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.
20501
From:
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 0:20am
Subject: Contracampo/Odeon (was: "Salo" On Tour)
<
theater (huge magnificent screen, 600 seats) called "Sessão Cineclube"
(shown today: Renoir's "La Grande Illusion").>>
Goddamn! Where do u get the money for the prints, Ruy?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20502
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:50am
Subject: Re: Autocritique after the sexual revolution ("Salo" On Tour)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> > On Pasolini and Godard - who came out w. his hardcore Numero Deux
at the
> > same time, although I believe his autocritique is Sauve Qui Peut.
This
> whole
> > strain of autocritique after the sexual revolution (complicated
in JLG's
> case by
> > the accident) has been overlooked.
>
> Would you add Ferreri on this deal?
Oh yes. First of all, Grande Bouffe is a parody of 120 Days. And Last
Woman - a film that is long overdue for revival - is right up there
with Anatomie d'un rapport as a male auto-critique.
20503
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:51am
Subject: Richard Oswald
Have never seen anything directed by Oswald pere, Richard Oswald.
Have seen
> reports that a DVD of "Different from the Others" (1919) is in the
works.
>
> Mike Grost
Out from Kino (in their early gay cinema collection) and rentable at
Cinefile.
20504
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:37am
Subject: Re: ICE FOLLIES OF 1939 (Was: Gerd Oswald/Jack Webb)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/5/05 10:52:47 PM, cellar47@y... writes:
>
>
> > And to make it even campier, this is the film Faye
> > Dunaway's Joan is making at the beginning of "Mommie Dearest"
> >
>
> And that's precisely why when I was about 12 years old, ICE FOLLIES
OF 1939
> was the film I wanted to see more than any other. I finally got the
chance a
> couple of years ago. A truly dreadful thing although eerily
autobiographical.
>
Kevin, did you know that Little Mara Hobel (as Mason always referred
to her) is one of the interviewees in Kinsey?
20505
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:57am
Subject: "Salo" On Tour (was Re: OT: Sade)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> I'd prefer to consider Pasolini's film work
> > as the first eight features, shorts, and
> > documentaries, and discard the Trilogy (since
> > Pasolini disowned it)
>
> A rather painfully insincere gesture on his part.
*****
Wasn't it, though. I have a feeling that had he lived even two years
longer he would have likely rescinded that. I never understood his
basis for disowning the Trilogy in the first place; even if we warrant
that they constitute lesser works in his filmography (as I do), I
don't see an excuse for it. Go ahead and call me an idealist, but the
very worst thing an artist can do is disown their work; try to walk
away from the responsibility of having created it.
Also, for an artist as defiant as he, it represented a strange
admission of defeat.
> Had Pasolini not been murdered and lived to "defend"
> his work, we'd all be talking about it in quite a
> different way today.
>
> Instead is murder has become the film's "last scene"
> -- as far as mot of its enemies are concerned.
*****
Do you subscribe to any of the conspiracy theories surrounding his
murder, David?
Tom Sutpen
20506
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:06am
Subject: "Salo" On Tour (was Re: OT: Sade)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Can we not use the same formal arguments in PPP's situation?
>
> Let's also remember Hitchcock's favorite saying: "It's only a movie" -
> something our courts don't seem to get re: virtual simulations of
forbidden
> materials. The excrement in the film is chocolate, the blood is
fake, no one
> actually coupled or died, etc.
*****
Frankly, I don't see how anyone can get through watching "Salo" and
*not* cling to that principle.
Though, weren't there rumors picked up (translation: created) by the
Italian press at the time of "Salo"s production which darkly hinted
that Pasolini was subjecting his actors to the real thing?
Tom Sutpen
20507
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:23am
Subject: Re: Gerd Oswald/Jack Webb (Was: Tourneur, TV)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Tom, check out Gerd Oswald's episodes of THE OUTER LIMITS (does
Oswald count
> as an old school Hollywood filmmaker?). I wonder if Camper has seen
these
> because some of them feature objects quite prominently, almost as a
critique (I'd
> say) of humans' ontological certainity.
*****
Thanks, Kevin. I've seen every episode of the old "Outer Limits", and
I'd completely forgotten about Oswald's work on that series.
I wouldn't classify Gerd Oswald as an Old School director, though.
He'd only been working in Cinema since the mid-50s (that'd be a little
like calling Harmony Korine a veteran filmmaker). But his "Outer
Limits" work does support my contention that it was mainly younger
filmmakers at that time who were more engaged with television's
possibilities than their elders.
> <>
>
> Maybe not. But he was confused with (compared to?) Bresson on this
very list.
> Check out the archives, if you dare.
*****
I probably should hold off judgement until I actually read that
thread, but allow me a purely preliminary, deliberately understated
observation:
Talk about Outer Limits . . .
Tom Sutpen
20508
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:31am
Subject: "Salo" On Tour (was Re: OT: Sade)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Saul Symonds wrote:
>
>
> > David, is your exceedingly rare 'Salo' DVD the
> > Criterion release?
> >
>
> Yep!
Try to pick up the BFI's UK DVD of SALO, which contains some footage
(showing a character quoting Gottfried Benn) that's missing from the
Criterion disc.
20509
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:38am
Subject: Re: Gerd Oswald/Jack Webb (Was: Tourneur, TV)
>
> > <>
> >
> > Maybe not. But he was confused with (compared to?) Bresson on this
> very list.
> > Check out the archives, if you dare.
>
> *****
> I probably should hold off judgement until I actually read that
> thread, but allow me a purely preliminary, deliberately understated
> observation:
>
> Talk about Outer Limits . . .
>
> Tom Sutpen
After I compared Webb to Bresson, Jonathan Rosenbaum pointed out that
the film LOS ANGELES PLAYS ITSELF contains a stylistic analysis of
DRAGNET which compares Webb with Ozu!
I recently watched 14 episodes of the original DRAGNET, as well as
the 1954 film (the wisecracking Joe Friday in that is very different
from the totally humorless character in the series), and my
admiration grew with each episode.
20510
From:
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:49am
Subject: "Peter Gunn Theme" Video (Matt Forrett)
Best film seen here recently - an old music video (early 1980's). It's music
is by a band called "The Art of Noise", and is their version of Mancini's
"Peter Gunn Theme". My old notes indicate this is by one Matt Forrett, who also
did Hall & Oates "Dream Time". Forrett's name was copied down from the screen
circa 1984 - hope it is correct.
This video is a little private eye story, told through song and dance. It is
very much in the tradition of the "Girl Hunt" ballet that ends "The Band
Wagon" (Vincente Minnelli). It is highly stylized, with brightly colored costumes,
artificial looking sets, etc, and is just a delight. Its exuberance and high
spirits, not to mention its visual style, reminds one that music videos in the
1980's were vastly more adventurous than most modern cinema in the 2000's made
for theaters.
In general, I have a silent movie aesthetic. In the silent era, movies were a
combination of silent images and music. One still sees this approach in movie
musicals, music videos, filmed opera & ballet, and many experimental films.
It is a very satisfying approach to film making and viewing.
On recent musicals: I liked "Camp" (Todd Graff). Why did someone place this
in the Worst Films of the Year category?
Mike Grost
20511
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:23am
Subject: Re: Gerd Oswald/Jack Webb (Was: Tourneur, TV)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> After I compared Webb to Bresson, Jonathan Rosenbaum pointed out that
> the film LOS ANGELES PLAYS ITSELF contains a stylistic analysis of
> DRAGNET which compares Webb with Ozu!
*****
Well, my appologies for seeming to dismiss your Webb/Bresson
comparison without having read it.
Even though I don't see it, it was still unfair of me to do that.
> I recently watched 14 episodes of the original DRAGNET, as well as
> the 1954 film (the wisecracking Joe Friday in that is very different
> from the totally humorless character in the series), and my
> admiration grew with each episode.
*****
It's easy to admire the Jack Webb who directed "Dragnet". I wish he'd
continued directing in that fashion and not move into a filmmaking
style the mirror image of his acting style. He seemed truly engaged
with the filmmaking process and its possibilities on that occasion; he
wasn't just marching through the screenplay, trying to save Warner
Brothers some money. But the balance of his work, again, does not hold
up in comparison (and I'd seen most of it before I saw "Dragnet", so
this judgement isn't informed by disappointment at all). Since Bill
pointed out that "The D.I." may not be the film I thought it was, it
could be that I need to revisit Webb's films. I don't claim to be more
insightful than anyone else here . . . I know, I know: Understatement
of the century . . . so there's every chance I'll emerge with a
different conclusion if I do.
Tom Sutpen
20512
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 1:15pm
Subject: Re: Gerd Oswald/Jack Webb (Was: Tourneur, TV)
> Well, my appologies for seeming to dismiss your Webb/Bresson
> comparison without having read it.
Needless to say, I wasn't implying that Webb was as good as Bresson -
merely that his style was kind of Bressonian.
> It's easy to admire the Jack Webb who directed "Dragnet". I wish
he'd
> continued directing in that fashion and not move into a filmmaking
> style the mirror image of his acting style.
As far as I can tell, his filmmaking style was always the mirror
image of his acting style. Pared down, with everything reduced to
essentials.
One thing that struck me about the DRAGNET episodes I saw was that
some (not all) of them had no screenplay credit, but simply claimed
to be based on episodes of the DRAGNET radio series - Does this mean
that Webb simply 'improvised' the visual aspects of these segments?
I saw '-30-' last year, and absolutely adored it. I also saw a TV
pilot for EMERGENCY that Webb shot in the 70s - it's mostly dull, but
contains one sequence shot in a kind of avant garde style. Just a
scene showing two characters walking through a building while
talking, but Webb's camera keeps moving up towards the ceiling for no
apparent reason, then cutting back to its original position.
20513
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 1:59pm
Subject: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
English-Language Pictures
> 1. Before Sunset
> 2. Sideways
> 3. Ray
> 4. Dogville
> 5. Kill Bill: Vol. 2
> 6. Hotel Rwanda
> 7. The Aviator
> 8. Finding Neverland
> 9. I Huckabees
> 10. Collateral
>
> Foreign-Language Pictures
> 1. The Motorcycle Diaries
> 2. Intimate Strangers
> 3. House of Flying Daggers
> 4. Moolaad5. The Sea Inside
> 6. Maria Full of Grace
> 7. A Very Long Engagement
> 8. Fear and Trembling
> 9. Rosenstrasse
> 10. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring
>
> Nonfiction Films
> 1. The Five Obstructions
> 2. Born into Brothels
> 3. Persons of Interest
> 4. Fahrenheit 9/11
> 5. Bright Leaves
> 6. Tarnation
> 7. Going Upriver
> 8. Orwell Rolls in His Grave
> 9. Charlie: The Life and Art of Charles Chaplin
> 10. Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer
>
> Films Other People Liked and I Didn't
> 1. The Passion of the Christ
> 2. Bad Education
> 3. Vera Drake
> 4. The Assassination of Richard Nixon
> 5. Hero
> 6. The Incredibles
> 7. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
> 8. The Phantom of the Opera
> 9. Notre Musique
> 10. Million Dollar Baby
"de mortuis nil nisi bonum" - hl666
20514
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:05pm
Subject: Re: "Salo" On Tour (was Re: OT: Sade)
--- Tom Sutpen wrote:
> Wasn't it, though. I have a feeling that had he
> lived even two years
> longer he would have likely rescinded that. I never
> understood his
> basis for disowning the Trilogy in the first place;
> even if we warrant
> that they constitute lesser works in his filmography
> (as I do), I
> don't see an excuse for it. Go ahead and call me an
> idealist, but the
> very worst thing an artist can do is disown their
> work; try to walk
> away from the responsibility of having created it.
>
> Also, for an artist as defiant as he, it represented
> a strange
> admission of defeat.
>
Clearlyhe felt that had become part of the
comodification of sexual imagery abroad in the culture
that he despised. "Salo" -- to this day an "impossible
object" -- was a reaction to this.
> Do you subscribe to any of the conspiracy theories
> surrounding his
> murder, David?
>
If you know anything about pasolini's life it's cear
that he had cartloads of enemies wo wanted him wiped
out. The raft of "obscenity" cases he faced over the
years were trumoted up in order to put him in prison.
They failed to do so. The notion that this kid, by
himself, murdered Pasolini is fairly absurd.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20515
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:06pm
Subject: Re: "Salo" On Tour (was Re: OT: Sade)
--- Tom Sutpen wrote:
> Though, weren't there rumors picked up (translation:
> created) by the
> Italian press at the time of "Salo"s production
> which darkly hinted
> that Pasolini was subjecting his actors to the real
> thing?
>
Those creeps would say anything.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
20516
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:29pm
Subject: Re: Jack Webb (Was: Tourneur, TV)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> One thing that struck me about the DRAGNET episodes I saw was that
> some (not all) of them had no screenplay credit, but simply claimed
> to be based on episodes of the DRAGNET radio series - Does this mean
> that Webb simply 'improvised' the visual aspects of these segments?
*****
It's quite possible. He may have simply dusted off his old scripts
from the Radio series and worked from those. Since he wrote "Dragnet"s
radio incarnation he'd probably 'visualized' them in a sense long
before, so there was no need to go to the trouble of hammering out a
new television script. Just tell the cinematographer where to bolt the
camera down and the actors where to stand and not move a muscle.
> I saw '-30-' last year, and absolutely adored it.
*****
Same here. It's always been sort of a favorite of mine: the kind of
picture you wouldn't make an aesthetic case for, but which you
nevertheless can't dismiss. It's also most extravagantly sentimental;
which is something you didn't see in Newspaper pictures previous to
that ("Park Row" is different. It isn't cheap sentiment that Fuller
feels toward that profession, it's limitless undying love).
> I also saw a TV
> pilot for EMERGENCY that Webb shot in the 70s - it's mostly dull, but
> contains one sequence shot in a kind of avant garde style. Just a
> scene showing two characters walking through a building while
> talking, but Webb's camera keeps moving up towards the ceiling for no
> apparent reason, then cutting back to its original position.
*****
The cynic in me says that he just hit the bottle early that day. But
it could well be that an impulse to do something . . . interesting . .
. overtook him suddenly. In a way I hope it's the latter. I'd like to
think Jack Webb remained conscious a more involved approach to
filmmaking, however much he neglected to pursue it through his career.
Either way, I'd love to see that sequence.
My favorite Jack Webb work from that later period was his "Dragnet"
revival in the late-60s. His anti-drug Jeremiads alone were worth the
time spent watching; probably his most compelling work as an actor.
Tom Sutpen
20517
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:44pm
Subject: Re: Jack Webb (Was: Tourneur, TV)
> It's quite possible. He may have simply dusted off his old scripts
> from the Radio series and worked from those. Since he
wrote "Dragnet"s
> radio incarnation he'd probably 'visualized' them in a sense long
> before
The original radio plays were credited to James Moser on the
television segments I saw.
Incidentally, Webb didn't say 'just the facts, maam' in any of the
episodes I saw. Is this just one of those myths, like Bogart's 'Play
it again, Sam'.
20518
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:52pm
Subject: Re: Jack Webb (Was: Tourneur, TV)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> Incidentally, Webb didn't say 'just the facts, maam' in any of the
> episodes I saw. Is this just one of those myths, like Bogart's 'Play
> it again, Sam'.
Well, Webb certainly said something very _like_ "Just the facts.
ma'am" (based on my long ago memories, having watched many of the shows).
And Bogart says both "Play it again" and "Play it, Sam" -- so "Play it
again, Sam" is an understandable (and convenient) compression of film
reality. Not something I'd rate as a "myth". ;~}
MEK
20519
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:54pm
Subject: Pasolini's Murder (was Re: "Salo" On Tour)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> > Do you subscribe to any of the conspiracy theories
> > surrounding his
> > murder, David?
>
> If you know anything about pasolini's life it's cear
> that he had cartloads of enemies wo wanted him wiped
> out. The raft of "obscenity" cases he faced over the
> years were trumoted up in order to put him in prison.
> They failed to do so. The notion that this kid, by
> himself, murdered Pasolini is fairly absurd.
*****
Agreed. I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories generally, but
there's too much to Pasolini's murder to think otherwise. For
instance, at one point didn't the authorities attempt to explain away
the evidence of others present at the crime scene by saying Pasolini
was probably beaten by some rough trade posse before Pelosi murdered
him . . . some idiotic conjecture they later dropped? Whatever the
case, for a conspiracy it was certainly carried out with zero finesse;
as though whomever was responsible (whether freelance fascists or
those in government) wanted to flaunt the clumsiness of their
handiwork. Even if the responsibility didn't reach into the halls of
government, they weren't entirely blameless. It's clear that law
enforcement and the courts were eager from the start to see that the
investigation went no further than Pino Pelosi. Justice wasn't a priority.
Tom Sutpen
20520
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:07pm
Subject: Re: Taking the Klinger challenge: some thoughts on editing
> I wonder: is this cutting, and editing in general, overlooked because
> it was often not the province of the director in older films (and
> therefore fits poorly into the auteur theory), or is it just accepted
> as part of the course and irrelevant in the face of mise-en-scene?
Doug - I referred to this briefly in another post, but there's a
historical sense in which auteurism was a rebellion against an older
aesthetic orientation which put a very high importance on editing. I
think that's the biggest reason that auteurists tend to let editing slide
to some extent.
Godard wrote an old piece (in Cahiers, I think) called "Montage, mon beau
souci" in which he made a case for an editing-friendly aesthetic. My
sense is that the piece was mildly iconoclastic in context.
> (I also wonder if cinephiles have grown tolerant of these punctuations
> of flow by necessity of having to survive jumpy reel changes, the
> removal of frames from damaged prints, seeing obscure films on TV with
> ad breaks, et cetera ... a demand to appreciate cinema's pure flow
> requires a purity of both presentation and viewing environment rarely
> available.)
To my mind, non-classical editing has become so common since A BOUT DE
SOUFFLE that we've all had to train our eyes to accept cuts that would
have jolted us a long time ago. I can't see that damaged prints, bad reel
changes, etc., can give us cuts more jarring than what we see in any TV
commercial. - Dan
20521
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:07pm
Subject: Re: Jack Webb (Was: Tourneur, TV)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> > It's quite possible. He may have simply dusted off his old scripts
> > from the Radio series and worked from those. Since he
> wrote "Dragnet"s
> > radio incarnation he'd probably 'visualized' them in a sense long
> > before
>
> The original radio plays were credited to James Moser on the
> television segments I saw.
*****
Interesting. I was under the impression Webb had written most of the
radio scripts.
> Incidentally, Webb didn't say 'just the facts, maam' in any of the
> episodes I saw. Is this just one of those myths, like Bogart's 'Play
> it again, Sam'.
*****
Not completely mythological. I heard "Just the facts" or some
variation on it countless times in the later "Dragnet" series.
Tom Sutpen
20522
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:09pm
Subject: Re: Brakhage (Was: varying degrees of merit)
> And as to Harvard, the first person to teach film there, a woman
> professor who shepherded a film course many sections of which were
> taught by students and whose name I've forgotten, is supposed to have
> said at the time of the "Artforum" issue that she hadn't taken Brakhage
> seriously before but now that she sees him compared to Eisenstein in the
> pages of "Artforum" she has changed her mind.
Could that have been Eppie Wiese, by any chance? - Dan
20523
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:18pm
Subject: Kurosawa (Was: Cinema Tragedies)
>> Isn't {Kurosawa's "Idiot"} the film where Kurosawa told the studio,
>> "If you want to cut it, you'd better do it lengthwise"?
>
> Yes.
>
>> It's a great line, though I can't say that I liked the film.
>
> Why did you dislike it?
It's too long ago, I'm afraid. I must confess that I'm not at all a
Kurosawa fan: I rather liked THE SEVEN SAMURAI when I saw it 30 years ago,
but I never had another good experience with the guy. All I see is the
bombast and portentousness. Maybe it's time to give him another chance.
I think THE IDIOT is one of the few greatest books ever written, though.
Mani Kaul did a decent version of it about ten years ago. - Dan
20524
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:28pm
Subject: Re: Brakhage (Was: varying degrees of merit)
Dan Sallitt wrote:
>Could that have been Eppie Wiese, by any chance? - Dan
>
>
>
Yes...but I should emphasize that the story I heard was heard thrid
hand, and may have been wrong. I had a good impression of her at the
beginning of the 70s. Some of my friends taught sections of her course,
including John Belton, who taught a Hawks section.
Fred Camper
20525
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:47pm
Subject: Re: Kurosawa (Was: Cinema Tragedies)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote (as
to why he was unenthusaistic about Kurosawa's "Idiot":
> It's too long ago, I'm afraid. I must confess that I'm not at all a
> Kurosawa fan: I rather liked THE SEVEN SAMURAI when I saw it 30
years ago,
> but I never had another good experience with the guy. All I see is the
> bombast and portentousness. Maybe it's time to give him another chance.
Interestingly enough, watching "Rashomon" in the 70s led me to
essentially ignore _all_ Japanese cinema for more than two decades. I
only gave him a second chance because I wanted to see what Hara did in
her two Kurosawa films. I discovered I liked much of his work --but
not many of the films that his typical devotees like best. The only
film I now loathe is "Ran", but "Rashomon" still rates pretty low on
my list -- and "Seven Samurai" only middling.
> I think THE IDIOT is one of the few greatest books ever written,
though.
> Mani Kaul did a decent version of it about ten years ago.
"The Idiot" is one of my three favorite novels -- along with Jane
Austen's "Persuasion" and Dickens' "Our Mutual Friend" (with honorary
mention for Carson McCuller's "Member of the Wedding").
I don't imagine there is any adequate subtitled (home video) version
of the Indian version of "Idiot" floating about, is there?
MEK
20526
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 4:59pm
Subject: Re: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
> But surely it is possible to read 101 DAYS as a protest against an
> intolerable situation, an intolerable authoritarianism. The more that
> Sade (as narrator) insists on how wonderful the tortures are, the
> more horrific they seem, and the final murders are described in a way
> that makes them totally repellent (and not at all erotic).
Might it not be, though, that the tortures seem horrific and non-erotic to
you because you don't happen to enjoy that sort of thing?
It's worth noting in this context that sadistic pornography necessarily
has a complicated identification structure. Villains generally perform
the actions that the audience longs to see/read.
Never read the book, but I felt that SALO the movie was very close to the
conventions of sadistic pornography, too close to be an effective
commentary on them. - Dan
20527
From:
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 0:02pm
Subject: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
I liked "Hotel Rwanda", "I (Heart) Huckabees" and "Rosenstrasse".
Many of the other films on this list are hard to take: Sideways, The Aviator,
Collateral were all Really Depressing Experiences. I find movies in which the
characters are actually clinically emotionally disturbed very hard to watch.
The sex addict and alcoholic in Sideways, the hand washing and child molesting
"hero" (????) in The Aviator, and the sadistic hitman in Collateral are
typical of human beings at their most disturbed.
I confess that much as I love movies, I often feel a real sense of dread
going to movie theaters to see current films. Many of them consist of having your
nose rubbed in the sickest material imaginable. Why do filmmakers want to do
this? And why do some critics celebrate this stuff?
There is a lot of negative commentary today about "entertainment" and
"pleasure" in the cinema. Give me more entertainment and more pleasure! I want to
laugh and sing and dance with movies.
I like movies that are intellectually complex. I love Brakhage, Ophuls and
Mizoguchi, for example. But I do not equate the disgusting with art.
Mike Grost
20528
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:12pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > But surely it is possible to read 101 DAYS as a protest against an
> > intolerable situation, an intolerable authoritarianism. The more
that
> > Sade (as narrator) insists on how wonderful the tortures are, the
> > more horrific they seem, and the final murders are described in a
way
> > that makes them totally repellent (and not at all erotic).
>
> Might it not be, though, that the tortures seem horrific and non-
erotic to
> you because you don't happen to enjoy that sort of thing?
>
> It's worth noting in this context that sadistic pornography
necessarily
> has a complicated identification structure. Villains generally
perform
> the actions that the audience longs to see/read.
>
> Never read the book, but I felt that SALO the movie was very close
to the
> conventions of sadistic pornography, too close to be an effective
> commentary on them. - Dan
Sade's book makes Pasolini's film look like REBECCA OF SUNNYBROOK
FARM. The final murders in the book go so far beyond what anyone
could conceivably find erotic that I tend to believe Sade had a far
purer purpose in mind.
20529
From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Gerd Oswald/Jack Webb (Was: Tourneur, TV)
> "The D.I." may not be the film I thought it was, it
> could be that I need to revisit Webb's films.
"The DI" Written, Produced, Directed by, and starring Jack Webb consists
of said Jack Webb essentially giving orders for 2 hours, auteurism squared
if not cubed !
*Call me crazy* but it's NOT exactly "Diary of a Country Priest"
-Sam
20530
From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:51pm
Subject: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
> I like movies that are intellectually complex. I love Brakhage, Ophuls and
> Mizoguchi, for example. But I do not equate the disgusting with art.
>
> Mike Grost
OK Mike, so do I. But Mizoguchi and Ophuls don't exactly have a tender
view of the world !!
Brakhage's dark side IS dark, literally - "Scenes From Under Childhood";
figuratively - "Murder Psalm"; physically; in the struggle/railing against
nature - "Dog Star Man"
Mizoguchi & Ophuls can 'encircle' their subjects like a large cat tracking a
small mouse !
(actually I might argue that Brakhage works from *within* the circle as above).
-Sam Wells
20531
From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:55pm
Subject: Re: Kurosawa (Was: Cinema Tragedies)
> The only
> film I now loathe is "Ran",
Really ? Why, I'm curious. It's my favourite Kurosawa: The refinement
of the images, the stripping down of of gesture, the pauses and silences.
-Sam Wells
20532
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:11pm
Subject: Re: Kurosawa (Was: Cinema Tragedies)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> Really ? Why, I'm curious. It's my favourite Kurosawa: The refinement
> of the images, the stripping down of of gesture, the pauses and
silences.
Unlike "Throne of Blood", where Kurosawa really captured the spirit of
Shakespeare's play, "Ran" muddied the narrative waters and, as a
result, had almost nothing to say. And the overall level of the
acting was pretty poor (despite the fact that the cast included some
very good actors).
I like pauses and silences and simplicity as much as anybody (after
all, Ozu is my favorite director of all time) -- but sometimes I'd
like something a little more. Give me "Red Beard" or "Throne of
Blood" or "Stray Dog" or "Lower Depths" or "Idiot" (just to mention
some of my favorites) any day.
Either as pure cinema, or as an adaptation of Shakespeare, Kozintsev's
"King Lear" completely blows "Ran" out of the water. (Interestingly
enough, Kozintsev was absolutely swept away by "Throne of Blood" --
which presumably inspired him to end his own career with two
extraordinary Shakespeare-derived films).
MEK
20533
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:44pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Never read the book, but I felt that SALO the movie was very close
to the
> conventions of sadistic pornography, too close to be an effective
> commentary on them. - Dan
Question: can sadistic pornographic acts be represented outside of
the "conventions" of their representation, thus allowing for a
distancing of the filmmaker (and viewer) and making "effective
commentary" possible? I suspect this is not possible. Has anybody
done it? I agree that PPP didn't do it (whether he wanted to or not)
in SALO.
I am convinced that Sade cannot be represented on film in such a
way (or any other way, really). Bunuel's homage to Sade at the end
of "L'Age d'or" essentially consists of a recitation of Sade's text.
20534
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:49pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> Bunuel's homage to Sade at the end of "L'Age d'or" essentially
> consists of a recitation of Sade's text.
Speaking of this scene -- I loved "L'Age d'or" up to this point -- but
did not see any connection between the concluding scene and everything
that went before (except perhaps in the most general thematic sense).
What (if anything) am I missing?
MEK
20535
From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:51pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
Brad, then Dan:
The more that
> > Sade (as narrator) insists on how wonderful the tortures are, the
> > more horrific they seem, and the final murders are described in a
way
> > that makes them totally repellent (and not at all erotic).
>
> Might it not be, though, that the tortures seem horrific and non-
erotic to
> you because you don't happen to enjoy that sort of thing?
>
> It's worth noting in this context that sadistic pornography
necessarily
> has a complicated identification structure. Villains generally
perform
> the actions that the audience longs to see/read.
All kinds of "exploitation" tend to employ one of two rhetorical
strategies: either advertising their wickedness and crudity in order
to make us feel excitingly degraded for participating; or else
claiming that the titillating content is being put forward for a
worthy, educational purpose ("This will shock you...but the truth
must be told!"). In the latter case, the transparent bad faith isn't
exactly meant to fool anyone, but adds to the thrill by allowing the
audience to pretend they're breaking from the officially prescribed
mode of consumption -- rather as a narrative framework in porn allows
the fantasy that we're watching a "real" film which inexplicably
contains a bunch of hardcore sex scenes.
My reading of Sade is pretty fragmentary, but it seems to me he uses
versions of both techniques, and both could be seen as forms of
irony -- putting the onus back on the reader to deal with the
material rather than prescribing a single unambiguous response. I
keep thinking about this because it seems to say something about both
sexuality and art, as with the idea of the "secret" film -- one that
exists for reasons different from those implied by its protective
camouflage, but which couldn't function without the camouflage, or
not in the same way.
JTW
20536
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:56pm
Subject: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
the hand washing and child molesting
> "hero" (????) in The Aviator,
"Child molesting"? Do you mean Faith Domergue? Isn't that a bit
excessive?
Hughes was disturbed, sure (so was Hamlet, among others). He
also achieved some great things that are celebrated in the film.
Actually there is little if any trace of his "sickness" throughout
the first half of the film.
and the sadistic hitman in Collateral are
> typical of human beings at their most disturbed.
Give me more entertainment and more pleasure!
If Scorses's re-creation of the making of "Hell's Angels" isn't
entertaining, I don't know what is.
PS to Bill: why "sigh"?
20537
From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Kurosawa (Was: Cinema Tragedies)
> Unlike "Throne of Blood", where Kurosawa really captured the spirit of
> Shakespeare's play,
Agree....
>"Ran" muddied the narrative waters and, as a
> result, had almost nothing to say.
..and don't. Lear is skeletal here. I'm not sure that's the same thing as
muddying the waters. I think it's very different than "Throne of Blood"
If, say trees are characters (Birnham wood to...) in "Throne of Blood,"
fire & wind are in "Ran" thing / no thing; space / no space.
That to me can also be Shakespeare.
-Sam Wells
20538
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:17pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
>.
>
> Speaking of this scene -- I loved "L'Age d'or" up to this point --
but
> did not see any connection between the concluding scene and
everything
> that went before (except perhaps in the most general thematic
sense).
> What (if anything) am I missing?
>
> MEK
One might argue that there isn't any connection between any of
the sequences that lead up to the finale. The entire film challenges
and ridicules the very concept of spatial, temporal or logical
continuity. Thematically, the Duc de Blangis's resemblance to the
Jesus Christ of popular iconography fits into the strongly anti-
clerical thread that goes through the entire film.
20539
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:20pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
>
> Question: can sadistic pornographic acts be represented outside
of
> the "conventions" of their representation, thus allowing for a
> distancing of the filmmaker (and viewer) and making "effective
> commentary" possible? I suspect this is not possible. Has anybody
> done it?
You're assuming that the viewer needs to be 'distanced'
before 'effective commentary' becomes possible. But look at BAD
LIEUTENANT's rape scene, which is constructed in such a way that we
can emphasise with both the rapists and their victim. Effective
commentary becomes possible not because we are distanced, but, on the
contrary, because we have been obliged to share two irreconcilable
viewpoints (thus leading us towards the moment at the end of the film
when the rapists are forgiven).
20540
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:21pm
Subject: Re: Kurosawa (Was: Cinema Tragedies)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> If, say trees are characters (Birnham wood to...) in "Throne of Blood,"
> fire & wind are in "Ran" thing / no thing; space / no space.
>
> That to me can also be Shakespeare.
To me, the central imagery in Macbeth involved blood (even the moving
trees -- which could be seen an oozing wound). Kurosawa caught this
-- perfectly. The comparable image at the core of "Lear" is blindness
(and the escape from blindness) -- and Kurosawa completely misses
this, getting side-tracked by all sorts of inessentials.
MEK
20541
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:24pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
> My reading of Sade is pretty fragmentary, but it seems to me he
uses
> versions of both techniques, and both could be seen as forms of
> irony -- putting the onus back on the reader to deal with the
> material rather than prescribing a single unambiguous response. I
> keep thinking about this because it seems to say something about
both
> sexuality and art, as with the idea of the "secret" film -- one
that
> exists for reasons different from those implied by its protective
> camouflage, but which couldn't function without the camouflage, or
> not in the same way.
I don't think it's camouflage. All one needs do is read 100 DAYS and
try to be honest about one's own emotional response to the material.
Is there a single person who can honestly say that they are 'turned
on' by the book?
20542
From: programming
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:23pm
Subject: Best Films Seen 2004
Hi Gang,
Out of mostly lurking mode to upset some folks with a (gasp!) list.
The complaint that all these lists look the same doesn't hold with mine, so
thought I'd post it if only to provide some terrific experimental works for
people to keep an eye out for. I mostly see experimental works and old
stuff, so I'm not deliberately not listing Sideways, Before Sunset, etc.
(haven't seen them).
Best,
Patrick Friel
************************************************************************
Best of 2004
Caveat: Everything listed are all titles that screened publicly in Chicago
in 2004 (even though I saw some of them as preview tapes/dvds or in New York
in 2003).
Well, the BEST films I saw in 2004 are all old works that I either saw for
the first time or saw for the first time on film (having mostly seen 15-20
years ago on television and having no significant memory of or disliked at
the time but now think terrific).
These include: Home from the Hill, The Cobweb, and Two Weeks in Another Town
(Vincente Minnelli); Au hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson); The Water
Magician (Kenji Mizoguchi); A Shot in the Dark and The Party (Blake
Edwards); Bitter Victory [complete original version] (Nicholas Ray); The
Battle of Cable Hogue (Sam Peckinpah); F for Fake (Orson Welles); Gideon's
Day (John Ford); Fixed Bayonets (Samual Fuller); Men in War (Anthony Mann);
An Affair to Remember (Leo McCarey); One from the Heart (Francis Ford
Coppola); Jeanne Dielman... (Chantal Akerman); plus several films by Stan
Brakhage; Harlot and Kitchen (Andy Warhol); Where Did Our Love Go?, Noblesse
Oblige, and The Cup and the Lip (Warren Sonbert), and The Cage (Sidney
Peterson).
******************
New/Recent Films - Best Seen in 2004: (alphabetical by filmmaker)
Luke (2004, short) - Bruce Conner
Penumbra (2003, UK, short) - Nicky Hamlyn
Star Spangled to Death (1957/59-2003) - Ken Jacobs
Chateau/Poyet (2004, short) and Enid's Idyll (2004, short) - Lawrence
(Larry) Jordan
Daylight Moon (2003, short) and Two Minutes to Zero (2004, short) - Lewis
Klahr
Remembrance of Things to Come (2001) - Chris Marker
Deliquium (2004, short) - Julie Murray
A Talking Picture (2003) - Manoel de Oliveira
Untitled (2004, short) and ((())) (2004, short) - Luis Recoder
[everything except the Marker and Oliveira are experimental works]
*******************
Best Retrospective Series:
[Well, in terms of GREAT films many of which I'd never seen and many which
blew me away - Home from the Hill, anyone? - this would be the Vincente
Minnelli series at the Film Center. But I *expected* these to be great. So
I'm listing the series that I really knew nothing about]
Boris Barnet series at Facets:
By the Bluest of Seas (1936) 3.5 out of 4
The House on Trubnaya Square (1928) 3.5 / 4
Okraina (1932) 3.0 / 4
The Girl with the Hat Box (1927) 3.0 / 4
Alenka (1961) 2.5 / 4 [but I think this may be a lot better than I give
it credit for after a single viewing]
Bountiful Summer (1950) 1.0 / 4 [this one I know is not better than I give
it credit for! - Yuk!]
*******************
The Film I'm Most Perplexed By:
It may be great or highly mediocre but I'm in no way certain after just a
single viewing:
Michelangelo Eye to Eye (2004, short) - Michelangelo Antonioni
*********************
The Major Disappointments:
All these but one are fair to good, but I expected much, much more from
them.
Night Passage (2004) - Trinh T. Minh-ha and Jean-Paul Bourdier (this is the
awful one)
Les modeles de "Pickpocket" (2003) - Babette Mangolte
Ere Erera Baleibu Icik Subria Aruaren (1970) - Jose Antonio Sistiaga
Bunny Lake Is Missing (1965) - Otto Preminger
Los Angeles Plays Itself (2003) - Thom Andersen
Tropical Malady ( ) - Apichatpong Weerasethakul
10 on Ten (2004) - Abbas Kiarostami
The Big Red Yawn (I mean One): The Reconstruction (1980/2004) - Samuel
Fuller (really??)
20543
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:43pm
Subject: Re: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> I don't think it's camouflage. All one needs do is
> read 100 DAYS and
> try to be honest about one's own emotional response
> to the material.
> Is there a single person who can honestly say that
> they are 'turned
> on' by the book?
>
>
An intresting notion.
My favorite Aldous Huxley novel is "After Many a
Summer Dies the Swan" -- a devestating roman a clef
about Hearst-like millionaire that Welles seriously
considered adapting as his maiden effort, before he
ran into Herman J. Mankiewicz. Sade's book is among
the holdings in the libarary of the hearst-like
millioaire, Joe Stoyte. His Marion Davies-styled
mistress dips into it at one point, and Huxley
describes the sceen as if the book were the hottest
thing going.
I seriously wonder if he ever read it.
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
20544
From: jaketwilson
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:52pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
All one needs do is read 100 DAYS and
> try to be honest about one's own emotional response to the
material.
> Is there a single person who can honestly say that they are 'turned
> on' by the book?
Is there anyone who could read it without suspecting their own
motives for doing so? Isn't that part of the point?
JTW
20545
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:01pm
Subject: Jacquot (Was: "Salo," "Sade" and "Quills")
>> It would be hard to choose, between Kaufman's Quills and Jacquot's
>> Sade, which is sillier, but I give the palm to Sade, because of
>> Auteuil's preening performance. Quills is still the work of
> someone
>> who has made real films, and there are a few real scenes in it.
>
> I am not a fan of Jacquot's "Sade" but are you implying that he
> hasn't made "real" films? "La fausse suivante" is a truly wonderful
> film.
I'd like to put in a word for Jacquot too. A SINGLE GIRL, mentioned here
recently, is a strong film; and I think THE SCHOOL OF FLESH is even
better. I don't always get what Jacquot is up to, and SADE didn't work
for me, but he's not a non-entity. - Dan
20546
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:01pm
Subject: Re: Best Films Seen 2004
--- programming
wrote:
>
> Luke (2004, short) - Bruce Conner
>
I ahevn't heard of this one at all. Could you describe it?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
20547
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:03pm
Subject: Pasolini's Murder (was Re: "Salo" On Tour)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>Re: conspiracy theory - This is one of those phrases the Republicans have
succeeded in hotwiring people's brains with. The Republican brief in Ohio
(still being ruled on judicially) described the charges of ballot tampering as "a
good scenario for a cheap conspiracy theory thriller." But conspiracy, like
ballot tampering, is woven into the fabric of history and of society. The reason
we have conspiracy laws on the books: the Mafia - do people really think
every criminal who ever committed a crime acted alone? Enron was a
conspiracy. The looting of the S&Ls was a conspiracy. The plots to kill Castro
were conspiracies - and so were other high-profile assassinations here and
elsewhere. We just had a conspiracy to steal an election in the Ukraine and, if
possible, kill the candidate. So when I hear "conspiracy theory" being used
derisively, I assume I'm probably listening to an unindicted co-conspirator.
Of course Pasolini was assassinated by the Italian right. Everyone in Italy
knows it.
20548
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:05pm
Subject: Re: Taking the Klinger challenge: some thoughts on editing
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Godard wrote an old piece (in Cahiers, I think) called "Montage, mon beau
> souci" in which he made a case for an editing-friendly aesthetic. My
> sense is that the piece was mildly iconoclastic in context.
The article was accompanied by a jocular blurb from the ditors-in-chief noting
that everything in it contradicted their positions. Even better: Defense et
Illustration du Decoupage Classique by JLG, which makes light of the
metaphysics of the all-in-one as applied to Preminger.
20549
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:13pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
> wrote:
> >
> >.
> >
> > Speaking of this scene -- I loved "L'Age d'or" up to this point --
> but
> > did not see any connection between the concluding scene and
> everything
> > that went before (except perhaps in the most general thematic
> sense).
> > What (if anything) am I missing?
> >
> > MEK
>
> One might argue that there isn't any connection between any of
> the sequences that lead up to the finale. The entire film challenges
> and ridicules the very concept of spatial, temporal or logical
> continuity. Thematically, the Duc de Blangis's resemblance to the
> Jesus Christ of popular iconography fits into the strongly anti-
> clerical thread that goes through the entire film.
We actually see him starting to shave off his beard at his mother's suggestion
in Milky Way - but it's a flashback to the youth of one of the hobos.
I suppose in some way the chateau at the end is like the hut at the beginning
of L'A d'O. I should give that some thought - I fell of my seat laffing when I first
saw that scene at Lincoln Center and never really bothered with the logic.
A Sade film I missed when it was recently revived w. much to-do at the Paris
Cinematheque: Louis Skorecki's Eugenie de Franval. VO reading of the text,
tableaux of people almost doing it but not connecting, ending w. the director
masturbating into the camera.
20550
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:15pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jaketwilson" wrote:
>
>
> All kinds of "exploitation" tend to employ one of two rhetorical
> strategies: either advertising their wickedness and crudity in order
> to make us feel excitingly degraded for participating; or else
> claiming that the titillating content is being put forward for a
> worthy, educational purpose ("This will shock you...but the truth
> must be told!"). In the latter case, the transparent bad faith isn't
> exactly meant to fool anyone, but adds to the thrill by allowing the
> audience to pretend they're breaking from the officially prescribed
> mode of consumption -- rather as a narrative framework in porn allows
> the fantasy that we're watching a "real" film which inexplicably
> contains a bunch of hardcore sex scenes.
>
> My reading of Sade is pretty fragmentary, but it seems to me he uses
> versions of both techniques
Naw - it excited him, and it's meant to excite the reader.
20551
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:16pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
l.
> Is there a single person who can honestly say that they are 'turned
> on' by the book?
Some of it, of course!
20552
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:17pm
Subject: Re: Gerd Oswald/Jack Webb (Was: Tourneur, TV)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>
> > "The D.I." may not be the film I thought it was, it
> > could be that I need to revisit Webb's films.
>
> "The DI" Written, Produced, Directed by, and starring Jack Webb consists
> of said Jack Webb essentially giving orders for 2 hours, auteurism
squared
> if not cubed !
*****
To be fair, it was written by James Lee Barrett, but that is very much
my recollection of the film, all right. I was thinking perhaps some
errant formal style escaped my notice on first viewing.
> *Call me crazy* but it's NOT exactly "Diary of a Country Priest"
*****
Hmmmm. Couldn't there be said to exist at least a spiritual connection
between the Cure d'Ambricourt and that dumb recruit Webb harasses
throughout the film?
Tom "Overdoing It" Sutpen
20553
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:18pm
Subject: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> PS to Bill: why "sigh"?
If we were depending on Sarris to extend the canon he so masterfully put in
place, we'd be looking at a lot of unadventurous films.
20554
From: programming
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:14pm
Subject: Re: Best Films Seen 2004
On 1/6/05 2:01 PM, "David Ehrenstein" wrote:
>
> --- programming
> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> > Luke (2004, short) - Bruce Conner
>> >
>
> I ahevn't heard of this one at all. Could you describe it?
>
>
>
Conner made a short 8mm short film in the late 1960's called LUKE. It is
comprised of footage he shot on the set of Cool Hand Luke. It was never
released publicly. The 2004 LUKE is a digital video in which Conner repeats
each shot (a kind of digital step printing) x number of times thus slowing
the footage to a crawl and expanding the running time from a couple of
minutes to about 22 minutes. It is very beautiful and somber - rather
elegaic. There is a musical score by Patrick Gleason. Below is the
description from the New York Film Festival's Views from the Avant-Garde
series. I showed it in Chicago in the Opening Night program of the 16th
Onion City Experimental Film and Video Festival.
Best,
Patrick F.
*******************************************
Luke
(Bruce Conner, U.S., 1967/2004; 22 min)
with Paul Newman and Dennis Hopper; music by Patrick Gleeson
Luke is a poetic film document created entirely by Bruce Conner in 1967
during one day of the production of Cool Hand Luke on location near
Stockton, California on a country road.
The main subject of the film is the Cool Hand Luke production
apparatus and the people working behind the camera. The scene being
photographed for their movie is a sequence with about 15 shirtless convicts
working at the side of a hot black tar road with shovels. Sand is tossed on
the road until it is covered. Then they move farther down the road. Shotgun
carrying guards oversee their work at all times. The set itself has a
representation of military and police officers as well as a highway
motorcycle policeman.
The actors (Paul Newman, Dennis Hopper, Harry Dean Stanton, George
Kennedy, etc.) are seen in front and behind the camera that is shooting the
movie. The event becomes a stop and go parade since the entire crew and
equipment must also be moved down the road to continue filming the
continuity of dialogue and action. The final shot is a view of the actors
moving their shovels as if they are tossing the sand on the road but the
shovels are empty.
The original running time for the regular 8mm film would be about 21Ž2
minutes. The final digital edit of the film to tape transfer in 2004 (with
original music by Patrick Gleeson) is longer because each picture frame
lasts one third of a second: three images a second. It has the character of
both a motion picture and a series of still photos. The filming with the
hand-held camera created immediate edits in the camera with regular 8mm
speed (18 frames per second) as well as one frame at a time.
[not sure who wrote this - it's uncredited]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20555
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:19pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> I suppose in some way the chateau at the end is like the hut at
> the beginning of L'A d'O. I should give that some thought -
That's a real possibility, I guess.
> I fell of my seat laffing when I first saw that scene at Lincoln
> Center and never really bothered with the logic.
Well, I watched this film on the new British DVD, while seated on my
floor. Otherwise, I might have been in danger of falling from my seat
-- on numerous occasions. ;~}
I had actually only planned to just preview this (along with some
other new acquisitions), but once I started watching this I simply
couldn't bear to eject the DVD. And then it was over.
MEK
20556
From:
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:27pm
Subject: Mara Hobel (WAS: ICE FOLLIES OF 1939)
In a message dated 1/6/05 1:38:37 AM, damienbona@y... writes:
>
> Kevin, did you know that Little Mara Hobel (as Mason always referred
> to her) is one of the interviewees in Kinsey?
>
No, I didn't know that. Haven't seen KINSEY yet. But I DID see her in some
awful gay film not that long ago, the name of which escapes me.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20557
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:29pm
Subject: Pasolini's Murder (was Re: "Salo" On Tour)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> >Re: conspiracy theory - This is one of those phrases the
Republicans have
> succeeded in hotwiring people's brains with. The Republican brief in
Ohio
> (still being ruled on judicially) described the charges of ballot
tampering as "a
> good scenario for a cheap conspiracy theory thriller." But
conspiracy, like
> ballot tampering, is woven into the fabric of history and of
society. The reason
> we have conspiracy laws on the books: the Mafia - do people really
think
> every criminal who ever committed a crime acted alone? Enron was a
> conspiracy. The looting of the S&Ls was a conspiracy. The plots to
kill Castro
> were conspiracies - and so were other high-profile assassinations
here and
> elsewhere. We just had a conspiracy to steal an election in the
Ukraine and, if
> possible, kill the candidate. So when I hear "conspiracy theory"
being used
> derisively, I assume I'm probably listening to an unindicted
co-conspirator.
> Of course Pasolini was assassinated by the Italian right. Everyone
in Italy
> knows it.
*****
Hold on. Praytell, where did you get the idea I was being derisive
about Pasolini's murder, for pity's sake? For the record: Of course
conspiracies exist. They happen. It's a common historical ocurrence
that you'd have to be a waterhead to ignore. I wasn't using the phrase
'Conspiracy Theory' pejoratively at all; I was just using it. I don't
disagree with a syllable of anything you wrote, so please do not lump
me in as an 'unindicted co-conspirator' with the hopes, dreams and
aspirations of Italian Fascists (of all things) and, possibly worse,
American Republicans.
Tom Sutpen
20558
From: acquarello2000
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:30pm
Subject: Re: Best Films Seen 2004
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, programming wrote:
> Conner made a short 8mm short film in the late 1960's called LUKE.
It is comprised of footage he shot on the set of Cool Hand Luke. It
was never released publicly...
I have to admit, I really didn't care for LUKE when I caught it at
Views from Avant-Garde last year. Every sustained bass note used for
transitions seem to keep harping on the same images, such as the
rustling of the reflector which, accompanied by the already monotonous
music and slowed film speed, made for something akin to watching the
plastic bag footage in AMERICAN BEAUTY.
I posted this entry on my site after the screening:
Luke, 1967/2004 (Bruce Conner). Bruce Conner converts a 2 1/2 minute,
8mm "behind-the-scenes" film footage Lukefrom the set of Cool Hand
Luke (as the crew set up for a shot of convicts working alongside of
the road) into a 22 minute still by still presentation (three images
per second) that has been set to the soundtrack of a grandiose (albeit
monotonously repetitive and distractingly prominent), swelling
orchestra music. Although an interesting study in the dual quality of
celluloid film both as both a still-life and a record of dynamic
motion as well as the transformation of the mundane into "art" by the
engaged process of visual pause, the manipulated footage is neither
aesthetically well composed nor particularly interesting which made
for a rather tedious experience.
acquarello
20559
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:31pm
Subject: Pasolini's Murder (was Re: "Salo" On Tour)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
> *****
> Hold on. Praytell, where did you get the idea I was being derisive
> about Pasolini's murder, for pity's sake? For the record: Of course
> conspiracies exist. They happen. It's a common historical ocurrence
> that you'd have to be a waterhead to ignore. I wasn't using the phrase
> 'Conspiracy Theory' pejoratively at all; I was just using it. I don't
> disagree with a syllable of anything you wrote, so please do not lump
> me in as an 'unindicted co-conspirator' with the hopes, dreams and
> aspirations of Italian Fascists (of all things) and, possibly worse,
> American Republicans.
>
> Tom Sutpen
You were being defensive about using the word. You don't have to be.
20560
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:33pm
Subject: Re: Jacquot (Was: "Salo," "Sade" and "Quills")
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
I'm the first American who ever interviewed him, and I held on a long time after
that, but no, Single Girl isn't a strong film: it's an obvious, easy film w. a
nothing actress. I'll see School for Huppert - haven't had time yet, or the
inclination.
20561
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:37pm
Subject: Pasolini's Murder (was Re: "Salo" On Tour)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> > I wasn't using the phrase
> > 'Conspiracy Theory' pejoratively at all; I was just using it. I don't
> > disagree with a syllable of anything you wrote, so please do not lump
> > me in as an 'unindicted co-conspirator' with the hopes, dreams and
> > aspirations of Italian Fascists (of all things) and, possibly worse,
> > American Republicans.
> >
> > Tom Sutpen
>
> You were being defensive about using the word. You don't have to be.
*****
Oh. Okay. Thought you were tossing me into the reactionary stew there.
Sorry if I seemed touchy about that, but I'm sure you'll understand.
I'm no kind of Republican. That godawful election last year tossed me
into a depression that effectively wiped out my lingering pleasure
over the Sox finally taking the World Series.
If there was a way we could secede from the Red States, I'd do it.
Tom "Man O' the Left" Sutpen
20562
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:41pm
Subject: Re: Best Films Seen 2004
--- programming
wrote:
> Luke
> (Bruce Conner, U.S., 1967/2004; 22 min)
> with Paul Newman and Dennis Hopper; music by Patrick
> Gleeson
> Luke is a poetic film document created entirely by
> Bruce Conner in 1967
> during one day of the production of Cool Hand Luke
> on location near
> Stockton, California on a country road.
Thanks -- quite fascinating as this is Conner's first
new work in many, many years.
I hope everyone's familiar with Dennis Hopper's great
portrait photo of Conner -- sitting naked in a bathtub
with Teri Garr and Toni Basil as his towel-clad
attendants.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
20563
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:43pm
Subject: Pasolini's Murder (was Re: "Salo" On Tour)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
> That godawful election last year tossed me
> into a depression that effectively wiped out my lingering pleasure
> over the Sox finally taking the World Series.
>
> If there was a way we could secede from the Red States, I'd do it.
The last time the Red Sox won a World Series, it was followed (shortly
thereafter) by the Great Molasses Flood disaster.
The aftermath of this Series win was far, far worse.
We've visited much of Eastern Canada -- a Union involving New York,
New England, Ontario, Quebec and all the Maritime Provinces, doesn't
that sound nice?
MEK
20564
From:
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:45pm
Subject: LUKE (WAS: Best Films Seen 2004)
<>
I saw Conner's LUKE over ten years ago in Milwaukee at an art gallery. It was
on film. And I'm not saying that to appease the Campers on the list but
because now I'm curious as to how I got to see it in the first place. I don't
recall who programmed it or why. VERY few people were in attendance even though it
was free (I believe). The gallery had this incredible installation of a faux
stretch of grassy land. You walked into it like a cave. A friend and I sat on
the "grass" (can't remember what it really was) and marveled at all the details
- bugs, goldenrods, pussywillow, the like.
Anyhoo, LUKE blew me away, particularly for its inversion of the Hollywood
star system. I don't recall the soundtrack or if it even had one. For years, I
searched for mention of it on the internet with little luck. Gave up a while
back. It was shown with CROSSROADS.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20565
From:
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:54pm
Subject: Re: "Peter Gunn Theme" Video (Matt Forrett)
In a message dated 1/6/05 4:52:53 AM, MG4273@a... writes:
> On recent musicals: I liked "Camp" (Todd Graff). Why did someone place this
> in the Worst Films of the Year category?
>
That was me, Mike. Reasons here:
http://neumu.net/continuity_error/2004/2004-00001_continuity.shtml
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20566
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:05pm
Subject: Re: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
>> Never read the book, but I felt that SALO the movie was very close
> to the
>> conventions of sadistic pornography, too close to be an effective
>> commentary on them. - Dan
>
> Question: can sadistic pornographic acts be represented outside of
> the "conventions" of their representation, thus allowing for a
> distancing of the filmmaker (and viewer) and making "effective
> commentary" possible? I suspect this is not possible. Has anybody
> done it? I agree that PPP didn't do it (whether he wanted to or not)
> in SALO.
I guess you're probably right. If the filmmaker shows an act that arouses
the audience, that's enough to create the basis of pornography. And if he
or she goes to the effort of frustrating the audience's desire for
arousal, what's the point? There's usually something lame about pointedly
not showing the thing that you're making the movie about.
These issues came up a lot around IRREVERSIBLE, with its long take of a
violent rape. Speculation about what angle should have been used seems to
me pretty much beside the point. If a filmmaker is going to depict a rape
with any directness, then he or she is making usable rape pornography.
Maybe one just has to accept that and deal with it.
As Brad points out, it's certainly possible both to arouse the audience
and convey something else as well. But one should keep in mind that the
"something else" isn't going to negate the arousal - if one imagines
otherwise, one courts hypocrisy.
Fuller's handling of the climax of RUN OF THE ARROW is interesting to
think about in this context. (SPOILERS....)
Ralph Meeker is being skinned alive; it's off-camera, but the shrieks of
pain give it a lot of immediacy. It's jerk-off material for somebody;
it's also excruciating for everyone, including the dude who's jerking off
over it. The most important part of the scene is a big close-up of
Steiger, whose reaction is the point of the scene. Steiger is a mix of
malevolence and decency: eventually he puts Meeker out of his misery, but
the deliberation of his movements shows us the sadistic part of him (and
the film) that is okay with protracting the agony. I actually think
Fuller acquits himself pretty well here, with very touchy material: he
effectively acknowledges his sadistic involvement in the scene, while
clearly associating himself with Steiger's measured rejection of the
impulse.
- Dan
20567
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:25pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
> wrote:
> l.
> > Is there a single person who can honestly say that they
are 'turned
> > on' by the book?
>
> Some of it, of course!
I agree with Bill. Absolutely ANYTHING can be eroticized and
become a turn-on. The fact that "most" people are turned off by
Sade's eroticism doesn't mean that no one can be turned on by it.
Some serial killers have actually done some of the things "imagined"
by Sade, or things similar. There is an abundant documentation of
real sadistic acts that match Sade, and probably a lot we don't
know. Actually, it is probably not exagerated to say that whatever
can be imagined in the area of "pathological" sexuality can be done
and has been done by someone sometime somewhere.
20568
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:30pm
Subject: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> >
>
> > PS to Bill: why "sigh"?
>
> If we were depending on Sarris to extend the canon he so
masterfully put in
> place, we'd be looking at a lot of unadventurous films.
Times have changed, Bill. And were the films in Sarris' original
canon all that "adventurous"? They were mostly mainstream commercial
Hollywood films of the thirties through fifties. What was
adventurous was his approach to them in the context of film
appreciation in the USA at the time.
20569
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:45pm
Subject: re: Jacquot
I have the impression that, in most places including even France, the
'back catalogue' of the very prolific Benoit Jacquot pretty much goes
uncirculated. Partly because a lot of it has been for television.
Back in the early 80s I was able to teach a class using a 16mm print of
his (I think) second feature CHILDREN IN THE CLOSET starring Lou Castel
- a remarkable and very haunting film.
Later, I saw two terrific early '90s films BJ did with a young Judith
Godreche (both screened on Australian TV channel SBS) - the downbeat
teen film THE DISENCHANTED, and his little-known Borges adaptation EMMA
ZUNZ, in the series TALES OF BORGES which Alex Cox also did an episode
of.
The 'real time' experiment A SINGLE GIRL did not impress me, even if I
like Virginie Ledoyen more than Bill K does!! And Jacquot has never
entirely returned to his former glories for me, although SCHOOL OF
FLESH has some good stuff in it. Purely as a mise en scene stylist, his
work is quite hypnotic.
Has anyone on this list seen Jacquot piece on/with Lacan, TELEVISION? -
which was fulsomely documented by OCTOBER magazine. Lacan wrote an
appreciative piece about Jacquot's debut feature.
This guy has certainly mingled with stars of all kinds: Lacan, Duras,
Huppert, Luchini ... I once read a very romantic account by Dominique
Sanda of her first encounter with him ... actually, we could add him to
the list of directors (Godard, Assayas ... ) drawn to women from
Bresson's films !!!!!!!!!!!
Adrian
20570
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:02pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Fuller's handling of the climax of RUN OF THE ARROW is interesting to
> think about in this context. (SPOILERS....)
>
One day we must adress the dialectic of angelism and sadism in Fuller.
B. Eisenscitz - Film et politique, CdC 1970
Still waiting...
20571
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:19pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
Absolutely ANYTHING can be eroticized and
> become a turn-on. The fact that "most" people are turned off by
> Sade's eroticism doesn't mean that no one can be turned on by it.
> Some serial killers have actually done some of the things "imagined"
> by Sade, or things similar.
Every bit as bad. I'm reading Cat and Mouse, an interesting book by a tv
producer who went and did a Capote on Bill Suss, the Riverside (CA)
Prostitute Killer, who was also a competent writer of sentimental fiction. The
guiding thread: what do I (the author) have in common with this?
The content of the first 60 days of Sade's 120 Days have been replicated
countless times by contemporary pornographers. S&M is pretty much all the
market offers now, and it's all straight out of Sade. He has been totally
mainstreamed - more in fiction than in film, although examples in film also
abound.
He's a cliche of our culture, which of course countenances (sub rosa), in
almost all countries, the use of torture to extract confessions or information by
cops, soldiers and intelligence people. Abu Ghraib isn't new - some
participants were former prison guards - although we still have tenuous legal
precedents for putting a few of the people who get caught doing it behind
bars, but the nomination of an apologist for torture to the post of AG is a bit
disheartening. At the same time, none of it is new - Sade was just the first to
gather it up into an oeuvre. The Getty is having an exhibit of medieval
illuminated ms's right now that portray torture and dismemberment.
The mainstreaming and banalization of sadism is not really all that OT for a
film group, IMO. Apart from sadism in marginal redneck and mainstream Mafia
porn (they control mainstream porn), Sade is all over contemporary cinema,
arthouse and H'wd - not to mention tv!
20572
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:20pm
Subject: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> Times have changed, Bill. And were the films in Sarris' original
> canon all that "adventurous"? They were mostly mainstream commercial
> Hollywood films of the thirties through fifties. What was
> adventurous was his approach to them in the context of film
> appreciation in the USA at the time.
The largest number of index entries by far for any filmmaker in Confessions of
a Cultist is Godard. Now look.
20573
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:29pm
Subject: Re: Jacquot
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> This guy has certainly mingled with stars of all kinds: Lacan, Duras,
> Huppert, Luchini ... I once read a very romantic account by Dominique
> Sanda of her first encounter with him ... actually, we could add him to
> the list of directors (Godard, Assayas ... ) drawn to women from
> Bresson's films !!!!!!!!!!!
I had lunch w. Sanda, who talked about BJ throughout - she was in town for
Corps et biens. She had not failed to notice that each new actress was a copy
of the old - esp. Godreche! - and she said she worried about him - he's
depressive, I guess. Another odd tidbit from that lunch - she says the French
assume she''s an Italian actress because of Finzi-Continis!
The one time I met Isabelle Weingarten, I asked her what she thought of the
story of Four Nights. "Very weak!" she said with a wicked smile. I think she's in
Enfants du placard, which I'd love to see again. Jaquot told me that the
Dames du Bois de B. influence in that film was unconscious, then added that
although he hated Bresson, he loved Dames, where he felt the actors got
away from B.
Television is one film I would of course love to see. I think Jackie Raynal may
have it. The epigraph by Lacan: "He who filmed me knows how to read me."
But so did Sollers, and his novels suck - at least since he started using
punctuation!
20574
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:32pm
Subject: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> >
> > Times have changed, Bill. And were the films in Sarris'
original
> > canon all that "adventurous"? They were mostly mainstream
commercial
> > Hollywood films of the thirties through fifties. What was
> > adventurous was his approach to them in the context of film
> > appreciation in the USA at the time.
>
> The largest number of index entries by far for any filmmaker in
Confessions of
> a Cultist is Godard. Now look.
I thought you were referring to the "canon" established in "The
American Cinema".
20575
From: Andy Rector
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:42pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
>Actually, it is probably not exagerated to say that whatever
> can be imagined in the area of "pathological" sexuality can be
done
> and has been done by someone sometime somewhere.
And if it has been imagined on film with the proper panache people
really discuss it (it gets released), it makes money. Your fetishes
have to be just right. Pornography is constantly favored yet, in my
opinion, nobody has accomplished much with it, in spite of the
privileges taking porn as subject or modus operandi bestows upon its
maker. Noe is a logger in the forest of sex. Someone like James
Toback is even worse for having such a small frontier (himself,
regardless of who he effects). New York Times/NPRers know who Noe
and Handke are but they're not sure who Kiarostami or Garrel are.
Same old song...but we assume that Noe, Handke, Toback, Larry Clark,
are making an investigation into sex? I'm not sure they always are.
yours,
andy
20576
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jacquot
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> I had lunch w. Sanda, who talked about BJ throughout
> - she was in town for
> Corps et biens. She had not failed to notice that
> each new actress was a copy
> of the old - esp. Godreche! - and she said she
> worried about him - he's
> depressive, I guess.
I guess he's typical. I can give you a list out to
there of guys who keep marrying (as he said in "The
Lady Eve") "the same dame."
.
> Jaquot told me that the
> Dames du Bois de B. influence in that film was
> unconscious, then added that
> although he hated Bresson, he loved Dames, where he
> felt the actors got
> away from B.
>
Well that's the conventional view. Bresson hadn't
developed his distinctive style in "Les Dames." In
fact it doesn't really kick in until A Man Escaped."
"Les Dames" is a very psecial film for reasons that
have only partially to do with its auteur.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
20577
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> > > Times have changed, Bill. And were the films in Sarris'
> original
> > > canon all that "adventurous"? They were mostly mainstream
> commercial
> > > Hollywood films of the thirties through fifties. What was
> > > adventurous was his approach to them in the context of film
> > > appreciation in the USA at the time.
> >
> > The largest number of index entries by far for any filmmaker in
> Confessions of
> > a Cultist is Godard. Now look.
>
> I thought you were referring to the "canon" established in "The
> American Cinema".
I was, but the canon, as you said, was very adventurous for the time; Godard
was one of the people who formed it; and it was in that spirit that Sarris
advocated for both. Then he got old - real fast!
20578
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:10pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector" wrote:
we assume that Noe, Handke, Toback, Larry Clark,
> are making an investigation into sex? I'm not sure they always are.
I don't follow Toback, but I assume he's a scotch less conservative than, say,
Wayne Wang.
However, it's interesting that Larry Clark's sex films aren't sadistic. Neither, as I
recall, is a film Andy (our Andy) didn't care for, Georges Bataille's Story of the
Eye (ironically). That alone - which can't be said for Noe, Handke, Breillat or
Brisseau - is kind of refreshing. Olivier A. has been going S&M, but with the
explicit aim of pissing on the whole Sadean culture (no pun intended).
20579
From: Andy Rector
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:20pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
> I don't follow Toback, but I assume he's a scotch less
conservative than, say,
> Wayne Wang.
>
> However, it's interesting that Larry Clark's sex films aren't
sadistic. Neither, as I
> recall, is a film Andy (our Andy) didn't care for, Georges
Bataille's Story of the
> Eye (ironically). That alone - which can't be said for Noe,
Handke, Breillat or
> Brisseau - is kind of refreshing. Olivier A. has been going S&M,
but with the
> explicit aim of pissing on the whole Sadean culture (no pun
intended).
Different yes, refreshing, not to my mind (or body). The sad
repetitions are still there.
yours,
andy
20580
From:
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:39pm
Subject: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
On Andrew Sarris in the 60's versus now:
Is this a change in Mr. Sarris as a person - or is it a change in aesthetics?
Sarris' "The American Cinema" largely centered on genre films, and much of
his 60's film reviews extolled avant-garde European cinema of the era (Godard,
Resnais, Antonioni, Bresson, Bunuel, etc).
But for many years, his Ten Best Lists have centered around "realistic,
serious drama". eg, Sideways, Before Sunset, Lost in Translation, etc.
This point of view is so nearly universal among current American critics,
that it is hard to "see" it. It is like goldfish being unaware of the water in
their bowl.
Genre films are still being made, eg. "Torque" (Joseph Kahn) or "A Boyfriend
for Christmas" (Kevin Connor). But they are are critically ignored in today's
realism-centered climate. Films like this were at the center of "The American
Cinema". Today they are marginalized to the point of invisibility.
Also, genuinely avant-garde works are actually fairly marginalized, too. A
film such as "Bitter Sugar" (the Christian Lara one from Guadalope) would be
considered a major work of cinema in the 1960's; today people are discussing
realist works such as "The Motorcycle Diaries" (Walter Salles).
I am not trying to criticize Mr. Sarris personally. Far from it. I am trying
to suggest that this is an issue of pure aesthetics.
Mike Grost
20581
From:
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:40pm
Subject: Brakhage is disgusting (WAS: Sarris')
In a message dated 1/6/05 11:57:47 AM, samw@v... writes:
>
> Brakhage's dark side IS dark, literally - "Scenes From Under Childhood";
> figuratively - "Murder Psalm"; physically; in the struggle/railing against
> nature - "Dog Star Man"
>
And what about the obvious one, THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN EYES? The
first time I saw it, several people left the theatre before its half hour or so
was up. Also, a Madison programmer showed it with THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE
in the late 1980s, a rather smart double feature, I'd say. I'm not ripping on
Brakhage's film here; I like it a great deal. But it IS disgusting (among many
other things).
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20582
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:53pm
Subject: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
for many years, his Ten Best Lists have centered around "realistic,
> serious drama". eg, Sideways, Before Sunset, Lost in Translation, etc.
> This point of view is so nearly universal among current American critics,
> that it is hard to "see" it. It is like goldfish being unaware of the water in
> their bowl.
> Genre films are still being made, eg. "Torque" (Joseph Kahn) or "A
Boyfriend
> for Christmas" (Kevin Connor). But they are are critically ignored in today's
> realism-centered climate. Films like this were at the center of "The American
> Cinema". Today they are marginalized to the point of invisibility.
Like you, Mike, I have always found standard arthouse faire, Oscar sobfests
and studio-subsidized arthouse ripoffs a mortal bore. I still see many more
genre films - I like to think of Life Aquatic, a Red River homage, as descended
from that tradition - than I do of the kind of film Sarris now advocates for. My
mix has always been H'wd genre and European avant-garde (sorry, my fellow
Merkins) , broadening now to include Asian both. Arthur Miller Movies have
never been my cup of rancid tears.
20583
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:54pm
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
Andy:
"we assume that Noe, Handke, Toback, Larry Clark, are making an
investigation into sex? I'm not sure they always are."
Bill:
"...it's interesting that Larry Clark's sex films aren't sadistic.
Neither, as I recall, is a film Andy (our Andy) didn't care for,
Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye (ironically). That alone - which
can't be said for Noe, Handke, Breillat or Brisseau - is kind of
refreshing. Olivier A. has been going S&M, but with the explicit aim
of pissing on the whole Sadean culture (no pun intended)."
Now it seems pertinant introduce AI NO KORIDA/BULL RING OF LOVE aka
IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES into this thread since Oshima claimed it
was his reading of Bataille's "Eroticism" that lead him to make a
movie about the Abe Sada incident. He thought it was a real-lfe
example of "consenting to life up to the point of death." Oshima
aesthectized the proceedings by framing the sex scenes like shun-ga
(erotic woodblock prints) and recreated some compositions from
Hokusai. The few exteriors also imitate classical compositons.
Male viewers are almost always traumatized by the movie; I've heard
and read several wrong descriptions of what takes place over the
years, and I've come to believe that they weren't looking part of the
time or were in shock and misremembered what happened. The fact that
control passes from the man to the woman might have something to do
with it too.
The NYPD seized the movie when it opened at the New York Film
Festival at Linclon Center in 1976 (and of course 2 miles downtown
domestic porn was legally protected,) and for the time being you
can't see a complete print in the US anymore (the domestic DVD, video
tape and old laser disc are supposedly cut by about two minutes
though I can only remember one missing scene that lasts under a
minute.) The New Beverly Theatre in Los Angeles used to revive AI NO
KORIDA at least once a year but it's been several years since its
last screening there.
20584
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:03am
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> Now it seems pertinant introduce AI NO KORIDA/BULL RING OF LOVE aka
> IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES into this thread since Oshima claimed it
> was his reading of Bataille's "Eroticism" that lead him to make a
> movie about the Abe Sada incident.
>
> The NYPD seized the movie when it opened at the New York Film
> Festival at Linclon Center in 1976
Glad you brought it up, Richard. John Hughes and I hung around w. the
producer, A. Dauman, while he got thru that agony and the subsequent Buster
Keaton chase sequence with his distribs, who turned out to be the Mob. The
film is a companion piece to Ferreri's The Last Woman - Dauman also felt that
his other moneymaker, La Bete, by Borowczyk, was making the same points.
He was buddies w. Lacan.
Arguably La Bete was porn - highly enjoyable porn (rentable at Cinefile BTW)
- but Realm of the Senses was on a different level from just about everything,
including Oshima's other work. It is very much a tribute to Bataille - but so are
many other films that aren't aware of him, like Stromboli. I've always thought
the last line of Luis XIV was a Bataille quote - maybe not. I bought my first
copy of Story of the Eye on 42nd St., by the way!
20585
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:12am
Subject: Re: Brakhage is disgusting (WAS: Sarris')
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
"And what about the obvious one, THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN
EYES? The first time I saw it, several people left the theatre
before its half hour or so was up. Also, a Madison programmer showed
it with THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE in the late 1980s, a rather
smart double feature, I'd say. I'm not ripping on Brakhage's film
here; I like it a great deal. But it IS disgusting (among many other
things)."
I saw it at MOMA with the other parts of the PITTSBERGH TRILOGY, and
Brakhage was there to talk about all three movies. The city of
Pittsbergh had invited him to contribute to their bi-cenntenial so he
decided to make three movies about civic institutions that frightened
him, namely the police (EYES,) the general hospital (DEUS EX,) and
the city morgue. I beleive the MOMA theatre seats about 800 people
(or at least 500 or more) and almost evryone walked out during the
movie. About half returned to hear what Brakhage had to say.
When asked what was the hardest thing to endure when making the
movie, he answered, "The odor." He spent 5 days shooting and
overcame his revulsion. So for Brakhage making the movie was
bringing his fear of death into the light of day or the dark of the
theatre and the light of the screen. He also said the corpses were
like "the footprint of someone who'd been there and gone," though
gone to where he didn't know. It's certainly a powerful film.
Richard
20586
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:14am
Subject: Re: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
On Thursday, January 6, 2005, at 05:42 PM, Andy Rector wrote:
> New York Times/NPRers know who Noe
> and Handke are but they're not sure who Kiarostami or Garrel are.
> Same old song...but we assume that Noe, Handke, Toback, Larry Clark,
> are making an investigation into sex? I'm not sure they always are.
The name is "Haneke," -- you must be thinking of Peter Handke. Anyway,
I'm not so sure that "NPR'ers/NYTimes'ers" -- can't we use a better
term than this? it seems to me more than a tad condescending; let me
rephrase: I'm not so sure the movie editors of the Times give Noé or
Haneke any more space than other international auteurs. Godard landed
at least four different articles in the Times around the release of
'Notre musique,' and regardless of the merit or American-centricity of
this reviewer's other choices, A.O. Scott included 'Goodbye Dragon Inn'
in his year-end best-of (which also made the site-exclusive "audio
slide show"). And then there's Dave Kehr's weekly DVD piece, which
goes a lot farther in educating the Times' readership on the subject of
cinema than anything else in that paper for a long time. You're right
that no-one's championing Garrel in the Times, but no-one's doing it in
Film Comment or Sight and Sound either -- the problem in these
mainstream cinephile film-mags isn't the fact that they're not giving
Garrel his due from issue to issue, but that they don't champion
anything with consistency -- but what they do consistently do is write
huge survey articles about a new "new wave" somewhere on the globe,
reducing each film to a paragraph blurb -- perhaps an ecstatic one, but
a blurb nonetheless -- and espouse this regional cinema as
where-it's-at for a couple issues in a row. The survey-blurb method is
the same manner in which film festivals are reported in -every-
publication, and in my opinion it's a completely diseased method.
One other thing: we shouldn't forget this when we talk about the
easy-targets for our cinephiliac contempt: It has become, within the
last year-and-a-half, maybe two years, "cool" to be a cinephile -- it's
creeping into the mainstream of movie-culture, and not just in a
surface-trendy way -- and this comes almost entirely as a result of the
advent of the DVD. Viewing the Times alone, the replacement of
Mitchell with Dargis is one manifestation of this; the popularity of
Dave Kehr's columns is another; and A.O. Scott's adoption of the word
"cinephile" in place of "cineaste" is yet another signal -- maybe
minor, but still poignant. It seems to me the paper's movie pages as
they now tend to exist are an improvement over their content at any
other point in time I can remember. And I wouldn't be surprised to
find an alternative voice to the Denby-Lane Continuum pop up sometime
in the near future in The New Yorker.
craig.
20587
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:23am
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
>
> On Thursday, January 6, 2005, at 05:42 PM, Andy Rector wrote:
All good points, Craig. As a sometime-Times-basher, I will desist.
20588
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:24am
Subject: Re: Brakhage is disgusting (WAS: Sarris')
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> I like it a great deal. But it IS disgusting (among many
> other things).
>
> Kevin John
"I fear to watch, yet I cannot look away." - Milhouse Van Houten, "The
Simpsons"
20589
From:
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:25pm
Subject: Re: Brakhage
I too was unable to watch "The Act of Seeing With Your Own Eyes", at a 70's
screening. Didn't walk out, just quieting averted my face in the dark. Was not
trying to make a statement, just have a very weak stomach.
I did love "Deus Ex", which was part of the same program. Its triumphant
conclusion is one of Brakhage's soaring scenes.
In his discussion after the screenings, Stan Brakhage talked about how much
he admired the doctors in "Deus Ex", and how they saved people's lives. He also
talked how much he admired the pathologists in "Act..." He pointed out how
much of all our knowledge of medicine comes from autopsies (this is a
scientifically correct statement). He also talked about the unfair discrimination and
aversion that pathologists often attract as people, despite their great and
wholly positive contribution to society.
Mike Grost
20590
From:
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:30pm
Subject: Re: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
In a message dated 05-01-06 19:16:57 EST, Craig writes:
<< And then there's Dave Kehr's weekly DVD piece, which
goes a lot farther in educating the Times' readership on the subject of
cinema than anything else in that paper for a long time. >>
I too really admire these Kehr articles!
When last seen, his Sunday piece was on Don Siegel. Maybe all of NYTimes'
readers will rush out and watch Siegel DVDs!
On the same page, there was a ravishing color picture of a Salieri opera
being produced in on stage in Milan (if memory serves). Wish someone would
videotape this production, and share it with the rest of us around the world.
Mike Grost
20591
From:
Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:38pm
Subject: Re: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
In a message dated 05-01-06 18:14:31 EST, Bill Krohn writes:
<< However, it's interesting that Larry Clark's sex films aren't sadistic.
Neither, as I
recall, is a film Andy (our Andy) didn't care for, Georges Bataille's Story
of the
Eye (ironically). >>
These sound fascinating. I will try to watch for them.
Thanks!
Mike Grost
20592
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:42am
Subject: Re: Brakhage is disgusting (WAS: Sarris')
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> So for Brakhage making the movie was
> bringing his fear of death into the light of day or the dark of the
> theatre and the light of the screen. He also said the corpses were
> like "the footprint of someone who'd been there and gone," though
> gone to where he didn't know. It's certainly a powerful film.
Just like cinema and photography in general -- footprints of someone
who's been here and gone.
20593
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:46am
Subject: Re: Gerd Oswald/Jack Webb (Was: Tourneur, TV)
> Hmmmm. Couldn't there be said to exist at least a spiritual connection
> between the Cure d'Ambricourt and that dumb recruit Webb harasses
> throughout the film?
>
> Tom "Overdoing It" Sutpen
Ya know what ? I think you kinda got me there, hmmm indeed. ;-)
Well, this is easier than defending the castle of Kurosawa's Lear !
-Sam
(thanks for the correction, from memory of the credits I coulda swore he
wrote it)
20594
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:52am
Subject: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> >
> > I thought you were referring to the "canon" established
in "The
> > American Cinema".
>
> I was, but the canon, as you said, was very adventurous for the
time; Godard
> was one of the people who formed it; and it was in that spirit
that Sarris
> advocated for both.
I knew dozens of people who believed in the canon long before
Sarris wrote his famed article-then-book.
Then he got old - real fast!
"Vieillesse du meme" (to quote your friend Daney).
20595
From: Peter Henne
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 1:24am
Subject: Re: Re: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh
They're products of their culture--they choose money over their memory, because somewhere down the pike they had to have sampled the avant-garde '60s cinema
(Godard, Resnais, Bergman, Antonioni, etc.) to which you refer. So they are not ignorant of this aesthetic heritage. But Americans are stunningly adept at
forgeting on command when dollars are waved in front of them. As other threads have pointed out, critics are paid to "behave" and on balance endorse whatever
Hollywood throws at them. Even if it means a lifetime of pounding down vulgar sleeze shows which are designed for ogling 13-year-old boys. They will do what
it takes for the cash and position.
Peter Henne
MG4273@a... wrote:
This point of view is so nearly universal among current American critics,
that it is hard to "see" it. It is like goldfish being unaware of the water in
their bowl.
Mike Grost
---------------------------------
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!?
The all-new My Yahoo! – What will yours do?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20596
From: Andy Rector
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 1:51am
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, January 6, 2005, at 05:42 PM, Andy Rector wrote:
>
> > New York Times/NPRers know who Noe
> > and Handke are but they're not sure who Kiarostami or Garrel are.
> > Same old song...but we assume that Noe, Handke, Toback, Larry
Clark,
> > are making an investigation into sex? I'm not sure they always
are.
>
> The name is "Haneke," -- you must be thinking of Peter Handke.
Anyway,
> I'm not so sure that "NPR'ers/NYTimes'ers" -- can't we use a
better
> term than this? it seems to me more than a tad condescending; let
me
> rephrase: I'm not so sure the movie editors of the Times give
Noé
or
> Haneke any more space than other international auteurs. Godard
landed
> at least four different articles in the Times around the release
of
> 'Notre musique,' and regardless of the merit or American-
centricity of
> this reviewer's other choices, A.O. Scott included 'Goodbye Dragon
Inn'
> in his year-end best-of (which also made the site-exclusive "audio
> slide show"). And then there's Dave Kehr's weekly DVD piece,
which
> goes a lot farther in educating the Times' readership on the
subject of
> cinema than anything else in that paper for a long time. You're
right
> that no-one's championing Garrel in the Times, but no-one's doing
it in
> Film Comment or Sight and Sound either -- the problem in these
> mainstream cinephile film-mags isn't the fact that they're not
giving
> Garrel his due from issue to issue, but that they don't champion
> anything with consistency -- but what they do consistently do is
write
> huge survey articles about a new "new wave" somewhere on the
globe,
> reducing each film to a paragraph blurb -- perhaps an ecstatic
one, but
> a blurb nonetheless -- and espouse this regional cinema as
> where-it's-at for a couple issues in a row. The survey-blurb
method is
> the same manner in which film festivals are reported in -every-
> publication, and in my opinion it's a completely diseased method.
>
> One other thing: we shouldn't forget this when we talk about the
> easy-targets for our cinephiliac contempt: It has become, within
the
> last year-and-a-half, maybe two years, "cool" to be a cinephile --
it's
> creeping into the mainstream of movie-culture, and not just in a
> surface-trendy way -- and this comes almost entirely as a result
of the
> advent of the DVD. Viewing the Times alone, the replacement of
> Mitchell with Dargis is one manifestation of this; the popularity
of
> Dave Kehr's columns is another; and A.O. Scott's adoption of the
word
> "cinephile" in place of "cineaste" is yet another signal -- maybe
> minor, but still poignant. It seems to me the paper's movie pages
as
> they now tend to exist are an improvement over their content at
any
> other point in time I can remember. And I wouldn't be surprised
to
> find an alternative voice to the Denby-Lane Continuum pop up
sometime
> in the near future in The New Yorker.
>
> craig.
Certainly good points. You're right, the deficiency comes down to
form; blurbs and waves.
If the New York Times almost keeps up with the times, that's not
progress in my book; I wouldn't want to pat them on the back for
doing what they should be doing (featuring Mr. Kehr) and what, as
you point out (cinephilia sheik), benefits them. The pieces on Notre
Musique were no blessing, one even inverted the names and actions of
the two main characters. The space accorded to Dargis's interview is
insulting and her review is good up until a typically Timesian
threat ("Mr. Godard treads on dangerous ground by linking the
historical suffering of Jews and the Palestinians").
All that aside, I am tired of having to explain who Hou is to people
who see 3 movies a week and read the Times and listen to NPR. I hate
being a "cinephile", the obscurity of it, roaming around for shit
copies, running after the what the distributors decide to release or
what the major studios decide to rerelease, like tablescraps.
yours,
andy
20597
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 2:26am
Subject: Re: Brakhage is disgusting (WAS: Sarris')
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> And what about the obvious one, THE ACT OF SEEING WITH ONE'S OWN
EYES? The
> first time I saw it, several people left the theatre before its half
hour or so
> was up. Also, a Madison programmer showed it with THE TEXAS CHAINSAW
MASSACRE
> in the late 1980s, a rather smart double feature, I'd say. I'm not
ripping on
> Brakhage's film here; I like it a great deal. But it IS disgusting
(among many
> other things).
*****
Seeing that film was one of the strangest experiences I've ever had
watching Cinema. Under ordinary circumstances, the prospect of
watching dead people get pulled apart, opened up and fractionated at
their autopsies is not one I would pursue. And if you'd asked me
before seeing it, I'd say it was something I couldn't even begin to
sit through. In other words it helped, going into it, not knowing what
the film consisted of.
So to this day it's amazing to me that, when I saw "The Act of Seeing
With One's Own Eyes" at, I believe, the Harvard Film Archive along
with a few other Brakhage films, I sat through it, eyes open, and
didn't feel the faintest hint of revulsion or nausea. The best way I
can describe it is, my mind automatically focused on the images to the
point where they were rendered totally abstract as I watched them;
while the human dimension of what I was seeing just . . . never
occurred to me. It occurred to me afterward; big time. But not until
at least a day after I saw it.
And what's doubly odd to me is that I'm certain if I saw it again, I
wouldn't react (or not react) the same way.
Tom Sutpen
20598
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 2:29am
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:
>
> All that aside, I am tired of having to explain who Hou is to
people
> who see 3 movies a week and read the Times and listen to NPR. I
hate
> being a "cinephile", the obscurity of it, roaming around for shit
> copies, running after the what the distributors decide to release
or
> what the major studios decide to rerelease, like tablescraps.
>
> yours,
> andy
Oh, Andy I SO feel your pain, but I have lived through this sort
of things for at least 50 years and I'm still alive and tolerably
well. There are worse things in the world, you know. You hate the
obscurity of being a "cinephile"? What do you want, to bask in the
limelight? You should just be pleased that at least the Times
finally realized that "cineaste" doesn't mean "film buff". Little
things mean a lot. JPC
20599
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 4:13am
Subject: Re: Brakhage is disgusting (WAS: Sarris')
I saw it very early in my serious film-going life, under Stan's
caring introduction and presentation.
I pretty much watched every shot of it.
You're right, the second time was actually much harder to take for
some reason.
It was a time when, how to put this, I just thought I should
be open to any experience of cinema. Well I still do, but confess
I've never watched it from my copy of the Brakhage DVD,
I really would *not* include "the act of seeing...." in the category
of a 'darker' side of Brakhage films (that category is something
I should not / did not intend to imply; I mean the work I was refering
to - or aspect of hos work as a whole - deserves something far less
limiting in description than 'darker'
-Sam W
> So to this day it's amazing to me that, when I saw "The Act of Seeing
> With One's Own Eyes" at, I believe, the Harvard Film Archive along
> with a few other Brakhage films, I sat through it, eyes open, and
> didn't feel the faintest hint of revulsion or nausea.
20600
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 4:37am
Subject: OT: Sade (Re: Fred's post #20259 NOOOO!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 05-01-06 19:16:57 EST, Craig writes:
>
> On the same page, there was a ravishing color picture of a Salieri
opera
> being produced in on stage in Milan (if memory serves). Wish
someone would
> videotape this production, and share it with the rest of us around
the world.
>
> Mike Grost
I thought Salieri sucked! No?
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact