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.
21301
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:56am
Subject: Re: 'The Dreamers' and the Credulous (was Re: Marina Razbezhkina's Harvest Time)
--- Saul Symonds wrote:
> I thought that would have been one from the
> triple-Keanu Reeves
> splurge of '91: "My Own Private Idaho", "Bill &
> Ted's Bogus Journey"
> or "Point Break"
>
But Bertolucci has him covered in rose petals.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21302
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:56am
Subject: Re: 'The Dreamers' and the Credulous (was Re: Marina Razbezhkina's Harvest Time)
--- Saul Symonds wrote:
> I thought that would have been one from the
> triple-Keanu Reeves
> splurge of '91: "My Own Private Idaho", "Bill &
> Ted's Bogus Journey"
> or "Point Break"
>
But Bertolucci has him covered in rose petals.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
21303
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:58am
Subject: Re: Quoting to save time (Was: Marina Razbezhkina's Harvest Time)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> >My apologies, sir. I'd bow before you with vast
> >humility, except I happen to be paralyzed with shame right at the
> >moment.
>
> > Tom "Catch my Humble act later" Sutpen
>
> Dear Tom: I recall that you, not infrequently, compose posts where you
> apologize for this or that. To save time, and not have to write such
> long posts, it might be easier for you if you just collect up a bagful
> of quotes wich you can dispense at the apporpriate moment. Below are
> some starters:
>
> The bible, always being a good source for quotes, (Old Testament makes
> for good quotes, New Testament just sounds preachy):
>
> "I have sinned ... and I will no more do thee harm ... behold, I have
> played the fool and erred exceedingly" (I Samuel 26:21-23)
>
> There's some great stuff in Blake in The Everlasting Gospel which I
> can't recall now, though I'm sure Mike could suggest a few good ones,
> so the only other quote I will give you is perhaps the only line I
> remember from Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot": "I am naked and a beggar and
> an atom in the vortex of humanity", (I think that one pretty much says
> "Catch my humble act later")
>
> Actually, driving through a small country town a while back I came
> across the Humble Pie Restaurant, where you could, quite literally,
> eat Humble Pie.
Dear Tom: sometimes I post without thinking about what I am writing -
and, as words so often fail us, their meaning can be misconstrued. I
had, just now, been tracking down a quote in Job and came across the
one in Samuel. And as I read poetry not infrequently, Blake and others
were on my mind. In fact, I keep these quotes and use them for myself.
The Dostoyevksy one, which is one of my all time favourite quotes, is
on my wall together with the Samuel quote and a handful of others, as
well as Poe's "The Raven". In fact, I kept the Samuel quote because he
is, in fact, talking to King Saul. This post was in jest, and in no
way meant to devalue your posts or comments or be taken in a negative
fashion. I now recall, for myself, a Chinese proverb, apt for my
shortsightedness: "Sitting in a well and gazing out, what ones sees is
not broad".
-- Saul.
21304
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:23am
Subject: Re: Quoting to save time (Was: Marina Razbezhkina's Harvest Time)
> Dear Tom: sometimes I post without thinking about what I am writing -
> and, as words so often fail us, their meaning can be misconstrued. I
> had, just now, been tracking down a quote in Job and came across the
> one in Samuel. And as I read poetry not infrequently, Blake and others
> were on my mind. In fact, I keep these quotes and use them for myself.
> The Dostoyevksy one, which is one of my all time favourite quotes, is
> on my wall together with the Samuel quote and a handful of others, as
> well as Poe's "The Raven". In fact, I kept the Samuel quote because he
> is, in fact, talking to King Saul. This post was in jest, and in no
> way meant to devalue your posts or comments or be taken in a negative
> fashion. I now recall, for myself, a Chinese proverb, apt for my
> shortsightedness: "Sitting in a well and gazing out, what ones sees is
> not broad".
>
> -- Saul.
Also, I believe that the Dostoyevsky's quote, "I am naked and a beggar
and an atom in the vortex of humanity", is often taken by people to
mean things other than what it means to me. I am amazed at the
negative connotations often ascribed to this. "Naked and a beggar"
again makes me think of Job, that most poetic of all Old Testament
books, and of his sad predicament. I believe it is Job who says after
loosing everything and everyone who ever meant anything to him, though
I couldn't find the exact quote to be certain: "Naked I came from my
mother's womb and naked I shall return there". This material-less
nakedness is a form of existential purity - or perhaps more rightly in
Job's case, spritual purity. Being "an atom in the vortex of
existence" is merely a way of looking at the human condition: that we
are formed from the dust, as Adam was before us, and to that dust we
shall return, "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" (good 'ol Bowie) - so
that, fundamentally, we are all the same - when we die, we are
confined the to anonymity once again: nameless, formless - "we are the
hollow men, we are the stuffed men ... our dried voices, when we
whispher together are quiet and meaningless", Eliot - or as Wolfe
said, though more people know it from Schrader, "I am God's Lonely
Man", which perhaps, we all are in way.
-- Saul "Quote loving" Symonds.
21305
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:28am
Subject: 'The Dreamers' and the Credulous (was Re: Marina Razbezhkina's Harvest Time)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> > I thought that would have been one from the
> > triple-Keanu Reeves
> > splurge of '91: "My Own Private Idaho", "Bill &
> > Ted's Bogus Journey"
> > or "Point Break"
> >
> But Bertolucci has him covered in rose petals.
*****
And the rose petals have more expressive range than he does.
Tom "Bertolucci Fanatic" Sutpen
21306
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:50am
Subject: Re: 'The Dreamers' and the Credulous (was Re: Marina Razbezhkina's Harvest Time)
--- Tom Sutpen wrote:
> *****
> And the rose petals have more expressive range than
> he does.
>
> Tom "Bertolucci Fanatic" Sutpen
>
>
You want him to have range too?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
21307
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:52am
Subject: Re: LA DOLCE VITA (WAS: Multiplex Madness)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> >
> > And eave us not forget that the female lead of PULL MY
> > DAISY is Delphine Seyrig.
>
>
> Belated question to Bill: how could a French film about a French
> and a German intellectual and their girlfriend before and just
after
> WWI have any serious influence on the American "counterculture" of
> the sixties?
How could that same film have any serious influence on an Uber-Hip
Hong Kong director making a film called 2046 in 2004, with 3-D
animation and Mario Bava sets for the futuristic sections? But by God
if he didn't have someone do a Delerue score! Jules et Jim had
enormous impact everywhere it was shown. It's still very strong.
21308
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:57am
Subject: Re: Most Dangerous Man Alive
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Bréan
In MDMA, every single shot
> is burning of a steel glaze over the world before the Fall. Shots
> pulled out from nothingness. Yelling, with the hero, "I wanna
> feel", "I wanna die".
In 1953 or so Jim Thompson wrote a serial killer masterpiece called
The Nothing Man, about a tough newspaperman who lost his penis in
WWII and starts killing women who love him. MDMA is a very Jim
Thompson film.
21309
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:58am
Subject: Re: Padlock Chayefsky (was: I WORSHIP lists!)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
>
> > > In a message dated 01/16/2005 3:38:34 AM, noelbotevera@y...
> writes:
> > << Makes me wonder--what was the most effective piece of TV
satire
> > ever made? This? Being There? >>
>
> Videodrome is shown on TV right now. Not precisely satire. But I
> don't know anything more powerfull about TV images.
There's an Arch Oboler film from a Henry Kuttner story called The
Twonky, with Hans Conreid, that goes to some of those same places.
21310
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:02am
Subject: Re: LA DOLCE VITA (WAS: Multiplex Madness)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> > A friend of mine who was in college at the time said that for him
and
> a lot of people he knew, it was "Breakfast At Tiffany's" which
opened
> their eyes to the world's possibilities -- you had a beautiful
woman
> who clearly was sleeping around and didn't apologize for it,
> an "older" woman who was unapologetic about having a rent boy and
an
> overall attitude about this is simply how things are.
That is absolutely correct - and ironic because Edwards insisted
scolding her at the end, over the dead bodies of Capote and Axelrod.
There were a number of films I call "cusp" films about non-
conformists in the late 50s, early 60s - the forgotten A Thousand
Clowns, for example. Tashlin is the best director working on that
cusp, in his Tony Randall pictures.
21311
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:05am
Subject: Re: EASY RIDER (was: LA DOLCE VITA)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
>
Perhaps living in a fronteir town she was
> roughly abused by men, or thrown around, ensured the only way she
> could connnect, sexually or otherwise, was through such abuse. But
he definantlty didn't force upon her anything she didn't want.
I wish you could see Plainsong, Saul. (Look it up if you have a
Maltin Movies on TV handy.) It's the only feminist western I know,
and one of the most poetic westerns ever made. Not currently
available, sadly.
21312
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:09am
Subject: Re: Quoting to save time (Was: Marina Razbezhkina's Harvest Time)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
>
I now recall, for myself, a Chinese proverb, apt for my
> shortsightedness: "Sitting in a well and gazing out, what ones sees
is not broad".
>
> -- Saul.
One sees the poster for Ring 2 ("Fear Comes Full Circle").
21313
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:03am
Subject: Re: LA DOLCE VITA (WAS: Multiplex Madness)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> Jules et Jim had
> enormous impact everywhere it was shown. It's still very strong.
I am totally unconvinced, but you have switched from an alleged
influence on the "counterculture" to just an influence on some
filmmakers (which is of course undeniable). As far as "J&J" having
influenced anybody's life, I'll remain sceptical (it certainly
didn't influence mine) but then what do I know?
21314
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:25am
Subject: Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?
> The program
> http://www.cinemathequefrancaise.com/photos/16_coree.pdf
I'm having email troubles - hope this doesn't appear twice.
I recommend all the films by Hong Sang-Soo and Lee Chang-dong. The
one film by Bong Joon-ho that I've seen, MEMORIES OF MURDER, is also
extraordinary. - Dan
21315
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:51am
Subject: Re: LA DOLCE VITA (WAS: Multiplex Madness)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
"Wasn't it Burroughs who said, 'I always though a punk was someone who
took it up the ass'???"
Could be. Take a look at "With William Burroughs: A Report from the
Bubker," the bunker being Burroughs' Bowery apartment, a converted
YMCA locker room. Debbie Harry and Chris Stein came to visit him
there (photographed with their arms around him if I recall correctly,)
also a great shot of Joe Strummar and Burroughs drinking beer; and
the caption for the phot of WSB and Mick Jagger says, "I haven't shot
anyone right lately Mick."
The first perfect bound issue of the seminal San Francisco Punk
Zine "Search & Destroy" was devoted to Burroughs and Throbbing
Gristle (and the zine was financed by a $100.00 donation from Allen
Ginsberg matched by Ferlinghetti because the publisher-editor,
V.Vale, was working as a clerk at City Lights Books at the time.)
Getting back on topic, Burroughs made some films with Antony Balch in
the 1960s, TOWERS OPEN FIRE and MR BRADLEY/MR MARTIN as demonstraions
of his cut-up hypothesis. Later he made another picture calle DO
EASY and wrote screenplays called THE LAST WORDS OF DUTCH SCHULTZ and
BLADE RUNNER (not from the Philip K. Dick novel, although Ridley
Scott took the title from Burroughs' unproduced screenplay.)
Richard
21316
From:
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:00am
Subject: Important Note About The Group: Please Read
It has come to our attention that more than one member, in addition to your
two moderators, is having trouble keeping up with the posts in this group. As
the level of chatty banter rises, and the number of posts with topics
incorrectly labeled increases, fewer and fewer people will read our group, and it
becomes an exchange of trivial tidbits rather than a serious discussion of cinema.
Please take the trouble to label your posts correctly. If you don't know what
we're talking about, please reread our "Statement of Purpose." If you have
time to post, you have time to reread that.
Posts not about cinema should be labeled "OT," and kept to a minimum.
Our Statement of Purpose asks that you treat your posts as seriously as you
would a published article. No one should be posting without thinking carefully
about what one writes. We have over 160 members all over the world; you are
writing to a sophisticated community of film lovers, some of whom are not happy
with the board at this moment.
If you want to have a back and forth exchange of five or ten posts on a topic
in an afternoon, use the group's chat feature. Announce your time and topic
in advance in a post and others may join you.
We've enjoyed and learned from our members, but the volume of posts is really
becoming a problem. Please keep in mind that the core reason we invested the
time we put in to founding this group and keeping it running is to have
serious discussions about film as an art. There is a place within such discussions
for posts with interesting gossip, biographical details about filmmakers,
little pieces of information, jokes, and banter, and we've enjoyed much of that
from our regular posters, but the total volume is becoming a problem. Not all of
our members are interested in the personal tastes and quirks of everyone
else! At times it seems that the group is being overwhelmed by such things, and is
thus losing its purpose - and many of its most serious readers.
Fred and Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21317
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:42am
Subject: Re: LA DOLCE VITA (WAS: Multiplex Madness)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> That is absolutely correct - and ironic because Edwards insisted
> scolding her at the end, over the dead bodies of Capote and
Axelrod.
> There were a number of films I call "cusp" films about non-
> conformists in the late 50s, early 60s - the forgotten A Thousand
> Clowns, for example. Tashlin is the best director working on that
> cusp, in his Tony Randall pictures.
Bill, a few weeks ago you mentioned "Breakfast At Tiffany's" as an
example of Edwards's "conservatism," and I didn't get a chance to
respond. I do think that's a misreading of Edwards because I've
always felt he's not a conservative, but rather a romantic -- and one
of the overriding themes of his movies is that happiness in life can
only be achieved by people letting their guard down and owning up to
their true selves (Holly and Paul taking off the Woolworth Halloween
masks in "Breakfast," Dudley Moore's George in "10" finally accepting
that he's no longer a kid; Victoria and King in "V/V" acknowledging
that they are in fact a heterosexual woman and a heterosexual man,
just as Alex Karras's Squash acknowledges that he is gay).
I don't think Holly is being scolded for sleeping around -- rather,
Edwards feels (and I'm convinced) that her fragile ego will only be
taken care of and nurtured by finding that one person who truly loves
her, and that running away from emotional commitm,ent is ultimately
self-defeating. I don't think Edwards is ever moralizing (not just
in "Tiffany's" but throughout his career), he merely expressing his
view that ultimately happiness is found through someone who accepts
you as you are, and that for that to happen you have to be truly who
It's one reason that "Days Of WIne And Roses" is so affecting --
throughout the picture Lemmon, and then still at the close of the
picture, Remick, allow alcohol to redefine who they are, and it's a
false picture of a couple who should be the leads in a light romantic
comedy, not a domestic tragedy. And Edwards's films offer a visual
correlative -- the way the actors navigate their (usually) widescreen
spaces is akin to the emotional journeys the characters are
undergoing.
* * *
Interestingly, A Thousand Clowns has been revived on Broadwat twice
in the last decade, once with Judd Hirsch, the other with Tom Selleck
for whom it was apparently a labor of love. I saw the former -- on
the basis of that production at the Roundabout, it doesn't hold up at
all.
21318
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:57am
Subject: Cinema and the 60s (Was:0: LA DOLCE VITA )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > Jules et Jim had
> > enormous impact everywhere it was shown. It's still very strong.
>
> I am totally unconvinced, but you have switched from an alleged
> influence on the "counterculture" to just an influence on some
> filmmakers (which is of course undeniable). As far as "J&J" having
> influenced anybody's life, I'll remain sceptical (it certainly
> didn't influence mine) but then what do I know?
Films mean different things at different times in diferent contexts.
To Kevin, a youngster straining to see thru a glass darkly what La
Dolce Vita - which as I recall he doesn't enormously like - could've
looked like to us, got it wrong: That orgy scene did not influence
the American counterculture one iota. To you, living in a culture
where both Culture and its many Loyal Oppositions have been so rich
and varied and powerful (just watching Henry and June, silly as it
is, again brought a bit of that back, after spending 6 months on
Bunuel), Jules et Jim could not possibly have had the impact it had
on me. Neither could Les cousins, but I assure you, that film, seen
at the Yale Film Societry my freshman year - fresh from a Red State
parochial school, with promises to Mom still ringing in my ears (all
soon to be broken)- changed my life.
As for gags about Beatniks, they simply prove what I said: By the
time I got to NYC, the Beatniks were long gone, or on tv. Jules et
Jim was the revelation - so intense that I didn't even recognize it
as such at the time. How do you "name" a bomb that has just gone off
in your head? Of course there were many, many influences that
affected me and the best part of my generation. That's why, looking
back, I have underlined the importance of "cusp films" portraying the
eccentric individual at odds w. society, often represented by Madison
Avenue. (How could anyone fully understand North By Northwest without
knowing what Roger Thornhill's suit meant at the time?)
In some ways, believe it or not, A Thousand Clowns was our equivalent
of Pickpocket or A Man Escaped - yes, I know that sounds ridiculous,
but if you look at the political function of "the Bresson model,"
those silly little films about endearing eccentrics who just want to
go off and start a chicken farm were preparing our 1967 every bit as
much as the Bressons were preparing your 1968. But so were Marnie and
The Apartment and ...
The Counterculture - our Counterculture - did not just spring out of
Greenwich Village. It was coming all through the decade before, and
Mad Magazine was probably more important to it than William
Burroughs. Certainly for those who saw it, Jules et Jim was, but not
from a Parisian standpoint, where that film was probably more an
expression of nostalgia than of utopian fervor. Nonetheless, in other
ways the NV, even if its leading lights were apolitical-to-rightwing,
was preparing its fans for 1968 (by adopting "the Bresson model"). I
remember smiling and nodding when I read someone - Sontag? -
commenting that none of the characters in Godard's films even HAD
parents!
21319
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:00am
Subject: Memories of Murder (Was:Corean cinema, recommendations)
Let me be the first to correct the 'misdemeanours' Fred and Peter
pointed out.
"Dan Sallitt" wrote:
> I recommend all the films by Hong Sang-Soo and Lee Chang-dong. The
> one film by Bong Joon-ho that I've seen, MEMORIES OF MURDER, is also
> extraordinary. - Dan
I'll second the reccomendation of "Memories of Murder". It is full of
evocative and deeply stirring images. One I particularly like was of
a field of tall grass undulating in the wind below an overcast sky,
an image which instantly recalls the opening of Herzog's "The Enigma
of Kaspar Hauser", thogh Bong Joon-ho didn't have the help of that
mood-seeting quote, "Hören sie denn nicht das entsetzliche schreien
ringsum, das mas gewöhnlich die stille heiβt?" (Or: Don't you hear
that horrible screaming all round you? That screaming men call
silence?"). This film, with a simple visual juxtaposition, quite
eloquently expresses its central themes of innocence vs. the
knowledge of evil: the opening shot a young boy gazing into the
camera, contrasted with the detective at the end, realizing that the
killer is stil out there, uncaught, also gazing into the camera, not
with curiostiy, but with a certain sense of hopelessness. Plus, the
film is quite effective in making the most ordinary settings and
scenes seem to be filled with a sense of foreboding. It's one of the
most atmospheric movies I've seen in a while.
21320
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:21am
Subject: Cinema nd the 60s (Was: LA DOLCE VITA )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> Bill, a few weeks ago you mentioned "Breakfast At Tiffany's" as an
> example of Edwards's "conservatism," and I didn't get a chance to
> respond. I do think that's a misreading of Edwards because I've
> always felt he's not a conservative, but rather a romantic
Well HE thinks he's a moralist, but obviously not the Puritan kind.
I'm sure he'd accept your analysis of his morality - but it is a
morality. He brought it up about Holly, and then about Days, when I
challenged him (Sutpen take note) about the reactionary morality
expressed in 10 (and The Carey Treatment, although I didn't throw
that in: Sutpen take note - you still have to be something of a
diplomat.)
Interestingly, A Thousand Clowns has been revived on Broadwat twice
> in the last decade, once with Judd Hirsch, the other with Tom
Selleck
> for whom it was apparently a labor of love. I saw the former -- on
> the basis of that production at the Roundabout, it doesn't hold up
at all.
I'd be curious to see the film again, I guess - Jason Robards,
Barbara Harris, Barry Gordon. I think I saw Robards do it on stage
too. I'm sure it doesn't hold up. By the same token, I doubt if
people today would find the Nebbishes, created by the author, as
charming as they did when they were a national craze. A lot of
the "gentle satiric humor" I found hilarious then was so much a
function of the period that it has evaporated, while the Tashlins are
still pretty wonderful - particularly if well-projected.
BTW, the much-discussed Minnelli melodramas are very, very much a
part of the lead-up to what eventually happened in the 60s, and so is
a film like Bigger Than Life (note the drug use). As my ex-gf Barbara
Frank put it, those melodramas about Middle America in the 50s were
made by Hollywood sophisticates who were saying: If I had to live
there, I'd go nuts!
21321
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:50am
Subject: Re: Cinema nd the 60s (Was: LA DOLCE VITA )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Well HE thinks he's a moralist, but obviously not the Puritan kind.
> I'm sure he'd accept your analysis of his morality - but it is a
> morality. He brought it up about Holly, and then about Days, when I
> challenged him (Sutpen take note) about the reactionary morality
> expressed in 10 (and The Carey Treatment, although I didn't throw
> that in: Sutpen take note - you still have to be something of a
> diplomat.)
I guess the reason that Edwards is among my top 5 directors (with
Ford, McCarey, Renoir and Minnelli -- sorry for the list, list-
haters) is that I 100 per cent agree with his "morality" although I
still maintain that for me and for Edwards it's not "morality" but,
rather, a sense of romanticism -- that finding your own true love is
the (or at least a) reason we're here. I've always felt that way
since I was a kid, and having found my own true love 15 years ago has
sonly re-emforced that view. And so it is with "10." I don't think
Edwards is condemning Derek's character; he knows that -- to coin a
phrase -- she's sowing wild oats and with time she'll settle down.
It's not a question of morality, it's an issue of personal
fulfillment.
>
> Interestingly, A Thousand Clowns has been revived on Broadwat
twice
> > in the last decade, once with Judd Hirsch, the other with Tom
> Selleck
> > for whom it was apparently a labor of love. I saw the former --
on
> > the basis of that production at the Roundabout, it doesn't hold
up
> at all.
>
> I'd be curious to see the film again, I guess - Jason Robards,
> Barbara Harris, Barry Gordon. I think I saw Robards do it on stage
> too. I'm sure it doesn't hold up. By the same token, I doubt if
> people today would find the Nebbishes, created by the author, as
> charming as they did when they were a national craze. A lot of
> the "gentle satiric humor" I found hilarious then was so much a
> function of the period that it has evaporated, while the Tashlins
are
> still pretty wonderful - particularly if well-projected.
>
> BTW, the much-discussed Minnelli melodramas are very, very much a
> part of the lead-up to what eventually happened in the 60s, and so
is
> a film like Bigger Than Life (note the drug use). As my ex-gf
Barbara
> Frank put it, those melodramas about Middle America in the 50s were
> made by Hollywood sophisticates who were saying: If I had to live
> there, I'd go nuts!
21322
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:09am
Subject: Re: Important Note About The Group: Please Read
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> It has come to our attention that more than one member, in addition
to your
> two moderators, is having trouble keeping up with the posts in this
group. As
> the level of chatty banter rises, and the number of posts with
topics
> incorrectly labeled increases, fewer and fewer people will read our
group, and it
> becomes an exchange of trivial tidbits rather than a serious
discussion of cinema.
>
>
>
> We've enjoyed and learned from our members, but the volume of posts
is really
> becoming a problem. Please keep in mind that the core reason we
invested the
> time we put in to founding this group and keeping it running is to
have
> serious discussions about film as an art. There is a place within
such discussions
> for posts with interesting gossip, biographical details about
filmmakers,
> little pieces of information, jokes, and banter, and we've enjoyed
much of that
> from our regular posters, but the total volume is becoming a
problem. Not all of
> our members are interested in the personal tastes and quirks of
everyone
> else! At times it seems that the group is being overwhelmed by such
things, and is
> thus losing its purpose - and many of its most serious readers.
>
Peter, could you be a little more specific about the problem?
Granted, there have been times when the number of posts has been
overwhelming (I'm particularly aware that this happened at the end of
last year, and I wasn't able to give the necessary attention to the
Zach/Fred discussions, which at some point I hope to give a serious
read), but isn't the quantt=ity of posts a sign of success?
I'm not sure what is considered a "trivial" post and what is
serious. For instance, I have absolutely no interest in Hong Kong
action cinema, having come to the conclusion years ago that these
movies are for me the most boring things on earth. But I also
realize that more than a few cinephiles live for such films. On the
other hand, B movies of the 40s and 50s (ranging from Anthony Mann
and Phil Karlson film noirs to Blondie and the Bowery Boys) fascinate
me. To many folks, these are not worthy of notice. So where do we
draw the line?
A problem with the way Yahoos groups are set up is that there aren't
separate areas for separate threads. But I think it's pretty easy to
pass over subjects in which you have no interest, and to ignore the
one or two members whose posts you know are irrelevant.
But as far as I'm concerned the opinions and gossip and nonsense are
an integral part of our community, and I actually find it refreshing
when we're not all "serious" and such.
21323
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:51am
Subject: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns (Was: EASY RIDER)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I wish you could see Plainsong, Saul. (Look it up if you have a
> Maltin Movies on TV handy.) It's the only feminist western I know,
> and one of the most poetic westerns ever made. Not currently
> available, sadly.
Is this the 1982 film by Ed Stabile? I need a few more details if I'm
to try track down a copy. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the
term "feminist Western", specially as you say, "It's the only
feminist western I know". Does "Johnny Guitar" contain elements of a
feminist Western? Is "Les Pétroleuses" a feminist Western? I'm not
even sure what place women historically had in the West and,
therefore, what place they should have in films about the West.
Though Jarmusch did start to address a historical void by including a
black cowboy/gunslinger in "Dead Man". I'd love to hear a few more
details about plot/scenes in "Plainsong", specially as they arose
from the "High Plains Drifter" discussion - is there any connection
between the films?
21324
From:
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:02am
Subject: Re: Re: Important Note About The Group: Please Read
Damien,
>Peter, could you be a little more specific about the problem?
Speaking only for myself here (Fred can weigh in as he sees fit), I'd say the
problem is not the variety of cinema being discussed. Like you, there are
films which interest me a lot and films which interest me very little, but I'm
happy to see the group discuss either so long as the discussion is from "an
auteurist perspective," as our Statement of Purpose describes.
What has become a little overwhelming are the off-topic posts (some of which
are not properly identified as such; that's more of a problem than the OT
discussions in and of themselves) and, to quote our original post, the "chatty
banter" which characterizes some recent threads. As co-moderator, I try my best
to read literally every post, so perhaps I have a greater sense of this than
members who skip over or delete posts. I think Fred feels the same way.
I should reiterate that I'm proud of our group's obvious success and
generally enjoy it very much, but I think both Fred and I would rather be a bit
preemptive in dealing with potential long-term problems on the group. We have
experiences on other film lists where things have long ago gotten out of hand.
We'd like a_film_by's success to continue.
Hope everybody understands and appreciates where we're coming from.
Peter
21325
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:35am
Subject: Re: Cinema nd the 60s (Was: LA DOLCE VITA )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
>
Edwards is among my top 5 directors (with
> Ford, McCarey, Renoir and Minnelli
Wow! He'd be thrilled at the comparison!
21326
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:47am
Subject: Re: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns (Was: EASY RIDER)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
>
> Is this the 1982 film by Ed Stabile? I need a few more details if
I'm
> to try track down a copy.
Not possible. It has never been released.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the
> term "feminist Western", specially as you say, "It's the only
> feminist western I know". Does "Johnny Guitar" contain elements of
a
> feminist Western?
It's a femiNINE westerm, as is The Woman They Almsot Lynched, but
both are more about the links between Puritanism and McCarthyism, if
you want to stick a politics on them.
Is "Les Pétroleuses" a feminist Western?
I don't know that film.
I'd love to hear a few more
> details about plot/scenes in "Plainsong", specially as they arose
> from the "High Plains Drifter" discussion
I was responding to the idea that the violence in HPD is somehow
normal or ok - I think Eastwood responded to that idea himself in
Unforgiven.
Plainsong is about three women who come to a western settlement to be
brides to three men, whom they select once they're there. The
marriages aren't forced or a form of slavery. But two of them succumb
to the violence endemic to the community. There's an astonishing shot
of one of the heroines propped up in her casket on a porch, as if for
a photograph, as one of her pioneer sisters sews and cares for her
baby. I'm not sure if Ed and Tia (Ed's wife and producer) actually
saw a photo like that or invented it.
The reasons for the non-release are murky and probably not all that
interesting. I keep hoping they'll do something some day. It's not
like they've abandoned it, and a few people love the film. It's the
only one in Maltin's guide that is not actually in release - he gave
it 3 1/2 stars!
21327
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:17am
Subject: Re: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns (Was: EASY RIDER)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
> >
> > Is this the 1982 film by Ed Stabile? I need a few more details if
> I'm
> > to try track down a copy.
>
> Not possible. It has never been released.
If it is the Ed Stabile film, it might be hard to track down - but
nothing is impossible. Apart from the possibility of aquiring
something such as a 16 or 35mm print, (though a slim possibility),
there are also people who privately make copies of films: I recently
came into some early Werner Schroeter, which I don't think has ever
been released, and which was filmed off a Steinbeck by a woman who was
studying Schroeter, (and had to track the print all the way to the
Goethe institute in, I think, India). If it played on TV then it might
exist in some sort of master tape, (I'm not quite sure how it would
have been broadcast), from which, if tracked down, a copy could be
made to a format such as vhs or dvd-r as I probably wouldn't be
equipped to play it at home. And, if it is the Ed Stabile film,
(please confirm this fact!!!), then according to imdb.com it played at
the Edinburgh and Toronot film festivals in '82 - depending on how it
was screened at these festivals, (and more importanlty, depending on
what mischevous soul had access to it), then perhaps a copy can be
tracked through them. I merely assume: if a film has been made, a copy
exists somewhere in some form, (save 'lost' films), and if I want to
watch it desperately enough, it's only a matter of time before I can
find it.
21328
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:34am
Subject: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" (was: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Is "Les Pétroleuses" a feminist Western?
>
>> I don't know that film.
The English title is: "Petroleum Girls". A French western, (readily
available on dvd), from 1971 directed by Christian-Jaque, which has
typical male-female reversals, with Claudia Cardinale the domineering
older sister for a group of wimpy brothers, and Brigitte Bardot as the
head of an outlaw gang. Of course, the finale is a fist fight between
Cardinale and Bardot in which they tear and loose much clothing!
Imdb.com has Guy Casaril listed as an uncredited director, though I
don't know what scenes, if any, he directed. Perhaps Jean-Pierre or
someone else here knows? The Casaril film I remember best is "Piaf",
which did as much as anything I've seen to capture some of the feel of
her early life. [ BTW, I did love the way Bertolucci used Édith Piaf's
"Non, je ne regrette rien" in the closing moments of "The Dreamers" as
another kind of intertextual reference, not too dissimilar to from his
use of film clips].
21329
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:21pm
Subject: Re: Cinema nd the 60s (Was: LA DOLCE VITA )
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> BTW, the much-discussed Minnelli melodramas are
> very, very much a
> part of the lead-up to what eventually happened in
> the 60s, and so is
> a film like Bigger Than Life (note the drug use). As
> my ex-gf Barbara
> Frank put it, those melodramas about Middle America
> in the 50s were
> made by Hollywood sophisticates who were saying: If
> I had to live
> there, I'd go nuts!
>
It's not a Hollywood sophisticates phenomenon. For all
the talk about 50's 'conformity" it was a time of
enormous change accompanied by the sort of social
criticism that has all but vanished today. The post
WWII period established the consumer "paradise" of
suburbia and the suppsoedly "ideal" white collar job
market to go with it. But not sooner were these
edifices erected than they were under attack. "The Man
in the Grey Flannel Suit" wasn't written by a beatnik.
And "cusp" dissatisfaction was apparent in everythig
from "Father of the Bride" (Spencer Tracy does not
like his "ideal" life in any way)to Jean Kerr's
suburban humor pieces "Please Don't Eat the Daisies."
All of this was well-understood by the beats who went
off in a different direction. "Pull My Daisy" is a
comic jape. And "Shadows" and "Guns of the Trees"
(both true "beat" films in every way) are utterly
indifferent to the status quo. Consequently they stand
outside the more formal forms of "anti-establishment"
protest found in Nick Ray films, much of Kazan, and
"Some Came Running."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21330
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:18pm
Subject: Please Don't Eat the Daisies (was Re: Cinema nd the 60s)
David:
> Jean Kerr's suburban humor pieces "Please Don't Eat the Daisies."
Charming stories that formed the basis for quite a good movie. I
might have asked this before (but I don't recall the answer so maybe
I haven't), but: you know the moment where one of the kids says to
his new female neighbor, garbed in masculine attire, "Are you a man
or a woman?" Was this a sly little joke put in by Charles Walters
maybe?
(When I looked through Kerr's collection I didn't see any mention of
such a line or an androgynous character, but I could have missed it.)
Again, I apologize if I've inquired about this onlist before. It
must mean my memory is a sieve.
--Zach
21331
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:37pm
Subject: Re: Cinema nd the 60s (Was: LA DOLCE VITA )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> >
> It's not a Hollywood sophisticates phenomenon. For all
> the talk about 50's 'conformity" it was a time of
> enormous change accompanied by the sort of social
> criticism that has all but vanished today. The post
> WWII period established the consumer "paradise" of
> suburbia and the suppsoedly "ideal" white collar job
> market to go with it. But not sooner were these
> edifices erected than they were under attack. "The Man
> in the Grey Flannel Suit" wasn't written by a beatnik.
> And "cusp" dissatisfaction was apparent in everythig
> from "Father of the Bride" (Spencer Tracy does not
> like his "ideal" life in any way)to Jean Kerr's
> suburban humor pieces "Please Don't Eat the Daisies."
> All of this was well-understood by the beats who went
> off in a different direction. "Pull My Daisy" is a
> comic jape. And "Shadows" and "Guns of the Trees"
> (both true "beat" films in every way) are utterly
> indifferent to the status quo. Consequently they stand
> outside the more formal forms of "anti-establishment"
> protest found in Nick Ray films, much of Kazan, and
> "Some Came Running."
>
>
> I agree with David here. The way those films were received
by most cinephiles in France at the time was as criticism or
indictments of the "American Way of Life." This was practically a
cliche of French film criticism in the fifties. (another cliche went
something like: "a savage satire of American matriarchal
domination" -- how things have changed!)
To Bill, on Jules & Jim: thanks for putting me back in my place
as some kind of old blase Parisian. I realize that I couldn't
possibly have received the film the way you did, and I really had no
idea it had such an impact in the USA. Still, how many people
actually saw it? What could its importance have been in influencing
a whole generation, a whole "counterculture"? That's where i remain
truly sceptical.
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21332
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:19pm
Subject: Re: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" (was: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> > Is "Les Pétroleuses" a feminist Western?
> >
> >> I don't know that film.
>
> The English title is: "Petroleum Girls". A French western, (readily
> available on dvd), from 1971 directed by Christian-Jaque, which has
> typical male-female reversals, with Claudia Cardinale the
domineering
> older sister for a group of wimpy brothers, and Brigitte Bardot as
the
> head of an outlaw gang. Of course, the finale is a fist fight
between
> Cardinale and Bardot in which they tear and loose much clothing!
> Imdb.com has Guy Casaril listed as an uncredited director, though I
> don't know what scenes, if any, he directed. Perhaps Jean-Pierre or
> someone else here knows?
The US release title was "The Legend of Frenchy King" (released
in 1973) ("The Petroleum Girls" is a terrible title -- was that for
Australian release?) No less than five screenwriters were credited,
one of them Guy Casaril. The interesting cast had the great Michael
J. Pollard, and Micheline Presle. I have never seen the film but I
doubt that it was in the least a "feminist" western. Putting women
in traditional male roles, such as gang leader, is not a feminist
gesture. I'd venture to say that it's just the opposite. JPC
The Casaril film I remember best is "Piaf",
> which did as much as anything I've seen to capture some of the
feel of
> her early life.
That was released in the US as "Piaf -- The Early Years" by Fox
International Classics in 1982 (eight years after the French
release!). Maltin calls it "maddeningly uneven." I never saw it, as
I hate Piaf's singing and most of her songs, but the period
recreation may have been interesting.
[ BTW, I did love the way Bertolucci used Édith Piaf's
> "Non, je ne regrette rien" in the closing moments of "The
Dreamers" as
> another kind of intertextual reference, not too dissimilar to from
his
> use of film clips].
I liked the unexpected way he used the Charles Trenet song
in "The Sheltering Sky".
21333
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:34pm
Subject: Re: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns (Was: EASY RIDER)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
There's an astonishing shot
> of one of the heroines propped up in her casket on a porch, as if
for
> a photograph, as one of her pioneer sisters sews and cares for her
> baby. I'm not sure if Ed and Tia (Ed's wife and producer) actually
> saw a photo like that or invented it.
>
There were such photographs at the time. The most famous one is
of the O.K. Corral casualties, Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy
Clanton, in open, silver-trimmed caskets, which were displayed in
the window of a hardware store. This inspired John Sturges
in "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral." ("Here they lie side by side/The
killers that died/In the gunfight at the O.K. Corral" as Frankie
Lane sings). JPC
21334
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" (was: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> The US release title was "The Legend of Frenchy
> King" (released
> in 1973) ("The Petroleum Girls" is a terrible title
> -- was that for
> Australian release?) No less than five screenwriters
> were credited,
> one of them Guy Casaril. The interesting cast had
> the great Michael
> J. Pollard, and Micheline Presle. I have never seen
> the film but I
> doubt that it was in the least a "feminist" western.
> Putting women
> in traditional male roles, such as gang leader, is
> not a feminist
> gesture. I'd venture to say that it's just the
> opposite. JPC
>
>
I saw "The Legend of Frenchie King" on TV late one
night many years ago. It was an obvious attempt to
team Bardot and Cardinale the way Bardot and Moreau
were teamed in "Viva Maria" -- which was scarcely
feminist either. Great seeing Pollard as a male lead.
A feminsit western is tantamount to an oxymoron in
that all westerns revolve around the miantenance of
status quo social and cultural attitudes. Even "Johnny
Guitar" finds Joan Crawford "surrendering" to Sterling
Hayden in a climactic clinch that's perfectly
standard-issue stuff.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21335
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:45pm
Subject: Re: Please Don't Eat the Daisies (was Re: Cinema nd the 60s)
I would tend to doubt it. Walters' films never really
challenge gender norms. They do manage to push at
certain well-entrenched attitudes form time to times,
especially "Ask Any Girl." But Walters can't really be
called a socialcritic.
--- Zach Campbell wrote:
I
> might have asked this before (but I don't recall the
> answer so maybe
> I haven't), but: you know the moment where one of
> the kids says to
> his new female neighbor, garbed in masculine attire,
> "Are you a man
> or a woman?" Was this a sly little joke put in by
> Charles Walters
> maybe?
>
> (When I looked through Kerr's collection I didn't
> see any mention of
> such a line or an androgynous character, but I could
> have missed it.)
>
> Again, I apologize if I've inquired about this
> onlist before. It
> must mean my memory is a sieve.
>
> --Zach
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21336
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:53pm
Subject: Re: Cinema nd the 60s (Was: LA DOLCE VITA )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"...how many people actually saw it [JULES ET JIM]? What could its
importance have been in influencing a whole generation, a
whole "counterculture"? That's where i remain truly sceptical."
I share your scepticism. It may be a matter of place and time. For
a frshman at Yale in the early '60s it was JULES ET JIM that pointed
to a countercultural way of living, but for a highschool freshman
living in the San Frenando Valley in the mid '60s it was going to a
Merry Prankster's Acid Test at a Unitarian Church and hearing the
Greatful Dead.
I would say that rock played a more important role in drawing people
to the counterculture than film. Hollywood films mostly caricatured
it (whether beats or hippies,) while underground films (as they were
called then) came from the counterculture, but because of their
inacessability had little impact in drawing people to a different way
of life.
Japan also had a counterculture, and its cinema treated it in an
exploitation manner starting with the Taiyu Bozoku (Sun Tribe) movies
at Daiei and Toho, while Shochiku treated it seriously by encouraging
people like Oshima and Shinoda. The films here were part of a larger
media attention to the counterculture that included music, novels and
TV, so one couldn't make claims for cinema as the decisive factor
influencing the growth of the counterculture in Japan either.
Richard
21337
From:
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:57am
Subject: OT or not OT? (was: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" )
Saul, I think you may be overcompensating after Peter and Fred's memo to the
list. Your post on LES PETROLEUSES was definitely NOT OT. But the list
moderators may take a different viewpoint and if so, I hope they let us know why
before the list devolves into paranoia.
Kevin John
21338
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cinema nd the 60s (Was: LA DOLCE VITA )
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> I share your scepticism. It may be a matter of
> place and time. For
> a frshman at Yale in the early '60s it was JULES ET
> JIM that pointed
> to a countercultural way of living, but for a
> highschool freshman
> living in the San Frenando Valley in the mid '60s it
> was going to a
> Merry Prankster's Acid Test at a Unitarian Church
> and hearing the
> Greatful Dead.
>
> I would say that rock played a more important role
> in drawing people
> to the counterculture than film. Hollywood films
> mostly caricatured
> it (whether beats or hippies,) while underground
> films (as they were
> called then) came from the counterculture, but
> because of their
> inacessability had little impact in drawing people
> to a different way
> of life.
>
But you're forgetting Mazursky -- who passed though
both the beat/hippie axis ("I Love You Alice B.
Toklas," "Alex in Wonderland") amd went to far as to
attempt (albeit unsuccessfully) and American recasting
of "Jules and Jim" called "Willie and Phil."
"Jules and Jim" was a mainstay of repetory cinema for
years and for cinephiles of my generation seeing it
repeatedly was like breathing.
It's a very famous film in the U.S. and I daresay were
it to be cited in a general context in an article
about social life and trends, readers who had never
actually seen it would know what it was about.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21339
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:16pm
Subject: Re: OT or not OT? (was: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Saul, I think you may be overcompensating after Peter and Fred's
memo to the
> list. Your post on LES PETROLEUSES was definitely NOT OT. But the
list
> moderators may take a different viewpoint and if so, I hope they
let us know why
> before the list devolves into paranoia.
>
> Kevin John
Better err on the side of cautiousness, I say. I think the
moderators'post was most reasonable.
The concept of "OT" is a tricky one. No topic exists in a vacuum.
What we talk about when we talk about cinema is not always cinema.
It could even be argued that it's always more or less about
something else.
21340
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:21pm
Subject: Re: Cinema nd the 60s (Was: LA DOLCE VITA )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> "Jules and Jim" was a mainstay of repetory cinema for
> years and for cinephiles of my generation seeing it
> repeatedly was like breathing.
>
> It's a very famous film in the U.S. and I daresay were
> it to be cited in a general context in an article
> about social life and trends, readers who had never
> actually seen it would know what it was about.
>
A woman I know, when the film was mentioned in her presence,
asked: "That's the one about the two faggots?"
(hope this is not OT)
21341
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:24pm
Subject: Re: OT or not OT? (was: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" )
Posts about a film, for example answering a question identifying a film,
are not OT, pretty much by definition. It would be a rare film post that
is OT according to the Statement of Purpose -- say, "The director is
never the auteur, it's always either the scriptwriter or the star";
"Film is never an art, it's just likable trash." If that's what you
think it would mean you probably don't belong here to begin with. But no
one has made either of those -- to my knowledge!
Posts that are not primarily about film, posts for instance about the
Bible, are OT. I got involved in an OT politics thread. Of course film
involves everything, or can, which is why we don't ban all OT posts. But
perhaps there are people on this list who are interested in my opinions
on Minnelli, or even in my opinions on how if you properly understand
Minnelli's camera movements you'll understand as an inevitable
consequence that George Bush is evil, who are not so interested in my
in-depth analysis of the war in Iraq.
Fred Camper
21342
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:32pm
Subject: Possibly OT: Please Don't Eat the Daisies (was Re: Cinema nd the 60s)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell" wrote:
> Charming stories that formed the basis for quite a good movie. I
> might have asked this before (but I don't recall the answer so maybe
> I haven't), but: you know the moment where one of the kids says to
> his new female neighbor, garbed in masculine attire, "Are you a man
> or a woman?" Was this a sly little joke put in by Charles Walters
> maybe?
*****
It's most assuredly a guess, Zach, but this could be something slipped
into the script by the screenwriter, Isobel Lennart. She wrote an
awful lot of Musicals for MGM in the 1950s, and mild gender blurring
was not something unknown to the genre; particularly if it was used
for a quick joke as in that instance.
And I thought I was the only one alive who liked that film.
Tom Sutpen
21343
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:39pm
Subject: Re: OT or not OT? (was: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> But
> perhaps there are people on this list who are interested in my opinions
> on Minnelli, or even in my opinions on how if you properly understand
> Minnelli's camera movements you'll understand as an inevitable
> consequence that George Bush is evil,
*****
If you've formulated such a theory, Fred, I'm pretty much dying to
read it; if you have time to share it. In fact, I'm so intrigued by
it, I'm not sure I want to read anything more.
(and, no, I'm not just sucking up to one of the moderators as a result
of The Notice)
Tom Sutpen
21344
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Important Note About The Group: Please Read
Damien,
I do agree with Peter's answer.
We also agree with you, in our joint post, that "opinions and gossip and
nonsense are an integral part of our community." But when most of the
posts are that, or when too many in a day that are mostly that, we risk
losing many of our most serious members and non-member readers.
Now, speaking for myself, since I haven't checked the rest of this with
Peter, it's not question of the kinds of cinema discussed. Indeed, it's
great to post on films that don't seem to interest that many others
here. Part of the point of our group is for each of us to try to expand
each others' tastes. Perhaps I'll eventually even get a clue about
acting someday. Maybe I'll post sometime about home movies, which
continue to interest me. So I'd encourage you to post on the cinema you
care about, whether anyone seems interested or not.
Also, looking at your posts of yesterday, it seems to me that the bulk
of them seriously discuss cinema.
I don't want to force the group to conform to my interests. I think it
should reflect the interest of its members. I can always start the "Fred
Camper Rarified Film Aesthete Group" if I want to (I don't want to). At
the same time, what sometimes happens in Internet discussion groups is
that the most active chatters dominate, even though they and their
interests aren't the majority, and others lose interest or even feel
crowded out. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to post with
our Statement of Purpose in mind. That's what each person signed onto
when he or she joined.
Really, all we're asking is for everyone to take their posts seriously
and our Statement of Purpose seriously, to help keep our group a little
more a place where cinema is discussed seriously and a little less a
chat room, though it will obviously continue to be both.
To take a small example, we have repeatedly asked that members not quote
entire long posts, or long sections of posts, when replying, but only
quote those short sections that you are specifically replying to. In
many cases, it isn't necessary to quote anything; the subject line will
refer readers to the post you're replying to, if you don't change it, or
you can include the post number or even better the url of the post you
are replying to. There are several reasons for this, already stated, yet
it is still often disregarded.
By the way, Peter and I might say "speaking for myself," but so far he
and I have never seriously disagreed about any issues concerned with
what this group was meant to be or how to run it. Occasionally when
we've begun with a small difference about how to handle an issue the
difference was resolved immediately when one or the other of us changed
his mind, or we found a middle ground. We've never once disagreed, for
example, on who to admit or who to ask more questions of.
Fred Camper
21345
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: OT or not OT? (was: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" )
Tom Sutpen wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
>>.... you properly understand
>>Minnelli's camera movements you'll understand as an inevitable
>>consequence that George Bush is evil....
>
>
> *****
> If you've formulated such a theory, Fred, I'm pretty much dying to
> read it;....
While I did notice in the last election that no one who I know and felt
an aesthetic kinship with voted for Bush, my statement was a joke.
Fred Camper
21346
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:49pm
Subject: Re: OT or not OT? (was: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> Better err on the side of cautiousness, I say. I think the
> moderators'post was most reasonable.
*****
This could sound surprising coming from me, but so do I. I think
what's been at work here . . . and I don't hold myself blameless one
iota . . . is a tendency to not watch where our interaction is taking
us. I seriously doubt if anyone here *deliberately* decides to post
OT. These are mainly just side-conversations some of us have fallen
into without looking where we were going during the main discussions.
Which is why, as the moderators notice suggests, it might be useful to
utilize the Chat function every now and then, if for no other reason
then to get these inherently social impulses out of our system. Just
an idea.
Personally, this is going to be my last post on any matter unrelated
to film. As you say, it behooves us to err on the side of caution.
Tom Sutpen
21347
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:54pm
Subject: Re: OT or not OT? (was: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Tom Sutpen wrote:
> > If you've formulated such a theory, Fred, I'm pretty much dying to
> > read it;....
>
> While I did notice in the last election that no one who I know and felt
> an aesthetic kinship with voted for Bush, my statement was a joke.
*****
Damn. I'll admit the possibility you were jesting crossed my mind
(okay, I pretty much *knew* you were joking); but because I'll read
anything about Minnelli (and unfortunately there's never been a whole
lot to read), I did hold out some hope.
Tom Sutpen
21348
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:57pm
Subject: Re: OT or not OT? (was: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>... a tendency to not watch where our interaction is taking
> us. I seriously doubt if anyone here *deliberately* decides to post
> OT. These are mainly just side-conversations some of us have fallen
> into without looking where we were going during the main
discussions.
> Which is why, as the moderators notice suggests, it might be
useful to
> utilize the Chat function every now and then, if for no other
reason
> then to get these inherently social impulses out of our system.
Just
> an idea.
>
Another simple alternative is to e-mail the other member(s)
personally, which I have done a number of times, and most recently
no later than two days ago.
21349
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:58pm
Subject: Possibly OT: Please Don't Eat the Daisies (was Re: Cinema nd the 60s)
Tom:
> It's most assuredly a guess, Zach, but this could be something
> slipped into the script by the screenwriter, Isobel Lennart. She
> wrote an awful lot of Musicals for MGM in the 1950s, and mild
> gender blurring was not something unknown to the genre;
> particularly if it was used for a quick joke as in that instance.
It seems that the riddle is solved. (I didn't know a thing about
Lennart.) 'Cause if the anecdote doesn't appear in Kerr's source
material, and if the gay director probably didn't throw it in there,
Lennart is almost by default the culprit. Thanks, Tom.
> And I thought I was the only one alive who liked that film.
No, you're not alone. I admire Charles Walters greatly, and this is
one of the ones I like best (though I haven't seen them all). I
like DAISIES more than, say, PILLOW TALK.
--Zach
21350
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Political Correctness, Jia Zhangke's The World (was Rivette Trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I was really impressed by THE WORLD - and I had thought that Jia
was
> slipping into an unproductive, too-casual mode with UNKNOWN
PLEASURES, so
> I was worried about him. I just sat there thinking, "God, have
there ever
> been more beautiful wide-screen compositions?"
That's pretty bold of you to say, esp. considering it was shot on
grainy DV. I'd love to watch this with you whenever it comes out so
I can see what you're seeing.
In the meantime, a tentative answer to your question: PLAYTIME? I
don't know about you or Jonathan, but that film definitely weighed on
my mind as I watched THE WORLD, and it was probably a very unfair
point of comparision to make (even as I think Jia was deliberately
referencing it).
What did you think of the "Tokyo Story" chapter? It was weird to
have such a blatant homage, connecting Ozu with migrant laborers in
Beijing, a connection that can only exist in Jia's mind. Maybe for
that reason it should be heralded as original, but I thought it was
too cinephilic for its own good -- he was imposing his vision on
these people instead of providing a vehicle to let them express their
own (which is why I find Apitchatpong Weerasethakul more interesting
at this moment).
These questions are also open for Jonathan, or anyone else who has
seen THE WORLD, to answer...
I really love his eye, and
> he has a nice way of suspending the behavioral stuff in those
angled
> spaces, so that the people maintain mystery despite giving us a lot
of
> irrelevant data about themselves.
In my Senses bio on Jia I wax rhapsodic on those same qualities -- it
is what is so beautiful about PLATFORM and perhaps finds its
apotheosis in his short teaser to UNKNOWN PLEASURES called IN PUBLIC
(which I think is better than UNKNOWN PLEASURES). But in THE WORLD I
couldn't see those things -- there was too much of what felt like
journalistic reportage in the way.
Kevin
21351
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:05pm
Subject: Re: Political Correctness, Jia Zhangke's The World (was Rivette Trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
> For me, the best thing about THE WORLD is that it justifies its own
> title. I felt I was getting a solid look at what's happening in the
> world at the moment--something few other contemporary films have
> afforded me, at least to the same degree....For whatever it's
worth,
> I know that Robin Wood was comparably overwhelmed by the film when
he
> saw it, like me, at the Toronto festival.
Interesting about Wood, as I see the film as what he has described
other films, an "incoherent text". I saw it at the NYFF. I had an
extra ticket and found a random passerby to buy it from me -- and
naturally he had the seat next to me. Turned out he was a producer
for the History Channel and when he saw it he was blown away, he'd
never seen anything like this before. Listening to him reminded me
of how I felt when I first saw a Jia film, PLATFORM, four years
earlier at the same venue. So for the last few months I've been
trying to resolve the disconnect of my respose with that of his, and
yours, and within myself.
What I can definitely agree with you about is the degree of ambition -
- how many films out there are truly trying to hold a mirror to
ourselves and how our world operates? And yet there is something at
the center of this enterprise that I find disconcertingly "safe" --
politically correct was the term I used before, a way of appealing to
what we've already determined to be true, and we're looking for a
cinematic instance to validate those assertions. For me, there was
no sense of transformative discovery, only reaffirmation towards an
unassailable sense of purpose. In that sense it's more aligned with
DeSica's neorealism than post-PAISAN Rossellini.
But again, this could be more of a reflection of my own warped frame
of reference than anything regarding the film's merit (or
meretriciousness?) for contemporary world cinema, or the contemporary
world for that matter.
Did you have PLAYTIME in your mind as you watched or reflected on
this? I definitely did, and perhaps it was unfair to hold Jia to
that impossible standard. But I think Tati's film is far more
politically progressive, if not outright revolutionary, than Jia's.
>
> I see it as a kind of companion piece to PLATFORM--a film about
> the "next" Cultural Revolution in China, i.e., capitalism and
> everything it entails there--which also means capitalism from the
> vantage point of people who've known something about Communism, a
> perspective that's very different from ours.
I suppose so, but I don't think this is entirely novel -- wasn't
Kieslowski's WHITE doing this?
The scene of mutual
> recognition between the heroine and the Russian woman--who've
managed
> to become friends without speaking a word of each other's language--
> when they turn up at the same club as call girls was extremely
moving
> to me, and there were many comparable moments I could cite,
including
> the heroine's reflection that she's never known anyone who's flown
on
> a plane at the very moment that her Russian friend is flying
> overhead.
Yes, this was the strongest part of the film by far. I would have
loved to see this (the Russian woman's experience in China) explored
in more depth, but as it is the fleetingness of our encounters with
her in themselves are a reflection of this new globalized virtual
China and what kind of interpersonal relationships are to be had.
But again to me this points out my chief complaint with Jia, that he
can reflect reality but never truly challenge it -- his last two
films are as dissonant as the state of affairs he's decrying. This
dissonance, this irresoluteness that I see in Jia's last 2 films may
itself be symptomatic of something signficant regarding where he is
in his career in the global cinematic industrial complex, kind of
similar to Scorsese's last two films. The connection may not be
coincidental -- I see the shadow of Fellini hovering over both
artists in regards to the conflict between the dilemma (a moral one?)
of serving both social insight and grandiose spectacle (cf LA DOLCE
VITA), a dilemma that risks falling into hypocrisy.
Have you seen XIAO WU (PICKPOCKET)? There are some who consider that
film his best. I can send you a copy.
Kevin
21352
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:12pm
Subject: re: Cinema and the 60s
On the reception of JULES AND JIM and the burgeoning counter-culture: I have
mentioned on this list before the figure of Australia's John Flaus, an
incredibly influential and charismatic film critic from the 1950s to now,
one of the first in the world to analyse Boetticher, etc. Well: Flaus was a
student at Sydney University of the elegantly subversive philosopher of the
the 1940s and 50s, John Anderson, whose intellectual principles dovetailed
with the local variant of Anarchism - and John took that thinking into
Sydney's famous 'lifestyle experiment' known as The Push, which is the
origin/locus of Australian counter-culture in the 60s (another famous
Australian intellectual, Meaghan Morris, came into contact with it at its
end, as it was metamorphosing into Gay Liberation and Women's Liberation and
'New French Theory'. Germaine Greer was also influenced by it.) The moment
that JULES AND JIM appeared in Australia, Flaus wrote a very long and very
positive essay on it (one of the best ever written on this film, I feel).
Truffaut's film was most definitely a talisman for counter-culture and
bohemia in this part of the world in the early 60s, and still has that aura
for people who were around then (much more so than any other Nouvelle Vague
stuff) - as was, ten years later, its 'dystopian' variant, interestingly
taken as a melancholy 'critique of the counterculture': TWO-LANE BLACKTOP. A
group of Australian cinephiles (including Flaus) traveled across the whole
length of the country to see that at a very progressive Festival event of
the early 70s in Perth (which later also screened the only Australian
projection ever of OUT ONE: SPECTRE), and still reminisce about this 'life
changing' experience. Details of time and place do indeed matter in the
particular 'aura' some films acquire ...
Adrian
21353
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:18pm
Subject: Re: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns (Was: EASY RIDER)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul Symonds"
wrote:
> > >
> > > Is this the 1982 film by Ed Stabile? I need a few more details
if
> > I'm
> > > to try track down a copy.
> >
> > Not possible. It has never been released.
>
> If it is the Ed Stabile film, it might be hard to track down - but
> nothing is impossible.
Could be: Try this - The Last Campaign by Barbara Frank. One of the
best documentaries I know, portraying the last 20 days of RFK's life
including the murder - she had 3 cameras in the Ambassador. No
narration. Edited by William Lubtchansky's smarter older brother,
Jean-Claude. Much admired by Alexandre Astruc, Peter Brook, even
Serge Daney. Contains an astonishing scene w. Jerry Lewis. Good luck
seeing it - I know whereof I speak!
21354
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:22pm
Subject: Re: Cinema nd the 60s (Was: LA DOLCE VITA )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
The way those films were received
> by most cinephiles in France at the time was as criticism or
> indictments of the "American Way of Life." This was practically a
> cliche of French film criticism in the fifties
I first encountered this expression in a very good French
appreciation of The Long Long Trailer. I've always found it hilarious
for some reason.
21355
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:32pm
Subject: Re: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" (was: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> A feminsit western is tantamount to an oxymoron in
> that all westerns revolve around the miantenance of
> status quo social and cultural attitudes. Even "Johnny
> Guitar" finds Joan Crawford "surrendering" to Sterling
> Hayden in a climactic clinch that's perfectly
> standard-issue stuff.
And it's yet another film where women are in the male roles - a la
Viva Maria, The Woman They Almost Lynched.
Blake Lucas, who has joined this group but continues to lurk, wrote a
great article on women IN westerns for that new anthology of essays
on The Western. Very highly recommended.
What about Lonesome Cowboys, David?
21356
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" (was: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> What about Lonesome Cowboys, David?
>
>
>
>
Well that's almost a traditional western. Viva keeps
trying to insert herself into the plot but can't
really because it's all about the men. And the men are
gay. As a result Francis Francine ans the transvestite
sheriff, has more narrative authority than Viva.
Incidentally, as Waholian of long-standing I've always
found it annoying that this is referred to as Andy's
first western when it's his second. "Horse" (1965) is
the fisrt Warhol western, scripted by Ronald Tavel and
directed by Andy -- with Paul Morrissey nowhere in
sight.
Considerably gayer than "Lonesome Cowboys" it's also
interesingly "violent" given that the principle
players were gay S&M adepts.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21357
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 8:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cinema nd the 60s (Was: LA DOLCE VITA )
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> I first encountered this expression in a very good
> French
> appreciation of The Long Long Trailer. I've always
> found it hilarious
> for some reason.
>
>
And what's hilarious about it is thet fact thatwhile
it suggests commonality it really refers to an ideal.
"The Long Long Trailer" was made atthe height of Lucy
and Desi TV success. And while it's full of the
slapstick that was her stock-in-trade it's satirically
pointed as the TV was not. it's about a couple
whosemarriage is about to fall apart precisely because
of their experiences in the mobile home designed to
eing them together. The mobile home featured in the
film was the top of the line model of its day. In that
sense the film is kind of feature-length ad. Yet it's
udnermined by a story that shows how difficult it is
to live up to the demands of this "modern convience."
Being the decor-minded director that he was Minnelli
treats the setting wiht becoming gravity and
suaveness.
yet at the same time I can't help but imagine a Jerry
Lewis/ Frank Tashlin version of this-- which
"Hollywood or Bust" comes clsoe to in many ways --
albeit with a car rather than a trailer.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
21358
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:12pm
Subject: Re: Political Correctness, Jia Zhangke's The World (was Rivette Trashing HHH)
>
> Did you have PLAYTIME in your mind as you watched or reflected on
> this? I definitely did, and perhaps it was unfair to hold Jia to
> that impossible standard. But I think Tati's film is far more
> politically progressive, if not outright revolutionary, than Jia's.
I did think of PLAYTIME at times, but I do think that this is an
unreasonable standard of comparison, in many respects....One possibly
pertinent fact that no one's mentioned so far (I think) is that THE
WORLD is Jia's first "official" (i.e., officially approved) feature.
Maybe for you that compromises it, but for me, all I could think was
what a grim and negative portrayal it conveys of today's hina. If
this is "politically correct," I'm wondering whose correctness we're
speaking about.
>
> Have you seen XIAO WU (PICKPOCKET)? There are some who consider
that
> film his best. I can send you a copy.
Thanks for the offer, but I have it--though I still haven't yet found
the spare time to watch it.
>
> Kevin
21359
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:33pm
Subject: Re: The Long Long Trailer (was: Cinema nd the 60s )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> yet at the same time I can't help but imagine a Jerry
> Lewis/ Frank Tashlin version of this-- which
> "Hollywood or Bust" comes clsoe to in many ways --
> albeit with a car rather than a trailer.
The film is perhaps the most terrifying "comedy" I've ever seen
(perhaps my fear of automobiles has something to do with it). It's
as nightmarish as Tracy's nightmare in "Father of the Bride" (oh,
same screenwriters, by the way). Lewis/Tashlin would have pulled it
back into pure slapstick territory, but that's not Minnelli's way.
21360
From:
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:48pm
Subject: Re: OT or not OT? (was: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" )
Kevin John wrote:
>Your post on LES PETROLEUSES was definitely NOT OT.
I agree with Kevin, Saul; your post on that film and the resulting thread was
certainly not OT. As Fred suggested in a subsequent post, if you're writing
about film the chances are you're on topic. Even if you're focusing on a star
or performer instead of its directorial qualities, that's fine too, as long
as we don't get inundated with posts with said focus. But when you find
yourself drifting way off topic (which is, as Tom suggests, an easy thing to do), I
would echo JPC's sensible advice to err on the side of caution. Mark the
thread OT or take the discussion into email if it's mainly between you and one
other poster or, best yet, utilize the chat function.
We certainly don't want the members to be paranoid! But we also don't want
to be so laid back as moderators where we drift from our original purpose;
since most of the feedback I've received on our post from last night has been
supportive, I'd venture to say that most of our members feel the same way.
Peter
21361
From:
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: Important Note About The Group: Please Read
By way of further clarification in terms of what we're getting at:
Let's say someone posts, "I just saw the legendary director Kuroguchi's
famous 1950s epic, "Edo Monogatari," and hated it. Does it have any defenders here?"
If you post, "Well, I have a great interest in 18th-century Japan, and I have
a big fetish for the star, she really turns me on, but I think the direction
is pretty bland," that would be fine.
As a new post, it would be fine too.
As a new post, "I love Edo Monogatari because I have a fetish for the star,"
with no mention of the direction, wouldn't cause us to issue any edicts, and
as an occasional statement of star preferences is part of what goes on here,
but it's the kind of thing we don't want to get overwhelmed by, and it in fact
is not consistent with our Statement of Purpose.
A 30-post-in-an-afternoon deluge of three people *only* debating their
fetishes for various Japanese stars is what we're trying to avoid.
There was, by contrast, a favorite actor thread a little while back that soon
led in interesting directions.
Peter and Fred
21362
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:55pm
Subject: Re: LA DOLCE VITA (WAS: Multiplex Madness)
> Speaking of "Jules et Jim" -- for nearly 20 years I have kept a
> clipping from a Washington, D.C. newspaper movie schedule page
> identifying the film as "Jewels and Gems."
Back in the 70s, whoever was doing the listing for the LA Times
independent theater lists used to goof up the titles in interesting
ways, probably on purpose. I recall:
"Montgomery Clift in Floyd"
"Mary Widow"
"Tarzan the Apple Man"
The most perplexing was a film called "Mistress of Orgasm," on a
double bill with IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES. Guessing the real title
is left as an exercise for the reader. - Dan
21363
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:02pm
Subject: Possibly OT: Please Don't Eat the Daisies (was Re: Cinema nd the 60s)
>> And I thought I was the only one alive who liked that film.
>
> No, you're not alone. I admire Charles Walters greatly, and this is
> one of the ones I like best (though I haven't seen them all). I
> like DAISIES more than, say, PILLOW TALK.
I'm a DAISIES fan too. I'm also fond of THE TENDER TRAP, ASK ANY
GIRL, and TWO LOVES, among the later non-musicals (or
not-as-much-musicals - DAISIES has music, but it doesn't seem as
central as in Walters' earlier musicals). - Dan
21364
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:11pm
Subject: Re: Political Correctness, Jia Zhangke's The World (was Rivette Trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
> I did think of PLAYTIME at times, but I do think that this is an
> unreasonable standard of comparison, in many respects....One
possibly
> pertinent fact that no one's mentioned so far (I think) is that THE
> WORLD is Jia's first "official" (i.e., officially approved)
feature.
> Maybe for you that compromises it, but for me, all I could think
was
> what a grim and negative portrayal it conveys of today's hina. If
> this is "politically correct," I'm wondering whose correctness
we're
> speaking about.
Your last two sentences express perfectly what I feel about HERO.
And if the critics fawn over THE WORLD when it comes out this year,
especially if it comes at the expense of cheap digs made at Zhang
Yimou and HERO, then my point about political correctness in film
criticism will very much be validated. The two films (and filmmakers)
are opposite sides of the same coin as far as I'm concerned. Jia
Zhangke cultivated some of his stature at the expense of deriding
Zhang Yimou as a sell-out, but now the wheel has come full circle.
Personally, I do not subscribe to sell-out idealism; I'm too aware of
the stark set of options Chinese filmmakers have in their country;
it's hard enough to get a film made much less to get people aware of
and excited about it. So my problems have less to do with the mere
fact of government-sanctioned filmmaking (my two favorite mainland
Chinese films of the past three years, HERO and Zhu Wen's SOUTH OF
THE CLOUDS, are both government approved) than with how an artist
negotiates the competing demands and expectations of his
constituents, whether they be his government, his domestic
supporters, his international audience, or his own artistic
conscience. And how the Chinese government has basically co-opted
the Sixth Generation movement that set out as an alternative to its
exclusive, repressive mode of production and distribution, just as
the american independent movement is now largely under the wing of
the Hollywood studios. The former case may be more sinister because
the govt. more or less has a hand in shaping the voices of dissent.
But the conclusion to draw from this is not that Jia, or Zhang, is a
sell-out, but what kind of reality can be represented by any talented
artist under these conditions.
Jia used to criticize Zhang and others for not showing what life
is "really" like for the Chinese (while Western audiences were
simultaneously dropping their jaws over what they regarded was an
unprecedented true-to-life representation of Chinese people,
validated if only by the efforts of the PRC to censor it); but at
this point I wonder if Jia's observations are more a projection of
what he's already concluded for himself than what might really be out
there. It's worth reflecting that with each new film his milieu is
set further and further away from his hometown, while advancing
towards an increasingly industrialized setting. This may or may not
explain the increasingly florid and flamboyant quality of his mise-en-
scene. These thoughts lead me to describe THE WORLD as more like a
fascinatingly incoherent expressionist mindscape than a sober
representation of a socio-historical landscape.
I feel the same about GANGS OF NEW YORK and THE AVIATOR. As I
alluded to before, I see a similar tension at work in both Jia's last
two films and Scorsese's last two collaborations with Harvey
Weinstein. Working under the rubric of an oppressive, totalitarian
regime, whether it be the Chinese government or Miramax, doesn't
automatically negate the value of the film, but rather lends a
sobering new set of considerations as to how to interpret the
artist's work. There's a sense of flailing desperation in both
Scorsese's and Jia's last two features that may be a byproduct of
this state of being torn in five directions by the schizophrenic
miasma of one's creative impulses and external influences.
What all this means about THE WORLD is up for grabs. You see it as a
victory that Jia has been able to transmit what can be seen as a
subversive message through officially sanctioned channels (the same
claim that I make for Zhang Yimou and HERO). But what he says about
China in THE WORLD doesn't strike me as anything that would really
upset anyone in power, because these are problems that everyone
acknowledges (though he does illustrate a number of them vividly --
if I were using your system, I'd give it the "must see" rating purely
by virtue of the information it conveys). Just as China has
essentially become a capitalist country barely managing to sustain a
facade of socialism, going through the motions of Communist ideology,
I see Jia becoming increasingly automatic in serving up the global
tragedy of post-socialist capitalism. I feel that the ending, which
both you and Dan disliked, bears out my suspicions, because I see it
basically as a self-aggrandizing gesture of plaintive defeatism, the
same gesture he tried on at the end of UNKNOWN PLEASURES, which is a
poor substitute for something bolder, more visionary, more disruptive
to what we are expected to think or feel about our world, something
like what Dreyer or Tati would have given us (sure these are unfair
standards to live up to but what good would standards be if they
weren't uncompromising?). I'd much prefer a von Trier-like ending to
drive even his supporters up the wall than something that seems to
cinch an essentially uncontroversial sociopolitical argument that
even the bastards at the WTO could shed a cathartic tear over.
(incidentally, this last line reminds me of what you once wrote about
your lack of enthusiasm for the "social progressiveness" of Sirk's
IMITATION OF LIFE, which, sure enough, is one of my favorite films.
Go figure!)
Kevin
21365
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:22pm
Subject: Re: Political Correctness, Jia Zhangke's The World (was Rivette Trashing HHH)
> > I just sat there thinking, "God, have
> there ever
> > been more beautiful wide-screen compositions?"
>
> That's pretty bold of you to say, esp. considering it was shot on
> grainy DV.
Was it that grainy? I was sitting pretty far back in the theater, but
I didn't notice the digital aspects of the image that much.
Anyway, compositions aren't affected that much by grain, or the other
plastic qualities of the image. I confess to being more moved by the
spatial and organizational qualities of images than by plastic
qualities like color intensity, range of lights and darks, etc.
> In the meantime, a tentative answer to your question: PLAYTIME? I
> don't know about you or Jonathan, but that film definitely weighed on
> my mind as I watched THE WORLD, and it was probably a very unfair
> point of comparision to make (even as I think Jia was deliberately
> referencing it).
Just revisited PLAYTIME on New Year's Day...I don't think I would ever
have made the connection. If I thought of anyone vis a vis the
compositions, I thought of the Nick Ray of REBEL, maybe. Tati doesn't
seem to be to be doing anything similar with his compositions: he
purposely chooses compositions that don't express anything about the
problems or emotions of the characters, whereas Jia is much more
anthropocentric. Even when he strands people in a wide shot, he tends
to use the drama to direct attention toward them. Tati prefers that
you see the film 15 times to pick up the details!
> What did you think of the "Tokyo Story" chapter? It was weird to
> have such a blatant homage, connecting Ozu with migrant laborers in
> Beijing, a connection that can only exist in Jia's mind.
Geez, I confess I never thought of Ozu. Maybe I was missing
something.... You're talking about the parents of the kid who died?
> But in THE WORLD I
> couldn't see those things -- there was too much of what felt like
> journalistic reportage in the way.
I do think of THE WORLD as a film where I overlook some thematic
aspects that don't work for me. But it was easy for me to overlook
them: the style had great impact, and I felt as if the film was giving
me so much on a micro level that I couldn't judge it too harshly for
macro problems. - Dan
21366
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: LA DOLCE VITA (WAS: Multiplex Madness)
WR - Mysteries of the Organism
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Sallitt"
To:
> The most perplexing was a film called "Mistress of Orgasm," on a
> double bill with IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES. Guessing the real title
> is left as an exercise for the reader. - Dan
>
21367
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:37pm
Subject: Gov't sponsorships, Wang, Jia (Was: Political Correctness)
> So my problems have less to do with the mere
> fact of government-sanctioned filmmaking (my two favorite mainland
> Chinese films of the past three years, HERO and Zhu Wen's SOUTH OF
> THE CLOUDS, are both government approved) than with how an artist
> negotiates the competing demands and expectations of his
> constituents, whether they be his government, his domestic
> supporters, his international audience, or his own artistic
> conscience. And how the Chinese government has basically co-opted
> the Sixth Generation movement that set out as an alternative to its
> exclusive, repressive mode of production and distribution, just as
> the american independent movement is now largely under the wing of
> the Hollywood studios.
The guy who really disappointed me when he came in from the cold and
made gov't-sponsored films was Wang Xiaoshuai. I thought THE DAYS was
excellent, FROZEN interesting - and then he pretty much lost his
distinctive qualities, seems to me.
I just don't feel that way about Jia - but perhaps I'm more tolerant
than you of films that don't critique things. I was much more worried
by UNKNOWN PLEASURES, with that indolent, heavy "China's economic
future is grim, therefore I refuse to kiss my girlfriend" anomie that
wore me down. By the time that long first shot of THE WORLD was over,
I was already sighing with relief: it had a vitality and a sense of
balance between form and emotion that I was afraid Jia had lost.
> But what he says about
> China in THE WORLD doesn't strike me as anything that would really
> upset anyone in power
Yeah, I guess that's true, but...is the social critique really what
makes PLATFORM so good? - Dan
21368
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:39pm
Subject: Film title sabotage (Was: LA DOLCE VITA)
We have a winner. - Dan
> WR - Mysteries of the Organism
> > The most perplexing was a film called "Mistress of Orgasm," on a
> > double bill with IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES. Guessing the real title
> > is left as an exercise for the reader. - Dan
21369
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:40pm
Subject: Re: Re: Political Correctness, Jia Zhangke's The World (was Rivette Trashing HHH)
--- Kevin Lee wrote:
There's a sense of flailing
> desperation in both
> Scorsese's and Jia's last two features that may be a
> byproduct of
> this state of being torn in five directions by the
> schizophrenic
> miasma of one's creative impulses and external
> influences.
>
Can't speak to the Jias, but I don't know what you're
talking about when it comes to "The Aviator." Plenty
of flailing desperation in "Gangs of New York," but
not this one.
Love to hear your thoughts on "Ivan the Terrible." Is
Harvey worse than Stalin? Sounds like you'd call it a
tie.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21370
From:
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:02pm
Subject: Re: Film title sabotage (Was: LA DOLCE VITA)
My favorite: SID AND NANNY
Kevin John
21371
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 0:59am
Subject: Re: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" (was: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> >
> Incidentally, as Waholian of long-standing I've always
> found it annoying that this is referred to as Andy's
> first western when it's his second. "Horse" (1965) is
> the fisrt Warhol western, scripted by Ronald Tavel and
> directed by Andy -- with Paul Morrissey nowhere in
> sight.
Coincidentally, I was just reading about the making-of in Edie.
21372
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:12am
Subject: Re: Political Correctness, Jia Zhangke's The World (was Rivette Trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
I just saw Platform as a work-in-progress at Venice, and I plan to
rent Unknown Pleasures (described on the box as "wiser than
Godard...more thoughtful than Altman") as soon as I can. I absolutely
loved Platform. Loved it up one side and down the other.
Re: the filmmaker's comments as reported by Kevin, who has been my
Jia Zhangke authority since his Senses piece appeared - Bashing
rivals and the Establishment is a favorite PR strategy of independent
filmmakers everywhere. Hezog has always been a master of it.
21373
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:39am
Subject: Taking the OT out of OT posts(Was: Important Note About The Group)
Running parallel with discussions on cinema these past 48 hours has
been a discussion on the nature of this group, the correct way to
label posts, the kind of topics that are and aren't appropriate to
talk about. Granted, Peter and Fred have pointed out that most of the
topics discussed do in some way relate to cinema – but perhaps these
OT discussions are fundamental to a discussions on cinema, and a
discussion on cinema from the specific point-of-view of the director –
perhaps, to disgorge these posts from a discussion of cinema proper
would be akin to squashing an insect onto a wall or table, (like in
that memorable scene in "Paths of Glory"). I do understand that there
is a kind of growing number of festering posts that are very OT, and
that our moderators want to neutralize them like purging puss from a
wound before it becomes gangrenous, but this can also, perhaps,
destroy what cinema is.
In discussing a film through analyzing the contributions of the
director, aren't we, in a sense, merely analyzing our own impressions
a film, and therefore our own impressions of how a particular director
has constructed a particular film, scene, shot, etc. Fred and Peter
write in post # 21316, "Not all of our members are interested in the
personal tastes and quirks of everyone else!" Could "quirks" perhaps
in some way be referring to a few posts exchanged on BDSM, or some
Keanu-inspired drooling in the past few days? Perhaps these, if we
only want them to, can be seen as inseparable from our discussion of
cinema. Jean-Pierre recently spoke of an early rave he wrote for Kate
Manx. Cinema and sexuality are intrinsically linked, and perhaps even
more so in our first 'movie loves', and in the way that we, as
viewers, approach cinema – and in the consequent ways that this
affects the way we perceive what a particular director is doing.
Larry McMurtry's novel "The Last Picture Show" made the link, even
stronger than the Bogdanovich film, between cinema and sexual
awakening. And as our loves crystallize and form, we begin to be aware
of the way that a director, through manipulating a star, (and of
course this all has to be disentangled from the studio publicity
machines that also create that star's image), is manipulating the
mise-en-scene, which in so many cases is inseparable from the movement
of actors across, through, or between images.
When it was mentioned, (I can no longer find the exact post...) that
the discussion of biblical topics was definitely one of the OT posts,
(and I assume they were referring to my post on Job as I don't
remember any other biblical-related posts in the previous days), it
was right, because the post didn't make an intrinsic link between
cinema and the bible, as it probably should have, but as the bible has
been appropriated by Western society as the earliest layers of its
literary consciousness, and has also become a base for many themes
that recur over and over in classical and modern cinema, and perhaps a
look at it would yield many insights into the way Minnelli uses
colour, for example, or the way Kubrick frames his shots. I don't mean
to overstate things here, but I merely feel that there is a
logocentric bias floating around this group, with closes off many
avenues of discussion. For example, when JP signed of his post about
the Cinematheque with, "slight, but not inordinately, drunk" I had
meant to ask him what he'd been drinking, not merely from the
curiosity of someone whom enjoys a swag every now and again, but
because alcohol, and other consciousness-altering drugs, are important
to cinema. Who was it who'd said they'd seen a film on acid recently?
I, again, cannot re-find the post... If talking about Jean Cocteau,
for example, in what way would an analysis on the 1947 vintage Mouton
Rothschild, (a bottle of which can be bought for a mere $4,331.00 – a
far cry from the $24,176.00 you'd pay for a 1500ml bottle of the
legendary 1945 vintage) of which the label was created by Cocteau,
impact on an analysis of his somewhat giddy visual style? In recent
discussions of "Days and Wine and Roses" I would have liked to have
added something on the way that the film tries 'physicalize' the
feeling of needing a drink, or "The Lost Weekednd", a film which more
than any other I've seen actually makes the viewer 'feel' like a drink
– it catches that sense of having an itch at the back of your throat
that needs quenching – perhaps this can even be seen as an analogue
for cinema: "an itch at the back of your throat the needs quenching",
something we keep returning to cause it gets in our blood stream and
needs to be kept at a certain level of intensity.
In short, all I wanted to say was the cinema, more than any other art,
lends itself to a discussion of all things cultural, and that these
things, in turn, can become the basis on an auteurist analysis, and in
this group, have potential to do so.
21374
From:
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:09pm
Subject: Re: The Long Long Trailer (was: Cinema nd the 60s )
In a message dated 01/17/2005 3:40:43 PM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
<< The film is perhaps the most terrifying "comedy" I've ever seen
(perhaps my fear of automobiles has something to do with it). >>
I was JUST talking about this film last night. I'm 100% with you on this one,
J-P. And even though I have an altar to Jerry Lewis in my bedroom, I agree
that God/Tashlin would have slapsticked (and thus fouled) it up.
THE LONG, LONG TRAILER is a fascinating film to look at in the context of
genre. Too often, genre is discussed in relation to repetitive textual elements
rather than effects. For instance, we scream and cover our eyes at horror films
but we laugh at comedies. But I can recall seeing FRIDAY THE 13th PART VI:
JASON LIVES and the atmosphere in the theatre was quite zoo-like, almost as
rowdy as ROCKY HORROR. And tons of laughter. By contrast, if you fixed a camera on
me while I was watching THE LONG, LONG TRAILER, you'd think I was watching a
horror film. I winced, I looked away, I covered my eyes, I screamed out "No!"
And I don't think I laughed once. (Side note: I come to praise the film, not
to condemn it. It's quite possibly a masterpiece despite how utterly unpleasant
it is to squirm through.)
But clearly some people take it straight as a comedy. My husband reminded me
of the NATIONAL LAMPOON films which are also centered around technological
mishaps and vacation horrors. I saw the Xmas one in a theatre and I don't recall
much wincing on anyone's part, my own included. The reactions were largely in
keeping with the comedy genre.
Still, the reactions of J-P and I (and I'm sure others on the list) clearly
posit THE LONG, LONG TRAILER as a horror film (for adults?). So using recent
genre theory parlance, we might conclude that THE LONG, LONG TRAILER is in the
horror film mode. Only I don't know where else to take that because I see
"disgust with the body" as the central force driving the horror film. Maybe Lucy
tumbling around in the trailer fits into this mold. But something else is going o
n here...disgust with the public sphere?
Kevin John
21375
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:19am
Subject: Addendum (Was: Taking the OT out of OT posts)
Or, I can take my own adivce from a previous post and restate my gripe
more succinctely with two quotes from Blake's "The Everlasting
Gospel": "The Vision of Christ that thou dost see is my visions
greatest enemy" ... "Thine loves the same world that mine hates, thy
heaven doors and thy hell gates".
Perhaps a little on the melodramatic side, nevertheless, they fulfill
their purpose.
21376
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:21am
Subject: more netiquette
First, wasn't the priority to get more ladies in here?
Anyway, I think it's up to each group member to decide for him or
herself what is or isn't off-topic. Use your best sense. Especially
if you're posting more than three times a day.
The key is keeping in mind -- each and every time you post -- that
what you've written is reaching 164 (165 now?) members. That's
like introducing a screening at a near-packed house: you don't
want to bore everyone. If you're posting six times a day, you're
likely only reaching a handful of members who have the time and
patience to sort through the dozens of posts.
A good model for brevity: Dan Sallitt.
And I agree with Peter and Fred that the chat function should be
employed if you wish to use up a large number of posts. This is
also a practical issue since one day we will run out of Yahoo!
server space and potentially lose our archives.
In another forum I used to participate in certain frequent posters
would collect quotes that they would want to respond to and save
them in one large email which they would only send every couple
days or so. This takes discipline, sure, but it's easy to do with
programs like Mail, Eudora, Outlook, etc.
Please, don't try and comment on everything.
Speaking as someone who reads about 15,000 words a day
(roughly, I've never counted), including a_film_by in the rotation
crowds my time to read stuff like, y'know, the newspaper, the
magazine(s) of the week, that novel, that director bio, that essay
by Adrian Martin from a while ago, or whatever...
In fact, if you frequent posters cut half your time out of posting
and used that to try to get some chicks into the group I think that
would rock.
Gabe
21377
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:31am
Subject: Re: The Long Long Trailer (was: Cinema nd the 60s )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 01/17/2005 3:40:43 PM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
>
> << The film is perhaps the most terrifying "comedy" I've ever seen
>
> (perhaps my fear of automobiles has something to do with it). >>
>
> I was JUST talking about this film last night. I'm 100% with you
on this one,
> J-P. And even though I have an altar to Jerry Lewis in my bedroom,
I agree
> that God/Tashlin would have slapsticked (and thus fouled) it up.
>
> THE LONG, LONG TRAILER is a fascinating film to look at in the
context of
> genre. ..... By contrast, if you fixed a camera on
> me while I was watching THE LONG, LONG TRAILER, you'd think I was
watching a
> horror film. I winced, I looked away, I covered my eyes, I
screamed out "No!"
> And I don't think I laughed once. (Side note: I come to praise the
film, not
> to condemn it. It's quite possibly a masterpiece despite how
utterly unpleasant
> it is to squirm through.)
Exactly my reaction every time I saw the movie. In my Minnelli
essay in "American Directors" which I just dug up, I find I wrote
that the film is "done so realistically that the viewer is more
likely to cringe than to chuckle at the spectacle of Desi Arnaz and
Lucille Ball's all-too-plausible automobile mishaps." (then
recently someone was telling me that there is nothing even remotely
realistic about anything that happens in the film. Oh yeah? Well,
not to me.)
>
>
>
> Still, the reactions of J-P and I (and I'm sure others on the
list) clearly
> posit THE LONG, LONG TRAILER as a horror film (for adults?). So
using recent
> genre theory parlance, we might conclude that THE LONG, LONG
TRAILER is in the
> horror film mode.
I would go along with that. But so are so many films that are not
labelled as "horror movies." Such as "All That Heaven Allows," which
I just happened to watch again tonight.
Only I don't know where else to take that because I see
> "disgust with the body" as the central force driving the horror
film. Maybe Lucy
> tumbling around in the trailer fits into this mold. But something
else is going o
> n here...disgust with the public sphere?
>
I have no theory of the horror genre because I am only very
mildly interested in it. The real horror is in dull everyday life
(as Sirk eloquently shows us).
21378
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:46am
Subject: Re: more netiquette
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> In fact, if you frequent posters cut half your time out of posting
> and used that to try to get some chicks into the group I think
that
> would rock.
>
> Gabe
Gabe, sorry for deleting 99% of your post, just following
instructions.
Although I would take exception to the term "chicks" (is it still
in use in polite society?) I would argue that you can take a woman
to water but you can't make her drink (alternate and pessimistic
version: you can take a woman to bed but you can't make her come). I
know two female auteurists who are superb critics and have tried to
lure them into this group but to no avail. Has anybody else done as
much?
Us mere males will have to be content with expressing our feminine
side.
JPC
21379
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:49am
Subject: Atte: Fred and Peter - A Solution to our Problems???
As Gabe pointed out in post#21376, "This is also a practical issue
since one day we will run out of Yahoo! server space and potentially
lose our archives." As there is much value in some of the posts on
this site, and some of which could be read over again, learning a lot
about cinema in the process, it is essential that archives aren't
lost. Plus, scanning over past posts from 8 or 10 months ago, the
level of theoretical discussion was up, chatty banner almost a
minimum. I have, a few minutes ago, started a Yahoo! Group which,
hopefully, can operate in parallel with a_film_by, and solve recent
problems. It's called anti_a_film_by, and the description reads, "A
group where members of a_film_by can indulge in OT topic discussions
of any nature, and therefore, save Fred and Peter's sanity, keep
a_film_by cinema-oriented, and still have fun while at the computer."
If members want to cut and paste posts to this group, and send back
hundreds of irrelevant jokes and banter, they're welcome to do so,
saving a_film_by posts for more stricly auterist discussion. Message
archives are not viewable by the public, so no-one has to worry about
anything they write being read by anyone other than members. If this
doesn't interest group memebers, I'll abandon the idea, but just as a
trial, anti_a_film_by can be accessed at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anti_a_film_by
and to subscribe: anti_a_film_by-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
21380
From:
Date: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Long Long Trailer (was: Cinema nd the 60s )
In a message dated 01/17/2005 10:34:14 PM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
<< (then recently someone was telling me that there is nothing even remotely
realistic about anything that happens in the film. Oh yeah? Well,
not to me.) >>
This someone does drugs. THE LONG, LONG TRAILER is all too painfully
realistic.
<
"All That Heaven Allows,">>
Point taken. It's certainly horrifying. But you don't cover your eyes or
scream or anything like that, right?
Kevin John
21381
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:14am
Subject: Re: more netiquette
> Although I would take exception to the term "chicks" (is it still
> in use in polite society?)
Not in polite society. Sometimes even I forget that I'm posting to
165 people.
"The ladies" (as in "the ladies rev up my engine") is perhaps
preferable.
And you're right in other respects, JP: I, too, have tried but have
been unsuccessful in getting more lady members to join. But it's
imperative that we try, though pathetic that we're discussing it.
Changing topics slightly, I find it impressive that we have so
many international members. Few forums have achieved this,
and it says, among other things, that we're touching on relevant
things and discussing them lucidly.
Gabe
21382
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:20am
Subject: Re: Addendum (Was: Taking the OT out of OT posts)
Saul, I'm replying to you speaking only for myself here. Anyone is
welcome to start whatever Yahoo group they like, though I find your
title obnoxious. I also find your metaphor of squashing an insect and
purging puss from a wound for what we're trying to do to be really
offensive. We have repeatedly said that we permit trivia and OT posts in
part *because* of the nature of cinema. You're not telling us anything
we haven't already said when you talk about how various other matters
can be fundamental to a discussion of cinema. I think all of the 168
other members besides the three of us know this too!
With 171 members (counting the "bouncing members"), the only way this
group will succeed is if people learn to edit themselves, post
carefully, and make some attempt to adhere to our Statement of Purpose.
Gabe, who I know personally as someone deeply serious about his love for
cinema, has just explained that he has trouble keeping up with our
posts. This is in part because he reads a lot of other things besides
posts about cinema! If I want to learn about non-cinema topics, I'd
prefer to do so from more primary sources than posts to a_film_by.
Indeed, I think some of our most knowledgeable members are going to be
those who can't or won't spend hours a day reading posts in our group,
especially when they are just assertions of tastes, or long dialogues
between two people.
Have you even read our Statement? I ask this because one of the things
that set off my own interest in making our initial post was your
statement in
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/21303, "sometimes
I post without thinking about what I am writing," which is a direct
violation of our Statement's request that posters treat their posts
seriously, repeated in recent days.
No one is trying to stop you from bringing in OT topics that are
relevant to a film. No one is trying to ban occasional OT threads that
aren't directly related, or trivia that is related to film. We have
already made that so clear that your examples about drink, for example,
presented as if they're an argument with our position, strike me as
really in bad faith. Your Blake quotes seem seriously overheated when
applied to this issue. Our desire to keep the group focused does not
have such cosmic implications. It's just an Internet discussion group,
not a struggle between Christ and the Anti-Christ. If Gabe, myself, and
others, have trouble keeping up due to the volume of posts, I think it's
incumbent on people to try to keep what they write, concise, and not
excessive. That doesn't mean you can't make a 2,000 or 3,000 word post
-- I think I have, and I doubtless will again. But I don't post all that
often either. Gabe's suggestion about saving up posts and posting only
every few days is a great one. I sometimes do that, composing my posts
in a word processing program, letting them sit overnight, and then
revising and posting. Your posts may even improve if you make them after
thinking about what you're writing, rather than doing the opposite.
When I first got email in 1996 I thought it was great that I could be in
touch with people more quickly, and also gradually make contact with
people I'd lost touch with. Then I realized the problem. If someone you
used to write to every month replies within a day, and you do too, soon
you're spending half your time writing email. The problem with this
group is similar. Multiple replies within a few hours on subjects not of
overwhelming importance can be dealt with, as already suggested, in chat
or by private emails. This is not to say there should *never* be an
exchange of 10 or 15 posts in a few hours between two people, just that
it's something to try to avoid without a really good reason.
I've heard about an Internet opera group in which no one is permitted
more than two posts a day. We aren't thinking of that, and Yahoo!
doesn't really allow such a restriction anyway, but it's clear why that
group did it: to prevent the kinds of things that sometimes happen here,
to prevent excess, to get people to consider their posts carefully, and
thus to keep the group usable. The member of a_film_by who told me about
this group was wishing that we could do that.
I also don't want to turn our group into a discussion of itself and I
don't want to spend any more time on this! I have seen the group veer
away somewhat from what I had originally hoped for, but I recognize its
value to members, and, hell, I enjoy the movie gossip too, *especially*
when it's offered by people who actually know stuff not otherwise
available (and sometimes with picture!) I think we've been pretty
indulgent about trying to let members determine the nature of the group.
But when other members are themselves finding it less and less useful,
it's time for an intervention.
Fred Camper
21383
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:41am
Subject: Re: Addendum (Was: Taking the OT out of OT posts)
Limiting myself to three posts per day, this will be my last word
for tonight.
Fred, thanks for your thoughtful post. I hope everyone will read it.
And as the one who invited Saul -- and possibly the only person
here who knows him personally -- I must step in and defend his
behavior as a kind of youthful eagerness or enthusiasm. Sorry,
Saul, I hope that doesn't sound too condescending, especially
since we're only like a year or two apart in age. (I'm not innocent
of my excesses on the list either.)
Similar attempts have been made in other internet forums that
I've participated in to create splinter groups. They've been
discussed here too, but most are unsuccessful, since, as Fred
eloquently pointed out, our interest in non-film stuff usually
comes from more focused ("primary" was the word Fred used)
sources.
>It's just an Internet discussion group,
> not a struggle between Christ and the Anti-Christ.
Right. Forceful, but right.
Gabe
21384
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:26am
Subject: Re: Home Movies (Was Important Note About The Group: Please Read)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"Maybe I'll post sometime about home movies, which continue to
interest me."
After seeing a few seconds of home movie footage made by John Ford
excerpted in the BIOGRAPHY TV show on him and seeing a few seconds of
home movie footage made by Hitchcock in the BIOGRAPHY episode devoted
to him I've wanted to see at least the entire reels from which this
footage was taken. The Ford footage was a study of empty bottles on
the deck of his yacht. The Hitchcock footage showed Hitch comicly
backing into the spine of an agave plant, and in another excerpt
peeling a banana in reverse motion. No doubt Ford and Hitchcock made
other home movies, and it would be interesting to see those movies
just to see how they relate to their commercial features. It would
be interesting to know which other auteurs made home movies.
Awhile ago Habelove asked what movies people would like to see issued
on his proposed DVD label,and I'd like to suggest home movies by
auteurs. The rights might come cheaply.
Richard
21385
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:34am
Subject: Re: Re: Home Movies (Was Important Note About The Group: Please Read)
Richard Modiano wrote:
> ...I'd like to suggest home movies by auteurs....
This sounds like a great idea.
Did Hitchcock and Ford handle the camera themselves?
A friend of mine saw some Gerd Oswald travel home movies, I believe of
Las Vegas, hotel signs and the like, a long time ago.
This is a little different from what interests me about "generic" home
movies, which includes the weird mistakes, the kinds of choices made
(when the filmmaker is in some kind of control, they can be
anthropologically revealing), the often strange perspectives. Of course,
a lot of home movies are just boring too. My guess is, though, that
having to get those views of junior's birthday party into a three minute
reel (at least before reloading) makes the average home movie on that
topic more interesting, by forcing selectiveness, than the average home
video, which, so I hear, tends more to the early Warhol
set-up-the-camera and let things happen method.
Fred Camper
21386
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:08am
Subject: re: Films of the 00's (very Obsessed)
Great unknown/overlooked film since 2000: John Badham's OBSESSED with Jenna
Elfman - and a major plot point that is pure Ruiz! (I won't spoil it, just
see it.)
Almost rivals the great unknown/overlooked telemovie of the '90s: Shannen
Doherty in OBSESSED ('92) - scripted by Sam Peckinpah's nephew David, and
with a cameo from SHADOWS' Leila Goldoni !!!!
obsessed Adrian
21387
From: Saul Symonds
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:44am
Subject: Re: Addendum (Was: Taking the OT out of OT posts)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>Saul, I'm replying to you speaking only for myself here. Anyone is
>welcome to start whatever Yahoo group they like, though I find your
>title obnoxious. I also find your metaphor of squashing an insectand
>purging puss from a wound for what we're trying to do to be really
>offensive. We have repeatedly said that we permit trivia and OT
>posts in part *because* of the nature of cinema. You're not telling
>us anything we haven't already said when you talk about how various
>other matters can be fundamental to a discussion of cinema. I think
>all of the 168 other members besides the three of us know this too!
I too agree that this discussion shouldn't carried much further, so I
apologize to all members who really wish I wouldn't write this one
last post, as we are only becoming increasingly distanced from a
discussion of cinema. But there are a few last points I wish to make.
(a)"festering", "rancid", "putrefaction", etc are not
terms/concepts/metaphors that need to be seen as offensive, and were
not meant as such towards either this group in general, or you or
Peter personally. Fermeted eggs are a delicacy in China, though a
taste offensive to most Western palates I am told. It's merely a
matter of where you stand.
(b) the title anti_a_film_by only meant that the group is the
antihesis of this groups statment of purpose. It was not directed
towards you or Peter personally, though seems to have been taken as
such. If a_film_by discusses cinema from an auterist perspective, then
anti_a_film_by discusses cinema from every other perspective. Don't
forget I also wrote in that post, "As there is much value in some of
the posts on this site, and some of which could be read over again,
learning a lot about cinema in the process, it is essential that
archives aren't lost." I was merely very surprised upon visiting posts
from 8 or 10 months ago to see the in-depth level of discussion, and
the great insights into cinema that many yielded, with almost no
chatty banter. When Gabe said that this group might run out of server
space, I merely established a splinter group so that archives wouldn't
be lost, members with limited time wouldn't have to scroll through
masses of posts not directly related to cinema, and so we wouldn't
have to spend more time talking about what we can and can't talk about!!!
(c) You write: "You're not telling us anything we haven't already said
when you talk about how various other matters can be fundamental to a
discussion of cinema. I think all of the 168 other members besides the
three of us know this too!" I was not merely concurring with you by
saying that various other matters can be fundamental to a discussion
of cinema. I was saying they were of primarly importance - of more
importance even. I was merely taking the approach that secondary
matters, that things unnoticed and considered trival or unimportant,
are in fact of great importance and can yield insights deeper and more
profound than a more typical approach - (this focus on discarded areas
is an approach taken by Freud as the basis for much of his
psychoanlysis, [seen particularly in his "Psychoanalysis of Everyday
Life" in chapters which focus on 'forgetting of proper names',
'mistakes in speech', and 'symptomatic and chance actions'] and more
recently seen in the writings of Derrida) And I know it's an approach
that's worked for me in the past in my writings on cinema.
> With 171 members (counting the "bouncing members"), the only waythis
> group will succeed is if people learn to edit themselves, post
>carefully, and make some attempt to adhere to our Statement of
>Purpose. Gabe, who I know personally as someone deeply serious about
>his love for cinema, has just explained that he has trouble keeping
>up with our posts. This is in part because he reads a lot of other
>things besides posts about cinema! If I want to learn about
>non-cinema topics, I'd prefer to do so from more primary sources
>than posts to a_film_by. Indeed, I think some of our most
>knowledgeable members are going to be those who can't or won't spend
>hours a day reading posts in our group, especially when they are
>just assertions of tastes, or long dialogues between two people.
Again I concur, and again this makes my reasons clear for creating a
parallel group: the chat function so often mentioned is difficult to
organize seeing as members live in vastly different time zones!
Therefore an ongoing parallel group that catered for those very areas
you and Peter wanted to deflect onto chats, would by nature bring the
group closer to a pure discussion of cinema, and your statement of
purpose, by creating an outlet for back and forth chatty banter.
>Have you even read our Statement? I ask this because one of thethings
> that set off my own interest in making our initial post was your
> statement in
>http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/21303,
>"sometimes I post without thinking about what I am writing," which
>is a direct violation of our Statement's request that posters treat
>their posts seriously, repeated in recent days.
I refresh the statment of purpose by reading it on a regular basis. I
merely said that words fail us - I merely meant that words fail all
humans and are vitally lacking as a form of communication. I thought
that perhaps people in this group would understand this because they
had devoted themselves to a discussion of cinema, which communicates
with us on a level that transcends words. If I say, "sometimes I post
without thinking about what I am writing" it doesn't have to mean that
exactly, whatever that is. I was merely using it, as I'm sure writers
everyhwere use phrases, as a convenient way to frame and hedge the
comments which followed it.
Fred, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you write to me: "your
examples about drink, for example, presented as if they're an argument
with our position, strike me as really in bad faith." I wasn't aware
of using any example about drink to bolster your position - didn't
even know that I was making an argument with your position - and not
certain what or why you took it in 'bad faith'?
>Your Blake quotes seem seriously overheated when applied to this
>issue. Our desire to keep the group focused does not have such cosmic
>implications.
As this post is already too long I won't say much on this - in fact,
it's not always worth disagreeing with what people say as often they
approach it from an angle you don't consider - so therefore, I agree
with your stance that the desire to keep this group focused does not
have cosmic implications. I apologize again to Mike Grost for bringing
him into this post, but I would like to quote once again the Blake he
has used as his favourite quote: "To see a world in a grain of sand
and heaven in a wild flower. To hold infinity in the palm of your hand
and eternity in an hour" Doesn't this prove that those fiery angels
dictating this prose to the secratary down-below known as William
Blake, were telling us that every small speck of existence is a
mircocosom of infinity - even puss, squashed insects and festering
wounds - and that their only significance to us is their relevance to
the ordinary and the everyday aspects of our life?
Fred, again, I didn't mean to write a long post about something so
distant from cinema - in fact, I didn't even have time really to write
this, working as I am on a piece looking at how the lovley legs of
Marlene Dietrich impacted on the mise-en-scène of Josef von Sternberg,
I merely was a little perplexed at the fiery reaction my gesture
unleashed.
21388
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:00am
Subject: Re: Home Movies
Fred Camper wrote:
>My guess is, though, that
>having to get those views of junior's birthday party into a three minute
>reel (at least before reloading) makes the average home movie on that
>topic more interesting, by forcing selectiveness, than the average home
>video, which, so I hear, tends more to the early Warhol
>set-up-the-camera and let things happen method.
>
>
Last August Greg Pierce did an all-day screening of home movies from his
collection at the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh. Many of them were
quite beautiful, and succeeded in warming me up to the "home movie" mode
(something I'd previously been inclined to ignore, apart from Mekas'
work). It's easy to forget in the age of the camcorder how available
16mm Kodachrome once was...
Apparently this was part of an international event, and you can check
http://homemovieday.com/regional.shtml to see whether there will be a
screening in your area. Looking forward to another show in August.
-Matt
21389
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:07am
Subject: Welles and Walsh Leading Ladies Die
Virginia Mayo and Charles Foster Kane's wife Ruth Warrick have both
died:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050118-120710-3299r.htm
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/017/region/Ruth_Warrick_All_My_Childre
n_s:.shtml
Mayo was a very underrated actress, and she (along with Ann Sheridan)
was the perfect actress for Raoul Walsh, with her unaffected
spunkiness. She's particularly good in Colorado Territory.
In addition to Citizen Kane, the high points of Warrick's film career
were in Dwan's lovely Driftwood and as Dana Andrews's wife in Daisy
Kenyon. Of course, she's most famous for All My Children, although I
can't say I've ever seen an episode of that show.
21390
From:
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:29am
Subject: Badham (Was: Films of the 00's (very Obsessed)
Adrian Martin wrote:
>Great unknown/overlooked film since 2000: John Badham's OBSESSED with Jenna
>Elfman - and a major plot point that is pure Ruiz!
So does Badham have an auteurist following? This is the second time I've
seen his name on this list; I seem to recall Dan making a case for some of his
early work at one point. He's been on my list of '70s directors to check out.
Just to counteract my newfound image as some kind of exasperated co-moderator
(kidding), one of the things I find most continually useful about a_film_by
is seeking input on a particular filmmaker.
Peter
21391
From:
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:34am
Subject: Re: Re: Home Movies (Was Important Note About The Group: Please Read)
Richard Modiano wrote:
>It would
>be interesting to know which other auteurs made home movies.
I'm not sure if it fits the definition of "home movie" very precisely, but in
1984 Welles shot a "filmed letter" to his friend Bill Cronshaw. There were
some descriptions and discussions of it last year on the group, but suffice it
to say that it has Welles addressing the camera from behind a typewriter and
reading from Charles Lindbergh's diary. It's one single shot, photographed by
Gary Graver (35mm) and only a few minutes long. And it's pretty darn amazing.
Peter
21392
From:
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:43am
Subject: Re: Dial H for Hitchcock (was: Home Movies)
"Dial H for Hitchcock" was a television documentary from a few years ago. It
was a biography of Alfred Hitchcock, apparently made with the cooperation of
Hitchcock's daughter Patricia. It had quite a few home movies by AH, showing
the family's travels. Especially interesting: footage of the family trip to
Mount Rushmore. This trip inspired "North By Northwest".
The AH home movie footage was well composed, but not obviously brilliant. It
sort of reminded one of the early shots in "Vertigo" showing San Francisco
locations - but was not quite as good. AH filmed in color.
A Public TV biography of Noel Coward was filled with his home movie footage
from his travels. It was pretty good. A montage of it was edited to an old
recording of Coward singing "Mad Dogs and Englishmen".
Mike Grost
PS There is a series of mystery novels about a private eye named Murdock. One
of them is called "Dial M for Murdock".
There is also the Orient Expressway near Houston Texas. Someone has duly
written a mystery novel called "Merger on the Orient Expressway".
And S. J. Roszan won an award for her crime tale, "Double-Crossing Delancy".
21393
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:01am
Subject: Re: more netiquette
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
I, too, have tried but have
> been unsuccessful in getting more lady members to join. But it's
> imperative that we try, though pathetic that we're discussing it.
Ladies lurk, even when technically in the group. But they read us.
(Hi, Elisabeth!) So watch your language, everyone.
21394
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:04am
Subject: Major Dundee
A Major Dundee restoration is being unveiled at the Nuart in April
Sony is distributing. New score, the whole shot. I assume this was
done by Michael Friend, who started the project while still at the
Academy Archives, and seems to have finished it at Sony, where he now
works hand-in-glove w. Mike Schlesinger. I think they're showing a
new Peckinpah documentary with it.
21395
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:19am
Subject: Re: Major Dundee
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> A Major Dundee restoration is being unveiled at the Nuart in April
> Sony is distributing. New score, the whole shot. I assume this was
> done by Michael Friend, who started the project while still at the
> Academy Archives, and seems to have finished it at Sony, where he now
> works hand-in-glove w. Mike Schlesinger. I think they're showing a
> new Peckinpah documentary with it.
*****
Any information on how much footage has been restored? I'm assuming
this can't be Peckinpah's 164min. cut (that would be too much to ask
for). Is there any indication of the running time?
Tom Sutpen
21396
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:14am
Subject: Re: Film title sabotage (Was: LA DOLCE VITA)
My two favorites:
BLADE RUNNER: THE DIRECTOR'S CAT (from a London listings magazine)
The satellite listings magazine which transformed a TCM double-bill
of THE SIEGE OF SIDNEY STREET and THE MALTESE FALCON into a single
film entitled THE SIEGE OF SIDNEY GREENSTREET.
21397
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:41pm
Subject: Re: Major Dundee
"Any information on how much footage has been restored? I'm assuming
this can't be Peckinpah's 164min. cut"
I believe this will be the 135-minute cut, restoring some 15 minutes
of extra footage.
A new cut of PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID will be screened at Cannes
this year. This version will restore the scene involving Garrett and
his wife (played by Aurora Clavell, whose name actually appears on
the credits of the previous 'director's cut').
21398
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:45pm
Subject: Re: Dial H for Hitchcock (was: Home Movies)
Some of Michael Powell's home movies appeared in a documentary about
the director a few years back.
21399
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:03pm
Subject: Re: Welles and Walsh Leading Ladies Die
--- Damien Bona wrote:
>
> Mayo was a very underrated actress, and she (along
> with Ann Sheridan)
> was the perfect actress for Raoul Walsh, with her
> unaffected
> spunkiness. She's particularly good in Colorado
> Territory.
>
I love her in "The Best Years of Our Lives." She was a
marvelous foil for Bob Hope in "The Princess and the
Pirate." And let's not forget her opposite Burt
Lancaster in Tourneur's "The Flame and the Arrow."
> In addition to Citizen Kane, the high points of
> Warrick's film career
> were in Dwan's lovely Driftwood and as Dana
> Andrews's wife in Daisy
> Kenyon. Of course, she's most famous for All My
> Children, although I
> can't say I've ever seen an episode of that show.
>
With Warrick gone the only surviving member of the
"Citizen Kane" team is Robert Wise.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21400
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:30pm
Subject: Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Sallitt" wrote:
> I recommend all the films by Hong Sang-Soo and Lee Chang-dong. The
> one film by Bong Joon-ho that I've seen, MEMORIES OF MURDER, is also
> extraordinary.
I concur with these recommendations fully. I have seen everything
done by these three directors -- and have yet to be disappointed.
LEE started out a script writer, and I think this shows just a little
bit in his first film "Green Fish". Even so, it is very worth seeing
-- both in its own right and as a baseline for assessing his later
development.
Although "Oh! Soojung" (Virgin Stripped Bare by her Bachelors) is my
favorite HONG Sang-soo film -- having finally seen all his works, I
have to say that I find no weak links in his output.
BONG Joon-ho has made only two feature films so far, "Memories of
Murder" and the equally remarkable "Barking Dogs Never Bite". I eager
await his next offering.
I believe I already put in a good word for the early "Obaltan".
I am surprised by the omission of the work of PARK Kwang-su from this
retrospective. His "Jeon tae-il" (A Single Spark) is one the best
political films I've ever seen (it's about the labor "martyr{" whose
death gave rise to Korea's union movement).
Films I've heard good things about, but have not seen: "No. 3",
"Sopyonje" (La Chanteuse de pansori) and "Why Has Bodhi-Dharma Left
for the West".
MEK
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact