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.
19701
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: Welles and the Canon (was: "Goodfellas" and its reputation)
> I'm not ashamed to say that "Citizen Kane" remains my favorite Welles
> film.
Yeah, me too. I certainly don't think it's a lonely eminence in Welles'
career, but I'd give it the nod. - Dan
19702
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:05pm
Subject: Kingdom Hospital?
I am just watching, late night on broadcast TV, some of the Stephen
King-adapted USA version of Lars von Trier's mini-series THE KINGDOM,
renamed KINGDOM HOSPITAL (Lars is Executive Producer, naturally). It looks
to be a strange hybrid, although it's handled by a director I have sometimes
admired, Craig R. Baxley (ACTION JACKSON, anyone?).
Has anybody seen/studied/done the comparison on the these KINGDOMs?
Adrian
19703
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:22pm
Subject: National Film Registry Selections
Films selected to the National Film Registry
By The Associated Press
12/28/04
The 25 films selected this year to join the Library
of Congress' National Film Registry, and the year in
which they premiered: "Ben Hur" (1959)
"The Blue Bird" (1918)
"A Bronx Morning" (1931)
"Clash of the Wolves" (1925)
"The Court Jester" (1956)
"D.O.A" (1950)
"Daughters of the Dust" (1991)
"Duck and Cover" (1951)
"Empire" (1964)
"Enter the Dragon" (1973)
"Eraserhead" (1978)
"Garlic Is As Good As Ten Mothers" (1980)
"Going My Way" (1944)
"Jailhouse Rock" (1957)
"Kannapolis, NC" (1941)
"Lady Helen's Escapade" (1909)
"The Nutty Professor" (1963)
"OffOn" (1968)
"Popeye the Sailor Meets Sinbad the Sailor" (1936)
"Pups is Pups (Our Gang)" (1930)
"Schindler's List" (1993)
"Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" (1954)
"Swing Time" (1936)
"There It Is" (1928)
"Unforgiven" (1992)
----
On the Net:
National Film Preservation Board:
http://www.loc.gov/film
I strongly approve of the selection of "Daughters of
the Dust," "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers," "Swing
Time" and "The Court Jester."
The selection of "Jailhouse Rock " suggests laziness,
as "Loving You" is in every respect the superior
Presley vehicle.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
19704
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:37pm
Subject: Rating Mizoguchi
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal" wrote:
> 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.
I would rank "My Love Has Been Burning" as dead last of all the many
Mizoguchi films I've seen, right under the almost equally dire "Lady
of Musashino" and "Victory of Women". All of these are heavy handed
with remarkably leaden dialog -- and Tanaka is totally wasted in all
these didactic and stilted artifacts -- but I'm sure these pleased the
Occupation film censors, who burned hundreds of probably superior
films. (Being Mizoguchi's work, there are flashes of magic -- but
these are virtually smothered). So far, these are the only Mizoguchi
films I'd describe as affirmatively "bad" overall -- far worse than my
least favorite Ozu ("Munekata Sisters" -- which I'd only set down as
mediocre).
I would place a number of Mizoguchi films above "Ugetsu" and even
"Sansho" -- Definitely "Street of Shame", "Crucified Lovers"
(Chikamartsu monogatari), The Story of Late Chrysanthemums" -- and
maybe "A Geisha" (Gion bayashi), "Utamaro" and "Sisters of Gion". On
the other hand, gradations between A+ and A+++ are rather abstruse.
I am mystified as to why the wonderful (in my opinion) "Uwasa no onna"
(inexplicably called "The Crucified Woman" in the US -- more
accurately, if opaquely, "The Woman of the Rumor") is almost
completely ignored. I personally find more enjoyment in films like
this, because Tanaka actually gets to act -- instead of serving an
iconic (practically generic) function (as she does in "Ugetsu" and
"Sansho").
Michael Kerpan
Boston
19705
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:54pm
Subject: Re: National Film Registry Selections
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> On the Net:
> National Film Preservation Board:
> http://www.loc.gov/film
>
> The selection of "Jailhouse Rock " suggests laziness,
> as "Loving You" is in every respect the superior
> Presley vehicle.
*****
If "Jailhouse Rock" suggests laziness (personally, I'd have chosen
Siegel's "Flaming Star"), the selection of "Empire" over a vastly
superior works such as "Chelsea Girls" or "Vinyl" or "Poor Little Rich
Girl", to name but three, might well connote either extreme perversity
or incipient madness on the part of the NFPB.
Also, I can think of about fifty 'Films Noir' more worthy than "D.O.A."
Tom Sutpen
19706
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:54pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
I consider Kurosawa's generally poorly-regarded "the Idiot" one of his
most extraordinary (in a good sense) films -- despite the fact that it
was also apparently severely butchered -- and seems to have a pretty
perfunctory concluding scene (was this actually done by Kurosawa
himself?).
MEK
Boston
19707
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:05am
Subject: Re: Rating Mizoguchi
In a message dated 12/28/2004 10:41:08 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
kerpan@a... writes:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal" wrote:
> 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.
I would rank "My Love Has Been Burning" as dead last of all the many
Mizoguchi films I've seen, right under the almost equally dire "Lady
of Musashino" and "Victory of Women". All of these are heavy handed
with remarkably leaden dialog -- and Tanaka is totally wasted in all
these didactic and stilted artifacts -- but I'm sure these pleased the
Occupation film censors, who burned hundreds of probably superior
films. (Being Mizoguchi's work, there are flashes of magic -- but
these are virtually smothered). So far, these are the only Mizoguchi
films I'd describe as affirmatively "bad" overall -- far worse than my
least favorite Ozu ("Munekata Sisters" -- which I'd only set down as
mediocre).
*****
Mediocre is a highly relative term when you're discussing Mizoguchi. Of the
films you mentioned above, the only one I've seen is "My Love Has Been
Burning" and . . . while I wouldn't say it's a thoroughgoing masterpiece (not in
comparison to the later work), I wouldn't call it mediocre; at least not in the
sense I would use.
Tom Sutpen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19708
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:02pm
Subject: Cahiers searches (was: Nicholas Meyer?)
Don't mention it.
I have the 2 index editions for the first hundred issues of Cahiers. Plus I
have all but one of the yellow covers (plus a complete collection of La
Revue du cinema). Unless times are really busy I can scan one or two
articles and make it/them available. From the 70s to 95 my collection is
very poor, only some 40 issues. But I can track down any issue among the
collections in Rio. The Cahiers are covered.
I tried to do the same with Positif, trying to find out every library who
had a collection in Rio and try to figure out if it was possible to have a
"complete" collection with bits from each library. Only MAM has a good
collection that covers part of the sixties, but from 70s on there's very
little (the Maison de France collection, which I never checked, might be the
better one). When I was introduced to Paulo Paranagua, a 3-decade
contributor, I asked him if he held a collection, but he was very sad about
the topic and said that he never earned a penny writing for the magazine and
the editors don't even send issues anymore...
----- Original Message -----
From:
> Thanks (and a belated thanks to Ruy for his great cataloguing of Cahiers
du
> Cinema issues about Robert Wise!),
19709
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:06pm
Subject: Last Night, When We Were Young (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
I wouldn't want to make a list of favorite films when I was 18,
because "Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" did not come out until I
was 20 -- and I wouldn't want to make a list pre-dating this epochal
event. ;~}
Until my very belated discovery of Asian films, Discreet Charm"
reigned supreme -- for decades. Other films that would have been on
my list way back then -- "Wild Strawberries", "2001", "Dr.
Strangelove", "Pinocchio", "Citizen Kane", "Alexander Nevsky", "It's a
Gift", and "Duck Soup".
MEK
19710
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:14pm
Subject: Re: Rating Mizoguchi
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, akira88o@a... wrote:
> Mediocre is a highly relative term when you're discussing
Mizoguchi. Of the
> films you mentioned above, the only one I've seen is "My Love Has Been
> Burning" and . . . while I wouldn't say it's a thoroughgoing
masterpiece (not in
> comparison to the later work), I wouldn't call it mediocre; at
least not in the
> sense I would use.
I would say that the three Occupation-era Mizoguchi films I don't like
(he must have been making amends for the wonderful "Utamaro") all
share the characteristic of being overly talky, with a rather
hectoring, pedantic tone. Mizoguchi strikes me as the most ruthlessly
opportunistic of all the great Japanese directors of his era -- and,
thus, could veer off into unmitigated propaganda whenever it was
convenient to do so. Diretors I admire more (as people) -- Ozu,
Naruse, Shimizu (among others) resisted the impulse to curry favor
with whoever happened to be calling the political shots. (Mizoguchi
was also not above pandering to Western orientalism).
MEK
19711
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:15pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
Can ONE scene "scuttle" an entire film? Shades of the
infamous "Kapo" tracking shot! I feel the magnificence
of "Ambersons" is only slightly affected by the atrocious,
ridiculous final scene -- one of the most perplexing and annoying
endings in cinema history. If you remove that scene, though (after
all, you don't HAVE to watch it!) the film remains a towering
masterpiece.
Is it Welles' "best" film? I don't know and I don't care. Why do
we always have to single out one film as the auteur's best? Why do
we have to make ten-best lists or five best lists or whatever? This
quirk seems to be special to film buffs. I don't imagine art lovers
making lists of their five or ten favorite paintings, or arguing
about which is Cezanne's "best" canvas.
JPC
19712
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:16pm
Subject: Re: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
I agree.
Setsuko Hara is quite amazing in it, giving a very
un-Ozu-like performance.
--- "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> I consider Kurosawa's generally poorly-regarded "the
> Idiot" one of his
> most extraordinary (in a good sense) films --
> despite the fact that it
> was also apparently severely butchered -- and seems
> to have a pretty
> perfunctory concluding scene (was this actually done
> by Kurosawa
> himself?).
>
> MEK
> Boston
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19713
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:27pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
> 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 still not sure I'd allow him the profession "writer" until he's
written a single film all by himself.
Though I'd allow it for Billy Wilder, so maybe I'm just inconsistent.
I personally prefer GOODFELLAS to CASINO but I prefer TAXI DRIVER,
RAGING BULL, AFTER HOURS, and maybe KING OF COMEDY to both. I find
the films Scorsese has a writing credit on to be structurally weaker
than those, though I acknowledge that he has certainly had
considerable script input into all his best films. I think of him as
a director who sometimes writes.
19714
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:29pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> I agree.
>
> Setsuko Hara is quite amazing in it, giving a very
> un-Ozu-like performance.
There are many exceptionally wonderful performances is Kurosawa's
"Idiot". Hara's performance seems to have been uniformly condemned at
the time -- and yet I find it hard to imagine anyone capturing
Dostoevsky's doom-stricken anti-heroine more perfectly. I found
Mifune's perormance as the anti-hero even more stunning -- possibly
my favorite Mifune performance.
As with "Thone of Blood", Kurosawa seems to have been able to burrow
to the very core of a very foreigh masterwork -- and visually express
its spirit far more powerfully than any literal "adaptation" possibly
could. In some ways, his accomplishment here was even more
exceptional than it was in "Throne" -- because while others have
transmuted Shakespeare into the purest cinematic gold (Welles and
Kozintsev), I'm not aware of any film that does the same to a massive
and complex novel (by Dostoevsky or any one else).
(Query: is there any harder task in moviemaking than trying to cope
with novels that are masterpieces of the first order?)
MEK
19715
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:32pm
Subject: Why Rank Cinema? (was Re: Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> Is it Welles' "best" film? I don't know and I don't care. Why do
> we always have to single out one film as the auteur's best? Why do
> we have to make ten-best lists or five best lists or whatever? This
> quirk seems to be special to film buffs.
*****
Now, that is a discussion worth having. And since this list appears to
be overrun with film critics (am I the only member who *isn't* a film
critic?), I'd love to receive some insight into this curious practice.
Tom Sutpen
19716
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:39pm
Subject: My List at 18
After bitching about list-making I feel compelled, in a spirit of
self-contradiction, to dig up my "best" list at age 18, in the
dizzyingly distant year 1953. I quote from memory (not sure of the
order after # 5):
1. Singing in the Rain
2. Blinkity Blank (a 'short" film, Fred!)
3. Citizen Kane
4. Sherlock Jr.
5. La Regle du jeu
6. Duel in the Sun (juvenile bad taste?)
7. L'Age d'or
8. Dark Passage
9. Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot
10. The Magnificent Ambersons
11. Prince Bayaya
1953 was the year of "Voyage in Italy" but I must have seen it
later, otherwise it would have been on the list.
19717
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:40pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> Is it Welles' "best" film? I don't know and I don't care. Why do
> we always have to single out one film as the auteur's best? Why do
> we have to make ten-best lists or five best lists or whatever? This
> quirk seems to be special to film buffs. I don't imagine art lovers
> making lists of their five or ten favorite paintings, or arguing
> about which is Cezanne's "best" canvas.
I really would have trouble agreeing with myself on a 10 best Ozu film
list -- I would never be able to (seriously) single out a "best Ozu".
With Welles, as with many others, I suspect the last great film I saw
by him tends to gain a certain ascendancy -- until I see another great
film by him. One exception, "Touch of Evil" seems to have suffered a
possibly permanent downgrade that only gets aggravated by re-watching.
For all its virtues, it has aspects (dare I say flaws) that grate on
me.
I have yet to see the remains of "Ambersons" -- I'm waiting for a good
DVD at this point, I guess. But why would I ever want to pick between
"Kane", "Chimes", "Lady from Shanghai", "Trial"? I will say that
"Kane" is one of the only films I practically memorized after only one
viewing (and retained my recollections until my next viewing a decade
or so later).
MEK
19718
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:42pm
Subject: Why Rank Cinema? (was Re: Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> *****
> Now, that is a discussion worth having. And since this list
appears to
> be overrun with film critics (am I the only member who *isn't* a
film
> critic?), I'd love to receive some insight into this curious
practice.
EVERYBODY is a film critic. All 146 of us here!
>
>
19719
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:54pm
Subject: Re: Rating Mizoguchi
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr. wrote: [of some Mizoguchi films he doesn't like]
> .... All of these are heavy handed with remarkably leaden dialog....
Are you a Japanese speaker? This would be a great resource for our
group; you could perhaps answer questions occasionally about
mistranslated subtitles and such. I've often wished that subtitled films
would be reviewed by native speakers in the same way that I want to read
a review of a book published in English translation by someone who is
fluent in the original language and comments in detail on the
translation. One problem is that there are so few reviewers who have any
sensitivity toward cinema as an art form that finding one who can simply
write in English is hard enough; finding one fluent in Japanese and
English would presumably be harder.
If you're not a Japanese speaker, I hope you realize that subtitles
cannot be used to judge dialogue. I've had the chance to see two
Mizoguchi films with people fluent in Japanese, and both reported that
the orignal had flowery and poetic language that was reduced to short
wooden sentences as unevocative as the original was evocative.
I love "My Love Has Been Burning," which seems also different from most
of the others. But I love almost every Mizoguchi film I've seen. The
notion of Mizoguchi (or at least, Mizougchi after 1933 or so) having
made a bad film seems about as unlikely as the notion of Bach writing a
"bad" canatata or Beethoven writing a "bad" string quartet.
Fred Camper
19720
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:56am
Subject: Re: Why Rank Cinema? (was Re: Ambersons)
In a message dated 12/28/2004 11:45:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jpcoursodon@y... writes:
> *****
> Now, that is a discussion worth having. And since this list
appears to
> be overrun with film critics (am I the only member who *isn't* a
film
> critic?), I'd love to receive some insight into this curious
practice.
EVERYBODY is a film critic. All 146 of us here!
*****
No, I didn't mean that in the spiritual sense. I was referring to those
among us who actually sit down and compose reviews and/or essays. In my case,
when I was about 19-20, I swore I would never write another word about motion
pictures ever again; an oath I kept faithfully till about four years ago. All I
engage in these days is hit-and-run opinion of a very low linguistic order.
I am not a film critic.
Tom Sutpen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19721
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:15pm
Subject: Re: Rating Mizoguchi
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Are you a Japanese speaker?
Only a listener -- and (a somewhat more halting) reader. I have
reached the point that I will tackle unsubbed films (hopefully with a
synopsis in hand -- but, if not....). I do catch quite a few glaring
subtitling errors -- and can often (but not always) figure out bits
that got left unsubtitled (not Noh performances -- apparently even
native speakers need help understanding this type of material). I
have found at least one discrepancy between the published "Tokyo
Story" script and what was actually filmed -- curiously, the Japnese
subs on the Shochiku DVD followed the published script -- not what the
actors say on screen. (This discrepancy is trivial, involving only a
company name).
> If you're not a Japanese speaker, I hope you realize that subtitles
> cannot be used to judge dialogue. I've had the chance to see two
> Mizoguchi films with people fluent in Japanese, and both reported
> that the orignal had flowery and poetic language that was reduced to
> short wooden sentences as unevocative as the original was
> evocative.
Can you recall which films these were?
My sense is that the dialogue in my unloved films is poorer overall
than the Mizoguchi norm -- and not just based on the subtitling of the
dialogue.
> I love "My Love Has Been Burning," which seems also different
> from most of the others. But I love almost every Mizoguchi film
> I've seen. The notion of Mizoguchi (or at least, Mizougchi after
> 1933 or so) having made a bad film seems about as unlikely as the
> notion of Bach writing a "bad" canatata or Beethoven writing a
> "bad" string quartet.
A few of the Bach cantatas are pretty dry and a few others are
trifling -- but given there's around 200 of these, that's not so bad.
(I mourned the move from LPs to CDs as it related to the Telefunken
cantata series -- the LPs included the scores and the CDs did not).
Well, I guess all of Beethoven's quartets are safe -- but these make
up a small subset of his work. Beethoven's late work actually
contains a fair amount of trifles, amongst the priceless treasures.
I think Mizoguchi's wartime work (based on reading) and occupation-era
work (based on watching) is generally quite artistically problematic
--as are his frankly opportunistic late ones ("Yang Kwei Fei" and
"Taira Clan"). Are any of these "bad" in the sense of "valueless"?
Almost certainly not. But I think that Mizoguchi, despite his immense
and unquestionable genius, was not an artist (or man) of integrity --
and this has some reflection in at least some of his work.
Michael Kerpan
Boston
19722
From: L C
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:15pm
Subject: Catherine Varlin Winter is dead
The important French producer of La Guerre est finie
and screenwriter Catherine Varlin Winter died on Dec
22. see article in Le Monde
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3382,36-392164,0.html
also
http://www.fondationresistance.com/actualites/themes/femmesresist.htm
http://www.silcom.com/~dlp/Passagen/cm.research.html
and L'oubli des femmes dans l'historiographie de la
Résistance http://clio.revues.org/document513.html
Luc Chaput
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
19723
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:24pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
> Can ONE scene "scuttle" an entire film? Shades of the
> infamous "Kapo" tracking shot! I feel the magnificence
> of "Ambersons" is only slightly affected by the atrocious,
> ridiculous final scene -- one of the most perplexing and annoying
> endings in cinema history. If you remove that scene, though (after
> all, you don't HAVE to watch it!) the film remains a towering
> masterpiece.
But by describing a film as a masterpiece, we are surely implying
that we regard it as a fully organic work of art, as opposed to a
collection of great scenes or great moments. AMBERSONS may once have
been a masterpiece (in this sense), but it isn't anymore.
It's all very well to say that we don't have to watch the final
scene, but what we are left with is a film with no ending.
19724
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:26pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
> I'm still not sure I'd allow him the profession "writer" until he's
> written a single film all by himself.
WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR.
I'm not sure that I'd allow James L. Brooks the profession 'writer'
until he's written something that doesn't consist entirely of
rehashed sitcom gags and characters.
19725
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:26pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> It's all very well to say that we don't have to watch the final
> scene, but what we are left with is a film with no ending.
Venus de Milo once had arms. She (it) has not had them for centuries.
Is this a masterpiece -- or not?
;~}
MEK
19726
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:35pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> > Can ONE scene "scuttle" an entire film? Shades of the
> > infamous "Kapo" tracking shot! I feel the magnificence
> > of "Ambersons" is only slightly affected by the atrocious,
> > ridiculous final scene -- one of the most perplexing and
annoying
> > endings in cinema history. If you remove that scene, though
(after
> > all, you don't HAVE to watch it!) the film remains a towering
> > masterpiece.
>
> But by describing a film as a masterpiece, we are surely implying
> that we regard it as a fully organic work of art, as opposed to a
> collection of great scenes or great moments. AMBERSONS may once
have
> been a masterpiece (in this sense), but it isn't anymore.
>
> It's all very well to say that we don't have to watch the final
> scene, but what we are left with is a film with no ending.
Well, Schubert's B Minor symphony has no ending (only two
movements) and is considered a masterpiece by music lovers.
But you're right. I shouldn't have used the word "masterpiece."
Substitute "achievement' or whatever. it's still towering. JPC
19727
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:50pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
> Venus de Milo once had arms. She (it) has not had them for
centuries.
> Is this a masterpiece -- or not?
>
>
A better (though still inexact) comparison would be with PERICLES, in
which chunks of Shakespeare are mixed in with the work of an
anonymous hack. But I'm not aware of any scholars who regard PERICLES
as one of Shakespeare's most important achievements.
19728
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:58pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
Virtually all his films have gags, characters, and moments of drama
that aren't rehashes of either sitcoms or other movies. That's why I
like them....Just out of curiosity, how many of Brooks's films have
you seen?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> > I'm still not sure I'd allow him the profession "writer" until
he's
> > written a single film all by himself.
>
> WHO'S THAT KNOCKING AT MY DOOR.
>
> I'm not sure that I'd allow James L. Brooks the profession 'writer'
> until he's written something that doesn't consist entirely of
> rehashed sitcom gags and characters.
19729
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:02pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
>
> It's all very well to say that we don't have to watch the final
> scene, but what we are left with is a film with no ending.
I disagree. George Minafer kneeling by his mother's bed while Welles
offscreen describes his comeuppance is a pretty good ending--even
though it wasn't intended as such. One hell of a lot better than the
cast of THE DEER HUNTER singing "God Bless America," IMO.
19730
From: Dave Kehr
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:08pm
Subject: Re: National Film Registry Selections
Not that anyone asked me, but as it happens, I represent all of
America's film critics on the National Film Preservation Board (just
because I happened to be chairing the National Society of Film
Critics when the legislation went through all those years ago). The
choice of "Jailhouse Rock" was actually hotly debated; there was
interest in having "an Elvis film" on the list, and in the end, it
seemed that "Jailhouse" filled the bill best as the most down and
dirty of the early features. I much prefer several others myself
(most particularly, Peter Tewksbury's excellent "The Trouble with
Girls"), but none of them are quite as Elvis-centric as "Jailhouse,"
I think.
"DOA" is on because it is an orphan film, no longer protected by
copyright, and much in need of serious preservation.
And "Empire" made it because, frankly, the Library of Congress was
not about to nominate any film with sexual content in these troubled
times, and -- after furiously debating "Chelsea Girls" for at least
ten years -- it seemed better to get one Warhol on the list than
just leave him out.
Chaging topics entirely, I was much heartened by Adrian's post
on "Kung Fu Hustle." Stephen Chow is turning out to be a very
interesting filmmaker indeed. I read that "Hustle" was shown in
Toronto, but apparently it was a case of a tree falling in an
unpopulated forest, since no one wrote a single word about it that I
came across. In the meantime, "Shaolin Soccer" (do not see the
edited Miramax version!) remains one of the most creative uses of
digital image manipulation I have seen.
best
Dave Kehr
19731
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: National Film Registry Selections
--- Dave Kehr wrote:
>
>
> And "Empire" made it because, frankly, the Library
> of Congress was
> not about to nominate any film with sexual content
> in these troubled
> times, and -- after furiously debating "Chelsea
> Girls" for at least
> ten years -- it seemed better to get one Warhol on
> the list than
> just leave him out.
>
And you did so via his 8-hour tribute to an erect
penis. FABULOUS!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
19732
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:16pm
Subject: Re: National Film Registry Selections
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Kehr" wrote:
> And "Empire" made it because, frankly, the Library of Congress was
> not about to nominate any film with sexual content in these troubled
> times
*****
So I take it we won't be seeing "Scorpio Rising" in the National Film
Registry anytime soon.
Tom Sutpen
19733
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:22pm
Subject: Susan Sontag dead
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/la
-122804sontag_lat,0,4918993,print.story?coll=ny-entertainment-headlines
19734
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:36pm
Subject: Re: Rating Mizoguchi
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
"I think Mizoguchi's wartime work (based on reading) and occupation-
era work (based on watching) is generally quite artistically
problematic --as are his frankly opportunistic late ones ("Yang Kwei
Fei" and "Taira Clan"). Are any of these "bad" in the sense
of "valueless"? Almost certainly not. But I think that Mizoguchi,
despite his immense and unquestionable genius, was not an artist (or
man) of integrity -- and this has some reflection in at least some of
his work."
Well Michael I must strenuously disagree. Not only was Mizoguchi a
great artist he was also a man of integrity. I researched his life
during my years in Japan and read the three biographies. I don't
have the time to make a case for him at the moment, but I agree with
Fred about the overall excellence of his post-1933 films. If you want
to draw up a specific bill of indictment concerning integrity and
oppertunism I'll do my best to answer it point by point.
as to dialogue being poetic, it's characteristic of the period films,
the Kyoto pictures in the modern era and YOKIHI/YANG KWEI FEI. I'll
go so far as to say that if you don't love Mizo you don't love
Japanese cinema (auteurists can say things like that, right?)
Richard
19735
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Rating Mizoguchi
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> If you want
> to draw up a specific bill of indictment concerning integrity and
> oppertunism I'll do my best to answer it point by point.
Tonight, maybe. No till then.
> as to dialogue being poetic, it's characteristic of the period films,
> the Kyoto pictures in the modern era and YOKIHI/YANG KWEI FEI. I'll
> go so far as to say that if you don't love Mizo you don't love
> Japanese cinema (auteurists can say things like that, right?)
But can't one love most of someone's work -- just not every bit -- and
still be an auteurist?
MEK
19736
From: Dave Garrett
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:44pm
Subject: Re: National Film Registry Selections
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Kehr" wrote:
> Not that anyone asked me, but as it happens, I represent all of
> America's film critics on the National Film Preservation Board (just
> because I happened to be chairing the National Society of Film
> Critics when the legislation went through all those years ago). The
> choice of "Jailhouse Rock" was actually hotly debated; there was
> interest in having "an Elvis film" on the list, and in the end, it
> seemed that "Jailhouse" filled the bill best as the most down and
> dirty of the early features. I much prefer several others myself
> (most particularly, Peter Tewksbury's excellent "The Trouble with
> Girls"), but none of them are quite as Elvis-centric as "Jailhouse,"
> I think.
>
> "DOA" is on because it is an orphan film, no longer protected by
> copyright, and much in need of serious preservation.
Somehow I doubt there's much love for it among a_film_by denizens,
but I'd be curious to hear how the selection of Wyler's BEN-HUR
took place. Although not an orphan film by any means, there's been
some debate in recent years over whether the original Camera 65
negative is printable anymore, and there hasn't been much incentive
to find out as there are only a handful of theaters that are even capable of projecting anamorphic 70mm. I believe there are only one or two flat 70mm prints in circulation that are projectable, so assuming selection to the NFR means new preservation masters are created, that's good news indeed.
Dave
19737
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:45pm
Subject: Brooks & McCarey (was: Re: acting '04)
Just out of curiosity, how many of Brooks's films have
> you seen?
I haven't seen SPANGLISH, but have seen the four earlier films -
though I'm prepared to admit that I haven't really 'seen' I'LL DO
ANYTHING, since I didn't have access to the musical version which you
regard so highly.
But honestly, I'm going to have another look at some of these films
as soon as I get the chance.
19738
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rating Mizoguchi
First of all, "The 47 Ronin" is, if I had to pick one, my favorite film
ever by anyone. That would I guess make Mizoguchi my favorite filmmaker.
I liked Richard's "auteurist excess" statement but would top it with
an even more outrageous, "If you don't understand the full greatness of
Mizoguchi, you don't understand cinema." This isn't quite as outrageous
as it sounds because it's really just tautological -- how can someone
who doesn't fully appreciate my favorite film or filmmaker understand
the full greatness of cinema as I understand it is really all I mean
here. In my perhaps narrow minded view of cinema, it is defined first of
all by its masterpieces.
I don't know of any "dry" or "trifling" Bach cantatas. Perhaps I should
limit my statement to his sacred cantatas to avoid arguments about the
funny ones. The Telefunken boxed sets were great and I loved the
performances at the time but I think Koopman's far surpass Harononcout
and Leonhardt's performances.
One of the Mizoguchi films I saw with a Japanese speaker was "Sansho
Dayu." I can't remember the other.
"Yang Kwei Fei" and "Shin Heike Monogatari" (Taira Clan) are among the
greatest films of all time. The endings of both are sublime beyond
words. Period. Oh, in my opinion. I'm not sure what's "opportunistic"
about the final image of "Shin Heike," with its paean to traditional
Japan and its echo of the ending of "Ugetsu." It certainly did not point
in the direction Japan was going in. It's been a long time since I've
seen the film so I may be missing some nuances here. "Yang Kwei Fei" may
be "opportunistic" in the casting of the famous princess, who according
to history was famously fat but is certainly not in Mizouguchi's film,
but this would be a standard commercial film move.
Fred Camper
19739
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:11pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
>
>
> >
> > It's all very well to say that we don't have to watch the final
> > scene, but what we are left with is a film with no ending.
>
> I disagree. George Minafer kneeling by his mother's bed while
Welles
> offscreen describes his comeuppance is a pretty good ending--even
> though it wasn't intended as such. One hell of a lot better than
the
> cast of THE DEER HUNTER singing "God Bless America," IMO.
Coincidentally, a couple of days before this Welles thread
started, I watched the DVD of the A&E version of "The Magnificent
Ambersons" -- a 150-minute telefilm directed by Alfonso Arau and
purporting to be based on Welles' "original shooting script." It's a
mediocre, sometimes awful movie (in spite of impressive "production
values"), as unlike Welles visually as you could imagine. The final
scene, which is even worse than the one concocted by RKO (it
consists mostly of talking heads) is quite different from the
summary of the original scene given by Jonathan in "This Is Orson
Welles." I am curious to know if Jonathan and our other Welles
specialists have seen it and what they think. JPC
19740
From: Dave Kehr
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:28pm
Subject: Re: National Film Registry Selections
I suspect "Ben Hur" finally made it on as part of the group's
unshakable committment to including every Best Picture Oscar (the
Academy is heavily represented on the board). But I'm glad to know
there's a good reason for it.
dk
19741
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:00pm
Subject: How To Be Anti-Hollywood (Was: Last Night, When We Were Young)
In a message dated 12/28/04 5:24:10 AM, kristian@f... writes:
> "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)
>
Since you're prescribing, Kristian, how precisely does one be anti-Hollywood?
Completley ignore all Hollywood cinema? From all eras or just some
(undoubtedly, from the last twenty years, right?)? Watch only select titles and
supplement it with Cassavetes and Mizoguchi, for example? If so, which titles? I ask
because I am not anti-Hollywood but I don't want to be self-absorbed any more.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19742
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:02pm
Subject: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it! (was: Ambersons)
<
making lists of their five or ten favorite paintings, or arguing about which is
Cezanne's "best" canvas.>>
Oh come now, J-P. I received my MA from an Art History department and both
students and profs argued all the time about which canvas by which artist was
best. Some even made lists.
Also, check out the Book of Lists series. There's tons of lists of greatest
paintings of all types in there.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19743
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:11pm
Subject: NYC: screenings of my movies
Pardon the self-promotion, but my last two movies are going to be
screening soon at the Two Boots Pioneer Theater in Manhattan. ALL THE
SHIPS AT SEA (2004) screens on Tuesday, January 4 at 7 pm, and HONEYMOON
(1998) screens at Friday, January 7 at 7 pm. There's a beer-and-pizza
reception in the next-door Den of Cin after SHIPS (but not after
HONEYMOON). - Dan
19744
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:41pm
Subject: Re: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it! (was: Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> <
art lovers
> making lists of their five or ten favorite paintings, or arguing
about which is
> Cezanne's "best" canvas.>>
>
> Oh come now, J-P. I received my MA from an Art History department
and both
> students and profs argued all the time about which canvas by which
artist was
> best. Some even made lists.
>
Well, I'm an art lover myself and I have art-loving friends but I
can't recall ever having such discussions. The notion that one
painting by any great painter might be singled out as his 'best'
seems absurd to me. However I have never taken a art history course,
so I guess you're right and I was wrong.
> Also, check out the Book of Lists series. There's tons of lists of
greatest
> paintings of all types in there.
>
> Kevin John
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19745
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:51pm
Subject: Witney (was Re: The Long and the Short of it)
> 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
But before QT, Francis Nevins (biographer and executor of the
estate of Cornell Woolrich) had already written on Witney. I believe
one of the books may be in The Scarecrow Directors series. "Mike"
Nevins knew Witney before he died and has a collection of Witney
films in Sy. Louis.
Despite David's reservations, this is another example of the
egotistic hack Tarantino "discovering" something which most people
knew about long before. Witney did direct some competent work and I
believe I ESCAPED FROM DEVIL'S ISLAND was regarded as much better
than PAILLON in its day. Witney also managed to keep Michael Landon
under control on the two-part BONANZA episode he directed. However,
a QT "Witney" movie may not be far away.
Tony Williams
19746
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:59pm
Subject: Re: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it! (was: Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> <
lovers
> making lists of their five or ten favorite paintings, or arguing
about which is
> Cezanne's "best" canvas.>>
>
I completely agree with you J-P. I come from literature and I have
honestly never seen anyone make a list of "Best Weimar books". The
only lists I really know of, regarding literature, is best seller
lists. Both at the Goethe institute and everywhere else I can think
of, people note on a book by its being good, important or minor (or
something along the way).
Lists are pointless to being with, simply because what do they
represent other than a point of view. And how do you compare a list
made by John Johnson, who he based on his taste, vs. James Johnson,
who based his on how each film related to how great they would be as
star trek episodes.
Do we make lists because we wanna show others how good we are at
finding the best film? Do we make them in hope to get our taste /
approach confirmed by others? Do we make the lists because we have
something to prove to ourselves (or to others)?
Hell, we are all quiet knowledgable about cinema, yet we cant even
agree on which film by some director is the best, so how can we
determine what film is the best of the year, except it being how they
made us enjoy cinema, and isn't that what its all about in the end? To
have fun watching film?
The problem is however that everyone today makes lists, from those
spending their year making critical notes to each film, to those who
spend 5 minutes looking at IMDB to get an opinion, and both lists are
worth exactly the same in the eye of the beholder, and it gets worse
because if you don't make a list, you aren't in the game. So we do
make our lists, we do check if those whom we consider to have a
similar taste have similar choices and we shake our heads in disbelief
about the others. Everyone has an opinion and we are forced to
participate.
And lists all look alike. There are no criteria for quality anymore,
because everything today is polls where 100s of critics all vote and
then you get 1 result. Which is why it comes as no surprise that films
like "Sideways", "Before Sunset" and "Eternal Sunshine" are amongst
the top 5. Predicting lists has become easier than predicting the
Oscars - and that is scary and really shows how pointless list are.
Henrik
19747
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:06pm
Subject: Re: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it! (was: Ambersons)
Music critics do it, too. Constantly. (Haven't you people seen or read
High Fidelity?). In fact my ten-best CDs list for Jewish Week is going
to press while I'm typing this.
And as a former sportswriter, I can assure you that list-making was an
exercise repeated constantly, sometimes for fun (all-Jewish baseball
team, ten most unfortunate names in such-and-such sport, etc.) and
sometimes more seriously.
I can also recall editors asking me for "best of" lists when I was still
doing book reviewing.
I suspect there's some evolutionary quirk in the brain that leads to
list-making. (I don't think my cats do it, but then I can't imagine what
they'd make lists of.)
George (Number one on my own list of favorite authors) Robinson
19748
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:10pm
Subject: Re: The sublime KUNG FU HUSTLE !
> 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!
I've written a brief item "In Defence of Stephen Chow" for ASIAN
CULT CINEMA some years back. But Chow/Chow Sing-chi/Chiau's work
does need some attention. As well as GOD OF COOKERY and SHAOLIN
SOCCER, he has done some other amazing work such as LEGEND OF THE
DRAGON, the quasi-serious appropriately named KING OF COMEDY (locked
up in Miramax red-tape), FROM BEIJING WITH LOVE, THE SIX BILLION
DOLLAR MAN, and FLIRTING SCHOLAR.
The last is the best of his period films along with FORBIDDEN CITY
COP. It co-stars Gong Li who operates as a superb straight person to
him far better than in the BACK TO THE FUTURE premises of GOD OF
GAMBLERS III. The film also features the great Zheng Pei-pei in a
supporting role making far better use of the actress's talents in
later life than her demonized "other" in Ang Lee's CROUCHING TIGER.
Yes, Chow does continue the tradition of Jerry Lewis but in a far
more innovative manner than Jim Carrey and Co. With Ng-Man-tat
operating as his "Dino straight man, Chow's comedy often transcends
the linguisic barriers of the Cantonese "nonsense" language
tradition which thrills local audiences but falls on "deaf" western
ears. However, the enthusiastic mode of his delivery in KING OF
BEGGARS often transcends linguistic barriers in the best manner of
screen comedy.
Miramax trated SHAOLIN SOCCER shamefully in the USA. Let's hope
that the Cantonese King of Comedy will continue his innovative work
in the area which appreciates him most.
Tony Williams
19749
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:16pm
Subject: Re: Welles and the Canon (Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> 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!"
>
> Your comment about Wise speaks volumnes about his institutional
mentality. Enough evidence exists to show that the original version
was far superior to what was released, even though the latter
contains elements of major creativity.
When formerly teaching studies in a production department, I
remember a student once saying Eisenstein would have failed C&P 356
if he was studying with us today!
Tony Williams
19750
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:19pm
Subject: Fragmented, broken, mashed-up masterpieces (was: Ambersons)
<
chunks of Shakespeare are mixed in with the work of an anonymous hack.>>
There's also that Welles fragment Peter keeps gushing about and which I've
never seen.
But my favorite kind of films are those that use fragmentation as an
aesthetic strategy, as if the Venus de Milo were impossibly whole sans arms. That's
why SOME CALL IT LOVING delights so much - it constantly abrades against itself.
And the PERICLES example reminds me of arguably the best film of this decade
so far, A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. It's sad that we don't get to see more
chunks of one director mixed in with the work of another. Anathema to
auteurists, I would imagine. I love it for how it chips away at the often bullying
notion of mastery itself.
And the same holds true for music. The mash-up strategy (digitally fusing the
beat of one song with the vocals of another) is slowly becoming an "organic"
modus operandi. Check out Alcazar's remarkable "This Is The World We Live In."
The bottom is stolen from Diana Ross/Chic's "Upside Down" but the chorus is
Genesis' "Land of Confusion." A land of confusion indeed, just like the US
right now, with the confusion rendered all the more real and moving through the
resinging.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19751
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:19pm
Subject: Re: Roy William Neill: Auteur (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
Roy William Neill died in 1946. Cahiers du Cinéma began in 1951. Not a
single mention to Neill in the first 100 issues of the magazine, though.
Fereydoun Hoveyda talks about William Whitney (sic) on #s 58 and 60, "On the
serials" 1 and 2.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Sutpen"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 7:56 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Roy William Neill: Auteur (was Re: Welles and the
Canon)
> 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
19752
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:29pm
Subject: Re: National Film Registry Selections
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:08:38 -0000
> From: "Dave Kehr"
>Subject: Re: National Film Registry Selections
>
>
>Not that anyone asked me, but as it happens, I represent all of
>America's film critics on the National Film Preservation Board (just
>because I happened to be chairing the National Society of Film
>Critics when the legislation went through all those years ago). The
>choice of "Jailhouse Rock" was actually hotly debated; there was
>interest in having "an Elvis film" on the list, and in the end, it
>seemed that "Jailhouse" filled the bill best as the most down and
>dirty of the early features. I much prefer several others myself
>(most particularly, Peter Tewksbury's excellent "The Trouble with
>Girls"), but none of them are quite as Elvis-centric as "Jailhouse,"
>I think.
>
>Dave Kehr
Regardless of its other merits, JAILHOUSE does have E at his sexiest
and least ridiculous, at least outside of the Comeback Special, and
maybe that bit where he wrestles with himself in KISSIN COUSINS.
Okay, scratch the "least ridiculous" on the last one.
Sam
19753
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:50pm
Subject: Re: Kingdom Hospital?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> I am just watching, late night on broadcast TV, some of the Stephen
> King-adapted USA version of Lars von Trier's mini-series THE
KINGDOM,
> renamed KINGDOM HOSPITAL (Lars is Executive Producer, naturally).
It looks
> to be a strange hybrid, although it's handled by a director I have
sometimes
> admired, Craig R. Baxley (ACTION JACKSON, anyone?).
>
> Has anybody seen/studied/done the comparison on the these KINGDOMs?
>
> Adrian
Craig Baxley is the filmmaker King has anointed to direct all his tv
projects. This wasn't one of the best ones - I guess that would be
Storm of the Century - although it has an auteurist quirk: King
inserts a character who has been run over by a van, as he does in the
novel of Dreamcatcher. I watched one episode, then stopped. I believe
that like the original it was never finished, but for other reasons.
I thoroughly enjoyed the original, I and II.
19754
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:53pm
Subject: Re: National Film Registry Selections
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> > On the Net:
> > National Film Preservation Board:
> > http://www.loc.gov/film
> >
I can think of about fifty 'Films Noir' more worthy than "D.O.A."
>
> Tom Sutpen
It's still a great one, and it's nice to Rudolph Mate get some
recognition as a director.
19755
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:55pm
Subject: Re: Rating Mizoguchi
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, akira88o@a... wrote:
> Mediocre is a highly relative term when you're discussing
Mizoguchi.
I haven't seen the film in question, but when Mizoguchi's soul didn't
radaite win contact with a project, he made some real turkeys. He was
not about "pulling the chestnuts out of the fire."
19756
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:57pm
Subject: Last Night, When We Were Young (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> I wouldn't want to make a list of favorite films when I was 18,
> because "Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie" did not come out until
I
> was 20 -- and I wouldn't want to make a list pre-dating this epochal
> event. ;~}
>
> Until my very belated discovery of Asian films, Discreet Charm"
> reigned supreme -- for decades. Other films that would have been on
> my list way back then -- "Wild Strawberries", "2001", "Dr.
> Strangelove", "Pinocchio", "Citizen Kane", "Alexander
Nevsky", "It's a
> Gift", and "Duck Soup".
>
> MEK
I forgot to include Pinocchio on my 18-yr-old hypothetical 10 Best
List. Also The Nutty Professor.
19757
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:00pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> I'm not aware of any film that does the same to a massive
> and complex novel (by Dostoevsky or any one else).
>
> (Query: is there any harder task in moviemaking than trying to cope
> with novels that are masterpieces of the first order?)
>
> MEK
Ill-Fated Loves and Francisca - but they're impossible to see.
19758
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:01pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
I'm not aware of any film that does the same to a massive
> and complex novel (by Dostoevsky or any one else).
>
> (Query: is there any harder task in moviemaking than trying to cope
> with novels that are masterpieces of the first order?)
>
> MEK
Also Greed, presumably.
19759
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:06pm
Subject: Re: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
Has everyone forgotten "Berlin Alexanderplatz"? As far
as I'm concerned it's the Gold Standard for cinematic
adaptation of novels.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E.
> Kerpan, Jr."
> wrote:
> >
> I'm not aware of any film that does the same to a
> massive
> > and complex novel (by Dostoevsky or any one else).
> >
> > (Query: is there any harder task in moviemaking
> than trying to cope
> > with novels that are masterpieces of the first
> order?)
> >
> > MEK
>
> Also Greed, presumably.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
19760
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:08pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not aware of any film that does the same to a massive
> > and complex novel (by Dostoevsky or any one else).
> >
> > (Query: is there any harder task in moviemaking than trying to
cope
> > with novels that are masterpieces of the first order?)
> >
> > MEK
>
> Ill-Fated Loves and Francisca - but they're impossible to see.
What about Ruiz's take on Proust?
19761
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: Re: Rating Mizoguchi
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
> wrote:
>
>
> "I think Mizoguchi's wartime work (based on reading) and occupation-
> era work (based on watching) is generally quite artistically
> problematic --as are his frankly opportunistic late ones ("Yang
Kwei
> Fei" and "Taira Clan"). Are any of these "bad" in the sense
> of "valueless"? Almost certainly not. But I think that Mizoguchi,
> despite his immense and unquestionable genius, was not an artist
(or
> man) of integrity -- and this has some reflection in at least some
of
> his work."
>
I don't think The Famous Sword is bad because of Mizoguchi's
opportunism - he just wasn't interested in the material. When he
made "one for them," he could be quite bad - and that's really a form
of integrity.
> Well Michael I must strenuously disagree. Not only was Mizoguchi a
> great artist he was also a man of integrity. I researched his life
> during my years in Japan and read the three biographies. I don't
> have the time to make a case for him at the moment, but I agree
with
> Fred about the overall excellence of his post-1933 films. If you
want
> to draw up a specific bill of indictment concerning integrity and
> oppertunism I'll do my best to answer it point by point.
>
> as to dialogue being poetic, it's characteristic of the period
films,
> the Kyoto pictures in the modern era and YOKIHI/YANG KWEI FEI.
I'll
> go so far as to say that if you don't love Mizo you don't love
> Japanese cinema (auteurists can say things like that, right?)
>
> Richard
19762
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:15pm
Subject: Re: National Film Registry Selections
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Garrett" wrote:
>
> Somehow I doubt there's much love for it among a_film_by denizens,
> but I'd be curious to hear how the selection of Wyler's BEN-HUR
> took place.
Count me as a fan.
19763
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:20pm
Subject: Susan Sontag dies at 71
Haven't seen this mentioned here yet. Apologies if it has been posted
and my inbox hasn't received things:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4130985.stm
-Nick>-
19764
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:23pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not aware of any film that does the same to a massive
> > > and complex novel (by Dostoevsky or any one else).
> > >
> > > (Query: is there any harder task in moviemaking than trying to
> cope
> > > with novels that are masterpieces of the first order?)
> > >
> > > MEK
> >
> > Ill-Fated Loves and Francisca - but they're impossible to see.
>
> What about Ruiz's take on Proust?
Wonderful, but it isn't the whole thing!
19765
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:27pm
Subject: Re: Susan Sontag dies at 71
Among other things she was a rather interesting film
critic when she wanted to be. Her reviews of "Vivre Sa
Vie" and "Hitler: A Film From Germany" are quite fine.
Her own films, less so -- though John Waters is a
great fan of "Duet For Cannibals."
She wanted to make films like Bergman's. What she
ended up with was Woody Allen avant la lettre.
Waiting with baited breath to read what Elliot Stein
has to say about her now that she's gone.
(Of further cinematic interest, herlovewrs included
Marilyn Goldin, Marguerite Duras and Nicole Stephane.)
--- Nick Wrigley wrote:
> Haven't seen this mentioned here yet. Apologies if
> it has been posted
> and my inbox hasn't received things:
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4130985.stm
>
> -Nick>-
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
19766
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:58pm
Subject: Lists are NOT pointless!! (Was: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it!)
<
lists.>>
EVERY SINGLE YEAR, there are best ofs for literature just like for that
bastard art form, cinema. And Henrik, what rock were you living under when the
editorial board of Modern Library (which included some extremely renowned names
like Vidal, Byatt, Styron, etc.) published their HIGHLY PUBLICIZED list of The
20th Century's 100 Best Books in English? Having never seen a list of "Best
Weimar books" doesn't negate the fact that such lists exist for literature (and
painting, hello!!).
<
other than a point of view.>>
Who is saying that they represent anything other than a point of view? Show
me hard, concrete evidence of someone saying something even remotely like "My
list is THE Truth. It is NOT a point of view."
<>
Just because BEFORE SUNSET or whatever sweeps the polls doesn't mean "we"
have determined scientifically, objectively, once and for all, beyond a shadow of
a doubt that BEFORE SUNSET is indeed the best film of the year. Who in their
right mind would read a poll and think that? (And lest you riposte that you
didn't say any of that, tell me what else you could have possibly meant by using
the word "determine?") Take Take 6 - The Sixth Annual Film Critics' Poll in
the Village Voice, for instance. 94 critics voted on what THEY thought the ten
best films of 2004 were. The results were compiled together and BEFORE SUNSET
won. But there were critics who didn't even vote for it, e.g. Sam Adams (isn't
he on this list?). And some critics who did vote for it (e.g. Jason Anderson)
also voted for films that didn't even make the top 40 (e.g. SHAUN OF THE
DEAD). That's the nature of polls. Why is this such a bizarre, alienating
procedure for some people? The fact that BEFORE SUNSET won the poll doesn't translate
into "BEFORE SUNSET is the best film of 2004; it JUST IS."
<
similar taste have similar choices and we shake our heads in disbelief about the
others.>>
I do NOT do that so do NOT speak for me on this matter. I read the great
popular music critic Simon Reynolds PRECISELY BECAUSE his tastes are so dissimilar
to mine. The strength of weak ties, my friend.
<
because everything today is polls where 100s of critics all vote and then you get 1
result.>>
Show me two lists that look alike please. Take Take 6 again. The first two
critics listed alphabetically who participated in the poll are Sam Adams and
Jason Anderson. Not a single film appears on both lists. And if you're only
looking at the winners list, well, that's your problem. But even there, all 150 or
so films voted on are listed. What poll shows you only one result?
And none of these lists are ever etched in stone even within the same year.
Rosenbaum's top ten for the Voice poll has always been different from his
Reader top ten, for instance.
I think this absurd fear of lists stems from some sort of imagined impurity,
that it's somehow wrong or inorganic or puppetry or something if you embark on
film studies or even just a trip to the theatre with a list in hand or mind.
For me, it's simply a way to learn about film, nothing fascistic or scary
about it. Not the ONLY way but A way. And really, what's this more pure method of
learning? Listening to all this anti-list cant, you'd think that some folks
learn about film through osmosis. Besides, many lists are accompanied with
critical commentary anyway. So let's say I learn about CRIMSON GOLD by reading
Rosenbaum's top ten list in the Reader. Is that really any less pure, more
mediated or whatever than learning about it through his full-length review or in a
book?
And let's say someone DOES say that they have determined the best film of the
year or of all-time or whatever. In fact, I'll do it right now:
I have determined through a 1000% percent objective scientific procedure that
SOME CALL IT LOVING is incontestably, beyond a shadow of a doubt THE very
greatest film of all-time. This is NOT my point of view. It is a matter of fact.
Anyone who denies this finding is denying truth, nature and science.
There. Scary? Hardly. Pointless? Exactly. And where did it get me? Where did
it get you?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19767
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 10:59pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
>.
> >
> > What about Ruiz's take on Proust?
>
> Wonderful, but it isn't the whole thing!
No adaptation of a novel includes 'the whole thing"! Although
Ruiz's film focusses on "Time Regained" (the last volume of "A la
recherche...") it actually incorporates elements from the entire
series (and wouldn't make much sense if it didn't).
19768
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:05pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr:
>
> (Query: is there any harder task in moviemaking than trying to cope
> with novels that are masterpieces of the first order?)
>
It's a very hard task, to be sure, and some have wrestled with it
better than others. Some will disagree, but I think Visconti pulled
it off, with THE LEOPARD, DEATH IN VENICE (although that's more a
short story), and maybe even THE STRANGER. That said, he himself was
very unhappy with the results of that last one, mainly because
Camus's widow refused to let him change it and give it a modern
setting. Ironically, the film was blasted by critics because they
thought Visconti had insisted on making it a period piece, which
couldn't have been further from the truth. I still like it -- oddly
enough, by ruthlessly sticking to the story but casting Mastroianni
and Anna Karina, and given LV's tendency to emphasize odd moments
and gestures, the film becomes something else entirely. Valerio
Zurlini also did it with THE DESERT OF THE TARTARS. (Sorry Jean-
Pierre, I like them Italians, cheap post-sync and all. :)
How about Scorsese's THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST? Some to this day
forget that that film is an adaptation of a fairly staggering piece
of literature.
Oh yeah, and Welles's THE TRIAL.
-Bilge
19769
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:15pm
Subject: Last Night, When We Were Young (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I forgot to include Pinocchio on my 18-yr-old hypothetical 10 Best
> List. Also The Nutty Professor.
I didn't make a top 10 when I was 18, but I did make a top 5 (and, in
no particular order):
1. Husbands (Cassavetes)
2. Red Beard (Kurosawa)
3. Rio Bravo (Hawks)
4. Contempt (Godard)
5. The Nutty Professor (Lewis)
It's three years later, and I'm still fond of every single film on
the list, but my top ten would be considerably different - although
I"m sure i'd select another Lewis.
-Aaron
19770
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:16pm
Subject: Lists Lists Lists
After reading Kevin's fiery defense of lists, I suggest we all
submit our lists of the ten best posts of the year on a _film _by
and of the ten best posters (you may not vote for yourself). We
could also have the best thread, the best autobiographical post,
the most informative post, the funniest quip, the silliest exchange,
the smartest put-down etc... The possibilities are boundless.
19771
From: peterhenne
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:17pm
Subject: Re: the taskmasters vs. the genius
Henrik,
Sorry for such a tardy response. When I said "exerting control," I
simply meant over the placement and movement of bodies. According to
legend Hitchcock often let his stars do the work that was expected
of them and which was mutually understood. But what I had in mind
was control of the image and thus control of everything inside it.
And my quip was aimed at those who complain that the performers in
films by Bergman and Antonioni "act like robots," but make an
exception for the performers in Hitchcock's films, who also in their
motions can seem like instruments serving the director's scrupulous
visual tastes. The method and purpose of control differs among these
three directors, so my point (which seems pretty basic) is about
degree only, not the means, meaning or intention. The fact that
Hitchcock could nod off during a scene, and still get what he
wanted, helps make that case. Casting and storyboarding key scenes
are two ways to get the job done (intimidation can work wonders
too). Against the main thrust of your post, direction doesn't happen
only when the camera is rolling.
Peter Henne
>
> "When it's a European director, some people gripe about a
> "taskmaster," but when you get a director in the Hollywood system
> exerting consuming control over performers (say, Hitchcock), he or
she
> is a genius. Go figure."
>
> Hitchcock was notorious never involved in the direction, he even
once
> fell asleep during a scene, Scorsese was less than involved
with "King
> of Comedy", Leone also had a relaxed relationship with his actors.
>
> So is being a genius not being involved or having realised how not
to
> be involved :)
>
> Henrik
19772
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:33pm
Subject: Re: Nicholas Meyer?
A quote from my mystery web site:
Nicholas Meyer's prose fiction contains a number of mystery pastiches; the
best is "The West End Horror" (1976). Despite the word "Horror" its name, this
is a cheerful look at the denizens of London's theater district, during the
late 19th Century. It anticipates today's crop of historical detective novels.
Like Barry Perowne's 1970's Raffles stories, it contains a number of real life
historical personages.
Meyer also scripted an interesting TV movie adaptation of Van Gulik's T'ang
dynasty detective tales, in "Judge Dee in the Monastery Murders" (1974), based
on Van Gulik's 1961 book. This offbeat film seems to be completely forgotten
today. My other favorite of Meyer's film work is the Peace Corps comedy,
Volunteers (1985). This is one of the few Meyer works (prose or film) set in the
present; most are either detective stories set in the past (his 1970's output),
or science fiction tales set in the future (his 1980's work). Volunteers is set
in Asia, and shows Meyer's sympathy with Asians; one of the best characters
in The West End Horror is the Parsee. Judge Dee is also one of the few American
made for TV movies set in China, with an all Asian cast.
Meyer's two Star Trek films are interesting. I cried at the end of "Wrath of
Khan".
Mike Grost
19773
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
There is a sociological category. "films that are famous among people who
know almost nothing about film history". These films include everythinmg from
great works of art like "Citizen Kane" and "Psycho", to all sorts of less
distinguished stuff like "Tootsie" and "Patton".
The AFI film list of Top 100 American Films was made up almost entirely of
these sort of "super well known films". It fact, it's a definitive list...
Some of these films are VERY good. Everyone SHOULD see "Citizen Kane" - it is
just superb.
Yet when people seem never to have seen any sort of movie beyond this hit
parade, one feels they need to broaden their sights, and also see films by
Borzage, Mizoguchi, Keaton, Bresson, Sternberg, Rossellini and all the rest.
Think this is probably what K. A. Westphal is getting at with his friend's
list of "Top Movies":
>
> 1. BLADE RUNNER
> 2. TAXI DRIVER
> 3. MEMENTO
> 4. CHINATOWN
> 5. DR. STRANGELOVE
> 6. CITIZEN KANE
>
Mike Grost
19774
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:08am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
Mike Grost:
> There is a sociological category. "films that are famous among
people who
> know almost nothing about film history". These films include
everythinmg from
> great works of art like "Citizen Kane" and "Psycho ... [etc.]
> Yet when people seem never to have seen any sort of movie beyond
this hit
> parade, one feels they need to broaden their sights, and also see
films by
> Borzage, Mizoguchi, Keaton, Bresson, Sternberg, Rossellini and all
the rest.
> Think this is probably what K. A. Westphal is getting at with his
friend's
> list of "Top Movies":
>
> >
> > 1. BLADE RUNNER
> > 2. TAXI DRIVER
> > 3. MEMENTO
> > 4. CHINATOWN
> > 5. DR. STRANGELOVE
> > 6. CITIZEN KANE
> >
>
And this is why I bring it up, again. Just what is wrong, exactly,
with this list? In what ways does it suggest that the person who
made it does not "know" Mizoguchi or Sternberg or Rossellini or
Whomever Else?
I'm sorry to belabor this point, and I apologize in advance for
offending anyone... but to extrapolate from a list of Top Six
favorites (4 or 5 of which are generally undisputed members of the
canon) what the person making the list is familiar with or not is
just plain absurd. It says more about the person doing the judging
than about the person being judged, in my humble opinion.
(No offense to K.A. intended. He's described his thoughts in
eloquent detail and seems to be an 18-year-old with impeccable
taste.)
-Bilge
19775
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:32pm
Subject: Re: Last Night, When We Were Young (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
At 18, what I loved:
Greed (Stroheim)
Way Down East (Griffith)
Go West (Keaton)
Intolerance (Griffith)
The Gold Rush (Chaplin)
Fury (Lang)
The Big Heat (Lang)
The Man Who Knew Too Much (Hitchcock)
Vertigo (Hitchcock)
Ikuru (Kurosawa)
The Great Race (Edwards)
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence (Ford)
The Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
Lady for a Day (Capra)
Dishonored (Sternberg)
Singin in the Rain (Kelly & Donen)
Madame Dubarry (Lubitsch)
Don't think I discovered Mizoguchi (with Chikamatsu Monogatari) and Bresson
(Diary of a Country Priest) till next year. I LOVED silent film as a teenager -
and still do.
Most young cinephiles today are FAR better informed than anyone I ever met
back in the 70's, myself included!
Mike Grost
19776
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:33pm
Subject: Re: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
"The Idiot" is a remarkable film. Would love to see the original director's
cut - does it survive anywhere?
Mike Grost
19777
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:36am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote
> > >
> >
>
> (No offense to K.A. intended. He's described his thoughts in
> eloquent detail and seems to be an 18-year-old with impeccable
> taste.)
>
> -Bilge
I am not at all sure that having "impeccable taste" is all that
desirable, whether you are 18 or 80. I hope this is not a venue
where you have to prove "impeccable taste" (or close to it) in order
to be accepted and not looked down upon. Who rules what is
impeccable taste anyway? People should be free to have "bad"
taste,or taste that does not embrace the accepted canonical
pattern -- or non-canonical (they're ultimately similar, because
decreed by authorities).
19778
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 8:48pm
Subject: Re: National Film Registry Selections
In a message dated 04-12-28 13:13:28 EST, Dave Kehr writes:
<< I much prefer several others myself
(most particularly, Peter Tewksbury's excellent "The Trouble with Girls"), >>
Glad to see Tewksbury remembered!
Tewksbury had a special gift with character. His films have a sense of joy
mixed with feelings about their people.
Mike Grost
19779
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 1:59am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> And this is why I bring it up, again. Just what is wrong, exactly,
> with this list? In what ways does it suggest that the person who
> made it does not "know" Mizoguchi or Sternberg or Rossellini or
> Whomever Else?
>
> I'm sorry to belabor this point, and I apologize in advance for
> offending anyone... but to extrapolate from a list of Top Six
> favorites (4 or 5 of which are generally undisputed members of the
> canon) what the person making the list is familiar with or not is
> just plain absurd. It says more about the person doing the judging
> than about the person being judged, in my humble opinion.
>
> -Bilge
It's not my place to deride one set of tastes because they aren't wide
enough. That's the great thing about film freaks; no matter how
crammed with taste your list might be, there's always someone who'll
cite something more obscure. Even if we know and love Mizoguchi,
Sternberg, and Rossellini (and my familiarity with the latter is very
deficient), that is by the good grace (or arbitrary whims) of
distributors. I've kept in contact with an older woman who liked some
brief reviews I contributed to the Sacramento Bee last year; she's
never seen a Mizoguchi film, but she saw Mexican works at the SFMOMA
during the 40s and 50s that are barely a blip on our "classics" radar
today.
To return to the original reason I posted the list, I should admit
that it was more a personal comment than a critical one. My
observations about it from last night still hold true. I don't have
any problem with the films individually, but I think that, together,
they just strike me as something self-consciously dark. TAXI DRIVER is
the quintessential movie for late teens in the same way that CATCHER
IN THE RYE is the quintessential novel. (I am aware of, but don't have
the wits to address, the thornier issue of TAXI DRIVER's older fan
base.) It's pandering, and its effect is tied to the viewer saying,
"Yeah, I can feel his alienation, but I wouldn't go around shooting
people. That's just fucked up." It's a very sincere brand of escapism.
When I see it alongside the other films, I just react, as I explained
last night, thinking, "Well, it's a set of films that proclaim their
cynicism and darkness on their sleeve, and too many young film fans
will instantly think they're more 'important' and 'honest' than
SINGIN' IN THE RAIN or any number of other Hollywood miracles."
--Kyle Westphal
19780
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:07am
Subject: re: James L. Brooks
I would like to prolong the fight over James L. Brooks! Because I am on
Jonathan's side here - I find Brooks an extremely interesting if not 'great'
director (but A FILM BY, by and large, is altogether too consumed with
thoughts of greatness!), and I very much like his (Jonathan's) recent
formulations on and off list of how these films mix up phoniness and
truthfulness in fascinating, indecidable ways. Like a lot of the most
interesting pop culture, in fact.
First off, I do believe that one simply cannot understand or come to terms
with the popular cinema of the 80s and beyond without understanding how
Brooks changed the landscape in terms of his style, aesthetic, storytelling
modes, etc. To write him off as a 'TV guy' - and then to claim that those
who like his films obviously don't watch TV, what a rhetorical move, Brad! -
misses out on a whole slice of mainstream cinema's evolution. (It also
snobbishly writes off Brooks' very real achievements within the TV medium as
writer, director and producer ... hey, remember he had something to do with
giving us THE SIMPSONS!) To name just a few out of very many cases, Brooks
has influenced Paul Brickman's underrated MEN DON'T LEAVE, and the entire
directorial career of Cameron Crowe (someone I don't think we've discussed
much on A FILM BY). Plus about a thousand romantic comedies and teen movies.
Second - back to Jonathan's important insight about phoniness and
authenticity. I am often wary of cinephile-critic posturing that brags on
about the absolute 'emotional truthfulness' of the films that one happens to
love. (Ray Carney as the fountain of authenticity in art and life? No
comment ... ) Brooks comes from, and works in, another, necessarily more
morally 'compromised' space - and, as a matter of fact, his films are often
ABOUT the excruciating mixture of true-self and alienated-self, the
hypocrisies of 'straight-talking', posturing types - the bit in I'LL DO
ANYTHING (either version!) where Joely Richardson has to publicly bag at
work, in sexual terms, the guy she has privately slept with, is indelibly
etched in my mind!
What is true is that Brooks has pioneered (way beyond the strictures of
sitcom form, I would argue) a certain kind of 'slick', fast, intricate,
sometimes very sneaky and evasive way of delivering his stories and dealing
with his character's painful dilemmas. But that is itself a cinematic,
especially American tradition - and at its head is Howard Hawks! Ray Durgnat
(the Ray I prefer!) said a lot about this in an explosive but since hardly
cited piece he did on Hawks for FILM COMMENT in about 1977 - he calls it the
'bat it and run' style, which he criticises in Hawks (because Hawks was/is a
cinephile sacred cow!) - but he also values it for its achievement within
its own terms.
Final comment for now. When people dismiss Brooks' work as inauthentic or
whatever, I remember a wise passage from Stanley Cavell's THE WORLD VIEWED,
where he talks about how critics and commentators described the young
characters in Malick's BADLANDS as stunted, alienated, empty, soulless, etc,
because their speech was peppered with phrases from popular magazines, hit
songs, movies, etc. But Cavell turns this around by pointedly asking: so
what great books would you rather they quote from? Cavell is one of those
philosophers of popular art (another is Bill Routt) who accepts that the
inauthentic, the vulgar, the trashy, etc, in an inescapable, fascinating and
even invigorating part of our necessarily contingent, confused and
compromised existences. (Routt's essay "Creature", reprinted in the American
journal SUB/STANCE as "The Menace", is a brilliant statement of this.) All
the rest is I'm-a-holier-filmgoer-than-thou bullshit!
Adrian
19781
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:07pm
Subject: Re: Lists Lists Lists
Much obliged, J-P.
My favorite poster: Dan Sallitt
Runner-up: Bill Krohn (he missed the top spot because he still quotes
entire emails which leads me to...)
Biggest pet peeve: Quoting entire emails
Best thread: Whatever it was, it definitely wasn't the one on aspect ratios
Best autobiographical post: Whoever mentioned "ficky-facky" (I think that was
the term)
Most informative post: Noel's (I believe) on Filipino melodramas/musicals
Second most informative post: Bill's on Robert Thom, director of ANGEL, ANGEL
DOWN WE GO
The funniest quip: "Chacun a son goo" (David Ehrenstein)
The silliest exchange: I'll keep a look out in 2005
The smartest put-down: Sallitt's on popular music (because it didn't even
sound like a put-down)
Member I would most like to introduce to the music of Nellie McKay and
Caetano Veloso's masterful 2004 album A Foreign Sound: J-P Coursodon
xo,
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19782
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:18pm
Subject: Friedkin's "Conversation with Fritz Lang"
Can anybody provide me with a definitive year-of-release for William
Friedkin's wonderful "Conversation with Fritz Lang"? I know that it was shot in 1975,
but somehow I get the sense from watching it that it's only recently been
assembled into a film; for example, Friedkin's current editor, Augie Hess, is
credited on it, and the title cards look new. I can't find any information about
the release date on the Criterion DVD of "M." with which it's packaged.
Thanks!
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19783
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 9:26pm
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
In a message dated 04-12-28 20:10:26 EST, Bilge writes:
<< > > 1. BLADE RUNNER
> > 2. TAXI DRIVER
> > 3. MEMENTO
> > 4. CHINATOWN
> > 5. DR. STRANGELOVE
> > 6. CITIZEN KANE
> >
Just what is wrong, exactly,
with this list? In what ways does it suggest that the person who
made it does not "know" Mizoguchi or Sternberg or Rossellini or
Whomever Else?
... but to extrapolate from a list of Top Six
favorites (4 or 5 of which are generally undisputed members of the
canon) what the person making the list is familiar with or not is
just plain absurd. >>
There is nothing wrong with this list. It has good films.
But it is the sort of list made by people who have only seen a handful of
famous film classics.
If someone says that this was their list of Best Films, one could bet the
rent money that they had never heard of Sternberg, and probably never seen a film
by Keaton.
Please - I am not trying to be snide. Or look down on anybody.
The people who make such lists are nice people. And they deserve to be
encouraged, and treated with personal respect.
But still - we also should encourage everyone, gently but clearly, to take a
deep dive into the whole of film history. Not by bugging the people who make
such lists, personally, which would be very rude! But by trying to share
knowledge of all the great films with everybody.
There are plenty of great films I've never seen. All too many. I should start
by cleaning up my own act!
Mike Grost
19784
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:33am
Subject: Re: Lists Lists Lists
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Much obliged, J-P.
>
)
> Member I would most like to introduce to the music of Nellie McKay
and
> Caetano Veloso's masterful 2004 album A Foreign Sound: J-P
Coursodon
>
> xo,
>
> Kevin John
>
Please don't introduce me, Kevin, I'm all booked up. My tastes in
music are SO square anyway. Never heard of those people and they
would probably bore me to death. But thanks for trying.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19785
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:33am
Subject: Re: Friedkin's "Conversation with Fritz Lang"
> Can anybody provide me with a definitive year-of-release for William
> Friedkin's wonderful "Conversation with Fritz Lang"? I know that it
> was shot in 1975, but somehow I get the sense from watching it that
> it's only recently been
> assembled into a film; for example, Friedkin's current editor, Augie
> Hess, is
> credited on it, and the title cards look new. I can't find any
> information about
> the release date on the Criterion DVD of "M." with which it's
> packaged.
Wasn't it a marvellous extra too? -I just saw that last night. If
anyone hasn't seen the Eureka (UK) DVD release of M in the last 18
months, I strongly urge a purchase of the new Criterion M set which
uses the same fantastic new Koerber restoration (miles ahead of any
previous versions seen since 1931), but adds things like an audio
recording of M's editor talking through the film with a NY film class
in the early 70s, and the aforementioned Friedkin rarity.
But... the Friedkin interview is often touted as being 140 minutes (90
minutes longer than what Criterion have issued) :(
-Nick>-
19786
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:35am
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
"'The Idiot' is a remarkable film. Would love to see the original
director's cut - does it survive anywhere?"
In 1993 I heard that a collector in Sendai owned a 265 minute 16mm
print but I never met anyone who's seen it so I doubt that it
exists. The complete print was screened only once at its premiere.
Since Kurosawa made it for Shochiku he wasn't consulted about the re-
cut (most of the cuts occur in the first several reels.) In 1990 he
searched for the complete negative at Shochiku but found nothing, so
it's lost (unless the 16mm print really exists.)
Richard
19787
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:16am
Subject: Re: Lists Lists Lists
> Caetano Veloso's masterful 2004 album A Foreign Sound
[Spits drink out...] What? Seriously?
> My favorite poster [etc. etc.]
Now, why is this kind of list-making useful? I think certain
a_film_by posters will end up having their feelings hurt by being
excluded. And there were more than thirty (maybe even 40?)
regulars here who had something to say in 2004...
Gabe (as the guy who started the aspect ratio thread, not to
mention the recent top tens thread)
19788
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:48am
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
> The final
> scene, which is even worse than the one concocted by RKO (it
> consists mostly of talking heads) is quite different from the
> summary of the original scene given by Jonathan in "This Is Orson
> Welles." I am curious to know if Jonathan and our other Welles
> specialists have seen it and what they think. JPC
I refused to see it, based on what I heard about it--and after the
gruelling experience of watching other Welles-related abortions
(e.g., The Big Brass Ring)--purely our of a sense of self-
preservation. By the way, I don't know whether this is relevant, but
the shooting script of the original Ambersons had a different and
much flatter ending, with no boarding house. Maybe the TV version
used that ending. But considering the fact that I heard they started
the TV movie with the ball sequence, the claim that they were
filming the original script sounded like a total crock anyway.
19789
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:02am
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Has everyone forgotten "Berlin Alexanderplatz"? As far
> as I'm concerned it's the Gold Standard for cinematic
> adaptation of novels.
Yes, and Susan Sontag wrote a passionate defense of it, reprinted in
WHERE THE STRESS FALLS.
19790
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:06am
Subject: Re: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
>> > Has everyone forgotten "Berlin Alexanderplatz"? As far
>> > as I'm concerned it's the Gold Standard for cinematic
>> > adaptation of novels.
>
> Yes, and Susan Sontag wrote a passionate defense of it, reprinted in
> WHERE THE STRESS FALLS.
BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ is currently being fully restored in a mammoth
project coordinated by the Fassbinder Foundation. Expect Criterion box
sets and allsorts of hoo-ha when it's complete! :)
An older print recently showed over two days in Brighton, England as
part of a Nick Cave curated film festival there. Unfortunately, I
missed it.
-Nick>-
19791
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:08am
Subject: Re: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- Jonathan Rosenbaum
wrote:
>
> Yes, and Susan Sontag wrote a passionate defense of
> it, reprinted in
> WHERE THE STRESS FALLS.
>
>
She did? Haven't read that.
And to think, Jimmy Stoller gave her her start as a
film critic!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
19792
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:13am
Subject: Re: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- Nick Wrigley wrote:
>
> BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ is currently being fully
> restored in a mammoth
> project coordinated by the Fassbinder Foundation.
> Expect Criterion box
> sets and allsorts of hoo-ha when it's complete! :)
>
I first saw it in two sittings. Day One ended with
Franz losing his arm. This is a natural break.
I taped it off of Bravo when they ran the whole thing
in two-hour at a time doses. Interesting to look at it
one hour per week as German televiewers originally saw
it. The climactic "My Dream of Franz Bieberkopf's
Dream" is amazing.
He wasa nasty manipulative creep, but he knew how to
make movies.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
19793
From:
Date: Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Lists Lists Lists
In a message dated 12/28/04 9:17:40 PM, gcklinger@y... writes:
>
> Now, why is this kind of list-making useful? I think certain a_film_by
> posters will end up having their feelings hurt by being excluded.
>
It's not useful. And I would never have done it had J-P not posed the
challenge. As far as feelings being hurt, all I can say is that you need really thick
skin to be on a mailing list, this one most definitely included (keep in mind
that practically my entire existence was written off as "pathetic" earlier in
the year on this list). The Joan Crawford one was so bad that I left it after
less than a year.
<<[Spits drink out...] What? Seriously?>>
Yes. It's probably my fave album of 2004. Catholic, ecumenical, warm,
gorgeous and it contains the best version of Berlin's "Blue Skies" (J-P, are you
listening?) I've ever heard. Why don't you like it? (Feel free to comment
offlist.)
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19794
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:16am
Subject: Re: Lists Lists Lists
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> >
> It's not useful. And I would never have done it had J-P not posed
the
> challenge.
It was not a challenge, for goodness sake, just a harmless (?)
little joke. Can't believe anyone is taking this seriously!
>
>
> Yes. It's probably my fave album of 2004. Catholic, ecumenical,
warm,
> gorgeous and it contains the best version of Berlin's "Blue Skies"
(J-P, are you
> listening?) I've ever heard. Why don't you like it? (Feel free to
comment
> offlist.)
>
> Kevin John
>
> "Blue Skies" is one of my least favorite Berlin songs. The one
version I really like is Ellingon's "Trumpets No End."
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19795
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:38am
Subject: Re: Susan Sontag dies at 71
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Among other things she was a rather interesting film
> critic when she wanted to be. Her reviews of "Vivre Sa
> Vie" and "Hitler: A Film From Germany" are quite fine.
>
> Her own films, less so -- though John Waters is a
> great fan of "Duet For Cannibals."
>
> She wanted to make films like Bergman's. What she
> ended up with was Woody Allen avant la lettre.
>
> Waiting with baited breath to read what Elliot Stein
> has to say about her now that she's gone.
>
> (Of further cinematic interest, herlovewrs included
> Marilyn Goldin, Marguerite Duras and Nicole Stephane.)
>
> --- Nick Wrigley wrote:
I hope that in honor of her passing someone revives Duet for
Cannibals, which I quite liked, and Brother Karl and Promised Lands,
which I never saw. They could be billed with films she championed to
make a longer program - her taste was flawless, and it would make a
hell of a program.
> > Haven't seen this mentioned here yet. Apologies if
> > it has been posted
> > and my inbox hasn't received things:
> >
> >
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4130985.stm
> >
> > -Nick>-
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
19796
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:45am
Subject: Re: Lists are NOT pointless!! (Was: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> <
seller
> lists.>>
A canon is a list. Of course, there are more interesting things than
that to say about canon formation - Frank Kermode wrote a great book
on the subject, Forms of Attention, and my maltreated mentor Harold
Bloom said very interesting things about the paradoxes that happen
when something becomes a classic in Poetry and Repression - his
examples include Blake's "London," which had to be misread (IHO) to
become a classic. But at the end of the day, a list is a canon, and a
canon is a list. Where would we be without The American Cinema, one
of the greatest lists ever compiled?
WE'RE a list!
19797
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:48am
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> >.
> > >
> > > What about Ruiz's take on Proust?
> >
> > Wonderful, but it isn't the whole thing!
>
> No adaptation of a novel includes 'the whole thing"! Although
> Ruiz's film focusses on "Time Regained" (the last volume of "A la
> recherche...") it actually incorporates elements from the entire
> series (and wouldn't make much sense if it didn't).
Well, just for the sake of argument, Ill-Fated Loves and the 9-hour
Greed reportedly contain(ed) 'the whole thing.' And in the case of
Time Regained being a fragment is part of its formal originality. But
I agree it's a wonderful film.
19798
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:50am
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
> I refused to see it, based on what I heard about it--and after the
> gruelling experience of watching other Welles-related abortions
> (e.g., The Big Brass Ring)--purely our of a sense of self-
> preservation. By the way, I don't know whether this is relevant, but
> the shooting script of the original Ambersons had a different and
> much flatter ending, with no boarding house. Maybe the TV version
> used that ending. But considering the fact that I heard they started
> the TV movie with the ball sequence, the claim that they were
> filming the original script sounded like a total crock anyway.
*****
I did watch it; purely out of misguided masochism. And although I
haven't yet read the Orson Welles screenplay, I sensed rather soon
into this affair that that was not the script they were working from.
My guess was that Alfonso Arau executed the revisions himself;
probably at the behest of the film's producers.
Tom Sutpen
19799
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:51am
Subject: Re: the taskmasters vs. the genius
> >
>
> > Hitchcock was notorious never involved in the direction, he even
> once
> > fell asleep during a scene, Scorsese was less than involved
> with "King
> > of Comedy", Leone also had a relaxed relationship with his actors.
> >
> > So is being a genius not being involved or having realised how
not
> to
> > be involved :)
> >
> > Henrik
If you come across a copy of my book Hitchcock at Work, read the one-
page description of the making of Foreign Correspondent.
19800
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:59am
Subject: The Informant and Pronto (Was: Nicholas Meyer)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
Volunteers is set
> in Asia, and shows Meyer's sympathy with Asians; one of the best
characters
> in The West End Horror is the Parsee. Judge Dee is also one of the
few American
> made for TV movies set in China, with an all Asian cast.
> Meyer's two Star Trek films are interesting. I cried at the end
of "Wrath of
> Khan".
>
> Mike Grost
Meyer is credited w. the screenplay adaptation of The Informant, a
very hard-hitting film about the present-day IRA that Jim McBride
ended up directing for Showtime, but I'm sure The Brad can tell us
more about the process of that. I know Jim got a lot from being on
location in Dublin.
The same year he made Pronto, also for Showtime, based on the Elmore
Leonard novel. Peter Falk was not at the top of his game in it, but
reseeing it recently on VHS before donating it to Cinefile, I
realized that James Le Gros and Glenn Headley and a cast of mugs and
lugs more than make up for the slight letdown of Falk's performance.
Highly recommended.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact