Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
19401
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:36am
Subject: Re: Re: Hollis Frampton
Thanks a lot, Paul. It's some comfort that MoMA gets the label right; at
least they appear to understand what they're doing, in part.
I think part of the point of the ritual aspect of film viewing -- you
arrive at the appointed time, and sit in a darkened room, screen raised
in front of you, waiting for the lights to dim -- is that it focuses and
concentrates one's attention. I mean, when "Lemon" is screened as a
film, there isn't much to look at except that luscious lemon, and you
start to notice the different sense of time the film has, the
sensuousness of the shape, et cetera. So I'm guessing I'd agree with you
that the viewing situation is much influential here than the fact it's
on DVD.
Films and videos made to be shown as gallery installations are a
different kettle of fish. Some are loops, and many of the others don't
even have a precise beginning and end, or at least the beginning and end
aren't that important as markers of anything, whereas "Lemon" most
certainly does have a beginning, middle, and end, and they're presented
in a very un-Godardian proper order too.
Fred Camper
19402
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:12am
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief (was: Criterion in March)
jpcoursodon wrote:
>... But the level
> of "suspension of auditory disbelief" in most cinephiles has always
> amazed me. Unfortunately it seems to be a taboo subject. I didn't
> expect to get much response to my bringing it up. Although it's one
> of my pet peeves, I mostly brought it up in hope to get away from
> Hollis Frampton and Ten Bests....
JPC, most of us find threads here that don't interest us, but without
feeling the need to criticize them, as long as they fit in with our
Statement of Purpose. We moderators have often noted between ourselves
threads that don't even fit in, that we've decided to let run their course.
Accurate subject lines are important in helping people decide what to
read here. You've certainly been a big player in threads of little
interest to me. As long as the subject lines remain accurate, this
really shouldn't be that big of a problem for any of us. The Frampton
thread has been accurately identified from the beginning.
What's always amazed *me* is cinephiles who might claim to care about
film as art but whose apparent primary model is the "realist" sync sound
commercially made fiction feature, with everything else measured against
that.
If I could design a viewing program for such people, or really for
anyone, it would include many weeks of avant-garde films, Soviet montage
works, documentaries of all types, home movies (some of which can be
quite interesting), instructional films, scientific films, ethnographic
films, newsreels, early films, animated cartoons, "artier" animations,
and whatever else I'm leaving out. Cinema is *all* cinema, even the
cinema you don't like, and you should have had at least some exposure to
each type. I contradict myself a bit here, or might seem to, compared to
my earlier reply to Adrian, I suppose, and certainly I agree with him
that different types of films and different nationalities of cinema
always deserve some looking-into and research, and I'd add that not
every film should be judged by the same standards.
Anyway, to get to the point, I would argue that if you understood the
films and writings of Hollis Frampton and his colleagues better you
might not have the problem you have with Italian films. Seriously. To
someone who appreciates the sound-image relationship in Frampton's
"(nostalgia)," the dubbing in Italian films is going to seem like you're
right there on that desolate rocky island with Ingrid and her fisherman
husband.
Consider this little thought experiment. Imagine that sync sound
narrative features were the very first films, right at the beginning of
cinema. Then just this year someone got the idea to make a narrative
feature film with only music accompaniment, and convey the dialogue with
intertitles. Wouldn't that seem even more "viscerally" unbelievable than
dubbing? You're suddenly having to combine reading intertitles with
listening to music with seeing images of characters. Doesn't having the
musical sound track imitating a storm during a storm scene combined with
characters whose voices can't even be heard break the illusion? If you
weren't already used to this, it could be really disconcerting.
Or consider another possibility. The year is 1895, and you're a great
lover of theater, traveling back and forth between Paris and London to
see the best productions of your favorite great plays. Naturally you
ignore the low-class novelty of cinema when it first appears. But after
some decades, someone drags you to a sync-sound narrative movie. How
could you suspend your disbelief in favor of these flat projected
shadows, in BLACK AND WHITE no less, when all your experience of visual
drama tells you that it requires live actors? Conversely, how could a
film viewer going to his first play accept those phony backdrops as
convincing you that you're outdoors?
I've never seen a Japanese film accompanied by a benshi, but that
phenomenon ought to be raised too. Apparently Japanese audiences in the
silent period didn't have a problem with accepting it.
The conditions under which we're willing to suspend disbelief are at
least in part a matter of our exposure to existing conventions. Film is
an illusion anyway. If you judge Italian dubbing against the sound
tracks of Hollywood films, perhaps you're always going to be a bit
annoyed. Maybe you need to see more Egyptian musicals of the 1940s?
Besides, what avant-garde cinema has taught some of us is that
"suspension of disbelief" is in no way a condition for a film becoming a
great work of art. Many filmmakers have even made an art out of
attacking the suspension of disbelief and exploring film for the fake
illusion that it is. For Ernie Gehr, even Brakhage's use of film to
suggest moods or emotions was too "fictive" (not his word).
Fred Camper
19403
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:48am
Subject: The Honey Pot
Exquisite. A perfect film, except for cigar-store Indian Cliff
Robertson dropping the ball at a couple of points, worst of all right
at the end -- but Hayward and Harrison pick it up just before the
credits and sail over the goal-line. Incidentally, I saw it when it
was released, so I didn't see it this time "for surprise" - as
Rivette would say, this time was "for ravishment." Hitchcock must
have enjoyed it - he unconsciously imitated a bit of Mank's
choreography of Smith and Robertson's big squabble in the rape scene
of Frenzy five years later. Nice to see Maggie Smith, one of my
favorite actresses, getting to be sexy for a change.
19404
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:53am
Subject: Italian MOS habits
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> the entirety of Italian sound film production from the origins
until
> last week (slight exageration. They have begun to do a bit of
direct
> sound. It's so unusual for Italian cinema that they
indicate "direct
> sound" on credits, for ex. in "The Son's Room.") This is a huge
> problem
It was a problem for Roger Corman when he shot Frankenstein Unbound
in Italy w. an all Italian crew. The day I watched he was shooting
direct sound, and some crew members were talking noisily during a
take. Corman called "Cut" and the assistant director told them to
keep quiet while the camera was rolling. During the next take they
mimed walking about on tiptoe with their fingers to their
lips: "Shhh!"
19405
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:00am
Subject: Re: Criterion in March
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
> Well, a lot of post-synching happens still, in films that are
> ostensibly not dubbed.
I also think it happened a lot in B movies when there were B movies -
a lot of Detour is MOS. Godard is perfectly happy shooting MOS (the
Oval Portrait scene in Vivre sa vie). Welles often did it.
My particular kink, which is just me, is that I hate the sound of
Swedish and can only enjoy Bergman dubbed. But there's good and bad
dubbing: Fanny and Alexander in English is flawless; the current DVD
of Shame sounds like it was dubbed by the actors who do spaghetti
westerns.
19406
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:38am
Subject: Re: Re: Criterion in March
On Thursday, December 23, 2004, at 02:00 AM, hotlove666 wrote:
>
> My particular kink, which is just me, is that I hate the sound of
> Swedish and can only enjoy Bergman dubbed. But there's good and bad
> dubbing: Fanny and Alexander in English is flawless; the current DVD
> of Shame sounds like it was dubbed by the actors who do spaghetti
> westerns.
I've been saving seeing 'Fanny and Alexander' for the day I was able to
watch the film in its complete 5+ hour version, in a pristine format,
and around Christmastime. That time has come (at least begun) tonight;
about forty minutes in (hit pause for a brief moment just now, more for
bathroom than email), it's clear I'm watching the miraculous.
I don't think I would like to hear that wonderfully charming "Yule
lasts till Easter" song in anything -but- the original Swedish!
craig.
19407
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:24am
Subject: Re: Swedish is awful / English dubbing is worse
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 23, 2004, at 02:00 AM, hotlove666 wrote:
> >
> > My particular kink, which is just me, is that I hate the sound of
> > Swedish and can only enjoy Bergman dubbed. But there's good and bad
> > dubbing: Fanny and Alexander in English is flawless; the current DVD
> > of Shame sounds like it was dubbed by the actors who do spaghetti
> > westerns.
>
> I've been saving seeing 'Fanny and Alexander' for the day I was able to
> watch the film in its complete 5+ hour version, in a pristine format,
> and around Christmastime. That time has come (at least begun) tonight;
> about forty minutes in (hit pause for a brief moment just now, more for
> bathroom than email), it's clear I'm watching the miraculous.
>
> I don't think I would like to hear that wonderfully charming "Yule
> lasts till Easter" song in anything -but- the original Swedish!
>
> craig.
How can anyone say that its charming to hear something in Swedish?
Danish, now there is a language. We even have pastry called after us.
Could you imagine having a Swedish for breakfast? Sounds like a cold
shower or lavement or something :)
However, nothing sounds as bad as the American dubbings of Asian
films. I never understood why the US dubs Asian films but not
European, but when dubbing Asian films, it sounds almost as mockery of
the language, where one almost could expect to hear "flies lies".
Henrik
19408
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 0:51pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
"I find Brooks a lot more interesting than Scorsese in his excavation
of character"
Actually, I can kind of imagine a James L Brooks version of RAGING
BULL. Jake La Motta is a none-too-bright boxer who hides a heart of
gold beneath his gruff exterior. He is surrounded by a cast of
characters that includes his wacky brother, his wife Vicky, and an
irritable neighbor who is always complaining about Jake and Vicky's
loud (but non-violent) fights. In this week's episode: Jake and Vicky
adopt a dog.
"Maybe because Brooks is a writer and Scorsese isn't"
Scorsese wrote WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR, and co-wrote MEAN
STREETS.
"The fact that Brooks starts out by making Nicholson's character in
AS GOOD AS IT GETS a racist and homophobe simply in order to furnish
his movie and his audience with a tightrope to walk across...taken by
itself, without reference to Nicholson's character, Brooks's idea of
setting up a tightrope for him and his audience to walk across is
something that I find thrilling"
So many people whose opinions I usually respect see value in Brooks'
films that I'm almost convinced I should give them another try. But
the above statement is the kind of thing I have real trouble with,
and which makes me suspect that Brooks' admirers are indulging in a
guilty pleasure, enjoying something (television sit-com humor) they
would normally condemn.
In what sense can the strategies of AS GOOD AS IT GETS be regarded as
tightrope walks? Does anyone really perceive them in this
way? 'Tightrope walk' implies something challenging, whereas AS GOOD
AS IT GETS is among the least challenging films I have ever seen.
(Not that it is necessary for a film to be challenging in order to be
good.) It occupies the same comfortable sit-com universe as Brooks'
other work, and it is revealing that Brooks' critical admirers tend
to be people who don't watch much television, and presumably find
this stuff refreshingly diferent.
And this is why I believe that people who defend Brooks' more crassly
commercial habits - reshaping films after previews, testing different
endings, etc. - by pointing out that Frank Capra did the same thing
are misguided. The multiple endings Capra shot for MEET JOHN DOE were
motivated by the knowledge that his film led inexorably towards one
logical conclusion: John commits suicide. An ending that Capra would
(for a variety of reasons) have been unable to shoot.
With AS GOOD AS IT GETS, on the other hand, the problem with settling
on an ending (and surely nobody finds the current ending
satisfactory) stems from the fact that Brooks is not used to working
in a dramatic form that demands endings, instead being immersed in a
sit-com world that is, by its nature, open-ended. AS GOOD AS IT GETS
would actually work very well as the pilot for a TV series: the
continuing adventures of Melvin, a racist homophobic misogynist who
hates animals, but conceals a heart of gold beneath his gruff
exterior, and is required to interact daily with the African-
Americans, homosexuals, women and dogs who live in his apartment
building. In next week's episode: Melvin is asked to be the best man
at a gay wedding.
19409
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:59pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > "AGAIG takes place in a sealed fantasy universe, which is normal
> > > practice in Hollywood; what's unusual in the contemporary context
> > is
> > > that this universe consists of only three people (and a dog)."
> > >
> > > But surely this is evidence of Brooks' inability to transcend
> those
> > > stylistic limitations traceable to his background in television
> sit-
> > > coms (which usually take place in 'universes' that consist of
> > nothing
> > > but the lead actors and the occasional guest star interacting on
> a
> > > single set). I really think that Brooks' defenders should be
> aware
> > of
> > > exactly what it is that they are defending - his films have
> nothing
> > > to do with McCarey or Scorsese, and everything to do with
> episodes
> > of
> > > TAXI.
> >
> > That's what I like about him. He has done more than anyone to
> evolve
> > a film style out of the tv style that he helped perfect. Michel
> Chion
> > talked about the visual implications of this in his CdC review of
> > Broadcast News.
>
> To stir the plot a little more, I find Brooks a lot more interesting
> than Scorsese in his excavation of character--though certainly less
> accomplished than McCarey. Where I find that Brooks and McCarey have
> something in common is in the insights into character that can't be
> intellectually systemized (pace Bill's observation), despite the
> efforts of both writer-directors to do so (e.g., the primitive
> understanding of what communism is and means to Robert Walker in MY
> SON JOHN; the ideological innocence of BROADCAST NEWS that values the
> realness or falsity of an anchorman's tears over whether what he's
> saying is actually truthful or not).
*****
The only character being excavated in those examples are that of the
two directors in question. Robert Walker's grasp of Communism in "My
Son, John" was certainly primitive, but to me it clearly reflected
McCarey's own. By the evidence of "Statan Never Sleeps", as well as
"My Son, John", I think it's safe to conclude that Leo McCarey
possessed an understanding of Communism only slightly less nuanced
than that on display in Red Scare epics such as "I Married a
Communist" and "Invasion U.S.A.".
As for James Brooks, the big revelation over the authenticity of
William Hurt's tears in "Broadcast News" is accorded such dramatic
weight in the narrative that I'd be sharply surprised if Brooks didn't
seriously believe all the cavilling about journalistic integrity he's
installed as the moral center of his film. The conclusion that Brooks
may indeed be that naive is inescapable.
I don't think what we're seeing in both cases (and I admire McCarey's
work tremendously) are insights of some depth into the characters as
much as they are an absence of sophistication on the part of the
filmmakers with regard to certain matters that appear to have
distracted them somewhat.
> Where I find Brooks more
> interesting than Scorsese is in the specialty of both directors--the
> self-destructive neurotic. Maybe because Brooks is a writer and
> Scorsese isn't, the former is both more analytical and--because this
> gives him more rope to hang himself with--more self-deceiving. The
> fact that Brooks starts out by making Nicholson's character in AS
> GOOD AS IT GETS a racist and homophobe simply in order to furnish his
> movie and his audience with a tightrope to walk across is a good
> example of the falseness that can arise from his methods (because we
> all know that the character will eventually turn out to be some sort
> of nonracist and nonhomophobic sweetie-pue in spite of himself). Many
> critics reject his films because of the crassness involved in that
> sort of manuever, and I certainly understand where they're coming
> from. Yet taken by itself, without reference to Nicholson's
> character, Brooks's idea of setting up a tightrope for him and his
> audience to walk across is something that I find thrilling, and he
> does it repeatedly in all sorts of ways.
*****
But it's not all that thrilling a walk across the tightrope when you
know how it's going to end. There's absolutely no moral or dramatic
suspense in James Brooks's films, so firm is the viewer's conviction
throughout that everything will turn out all right in the end. The
chances of Brooks ever concluding one of his films on an unhappy or
morally ambiguous or dissatisfied note are too remote to ever be worth
contemplating. He simply won't do it.
Tom Sutpen
19410
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Criterion in March
--- ebiri@a... wrote:
> Didn't Welles dub a
> lot, too?
>
And how! And I'm not just talking about his european
films. In an article I wrote a number of years back
for the "L.A. Reader" on "Touch of Evil," I pointed to
numerous scenes in which-- thanks to dubbing -- Welles
is in effect talking to himself.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
19411
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:29pm
Subject: Re: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- Tom Sutpen wrote:
There's absolutely no
> moral or dramatic
> suspense in James Brooks's films, so firm is the
> viewer's conviction
> throughout that everything will turn out all right
> in the end. The
> chances of Brooks ever concluding one of his films
> on an unhappy or
> morally ambiguous or dissatisfied note are too
> remote to ever be worth
> contemplating. He simply won't do it.
>
For the most part. "Terms of Endearment" left him up a
tree. No matter how you slice it you've still got a
dead mother.
Saw "Spanglish" last night and it's THE WORST. No
dramatic flow whatsoever. No drama, really. The damned
thing just sits there with everyone being "nice"
except for Tea Leoni, who's downright ceritifiable and
creepy beyond belief. The whole show is quite racist
in its endeavor to suposedly decry racism. I say
"supposedly" because it reminded me of an early Jules
Feiffer play,"Crawling Arnold" about a pack of
neurotic white suburbanites (are there any other
kind?) where characters keep coming up to the black
maid and saying "I admire the aspirations of your people."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19412
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:38pm
Subject: Re: Criterion in March
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- ebiri@a... wrote:
>
>
> > Didn't Welles dub a
> > lot, too?
> >
>
> And how! And I'm not just talking about his european
> films. In an article I wrote a number of years back
> for the "L.A. Reader" on "Touch of Evil," I pointed to
> numerous scenes in which-- thanks to dubbing -- Welles
> is in effect talking to himself.
*****
Besides Joseph Cotten's "Now you can strain him through a sieve", what
are the other instances of Welles substituing his voice for another
actor's in "Touch of Evil"? I must confess, as many times as I've seen
that film I never noticed it, save for that one line.
I did notice he does it repeatedly in "The Trial" and "Chimes at
Midnight".
Tom Sutpen
19413
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:53pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief (was: Criterion in March)
> What's always amazed *me* is cinephiles who might claim to care about
> film as art but whose apparent primary model is the "realist" sync sound
> commercially made fiction feature, with everything else measured against
> that.
This really seems to bother you. Well, think of this this way.
Narrative long-form cinema is built around a big, prominent element - the
storytelling - which is pretty much a cover for the good stuff. In other
words, we might really be grooving on the overtones, the grace notes of
rhythm and emphasis and the eternal reality/artifice interface; but we
absorb these indirectly while watching/listening to a story being told.
In this sense, narrative long-form cinema takes its place with other
classical and popular art forms: painting, where representation provides
just such a cover; the novel, where storytelling similarly allows style to
be smuggled in through the back door; maybe even music, where melody and
structure create a sort of story that is what we hear first.
I think that abstract painting, modern music, etc. are really a big jump
away from the classical forms that gave birth to them. Suddenly the mind
has to work differently: form no longer comes in through the back door
while we focus on something else; instead, it is apprehended directly.
This is not only difficult but dangerous, because the mind tends to
conceptualize and simplify whatever it apprehends directly.
So, at the very least, you shouldn't be surprised that so many people
can't cross that divide as easily as you can! Perhaps you achieve this by
"avant-garde-izing" narrative film in your mind - your discussions of both
narrative and non-narrative films tend to focus on the same formal issues,
as if the narrative was vestigial.
> The conditions under which we're willing to suspend disbelief are at
> least in part a matter of our exposure to existing conventions. Film is
> an illusion anyway.
>
> Besides, what avant-garde cinema has taught some of us is that
> "suspension of disbelief" is in no way a condition for a film becoming a
> great work of art.
I don't think Jean-Pierre's issue boils down to suspension of disbelief.
Obviously, any artistic experience poses disbelief problems on some level.
But it's still the case that realistic elements have an impact and help
create artistic value. Just because art is possible without natural sound
doesn't mean that we might just as well not have it. We can always
pretend that a character in an Italian film is talking in real time, but
we can't get the intensity of experience that realist sound textures can
help create.
Hopefully we get some other experiences instead, or else we need to give
up dubbed cinema. I think we do get other experiences, but, as a lover of
natural sound, I sympathize with Jean-Pierre's frustration.
Of course, like any abstraction, dubbing provides artistic opportunities.
I'm convinced that Friedkin dubs badly on purpose, and I know that the
cold experience of his films is for me partly created by the disembodied
quality of the dialogue. I'd also say that part of the feeling of a 50s
Sirk film for me is connected to those emotional voices etched on the
surface of the sound track via dubbing.
- Dan
19414
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:55pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> "I find Brooks a lot more interesting than Scorsese in his
excavation
> of character"
>
> Actually, I can kind of imagine a James L Brooks version of RAGING
> BULL. Jake La Motta is a none-too-bright boxer who hides a heart of
> gold beneath his gruff exterior. He is surrounded by a cast of
> characters that includes his wacky brother, his wife Vicky, and an
> irritable neighbor who is always complaining about Jake and Vicky's
> loud (but non-violent) fights. In this week's episode: Jake and
Vicky
> adopt a dog.
>
> "Maybe because Brooks is a writer and Scorsese isn't"
>
> Scorsese wrote WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR, and co-wrote MEAN
> STREETS.
>
> "The fact that Brooks starts out by making Nicholson's character in
> AS GOOD AS IT GETS a racist and homophobe simply in order to
furnish
> his movie and his audience with a tightrope to walk across...taken
by
> itself, without reference to Nicholson's character, Brooks's idea
of
> setting up a tightrope for him and his audience to walk across is
> something that I find thrilling"
>
> So many people whose opinions I usually respect see value in
Brooks'
> films that I'm almost convinced I should give them another try. But
> the above statement is the kind of thing I have real trouble with,
> and which makes me suspect that Brooks' admirers are indulging in a
> guilty pleasure, enjoying something (television sit-com humor) they
> would normally condemn.
>
> In what sense can the strategies of AS GOOD AS IT GETS be regarded
as
> tightrope walks? Does anyone really perceive them in this
> way? 'Tightrope walk' implies something challenging, whereas AS
GOOD
> AS IT GETS is among the least challenging films I have ever seen.
> (Not that it is necessary for a film to be challenging in order to
be
> good.) It occupies the same comfortable sit-com universe as Brooks'
> other work, and it is revealing that Brooks' critical admirers tend
> to be people who don't watch much television, and presumably find
> this stuff refreshingly diferent.
>
> And this is why I believe that people who defend Brooks' more
crassly
> commercial habits - reshaping films after previews, testing
different
> endings, etc. - by pointing out that Frank Capra did the same thing
> are misguided. The multiple endings Capra shot for MEET JOHN DOE
were
> motivated by the knowledge that his film led inexorably towards one
> logical conclusion: John commits suicide. An ending that Capra
would
> (for a variety of reasons) have been unable to shoot.
>
> With AS GOOD AS IT GETS, on the other hand, the problem with
settling
> on an ending (and surely nobody finds the current ending
> satisfactory) stems from the fact that Brooks is not used to
working
> in a dramatic form that demands endings, instead being immersed in
a
> sit-com world that is, by its nature, open-ended. AS GOOD AS IT
GETS
> would actually work very well as the pilot for a TV series: the
> continuing adventures of Melvin, a racist homophobic misogynist who
> hates animals, but conceals a heart of gold beneath his gruff
> exterior, and is required to interact daily with the African-
> Americans, homosexuals, women and dogs who live in his apartment
> building. In next week's episode: Melvin is asked to be the best
man
> at a gay wedding.
lol - but I still suggest you rewatch Broadcast News and think of
Reagan.
19415
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:58pm
Subject: Re: Criterion in March
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> >
> > --- ebiri@a... wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Didn't Welles dub a
> > > lot, too?
> > >
> >
> > And how! And I'm not just talking about his european
> > films. In an article I wrote a number of years back
> > for the "L.A. Reader" on "Touch of Evil," I pointed to
> > numerous scenes in which-- thanks to dubbing -- Welles
> > is in effect talking to himself.
>
> *****
> Besides Joseph Cotten's "Now you can strain him through a sieve",
what
> are the other instances of Welles substituing his voice for another
> actor's in "Touch of Evil"? I must confess, as many times as I've
seen
> that film I never noticed it, save for that one line.
>
> I did notice he does it repeatedly in "The Trial" and "Chimes at
> Midnight".
>
> Tom Sutpen
Also the unfinished Don Quixote, where Welles is both the Don and
Sancho.
19416
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: Criterion in March
--- Tom Sutpen wrote:
>
> *****
> Besides Joseph Cotten's "Now you can strain him
> through a sieve", what
> are the other instances of Welles substituing his
> voice for another
> actor's in "Touch of Evil"? I must confess, as many
> times as I've seen
> that film I never noticed it, save for that one
> line.
>
Pay close attention to the crowd of Mexicans that
gather around Janet Leigh early on. Welles all over
the place!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
19417
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:14pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- Tom Sutpen wrote:
> There's absolutely no
> > moral or dramatic
> > suspense in James Brooks's films, so firm is the
> > viewer's conviction
> > throughout that everything will turn out all right
> > in the end. The
> > chances of Brooks ever concluding one of his films
> > on an unhappy or
> > morally ambiguous or dissatisfied note are too
> > remote to ever be worth
> > contemplating. He simply won't do it.
> >
> For the most part. "Terms of Endearment" left him up a
> tree. No matter how you slice it you've still got a
> dead mother.
*****
True, but Brooks leavened the ending with a 'life goes on' dimension
that softened the tragedy considerably. And I don't imagine that he'll
ever risk doing something like that again.
> Saw "Spanglish" last night and it's THE WORST. No
> dramatic flow whatsoever. No drama, really. The damned
> thing just sits there with everyone being "nice"
> except for Tea Leoni, who's downright ceritifiable and
> creepy beyond belief. The whole show is quite racist
> in its endeavor to suposedly decry racism. I say
> "supposedly" because it reminded me of an early Jules
> Feiffer play,"Crawling Arnold" about a pack of
> neurotic white suburbanites (are there any other
> kind?) where characters keep coming up to the black
> maid and saying "I admire the aspirations of your people."
*****
Oh, really? In other words, we're back in the territory of "Guess
Who's Coming to Dinner". Terrific. I love it when white middlebrow
filmmakers overreach.
You'd think that kind of patronization would be gone from the screen
forever by now, but our culture has an unseemly way of coughing it
back up every now and again.
Tom Sutpen
19418
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:18pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
> The only character being excavated in those examples are that of the
> two directors in question. Robert Walker's grasp of Communism in "My
> Son, John" was certainly primitive, but to me it clearly reflected
> McCarey's own. By the evidence of "Statan Never Sleeps", as well as
> "My Son, John", I think it's safe to conclude that Leo McCarey
> possessed an understanding of Communism only slightly less nuanced
> than that on display in Red Scare epics such as "I Married a
> Communist" and "Invasion U.S.A.".
McCarey satirized both communism and capitalism. Consider the moment
at the end of SATAN NEVER SLEEPS when the communist commander
converts to Christianity and helps the priests to escape. When his
car is pursued by commie agents, the commander casually grabs a
machine gun and executes them. He then climbs back into his car,
turns to the priest played by William Holden (who is staring at him
in absolute contempt), and, with a big smile on his face, declares "I
have just performed my first act as a reconverted Christian"!
19419
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:24pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> > The only character being excavated in those examples are that of the
> > two directors in question. Robert Walker's grasp of Communism in "My
> > Son, John" was certainly primitive, but to me it clearly reflected
> > McCarey's own. By the evidence of "Statan Never Sleeps", as well as
> > "My Son, John", I think it's safe to conclude that Leo McCarey
> > possessed an understanding of Communism only slightly less nuanced
> > than that on display in Red Scare epics such as "I Married a
> > Communist" and "Invasion U.S.A.".
>
> McCarey satirized both communism and capitalism. Consider the moment
> at the end of SATAN NEVER SLEEPS when the communist commander
> converts to Christianity and helps the priests to escape. When his
> car is pursued by commie agents, the commander casually grabs a
> machine gun and executes them. He then climbs back into his car,
> turns to the priest played by William Holden (who is staring at him
> in absolute contempt), and, with a big smile on his face, declares "I
> have just performed my first act as a reconverted Christian"!
*****
It's a terrible thought, I know, but I'm not completely convinced that
the "reconverted Christian" line wasn't intended at least somewhat
seriously.
Tom Sutpen
19420
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:47pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief (was: Criterion in March)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> JPC, most of us find threads here that don't interest us, but
without
> feeling the need to criticize them,
I didn't say and didn't mean to imply (but I obviously did)that
the Frampton thread didn't interest me. I was just hoping to
introduce another topic, alongside with it, since Frampton had been
the order of the day for so long (along with ten best lists!)I in no
way "criticized" the content of any of the Frampton posts, and I
read most of them with interest. For the record, I saw a great
amount of avant garde stuff (including Frampton)when I had access to
them (in New York, mostly)and there is a lot that I liked and a lot
that I didn't care for much, and some I hated -- just like with
ordinary narrative movies.
You've certainly been a big player in threads of little
> interest to me.
I'm really sorry to have bored you. Don't hesitate to delete my
posts in the future. I won't be offended.
As long as the subject lines remain accurate, this
> really shouldn't be that big of a problem for any of us. The
Frampton
> thread has been accurately identified from the beginning.
>
Actually one never knows what's going to be in a post because
people rarely bother to change the subject line.
> What's always amazed *me* is cinephiles who might claim to care
about
> film as art but whose apparent primary model is the "realist" sync
sound
> commercially made fiction feature, with everything else measured
against
> that.
I don't measure everything else against that. The films I find
annoying because of dubbing (I was referring mostly to Italian
films) are "'realist' commercially made fiction features" -- not
avant garde or home movies.
Incidentally, one of my all-time favorite films is Norman
McLaren's "Blinkity Blank." But maybe that's not avant garde enough
(it sorts of tells a story).
19421
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:53pm
Subject: Re: Italian MOS habits
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
> It was a problem for Roger Corman when he shot Frankenstein
Unbound
> in Italy w. an all Italian crew. The day I watched he was shooting
> direct sound, and some crew members were talking noisily during a
> take. Corman called "Cut" and the assistant director told them to
> keep quiet while the camera was rolling. During the next take they
> mimed walking about on tiptoe with their fingers to their
> lips: "Shhh!"
Exactly. The crew had always behaved the way crews did in silent
days. Doing direct sound was an absurdity to them.
Rossellini had to do direct sound on "LOUIS XIV" because he had a
French crew that wouldn't accept his methods.
19422
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:58pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
> *****
> It's a terrible thought, I know, but I'm not completely convinced
that
> the "reconverted Christian" line wasn't intended at least somewhat
> seriously.
>
> Tom Sutpen
Definitely not. The look of absolute contempt on William Holden's
face as he hears this line really says it all.
19423
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:59pm
Subject: Brooks & Dunn on Race Relations
On Thursday, December 23, 2004, at 09:29 AM, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> The whole show is quite racist
> in its endeavor to suposedly decry racism. I say
> "supposedly" because it reminded me of an early Jules
> Feiffer play,"Crawling Arnold" about a pack of
> neurotic white suburbanites (are there any other
> kind?) where characters keep coming up to the black
> maid and saying "I admire the aspirations of your people."
+
Tom Sutpen wrote: "Oh, really? In other words, we're back in the
territory of "Guess
Who's Coming to Dinner". Terrific. I love it when white middlebrow
filmmakers overreach. / You'd think that kind of patronization would be
gone from the screen
forever by now, but our culture has an unseemly way of coughing it
back up every now and again."
So is the "I admire the aspirations of your people"-line as first
presented by David a poignant depiction of the racism of the neurotic
white suburbanites, of a sort that 'Spanglish' is unable to achieve,
or, despite any intended irony, racist above and beyond its would-be
critique? (As in, only a bigot ever really could have dreamt up such a
baneful line, and presenting it publicly goes beyond decorum no matter
the context?)
Perhaps my whiteness is throwing off the needle of my moral compass.
Please advise.
craig.
19424
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:12pm
Subject: Dubbing (was Re: Criterion in March)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
> > Well, a lot of post-synching happens still, in films that are
> > ostensibly not dubbed.
>
Of course, but there is a huge difference between occasional post-
sync that is necessitated for technical reasons and the systematic
use of dubbing throughout an entire film, Italian style (often with
actors dubbing other actors, an abomination, even though Welles may
have had fun doing it once in a while).
>
> My particular kink, which is just me, is that I hate the sound of
> Swedish and can only enjoy Bergman dubbed. But there's good and
bad
> dubbing: Fanny and Alexander in English is flawless; the current
DVD
> of Shame sounds like it was dubbed by the actors who do spaghetti
> westerns.
I don't understand how you might want to hear Swedish people
speaking English (even if you happen to dislike the sound of
Swedish) dubbed by English or American actors whose voices obviously
have nothing to do with the voices of the performers they are
dubbing.
I doubt that you would enjoy an American movie you love dubbed
into a language you know -- say, French. Or vice versa.
19425
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:09pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
Biette in Cinemanuel talks about the importance of ambient sound in
early French features, such as the films written and produced and
sometimes directed by Pagnol, who sat in his Silver Bullet and
assessed takes on earphones rather than directing on the
set. "Ambient" in the sense of muted noise, not assignable to
onscreen or even offscreen sources - next-door to hiss. This of
course becomes an important formal element in the films of the
Straubs. So when we assign the direct-sound esthetic to the French,
let's not limit it to dialogue - a lot more is involved. (Cf. the
life-work of Michel Chion.)
Needless to say, I love the Italian way too, although one has to make
allowances for it. Dialogue replacement is also important in H'wd
films, where as previously stated, it is never even noticeable, and
in low-budget films (notably Welles) where it's easier to shoot MOS.
I have climbed down a bit from the high horse all of us hopped onto
when Crowther came out for dubbing of foreign films. My hatred of
Swedish aside, what's the point of watching Winter Light just to read
subtitles?
19426
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:27pm
Subject: Dubbing (was Re: Criterion in March)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> >
> > My particular kink, which is just me, is that I hate the sound of
> > Swedish and can only enjoy Bergman dubbed. But there's good and
> bad
> > dubbing: Fanny and Alexander in English is flawless; the current
> DVD
> > of Shame sounds like it was dubbed by the actors who do spaghetti
> > westerns.
>
> I don't understand how you might want to hear Swedish people
> speaking English (even if you happen to dislike the sound of
> Swedish) dubbed by English or American actors whose voices
obviously
> have nothing to do with the voices of the performers they are
> dubbing.
Actually, I'm not sure Bergman is that good a director of vocal
performances. Those in his films often strike me as being stilted and
stage-y and pedantically emphatic in a way I find off-putting. He
probably could use a good dialogue director. But it's hard for me to
disentangle this objection from the larger one: Swedish per se.
I have seen my share of American films dubbed in French because my ex-
needed to see them that way. Her English wasn't good enough to follow
in American, and she would never dream of reading subtitles, which
would pull her out of her intense involvement with the actors and
visuals. The advent of DVD - many American ones have optional French
tracks - was an incredible boon to her film education. And since I am
primarily interested in what's on the screen, watching with her never
much bothered me.
That said, when direct sound is an important part of a film's
esthetic, direct sound it must be. There'd be no point in watching
Straub or Biette or Pagnol dubbed.
19427
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
> Dialogue replacement is also important in H'wd
> films, where as previously stated, it is never even noticeable
I actually think the dubbing is often very noticeable in Hollywood films.
And it's not because the craftspeople aren't good - I think it's because
they're too much into a craft-based aesthetic. There's a saying in the
movie biz: "Record sound as clean as you can - you can always dirty it up
in post." But it seems that they often can't bear to dirty it up
afterwards! Crystal-clear sound is frequently dubbed into sound spaces
that would create quite a bit of interference. The effect is generally
pretty phony.
I do a lot of sound replacement when I make films, but I usually just
borrow sound from one take and use it on another take of the same shot.
When you're working with sound that's essentially similar, you don't have
to be a tech god to make the substitution imperceptible.
On the two occasions where I had to record sound for dubbing after the
shoot was over, I broke the tech rule and tried to get the mike as far
from the actor and at the same angle as it was during the shoot. I
wouldn't say the dubbing is imperceptible, but it doesn't stick out like a
sore thumb.
> what's the point of watching Winter Light just to read subtitles?
Well, hopefully it becomes possible to read subtitles and experience the
movie at the same time, or else we're all in trouble. - Dan
19428
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:38pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
JPC, thanks for the clarifications. You haven't "bored" me. A lot of
what you write interests me greatly. When I get less interested in a
thread, I stop reading it, as I wouldn't have time to read everything
here anyway.
I don't think there are any truly "realist" films, except perhaps those
that refer directly to celluloid itself; arguably "Film in Which There
Appear Edge Lettering, Sprocket Holes, Dirt Particles, Etc." (a title
that more or less accruately describes what you'll see) by Goerge Landow
(who later changed his name to Owen Land) is perhaps a truly realistic
film. Even there, though, the conventions of projection are changing
what you see from the way the strip would look. Film is illusionism and
the convincing-ness of all illusionism depends on one's ability to
accept whatever convention is being used at the moment. I'm not saying
that I've never noticed little bumps on the path towards illusion, but
per Bill Krohn, I try to "make allowances."
Thank you for your measured reply, Dan. I was admittedly rather strong
in replying to JPC. But complaining about some dozen Frampton posts in
group with many dozens more posts on actors set me off a bit.
I'm not surprised that most people normalize cinema to commercial
narrative cinema; I'm surprised a bit at the extreme prevalence of that
tendency in our own group, even though I know many here do not. Also,
you have me right in a sense; I suppose I do "avant-garde-ize" narrative
films in my viewing. But I would see that as focusing on the core
aesthetic values rather than superficial elements. How much
consideration is given today to how entertaining Shakespeare's jokes
are, or how "realistic" a portrait painting is, or how well Beethoven's
Sixth Symphony imitates nature? These are all parts of these works and
shouldn't be tossed out, to be sure, but they are not the main points.
Narrative and convincing-ness can be important to narrative films too,
but it's all based on artifice.
For me, the form of a great narrative film is not analogous to
overtones, not something that comes in the back door, but the core. For
a less than great narrative film, when there's little of interest to
look at, I think I see it the way most people do: how well does the
story carry me along, how much do I like or how interested am I in the
characters, are there any interesting comments on our culture or on life
in general, do I like the "mood," does anyone cute get undressed, et
cetera. When these elements all come together that's enough for many
people to call a film great, but not for me.
Abstract painting may be a big jump from realist painting for most
people, but not for me. The gradual evolution of Mondrian is a great
case in point: one grew out of the other.
I hope to return to all this soon with a post resuming the film and
classical music discussion.
I'm also not saying that I've never noticed some "glitches" in the sound
tracks of Italian films I otherwise love. But especially in the
commercial (or non-profit but made with big crews etc.) narrative film,
there are almost always some glitches here or there -- a performance
that doesn't quite fit, one scene that's weaker than the others, a plot
element that doesn't seem quite right. To choose a film that I'm
guessing most of us would accept as a major and staggering masterpiece,
does anyone claim that the scene between Midge and that "acute
melancholia" doctor in "Vertigo" is as great as most of the rest of the
film? To me it's always seemed just odd.
What set me off was that JPC seemed to be unable to get past his sound
issues with, say, "Voyage to Italy." Wow. This would be, to me, a little
bit like (and yes, this analogy is very inexact) getting no pleasure out
of "Vertigo" because one had just seen a somewhat scratchy, but not
impossibly scratchy, print. The scratches call attention to the artifice
of film, whereas we *are* supposed to feel we are following Madeline
around along with Scotty, that's one key to the film's power. I think
most film viewers learn to see past some elements in order to get to
the, er, good stuff.
You wrote, "We can always pretend that a character in an Italian film is
talking in real time, but we can't get the intensity of experience that
realist sound textures can help create."
I really think this a matter of mental focus and your willingness to
accept varying conventions of "realist" representation. That some people
cannot accept some conventions I would ascribe to quirks of personal
taste, analogous to, say, being unable to stand the sound of that
beautiful language spoken by the babes of the legendary Swedish Bikini
Team (reference to an old TV beer commercial intended here). For me the
whole point of film, or any art, is not to feed my fetishes, but to get
me the hell out of myself. And in fact, as a film viewer, I try not to
have particular tastes for particular kinds of things, even though I can
never lose myself completely. But I don't have some preference for, for
example, hand painting on film: I don't like bad imitation Brakhage
hand-painted films any more than I like the anonymous and visually
uninteresting films of the non-auteurs of classical Hollywood.
To return to my earlier analogy, it seems to me your argument could be
used to say that cinema can never give us the intensity of live theater
by simply rewriting it thusly: "We can always pretend that a character
in a film is a real person in front of us, but we can't get the
intensity of experience out of flat projected shadows that knowing we
are in the same space with a living being can help create."
Fred Camper
19429
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:42pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> Needless to say, I love the Italian way too, although one has to
make
> allowances for it. Dialogue replacement is also important in H'wd
> films, where as previously stated, it is never even noticeable,
and
> in low-budget films (notably Welles) where it's easier to shoot
MOS.
> I have climbed down a bit from the high horse all of us hopped
onto
> when Crowther came out for dubbing of foreign films. My hatred of
> Swedish aside, what's the point of watching Winter Light just to
read
> subtitles?
Good point -- to a point. Subtitles are the lesser of two evil.
Not only are they, more often than not, woefully inadequate, but
having to read them makes you miss an enormous amount of visual
information. Still I'd go with subtitles over dubbing every time,
because subtitles at least don't make me sick.
By the way yesterday I watched the US DVD of Breillat's "Romance"
(I had seen the movie in a theatre in Paris a few years ago)and to
my surprise found that the English version was not subtitled but
dubbed. I watched for a while out of curiosity before switching to
French. It was absolutely awful.
19430
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:46pm
Subject: Swedish (Was: Dubbing)
> Actually, I'm not sure Bergman is that good a director of vocal
> performances. Those in his films often strike me as being stilted and
> stage-y and pedantically emphatic in a way I find off-putting. He
> probably could use a good dialogue director. But it's hard for me to
> disentangle this objection from the larger one: Swedish per se.
Seeing some Alf Sjoberg films might be a good way to tease apart the two
phenomena - there's something about his dialogue that is similar to
Bergman's, and yet different. I actually think Sjoberg is quite
underrated today: IRIS AND THE LIEUTENANT and ONLY A MOTHER are especially
wonderful. - Dan
19431
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:50pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> does anyone claim that the scene between Midge and that "acute
> melancholia" doctor in "Vertigo" is as great as most of the rest of
the
> film? To me it's always seemed just odd.
Actually, thanks to Bel Geddes, that's a nice little scene. Not a big
scene, but a nice little one, which is what we need at that point - a
breather.
Cliff Robertson's inability to deliver Manciewicz's dialogue at
certain points in The Honey Pot is a good example of what you mean, I
think. When I resee the film a third time I'll "gate it out," to use
a psych term that's very relevant here, and just be thankful for all
the moments where the way the actor looks in a black suit makes him a
perfect "Moscha."
19432
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:52pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
>
> By the way yesterday I watched the US DVD of
Breillat's "Romance"
> (I had seen the movie in a theatre in Paris a few years ago)and to
> my surprise found that the English version was not subtitled but
> dubbed. I watched for a while out of curiosity before switching to
> French. It was absolutely awful.
But it's awful anyway, isn't it?
19433
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Brooks & Dunn on Race Relations
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> So is the "I admire the aspirations of your
> people"-line as first
> presented by David a poignant depiction of the
> racism of the neurotic
> white suburbanites, of a sort that 'Spanglish' is
> unable to achieve,
> or, despite any intended irony, racist above and
> beyond its would-be
> critique? (As in, only a bigot ever really could
> have dreamt up such a
> baneful line, and presenting it publicly goes beyond
> decorum no matter
> the context?)
>
> Perhaps my whiteness is throwing off the needle of
> my moral compass.
> Please advise.
>
Jules Feiffer is a satirist, Craig.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
19434
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Brooks & Dunn on Race Relations
On Thursday, December 23, 2004, at 01:25 PM, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> Jules Feiffer is a satirist, Craig.
Phew!
19435
From: Kristian Andersen
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:58pm
Subject: Bille August
How come nobody in auteurist circle ever talks about Bille August, the
Danish film maker?
19436
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:29pm
Subject: Jerry Lewis on DVD in France
In today's Libération, there's an article on the French release of five
films in the Jerry Lewis filmography, from Paramount. The article's
title is "Jerry Lewis: The Best of the Clown," and the subtitle is,
"Five films by the comic genius detested by the Americans released on
DVD."
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=263581
craig.
19437
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:58pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > By the way yesterday I watched the US DVD of
> Breillat's "Romance"
> > (I had seen the movie in a theatre in Paris a few years ago)and
to
> > my surprise found that the English version was not subtitled but
> > dubbed. I watched for a while out of curiosity before switching
to
> > French. It was absolutely awful.
>
> But it's awful anyway, isn't it?
That's a matter of opinion. And assuming it's awful anyway, we are
talking about two very different kind of awfulness. The girl's
voice, accent and diction in French is an integral part of the film.
The generic American voice makes the whole thing collapse. By the
way I intensely dislike the girl (both the actress and the
character). I hate her voice and way of speaking (not to mention
that stupid strand of hair in the middle of her face) -- but that's
neither here nor there... I wanted to see it again because I had
been quite taken by the two bondage scenes. But I hadn't disliked
the girl that much the first time around.
19438
From: Peter Henne
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
Obviously, there are limits imposed by marketing for "dirtying" the sound of a Hollywood film. Not everyone in the target audience is a fluent English speaker, and not a few from this group will have a more difficult time discerning the dialogue than those for whom English is their native tongue. I'm not taking any position on who "should" speak and hear fluent English, just noting the sociological reality of moviegoing. I agree, by the way, that the routine dubbing of Hollywood films is not very realistic when you pay close attention. Not long ago a family member approached me in disbelief that the voice of Tom Cruise she heard in his movies was regularly recorded and/or manipulated in a studio. She had heard so in a behind-the-scenes segment on a TV celebrity gossip show. I asked her to listen more closely to any Cruise scene shot outdoors, and listen for how clean and crisp his voice was, how you could hear all the necessary words, how the volume of his voice did not always
correspond to his distance from the camera, and how ambient noise was conveniently lowered whenever he was about to speak. It did the trick, but she seemed pretty disappointed.
Peter Henne
Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Dialogue replacement is also important in H'wd
> films, where as previously stated, it is never even noticeable
I actually think the dubbing is often very noticeable in Hollywood films.
And it's not because the craftspeople aren't good - I think it's because
they're too much into a craft-based aesthetic. There's a saying in the
movie biz: "Record sound as clean as you can - you can always dirty it up
in post." But it seems that they often can't bear to dirty it up
afterwards! Crystal-clear sound is frequently dubbed into sound spaces
that would create quite a bit of interference. The effect is generally
pretty phony.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Get unlimited calls to
U.S./Canada
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19439
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:16pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing (was: Criterion in March)
>I must say I have always been turned off
>by the practice of dubbing in Italian >moviemaking. And it never seems that
>anybody is willing to talk about it.
>JPC
It's interesting, I think, to recognize this as a sort of taboo subject -- I do vaguely remember that when first noticing it, I used to wonder why no one else seemed to notice it. It seems "natural" enough to me now (as in two Viscontis I recently saw), like a timeless aspect of the landscape -- but even in my more "realist" days, I would imagine that, faced with lots of mile-a-minute dialogue, I was simply too busy reading the subtitles to worry about it very much. (It might be more annoying to one who understands the language? -- native Italians excepted, apparently.)
19440
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:19pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
> I don't think there are any truly "realist" films, except perhaps those
> that refer directly to celluloid itself
I actually don't think there are realist films either. All films have
realism and all have artifice. I do think one can talk about elements or
strategies in a film having a realist effect in relation to other
elements or strategies, though.
> Film is illusionism
This doesn't make it impossible to talk about realism, though. To invoke
realism isn't the same as saying that something about the film is actually
real - it's saying that an impression of reality has been evoked, in
explicit or implicit contrast to something that gives a more artificial
impression. Awareness of illusion is pretty much assumed, I'd say, among
most of us.
> How much
> consideration is given today to how entertaining Shakespeare's jokes
> are, or how "realistic" a portrait painting is, or how well Beethoven's
> Sixth Symphony imitates nature?
It's not a matter of how much consideration is given to narrative elements
- it's a matter of how the form works. Shakespeare's poetry has a
narrative, dramatic context: we may value the poetry and not particularly
value the story, but the poetry works with the storytelling - it would
work differently if it didn't have that backbeat.
- Dan
19441
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:40pm
Subject: Dubbing (was Re: Criterion in March)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
>
> Actually, I'm not sure Bergman is that good a director of vocal
> performances. Those in his films often strike me as being stilted
and
> stage-y and pedantically emphatic in a way I find off-putting. He
> probably could use a good dialogue director.
How can you pass such a judgement when you don't know the
language?
> And since I am
> primarily interested in what's on the screen, watching with her
never
> much bothered me.
>
But how can you disassociate what's on the screen from the
voices? Actors whose voices you know well, speaking with another
voice, in another language? To me that's just unbearable.
> That said, when direct sound is an important part of a film's
> esthetic, direct sound it must be. There'd be no point in watching
> Straub or Biette or Pagnol dubbed.
19442
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:42pm
Subject: Re: Jerry Lewis on DVD in France
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
>
> In today's Libération, there's an article on the French release of five
> films in the Jerry Lewis filmography, from Paramount. The article's
> title is "Jerry Lewis: The Best of the Clown," and the subtitle is,
> "Five films by the comic genius detested by the Americans released on
> DVD."
>
> http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=263581
>
> craig.
Eduoard Waintrop - is he English? I guess not, or he'd know how to spell
David Thomson. Anyway, anyone who thinks The Patsy show Lewis's decline
shouldn't be writing about cinema. It's his funniest film. And Nutty Professor -
which to Waintrop seems faded - looks better today than it did in 1962. It's
one of those films whose sheer genius you tend to forget or discount a bit
when you haven't seen it lately, but seeing it in this excellent transfer-to-DVD
blew me away all over again.
Having just reviewed all these DVDs for Cinefile and CdC, I feel the need to
reiterate that Jerry Lewis is one of America's greatest filmmakers - his films for
Paramount, at least, are right up there with Welles and Hitchcock. Even
Tashlin, whom I adore, pales next to the Master.
I'm bored w. the French/US thing, but B. Eisenschitz and C. Paquot did both
tell me that JL is - they think - somewhat forgotten in France today. So at least
Waintroup got that right. Maybe.
19443
From:
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:52pm
Subject: Voice/Film Comment poll results
Film Comment (Sideways again, sorry):
http://www.filmlinc.com/fcm/online/2004poll.htm
and the Voice (Before Sunset)
http://www.villagevoice.com/take/six/winners.php?category=1
Thanks to the Voice's handy click-thru system, I am surprised to
learn that my most unpopular choices were Mark McKinney in THE
SADDEST MUSIC IN THE WORLD (come on, more votes for Ross McMillan?)
and THE DREAMERS, which got fewer votes for best picture than
GREENDALE and ANCHORMAN. It's a funny old world.
Click on "ballots" in the left-hand column, and find Kehr, Ehrenstein
and Rosenbaum's fave raves. I think my favorite vote so far is
Philip Lopate's pick of George W. Bush for "best performance" in
FAHRENHEIT 9/11.
Thanks to the a_film_by members who encouraged me to keep Lila
Lipscomb on the ballot (advice I took) and for a year's worth of
enlightening discussion that evidently flows through the holidays
unstanched.
Sam
19444
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:11pm
Subject: Re: Bille August
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Kristian Andersen
wrote:
> How come nobody in auteurist circle ever talks about Bille August,
the
> Danish film maker?
Because we have excellent taste!
19445
From:
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
I always just ignored the poor dubbing in many Italian films.
Italian films are stupendous; they are not always well distributed; any
chance to see a film by Antonioni or Fellini or Rossellini or Olmi seems like manna
from heaven. You just try to enjoy, and soak up as much as possible of the
screen treasure in front of you.
Brief Olmi commercial: the Criterion DVD's of Il posto & I fidanzati are just
stupendous. Anyone who has not seen these is missing a real treat. Nice
interview with the director, too.
On clear sound. Someone should find Tom Cruise's sound man, the one who makes
every word of Cruise's crystal clear, pay him a huge raise, and put him in
charge of all sound in world film production. I love clear sound in movies,
especially in dialogue. Realism in sound is overrated - actor's voices are
beautiful: they should be heard!
Art often consists of something BETTER than reality.
Mike Grost
19446
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:03pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
I watched the US DVD of
> > Breillat's "Romance"
> > > (I had seen the movie in a theatre in Paris a few years ago)and
> to
> > > my surprise found that the English version was not subtitled but
> > > dubbed. I watched for a while out of curiosity before switching
> to
> > > French. It was absolutely awful.
> >
> > But it's awful anyway, isn't it?
>
> That's a matter of opinion. And assuming it's awful anyway, we are
> talking about two very different kind of awfulness. The girl's
> voice, accent and diction in French is an integral part of the film.
> The generic American voice makes the whole thing collapse. By the
> way I intensely dislike the girl (both the actress and the
> character). I hate her voice and way of speaking (not to mention
> that stupid strand of hair in the middle of her face) -- but that's
> neither here nor there... I wanted to see it again because I had
> been quite taken by the two bondage scenes. But I hadn't disliked
> the girl that much the first time around.
She's believably neuresthenic (sp?), hence a bit nauseating to watch. But
when I said "awful" I was thinking in particular of Breillat's dialogue, which is
generally so bad that, when I saw "extra dialogue by Catherine Breillat" at the
end of a Xavier Beauvois film that was being shown in competition at Venice
(the one about the worker and the factory owner's wife), I immediately knew
which scene it was, because the ghastliness of her writing stood out even in
the mediocre context of the film as a whole.
If you like bondage, see Dark Angel: Betty Page, an inept docudrama that at
least doesn't commit the sin of pretension while serving up the bondage. The
"extra features" are the most erotic part of the DVD, oddly enough. More
interesting to think about than Breillat's whole ouevre "put together," which
isn't saying much.
19447
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:42pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > what's the point of watching Winter Light just to read subtitles?
>
> Well, hopefully it becomes possible to read subtitles and
experience the
> movie at the same time, or else we're all in trouble. - Dan
Seriously, when it's wall-to-wall dialogue like that one, how can you
experience the film as anything but strenuously achieved glimpses?
You might as well be projecting it with a strobe light!
19448
From:
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:00pm
Subject: Re: Bille August
The only film directed by Bille August seen here was "Pelle the Conquerer"
(1987). It was so relentlessly grim that I've never gone back for a second
helping.
I did read the Danish horror novel "Smilla's Sense of Snow", by Peter Hoeg,
and have sometimes wondered what August made of it. This book is awfully
nightmarish.
The best recent Danish film seen here is a half-hour long comedy gem:
This Charming Man (Martin Strange-Hansen, 2002)
This is frequently shown on cable TV in the US (Sundance Channel).
I wish I knew more!
Mike Grost
PS The two best movies I've seen recently were both by a Danish director:
Michael & Gertrud, both by Carl-Theodor Dreyer.
19449
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:52pm
Subject: Dubbing (was Re: Criterion in March)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > Actually, I'm not sure Bergman is that good a director of vocal
> > performances. Those in his films often strike me as being stilted
> and
> > stage-y and pedantically emphatic in a way I find off-putting. He
> > probably could use a good dialogue director.
>
> How can you pass such a judgement when you don't know the
> language?
I know what they're saying because of subtitles, and even though they chirp
like birds, the language isn't that different from English, so I know that when
Liv Ullman repeats something, emphasizing a particular phrase in the
sentence she just said, the effect is pedantic, as it would be in English. If the
dubbing director is good these effects get smoothed over and actors are
allowed to speak more naturally. I find it much more irritating to hear people
talk as if a directorial taskmaster were standing over them than to know that
that's not Liv Ullman's real voice. I'm not in love with Liv Ullman's VOICE.
19450
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:07am
Subject: Xmas greetings
with a film-related FaBlog entry:
http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19451
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:45pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> I don't think there are any truly "realist" films, except perhaps
those
> that refer directly to celluloid itself; arguably "Film in Which
There
> Appear Edge Lettering, Sprocket Holes, Dirt Particles, Etc." (a
title
> that more or less accruately describes what you'll see) by Goerge
Landow
> (who later changed his name to Owen Land) is perhaps a truly
realistic
> film. Even there, though, the conventions of projection are
changing
> what you see from the way the strip would look. Film is
illusionism and
> the convincing-ness of all illusionism depends on one's ability to
> accept whatever convention is being used at the moment.
Although I very much agree with Dan's response to this post, let
me just add a few remarks. First, I love "Film in Which There
Appear..." I have always been fascinated by those extraneous
graffiti-like things that sometimes appear on film -- whether
they're supposed to appear or not -- and that remind us of the
concrete nature of film, thus challenging our invincible desire to
deny it and become immersed in the cinematic experience. But
if "film is illusionism" and nothing in film can truly be
call "realistic" -- a perfectly defensible proposition -- then there
is little if any difference between what appears in "Film in Which
There Appear..." and what appears in, say "Vertigo," to cite a film
you brought up. And that's an idea that should give us pause...
I'm not saying
> that I've never noticed little bumps on the path towards illusion,
but
> per Bill Krohn, I try to "make allowances."
>
> Thank you for your measured reply, Dan. I was admittedly rather
strong
> in replying to JPC. But complaining about some dozen Frampton
posts in
> group with many dozens more posts on actors set me off a bit.
>
Again, I was not complaining about the Frampton posts (and I
certainly didn't find the dozens of post on acting terribly
interesting). I was just a bit tired of it being the ONLY topic
under discussion (with the truly boring "Ten Best Lists" topic).
> Abstract painting may be a big jump from realist painting for most
> people, but not for me. The gradual evolution of Mondrian is a
great
> case in point: one grew out of the other.
>
Sure, but there is no such thing as "realist" painting, and you
should be the first to acknowledge it. The concept of realism in
painting is even more debatable in painting than in film. After all,
every non-abstract painter sees and represents "reality" in his own
way, which is always different from other painters'. And from
the "reality" in front of us.
I hope to return to all this soon with a post resuming the film and
> classical music discussion.
>
> I'm also not saying that I've never noticed some "glitches" in the
sound
> tracks of Italian films I otherwise love.
I wasn't talking about "glitches" but about a whole concept of
making films with almost total disregard for voice and its relation
to story, characters, environment, etc...
> issues with, say, "Voyage to Italy." Wow. This would be, to me, a
little
> bit like (and yes, this analogy is very inexact) getting no
pleasure out
> of "Vertigo" because one had just seen a somewhat scratchy, but
not
> impossibly scratchy, print. The scratches call attention to the
artifice
> of film, whereas we *are* supposed to feel we are following
Madeline
> around along with Scotty, that's one key to the film's power. I
think
> most film viewers learn to see past some elements in order to get
to
> the, er, good stuff.
Well, I never mentioned any particular title in my diatribe
against Italian dubbing, and "Voyage in Italy" happens to be a film
I love, truly the beginning of "modern" cinema. So I too do make
allowances. And we have a British actor and a Swedish-born but
anglophone Hollywood star speaking their own lines, which makes it
much more palatable than what happens in, say, "Germany"
or "Europe '51".
19452
From: Sam Adams
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:44pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing (was: Criterion in March)
The only time it particularly bothers me is when I'm watching an American actor in a non-
English-speaking role, and not always then. Burt Lancaster in THE LEOPARD doesn't bother
me, but Richard Crenna in UN FLIC -- whew boy. Maybe it's just too hard for me to believe
that Richard Crenna speaks French. (Maybe he does for all I know, but he doesn't look like
he does.) Dubbing is something I've had to adjust to, but it doesn't bother me any more
than, say, the melodramatic acting in silent films at this point.
Sam
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell" wrote:
>
> >I must say I have always been turned off
> >by the practice of dubbing in Italian >moviemaking. And it never seems that
> >anybody is willing to talk about it.
> >JPC
>
> It's interesting, I think, to recognize this as a sort of taboo subject -- I do vaguely
remember that when first noticing it, I used to wonder why no one else seemed to notice
it. It seems "natural" enough to me now (as in two Viscontis I recently saw), like a timeless
aspect of the landscape -- but even in my more "realist" days, I would imagine that, faced
with lots of mile-a-minute dialogue, I was simply too busy reading the subtitles to worry
about it very much. (It might be more annoying to one who understands the language? --
native Italians excepted, apparently.)
19453
From: Sam Adams
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:39pm
Subject: Re: Jerry Lewis on DVD in France
Wait, so are you saying that while Americans stereotype the French as Lewis-lovers, they
stereotype us as unfairly detesting a genius? How sweet it is.
Sam
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
>
> In today's Libération, there's an article on the French release of five
> films in the Jerry Lewis filmography, from Paramount. The article's
> title is "Jerry Lewis: The Best of the Clown," and the subtitle is,
> "Five films by the comic genius detested by the Americans released on
> DVD."
>
> http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=263581
>
> craig.
19454
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu Dec 23, 2004 11:57pm
Subject: Re: Bille August
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Kristian Andersen wrote:
> How come nobody in auteurist circle ever talks about Bille August, the
> Danish film maker?
As a dane, I would say because Bille isn't that good a director, nor
interesting, to begin with. While his first films up to and including
Pelle demonstrated some talent, I strongly believe, having reapproach
his films last year, that they were great, because they first and
foremost were great stories to begin with.
If one looks at the cinematography and editing of his three first
films (Honning Måne, Zappa and Tro, Håb og Kærlighed), I personally
have to take deep breaths because some great compositions were ruined
by poor choices; the main one is never to let a long shot composition
rest in itself, but always disrupt the moment with a close-up.
The sad thing about Bille is, that after winning the Oscar, he seemed
to lose all skill, and his films afterwards are simply amateur night.
Just consider Smilla and House of Spirits.
Denmark has some great directors: Lars von Trier, Nils Malmros,
Nikolaj Refn and Erik Clausen, to name my heroes, but Bille is in my
opinion not really worth anything.
Henrik
19455
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:43am
Subject: Re: Bille August
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Kristian Andersen wrote:
> How come nobody in auteurist circle ever talks about Bille August, the
> Danish film maker?
As a dane, I would say, because Bille first of all isn't an auteur,
second of all, isn't a good director. Very simplified, he has two
periods: Before and after "Pelle Eroberen". Before he was a talent,
after he displayed no skills at all.
Considering his early films, which are great - Honning Måne, Zappa and
Tro, Håb og Kærlighed - and to some degree also Pelle, these films
were great simply because of the story, and any director would have
been able to make an equally great film out of them.
The problems, when revisiting them, are however that all films, except
"Pelle", display at times very poor technical sides, especially as
long takes long shots never are allowed to carry their own weight, but
almost always are edited into a final close-up, thus totally
destroying the strenght of the long shot composition. Also, his films
already back then had a tendency to be very talkative, never allowing
the mere gaze of the actor to carry the scene, but always to interject
with a piece of dialogue.
This was nothing compared to what happend after "Pelle". "Smillas
sense of snow" is one of the worst Danish films ever made, lacking any
sense of structure, suspence and involvement. "House of Spirits" the
same. "Les Miserable" the same.
He did make pretty good with "Pelle" and "Goda intentioner", but
otherwise he is forgettable.
Henrik
19456
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:58am
Subject: Re: Xmas greetings
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> with a film-related FaBlog entry:
>
> http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/
>
Way cool, David. You left out a personal, albeit imageless, favorite
of mine: Lord Buckley's "Scrooge" --
"Yes, me, I'm Scrooge and I got all Marley's barley,
and I'm the baddest cat in all dis world..."
Anyone who doesn't know it should run out and buy the record. These
are just the lyrics:
http://www.columbia.edu/~tdk3/scrooge.html
19457
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:20am
Subject: The new issue of The Believer
has an article on Manny Farber by one Franklin Bruno and a DVD
of short films as a special year-end bonus. I haven't watched it
yet, but the magazine is, at 8 bucks US, a great last-minute
stocking stuffer. The piece on Farber, titled In Praise of Termites,
does not offer a new or particularly fresh reading on the artist's
work, but it's highly readable, despite some glaring errors
("contemporary Hong Kong director Hsiao-hsien Hou"), and a
closing paragraph that rides hard on the final scene of GRAND
ILLUSION, which "stand[s] in for Farber's deliberate trudge from
particular to particular, against the grain of two media and seven
decades" -- as if there were any precedence for such an
extended (and lofty) parallel to be drawn from such an obvious
message. (I dunno, maybe others will disagree with me...)
And finally, a logical reason for the pairing of One Froggy Evening
with Goodbye South, Goodbye at a San Diego screening (and
later in San Francisco, I believe), which I hadn't read anywhere
else (certainly not coming from Farber himself): "Both films use
get-rich-quick schemes as a metonym for the futility of human
endeavor."
Gabe
19458
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:45am
Subject: Lost in cyberspace
I sent two fairly long posts today (Thursday) between about 5PM and
6PM and they never posted. There was not a single e-mail posted
between around 4PM and Bill's one on Jerry Lewis so I wonder if
anyone sent something that vanished like my two posts.
JPC
19459
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 0:07am
Subject: Merry Christmas all
Christmas is above all the season where one should forget everything
about auteurism and about wheather a film is good or not, and just
sink into a cozy chair, with hot glögg and watch those films everyone
officially hates, like Sound of Music, Santa Claus conquers the
Martians and It's a wonderful life, and let them melt those cold
academic heart :)
Let me therefor wish you all a merry christmas.
Henrik
19460
From: thebradstevens
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:02pm
Subject: Lasse Hallstrom
Does anyone here have any particularly strong feelings - positive or
negative - about Lasse Hallstrom? I noticed that CHOCOLAT is being
screened by the BBC tonight, and it occurred to me that I had never
seen a Hallstrom film, so maybe I'll give it a try.
19461
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:37am
Subject: Re: Xmas greetings
Merry Christmas, everyone.
and may your christmas be free of Gremlins :)
Henrik
19462
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:13pm
Subject: Re: Lost in cyberspace
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> I sent two fairly long posts today (Thursday) between about 5PM
and
> 6PM and they never posted. There was not a single e-mail posted
> between around 4PM and Bill's one on Jerry Lewis so I wonder if
> anyone sent something that vanished like my two posts.
>
> JPC
PS Actually one posted (about 8 hours later) another never did.
Things seem to be very slow again today. Xmas overload or what?
JP
19463
From:
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:31pm
Subject: Re: Lasse Hallstrom
The Brad:
> Does anyone here have any particularly strong feelings - positive
or
> negative - about Lasse Hallstrom? I noticed that CHOCOLAT is being
> screened by the BBC tonight, and it occurred to me that I had
never
> seen a Hallstrom film, so maybe I'll give it a try.
I think he gets a bad rap today because of his status as Miramax's
house melodramatist, but he was a terrific director back in the day.
MY LIFE AS A DOG is wondrous, as are the films he made before it.
Haven't seen CHOCOLAT, so can't vouch for it, though.
-Bilge
19464
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:44pm
Subject: French Film Festival in Richmond 1-3APRIL05
http://www.frenchfilm.vcu.edu/history_sched.html
has a list of previous film screenings.
19465
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:50pm
Subject: Re: Lost in cyberspace
This is apparently a problem at the moment with Yahoo groups. See this
post to a list manager's forum:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EmailList-Managers/message/74147
It's not "lost," I gather, just very slow. If anyone's posts don't
appear after 24 hours or more, please repost with a note that this is a
repost.
Fred Camper
19466
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 5:17pm
Subject: Re: Lost in cyberspace
I posted a link to my blog last night and it just
showed up this morning.
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> I sent two fairly long posts today (Thursday)
> between about 5PM and
> 6PM and they never posted. There was not a single
> e-mail posted
> between around 4PM and Bill's one on Jerry Lewis so
> I wonder if
> anyone sent something that vanished like my two
> posts.
>
> JPC
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
19467
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 1:39pm
Subject: Re: Lost in cyberspace
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> I sent two fairly long posts today (Thursday) between about 5PM and
> 6PM and they never posted. There was not a single e-mail posted
> between around 4PM and Bill's one on Jerry Lewis so I wonder if
> anyone sent something that vanished like my two posts.
>
> JPC
I've experienced the same, J-P.
Yesterday I wrote a comment on August, and a merry christmas greeting,
none appeared, then I wrote another comment on August, which then
appeared along the one from yesterday, but neither of my xmas
greetings has been posted so far.
Henrik
PS: Merry Christmas everyone (in case this gets posted lol)
19468
From: Kristian Andersen
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:48am
Subject: Re: Delpy and Before Sunset (Was: top tens)
Message: 21
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:21:26 -0000
From: "jpcoursodon"
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.
What are her American mannerisms?
19469
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 6:52pm
Subject: Re: Lost in cyberspace
On Thursday, December 23, 2004, at 11:45 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> I sent two fairly long posts today (Thursday) between about 5PM and
> 6PM and they never posted. There was not a single e-mail posted
> between around 4PM and Bill's one on Jerry Lewis so I wonder if
> anyone sent something that vanished like my two posts.
My original message with the link to the Lewis article in Libération
never appeared on my end, but must have on Bill's end because he
included it in a response! Could be that Bill checks the list from the
Web, which I think he's mentioned before, and it went up on the Yahoo
site, but never got emailed out to subscribers... maybe this happened
to yours too?
craig.
19470
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:31pm
Subject: Re: Bille August
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Kristian Andersen
wrote:
> > How come nobody in auteurist circle ever talks about Bille
August, the
> > Danish film maker?
>
> As a dane, I would say because Bille isn't that good a director, nor
> interesting, to begin with. While his first films up to and
including
> Pelle demonstrated some talent, I strongly believe, having
reapproach
> his films last year, that they were great, because they first and
> foremost were great stories to begin with.
>
> If one looks at the cinematography and editing of his three first
> films (Honning Måne, Zappa and Tro, Håb og Kærlighed), I personally
> have to take deep breaths because some great compositions were
ruined
> by poor choices; the main one is never to let a long shot
composition
> rest in itself, but always disrupt the moment with a close-up.
>
> The sad thing about Bille is, that after winning the Oscar, he
seemed
> to lose all skill, and his films afterwards are simply amateur
night.
> Just consider Smilla and House of Spirits.
>
> Denmark has some great directors: Lars von Trier, Nils Malmros,
> Nikolaj Refn and Erik Clausen, to name my heroes, but Bille is in my
> opinion not really worth anything.
>
> Henrik
How did you like Ein Richtige Mann, Henrik? (excuse spelling)
19471
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:21pm
Subject: Dubbing (was Re: Criterion in March)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> If the
> dubbing director is good these effects get smoothed over and
actors are
> allowed to speak more naturally. I find it much more irritating to
hear people
> talk as if a directorial taskmaster were standing over them than
to know that
> that's not Liv Ullman's real voice. I'm not in love with Liv
Ullman's VOICE.
What you are saying here is that the dubbing director should re-
direct the film against Bergman's intentions in order to indulge
your private preference for a different type of diction. Strange for
an auteurist! And you don't have to be "in love" with an actor's
voice to realize that his/her voice is part of her/his personality
just as much as and possibly more than his/her physical appearance.
I just don't see how anybody who loves and appreciates cinema the
way you do can feel happy when hearing some anonymous actor
replacing Liv Ullman's or anybody else's voice. There should be a
law against it!
19472
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:34pm
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas all
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> Christmas is above all the season where one should forget everything
> about auteurism and about wheather a film is good or not, and just
> sink into a cozy chair, with hot glögg and watch those films
everyone
> officially hates, like Sound of Music, Santa Claus conquers the
> Martians and It's a wonderful life, and let them melt those cold
> academic heart :)
>
> Let me therefor wish you all a merry christmas.
>
> Henrik
I'm planning to spend Christmas Eve finally seeing Notre Musique!
19473
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:01pm
Subject: Re: Delpy and Before Sunset (Was: top tens)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Kristian Andersen
wrote:
> Message: 21
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 18:21:26 -0000
> From: "jpcoursodon"
> 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.
>
>
> What are her American mannerisms?
Speech patterns, facial expressions, body language. Just look at
her face, listen to her talk (of which there is an enormous lot)and
compare with any French actress of her generation in any French
film. As I and several others said earlier when we were discussing
Delpy and Before Sunset, speaking in another language (especially if
you are fluent in it, as Delpy is) changes a person quite a bit.
19474
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:33pm
Subject: Re: Xmas greetings
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> with a film-related FaBlog entry:
>
> http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Great post, David! So deliciously politically incorrect!
I would have included the wonderful "Remember the Night" to your
list, though...
19475
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:03pm
Subject: Re: Bille August
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Kristian Andersen
wrote:
> > How come nobody in auteurist circle ever talks about Bille August,
the
> > Danish film maker?
>
> As a dane, I would say, because Bille first of all isn't an auteur,
> second of all, isn't a good director. Very simplified, he has two
> periods: Before and after "Pelle Eroberen". Before he was a talent,
> after he displayed no skills at all.
>
> Considering his early films, which are great - Honning Måne, Zappa and
> Tro, Håb og Kærlighed - and to some degree also Pelle, these films
> were great simply because of the story, and any director would have
> been able to make an equally great film out of them.
>
> The problems, when revisiting them, are however that all films, except
> "Pelle", display at times very poor technical sides, especially as
> long takes long shots never are allowed to carry their own weight, but
> almost always are edited into a final close-up, thus totally
> destroying the strenght of the long shot composition. Also, his films
> already back then had a tendency to be very talkative, never allowing
> the mere gaze of the actor to carry the scene, but always to interject
> with a piece of dialogue.
>
> This was nothing compared to what happend after "Pelle". "Smillas
> sense of snow" is one of the worst Danish films ever made, lacking any
> sense of structure, suspence and involvement. "House of Spirits" the
> same. "Les Miserable" the same.
>
> He did make pretty good with "Pelle" and "Goda intentioner", but
> otherwise he is forgettable.
*****
And "Best Intentions", to me at least, more properly belongs in the
Bergman canon than it does August's.
I'm not at all surpised by the unanimity this thread has generated so
far. Like you, I admired "Zappa" and "Tro, hab og kaerlighed" for what
they were. I even thought Bille August a potentially fine filmmaker
within their small parameters. And while "Pelle erebroren" was a good
film overall, I couldn't help but note when I first saw it that the
larger scale was not something he ought to be pursuing. He'd already
displayed too many limitations for a leap such as that to succeed
entirely.
In fact, I think where he seriously went wrong as a filmmaker after
"Pelle" was in not immediately returning to the kind of film he'd
started out with, now that he'd gotten a Big One out of his system. By
sticking to that earlier millieu he might have developed into a
consistently interesting (if minor) film artist. Perhaps not a
director whose films you'd move heaven and earth to see, exactly, but
a perfectly benign auteur nonetheless.
Instead he chose an opposite course: making bigger, more dramatically
limp movies, one after the other. I can only surmise that he was
completely transfixed by the allure of possibly becoming King of the
Art House one day. So ever since, he's been turning out precisely the
kind of soulless medium-to-large-scale movie that at one time gave the
Tradition of Quality such a bad name.
Something I absolutely agree with you about; and it stretches through
his entire career, not just the early films: He seems utterly
incapable of trusting in the power of images to carry the their share
of the emotional/dramatic freight. He cuts away from potentially
effective moments with indecent regularity. And worse, he never fails
to underline events with needless dialogue.
Any filmmaker with no faith in images has no business making movies.
Tom Sutpen
19476
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:44pm
Subject: Re: Lost in cyberspace
Craig Keller wrote:
> My original message with the link to the Lewis article in Libération
> never appeared on my end,
Craig, it's at http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/19436
but must have on Bill's end
He does get the group by email, in the form of one large email daily. We
moderators have secret methods of tracking this. But I got your post by
email too.
At the moment email seems slower than the group's site; there are a half
dozen posts there that I have not yet received by email.
But also, many months ago I found three posts on the site that I *never*
received by email. I went through the laborious process of querying
Yahoo help until my query appeared to reach an actual person (the
initial replies seem to get a response from a computer that tries to
figure out what you're asking and pastes in some boilerplate), who said,
basically, these things happen very occasionally but not often.
The point is that if you want to be sure that you don't miss any posts,
the Web site might be the most reliable way of reading it. So far I've
not heard of any posts that show up as emails but never get on to the
site -- if anyone does know of any such, please email me off list.
Fred Camper
19477
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:39pm
Subject: Re: French Film Festival in Richmond 1-3APRIL05
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> http://www.frenchfilm.vcu.edu/history_sched.html
> has a list of previous film screenings.
Looks promising, ER - keep us posted on the upcoming.
19478
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:42pm
Subject: Dubbing (was Re: Criterion in March)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > If the
> > dubbing director is good these effects get smoothed over and
> actors are
> > allowed to speak more naturally. I find it much more irritating
to
> hear people
> > talk as if a directorial taskmaster were standing over them than
> to know that
> > that's not Liv Ullman's real voice. I'm not in love with Liv
> Ullman's VOICE.
>
> What you are saying here is that the dubbing director should re-
> direct the film against Bergman's intentions in order to indulge
> your private preference for a different type of diction. Strange
for
> an auteurist! And you don't have to be "in love" with an actor's
> voice to realize that his/her voice is part of her/his personality
> just as much as and possibly more than his/her physical appearance.
> I just don't see how anybody who loves and appreciates cinema the
> way you do can feel happy when hearing some anonymous actor
> replacing Liv Ullman's or anybody else's voice. There should be a
> law against it!
I'M SO ASHAMED!
19479
From:
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:15pm
Subject: Why Italy? (Was: Dubbing)
Forgive my ignorance (and I'm not sure if this was brought up already on the
list because somehow I missed most of the messages from the last twenty-four
hours) but why is dubbing so endemic to Italy? Why not Germany or France? Can
someone point me to a book or an article or just blurt it out here if it's easy
to sum up?
Thanx,
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19480
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 8:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: Merry Christmas all
On Friday, December 24, 2004, at 02:34 PM, hotlove666 wrote:
>
> I'm planning to spend Christmas Eve finally seeing Notre Musique!
Now -that's- a Christmas Eve!!
19481
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:58pm
Subject: Re: Lost in cyberspace
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> I sent two fairly long posts today (Thursday) between about 5PM and
> 6PM and they never posted. There was not a single e-mail posted
> between around 4PM and Bill's one on Jerry Lewis so I wonder if
> anyone sent something that vanished like my two posts.
*****
I think it just happened to me. I just posted a brief autopsy on Bille
August about an hour ago . . . I'm too perpetually blocked to write
anything that's even fairly long . . . and it hasn't yet materialized.
Now, I know what you're all gonna say: No great loss. But personally,
I hate writing something only to have it vanish into thin air like that.
I wonder if this is destined for the same fate.
Tom Sutpen
19482
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:02pm
Subject: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief and LIGHTING
> Crystal-clear sound is frequently dubbed into sound spaces that would
> create quite a bit of interference. The effect is generally pretty
> phony. Peter Henne
Is this any different from what is done to light a scene while shooting
and post production modifications of developing the film's image (even
before CGI)? Film viewers of a primarily visual medium seem to be more
forgiving of alterations to the image; why not the same for audio, if
the effect is heard to realize the intended meaning, emotion,
information, or whatever? Which is worse, a good image with poor
sound, or a poor image with good sound? Granted both are bad, but if
your were in a CLOCKWORK ORANGE situation of forced viewing and
listening, which would you take. I'd take the good image because I
often don't hear the sound if I am absorbed in the picture, and a bad
image can be nauseating; bad sound I can often block out.
On another note, it is interesting how static the visual environment
actually is (except for the changing image brought on my our movement
through the environment); less often is an environment absolutely
silent because noise travels across all sorts of perimeters.
Elizabeth
19483
From: Michael E. Grost
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:11pm
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas all
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> Christmas is above all the season where one should forget
everything
> about auteurism and about wheather a film is good or not, and just
> sink into a cozy chair, with hot glögg and watch those films
everyone
> officially hates, like Sound of Music, Santa Claus conquers the
> Martians and It's a wonderful life, and let them melt those cold
> academic heart :)
>
> Let me therefor wish you all a merry christmas.
>
> Henrik
This is a very nice message!
But I've never heard of hot glögg!
Happy Holidays to everyone!
Mike Grost
19484
From:
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:33pm
Subject: Re: Lost in cyberspace
Tom Sutpen:
> I think it just happened to me. I just posted a brief autopsy on
Bille
> August about an hour ago . . . I'm too perpetually blocked to write
> anything that's even fairly long . . . and it hasn't yet
materialized.
> Now, I know what you're all gonna say: No great loss. But
personally,
> I hate writing something only to have it vanish into thin air like
that.
>
> I wonder if this is destined for the same fate.
>
I've been posting for the last two days, and most of my posts have
vanished. My experience with Yahoo is that these do show up at some
point, so I doubt they're gone into the ether -- that only happens
if Yahoo actually deletes a post as you're writing it. I guess
patience is the only thing at this point. That said, who knows if
you guys will even see this post before January 5th.
-Bilge
19485
From:
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:27pm
Subject: Re: Lost in cyberspace
>
> I sent two fairly long posts today (Thursday) between about 5PM
and
> 6PM and they never posted. There was not a single e-mail posted
> between around 4PM and Bill's one on Jerry Lewis so I wonder if
> anyone sent something that vanished like my two posts.
>
Yeah, I sent a fairly long post about dubbing (including an
interesting personal anecdote similar to the Corman-in-Italy one).
It never showed. Sometimes posts get lost, and sometimes they show
up days later, so there's hope yet.
-Bilge
19486
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:27pm
Subject: Re: Why Italy? (Was: Dubbing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Forgive my ignorance (and I'm not sure if this was brought up
already on the
> list because somehow I missed most of the messages from the last
twenty-four
> hours) but why is dubbing so endemic to Italy? Why not Germany or
France? Can
> someone point me to a book or an article or just blurt it out here
if it's easy
> to sum up?
>
> Thanx,
>
> Kevin John
>
> We have to distinguish between two types of dubbing (although
they are equally obnoxious): The dubbing of foreign films into the
local language, and the post-sync of national productions. The
former is widely practiced in most countries -- in Europe, not just
Italy but Germany and France too. The difference between Italy and
France is that in Italy every foreign film is dubbed, subtitling
doesn't exist (in an earlier post I warned that this situation may
have changed slighly in recent years), whereas in France, most
foreign films are released in two "versions", one subtitled and one
dubbed (the dubbed one being the one viewed by the overwhelming
majority of spectators; in most towns outside Paris only dubbed
versions are shown). Germany used to have a "dubbed only" policy
like Italy, but there again things may be changing.
As far as the systematic dubbing of national productions is
concerned, Italy is to my knowledge the only European country with
such a tradition.
This means that all dialogue is recorded in the studio after the
film has been shot (during shooting they may or may not use a
scratch track that will be used as a reference during dubbing but is
never good enough to be used as the final dialogue track.) There
doesn't seem to be any aesthetic reason for such a method, unless
you consider expediency an aesthetic reason. (Of course it could be
argue that the masterpieces of so-called neo-realism couldn't have
been made if direct sound had been used). The simple explanation is
that Italian filmmakers have always found this method convenient and
economical (you don't have to worry about sound quality while
shooting, you don't even need a sound crew) and the result, which
some non-Italians find annoying, even deplorable, never bothered
them. Must be an Italian thing. In another post I mentioned the fact
that Italian film critics never complained about either kind of
dubbing (ie, of foreign films or of Italian films) and even insist,
when queried, that they don't miss anything when they see a foreign
film dubbed. Go figure...
JPC
19487
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:51am
Subject: Re: Jerry Lewis on DVD in France
> Eduoard Waintrop - is he English?
French -- if I remember right, he lives in Catalunya. He's not an
uninteresting critic... usually.
19488
From: Dave Kehr
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:14pm
Subject: Re: Why Italy? (Was: Dubbing)
You folks all realize, of course, that there is no such thing as
direct sound. Ever since Douglas Shearer invented his primitive,
two-dial mixer for MGM, sound has been the most heavily manipulated
aspect of any movie. Virtually all sound is "dubbed" from one
source or another in the mixing process: voices are isolated and
sweetened, footsteps are laid in by a couple of people ("foley
artists") stomping around in a sandbox, etc. What I find interesting
in contemporary Hollywood movies is that now, thanks to the new
digital technology (exploited quite brilliantly in Robert Zemeckis's
dark and subversive "The Polar Express"), the same principle of
mixing and manipulation is being applied to the image track that it
has long been possible to apply, through analog means, to the sound
track.
Dave Kehr
19489
From: Peter Henne
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:53pm
Subject: Re: Dubbing (was Re: Criterion in March)
Is Liv Ullmann's voice really so different in her non-Bergman films (for instance, Nykvist's "The Ox") than in her famous Bergman roles? Not being a Swedish speaker, and keeping comparisons to the same language, I can only say that I don't hear an appreciable difference. The complaint about her voice sounding as if a "directorial taskmaster" were standing over her can't hold up if Ullmann simply sounds the way she does from film to film regardless of director (I guess if you hate the sound of Swedish you won't be checking that out).
When it's a European director, some people gripe about a "taskmaster," but when you get a director in the Hollywood system exerting consuming control over performers (say, Hitchcock), he or she is a genius. Go figure.
Peter Henne
jpcoursodon wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> If the
> dubbing director is good these effects get smoothed over and
actors are
> allowed to speak more naturally. I find it much more irritating to
hear people
> talk as if a directorial taskmaster were standing over them than
to know that
> that's not Liv Ullman's real voice. I'm not in love with Liv
Ullman's VOICE.
What you are saying here is that the dubbing director should re-
direct the film against Bergman's intentions in order to indulge
your private preference for a different type of diction. Strange for
an auteurist! And you don't have to be "in love" with an actor's
voice to realize that his/her voice is part of her/his personality
just as much as and possibly more than his/her physical appearance.
I just don't see how anybody who loves and appreciates cinema the
way you do can feel happy when hearing some anonymous actor
replacing Liv Ullman's or anybody else's voice. There should be a
law against it!
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19490
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 0:28am
Subject: Re: Truly Human
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> How did you like Ein Richtige Mann, Henrik? (excuse spelling)
If you thereby mean "Et rigtigt menneske" by Åge Sandgren
(http://imdb.com/title/tt0273326/), then I don't like it.
To me, the Dogme films dropped significantly in quality after "The
Idiots", because, as I see it, the form was more important than the
story, and here the story almost becomes a cliche upon its own
premise, as innocence must suffer, in order for the audience to feel
pity and alive.
I sort of dismiss the entire movement until "Kira's Choice" and "Open
Hearts", the two best Dogme films since "The Idiots".
I sure hope that was the film you were talking about :)
Henrik
19491
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 11:23pm
Subject: Re: Why Italy? (Was: Dubbing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Kehr" wrote:
>
> You folks all realize, of course, that there is no such thing as
> direct sound.
There is no such thing as direct sound in the same sense that
there is no such thing as "realism" in film. There is a huge
difference between the manipulation of sound you describe and the
systematic practice of having entire film dialogue recorded in a
dubbing studio after shooting has been completed. There is such a
thing as an "impression of realistic sound" just as there is
an "impression of reality" in film. In traditional Italian dubbing,
there is very little if any attempt at creating such an impression.
19492
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:05pm
Subject: Re: Lost in cyberspace
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, December 23, 2004, at 11:45 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> > I sent two fairly long posts today (Thursday) between about 5PM
and
> > 6PM and they never posted. There was not a single e-mail posted
> > between around 4PM and Bill's one on Jerry Lewis so I wonder if
> > anyone sent something that vanished like my two posts.
>
> My original message with the link to the Lewis article in
Libération
> never appeared on my end, but must have on Bill's end because he
> included it in a response! Could be that Bill checks the list
from the
> Web, which I think he's mentioned before, and it went up on the
Yahoo
> site, but never got emailed out to subscribers... maybe this
happened
> to yours too?
>
> craig.
I got your message with the Liberation link, though...
But at this time (december 24, 2PM Eastern ST) I have at least
four messages from yesterday and this morning that have not posted.
19493
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 0:49am
Subject: Re: Re: Xmas greetings
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> I would have included the wonderful "Remember the
> Night" to your
> list, though...
>
>
Oh I love that one! But I opted for "Christmas in
July" instead -- for its historical accuracy.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19494
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:24pm
Subject: Re: The new issue of The Believer
On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 02:20:43 -0000, Gabe Klinger wrote:
> has an article on Manny Farber by one Franklin Bruno
Franklin Bruno was the frontman of the old indie favorite Nothing
Painted Blue. He's released a few of his own records. I saw him live
once (where I was surprised how much he looked like Jason Alexander),
and his rhymes were a little too coy for my taste, but fun. I've
liked his work more when presented by someone else, like Jenny Toomey
(from Tsunami). I had no idea he wrote on film. He wrote one of my
favorite articles on Belle & Sebastian, perfectly exlaining their
appeal (at the height of their fame).
Jonathan Takagi
19495
From: cjsuttree
Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 3:27am
Subject: Re: Delpy and Before Sunset (Was: top tens)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
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.
>
Excellent points! They crystallize the reason I adore The Aviator's
Wife but have trouble with Before Sunset (this year's headliner
in the Voice poll) and Lost in Translation (last year's?). In a
way this is purely sour grapes on my part, to crawl out of the
woodwork and throw cold water on the celebration of these films.
(This is such a wildly successful group normally I can't keep up
with a tenth of its volume, much less actually post something.)
The two American films almost demand that we like the two lead
characters, or else they would not work. (Is that the same
as saying the characters have "authority over the film"?)
I happen not to like the Johansson and the Hawke characters,
and that is the end of my courtship with those films. Whereas
With Rohmer, the passive, sulking male protagonist (Aviator's
Wife, A Summer's Tale, perhaps Claire's Knee, and more) is not
always likeable. But he has charming interactions with
the directors' seductive sirens and nymphs -- who don't just
seduce the audience, they also serve as Greek chorus, detectives,
conscience, voices of reason, all wrapped together.
The added perspective makes these films so much more interesting
(in my opinion of course). The world is much larger than the
two romantic lead here. And the audience shouldn't congratulate
themselves on knowing who the Right Girl (the perfect match
for the male romantic lead) should be all along either, because
she usually sneaks off with her latest boyfriend
as the end credit rolls. If her role is to seduce us, Rohmer
doesn't let us get away with much delusion either.
The Aviator's Wife is certainly one of Rohmer's best films!
I highly recommend it. I saw it again not too long ago, but
can't remember if it all happens within 24 hours. If so, I'd
hazard to say that the cinematography is much more impressive
than Before Sunset. It begins late at night I think, goes
on to early morning; the best scenes (rendezvous in the park) are
in glorious afternoon daylight, and the film ends with night fall.
Rohmer doesn't seem to get much respect these days (none
of his films are on Criterion unless I'm mistaken), but
for the life of me I can't understand why Sofia Coppola and
Richard Linklater are valued more highly.
Now back to the woodwork (and cuddle up with with Dekalog 3, my
annual X'mas ritual).
19496
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 0:47am
Subject: Re: the taskmasters vs. the genius
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
"When it's a European director, some people gripe about a
"taskmaster," but when you get a director in the Hollywood system
exerting consuming control over performers (say, Hitchcock), he or she
is a genius. Go figure."
There is a nice anecdote about direction, which I just love. Once Lars
von Trier met Kieslowski, and during their talk, Lars asked
Kieslowski, "How does one make good character direction?"
Kieslowski answered, "You find a very comfy chair, place it all the
way back, almost out of sight, and everytime the actors look at you in
desperation, you just smile, nod and give them a thumbs up."
It is not the first time non-present direction has proved a succes.
Hitchcock was notorious never involved in the direction, he even once
fell asleep during a scene, Scorsese was less than involved with "King
of Comedy", Leone also had a relaxed relationship with his actors.
So is being a genius not being involved or having realised how not to
be involved :)
Henrik
19497
From:
Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 3:48am
Subject: Re: the taskmasters vs. the genius
Henrik Sylow:
> It is not the first time non-present direction has proved a succes.
> Hitchcock was notorious never involved in the direction, he even
once
> fell asleep during a scene, Scorsese was less than involved
with "King
> of Comedy", Leone also had a relaxed relationship with his actors.
>
> So is being a genius not being involved or having realised how not
to
> be involved :)
>
No. As Billy Wilder said, it's casting.
-Bilge
19498
From: Andy Rector
Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 0:38am
Subject: Re: Why Italy? (was: Dubbing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Kehr" wrote:
>
> You folks all realize, of course, that there is no such thing as
> direct sound. Ever since Douglas Shearer invented his primitive,
> two-dial mixer for MGM, sound has been the most heavily
manipulated
> aspect of any movie. Virtually all sound is "dubbed" from one
> source or another in the mixing process: voices are isolated and
> sweetened, footsteps are laid in by a couple of people ("foley
> artists") stomping around in a sandbox, etc. What I find
interesting
> in contemporary Hollywood movies is that now, thanks to the new
> digital technology (exploited quite brilliantly in Robert
Zemeckis's
> dark and subversive "The Polar Express"), the same principle of
> mixing and manipulation is being applied to the image track that
it
> has long been possible to apply, through analog means, to the
sound
> track.
>
> Dave Kehr
You say it as if all movies manipulate sound. Not all do. Some take
pains not to. Foley is certainly not a rule (unless its industrial
cinema). Equalization (of voices for instance) is different than
adding sounds in post, that is, adding sounds foreign to the
original shooting. Music is another story altogether.
Direct sound does exist.
The hat scene in Ladies Man would not be funny or good at all if it
wasn't direct sound, which it is. It wouldn't be funny if you didn't
hear the breathing of both actors, the unbearable closeness, and the
incomplete sentences of reaction by Jerry Lewis off screen-- all
recorded live.
I haven't been able to read most of the posts on this but I'm sure
early Renoir has been mentioned. La chienne, La nuit du carrefour,
etc. are direct sound existing very precisely.
A film that particularly suffers from dubbing (besides Ten on Ten)is
Germany Year Zero. The DVD is the Italian dubbed version but the
direct sound German version is much better.
Am I alone in finding Bela Tarr's work difficult because of his
wonton use of dubbing, his alientated soundtrack?
yours,
andy
19499
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:50pm
Subject: Re: Lost in cyberspace
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> Tom Sutpen:
>
>
> > I think it just happened to me. I just posted a brief autopsy on
> Bille
> > August about an hour ago . . . I'm too perpetually blocked to
write
> > anything that's even fairly long . . . and it hasn't yet
> materialized.
> > Now, I know what you're all gonna say: No great loss. But
> personally,
> > I hate writing something only to have it vanish into thin air
like
> that.
> >
> > I wonder if this is destined for the same fate.
All my vanished posts since this started have turned up within 24
hours.
> >
>
> I've been posting for the last two days, and most of my posts have
> vanished. My experience with Yahoo is that these do show up at some
> point, so I doubt they're gone into the ether -- that only happens
> if Yahoo actually deletes a post as you're writing it. I guess
> patience is the only thing at this point. That said, who knows if
> you guys will even see this post before January 5th.
>
> -Bilge
19500
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Dec 25, 2004 0:45am
Subject: Re: Re: Xmas greetings
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> I would have included the wonderful "Remember the
> Night" to your
> list, though...
>
>
Oh I love that one! But I opted for "Christmas in
July" instead -- for its historical accuracy.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact