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.
20101
From:
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:30pm
Subject: D.A. Miller and the anus (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
"I respect Ken's judgement, but given Miller's other work, I'll have to
check out "Anal Rope" for myself."
Ken Mogg's on the pipe. It's really a mounmental piece. But I actually prefer
Lee Edelman's "REAR WINDOW'S Glasshole" since it lays out more clearly what's
at stake in Miller's essay (which influenced Edelman's). He makes an
extremely convincing case for the anus (and the denial/covering up thereof) is at the
heart of Western epistemology rather than vision.
Not sure if I posted this before but here's some info:
Author:
Edelman, Lee
Title:
Rear Window's Glasshole
Book Title:
Out Takes : Essays on Queer Theory and Film
City:
Durham, NC
Publisher:
Duke University Press
Year:
1999
Editor:
Hanson, Ellis
Pages:
72-96
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20102
From:
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:34pm
Subject: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
<
least) love musicals too.>>
I am waaaaay for the intense examination of heterosexuality. So if your book
will tell us how loving musicals relates to you AS A HETEROSEXUAL MAN, then
send me a galley!
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20103
From: Peter Henne
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 9:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pasolini (was: Cinema, taste, merit )
David,
Granted, but Ninetto Davoli also appears in numerous features. What about the adoring way Pasolini frames his first appearance in "Teorema"? The features
typically present him as irrepresible, lovable, innocent. When a male heterosexual director portrays an actress this way over and over, audiences usually
suspect that the filmmaker is fond of her if not moreso. So I think you can get a sense of their relationship in the features, not only in the shorts, though
one or two in the latter group do tend to zero in on Davoli more.
Peter
David Ehrenstein wrote:
The shorts are about Pasolini's
relationship to Ninetto Davoli -- the one person he
truly loved in an affair doomed to run its course due
to all manner of inequality between the two parties.
Please note that Ninetto deos not appear in "Salo." He
would have to play either a victim or an executioner
and Pasolini couldn't stand to see his beloved in
either role.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20104
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 9:56pm
Subject: imaginary box
I've been watching quite a few films for the past few years, often
several a day. I've noticed a sense of being there, in the scene, in
the past few months. It has been a gradual change that I feel comes
from watching many (good) movies. It's like feeling the squalor of a
slum, the weight of hard labor, the joy of young romance. It's like
observing the action close up, feeling the tension or happiness in a
situation without being the character in the scene.
Many of today's movies do not convey that for me.
Last year's IN AMERICA has the family living in a slum area in NYC.
The mother walks up the dirty staircase with her two daughters, seeing
addicts, etc along the way. Any mother would hold her children close
and tell them not to touch the walls, etc. That would be the sense I
have in the scene, but she does not convey it.
In THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, the woman is walking through the grave
yard at midnight... for all intents and purposes, she might as well be
walking through a corn field. If I were walking through a grave yard,
there would be a sense the eerie place; her walk does not convey that
for me.
LEMONY SNICKET had a complete mis-match of the characters and their
place.
Production values (and costs) go up but the actors are not cognizant of
where they are in the scene or the story. Even the cartoon book
characters of the CGI world of SKY CAPTAIN seemed more aware of their
environment than some of the above scenes.
> "samfilms2003" wrote:
> Can someone try to explain for me how a person experiences that
> imaginary box? Someone explaining what happens in their brain and
> body in their favorite film would be great since that would help me
> understand the pleasures and the fulfillments you're getting. If
> anybody has time, of course..
20105
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pasolini (was: Cinema, taste, merit )
--- Peter Henne wrote:
> David,
>
> Granted, but Ninetto Davoli also appears in numerous
> features. What about the adoring way Pasolini frames
> his first appearance in "Teorema"? The features
> typically present him as irrepresible, lovable,
> innocent. When a male heterosexual director portrays
> an actress this way over and over, audiences usually
> suspect that the filmmaker is fond of her if not
> moreso.
But that's quite an acceptable practice eg.Godard and
Anna Karina. There's something rather different here.
So I think you can get a sense of their
> relationship in the features, not only in the
> shorts, though one or two in the latter group do
> tend to zero in on Davoli more.
>
Yes, and that's because the character of Ninetto
begins to question the context pasolini has created
for him -- which means, of course, that Pasolini is
reproaching himself for creating Ninetto. This is
especially true of "Il Firo di Campo" which was
derived from the most controversial part of the
Matthew gospel. Christ kills a fig tree.it's a pure
demonstration of power -- reason enough for Bertrand
Russell to reject Christianity because of it. I recall
Sarris (in a discussion I had with him, not an
artocle) take exception to Pasolini's "Gospel
Accordign to Matthew" because he included the fig
treeepisode -- which obviously troubled Sarris.
In "Il Firoi di Campo" Ninetto is killed because he
doesn't comprehend world events. A very odd and deeply
felt self-critique in the form of a love letter.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
20106
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:00pm
Subject: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> I am waaaaay for the intense examination of heterosexuality. So if
your book
> will tell us how loving musicals relates to you AS A HETEROSEXUAL
MAN, then
> send me a galley!
>
> Kevin John
>
>
Actually it doesn't, or at least I'm not aware of any
relationship (blindness? denial?) But that's the point. What bothers
me is the way homosexuals have to relate EVERYTHING to their
gayness.Heterosexual people do not (and are not expected to) relate
everything to their sexual preference. I'm afraid gays create a
ghettoized aesthetics when they write essays explaining why they (as
gays)love musicals. Especially when what they love is often what is
worst in musicals (at least to this non-gay sensibility). And there
camp of course raises its ugly/pretty head (the religion of camp is
a fixture of the ghetto).
And what about that anal fixation ("Anal Rope," Rear Window's
Glasshole"?) We laugh at people who simplistically see "phallic
symbols" everywhere, why should we take people who see assholes
everywhere more seriously?
JPC
20107
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:05pm
Subject: Re: Eastwood (Was: Worst films list)
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Yes but he makes up for it by casting his own
> freaking daughter in a
> thankless, utterly extraneous (and invented for the
> movie?) role.
Not quite. She corresponds to a character/real person
in the book.
Where would a
> commerical director be without compulsory
> heterosexuality?
>
True, but he went quite a bit farther than anyone else
would have.
>
20108
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Worst films list (Was: DID NOT SEE)
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> But FORREST GUMP...I forgot about that one. Total
> pond scum.
And we've just elected Forrest to a second term.
But the clan
> redeemed themselves with the sublime CAST AWAY.
>
"Death Becomes Her" is far superior.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send holiday email and support a worthy cause. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
20109
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:21pm
Subject: AFRICAN QUEEN
>> "Damien Bona" wrote:
>> The film is a battle of the sexes in which the battle comes to an end
>> almost before it even starts.
>
> "Noel Vera" wrote:
> It's solidly in the genre of two antagonists falling in love...
>
> As to how they fall in love--why, people are aroused, cling
> desperately to other people in the face of danger. It's not just a
> cliche, I've seen it happen myself. Psychologically speaking, I can't
> find any fault in what happens between the two; it's about as real a
> relationship as any love story I can think of.
For me, AFRICAN QUEEN, despite its apparent faults, works because
Hepburn feels the danger and Bogart knows the peril they are in.
Contemporary movies get the danger and peril on the screen, the actors
just don't feel it or know it. The danger and peril bring out the
qualities that make each attractive to the other.
Elizabeth
20110
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> Actually it doesn't, or at least I'm not aware of
> any
> relationship (blindness? denial?) But that's the
> point. What bothers
> me is the way homosexuals have to relate EVERYTHING
> to their
> gayness.Heterosexual people do not (and are not
> expected to) relate
> everything to their sexual preference.
Because the world is their oyster. It's THEIR world.
If you're straight you don;t have to think about any
of this at all. If you're a man attracted to a woman
there are an infinite number of socially APPLAUDED
ways of expressing it -- things to do, places to go.
If you're a man attracted toanother man -- there's
trouble. In my own lifetime I've seen incredible
change. When I was coming of age gay bars were
entirely illegal. Having a social establishment where
men atracted toother men could so much as congregate
would make owners and customers subject to arrest and
incarceration. In New York the polic and the Magfia
worked hand in hand. The Mafia ran the bars and the
police were paid tolook the other way.When the
payments didn't come on time or weren't "enough" the
places were raided. This went on for eons until one
night in 1969 at a truly louche speak called "The
Stonewall Inn" the customers fought back.
And that's how Bing Crosby brough Jazz up the river
from New Orleans.
I'm afraid
> gays create a
> ghettoized aesthetics when they write essays
> explaining why they (as
> gays)love musicals. Especially when what they love
> is often what is
> worst in musicals (at least to this non-gay
> sensibility). And there
> camp of course raises its ugly/pretty head (the
> religion of camp is
> a fixture of the ghetto).
To a degree.But you must also keep in mind that this
grew out of the clandestine nature of meresocial
relations. Judy Garland was a popular performeracross
the baord. But she meant something sepcialto gays
becuase she loved us back. A Judy Garland concert was
one of the few places gay men could publically
socialize (and I mean socialize, not cruise) without
fear of arrest.
I cannot emphasize the importance of this
historically.
>
> And what about that anal fixation ("Anal Rope,"
> Rear Window's
> Glasshole"?) We laugh at people who simplistically
> see "phallic
> symbols" everywhere, why should we take people who
> see assholes
> everywhere more seriously?
>
Cue George Sanders in "All About Eve" : "You have a
point, my dear -- an idiotic one but a point
nonetheless."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
20111
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:22pm
Subject: Re: [a_film_by ] Adding files (Was: Re: Cinema, taste, merit)
Richard,
If you don't think uploading that one floor plan would violate
copyright, please note (and others please note) that the way our group
is set up, members can add files to the files section all by themselves.
Of course we ask that you not add large files, and that they be relevant
to our group's purpose, and that you label them properly. In this case
I'd suggest a gif or jpeg 760 pixels wide, on the theory that most
people are at least using a monitor set at 800X600. Gifs are typically
much better for simple graphics.
Actually, it would be good not to add many files, or the files list will
get really long. If you have a Web site, put your stuff there and add
the link to our links section. But in this case it seems like a good
idea, and also, you could take it down after everyone who wants to has
seen it and saved it.
Fred Camper
20112
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:32pm
Subject: Re: D.A. Miller and the anus (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
It's really a mounmental piece. But I actually prefer
> Lee Edelman's "REAR WINDOW'S Glasshole" since it lays out more
clearly what's
> at stake in Miller's essay (which influenced Edelman's). He makes
an
> extremely convincing case for the anus (and the denial/covering up
thereof) is at the
> heart of Western epistemology rather than vision.
Robert Samuels cites Edelman, with whom I also now how to ketchup,
Re: Rear Window in Hitchcock's Bi-Textuality, a fascinating book.
20113
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:34pm
Subject: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
What bothers
> me is the way homosexuals have to relate EVERYTHING to their
> gayness.Heterosexual people do not (and are not expected to) relate
> everything to their sexual preference.
But we should!
We laugh at people who simplistically see "phallic
> symbols" everywhere, why should we take people who see assholes
> everywhere more seriously?
I never laughed at a phallic symbol in my life. The castration
symbols in I Clowns, yes, but not phallic symbols.
20114
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
Zach, thanks for a terrific reply. Since you'll be computerless for a
while I won't write a long reply (which I don't think is called for
anyway); we can resume this when and if the time comes, but I don't
think we're leaving any huge issues hanging.
You're right that I didn't analyze Novak's acting. Maybe I should admit,
though it's probably already obvious, that acting is one of the elements
of film I am least sensitive to. I think it's possible that her acting
is truly Hitchcockian, is controlled by Hitchcock in ways that make it a
vital part of the film's form, to the same degree that I think Hawks's
acting is (for Hawks, for me, it has to do with the way that the
characters express themselves through small gestures and the way the
quality of that expression relates to the organicity and anti-formalism
of his images and editing), though I myself haven't really gotten far
enough into acting styles in Hitchcock to know how to articulate this.
My key point there, which I infer you accept, is that insofar as you're
going to discuss her character in the film, you can't just discuss her
acting, you have to discuss the way she is placed in the scenes, so to
speak. I'm sure you couldn't have thought otherwise; this is auteurism 101.
Since I take as a postulate that anything can be great, I have to admit
that filmmakers may be great who are not working on my "formal" terms
but are nonetheless producing expressive masterpieces, or, per a recent
Kevin John post on A.I. (he wondered if he was an auteurist for liking
divided authorship -- I'd say you're a new category, Kevin, a postmodern
auteurist, and we need those too, to help drag auteurism into the new
era, and I mean that positively), fascinatingly fragmented but great
works. I'll try to see more of the films by filmmakers on your list who
I've seen little or nothing of, while I await your further comments.
Perhaps if I see one I'll try to engage you on it. I don't think you or
Adrian are simply rooting for little Timmy, but I'm not sure what the
alternative defense of films that don't necessarily express themselves
through great visual spaces would be, or how I would respond to such
films. But the reason my Bach analogy is important to me is that I want
whatever happens to be on *that* kind of level, if possible, to have
that degree of complexity and depth and reward. Now I'm not sure I'd
defend that favorite industrial film about steel that I mentioned
earlier in Bach terms, so I agree with you that pluralism and middle
grounds are important too. But if (ugh) "Teorama" is to stand alongside
"There's Always Tomorrow" in some way (trying to chose another family
melodrama that begins with a "T") then it will have to look a lot
different to me than it did the one time I saw it, it will have to
reveal a lot more complexity or beauty or fascination or paradox or
meaning or contradiction on some level, preferably more than one of those.
If you don't like the Bach test, I'd accept the John Coltrane test, or
the Conlon Nancarrow test, or the Olivier Messaien test, but I'm not
going to accept the Rolling Stones or Talking Heads tests (to choose
bands whose music I know like) -- I think the greatest art is a lot more
complex and thought provoking and rewarding than that.
It's entirely possible that I'm just not "getting it." I know lots of
critics who are blind to whole realms of greatness in the arts they
cover. I'm still willing to try, time permitting.
I predict a great academic career for you, especially since you already
have the title of your career making article locked down (though a few
more (re)s might help). After you do that one, then you can do the
one(s) I'm waiting for. And of course I thought you'd be sympathetic to
the idea of discussing camera movement in de Toth; my joke wasn't meant
to have an edge.
You're right that Ford, Hawks, Franju and Rossellini are all favorites
of mine, and I agree they all did important work with acting and
narrative. Franju also did important work with a cinematographer, the
great Eugen Shuftan, using his lighting in profoundly Franju-ian ways.
My aesthetic seems quite in the minority to me, even among auteurists,
though others may see it differently. In part because of this, I think I
still have important things to say (that I've not yet said). Even if I
never get the "other" stuff, I think too little has been said about most
of my favorites from a "formal" point of view.
Fred Camper
20115
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:09pm
Subject: Frye's radicals and cinema
Picking up on an earlier thread, Northrop Frye describes four
radicals of presentation in Anatomy of Criticism. With allowances for
their evolution (novels being read out loud, etc.) and the fact that
any radical can appear in different media (e.g. radio plays), they
are:
Epos : author and audience co-present, characters absent
Drama : Audience and characters co-present, author absent
Novel : Characters and author hidden, audience present
Lyric : Author present, audience and characters absent (overhearing)
But what is the radical of presentation of film? It's a bit like a
drama where audience and characters are NOT co-present. And
eventually when film morphs into a solitary viewing experience with a
DVD, it's a bit like the experience of the solitary novel-reader.
Assuming that the one is in the process of evolving into the other,
how do we describe the radical of presentation where the characters
are only falsely present, via an image?
Frye would just say that the old radicals are being transposed into a
new medium, but we couldn't morph from an experience LIKE theatre to
an experience LIKE reading alone if the characters were present in
the first place. The ambiguity arises from the status of characters
etc. in film, which seem present (hence the possibility of fitting
film into the theatrical r.o.p.) but aren't (hence the possibility of
fitting it into the novelistic r.o.p.). It almost makes for fifth
radical, a rather strange one.
Maybe Frye is right, and these radicals are fictions which are
maintained even in the case of a storyteller on the radio, where the
audience and author and audience are not really co-present - and
maybe that would be clearer if I had used Frye's "hidden/not hidden"
instead of "present/absent."
In any case, this changed existential situation, as Bazin called it,
intrigued and exasperated Welles, who was both a man of theatre and
an Arab storyteller in the bazaar, all his life.
Incidentally, if you stretch the word "characters" a bit, this
remains a question for the avant-garde, despite Frye's vocabulary,
which is derived from traditional literary modes, as is narrative
film.
For the sake of those who wonder why I'm bringing this up, besides
having been long interested in it, we were talking about The
Magnificent Ambersons, a film where these questions are important, as
they are in the Welles Shakespeare plays and the essay films: three
different kinds of films in which I believe Welles confronted the
nature of film practically and theoretically while making them, and
mainly the ambiguous, spectral nature of the film image.
20116
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:18pm
Subject: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> >
>
> Cue George Sanders in "All About Eve" : "You have a
> point, my dear -- an idiotic one but a point
> nonetheless."
>
>
David, show me how my point is idiotic; or how idiotic my point
is. I'd like to know. I share it with lots of people, all idiots, no
doubt.
What you're telling me is that because gays were discriminated
against and persecuted in the most shocking fashion until fairly
recently, they have to parade their gayness all over the place and
analyze (that anal again!) everything including films in gay terms.
But you have been out of closets and parading ("Gay Pride" lives!)
for a good 25 years by now. Isn't it time to move out of the ghetto
and to broaden your views? ("you" and "your" are generic, not
applied to you, David, whose views are notoriously broad).
20117
From:
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Worst films list (Was: DID NOT SEE)
In a message dated 12/31/04 4:09:09 PM, cellar47@y... writes:
> "Death Becomes Her" is far superior.
>
I disagree. The film seems to start just as it ends. An annoynace.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20118
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:28pm
Subject: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>> I never laughed at a phallic symbol in my life. The castration
> symbols in I Clowns, yes, but not phallic symbols.
I didn't say that we laugh at phallic symbols, I said that we
laugh at people who see phallic symbols everywhere. Everything
vertical is a phallic symbol if you decide it is (and is not if you
decide it isn't). The Empire State building is one.
Warhol's "Empire" is about one. How simplistic can you get? (even
David said it, right here -- tongue in cheek, granted, maybe).
20119
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:32pm
Subject: Re: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
--- Fred Camper wrote:
I think it's
> possible that her acting
> is truly Hitchcockian, is controlled by Hitchcock in
> ways that make it a
> vital part of the film's form, to the same degree
> that I think Hawks's
> acting is (for Hawks, for me, it has to do with the
> way that the
> characters express themselves through small gestures
> and the way the
> quality of that expression relates to the organicity
> and anti-formalism
> of his images and editing), though I myself haven't
> really gotten far
> enough into acting styles in Hitchcock to know how
> to articulate this.
Well let me give you some help on this score.
Hitchcock
was far more concerned with molding actors to the
patterns of his narrative design than in getting a
performance out of them for its own sake. I don't
think there's anyone on the list who's unfamilair with
his notion of the "cool blonde" -- icy and imperious
on the outside, raging hot underneath. In Grace Kelly
(particularly in "To Catch a Thief") Hitch found his
ideal. He wanted to do the same with Vera Miles for
"Vertigo," but she became pregnant and was unable to
do the picture. Novak was someone Hitchcock was quite
resistant to as he saw her as being sexually too
blatant and obvious. But it worked out better than he
expected because she was quite skillful at dampening
herself down to play "Madeline" and then letting
herself go for "Judy." Vera Miles would have been fine
for the former, but not the latter.
The dreamy, vague "lost" quality she brought to
"Vertigo" was a Novak specialty. See "Bell Book and
Candle," "The Eddie Duchin Story," "Jeanne Eagles,"
and "Picnic." The latter is especially interesting a
propos "Vertigo" in that Novak's character, "Madge"
feels completely dominated by everyone's image of her:
"Madge is the pretty one." A great number of idealized
"feminine" acting-outs are expected of her -- that she
fails to follow through on when she falls in love with
William Holden and runs off after him (in one of the
most delirously romantic finales in the history of
motion pictures.)
With Tippi Hedren Hichcock tried to build a "cool
blonde" from the ground up-- and succeeded all to
well. She never caught on with the public, but remians
a critic's darling.
So nice seeing her this year in "I Heart Huckabees."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
20120
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> David, show me how my point is idiotic; or how
> idiotic my point
> is. I'd like to know. I share it with lots of
> people, all idiots, no
> doubt.
>
Oh I'm just joshing you, J-P. I love quoting George
Sanders.
> What you're telling me is that because gays were
> discriminated
> against and persecuted in the most shocking fashion
> until fairly
> recently, they have to parade their gayness all over
> the place and
> analyze (that anal again!) everything including
> films in gay terms.
Parades are annual events. What I'm talking about is
experiencing the world. Welive in the sameworld that
you do -- it's just that we inhabit slightly different
spaces in it
> But you have been out of closets and parading ("Gay
> Pride" lives!)
> for a good 25 years by now. Isn't it time to move
> out of the ghetto
> and to broaden your views? ("you" and "your" are
> generic, not
> applied to you, David, whose views are notoriously
> broad).
>
No, it's time thatstriaghts weremoved INTO the ghetto
-- the betterto udnerstand gay history. Becuase it's
your history too.
As a gay man I'm REQUIRED (no questions asked, ever)
to deal with all manner of experience that has nothing
to with me, as matter of course. As a film critic I'm
REQUIRED to not only understand and appreciate but
CELEBRATE heterosexual desire. Straights are NEVER
obligated to do the same. When I went to work as a
third string film critic for the "Herald Examiner" it
was an enormous relief to the straight critics in the
number one and two positions (Mike Sragow and Peter
Rainer.) The Gay and lesbian Film fesivals were really
starting to roar and they had to have "someone" to
cover them.
"Copy desk -- run out and get me a homosexual,
pronto!"
Things have progressed, somewhat, since then. ut
dealing with gay issues is still widely regarded as
"special pleading."
That's one of the reasons I treasure "Those Who Love
Me can Take the Train" so much, because it's one of
the few films dealing with life as I know it --
without apology or explanation. Chereau throws you
right off into the deep end, and thems that swim,
float.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
20121
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> I didn't say that we laugh at phallic symbols, I
> said that we
> laugh at people who see phallic symbols everywhere.
> Everything
> vertical is a phallic symbol if you decide it is
> (and is not if you
> decide it isn't). The Empire State building is one.
> Warhol's "Empire" is about one. How simplistic can
> you get? (even
> David said it, right here -- tongue in cheek,
> granted, maybe).
Wellyeah, because as Dave Kehr pointed out the comitte
wanted to cite a Warhol but was fearful of being
criticized for the gayness of "Chelsea Girls."
"Empire" would appearto be "safe." But from a camp
standpoint it's blatant as all get out.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
20122
From:
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 6:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
In a message dated 12/31/04 4:03:10 PM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
> Actually it doesn't, or at least I'm not aware of any relationship
> (blindness? denial?) But that's the point. What bothers me is the way homosexuals
> have to relate EVERYTHING to their gayness.
>
Building off of what David wrote, I would go so far as to say you're not
aware of any relationship between your heterosexuality and anything else because
we're not supposed to be aware of heterosexuality. It maintains its hegemony by
positing itself as an unquestioned, natural fact of life that never needs to
be examined and much less punished. How many times have people asked you, J-P,
when you first knew you were heterosexual? Or to choose another hopefully
illuminating example, lesbian comedian Suzanne Westenhoefer was asked on the
Geraldo show eons ago who in her relationship was the man and who was the woman.
Responding to the heterosexual man who asked the question, she said "Who's the
man in your relationship?" He got EXTREMELY upset and sputtered something like
"Well, that's asinine. It's obvious!" Is it, though?
And come on, J-P. Don't you think your reaction is a little hyperbolic. I'm a
FLAMING homosexual male and you KNOW that I don't relate EVERYTHING to my
gayness.
<
their sexual preference.>>
Well, hopefully the above answered this. But Bill's right. Y'all could use a
little intense scrutiny.
<
explaining why they (as
gays)love musicals. Especially when what they love is often what is worst in
musicals (at least to this non-gay sensibility). And there camp of course
raises its ugly/pretty head (the religion of camp is
a fixture of the ghetto).>>
Um, don't these two sentences practically contradict one another? Or rather,
aren't you answering your own question? Camp is a SURVIVAL tactic for gay men
(lesbians too?) in a society that doesn't allows us to be obvious as het, to
be as unaware. And while I'm no Broadway fag, I'd bet that a lot of gay
Broadway freaks like the same things you do too.
<< And what about that anal fixation ("Anal Rope," Rear Window's Glasshole"?)
We laugh at people who simplistically see "phallic symbols" everywhere, why
should we take people who see assholes
everywhere more seriously?>>
I said that we
laugh at people who see phallic symbols everywhere.
they have to parade their gayness all over the place and
analyze (that anal again!) everything including films in gay terms.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20123
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:54pm
Subject: Re: Reading a Novel (was: Veering OT: Novels vs. Poetry) back to films
>
>> "hotlove666" wrote:
>> Technically, the novel is something we read alone - characters and
>> author absent, reader presnt
>
> "Saul Symonds" wrote
> Not exactly correct. You should read George Steiner's article
> "Literature and Post-History" in which he talks about the change in
> reading practises of the novel from Victorian England to modern times
> - namely that novels were READ OUT LOUD
I was surprised to read that the SILENTS were often shown to audiences
in loud conversation with each other; one of the dislikes of the
talkies was that the audience couldn't talk to each other without being
told to 'be quiet.'
20124
From:
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 6:55pm
Subject: Re: Dell Mapbacks, Floor Plans (was: Cinema, taste, merit)
In a message dated 04-12-31 16:16:38 EST, you write:
<< > > Three hardest candidates to understand from the films:
> > The Scent of Green Papaya
> > I Walked With a Zombie
> > Scarlet Street
>
Intriguing, Mike. But I want to make sure I understand you. You're saying
the
spatial layout of the places where these films take place is difficult to
grasp as a whole, right?
Kevin John >>
Absolutely!
I have drawn crude maps of the house and porch in "Zombie" and the Greenwich
Village apartment in "Scarlet Street". This was after watching them countless
times, trying to orient myself in these places. I should try to perfect these,
and upload them to my web site, sometime.
The films are so utterly absorbing that this viewer at least never even
wondered about spatial layout in them - on the first viewing. But gradually, I
realized how hard it is to get any sense of real direction these films. The camera
jumps all over the place... This despite the fact that the sets turn out to
be consistently presented locales.
Also fascinating: orienting oneself in the apartment near the end in "The
Champagne Murders" (Chabrol). This place is utterly complex.
Question: do most viewers usually "know" exactly where they are at most times
in movies? Or are they often not sure, but accept the progress of the movie
anyway?
There are directors like Sirk who go to great lengths to orient their
audience. Am sure that most viewers have a clear grip of locale in most Sirk films.
At the other extreme, are the films mentioned above - they can twist your brain
into knots!
Mike Grost
PS - I have no idea who drew the maps on the back of Dell Mapbacks! The front
cover artists are various...
20125
From:
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
I sent return too quickly before my rant was complete.
<< And what about that anal fixation ("Anal Rope," Rear Window's Glasshole"?)
We laugh at people who simplistically see "phallic symbols" everywhere, why
should we take people who see assholes
everywhere more seriously?>>
J-P, this goes along with your other hyperbolic comments including "I said
that we laugh at people who see phallic symbols everywhere" and "they have to
parade their gayness all over the place and
analyze (that anal again!) everything including films in gay terms." This is
not an anal FIXATION nor does Edelman nor me see assholes EVERYWHERE. It's
just ONE essay, J-P. One. Look what happens when I mention ONE essay about the
anus. You say that us gays see it everywhere and see it simplistically and we
analyze everything this way. Your extreme reaction makes the essay resonate
even more truthfully.
And think of the VOLUMES of words written on vision in relation to the
cinema. Now what I think would be an informative essay is to examine the
heterosexual assumptions behind this preoccupation: scopohilia, the cinematic apparatus,
the mirror phase, the devastating Oedipal look, etc.
Check the essay out, J-P. And as a side note for people who find theory and
academia bullying, impenetrable and stuffy, it's a light-hearted and
laugh-out-loud funny essay.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20126
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 0:06am
Subject: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
>
> No, it's time thatstriaghts weremoved INTO the ghetto
> -- the betterto udnerstand gay history. Becuase it's
> your history too.
But again you're talking "history." I don't think I disregard or
misunderstand gay history, but i was referring to the present. And
gay history is mine too only in the general sense that we're all
human. In that sense the history of the Jews in Nazi Germany is my
history too
> As a gay man I'm REQUIRED (no questions asked, ever)
> to deal with all manner of experience that has nothing
> to with me, as matter of course.
I'm trying to imagine what kind of experiences? And why you
are "required" to deal with them.
As a film critic I'm
> REQUIRED to not only understand and appreciate but
> CELEBRATE heterosexual desire.
No film critic is "required" to celebrate heterosexual desire.
I don't remember celebrating it myself ever.Of course you have to
acknowledge it because it's the focus of most films but that's not
celebrating. It's probably helpful to "understand" what it is, but
then desire is desire, whether we're talking about a man and a woman
or two men (or two women). There are types of heterosexual desires
that i don't understand, but if they are portrayed in a film, I
still think i can handle them.
Straights are NEVER
> obligated to do the same. When I went to work as a
> third string film critic for the "Herald Examiner" it
> was an enormous relief to the straight critics in the
> number one and two positions (Mike Sragow and Peter
> Rainer.) The Gay and lesbian Film fesivals were really
> starting to roar and they had to have "someone" to
> cover them.
>
So you were the token gay, but gayness provided you with a
niche. If I had applied for the position at the same time you did
they would have given it to you rather than to me because you were
gay and I wasn't.
20127
From:
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Dell Mapbacks, Floor Plans (was: Cinema, taste, merit)
In a message dated 12/31/04 5:56:16 PM, MG4273@a... writes:
> I should try to perfect these, and upload them to my web site, sometime.
>
Yes, you should! What a great project! I would have never thought of it
myself. I would love to see the floor plans for all three films.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20128
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 0:17am
Subject: Re: Frye's radicals and cinema
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
Responding to my own question: I'm mixing up media and r.o.p. in the
previous post. The r.o.p. of narrative cinema is drama, even when the
actors aren't really there and one is watching alone on tv. But I do
think that questions arise when an r.o.p is transposed into a new
medium, and that's what Welles' career was (formally) about.
20129
From:
Date: Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:20pm
Subject: Movie dates are a het phenom (WAS: J-P's heterosexuality)
Oh, I meant to post this a while back but now seems as good a time as any.
I've never been on a date in my life (at least one that I or anyone else could
recognize as such). And I've always wondered why that is. Then we had that
movie date thread a few weeks ago and David said something like "Being gay, I've
never been on a date," And then it hit me. I've never been on a date because
it's never been socially sanctioned for two boys or two girls to go out on a
date. And yes, J-P, even in the present. To be perfectly honest, I've only
witnessed two boys out on a date once in my life and it was so precious as to be
positively heart-breaking. And this didn't happen all that long ago. BUT it
happened at a gay leather club where I was DJing on a Wednesday night when there
were maybe ten people tops in the entire place. That definitely doesn't diminish
the scene for me (the nervousness, the eagerness to do/say the right thing,
the requests to play a song the other boy liked, etc. SWOON!). But it does show
up the rather unpublic nature of the date, e.g. they definitely weren't
enjoying the latest Schumacher at a multiplex.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20130
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 0:22am
Subject: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/31/04 4:03:10 PM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
>
One of the virtues of Bellour's writing at the time of Analyse du
film was that it did deal with classical cinema as a heterosexual
artform.
20131
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 0:25am
Subject: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
.
> >
> Building off of what David wrote, I would go so far as to say
you're not
> aware of any relationship between your heterosexuality and
anything else because
> we're not supposed to be aware of heterosexuality. It maintains
its hegemony by
> positing itself as an unquestioned, natural fact of life that
never needs to
> be examined and much less punished.
You are absolutely right, and I am very much aware of this major
difference between homo and hetero.
However, heterosexuality certainly needs to be examined. And
it's not as simple and bland and predictable as you gay people seem
to think.
How many times have people asked you, J-P,
> when you first knew you were heterosexual? Or to choose another
hopefully
> illuminating example, lesbian comedian Suzanne Westenhoefer was
asked on the
> Geraldo show eons ago who in her relationship was the man and who
was the woman.
> Responding to the heterosexual man who asked the question, she
said "Who's the
> man in your relationship?" He got EXTREMELY upset and sputtered
something like
> "Well, that's asinine. It's obvious!" Is it, though?
>
Well, Macho, ladiesman Geraldo couldn't react otherwise, could he?
Keep in mind, however, that there are varieties of heterosexual
experiences. I could be, say, a submissive/masochist in a D/s
relationship something that still remains totally socially
unacceptable (whereas gay couples are socially accepted now, not
just tolerated, and can even get married in some states). My sexual
preference and my relationship would have to remain as secret as
homosexuals had to be a hundred years ago.
> And come on, J-P. Don't you think your reaction is a little
hyperbolic. I'm a
> FLAMING homosexual male and you KNOW that I don't relate
EVERYTHING to my
> gayness.
>
> "Everything" was indeed hyperbolic but i was referring to a
certain kind of gay writing on film, remember.
>
20132
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 0:37am
Subject: Re: Movie dates are a het phenom (WAS: J-P's heterosexuality)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Oh, I meant to post this a while back but now seems as good a time
as any.
> I've never been on a date in my life (at least one that I or
anyone else could
> recognize as such). And I've always wondered why that is. Then we
had that
> movie date thread a few weeks ago and David said something
like "Being gay, I've
> never been on a date," And then it hit me. I've never been on a
date because
> it's never been socially sanctioned for two boys or two girls to
go out on a
> date. And yes, J-P, even in the present.
Believe it or not, I have almost never been on a date in my life
(exception: my first girlfriend, at age 16 or 17). Of course the
reasons may be different. But in France in my days dating was not a
widespread social practice. Actually French doesn't really have
words for "a date" and "dating" -- only distant and inappropriate
equivalents.
I'm deleting the rest of your post but I think it was sweet and
touching.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20133
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 0:53am
Subject: [a_film_by ] Adding files (Was: Re: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"If you don't think uploading that one floor plan would violate
copyright, please note (and others please note) that the way our
group is set up, members can add files to the files section all by
themselves."
There's no copyright cancellation on either the front or rear covers
(the interior says "Copyright 1948 by Transatlantic Pictures
Corporation".) My guess is that the artwork for the front and rear
covers is not copyrighted since I've seen book covers and dust
wrappers reproduced in book collecting magazines without copyright
acknowledgement.
Anyway, the scans came out poorly so I'll have to do it on my
landlord's superior machine.
To Kevin John, J-P and Bill I'll send you good scans when I get
them. And Patrick, if I can't upload it I'll send you one too.
Richard
20134
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 0:57am
Subject: Re: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> But again you're talking "history." I don't think
> I disregard or
> misunderstand gay history, but i was referring to
> the present. And
> gay history is mine too only in the general sense
> that we're all
> human. In that sense the history of the Jews in Nazi
> Germany is my
> history too
>
But what happened to gays in Nazi Germany can still
cause a ruckus. See "Paragraph 175" as to why.
>
> I'm trying to imagine what kind of experiences?
> And why you
> are "required" to deal with them.
>
You see this is the heart of the matter. You don't
have to "imagine" heterosexuality -- it simply IS. But
it's made exceedingly celar gays and lesbians from day
one that when the culture talks about love it doesn't
mena us at all. We're people who "commit sexual acts."
Nothing more.
>
> No film critic is "required" to celebrate
> heterosexual desire.
> I don't remember celebrating it myself ever.Of
> course you have to
> acknowledge it because it's the focus of most films
> but that's not
> celebrating.
Oh yes it is! Especially when same-sex desire is
cordoned off while heterosexual love is declared
"universal" in its appeal and importance.
It's probably helpful to "understand"
> what it is, but
> then desire is desire, whether we're talking about a
> man and a woman
> or two men (or two women). There are types of
> heterosexual desires
> that i don't understand, but if they are portrayed
> in a film, I
> still think i can handle them.
>
Well that's YOU.
>
> So you were the token gay, but gayness provided
> you with a
> niche. If I had applied for the position at the same
> time you did
> they would have given it to you rather than to me
> because you were
> gay and I wasn't.
>
Nope. Not at all. They just "lucked out" because I was
"out."
Many others there weren't including the Sports editor
whose "assistants" seemed to have been culled from the
pages of "After Dark." The striaght editors NEVER
caught on. It was quite hilarious watching these
beauties bouncing about in their Lacoste shirts and
button-fly jeans.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20135
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:02am
Subject: Re: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> You are absolutely right, and I am very much
> aware of this major
> difference between homo and hetero.
>
> However, heterosexuality certainly needs to be
> examined. And
> it's not as simple and bland and predictable as you
> gay people seem
> to think.
>
Well that's what I was bringing up in my discussion of
Kim Novak with Fred.
>
"Picnic," while written by a gay man, is entirely
about heterosexual desire. Holden and Novak under
Joshua Logan's direction, make it palpable and
genuinely touching. I expect the reason I responded to
it so much had to do with the fact that the characters
have to stuggle to get what they want and need. It
isn't simply handed to them on a platter as in most
films.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20136
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:05am
Subject: Re: Movie dates are a het phenom (WAS: J-P's heterosexuality)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Oh, I meant to post this a while back but now seems as good a time
as any.
> I've never been on a date in my life (at least one that I or anyone
else could
> recognize as such). And I've always wondered why that is. Then we
had that
> movie date thread a few weeks ago and David said something
like "Being gay, I've
> never been on a date," And then it hit me. I've never been on a
date because
> it's never been socially sanctioned for two boys or two girls to go
out on a
> date.
Kevin, unless you and I have completely different definitions
of "date," I'm surprised by your post. I've been on many, many dates
(although not in ages because my beloved and I have been together for
14 years) and some of them have given me some of my funniest
anecdotes. Moreover, almost every gay man and lesbian I know go or
have gone on dates -- many of them set up by well-meaning straight
folks who seem to assume every queer they know is perfect for every
other queer they know. Granted we're talking about adults and not
jigh school kids, but it seems to me that dating is very much a part
of the gay social fabric.
I meant to mention in another thread: wouldn't you have loved to see
Joan Crawford in the Kate Hepburn role in African Queen (at a time
when Joan was doing Goodbye, My Fancy. (By the way, I wish you could
have known my collaborator Mason Wiley. We were once on one of Joan
Rivers's talk shows, and Mason's response to Joan's inquiry as to the
worst Oscar outrage of all time was "Jean Louis not winning Best
Black-and-White Costume Design of 1955 for Queen Bee."
20137
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:13am
Subject: Re: Re: Movie dates are a het phenom (WAS: J-P's heterosexuality)
--- Damien Bona wrote:
> Kevin, unless you and I have completely different
> definitions
> of "date," I'm surprised by your post. I've been on
> many, many dates
> (although not in ages because my beloved and I have
> been together for
> 14 years) and some of them have given me some of my
> funniest
> anecdotes. Moreover, almost every gay man and
> lesbian I know go or
> have gone on dates -- many of them set up by
> well-meaning straight
> folks who seem to assume every queer they know is
> perfect for every
> other queer they know. Granted we're talking about
> adults and not
> jigh school kids, but it seems to me that dating is
> very much a part
> of the gay social fabric.
>
Well maybe it's a generational thing, as my beloved
and I have been together for 32 years. Prior to that
nothing resembling a date.
> I meant to mention in another thread: wouldn't you
> have loved to see
> Joan Crawford in the Kate Hepburn role in African
> Queen (at a time
> when Joan was doing Goodbye, My Fancy. (By the way,
> I wish you could
> have known my collaborator Mason Wiley. We were
> once on one of Joan
> Rivers's talk shows, and Mason's response to Joan's
> inquiry as to the
> worst Oscar outrage of all time was "Jean Louis not
> winning Best
> Black-and-White Costume Design of 1955 for Queen
> Bee."
>
Now that's the gayest thing I've ever read on this list!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20138
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:21am
Subject: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> When I went to work as a
> third string film critic for the "Herald Examiner" it
> was an enormous relief to the straight critics in the
> number one and two positions (Mike Sragow and Peter
> Rainer.) The Gay and lesbian Film fesivals were really
> starting to roar and they had to have "someone" to
> cover them.
>
Funny the tricks memory plays. I lived in L.A. in 1982 and bought
the Herald-Examiner every day ebcause of its gossip page and your
reviews, David. But I have no recollection of Sragow and Rainer at
the paper (two critics I could never tell apart anyway, along with
Michael Willmington and Kenneth Turan). In my mind's memory, you
were the first-stringer.
20139
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:23am
Subject: Re: Movie dates are a het phenom (WAS: J-P's heterosexuality)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Damien Bona wrote:
(By the way,
> > I wish you could
> > have known my collaborator Mason Wiley. We were
> > once on one of Joan
> > Rivers's talk shows, and Mason's response to Joan's
> > inquiry as to the
> > worst Oscar outrage of all time was "Jean Louis not
> > winning Best
> > Black-and-White Costume Design of 1955 for Queen
> > Bee."
> >
> Now that's the gayest thing I've ever read on this list!
And Mason was a hardcore auteurist.
20140
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:31am
Subject: Re: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- Damien Bona wrote:
>
> Funny the tricks memory plays. I lived in L.A. in
> 1982 and bought
> the Herald-Examiner every day ebcause of its gossip
> page and your
> reviews, David. But I have no recollection of
> Sragow and Rainer at
> the paper (two critics I could never tell apart
> anyway, along with
> Michael Willmington and Kenneth Turan). In my
> mind's memory, you
> were the first-stringer.
>
really? Well thanks. The best work I did at the paper
wasn't criticism but profiles. My favorite was when
the late, great Richard Rouilard set me up to
interview Christine Keeler. "Scandal" was coming out
(with Ian McKellen as Profumo, John Hirt as Steven
Wars, Bridget Fonda as Mandy Rice-Davies and Joanna
Whaley-Kilmer as Keeler) and the poor old dear was
piggy-backing a publicity tour out of it. Kind of like
an opera diva on her last legs. She was quite a sight,
well scrubbed and coiffed but in a suit held together
with safety pins. Very Edie Beale. Babbled on quite
incoherently to anyone not acquainted with the events
of eons before.
I called the piece "Carry on Christine."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
20141
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:38am
Subject: Calling Alain Resnais !
This story is especially amusing to those who recall
the most famoust shot from "Toute le memoire du
monde."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&ncid=529&e=6&u=/ap/20041231/ap_en_ot/france_comic_book_trove
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
20142
From:
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:53am
Subject: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
> David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> >
> >> Straights are NEVER
> > obligated to do the same. When I went to work as a
> > third string film critic for the "Herald Examiner" it
> > was an enormous relief to the straight critics in the
> > number one and two positions (Mike Sragow and Peter
> > Rainer.) The Gay and lesbian Film fesivals were really
> > starting to roar and they had to have "someone" to
> > cover them.
> >
>
Well, as a straight critic for Citysearch a few years ago (backing
up our own Dave Kehr) and a critic now for New York magazine
(backing up the aforementioned Peter Rainer) I am by now a walking
archive of recent gay cinema. In fact, I've reviewed so many of them
that a couple of the publicists working for mainly gay distribution
houses tell me they keep having to remind themselves that I'm
straight.
-Bilge
20143
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 2:22am
Subject: New year resolutions
My top resolution this year: never bring up the topic of gayness on
this group again.
Happy New Year to all.
20144
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 2:22am
Subject: Re: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> Well, as a straight critic for Citysearch a few
> years ago (backing
> up our own Dave Kehr) and a critic now for New York
> magazine
> (backing up the aforementioned Peter Rainer) I am by
> now a walking
> archive of recent gay cinema. In fact, I've reviewed
> so many of them
> that a couple of the publicists working for mainly
> gay distribution
> houses tell me they keep having to remind themselves
> that I'm
> straight.
>
Well that's because the moviegoing landscape has
changed so radically over the past four decades. Films
by and about gays and lesbians are far more common
than they used to be and the status quo has been
forced to adjust accordingly.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
20145
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 2:33am
Subject: Re: New year resolutions
Happy New Year, J-P -- and All!
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> My top resolution this year: never bring up the
> topic of gayness on
> this group again.
>
> Happy New Year to all.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
20146
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 2:40am
Subject: Re: New year resolutions
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Happy New Year, J-P -- and All!
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
> > My top resolution this year: never bring up the
> > topic of gayness on
> > this group again.
> >
> > Happy New Year to all.
I have a feeling that this will be a very brief resolution.
Happy New Year to David and all the stimulating people in
this group for their dedicated exchange of ideas which do not
often occur in university settings.
This group has really been a life-saver for me.
Tony Williams
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
> http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
20147
From:
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 3:43am
Subject: Re: New year resolutions
In a message dated 12/31/04 8:23:24 PM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
>
> My top resolution this year: never bring up the topic of gayness on
> this group again.
>
Please keep bringing up homosexuality to this group. Please, J-P. I
absolutely ADORE your contributions to the list!
Happy New Year to all who celebrate the new year at this time! This is one
bad ass mother fuckin' list! You're all on fuckin' fire!!!
Sadly, no one wanted to watch movies at my New Year's Eve party. So we wound
up watching clips: WB Superstars (INTENSE TV show that was the reverse of
American Idol - they were looking for the WORST singers in the US. The end is a
shit Capraesque cop-out. Preston Sturges would have saw through it all! VERY
CHRISTMAS IN JULY it would have been in HIS genius hands.); an AMAAAAAAAAZING gay
short film called ANDY directed by Steve Reinke - a man pleasures himself all
over this impeccably coiffed living room while a gay man describes what's in
the living room and where he purchased everything on the soundtrack. It's
waaaaaaay hilarious and I JUST found out it's Canadian which, if you know anything
about "Canadian," just makes it all the gayer; a short video I made in like
1989 or 1990 called BITCHES - I really love this - a friend called it "VERY
Jack Smith" which I was VERY humbled by...and it IS kinda Jack Smith but more
conceptually than pictorially....I made it cuz this screenwriting teacher I had
at U of W-Milwaukee that I HATED said there were 2 ways NOT to end a film: 1.
with a nuclear war and 2. with a dream so MY film had ONE nuclear war and TWO
dream sequences; and finally we watched some footage of The Monks playing in
Germany in 1966, I believe....their album BLACK MONK TIME (I think) on Henry
Rollins' or Rick Rubins' (I think) Infinite Zero label (I tihnk) only floors me
for like a cut or two at a time BUT this footage is downright shocking...these
motherfuckers figured out how the history of late 1980s/1990s popular music
would be written 30 YEARS BEFORE IT ALL HAPPENED...they anticipate not only
Krautrock a la Amon Duul II or Can or Neu! but also punk and even (the shock
horror!) house music....and ALL in front of a gaggle of gyrating teens - the very
end/beginning of the freakin' world!!!
Oh and I showed the 80 or so minute THE APPLE (Menahem Golan's from 1980 not
Makmahlbaf's from 1998) in partial fast-forward. Mostly, we just saw the songs
and the Adornoesque/anti-capitalist ending. Really folks - there are VERY few
films better than this one. See it NOW!
I WANTED to show:
THE PALM BEACH STORY - arguably the very best classical Hollywood comedy ever
(unless Lewis' THE LADIES' MAN counts)
SOME CALL IT LOVING - well, they asked
IT'S PAT: THE MOVIE - Bill Krohn pumps it over Edward Yang so you KNOW it's
godhead!
QUEEN BEE or TORCH SONG or my beloved FEMALE ON THE BEACH - something Joan
Crawford (Damien, your Jean Louis comment was BOSS! I have a pic of JC choosing
Jean Louis jewels - I think - to wear for QUEEN BEE)
Ok I wrote all this with Cheeto Puffs fingers and in between bouts of curly
fries with feta cheese, sea salt, paprika and olive oil in an attempt to sober
up from kahluas and cream, pink champagne, a sub-Veuve Cliquot champagne and a
$1.94 bottle of Blue Hawaiian Boone's Farm. Hope it works.
Again, y'all are amazing! GREAT list!
xo,
A very drunk and very gay Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20148
From:
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 8:49am
Subject: Re: J-P's heterosexuality (WAS: Cinema, taste, merit)
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, as a straight critic for Citysearch a few
> > years ago (backing
> > up our own Dave Kehr) and a critic now for New York
> > magazine
> > (backing up the aforementioned Peter Rainer) I am by
> > now a walking
> > archive of recent gay cinema. In fact, I've reviewed
> > so many of them
> > that a couple of the publicists working for mainly
> > gay distribution
> > houses tell me they keep having to remind themselves
> > that I'm
> > straight.
> >
> Well that's because the moviegoing landscape has
> changed so radically over the past four decades. Films
> by and about gays and lesbians are far more common
> than they used to be and the status quo has been
> forced to adjust accordingly.
>
Sure. My point was basically that in terms of the current situation,
my regularly reviewing the gay & lesbian films that show in NYC has
nothing to do with my sexuality (obviously) and everything to do
with the fact that I am a third-stringer. In this sense, the gay &
lesbian "market" is both a good and a bad thing: Good in that it
regularly connects a niche audience with certain kinds of films, and
bad in that it allows for a lot of garbage to get shown, thus
diluting the whole "genre" (not really the right word) and allowing
a lot of first string critics to dismiss certain films right off the
bat.
-Bilge
20149
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 9:21am
Subject: re: Happy New Year
You guys really need to get out more. While the rest of the world was
at a party, three old auteurists sit and discuss being gay. I bet
Rohmer would make a great film out of that :)
Happy New Year everyone
Henrk
20150
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 9:24am
Subject: Re: Marginally OT: A Question for This Group
"Tom Sutpen" wrote:
> Am I the *only* contributor to this list who isn't actively engaged in
> the craft of writing film criticism and/or essays?
Tom, I hope this had nothing to do with a comment I made in the post
in which I mentioned the online journal I had recently set-up, and
said something to the effect of: I'm sure everyone has various
publications in which to publish their various peices.......... (you
remember the rest...) Sorry if it did.
I was under the mistaken impression, which various posts over the last
day has cleared up, that most members were critics - I guess I came to
this because I am a critic, learnt of this group from a critic, and as
has already been mentioned, many of the most frequent posters are
critics....well, I guess I know now........
-- Saul.
(P.S. Happy New Year - Is it just me, or do others find New Years more
depressing than enjoyable???????????)
20151
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 9:28am
Subject: Re: Audience reaction (for Saul)/MRS. MINIVER
LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>Embarrassingly, I've never seen MRS. MINIVER (it's definitely the
Kevin, thanks for the anecdote. They'll all come much in handy. I've
never seen 'Mrs Miniver' either, though several times I have gone to
the video store for the express purpose of borrowing out that film -
trouble is, the title always makes me think of 'The Ghost and Mrs
Muir' though I can't see why it would, and I always end up borrowing
that wonderful film instead....but now I think it's really time I did
watch 'Mrs Miniver'...and when I do I'll also then be able to confirm
the existence of that line...
-- Saul.
20152
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 9:34am
Subject: Kael and 'That Sinking Feeling'(Was: Audience reaction for Saul)
Mike, thanks for the lengthy reply to my request. I particularly liked
the story of how the audience reacted in "That Sinking Feeling"
I take it you don't like Kael ??
-- Saul.
20153
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 9:42am
Subject: Re: Cinema, taste, merit
In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> I'm sure it's "brilliant", but it's exactly the sort of thing
> that turns me off. Maybe I should write a piece on why straight men
> (some straight men at least) love musicals too. Guys like you have
> been keeping us in the closet for too long.
I love musicals, and I'm straight (at least I hope so)...it's a secret
that I love them (I guess not anymore) (and for a while I particularly
was fond of Doris Day musicals)......but any and all of those old
Hollywood musicals just really get to me.....
-- Saul.
20154
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 9:49am
Subject: Re: Pasolini (was: Cinema, taste, merit )
> Since no one has mentioned it, ARABIAN NIGHTS is my favorite, and one
> of the best films of the 70s.
Everyone is discussing what the best Pasolini is, (and without a doubt
'Salo' IS his best film), but no-one has yet mentioned his worst...I
think it has to be that segement he put into the "The Witches", a
portmanteu film which showcased the worst work of all the directors
involved - which aslo included De Sica, Rossi, and Visconti - I
couldn't understand that film. Not a single one of the shorts in it
seemed to go anywhere.....
-- Saul.
20155
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 10:01am
Subject: Re: Movie dates are a het phenom (WAS: J-P's heterosexuality)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
sitively heart-breaking. And this didn't happen all that long ago. BUT it
> happened at a gay leather club where I was DJing on a Wednesday
night when there
> were maybe ten people tops in the entire place. That definitely
doesn't diminish
> the scene for me (the nervousness, the eagerness to do/say the right
thing,
> the requests to play a song the other boy liked, etc. SWOON!). But
it does show
> up the rather unpublic nature of the date, e.g. they definitely weren't
> enjoying the latest Schumacher at a multiplex.
Well, I saw two gays on a date, not at the latest Schumacher, but at
the latest Haneke - it was 'The Piano Teacher', and yes, they were
making out - Hmmmmm......interesting, because this movie doesn't
strike me as a 'make-out film' for either gay or straight couples....
I see lots of lesbian couples in Sydney, and when I was in Berlin I
saw lots of gay couples - actually, I was out one night at a rave or
techno club of some sort with a gay couple, and several times men
tried to pick me up and offer me drinks....
-- Saul.
20156
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 10:06am
Subject: Re: New year resolutions
My New Years Resolution is to watch more films....I think I watched
about 1000 this year, probably a lot more as I lost count - being part
of this group constantly makes me aware of how many films there are
out there that I haven't seen....and constantly heightens my desire to
go out and watch them.....when I was 12 and starting watching films
seriously it was one or two a week - by fifteen it was almost daily -
at 17 I was writing film reviews and skipping school to go to the
flicks - now at 20 it's anywhere from 1 to 8 films a day - and I
usually have a stack of dvd's to watch and review - and as
distribution companies send out more than is possible to watch, it's
usually a long stack, (I think 50 at the moment)
-- Saul.
20157
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:26pm
Subject: Re: New year resolutions
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
>
> My New Years Resolution is to watch more films....I think I watched
> about 1000 this year, probably a lot more as I lost count
*****
Dear God, why?
> - being part
> of this group constantly makes me aware of how many films there are
> out there that I haven't seen....and constantly heightens my desire to
> go out and watch them.....
*****
Interesting. For me, it constantly heightens my desire to put a bullet
through my head.
> when I was 12 and starting watching films
> seriously it was one or two a week - by fifteen it was almost daily -
> at 17 I was writing film reviews and skipping school to go to the
> flicks - now at 20 it's anywhere from 1 to 8 films a day
*****
Yeesh. That's too much like my life story to bear further comment.
Tom "Wasted Life" Sutpen
20158
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:34pm
Subject: Re: Marginally OT: A Question for This Group
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
> > Am I the *only* contributor to this list who isn't actively engaged in
> > the craft of writing film criticism and/or essays?
>
> Tom, I hope this had nothing to do with a comment I made in the post
> in which I mentioned the online journal I had recently set-up, and
> said something to the effect of: I'm sure everyone has various
> publications in which to publish their various peices.......... (you
> remember the rest...) Sorry if it did.
*****
No. It didn't have anything to do with that, I've just been going
through a strange time, that's all.
> I was under the mistaken impression, which various posts over the last
> day has cleared up, that most members were critics - I guess I came to
> this because I am a critic, learnt of this group from a critic, and as
> has already been mentioned, many of the most frequent posters are
> critics....well, I guess I know now........
*****
I wasn't mistaken for a critic even when I was one, so it was somewhat
jarring to read.
> (P.S. Happy New Year - Is it just me, or do others find New Years more
> depressing than enjoyable???????????)
*****
No. It's not just you.
Tom Sutpen
20159
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:54pm
Subject: Re: Knee-jerkiness(WAS:J-P's heterosexuality)
--- ebiri@a... wrote:
In this
> sense, the gay &
> lesbian "market" is both a good and a bad thing:
> Good in that it
> regularly connects a niche audience with certain
> kinds of films, and
> bad in that it allows for a lot of garbage to get
> shown, thus
> diluting the whole "genre" (not really the right
> word) and allowing
> a lot of first string critics to dismiss certain
> films right off the
> bat.
>
Wellthat would be comparable to dismissing all French
films right off the bat because you didn't like
"Amelie."
But there's something else at play outside of subject
matter. There's a tendency in "mainstream" culture to
rpivilege the "new." This past season I've found
myself (not on this list but elsewhere) in endless
discussions of "Latter Days" -- as if it were the only
gay film ever made, almost. It's a moderately
interesting movie, but scarcely the be-all and end-all
of gay or any other kind of cinema. But getting people
to talk about the past is like pulling teeth. A
slightly different version of this tendency is
something I've been complaining about in here before
re Scorsese and "GoodFellas."
Critics must redouble their efforts to force readers
to think historically -- and thoroughly.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
20160
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 1:56pm
Subject: Re: re: Happy New Year
--- Henrik Sylow wrote:
>
> You guys really need to get out more. While the rest
> of the world was
> at a party, three old auteurists sit and discuss
> being gay. I bet
> Rohmer would make a great film out of that :)
>
True. But leave us not forget he DID discover Pascal
Greggory.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
20161
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 2:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cinema, taste, merit
--- Saul Symonds wrote:
(and for a
> while I particularly
> was fond of Doris Day musicals
Well I hope it was more than awhile. I always cite
Doris Day as making the most spectacular debut in the
history of the cinema. She had never acted before --
in ANYTHING -- prior to "Romance on the High Seas" and
she's just THERE from moment one. She owns the screen.
"SecretLove" aside, "Calamity Jane" is on the whole
arather tattyattempt to duplicate "Anne Get Your Gun"
(for which she would have been perfect) but again she
makes it work. And I'm quite fond of Charles Walters'
"Billy Rose's Jumbo" where she gets to sing "My
Romance" and "Little Girl Blue" -- two of the
greatestsongs ever written. her duet with Martha Raye
on "Why Can't I?" is also great.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20162
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 2:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pasolini (was: Cinema, taste, merit )
--- Saul Symonds wrote:
>
> Everyone is discussing what the best Pasolini is,
> (and without a doubt
> 'Salo' IS his best film), but no-one has yet
> mentioned his worst...I
> think it has to be that segement he put into the
> "The Witches", a
> portmanteu film which showcased the worst work of
> all the directors
> involved - which aslo included De Sica, Rossi, and
> Visconti - I
> couldn't understand that film. Not a single one of
> the shorts in it
> seemed to go anywhere.....
>
Well I beg to differ. "The Earth As Seen From the
Moon" is a delight. It continues the teaming of Toto
and Ninetto and Pasolini gets Sylvana Mangano to do
Chaplin -- quite a feat. As a whole "The Witches"
suffers like all anthology films do, from overall
lumpiness.The DeSica episode is indeed bad.But I
rather like the Visconti (which contains the debut of
Helmut Berger) especially for the way the people at
the resort hotel (which is modelled on the hotel that
Bewrger's parents owned and where Visconti met him)
"dismantle" a semi-comatose Mangano.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Jazz up your holiday email with celebrity designs. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
20163
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 2:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Movie dates are a het phenom (WAS: J-P's heterosexuality)
--- Saul Symonds wrote:
> Well, I saw two gays on a date, not at the latest
> Schumacher, but at
> the latest Haneke - it was 'The Piano Teacher', and
> yes, they were
> making out - Hmmmmm......interesting, because this
> movie doesn't
> strike me as a 'make-out film' for either gay or
> straight couples....
>
> I see lots of lesbian couples in Sydney, and when I
> was in Berlin I
> saw lots of gay couples - actually, I was out one
> night at a rave or
> techno club of some sort with a gay couple, and
> several times men
> tried to pick me up and offer me drinks....
>
Well that's todays mod-a-go-go gay world, Saul. Back
in MY day we didn't date. We just got it on.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20164
From:
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 9:48am
Subject: Re: New year resolutions
Guys,
It is none of my business - but the Mary Worth in me has some suggestions:
ON SLEEPING:
Regular exercise helps people sleep.
Always start an exercise program SLOWLY, to avoid injury. Start off with 5
minutes of VERY light exercise a day (a short walk, say, or a flight of stairs).
Over a month, work up to a half hour of exercise. NEVER push yourself, or do
too much to begin with, to avoid injury.
Walking is good exercise for most people. So is swimming, riding an exercise
bike at a gym. Beware: playing basketball is dangerous -its injury central.
If you live where it is cold (eg, Michigan), go to a shopping mall and walk.
Listening to classical music at bed time, and reading poetry, also helps
people sleep. It's a scientific fact! Watching movies usually keeps people awake
(bad news from sleep researchers). Public libraries let you borrow classical
music CDs for free.
On GOALS:
Setting obtainable goals makes one feel better about life.
Plan to write that short story, paint that painting, or make that low-budget
$500 DV documentary this year.
Make a plan.
Write it down.
Take action on it every day!
You will accomplish more, and feel better about yourself.
By the way, fiction, poetry, and water color painting are all really CHEAP to
do. And you don't have to deal with obnoxious producers, etc. Writing a
mystery story and posting to your web site can be a liberating experience!
Good Luck,
Mike Grost
20165
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 4:31pm
Subject: Rohmer (Was: Cinema, taste, merit)
> I think Rohmer is a good case in point. I went to see three of his
> films when there was a retrospective at the Film Center in Chicago.
> The first one was "Ma Nuit Chez Maud", a film I enjoyed a lot in many
> ways. The dialogue was intriguing, I identified with the characters
> and the camera was doing than an average film. I knew then that it
> wasn't doing it abstractly for me but I was enjoying the films so
> much that I thought I was going to see all the films they were
> showing. However, after the third film, it all started to seem
> shallow and, honestly, a bit boring.
> I am sure there are other Rohmer films that I would enjoy but I
> wasn't getting enough fulfillment from them to feel need to "expand"
> my views on aesthetics and cinema, actually the exact opposite is
> true, they proved that not every kind of pleasure is the same as
> aesthetic pleasures and almost none of them is as valuable.
I am 200 messages behind, and was trying to be patient about posting until
I'm caught up, but I must say I am quite surprised to see Rohmer being put
into some non-visual, "representing" category, or whatever. I mean,
Pialat might de-emphasize composition or shot selection quite often in an
attempt to get something else, but Rohmer's composition and selection is
as rigorous as anything in the cinema: he never sacrifices *anything* to
the visuals. His mentor is Murnau, and just as Ulmer might have inherited
the expressionist side of Murnau's visual personality, Rohmer persists in
giving us the documentary side of Murnau's composition sense, the
paradoxical commitment to documenting a real world via the artifice of
frame line and blocking. Each shot in Rohmer films has integrity, in the
sense that each stands alone.
Just needed to get that off of my chest. If you're into interpreting
compositions, or finding in them some reflection of narrative or dramatic
values, then Rohmer comes up short: he just won't let you do that. His
visuals work in counterpoint to the narrative, not with it. But he is a
great visual stylist! - Dan
20166
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 4:41pm
Subject: Re: New year resolutions
> Listening to classical music at bed time, and reading poetry, also helps
> people sleep. It's a scientific fact! Watching movies usually keeps people awake
> (bad news from sleep researchers).
So if I watched "The Chronicle Of Anna Magdelena Bach" on DVD some
evening I could only shut one eye ? ;-)
-Sam
20167
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 4:46pm
Subject: Re: Cinema, taste, merit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I always cite
> Doris Day as making the most spectacular debut in the
> history of the cinema. She had never acted before --
> in ANYTHING -- prior to "Romance on the High Seas" and
> she's just THERE from moment one. She owns the screen.
"It's Magic"! (When we walk hand in hand the world becomes a
wonderland, it's magic/How else can I explain those rainbows where
there is no rain, it's magic/ Why do I tell myself those things
aren't really true/ When all the while I know the magic is my love
for you.)
One of my favorite lines from the film: "When a person is a man,
there's nothing you can do about it." And how could you forget Jack
carson singing "Run, run, run when you see a pretty woman" with a
Carribean accent?
The trailer had cute punning over "high seas"/ "High C."
Fred is going to frown, but after all this is New year's day.
JPC
> "SecretLove" aside, "Calamity Jane" is on the whole
> arather tattyattempt to duplicate "Anne Get Your Gun"
> (for which she would have been perfect) but again she
> makes it work. And I'm quite fond of Charles Walters'
> "Billy Rose's Jumbo" where she gets to sing "My
> Romance" and "Little Girl Blue"
"When I was very young the world was younger than I/As merry
as a carousel/The circus tent was strung with every star in the
sky/Above a ring I loved so well./ Now the young world has grown
old/Gone are the tinsel and gold... And that's only the verse!
Oops, there I go again... JPC
-- two of the
> greatestsongs ever written. her duet with Martha Raye
> on "Why Can't I?" is also great.
>
> ____David don't you think Doris was fantastic in "Pajama Game" too
(one of my favorite musicals)? "I'm Not at All in Love," "There Once
Was a Man" (great duet with Raitt).
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
20168
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 5:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cinema, taste, merit
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> > ____David don't you think Doris was fantastic in
> "Pajama Game" too
> (one of my favorite musicals)? "I'm Not at All in
> Love," "There Once
> Was a Man" (great duet with Raitt).
Goodness yes. That's one of the greatest of all
musicals. Godard wrote a very perceptive review of it
for "Cahiers," taking special note of Bob Fosse's
contribution.
In many ways that's the role Day was born to play --
the smart, forthright, centered young woman not afraid
to take on the world or any of the men in it -- even
though she finds herself falling in love with her
career antagonist.
I love the way Donen used the factory set in the "I'm
Not at All in Love" number, with the chorus of other
women (led by the enchanting Barbara Nichols) needling
her in song.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
20169
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 5:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: New year resolutions
--- samfilms2003 wrote:
>
> So if I watched "The Chronicle Of Anna Magdelena
> Bach" on DVD some
> evening I could only shut one eye ? ;-)
>
>
I wish it were available on DVD. In fact I wish all of
Straub-Huillet were available on DVD. But I gather
that's against their religion.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
20170
From:
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 6:03pm
Subject: Re: Pasolini (was: Cinema, taste, merit )
>> > "The Witches", a
> > portmanteu film which showcased the worst work of
> > all the directors
> > involved - which aslo included De Sica, Rossi, and
> > Visconti - I
> > couldn't understand that film. Not a single one of
> > the shorts in it
> > seemed to go anywhere.....
> >
>
> Well I beg to differ. "The Earth As Seen From the
> Moon" is a delight. It continues the teaming of Toto
> and Ninetto and Pasolini gets Sylvana Mangano to do
> Chaplin -- quite a feat. As a whole "The Witches"
> suffers like all anthology films do, from overall
> lumpiness.The DeSica episode is indeed bad.But I
> rather like the Visconti (which contains the debut of
> Helmut Berger) especially for the way the people at
> the resort hotel (which is modelled on the hotel that
> Bewrger's parents owned and where Visconti met him)
> "dismantle" a semi-comatose Mangano.
>
Yeah. I had the chance to re-see the Visconti episode a couple of
weeks ago on a screen, and was surprised at how much better I liked
it this time. Visconti had to cut it, but something remains of his
melancholy, and it has an extra poignancy when added to the concept
of the constructed celebrity actress. I dunno; I loved it. And that
title: "The Witch Burnt Alive".
The De Sica, while obviously not his best, gets a lot of mileage out
of the sheer novelty of seeing Clint Eastwood in that role. But
yeah, it's about as nuts as they come.
I like the Pasolini episode, but not as much as David evidently does.
But the best part about THE WITCHES, as far as I'm concerned, are
those amazing animated opening credits by Pino Zac.
-Bilge
20171
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 6:07pm
Subject: Pajama Game (was:Re: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > ____David don't you think Doris was fantastic in
> > "Pajama Game" too
> > (one of my favorite musicals)? "I'm Not at All in
> > Love," "There Once
> > Was a Man" (great duet with Raitt).
>
> Goodness yes. That's one of the greatest of all
> musicals. Godard wrote a very perceptive review of it
> for "Cahiers," taking special note of Bob Fosse's
> contribution.
"Steam Heat" is one of his early masterpieces, with all the Fosse
signature gestures and stances and props (the hats!). "They told me
to put some more oil in the burner... But that don't do no good!")
>
> In many ways that's the role Day was born to play --
> the smart, forthright, centered young woman not afraid
> to take on the world or any of the men in it -- even
> though she finds herself falling in love with her
> career antagonist.
>
Labor vs management. Conflict of love and duty. It's Corneille!
> I love the way Donen used the factory set in the "I'm
> Not at All in Love" number, with the chorus of other
> women (led by the enchanting Barbara Nichols) needling
> her in song.
Nichols: "And I bet he cries like a little boy when he's sad" with
that high-pitched nasal voice -- the ultimate fifties dumb blonde,
and so touching in "Sweet Smell of Success." The chorus: "You're
shouting!" Then DD whispers it (echo of "Soon I shouted from the
highest hill/Even told the golden daffodil/Now my heart's an open
door/And my secret love no secret anymore.")
>
>
> But enough quoting!
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
20172
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 6:14pm
Subject: Re: Pasolini (was: Cinema, taste, merit )
I actually like the De Sica episode very much. It anticipates
Cassavetes' LOVE STREAMS, exploring the way in which mundane
emotional problems might be resolved in the realm of fantasy. And the
use of Clint Eastwood is positively inspired - his casting reveals
the Man With No Name image to be a fantasy of power that appeals
primarily to the powerless domesticated male (love the moment in
which FISTFUL OF DOLLARS is included in the list of film titles that
Eastwood's character reads out of a newspaper).
20173
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 6:38pm
Subject: OT: dating, and not dating Have you ever seen a woman like this in the movies?
Some thoughts:
Anyone, male or female, can ask another on a date. Whatever it is that
makes someone more social or less social than another is probably as
inherent as one's sexuality.
Many heterosexual movies (especially in the past) do not portray the
female in any role familiar to most viewers.
I could tell a variety of stories about my social and sexual
experiences; here's one that still makes me smile.
When I was a medical student (30 years old, heterosexual, single
female), a married male physician was pursuing me, even after I had
given him a dime to call his wife and tell her about it as I was
willing, but not inclined to lie about a such. (I guess I am more
forgiving of the human condition reference inexplicable attraction to
others than I am about lying... which seems to get most people in the
most trouble).
I was assigned to this physician's team (even after going to the dean
and requesting / being denied a change, the only such request made by
myself over 4 years) for a 6-8 week rotation, over the course of which
we saw each other daily. Once when in the elevator alone, going to see
a patient, this physician turns to me and asks: "Can I ask you a
personal question?"
I said, "Yes."
He inquired: "Are you a lesbian?"
I said, "No, but may I ask, why do you ask?"
He said, "Because I never see you with a man."
I replied, "Dr. X, when I go out with man, we don't often come to the
hospital!"
The next inquiry came a few weeks later when he was in the hospital for
a leg problem and I stopped to see him (having read that physicians who
are ill are often shunned by their peers, I have always made it a point
to visit MD's acquaintances who are hospitalized).
It was about 9 am in the morning and I had just finished rounding on
patients.
I said, "Hello."
The first thing this man says to me is, "Can I ask you a personal
question?"
I said, "Yes."
"When was the last time you made love?"
I looked at my watch and said "About three hours ago."
"And the time before that?"
"Looking again at my watch, "About six hours ago. He's nineteen."
He never asked me anymore 'personal' questions.
But he sure pinned me up against the wall a few times on rounds ... and
fortunately for me, I had a lot of the answers reference medical info.
There was once a rare, rare disease which I had just read about
randomly and that afternoon such a patient shows up. Needless to say,
I knew more about what needed to me done emergently for this patient
than even the chief resident, whose reluctance to do anything was
putting the patient at risk. When I suggested that xyz be done, the
resident declined. When the married physician arrived, he asked 'Why
wasn't xyz done?' He's looking at me. I said "I told them to do xyz
(I was a student, the resident was 6 years ahead of me). He even asked
me, "Why are you the only one who thinks like a surgeon?" I said, "I
read." I so wanted to add, 'in between all that lovemaking."
Have you ever seen a woman like this in the movies?
Elizabeth
20174
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 7:05pm
Subject: Sleep (was Re: New year resolutions)
Mike:
> Listening to classical music at bed time, and reading poetry,
also helps
> people sleep. It's a scientific fact! Watching movies usually
keeps people awake
> (bad news from sleep researchers).
Time magazine sez: if you must turn the tv on before going to bed
watch light fare; don't go for mystery, suspense, horror...
For years I never got a much-needed reading light for my
bedside, and so developed the (bad) habit of watching films
before going to bed. Even in my sleepiest state I still found
myself making mental notes on what I was seeing.
These thoughts would invade me in the night and I wanted to be
at my computer typing eventually rather than under the covers
catching zzzs. Fortunately, some of these habits have improved,
but I find it essential now to get enough sleep to be able to write
and function. Anyone who travels to film festivals knows that an
active healthy lifestyle during the non-festival parts of the year
goes a long way to insure you'll have the endurance to last 30+
films and less than three hours of sleep a night.
There's a lot we don't know about the brain, but it's also a
scientific fact that our response level, our ability to understand
and articulate our own thoughts, gets progressively lamer after
the 17th hour of being awake.
Sometimes that delirium is exciting to me... but I desperately
want to grow up in this respect.
Gabe
20175
From: thebradstevens
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 7:17pm
Subject: Re: Pasolini (was: Cinema, taste, merit )
Incidentally, every English-language print of THE WITCHES that I've
seen inexplicably makes major cuts to the Pasolini episode, removing
Laura Betti's entire role (as a male tourist).
20176
From:
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 2:29pm
Subject: The postmodern auteur (was Cinema, taste, merit.)
In a message dated 12/31/04 5:06:33 PM, f@f... writes:
> I'd say you're a new category, Kevin, a postmodern auteurist
>
Ah! I've lived long enough to be called postmodern...and by someone I respect
a great deal (even though I wish he knew how complex and thought provoking
and rewarding the Stones and the Heads and Britney, etc. are).
Seriously...thanx!
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20177
From:
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 2:47pm
Subject: Re: OT: dating, and not dating Have you ever seen a woman lik...
In a message dated 05-01-01 13:51:52 EST, Elizabeth writes:
<< Have you ever seen a woman like this in the movies? >>
No - but I'd like to!
You have good dialogue!
Mike Grost
20178
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 8:05pm
Subject: Re: OT: dating, and not dating Have you ever seen a woman like this in the movies?
Elizabeth, your post would make a marvelous movie!
--- Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> Some thoughts:
>
>
> Anyone, male or female, can ask another on a date.
> Whatever it is that
> makes someone more social or less social than
> another is probably as
> inherent as one's sexuality.
>
>
> Many heterosexual movies (especially in the past) do
> not portray the
> female in any role familiar to most viewers.
>
> I could tell a variety of stories about my social
> and sexual
> experiences; here's one that still makes me smile.
>
> When I was a medical student (30 years old,
> heterosexual, single
> female), a married male physician was pursuing me,
> even after I had
> given him a dime to call his wife and tell her about
> it as I was
> willing, but not inclined to lie about a such. (I
> guess I am more
> forgiving of the human condition reference
> inexplicable attraction to
> others than I am about lying... which seems to get
> most people in the
> most trouble).
>
> I was assigned to this physician's team (even after
> going to the dean
> and requesting / being denied a change, the only
> such request made by
> myself over 4 years) for a 6-8 week rotation, over
> the course of which
> we saw each other daily. Once when in the elevator
> alone, going to see
> a patient, this physician turns to me and asks: "Can
> I ask you a
> personal question?"
> I said, "Yes."
> He inquired: "Are you a lesbian?"
> I said, "No, but may I ask, why do you ask?"
> He said, "Because I never see you with a man."
> I replied, "Dr. X, when I go out with man, we don't
> often come to the
> hospital!"
>
>
> The next inquiry came a few weeks later when he was
> in the hospital for
> a leg problem and I stopped to see him (having read
> that physicians who
> are ill are often shunned by their peers, I have
> always made it a point
> to visit MD's acquaintances who are hospitalized).
>
>
> It was about 9 am in the morning and I had just
> finished rounding on
> patients.
> I said, "Hello."
> The first thing this man says to me is, "Can I ask
> you a personal
> question?"
> I said, "Yes."
> "When was the last time you made love?"
> I looked at my watch and said "About three hours
> ago."
> "And the time before that?"
> "Looking again at my watch, "About six hours ago.
> He's nineteen."
>
> He never asked me anymore 'personal' questions.
>
> But he sure pinned me up against the wall a few
> times on rounds ... and
> fortunately for me, I had a lot of the answers
> reference medical info.
> There was once a rare, rare disease which I had just
> read about
> randomly and that afternoon such a patient shows up.
> Needless to say,
> I knew more about what needed to me done emergently
> for this patient
> than even the chief resident, whose reluctance to do
> anything was
> putting the patient at risk. When I suggested that
> xyz be done, the
> resident declined. When the married physician
> arrived, he asked 'Why
> wasn't xyz done?' He's looking at me. I said "I
> told them to do xyz
> (I was a student, the resident was 6 years ahead of
> me). He even asked
> me, "Why are you the only one who thinks like a
> surgeon?" I said, "I
> read." I so wanted to add, 'in between all that
> lovemaking."
>
>
> Have you ever seen a woman like this in the movies?
>
> Elizabeth
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
20179
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 8:41pm
Subject: Film, politics, gay rights, immigrant rights
I don't think it's OT to note that in the last presidential election,
gay marriage was a major rallying point for getting out the rightwing
vote. Homophobia is making an ugly and dangerous comeback as a
political force in this country, and even film discussion groups need
to tke some notice of this. Let me cite another topic that may not be
all that OT: Although I haven't seen Spanglish yet, given its subject
I suspect that it is relevant to discussions of the film that the
first order of business of the next Republican Congress is going to
be anti-immigrant legislation of the kind that was passed in Colorado
and other states during the November election.
20180
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 8:46pm
Subject: Re: Posting: Reminder (Was{OT: dating)
Everyone, please STOP quoting whole posts unless you are replying to
every sentence. You should quote only what you're replying to. My plan
is to host the entire archive of our group in a more usable form on my
own site and I don't like the idea of wasting my own bandwidth on this
stuff.
Fred Camper
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>Elizabeth, your post would make a marvelous movie!
>
>--- Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
>
>
[Followed by the quoting of Elizabeth's entire (fascinating) post.]
20181
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 8:54pm
Subject: Re: Cinema, taste, merit (was Re: varying...)
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>Hitchcock was far more concerned with molding actors to the
>patterns of his narrative design .....
>
David, I really appreciate all the inside info on filmmaking that you've
offered us over the last year, and I'm sure most or all of the rest of
us do too. In this case I did know most of this, and I assumed what Zach
had meant about analyzing acting would have involved a specific
discussion of how Novak's movements, expressions, intonation, et cetera,
connects (or fails to connect) with the rest of the film. Certainly what
you describe as "the dreamy, vague "lost" quality" is a big part of
this; I assume Zach had meant something that would have involved
specific instances. Thanks for the other film references, which would be
useful in pinning her "Vertigo" performance down by way of comparison..
Fred Camper
20182
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 8:55pm
Subject: Re: Film, politics, gay rights, immigrant rights
--- hotlove666 wrote:
Homophobia is making an ugly and dangerous
> comeback as a
> political force in this country, and even film
> discussion groups need
> to tke some notice of this.
I'm not too sure about that. I just finished writing a
review of the documentary "After Stonewall" which is
being put out on DVD. Covering events from 1969 right
through to 1999 when the film was finished it not only
brought back memories but made the cliche "The more
things change the more they remain the same" more
vivid than ever. The gay rights movement has the same
enemies hawking the same tattered bill of goods. And
for every bit of progress there's a backlash. But
truth prevails in the end.
Let me cite another
> topic that may not be
> all that OT: Although I haven't seen Spanglish yet,
> given its subject
> I suspect that it is relevant to discussions of the
> film that the
> first order of business of the next Republican
> Congress is going to
> be anti-immigrant legislation of the kind that was
> passed in Colorado
> and other states during the November election.
>
And there's a lot of diussention in the Republican
ranks over that one. Those people don't want to lose
their maids and nannies.
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20183
From:
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 9:29pm
Subject: New file uploaded to a_film_by
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the a_film_by
group.
File : /rope-paperback-covers/rope-front-cover.jpg
Uploaded by : tharpa2002
Description : Rope front cover
You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/files/rope-paperback-covers/rope-front-cover.jpg
To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
Regards,
tharpa2002
20184
From:
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 9:31pm
Subject: New file uploaded to a_film_by
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the a_film_by
group.
File : /rope-paperback-covers/rope-back-cover-floorplan.jpg
Uploaded by : tharpa2002
Description : Back cover of paperback with complete floorplan
You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/files/rope-paperback-covers/rope-back-cover-floorplan.jpg
To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
Regards,
tharpa2002
20185
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 9:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Dell Mapbacks, Floor Plans (was: Cinema, taste, merit)
As you can see, Richard Modiano has kindly provided us with scans of
that paperback, including the floor plan of the "Rope" apartment, in our
"Files" section.
I've always thought that most mainstream narrative films actually made
it hard to reconstruct spaces like this. I don't think they
intentionally make it hard; I that in most cases geography is not part
of their agenda at all, but rather peoeple walking around and talking.
It's usually when some element of geography is essential to the story
that it plays a part.
There's an interesting artist who relates to all this, Mark Bennett. His
"art" consissts of architectural renderings of TV show locales that he
constructs from sketches made during dozens of viewings. This is work he
began in childhood. Sometimes a particular detail is only made possible
from one episode, where a room or closet previously unknown is revealed.
I've seen these in galleries and like them quite a bit, though lord
knows they certainhly don't pass my "Bach test." They are a fascinating
cultural (and personal) commentary of some sort.
Some Bennett urls:
articles
http://courses.cfa.cmu.edu/~p5admin/infovis/2004s/img/bennett.html (a
general article)
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/transcripts_081602_tv.html
(includes a few of Bennett' comments)
images
http://hotwired.wired.com/gallery/96/50/a.html (Beverly Hillbillies)
http://hotwired.wired.com/gallery/96/50/f.html (Gilligan's Island)
Fred Camper
20186
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 10:21pm
Subject: Re: OT: dating, and not dating Have you ever seen a woman like this in the movies?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
>
> Many heterosexual movies (especially in the past) do not portray
the
> female in any role familiar to most viewers.
I would say this applies to the male too, and the simple reason
is that people in movies (or in plays, or in novels) are not the
same as "real" people in real life.
Even in movies of "the past" there is an occasional flash of the
everyday familiar, but the characters have to conform to too many
patterns and conventions -- dramatic and otherwise -- for this
identification with the real to be more than fleeting.
However, as David pointed out, your real-life story could be good
movie material, and it shows a fine sense of dialogue. Which of
course would seem to contradict your premise!
As an aspiring screenwriter you may be (consciously or semi-
consciously, I don't know)viewing your real-life experiences as
material for film fiction. About which there is of course nothing
wrong.
20187
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 10:33pm
Subject: Re: OT: dating, and not dating Have you ever seen a woman like this in the m
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> Some thoughts:
> Have you ever seen a woman like this in the movies?
*****
Well, Joan Blondell and Glenda Farrell used to demonstrate the same
whithering disdain toward Allen Jenkins, Guy Kibbee and, sometimes,
Lyle Talbott in about 500 Warners/First National pictures from the
early 30s.
And the dialogue *does* kinda sound like Blake Edwards wrote it.
But I haven't seen a melding of those two conditions in any film
recently, so I guess the answer's no.
Tom "Mr. Tact" Sutpen
20188
From: Peter Henne
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 10:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pasolini (was: Cinema, taste, merit )
David,
I hadn't given much thought about the shorts containing autobiographical content, and none at all about their reflecting Pasolini's relationship with Davoli.
So thanks for the illuminating perspective. But to go back to what I first repsonded to, I don't think understanding the course of this off-screen
relationship provides the key to Pasolini's whole film work. The metaphysics, sexual conundrums (not only about straight or gay), poetic realism,
self-critical politics, and approach to performance do. At any rate, those are what I draw from Pasolini's films.
Since others are picking Pasolini favorites, I'll go with "Teorema." It works through all of these aspects marvelously. I must have seen the film 30 times
(though only once projected), and it is still replenishing.
Whether or not you agree with anything I've said, Happy New Year to you.
Peter
David Ehrenstein wrote:
--- Peter Henne wrote:
> David,
>
> Granted, but Ninetto Davoli also appears in numerous
> features. What about the adoring way Pasolini frames
> his first appearance in "Teorema"? The features
> typically present him as irrepresible, lovable,
> innocent. When a male heterosexual director portrays
> an actress this way over and over, audiences usually
> suspect that the filmmaker is fond of her if not
> moreso.
But that's quite an acceptable practice eg.Godard and
Anna Karina. There's something rather different here.
So I think you can get a sense of their
> relationship in the features, not only in the
> shorts, though one or two in the latter group do
> tend to zero in on Davoli more.
>
Yes, and that's because the character of Ninetto
begins to question the context pasolini has created
for him -- which means, of course, that Pasolini is
reproaching himself for creating Ninetto. This is
especially true of "Il Firo di Campo" which was
derived from the most controversial part of the
Matthew gospel. Christ kills a fig tree.it's a pure
demonstration of power -- reason enough for Bertrand
Russell to reject Christianity because of it. I recall
Sarris (in a discussion I had with him, not an
artocle) take exception to Pasolini's "Gospel
Accordign to Matthew" because he included the fig
treeepisode -- which obviously troubled Sarris.
In "Il Firoi di Campo" Ninetto is killed because he
doesn't comprehend world events. A very odd and deeply
felt self-critique in the form of a love letter.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20189
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 10:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pasolini (was: Cinema, taste, merit )
--- Peter Henne wrote:
> But to go back to what I first repsonded to, I don't
> think understanding the course of this off-screen
> relationship provides the key to Pasolini's whole
> film work.
Well of course it doesn't. Pasolini's work reflects a
very wide raneg of interests and ideas. it's simply
that Ninetto is at Pasolini's emotional core.
> Since others are picking Pasolini favorites, I'll go
> with "Teorema." It works through all of these
> aspects marvelously. I must have seen the film 30
> times (though only once projected), and it is still
> replenishing.
>
It remains as provocative as ever.I'll never forget
the first time I saw it, which was at the Museum of
Modern Art with pasolini present. The audience was
deeply shocked by the film -- and confused as well in
that while taking place in a realistic setting was by
no means realistic in style. They bombarded him with
all sorts of hostile remarks that he handled with
great wit and aplomb. I was very impressed as he was
quite prepared for the film to get this kind of
reception and took no offense at this hostility. I had
a chance to interview him the next day at the Hotel
Pierre. He apparently understood my English but
answered me in Italian via the translator who was also
present. As he realized he was talking to someone who
had some genuine knowledge of Italian film he warmed
to me right away.
Altogether he's one of the most impressive filmmakers
I've ever had the pleasure of meeting and talking to.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
20190
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 10:49pm
Subject: Sleep (was Re: New year resolutions)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger" wrote:
> For years I never got a much-needed reading light for my
> bedside, and so developed the (bad) habit of watching films
> before going to bed. Even in my sleepiest state I still found
> myself making mental notes on what I was seeing.
*****
How do you do that? I mean, make mental notes. Not when you're
half-asleep, but at anytime.
Reason I ask is, I wanna be a Big Time Film Critic/Essayist (you know,
respected, read and admired by capital-C Cinephiles from sea to
shining sea) and, if you can believe it, someone told me in an email
today that the members here who've achieved absolute Stardom in their
lifetimes are . . . let's see . . . "generous with their time and
help". Yep, that's it.
So any advice you could give someone the status of a Lesser Equal
among Greater Equals would be humbly, deeply and abjectly appreciated
no end.
Tom "Boy Critic" Sutpen
20191
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 10:56pm
Subject: Re: Pasolini (was: Cinema, taste, merit )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>I had
> a chance to interview him the next day at the Hotel
> Pierre. He apparently understood my English but
> answered me in Italian via the translator who was also
> present. As he realized he was talking to someone who
> had some genuine knowledge of Italian film he warmed
> to me right away.
> Altogether he's one of the most impressive filmmakers
> I've ever had the pleasure of meeting and talking to.
David, is this interview available to read anywhere on the net? If
not, whereabouts was it published??
-- Saul
20192
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 11:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pasolini (was: Cinema, taste, merit )
--- Saul Symonds wrote:
> David, is this interview available to read anywhere
> on the net? If
> not, whereabouts was it published??
>
Sadly, unavailable and never published.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20193
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 11:15pm
Subject: Re: Film, politics, gay rights, immigrant rights
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
The gay rights movement has the same
> enemies hawking the same tattered bill of goods. And
> for every bit of progress there's a backlash. But
> truth prevails in the end.
> And there's a lot of dissension in the Republican
> ranks over [the anti-immigrant bill]. Those people don't want to
lose
> their maids and nannies.
Hope you're right, David. Don't think you are.
20194
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 11:31pm
Subject: Re: Dell Mapbacks, Floor Plans (was: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> As you can see, Richard Modiano has kindly provided us with scans
of
> that paperback, including the floor plan of the "Rope" apartment,
in our
> "Files" section.
The tv artist sounds fascinating Fred. There is also a legendary
study of Hitchcock's sets - particularly The interiors from The
Birds - on Steve Mamber's computer at UCLA. Apparently the H Word was
SYSTEMATICALLY inconsistent about spatial relations (eg the hallway
outside the eyeless man's bedroom in Birds, before and after Lydia
goes in) throughout his career. I haven't viewed all the evidence,
but Michael Friend. partnered at one point w. Mamber, described some
amazing things to me.
20195
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Sun Jan 2, 2005 1:15am
Subject: new ROUGE up
Dear friends - Issue 5 of ROUGE is now up at www.rouge.com.au. It is a
special 'Image Issue', and has 52 contributions (one for each week of
the year!), including from FILM BY members Jean-Pierre C, Bill K,
Jonathan R, David E and Chris F. Filmmakers who participate include:
Apichatpong Weerasethakul, Philippe Grandrieux, Stephen Dwoskin,
Bertrand Bonello, Jayce Salloum, Eugène Green and Jackie Raynal. And
other writer/critics including: Janet Bergstrom, Kent Jones, Nicole
Brenez, Shigehiko Hasumi, Yvette Biro, Miguel Marias, Meaghan Morris,
Thomas Elsaesser, Jean-Baptiste Thoret, V F Perkins, etc etc.
Enjoy!
Adrian
20196
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Sun Jan 2, 2005 1:45am
Subject: Re: Worst films list (Was: DID NOT SEE)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/31/04 11:23:53 AM, samw@v... writes:
>
>
> > P.S. The worst film of all time is "El Topo" (although "Forrest
Gump"
> > is tough competition......)
> >
>
> Oh come on. EL TOPO's not THAT bad. I really like the "two heads are
better
> than one" idea that he explores there and in SANTA SANGRE (and much
more
> fruitfully laid out in music by The Moldy Peaches). And, at the very
least, it's an
> extremely important film in cinema history.
A while ago, after the comment that "El Topo" was one of the worst
films ever made, there was some talk about other Jodorowsky. I don't
think "Fando y Lis" was ever mentioned, but I've always thought this
to be superior to both "El Topo" and "The Holy Mountain". Apart from
the fact that Corkidi and Reynoso's stark cinematography had a surreal
beauty which isn't found in the other two, (and yes, many of the
images such as the burning piano are tired surrealist clichés), which
both have a certain, *cheesiness*, (which I use here for lack of a
better word). Also, in the crippled Lis, unable to walk without the
help of Fando, Jodorowsky found his most tender and melancholy
expression of the deepest link that two people can share, (and he did
it without having to succumb to the 'grotesques' he grew so fond of,
or the blatant symbolism of an armless man strapped to a legless man
such as was seen in "El Topo"). Plus, in Fando's cruelty to Lis, and
his eventual abandonment of her, Jodorowsky explored a theme that he
didn't return to, and then only in a small way, till "Santa sangre" –
the theme that we destroy those who are most dependant on us – the we,
drunk with power, so to speak, abuse their trust and closest
confidence – and because they are close to us, and because we know how
to hurt them deeply, we take the opportunity to do so merely because
it is there. There's something in this about mankind's, (and I say
mankind, not humankind, because women, where they appear in Jodorowsky
films, are often pitiful creatures who do no harm – just think of the
midget who cares from him in "El Topo" during his extended slumber,
who Kael called the only good woman in the film – and don't quote the
murderous mother from "Santa sangre" because 'mothers' are a different
ballpark altogether, and are rarely, if ever, figures in movies to be
pitied – Dario Argento comes to mind here as a director who most
consistently and brutally attacks the 'mother' figure and subverts her
role as nurturer into that of destroyer), but to return to what I was
saying, there's something in this about mankind's inherently
self-destructive and cruel nature, and I think this has been a major
theme through Jodorowsky's career, as well as, the innocent or abused
individuals who survive this, (and in the 'innocent' and 'abused'
survivors in "Topo" and "Santa sangre", both family units, we get the
idea that perhaps they will start a new world order, a new mode of
living – something which Jodorowsky expressed in "Holy Mountain" by
calling upon the mechanisms which are responsible, not for the
creation of life, but for the creation of cinema. As I've rambled on a
bit here, I'll end by adding that the only thing I think is missing
from "Fando y Lis" is the rivers of blood that colour so much of
Jodorowsky's oeuvre, and instead we get rivers of black tar ... what
exactly they mean I'm not sure yet ... but then to give anything in a
Jodorowsky film a fixed or stable meaning would be missing the point
... so most of what I've just said, could I guess, be discounted...
Anyway, enough for now,
-- Saul.
20197
From:
Date: Sat Jan 1, 2005 8:54pm
Subject: Re: Dell Mapbacks, Floor Plans (was: Cinema, taste, merit)
Have seen Ozu scholars suggest that Ozu's sets are deliberately
geographically confusing, unlike those vulgar, low-brow Hollywood movies in which
everything is made vulgarly clear. Cannot remember who first claimed this (it was not
Ozu, who loved many Hollywood films!)
That is what originally triggered this line of thought. Began to notice that
spatial relationshsips are actually hard to follow in a lot of old Hollywood
films. Fritiz Lang is especially confusing. He will jump his camera all over
the place, without any real clue to where it is.
By contrast, many Ozu films actually yield up a floor plan with a little
effort. It is not obvious at first, but careful re-watching of a film allows one
to decipher it. I do not know if Japanese audiences catch on to such floor
plans more quickly than I do - there might be clues that I am missing, but which
are obvious to people familiar with Japanese homes. On the other hand, maybe it
takes the same effort for any audience anywhere.
I have no idea if searching for a floor plan is a "legitimate" reading of a
film, or some sort of parlor game irrelevant to the film's aesthetics, or
something in between.
One reason that Lang's set can be obscure, is that camera movement can be
sparing or absent in them. By contrast, when Sirk first shows us the home in
"Sleep, My Love", he uses a long tracking shot that moves through the front door,
and then explores much of the house's interior. This gives the viewer a
terrific idea of where everything is. After this, one is rarely if ever lost by his
cuts within the house. All the panning shots in the interiors of "Il Grido"
(Antonioni) have a similar effect.
A famous case where we know the director thought about this: "Muriel" (Alain
Resnais). Through most of the movie, we only get fragmented glimpses of the
apartment. At the film's end, the camera tracks through the apartment, revealing
it as a clear whole for the first time. It is the finale of the film, a
famous figure of style.
There are thousands of mystery novels with floor plans. They are an integral
part of the novel. Today, with DVD, filmmakers also have a chance to include
floor plans in their films. It would change viewing patterns in a fundamental
way. Mystery readers frequently flip back & forth between a map or floor plan,
and the progress of the story. A map or floor plan would necessitate similar
flip flopping. Or the opening of a second "window" on a computer/TV screen.
Mike Grost
20198
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sun Jan 2, 2005 2:10am
Subject: Sleep (was Re: New year resolutions)
Tom wrote:
> > For years I never got a much-needed reading light for my
> > bedside, and so developed the (bad) habit of watching films
> > before going to bed. Even in my sleepiest state I still found
> > myself making mental notes on what I was seeing.
>
> *****
> How do you do that? I mean, make mental notes. Not when
you're
> half-asleep, but at anytime.
Are you joking?
> Reason I ask is, I wanna be a Big Time Film Critic/Essayist
(you know,
> respected, read and admired by capital-C Cinephiles from sea
to
> shining sea) and, if you can believe it, someone told me in an
email
> today that the members here who've achieved absolute
Stardom in their
> lifetimes are . . . let's see . . . "generous with their time and
> help". Yep, that's it.
Are you joking?
I thought mental note-taking was a fairly common thing that all of
us -- not just Big Time Film Critic-Essayists -- do.
And I find your plea kind of disturbing -- if it's indeed sincere.
20199
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Jan 2, 2005 2:13am
Subject: ROPE floor plan explanation
Note that the floor plan shows the apartment before it was re-
arranged for the dinner party, with the chest still sitting against
the wall and the sofa in position before being moved in front of the
window. The novelization begins, "The lid of the big chest slammed
shut and Philip realized that the thing was done."
Richard
20200
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Jan 2, 2005 2:28am
Subject: Re: Dell Mapbacks, Floor Plans (was: Cinema, taste, merit)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
"Have seen Ozu scholars suggest that Ozu's sets are deliberately
geographically confusing, unlike those vulgar, low-brow Hollywood
movies in which everything is made vulgarly clear. Cannot remember
who first claimed this (it was not Ozu, who loved many Hollywood
films!)
"...I do not know if Japanese audiences catch on to such floor
plans more quickly than I do - there might be clues that I am
missing, but which are obvious to people familiar with Japanese
homes. On the other hand, maybe it takes the same effort for any
audience anywhere."
Japanese houses of that era were fairly shallow and so had two
stories. The floor plan was more or less the same for almost all
middle class houses, so a Japanese viewer wouldnt find the space
confusing. Whoever it was that suggested that Ozu was being
deliberately confusing was probably not familiar with Japanese
houses. Barthes has some interesting things to say about the subject
in "Empire of Signs," and there's also a book called "Japanese Homes
amd Their Surroundings" published by Dover.
I recall seeing somewhere a plan of the courtyard from LE CRIME DE
M.LANGE.
Richard
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact