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.


21101


From:   Tom Sutpen
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 8:05pm
Subject: Walking Down Broadway (was Re: More Last Films at the 'Theque)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:

> My impression is that he was actually the head of the low-budget
> division at that point.

*****
Sorry about that. I would have sworn Wurtzel was still running the
studio in '32. Well, that's what I get for writing stuff like this at
work. There's too high a risk of factual errors when I'm relying on
memory.

Tom Sutpen
21102


From: Damien Bona
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 8:17pm
Subject: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
Sad news for anyone who went to movies in New York in the 60s and
70s: The NY Post reports that two of the pre-eminent houses of that
era, the Beekman and Cinema One will close. The former is going to
be knocked down, the latter to be converted into retail space. I
think this leaves the Ziegfeld as the sole remaining one-screen house
in the City.

The story is at
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/37877.htm


For you former New Yorkers, you may or may not be aware that the
Upper East Side has become just about the least cool, least lively
part of town, a far cry from when it was singles haven, and when
the "Bloomingdale's Belt" was where all major movies seemed to open.
21103


From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 8:19pm
Subject: Re: Fleming's Red Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> Ford's remake, "Mogambo" is loads of fun, with Grace
> Kelly as Mary Astor, Ava Garnder as Jean Harlow, and
> Clark Gable as Clark Gable.

Thanks for reminding us. Gallagher and Bogdanovich consider it one of
Ford's best films.
21104


From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 8:21pm
Subject: Walking Down Broadway (was Re: More Last Films at the 'Theque)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> > My impression is that he was actually the head of the low-budget
> > division at that point.
>
> *****
> Sorry about that. I would have sworn Wurtzel was still running the
> studio in '32. Well, that's what I get for writing stuff like this
at
> work. There's too high a risk of factual errors when I'm relying on
> memory.
>
> Tom Sutpen

An occupational hazard of being employed. But I assume Wurtzel was
still the villain, no? Broadway looked to me like a low-budget film
when I saw it many moons ago.
21105


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:21pm
Subject: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
> 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

Because I have very little to do at the moment, I'll provide my list of
favorite films of the 00s, in chronological order: ESTHER KAHN
(Desplechin), FAT GIRL (Breillat), THE SON (Dardennes bros.), VERA DRAKE
(Leigh). - Dan
21106


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:29pm
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:

>
> Because I have very little to do at the moment, I'll
> provide my list of
> favorite films of the 00s, in chronological order:
> ESTHER KAHN
> (Desplechin), FAT GIRL (Breillat), THE SON
> (Dardennes bros.), VERA DRAKE
> (Leigh).


STAR SPANGLED TO DEATH -- Ken Jacobs
PAS SUR LA BOUCHE -- Alain Resnais
SON FRERE -- Patrice Chereau
LOONEY TUNES BACK IN ACTION -- Joe Dante



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
21107


From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:11pm
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
> I
> think this leaves the Ziegfeld as the sole remaining one-screen house
> in the City.

Isn't the Paris still open? ("We'll always have the Paris...") http://www.digitalcity.com/newyork/movies/venue.adp?sbid=106946382 Also, from a later era,

that underground theater at Broadway & 62nd and (while more of a repertory sort of place) the Pioneer Two Boots...
21108


From: Damien Bona
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:40pm
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:

>
> Isn't the Paris still open? ("We'll always have the Paris...")
>http://www.digitalcity.com/newyork/movies/venue.adp?sbid=106946382
>Also, from a later era, that underground theater at Broadway & 62nd
>and (while more of a repertory sort of place) the Pioneer Two
Boots...

Oh yes, how could I have forgotten the Paris? And the Broadway &
62nd -- as late 80s non-desript as it is -- is still funnctioning,
sometimes as a Spanish-language house.
21109


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:49pm
Subject: Walking Down Broadway (was Re: More Last Films at the 'Theque)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen"
wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > > My impression is that he was actually the head of the low-
budget
> > > division at that point.
> >
> > *****
> > Sorry about that. I would have sworn Wurtzel was still running
the
> > studio in '32. Well, that's what I get for writing stuff like
this
> at
> > work. There's too high a risk of factual errors when I'm relying
on
> > memory.
> >
> > Tom Sutpen
>
> An occupational hazard of being employed. But I assume Wurtzel was
> still the villain, no? Broadway looked to me like a low-budget
film
> when I saw it many moons ago.


it's a murky story indeed. Sheehan was in charge of A movies
production and he hired Stroheim for WDB but he then took a leave
during which apparently Stroheim was fired (in February 1932)then
later rehired when Sheehan came back. At one time in the interim the
trade press mentioned Alan Crossland as the new director. James Wong
Howe photographed Stroheim's version (including reportedly a scene
at Coney Island directed by Walsh)and Arthur Miller photographed the
retakes (which according to Variety cost $62,000 (against $300,000
for the original production, which was within budget).
21110


From:   Tom Sutpen
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:00pm
Subject: Walking Down Broadway (was Re: More Last Films at the 'Theque)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:

> But I assume Wurtzel was
> still the villain, no?

*****
Yes, Sol Wurtzel was the moving force behind the decimation of
"Walking Down Broadway and its transformation into "Hello Sister".
He'd developed a visceral hatred for Erich von Stroheim and "Walking
Down Broadway" after only one screening, and it was his idea to change
the picture absent a preview. He selected the writers for the
re-writes, the directors for the re-shoots; he supervised all
subsequent production. He was behind it all. No one at Fox, not even
Winfield Sheehan (who, to be fair, was pinned down by business
overseas when all this happened), tried to stop him.

> Broadway looked to me like a low-budget film
> when I saw it many moons ago.

*****
That was "Hello Sister" you saw; which had 'Programmer' virtually
tattooed on every frame that wasn't Stroheim's. Remember, Sol Wurtzel
didn't care if his studio's films looked as though they'd been made
for bus fare.

"Walking Down Broadway" was not intended to be a low-rent affair,
however. That I'm certain of. Sheehan wasn't eager to have a money pit
like "Foolish Wives" on his hands, true, but he was quite willing to
budget Stroheim's first film for the studio within reason. My
understanding is that Fox then spent something like $350,000 on
Stroheim's version alone (I could be wrong about that, but I'm sure
the exact number is something close to it); add to that the $1.50
Wurtzel allocated for the re-shoots and it's clear this was not a
typical budget for Programmers.

But the designation 'low-budget', within the context of Fox Pictures
in 1932, was somewhat meaningless. In 1931, around the time Sheehan
took the gamble of putting Stroheim under contract, Sol Wurtzel (who
at least was running the studio *that* year) had decreed an
across-the-board slashing of costs which resulted for awhile in very
little budgetary distinction between Fox's 'A' pictures and its
Programmers. They weren't spending a lot of money on anything,
consequently. I imagine if "Walking Down Broadway" had not been a
project shepherded through its early stages by the studio's Production
head, it might have fallen under more tightened circumstances than
those it enjoyed, if only for a time.

Tom Sutpen

21111


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:03pm
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"

> wrote:
>
> >
> > Isn't the Paris still open? ("We'll always have the Paris...")


The historic (and not too comfortable) Paris Theatre will
hopefully always be Paris. I remember when I was free-lancing for
the French Film Office in the eighties we set up a huge, several
months long retrospective of French films and the Paris was,
appropriately enough, one of the theatres involved. Saw countless
films there over the years.
21112


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- jpcoursodon wrote:


>
> The historic (and not too comfortable) Paris
> Theatre will
> hopefully always be Paris. I remember when I was
> free-lancing for
> the French Film Office in the eighties we set up a
> huge, several
> months long retrospective of French films and the
> Paris was,
> appropriately enough, one of the theatres involved.
> Saw countless
> films there over the years.
>
>
Among the films I saw at the Paris: "And God Created
Woman," "Zazie dans le Metro," "Private Porperty."



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
21113


From:
Date: Fri Jan 14, 2005 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
As Moses read the ten commandments on The Simpsons, in no particular order:

A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (Kubrick/Spielberg)
CAST AWAY (Zemeckis)
TIME OUT (Cantet)
MASKED AND ANONYMOUS (Cahrles)
PORN THEATRE (Nolot)
and yes, Dan...
ESTHER KAHN (Desplechin)

I thought THE FIVE SENSES (Podeswa) was from this decade but IMDb says 1999.
Were it 2000, it's be up there.

Kevin John
21114


From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 0:47am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
I in turn have way too much to do, so why not procrastinate for a another minute..

THE GOD OF DAY HAD GONE DOWN UPON HIM

ARBOR VITAE (Dorsky)

WHAT TIME IS IT THERE

BEAU TRAVAIL

THE GROUND (Robert Beavers)

LIGHT IS CALLING (Bill Morrison)

MILLENNIUM MAMBO


-Sam
21115


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 0:51am
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>>
> >
> Among the films I saw at the Paris: "And God Created
> Woman," "Zazie dans le Metro," "Private Porperty."
>
> I saw them all in Paris, not at the Paris, and "Private Property"
was one of my early reviews (I gave it a rave -- I had a crush on
Kate Manx; I still have a set of stills from the film and a huge
enlargement of Kate). I loved "Zazie" the first time around, and
disliked it the second, twenty years later. Should check it out
again. I hated "Et Dieu crea la femme" the first time around, and
the second, and the third. Won't try a fourth. JPC
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
> http://my.yahoo.com
21116


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:04am
Subject: Re: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- jpcoursodon wrote:

I loved "Zazie" the first time
> around, and
> disliked it the second, twenty years later. Should
> check it out
> again.

It was so stylistically influenced by William Klein
(whose camera lens were utilized) I'd count him as a
co-director. Noiret is amazing. And I love the
destruction orgy finale -- which looks forward to
"Daisies."

I hated "Et Dieu crea la femme" the first
> time around, and
> the second, and the third. Won't try a fourth.

J-P I'm surprised at you. Yes it's a rotten movie but
didn't you enjoy Brigitte's mambo?

And I certainly enjoyed a yound a dewy-fresh
Jean-Louis Trintignant - a mivie universe away from
his climactic "fuck you!" speech in "Those Who Love Me
Can Take the Train."



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21117


From: J. Mabe
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:15am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
eh, why not...

Beau Travail
Precarious Garden
Friday Night
Fl. Oz
Star Spangled to Death
Secret Lives of Dentists
The Visitation
25th Hour
Daylight Moon
Punch Drunk Love
Three Buisnessmen



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21118


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:42am
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
J-P I'm surprised at you. Yes it's a rotten movie but
> didn't you enjoy Brigitte's mambo?
>
> And I certainly enjoyed a yound a dewy-fresh
> Jean-Louis Trintignant - a mivie universe away from
> his climactic "fuck you!" speech in "Those Who Love Me
> Can Take the Train."
>
> But David you don't seem to have any idea how utterly stupid
and "old wave" this supposedly groundbreaking film was. To me when I
saw it when it was released it was EVERYTHING I hated in traditional
French cinema, and then what do you know, the Cahiers guys and
everybody started slobbering over this absolute piece of trash. As
though it was bright and NEW when it was just OLD WAVE trash.
Oh,don't get me started. JPC
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21119


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
--- samfilms2003 wrote:


>
> THE GROUND (Robert Beavers)
>

Tell meabout this one, Sam. I haven't seen any Beavers
in years-- and Beavers himself in Eons.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
21120


From:   Tom Sutpen
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:19am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van
 
My 10 Best of the 00s (so far; in alphabetical order):

"The Believer" (Henry Bean)
"Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" (George Clooney)
"Elephant" (Gus Van Sant)
"George Washington" (David Gordon Green)
"Masked and Anonymous" (Larry Charles)
"Mystic River" (Clint Eastwood)
"Punch Drunk Love" (Paul Thomas Anderson)
"Ten" (Abbas Kiarostami)
"Vakvagany" (Benjamin Meade, Andras Suranyi)
"Va Savoir" (Jacques Rivette)

Tom Sutpen
21121


From: Adam Hart
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:42am
Subject: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
 
I'm kind of surprised about this whole thread of discussion. To me,
it was pretty clear that the only reason Van Sant brought in the
issue of homosexuality was to illustrate how absurdly inadequate an
explanation it - whatever "it" equals - would be (the film is loaded
with other such "explanations", all of which it rejects - my
favorite being one of the boy's tendency to play Beethoven (!) on
the piano, a surer sign of movie villainy than any other). Van Sant
is not the only artist to postulate that no reasoning could explain
these sorts of massacres (see also Dennis Cooper's MY LOOSE THREAD
and Ben Coccio's ZERO DAY). It's a natural response to the media's
constant, simple-minded hounding of ridiculous scapegoats. Whether
or not you accept the lack of explanation or motivation is another
thing entirely.
Far more obnoxious to me were the three bulimic girls, mean-spirited
caricatures who stuck out like a sore thumb. And far more troubling,
in a more ambiguous sense, was the movie's one (?) black character,
who seemed to play directly into the stereotype that Spike Lee
calls "the magic nigger." A noble (mute) negro who sacrifices
himself trying to save the white kids. On the other hand, he was
afforded a dignity that no other character really had... but at what
price?
I'd be much more interested in hearing what people have to say about
him than about the shower scene.
21122


From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:51am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van
 
Top of the top In no particular order)

Distance (Hirokazu KORE'EDA, 2001)
Oh! Soo-jung ... aka Virgin Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors (HONG
Sang-soo, 2000)
Flandersui gae ...aka Barking Dogs Never Bite (Bong Joon-ho, 2000)
Goyangileul butaghae ...aka Take Care of My Cat (2001)
Shi mian mai fu ...aka House of Flying Daggers (ZHANG Yimou, 2004)
Zhantai ...aka Platform (JIA Zhang-ke, 2000)
Qianxi manbo ...aka Millennium Mambo (HOU Hsia Hsien, 2001)
L cha ...aka Green Tea (ZHANG Yuan, 2003)
Va savoir (Jacques Rivette, 2001)
Sharasojyu ...aka Shara (Naomi KAWASE, 2003)

Almost as good (divided by language)

Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi ...aka (Hayao MIYAZAKI, 2001)
Tasogare seibei ...aka (Yoji YAMADA, 2002)
Dare mo shiranai ...aka (Hirokazu KORE'EDA, 2004)
Dolls (Takeshi KITANO, 2002)
Eureka (Shinji AOYAMA, 2000)
Hebi ichigo ...aka (Miwa NISHIKAWA, 2003)
Tokyo Marigold (Jun ICHIKAWA, 2001)

Bakha satang ...aka Peppermint Candy (LEE Chang-dong, 2000)
Oasis (LEE Chang-dong, 2002)
Salinui chueok ...aka Memories of Murder (Bong Joon-ho, 2003)
Janghwa, Hongryeon ...aka A Tale of Two Sisters (KIM Ji-woon, 2003)
Bomnaleun ganda ...aka One Fine Spring Day (2001)
Saenghwalui balgyeon ... aka Turning Gate (HONG Sang-soo, 2002)
Yeojaneun namjaui miraeda ... aka Woman Is the Future of Man (HONG
Sang-soo, 2004)

Ten (Abbas Kiarostami, 2002)

Histoire de Marie et Julien ... aka The Story of Marie and Julien
(Jacques Rivette, 2003)

An extraordinary decade already -- who says cinema is dead!

MEK
21123


From: Adam Hart
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:58am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
> >
> > Because I have very little to do at the moment, I'll
> > provide my list of
> > favorite films of the 00s, in chronological order:


#1, far and away: Chris Marker's Remembrance of Things to Come

after that, any list I'd make would get very long very fast, but I'd
add one horribly overlooked film to the list, Claire Denis' Trouble
Every Day, which is every bit as great as Beau Travail, and suffers
less from Riefenstahlian associations in its photography.
21124


From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:03am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van
 
My list, for the whole decade:

1. Word and Utopia
2. I'm Going Home
3. Porto of My Childhood
4. Uncertainty Principle
5. A Talking Picture
6. The Fifth Empire
7. Manoel de Oliveira project 2006
8. Manoel de Oliveira project 2007
...you get the idea.
21125


From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:09am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van
 
Still a lot to come. And still a lot to catch up on -- I've not seen
half the films that the vast majority of a_f_b members tend to swoon over.

And I just know that I'll click send and have something else pop into
my mind as well.

"Crimson Gold" (d. Jafar Panahi, 2003)
"Fansom the Lizard" (d. Evan Mather, 2000)
"Gerry" (d. Gus Van Sant, 2002)
"Punch-Drunk Love" (d. Paul Thomas Anderson, 2002)
"Waking Life" (d. Richard Linklater, 2001)
21126


From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:32am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van
 
IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE
MULHOLLAND DR.
RUSSIAN ARK
TALK TO HER
BEFORE SUNSET
MEMENTO
25th HOUR
UNKNOWN PLEASURES
MY ARCHITECT
ATANARJUAT
THE PIANIST
THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS
YI YI
HUA YANG DE NIAN HUA (Wong Kar-Wai Compilation Reel)

--Kyle Westphal
21127


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:48am
Subject: Oh no! Not the lists again!
 
I've bitched about this before and I'm sorry if I do it again, but
is it really a purpose of this Group to have people endlessly
posting lists of favorite films? I have posted my share of silly,
not very meaningful messages here so I'm not pretending I have a
perfect record of seriousness or meaningfulness, but I expect
something else from a_film_by than Lists. And in the past couple of
days that's about all we've been getting.
21128


From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:16am
Subject: Re: Oh no! Not the lists again!
 
In this week's Village Voice Anthony Kaufman interviews a
producer who says that the Bush II administration will mark the
beginning of an era for a number of new and great young
American filmmakers, comparing it to the Reagan era. WHoin in
the last five years, the "00's", fits into this category? No one I can
think of.
Portuguese cinema is still thawing out from the Salazar
administration, and Spanish cinema from the Franco
administration, and that's going on 25 years... and only now are
either showing the great virtues of their art!
And please, let's not even compare.
So, anyway, I disagree the Bush era will produce greatness, at
least more than any another era.
But 80% of "00's" will belong to Bush; 100% of it already has.
How does this change filmmaking? How *has* it changed
filmmaking (aside from lousy documentaries on the subject)?
And do any of our lists reflect this?
This is a more interesting discussion, perhaps...

Also, because it's still early in 2005, I'd like to remind everyone of
something: we are here to change the world. WE ARE HERE TO
CHANGE THE WORLD. Everyone. Even *you* Tom Supten, as
"worthless" as everyone thinks you are.

Gabe

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> I've bitched about this before and I'm sorry if I do it again, but
> is it really a purpose of this Group to have people endlessly
> posting lists of favorite films? I have posted my share of silly,
> not very meaningful messages here so I'm not pretending I
have a
> perfect record of seriousness or meaningfulness, but I expect
> something else from a_film_by than Lists. And in the past
couple of
> days that's about all we've been getting.
21129


From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:19am
Subject: Re: Oh no! Not the lists again! - P.S.
 
P.S. That last part of my post was a joke... I can't do emoticons.

P.P.S I hope me and the 60 year-old French guy aren't the only
ones home on a Friday night....
21130


From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:30am
Subject: Re: Oh no! Not the lists again! - P.S.
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger" wrote:
>
> P.P.S I hope me and the 60 year-old French guy aren't the only
> ones home on a Friday night....

Don't worry, Gabe, you're not.

Though it's four o'clock on Saturday afternoon here, so I don't
actually know who I'm speaking for when I say that.
21131


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:22am
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>

> >
> Among the films I saw at the Paris: "And God Created
> Woman," "Zazie dans le Metro," "Private Porperty."

I've told this before, but it's cool so here it is again. I saw
Children of Paradise there - a matinee. The only other person in the
theatre was a beautiful woman. On the way out, as we both were
hailing cabs, she asked me if she could give me a lift to Grand
Central. (Back to Yale.) She turned out to be en route to the evening
performance of After the Fall, which she was starring in. Her name
was _____?
21132


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:24am
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> I hated "Et Dieu crea la femme" the first time around, and
> the second, and the third. Won't try a fourth. JPC

What kept you going back, JP?
21133


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:28am
Subject: Re: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Hart" wrote:
>
> I'd be much more interested in hearing what people have to say
about
> him than about the shower scene.

It's been said and said: He's Scatman Crothers in The Shining.

"Magic nigger" - that's funny! Go, Spike.
21134


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:30am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> An extraordinary decade already -- who says cinema is dead!
Three cheers! Michael, now I know how someone in Japan feels looking
at American critics' "best of the year" lists. Thank you.
21135


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:35am
Subject: Re: Oh no! Not the lists again!
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
WE ARE HERE TO CHANGE THE WORLD.
Well, we'd better go underground and start raising hell, because they
just took away whatever mechanisms existed for effecting change
legally.
21136


From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:41am
Subject: Re: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
On Saturday, January 15, 2005, at 01:22 AM, hotlove666 wrote:

> I've told this before, but it's cool so here it is again. I saw
> Children of Paradise there - a matinee. The only other person in the
> theatre was a beautiful woman. On the way out, as we both were
> hailing cabs, she asked me if she could give me a lift to Grand
> Central. (Back to Yale.) She turned out to be en route to the evening
> performance of After the Fall, which she was starring in. Her name
> was _____?

Ann Miller.

Just kidding. Barbara Loden.

craig.
21137


From:
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:54am
Subject: I WORSHIP lists!
 
I WORSHIP lists! I know lists are very boy but I still worship them. I learn
from them, I derive inspiration from them, and I'd even go so far as to say
that lists are (partly) responsible for any sort of career advancement I've had
so far. I will continue to post lists to this list (my 2004 will be coming up
soon) and I will STRONGLY encourage the posting of others' lists to this list.
Sorry, J-P. You'll either have to suck it up and delete the posts.

xo,

Kevin John
21138


From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:18am
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
Remembered another single auditorium left in New York -- the Tower
East on Third Avenue between 71st and 72nd (although these days it's
called the 72nd Street East). I assume it's still a single --
haven't been there since Far From Heaven two years ago. The theatre
was notable for having separate semi-balconies on each side of the
projection booth.

Bill, David, other Angelenos: What single auditoriums are left in
LA? The Bruin? The Village? Is the Vogue on Hollywood Boulevard
still operating?
21139


From:
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:38am
Subject: A sorta OT apology
 
If anyone has ever emailed me offlist and I've never responded, I'm sorry but
I JUST discovered that I have a spam folder. Many very unspamlike emails have
gone there I'm finding. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!

Kevin John
21140


From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:40am
Subject: Re: I hate lists! (was: I WORSHIP lists!)
 
I hate lists!

Each year Im asked to make one and I put many hours into it, often
days, and when its done, my list is like no other. And I do them not
because I want to, but because Im a nobody if my name isn't on the
list. And I don't want to be a nobody. And I get frustrated, because
why can't I see whats good about the other films everyone else has on
theirs?

And I read lists. Its an compulsion. I read lists by teens who put
every film they just seen on their top 10, and I read lists by people
who's opinion I value, and often their lists are almost the same. And
I despair, because I don't understand why its so and I can't see why
the films they think are great are.

I hate lists because they reduce cinema to ten titles. I hate lists,
because those who doesn't watch films use them to validate their
opinions. I hate lists because they suck up to famous people. I hate
lists because and because, but most of all, because they tell me what
I should think is good.

So once again, for the Xth year in a row, I have failed to understand
what a great film is. So once again, the countless hours I've invested
in cinema has been in vain, as the great films I saw, no one else
recognized. So once again, Im a failure, and once again, I am divided
between two definitions of cinema, where on the one hand, I am in awe
about its constant development, and on the other hand, become a little
more uptight, as I refuse to sell out.

Henrik



--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> I WORSHIP lists! I know lists are very boy but I still worship them.
I learn
> from them, I derive inspiration from them, and I'd even go so far as
to say
> that lists are (partly) responsible for any sort of career
advancement I've had
> so far. I will continue to post lists to this list (my 2004 will be
coming up
> soon) and I will STRONGLY encourage the posting of others' lists to
this list.
> Sorry, J-P. You'll either have to suck it up and delete the posts.
>
> xo,
>
> Kevin John
21141


From: jaketwilson
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 0:03pm
Subject: Re: More Last Films at the 'Theque
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:

> I guess it's true that HEAVEN CAN WAIT is more of a "last film"
than CLUNY
> BROWN, but I love CLUNY much more.

Me too. Was just thinking of this recently, after reading Ray Davis'
appreciation:

http://www.pseudopodium.org/ht-20041110.html

JTW
21142


From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:14pm
Subject: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:

> I WORSHIP lists! I know lists are very boy but I still worship them.

I'm an absolutely compulsive list-maker. On my desktop I have three
work-in-progress Word documents named "Exhaustive Listing" [every
movie I see, by year, with a rating out of four, in alphabetical
order], "Week in Review" [the movies I've seen in the past week, which
I publish to my website every Sunday night] and "Movie Tab 2005"
[every movie, without the rating, next to the date I saw it] and I
update them religiously. It serves no further purpose than my own anal
obsession with archiving everything.

Meanwhile, I think the best way to write a year end list is to avoid
the whole oppressive nature of the number ten something that the
vast majority of critics [probably because of their editors
admittedly] are unable to do. And also, break it up a little don't
limit yourself to ten, and don't limit yourself to movies; I must have
mentioned thirty or so films on my list for last year along with a
whole heap of articles, critics [a few a_film_by members, actually...]
and events [my first film festival experience, for example] that had
the most profound impact upon me as well.

And it's nice to think that I'm putting together my own little canon, too.
21143


From:
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:53am
Subject: Re: I hate lists! (was: I WORSHIP lists!)
 
In a message dated 05-01-15 06:40:41 EST, Henrik writes:

<< Each year Im asked to make one and I put many hours into it, often
days, and when its done, my list is like no other. ... And I get frustrated,
because
why can't I see what's good about the other films everyone else has on
theirs? >>

I have this same "problem". I keep trying to adjust my film tastes to make
them more mainstream, but they won't budge!
In recent years have made a strong effort to see as many subtitled films as
possible. Now, there are lots of subtitled films on my lists... but they are
different from other people's! While everyone else has "What Time Is It There?",
I have "Nowhere in Africa".
The same thing happens with independent film. I really try to watch - but end
up with "Songcatcher" or "Primer" or "All Over the Guy", while everyone else
has "Elephant" and "Lost in Translation".
And the less said about my problems with "Sideways", the better!
The long awaited "reunion des gouts" is stubbornly refusing to materialize.
I still enjoy reading everyone else's lists. There are tons of films on them
that I have never seen. Plenty of good viewing ahead!

Mike Grost
21144


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:55pm
Subject: 00's as Golden Age (Was: Oh no! Not the lists again!)
 
> In this week's Village Voice Anthony Kaufman interviews a producer who
> says that the Bush II administration will mark the beginning of an era
> for a number of new and great young American filmmakers, comparing it to
> the Reagan era. WHoin in the last five years, the "00's", fits into this
> category? No one I can think of.

Well, remember, a lot of the really good directors of this period won't be
visible to most of us for 5/10/20 years. When I look back at my favorite
old films, a lot of the filmmakers are relatively recent discoveries.

And, to me, the Reagan era still doesn't look like an amazing time for
film, though of course I was happy that the American independent scene
started taking up some of the slack when Hollywood became less
interesting. I couldn't help but think that the writers were being
influenced by nostalgia.

At the risk of making another list, I was high on the American debuts in
the 00s of Shane Carruth (PRIMER), Ben Coccio (ZERO DAY), and Henry Bean
(THE BELIEVER). - Dan
21145


From:
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:56am
Subject: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
In a message dated 05-01-15 08:15:20 EST, Matthew Clayfield writes:

<< And it's nice to think that I'm putting together my own little canon, too.
>>

Please don't keep this on your desk. Put it out on a web site, so the whole
wolrd can share it.

Mike Grost
List-reader in Michigan
21146


From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:11pm
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:

> Three cheers! Michael, now I know how someone in Japan feels looking
> at American critics' "best of the year" lists. Thank you.

To tell the truth, Japanese audiences see a lot more American films
than Americans see Japanese films.

In fact, _Japanese_ filmgoers probably see more American (and other
Western) films than they see Japanese ones.

Consequently, our critics' (reviewers'?) lists would be fairly
recognizable (if not entirely comprehensible) to movie-loving
Japanese. On the other hand, a list of best Japanese films of the
year would contain virtually nothing any American critic has ever
heard of.

I have nothing against Western cinema -- but I have a limited amount
of time (and money), so (with no malice aforethought) I choose to look
East. ;~}

MEK
21147


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- Damien Bona wrote:

.
>
> Bill, David, other Angelenos: What single
> auditoriums are left in
> LA? The Bruin? The Village? Is the Vogue on
> Hollywood Boulevard
> still operating?
>
The Vogue is gone, but the Showcase (formerly the
Gordon) on LaBrea is still operating.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21148


From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:43pm
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
> > THE GROUND (Robert Beavers)
> >
>
> Tell meabout this one, Sam. I haven't seen any Beavers
> in years-- and Beavers himself in Eons.

Here's my "review" from Frameworks:

The Ground. The ground from which, in myth we are formed, the ground on
which we toil, the ground to which we return. The ground, then, of labor
and of mortality.


Beavers doesn't hesitate to film the act of work, indeed he seems to
equate his own with manual labor, especially in this film. If in
Robert Bresson's sense of religiosity all is grace, in Robert Beavers'
sense of it all is vocation. Ordinary people in Beavers' films carry weight,
history. An example of this is in "Sotiros" where a blind man on a street
in Athens seems to stand in as a Homer-like archetype in a film built on
mythic terms of presence and absence.


I don't know what the specific religious chant is that the figure (the
filmmaker himself) is seemingly beating his chest in sympathetic rhythmic
inspiration from or to, but this ritualised pattern rhymes & interacts
with the stonecutter's work equating the labors of construction: film,
monument, - gravestone ?


The chest is a drum in which the heart beats, heart beat is the rhythm
of life, perhaps the source of our rhythms... the idea of chest cavity
is given form in "The Ground" by cuts from the man's chest to the cave,
from which the visual corollary of song - white birds - emerge; you can
read this as image of soul or spirit if you like, just as you can read
the boat sailing out to sea as an image of the immortal (note the
sarcophogus-like shape of the distant white temple that the boat, it's
sail filled with light and breath, sails past, sailing to a place beyond
the screen, beyond vision).


At the end of days, the stone will remain, made poigniant by its shaping
carving, construction: the WORK, of stonecutters, filmmakers: everyone
mortal, laboring, making our marks "hands outstreached to winged distances
and sightless measure."


Anyway, that's my take on it.


-Sam Wells
21149


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:54pm
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > I hated "Et Dieu crea la femme" the first time around, and
> > the second, and the third. Won't try a fourth. JPC
>
> What kept you going back, JP?


Not masochism and not BB. The second time was about 20 years
after the first, so I wanted to check whether I might have been
wrong. I wasn't not. The third time was on DVD about 5-6 years ago.
Watched about half of it then the phone rang. It was a friend in
Paris and we started talking about how we hated the film, while it
continued running with the sound off. So you might say I've only
seen it two and a half times. Which is quite enough indeed.
21150


From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:58pm
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van
 
Geez I've been pretty restrained. That was the first "list"
I've ever posted here, or maybe anywhere.

I've got to say I've probably seen 5% of the films of the Double-Ohz
mentioned by others here, that's why, you know, "Five" might not
be there, Jia Zhangkhe films (I'm waiting); if I turn out to like
"Tropical Malady" or "Blissfully Yours" as much as "Mysterious Object
at Noon" then -

I probably should have included "Elephant" speaking of.
And Jim Jennings "Elements" - 6 minutes, rainy day in
Chinatown NYC, B&W, perfect movie.

I just wanted to say "here's some standouts among recent work which
engaged / inspired me, and to bring also a few things from "AG/Exp"
cinema which I thought deserved mention.

-Sam Wells (neither Listomaniac nor Lisztomaniac)
21151


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:01pm
Subject: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> I WORSHIP lists! I know lists are very boy but I still worship
them. I learn
> from them, I derive inspiration from them, and I'd even go so far
as to say
> that lists are (partly) responsible for any sort of career
advancement I've had
> so far. I will continue to post lists to this list (my 2004 will
be coming up
> soon) and I will STRONGLY encourage the posting of others' lists
to this list.
> Sorry, J-P. You'll either have to suck it up and delete the posts.
>
> xo,
>
> Kevin John


To paraphrase Preston Sturges:

"Lists are my life."

- "What a life!"


(but I envy you Kevin. I wish I had been able to advance my career
by making lists.) JPC
21152


From:   Tom Sutpen
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:19pm
Subject: Lists Are Okay (I guess)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:

> I've bitched about this before and I'm sorry if I do it again, but
> is it really a purpose of this Group to have people endlessly
> posting lists of favorite films? I have posted my share of silly,
> not very meaningful messages here so I'm not pretending I have a
> perfect record of seriousness or meaningfulness, but I expect
> something else from a_film_by than Lists. And in the past couple of
> days that's about all we've been getting.

*****
My apologies, JP. That quick list I posted, plus the one in the files
section, are the only two I've drawn up in decades. I'm not the
biggest fan of that impulse, particularly when it takes the form of a
duty to cast numerical perspective *every friggin' year*, but I'd be a
base hypocrite if I said I was totally immune to its allure.

It's a temptation I'll try to withstand in the future.

Tom Sutpen
21153


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:33pm
Subject: Kawase (Was: Best filmmaking of the 00s)
 
> Sharasojyu ...aka Shara (Naomi KAWASE, 2003)

I'm a big fan of this film. Anyone know how it compares to her
previous features? - Dan
21154


From:   Tom Sutpen
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:27pm
Subject: Old Directors & The 'Cahiers' Mafia (was Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too)
 
Mathieu,

Sorry, but I completely forgot about this thread. I've tried keeping
this short as I could, but here's the balance of my response:

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "mathieu_ricordi"
wrote:

> 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).

*****
I don't have terrific access to world cinema where I am, either (half
the movies that get discussed here I'll probably never see; you know
what THAT feels like? Try sticking a sewing needle through your adam's
apple and you'll get a partial idea), so I don't shrug my shoulders to
that at all. Or the other matters. They're all important to me to one
degree or another. But I fail to understand what it is that makes
Directorial Passion so critical to the lifeblood of cinephilia.

The way I look at it, the universe of Cinema is, yes, maintained by
the participation of all of us with an interest in and a love for it.
But HOW we participate in it is up to us as individuals, according to
our abilities and desires. Some of us see everything, some of us
exhibit films, some of us write about them, some of us study the
history, some of us teach aging schoolkids about it. And then there
are those who actually make the films which generate all of this other
activity. Everyone does what they can and what they feel they must. To
me it's obscene to ask anything more of filmmakers, or to dictate what
attitude they should adopt when discussing (or not discussing) their
work. That filmmakers work and fight to practice their art and deliver
it to us is enough for me. They have no further duty than that. Our
enthusiasm and passion for Cinema ought to be enough to sustain the Art.

If it isn't, as I said, then Cinema really is in trouble and nothing
will save it.

(I don't think it is, though)

> 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.

*****
No, Mathieu. I'm saying we cinephiles are overstepping our bounds by
asking more of Directors than what they already provide us. If a
filmmaker like Rivette wants to sit with a journalist or a
stenographer and explain his approach to Cinema or the work of others
till he's blue in the breast, then that's great. And I'll be the first
one there to read what comes of it. But if other directors want to
dismiss their work, dismiss the interview, dismiss the audience,
contradict themselves, be perverse, be insulting, call the journailst
names, call their colleagues names, call us names, then unfortunate as
that behavior is to the cause of better understanding, they have a
right to engage in it which it is not our place to deny them. The only
one with a right to put a stop to that nonsense is the journalist
conducting the interview.

Also remember, the ways in which an artist chooses not to illuminate
their art can often be quite illuminating. So there is some value to
be had in even the most seemingly pointless exchange between a
filmmaker and a journalist.

> > 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.

*****
God knows I understand the impulse, but it's not one which is
conducive to good journalism.

>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.

*****
Again: I did NOT get irked at the Rivette interview. Crikey, what do I
have to say to make this any clearer?

And on this note, is it not possible to you that Godard may actually
believe what he says in his interviews AND what he evinces in his
work, contrary though they may seem? I mean, I certainly wouldn't want
to enter the kaleidoscopic mind of Jean-Luc Godard to sort through
what's a closely held belief and what's a mere pose, so I'm just going
to assume he really believes all of it and move on to less stormy
seas. There's so much going on in there that anyone analyzing his
thoughts is entitled to combat pay. After all, the man has said so
many contradictory things over the decades that its a wonder why
anyone bothers trying to figure out what he's really saying half the
time. I just accept this as a part of who he is as an individual and
an artist.

> 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 disingenuous. My father was actually
> in Paris at the time Godard was about to make "Breathless",
> and he would tell you that a lot of those filmmakers
> were damn lucky whereas others like himself tried in vain
> for a long time and never got anywhere.

*****
Well, this is an area I tried to study in detail a couple of years
ago, and unfortunately I couldn't get very far with what I was digging
for. Here's what we know: In the 1950s it was virtually impossible to
break into the French film industry, since it was entirely
corporatized by the state. In order to make a feature film you had to
either have your own money in place . . . though if your name was
Claude Chabrol, your wife's money could prove handy . . . or you had
to work your way up to directing through the most arduous
apprenticeship system anyone could imagine. In either event, the
destiny of one's career lay entirely at the whim of the 'Centre
National du Cinematographie', established in 1946 more or less to
memorialize the regimentation of French Cinema conducted under the
Petain regime earlier in the decade. By controlling the economics of
the business through state-subsidies, the CNC was able to determine
what films got made, who made them, even the unions which worked on a
given picture. No matter what level you wanted to start at, you could
only get into the business with the CNC's approval, and NOBODY started
at the top. Okay, as I said, this we know already. What I could NEVER
find the answer to . . . and I chased this down as best I could for
close to a year . . . is exactly how someone like Francois Truffaut,
who was not exactly a beloved figure in the French film industry of
1958, was able to get his ticket punched by the CNC, thereby clearing
the way for him to direct "Les Quatre Cents Coup". How did he
accomplish that? I still don't know. Though I can guarantee you it was
not on the basis of his personal charm.

What I'm getting at is that in the case of the 'Nouvelle Vague'
filmmakers (Chabrol excepted), I can't tell you whether it was luck
(which I don't believe in; not in the context of that Darwinian
business) or some form of low cunning, the details of which remain to
be discovered, that turned the trick in enabling them to get their
careers off the ground. All I know is that, despite what cinephiles
want to believe in their wildest dreams, the careers of Truffaut,
Godard and the others did not appear by magic . . . ZAP!! . . . as
though the Art Fairy materialized before them one day and bestowed
careers in filmmaking to each one for having shown their boundless
fealty to the Great God Cinema in their writings (ha!). Those careers
resulted literally from years of planning, scheming and enormous
self-publicity (psssst: what do you think the 'politique' was for, at
least in part?); phenomena which have little to do with actual
filmmaking. So aspiring directors in those days who didn't make it;
who didn't cut in the CNC line; who didn't spend five years making
spectacles of themselves; at least could say they played the game
honestly and by the rules.

Like all state-subsidized private industries (the Fascist paradigm if
it ever existed), French Cinema in those days was not without its
corruptions. But not everyone took advantage of it the way they did.
The filmmakers you're talking about, the ones whose names we will
never know, have nothing to be ashamed of.

> 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.

*****
I'll never denigrate the aspiring filmmaker. You're not going to hear
that from me. But I don't know of anything in what Godard has said, or
what any of the old timers said in their Autumnal interviews, no
matter how rancorous they got, that leads me to think they were
mocking the aspirations of neophyte film artists. Do you actually find
that sentiment somewhere in their words? I don't.

> 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?

*****
I don't know. Have you heard of anyone who did that? I haven't.

> In high school,
> the main credo is being able to rightly immitate what you
> are being tought.

*****
In high school the main credo is to find a way to avoid killing
yourself before your four year sentence is up. High school is a social
obstcle course, where you come in with no status and, if you're not
careful, find yourself holding onto what little you've got with more
ferocity than you thought you ever had. My limited experience on the
front lines of Film culture was distressingly similar.

> No worries
> about Spielberg's alleged life long "love affair" with
> Kubrick, I wouldn't have gone there, not on your life.

*****
I was stating this with respect to anyone who might be thinking of
retailing for us all the "long-term friendship" between the two
filmmakers which supposedly resulted in Spielberg's "inheriting" the
project; a story I'm simply too cynical to fully believe.

> > 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.

*****
No. Absolutely wrong. The last thing I am is tough. I'm just realistic
to the point of despair, that's all.

> > 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?

*****
I don't have any disrespect toward cinephiles. Everything I write is
informed by having been one most of my life. Where do you conceivably
see me being disrespectful? Irreverent, sure. Disrespectful, no.

> 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.

*****
Oh, now that is low. "Film hater" is one thing, but comparing me to
David Thomson? That's beyond the pale. I mean, he might know how to
sling sentences . . . not an unwelcome ability in any film writer . .
. but his insights are usually about an inch deep.

And I certainly don't believe caring about Cinema and maturity to be
opposing conditions; otherwise I'd be one the biggest babies in this
nursery. My point was that it would profit us to abandon some of these
notions we sometimes have about artists, even great ones like Ford.
They can qute often be abject failures as human beings irrespective of
their sometimes miraculous creations.

I don't believe this is something cinephiles grasped fully when
someone like Bogdanovich set out on his journey to memorialize the
fabrications of washed-up movie directors. A lot of people took those
interviews of his seriously (I know I did long ago), and thought they
were learning something in the process; something which illuminated
the inner-workings of American Cinema. Well, the only thing
illuminated by those talks was the persistence of these artists'
creative imagination. As a matter of fact, some of them were such
fugitives from success at that point that these interviews were the
only opportunity they had left to do what they'd been doing all their
adult lives: remake the universe in accordance with their own vision
of it. They were all using Bogdanovich in one way or another. I've
always wondered how much he realized it at the time.

I mean, I know he was a critic/essayist then, but didn't the man have
*any* dignity?

> 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 not talking about critics, I'm talking about journalists. Any
editor who sends a critic out to conduct an interview deserves what
they get.

> 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.

*****
It isn't a question of toughing it, Mathieu. It's about having the
skill to get answers out of an interview subject who doesn't want to
give them; or who you KNOW is handing you a line of self-serving jive.
Reporters know how to do this, for the most part. It's the marrow of
their vocation, and the best among them really can get blood out of a
stone. Film journalists, on the other hand, are too often so
reverential they're practically apologizing before they let an even
marginally probing question pass their lips. Respect for your subject
is one thing; journalistic fellatio is another. I'll tell you, I read
an interview about a week ago; a Q&A conducted by an individual who
may or may not be a member of this group . . . I'm not gonna tell you
who with; I'm not gonna tell you where I saw it; I'm not gonna tell
you who conducted it . . . and it was like watching two not terribly
alluring people engage in sexual intercourse. It was utterly repulsive
and, sorry, but that's not the kind of thing I want to read.

When I read an interview, I want to see real questions and real
answers; not two people make cow eyes at each other.

> 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.

*****
When did I equate the condition of Manhood with shedding off one's
love of Cinema (as if that were possible)? And who said Bogdanovich
isn't allowed to revere anything? I don't admire these directors . . .
and whether they were tough or not is beyond irrelevant to me . . .
for being blase about their work in front of interviewers; I admire
them for the work they're being blase about. It's true I've mostly
lost that sense of awe and Hero Worship towards directors and critics
I used to have when I was younger, and I think I'm better off for it
overall.

> 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.

*****
Got it off of television about 5 years ago, and I think I still have
it around. It's quite good overall; a little bit padded with clips,
but that's not a mortal sin. Orson Welles does the narration
('noblesse oblige', no doubt). I found it amusing to see how Peter
Bogdanovich, that maverick, felt compelled to include himself in the
same shots with interview subjects John Wayne, James Stewart and Henry
Fonda; I guess to prove he was really there or something, huh.

Who said cinephiles know no vanity?

Tom Sutpen
21155


From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:

"Bill, David, other Angelenos: What single auditoriums are left in
LA? The Bruin? The Village? Is the Vogue on Hollywood Boulevard
still operating?"

The Vogue still stands but it's not operating. The Egyptian is the
home of the American Cinematheque, and the the Aero ("showing movies
on the big screen since 1940") in Santa Monica is their West Side
home. The Nu-Art is still in business and so is the Royal. Westwood
is home to several single screens (including the Bruin.) There are
probably half a dozen other single screen theatres left in LA (though
none are in the San Frenando Valley and there's only one other on
Hollywood Blvd., the last of the second run cinemas here.)

Is the the Thalia SoHo still there?

Richard
21156


From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:55pm
Subject: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> > I WORSHIP lists! I know lists are very boy but I still worship
them.
>
> I'm an absolutely compulsive list-maker. On my desktop I have three
> work-in-progress Word documents named "Exhaustive Listing" [every
> movie I see, by year, with a rating out of four, in alphabetical
> order], "Week in Review" [the movies I've seen in the past week,
which
> I publish to my website every Sunday night] and "Movie Tab 2005"
> [every movie, without the rating, next to the date I saw it] and I
> update them religiously. It serves no further purpose than my own
anal
> obsession with archiving everything.

* * *
>
> And it's nice to think that I'm putting together my own little
canon, too.

I, too, keep lists primarily for my own edification, to help keep
track of what I've seen and my first impressions. If anyone else is
interrested in them I'm happy and if not that's fine, too.


Also, I think lists do serve a real purpose in terms of giving a
clear look into the sensibility of that particular listmaker. If
someone has a 10 Best Of All Time List that includes On The
Waterfront, The Godfather II and Network, then I'm know it's a pretty
good bet that I wouldn't be particularly interested in anything that
person has to say about films. But if someone had Kazan's The
Visitors, Coppola's Finian's Rainbow and Altered States, the film
Paddy Chayefsky hated so much that the blowhard took his name off of
it, then I can assume that person has some interesting things to say
and an intriguing take on matters.
21157


From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:58pm
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:

> Is the the Thalia SoHo still there?
>


The Thalia SoHo is long gone. The original Thalia on 95th Street,
after being closed for a couple years, was gutted and redesigned and
has been showing mainly revivals for a couple years now. It's not
the same without the old funky charm, however.
21158


From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:29pm
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and GodardTrashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
I adore lists...

My favorites of the 00s
Dogville
Eloge de L'amour
Mulholland Dr
A.I.
Yi Yi
What Time is it There?
The Royal Tenenbaums
Lovesong / Max (Brakhage)
Star Spangled to Death



----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Sallitt"
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and GodardTrashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:21:43 -0500 (EST)








> 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



Because I have very little to do at the moment, I'll provide my list of

favorite films of the 00s, in chronological order: ESTHER KAHN

(Desplechin), FAT GIRL (Breillat), THE SON (Dardennes bros.), VERA DRAKE

(Leigh). - Dan












Yahoo! Groups Links














--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
21159


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:43pm
Subject: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:


>
>
> Also, I think lists do serve a real purpose in terms of giving a
> clear look into the sensibility of that particular listmaker. If
> someone has a 10 Best Of All Time List that includes On The
> Waterfront, The Godfather II and Network, then I'm know it's a
pretty
> good bet that I wouldn't be particularly interested in anything
that
> person has to say about films. But if someone had Kazan's The
> Visitors, Coppola's Finian's Rainbow and Altered States, the film
> Paddy Chayefsky hated so much that the blowhard took his name off
of
> it, then I can assume that person has some interesting things to
say
> and an intriguing take on matters.


Putting "Finian's Rainbow" on a "10 best of All Time" List would
be intriguing indeed but it would make me doubt the list-maker's
sanity rather than want to familiarize myself with his critical
thought. (If you were quoting your own list, I apologize). It's part
of the cinephilic ethos to revere the most unlikely artifacts so
such choices shouldn't be too surprising, but neither should they be
taken too seriously.
21160


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
--- Damien Bona wrote:

But if someone had
> Kazan's The
> Visitors, Coppola's Finian's Rainbow and Altered
> States, the film
> Paddy Chayefsky hated so much that the blowhard took
> his name off of
> it, then I can assume that person has some
> interesting things to say
> and an intriguing take on matters.
>


Well the Kazan is of interest in that it's James
Woods' and Steve Railsback's debut -- and that it
takes a decidedly pro-war stance to Vietnam, as it's
in favor of murder.

"Finian's Rainbow" is most interesting in terms of
Coppola's later developments -- chiefly "One From the
Heart." And, like Glenn Gould, I love Pet Clark.

"Altered States" -- Ken Russell's remake of "Monster
on the Campus" -- annoyed Chayevsky in that the film
made it quite obvious that his paranoid fantasies were
a direct result of the hyrotherapy treatments
developed in the hope of controlling them (see Oscar
Levant in Minnelli's "The Cobweb") It also features a
great score by the brilliant and babe-a-licious John
Corigliano.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
21161


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:31pm
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:

> Ann Miller.
>
> Just kidding. Barbara Loden.

Sigh. And I went back to Yale. PUTZ!
21162


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:32pm
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Damien Bona wrote:
>
> .
> >
> > Bill, David, other Angelenos: What single
> > auditoriums are left in
> > LA? The Bruin? The Village? Is the Vogue on
> > Hollywood Boulevard
> > still operating?
> >
> The Vogue is gone, but the Showcase (formerly the
> Gordon) on LaBrea is still operating.

We have tons of singles, many high-end. An old one just reopened in
fact: The Aero is now an alternative venue for the Cinematheque.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21163


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:36pm
Subject: Re: Lists Are Okay (I guess)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> It's a temptation I'll try to withstand in the future.
>
> Tom Sutpen

Anything that promotes discussuion of current work in this group I'm
for - current or past work, actually. I'm very eager to hear what
people think about films.
21164


From: Peter Henne
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:37pm
Subject: Re: Old Directors & The 'Cahiers' Mafia (was Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too)
 
This strikes me as an oversimplification. Artists go through a process of exploration. When abstract painters such as Kazimir Malevich and Richard Diebenkorn

returned to figurative painting, it was not simply the case that they jettisoned all their old values. They brought their own sensibility to realistic

subjects. Artists also question themselves--Kenneth Noland has spent his whole career doing that, and it's led him to trying many new formats and allowing

gestural brushwork after decades of doing everything hard-edged. But I can see a line of development in Noland's career; he has not simply become a

contradictory mess. For me, the same is true of Godard. When a voice (I believe it is a voice-over) in "Helas Pour Moi" quotes Brialy's line in "A Woman Is a

Woman," "I can't tell if it's a comedy or a tragedy, but either way, it's a masterpiece," and then mourns that he wishes he could tell the difference, Godard

is shooting a question at himself. If anything, Godard moves on to
stormier seas, not calmer ones. Critical self-examination allows an artist (or anyone) to grow. And many great artists have seemingly changed horses in

mid-career, not only moderns.

How do you accept an artist without bothering trying to figure out what that individual says? I'm not sure what you mean here.

Peter Henne


Tom Sutpen wrote:

And on this note, is it not possible to you that Godard may actually
believe what he says in his interviews AND what he evinces in his
work, contrary though they may seem? I mean, I certainly wouldn't want
to enter the kaleidoscopic mind of Jean-Luc Godard to sort through
what's a closely held belief and what's a mere pose, so I'm just going
to assume he really believes all of it and move on to less stormy
seas. There's so much going on in there that anyone analyzing his
thoughts is entitled to combat pay. After all, the man has said so
many contradictory things over the decades that its a wonder why
anyone bothers trying to figure out what he's really saying half the
time. I just accept this as a part of who he is as an individual and
an artist.

Tom Sutpen





---------------------------------
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!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21165


From: Peter Henne
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:38pm
Subject: Re: Old Directors & The 'Cahiers' Mafia (was Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too)
 
This strikes me as an oversimplification. Artists go through a process of exploration. When abstract painters such as Kazimir Malevich and Richard Diebenkorn

returned to figurative painting, it was not simply the case that they jettisoned all their old values. They brought their own sensibility to realistic

subjects. Artists also question themselves--Kenneth Noland has spent his whole career doing that, and it's led him to trying many new formats and allowing

gestural brushwork after decades of doing everything hard-edged. But I can see a line of development in Noland's career; he has not simply become a

contradictory mess. For me, the same is true of Godard. When a voice (I believe it is a voice-over) in "Helas Pour Moi" quotes Brialy's line in "A Woman Is a

Woman," "I can't tell if it's a comedy or a tragedy, but either way, it's a masterpiece," and then mourns that he wishes he could tell the difference, Godard

is shooting a question at himself. If anything, Godard moves on to
stormier seas, not calmer ones. Critical self-examination allows an artist (or anyone) to grow. And many great artists have seemingly changed horses in

mid-career, not only moderns.

How do you accept an artist without bothering trying to figure out what that individual says? I'm not sure what you mean here.

Peter Henne


Tom Sutpen wrote:

And on this note, is it not possible to you that Godard may actually
believe what he says in his interviews AND what he evinces in his
work, contrary though they may seem? I mean, I certainly wouldn't want
to enter the kaleidoscopic mind of Jean-Luc Godard to sort through
what's a closely held belief and what's a mere pose, so I'm just going
to assume he really believes all of it and move on to less stormy
seas. There's so much going on in there that anyone analyzing his
thoughts is entitled to combat pay. After all, the man has said so
many contradictory things over the decades that its a wonder why
anyone bothers trying to figure out what he's really saying half the
time. I just accept this as a part of who he is as an individual and
an artist.

Tom Sutpen





---------------------------------
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!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21166


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:47pm
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
There are
> probably half a dozen other single screen theatres left in LA
(though
> none are in the San Frenando Valley and there's only one other on
> Hollywood Blvd., the last of the second run cinemas here.)

There's also the El Capitan (formerly the Paramount) on H'wd,
Richard - refurbished by Disney as their showcase, w. occasional live
shows before the feature. And there are some lovely old palaces
downtown, in Glendale, etc., that are still first-run, where a series
called The Last Remaining Seats screens classics periodically.
21167


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:50pm
Subject: Re: 00's as Golden Age (Was: Oh no! Not the lists again!)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:

the Reagan era still doesn't look like an amazing time for
> film

Speaking objectively, the 80s sucked, w. the exception of 1980, when
it was still the 70s.
21168


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:53pm
Subject: Re: More Last Films at the 'Theque
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jaketwilson"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> > I guess it's true that HEAVEN CAN WAIT is more of a "last film"
> than CLUNY
> > BROWN, but I love CLUNY much more.
>
> Me too.

CLUNY is a last film that expresses the desire that there never be a
last film - no end to work, pleasure, babies (the last shot).
21169


From: Aaron Graham
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:57pm
Subject: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
I think every young cinephile in this computer age makes similar
lists. It's entertaining, edifying and enlightening to see what
you've watched in...say, May 2002. I don't think I'm as compulsive as
some of the members here, but I confess to maintaining notebooks full
of impressions on the films I've seen since around the age of
fifteen. Call it a case of Hero-Worship, but I started this soon
after reading Bogdanovich did a similar thing with index cards.

The only annoying aspect about young cinephiles keeping track of all
the films they see in blogs (and i'm not talking about anyone on this
list!) is that sometimes they equate seeing A LOT with understanding
a lot.

I don't much care for end-of-the-year lists (but I made one anyway!)
simply for the fact that it can become a bit tiresome seeing the same
titles over and over again. I'd much rather see a courageous top ten
list that doesn't offer up any of the usual suspects.

-Aaron
21170


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:00pm
Subject: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:

>
>
> Well the Kazan is of interest in that it's James
> Woods' and Steve Railsback's debut -- and that it
> takes a decidedly pro-war stance to Vietnam, as it's
> in favor of murder.

I rewatched The Visitors recently, and it's pretty good. Daney's all-
out attack on it was tendentious - the girl's father is such a
caricature of the American right that he could almost be in a film
made today, when the caricatures have all come true.
>
> "Finian's Rainbow" is most interesting in terms of
> Coppola's later developments -- chiefly "One From the
> Heart." And, like Glenn Gould, I love Pet Clark.

A friend of mine found a print of it w. Coppola's original score.
Don't think Paramount is doing much w. it - typically.
>
> "Altered States" -- Ken Russell's remake of "Monster
> on the Campus" -- annoyed Chayevsky in that the film
> made it quite obvious that his paranoid fantasies were
> a direct result of the hyrotherapy treatments
> developed in the hope of controlling > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! -
Try it today!

Fascinating. I remember enjoying the film it more than Network. But
then, I prefer horror films to whatever you call that other genre. As
I recall, The Hospital wasn't bad, either. I saw Gideon on B'way and
of course thought it was terrific (at 18). I doubt if I would today!
21171


From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:02pm
Subject: Re: Old Directors & The 'Cahiers' Mafia (was Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too)
 
Tom,

basically what I'm going to do is try to keep this
as short and basic as possible (perhaps unfairly considering
the effort you seem to have put in to your continued responces).
I can quickly see this as becoming the neverending thread,
with little intricacies we will never fully satisfy for the
other. I do think our age difference may account for some of
our different perspectives (I'm 23, you don't have to share
your age but I gather from what you've said that you're quite
a bit older) but I don't usually like to lean on such information
for finding middle grounds in film debates and I'm not going to start
now. We've also been slightly hampered along the way by some
misundersandings of where we thought the other was coming from (I
originally wrongly assumed that you were distressed by the Rivette
article, you wrongly assumed that I though a director had to be
media friendly as part of his job), but again, these aren't factors
to lean on. All in all, I think we'll have plenty more
ferocious arguments on this forum (judging by your favourite of
the 00's list our cinematic tastes will no doubt clash more
than once), and there's no need to run out of steam on one
topic alone. That being said, entertaining these multiple points
with you has been fun, and disagreeing is not always a sign of disrespect,
it can also be an engaging venture.

Quoting Tom Sutpen :

Our enthusiasm and passion for Cinema ought to be enough to sustain the Art.
>If it isn't, as I said, then Cinema really is in trouble and nothing
>
> will save it.
>
(I don't think it is, though)


I sort of think it is in trouble, but not hopeless by any means.
Maybe I'm soured by where I live (Vancouver) and seeing the so-called
'film culture' and 'film industry' here, but from what I have generally
witnessed people don't care that they are being shovelled into
multi-plexes like fodder, and aspiring filmmakers don't have many
ideas except to replecate the dumbing latest techniques. That being
said, I'm extremely hopeful that this pessimism stems from my
current surroundings, and that out there exist the true life-lines
for cinema. That being said, my pessimism has also nothing to do
with what films are actually being made, like we've already related,
we don't seem to have access to many films where we come from, but
some of the marvelous films that I do see bring all the hope I need.




> God knows I understand the impulse, but it's not one which is
>
> conducive to good journalism.


I agree with you there, and also with your earlier assesment
that Godard and his 'cahiers' collegues were often too passionate
for their own good as critics, but remember it's an impulse
not every critic has (and for the most part a basic cinema love
is what a lot of modern critics are lacking). As Rivette says
in the interview "what a meddler I am" ,
but I always look for the full package in a critic and cinephile.

> *****
>
> Again: I did NOT get irked at the Rivette interview. Crikey, what do I
>
> have to say to make this any clearer?


Got you, as I said, we'd been exchanging misunderstandings,
a common practice in cyber space.



> Well, this is an area I tried to study in detail a couple of years
>
> ago, and unfortunately I couldn't get very far with what I was digging
>
> for. Here's what we know: In the 1950s it was virtually impossible to
>
> break into the French film industry, since it was entirely
>
> corporatized by the state. In order to make a feature film you had to
>
> either have your own money in place . . . though if your name was
>
> Claude Chabrol, your wife's money could prove handy . . . or you had
>
> to work your way up to directing through the most arduous
>
> apprenticeship system anyone could imagine. In either event, the
>
> destiny of one's career lay entirely at the whim of the 'Centre
>
> National du Cinematographie', established in 1946 more or less to
>
> memorialize the regimentation of French Cinema conducted under the
>
> Petain regime earlier in the decade. By controlling the economics of
>
> the business through state-subsidies, the CNC was able to determine
>
> what films got made, who made them, even the unions which worked on a
>
> given picture. No matter what level you wanted to start at, you could
>
> only get into the business with the CNC's approval, and NOBODY started
>
> at the top. Okay, as I said, this we know already. What I could NEVER
>
> find the answer to . . . and I chased this down as best I could for
>
> close to a year . . . is exactly how someone like Francois Truffaut,
>
> who was not exactly a beloved figure in the French film industry of
>
> 1958, was able to get his ticket punched by the CNC, thereby clearing
>
> the way for him to direct "Les Quatre Cents Coup". How did he
>
> accomplish that? I still don't know. Though I can guarantee you it was
>
> not on the basis of his personal charm.
>
>
>
> What I'm getting at is that in the case of the 'Nouvelle Vague'
>
> filmmakers (Chabrol excepted), I can't tell you whether it was luck
>
> (which I don't believe in; not in the context of that Darwinian
>
> business) or some form of low cunning, the details of which remain to
>
> be discovered, that turned the trick in enabling them to get their
>
> careers off the ground. All I know is that, despite what cinephiles
>
> want to believe in their wildest dreams, the careers of Truffaut,
>
> Godard and the others did not appear by magic . . . ZAP!! . . . as
>
> though the Art Fairy materialized before them one day and bestowed
>
> careers in filmmaking to each one for having shown their boundless
>
> fealty to the Great God Cinema in their writings (ha!). Those careers
>
> resulted literally from years of planning, scheming and enormous
>
> self-publicity (psssst: what do you think the 'politique' was for, at
>
> least in part?); phenomena which have little to do with actual
>
> filmmaking. So aspiring directors in those days who didn't make it;
>
> who didn't cut in the CNC line; who didn't spend five years making
>
> spectacles of themselves; at least could say they played the game
>
> honestly and by the rules.
>
>
>
> Like all state-subsidized private industries (the Fascist paradigm if
>
> it ever existed), French Cinema in those days was not without its
>
> corruptions. But not everyone took advantage of it the way they did.
>
> The filmmakers you're talking about, the ones whose names we will
>
> never know, have nothing to be ashamed of.
>
>
>
> > 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.


This is all very interesting, but though I have not researched the
subject as extensively as you, my own findings have told me that
is wastn't just Chabrol that had money at his disposal through
marraige or family ties. I've heard and read that many of them,
Godard and Truffaut included, had a good deal of money that enabled
them not only to get there first films off the ground, but to sustain
their period of 'planning and scheeming' as you call it. But I do
beleive in luck a great deal, even though I hope my own destiny will
be determined by my work and abilities. The socio-economic factor in many
careers is often overlooked because the artists were seen as
'determined', and 'agressive', yes this is all true, but often
these men are able to be so in a context that favours their efforts
over others due to financial reasons. So, this is just something to
keep in mind when I talk of an artist as being privileged (also remembering
that we are all also previleged for their works and that is all indeed
they owe us for their own blessings).

>
> In high school the main credo is to find a way to avoid killing
>
> yourself before your four year sentence is up. High school is a social
>
> obstcle course, where you come in with no status and, if you're not
>
> careful, find yourself holding onto what little you've got with more
>
> ferocity than you thought you ever had. My limited experience on the
>
> front lines of Film culture was distressingly similar.

Well my own time in high school was wonderful and I miss it
terribly, but there is little doubt that vocation is not as
prominent in such an institution as cultural assimilation.
I'm often angry that film culture is under similair conditions,
but there does seem to be more of a resistence.

>
> I was stating this with respect to anyone who might be thinking of
>
> retailing for us all the "long-term friendship" between the two
>
> filmmakers which supposedly resulted in Spielberg's "inheriting" the
>
> project; a story I'm simply too cynical to fully believe.


Full agreeance on my part, nothing more to add.


> No. Absolutely wrong. The last thing I am is tough. I'm just realistic
>
> to the point of despair, that's all.

I was simply being sarcastic in relation to your seeming desire
to explain how cool you were in relation to all that we were
discussing. I may have mistook your realistic approach
to the miseries on display for infeeling stiffness, but
my misunderstanding still stood for my belief in what we all
can give as film enthusiasts (and as film critics and aspiring
filmmakers which I am both).

> *****
>
> Oh, now that is low. "Film hater" is one thing, but comparing me to
>
> David Thomson? That's beyond the pale. I mean, he might know how to
>
> sling sentences . . . not an unwelcome ability in any film writer . .
>
> . but his insights are usually about an inch deep.


Right you are, calling someone a David Thompson is just about
as low as you can go (although a Richard Roeper isn't far behind).
I apologize for the mud-sling, but I'm glad I made it because
I'm always happy to find someone who finds him as useless as I do.
Sometimes, extreme suggestions can bring forth welcome clarity.

*****
>
> It isn't a question of toughing it, Mathieu. It's about having the
>
> skill to get answers out of an interview subject who doesn't want to
>
> give them; or who you KNOW is handing you a line of self-serving jive.
>
> Reporters know how to do this, for the most part. It's the marrow of
>
> their vocation, and the best among them really can get blood out of a
>
> stone. Film journalists, on the other hand, are too often so
>
> reverential they're practically apologizing before they let an even
>
> marginally probing question pass their lips. Respect for your subject
>
> is one thing; journalistic fellatio is another. I'll tell you, I read
>
> an interview about a week ago; a Q&A conducted by an individual who
>
> may or may not be a member of this group . . . I'm not gonna tell you
>
> who with; I'm not gonna tell you where I saw it; I'm not gonna tell
>
> you who conducted it . . . and it was like watching two not terribly
>
> alluring people engage in sexual intercourse. It was utterly repulsive
>
> and, sorry, but that's not the kind of thing I want to read.
>
>
>
> When I read an interview, I want to see real questions and real
>
> answers; not two people make cow eyes at each other.

Exactly, real answers, not some glowing cover, or shallow cover-up.
Like I have said from the beginning, an artist doesn't owe an interview
to anyone, but if he goes ahead to grant one, it should be to offer
us perspective, not for him to indulge in a useless game of masks.
I don't seek out directors' interviews like I do their films (not
by any stretch), but if I happen to fall on one I take it seriously
as a document that attests to their own arguments and experiences,
and I shouldn't be chastized for hoping so.

Mathieu Ricordi
21172


From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:02pm
Subject: Re: Kawase (Was: Best filmmaking of the 00s)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sallitt" wrote:
>
> > Sharasojyu ...aka Shara (Naomi KAWASE, 2003)
>
> I'm a big fan of this film. Anyone know how it compares to her
> previous features?

She only has made two other feature films. Her first, "Suzaku no moe"
(Suzaku) is available on video from France (from Films du paradoxe --
with French subs) and was once available on VCD from Hong Kong (big
Chinese subs, little English ones underneath). I have the rather
low-fi VCD. A very atmospheric, low-key story of life in a remote
village that is dying, due to the fact that there are no viable jobs
to hold people there. Generally well-done, with one narrative
oversight that was caught too late to fix (according to her, no money
or time).

Her other major feature film ("Hotaru") has never really been shown --
it seems to have gotten tied up due to her divorce from her former
producer/former husband -- and the bankruptcy of the company he ran
(Suncent).

For those list members in California, she will be in L.A. and Irvine
for the showing of some of her films, including "Suzaku" and a number
of her documentaries:

http://www.calarts.edu/redcat/season/20042005/fv/kawase.html
http://www.humanities.uci.edu/fvc/schedW05_kawasenaomi.html

I'm jealous -- no hint that she (or her films) will be reaching the
East Coast anytime soon.

MEK
21173


From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:19pm
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

"There's also the El Capitan (formerly the Paramount) on H'wd,..."

I forgot about the El Capitan (probably because I paid $19.00 to see
a special screening of REAR WINDOW there; I wouldn't spend that on
their usual fare though.) The theatre in Glendale is the Alex, and
the Alex Film Society is run by some ADs and DPs that my gaffer
friend knows. They only have monthly screenings. And the New
Beverly somehow goes on.

Richard
21174


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
--- hotlove666 wrote:


>
> Fascinating. I remember enjoying the film it more
> than Network. But
> then, I prefer horror films to whatever you call
> that other genre. As
> I recall, The Hospital wasn't bad, either. I saw
> Gideon on B'way and
> of course thought it was terrific (at 18). I doubt
> if I would today!
>

The late, great Dorothy Dean -- who gave me the skinny
on Chayevsky and his hydrotherapy -- loved "The
Hospital." It's a far more pointed bit of satire than
"Network." But "Network" has all that hysteria going
for it. Hard to pull off in many ways, and Faye surely
deserved her Oscar. The slightest suggestion of
rationality on her part and the whole show would have
collapsed. Loved Finch too, but it was "Consolation
Oscar" for his REAL Best Performance, "Sunday Bloody
Sunday." Such a miracle that that film was made at
all. It's STILL ahead of its time. Props to wes
Anderson for making films about adults, but he does so
as an "outsider." Bill Murray brings gravitas to what
would be a compendium of quirks. it will take a while
for Anderson to make a film about middle-age sans
rueful regret -- which is what "Sunday Bloody Sunday"
is all about. Both Finch and Jackson are alone at the
end of the film -- and the're not unhappy. In
Hollywood terms, that's a "Thought Crime" that's not
to be forgiven.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
21175


From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:10pm
Subject: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
wrote:
>
> ...and i'm not talking about anyone on this
> list!

As a blogger, I'd hope not!
21176


From: Aaron Graham
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:22pm
Subject: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
Loved Finch too, but it was "Consolation
> Oscar" for his REAL Best Performance, "Sunday Bloody
> Sunday." Such a miracle that that film was made at
> all. It's STILL ahead of its time. Props to wes
> Anderson for making films about adults, but he does so
> as an "outsider." Bill Murray brings gravitas to what
> would be a compendium of quirks. it will take a while
> for Anderson to make a film about middle-age sans
> rueful regret -- which is what "Sunday Bloody Sunday"
> is all about. Both Finch and Jackson are alone at the
> end of the film -- and the're not unhappy. In
> Hollywood terms, that's a "Thought Crime" that's not
> to be forgiven.

It's been years since I've seen "Sunday Bloody Sunday" but remember
vividly thinking that Finch's performance in it trumped his work
in "Network".

Thank you for reminding me how wonderful it is. You've prompted me to
revisit it very soon.

-Aaron
21177


From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:22pm
Subject: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> But "Network" has all that hysteria going
> for it. Hard to pull off in many ways, and Faye surely
> deserved her Oscar. The slightest suggestion of
> rationality on her part and the whole show would have
> collapsed. Loved Finch too, but it was "Consolation
> Oscar" for his REAL Best Performance, "Sunday Bloody
> Sunday." Such a miracle that that film was made at
> all. It's STILL ahead of its time.

So's "Network" in some ways. I watched it again just recently and was
completely blown away by just how relevant it still is -- if not
moreso today than when it was made. Its jaded and comical prophecies
have slowly come, or are coming, true.

Personally, though I adore Dunaway's peformance in the film, for some
reason the picture as a whole has never really sat all that well with
me. I like it a lot, but there's a lot that leaves me cold to it as well.
21178


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: I WORSHIP lists!
 
--- Aaron Graham wrote:


>
> Thank you for reminding me how wonderful it is.
> You've prompted me to
> revisit it very soon.
>


You're welcome. And it's now required viewing as
"Soave Sia Il Vento" has become the opera cut du jour
in movie after movie.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
21179


From: Saul Symonds
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:44pm
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> > I saw them all in Paris, not at the Paris, and "Private Property"
> was one of my early reviews (I gave it a rave -- I had a crush on
> Kate Manx; I still have a set of stills from the film and a huge
> enlargement of Kate).

Kate Manx is attractive - but I haven't seen "Private Property", as it
doesn't seem to be the easiest film to find a copy of.......(I'm still
trying to find a copy of "Ciao, Federico!"....) Film actresses from
the 60's and back to the silent age have a certain 'beauty' or
'sexuality' - or perhaps it's more a kind of dreamy quality - that
isn't found at all today, or only very rarely. I used to love, and
still do, the "pin-ups of the past" section of "Films and Filming"
magazine. I have a book that has some nice headshots of actors and
actresses, and always loved a picture of Lillian Gish, just softly
staring out at the reader. It was always when the actresses tried too
hard to be saucy, that they lost of a lot of their appeal.
21180


From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:55pm
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
Quoting Dan Sallitt :

> Because I have very little to do at the moment, I'll provide my list of
>
> favorite films of the 00s, in chronological order: ESTHER KAHN
>
> (Desplechin), FAT GIRL (Breillat), THE SON (Dardennes bros.), VERA DRAKE
>
> (Leigh). - Dan



For the record, I think lists are tremendously important,
and I don't seek them out from critics and cinephiles as mere
pleasurable side distractions. We can discuss film theory endlessly
and apply it to our own personal viewpoints as a way to sort
through personal viewing experiences of any given work, as well as
to debate the merit of those works. But sooner or later,
shouldn't we step to the plate and put all of our verbal rhetoric, and
cinematic feelings/insights to the service of backing,defending,promoting
those films we'd like to claim as the 'best of' (the year, the decade,
the century', granted each task becomes increasingly difficult
and falls more prey to the 'apples and oranges' credo). As well,
lists can often be highly expository and insightful concerning
critics and cinephiles (by which I mean that some seemingly idiosyncratic
and forward thinking film theorists can often fall back on/lean on
the old or knew film canons when putting forth their personal lists).
Finally, lists are not trivial, but healthy and progressive; they
offer a summation of a person's intelectual and emotional investment
as well as offering a superb introduction to/reconsideration of
many films and directors.

For my own personal faves of the OO's, I've been thinking
about how many to list (some of you offered a 'top 10', some
a 'top 5', some even a 'top 4'). I finally decided on
a top 5, because, after all, we are only half way there.

1) Werckmeister Harmonies (Bela Tarr)
2) The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson)
3) I'm Going Home (Manoel de Oliveira)
4) The House Of Mirth (Terence Davies)
5) The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissue (Wes Anderson)

Usually I would never double-up on directors (so forgive me
for indulging here), but hey, at this point in the decade
this is all very unofficial.

A side note: since I noticed some of you included it:
can one really consider "Ten" , 'best filmmaking'?

Mathieu Ricordi
21181


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 0:03am
Subject: Re: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- Saul Symonds wrote:

I'm still
> trying to find a copy of "Ciao, Federico!"....

It'son the Criterion laserdics of "Fellini Satyricon"
rather fascinating to watch Fellini work with Capucine
-- who was constantly in need of reassurance. As
Fellini adored women she'd come to the right auteur.

"Fellini Satyricon" is especially relevant now in the
wake of Stone's "Alexander" debacle. Fellini got there
first with casual bisexuality, and the film was an
enormous hit.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
21182


From:
Date: Sat Jan 15, 2005 7:08pm
Subject: TEN as Best filmmaking (WAS: Best filmmaking of the 00s)
 
In a message dated 01/15/2005 5:56:44 PM, ricordites@t... writes:

<< A side note: since I noticed some of you included it:

can one really consider "Ten" , 'best filmmaking'? >>

Yes, unquestionably.

Kevin John
21183


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 0:31am
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
>
"Private Property"
> > was one of my early reviews (I gave it a rave -- I had a crush on
> > Kate Manx; I still have a set of stills from the film and a huge
> > enlargement of Kate).
>
> Kate Manx is attractive - but I haven't seen "Private Property"

Saw it as a horny teen. Loved it, loved her. Those were the days when
a little indy w. sexy content could break out in some theater chain
that wasn't glutted with movies opening on 4000 screens at once.
Actually, I may have seen it at a drive-in - unless that was "All the
Loving Couples"...
21184


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 0:33am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
>
> A side note: since I noticed some of you included it:
> can one really consider "Ten" , 'best filmmaking'?
>
> Mathieu Ricordi
I just like the first sequence. My sister and I always used to dread
finding ourselves stuck in a car with our mother, because that's when
she'd start up on us, knowing we couldn't escape. As I already said
in a post, I thought the rest was a fun experiment, but not a film
I'd care to see twice.
21185


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 0:37am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
> >
>
> For the record, I think lists are tremendously important,
> and I don't seek them out from critics and cinephiles as mere
> pleasurable side distractions.

Getting back to Rivette's ancient interview: Saying "like/don't like"
or "no longer like" is shorthand for esthetic discourse, although it
shouldn't REPLACE esthetic discourse! Another shorthand Rivette &
Cie. used to employ (esp. Godard) was "I'm putting a Dreyer heroine
in a Cukor film" or vice versa. It's useful, but today we tend to use
the shorthand notations "It's a remake of X" or "It's X meets
[plus/crossed with] Y" a la The Player.
21186


From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 0:37am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
Mathieu:
> But sooner or later, shouldn't we step to the plate and put all of
> our verbal rhetoric, and cinematic feelings/insights to the
> service of backing,defending,promoting those films we'd like to
> claim as the 'best of' (the year, the decade,
> the century', granted each task becomes increasingly difficult
> and falls more prey to the 'apples and oranges' credo).

I dunno, I always thought lists were good for the inverse reason--
they play an enjoyable, sometimes illuminating small (but also, due
to their expedient and categorical nature, efficient) part in
contributing to more complex discourse.

A list might be full of films I love or films I hate, but to me a
list is only useful if it includes films I don't know about, or
makes me take note of a film I would have . (It ) Or it's good if
a list might shake up some prejudices, too. I still remember the
bizarreness of seeing Dan Sallitt's lists for the first time and
knowing that he was an auteurist, but listing all these films and
filmmakers I'd never given thought to or heard of (and in the
process omitting many directors and films I would have assumed any
auteurist would like). It's not the same as good criticism,
obviously it can't replace it, but to me a list can have an
important personal and subjective impact. But always, I'd say,
because it's in service of thought and discussion, not the other way
around.

> 1) Werckmeister Harmonies (Bela Tarr)
> 2) The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson)
> 3) I'm Going Home (Manoel de Oliveira)
> 4) The House Of Mirth (Terence Davies)
> 5) The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissue (Wes Anderson)

Good list. I'm imagining the shark in THE LIFE AQUATIC taking the
place of the whale in WERCKMEISTER HARMONIES. That'd be a movie I'd
love to (re?)see.

> A side note: since I noticed some of you included it:
> can one really consider "Ten" , 'best filmmaking'?

Well only a philistine would consider it among the worst! (But
seriously, why wouldn't it be "filmmaking"?)

--Zach
21187


From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 0:40am
Subject: Ten (wa:s Best filmmaking of the 00s)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>

> I just like the first sequence. My sister and I always used to dread
> finding ourselves stuck in a car with our mother, because that's when
> she'd start up on us, knowing we couldn't escape. As I already said
> in a post, I thought the rest was a fun experiment, but not a film
> I'd care to see twice.

FWIW, I liked "Ten" a lot more the second time through. What seemed a
bit simple the first time through, looked a lot more complex and
ambiguous when I re-visited it.

MEK
21188


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 0:40am
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
Fellini got there
> first with casual bisexuality, and the film was an
> enormous hit.

And a masterpiece past the power of my poor words to describe. Seeing
it on acid - I've seen it many times since, JP - and exiting into the
upper East Side on a Saturday night in the 70s was like staying in
the movie.
21189


From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 0:44am
Subject: Unfinished lines (correction)
 
I wrote:

> A list might be full of films I love or films I hate, but to me a
> list is only useful if it includes films I don't know about, or
> makes me take note of a film I would have . (It )

I meant to finish writing:

A list might be full of films I love or films I hate, but to me a
list is only useful if it includes films I don't know about, or
makes me take note of a film I would have dismissed. (It's a tricky
business, but I can find out how to take a list "seriously" on this
count if, first, I respect the listmaker's taste beforehand, and if
I don't, then I look at the films/filmmakers on the list that I *do*
know, and judge from there.)

--Zach
21190


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 0:52am
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
> And a masterpiece past the power of my poor words to describe.
Seeing
> it on acid - I've seen it many times since, JP - and exiting into
the
> upper East Side on a Saturday night in the 70s was like staying in
> the movie.

It's my favorite Fellini, and I never saw it on anything. But
there are as many or more Fellinis I don't like than Fellinis I
love.
21191


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 0:56am
Subject: Re: TEN as Best filmmaking (WAS: Best filmmaking of the 00s)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 01/15/2005 5:56:44 PM, ricordites@t... writes:
>
> << A side note: since I noticed some of you included it:
>
> can one really consider "Ten" , 'best filmmaking'? >>
>



On what basis would you question its acceptability
as "filmmaking"? The fact that it's not "film"?
21192


From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 0:57am
Subject: Re: Reminiscing in Tempo (with apology to Duke)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" >
As far as I'm concerned, I've never been to the Cinematheque - like
> much of Paris it was destroyed before I got there.
> Beaubourg seems to be the equivalent for youngfilm buffs today
> - that's where they're showing the Minnellis.

Well... I don't know about that. Today, museums (Beaubourg, but also
Orsay, Le Louvre) maintain a happy welcome "competition", but, as
far I'm concerned, the Cinematheque is still THE place. I remember
my very first cinephile marathon for the Wellman retro there, what a
thrill!
Btw, Beaubourg will show a full Fassbinder retro soon.
21193


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:01am
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:

> It's my favorite Fellini, and I never saw it on anything. But
> there are as many or more Fellinis I don't like than Fellinis I
> love.

They don't play well on tv as a rule, though I'm sure you saw them
all in first-run theatres.
21194


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:02am
Subject: Re: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- jpcoursodon wrote:


>
> It's my favorite Fellini, and I never saw it on
> anything. But
> there are as many or more Fellinis I don't like than
> Fellinis I
> love.
>
>
I find that fascinating as by my lights it's not an
"easy" film. Maybe the tone just hit you at the right
moment. Fellini himself caled it a science fiction
film.


But then Fellini's the one auteur that auteurists feel
least kinship with.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
21195


From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:08am
Subject: Re: More Last Films at the 'Theque
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Bran >
> I'm especially looking forward to seeing those last Dwan and
> Ulmer features Maxime talked about, since I greatly enjoyed the
> works by these two directors I've seen so far.

Samuel, you were there for the Dwan? Hope so.
When Elained Stewart curled herself around Randell to warm up his
dead body, I cried again. The sniggering doesn't affect me anymore,
but, please, tell me you love it.
21196


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:09am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> Getting back to Rivette's ancient interview: Saying "like/don't
like"
> or "no longer like" is shorthand for esthetic discourse, although
it
> shouldn't REPLACE esthetic discourse! .

You took the words right out of my mouth, Bill! Just a list is
telling me nothing beyond "I loved those films."
21197


From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:17am
Subject: Re: Best filmmaking of the 00s (Was Godard-Truffaut feud and Godard Trashing Van Sant, Kiarostami)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> Getting back to Rivette's ancient interview: Saying "like/don't
> like" > or "no longer like" is shorthand for esthetic discourse,
> although it shouldn't REPLACE esthetic discourse!

The Rivette interview has also to be set back in the context : Les
Inrocks, those guys genearally have a good time trashing. I don't
think we may say Rivette is short in esthetic discourse, today as
yesterday.
21198


From: Saul Symonds
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:20am
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:

> there are as many or more Fellinis I don't like than Fellinis I
> love.

Which Fellini's don't you like?
21199


From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:21am
Subject: Corean cinema, recommendations?
 
50 Corean films here. From the 50's to now. Classics I guess. Any
recommendation welcome.
21200


From:   Tom Sutpen
Date: Sun Jan 16, 2005 1:31am
Subject: Re: Multiplex Madness: Two More Theatres To Bite The Dust
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:

> But then Fellini's the one auteur that auteurists feel
> least kinship with.

*****
Hey, I thought that was Stanley Kubrick. Don't tell me there's been a
shift in the winds I haven't heard about.

Hard enough to keep up with this stuff as it is.

Tom "Auteurism Weatherman" Sutpen

a_film_by Main Page
Home    Film    Art     Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)    Links    About    Contact