitions around the supposed "coldness" of
mathematics). And detached? I can hardly think of any filmmaker so
consistently and intensely preoccupied with affect; in fact, it wouldn't
be all that inaccurate to think of his work as an ode to ecstasy.

Not to mention his writings, which really are another can of worms. For
now I'll just mention that I don't see how someone interested in
Derrida, Blanchot, et. al could find them anything but essential.

Also, re: the incident you describe, I think it's worth keeping in mind
what avant-garde filmmakers have to put up with, the amount of utterly
dehumanizing condescension they receive over the years from 99% of their
audiences. I don't think getting a little annoyed with a stupid
question during a Q&A session is a mark of arrogance; it's a defense
mechanism. To cite a recent example (I think I also mentioned this on
Frameworks), once someone asked Abigail Child why there was no relation
between the sound and image in her film--this after a screening one of
the most carefully edited films I've ever seen. Her reply was something
like, "I beg your pardon, but the sound has EVERYTHING to do with the
image." Out of context, it might have been a pompous thing to say; in
context, it was an appropriate response to an idiotic question.

-Matt
19296

From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:22pm
Subject: Re: HOUSE OF FLYING DAGGERS

> That comparison doesn't do much for me, not as much as Eisenstein, or King Hu.

If I were going to make an Eisenstein comparison, I'd make it to
"Once Upon A Time In China Pt. 3" not "Hero" or "Daggers"

Liked "House of Flying Daggers" anyway. Maybe all that green while
being here in NJ winter ;-)

-Sam Wells
19297

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Hollis Frampton

--- Matt Teichman wrote:

I can hardly think of
> any filmmaker so
> consistently and intensely preoccupied with affect;
> in fact, it wouldn't
> be all that inaccurate to think of his work as an
> ode to ecstasy.
>

The ecstasy of his own "mastery."

> Not to mention his writings, which really are
> another can of worms. For
> now I'll just mention that I don't see how someone
> interested in
> Derrida, Blanchot, et. al could find them anything
> but essential.
>

Well there it is. Especially when you get to the et.
al. -- Bataille, Klooswski, Leiris, Louis Rene des
Forets.

I'm terribly superfond of Snow, however.

> Also, re: the incident you describe, I think it's
> worth keeping in mind
> what avant-garde filmmakers have to put up with, the
> amount of utterly
> dehumanizing condescension they receive over the
> years from 99% of their
> audiences.

Having been present through much of this --
particularly a Kael denunciation of film poetry ("I
was married to one," she quipped for the benefit of
those unaware of her Triumph of the Will & Grace
alliance with James Broughton) -- I know all to well
what you're talking about. However to claim --

I don't think getting a little annoyed
> with a stupid
> question during a Q&A session is a mark of
> arrogance; it's a defense
> mechanism.

-- is to miss the point I was trying to make. It
wasn't a stupid question, and it wasn't asked in a
hostile or dismissive tone. Frampton's coming down on
the questioner like a ton of bricks was completely out
of line.

But par for the course for him.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19298

From: Fred Patton
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:32pm
Subject: introducing myself and chiming in

I was going to wait until after the holidays to introduce myself, but I've been intoxicated by all the vigorous discussion. I've read the statement of purpose a couple times, so hopefully I won't violate it with my very first post. In one sentence about me, I am a film enthusiastic from Silicon Valley, i.e. "neophyte." I intend to remain primarily in lurk mode, as I can hardly keep up reading all the posts. Now, for my observation about realism...

The award-giving emphasis on serious dramas seems tied to realism and the manner in which realism has been historically marked by a conceptual parentage of mimesis and didactism. Certainly, it's widespread thinking that if a work resonates the real, it can teach us something, while non-realistic fare generally only entertains. Within this space of the real, a film can illuminate social issues, giving flesh to the schematic of agenda. There is no doubt movies have capacity for advertisement, including the marketing of lifestyles. Media as social programming has not neglected the movies—perhaps this has always already been the case. ‘Programming’ of course is a charged word, and ‘mind control’ no doubt springs to mind, with ‘social engineering’ not too many layers away. ‘Social commentary’ is the more palatal moniker, along with the innocuous branding of ‘dialogue’ and ‘giving voice.’

Where one might draw the line between program and message—“look, we’re just talking” some façade of Ed Harris might say to some façade of Alan Arkin—is decorative. An utterance or gesture is positive, neutral or negative in terms of a particular program framed from a particular vantage. In many cases the charge may shift with vantage; this may be exploited consciously by an auteur both within the overall composition and outside of it. Vantage for an advertisement standpoint spells advantage. How the charged particles of meaning accumulate, and hence, influence drive, is of systemic complexity—the “graph” of the cinematograph is both ‘inscription’ and ‘network’, with the latter case bearing out the structure of semantic relations, a directed graph, mathematically speaking.

So any film that involves itself with the life of a woman, the life of a person within a communist system, the life of a person in the topical milieu of charged sexual politics, or the life of any-who-wherever really, conventional or not, inhabits a position. If we find this position hostile to varying degrees, we may denounce it for any number of reasons that may or may not acknowledge the positional stance. Furthermore, regardless and outside of any socio-political valence, there are the purely performative aspects: out-of-focus shots, unbelievable narrative, clumsy portrayal (that betrayal of believability). At the same time, these indictments may executed with intentionality, given semantically complex constructions.

Formally at least, we can gain some distance from programmatic gravitational pull, but to complicate this, formal aesthetics are necessarily relational, and thus, dynamic. Out-of-focus isn’t always ‘bad’ or’ inappropriate’, and depth-of-field isn’t always ‘good’ or ‘appropriate’, and even continuity, which is almost always ‘good’, cold be rejected in particular situations. However, the realm of intentionality gives no guarantee that the creator’s master plan is not flawed or otherwise problematic. This all makes for challenging film commentary. Dismissing something as garbage has validity. Finding value in the dust bin is valid. Salvaging something from the trash heap is valid. Good commentary seems to always open the semantic field of awareness, which is especially fruitful when other tenable positions populate the critiscape.

Fred Patton

P.S. I've got no top 10 list to share either, but 2004 I will remember most for Babak Payami's "The Silence Between Two Thoughts." And great to hear mention of "Lilja-4-Ever" and "La Vie Nouvelle."

I will list below, in no particular order, films I believe are dying for attention (whether from unknown director or under-valued work within the known director's ouerve, as well as whether solid or uneven). Each case citation holds specific and neglected importance that I will gladly annotate at another time if desirable. Certainly, each instance is germane to the discussion of auteur theory. Neither listing should necessarily be considered my 'favorite' work from the director in question, and these listings are intentionally regionally skewed:

Glass Tears (Lai Miu-suet)

La Vie Nouvelle (Philippe Grandrieux)

Forest of Bliss (Robert Gardener)

J'ai Faim, J'ai Froid (Chantal Akerman)

Dolls (Takeshi Kitano)

Eaux d'Artiface (Kenneth Anger)

The Wind (Victor Sjöström)

Yellow Earth (Kaige Chen)

Pyassa (Guru Dutt)

Marriage of the Blessed (Mohsen Makmalbaf)

Quiet Rolls the Dawn (Mrinal Sen)

The Power of Kangwon Province (Hong Sang-soo)

The Silence Between Two Thoughts (Babak Payami)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19299

From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Hollis Frampton

I was there, and had even thought to write something about it on
Frameworks - but in a sense have been too busy engaging some
implications of it in my own work, something **completely**
unexpected I might add.

To keep it very brief (how to defend Flying Daggers AND Hollis Frampton
4 days before Xmas ? ;-)

I went as someone who sort of 'admired' what Frampton was about
much more than actually liking the films in some ultimate sense.

But already, that's changed: I see how central "Zorn's Lema" is to my
sense of film 'language' - plus I'm genuinely fond of "Ordinary Matter"
now having seen it.

What struck me about the conference as a whole - not just in terms of
seeing some of the films (I didn't see everything but have seen most
of them previously) was how *central* to the ongoing debate/concern
about what cinema on a deep, and forgive me but, structural level IS.

For instance, almost *all* the debates/barfights on Frameworks and elsewhere
re film / video; theater & projection /installation; still / motion; use
of computers etc etc seemed to have been in some way anticipated by
Frampton's concerns, thoughts - or why not say it, research.

What implications Frampton's work (or Ernie Gehr or Ken Jacobs) has
for narrative / dramatic / auteurist cinema as a whole I don't know exactly,
can I just say again, I give no less value to "Lumiere/research than to
"Melies/spectacle" ?

>>Frampton's writing (collected in the long out-of-print "Circles of
Confusion") is also amazing.

p.s. Annette Michaelson announced October will be publishing this soon.

-Sam Wells

> I'm glad Gabe asked the above question. It suggests an answer to the
> one I usually find myself asking, which is, why aren't there more Hollis
> Frampton screenings? Those of us who were fortunate enough to be in the
> Princeton area this November had the distinct pleasure of seeing _Hapax
> Legomena_ in its entirety, and I suspect it is going to be a very long
> while before any of us get that chance again. (I know Sam W. was
> there--was anyone else?)
>
> Anyway, David, I'm sure you knew you weren't going to get away with that
> remark. Would you care to open the can a bit more?
>
> -Matt
19300

From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:45pm
Subject: Re: Hollis Frampton

>Triumph of the Will & Grace
> alliance with James Broughton

David, you're our auteurist La Rochefoucauld and Oscar Wilde. Quite a
bon mot.

a_film_by Main Page

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