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.
19801
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:09am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
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).
I think this shows a misunderstanding of how canon-formation works
over time. "Decreed by the authorities" is an over-simplification.
Look at somone like Isadore Ducasse - when he died his slim self-
published oeuvre was slated for oblivion. One surrealist found a copy
of Maldoror, showed it to another surrealist, and today it's
translated in several languages. At the same time, I'm sure many
official masterpieces of his (brief) era can now only be found in the
Bibliotheque Nationale, crumbling to dust in the Special Collections
section. Serge Daney wrote a pseudonymous book about Haiti in 1975; I
recently learned that - without ever being identified as a work by an
important author - it has been the bible of the Haitian Resistance
for thirty years. Cream DOES rise to the top; shit (contrary to
rumors) doesn't float, not for long. And the only thing any artist
wants is to produce something that will live long after he/she is in
the grave. The Greeks understood this, and my meshuginah mentor
Harold Bloom has had to remind us all of it again, because PC
thinking has obliterated this most basic truth about art.
19802
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:14am
Subject: Re: Friedkin's "Conversation with Fritz Lang"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> 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
Giulia d'Agnolo Vallan encouraged Friedkin to edit the footage for a
premiere at Locarno in 2003, when she did her complete Friedkin
retro. It subsequently ended up on the Criterion DVD.
19803
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:21am
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
>
> My guess was that Alfonso Arau executed the revisions himself;
> probably at the behest of the film's producers.
>
> Tom Sutpen
I also skipped it, but Arau's innovations reportedly included a scene
where the hero dances with his mother, to bring out the incest
subtext.
19804
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:23am
Subject: Re: Re: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it! (was: Ambersons)
jpcoursodon wrote:
> ...The notion that one painting by any great painter might be singled out as
> his 'best' seems absurd to me....
I think there isn't a consensus on the best painting by most great
painters, but there are exceptions. One obvious one is Velazquez and
"Las Meninas," and "Las Meninas" *is* at least arguably his greatest
painting.
I do think that listmaking can take too much attention, and even become
a silly fetish. But it has enormous value as well, if the list is
intelligently made, or even if not, as an assertion of taste that may
get others thinking.
There's a member of this group who's now 21 (plus or minus a year) who
once told me the story of how he first got interested in cinema, at age
14. (Hey, "X," you can identify yourself if you're reading this and you
want to, but I don't feel free doing it. If you do, correct any mistakes
I may make.) He hadn't had any serious interest in movies until the
AFI's 100 greatest American film list came out. Suddenly he was aware in
a new way that cinema had a history, and that some people took old films
seriously. So he set himself a project of trying to see them. In time,
as his taste "matured" in a way that the average person's taste never
seems to (these are not his words, of course, but my evaluation from
knowing him a little), he discovered that many of those AFI pic picks
were "less than meets the eye." He also found the Chicago Reader's Web
site, and Jonathan Rosenbaum's (excellent) alternative list
(http://www.chireader.com/movies/100best.html ), and the
wrong-headedness of much of the AFI list became clearer and clearer.
So if that awful AFI list had never come out, he might never have gotten
interested in cinema, and if he had it would have been with a later
start. And I think I have it right that Jonathan's counter-list helped
his taste develop further.
For me, asserting a list of great films or a greatest filmmaker's film
has a certain polemical value. Saying "Seven Women" is the greatest Ford
or "F for Fake" is the greatest Welles is an honest expression of my
viewing experience (though I agree about "Chimes" being extremely
great), but may also reflect an auteurist preference for works that
push an artist's project even deeper, perhaps reaching a "meta" level of
reflection on past career in addition to being great works in
themselves. And, by the way, that's exactly what "Las Meninas" does too,
in a way that's absolutely haunting. So perhaps this is an "auteurist"
preference for the art work that illuminates all the others rather than
the stand alone pleasure-delivery vehicle.
My auteurist take on a filmmaker's best film, then, is not that this is
the only one you need to see, or even the one to see if you can only go
to one (I would never recommend "Seven Women" as anyone's first Ford --
that might be "How Green Was My Valley" or "The Searchers" or even
something like "Wagonmaster"), but rather as a kind of apex that deepens
one's appreciation of the other major works as well. This may also
explain my frequent preference for late or even last works.
All that said, the "best" film should in no way devalue the other great
ones, and the important thing is the power that all of them have, not
the act of singling out a "best."
Fred Camper
19805
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:39am
Subject: Shaolin Soccer
The special effects in Shaolin Soccer are in service to the story; how
the soccer ball moves across the field is part of the game and the
duration of the special effect fits the scene. As much as I liked The
House of Flying Daggers, the effects are redundant and too long to the
extent that they become noticed.
> Dave Kehr wrote: 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.
19806
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:26am
Subject: Re: Re: Friedkin's "Conversation with Fritz Lang"
Bill Krohn wrote:
>Giulia d'Agnolo Vallan encouraged Friedkin to edit the footage for a
>premiere at Locarno in 2003, when she did her complete Friedkin
>retro.
I see. So this leads me to assume that perhaps the 140 minute running time
mentioned by Nick refers to the UN-EDITED footage of the interview itself? In
any case, I certainly agree with Nick that the final version is a wonderful
work: one of the best interviews I've seen (or read) with Lang, and also really
beautifully shot in B&W by William A. Fraker (later credited as co-director of
photography on Friedkin's "Rules of Engagement.")
Peter
19807
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:29am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
>
> 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.
You mean, like an 18-year-old?
>
> 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.
Where are you getting this? Just because those are his 6 favorite
films, you've decided that the guy has NEVER HEARD of Sternberg, and
NEVER SEEN a film by Keaton. I hope you're merely being hyperbolic,
because this is an insane assumption to make.
-Bilge
19808
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:45am
Subject: Re: Re: varying degrees of merit
Just getting caught up with the last few days of posts, I recognized a
bit of myself in Kyle's earlier post about people who assert their
tastes with "arrogance," even before his following post quoting me as an
example.
I think one should distinguish between the kind of superficial elitism
based on snobbery and the passion that comes out of lived experience.
The core of my love for cinema is the deep and visionary experiences its
masterpieces have given me, experiences that take me so far outside of
myself that I think similar experiences of those same films ought to be
accessible to many, many others, because their formal beauties seem to
me to not require particular tastes or preferences in order to be
appreciated.
Because movies are a mass medium I don't expect my tastes are going to
become the tastes of the majority, but already I've had much
vindication. I mean, I *do* remember what it was like to be mocked and
laughed at for loving Hawks and Sirk in the late 60s and early 70s,
stories I've told before, and when I was first overwhelmed by Brakhage's
films in 1964 it was at a screening on a bedsheet in someone's
apartment, and you would not find his name in hardly any "serious" film
book, which there weren't many of then. At this time, there were other
avant-garde filmmakers who seemed, at least in terms of number of
screenings and favorable audience response, equally as "recognized" as
Brakhage, such as Stan Vanderbeek and Ed Emshwiller and Vernon
Zimmerman. I liked only slightly Vanderbeek, and didn't like the others.
And I was delighted to see others post their real or reconstructed
favorite film lists at 18, showing the general seriousness of taste here
and vindicating Kyle's view that his acquaintance's list was rather
narrow, at least compared to some. I think my "list" at 18 (this would
be 1966) would have been something like: "Stromboli" (I'd seen few other
Rossellinis) "The Art of Vision," "Red Line 7000," "Twice a Man," "Seven
Women," "Au Hasard, Balthazar" (if it had been shown at the New York
Film Festival by then, I can't remember what year they brought it),
"Tabu," "Gertrud," "Unsere Afrikareise," "Touch of Evil" -- disturbingly
similar to my list today, actually. I hadn't yet fully discovered Sirk
or Borzage.
The other point is that part of the reason for my "arrogance" is that
these visionary film viewing experiences speak to me in terms that seem
very unlike the way more mainstream cinephiles might praise "Citizen
Kane" over "Touch of Evil." The way I tried to talk specifically about
space and editing "Touch of Evil" in the review Kyle quotes from (and
which is at
http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/archives/1998/0998/09188.html ) I
hope make my point for me. The
"arrogance" is partly just an assertion of difference.
Kyle:
"Basically, if people sincerely appreciate a film or a filmmaker, I'm
not sure it's a critic's place to dismiss those works."
I always say I don't want to take away anyone's pleasures. Nor am all I
all "high art." There are pop songs I've "liked" enough to listen to a
dozen times or more. But advocating passionately *for* a way of seeing
movies that most people don't seem to share but that I still think would
give anyone who finds their way to it a deeper and richer life is often
done in part by attacking "other," more mainstream ways. If someone
wants to argue that this is critical laziness and that a great critic
should be able to do it only in positive terms, well, perhaps they'd
have a point. But much in film culture, from the views of the TV critics
at the low end to many of the much more intelligent views expressed by
some in this group at the high end, seems to me so contrary to what I
find the most rewarding aspects of cinema -- not the delivery of
pleasure, but visions that change the way I see -- that it's hard not to
argue. Just because a film creates a mood, because it moves me about
some human issues, because I liked its ambience, those are all reasons
to like something, but they are not for me what makes a film really
great -- which is form.
I agree, too, with Peter's point that extraneous factors can influence
one's attitude but that one tries to avoid them.
He mentions "How Green Was My Valley," and I love making this point
about it (which doubtless many here will not agree with):
The year that "How Green Was My Valley" won the Oscar for best picture
is often decried by serious cinephiles as the greatest mistake the
Academy has very made, because it beat out "Citizen Kane." To me,
though, it is the *only* year when the best picture of the year won the
Oscar.
I'm being polemical, because I've seen far too few of the actual Oscar
winners to be able to even assert this approximately, though as I recall
when I looked over the list every year for which I'd seen the winner I
could name a Hollywood feature film that I thought was greater than the
one that won, except for 1941.
If auteurism has meant anything, at least historically, it has given
license to ignore "mainstream" tastes, even at the expense of seeming
outrageous, in order to evaluate films from the beginning. "Auteurism
used to be a way you could shock people at parties," Tom Gunning said
once, and Tom is hardly someone primarily interested in being
outrageous. Nor was his point that that was the point of auteurism, but
more an added pleasure: approached by some classy lady who wants to talk
about Fred Zinneman, you switch to "Shock Corridor," with abundant
quotes from the script ("Nymphos!") Calling Jerry Lewis a great artist
of film to people who know something about film but little about
auteurist tastes has gotten me some of the weirdest looks I've ever
gotten -- and I'm weird enough to have gotten some pretty weird looks
over the years.
Tom Sutpen asks of the myth of Welles's decline, "Does anyone still
believe that." Yeah. The "newspaper of record," The New York Times,
published a rather revolting Welles obituary that, if I remember right,
basically described him as someone who had never lived up to his
youthful promise. Yipes. If that's not enough to remind us of the
necessity of taking oppositional stances, what is?
So I'd answer Bilge more oppositionally than Kyle did, though
rhetorically so that it doesn't require an answer: What the hell is
wrong with an 18 year old who loves Mizoguchi looking at that list and
feeling it's hopelessly narrow, that cinema has much more to offer, that
this guy "needs" to have his film universe widened or -- if he's seen
more than the list suggests -- his views on what he's seen changed?
Telling him that he needs to see more films and a wider variety of
films, if he hasn't, seems like a great idea. And if he did attend all
of Doc's recent Mizoguchi series, and was unimpressed, then arguing for
"Sansho Dayu," and if it's useful as part of the argument arguing that
it's a greater film than "Taxi Driver," seems to me a completely
legitimate thing for a film lover to do.
I had an uncle who discovered that my taste in poetry at age 14 ran to
Swinburne and Houseman. He sneered in dismay at my twin affections (I'd
even memorized some) and suggested Keats's "Ode to a Nightingale." I
reread it and reread it until I could see colors and hear sounds and
smell smells and even feel the unseeable ("I cannot see what flowers are
at my feet"). It was my first experience of great art, and it changed my
life forever.
What is so wrong with criticizing each other, even strongly, and
criticizing each other's likes? That's how we learn.
Fred Camper
19809
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:00am
Subject: Yahoo issues, undelivered posts
I've been reading our group by email. I had assumed that the problems of
a few days ago were rare and temporary, and posts do seem to be showing
up more quickly. But they're still slow to arrive by email as opposed to
on the Web interface, and for example I see one post from two days ago
that I have not yet received by email. Perhaps I never will.
Maybe the "daily digest" is more reliable; I don't know.
I lack the time or energy to do a careful comparison, but I'm going to
try switching to the Web interface, on the theory that it's more
reliable. (Perhaps this is a secret Yahoo scheme to get us to read their
ads more?) If I send an email to myself it arrives within seconds, and
it goes through a server in Chicago to be sent but is received by a
server maintained by a completely different company in Houston (don't
ask), so there's no excuse for this lateness and unreliability. I think
there's not much any of us can do about this either. Google has a
"groups" in "Beta" (and I've registered a_film_by) so if they are ever
up and running and much better maybe we can switch -- but this wouldn't
be something to do lightly, they'd really have to prove themselves.
Fred Camper
19810
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:53am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
Fred Camper:
>>
> So I'd answer Bilge more oppositionally than Kyle did, though
> rhetorically so that it doesn't require an answer:
Nice try, but no cigar.
> What the hell is
> wrong with an 18 year old who loves Mizoguchi looking at that list
and
> feeling it's hopelessly narrow, that cinema has much more to
offer, that
> this guy "needs" to have his film universe widened or -- if he's
seen
> more than the list suggests -- his views on what he's seen
changed?
> Telling him that he needs to see more films and a wider variety of
> films, if he hasn't, seems like a great idea.
Again, if we were talking about the guy's Top 100 or 200 films, and
they were all BLADE RUNNER or something, I wouldn't have any real
problems with the above. But we're not. We're talking about an 18
year old's list of his Top 6 Favorite films. Would that more 18 year
olds had such a list. Yes, perhaps it would be great if his list was
All Ozu, or whatever (I actually don't think that'd be so great,
although I like Ozu), but again, what does it really prove? I'm not
here really to defend some anonymous film buff -- for all I know,
the rest of his Top Ten could be FRIDAY THE 13TH sequels -- but I
know this brand of film buff scoffery all too well, and it often
makes my skin crawl. Because it's not about what's on the list so
often as it is about what's *not* on the list -- or more accurately,
what's extrapolated about the person's character as a result of the
defining absences on his/her list. ("What? No Fassbinder?? This
person clearly knows nothing about cinemaaah!") And let's not forget
we're talking about a very small list (6 films) and a pretty young
person here. Who knows? Maybe if he saw MAKE WAY FOR TOMORROW today,
he wouldn't be able to connect with it the way he might in 10-15
years or more. (That doesn't mean others can't.) Or maybe he's seen
it and it's Number 7.
>
> What is so wrong with criticizing each other, even strongly, and
> criticizing each other's likes? That's how we learn.
>
Not really, not all of us. Dan Sallitt is probably the least
arrogant film buff I've ever met, and I've ventured into the more
obscure realms of the auteurist canon thanks mainly to his lists and
suggestions. If his suggestions came in the form of "Fuck BARRY
LYNDON. Go see yourself some Allan Dwan," I'd have probably just
ignored him.
-Bilge
19811
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:55am
Subject: Chimes, Zhang, Kurosawa, and lists
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Still think it's Welles' crowning
> > achievement, and one of the greatest films I've ever seen.
Greatest
> > battle sequence, at the very least--everything since, including
> > Peter Jackson's oversized hobbit flicks, just pale in comparison.
>
> Amen. Murch "copied" the Battle of Shrewsbury at the start of Cold
> Mountain, but he didn't have the footage. (The Editor's
Mantra: "Who
> shot this shit?")
Not just "Cold Mountain"--Branagh tried to copy it on St. Crispy's
Day with "Henry V," Gibson's cinematographer admitted being inspired
by it for "Braveheart" and someone mentioned the final battle
in "Fellowship of the Ring" bears some resembalnce. None of em come
close.
On Zhang Yimou mentioned upthread--never warmed up to him, thought
he was too cold, too formal, till I saw "Not One Less." That would
be my favorite Zhang, flaws and unbelievably benign TV station and
all. There I thought he approached de Sica. "Happy Times" I liked a
lot less, thought it cribbed too much from City Lights. "Hero" was
okay--good imagery, not quite up to King Hu.
Kurosawa's had a suprising number of bad moments in his movies, if
not actually bad movies, I think--Sanshiro Sugata 2, anyone? Also
One Wonderful Sunday, wtih the Peter Pan climax, and the bathetic
end to The Bad Sleep Well.
Oh, and to Kevin John--thanks for the mention!
19812
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:28am
Subject: Bunuel's last laugh?
Leave it to Bunuel to have one last joke up his sleeve.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,1380557,00.html
g
--
The government of my country snubs honest simplicity,
but fondles artistic villainy, and I think I might
have developed into a very capable pickpocket if I had
remained in the public service a year or two.
- Mark Twain
Roughing It
19813
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:40am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
Never said anything about this list-maker being 18 - that is irrelevant. My
comments are based on the people I meet in real life, who are mainly around 50
like me.
One meets plenty of (50 year old) people who only have a very dim knowledge
of film history. They all seem to have heard of Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, Dr.
Strangelove - among the handful of films that are well known to people who
have heard almost nothing about most films. And Blade Runner is famous, too,
because it has Great Special Effects. These and a few others might be the only
film classics these people have seen. The only 2 pre-1960 films they can name are
Citizen Kane and Gone With the Wind; the only 60's films they know are Dr.
Strangelove & 2001.
I was not critizing these people's taste. If someone who likes & knows movies
says that Citizen Kane & Blade Runner are his two favorite movies, that would
be just fine - they are really impressive films.
But heck - it is just hard to enthused about the fact that many people seem
to know only 4 films made before 1970!
Admittedly, my personal experiences could be wrong, wrong, wrong. I cannot
prove these assertions with scientific sampling.
Peace,
Mike Grost
PS As I wrote before, I really admire today's young people. a_film_by is full
of under 25 year olds who know much more about film history than I do at 51!
19814
From: Sascha Westphal
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:50am
Subject: AW: Re: Friedkin's "Conversation with Fritz Lang"
To be honest I am quite shocked that Friedkin's "Conversation with Fritz
Lang" runs only about 50 minutes. I expected its duration to be at least
around 90 or so minutes.
I have to admit I didn't know anything about the version made for the
"Locarno Festival". As far as I remember, there was nothing in the German
newspapers or film magazines about it. But I was fortunate enough to see the
unedited material (or should I say a significant part of it) at a screening
that was part of the Fritz Lang Retrospective at the Berlinale in 2001. I am
not sure about the running time of the material anymore but I would say it
was something between 80 and 100 minutes. The 140 minute running time is a
myth ... but a myth based in facts.
Friedkin must have much more material, because he shot every minute of his
interviews (he met Lang more than once in a short period of time, as I
recall it) with two cameras. One was aimed at Lang, the other at him. The
Berlin screening consisted only of the material showing Lang. You couldn't
see Friedkin's face once (something I found extremely sad because I would
have loved to see how 'Hurricaine Billy' responded to Lang's often quite
arrogant behaviour and rather rude answers).
Peter, I am with you. It is an extremely interesting interview. But now I
fear this 50-minute-edit gives us a somewhat 'censored' version of it. The
one thing that was most fascinating to me was Friedkin's modesty. He was
really shy and reverent. Never loosing his composure, not even when Lang's
attitude seemed a bit insulting. Seeing Lang in Friedkin's material I
couldn't help but getting the impression that interviewing him could have
been an extremely frustrating experience.
Sascha
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19815
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:12am
Subject: Re: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it! (was: Ambersons)
My web site contains 3 canons, in fields that have never had canons before.
The world's first canon for mystery fiction, 1830-1980:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/classics.htm
(please see the Recommended Reading lists at the start of each article).
For American TV, 1970-1993:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/film.htm
(please scroll to the bottom of the page, and see the lists of Favorite TV
shows).
For DC Comics Books, 1935-1965:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/comics.htm
(please see the Recommended Reading lists at the start of each article).
Building canons is a wonderful experience.
Mike Grost
Canon-Builder to the Stars
19816
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 0:17pm
Subject: Re: The Informant and Pronto (Was: Nicholas Meyer)
>
> 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.
Here's what The Jim told me: "The Nicholas Meyer FIELD OF BLOOD
script was terrific. It's only problem was a bias toward the Brits
and against the IRA which I tried to rectify. Among other things, I
went back to the book and appropriated a scene at the funeral of a
couple of slain policemen, which really showed the rabidness of the
Protestants and the collusion of the police. I think it would've
balanced the scales a bit more, but it was cut before we got a chance
to shoot it, for production reasons. Otherwise, I stayed pretty
close to the original script. When the film was reviewed
(positively) in Variety, Meyer wrote them an angry letter about how I
had betrayed the central idea of his screenplay, which was, he
asserted, the 'friendship' between Gingy and Ferris."
19817
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:18am
Subject: Re: Re: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it! (was: Ambersons)
In a message dated 12/29/2004 7:14:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
MG4273@a... writes:
Building canons is a wonderful experience.
*****
Perhaps. However, once we start firing them at each other, that's when all
the trouble starts.
Tom Sutpen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19818
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 0:26pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it! (was: Ambersons)
Almost as much fun as firing them.
g
MG4273@a... wrote:
>
>Building canons is a wonderful experience.
>
>Mike Grost
>Canon-Builder to the Stars
>
>
>
19819
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 0:52pm
Subject: Re: James L. Brooks
Well, I guess I'm going to have to add Adrian's name to the list of
people whose opinions I respect, but who admire James L. Brooks. I'm
starting to believe that Brooks is an alien invader who has
hypnotized a bunch of otherwise intelligent individuals into thinking
that his work has some kind of aesthetic value. Honestly, that seem
to be the most logical explanation. AS GOOD AS IT GETS is exactly the
kind of film that one can imagine Ferrara's body snatchers enjoying!
Seriously, I really need to take another look at the films, since I'm
unable to respond in any detail to Adrian's defence. But all my
impressions of Brooks have been unfavourable. I have to admit that I
can hardly recall anything about TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, beyond a few
sitcom lines of dialogue ("Would you like to come in?", "I'd rather
stick needles in my eyes"), and the suggestion that dying of cancer
would be preferable to having an abortion. This, I guess, is what
passed for humanist cinema in the Reagan era.
The three subsequent films I recall slightly more vividly, but I
couldn't see anything of interest in them stylistically. BROADCAST
NEWS and particularly AS GOOD AS IT GETS have that constant sense of
visual emptiness which I always associated with television comedy
shows.
When I get the chance, I am going to watch some of these films again
with an open mind. Until then, the only comments I would make are:
"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."
I'm sure that this is true. But it doesn't mean that his work has any
value. As far as I can see, his influence has been an entirely
negative one. He has contributed towards the creation of a climate in
which people like Monte Hellman are unable to find anyone willing to
bankroll one of their projects.
"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."
Ah, but that's not a claim. It's simply an observation. The two
Brooks defenders on this list are JR (who has mentioned that he
hardly ever watches televsiion) and Bill Krohn (who apparently
doesn't even own a television). It seemed interesting to me that they
should so admire a director who, in terms of his stylistic choices
and aesthetic tastes, offers them more expensive versions of what
they could see on TV any day of the week.
"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"
Much as I dislike Brooks, I feel that blaming him for 'the entire
directorial career of Cameron Crowe' is going too far!
"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."
But surely Brooks aims for 'emotional truthfulness'. The problem for
me is that he misses. And misses because of his inadequacies as a
flmmaker...inadequacies which seem to me so blatant as to be
unarguable. He is to humanist filmmaking what Stanley Kramer was to
political filmmaking. His intentions may be admirable...but so what?
19820
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 0:57pm
Subject: Re: Friedkin's "Conversation with Fritz Lang"
Apparently, London's National Film Theatre screened Friedkin's Lang
interview footage in some form during their Lang season in 2000.
19821
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:43pm
Subject: re: James L .Brooks
... and another reason to like and respect James L. Brooks: his terrific
script for STARTING OVER, one of Alan Pakula's best films (Peter T, take
note!), and also one of the most fascinating 'neurotic romantic comedies' of
the past few decades. (Alongside the early Albert Brooks features.) This
film has many memorable and loveable moments which I and some friends have
quoted to each other for 20 years now!
Adrian
19822
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:25pm
Subject: Caetano Veloso (was: Lists Lists Lists)
Kevin,
I like a lot some songs in the record. It's not on my yet-not-made best-of
list of records this year, but I second your high opinion on this record.
I'm a huge Caetano Veloso fan from his beginnings to 1980, and then his
works ranges from good to great, mostly good than great. A LOT OF brazilian
films have score by Veloso, original or not. The best are Fernando Coni
Campos' "Viagem ao Fim do Mundo" (1968), a very godardian collage of
pop-art, mass media, Simone Weil, soccer and Brazilian writer Machado de
Assis, and underground counterculture classic "Meteorango Kid, o Herói
Intergalático", by André Luiz Oliveira. Coni Campos' film uses at length
Caetano Veloso's first solo album(his true first is "Domingo", with Gal
Costa), and "Meteorango Kid" puts on a lot of songs from his second solo
record (cover: his signature on white). My favorite Caetano Veloso record is
"Transa" (1972), followed by the very experimental "Araçá Azul" (1973) and
"Jóia" (1975). But nearly everything from Brazilian popular music from early
sixties to late4 seventies is great. Jim O'Rourke agrees, he's a big fan.
Members of Sonic Youth and Stereolab also.
FWIW, Devendra Banhart, who IS on my best-list, thinks his only two
influences are Vasthi Bunyan and... Caetano
Caetano Veloso is also a filmmaker and has directed the feature-length
"Cinema Falado" in the 80's. Could be translated as "Talking Cinema",
contrary to silent cinema (which in portuguese is "mute cinema", just like
in french ["muet"]). Good not great.
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] 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]
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
19823
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:45pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen"
wrote:
> >
> >
> > My guess was that Alfonso Arau executed the revisions himself;
> > probably at the behest of the film's producers.
> >
> > Tom Sutpen
>
> I also skipped it, but Arau's innovations reportedly included a
scene
> where the hero dances with his mother, to bring out the incest
> subtext.
Yes, the incestuous attachment of mother and son is a major theme
of Arau's abomination, and it's handled with a total lack of
subtlety. Not at all a subtext in his version. JPC
19824
From: samfilms2003
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:16pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
> 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.
I would say so too. It feels "organic" - so I think that even though it
may not be the intentional ending it's a credit to Welles' artistry that
this can be the case.
Note the power of vanishing points in this intimate scene, it absolutely
works within the deliberate schematics of Ambersons.
-Sam Wells
19825
From: samfilms2003
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:38pm
Subject: Re: Fragmented, broken, mashed-up masterpieces (was: Ambersons)
And there's Sappho, for that matter.....
-Sam Wells
19826
From: Dave Kehr
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:44pm
Subject: Greed
When I talked to King Vidor many years ago, he told me that he was
one of the half dozen people invited by Thalberg and Stroheim to the
marathon screening of Stroheim's first cut. He said that most of
the running time was devoted to Stroheim's insistence on spelling
out every single action of the characters, such as leaving one
apartment, going down the stairs, walking down the street, entering
another building, climbing the stairs, knocking on the door, going
in, etc. It was, apparently, a film with no ellipses whatsoever --
the "Empire" of its day. According to Vidor (no fan of Thalberg, by
the way), the first re-edit got the picture down to the four-hour
length (recreated by Weinberg) without losing a single narrative
incident.
I always found that information fascinating, and I've never seen it
reported anywhere.
Dave Kehr
19827
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:48pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- 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.
But what is "the whole thing" when speaking of a novel? All the
events narrated in the book? Even assuming it is possible to put
them all in a film(and that Stroheim managed to do it in the 9-hour
Greed) there is considerably more in a novel, especially a great
novel, than a series of actions.
19828
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:53pm
Subject: Re: Greed
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Kehr" wrote:
>
> When I talked to King Vidor many years ago, he told me that he was
> one of the half dozen people invited by Thalberg and Stroheim to
the
> marathon screening of Stroheim's first cut. He said that most of
> the running time was devoted to Stroheim's insistence on spelling
> out every single action of the characters, such as leaving one
> apartment, going down the stairs, walking down the street,
entering
> another building, climbing the stairs, knocking on the door, going
> in, etc. It was, apparently, a film with no ellipses whatsoever --
> the "Empire" of its day. According to Vidor (no fan of Thalberg,
by
> the way), the first re-edit got the picture down to the four-hour
> length (recreated by Weinberg) without losing a single narrative
> incident.
>
> I always found that information fascinating, and I've never seen
it
> reported anywhere.
>
> Dave Kehr
It HAS been reported because I remember it very well, but
unfortunately I forget where I read it. JPC
19829
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: varying degrees of merit
ebiri@a... wrote:
> ....If his suggestions came in the form of "Fuck BARRY
> LYNDON. Go see yourself some Allan Dwan," I'd have probably just
> ignored him.....
I try not to pay attention to the style of an interlocutor.
In my experience with filmmakers and artists, there are great artists
who are arrogant and obnoxious, and others who are very kind and modest,
and bad ones come in both stripes too, but it seems to me based only on
unverified anecdotal experience that great artists are often really
arrogant. So for any person I'm interacting with, sure, a really
obnoxious style can put me off, but I find it more productive for my own
learning to try to ignore that and look for substance -- and sometimes
arrogance is an indicator of real passion, too.
Fred Camper
19830
From: samfilms2003
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:34pm
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
Jeez you all were (or are) some precocious kids !
Bresson, Kubelka.... wow.
When I was 18 I think my favs would have been "They Shoot Horses
Don't They ?" "Don't Look Back" and.. ok "Pretty Poison" (do I get a gold
star for that one ;-)
Cut the Memento (ouch !) Blade Runner loving 18 yr. olds some slack !
-Sam Wells
19831
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:43pm
Subject: Re: Greed
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> > According to Vidor (no fan of Thalberg,
> by
> > the way), the first re-edit got the picture down to the four-hour
> > length (recreated by Weinberg) without losing a single narrative
> > incident.
> >
> > I always found that information fascinating, and I've never seen
> it
> > reported anywhere.
> >
> > Dave Kehr
>
> It HAS been reported because I remember it very well, but
> unfortunately I forget where I read it.
*****
I'd have more confidence in this if I actually had a copy of the book
with me, but I believe I read a similar account (attributed to Grant
Whytock; the editor Rex Ingram used when he supervised the cutting),
in Thomas Quinn Curtis's Stroheim biography from the early 70s.
(Now watch. Everything I just wrote will be proven grievously
inaccurate within hours, if not minutes)
Tom Sutpen
19832
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 4:56pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> > I also skipped it, but Arau's innovations reportedly included a
> scene
> > where the hero dances with his mother, to bring out the incest
> > subtext.
>
> Yes, the incestuous attachment of mother and son is a major theme
> of Arau's abomination, and it's handled with a total lack of
> subtlety. Not at all a subtext in his version.
*****
I wonder, were the producers of Arau's version obliged to secure the
rights to Welles's screenplay from his estate; or were those rights in
the hands of another entity at that point?
The reason I ask is, I can't exactly imagine (well, maybe I can)
Beatrice Welles, or whomever else oversees the nuts and bolts of the
estate, being flush with pride and achievement over the final outcome
of that project.
Tom Sutpen
19833
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:27pm
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> PS As I wrote before, I really admire today's young people.
a_film_by is full
> of under 25 year olds who know much more about film history than I
do at 51!
*****
Ahh, them kids're all wet behind the ears.
Wait'll they get a couple of decades worth of this cinephile business
under their belt.
They'll be wishing they took to the needle instead.
Tom "only joking, guys" Sutpen
19834
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:40pm
Subject: Lists when we're 18
I don't normally keep my best of lists, but I submitted mine to
Senses of Cinema when I was 17 (and it was published shortly after I
turned 18). For the record, it looked like this:
Zach Campbell
These are the films I cherish the most right now. Limit one film per
director. I have no idea how to explain my '60s/'70s skew.
(in preferential order)
1. Mirror (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1974)
2. Playtime (Jacques Tati, 1967)
3. Sympathy for the Devil (Jean-Luc Godard, 1968)
4. Lancelot du Lac (Robert Bresson, 1974)
5. An Autumn Afternoon (Yasujiro Ozu, 1962)
6. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (John Cassavetes, 1976)
7. Sansho Dayu (Kenji Mizoguchi, 1954)
8. The Man With a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, 1928)
9. The General (Buster Keaton/Clyde Bruckman, 1926)
10. Singin' in the Rain (Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly, 1952)
Honorable Mentions (also one film per director): The Night of the
Hunter ('55; Laughton), City of Sadness ('89; Hou), Lola Montes ('53;
Ophuls), Taste of Cherry ('97, Kiarostami), Johnny Guitar ('54; Ray),
Nosferatu ('22; Murnau), Eyes Wide Shut ('99; Kubrick). And I've got
a horribly long list of films to catch up with.
----
I still love all of these films (and have re-seen several of them
since), but I think the only one that would still make my top ten,
whatever that looks like, would be PLAYTIME. And I still have a
horribly long list of films to catch up with.
--Zach
19835
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:35pm
Subject: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
Fred wrote:
> The core of my love for cinema is the deep and visionary
> experiences its masterpieces have given me, experiences that take
> me so far outside of myself ...
You've repeated this often, the power of "great" cinema to take you
outside yourself (apparently less than great cinema can't ever do
this?). But I have to say that I think you are not being wholly
honest with us and yourself each time you repeat this assertion. For
one thing, these films that ostensibly diminish your ego and open you
up only do so on narrow terms that you set up for yourself and the
films! You have said before that you reserve the possibility for
cinema to be great primarily through acting or writing or whatever
else, but you haven't found (m)any examples. Do you really believe
that in the history of cinema its acting and performance, for
instance, have failed to reach heights of greatness? Or do you
suspect that maybe you are failing to open yourself to experiences
that exist alongside (not necessarily in opposition to) what you
categorize as 'form'?
Why is it that you repeatedly propose dichotomies (false ones, I
would say) between cinema your way and cinema "another" way in order
to make your point, which you did in a previous post by positing a
great "meta" film as illuminating the films of its maker, not merely
being a "pleasure delivery" device, as if cinema is only one (your
way) or another (the way of the masses)? Why constantly dichotomize
between cinema as high art (as you conceive it) and cinema as a way
to kill time (where paying attention to and appreciating a
performance is given the same weight as having a crush on an actor
who gets naked), nothing in between?
Here's a slightly tangential question: imagine Welles' directorial
oeuvre is lost to us all. None of us ever saw it, or perhaps it's
lost and a future generation can't see it. Except for F FOR FAKE.
Is that film less great because it lacks its "meta" quality, or no
longer has an object to which we can apply its meta qualities?
> The other point is that part of the reason for my "arrogance" is
> that these visionary film viewing experiences speak to me ...
It's interesting here that you're always speaking of
vision, "visionary experiences," films changing the way you see in
the process of taking you out of yourself. Even later in your post
you write: "not the delivery of pleasure, but visions that change the
way I see." Etc.
But I would argue that the cinema's sole essential element is not the
image (or sight) but TIME. No film exists without duration (though a
film can have an unfixed duration). Any aesthetic credo I can think
of would have to take this as its foundation. And to me a good
purpose for watching cinema is to have my thought restructured--
and "seeing" in a new way is only a single possibility among many
paths that this process can take. Brakhage's A CHILD'S GARDEN AND THE
SERIOUS SEA was an intensely moving experience that broke down a lot
of restrictions I didn't even realize I had for watching films, it
moved me to tears, it plunged me face to face with old and forgotten
memories and sensations though its images, its play of light and
shadow, the colors, the rhythm of the cutting.
Cassavetes' THE KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE set forth a devastating
type of "portraiture," mapping out a man's psyche through nuance and
allusion brought out through methods of performance and the capturing
of that performance, being not so much about space and plasticity as
it is about bodies and breathing and time.
Carne's CHILDREN OF PARADISE is what I have come to think of as the
greatest film ever made that did not have particularly impressive
direction. (It has taken me a while to come to grips with the impact
the film had on me, which I originally thought was negligible.) Part
of my growth as a cinephile over the past few years has been linked
with slowly learning, or re-learning, to appreciate a film like
CHILDREN OF PARADISE, which has some fantastic imagery but is
essentially 'novelistic' and/or 'theatrical.' A gripe I had with the
movie originally was how it didn't seem to work as cinema, and indeed
it doesn't work on the level that Ophuls and Mizoguchi and Renoir
work at. But to me this missing level is not one to be evaluated
as "higher," simply different. It's not that CHILDREN OF PARADISE is
lacking in form--it's that I was lacking in my recognition and
comprehension of its form, which is what we might call literary (not
to be confused as a slavishness to literature).
All of these films work because they have unfolded an "argument,"
a "vision" (yet it need not be "vision" literally!), across time, the
experience of which changed me. And they all work this effect in
primarily different ways. I don't think any one is less valid than
any other. To me, opening up myself involves a full erasure (or
rather, the closest I can come to it) of myself by trying to
understand cinema on its greatly contrasting and *individualized*
terms rather than my own.
And because of this I often value the mediocrities and the minor
films for reasons that have nothing to do with greatness or "mere"
pleasure, but something else, perhaps in between. And I desperately
would not want to have the cinema without them. I'm not suggesting
you would, Fred, but I do think that the cinema's core values are to
be found not in the masterpieces but in the medium as a whole. The
masterpieces are, to me, those films which utilize the medium's
potential in the best ways, to the best ends.
Perhaps this is a critical point which won't be reconciled.
> I agree, too, with Peter's point that extraneous factors can
> influence one's attitude but that one tries to avoid them.
Or maybe one should simply be sure to acknowledge these factors as
best one can, and try understand the role they play in our relations
to artwork (and avoid them *when* they get in the way of work that
might be really worthwhile). Seems more productive and less ascetic
to me.
> What is so wrong with criticizing each other, even strongly, and
> criticizing each other's likes? That's how we learn.
Nothing is wrong with it, and it's what I'm attempting to do in this
post. I may or may not have done it well. I expect that few people
will actually wade through this, and Fred, I don't believe you've
gotten a chance to respond to my acting post, so I'm sorry to unload
an even longer oppositional message that could just hang over you
while you're too busy to address it in depth, but I felt moved to
respond at length here.
--Zach
19836
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:15pm
Subject: DID NOT SEE
When I see list A exclude a film found on list B, I wonder if the list
A viewer has even seen the film on list B.
The film award programs are soon here. Has anyone ever tallied how
many of the voters have actually seen all the films on the ballots.
I know there are some worse films lists also, with the same
exclusionary problem.
Perhaps all that can be done is to offer a ranking of a film list from
best to worst with DID NOT SEE in the middle.
> Fred Camper wrote:
> The year that "How Green Was My Valley" won the Oscar for best picture
> is often decried by serious cinephiles as the greatest mistake the
> Academy has very made, because it beat out "Citizen Kane." To me,
> though, it is the *only* year when the best picture of the year won the
> Oscar.
>
> I'm being polemical, because I've seen far too few of the actual Oscar
> winners to be able to even assert this approximately, though as I
> recall
> when I looked over the list every year for which I'd seen the winner I
> could name a Hollywood feature film that I thought was greater than the
> one that won, except for 1941.
19837
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
ebiri@a... wrote:
> ....If his suggestions came in the form of "Fuck BARRY
> LYNDON. Go see yourself some Allan Dwan," I'd have probably just
> ignored him.....
My God, I love that line!
If I didn't told it a hundred times, I told it a thousand…
And I was ignored.
And I eventually lost all my friends.
As a consequence, I watched Rendezvous with Annie alone last night.
And, for this sole moment when Eddie Albert sings in the cockpit, I
know I shall have no regrets.
19838
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Dias de campo, Raul Ruiz
Maybe the most moving film by Ruiz. This search for a nowhere man in
a dreamland offers a persistent and touching melancholy. The
surrealist bric-a-brac participates harmoniously to this nostalgic
enterprise where the confidences and the sights from a world of life
and death are brought with a rare modesty. I sometimes felt I was
breaking into the intimacy of the house. « Folklorist,
imaginatist», or whatever he wants, Ruiz is also a storyteller who
touches the heart.
19839
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:34pm
Subject: Re: Jerry Lewis on DVD in France
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Sam Adams" wrote:
>
> Wait, so are you saying that while Americans stereotype the French
as Lewis-lovers, they
> stereotype us as unfairly detesting a genius? How sweet it is.
Actually, this stereotype (the French one) seems out of date for a
long time. Lewis' work is never shown in France. The Ladies' man and
Family jewels sometimes, that's about all. I had to discover the
Errand boy on (US) tape....
19840
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 6:47pm
Subject: Re: Griffith / the Struggle
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I really don't have much more to say about this than what was in
> the original post. Griffith does put a fair amount of acting
> shading and detail into his films, but I always feel as if the
> end result is not all that different from hanging signs around
> the actors' necks that tell us what their story function is
> and how much we should like them. - Dan
Have recently discovered that one. Didn't see any hanging signs
around. Only modesty and simplicity. This moment in the bedroom when
the girl asks his father for goodnight kisses is as rare as
unexpected. And the street scenes with the children running near the
end are stunning.
19841
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:24pm
Subject: Re: Griffith / the Struggle
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin" wrote:
> > I really don't have much more to say about this than what was in
> > the original post. Griffith does put a fair amount of acting
> > shading and detail into his films, but I always feel as if the
> > end result is not all that different from hanging signs around
> > the actors' necks that tell us what their story function is
> > and how much we should like them. - Dan
>
> Have recently discovered that one. Didn't see any hanging signs
> around. Only modesty and simplicity. This moment in the bedroom when
> the girl asks his father for goodnight kisses is as rare as
> unexpected. And the street scenes with the children running near the
> end are stunning.
*****
Absolutely. There's quite a number of Griffith films where the acting
is obvious and baldly theatrical in that time-worn, 19th century
melodramatic tradition, but "The Struggle" belongs nowhere near that
model. I think we have an awful tendency to begin with to judge the
acting in D.W. Griffith's work by the light of our post-Kazan moon; we
expect to see shadings and nuance in the performances commensurate
with Griffith's stature as a filmmaker.
And we almost never get it. For every Lillian Gish in "Broken
Blossoms" there's a Carol Dempster in "The Idol Dancer" or a Neil
Hamilton in "America"; actors practically discouraged from doing
anything onscreen except illustrating their character and its function
in the film's plot. None of this has ever bothered me, though, because
screen acting was in its infancy throughout Griffith's career and,
despite his having been an actor himself, no one has ever demonstrated
(that I've seen) that Griffith went far out of his way to advance the
craft through the players he used in his films. I just don't expect to
see terribly skilled acting in a Griffith film. It's as rare and
elusive as great dancing is in a production number by Busby Berkeley.
Tom "Goin' to Heaven On a Mule" Sutpen
19842
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:27pm
Subject: Re: DID NOT SEE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> Perhaps all that can be done is to offer a ranking of a film list from
> best to worst with DID NOT SEE in the middle.
*****
It could be that my brain isn't functioning properly today and I
misunderstood what you're saying, but . . . how exactly does someone
rank movies that they haven't seen?
Tom Sutpen
19843
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:04pm
Subject: Re: Chimes, Zhang, Kurosawa, and lists
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> Kurosawa's had a suprising number of bad moments in his movies, if
> not actually bad movies, I think--Sanshiro Sugata 2, anyone? Also
> One Wonderful Sunday, wtih the Peter Pan climax, and the bathetic
> end to The Bad Sleep Well.
>
I walked out of the Scorese re-release of High and Low.
Trying to be more concise so as to cop Kevin's Top Spot next year....
19844
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:06pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- 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.
Yes, it originally appeared in Vanity Fair. My only quarrel with it,
as I recall, is her comparison of Berlin Alexanderplatz with Greed--
following the erroneous (albeit common) assumption that the latter
is a page-by-page or paragraph-by-paragraph adaptation of the novel,
when of course it's no such thing.
19845
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:06pm
Subject: Re: Friedkin's "Conversation with Fritz Lang"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Sascha Westphal"
wrote:
>
> I have to admit I didn't know anything about the version made for
the
> "Locarno Festival". As far as I remember, there was nothing in the
German
> newspapers or film magazines about it.
It was made for the Torino Festival.
19846
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it! (was: Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> My web site contains 3 canons, in fields that have never had canons
before.
> The world's first canon for mystery fiction, 1830-1980:
How about Haycraft?
> For American TV, 1970-1993:
How about The American Vein?
> Building canons is a wonderful experience.
And a collective one, like Chartres.
>
> Mike Grost
> Canon-Builder to the Stars
And Beyond!
19847
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:14pm
Subject: Re: Greed
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Kehr" wrote:
>
> When I talked to King Vidor many years ago, he told me that he was
> one of the half dozen people invited by Thalberg and Stroheim to
the
> marathon screening of Stroheim's first cut. He said that most of
> the running time was devoted to Stroheim's insistence on spelling
> out every single action of the characters, such as leaving one
> apartment, going down the stairs, walking down the street, entering
> another building, climbing the stairs, knocking on the door, going
> in, etc. It was, apparently, a film with no ellipses whatsoever --
> the "Empire" of its day.
That sounds great!
19848
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:15pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> But what is "the whole thing" when speaking of a novel? All the
> events narrated in the book? Even assuming it is possible to put
> them all in a film(and that Stroheim managed to do it in the 9-hour
> Greed) there is considerably more in a novel, especially a great
> novel, than a series of actions.
(burp)
19849
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:15pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
> I wonder, were the producers of Arau's version obliged to secure
the
> rights to Welles's screenplay from his estate; or were those
rights in
> the hands of another entity at that point?
>
> The reason I ask is, I can't exactly imagine (well, maybe I can)
> Beatrice Welles, or whomever else oversees the nuts and bolts of
the
> estate, being flush with pride and achievement over the final
outcome
> of that project.
>
> Tom Sutpen
An important correction is in order: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN
ORSON WELLES ESTATE, regardless of Beatrice's claims to the
contrary. She inherited the rights to OTHELLO, full stop. Oja
inherited the unfinished films and some manuscripts (e.g., THIS IS
ORSON WELLES, some scripts), full stop. Everything else is owned by
other people or corporations (usually the latter), including
AMBERSONS. Beatrice's claim to there being an estate controlled by
her is only a ruse to get money, with the assistance of Thomas
White, who has also worked in a similar capacity for Fred Astaire's
widow. And who isn't even a lawyer.
19850
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:16pm
Subject: Re: Greed
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > I always found that information fascinating, and I've never seen
> it
> > reported anywhere.
> >
> > Dave Kehr
>
> It HAS been reported because I remember it very well, but
> unfortunately I forget where I read it. JPC
It really sounds great!
19851
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:19pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
were the producers of Arau's version obliged to secure the
> rights to Welles's screenplay from his estate; or were those rights
in
> the hands of another entity at that point?
RKO owns it. When I went thru the script file I was surprised to find
a draft done by someone for Warners, which RKO inherited when Welles
asked them to acquire it.
19852
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:20pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
> > But what is "the whole thing" when speaking of a novel? All
the
> > events narrated in the book? Even assuming it is possible to put
> > them all in a film(and that Stroheim managed to do it in the 9-
hour
> > Greed) there is considerably more in a novel, especially a great
> > novel, than a series of actions.
>
> (burp)
Stroheim added quite a bit too. And he left out some things,
including the antisemitism and (surprising for Stroheim) some of the
masochism, such as Trina showing off the bruises Mac inflicted on
her. Even the notion that Stroheim included all the events or
incidents in the novel is a total myth.
19853
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:25pm
Subject: Les enfants du Paradis (was:Cinema, taste, merit )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
> Carne's CHILDREN OF PARADISE is what I have come to think of as the
> greatest film ever made that did not have particularly impressive
> direction.
It's a great script, and it occupies a central place in film history
because it emulates early Renoir and influenced late Renoir. It's
hard to imagine Golden Coach without Les enfants.
19854
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:28pm
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
I watched Rendezvous with Annie alone last night.
> And, for this sole moment when Eddie Albert sings in the cockpit, I
> know I shall have no regrets.
More than that, Maxime. I'd love to see a decent copy of Rendezvous,
a film which is full of magic. I assume you broke down and watched it
on video, right?
19855
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:29pm
Subject: Re: Griffith / the Struggle
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
>
> Have recently discovered that one. Didn't see any hanging signs
> around. Only modesty and simplicity. This moment in the bedroom
when
> the girl asks his father for goodnight kisses is as rare as
> unexpected. And the street scenes with the children running near
the
> end are stunning.
Griffith's best film, IMO.
19856
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:32pm
Subject: Re: Les enfants du Paradis (was:Cinema, taste, merit )
--- hotlove666 wrote:
.
>
> It's a great script, and it occupies a central place
> in film history
> because it emulates early Renoir and influenced late
> Renoir. It's
> hard to imagine Golden Coach without Les enfants.
>
Prevert also wrote "Le Crime de M. Lange," "Drole de
Drame," "Quai des Brumes," "Le Jour se Leve,"
"Remorques," "Les Visiteurs du Soir," "Les Amants de
Verone" and (my favorite) "Lumiere d'ete"
He was the Charlie Kaufman of his day.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
19857
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:31pm
Subject: Re: Lists are NOT pointless!! (Was: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it!)
Without being too tautological about it, polls are good for
determining which movies win polls -- i.e. which movies a given group
of people tend to agree about most. If you happen to agree with that
group generally -- i.e. say a number of your favorite movies of 2004
are among the Voice's Top 10 -- that might encourage you to seek out
others you haven't seen (as in fact I am encouraged to remind my
friend to lend me her tape of LOS ANGELES PLAYS ITSELF, which
apparently stands no chance at all of coming to town or being
released on DVD). Likewise the repeated mentions of OASIS on this
a_film_by, which moved the DVD to the top of my to-watch pile, right
after MIKEY AND NICKY and INFERNAL AFFAIRS. No poll establishes
anything definitively, and you could probably argue that a given
poll, and let's throw in awards from various critics' group as well,
acquires significance only insofar as it accords with other like
awards -- i.e. if only one critics' group had put SIDEWAYS at the top
of the list, no one would pay it much mind. But the unanimity with
which it was placed at or near the top of so many lists certainly
makes an impression, as for example does the fact that all three NY
Times critics who did Top 10 lists put MILLION DOLLAR BABY on theirs,
making it an instant must-see for many people. It would be
interesting, following Elizabeth's suggestion, to accompany a given
list or poll with disclosure of films not seen, since one thing such
lists inevitably do is remind people how many movies they missed. (If
only I'd gotten around to HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHITE CASTLE!)
There's definitely too much emphasis on who "wins" such things, but
the snapshot they provide is at least briefly enlightening, although
of course it ultimately says more about the nature of the group being
polled than any universal "best."
Sam
19858
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:37pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
>
> >
> An important correction is in order: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN
> ORSON WELLES ESTATE, regardless of Beatrice's claims to the
> contrary. She inherited the rights to OTHELLO, full stop. Oja
> inherited the unfinished films and some manuscripts (e.g., THIS IS
> ORSON WELLES, some scripts), full stop. Everything else is owned
by
> other people or corporations (usually the latter), including
> AMBERSONS. Beatrice's claim to there being an estate controlled by
> her is only a ruse to get money, with the assistance of Thomas
> White, who has also worked in a similar capacity for Fred
Astaire's
> widow. And who isn't even a lawyer.
Jonathan,
Is there any possibility that Welles's comments about other
directors which Peter edited out of the original THIS IS ORSON
WELLES might appear one day? As one of the many people who encounter
Orson from THE ORSON WELLES STORY and video copies of his numerous
TV appearances, I'm sure they must have been hilarious and not at
all nasty.
Tony Williams
19860
From: Yoel Meranda
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:45pm
Subject: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
Zach,
My purpose is not to defend Fred here but to defend "a" point of view
about arts that is shared by some people I know, including Fred.
I'm sorry if this sounds too basic but going to basics is what I
think we should do when we try to understand anything, including arts.
We can say that any artwork has two "components": form and content.
Whatever it is that you're looking at, or listening to, it is in some
shape that is abstract when the brain perceives it and that abstract
shape becomes something else when our brain conceives it. This might
be a human, or a car but whatever it is, it is later (maybe less than
nanoseconds later, but still later) that our brain 'understands'
that. And even then, in a time-based artwork such as film, we are
constantly filled with new abstract information. The full
understanding of the experience of seeing (or hearing) cannot happen
without paying more attention to the form.
If you believe that aesthetic experience goes to the very depths of
our biology, psychology, etc. there is no way that the experience is
going to by-pass the fact that perception comes before conception.
Acting can be great but if it is not contained in any form I don't
know how you can say that you're talking about an experience as
profound as a film that contains it in a form.
On the other hand, the opposite is not true, a great form with "bad
acting" CAN actually be great since the acting that you
don't like might become very meaningful if the form gives meaning to
its "badness". I think I made a similar point while defending
Oliveira's last film: many people don't like the acting but if you
look at the film carefully, the form tells you that it is all
artificial anyway and the acting only follows that, what's more it
adds to the aesthetic experience.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen the Carne's Children of Paradise,
although it is on my list of films to be seen. I will just discuss
what you wrote on it.
Can you explain what you mean by "literary direction"? What is it? Am
I right when I understand that its form is more or less "restrained"
to allow the great story, the great characters, etc. to make their
effect. If this means that the film has no merit when you see it as a
whole, both as something abstract and "a representing", then I guess
it is a bad film in my taste. I mean, it might be interesting, etc.
but it is not a complete aesthetic experience. I tried to explain why
above.
By the way, when I see a film I do not really have two experiences,
an abstract one and a content-related one. They are obviously
interrelated in ways it is impossible to grasp until a scientist
finds out more about the brain and the nervous system and their
workings. However, until then, we know that what we look at also is
abstract, and it wouldn't help to ignore such an important part of
our experience of any artwork.
Yoel
19861
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:12pm
Subject: Cinema Tragedies (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
.
>
> (burp)
I'll thank you not to burp in my face, Bill. It just isn't done.
JPC
PS: Now you can get the "shortest post of the year" award.
Shortest but not necessarily brightest.
19862
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:12pm
Subject: Re: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it! (was: Ambersons)
"The Haycraft-Queen Definitive Library of Detective-Crime-Mystery Fiction:
Two Centuries of Cornerstones" by Howard Haycraft and Ellery Queen at first
looks like a canon. But it isn't. It is full of entries such as:
1934 Rex Stout, Fer-De-Lance. The first Nero Wolfe book.
This says that: Rex Stout is an important author - so we are citing his first
book about Nero Wolfe (his main detective) as a "Cornerstone" in detective
fiction history. It does not tell what is good or bad throughout Stout's whole
career - the specific novels and short stories. Haycraft and Queen probably had
deep ideas on this, but unfortunately never wrote them down anywhere, as far
as I can tell.
Many of the entries in the list are their author's first book, even when
Haycraft & Queen do not note this explicitly.
The list also sometimes cites an author's best book:
Ngaio Marsh, Overture to Death
This is better - but it is still not a list of everything the authors liked
in Marsh.
In many ways this list - and Ellery Queen's great "Queen's Quorum" - are
designed to help book COLLECTORS - people who buy First Editions, rare books, etc.
They are not pure guides to artistic merit in mystery fiction.
I owe everything as a mystery historian to my great predecessors, Van Dine,
Haycraft, Sayers, Queen, Boucher, Hubin, Penzler.
But as far as one can tell, they never produced a canon, such as Andrew
Sarris' "The American Cinema".
Similarly, the credits in "The American Vein" by Christopher Wicking and Tise
Vahimagi list all the director's TV credits the authors could unearth. This
is a heroic job of scholarship. But it is not a canon - it does not tell which
they thought were artistically outstanding. One can sometimes get clues to
this from the text criticism - and sometimes not.
Mike Grost
19863
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:21pm
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
> Jonathan,
>
> Is there any possibility that Welles's comments about other
> directors which Peter edited out of the original THIS IS ORSON
> WELLES might appear one day? As one of the many people who
encounter
> Orson from THE ORSON WELLES STORY and video copies of his numerous
> TV appearances, I'm sure they must have been hilarious and not at
> all nasty.
>
> Tony Williams
This reminds me of the Cahiers du Cinema interview with Welles
where they asked him what he thought of Minnelli and his response
was: "Please, we're having a serious conversation."
19864
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:32pm
Subject: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
Yoel, thanks for responding. I actually agree with much of what
you're saying, so let me restate some of my opinions to clarify where
we might agree and where we might disagree.
> Acting can be great but if it is not contained in any form I don't
> know how you can say that you're talking about an experience as
> profound as a film that contains it in a form.
But acting is expressive in itself, it is a type of communication
that has form like *any other communication*. Actors aren't always
(in fact, they usually aren't) simply talking objects manipulated by
the director in production and post-production.
What I am trying to defending is a broader understanding of form as
something (speaking of film here) that is not simply created by
camera movements, emulsion, and cutting. Form is something that
works on *many* levels on a film, not just the ones that Fred
privileges.
> On the other hand, the opposite is not true, a great form with "bad
> acting" CAN actually be great since the acting that you
> don't like might become very meaningful if the form gives meaning to
> its "badness".
I agree 100%.
> Can you explain what you mean by "literary direction"? What is it?
> Am I right when I understand that its form is more or
> less "restrained" to allow the great story, the great characters,
> etc. to make their effect.
My point was more to the effect that the form is *not* restrained,
but rather, it is organized differently. I do not think that form is
something which "contains" a (great) story or (great) characters.
Form is something that can (but need not) *create* the greatness in
these things, or other things. Sometimes greatness in a film works
overwhelmingly one on level (visual rhythms, plasticity and
composition, etc.), sometimes on another, sometimes on multiple
levels. That's what I was trying to argue.
As far as "literary" goes, yes, the film is foregrounding its
characters and story (like, well, most commercial narratives), and
doing so in a way to energize these elements. It's not simply about
pleasure delivery and viewer identification, though those are
present: it's about the construction, maintenance, and development of
varying signs and states of mind and emotional landscapes. It's a
film in which I recognize some of the qualities that Bakhtin
discusses when he writes of messy, dialogic discourse in the novel.
And this is done more through writing and acting than through space
and light. It is not formlessness or restraint--it is every bit as
formally rigorous and coherent as a masterpiece of Fred's order. Its
quality is simply of a different kind. And I'll come down on the
side of pluralism and catholicism here--I do want greatness in
cinema, and I'll try to open up my aesthetics, when I think they're
too narrow, to recognize and feel it.
> If this means that the film has no merit when you see it as a
> whole, both as something abstract and "a representing", then I guess
> it is a bad film in my taste. I mean, it might be interesting, etc.
> but it is not a complete aesthetic experience. I tried to explain
> why above.
But part of the unsettling experience of seeing CHILDREN OF PARADISE
two years ago was that it *was* a "complete aesthetic experience" to
me, but I was bothered and couldn't figure out why, because I
couldn't see what Carne was doing, and figured--wrongly--that if he
wasn't up to something then the film must be a forgettable jumble
of "formless" virtues. (Which is not at all to say Carne's work is
incompetent: his major reputation is at least partly deserved.) But
this movie has haunted me and given me more to grapple with than
almost any other film I can think of that I initially thought was
only OK. It has taken me two years to open myself up to the sort of
experience that CHILDREN OF PARADISE gives us.
> By the way, when I see a film I do not really have two experiences,
> an abstract one and a content-related one.
So hopefully it's a little clearer that I wasn't trying to argue in
favor of content vs. form, or theme vs. experience. I think we
should try to broaden ourselves in order to take in the many things
cinema can offer us. The aesthetics that Fred pursues in his viewing
and his writing are incredibly valuable and I cherish them myself;
but I am firmly convinced that they are neither alone nor paramount.
--Zach
19865
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- Tom Sutpen wrote:
> Ahh, them kids're all wet behind the ears.
>
> Wait'll they get a couple of decades worth of this
> cinephile business
> under their belt.
>
> They'll be wishing they took to the needle instead.
>
If they go the Phillipe Garrel route theycan do both.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
19866
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:49pm
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> In my experience with filmmakers and artists, there are great artists
> who are arrogant and obnoxious....
Just like David Thomson's biography of Welles says. ;)
--Kyle
19867
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:55pm
Subject: Re: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> RKO owns it. When I went thru the script file I was
> surprised to find
> a draft done by someone for Warners, which RKO
> inherited when Welles
> asked them to acquire it.
>
>
Allthis talk of Welles and Arau has left out the most
important party in all of this -- Booth Tarkington.
I trust I'm not the only person on the list to have
read the novel. And I hope everyone's aware of just
how highly regarded Tarkington was in his time -- but
sadly not today.
If we had a decent system of education "The
Magnificent Amersons" would be taught in every school
in land.
Welles' film is slavishly faithful to the novel -- as
is his radio adaptation. The "voice" of the piece
belongs solely to Booth Tarkington -- not Orson
Welles.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
19868
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:03pm
Subject: Re: DID NOT SEE
>> Elizabeth wrote
>> Perhaps all that can be done is to offer a ranking of a film list from
>> best to worst with DID NOT SEE in the middle.
> Tom Sutpen wrote
> ... how exactly does someone rank movies that they haven't seen?
It's my attempt to suggest that the film would be somewhere in between
the best and worst of the list, but the more important information for
the reader of list would be available, that is that it was not seen.
19869
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:04pm
Subject: OT: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
David E:
> Allthis talk of Welles and Arau has left out the most
> important party in all of this -- Booth Tarkington.
Haven't read AMBERSONS, unfortunately. But I picked up an old
paperback of Tarkington's SEVENTEEN (recommended once or twice in
print by Jonathan Rosenbaum), and though I ended up getting
sidetracked and never finished it after beginning it on a train ride
(sad 'cause it's a short book), I remember it as one of the funniest
things I'd ever read. Superb observational eye and imagination.
Hm. Now I really *want* to read THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS.
--Zach
19870
From: Yoel Meranda
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 11:51pm
Subject: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
Zach,
You wrote:
"But acting is expressive in itself, it is a type of communication
that has form like *any other communication*. Actors aren't always
(in fact, they usually aren't) simply talking objects manipulated by
the director in production and post-production."
Acting is a form of communication and I do believe the actors are
expressing themselves when they act. However, in cinema, when I look
at the screen, I don't see an actual person. I see a shape in two
dimensions and some sounds.
I believe you and I define form differently. For me, form is abstract
(and it has to be if it is going to be different than content
otherwise I see no need to separate them). You did not make any
comments on my emphasis on the word abstract and I would like to hear
what your thoughts are on this.
For example, in poetry, the form is no different than music. It has
no relation to the meanings of the words and even to the fact that
the words have any meaning. Similarly, in cinema, form is really a
bunch of light reflected from the movie screen (+ sounds, if there is
any, regardless of where its coming from in the screen since there is
no necessary connection between the actor on the screen and the
voices we hear. Again, I am only talking about the abstract aspects
of arts) and nothing else. You might not agree with me when I say
that form is abstract and if it is the case, that's what we should be
discussing.
Going back to actors, I agree that acting can be an important part of
the form. The body of an actor have its own shape, which can be
expressive in itself, and the possibilities become infinite since the
shape also has the possibility of moving. The actors are exactly like
dancers when we talk about the form that can arise from acting. Of
course, there is also the tone of their voice, which is exactly like
music when we only talk about form.
As I said, the experience of cinema seems to be more complicated than
just being abstract, although it might not be. The only thing we can
be sure that the form is a defining part of aesthetic experience and
when I use the word form I mean abstract shapes or abstract sounds.
Looking forward to your response,
Yoel
19871
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 0:06am
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:
> .
> >
> > (burp)
>
> I'll thank you not to burp in my face, Bill. It just isn't done.
>
> JPC
>
> PS: Now you can get the "shortest post of the year" award.
> Shortest but not necessarily brightest.
BURP!
19872
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 0:07am
Subject: Re: OT: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
--- Zach Campbell wrote:
>
> Hm. Now I really *want* to read THE MAGNIFICENT
> AMBERSONS.
>
Good. Because there's no point in discussing the film
if you haven't read the book.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19873
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 0:08am
Subject: Re: Film buffs do it! Art lovers do it! (was: Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I owe everything as a mystery historian to my great predecessors,
Van Dine,
> Haycraft, Sayers, Queen, Boucher, Hubin, Penzler.
> But as far as one can tell, they never produced a canon, such as
Andrew
> Sarris' "The American Cinema".
>
> Similarly, the credits in "The American Vein" by Christopher
Wicking and Tise
> Vahimagi list all the director's TV credits the authors could
unearth. This
> is a heroic job of scholarship. But it is not a canon.
Expect to find yourself at the very top of my canon of canonizers,
Mystery Mike, when I finish compiling it!
19874
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 0:11am
Subject: Ambersons (was Re: Welles and the Canon)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Welles' film is slavishly faithful to the novel -- as
> is his radio adaptation. The "voice" of the piece
> belongs solely to Booth Tarkington -- not Orson
> Welles.
He left out the spook.
I'm a Penrod man, myself.
19875
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 0:13am
Subject: Re: OT: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> >
> > Hm. Now I really *want* to read THE MAGNIFICENT
> > AMBERSONS.
> >
>
> Good. Because there's no point in discussing the film
> if you haven't read the book.
>
Hyperbole, thy name is Ehrenstein.
19876
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 0:45am
Subject: Re: OT: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Zach Campbell wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Hm. Now I really *want* to read THE MAGNIFICENT
> > AMBERSONS.
> >
>
> Good. Because there's no point in discussing the film
> if you haven't read the book.
>
> ____I would assume the bulk of what has been written about the
film was written by people who haven't read the novel. Does it make
all that writing worthless? May not Zach or anybody else have
opinions about the film without having read the book? Hyperbole
indeed!______________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
19877
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 0:53am
Subject: Re: Re: OT: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> > ____I would assume the bulk of what has been
> written about the
> film was written by people who haven't read the
> novel. Does it make
> all that writing worthless?
Don't tempt me.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19878
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:15am
Subject: Re: On T: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein >
> Good. Because there's no point in discussing the film
> if you haven't read the book.
What is that supposed to mean? Is that a general principle, or are
you solely referring to that movie?
I naively thought that films had a life on their own...
19879
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:17pm
Subject: Re: DID NOT SEE
Know exactly what you mean - and agree.
If a film is not on someone's recommended list you cannot tell if:
1) They saw it and think it is too flawed to recommend;
OR
2) They just have not seen it yet.
For this year, "Sideways" and "Collateral" will not be on my Best list - saw
them, found them flawed - although both have merits.
"LA Plays Itself" won't be there either - it just has never been shown here
in Detroit. Believe me, if it were showing, I'd go to see it at once! It
certainly sounds fascinating. Here's hoping it will one day play at the Detroit Film
Theater.
Mike Grost
19880
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:18am
Subject: Re: varying degrees of merit
You caught me, Bill! Yes, I watched it on video. And not the best
ever.
I won't do it again.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
> wrote:
> I watched Rendezvous with Annie alone last night.
> > And, for this sole moment when Eddie Albert sings in the
cockpit, I
> > know I shall have no regrets.
>
> More than that, Maxime. I'd love to see a decent copy of
Rendezvous,
> a film which is full of magic. I assume you broke down and watched
it
> on video, right?
19881
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:22am
Subject: Re: DID NOT SEE / did see and didn't like it
Actually, there is often a lot to learn about their personal taste
from films people don't like.
There should be "10 worst" lists.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Know exactly what you mean - and agree.
> If a film is not on someone's recommended list you cannot tell if:
> 1) They saw it and think it is too flawed to recommend;
> OR
> 2) They just have not seen it yet.
>
> For this year, "Sideways" and "Collateral" will not be on my Best
list - saw
> them, found them flawed - although both have merits.
> "LA Plays Itself" won't be there either - it just has never been
shown here
> in Detroit. Believe me, if it were showing, I'd go to see it at
once! It
> certainly sounds fascinating. Here's hoping it will one day play
at the Detroit Film
> Theater.
>
> Mike Grost
19882
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:39am
Subject: Re: Re: On T: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
--- Maxime Renaudin wrote:
>
> What is that supposed to mean?
It means what it says.
Is that a general
> principle, or are
> you solely referring to that movie?
As a general principle it's a good idea to take a look
at the novel whenever possible, but especially so in
this case. Welles practically picked up the book and
went to the set with it.
He had a particularly strong identification with the
story as this was the world that he knew as a child.
George Minafer is kind of a nightmare version of the
man Welles might have become.
> I naively thought that films had a life on their
> own...
>
Sometimes they do. . .
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19883
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:53am
Subject: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
Yoel wrote:
> Acting is a form of communication and I do believe the actors are
> expressing themselves when they act. However, in cinema, when I
> look at the screen, I don't see an actual person.
True, of course. But is there any good reason to write off the
representational capacity for cinema (or photography in general) and
the psychological implications it brings up? No, we don't
see "actual people" on-screen in a recorded image. (Or an animated
one; this is an important and highly relevant issue that I don't know
if I can go into depth on at this moment.) But in a lot of cinema,
we are meant to register the illusion of these people on-screen:
their psychology perhaps, their background or future, their
motivations, their mere physical presence. The illusion is part and
parcel of a representational cinema: acknowledging that it is an
illusion, as far as I can think this out, does not necessitate a
denial of this illusion. Nonrepresentational cinema would lose a lot
of its power, too, if we didn't consider what it was showing us in
contrast to representational cinema.
> I see a shape in two dimensions and some sounds.
> I believe you and I define form differently. For me, form is
> abstract (and it has to be if it is going to be different than
> content otherwise I see no need to separate them).
> You did not make any comments on my emphasis on the word abstract
> and I would like to hear what your thoughts are on this.
To me form works on multiple planes. In a narrative film, form by
definition extends to the narrative and all that might come with it,
including dialogue or character psychology. In Maurice Pialat's LA
GUEULE OUVERTE, to choose a random example, when the father has a
drastic "change of heart" near the end of the film, this is a formal
choice because it illustrates something that Pialat wants to suggest
about human behavior. It also counts as "content," because Pialat
has to find ways to express this content through another level of
form when he shoots the scene and edits his film.
Both formal choices matter in a narrative film and are worth taking
seriously. A great narrative film might have the form on one of
these levels create the greatness and move, enlighten, and challenge
the viewer, while the other level might remain pedestrian, or be bad,
or not work on its own terms but succeed because of the other level.
I think most or all of us on this list are willing to allow for bad,
pedestrian, or purely "utilitarian" storytelling or acting in films
whose visual and temporal achievements are too great to ignore. At
worst, we might think of these as noble failures, and at best, all-
out masterpieces. Lord knows I have some favorite films that have
contrived plots and "awful" acting. What I've begun to learn, and am
slowly learning still, is to appreciate on a sophisticated (I hope)
level the ways in which a film can achieve greatness wherein the form
that Fred privileges has not attained that greatness itself.
Now, we can perversely ignore the psychological strictures that force
representational cinema to represent. But this isn't what anyone on
this list seems to want to do. Fred wrote that Andre De Toth's great
theme is betrayal (which is true), and that's something that of
course wouldn't be gleaned from De Toth's films if one choose to see
them as only sound and space, color and light: nothing more. So
obviously Fred (and the formalist position as it is usually
practiced) isn't trying to ignore, say, storytelling--but I would
suggest that there is room to better incorporate the formal qualities
of performance or narrative into the greater formal picture.
Now I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the
word 'abstract' in this context. I suspect that you mean that the
form of a film (that is, its colors, shapes, cutting and
compositional rhythms, visual space both literal and implied, sound
design) exists for films by Conner, Kubelka, Sirk, Poole, or Demme.
And I would agree that form *so defined* does work this way. But my
argument would be that there is no good reason to limit our
definition of form to this single one in films that inherently call
out for a broader definition because they are necessarily engaging us
on more levels than this one. That is, in representational cinema
these elements are decidedly not abstract even though they *also*
exist on that level. Representational films want for us to see 'the
person' and not 'the blob of colors.' (Unless of course the point of
the film might be to challenge representation on some level; this is
an exception that would prove the rule.) And hopefully the above
paragraphs make for a decent illustration of how I think form can
*also* work in *some* kinds of films.
> For example, in poetry, the form is no different than music. It has
> no relation to the meanings of the words and even to the fact that
> the words have any meaning. Similarly, in cinema, form is really a
> bunch of light reflected from the movie screen (+ sounds, if there
> is any, regardless of where its coming from in the screen since
> there is no necessary connection between the actor on the screen
> and the voices we hear.
So to recap, I think that cinema can work on this "poetic"
or "musical" level--but it can (and does!) also work on
a "novelistic" level, which is necessarily very different from
these. This is where I'm glad I mentioned Bakhtin in my previous
post. Sometimes films can be shaggy dialogic creatures whose form is
not limited to what you're citing here as "abstract" form (though
sometimes they can be great on that level, even only on that level--
and that's fine with me!). But in the case of a film like CHILDREN
OF PARADISE, the primacy of the "abstract" form takes a back seat (in
my opinion) to the more attentively crafted formal elements of story
and psychology and arcing thematics, all of which are handled with
great intelligence and sensitivity, suggesting a lot of attention to
how to organize and "formalize" the content of Prevert and others'
communication.
What irks me about some of Fred's stances especially is how he is
unwilling or unable to consider any middle ground between his way
(the privileging of "abstract" form) and the notion of cinema as a
simple pleasure delivery system ("that's nice but I'd rather play
Yahoo chess"). A narrative of course be told through non-narrative
formal elements and these can be the reasons for a narrative film's
greatness. But a narrative itself always has form, and in cinema
this too can achieve greatness. Perhaps it makes the cinema less
pure or something, I don't know, but I'm not really concerned with
the "purity" of the medium anyway. I'm more interested in its
possibilities.
Sheesh, I'm sorry if my posting has bored anyone to tears.
--Zach
19884
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:54am
Subject: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda"
wrote:
"For example, in poetry, the form is no different than music. It has
no relation to the meanings of the words and even to the fact that
the words have any meaning."
Well, there's Olson quoting Creeley, "Form is no more than an
extension of content," in his essay "Projective Verse" where he
distinguishes between open form or projective verse and closed form
which seems to be what you're referring to. And one of Olson's
antecedents is "The Chinese Written Character as Medium for Poetry"
where Fenollosa and his editor Pound argue that form creates content.
I take your point that perception precedes meaning, but only by a
nanosecond. One could describe perception/conception as co-
emergent. This is especially true of poetry written in Chinese
characters where the character itself is meaningful even when it
stands alone.
(By the way, Brakgage was a correspondent of both Olson and Creeley
and in some of his writngs he refers to Olson again and again. The
only Brakhage movie I recall off-hand where he uses an actor is BLUE
MOSES, and I believe he made the movie at the behest of an actor who
was a friend of his.)
Richard
19885
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:54am
Subject: Darghis and Scott - Together Again!
SHE was an ex-avant-gardist from the Voice who made the leap to
giving Julia Roberts career advice!
HE was a guy who left graduate school because he didn't want to hear
any more about ideology!
Together they discussed THE DIRECTORS, THE ACTORS, THE ISSUES, THE
CAMERAS (gosh).
AND MADE MOTION PICTURE HISTORY!
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/post
HEAR Darghis describe Peter Sasgaard's performance in Kinsey as "sexy
and slightly dangerous!"
SEE her call Almodovar a male chauvinist pig!
HEAR Scott dump on auteurism and the 60s!
SEE him go down on the studios that made Harry Potter 3 and Spiderman
2!
You WILL believe that the NY Times still has the most pompous critics
on the planet!
19886
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:57am
Subject: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda"
> wrote:
>
> "For example, in poetry, the form is no different than music. It
has
> no relation to the meanings of the words and even to the fact that
> the words have any meaning."
I will never stop repeating: The business of critics is not WHAT
films mean, but HOW they mean.
19887
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:04am
Subject: Re: On T: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein >
> As a general principle it's a good idea to take a look
> at the novel whenever possible,
Why not indeed.
> but especially so in this case. Welles practically picked up
> the book and went to the set with it.
He may have taken whatever he wanted to set, what is on screen, what
I saw, is another story. Another dimension shall I say. If the movie
may resolve itself between the lines of the novel, what's the point
of the movie? Whatever the added value of the novel is in the
comprehension of the movie, that's very little, I guess, compared
the own alchemy of the movie, which is, by its very nature, beyond
(or beside) literature.
That's a general principle.
19888
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:04am
Subject: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"I will never stop repeating: The business of critics is not WHAT
films mean, but HOW they mean."
And from the creator of the artwork: "A poem should not mean but be."
John Ciardi.
Richard
19889
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:10am
Subject: Re: Re: On T: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
--- Maxime Renaudin wrote:
If the movie
> may resolve itself between the lines of the novel,
> what's the point
> of the movie?
That's a question Marguerite Duras asked herself every
time she directed a film.
Whatever the added value of the novel
> is in the
> comprehension of the movie, that's very little, I
> guess, compared
> the own alchemy of the movie, which is, by its very
> nature, beyond
> (or beside) literature.
Film is "beyond (or beside)literature" ?
I'd say "beside."
Nothing is beyond literature. "Writing precedes
speech" -- Derrida.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
19890
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:20am
Subject: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>>
>
> I will never stop repeating: The business of critics is not WHAT
> films mean, but HOW they mean.
I remember Donald Spoto telling that to his students (as though
he had just coined the phrase)sometime in the seventies after a
screening of "Portrait of Jennie."
19891
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:20am
Subject: Re: On T: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein >
That's a question Marguerite Duras asked herself every
> time she directed a film.
That's probably why her work as a film-maker is overall somewhat
as unsatisfactory as exciting. The question is on the screen.
> Film is "beyond (or beside)literature" ?
>
> I'd say "beside."
>
> Nothing is beyond literature. "Writing precedes
> speech" -- Derrida.
My heart, which has no speech, told me "beyond". A second thought
made me ad the bracket.
19892
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:26am
Subject: Re: On T: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
>
> Nothing is beyond literature. "Writing precedes
> speech" -- Derrida.
>
>
> When someone has to quote Derida (out of context), it seems
someone is sort of desperate.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
19893
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:34am
Subject: Bill's burps
Bill K. is not an idiot (this is the understatement of the year, or
of the century)and he knows it and we all know it and that may be
why he thinks it's cute to behave in an uncouth idiotic way (irony,
you know) when responding to a perfectly polite and in no way
aggressive post -- twice! So his "burp" in response to two of my
posts, if considered appropriate on this board, would allow me to
ratchet up and say "Fuck you, Bill." However I may be an idiot but I
am a polite person, so I shall refrain from escalating. Just wanted
to get this off my chest. JPC
19894
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:35pm
Subject: Worst films list (Was: DID NOT SEE)
In a message dated 12/29/04 7:23:43 PM, zerospam@n... writes:
> There should be "10 worst" lists.
>
As hard as Best or Favorite Films lists are to make, Worst Films lists are
even harder. I made one here:
http://neumu.net/continuity_error/2004/2004-00001_continuity.shtml
I suspect I'll never get the chance to make another, especially since I keep
a tighter leash on the Mr. at the box office and the video store (he's a
sucker for pretty boys which is fine when it comes to GERRY but painful when it
comes to the pointless THUNDERBIRDS). Weighing the merits of this Mizoguchi
against that Ford can be fun at best, informative at worst (for me, at least). But
trying to determine (ah, that word again) whether SPUN is a worse film than
HIGHWAY can be a soul-draining process.
For what it's worth, HEAVY METAL has long been my pick for the worst film of
all-time. But the last and only time I saw it was almost twenty years ago now
so there is a possibility that I may like it to some extent today. Not that
I'm going to test that hypothesis any time soon, if ever. I'll note, though,
that I seem to have some sort of blockage when it comes to feature-length
animation. I find that it tends to bring out the worst, most self-indulgent
tendencies in filmmakers. PRINCESS MONONOKE and COWBOY BEBOP: THE MOVIE were both
draaaaaaags. FRITZ THE CAT would probably end up on an top ten worst list. And
BAMBI gets my vote for the most overrated film of all-time.
As for non-animated flix, MAN BITES DOG I hate the most. Others (mostly
recent): LITTLE VOICE, TODAY WE LIVE, FUNNY GAMES, NIGHT AND DAY (1946) Todd
Graff's CAMP, LOVE ME IF YOU DARE.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
19895
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:36am
Subject: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda"
> Going back to actors, I agree that acting can be an important part of
> the form. The body of an actor have its own shape, which can be
> expressive in itself, and the possibilities become infinite since the
> shape also has the possibility of moving. The actors are exactly like
> dancers when we talk about the form that can arise from acting. Of
> course, there is also the tone of their voice, which is exactly like
> music when we only talk about form.
> As I said, the experience of cinema seems to be more complicated than
> just being abstract, although it might not be. The only thing we can
> be sure that the form is a defining part of aesthetic experience and
> when I use the word form I mean abstract shapes or abstract sounds.
I want to respond at length but I have a couple thought experiments.
Imagine (to use an obvious test case of a great film in which image,
sound, and word, not to mention Zach's concept of narrative drama are
omnipresent) two hypothetical versions of CITIZEN KANE:
1. Exact sames images. Sound has been digitally modified so that the
tones, cadence, volumes of voices, etc. is left completel unchanged,
but the speech itself is somehow rendered unintelligible. Sound
effects are unaltered. Is it still as great a film?
2. Same principle, yet instead of unintelligible utterances, all
characters only say, "Fuck you, Kane!" again in the exact same tones,
volume, etc. Same question.
PWC
19896
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:40am
Subject: Worst films list (Was: DID NOT SEE)
Of course we all know what the worst film of all time is: KOYAANISQATSI.
Though I guess if the film somehow acquired a combined Yanni & Kenny G
score, instead of the tweedledum Glass accompaniment, it could get
far, far worse. Perhaps.
19897
From: Yoel Meranda
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:42am
Subject: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
Zach,
First, let me say I agree with you when you say that films don't only
work abstractly, neither does poetry, etc. I tried to make that clear
in my previous posts. I think we agree on most of the things you said
in your post. Films do not ONLY work in abstract terms. However, they
ALSO do have to work in abstract terms.
The films that only work as a "representing" do not make me feel I am
having a complete experience and I think I can see why it is that
way. The films, whether we want them to or not, have an abstract
dimension and actually, the represented is contained within it. Is it
so strange that I find the ones that work on both levels much deeper
than the ones that only work on one of the levels?
I think we are using the same terms about different things. There is
no need for me to discuss whether you want to define a change in the
story as form. Although I find my way of using the word more useful
for my own thinking, I guess no one has any sovereignty over words
and we will be using them according to our needs. So nevermind
whether a change in the story is a change in form (and it is not for
me).
I am only saying that the films have an abstract dimension and they
should work in a way that combines the abstract with the represented.
I don't think I am making any rules. I believe I am only asking the
arts to be in their full potential. If The Children of Paradise has
nothing interesting in it in abstract terms, than it is simply not
realizing the full potential of the medium.
I don't think artworks should be divided as the ones that work in
abstract terms and the ones that work as a representing. My
experience tells me that the ones that interrelate both are greater
than the other ones.
And by the way, I don't, and can't look at art as only abstract. I
actually do not believe it is possible to make an "abstract" work.
For example, in Brakhage's hand-painted films, when you see the color
red, there is no way part of your brain will not name the color
you're seeing as red and the moment you name things it represents
more than just an abstraction. As I said, art should be a complete
experience combining perception and conception.
I don't know if others are bored but I definitely am enjoying this.
Hope you'll respond...
Yoel
19898
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:46am
Subject: Re: Re: On T: Tarkington (was Ambersons)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> >
> > When someone has to quote Derida (out of
> context), it seems
> someone is sort of desperate.
> >
> >
Out of context"? I can hear Derrida chuckling from
beyond the grave!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
19899
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Thu Dec 30, 2004 2:55am
Subject: Re: Darghis and Scott - Together Again!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> SHE was an ex-avant-gardist from the Voice who made the leap to
> giving Julia Roberts career advice!
>
> HE was a guy who left graduate school because he didn't want to hear
> any more about ideology!
>
> Together they discussed THE DIRECTORS, THE ACTORS, THE ISSUES, THE
> CAMERAS (gosh).
>
> AND MADE MOTION PICTURE HISTORY!
> You WILL believe that the NY Times still has the most pompous critics
> on the planet!
Thanks, but I didn't need any further convincing.
The only NY Times film review I ever enjoyed reading was Vincent
Canby's take on I.F. STONE'S WEEKLY, if only because he goes off on a
tangent about how the success of THE SOUND OF MUSIC indicates iminent
world dominance by Communist China. (*That* review is avaliable for
free in the NY Times archive.)
I'm curious what our own Dave Kehr has to say about the institutional
legacy of the Old Grey Lady.
--Kyle Westphal
19900
From:
Date: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:01pm
Subject: LA CICATRICE INTERIEURE (WAS: varying degrees of merit)
In a message dated 12/29/04 4:52:42 PM, cellar47@y... writes:
> If they go the Phillipe Garrel route theycan do both.
>
I'm glad you brought him up. I saw my first two Garrel films recently: LE
REVELATEUR and LA CICATRICE INTERIEURE. Not sure if this is a common reaction but
both films scared the shit out of me, especially the latter (what the FUCK is
up with that utterly terrifying shot in almost pitch black and increasingly
louder splashes responding to one of the actor's calls?).
Anyhoo, I read somewhere that LA CICATRICE INTERIEURE was never finished and
that what circulates is a 60-minute work print. Is this true? The version I
saw was 60 minutes and ended with no credits but I don't recall LE REVELATEUR
having any either. Common practice for Garrel?
And what are Garrel's thoughts on releasing his work on DVD?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact