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.
19601
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:35am
Subject: Re: Re: Breillat (Was: Dubbing, Realism, Suspension of Disbelief)
> I do remember that Moullet was an early defender,
> and that her first novel was generally well-liked, including by him.
Her first novel is much more experimental and difficult than anything
she's done on film. I rather like it myself (read it translated). - Dan
19602
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:57am
Subject: Re: Re: Nils Malmros (Was: Bille August)
> Malmros is a real character. Even today, 50-ish and a professionel
> brain surgeon
I had no idea! Wonder if there are any other director/surgeons.
> Malmros next made, what I consider to be his best film and his
> masterpiece, "Tree of Knowledge", where he retells the story of his
> middleschool class.
Many of us were stunned when we saw TREE OF KNOWLEDGE at Filmex 83 in Los
Angeles. Blake Lucas and I scored copies of the beautiful Danish poster,
which depicts the chaste kiss that the plot turns on.
A company called Spectrafilm acquired the film for distribution shortly
afterwards. But it never happened, and before long Spectrafilm was out of
business.
> Thus his next film, "Beauty
> and the Beast", which really is a great film, marks some desperation in
> its direction. It is also not Truffaut-ian, but very Rohmer in texture,
Filmex did show this film sometime in the mid-eighties. I thought it
quite good, but almost any film would seem ordinary next to TREE OF
KNOWLEDGE.
> Now comes his swansong, "Barbara", one of the most expensive Danish
> productions and one of the biggest failures. Malmros wanted to film
> the book for so many years, but it was too much for him to handle. He
> wont tell you its a bad film, he will just pull his shoulder and say,
> that it could be better :)
Lincoln Center showed BARBARA a few years ago. I guess it's the least of
the Malmros films I've seen, perhaps a little conventional. But I rather
liked it.
> "Facing the Truth" is Malmros' second best film, after "Tree of
> Knowledge", and his second masterpiece.
Scandinavia House in NYC showed this film a year or two ago. I liked it
quite a bit, though I don't think I would have recognized it as a film by
the director of TREE OF KNOWLEDGE.
> And I've felt it first hand, as I spend the last six month asking the
> producers of the DVD to put the English subtitles on "Tree of
> Knowledge", but they didn't. Im currently trying to make someone else
> release it internationally.
I hope you have success. English-subtitled prints exist, of course. - Dan
19603
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 4:00am
Subject: Re: Re: Ken Park and Notre Musique
> But I liked the film: within the confines of California Gothic
> fantasy, the characters do behave very naturally and unexpectedly at
> times - seamlessly good performances from pros and non-pros alike. By
> the way, it's co-directed by Ed Lachman.
It's so like the other Clark films that I wonder what Lachman was able to
do. - Dan
19604
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 4:02am
Subject: Independent (Was: Film Vocabulary)
> About "independent film," I remember the days when in the mid-1960s
> there were seven "major" studios (Fox, Warners, Universal, Paramount,
> MGM, Columbia and UA -- a list that I believe had been constant for four
> decades)
I think of RKO as the eighth major studio. - Dan
19605
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 4:35am
Subject: It's A Wonderful Performed by Bunny Rabbits in 30 Seconds
http://www.angryalien.com/1204/wonderful_lifebuns.asp
19606
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 4:48am
Subject: Re: The Long and the Short of it
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Have only had a chance to see a few of the Hitchcock directed TV
shows. Best: "Breakdown". This is an unusual piece on every level -
very different from Hitchcock's theatrical work. Much of it consists
of a narrative told in still photographs.
> In his book on Cornell Woolrich, Francis M. Nevins praises "Three
O'Clock", which Hitch made not for "AH Presents", but for another
show (Suspense?) Have never had a chance to see it.
>
> Mike Grost
I think it's Four O'Clock. I recently saw it on a big screen - it's
quite good. Brad in his reading of all the AH tv shorts makes some
interesting psychosexual observations about it, which are not untrue
to my experience of the film. The "explosion" is a great moment of
Hitchckian visual invention. And the suspense is nail-biting potent.
19607
From: Hadrian
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:03am
Subject: Re: Ken Park
Here's my two cents of hearsay:
Ed Lachman, a very sweet and open man, had been a customer for some
time, when began talkign about Ken Park. And oddly, having gotten several
chances to chat with him, he never mentioned Clark. All I can say is he
seemed disproportionately proud of his work on this film, and far more
proprietory, than in relation to any others i've chatted with him. He dropped off
a poster early on, and invited me to an early private screening. No Clark. I've
actually never seen Lachman as interested in any of his films. He's usually
more liable to talk about how brilliant such-and-such was, or how difficult and
rigorous blah-blah was (He got fired very quickly off a Bela Tarr film when he
suggested framing a shot so a tree would be in the frame. Apparently Tarr
began screaming at him that "there are no trees in Bela Tarr films!" ). I now
wish i had asked him more about the directorial relationship with Clark..oh
well. Last I spoke with him he was excited to be working with Ulrich Seidl.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- samadams@e... wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Oddly, when I asked Clark exactly what "co-directed"
> > meant in
> > practice, he got very cryptic and agitated, which
> > was the last
> > response I expected to a what seemed like a fairly
> > obvious question.
> > I wonder if there's a story there.
> >
> Obviously. I suspect he had a breakdown and Lachman
> took over.
>
>
> > Ken Park was actually a turning point for me -- it
> > seems like the
> > most thoughtful, least sensationalistic of Clark's
> > movies (although
> > that's admittedly a backhanded compliment).
>
> It's kind of like saying "The Gore Gore Girls" less
> sensationalistic than "Blood Feast."
>
> I was
> > amazed both in
> > talking to him and seeing him present the movie to
> > an audience how
> > sincere and vulnerable he came off. He spent the few
> > minutes before
> > the KP screening ended pacing in the lobby, visibly
> > nervous -- this
> > was after all the controversy surrounding both the
> > film and Clark's
> > dust-up with its British ex-distributor -- then
> > ended the Q&A quickly
> > after a few, uniformly positive, questions, as if he
> > didn't want to
> > wait for the detractors to come out of their shells.
>
> "Sincere and vulnerable"? I'd say running scared.
>
> > Frankly, after
> > KIDS, I expected him to be something of a prick, but
> > I think Ken Park
> > (and Bully to a lesser extent) show that he's not
> > just a creep in
> > cineaste's clothing. I don't think the movies are
> > about "his attitude
> > towards" his young characters so much as his
> > identification with them
> > -- he seems to be one of those people, like Gus van
> > Sant, who can
> > effortlessly recall what it was like to be that age,
> > and so relates
> > more easily to teenagers than most adults do.
> >
>
> I think Gus is lot more honest about being the Big
> Ol'Perv that he is. He loved "Kids" (which I despise.)
> "Elephant" is far more adept expression of
> ephebophilia.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
> http://my.yahoo.com
19608
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:58am
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
> > "Maybe because Brooks is a writer and Scorsese isn't"
> >
> > Scorsese wrote WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR, and co-wrote MEAN
> > STREETS.
Two of his earliest projects, which suggests he was writing because
he couldn't afford a screenwriter, rather than because he's a natural
writer himself. Scorsese is without doubt an auteur, and someone
heavily involved in the preparation os screenplays, but to call him a
WRITER on the basis of those two films might be overstating it, in
the same way that calling Marlon Brando a director might be too much.
Scorsese certainly has some writing ability, but he's not a
preofessional weriter in the way that Brooks clearly is. On the other
hand, though I've enjoyed some brooks films quite a bit, I don't
really think he's a natural filmmaker - even less so than Scorsese is
a writer.
19609
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 1:43pm
Subject: Re: Film Vocabulary (Was: Why Italy?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> >> "short" and "feature."
> >
> >
> > Well, you described the terms as being "inherently biased." And I
> > took your story to be indicative of greater concerns, not just an
> > isolated incident.
>
> Greater concerns, yes, and inherently biased, yes. But *most* of the
> English language is inherently biased. I don't like it but I use it
> anyway; it's the only language I've got. I've said "fuck" and "got
> fucked" to mean having something bad happen to you since I was a kid;
> only as an adult did I understand that the person playing the insertee
> in sex is being severely dissed here. I don't like this but I still use
> it; it's hard to change longtime habits. I didn't grow up saying
"sucks"
> as an insult, which has the same problem, so I don't use it, but I sure
> as hell don't go around correcting other people who do use it.
>
>
> >.... Why then are the terms inappropriate? "WINDOW WATER BABY
MOVING is a
> > short film by Brakhage." ....
>
> Here I think you've just misread my original post. My objection was to
> using "short" as a noun to refer to a short Brakhage film, as in "eight
> Brakhage shorts." This comes closer to invoking the dreaded "short
> subject." I have no objection to calling *any* short film a "short
> film," or calling a long film a "long film." This was kind of my point,
> an admiring glance at the French and Portuguese terms for "short" and
> "feature." (I wonder what other languages do? I believe the Spanish
> terms are similar to French and Portuguese, but what about Italian and
> German?) Similarly, I don't have a strong objection to writing, "'Dog
> Star Man' is a feature-length film," depending on the context.
>
> But words brim with multiple meanings, and thus the language police are
> well advised to be careful before correcting anyone. I hate the use of
> "disinterested" to mean "uninterested," for example, when its more
> precise and less replaceable meaning is to not have a vested
interest in
> and thus be relatively unbiased, but after correcting several people I
> discovered via the OED that it has been used off and on to mean not
> interested in for hundreds of years. Ruy pointed out the the Portuguese
> words for "feature" and "short" may contain no inherent linguistic bias
> but have acquired a certain bias through usage, a great example of how
> layered this issue is. I was surprised that the American Heritage
> Dictionary, which I greatly respect, has got "film enthusiast" as the
> first definition of "cineaste," but this is thus a good indication that
> the usage is common enough that we don't get to correct people who use
> it that way anymore, at least not casually. It's a good little topic
for
> a group such as this, and I myself hope I've used it only to mean
> filmmaker, but words and uses also keep changing, and while we can
fight
> our lonely battles against changes we don't like we can't stop people
> from speaking or writing according to normal usage.
*****
Can't we just call them Motion Pictures and have done with it?
Tom Sutpen
19610
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:35pm
Subject: Re: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
>
> > > "Maybe because Brooks is a writer and Scorsese
> isn't"
> > >
> > > Scorsese wrote WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR,
> and co-wrote MEAN
> > > STREETS.
>
> Two of his earliest projects, which suggests he was
> writing because
> he couldn't afford a screenwriter, rather than
> because he's a natural
> writer himself. Scorsese is without doubt an auteur,
> and someone
> heavily involved in the preparation os screenplays,
> but to call him a
> WRITER on the basis of those two films might be
> overstating it, in
> the same way that calling Marlon Brando a director
> might be too much.
>
Scorsese co-scripted his greatest film, "Casino"
(GoodFellas" is mid-level Scorsese, and the fact that
is been reflexively tagged his ne plus ultra annoys me
more than I can say.)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
19611
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 2:45pm
Subject: Re: Film Vocabulary (Was: Why Italy?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
> *****
> Can't we just call them Motion Pictures and have done with it?
>
> Tom Sutpen
Funny, the same idea came into my mind as a woke up this
morning! Unfortunately hardly anyone uses the term "motion picture'
anymore. It's almost as obsolete as "photoplay." And if you did use
it they'd still want to know if the motion picture in question is a
feature or a short.
JPC
19612
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:10pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
>
>
> >
>
> Scorsese co-scripted his greatest film, "Casino"
> (GoodFellas" is mid-level Scorsese, and the fact that
> is been reflexively tagged his ne plus ultra annoys me
> more than I can say.)
>
> I'm not sure I understand this sentence (what does 'reflexively"
mean? Are there missing words?) Why is Goodfellas "mid-level
Scorsese?" I would say it's one of his very best along with "Raging
Bull" (it's by far the Scorsese I have watched most often and with
the most intense pleasure). When I first saw "Casino" I felt it was
a good but not totally successful rehash of "Goodfellas." Further
viewings changed my mind and I now rank him among his very best too.
Still, I don't see how you can put down "Goodfellas" if you think so
highly of "Casino." They're two peas in a pod. JPC
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
> http://my.yahoo.com
19613
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:17pm
Subject: Subject titles
Fred recently reminded us that the topic discussed in a thread
should be clearly identified. I mentioned somewhere that as a thread
evolves the contents of posts often strays away from the topic
described in the subject title, sometimes to the point of completely
abandonning the original subject. Case in point: a recent thread
called "Brooks and McCarey" is currently discussing... Scorsese's
abilities as a screenwriter!
19614
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:24pm
Subject: Re: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand this sentence (what does
> 'reflexively"
> mean? Are there missing words?)
I have yet to read an article about Scorsese in th
e"maisntream" press that doesn't cite "GoodFellas" as
his greatest film. It's not.
The fact that "The Sopranos" ruthlessly ripped it off
has only encouraged this.
Why is Goodfellas
> "mid-level
> Scorsese?" I would say it's one of his very best
> along with "Raging
> Bull" (it's by far the Scorsese I have watched most
> often and with
> the most intense pleasure).
"Raging Bull" is right up there, and so are "The King
of Comedy" and "After Hours" (the latter is a very
precise evocation of the New York we both knew very
very well.
When I first saw
> "Casino" I felt it was
> a good but not totally successful rehash of
> "Goodfellas."
Couldn't be more different. "GoodFellas" is about the
midle-class. "Casino" is Marty's "Othon" crossed with
"2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle"
Further
> viewings changed my mind and I now rank him among
> his very best too.
> Still, I don't see how you can put down "Goodfellas"
> if you think so
> highly of "Casino." They're two peas in a pod.
Not at all. The pease in "GoodFellas" are frozen.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
19615
From:
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:36pm
Subject: Martin Scorsese: Writer
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
>
> >
> > > > "Maybe because Brooks is a writer and Scorsese
> > isn't"
> > > >
> > > > Scorsese wrote WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR,
> > and co-wrote MEAN
> > > > STREETS.
> >
> > Two of his earliest projects, which suggests he was
> > writing because
> > he couldn't afford a screenwriter, rather than
> > because he's a natural
> > writer himself. Scorsese is without doubt an auteur,
> > and someone
> > heavily involved in the preparation os screenplays,
> > but to call him a
> > WRITER on the basis of those two films might be
> > overstating it, in
> > the same way that calling Marlon Brando a director
> > might be too much.
> >
>
> Scorsese co-scripted his greatest film, "Casino"
> (GoodFellas" is mid-level Scorsese, and the fact that
> is been reflexively tagged his ne plus ultra annoys me
> more than I can say.)
>
More significantly, Scorsese has contributed a great deal to most of
the screenplays of his films over the years. But writer's guild
guidelines are complicated and often prevent a director from being
allowed to share credit for a screenplay, unless it already has
his/her name on it. A friend who spent a mini vacation with Scorsese
a few years ago (don't ask) described him as always being in his
room, "doing nothing but writing".
Also, I don't understand why it's wrong to call Marlon Brando a
director. If you direct a film, you are its director. If you write a
film, you are its writer. If Tom Cruise writes a screenplay, then he
is a writer, at least while he's writing the script. When James L.
Brooks walks down the street, he is neither a writer, a director, or
a subway conductor: He's a guy walking down a street. (OK, I'm
stretching it a bit. I know what the original poster meant, but I
just don't think the line is that sharp between a guy like Brooks
and a guy like Scorsese.)
-Bilge
19616
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:41pm
Subject: "Goodfellas" and its reputation (was Re: Brooks & McCarey )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
>
> >
> > > > "Maybe because Brooks is a writer and Scorsese
> > isn't"
> > > >
> > > > Scorsese wrote WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR,
> > and co-wrote MEAN
> > > > STREETS.
> >
> > Two of his earliest projects, which suggests he was
> > writing because
> > he couldn't afford a screenwriter, rather than
> > because he's a natural
> > writer himself. Scorsese is without doubt an auteur,
> > and someone
> > heavily involved in the preparation os screenplays,
> > but to call him a
> > WRITER on the basis of those two films might be
> > overstating it, in
> > the same way that calling Marlon Brando a director
> > might be too much.
> >
>
> Scorsese co-scripted his greatest film, "Casino"
> (GoodFellas" is mid-level Scorsese, and the fact that
> is been reflexively tagged his ne plus ultra annoys me
> more than I can say.)
*****
It annoys me too. And I have to assume that the majority of those who
place it at or near the top of Scorsese's output are, at least in
part, warming their hands by the fire of the gangster lifestyle it
rather superficially explores. It's not a bad film by any means, but
it is a strangely hollow one.
Tom Sutpen
19617
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 5:54pm
Subject: Re: "Goodfellas" and its reputation (was Re: Brooks & McCarey )
--- Tom Sutpen wrote:
> *****
> It annoys me too. And I have to assume that the
> majority of those who
> place it at or near the top of Scorsese's output
> are, at least in
> part, warming their hands by the fire of the
> gangster lifestyle it
> rather superficially explores. It's not a bad film
> by any means, but
> it is a strangely hollow one.
>
Something else is involved -- the power of the
canonical. It's taken YEARS to mkae people see Wles as
someone who made more (and better) films besides
"Citizen Kane."
"Rules of the Game" likewise blots out the renoir of
"Le Crime de M.Lange," "The Golden Coach," and "Le
Testament du Dr. Cordelier."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
19618
From:
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 6:54pm
Subject: "Goodfellas" and its reputation (was Re: Brooks & McCarey )
> It annoys me too. And I have to assume that the majority of those
who
> place [GOODFELLAS] at or near the top of Scorsese's output are,
at least in
> part, warming their hands by the fire of the gangster lifestyle it
> rather superficially explores. It's not a bad film by any means,
but
> it is a strangely hollow one.
>
I sort of agree. I do like GOODFELLAS quite a bit, and in some ways
I consider it a perfect film -- it's a dazzling work of
craftsmanship -- but for me, CASINO, interminable third act and
numerous other gaping flaws notwithstanding, is the superior film,
infinitely more passionate and moving. GOODFELLAS seems to lack the
heart that's in Scorsese's best films (for me, that'd be TAXI
DRIVER, KUNDUN, LAST TEMPTATION, RAGING BULL, and KING OF COMEDY).
But it was interesting for me to hear that Scorsese sort of
considers GF a comedy. Maybe that's where the disconnect comes from.
-Bilge
19619
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:09pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> > > I'm not sure I understand this sentence (what does
> > 'reflexively"
> > mean? Are there missing words?)
>
> I have yet to read an article about Scorsese in th
> e"maisntream" press that doesn't cite "GoodFellas" as
> his greatest film. It's not.
>
Matter of taste and opinion, David. But "it's not" is not enough.
> The fact that "The Sopranos" ruthlessly ripped it off
> has only encouraged this.
>
> I dislike what little I have seen of "The Sopranos" and they
have nothing to do with an appreciation of "Goodfellas."
> Why is Goodfellas
> > "mid-level
> > Scorsese?" I would say it's one of his very best
> > along with "Raging
> > Bull" (it's by far the Scorsese I have watched most
> > often and with
> > the most intense pleasure).
>
> "Raging Bull" is right up there, and so are "The King
> of Comedy" and "After Hours" (the latter is a very
> precise evocation of the New York we both knew very
> very well.
Yes, yes but you're not answering the question (I love "King of
Comedy" and "After Hours" too).
>
> When I first saw
> > "Casino" I felt it was
> > a good but not totally successful rehash of
> > "Goodfellas."
>
> Couldn't be more different. "GoodFellas" is about the
> midle-class. "Casino" is Marty's "Othon" crossed with
> "2 ou 3 choses que je sais d'elle"
>
Oh, come on!!! (add a dash of Brackage...)
> Further
> > viewings changed my mind and I now rank him among
> > his very best too.
> > Still, I don't see how you can put down "Goodfellas"
> > if you think so
> > highly of "Casino." They're two peas in a pod.
>
> Not at all. The pease in "GoodFellas" are frozen.
>
You can't get off with a pun, David... What it is you don't
like in "Goodfellas"?
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
19620
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:19pm
Subject: Re: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> You can't get off with a pun, David... What it
> is you don't
> like in "Goodfellas"?
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
I like it fine. It's just not his best films, that's
all. In dramatic narrative terms it's no more complex
than "Sideways." There's aboslutely nothing in it like
the sequence in "Casino" of Sharon Stone making
repeated entrances at the hotel and tipping the
carhops. And there's a very good reason why "Casino"
opens with the "St. Matthew Passion" playing against
the Saul and Elaine Bass montage of DeNiro's body
flying through space against a background of neon --
an ascent to Heaven that's simultaneously a descent
into Hell.
"GoodFellas" works best as a film about cocaine addiction.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19621
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:19pm
Subject: "Goodfellas" and its reputation (was Re: Brooks & McCarey )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
>
> *****
> It annoys me too. And I have to assume that the majority of those
who
> place it at or near the top of Scorsese's output are, at least in
> part, warming their hands by the fire of the gangster lifestyle it
> rather superficially explores. It's not a bad film by any means,
but
> it is a strangely hollow one.
>
> Tom Sutpen
Oh, I'm warming my hands by the fire of the gangster lifestyle? I'm
not sure what that means, but whatever it means I take exception. If
i praise a western does that mean I'm warming my hands by the fire
of the cowboy lifestyle? If I love "Kiss Me Deadly" does that make
me an admirer of greedy private eyes?
What's "hollow" about "Goodfellas" and how is "Casino" not hollow?
Of course, not having a personal experience of the gangster
lifestyle, as you seem to have, I may have mistaken the
superficiality of Scorsese's exploration for the real thing.
Although I musr say that documentary authenticity is not necessarily
what I would praise the film most for. JPC
19622
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:29pm
Subject: "Goodfellas" and its reputation (was Re: Brooks & McCarey )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> Something else is involved -- the power of the
> canonical. It's taken YEARS to mkae people see Wles as
> someone who made more (and better) films besides
> "Citizen Kane."
>
> "Rules of the Game" likewise blots out the renoir of
> "Le Crime de M.Lange," "The Golden Coach," and "Le
> Testament du Dr. Cordelier."
>
>
There is nothing canonical about "Goodfellas." Lots of people
prefer some other Scorsese films, and one might argue that "Taxi
Driver" or "Raging Bull" are equally canonical, if not more. And I
just don't see how "Goodfellas" blots out any other major Scorsese.
Re: Welles: what "people", David? Thirty five years ago I knew
people who thought "Ambersons" was a greater film than "Kane."
Thirty years ago I knew people who thought "Touch of Evil"
or "Chimes at Midnight" were his best.
Perhaps you were thinking of the kind of people who think that
Gone With the Wind is the greatest film ever made.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
19623
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:32pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> I like it fine. It's just not his best films, that's
> all. In dramatic narrative terms it's no more complex
> than "Sideways." There's aboslutely nothing in it like
> the sequence in "Casino" of Sharon Stone making
> repeated entrances at the hotel and tipping the
> carhops. And there's a very good reason why "Casino"
> opens with the "St. Matthew Passion" playing against
> the Saul and Elaine Bass montage of DeNiro's body
> flying through space against a background of neon --
> an ascent to Heaven that's simultaneously a descent
> into Hell.
>
Typical heavy-handed Scorsese symbolism, if you ask me (I
discussed it at length in my review of "Casino" -- leaving out
the "heavy-handed).
> "GoodFellas" works best as a film about cocaine addiction.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
19624
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:36pm
Subject: Re: "Goodfellas" and its reputation (was Re: Brooks & McCarey )
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> There is nothing canonical about "Goodfellas."
Find me a major review of "The Aviator" ( a much
better film) that doesn't refer to it.
> Lots of people
> prefer some other Scorsese films, and one might
> argue that "Taxi
> Driver" or "Raging Bull" are equally canonical, if
> not more. And I
> just don't see how "Goodfellas" blots out any other
> major Scorsese.
>
Well that's preciselywhat's benn happening over the
past decade.
> Re: Welles: what "people", David? Thirty five
> years ago I knew
> people who thought "Ambersons" was a greater film
> than "Kane."
Well they're only right.
> Thirty years ago I knew people who thought "Touch of
> Evil"
> or "Chimes at Midnight" were his best.
>
> Perhaps you were thinking of the kind of people
> who think that
> Gone With the Wind is the greatest film ever made.
> >
True, and they are legion.
Welles' best film, IMO, is "F For Fake."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
19625
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 7:38pm
Subject: Re: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Typical heavy-handed Scorsese symbolism, if you
> ask me (I
> discussed it at length in my review of "Casino" --
> leaving out
> the "heavy-handed).
>
I do't find it heavy-handed. The film's subject is Las
Vegas, after all. And the music cue is a tribute to
Pasolini.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19626
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:10pm
Subject: "Goodfellas" and its reputation (was Re: Brooks & McCarey )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> > Re: Welles: what "people", David? Thirty five
> > years ago I knew
> > people who thought "Ambersons" was a greater film
> > than "Kane."
>
> Well they're only right.
>
> > Thirty years ago I knew people who thought "Touch of
> > Evil"
> > or "Chimes at Midnight" were his best.
> >
> > Perhaps you were thinking of the kind of people
> > who think that
> > Gone With the Wind is the greatest film ever made.
> > >
>
> True, and they are legion.
>
Yes, but I doubt that there is a single one of them among the 145
members of this Group.
>
Welles' best film, IMO, is "F For Fake."
>
You condemn the canonical but there is an anti-canonical stance
that consists in singling out as a filmmaker's best one of his
lesser known or "minor" films. Does it make more sense to say
that "F for Fake" (which I love) is Welles' best than to say
that "Kane" is? I'm not sure.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
> http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
19627
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:33pm
Subject: Re: The Long and the Short of it
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > Have only had a chance to see a few of the Hitchcock directed TV
> shows. Best: "Breakdown". This is an unusual piece on every level -
Brad in his reading of all the AH tv shorts makes some
> interesting psychosexual observations about it, which are not
untrue
> to my experience of the film.
I quite agree with what Brad says having been fortunate enough to
obtain all the Hitchcock-directed television episodes before
Universal copyright law affected distribution. They very much
resemble Peckinpah television work on THE WESTERNER and GUNSMOKE
although Hitchcock had more control.
You may want to look up Ken Mogg's "The MacGuffin" site if you're
interested in tracing if any of the episodes are available since I
believe there are valuable links there.
Also,watching the RAWHIDE episode INCIDENT AT BOOT HILL (where
Eastwood takes over as trail boss), I noticed very dark undertones
in a narrative involving a dominating father (Jeff Corey) and his
weak son, especially in the music. When the credits appeared, I
discovered that Bernard Herrmann was responsible. I'm not suggesting
that Hitchcock may have moonlighted and directed this post FISTFUL
OF DOLLARS episode under a pseudonym in 1965. But Herrmann's role as
a creative musical auteur made this particular episode remarkable in
more than one way.
We never saw the Eastwood as trail boos episodes of RAWHIDE in
England, hence my interest. But it also contained Raymond St.
Jacques as a black cowboy and David Watson as an English "remittance
man" trail hand in the last series of the season.
Tony Williams
19628
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film Vocabulary (Was: Why Italy?)
Tom Sutpen wrote:
> Can't we just call them Motion Pictures and have done with it?
Tom, I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, or Zen, but if you're
serious then your statement makes absolutely no sense to me. Anyone who
writes about film is aware of the necessity for sometimes using synonyms
-- movie, film, motion picture, photoplay, etc. So for one thing,
several words are needed. And the words all have slightly different
meanings, or at least, different auras. For another, whatever "we"
choose to call things, "we" are not exactly the whole world, and other
people are going to go happily along referring to Brakhage films as
"short subjects" or the latest Hollywood explosion movie as a work of
"film art" (which, depending on the director, I suppose it might be --
if any great explosion movies open up I hope I'll hear about them here
while they're still playing). The point of my post and query was to
explore, and learn about, some biases inherent in certain terms in
various languages. Aside from trying to avoid the use of the word
"short" as a noun for some films, I wasn't suggesting any changes. If
these nuances of language don't interest you, that's fine; they're not
going to interest everyone. But then there's also no need to comment.
In the spirit of going downmarket with "photoplay" I'd like to point out
that the industry term for a movie is a "show," as in "The last show I
worked on was a big flop," said by a crew member. I'm not seriously
suggesting we use this; I find it funny instead. But I certainly don't
correct anyone who does use it, and of course as a word it is indicative
of an attitude toward film, just as "film" and "movie" are. Maybe "show"
is the elusive term I'm looking for that includes low budget horror
features and Hollywood features and most non-U.S. narrative features?
Just kidding, I think.
Also, to Tom and everyone, please STOP quoting entire posts unless you
are replying to every sentence in the post. Learn how to use email;
learn how to delete or edit text or to turn off the auto-quote feature
in your email program. These long quoted posts followed by responses of
only one line or only a few are time consuming to scroll through; they
make life tough for people who read the group many posts at a time in
page view; they take up significant space in our archives. The message
number or (even better) the url of the message on our Web site would
make fine substitutes.
Fred Camper
19629
From:
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 3:50pm
Subject: Re: re: Direct sound/Tarr
In a message dated 12/25/04 4:14:06 AM, apmartin@n... writes:
> (Philip's BFI book 100 MODERN SOUNDTRACKS is a must-read, and has the edge
> over Chion, in my opinion.)
>
Be sure to check out my (hopefully) forthcoming review of 100 MODERN
SOUNDTRACKS on Senses of Cinema.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19630
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:06pm
Subject: Re: "Goodfellas" and its reputation (was Re: Brooks & McCarey )
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> You condemn the canonical but there is an
> anti-canonical stance
> that consists in singling out as a filmmaker's best
> one of his
> lesser known or "minor" films. Does it make more
> sense to say
> that "F for Fake" (which I love) is Welles' best
> than to say
> that "Kane" is? I'm not sure.
> >
Well it certainly makes sense to use it as a
provocation. "F For Fake" is 180 degrees away from
"Kane." It seems to fall under the heading of
"documentary" until about 1/4 of the way through when
it's plain to even hte most naive viewer just how
fictional/fanciful it actually is.
As I've said it's Welles' Sacha Guitry side. But at
the same time the film has quite unique qualities all
its own.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
19631
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:24pm
Subject: "Goodfellas" and its reputation (was Re: Brooks & McCarey )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
I think of them as his Rio Bravo and Eldorado - whe n Nicolas Saada asked
him abouyt that, he said he was looking forward to reteaming w. Pilaggi for
their Rio Lobo.
Seriously, I resaw Casino lately, and it is Scorsese's masterpiece. I like
Goodfellas too - I'd call them both perfect films - but Casino is SO funny...
19632
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:29pm
Subject: Re: The Long and the Short of it
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000" <
peckinpah20012000@y...> wrote:
watching the RAWHIDE episode INCIDENT AT BOOT HILL (where
> Eastwood takes over as trail boss), I noticed very dark undertones
> in a narrative involving a dominating father (Jeff Corey) and his
> weak son, especially in the music. When the credits appeared, I
> discovered that Bernard Herrmann was responsible. I'm not suggesting
> that Hitchcock may have moonlighted and directed this post FISTFUL
> OF DOLLARS episode under a pseudonym in 1965. But Herrmann's role as
> a creative musical auteur made this particular episode remarkable in
> more than one way.
Jack Arnold directed some Rawhides. There is also a vast Tay Garnett tv
trove. I passed up a chance to pay $3 for a certified Garnett Bonanza and still
regret it. But he did anthology series too - Loretta Young, for example.
Perhaps that's why he teamed w. the Steel Butterfly for the dazzling Cause for
Alarm?
19633
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 9:35pm
Subject: Re: Film Vocabulary (Was: Why Italy?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
I do think we can sort of establish (non-coercive) rules for a_film_by.
Obviously Fred and others can only hear someone say "Film is by its essence
a synch-sound medium" without wanting to correct the mistake. Whereas if we
were sitting around a table at a studio and someone said, "If you don't spend
a third of a film's production budget marketing it, there's no point in even
releasing it," no one is likely to pipe up and say, "But J.B., what about the
avant-garde?" Here we should be more attentive to our P's and Q's.
19634
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:38pm
Subject: Re: The Long and the Short of it
> Jack Arnold directed some Rawhides. There is also a vast Tay
Garnett tv
> trove. I passed up a chance to pay $3 for a certified Garnett
Bonanza and still
> regret it. But he did anthology series too - Loretta Young, for
example.
> Perhaps that's why he teamed w. the Steel Butterfly for the
dazzling Cause for
> Alarm?
The Jacques Tourneur episode of BONANZA is a masterpiece, as is
Robert Altman's 'Silent Thunder' segment. William Witney, whose work
I'm still in the process of discovering, also made some remarkable
contributions to the series.
19635
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:55pm
Subject: Re: The Long and the Short of it
> The Jacques Tourneur episode of BONANZA is a masterpiece, as is
> Robert Altman's 'Silent Thunder' segment. William Witney, whose
work
> I'm still in the process of discovering, also made some remarkable
> contributions to the series.
Witney is truly an undiscovered filmmaker. Would you care to name a
few of the gems of his that you've seen? I've not seen any of his TV
work as of yet, but on the basis of "The Bonnie Parker Story", "The
Girls on the Beach", "Paratroop Command", "The Cool and the
Crazy"...I'd say he's an amazing talent in need of further study.
-Aaron
19636
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:06pm
Subject: Re: The Long and the Short of it
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham" <
machinegunmccain@y...> wrote:
>
>
Witney is an amazing talent in need of further study.
>
> -Aaron
Quentin's on the case.
19637
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:12pm
Subject: Witney (was Re: The Long and the Short of it)
>
> Witney is truly an undiscovered filmmaker. Would you care to name a
> few of the gems of his that you've seen? I've not seen any of his
TV
> work as of yet, but on the basis of "The Bonnie Parker Story", "The
> Girls on the Beach", "Paratroop Command", "The Cool and the
> Crazy"...I'd say he's an amazing talent in need of further study.
>
> -Aaron
SANTA FE PASSAGE is the best of the ones I've seen. I have several of
Witney's Roy Rogers vehicles on tape, but haven't got around to
watching them yet. I was turned on to Witney by Quentin Tarantino,
who spoke about his obsession with Witney in an interview published
by a British newspaper a few years back.
19638
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:37pm
Subject: Re: The Long and the Short of it
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
There is also a vast Tay Garnett tv
> trove. I passed up a chance to pay $3 for a certified Garnett
Bonanza and still
> regret it. But he did anthology series too - Loretta Young, for
example.
> Perhaps that's why he teamed w. the Steel Butterfly for the
dazzling Cause for
> Alarm?
The other way around, Bill. The film was 1951, and the series began
in '53. But Garnett had directed Young much earlier, in 1937's "Love
Is News" and 1939's "Eternally Yours."
Young must have been very fond of Garnett, for he was also director
of her second series, "The New Loretta Young Show," which ran during
the 1962-63 season -- a year after the first show left the air.
Unlike her more famous show, "New" was not an anthology series but a
sit-com in which she was a mother with a shitload of kids.
19639
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 11:52pm
Subject: "Goodfellas" and its reputation (was Re: Brooks & McCarey )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Something else is involved -- the power of the
> canonical. It's taken YEARS to mkae people see Wles as
> someone who made more (and better) films besides
> "Citizen Kane."
>
> "Rules of the Game" likewise blots out the renoir of
> "Le Crime de M.Lange," "The Golden Coach," and "Le
> Testament du Dr. Cordelier."
Yes but don't forget that for decades "Rules of the Game" was blotted
out by "Grand Illusion."
19640
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 0:04am
Subject: Re: Witney (was Re: The Long and the Short of it)
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> SANTA FE PASSAGE is the best of the ones I've seen.
> I have several of
> Witney's Roy Rogers vehicles on tape, but haven't
> got around to
> watching them yet. I was turned on to Witney by
> Quentin Tarantino,
> who spoke about his obsession with Witney in an
> interview published
> by a British newspaper a few years back.
>
Noel Burch cited Whitney as the exemplar of standard
representational mediocrity.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
19641
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 0:58am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> You condemn the canonical but there is an anti-canonical stance
> that consists in singling out as a filmmaker's best one of his
> lesser known or "minor" films. Does it make more sense to say
> that "F for Fake" (which I love) is Welles' best than to say
> that "Kane" is? I'm not sure.
I have to agree with JP on this one. While I presume everyone on this
board is genuine when reporting their opinion of a film, I don't think
the selection of "Welles' best" is purely a matter of taste.
I'm fine with someone proclaiming that TOUCH OF EVIL is a "better"
film than KANE; but so often, the late Welles films are cited with a
degree of arrogance. "Well, KANE -- that's not a bad choice for
someone who knows their movie history from Blockbuster, but CHIMES AT
MIDNIGHT is such a richer experience ..." I have no objection to
reordering the canon, but there doesn't seem much point in doing so by
dismissing the film that will, for most, be a sterling introduction to
Welles.
--Kyle Westphal
19642
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:09am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
I've always been puzzled by people who claim that THE MAGNIFICENT
AMBERSONS is Welles' best film. After RKO's cutting and reshooting,
the film just doesn't seem to me to be 'there' anymore. Or do the
film's admirers see themselves as making a leap of faith, praising
the masterpiece that must have existed before RKO intervened? There's
no question that it's a great trailer.
It wasn't so long ago that you couldn't consider yourself a serious
cinephile unless you declared MR ARKADIN to be Welles' best film.
Personally, I'd go for THE TRIAL.
19643
From:
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
Kyle,
Well, I can report that my preference for "Chimes at Midnight" over all the
other Welles films is "purely a matter of taste"; indeed, I saw (and loved)
"Chimes" before seeing (and loving, to a lesser degree) "Kane." Similarly, while
I'm sure that some people regard my championing of a fragment from an
unfinished Welles film, "The Dreamers," above "Kane" as polemical, I can assure you
that there are few films (whether they be short, long, finished, or unfinished)
I value as much as that fragment.
I'm also sure that Fred's ranking of "F for Fake" as his favorite Welles is
equally sincere. Having seen the film in 35mm this summer - and having been
moved nearly to tears by the Chartres sequence (one of the great sequences in
cinema history) - I could easily see myself doing the same.
I do agree with you that there is often no point to outright dismissing
"Kane" ONLY to "reorder the canon"; but since my tastes are, as far as I can judge,
pure, I don't think I've ever done that. "Citizen Kane" is a great film.
The transition from the Thatcher Library to Kane's boyhood - with the big,
script letters reading, "I first encountered Mr. Kane..." and the astonishing
Herrmann music cue - is breathtaking, a sequence to rank with my favorites in the
later works. I only wish that those who see it and are inspired to get into
the rest of Welles's filmography had easier access to "Chimes at Midnight" or,
indeed, some of the unfinished works.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19644
From:
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:26pm
Subject: Re: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
Brad Stevens wrote:
"I've always been puzzled by people who claim that THE MAGNIFICENT
AMBERSONS is Welles' best film."
Really? Due to the re-editing, cutting, and added material, it's by
definition flawed and imperfect. But as it is, "Ambersons" has so, so many
extraordinary things (the strawberry shortcake scene and the sleigh ride!) and I think
it even overcomes RKO's changes up to a certain point. I seem to recall
Welles, on having re-seen the film on television in the '70s or '80s, even saying
something along these lines: that RKO's changes were mostly small, dumb things
for the first hour or so, but at a point late in the picture, "it becomes their
movie." (Jonathan or Bill, do you know to whom Welles is purported to have
said this?) In any event, until the point that it becomes "their movie," it's
remarkably coherent for a butchered work of art; having re-seen it recently in
35mm confirmed this opinion for me.
For what it's worth, Welles regarded "Mr. Arkadin" as having been more
grossly mutilated than "Ambersons." He says this in Leslie Megahey's outstanding
1982 BBC interview.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19645
From:
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 8:35pm
Subject: Nicholas Meyer?
I was curious what our members think of this director. I know Dan Sallitt
champions at least one of his films, "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan," which I
saw recently and liked quite a bit. A quick glance at his subsequent works
(which include the TV film "The Day After") doesn't necessarily instill
confidence in me that he's a great, underrated filmmaker, but one never knows; and I
liked the "Star Trek" film enough where I felt compelled to ask.
Thanks (and a belated thanks to Ruy for his great cataloguing of Cahiers du
Cinema issues about Robert Wise!),
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19646
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:44am
Subject: Witney (was Re: The Long and the Short of it)
bradstevens wrote:
> SANTA FE PASSAGE is the best of the ones I've seen. I have several
of
> Witney's Roy Rogers vehicles on tape, but haven't got around to
> watching them yet. I was turned on to Witney by Quentin Tarantino,
> who spoke about his obsession with Witney in an interview published
> by a British newspaper a few years back.
I also became aquainted with Witney through Tarantino via a NY Piece
about his love of "The Golden Stallion" (of course, later used so
well near the finale of "Kill Bill, Vol 2"). I believe he mentioned
that he showed "Paratroop Command" to Bogdanovich, who liked it a
great deal.
"The Girls on the Beach", as trivial as it may be in Witney's career,
has the best time timed 'directed by' credit in any film i've ever
seen.
-Aaron
19647
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:46am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
"It wasn't so long ago that you couldn't consider yourself a serious
cinephile unless you declared MR ARKADIN to be Welles' best film.
Personally, I'd go for THE TRIAL."
As a teenage cinephile I remember reading in Film Culture and some
other periodicals that claim about MR ARKADIN after I'd seen it and
didn't connect with it. Later I learned that its presence on a few
10 best lists was a way for cinephile critics to support Welles (bear
in mind that ARKADIN wasn't released in the USA until 1961.) The
same claim was made for THE TRIAL when it was originally released in
the USA for the same reasons. Short-sighted mainstream critics
panned both movies, so over-praise by the critics who understood and
appreciated Welles seems understandable.
As to AMBERSONS, one way of appreciating it is to regard it as a
damaged torso by Michaelangelo, look at what's left and extrapolate
what's missing (and it's easier to do now since the publication of
the Carringer book on AMBERSONS.)
Richard
19648
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:53am
Subject: re: "Goodfellas" and its reputation (was Re: Brooks & McCarey )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> You condemn the canonical but there is an anti-canonical stance
> that consists in singling out as a filmmaker's best one of his
> lesser known or "minor" films. Does it make more sense to say
> that "F for Fake" (which I love) is Welles' best than to say
> that "Kane" is? I'm not sure.
One thing is to attempt demoting "Goodfellas" by saying its hollow,
rather than demostraiting why "Casino" should be better; something I
am completely unable to see, thus therefor would love to be shown.
Another thing however is to demote "Goodfellas" by demoting another
piece of great film, like "Citizen Kane", by saying that "F for Fake"
is a better film than Kane, Ambersons, Touch of Evil and Othello combined.
What does one gain by demoting a great film, a classic even, to
skitrow status, by promoting a directors most obscure film as the best?
It just so happends I saw "Goodfellas" again tonight. While Im not a
Scorsese expert, it has become a film I treasure alongside "Raging
Bull" and "Taxi Driver", for me it is his third masterpiece. I've
probably seen it 30-40 times, I even read the script from time to
time, because its such a beautiful script. Yet, watching "Casino" next
to it is as having leftovers, as Scorsese imitates his own style, his
own film, "Goodfellas".
To me its sad when people call a film like this superficial and
overblown, and even more sad, when people try to demote its quality.
It hurts me, not only because its a film I love and treasure, but also
because I am completely unable to see why.
"One day... one day some of the kids from the neighbourhood carried my
mother's groceries all the way home. You know why? It was out of respect."
Find me one line in "Casino" that can top this line, how it emphasizes
Henry's love for the gangsters, how it penetrates the screen and
becomes a direct personal messege from Henry to us, the viewers, by
stopping time itself. This is Scorsese Magic, something which "Casino"
has little of.
Henrik
19649
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:55am
Subject: Re: Nicholas Meyer?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I was curious what our members think of this director. I know Dan
Sallitt
> champions at least one of his films, "Star Trek II: The Wrath of
Khan," which I
> saw recently and liked quite a bit. A quick glance at his
subsequent works
> (which include the TV film "The Day After") doesn't necessarily
instill
> confidence in me that he's a great, underrated filmmaker, but one
never knows; and I
> liked the "Star Trek" film enough where I felt compelled to ask.
>
> Thanks (and a belated thanks to Ruy for his great cataloguing of
Cahiers du
> Cinema issues about Robert Wise!),
>
> Peter
I think he's a better writer than a director, though his two "Star
Trek" films are the best of that series. "Time After Time" has a
great premise, but I wouldn't consider the mise en scene anything
special. He also wrote the terrific B movie "Invasion of the Bee
Girls", which I hold some special fondness for.
-Aaron
19650
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:59am
Subject: Re: Nicholas Meyer?
He's not without interest
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g012/nicholasmeyer.shtml
But personal problems have stood in the way of his
career.
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I was curious what our members think of this
> director. I know Dan Sallitt
> champions at least one of his films, "Star Trek II:
> The Wrath of Khan," which I
> saw recently and liked quite a bit. A quick glance
> at his subsequent works
> (which include the TV film "The Day After") doesn't
> necessarily instill
> confidence in me that he's a great, underrated
> filmmaker, but one never knows; and I
> liked the "Star Trek" film enough where I felt
> compelled to ask.
>
> Thanks (and a belated thanks to Ruy for his great
> cataloguing of Cahiers du
> Cinema issues about Robert Wise!),
>
> Peter
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
19651
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:37am
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
Brad:
> I've always been puzzled by people who claim that THE MAGNIFICENT
> AMBERSONS is Welles' best film. After RKO's cutting and reshooting,
> the film just doesn't seem to me to be 'there' anymore. Or do the
> film's admirers see themselves as making a leap of faith, praising
> the masterpiece that must have existed before RKO intervened?
How can we be positive that the film was "there" to begin with? I,
myself, am always puzzled by the kneejerk assumption that
RKO "ruined" a masterpiece. Without seeing the original product, we
can do no more than offer educated and unverifiable guesses about the
quality of the original cut. Improbable though it may be, we have to
allow ourselves at least some hypothetical space that maybe, just
maybe, the AMBERSONS we have is better than the AMBERSONS Welles
first put together. Would I bet money on RKO's version being
superior if somebody miraculously came up with the cut footage?
Well, no, I wouldn't. But it is an option. And the film as it is,
rendered into something less than purely Wellesian, nevertheless
strikes me as a masterpiece.
It's been too long since I've seen AMBERSONS to make a good case for
it, but put a gun to my head and I'd probably cite it as my favorite
Welles. (Never have seen CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT, though.) I think it
articulates very well the conflicting (and connected) senses of being
both insider and outsider, young and old, in a particular milieu, one
that is social, philosophical, and aesthetic. I think it packs a
harder emotional punch than any other Welles I've seen (Chartres
sequence exempted): a lot of the "baroque" visual stylings of KANE
and later efforts seem to be less intimately felt than in AMBERSONS.
What I remember most about watching that movie was its 'sting.' Does
this see familiar to anyone?
I'll have to see it again soon.
--Zach
19652
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:45am
Subject: Re: Film Vocabulary (Was: Why Italy?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Tom Sutpen wrote:
>
> > Can't we just call them Motion Pictures and have done with it?
>
> Tom, I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, or Zen, but if you're
> serious then your statement makes absolutely no sense to me. Anyone who
> writes about film is aware of the necessity for sometimes using
synonyms
> -- movie, film, motion picture, photoplay, etc. So for one thing,
> several words are needed.
*****
I'll confess I was serious. I was laboring under the impression that
this thread (and yes, I have read all the posts in it) was an effort
to determine which term might best encompass as many modes of
cinematic expression as possible without bruising the sensibilities of
those who find certain words somehow inherently pejorative or biased
(biased towards what, though?). Of course, when someone is writing
about Cinema (if they absolutely have to, I mean) then they have a
number of synonyms at their disposal, as you've pointed out. For me
they all have the same meaning; so the only standard I ever used in
their application is whether a given word fit into the rhythm of a
sentence.
> If
> these nuances of language don't interest you, that's fine; they're not
> going to interest everyone. But then there's also no need to comment.
*****
My apologies for seeming to make light of such an issue. But, far from
being uninterested in a discussion concerning which of the
interchangeable words used to classify this art are Correct and which
one's aren't, I've found it utterly fascinating. The statement was
simply my offering in the debate, nothing more. It was posted with the
same intent as everyone else's (I hope): to be either agreed with or
argued against.
Perhaps my use of the phrase "have done with it" implied that I wished
to shut down the discussion then and there. Well, I can assure you,
all of you, that this is not the case. It is, in fact, the very last
thing I'd want.
Believe me, this is one thread I could read forever and never lose
interest in.
> Also, to Tom and everyone, please STOP quoting entire posts unless you
> are replying to every sentence in the post; they take up significant
space in our archives.
*****
I apologize for taking up space in the archives.
Tom Sutpen
19653
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:48am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Kyle,
>
> Well, I can report that my preference for "Chimes at Midnight" over
all the
> other Welles films is "purely a matter of taste"; indeed, I saw (and
loved)
> "Chimes" before seeing (and loving, to a lesser degree) "Kane."
Similarly, while
> I'm sure that some people regard my championing of a fragment from an
> unfinished Welles film, "The Dreamers," above "Kane" as polemical, I
can assure you
> that there are few films (whether they be short, long, finished, or
unfinished)
> I value as much as that fragment.
>
> I'm also sure that Fred's ranking of "F for Fake" as his favorite
Welles is
> equally sincere.
In my original post, I acknowledged that many people who cite the
later Welles films do so with great sincerity. I still stand by that
assertion.
At the same time, I do sense a brand of elitism on occasion, and not
too far from the "you're not a true cinephile until MR. ARKARDIN is
your favorite Welles film" comment. In his review of the '98 cut of
TOUCH OF EVIL, Fred makes a similar (though nowhere near as hardlined)
argument:
"Viewers with art-house standards of classy dialogue and acting who
gravitate to the obvious stylistic flourishes of CITIZEN KANE will
still prefer that film to the integrated visual field of TOUCH OF EVIL."
It just seems strange to write, in 1998, about a film from 1941, with
the main reference being a reaction to the art-house sensibility of
the late 1960s. I know the art-house crowd is one of Fred's peeves
[what with their lattes and Verdi records playing before the umpteenth
showing of L'ECLISSE! :)] but I think there's life for a film beyond
one particular critical context.
It just seems like a perpetual game of one-upmanship sometimes. Common
truisms: "You won't appreciate Bergman after you've seen Dreyer,"
"You're not a true Ford fan if you prefer the Oscar-grubbing GRAPES OF
WRATH to the poetry of THE SEARCHERS." I'm sure most on this board are
familiar with this tendency in film culture.
Basically, if people sincerely appreciate a film or a filmmaker, I'm
not sure it's a critic's place to dismiss those works. At the same
time, I cringed when a boy around my age (18) recited his "Top 5 Films
of All-Time" List, even though I think all the titles have varying
degrees of merit:
1. BLADE RUNNER
2. TAXI DRIVER
3. MEMENTO
4. CHINATOWN
5. DR. STRANGELOVE
6. CITIZEN KANE
I think we're all guilty, on occasion, of distancing ourselves from a
film we once respected because its fan base doesn't meet our 'standards.'
Re: AMBERSONS. I love it, but haven't seen it in a few years. The next
time I get the chance, I'm going to pay more attention to the affects
of the obvious studio trims. In some ways, I suspect that the "lost
film" aura surrounding AMBERSONS enrich its melancholy sense of
vanishing time.
And for the record, I prefer FLOATING WEEDS to TOKYO STORY and several
other Mizoguchi films (among them, the undervalued MY LOVE HAS BEEN
BURNING) to UGETSU.
--Kyle Westphal
19654
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:59am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
wrote:
>
> I'm fine with someone proclaiming that TOUCH OF EVIL is a "better"
> film than KANE; but so often, the late Welles films are cited with a
> degree of arrogance. "Well, KANE -- that's not a bad choice for
> someone who knows their movie history from Blockbuster, but CHIMES
AT
> MIDNIGHT is such a richer experience ..." I have no objection to
> reordering the canon, but there doesn't seem much point in doing so
by
> dismissing the film that will, for most, be a sterling introduction
to
> Welles.
I'm not ashamed to say that "Citizen Kane" remains my favorite Welles
film. Every time I see it I'm just completely astonished by it. I
also think "Ambersons," "Touch Of Evil," and "Lady From Shanghai" are
all great films that move and delight me.
I AM ashamed to say I've never seen "Chimes At Midnight" or "F For
Fake."
19655
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:02am
Subject: Re: Nicholas Meyer?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I was curious what our members think of this director. I know Dan
Sallitt
> champions at least one of his films, "Star Trek II: The Wrath of
Khan," which I
> saw recently and liked quite a bit. A quick glance at his
subsequent works
> (which include the TV film "The Day After") doesn't necessarily instill
> confidence in me that he's a great, underrated filmmaker, but one
never knows; and I
> liked the "Star Trek" film enough where I felt compelled to ask.
*****
Apart from the above, Meyer directed another interesting, though
flawed, film in the late-70's, "Time After Time". What I've seen of
the rest of his output doesn't bear much scrutiny.
He has a longer, marginally more distinguished track record as a
screenwriter.
> Thanks (and a belated thanks to Ruy for his great cataloguing of
Cahiers du
> Cinema issues about Robert Wise!),
*****
Good luck finding them.
Tom Sutpen
19656
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:07am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona" wrote:
> I AM ashamed to say I've never seen "Chimes At Midnight" or "F For
> Fake."
Beatrice Welles doesn't want you to see the former. Your mounting
sense of shame will translate into a nice royalty check for her when
she finally oversees the "UBER-DELUXE 40th ANNIVERSARY RESTORATION"
version.
As I've said before on this board, Doc has a decent 35mm print of
CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT just lying around in the projection room (next to
misc. reels of RUN LOLA RUN) that we can't show.
--Kyle Westphal
19657
From:
Date: Mon Dec 27, 2004 10:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
Kyle Westphal wrote:
>I think we're all guilty, on occasion, of distancing ourselves from a
>film we once respected because its fan base doesn't meet our 'standards.'
That's undoubtedly true and we ought try to overcome it whenever we can. Me,
I simply try as best I can to deal with the work on its own terms. I
actually love one of the "prestigious" Ford films, "How Green Was My Valley" (the
infamous movie that beat out "Citizen Kane"!), just as much as I do an auteurist
favorite such as "The Sun Shines Bright." But your larger point is taken and
I appreciate you making it; it's something we should all keep in mind before
dismissing or underrating a "Citizen Kane" or "The Grapes of Wrath."
Peter
19658
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:33am
Subject: Re: Re: Film Vocabulary (Was: Why Italy?)
Tom,
I'm sorry if I came across harshly, and I'm glad the thread interests
you. The point of my original post, though, was not to figure out what
words to use or not to use (except for that "short" problem), but simply
to explore biases inherent in language, and language that has less bias.
I'm not trying to get people to change their vocabulary, with the
possible exception of protesting the use of "film" for sync-sound
narrative feature made with a crew etc., which seems just plan wrong
usage. Of course, usage depends on context, and Bill is right not to
question the proverbial J. B.'s use of "film," though I would have
thought J.B. would have said "fillum." (Who authored the old quip about
how the only two-syllable word the old-time original movie moguls knew
was "fillum"?)
I believe I've mentioned before a hilarious moment in Aldrich's great
"The Legend of Lylah Clare" in which the hard-bitten movie director
(appropriately played by Ernest Borgnine) goes apoplectic with rage
after his more feminine son talks about making a "film." What does he
shout -- "I make PICTURES," I think, or "I make MOVIES."
So, just for fun:
film
movie
picture
motion picture
photoplay
show
flick
These seem to be the main ones, but I wonder if we're forgetting any?
Fred Camper
19659
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:40am
Subject: Status and Cinema (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> But your larger point is taken and
> I appreciate you making it; it's something we should all keep in
mind before
> dismissing or underrating a "Citizen Kane" or "The Grapes of Wrath."
*****
It is odd, isn't it, how so much of the practice of auteurism by we
who follow it is concerned with phenomena such as attitude; stance;
appearance; the deliberate championing of one film over another for
reasons that too frequently have little to do with the respective
merits of either. Ultimately it shouldn't matter to us one bit that
"The Grapes of Wrath" is a more honored work than "The Sun Shines
Bright" or "The Long Gray Line", but it often does, as you point out.
In fact, it could be said (by someone; not me of course) that to
either elevate one film or dismiss another with more than one eye on
its institutional standing reveals how status-oriented we allow our
critical judgement to become at times.
As you say, we should all keep that in mind and try to avoid at all costs.
Tom Sutpen
19660
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:53am
Subject: Re: Film Vocabulary (Was: Why Italy?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> So, just for fun:
>
> film
> movie
> picture
> motion picture
> photoplay
> show
> flick
>
> These seem to be the main ones, but I wonder if we're forgetting
any?
Well, it's awlways "A Spike Lee Joint"
19661
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:03am
Subject: varying degrees of merit
K. A. Westphal:
> At the same
> time, I cringed when a boy around my age (18) recited his "Top 5
Films
> of All-Time" List, even though I think all the titles have varying
> degrees of merit:
>
> 1. BLADE RUNNER
> 2. TAXI DRIVER
> 3. MEMENTO
> 4. CHINATOWN
> 5. DR. STRANGELOVE
> 6. CITIZEN KANE
>
Just out of curiosity, what the hell is so wrong with an 18-year-old
having a favorites list like this?
-Bilge
19662
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:19am
Subject: The sublime KUNG FU HUSTLE !
Dear friends - I don't know how many members have had a chance to catch it
yet (it is enjoying a semi-clandestine season in Melbourne Chinatown, a day
after its Hong Kong premiere!), but Stephen Chiau's new KUNG FU HUSTLE is an
absolutely sublime comedy, 'way out there' on every level. (It will be
interesting to see if the American release version - it's a Sony production
- tones down any of the spectacularly violent and surreal gags in it - and
perhaps even the parodies of Zhang Yimou and Wong Kar-wai!!.)
I speak as a big fan of his previous films like SHAOLIN SOCCER and GOD OF
COOKERY, but this takes Chiau's whole aesthetic to an amazing new dimension
- the use of digital effects for the purposes of comedy is extraordinary.
It was fascinating to see it in the same week as watching the
recently-released Jerry Lewis DVDs already commented on ecstatically by list
members. Old-time cinephilia must not blind us to the march of the new:
Jerry was a great director in his heyday, but everything he was doing as a
performer and a formalist is being taken to new realms (and new extremes) by
Chiau. This guy is the greatest, and he is still a long way from receiving
his due from English-sepaking critics (I suspect he is not yet a big deal in
some centres of European film culture, either).
I expect to see few better films in 2005 than KUNG FU HUSTLE. I'm heading
back for a few more viewings before the print disappears on the plane to
Sony head office ...
Adrian
19663
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:48am
Subject: Chimes and Kane
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
wrote:
> I'm fine with someone proclaiming that TOUCH OF EVIL is a "better"
> film than KANE; but so often, the late Welles films are cited with a
> degree of arrogance. "Well, KANE -- that's not a bad choice for
> someone who knows their movie history from Blockbuster, but CHIMES
AT
> MIDNIGHT is such a richer experience ..." I have no objection to
> reordering the canon, but there doesn't seem much point in doing so
by
> dismissing the film that will, for most, be a sterling introduction
to
> Welles.
>
> --Kyle Westphal
Welles is on record that, in his opinion, Chimes at Midnight is his
best film. He said it more than once, and even said it on camera on
the Dick Cavett Show. It's my favorite of his films too. I think the
reason that for a long time Welles' defenders have gone out of their
way to champion Chimes over Kane is that "Kane as the film he never
equalled" became the centerpiece of the myth of Welles as Failure.
Kane is one of his best films, no doubt of it, but Chimes is,
essentially, the film he first went to H'wd for: His touring
production of Five Kings was running out of cash, and the RKO
contract promised cash. Eventually he succeeded in making Five Kings
as Chimes at Midnight, after a lifetime preparing for it, and for
once a filmmaker's dream project was everything that could have been
hoped for.
I tend to find Welles' work a little depressing, but I could watch
Chimes at Midnight over and over. It's one of the high points of
Western civilization. Orson Welles directing Shakespeare's crowning
masterpiece (IMO) and playing his greatest character (IMO): How are
you going to top that?
19664
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:50am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Brad Stevens wrote:
> Welles, on having re-seen the film on television in the '70s
or '80s, even saying
> something along these lines: that RKO's changes were mostly small,
dumb things
> for the first hour or so, but at a point late in the picture, "it
becomes their
> movie." (Jonathan or Bill, do you know to whom Welles is purported
to have
> said this?)
He said it to Bogdanovich , as I recall -- it's in This Is Orson
Welles.
19665
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:54am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> As to AMBERSONS, one way of appreciating it is to regard it as a
> damaged torso by Michaelangelo, look at what's left and extrapolate
> what's missing (and it's easier to do now since the publication of
> the Carringer book on AMBERSONS.)
>
> Richard
The recutting of Ambersons is the greatest tragedy in film history.
I'd throw every frame of It's All True into the bay where legend had
it that it was thrown to recover the first preview version of
Ambersons.
19666
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:56am
Subject: Re: Nicholas Meyer?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> > I was curious what our members think of this director.
I think the film he'll be remembered for is The Day After.
19667
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:02am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> > Kyle,
> >
> .
>
> It just seems like a perpetual game of one-upmanship sometimes.
Common
> truisms: "You won't appreciate Bergman after you've seen Dreyer,"
> "You're not a true Ford fan if you prefer the Oscar-grubbing GRAPES
OF
> WRATH to the poetry of THE SEARCHERS." I'm sure most on this board
are
> familiar with this tendency in film culture.
It's so omnipresent that if we started seriously discussing it, we
might end up shutting a_film_by down, and with it Cahiers du cinema
and many other institutions I hold dear.
>
I cringed when a boy around my age (18) recited his "Top 5 Films
> of All-Time" List, even though I think all the titles have varying
> degrees of merit:
>
> 1. BLADE RUNNER
> 2. TAXI DRIVER
> 3. MEMENTO
> 4. CHINATOWN
> 5. DR. STRANGELOVE
> 6. CITIZEN KANE
He's 18 - he hasn't seen everything. Those are all worthy
films...when you're 18. I'd hate to think what MY list would've been!
19668
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:09am
Subject: Re: The sublime KUNG FU HUSTLE !
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> It was fascinating to see it in the same week as watching the
> recently-released Jerry Lewis DVDs already commented on
ecstatically by list
> members. Old-time cinephilia must not blind us to the march of the
new:
> Jerry was a great director in his heyday, but everything he was
doing as a
> performer and a formalist is being taken to new realms (and new
extremes) by
> Chiau.
Habelove turned me on to God of Cookery, and I talked someone who was
gift-hunting into giving it to John Landis - never heard what he
thought of it. My recollection is, Jer has nothing to fear from
Chiau, but of course I can't wait to see the new one. Wouldn't be
surprised if it was already at Cinefile!
19669
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:10am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> K. A. Westphal:
> > At the same
> > time, I cringed when a boy around my age (18) recited his "Top 5
> Films
> > of All-Time" List, even though I think all the titles have varying
> > degrees of merit:
> >
> > 1. BLADE RUNNER
> > 2. TAXI DRIVER
> > 3. MEMENTO
> > 4. CHINATOWN
> > 5. DR. STRANGELOVE
> > 6. CITIZEN KANE
> >
>
> Just out of curiosity, what the hell is so wrong with an 18-year-old
> having a favorites list like this?
>
> -Bilge
Nothing is especially wrong with it. I'm sure those films moved him in
some way. As I've said, I like all those films in some way or another,
some more than others. KANE deserves a special note later in this
post, but the other five are very dark, neo-noir pieces that, I think,
appeal especially to the age group. It was just a predictable list,
the sort of thing I always see on amazon.com listmania.
Certainly after my recent posts, I'm not going to say that his list
reflects a lack of taste and cultivation. It's somewhat similar, but
not exactly that. Basically, I thought all of those were great films
at some point or another (I still would apply that label to BLADE
RUNNER, MEMENTO, and CHINATOWN). But I see how they "work." They're
like the indie films that you're supposed to feel hip for having seen.
They're films with bleak world views (I'm generalizing here) that
congratulate the viewer for identifying with the cynicism. To put it
another way, it's just a very standard sort of list that I think a
teenage film buff compile as a reaction against the sunshine of
typical Hollywood stuff. It's as much an aesthetic as an attitude.
I shouldn't criticize that heavily since I believe they're all good to
great films. It's the sort of "moving away from one film or another
for what it represents" thing I was talking about earlier. TAXI DRIVER
was a film that taught me what film could do, how a director can plant
a character or a place in the mind that grows more vivid and rich each
time it's remembered. But at the same time, when I watched the movie
again recently, I felt disengaged from it. I'm sure some will
disagree, but the sense I get is that the film "works" only if we
identify with Travis, if we channel all our frustrations and anger
into the character and remark that "it's the ultimate expression of
loneliness."
Again, I really shouldn't criticize another film fan's list so easily,
but this one just triggered something in me. Hope that answers your
question.
--Kyle Westphal
19670
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:17am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> K. A. Westphal:
> > At the same
> > time, I cringed when a boy around my age (18) recited his "Top 5
> Films
> > of All-Time" List, even though I think all the titles have varying
> > degrees of merit:
> >
> > 1. BLADE RUNNER
> > 2. TAXI DRIVER
> > 3. MEMENTO
> > 4. CHINATOWN
> > 5. DR. STRANGELOVE
> > 6. CITIZEN KANE
> >
>
> Just out of curiosity, what the hell is so wrong with an 18-year-old
> having a favorites list like this?
>
> -Bilge
I said I would address KANE in this context, and I neglected to do so
in the last post.
It's a great amusement to read young film buff lists. If it's a Top 5,
KANE is always #6, if it's a Top 10, KANE is always #11. It's a cute
little gesture, this pressure to include this old black-and-white
marvel (that you had to watch in class and didn't like the first time)
just outside your pantheon of assorted recent spectacles.
(For those who've read my last couple posts, please take the sweeping
generalizations of film appreciation with a grain of salt.)
--Kyle Westphal
19671
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:21am
Subject: Re: Film Vocabulary (Was: Why Italy?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> So, just for fun:
>
> film
> movie
> picture
> motion picture
> photoplay
> show
> flick
>
> These seem to be the main ones, but I wonder if we're forgetting
any?
>
> Fred Camper
Well, Fred, at the risk of repeating myself (but you asked for it,
originally): where you have at least half a dozen words, the French
have only one ("film")and it never hampered their thinking or
talking or writing about the cinema.
19672
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:26am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> K. A. Westphal:
> > At the same
> > time, I cringed when a boy around my age (18) recited his "Top 5
> Films
> > of All-Time" List, even though I think all the titles have
varying
> > degrees of merit:
> >
> > 1. BLADE RUNNER
> > 2. TAXI DRIVER
> > 3. MEMENTO
> > 4. CHINATOWN
> > 5. DR. STRANGELOVE
> > 6. CITIZEN KANE
> >
>
> Just out of curiosity, what the hell is so wrong with an 18-year-
old
> having a favorites list like this?
>
> -Bilge
All but one of the six films were made before he was born. That
makes him a very special 18 year old.
So K.A.W. you are only 18?!
JPC
19673
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:38am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> All but one of the six films were made before he was born. That
> makes him a very special 18 year old.
>
> So K.A.W. you are only 18?!
>
> JPC
Blatantly personal and uncinematic use of a_film_by on my part, but to
respond to JPC: yeah.
19674
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:43am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> > All but one of the six films were made before he was born.
That
> > makes him a very special 18 year old.
> >
> > So K.A.W. you are only 18?!
> >
> > JPC
>
> Blatantly personal and uncinematic use of a_film_by on my part,
but to
> respond to JPC: yeah.
Well, I think it's damn important to know whether a person is 18
or 30 or 50 or, like me, 69. So you're even more special than that
other teenager who made you cringe . Of course that's why you're on
this very special List of very opinionated specialists. JPC
19675
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:02am
Subject: Re: Chimes and Kane
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
>
> Welles is on record that, in his opinion, Chimes at Midnight is his
> best film. He said it more than once, and even said it on camera on
> the Dick Cavett Show. It's my favorite of his films too. I think the
> reason that for a long time Welles' defenders have gone out of their
> way to champion Chimes over Kane is that "Kane as the film he never
> equalled" became the centerpiece of the myth of Welles as Failure.
*****
Does anyone still believe that? I know at one time this was reputed to
be the conventional wisdom on Orson Welles' career(largely because
Welles went around complaining about it), but I'm hard-pressed to
think of anyone I've ever spoken to or read, anyone possessing a
rudimentary understanding of Cinema, who accepts that old saw about
"Kane" being the one film he never equalled. To me, "Ambersons"
(mutilated though it is), "Chimes", even "F for Fake" all have deeper
beauties to behold.
Tom Sutpen
19676
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:08am
Subject: Re: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> He's 18 - he hasn't seen everything. Those are all
> worthy
> films...when you're 18. I'd hate to think what MY
> list would've been!
>
>
WellI was 18 in 1965 so my list would have been
1. Gertrud
2. Singin' in the Rain
3. A Woman is a Woman
4. Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne
5. Bay of the Angels
6. Le Crime de M. Lange
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
19677
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:23am
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
> wrote:
> > As to AMBERSONS, one way of appreciating it is to regard it as a
> > damaged torso by Michaelangelo, look at what's left and extrapolate
> > what's missing (and it's easier to do now since the publication of
> > the Carringer book on AMBERSONS.)
> >
> > Richard
>
> The recutting of Ambersons is the greatest tragedy in film history.
*****
It might be quibbling, but I'd place MGM's wanton mutilation of
"Greed" at the top of the CineTragedy scale. I say "wanton" because,
while there were one or two screenings of Stroheim's cut before Irving
Thalberg got his meat axe out, none were quite so disastrous as the
infamous Pomona screening of "The Magnificent Ambersons".
The Powers-That-Were at RKO at least had those waterheaded Preview
Cards on which to base their rationale for slashing away at Welles's
film. MGM didn't have anything like that to cite as an excuse.
Tom Sutpen
19678
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:01am
Subject: Last Night, When We Were Young (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > He's 18 - he hasn't seen everything. Those are all
> > worthy
> > films...when you're 18. I'd hate to think what MY
> > list would've been!
> >
> >
> WellI was 18 in 1965 so my list would have been
>
> 1. Gertrud
> 2. Singin' in the Rain
> 3. A Woman is a Woman
> 4. Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne
> 5. Bay of the Angels
> 6. Le Crime de M. Lange
*****
For the purposes of this post, I just dug out a list I put together at
17 (which was 1983, for those playing along at home), during my Boy
Critic days. I think it says as much about the pitfalls of youthful
cinephillia as anything else. At any rate, here's the Top Ten (out of 50):
1. "Dr. Strangelove"
2. "City Lights"
3. "Rashomon"
4. "Touch of Evil" (you see? I was playing the reverse-snob auteurist
game even then)
5. "Blow Up"
6. "Through a Glass Darkly"
7. "M"
8. "Ugetsu"
9. "Citizen Kane" (but of course!)
10. "Shoot the Piano Player"
A list of that quality was, of course, practically a paint-by-numbers
effort.
You see, while I kidded myself at the time that this was a list of
Favorites or, barring that, a list of what I then-believed to be the
very best of what I'd seen up till then, it in fact represented an
attitude that I more or less deliberately adopted; an exercise in
cultural posturing; a semi-conscious abjuration of the Hollywood model
in favor of the "deeper" values inherent to what I unhesitatingly
described, out loud, as World Cinema (of course, I fully realize now
that no *serious* cinephile would ever judge a film on a basis other
than its cinematic achievement . . . or lack thereof, if I may be
permitted to suggest such a condition).
I remember still, to this moment, the glow within me whenever I spoke
or wrote about my everlasting preference for thoroughgoing works of
art (from other countries, of course) over the mere entertainments
Hollywood so cynically threw at generations of us. I ask you (as the
music swells), was anyone ever so young?
Tom "Marchbanks" Sutpen
19679
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:44am
Subject: Re: Chimes and Kane
hotlove666:
> Welles is on record that, in his opinion, Chimes at Midnight is
his
> best film.
I saw it for the first time on a lousy pirated VHS tape, with snow
and a really unsteady vertical; can't even begin to describe to you
what the sound was like. Never heard Welles' declaration, or
anything about its status. Thought it was the greatest thing I've
ever seen.
Missed it when it showed on that little theater in St. Mark's in New
York; kept checking the theater's schedule--uselessly--for about a
year. Then it showed in an art theater in downtown Detroit for two
nights. I attended both nights because I knew I wasn't going to get
another chance.
That was over ten years ago. Still think it's Welles' crowning
achievement, and one of the greatest films I've ever seen. Greatest
battle sequence, at the very least--everything since, including
Peter Jackson's oversized hobbit flicks, just pale in comparison.
19680
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:52am
Subject: Re: Nicholas Meyer?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I think the film he'll be remembered for is The Day After.
Will probably always remember him for Wrath of Khan, myself. And to
a lesser extent, Time After Time.
Actually, Star Trek 6 wasn't too bad...better by far than that Next
Generation...
19681
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:56am
Subject: Re: Re: varying degrees of merit
Jean-Pierre Coursodon wrote:
>Well, I think it's damn important to know whether a person is 18
>or 30 or 50 or, like me, 69.
Lest we forget that your friendly co-founder/co-moderator of a_film_by was 20
when the group began! I don't remember what my "Top 10" was when I was 18,
though I do actually believe it was considerably different from what it would
be today, a few short years later.
Peter
19682
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:57am
Subject: Re: Re: Nicholas Meyer?
Bill Krohn wrote:
>I think the film he'll be remembered for is The Day After.
Do you mean historically or would you defend the film from an
artisitc/aesthetic perspective?
I'll have to check out "Time After Time" as well.
Peter
19683
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:38am
Subject: Re: Chimes and Kane
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
I think the
> > reason that for a long time Welles' defenders have gone out of
their
> > way to champion Chimes over Kane is that "Kane as the film he
never
> > equalled" became the centerpiece of the myth of Welles as
Failure.
>
> *****
> Does anyone still believe that?
Sure, but not as many as did - thanks to cinephiles taking up the
cudgels for Welles' whole career. It's amazing how long myths
survive. It's called "journalism."
19684
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:44am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > He's 18 - he hasn't seen everything. Those are all
> > worthy
> > films...when you're 18. I'd hate to think what MY
> > list would've been!
> >
> >
> WellI was 18 in 1965 so my list would have been
>
> 1. Gertrud
> 2. Singin' in the Rain
> 3. A Woman is a Woman
> 4. Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne
> 5. Bay of the Angels
> 6. Le Crime de M. Lange
>
I probably had only SEEN 6 great films: Shoot the Piano Player (after
going away to school in Austin), Lust for Life (ditto), Lolita (snuck
in wearing a tux the night of my sister's rehearsal dinner), Some
Like It Hot (with my mother), The Black Cat (on Shock Theatre), uh...
better make that 5. Seriously! Kids today have it knocked thanks to
cable tv.
19685
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:49am
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
> > wrote:
> > > As to AMBERSONS, one way of appreciating it is to regard it as
a
> > > damaged torso by Michaelangelo, look at what's left and
extrapolate
> > > what's missing (and it's easier to do now since the publication
of
> > > the Carringer book on AMBERSONS.)
> > >
> > > Richard
> >
> > The recutting of Ambersons is the greatest tragedy in film
history.
>
> The Powers-That-Were at RKO at least had those waterheaded Preview
> Cards on which to base their rationale for slashing away at Welles's
> film. MGM didn't have anything like that to cite as an excuse.
>
> Tom Sutpen
Well, looked at that way Greed would be more tragic because, like
Oedipus, it was destroyed by irrational forces...but have you taken
into account the Macumba curse put on Welles just before the death of
Jacare and the Ambersons preview?
19686
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:52am
Subject: Last Night, When We Were Young (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> >
> >
> 1. "Dr. Strangelove"
> 2. "City Lights"
> 3. "Rashomon"
> 4. "Touch of Evil" (you see? I was playing the reverse-snob
auteurist
> game even then)
> 5. "Blow Up"
> 6. "Through a Glass Darkly"
> 7. "M"
> 8. "Ugetsu"
> 9. "Citizen Kane" (but of course!)
> 10. "Shoot the Piano Player"
>
> A list of that quality was, of course, practically a paint-by-
numbers
> effort.
>
> You see, while I kidded myself at the time that this was a list of
> Favorites or, barring that, a list of what I then-believed to be the
> very best of what I'd seen up till then, it in fact represented an
> attitude that I more or less deliberately adopted; an exercise in
> cultural posturing; a semi-conscious abjuration of the Hollywood
model
> in favor of the "deeper" values inherent to what I unhesitatingly
> described, out loud, as World Cinema (of course, I fully realize now
> that no *serious* cinephile would ever judge a film on a basis other
> than its cinematic achievement . . . or lack thereof, if I may be
> permitted to suggest such a condition).
>
I'll tell you when you start being honest with yourself: You're at
Amoeba (world's greatest used record/video store) and you have ten
cassettes in your basket and only 5 dollars in your pocket. When that
happens, I suddenly decide to be honest with myself. The results can
be very interesting.
19687
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:53am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (Ambersons)
thebradstevens" wrote:
> I've always been puzzled by people who claim that THE MAGNIFICENT
> AMBERSONS is Welles' best film. After RKO's cutting and reshooting,
> the film just doesn't seem to me to be 'there' anymore. Or do the
> film's admirers see themselves as making a leap of faith, praising
> the masterpiece that must have existed before RKO intervened?
There's
> no question that it's a great trailer.
Being only 20 I haven't had adequate oppotunity to examine Welles'
films, or the critical writings on them, as much as I'd like to. I
think 'Ambersons' is one of his most interesting films, and not just
because it hints at 'what might have been', but for what is actually
in the film. I saw it when I was 10, at that age totally unaware of
its history. I wanted to ask: is the only gripe with 'Magnificent
Ambersons' the fact that it was recut, reshot, etc??? If we didn't
have this knowledge, and assumed that the 88 minutes we have was
Welles' final vision, would we class it alongside 'Kane' and 'The
Trial'?? To what extent should our historical knowledge of the changes
a movie has undergone affect how we, as critics, view it. If all we
have is a battered and mangled version, shouldn't we take it as such,
judge its merits as such, and consider this merely an unavoidable
by-product of the act of making a movie?? Perhaps I'm way off course,
I don't know??? Any thoughts anyone??
- Saul.
19688
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:55am
Subject: Re: Chimes and Kane
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
Still think it's Welles' crowning
> achievement, and one of the greatest films I've ever seen. Greatest
> battle sequence, at the very least--everything since, including
> Peter Jackson's oversized hobbit flicks, just pale in comparison.
Amen. Murch "copied" the Battle of Shrewsbury at the start of Cold
Mountain, but he didn't have the footage. (The Editor's Mantra: "Who
shot this shit?")
19689
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:52am
Subject: Re: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
In a message dated 12/28/04 12:25:39 AM, akira88o@a... writes:
> The Powers-That-Were at RKO at least had those waterheaded Preview Cards on
> which to base their rationale for slashing away at Welles's film.
>
But didn't Rosenbaum uncover in his last book the fact that not all the cards
were negative?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19690
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:59am
Subject: Re: Nicholas Meyer?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Bill Krohn wrote:
>
> >I think the film he'll be remembered for is The Day After.
>
> Do you mean historically or would you defend the film from an
> artisitc/aesthetic perspective?
>
Historically, in terms of visceral impact, and also as a piece of
filmmaking. The moment when people in Kansas start screaming because
they see their OWN missile silos (which they didn't even know were
there) opening and firing and realize that Russian missiles are or
will soon be on the way is really unforgettable, and I like the way
Meyer uses disaster film conventions only to subvert them: Yes the
boy and girl who meet on the survival trek fall in love, but in two
days they look like characters from Night of the living Dead, just
like all the other survivors...
19691
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:01am
Subject: Re: Re: Welles and the Canon (Ambersons)
Saul Symonds wrote:
>If we didn't
>have this knowledge, and assumed that the 88 minutes we have was
>Welles' final vision, would we class it alongside 'Kane' and 'The
>Trial'??
I think there's some truth to this. Of course, it's impossible for me to
step outside of my knowledge of the production (and the disasters thereof), but
nevertheless I take a stance similar to Welles's: if one had no knowledge of
them, the alterations made to the first hour or so are not that troublesome and
maybe wouldn't even be detectable. It's only the last section - and
ESPECIALLY the last scene shot by Freddie Fleck - which feels completely out of whack,
and I think it would to anybody watching the film, no matter how much or how
little they knew about the production.
By the way, Bill, loved your post on "Chimes" as one of the great
achievements of Western civilization! Welles said that if he had to get into heaven on
the basis of one of his films, "Chimes" would be the one he would offer up.
Peter
19692
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:06am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
>
If all we
> have is a battered and mangled version, shouldn't we take it as
such,
> judge its merits as such, and consider this merely an unavoidable
> by-product of the act of making a movie??
My very high opinion of Ambersons IS based on what's there, but
thanks to RKO, it's badly flawed at the end. Oja told a story at the
memorial service about walking in on Welles in some hotel room and
finding him in tears - he was watching Ambersons on tv and weeping
over what had been done to it. After the ceremony Wise was asking
people backstage, "Who was that woman? I'll never appear with her
again!"
Of course, we DO know what used to be there, as Welles did, and I
don't see why we shouldn't factor that in. Factoring it out would be
kind of artificial.
19693
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:11am
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/28/04 12:25:39 AM, akira88o@a... writes:
>
>
> > The Powers-That-Were at RKO at least had those waterheaded
Preview Cards on
> > which to base their rationale for slashing away at Welles's film.
> >
> But didn't Rosenbaum uncover in his last book the fact that not all
the cards
> were negative?
Of course they weren't all negative. Neither were all the Topaz
cards, by the way. Some people said "This is the best movie I've ever
seen" (for Ambersons), and some said "This was the best movie I've
seen in years" (for Topaz). And there are preview cards for Suspicion
that indicate some people liked Hitchcock's original ending, indeed
loved the film they had seen. Etc. But there were a lot of bad cards
for Ambersons, and there were other factors involved too.
19694
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:36am
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> >
> I probably had only SEEN 6 great films: Shoot the Piano Player
(after
> going away to school in Austin), Lust for Life (ditto), Lolita
(snuck
> in wearing a tux the night of my sister's rehearsal dinner), Some
> Like It Hot (with my mother), The Black Cat (on Shock Theatre),
uh...
> better make that 5. Seriously! Kids today have it knocked thanks to
> cable tv.
How could I forget: And Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, The Trouble
with Harry, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Gigi (with my sister), The
Incredible Shrinking Man and Curse of the Demon. And of course
Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, the greatest film of all time.
19695
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:42am
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/28/04 12:25:39 AM, akira88o@a... writes:
>
>
> > The Powers-That-Were at RKO at least had those waterheaded Preview
Cards on
> > which to base their rationale for slashing away at Welles's film.
> >
> But didn't Rosenbaum uncover in his last book the fact that not all
the cards
> were negative?
*****
He did, but I don't believe the favorable . . . and in a few cases
glowing . . . preview cards could ever have made much of a difference.
There were more than a few people in the RKO front office still
nursing a grudge over all the hassle "Citizen Kane" caused the year
before; as well as some who weren't exactly thrilled by Welles'
presence on the lot to begin with. Unless the Pomona preview had
yielded iron-clad unanimity among the audience, with every patron to a
man threatening to boycott all RKO releases forever unless "Ambersons"
was issued with no alterations, then it was almost pre-ordained that
the movie would end up suffering needlessly at the hands of those
buccaneers.
Like "Greed", the butchering of "Ambersons" was an act of mainstream
American spite, nothing more.
Tom Sutpen
19696
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:56am
Subject: Roy William Neill: Auteur (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> > I probably had only SEEN 6 great films: Shoot the Piano Player
> (after
> > going away to school in Austin), Lust for Life (ditto), Lolita
> (snuck
> > in wearing a tux the night of my sister's rehearsal dinner), Some
> > Like It Hot (with my mother), The Black Cat (on Shock Theatre),
> uh...
> > better make that 5. Seriously! Kids today have it knocked thanks to
> > cable tv.
>
> How could I forget: And Psycho, Vertigo, Rear Window, The Trouble
> with Harry, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Gigi (with my sister), The
> Incredible Shrinking Man and Curse of the Demon. And of course
> Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman, the greatest film of all time.
*****
Ah, yes. Who could ever forget Roy William Neill; auteur of "Madame
Spy" and "Sherlock Holmes in Washington".
I wonder, did anyone over at "Cahiers du Cinema" think to interview
him (why do I have a horrible, sinking feeling that the answer is
yes)? If they didn't, then in my judgement that would constitute a
major oversight on their part.
(there's so much we could have learned, after all)
Tom "Leenhardt" Sutpen
19697
From: Kristian Andersen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:27am
Subject: re: Last Night, When We Were Young (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
>"I remember still, to this moment, the glow within me whenever I spoke
>or wrote about my everlasting preference for thoroughgoing works of
>art (from other countries, of course) over the mere entertainments
>Hollywood so cynically threw at generations of us. I ask you (as the
>music swells), was anyone ever so young?"
Ray Carney still is. And I think it's more special to be and old hack and
still bang on about that, like Carney does, than be an 18 year old who has
a high degree of self-consciousness, because the high degree of
self-consciousness is just a futherance of the impulse that at first made u
hate ya sister for digging romcoms, that made u start read nietzche, and
write for the skool rag about rohmer or some crap...its all just ego
buildin in, very predictable - just varying degrees of it - but!! to be ray
carney and still bang on about the cynicism is special to me, becos it
doesnt feel like "he hasnt gotten over being anti-hollywood" (why should u
get over it in the first place? its something u should always be - those
who arent, are just bored of the repetitive nature of the argument, thus
being sefl-absorbed rather than really communicating what they think)..so
ray carney's tom noonan / cassavetes praise, the need for human
authetncitiy and all that, seems more RELIGIOUS to me, like he found his
GOD in a particular kind of art - and thats fuckin special.
peace.
kristian
19698
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:32am
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
>
> How can we be positive that the film was "there" to begin with?
Well, we can't. But it's certainly not 'there' now. The final scene
alone is enough to scuttle the whole project.
On the other hand, MR ARKADIN seems to me just fine the way it is
19699
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 0:35pm
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (Ambersons)
I wanted to ask: is the only gripe with 'Magnificent
> Ambersons' the fact that it was recut, reshot, etc??? If we didn't
> have this knowledge, and assumed that the 88 minutes we have was
> Welles' final vision, would we class it alongside 'Kane' and 'The
> Trial'??
I feel reasonably certain that if we had no knowledge of what went on
behind the scenes, we would have to assume that Welles had gone
completely mad, and decided to end AMBERSONS in a manner that
completely contradicted everything which had gone before. The film
would actually be much more satisfying if it simply ended with George
kneeling by the bed after receiving his comeuppance.
I wonder what we would think of CITIZEN KANE if it had been cut by
half and hour, reedited so that all the scenes played in
chronological order, and had a happy ending (perhaps directed by
Robert Wise) in which Susan and Charles Foster Kane are reunited
("I've learned my lesson now Susan. It's not money that buys
happiness").
To what extent should our historical knowledge of the changes
> a movie has undergone affect how we, as critics, view it. If all we
> have is a battered and mangled version, shouldn't we take it as
such,
> judge its merits as such, and consider this merely an unavoidable
> by-product of the act of making a movie??
But these things aren't unavoidable! In any case, I've always been a
firm believer in 'credit where credit's due' - it would be blatantly
unfair to blame Welles' for the final scenes of THE MAGNIFICENT
AMBERSONS, since he had nothing to do with them.
19700
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:39pm
Subject: Re: Nicholas Meyer?
> I was curious what our members think of this director. I know Dan
> Sallitt champions at least one of his films, "Star Trek II: The Wrath of
> Khan," which I saw recently and liked quite a bit. A quick glance at
> his subsequent works (which include the TV film "The Day After") doesn't
> necessarily instill confidence in me that he's a great, underrated
> filmmaker, but one never knows; and I liked the "Star Trek" film enough
> where I felt compelled to ask.
I never liked anything else by Meyer as well as THE WRATH OF KHAN, but I
definitely thought someone was directing that one. It was great to see
action sequences shot and cut for drama, and not just to make things
happen faster and louder. - Dan
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact