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.
20901
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
Bill, you have a brilliant career opened to you as a casting
> director! What about the Sydney Pollack character? Patrice Chereau,
> maybe? No,, no, Claude Chabrol!
Too old to be having all that s-x. Jean Reno.
20902
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:44pm
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
I find some of these interviews entertaining and sometimes
> revealing.
The last interview w. my predecessor Axel Madsen was the best. Maybe
because he's British, or maybe just because Ford was dying and had
nothing better to do.
20903
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:44pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
> SK dies in the late 90s and his Eyes Wide Shut script is filmed
> by_____Philip Kaufman
>
> SK dies in the early 80s and his Full Metal Jacket script is filmed
> by_____William Friedkin
>
> SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is filmed by
_____Claude Chabrol
>
> SK dies in the early 70s and his Barry Lyndon script is filmed
by____Roman Polanski
>
> Not a thought exercise (= cd. happen):
>
> SK dies in 1999 and his Napoleon script (soon to be published) is
> eventually filmed by ______considering this is a possibility, i'm
sure Hollywood would give it to someone like Ridley Scott
-Aaron
20904
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: Gone With the Wind
Dan, I apologize for reverting to my stereotypical form here, but did
you see "Gone With the Wind" in a print or on video? I ask because while
I agree with Peter that your post was quite interesting, I found the
film utterly insufferable when viewed on the screen five or six years
ago, yet at the same time could imagine finding interesting things to
look for on video. On the big screen the bloated and incoherent
pomposity of Selznik seemed to dominate -- and in that sense I partly
agree with David.
I still want to return to "my" thread but haven't had time.
Fred Camper
20905
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:48pm
Subject: Re: Godard-Truffaut feud (Was: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > But back to JLG-interview bons mots, note that he also once
said...that
> > Truffaut's brain-tumor came "from reading so many bad books."
>
> Ouch. Didn't Truffaut once say that JLG had read the first and last
pages
> of more books than anyone in history?
*****
He did indeed. If there's one thing I love it's the spectacle of
auteurs tearing each other limb from limb (though I was mostly on
Godard's side in that contretemps. "La Nuit Americain" is just too
phony for words)
Tom Sutpen
20906
From:
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
"hotlove666" wrote:
>
> I like AI, but Craig's blast suggests a game:
>
> SK dies in the late 90s and his Eyes Wide Shut script is filmed
> by_____Claude Chabrol or John Schlesinger.
>
> SK dies in the early 80s and his Full Metal Jacket script is
filmed
> by_____Well, Oliver Stone got PLATOON greenlit because word got
out SK was making a Vietnam film. Then PLATOON came out while SK was
still finishing FMJ. Then FMJ came out a year later and people
thought it was trying to ape PLATOON. That said, I hereby nominate
Alan Clarke.
>
> SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is filmed by
_____Jack Nicholson.
>
> SK dies in the early 70s and his Barry Lyndon script is filmed
by____SK famously didn't have a BARRY LYNDON script. He basically
reformatted the novel into screenplay format (I've got a copy) and
went with that. So if anybody actually tried to make it, they're
still shooting!
>
> Not a thought exercise (= cd. happen):
>
> SK dies in 1999 and his Napoleon script (soon to be published) is
> eventually filmed by ______James B. Harris, who has to pry it from
Ridley Scott's cold, dead hands.
-Bilge
20907
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:33pm
Subject: Re: Godard-Truffaut feud (Was: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too)
On Tuesday, January 11, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Ouch. Didn't Truffaut once say that JLG had read the first and last
> pages
> of more books than anyone in history? - Dan
Not sure it if it was Truffaut -- he might have said it -- but I've
also read someone saying (perhaps in the MacCabe book? perhaps MacCabe
himself?) that an extraordinary number of the quotations in his films
come from the first couple and last couple pages of the source book.
craig.
20908
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:33pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Up to a point as he eidles the central auteur, david
> O. Selznick.
>
> Iknow it's against the religion of " a film by," but
> Selznick, a man who never directed a foot of film
> himself, but gave exhaustive notes to directors he
> hired to execute his scripts, is a filmmaker.
Yes, Selznick was almost always the most important figure in terms of
the production of his films, but as for the end results,
well, "Portrait of Jennie" has more in common with Dieterle's "Love
Letters" (produced by Hal Wallis) than it does with, say,
Selznick's "In Name Only," and "Duel In The Sun" is much more like
Vidor's "The Fountainhead" (produced by Henry Blanke) and "Ruby
Gentry" (produced by Vidor and Joseph Bernhard) than it is like
Selznick's "A Farewell To Arms."
20909
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Bill, you have a brilliant career opened to you
> as a casting
> director! What about the Sydney Pollack character?
> Patrice Chereau,
> maybe? No,, no, Claude Chabrol!
>
>
>
>
No, no -- Jerzy Radzilowicz
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20910
From:
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40pm
Subject: Re: Godard-Truffaut feud (Was: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too)
In a message dated 05-01-11 12:57:30 EST, you write:
<< If there's one thing I love it's the spectacle of
auteurs tearing each other limb from limb >>
If auteurs would just bulk up, they could wear brightly colored Spandex
uniforms, and work out their hostilities non-violently on American Gladiator.
Just a thought...
Mike Grost
20911
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- Damien Bona wrote:
>
> Yes, Selznick was almost always the most important
> figure in terms of
> the production of his films, but as for the end
> results,
> well, "Portrait of Jennie" has more in common with
> Dieterle's "Love
> Letters" (produced by Hal Wallis) than it does with,
> say,
> Selznick's "In Name Only," and "Duel In The Sun" is
> much more like
> Vidor's "The Fountainhead" (produced by Henry
> Blanke) and "Ruby
> Gentry" (produced by Vidor and Joseph Bernhard) than
> it is like
> Selznick's "A Farewell To Arms."
>
>
>
>
Recall too that Raymond Durgnat said "Duel in the Sun"
was "100% Vidor and 100% Selznick. The result? 200%"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
20912
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:52pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
wrote:
> > SK dies in 1999 and his Napoleon script (soon to be published) is
> > eventually filmed by ______considering this is a possibility, i'm
> sure Hollywood would give it to someone like Ridley Scott
Better than Wolfgang. I watched 10 minutes of Troy and it was like
being back in the wastes of Spain w. Samuel Bronson - and w/out Nick
Ray.
20913
From:
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:53pm
Subject: Re: Duel in the Sun (was: Gone With the Wind)
The visual style of "Duel in the Sun" sure looks like Vidor. The outdoor
scenes are similar to the Southwest exteriors in "Lightning Strikes Twice", for
instance. They even look like the shots of Margeret Hamilton riding her bike
down Kansas farm roads at the beginning of the Wizard of Oz. Vidor loves shots of
buggies, carts, bicycles, etc, moving smartly down country lanes, all with
some energy and suspenseful purpose in their arrival at their ultimate
destination. The visuals also suggest that tremendous clashes are about to ensue, and
that every sort of social, sexual, political and even religious force is about
to be unleashed in the coming duel.
Mike Grost
20914
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:54pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
> > SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is filmed by
> _____Jack Nicholson.
Gee, wouldn't there be the danger that, w/out Kubrick to keep him in
check, Jack might go a little "over the top"?
20915
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:53pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> I like AI, but Craig's blast suggests a game:
>
> SK dies in the late 90s and his Eyes Wide Shut script is filmed
> by_____
*****
Stanley Donen
> SK dies in the early 80s and his Full Metal Jacket script is filmed
> by_____
*****
Clint Eastwood
> SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is filmed by _____
*****
Sam Peckinpah
> SK dies in the early 70s and his Barry Lyndon script is filmed by____
*****
Robert Aldrich
> Not a thought exercise (= cd. happen):
>
> SK dies in 1999 and his Napoleon script (soon to be published) is
> eventually filmed by ______
*****
Terry Gilliam
Tom "I Wanna Take a Crack at 'Fear and Desire'" Sutpen
20916
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:56pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli) -erratum
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
> wrote:
>
> > > SK dies in 1999 and his Napoleon script (soon to be published)
is
> > > eventually filmed by ______considering this is a possibility,
i'm
> > sure Hollywood would give it to someone like Ridley Scott
>
> Better than Wolfgang. I watched 10 minutes of Troy and it was like
> being back in the wastes of Spain w. Samuel BronsTon - and w/out
Nick
> Ray.
20917
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:04pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
>
> > SK dies in the early 80s and his Full Metal Jacket script is
filmed
> > by_____
>
> *****
> Clint Eastwood
Time for a Director's Rewrite: The Sergeant, played by Clint, takes
the rifle away from Pile (Oliver Platt) in the latrine and kicks his
ass. Joker (back to the original casting: Anthony Michael Hall,
knowing that the film would be shot in 3 weeks, now accepts) and he
and Pile raise hell with Sarge all over Nam, until the Tet Offensive
shows them the futility of war, while proving everyone's manhood.
Hall, launched into new stardom by the resulting hit, gets all of Ben
Affleck's roles and actually marries J-Lo. Affleck ends up in The
Dead Zone on tv and briefly dates Molly Gyllenhall.
20918
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:04pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
>
> Yes, Selznick was almost always the most important figure in terms
of
> the production of his films, but as for the end results,
> well, "Portrait of Jennie" has more in common with
Dieterle's "Love
> Letters" (produced by Hal Wallis) than it does with, say,
> Selznick's "In Name Only," and "Duel In The Sun" is much more
like
> Vidor's "The Fountainhead" (produced by Henry Blanke) and "Ruby
> Gentry" (produced by Vidor and Joseph Bernhard) than it is like
> Selznick's "A Farewell To Arms."
Well, "Portrait of Jennie" has a lot in common, at least
visually, with "Since You Went Away," produced and written by
Selznick ( and directed by John Cromwell, an old Selznick favorite).
20919
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:09pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> > Clint Eastwood
>
> Time for a Director's Rewrite: The Sergeant, played by Clint, takes
> the rifle away from Pile (Oliver Platt) in the latrine and kicks his
> ass. Joker (back to the original casting: Anthony Michael Hall,
> knowing that the film would be shot in 3 weeks, now accepts) and he
> and Pile raise hell with Sarge all over Nam, until the Tet Offensive
> shows them the futility of war, while proving everyone's manhood.
> Hall, launched into new stardom by the resulting hit, gets all of Ben
> Affleck's roles and actually marries J-Lo. Affleck ends up in The
> Dead Zone on tv and briefly dates Molly Gyllenhall.
*****
Yeesh, Bill. That's not too far from what I had in mind.
Tom "Gunny Highway" Sutpen
20920
From: J. Mabe
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
SK dies in the late 90s and his Eyes Wide Shut script
is filmed by Claire Denis (I like the idea of Rivette
better, but that was taken)
SK dies in the early 80s and his Full Metal Jacket
script is filmed by Jackie Chan
SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is
filmed by Larry Cohen (starring Michael Morriarty, but
keep Shelly Duvall)
SK dies in the early 70s and his Barry Lyndon script
is filmed by Michael Snow
SK dies in 1999 and his Napoleon script (soon to be
published) is eventually filmed by Apichatpong
Weerasethakul (I know nothing about the Napoleon
script, so I’m just throwing in this name blind)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
20921
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:57pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
> SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is
> filmed by Larry Cohen (starring Michael Morriarty, but
> keep Shelly Duvall)
No doubt Cohen would have kept the hedge creatures from King's book.
20922
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:58pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
SK dies in the late 90s. His death is kept secret, and his Eyes Wide
Shut script is filmed by Zalman King. The result is acclaimed as a
masterpiece by critics who usually dismiss King as a talentless hack.
20923
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:12pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
>
> SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is
> filmed by Larry Cohen (starring Michael Moriarty, but
> keep Shelly Duvall)
YES! Now it makes sense!
20924
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:13pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
>
> > SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is
> > filmed by Larry Cohen (starring Michael Morriarty, but
> > keep Shelly Duvall)
>
> No doubt Cohen would have kept the hedge creatures from King's book.
Played by guys wearing hedges.
20925
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:22pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> SK dies in the late 90s. His death is kept secret, and his Eyes
Wide
> Shut script is filmed by Zalman King. The result is acclaimed as a
> masterpiece by critics who usually dismiss King as a talentless
hack.
King, reading thru the pile of scripts, goes back to draft 48, which
includes 18 actual sex scenes featuring the principals. Bound by
contract and sworn to secrecy, Tom and Nick grit their teeth and get
through them. Eyes Wide Shut, which is adored by critics and
audiences alike, breaks all boxoffice record for a "Kubrick film,"
and Tom and Nick's marriage is saved. Penelope Cruz ends up making
horror films in Mexico.
20926
From:
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:29pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
>
> (I know nothing about the Napoleon
> script, so I'm just throwing in this name blind)
>
Actually, SK's NAPOLEON script is really quite a marvel. The
language in it is very non-descriptive (as it tends to be with
Kubrick scripts) but it has moments of emotional counterpoint that
would be wonderful in the right hands. It's also very clear from a
couple of early drafts of the script that A LOT of what was in there
went into BARRY LYNDON. Certainly, Kubrick took a lot of his
Napoleon research and repurposed it for BL (which also explains how
such a massive project got off the ground so quickly, at least by
SK's standards), but it's clear that the odd interplay of distance
and involvement that the lumpenliterati found so perplexing about BL
would have been there in NAPOLEON, too. (A lot of misguided SK fans
who don't care for BL seem to believe that NAPOLEON would have been
some kick-ass war movie. They're wrong.)
That said, Ridley Scott started life off copying Kubrick, and THE
DUELLISTS apes BARRY LYNDON in tone so much that I actually found it
difficult to watch (although I like Scott, generally). In that
sense, though, if Hollywood is going to keep pillaging Stan's old
scripts (and there's no avoiding it) they might as well let Ridley
take it on. It's better than Danny De Vito.
-Bilge
20927
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:31pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> King, reading thru the pile of scripts, goes back to draft 48, which
> includes 18 actual sex scenes featuring the principals. Bound by
> contract and sworn to secrecy, Tom and Nick grit their teeth and get
> through them. Eyes Wide Shut, which is adored by critics and
> audiences alike, breaks all boxoffice record for a "Kubrick film,"
> and Tom and Nick's marriage is saved. Penelope Cruz ends up making
> horror films in Mexico.
*****
Somehow . . . this strikes me as implausible.
Tom "But What Do I Know?" Sutpen
20928
From:
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Eyes Wide Shut, which is adored by critics and
> audiences alike, breaks all boxoffice record for a "Kubrick film,"
> and Tom and Nick's marriage is saved. Penelope Cruz ends up making
> horror films in Mexico.
As a result, Cruz becomes an obscurantist critics' darling, her
films regularly placing in Critic's Polls and Artforum's Year-End
Top Tens. Cahiers du Cinema devotes a special issue to her. Every
new starlet appearing in big-budget Hollywood horror films is
dismissed by J. Hoberman with the words, "She's no Penelope Cruz."
-Bilge
20929
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:38pm
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli
Seriously, though, apart from the pleasure of seeing orthodoxies
tremble, it isn't something Rivette is just doing for the fun of
it. "Minnelli" is and was a real crux in the history of auteurism,
and a statement like "Hou-Hsiao-Hsen, James Cameron - same problem"
is intriguing - what exactly is he taliing about? (Remembering that
he liked HHH's first two.) Auteurism was never JUST about taste - it
is supposed to be a way of thinking and writing about films, and
about cinema as an art form. Debating about Minnelli is one way to do
that. So is debating about GWTW - if it's not just a slugfest about
like/don't like or even authorship.
In a nutshell, Rivette's interview takes us back to Fred's Thread,
which for me is a way of answering the question What Is Cinema? -
ducked by most participants in Trafic 50, who were supposed to be
addressing it - and (for those of us who are avant-garde-challenged)
talking about WHY we like Minnelli, not Walters, or WHY the hundreds
of utterly competent films made in H'wd since 1980 for the most part
don't "float our boat."
What are we looking for in a narrative film besides competent
storytelling, emotion, good production values and even good acting?
What is the difference between Titanic and The Aviator, or even
between Titanic and The Terminator? What is it that makes Cukor's
scenes in GWTW stand out from the rest of the film, not only as
different (who?) but as better (why?)?
Consensus criticism - and I'm talking about a consensus among a very
small group of people, not the H'wd consensus - shuts down these
questions, and iconoclasm like Rivette's or Fred's opens them up
again. I hope Minnelli will always - at least periodically - be a
question for auteurists. Raising questions like that is a sign that a
writer's synapses are still functioning productively.
20930
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:07pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
It's better than Danny De Vito.
Who'd be perfect for Perfume.
20931
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:09pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> hotlove666 wrote:
> >
> > Eyes Wide Shut, which is adored by critics and
> > audiences alike, breaks all boxoffice record for a "Kubrick
film,"
> > and Tom and Nick's marriage is saved. Penelope Cruz ends up
making
> > horror films in Mexico.
>
> As a result, Cruz becomes an obscurantist critics' darling, her
> films regularly placing in Critic's Polls and Artforum's Year-End
> Top Tens. Cahiers du Cinema devotes a special issue to her. Every
> new starlet appearing in big-budget Hollywood horror films is
> dismissed by J. Hoberman with the words, "She's no Penelope Cruz."
Bouyed by her success w. the cutting edge crowd, she ends up starring
in Guy Maddin's remake of Frida.
20932
From: Peter Henne
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
Tom Sutpen wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> I like AI, but Craig's blast suggests a game:
>
> SK dies in the late 90s and his Eyes Wide Shut script is filmed by_____Raul Ruiz
> SK dies in the early 80s and his Full Metal Jacket script is filmed by_____Chantal Ackerman (she's the best match I can think of for SK's taste for planar
symmetry, plus her preference for low-angled shots could make something interesting of the sniper shootout--not that the sequence isn't already)
> SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is filmed by _____Manoel de Oliveira (far-fetched for the graphic violence, number of close-ups, and lots of
other reasons, but he would respect SK's static quality and might have wanted to implement some of the chamber-piece ideas used in "Benilde"; plus there's a
shot in "The Cannibals" that seems to quote the animal costume hallucination Duval has in "The Shining")
> SK dies in the early 70s and his Barry Lyndon script is filmed by____Joseph Losey
> Not a thought exercise (= cd. happen):
>
> SK dies in 1999 and his Napoleon script (soon to be published) is
> eventually filmed by _____Terry Gilliam (I'll go with that fanciful choice, but I'm not familiar with the script, only SK's legendary obsession)
Peter Henne
---------------------------------
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!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
20933
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- Peter Henne wrote:
> > SK dies in 1999 and his Napoleon script (soon to
> be published) is
> > eventually filmed by _____Terry Gilliam (I'll go
> with that fanciful choice, but I'm not familiar with
> the script, only SK's legendary obsession)
>
>
Actually Chereau, who played Napoleon for Yossef
Chahine, was going to direct a Napoleon film starring
Al Pacino, "The Monster of Longwood."
But it fell through.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
20934
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:47pm
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing HHH
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> and a statement like "Hou-Hsiao-Hsen, James Cameron - same problem"
> is intriguing - what exactly is he taliing about? (Remembering that
> he liked HHH's first two.)
Well, my problem is not that Rivette is critical of Hou Hsiao Hsien,
but that the criticism is not really decipherable. Is it possible
that the translation is confusing when it referes to "politically
correct"?
Frankly, I find it hard to see any link between Hou and Cameron.
We also don't know which HHH films Rivette actually liked -- he simply
says it was the first two that came to Paris. Maybe knowing which
films weren't objectionable would provide a key into understanding why
he hated the later ones. (I'm assuming that one of the most disliked
films must be "Good Men, Good Women" -- which is one of my favorites). ;~}
MEK
20935
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:15pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
Kubrick dies in the early 70s, leaving a stack of screenplays
including Barry L., The Shining, FMJ, EWS, Napo... His death is kept
secret (Michel Ciment is sworn to secrecy) and Allen Smithee directs
them all, anonymously, under SK's name. SK's fame keeps growing.
20936
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:22pm
Subject: Abel Gance/Napoleon Query (was Re: Kubrick by....)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> Actually Chereau, who played Napoleon for Yossef
> Chahine, was going to direct a Napoleon film starring
> Al Pacino, "The Monster of Longwood."
>
> But it fell through.
*****
For some reason, this raised a question:
I know Abel Gance intended his "Napoleon" as a multi-part series; but
does anyone know if he actually executed scripts for the projected
films, or was he just dreaming out loud?
Tom Sutpen
20937
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:24pm
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> In a nutshell, Rivette's interview takes us back to Fred's Thread,
> which for me is a way of answering the question What Is Cinema? -
> ducked by most participants in Trafic 50, who were supposed to be
> addressing it - and (for those of us who are avant-garde-
challenged)
> talking about WHY we like Minnelli, not Walters, or WHY the
hundreds
> of utterly competent films made in H'wd since 1980 for the most
part
> don't "float our boat."
Did your own article really address the question, Bill? Not that I
would blame you or anybody for ducking it, because it's really an
absurd question. (Bazin himself wisely announced that he wouldn't
answer it).
By the way, I don't think the Farrelly bros. did "exactly the
same thing" Buster Keaton would have done, because I can't imagine
BK using such a situation. He was a free agent, an essentially
solitary hero (title of my first article on Keaton back in
1958: "BK, Conquerant solitaire") and could never be a twin, let
alone a Siamese one.
20938
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:28pm
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> By the way, I don't think the Farrelly bros. did "exactly the
> same thing" Buster Keaton would have done, because I can't imagine
> BK using such a situation. He was a free agent, an essentially
> solitary hero (title of my first article on Keaton back in
> 1958: "BK, Conquerant solitaire") and could never be a twin
*****
I don't know. He managed something close to it in "The Playhouse".
Tom Sutpen
20939
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:39pm
Subject: "Shock value," said with a harrumph --
This is pretty good. Sacha Baron Cohen strikes again:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/16655.html
craig.
20940
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:11pm
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> > By the way, I don't think the Farrelly bros. did "exactly the
> > same thing" Buster Keaton would have done, because I can't
imagine
> > BK using such a situation. He was a free agent, an essentially
> > solitary hero (title of my first article on Keaton back in
> > 1958: "BK, Conquerant solitaire") and could never be a twin
>
> *****
> I don't know. He managed something close to it in "The Playhouse".
>
> Tom Sutpen
In Playhouse Keaton proved his uniqueness "par l'absurde."
20941
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:23pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
>
> > SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is filmed by _____Manoel de
Oliveira (far-fetched for the graphic violence, number of close-ups, and lots of
other reasons, but he would respect SK's static quality and might have wanted
to implement some of the chamber-piece ideas used in "Benilde"; plus there's
a shot in "The Cannibals" that seems to quote the animal costume
hallucination Duval has in "The Shining")
Actually, that's been made - It's called A Chronicle of Corpses, one of my
favorite films of 2000.
20942
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:25pm
Subject: Abel Gance/Napoleon Query (was Re: Kubrick by....)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> I know Abel Gance intended his "Napoleon" as a multi-part series; but
> does anyone know if he actually executed scripts for the projected
> films, or was he just dreaming out loud?
I'm sure there are notes, but after his German partner went bankrupt there was
no money to do the whole thing, so he settled on making just "Jeune
Monsieur Napoleon." I've never heard of a full script for the "other parts."
20943
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:29pm
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> Did your own article really address the question, Bill? Not that I
> would blame you or anybody for ducking it, because it's really an
> absurd question. (Bazin himself wisely announced that he wouldn't
> answer it).
It's not an absurd question, and Bazin addressed it constantly - often (like
Fred) referring to marginal work: nature documentaries, mountaineering films
etc. I tried. I was dealing with the myth of film as a medium of pure denotation.
>
> By the way, I don't think the Farrelly bros. did "exactly the
> same thing" Buster Keaton would have done, because I can't imagine
> BK using such a situation. He was a free agent, an essentially
> solitary hero (title of my first article on Keaton back in
> 1958: "BK, Conquerant solitaire") and could never be a twin, let
> alone a Siamese one.
Well, yes he did, in a way - the whole sequence in Our Hospitality where he's
tied, Defiant Ones-style, to the guy who's trying to kill him. Schefer says that
scenes like this in silent comedy are always sending up the social contract.
20944
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:30pm
Subject: Re: "Shock value," said with a harrumph --
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
>
> This is pretty good. Sacha Baron Cohen strikes again:
>
> http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/16655.html
>
> craig.
He's great - in small doses.
20945
From: mathieu_ricordi
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:31pm
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen"
wrote:
*****
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the "double-faced artist
> routine". If you're referring to these artists reticence to discuss
> their work then you're not talking about a mere routine; you're
> talking about a rigidly observed credo; a matter of great
principle.
> Exactly why, specifically, was it necessary for artists of their
> stature to seriously discuss their work with a bunch of small-time
> film critics? Because those critics revered them? That's not even a
> bad reason for doing it. These men were professionals. They didn't
> talk about it, they did it. They played their cards close to the
vest
> at all times and kept their mystery (for the most part). And no
one,
> certainly not a pack of dewey-eyed, Hero-worshipping wannabe
> filmmakers, was ever going to pry their secrets loose without one
king
> hell of a fight.
So let me get this straight, these filmmakers are Gods
sitting on some Mount Olympus, and we should all be grateful
if they grace us with their gifts once in a while? You make
it sound like these "hero worshipping wannabe filmmakers"
are some annoyance to poke a stick at. You ignore the fact that
for every Ford, Hawks, Godard ect, are many artists with
great capabilities and imagination that haven't had the luck
or the privilege to attain such a level. Your comments remind me
of the umfortunate ones critics sometimes make (when trying to
sound hype no doubt like you are) when reffering to "film nerds".
And the irony is almost always lost on them beleive me. I would like
to indicate at this time, however, that I never deemed it necessary
for artists to have to discuss their work. I have always beleived
in the privacy they deserve to be able to perfect their works, and
it annoys me when they are chastized by the media for not
informing us about trivial affairs like their sex life,
favourite movies ect. However, you make it seem like if they
agree to an interview, they have a right to tell their critical
admirers to take a hike. Who are they to do so? What are they without
the culture and thought process behind their work? Your contempt
for passionate cinephiles and critics makes it seem like all
these directors require is to put their films in the can and
voila! The artistic completion brought on by critics and fans
gives the work its ark and its raison d'etre. And no filmmaker
as privileged as a Ford should forget it. I do believe in the
artist as the sole decider and proprieter of his work/reputation
ect. but as Oscar Wild observed in "the critic as artist"
(a work i don't entirely agree with mind you), the art work
needs the extra verbal rhetoric on its valour and/or
shortcomings to fully be complete. So, where is this "hell of fight"
you are describing? Why should an artist want to fight against
someone who is trying to complete their art? If you are
reffering to the fact that some of these men had to keep
mum about being artists in order to be able to
keep making their films in the studios than I can see a point,
but why a passionate lover of their movies is seen as a threat,
and someone to kick out doesn't make very much sense. Neither
does calling it a "great pricipal".
*****
> A great critic is just about the last thing Godard was. But that's
of no moment here.
Well I gathered from your distaste towards the Rivette interview
that another non-standard thinker wouldn't be your type.
>I don't understand your insistence that filmmakers must pay some
sort
> of heed to a mere Social construct called "the film community"; as
> though it were a living, breathing animal that needed constant care
> and feeding;
I never said that a filmmaker must pay some sort of social heed,
I said if he does decide to be in an interview, he shouldn't
treat the process with contempt and make a joke out of the affair.
And I'm sorry you don't see that the community built around
the art of cinema doesn't need all of its participants
(directors, critic, cinephiles, programmers ect.) to constantly
continue to care and nurture it as it faces all of its
hurdles. Should we throw our arms in the air as more and more
places ar deaming film prints to be "unecessary" because of the
arrival of DVDs? Should we ignore the media/Hollywood
partnership wonderfully evoked in Jonathan Rosenbaum's
book "Movie Wars"? Should we shrug our shoulders
at the dwindling amount of world cinema we have access to
in our areas? (mine at least). But then again, you seem
to think that directors are their own entity that live and
work on their own, not at all needing anything, and
who would surely be better off without viewers,critics,
and cinephiles hovering over their "art is an island"
works. I guess in that same spirit no one should care
about film culture, because, hey, it can steare its own
course.
> Jean-Luc Godard doesn't have to answer to critics and
> schoolteachers simply because they've reduced Cinema to one big
> session of Show & Tell.
Jean-Luc Godard was once a critic who loved to meet his
heroes and interview them. But again, I never said he
had to answer to anyone now that he's a filmmaker.
I just said we shouldn't let him off the hook for
every comment he makes just because his films are
saying somthing else. And don't forget,
you're the one who got irked at the Jacques Rivette
interview, not I. As for critics who have "reduced cinema
to one big session of show and tell", I don't know who
you've been reading, but a great deal of criticism
I read constantly adds new dimensions to the art
(oh, but I forgot, filmmakers don't need anything).
He never had to acknowledge such a
> responsibility before and he shouldn't have to do it now. If he
wants
> to be a cockeyed optimist and declare an end to Cinema, then that's
> fine with me. If he wants to be inconsistent, then that's also a-
okay.
I guess by that token, if some fan of Gasper Noe's
"Irreversible" wanted to tell me he thought his
reasoning behind that film was moral, I couldn't
bring up the director's comments that he wanted to
make a film that was more violent than "Straw Dogs",
and "Salo" combined. 'Could have just been something
he said off the cuff, pay no attention' right?
>If he wants to say nothing, then he's god damn well earned that
right.
Again, for all his genius, he is in a priviliged position.
He made it while so many others did not. As a filmmaker
he as earned a lot, but forgetting the incredible odds
it takes to get there is disengenuis. My father was actually
in Paris at the time Godard was about to make "Breathless",
and he would tell you that a lot if those filmmakers
were damn lucky wher as others like himself tried in vain
for a long time and never got anywhere.
>And we'll all just need to grow up and live with it. Who are
we . . .
> cinephiles who've accomplished *nothing* in our lives the equal to
his
> most modest achievements . . . to demand anything from Jean-Luc
> Godard? It's time we started to accept the fact that a filmmaker,
like
> any artist, owes his audience nothing but his best work.
Actually some of us are filmmakers trying to break into the
mold, and some older cinephiles are brilliant artists
who just never had the chances to put their ideas on the screen.
And a good cinephile who is able to transmit his words and
observations about a film to others in order to inhance their
viewing has not accomplished "nothing". He has accomplished a great
deal.
Yes, an artist owes an audience nothing but his best work,
but his audience is part of the work, and so are the
critics, and though he has no obligation to reach out to them
(by now I hope you can see we agree at least on that point)
if he chooses to do so, it shouldn't be in a casual
"I'm above you so I can say anything" kind of way.
> Again, why should he remain interested? Because we want him to?
This
> might surprise you, but interviews are not what filmmakers are
> supposed to be doing for a living.
Thank you for clearing that up, I was confused about that point.
> *****
> Forgive this intrusion from my Inner Sociologist, but . . . what is
> "film culture"? I mean, what is it specifically? What does it
consist
> of? Who determines its topography? In what meaningful respect does
it
> differ from other pocket cultures like, say, High School?
What is film culture? Well since you didn't
consider the film community to be something
that constantly needs support and passion to
continue on, I guess we can't be on even ground about
film culture either. If there weren't any film culture,
first of all we wouldn't even be talking here, and scariest
of all, films would just be that thing corporations sell
and costumers buy, like milk. I'd like to think that all
of us on this forum think of it as much more, and so did
Godard. High School, by the way, is an emposed right
of passage in life (for those of course who are
fortunate to go), where as film culture is by
vocation. Big difference. Why, for example,
does a certain critic take a paycut to write
for a certain newspaper that'll give him more freedom
when he could easily be writing for a bigger newspaper
that would pay way more but offer less freedom? In high school,
the main credo is being able to rightly immitate what you
are being tought.
> I'm all for provoking debate. After all, what would we cinephiles
use
> for social intercourse if not that? And that Rivette interview,
> demented though it is in many respects, was fun to read . . .
although
> it's seriously abusing the word to call that thing an interview. I
> mean, they could just as easily have sent a three-by-five card
with a
> list of titles and a stenographer into the room and gotten the same
> result.
Hey, you're right about that.
But much as I truly love Rivette as a filmmaker, I can't take
> much of what he says seriously. If all he's trying to do is feed
the
> beast by inspiring debate, then that's fine, I guess.
Is it so wrong to suggest that he actually beleives
in those opinions? That he really does like Verhoeven, and
revile Cameron? That he thinks less of Hou-Hsou Hsien
than many Japanese directors? Why, in your mind, is he
just "trying to feed the beast by inspiring debate"?
Just because his tastes aren't what conventional
wisdom has tought us? Is any bold opinion, by that rational,
made just to "spark debate". Is independant thought now
relagared to contreversy for its own sake?
> But Paul Verhoeven, who I agree might have made something more
> intriguing out of "AI" than Steven Spielberg did, does not possess
> great commercial standing in the film industry; he never had the
clout
> that Stanley Kubrick's estate felt sufficient to getting the
project
> done. Only Spielberg has that. That's how he landed the assignment
> (and please, spare me the one about his lifelong love affair with
> Kubrick; I'm not in the market for any retrospective clambroth
today).
If I had to think about "industry clout" everytime I
offer an observation about a film, I wouldn't have very
much to say. Bankers and executives worry about that sort of thing,
critics and cinephiles are there to think outside the industry
box (although Verhoeven has directed his fare share of big
budget extravaganzas, so he's not exactly on the
outside looking in when it comes to Hollywood). No worries
about Spielberg's alleged life long "love affair" with
Kubrick, I wouldn't have gone there, not on your life.
*****
> Essentially what you're saying is that there's no value in an
artist's
> passion for their work lest it be demonstrated publicly; on the
record
> for all to see and read.
Not at all, I don't know how you got that impression, but
I guess that's one of the drawbacks of cyber space. As I have
said all along, an artist doesn't need to make public statements,
I said that if he chooses to, it shouldn't be to assure
hypsters that while his films are passionate and artistic,
he himself remains one who doesn't care either way. At that
rate, why even say it? More importantly, why chastize those
who are equally passionate and can add to their work?
I have news for
> you: the role of a filmmaker in life is not to go out of their way
to
> support the interests and the morale of an intellectual sewing
circle
> (I was going to use another phrase pertaining to circles, but this
is
> a Family forum, I'm told) called "cinema culture" by making a
public
> spectacle of their passion for their art; their role is to get IT
> (whatever IT is) ON FILM. Period.
That's right, I forgot, once on film nothing happens afterwards,
it just sits there in the film cans. I'd argue further, but since
I've stated repeatedly I don't beleive a director should make
a spectacle of himself for his art, I see no point.
> But somehow I think our interest is resilient enough to withstand
> filmmakers giving us the cold shoulder every once in a while; we
can
> probably deal with their sometimes justifiable contempt for us
without
> losing too much sleep. I know I can.
I get it, I get it, you're tough.
> Yes. I not only condone it, I encourage it. I have a copy of that
John
> Ford documentary Peter Bogdanovich made (actually, 'ejaculated'
might
> be a better word for it) and, oh man, you'd be amazed how much
worse
> that interview gets as it goes along. Ford is utterly dismissive,
> almost cruelly irreverant throughout; and not only that, he's
openly
> disrespectful towards Bogdanovich (for where will a cinephile ever
> find respect but in the community of other cinephiles?)
If this is true, than it's a sad truth, but I beleive that
some directors out there realize how important cinephiles are to
their work. Again, why the disrespect towards cinephiles?
and his
> excruciatingly ernest questions (has journalistic masochism ever
been
> recorded so definitively?). Bogdanovich clearly thought that if he
> could tear Pappy away from the liquor cabinet for a couple of
hours,
> drag him out to Monument Valley for a day (the sight of which after
> all those years must have inspired God-only-knows what kind of
hideous
> memories in Ford), then the Great Man might yet open up in a swell
of
> reverie and nostalgia and reveal to us the matter of his Art;
> explicate his 'pensees' to the awaiting hordes. Sewll. Instead,
Ford
> turns the whole thing into a joke and he gives away NOTHING.
WOW! How cool!
> refuses to feed the tributary and to me it's damn near heroic. He
> knows all too well what those of us, you AND me (I don't separate
> myself from any of this one bit), who linger on matters other than
The
> Work are really doing: making an intellectual fetish of HIS art;
using
> HIS art as a social instrument. He SEES right through us and he
will
> deny us everything. Why? Because he can.
If making fun of people who add to the importance of your
work is "seeing right through them", than I guess that
wisdom is now dictated by ego. And if "because he can"
is reason enough to love Ford's stiff upper lip, than
I guess we can condone any person in a powerful position's
actions now.
> Now the way I look at it, if you can watch that interview and still
> regard Ford as one of the greatest artists this country has
produced,
> then you're officially a grown-up.
Not very original, sounds to me like the same old
"David Thompson" film haters theory that anybody who seriously
cares about cinema can't consider themselves mature.
I'm not even going to enter the arena on that one.
> A side note: If Bogdanovich had been at all equal to the task he
might
> have found it profitable to go hardcore reportorial on the old
> buzzard; fire a vast number of oblique, confusing and downright
> insulting questions at him; practically aiming them right at his
head.
> Only then might Ford have been bewildered and even respectful
enough
> to get serious with him for a second or two.
So I take it now the worth of a film critic should
be determined by how witty he is? By how good his
street smarts are? Why doesn't the
Chicago Reader just replace Jonathan Rosenbaum
with Chris Rock or Eminem? I'm starting to ask
myself just how much you care about film. Now you're
saying that to earn respect with someone downplaying your
passion for film, your're sopposed to show an equal carelessness.
Film critics and cinephiles earn respect for their commitment
to their viewing and their observations, not by how much
they can "tough it" in word battles.
> I will admit, there was a time when I would have found Ford's
conduct
> on that occasion beneath contempt, just like you. But when you've
been
> a cinephile for a couple of decades your respect for the Art
becomes
> so all-consuming that all you really want out of a filmmaker in the
> end is to just shut up and keep making Cinema. What you don't want
is
> for them to waste their time and yours talking about it.
I agree, so when they do decide to "waste their time and yours
talking about it", I hope it will be worthwile, and not
something they don't mean or care about. You've spoken about
shedding off cinema love as if your manhood depended on it,
and have revered those 'tough' directors for their blaze
attitude the same way Bogdonovitch is supposedly not allowed
to revere their films. It's not a popularity jock contest,
and opening up does not mean remaining a child.
That being said, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't somewhat
entertained by the John Ford interview, and If you could
tell me where you got a copy that would be appreciated.
> After all, anybody can do that.
Actually, no, not eveybody can talk intelligently about
a film, many critics and cinephiles don't, and it makes you
appreciate those who do.
Mathieu Ricordi
20946
From:
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: "Shock value," said with a harrumph --
In a message dated 01/11/2005 5:37:42 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:
<< He's great - in small doses. >>
I absolutely adore him along with Jiminy Glick and the itchier Tom Green.
Kevin John
20947
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:50pm
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> It's not an absurd question, and Bazin addressed it constantly -
often (like
> Fred) referring to marginal work: nature documentaries,
mountaineering films
> etc. I tried. I was dealing with the myth of film as a medium of
pure denotation.
It is too an absurd question, to the extent that it cannot be
answered. By Bazin, Krohn or anybody else. (by the way the title was
derived from Sartre's famous "Qu'est-ce que la litterature?" - a
question he didn't answer either but that conveniently covered a
hodge podge of articles.) But let's agree to disagree. This is
neither the time nor place to wax ontological.
20948
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 0:25am
Subject: Re: Re: "Shock value," said with a harrumph --
On Tuesday, January 11, 2005, at 06:39 PM, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 01/11/2005 5:37:42 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:
>
> << He's great - in small doses. >>
>
> I absolutely adore him along with Jiminy Glick and the itchier Tom
> Green.
The most wonderful, hated, truly lovely American film of the decade is
'Freddy Got Fingered.' It's so maudit it's almost a Hollywood 'Navajo
Weaver.'
craig.
20949
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:38am
Subject: Re: Re: Gone With the Wind
> Dan, I apologize for reverting to my stereotypical form here, but did
> you see "Gone With the Wind" in a print or on video? I ask because while
> I agree with Peter that your post was quite interesting, I found the
> film utterly insufferable when viewed on the screen five or six years
> ago, yet at the same time could imagine finding interesting things to
> look for on video. On the big screen the bloated and incoherent
> pomposity of Selznik seemed to dominate -- and in that sense I partly
> agree with David.
This time I watched it on TCM with my mom on Thanksgiving day. My
previous viewing was on a big screen, and I did actually find a bit more
in the film this time, but the two viewings were too far apart for it to
be a controlled experiment. - Dan
20950
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:49am
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing HHH
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr." wrote:
> We also don't know which HHH films Rivette actually liked -- he simply
> says it was the first two that came to Paris. Maybe knowing which
> films weren't objectionable would provide a key into understanding why
> he hated the later ones.
The interview dates from March 1998; he wouldn't have seen Flowers of Shanghai yet, for example. So I'm curious to know if he's weighed in on current films
anywhere more recently? Any lists?
20951
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:19am
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli
>> He was a free agent, an essentially
>> solitary hero (title of my first article on Keaton back in
>> 1958: "BK, Conquerant solitaire") and could never be a twin
>
> *****
> I don't know. He managed something close to it in "The Playhouse".
Sometimes Keaton would make himself part of a team. THE SCARECROW comes
to mind as a film where he is part of a duo. - Dan
20952
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:41am
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing HHH
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
>
> The interview dates from March 1998; he wouldn't have seen Flowers
of Shanghai yet, for example. So I'm curious to know if he's
weighed in on current films anywhere more recently? Any lists?
Do we really care whether Rivette saw "Flowers" or not and
whether he liked it or not or would change his judgement today if he
has seen it and liked it? Maybe we should care, but I find it
difficult to.
20953
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:25am
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne
wrote:
>
> >
> > > SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is filmed by
_____Manoel de
> Oliveira
Also -
SK's NAPOLEON screenplay is filmed by Kenneth Branagh with the man
himself in the title role still desperately attempting to captureand
overtake the eminence of Olivier and others.
SK dies so Woody Allen acquires the property re-titling it MEYER
LYNDON with Mia Farrow as Lady Lyndon, Ron Moody as the Chevalier,
Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Prussian General, and Eddie Deezen as
Lord Bullingdon.
SK dies before filming THE SHINING. 25 years later Quentin Tarantino
acquires the property and sees an ideal opportunity to jump start
again the career of Michael Madsen with Uma Thurman in the Shelly
Duvall role and Eddie Deezen playing Danny, this time M's brother-in-
law. Quentin moves the location to the Shaolin Temple casting Sonny
Chiba in the Barry Nelson role who offers MM the caretaking job in a
place now inhabited by vampire Shaolin monks.
Seeing another opportunity to revive the MR. VAMPIRE series, QT
casts Gordon Liu in the Halloran role now playing the current
Shaolin Temple Abbot (what else?) as well as recreating the one-
eyebrow persona of Lam Ching Ying of the original Mr.VAMPIRE series.
Ching Siu-tung again works the wires while Yuen Woo-Ping
choreographs martial arts for cameo roles by Jackie Chan, Madonna,
and Zhang Ziyi. QT, of course, plays Delbert Grady - unless the
role goes to Harvey Keitel?
Featuring music culled from many sources such as the Italian
Western TRINITY series and Jamiacan rap, another guest appearance by
Franco Nero as an elderly Django will round off another original
creation by the director of the INGLORIOUS BASTARDS remake.
The possibilities are endless!
Tony Williams
20954
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:51am
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette Trashing HHH
The "first two" are probably "A City of Sadness" and "The Puppetmaster".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:47 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Rivette Trashing HHH
> We also don't know which HHH films Rivette actually liked -- he simply
> says it was the first two that came to Paris. Maybe knowing which
> films weren't objectionable would provide a key into understanding why
> he hated the later ones. (I'm assuming that one of the most disliked
> films must be "Good Men, Good Women" -- which is one of my favorites). ;~}
>
> MEK
20955
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:23am
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Dan, I apologize for reverting to my stereotypical form here, but did
> you see "Gone With the Wind" in a print or on video? I ask because
while
> I agree with Peter that your post was quite interesting, I found the
> film utterly insufferable when viewed on the screen five or six years
> ago, yet at the same time could imagine finding interesting things to
> look for on video. On the big screen the bloated and incoherent
> pomposity of Selznik seemed to dominate -- and in that sense I partly
> agree with David.
I find the opposite to be true. I was quite captivated by GWTW when I
saw it in a Technicolor dye print on a well-sized screen at age 12. I
caught 20 minutes of it on TCM a year or two ago and couldn't stand
the thing. I think the "bloated and incoherent pomposity" is the only
thing that makes it worth watching in the first place. Put GWTW on a
27" screen and it just plays like glossy hokum. But put it on a big
screen, it's still glossy hokum, but it's glossy hokum writ large.
Let's not forget, though, that Selznick had a hand in NOTORIOUS,
REBECCA, and THE THIRD MAN.
--Kyle Westphal
20956
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:24am
Subject: Re: Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami
Godard himself, If I'm not mistaken, has claimed that he takes his quotes
from wild readings, opening the books randomly on a given page and generally
not reading the whole books. (where he said it I don't remember anymore).
As for some Godard trashing, he said in Cannes that Kiarostami's Ten and Gus
Van Sant's Elephant are the same thing, thus kind of dismissing both. For
myself, I think these two films, together with Tropical Malady, are the best
filmmaking of the 00s.
Ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Keller"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Godard-Truffaut feud (Was: Rivette Trashing
Minnelli, Too)
>
>
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >
> > Ouch. Didn't Truffaut once say that JLG had read the first and last
> > pages
> > of more books than anyone in history? - Dan
> Not sure it if it was Truffaut -- he might have said it -- but I've
> also read someone saying (perhaps in the MacCabe book? perhaps MacCabe
> himself?) that an extraordinary number of the quotations in his films
> come from the first couple and last couple pages of the source book.
> craig.
20957
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:56am
Subject: Re: Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami
--- Ruy Gardnier wrote:
For
> myself, I think these two films, together with
> Tropical Malady, are the best
> filmmaking of the 00s.
Sing Out Louise!
Godard has gone from Young Turk to Old Fart in nothing flat.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20958
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:02am
Subject: Re: Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami
On Tuesday, January 11, 2005, at 11:24 PM, Ruy Gardnier wrote:
> Godard himself, If I'm not mistaken, has claimed that he takes his
> quotes
> from wild readings, opening the books randomly on a given page and
> generally
> not reading the whole books. (where he said it I don't remember
> anymore).
> As for some Godard trashing, he said in Cannes that Kiarostami's Ten
> and Gus
> Van Sant's Elephant are the same thing, thus kind of dismissing both.
> For
> myself, I think these two films, together with Tropical Malady, are
> the best
> filmmaking of the 00s.
Godard is off of Kiarostami now (remember his mid-'90s letter response
to the New York Film Critics prize, when he rebuked them for awarding
Kieslowski instead of Kiarostami?), and in a recent interview alluded
to the fact that what Kiarostami is doing now is less interesting, in
his opinion, than what he was doing around the time of 'And Life Goes
On.'
Also, as Anna Karina has noted in interviews, and Rivette too, Godard
was wont to stay for ten or fifteen minutes at a screening, and then
leave -- but only if it was a bad/mediocre film, or something he'd
already seen one or more times, whereas Rivette might stay till the
end, or Anna might have wanted to. Rivette has also cited the social
faux-pas of leaving-early as one possible reason Godard never got much
into theater.
craig.
20959
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:10am
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli) - erratum
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen"
wrote:
> >
> >
> > > SK dies in the early 80s and his Full Metal Jacket script is
> filmed
> > > by_____
> >
> > *****
> > Clint Eastwood
>
> Time for a Director's Rewrite: The Sergeant, played by Clint, takes
> the rifle away from Pile (Oliver Platt) in the latrine and kicks
his
> ass. Joker (back to the original casting: Anthony Michael Hall,
> knowing that the film would be shot in 3 weeks, now accepts) and he
> and Pile raise hell with Sarge all over Nam, until the Tet
Offensive
> shows them the futility of war, while proving everyone's manhood.
> Hall, launched into new stardom by the resulting hit, gets all of
Ben
> Affleck's roles and actually marries J-Lo. Affleck ends up in The
> Dead Zone on tv and briefly dates MAGGIE Gyllenhall, who dumps him
after three weeks, informing Venice Magazine that he was "a lousy
lay."
20960
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:16am
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
Any Kubrick film remade with Eddie Deezen in any role would be an
improvement by definition. Charlton Heston may be an axiom, but Eddie
Deezen is a lemma.
20961
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:20am
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
wrote:
>
> Let's not forget, though, that Selznick had a hand in NOTORIOUS,
> REBECCA, and THE THIRD MAN.
>
> --Kyle Westphal
Actually, he had nothing to do with Notorious (AH had it in his
contract with RKO that Selznick would not even be allowed to see
rushes) or The Third Man (I believe he put in money for the American
distribution rights). And as far as I'm concerned, he just about
ruined Rebecca. But his name is certainly on them. For me his great
achievement is GWTW, bloat and all.
20962
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:22am
Subject: Re: Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
.
>
> Godard is off of Kiarostami now (remember his mid-'90s letter
response
> to the New York Film Critics prize, when he rebuked them for
awarding
> Kieslowski instead of Kiarostami?), and in a recent interview
alluded
> to the fact that what Kiarostami is doing now is less interesting,
in
> his opinion, than what he was doing around the time of 'And Life
Goes
> On.'
Perfectly true.
20963
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:46am
Subject: Re: Re: Gone With the Wind
Kyle, unless you were an incredibly unusual 12 year old I don't think
you can trust your opinions from then. I've known more than one person
who was really smart about film at 18 but whose views at, say, 14, were
not something you'd want to give a lot of credence to.
The phenomenon as it works for me is something like this. Seen on video,
one sometimes notices "interesting" aspects of a film, curious quirks in
camera position or interesting camera movements or expressive placements
of actors in relationship to the camera, but then on the big screen
those are revealed as simply quirks, and the style simply can't sustain
itself in the image's full materiality: all those colors or whatever are
not properly accounted for, which would certainly my feeling about "Gone
With the Wind," whereas they are beautifully accounted for in, to pick a
favorite from only a few years later, Borzage's "Smilin' Through."
Fred Camper
20964
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:14am
Subject: PS-Was:Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> wrote:
> >
> .
> >
> > Godard is off of Kiarostami now (remember his mid-'90s letter
> response
> > to the New York Film Critics prize, when he rebuked them for
> awarding
> > Kieslowski instead of Kiarostami?), and in a recent interview
> alluded
> > to the fact that what Kiarostami is doing now is less
interesting,
> in
> > his opinion, than what he was doing around the time of 'And Life
> Goes
> > On.'
>
> Perfectly true.
Let me add that I LIKE 10 - it's a fun experiment. But I see
diminishing returns in AK's car trilogy, and even within the last
installment of it. (I haven't seen the "other" Taste of Cherry - I'm
just talking about the film that was released, which is better than
10, not as good as And Life Goes On...) Within 10, the little boy is
wonderful at the beginning, then runs out of things to do, and the
other passengers aren't that interesting to begin with. Akibari (sp?)
is so beautiful and light-fingered that I could watch her for two
hours, but that's slim pickins. And although I like Elephant very
much, if Godard said something to the effect that 10 and Elephant
are "the same movie," he's simply observing basic formal similarities
between two of the recent experimental narrative films that are worth
noticing and talking about. As with Rivette's "same thing" remark
about Cameron and HHH, I'd like to hear more.
20965
From: Andy Rector
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:37am
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
>
> I have said what I believe to be the case w. Godard: I think Eloge
> d'amour (pace Andy R.) is a dead end and Notre Musique is a new
> beginning. I'll resee both soon, however - they're pretty complex
> films, and I've just seen each once.
>
> Rivette remains a critical iconoclast, which is a rare thing these
> days. Any critical orthodoxy sooner or later makes us feel like
> Groucho being introduced to Margaret Dumont - "They oughta tear
you
> down and put up a building!" - especially if the people profiting
> from the orthodoxy seem to us to be corrupt.
Coming in late to this Rivette interview thread...
I think its a wonderful interview! Good to hear Rivette jutting out.
Maybe Rivette has some sort of ontological objection to HHH, ie an
objection to the systematic organization of such space and time, in
such a way. I've puzzled over the charge of "politically correct"
ever since I read the interview...
But what is more manufactured into the story (albiet perfectly so,
like much of HHH) than the train ride in Secret Defense?
I guess the dullness of Verhoven's thesis is excusable in the face
of the sharpness of his cinematic writing. But with this, as with
the HHH comments, I am not entirely convinced...I go on loving Hou
and hating Clockwork.
I welcome dissent on Kubrick and especially J. Mankiewicz...I just
saw Somewhere in the Night which is nothing but a string of lost
opportunities on a good premise; cowards bend the knee.
I wish Rivette's praises held more sway here because I'd sure like
to see more of Pedro Costa's work after seeing Ou git votre sourire
enfoui?.
Bill, your saying Eloge is a dead end rends my heart! We must talk.
-andy
20966
From: Damien Bona
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:09am
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:
> I welcome dissent on Kubrick and especially J. Mankiewicz...
Although Mankiewicz was an early favorite of Godard's (and Bill has
recently written of his love for "The Honey Pot" -- which I haven't
seen -- while I think "A Letter To Three Wives" is a great film),
neither he nor particularly Kubrick has been generally held in esteem
in traditional auteurist circles. Kubrick was often cited as one of
those directors (De Sica, Stevens, Kurosawa were others) whom non
director-oriented critics reflexively referred to as great directors,
and for whom auteurists had no patience because they too obviously
announced their intentions. If memory serves, when Sarris put Barry
Lyndon on his 10 Best list, he included an apologia to his fellow
auteurists who, he assumed, would never be able to comprehend his
including a Kubrick film.
20967
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:26am
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, at 03:09 AM, Damien Bona wrote:
> Kubrick was often cited as one of
> those directors (De Sica, Stevens, Kurosawa were others) whom non
> director-oriented critics reflexively referred to as great directors,
> and for whom auteurists had no patience because they too obviously
> announced their intentions.
Lies and philistinism, of course.
craig.
20968
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:27am
Subject: Re: PS-Was:Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami, and Niels Bohr
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, at 02:14 AM, hotlove666 wrote:
> (I haven't seen the "other" Taste of Cherry - I'm
> just talking about the film that was released, which is better than
> 10, not as good as And Life Goes On...)
What's the "other" 'Taste of Cherry'? The one without the video coda?
Does it end right before this section would begin in the released
version?
craig.
20969
From:
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:58am
Subject: Recent Film - So Far
Good films seen recently, sorted by the year of first release.
Almost nothing with subtitles from 2004 has reached Detroit, Michigan, USA,
where I live - we are getting 2002 and 2003 releases of World Cinema.
Mike Grost
2002
Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg)
The Cuckoo (Alexander Rogozhkin)
Der er en yndig mand / This Charming Man (Martin Strange-Hansen)
Deux ans après / Two Year Later (Agnès Varda)
Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary (Guy Maddin)
Être et avoir / To Be and To Have (Nicholas Philibert)
Far From Heaven (Todd Haynes)
Good Night Valentino (Edoardo Ballerini)
Hard Corps (David Malver)
Herb Alpert: Music for Your Eyes (Tom Neff)
L'Homme du train / The Man on the Train (Patrice Leconte)
I'm With Lucy (Jon Sherman)
In the Mirror of Maya Deren (Martina Kudlacek)
Joe and Max (Steve James)
Maid in Manhattan (Wayne Wang)
Marooned in Iraq (Bahman Ghobadi)
Matir Moina / The Clay Bird (Tareque Masud)
Nye scener fra Amerika / New Scenes From America (Jørgen Leth)
The Pianist (Roman Polanski)
Russian Ark (Alexander Sokurov)
Unconditional Love (P. J. Hogan)
Zhou Yu's Train (Sun Zhou)
2003
Alex and Emma (Rob Reiner)
At Five in the Afternoon (Samira Makhmalbaf)
Bon Voyage (Jean-Paul Rappenau)
Camp (Todd Graff)
Coffee and Cigarettes (Jim Jarmusch)
Danny Deckchair (Jeff Balsmeyer)
Daredevil (Mark Steven Johnson)
La Finestra di fronte / Facing Windows (Ferzan Ozpetek)
Frazetta: Painting with Fire (Lance Laspina)
Gori vatra / Fuse (Pjer Zalica)
Love Actually (Richard Curtis)
Osama (Siddiq Barmak)
The Return (Andrey Zvyagintsev)
Rosenstrasse (Margarethe von Trotta)
Shanghai Knights (David Dobkin)
Stuck On You (Bobby and Peter Farrelly)
2004
A Boyfriend for Christmas (Kevin Connor)
Chasing Liberty (Andy Cadiff)
De-Lovely (Irwin Winkler)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore)
The Forgotten (Joseph Ruben)
Hotel Rwanda (Terry George)
I (Heart) Huckabees (David O. Russell)
I, Robot (Alex Proyas)
Karroll's Christmas (Dennis Dugan)
Primer (Shane Carruth)
Tanner on Tanner (Robert Altman)
Torque (Joseph Kahn)
A Touch of Pink (Ian Iqbal Rashid)
Uncovered: The War on Iraq (Robert Greenwald)
20970
From:
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:08am
Subject: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
Have to say I was disappointed with this - just saw it on DVD.
It seems to exploit violence for the sake of thrills - a common problem in
modern cinema.
Its depiction of the Columbine killers as gay lovers, who shower together,
etc, is homphobic. And I do not care about Mr Van Sant's personal life here. A
cheap shot is a cheap shot. This is treated as one of the "explanations" of the
killings. Shame!
This is also the umpteenth art film seen here, in which "daily life" is
treated as something profound. We follow the characters around high school,
watching their daily lives. I did not find this more interesting or enlightening than
following those guys around wine country in "Sideways", or seeing daily life
in Taipei in "Yi Yi".
Also did not like that none of the students here has any interest in school,
despite what look like committed teachers - such as the gung ho physics prof,
trying to get his students interested in electricity - a fascinating subject!
I do not think young people are so anti-intellectual.
The film does have some good color. Especially liked the lifeguard shirt with
the cross.
Mike Grost
20971
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:09am
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona" wrote:
> Although Mankiewicz was an early favorite of Godard's (and Bill has
> recently written of his love for "The Honey Pot" -- which I haven't
> seen -- while I think "A Letter To Three Wives" is a great film),
> neither he nor particularly Kubrick has been generally held in esteem
> in traditional auteurist circles.
*****
Does that matter?
> Kubrick was often cited as one of
> those directors (De Sica, Stevens, Kurosawa were others) whom non
> director-oriented critics reflexively referred to as great directors,
> and for whom auteurists had no patience because they too obviously
> announced their intentions.
*****
In other words, he had the industry clout to realize his creative
ambitions openly without having to smuggle them in under the guise of
genre exercises. I could be wrong, but I thought that was the kind of
optimal circumstance we cinephiles wished all film artists could enjoy.
> If memory serves, when Sarris put Barry
> Lyndon on his 10 Best list, he included an apologia to his fellow
> auteurists who, he assumed, would never be able to comprehend his
> including a Kubrick film.
*****
So? The man betrayed a streak of cowardice. It happens. I think we can
forgive him a transgression every now and again.
Tom Sutpen
20972
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:22am
Subject: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Its depiction of the Columbine killers as gay lovers, who shower
together,
> etc, is homphobic. And I do not care about Mr Van Sant's personal
life here. A
> cheap shot is a cheap shot. This is treated as one of the
"explanations" of the
> killings. Shame!
'Elephant' is certainly one that I need to revist -- it didn't do a
terrible lot for me first time 'round -- but I have to say, Mike, that
I think you're a little off in saying that the killers' desperate, sad
attempt at passion in the shower is treated by Van Sant as an
'explanation' for the killings.
For ought that I can tell, *nothing* in the film is treated as an
'explanation'. The characters might play violent video games, but they
also play Beethoven; does this mean that Beethoven was a major
influence -- an 'explanation'? In showing us the characters in
monotonous detail, Van Sant is ultimately showing us that such
killings *can't* be explained -- not by their hobbies, not by their
sexual orientation, not by anything. Not even the observant eye of the
camera.
20973
From:
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:31am
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
Whoa Mike! The wrath of Ehrenstein should be raining down upon you in a few
hours.
In the meantime, avant le déluge, I have to say that I not only disagree with
you, Mike, but with Matt as well. First off, I think it's a stretch to call
the two boys gay LOVERS. The shower scene (echoes of PSYCHO?) is far too short
and stand-alone to justify that status. Besides, I think it sings more of a
sweet confusion rather than a longtime commitment. Keep in mind that one of the
boys says something like "Hey, I've never done anything like this before." The
awkwardness just doesn't spell LOVERS or really even GAY for that matter.
As far as committed teachers, any truly committed teacher knows what's going
on in his or her classroom and would have stopped that spitball shit
immediately!
But contrary to what Mike (and seemingly the rest of world) concludes, I
think that Van Sant is very much showing us that these killings CAN be explained.
Really, folks, what exactly in the film suggests that the spitballs and the
Hitler footage and, okay, a queer rage are NOT perfectly valid causes for the
mayhem? This is why I adore the thing and much prefer it to something like ZERO
DAY which tries to dazzle us with its "objectivity" (shades of that repulsive
MAN BITES DOG again) and still winds up with the same banal "there is no
explanation" conclusion. What Van Sant offers us is ONE PERSPECTIVE on the event.
I think it's a much more personal film than people imagine. Ehrenstein called
it a piece of sculpture on this list a while back. But what Van Sant is
sculpting is a memory of high school rather than a document of how it's currently
experienced. And this memory need not necessarily be Van Sant's own to support
my thesis. The repetition already does that, seizing on seemingly
insignificant moments and replaying them to various effects just like our memories do. But
the point here is that with these techniques, Van Sant is trying to maximize
the particularity of his perspective. ELEPHANT tells A truth not THE Truth.
I came to these conclusions due to my horror at the fact that I found myself
cheering the murders on one level. Or, at least, they made perfect sense to
me, especially in relation to most Hollywood films (recall that the film ends
with the destruction of a heterosexual couple). The friend I saw it with my
first time through agreed. Now, we're both gay and no doubt our own memories of
high school fueled our reactions. So for us, at least, the problem becomes not
how to explain (or not to explain) why the killings happened but rather, what
to do with, to quote Barthes, the monstrous being made not just viable but
justifiable. But I don't think you have to be gay to get that from the film. Or
maybe you do. Most reviews I read either mourned the explanations or resorted to
the "the killings cannot be explained" line. But the sculpture is still very
much on display.
Kevin John
20974
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:42am
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
STANLEY Kubrick dies at birth; his younger brother SIDNEY Kubrick
grows up to be a genius chef (with a three Michelin star restaurant
in England) and internationally renowned filmmaker, whose works are
remarkable for their epic scope, profound philosophical insights,
and haute cuisine.
A short filmography:
Pears on fire (1953)
Surreal war film where four men on a raft prepare the eponymous dish
behind enemy lines. The resulting dessert reportedly tasted so bad
Sidney decided to suppress all copies of the recipe.
Hershey's Kiss (1955)
Noirish thriller about a sous chef who clashes against his employer
over a hatcheck girl, whom they both love. The employer is killed
when he accidentally eats a poisoned chocolate, and chef and girl
run away.
The Chilling (1956)
Heist film about a group of fanatical grill cooks that conspire to
steal five hundred pounds of dry-aged prime beef. Of note is the
sequence where the commission of the crime is brilliantly intercut
with a later scene where they actually grill the beef.
Baths of Porridge (1957)
French war film where three mess cooks are singled out to be
executed for serving poor breakfast fare.
Spartacus (1960)
Historical epic where a slave invented the first Italian ice (from
flavored syrup poured over snow taken by the bucketful from
mountaintops), and Imperial Rome trembled in fear.
Lolita (1962)
Black comedy where forty-year-old college professor obsesses over
twelve year old girl's chocolate-chip cupcakes.
Dr. Strangefood, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the
Bombe (1964)
Black comedy about a mad pastry chef who develops an elaborate
Doomsday Dessert.
2001: A Spice Odyssey
Science fiction epic where an astronaut's encounter with aliens
causes his palate to evolve to the point where he thrives almost
exclusively on strongly flavored meat and fat and avoids all bland
carbohydrates.
A Crockpot Orange
Science fiction parable where young sushi chef is brainwashed into
preparing nothing but slow-cooked citrus.
Barry Lyndon (1975)
Historical epic where eponymous hero helps develop the sandwich in a
poker game (credit for the invention was subsequently stolen from
him) and during the Napoleonic Wars helps inspire the Chicken
Marengo.
The Shining (1980)
Psychological horror epic where hotel chef deals with family of
crazed psychotics in a snowbound resort.
Full Petal Jacket (1987)
Vietnam war epic where young recruit (crazed by severe Ellis Island
training) insists on wearing a jacket of candied flower petals for
armor.
Iced Wide Shut (1999)
Erotic epic where Tom Cruise wanders about Manhattan, trying to find
a Bundt cake and eat it too.
An undeveloped script for A.I. (2001), about a robot endowed with
the ability to create near-miraculous truffle dishes, was
subsequently turned into a film co-directed by Steven Spielberg and
Alain Ducasse.
20975
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:54am
Subject: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Whoa Mike! The wrath of Ehrenstein should be raining down upon you
in a few
> hours.
>
> In the meantime, avant le déluge, I have to say that I not only
disagree with
> you, Mike, but with Matt as well. First off, I think it's a
stretch to call
> the two boys gay LOVERS. The shower scene (echoes of PSYCHO?) is
far too short
> and stand-alone to justify that status. Besides, I think it sings
more of a
> sweet confusion rather than a longtime commitment. Keep in mind
that one of the
> boys says something like "Hey, I've never done anything like this
before." The
> awkwardness just doesn't spell LOVERS or really even GAY for that
matter.
>
Struck me this way--they were about to go on a do-or-die mission, it
occured to them to try it, they tried it. No, I don't think it's an
explanation either--if anything every detail about them felt like a
red herring.
Thought the time spent with the people before the massacre was
essential, otherwise they would be just shotgun fodder. We get to
know these people before they die, that's a major part of the film's
impact.
20976
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:57am
Subject: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
> wrote:
> >
> > For the record, it wasn't a bad year for Philippine cinema.
Among
> > the very best I remember were Kidlat Tahimik's "Turumba," an
> offbeat
> > comedy about a little town invaded by German investors, who turn
> > their economy upside down to manufacture gaudy toys;
>
> Sounds great!
I prefer it over his better-known experimental feature, Mabangong
Bangungot (Perfumed Nightmare).
>
> Joey
> > Gosengfiao's "Temptation Island," about a bevy of beauty
> contestants
> > marooned on an island and forced to wander about looking for
food,
> > shelter, and an outlet for their hairdryers
>
> Sounds like the Fox Network!
Fox would never think of putting a giant ice cream cone, or giant
roast chicken in their pictures...
20977
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:29am
Subject: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera" wrote:
>
> Thought the time spent with the people before the massacre was
> essential, otherwise they would be just shotgun fodder. We get to
> know these people before they die, that's a major part of the film's
> impact.
Really? I didn't feel that I got to know them very well at all. The
film's interest in its characters was, for me, vague and detached --
certainly not non-existant, but definitely more on the level of
'slightly curious' than 'fully engaged'.
Maybe this is one of the things that sat so uncomfortably with me when
I first saw the picture; the fact that, when the characters were
killed, I didn't really know them well enough to care -- I mean, I
cared, of course, (a massacre's not a nice thing to watch after all);
I just didn't care beyond the point of thinking 'yes, people killing
people is bad' (i.e. it had nothing to do with the characters, but
with the idea of people -- any people -- being massacred).
There was something cold about the massacre that was unsettling in
that it was mine; my lack of understanding, my lack of empathy in any
major sense. If anything, I found that the film was probably more
about my own apathy -- my own 'slightly curious' interest in the
characters and, eventually, their deaths -- than in messy and
answerable questions such as 'why did these guys do this?'.
20978
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:31am
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
Among other things, Elephant is a film about interpretation. It does several
virtuosistic tricks to challenge the spectators' relating cause to
consequence, and sloppy viewings do not pass the test. It's obvious that Gus
Van Sant plays the game of recognition/unrecognition when he places violent
videogames, Hitler documentaries, school bullying, lack of affection (that's
the only thing the bath scene means, content-wise, by the way) and tries to
evolve the reasoning that causality is not as simple as people try to think
it is. This kind of utilitarist, behaviorist social psychology (trying to
find a scapegoat, in fact) is only a cheap response to a much deeper
concern, but as it is deep and takes complex and long accounts, it is not
going to hit tv or newspapers, or hip-thinking people. And it also plays the
game of recognition/unrecognition about american teen comedy, in the same
way. I think I agree with Kevin a little bit: the film tries to look at
*everything* as an explanation, contrary to the negative-sociology (like
negative theology) theses. The film starts and ends with clouds: in a way,
it left me the impression that -- anathema -- everything is included under
the sky, even violent, "unexplainable" outbursts by lovely teenagers. But
that's not something "rational" people are easily willing to accept.
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 7:22 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
>
> > Its depiction of the Columbine killers as gay lovers, who shower
> together,
> > etc, is homphobic. And I do not care about Mr Van Sant's personal
> life here. A
> > cheap shot is a cheap shot. This is treated as one of the
> "explanations" of the
> > killings. Shame!
>
> 'Elephant' is certainly one that I need to revist -- it didn't do a
> terrible lot for me first time 'round -- but I have to say, Mike, that
> I think you're a little off in saying that the killers' desperate, sad
> attempt at passion in the shower is treated by Van Sant as an
> 'explanation' for the killings.
>
> For ought that I can tell, *nothing* in the film is treated as an
> 'explanation'. The characters might play violent video games, but they
> also play Beethoven; does this mean that Beethoven was a major
> influence -- an 'explanation'? In showing us the characters in
> monotonous detail, Van Sant is ultimately showing us that such
> killings *can't* be explained -- not by their hobbies, not by their
> sexual orientation, not by anything. Not even the observant eye of the
> camera.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
20979
From: Doug Dillaman
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:43am
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1115
On Jan 12, 2005, at 10:58 PM, a_film_by@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Matthew:
> For ought that I can tell, *nothing* in the film is treated as an
> 'explanation'. The characters might play violent video games, but they
> also play Beethoven; does this mean that Beethoven was a major
> influence -- an 'explanation'? In showing us the characters in
> monotonous detail, Van Sant is ultimately showing us that such
> killings *can't* be explained -- not by their hobbies, not by their
> sexual orientation, not by anything. Not even the observant eye of the
> camera.
I think that's what Van Sant *wants* to show us, from what I've read.
However, by giving us these strong signifiers - the Nazi imagery, the
video games, the kiss, the spitball scene, et al - he's undercutting
his own case. It's next to impossible not to see at least some of them
as part of an explanation, especially in context of an incident that
desperately screams for explanation in the minds of most (all?) people.
I watched ELEPHANT a second time last week, thinking I missed something
the first time, with my girlfriend. She was rather per/disturbed by the
implications of the gay kiss, thinking that it posited something rather
dubious. When I explained that Van Sant was gay, she was mollified a
bit, but I don't think every viewer will have that bit of extratextual
knowledge.
(Aside from that, I just don't think it's that good of a film, despite
the beautiful camera work. It's a structural mess, and too many of the
characters are thinly drawn - or, maybe one or two too many are drawn
too well. ELEPHANT - the Clarke film - works because it completely
treats its characters as thin ciphers that we basically know nothing
about, and because it uses a consistent structural form.)
True, I don't think the film goes all the way to "treating (x) as an
explanation". But open texts demand to be read and interpreted. And if
Van Sant expected to throw in as strong of signifiers as he did and
also expected that nobody would draw any causal conclusions, he's
incredibly naive. (Which, having heard him speak, I think in his own
way he may be.)
(Oh, and Matthew - keep in mind that Beethoven gets brought to an
atonal conclusion, followed by a middle-finger salute. One gets the
impression of vestigial, forced piano lessons that are about to be
tossed to the curb, along with the rest of life.)
Doug
20980
From:
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:14am
Subject: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
I confess that I am taken aback by the suggestions that the killers in
"Elephant" are not "really" gay.
We have two naked men kissing in the shower! What are we waiting for - a
certificate of gayness in writing from Ellen de Generes?
"Elephant" is a film about two incredibly vicious gay men who massacre lots
of sweet, noble heterosexuals.
Politically speaking, I found this really hard to take.
I will stick to gay-themed films with much more realistic gay characters - "A
Touch of Pink", "Unconditional Love", "Facing Windows", "All Over the Guy",
"Before Night Falls", etc. Any one of these fine films would repay the
attention that the cinephile community instead is lavishing on "Elephant".
Why is it, when a good movie depicts gay people sympathetically, as these
films do, that the film is marginalized and ignored by the cinephile community?
But when a homophobic film like "Elephant" comes along, it wins the grand prize
at Cannes?
Sheesh!
Mike Grost
20981
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 0:37pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera" wrote:
> The Chilling (1956)
>
> Heist film about a group of fanatical grill cooks that conspire to
> steal five hundred pounds of dry-aged prime beef. Of note is the
> sequence where the commission of the crime is brilliantly intercut
> with a later scene where they actually grill the beef.
*****
You know, I could see that one coming out of Ealing Studios (with
Charles Chrichton co-directing, though).
Tom Sutpen
20982
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 0:51pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Kyle, unless you were an incredibly unusual 12 year old I don't think
> you can trust your opinions from then.
I noted my age precisely to make this point. I hadn't seen many films
by that point, so GWTW may have seemed quaint. Either way, I'm not
asking anyone to trust my judgment on this one. I think the later
reaction is a more accurate one, although I'll acknowledge that a
great deal of the impact is lost on television.
--Kyle
20983
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:23pm
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing HHH
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier" wrote:
> The "first two" are probably "A City of Sadness" and "The Puppetmaster".
If that's the case, Rivette's rather savage dismissal of Hou Hsiao
Hsien becomes even more inexplicable. It would have to have been
based almost entirely on a bad reaction to "Good Men, Good Women" (and
also possibly some of the much older films -- tbut these are so
stylistically different from GMGW that it seems hard to see how they
could be lumped together).
What a remarkably unauteuristic assessment from one of the movement's
deans!
MEK
20984
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:08pm
Subject: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> Its depiction of the Columbine killers as gay
> lovers, who shower together,
> etc, is homphobic. And I do not care about Mr Van
> Sant's personal life here.
Oh of course you do.
A
> cheap shot is a cheap shot. This is treated as one
> of the "explanations" of the
> killings.
This WAS treated as one of the "explanations" of the
killings if you followed the Columbine story.
If you'll note one of the early scenes is ameeting of
the school's Gay/Straight-Alliance Club. Several of
its members return as shooting victims. So what Gus is
doing here is a lot more complex than the jerk of your
knee would suggest.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
20985
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:09pm
Subject: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I confess that I am taken aback by the suggestions that the killers in
> "Elephant" are not "really" gay.
> We have two naked men kissing in the shower! What are we waiting for
- a
> certificate of gayness in writing from Ellen de Generes?
> "Elephant" is a film about two incredibly vicious gay men who
massacre lots
> of sweet, noble heterosexuals.
*****
Sorry but, shower scene and all, I don't think the two killers in
"Elephant" are meant to be gay; not fundamentally. If anything,
they're portrayed as such thoroughgoing outcasts from the social
pecking order of their peer group that the only outlet they have for
*anything*, any kind of support or acceptence or even baseline,
non-sexual affection is each other. Perhaps Van Sant's omitting
anything that might overtly suggest heterosexual inclinations on their
part leads you to this conclusion. If it is, I don't think that's
significant; all it is is an omission, not an indication that these
characters are supposed to be homosexual.
And as for your characterization of "Elephant" as merely concerning
"incredibly vicious gay men" killing "sweet, noble heterosexuals"; all
due respect, Mike, that's just . . . misguided. You're making the film
sound like "The Birth of a Nation" and it's a far more nuanced work
than that.
Tom Sutpen
20986
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> I will stick to gay-themed films with much more
> realistic gay characters - "A
> Touch of Pink", "Unconditional Love", "Facing
> Windows", "All Over the Guy",
> "Before Night Falls", etc. Any one of these fine
> films would repay the
> attention that the cinephile community instead is
> lavishing on "Elephant".
Fluff in every instance but the last -- which is pure
Stanley Kramer.
> Why is it, when a good movie depicts gay people
> sympathetically, as these
> films do, that the film is marginalized and ignored
> by the cinephile community?
"Elephant" WASN'T mariginalized? News to me. Todd
McCarthy had a cow over it in "Variety" -- Gus being
to "anti-American" at this crucial juncture in history
and all. He was also upset by John Robinson's beauty.
> But when a homophobic film like "Elephant" comes
> along, it wins the grand prize
> at Cannes?
> Sheesh!
Wrong "Sheesh!"
Godard, if you will note, singles out "The Brown
Bunny" for praise. When that piece of shit lost at
Cannes Gallo (a former rent boy) had a hissy-fit of
monstrous proportions and accused Gus of sleeping with
the president of the jury in order to win the Palm
D'Or.
The president of the jury?
Patrice Chereau
(I don't see either "Those Who Love Me Can Take the
Train" or "Son Frere" on your gay movie list, Mike.)
David "Aguirre" Ehrenstein
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20987
From: Sam Adams
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:34pm
Subject: Re: Elephant
Exactly: the movie is about searching, not finding. Although set in the present tense, it is structured as a journey back through time, a "forensic" (van
Sant's word) investigation into a crime that ultimately cannot be explained. The video games, the "homosexuality" (which van Sant plausibly explains as the
characters' wish to have one sexual experience before they die), even the abuse the killers suffer at the hands of the jocks -- these might explain their
actions, or they might not, or they might overlap and occasionally contradict each other. True, van Sant reprises the "first-person shooter" perspective of
the violent video game during the eventual massacre, and the killers seem to take particularly sadistic delight in letting the popular couple squirm before
they're shot. But I think such moments are traps as much as they are clues. Any of them might contribute to an understanding of why the killers act as they
do, but none of them add up to a "reason" -- anyone else might, and probably would have, acted differently under the circumstances. (The same, of course, is
true of most violent criminals -- their typically horrible upbringings obviously contribute to their actions, but they often have siblings who went through
everything they did and end up law-abiding citizens.) I was amazed at the obtuseness of critics who attacked the movie for not offering some trite thesis as
to why the Columbine killings happened, as if those same people wouldn't have been horribly offended had the movie wrapped up its explanation in a tidy
little package. But then, these were often the same critics who came close to calling van Sant a pedophile because of his choice in actors.
Sam
For ought that I can tell, *nothing* in the film is treated as an
'explanation'. The characters might play violent video games, but they
also play Beethoven; does this mean that Beethoven was a major
influence -- an 'explanation'? In showing us the characters in
monotonous detail, Van Sant is ultimately showing us that such
killings *can't* be explained -- not by their hobbies, not by their
sexual orientation, not by anything. Not even the observant eye of the
camera.
20988
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant
--- Sam Adams wrote:
But then, these were often
> the same critics who came close to calling van Sant
> a pedophile because of his choice in actors.
>
Well Gus' choice in boyfriends has been known to raise
an eyebrow or two.
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g001/tj.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20989
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:49pm
Subject: Re: Kidlat Tahimik
Noel Vera wrote:
> <>Among the very best I remember were Kidlat Tahimik's "Turumba," an
> offbeatcomedy about a little town invaded by German investors, who
> turn their economy upside down to manufacture gaudy toys;
>
>>Sounds great!
>>
>>
>
>I prefer it over his better-known experimental feature, Mabangong
>Bangungot (Perfumed Nightmare).
>
>
Why, out of curiosity? (I like both)
-Matt
20990
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:42pm
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:37:48 -0000, Andy Rector wrote:
> I wish Rivette's praises held more sway here because I'd sure like
> to see more of Pedro Costa's work after seeing Ou git votre sourire
> enfoui?.
You're in luck. Gemini (same company that will release Oliveira's "The Satin
Slipper") will also release a two-pack of "Ossos" and "Casa de Lava" around
the same time, maybe even the same day. I have no idea how to see "In
Vanda's Room", a film that seemed to take him forever to film.
Jonathan Takagi
20991
From: samfilms2003
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:14pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
> A short filmography:
This is truly wonderful Noel !
Shd be in the New Yorker (forgive me) or something !
-Sam W
20992
From:
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 0:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
In a message dated 01/12/2005 6:18:18 AM, MG4273@a... writes:
<< We have two naked men kissing in the shower! What are we waiting for - a
certificate of gayness in writing from Ellen de Generes? >>
Mike, your posts on ELEPHANT have been so uncharacteristically hyperbolic
that I'm starting to think you're deliberately trying to push buttons here. It
also seems as if you're not even reading the fine posts from Ruy, Tom, Sam, etc.
But since I've never known you to be this way on the list, I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt and try to explain that two naked men kissing in the
shower does not automatically provide the key to something as complicated as
seuxality. Many of the performers in gay porn are straight. And yeah, yeah, you can
say that these guys are REALLY gay but where will that get you? And where
does it get you to claim beyond a shadow of a doubt that these boys are gay (and
that the students were heterosexual, for that matter)?
And for the record, I didn't ignore those films you mentioned. I reviewed two
of them for Milwaukeee papers. But I agree with Ehrenstein that they were
largely fluff.
Kevin John
20993
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 5:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant
> The video games, the "homosexuality" (which van
> Sant plausibly explains as the characters' wish to have one sexual
> experience before they die)
I dunno - plausibly?
Maybe this is so perplexing because it doesn't make strict psychological
sense. Kevin notices that the kids aren't exactly acting as if they are
gay; Mike notices that they aren't acting straight either. I can't easily
imagine a plausible chain of behavior that this scene would be a link in.
Seems like some kind of poetic touch, expressing...?
Before the spree, one of the boys says to the other something like, "And
remember to have fun." I wonder what sort of person would say this - I
couldn't work it out in my head. Again, I concluded that it's got to be a
poetic, anti-psychological touch, conveying...?
I must confess that I have never understood Van Sant, nor managed to like
any of his films. - Dan
20994
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:01pm
Subject: The Duellists (Was: Kubrick by...)
> That said, Ridley Scott started life off copying Kubrick, and THE
> DUELLISTS apes BARRY LYNDON in tone so much that I actually found it
> difficult to watch (although I like Scott, generally).
Geez, the tone of THE DUELLISTS just seems so different to me from
Kubrick. The film is steeped in revery, which eventually makes the lead
character fall into a philosophical detachment from his own actions. To
me, it feels more like, I dunno, a becalmed Alan Rudolph, or maybe a less
stylized von Sternberg.
But then, I *don't* like Scott generally - I'm not sure where THE
DUELLISTS came from. - Dan
20995
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
MG4273@a... wrote:
>I confess that I am taken aback by the suggestions that the killers in
>"Elephant" are not "really" gay. We have two naked men kissing in the shower!...
>
First, we need to get the facts right. These are two naked BOYS kissing
in the shower. The point being, they may not have figured out their
sexuality yet. They certainly seem a bit confused about adapting to
life! I think the line that introduces their kiss is, "I've never kissed
anyone before," supporting the explanation someone already offered that
it's less about gay sex and more about wanting to have one such
experience before they die. There's also the classic Kinsey study, not
all that reliable but also not worthless, that established that back in
the 1940s more than 30 per cent of American men had had one sexual
experience with another man, often in adolescence. Not all boys who have
sex with each other are gay! I think the film doesn't give us enough
information to know whether these boys' fundamental orientation is gay
or straight or bi.
This is not to say that for some viewers the film might feed into
homophobia a little bit, by throwing the suggestion that he killers
might be gay into the mix. But that also seemed like a possibility in
the actual case. And remember part of what enraged the killers was being
called "faggot" on a daily basis, accompanied by reguular physical
assualts from other boys (thrown up against the lockers, etc.)
Keep in mind also the times when we see the same scene again from a
different characters' perspective (I remember one hallway encounter in
partiuclar) and there are different facts -- a character persent in one
version is unseen in the other take of the same scene. This supports the
notion that the film is about the problems of understanding an event,
and how each person's perspective on it is different, undercutting any
single explanation.
Fred Camper
20996
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:11pm
Subject: Re: PS-Was:Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami, and Niels Bohr
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> What's the "other" 'Taste of Cherry'? The one without the video
coda?
> Does it end right before this section would begin in the released
> version?
>
> craig.
As I recall Locarno showed some kind of video sketch of the whole
thing w. K driving the car, but I'm fuzzy on that because I wasn't
able to get away to attend that year.
20997
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:23pm
Subject: Re: PS-Was:Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami, and Ni
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> As I recall Locarno showed some kind of video sketch of the whole
> thing w. K driving the car, but I'm fuzzy on that because I wasn't
> able to get away to attend that year.
This is different from "Ten on Ten"? -- or a precursor of that, perhaps?
MEK
20998
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
You left out Sidney's prophetic early shorts:
The Flying Pattisier, about a pastry-store owner who flies a single-
engine plane to remote desert regions in the Southwest, lightening
the hardscrabble existence of the peasants with blanc-mange.
and
Day of the Food Fight, a documentary in which an apprentice sous-chef
teams up with his twin brother and bedmate, a school janitor, to put
down a food fight at the cafeteria of the Brooklyn high school where
both are currently employed.
20999
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:34pm
Subject: Re: PS-Was:Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami, and Ni
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> > As I recall Locarno showed some kind of video sketch of the whole
> > thing w. K driving the car, but I'm fuzzy on that because I
wasn't
> > able to get away to attend that year.
>
> This is different from "Ten on Ten"? -- or a precursor of that,
perhaps?
>
> MEK
Haven't seen Ten on Ten. As I recall, this was a video version of
Taste of Cherry shot first w. K at the wheel - a Persian
Previsualization. But as I said, I didn't see it, and my memory could
be playing tricks on me.
21000
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:35pm
Subject: Re: The Duellists (Was: Kubrick by...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Geez, the tone of THE DUELLISTS just seems so different to me from
> Kubrick. The film is steeped in revery, which eventually makes
the lead
> character fall into a philosophical detachment from his own
actions. To
> me, it feels more like, I dunno, a becalmed Alan Rudolph, or maybe
a less
> stylized von Sternberg.
>
> But then, I *don't* like Scott generally - I'm not sure where THE
> DUELLISTS came from. - Dan
I completely agree with Dan. "Duellists" is a wonderful film that
bears little resemblance to anything else -- good, bad or in-
between -- that Scott did later -- just as it bore no resemblance to
any other film at the time. The Kubrick connection, if valid at all,
is more superficial than meaningful. Bill deprived himself of great
pleasure if he really refused to watch it -- he should try again
(there's a good DVD with very interesting comment by Scott). JPC
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact